11/30: The Dream Opponent?

It is general Blogometer policy not to cover what one side says about the other side's primary candidates, but it is also useful to at least know which candidates each side would prefer to face during the general election. Since 11/7, lefty bloggers have been making it increasingly clear that they fear Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and ex-NYC Mayor. Rudy Giuliani (R) the most, and would most like to face MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R). There is no counter consensus on the right as to which Dems, GOPers would prefer to face, but if one develops, we'll let you know.

GOP FIELD: The Left's Choice

Looking at state by state breakdowns of partisan self-identification from '06 exit polling, MyDD's Chris Bowers concludes: "We are going to have a lot of trouble if McCain is nominated and, barring a right-wing third-party revolt, if Giuliani gets nominated. On the other hand, I feel reasonably confident that any Democrat will mop the floor with any other Republican nominee."

Fellow MyDDer Jonathan Singer later makes clear who lefty bloggers would prefer to face in '08: "The nomination of Mitt Romney to be the standard bearer of the Republican Party in 2008 would be an unmitigated failure for the party. Boy, would I love to see him try and go up against almost any Democrat considering a run at the White House."

ROMNEY: It's A Tough Job, But Somebody's Gotta Do It

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin reports from the Doral Golf Resort & Spa in Miami, FL on the RGA's Annual Conference that "[t]he star of the show here, of course, is the RGA's chairman [MA Gov.] Mitt Romney." Martin continues: "He is hosting (or being feted at) a variety of events, public and private, leading up to his valedictory speech tomorrow night to this group of governors, lobbyists, reporters and staffers."

Back in New York, The Corner's K-Lo alerts readers that Jerry Falwell is "in the news today making clear he has not endorsed Romney or anyone else. But could - endorse the Mormon."

In non-RGA Romney news, The Right Angle's Amanda Carpenter reports "RomneyisaLiberal.com is up and running now." Carpenter adds: "On the homepage is his quote, "I will protect a women's right to choose" from his 2002 letter to the National Abortion Rights Action League."

BROWNBACK: Brown Monday

In other RGA conference news, The Corner's Martin forwards a tidbit from two key supporters of a '08 hopeful: "Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas will launch an exploratory committee for the WH on Monday."

MCCAIN: What Are People Saying About Mitch Daniels?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is not allowing Romney to soak up all the attention in South Florida. Martin tells Corner readers McCain "is hosting an invite-only reception "honoring our Republican governors" (most of them at least) tomorrow night at Don Shula's resort across town." Martin also identifies one governor suspected to be a McCainiac: "The press check-in here at the Doral features a stack of handouts titled, "What is being said about Governor Mitch Daniels." The five-page document features dozens of favorable quotes on the Indiana governor and ex-OMB chair from a variety of media sources. That there would be such an offering at the press area is notable not just because Mitch isn't the featured attraction, but also because he's widely believed to be sympathetic to the other big kahuna in the '08 race (the one throwing the counter-Prom tonight)."

GINGRICH: On Further Review...

After reading ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich's First Amendment/GWOT comments in context righty bloggers are rallying to his defense. Captain's Quarters initially described Gingrich's speech as a "stumble" in efforts "to position himself as the premiere conservative candidate" but after reading the full speech later concluded: "If that's all Newt said, it doesn't seem all that outrageous to me." Others on the right were with Gingrich form the get go:

• The Corner's Andy McCArthy: "The Speaker is right, and the fact that he is treading on this third rail is further indication that he will be formidable as a presidential candidate. Plainly, he understands that the modern threat environment requires going back to first constitutional principles rather than simply accepting the law as sculpted by the Warren Court."
• Professor Bainbridge: "As for the war on terror, one is reminded of Ben Franklin's dictum that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." At the same time, however, as late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously remarked, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." There must be a balance. ... Accordingly, Gingrich is sensibly calling for a proactive discussion of the basic question: What is the appropriate balance between order and liberty?"

GIULIANI: The Mayornator

Giuliani Blog argues Boston Globereports on CA and FL efforts to move up their primary dates is good news for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R): "Rudy has been leading in early Florida polls by as much as 2-to-1. The state also features a huge number of New York transplants who probably voted twice for Rudy as mayor. ... California in many ways has already provided a template for a Rudy victory. ... Arnold's resilience in the face of many of the same criticisms Rudy faces now shows that conservatives will accept a political moderate with star power."

OBAMA: At Least His Middle Name Isn't Felix

Lefty bloggers are up in arms over GOP strategist Ed Rogers use of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) middle name "Hussein" when talking about his '08 chances on Hardball 11/29. Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato writes: "Ed Rogers, is one of these wingnuts (a Lee Atwater man) that MSNBC constantly puts on the air and allows him to relentlessly smear people. I think Dan Abrams needs to hear about this one." TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld wonders if this is the first cable news reference to Obama's middle name.

CLINTON: There Goes The Conservative Gay Catholic British Immigrant Vote

Andrew Sullivan links to Hotline editor-in-chief Chuck Todd's article on obstacles Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would face in an '08 run and writes: "She really shouldn't run. It would divide and polarize the country; she's dreadful on the stump; she has very high negatives; most Democrats only like her; almost no-one loves her; and do we really want 20 years of two families in the White House? Besides: what do you do with Bill?"

WEBB: Born Slugging

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas celebrates Washington Postreports on Sen.-elect Jim Webb's terse exchange with Pres. Bush over the well being of Webb's son in Iraq. Markos writes: "The Washington Post doesn't include Webb's desire to slug the president. Which was endearing in its own right." Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher links to Not Larry Sabato suggestions that there was more to the story:

I've gotten a tip on the background to this confrontation, and it appears that Webb may have under reacted. As President Bush is well aware, a couple of weeks before this dinner the tank riding next to Jimmy's in Iraq was under fire and three marines died. My sources are telling me that the way President Bush approached Webb with his tone, it appeared he was asking the question of how Jimmy was doing in a mocking manner, while he was certainly aware of the tragedy that had hit his unit a few weeks earlier.

LA 02: Corruption's Embarrassing In Louisiana?

MyDD's Tim Tagaris posts video of state Rep. Karen Carter's new ad "Spelling Bee" and writes: "William Jefferson's corruption might not be the most important issue to folks recovering from "the storm" and "the flood" in post-k New Orleans, but it is an issue. What's more, it's an issue that moves numbers. ... Guilty or not, the "cash in the freezer congressman" is a local embarrassment, a natural enemy of those working tirelessly to rebuild both the city and its image."

TX 23: The Proof Is On The Air

James at Swing State Project posts video of a DCCC ad for ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D) and writes: "It ain't the prettiest commercial in the world, but it's a good sign that Democrat Ciro Rodriguez may have a shot in the upcoming (December 12) special election in Texas' 23rd. Why? Because from what I've heard, the DCCC commissioned an independent poll last week that would determine how heavily involved they would be on Ciro's behalf. The poll must have shown promising results, because otherwise the DCCC would have been a lot more low key about this race."

IRAQ: The Difference Between Pullback And Withdrawal Is?

Lefty bloggers are mostly welcoming early reports that the Iraq Study Group "will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq, but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal" Reax include:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "In short, the Iraq Study Group appears to be calling for what the majority of Democrats have been calling for over at least the course of the last year: a phased redeployment of troops. If the Democrats had been heeded months ago, there is little doubt that the number of American troops who would have lost their lives would be less than it is today, though there is little indication if there would have been more or less bloodshed among Iraqis."
• Atrios: "Barring tremendous political leadership by, well, our political leaders we aren't leaving. Leaving is losing. Bush has made this clear."
• AMERICAblog: "So, in reading Joe's post below, I'm trying to fully comprehend if the Baker commission is adopting "cut & run" or "Vietnam"? Because it sounds a little of both."

Righty blogger reaction is light as of today's early deadline, but National Review Online's Mark Levin does comment on New York Sun reports that the commission will recommend the administration pressure Israel to make concessions to entice Syria and Iran into a regional conference on Iraq: "For James Baker and his ilk, it always comes down to Israel and, by implication, the Jews. I warned about this the other day. His thinking is skewed by his contempt. Baker is Pat Buchanan in a $3,000 suit."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Can't We All Just Get Along

Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis examines the MSMification of some blogging stalwarts:

The Huffington Post announces that it is hiring a political editor and will start reporting with all that brings: deadlines, expense accounts, and salaries. It's the next step for HuffPo and the blogosphere, to add more original reporting as it becomes worthwhile to do so. And it's the next step for more and more institutional journalists to venture into the future. The HuffPo editor, Melinda Henneberger, comes out of Newsweek and The New York Times. Note again Washington Post political editor John Harris and a colleague leaving for an online effort. All three quickly say that there's nothing wrong with print - nothing, clearly, except that they don't see a bright a future there. Note, too, that it will soon be more difficult to tell the difference between old and new, as blogs and reporting and reporters blog. It's all news.

LEST WE FORGET: 69 Psychiatric Outpatients Can't Be Wrong

Tom Tomorrow finds evidence that "anyone who's spent any time reading right wing blogs already understood" to be true: A direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush. The New Haven Advocate story describes Southern Connecticut State University social work master's student Christopher Lohse survey "of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election." Lohse found: "Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader ... If your world is very mixed up, there's something very comforting about someone telling you, 'This is how it's going to be.'"

11/29: Wither The Values Voter?

Following Dem success 11/7, considerable lefty blogger pixels have been spilt discussing how Dems should approach the only region not showing convincing gains this cycle: The South. Discussion often comes up under DNC Chair Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, but Tom Schaller's book Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South has also generated discussion. Lefty blogger consensus is that Dems should allow each southern state party to pursue its own strategy while ensuring that nationally, Dems don't sacrifice their positions on "abortion and equal rights" while, at the same time, don't demonize southerners.

On the right, MI GOP Chair Saul Anuzis recommends a post-11/7 GOP strategy memo on RedState that includes calls for "fiscal conservatism," "lower taxes across the board," and "a vigorous strategy for a conclusion to the Iraq war." Notably absent from the list: Any mention of cultural or value issues.

OBAMA: A Purpose Driven Outreach

TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld cites an open letter from "Christian-Right figures" and na press release from the National Clergy Council as signs Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) "efforts to reach out to evangelical Christians in preparation for his possible Presidential campaign is running into very stiff resistance."

The push back is the result of Obama's upcoming attendance of "a huge evangelical gathering in California on Dec. 1, at the invitation of megachurch Pastor Rick Warren, the evangelical superstar who wrote The Purpose-Driven Life." NCC's Rob Schenck warns Warren "Senator Obama's policies represent the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality, not to mention supreme American values." Kleefeld comments: "Obama's attempted inroads with evangelical voters may end up being successful, but not without a significant struggle from leading figures in that movement."

CLARK: Timing Isn't Everything

The Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris claims it's good news indeed that [ex-Gen. Wesley Clark (D)] is sending pretty strong signals that he's running" since "[t]here's no reason to think national security won't still be the big issue two years from now, as it was this fall."

The Plank's Michael Crowley is less excited: "It's true Clark was late to join the 2004 race. But my memory isn't that his problem was timing. It was that he seemed unsure of his own position on the Iraq war, recited oddball canned answers about abortion which suggested unfamiliarity with the subject, and generally proved himself to be a terrible politician. Perhaps Clark has since honed his skills. But the calendar wasn't his real problem."

EDWARDS: A Goodyear For Edwards Labor Relations

Firedoglake's Jordan Barab links to a YouTube of Jon Edwards at a United Steelworkers rally in Akron, OH as a demonstration of old labor learning "some new tricks." Barab writes: "It's hard to tell how all this is going to turn out. There's no doubt that similar strikes in traditional manufacturing that can easily be transferred to China have not done well lately. Ultimately, however, Goodyear workers are fighting to maintain a society where a middle class still exists. Will public support and a consumer boycott of Goodyear tires force the company to cave before workers' money and patience run out?

KERRY: From China, With Derision

The Huffington Post's Stephen Kaus looks at polling data showing Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) "dead last in popularity among a group of active politicians" and writes: "They say that when you are in a hole you should first stop digging. If you keep running for President, please write me from China."

GIULIANI: George's Loss Is Rudy's Gain

Race 4 '08 argues NY Gov. George Pataki's (R) loss of IA advisors Loras Schulte and Ed Failor Jr. "could be either great news or horrible news" for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R). R4'08 argues the Pataki losses could mean one of two things: "1) It's going to be severely difficult for pro-choice presidential Republican candidates to keep pro-life supporters; or 2) Because Rudy hasn't been having this same kind of fall-out as Pataki by this point, then it won't be an issue for him."

IA's Caucus Cooler does not see any downside for Giuliani in the Pataki losses but does see gain for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as well: "A big part of the Pataki collapse has been the shadow of Rudy that looms larger and larger as each week passes. The thought that Rudy wouldn't enter this race has almost completely faded. McCain gets a boost based on rumors that most of the Pataki organization is heading his way, led by the inimitable Ed Failor Junior."

GINGRICH: Censorship Always Sounds Better In Context

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan's inner libertarian recoiled at ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R) suggestion that "freedom of speech may need to be curbed in certain circumstances to meet the threat of terrorism." Bevan writes: "The newspaper article didn't give much context to Gingrich's remarks, but I suppose you can conjure up scenarios where the public good would be served by abridging some free speech rights in certain instances."

ROMNEY: A Never Ending Story?

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin passes along a glaring omission in MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) official release announcing the addition of SC strategist Warren Tompkins: "[N]o mention of Warren Tompkins' work as the top Bush strategist in the now-legendary (and, for McCain's camp, not forgotten) '00 SC primary that put the Texas governor back on course for the White House after his loss in New Hampshire. We wonder if this was a mere oversight or if it twas part of an intentional effort to play down the "Bush-McCain II" storyline that they could do without."

GOP: Heck'uv A Job Liddy!

RedState's Clayton shares a laugh with his good friend DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas over outgoing NRSC chair Liddy Dole's (R-NC) email "reaching out to the NRSC's most loyal and generous supporters" for help retiring NRSC debt from spending "every last cent on last-minute advertising and other efforts." Clayton comments: "Redstate readers, do me a favor. If you feel the need to contribute to anyone at this point in time, kindly visit someone like our friends at the Club For Growth and support their fine work."

GOP II: Not Interested ... Right Now

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin draws attention to the talking points ex-RNC chair Ed Gillespie allies are circulating in support of a Gillespie of VA GOP chair campaign:

• He is firmly grounded in Republican principles that define us as a party
• His experiences and qualifications as former chairman of the RNC make him an obvious choice
• He is not interested in running for office
• He has chosen to live and work in Virginia for the past 13 years
• His appointment may avoid a bloodbath among the different factions in the party
• His ability to attract national money for our candidates

Martin writes: "Note the careful wording on the third bullet and don't be surprised to see a Gillespie on the ballot sometime down the road."

GOP III: Brandless

Under a RedState header "A Shattered Brand?!?" MI GOP chair Saul Anuzis links to a On Message memo and writes: "If you compare what Republicans "stood for" and how we were identified 5 years ago to what the general public believes is our "brand" now I think you will be shocked, but not necessarily surprised. This is an excellent analysis and I hope you take the time to read it."

The "Prescription: Strong Medicine and Clean Living" portion of the memo advises:

• Lose Weight - Reclaim our rightful title as the Party of fiscal conservatism.
• Cut Back on the Caffeine - Fight for lower taxes across the board.
• Quit Smoking and Cut Back on the Drinking: Time to get off the corporate gravy train and become the champions of the American entrepreneur.
• Get Some Exercise: Stand up for our principles and do not shy away from the fight.
• Take Our Medicine: Pursue a vigorous strategy for a conclusion to the Iraq war.

On a related note, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff responds to Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) suggestion that Reaganism is dead: "If the Dems do have an advantage over the Republicans other than the war, it's that they've been out of power for a while. The party in that predicament is usually willing to make concessions in order to appeal to moderates. By contrast, a party that is losing power often tends to think, at first, that the loss is due to an abandonment of first principles. But, again, it remains to be seen whether this incarnation of the Democratic party has the discipline to behave like a party in its position normally does."

DEMS: We Don't Do "Values" Voters

MyDD's Chris Bowers posts excerpts from an Ed KilgoreSalonarticle on Tom Schaller's non-Southern strategy including: "Democrats can put together a presidential or House majority without much of anything in the South. ... But the idea that Democrats will do well by attacking Southern culture is just plain dangerous. ... please don't prejudge the map based on unreasonable prejudices toward one region, even if it's the one populated by us crazy Crackers.

Bowers comments: "I agree. Consider, for example, how the conservative movement has consistently demonized the Northeast. The result has been a near-total wipeout for Republicans in the regions that will not be reversed anytime soon. ... Let conservatives continue to demonize every demographic they view as some sort of cultural threat, and let us have a pluralistic mindset and open arms to reap the reward."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat follows the debate and adds: "What Schaller is saying is what we are all saying: don't dig for fool's gold - the "values" voter - and undermine the negative branding of the GOP as extreme. Let Southern Dems find their regional voice and target the moderate voters Ed has identified. ... The truth is it is the [Barack] Obamas and [Jim] Wallises who are striking the discordant note, criticizing Democrats in false ways and undermining the very strategy that can make gains in the South. I submit that neither Kilgore nor Schaller are the problem - it is the Obamas and Wallises that are the problem."

On a related note, MyDD's Jonathan Singer looks at New York Timesreports on Christian Coalition of America president-elect Rev. Joel Hunter stepping down over resistance to his efforts to broaden the Coalition's agenda to include poverty and global warming and writes: "While some will no doubt continue to tell us that the Democrats that they need to give up on some of their issues (particularly ones relating to abortion and equal rights for all Americans, including homosexuals) and that can steal away "faith voters" from the Republicans by appealing on issues like the environment, it should be plain to any serious watcher of politics that not only do the Democrats not need to do this but that by doing so the Democrats threaten to lose whatever gains they made earlier this week."

DEMS II: Center Of What?

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum set off a debate over "centrisim" among lefty blogger before departing for a conference 11/28. Drum wrote: "I hope the liberal blogosphere doesn't get into the habit of automatically trashing centrist positions simply out of pique against some of centrism's more annoying practitioners. After all, trying to govern solely via populist intuition won't work any better than relying on a bunch of blue ribbon commissions. ... I'd argue, for example, that good analysis supports a fairly extreme view on Social Security (just leave it alone for now) but a centrist position on trade. The populist impulse on trade points us in the right direction, but a Lou Dobbsian solution (stop making trade deals, shut down the border) is nuts."

Reactions include:

• Digby: "I would actually posit that the real problem is the liberal punditocrisy which reflexively rejects anything that is tainted by its association with grassroots populist sentiment. Particularly now, when many experts were marginalized because they failed to support the war and many liberals of both the netroots and grassroots were proven right, it behooves the establishment to open its minds to thinking from outside the usual suspects in the beltway. That doesn't mean they should trust us liberal bloggers' "guts." We would not ask them to. It means they should stop trusting their own. Their guts, like Bush's, are defective."
• Atrios: "I have hostility to the concept of "centrism" for a variety of reasons. First, except on a few mostly social issues there really isn't all that much which can be neatly fit into a left-center-right-axis. Mostly centrism is used be elite opinionmakers to denote sensible, set off against real or (more often) imagined "extreme" positions which are of course wrong because anything "extreme" has to be wrong. Except, perhaps, invading countries for no good reason."
• Ezra Klein: "What's necessary here is, silly as it may sound, to separate ideas perceived as centrist (say, on the economy, policies seeking to achieve equity aims through market mechanisms) and what Atrios would call "wankery," the deployment of such ideas to undercut more useful solutions or marginalize progressive voices. ... When "centrist" ideas become a navigational device rather than a policy proposal, that's wankery. And it should be opposed."
• firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "In fact "centrism" is not antithetical to populism, and both are, in pure abstract terms, measurements. ... I don't think I've ever rejected a position simply because it was "centrist," it would be like having a problem with long division. Rather, I get a bit irked with the smug certainty of pundits and politicians who think the wisdom of their position should be respected because it is "centrist" when they have not in fact established that such a measurement is applicable, or why (if it is) this should lead to some knee-jerk assumption of validity."
• The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson: "There is this idea that a "centrist" position is a good thing, that we should take policy positions that are something in between the "extremes." This is "moderation." ... OK. So then doesn't it make sense for progressives to sponsor lots of far-far-far-out extremists? These extremists could call for things like actually eating the rich (maybe have recipe blogs), literally dividing up companies by having the police go in and take the desks and chairs and computers and hand them to the homeless, forcing Baptist ministers to have sex with their infant daughters, imposing the death penalty for driving, requiring LSD use in elementary schools -- all the things the conservatives already say liberals do. ... This way the "moderate center" becomes somewhere between eating the rich and whatever the right is advocating? Clearly that is why the Republicans sponsor Ann Coulter to write things about killing journalists, etc. Maybe we should try it."

LA 02: Looks Like Dollar Bill Could Use That Frozen $90K Again

AMERICAblog's Joe in DC forwards reports that state Rep. Karen Carter (D) "will face questions about her strong support of gay rights and abortion" in the final days of her campaign against Rep. William Jefferson (D) and writes: "Jefferson is an affront to the Democratic party. He's the symbol of corruption. Now, he's becoming a beacon of gay-bashing for political purposes. Both of those were almost exclusively the domain of the GOP."

MyDD's Tim Tagaris notes Jefferson maintains a $117k to $58k over Carter CoH advantage implores netroots contributors to close the gap "in the final days before the election."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So Could He Just Boycott Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas takes FNC Bill O'Reilly to task for inventing the slur "San Francisco values" and suggests O'Reilly and "every conservative who bashes San Francisco and the Bay Area" should boycott all "Bay Area-origin products." Markos writes:

So no iPods or anything Apple. No HP computers. No Google. No Yahoo. No eBay. Those conservative bloggers using Blogspot, MovableType, or TypePad? Sorry. Those products are Bay Area-based. Don't wear Levis (or any kind of jeans), Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, or buy your kids Gymboree. Avoid LeapFrog learning toys. Boycott Pixar movies. Boycott any movie using George Lucas' ILM special effects shop. Stay away from Treos and other Palm devices. Don't let Charles Schwab manage your portfolio. Don't bank at Wells Fargo. Yeah, those "San Francisco values" sure are dragging the region down. Making it weak as it falls behind the rest of the country -- the parts that don't share "San Francisco values" -- economically and socially.

LEST WE FORGET: Joe Biden Did Not Participate In this Study

Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit links to reports of a book claiming "women talk three times as much as men" and comments: "A real shock there. My own non-scientific study shows that we men use the remote three times more than normal while the women are talking, and that 2 seconds after they've (finally) stopped, we cannot recall a single word they said."

Blogometer Extra

BUSH: Twins Gone Wild

  Wonkette is positively giddy as it reports the ultimate in seediness... that the President's twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna, "are being tossed out of Argentina--not by the actual country, but by the pissed-off U.S. diplomats in Buenos Aires." 

  Joe Goldman and Rhonda Schwartz reported at ABC News' The Blotter that the U.S. embassy "strongly suggested" the young ladies end their vacay early due to security issues. This follows reports of stolen belongings, drunken revelry, and the twins "running nude in the hallway of their hotel."  The embassy is denying that it asked the twins to leave.

  AMERICAblog's John Aravosis went on a mini-rant about the Doublemints and President Bush's crappy parenting skills:

George Bush's daughters are in a developing country where American officials cannot guarantee their safety.  What does George Bush do?  Absolutely nothing.  And before anyone says this is his daughters and not Bush, bull.  He is the president of the United States.  These are his children.  They are traveling as representatives of the US whether they like it or not.  They are traveling with American Secret Service protection, whether they like it or not.  They are tying up the resources of the US Embassy whether they like it or not.  And if they get shot and killed, or kidnapped, or drugged while they are in Argentina, that will directly affect the national security of the United States because our president will be subject to blackmail or worse.

  Then again, this is the man who kept riding his bicycle while he wife was being rushed to a secure location in the face of a possible threat on her life.  So it's no surprise that George Bush couldn't give a damn about the safety of his daughters either.

  Despite the hubbub, the ladies weren't about to leave, they decided.  As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo put it, "State Department asks Bush twins to withdraw from Argentina.  Twins opt to stay the course."  Chuckle!  But at last report from The Blotter, Babs did opt to return home.

  Which prompted Wonkette to ponder the whereabouts of the rest of the Bush administration:

So where did everybody go?  Here’s the scorecard:

George W. Bush: Estonia, even though the actual NATO summit is in neighboring Latvia.

Condoleeza Rice: Supposedly in Egypt, talking to “the Egyptians,” but there’s no news anywhere to confirm this.

Dick Cheney: Supposedly returning to United States after secret trips to Saudi Arabia and, for some reason, Ireland.

Karl Rove: Possibly murdered with rare radioactive elements; whereabouts unknown.

Bush Twins: Possibly being kicked out of Argentina.

Laura Bush: Left alone at the White House to deal with the goddamned giant Christmas tree.

  And speaking of cutting and running, Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford said on MSNBC that Veep Cheney "may be the next to leave the administration," Think Progress reports.  No word yet of officials asking him to go because of inebriated escapades or nude shenanigans in Argentinian hallways.

ROMNEY: Mitt And The Tecnicolor Underwear

  No, it's not the latest off-off-Broadway production taking the kids by storm, it's Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish discussing at length, across several postings, likely '08 presidential contender Mitt Romney's Mormon roots. 

  Sullivan claims to be "uninterested in Romney's personal religious practices," yet spends ample time mulling several issues related to the Mass. governor's faith, including his clothes.  Sullivan dug up a year-old interview in The Atlantic Monthly:

"Do you wear the temple garments?" I asked uncomfortably, referring to the special undergarments worn by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  (The underwear has markings denoting the covenants of the Mormon faith, and is meant to serve as a reminder of the high standards Mormons are expected to uphold.  The rules governing its wear and disposal seem as complex as those pertaining to, say, the American flag.)

He answered, "I'll just say those sorts of things I'll keep private."

  Undies aside, Sullivan brings up food for church-state-separationist thought:

I am concerned that Romney believes that America had a "divine founding".  When?  Does he mean the Declaration of Independence?  Does he mean the period when Mormons believe Jesus arrived in America and hung out for a while shortly after the resurrection?  Or when exactly?  A person's private faith is irrelevant to me.  But if it means he holds that one country on earth has a special divine founding, then that has serious ramifications for foreign policy, at the very least.  Could someone fill me in on what Romney may mean by America's "divine founding"?  Obviously Washington and Jefferson weren't gods (although Mormons believe they now could be, right?)  So what role did the Mormon God play in founding America?  This is an important question for understanding a potential president's political philosophy.  And since the theocons believe in bringing religious doctrine into the public square as a basis for political decisions, and Romney is the theocon candidate, how can they object to the dialogue?

  Sullivan also ponders race relations within the Mormon church, and cites the case of Darron Smith, an African-American, Mormon professor at Brigham Young University who was fired after writing a book exploring Mormonism's troubled racial history.

  Capping off Sullivan's slew of posts ("It's Mormon Week on the Dish!") is "the story of [LDS founder] Joseph Smith, in song," courtesy of South Park.

  Meanwhile, John Cole at Balloon Juice asks, "Can a Mormon be president," echoing Mike Allen at TIME:

Even if the church succeeds in its public relations offensive, Romney still has some explaining of his own to do, particularly to the Republican evangelical base, which now makes up nearly a third of the party’s electorate and can wield huge power in primary states, most notably South Carolina.  That’s because some Evangelicals hold the view that Mormonism is not a Christian faith.  Because Mormons acknowledge works of Scripture that are not in the Bible, believe that their prophets have received revelations directly from God and teach that God has a physical body, Evangelicals consider them heretics.  The Southern Baptist Convention lists the LDS church under Cults and Sects, along with Scientology.

  Cole adds, "Notwithstanding Romney’s recent pandering to the right with his war on gay marriage..., the base is not going to vote for Romney in a primary.  Not when there are good Christians like Sam Brownback out there--and Brownback has never been fuzzy on the issues of teh gay, stem cells, and abortion."

  He continues: "But who really knows what will happen, or how the religious right will contort to support the GOP.  After all, we learned over the past few years that torture is a Christian family value, so maybe the evangelical base is ready for a Mormon president."

  All this focus on Romney's religion, by Sullivan et al. in the mass media and blogosphere, prompted David French at Evangelicals for Mitt to respond in frustration:

Literally every major story about the Governor--and there have been quite a few over the past year--has put the "faith issue" front and center.  It is almost as if the media is doing everything it can to not simply "explore" faith differences but to literally shove those differences in our faces.  It's almost as if any public supporter of the Governor must answer burning questions about "the garment" or the Book of Mormon or mandatory tithing or some other aspect of Mormon theology and practice.

  Does this make sense?  Why are we not seeing similar questions and demands directed at Democratic supporters of Harry Reid?  After all, as the single-most politically powerful Mormon in the history of the United States, shouldn't he be getting all the religious scrutiny right now?  Why doesn't the media obsess over his faith?

  The answer is quite simple.  Harry Reid is liberal.  To be clear, I don't mean this is the sense of some sinister conspiracy.  The reality, I believe, is much more mundane--much more human. ... Simply put, the MSM knows Harry Reid and likes Harry Reid.  He's a mainstream Democratic politician.  So how can there possibly be a story about the strangeness of his faith when he's not strange at all?

  But Governor Romney, on the other hand, is something else entirely.  He's a religious conservative--the type of person that the media has stubbornly refused (or failed) to understand for the last 25 years of "religious right" political activism.  Pro-life, pro-marriage conservative politicians who locate and base many of their political stands in their religious values seem to be particularly upsetting to members of the media elite.

  Sullivan acknowledges that Romney-mulling is sure to intensify as he wraps, "I've now had more emails about Mormon underwear than gay marriage."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Curt & Aces' Bogus Journos

  Curt at Flopping Aces is hot on the case of what appears to be propaganda posing as news in the mainstream media.  Posting at a backup site since flooding traffic sunk his own server, he follows up on widely-picked up AP report of six Sunni Iraqis being "burned alive" by Shiites:

[I]t appears that our MSM is getting the “anarchy” stories from the enemy themselves.  That cannot be trusted.  I mean the big story yesterday was these six burned alive and now no one can find any evidence that this happened except the word of the enemy.  How many more of these stories are embellished?

  Additionals from his many updates:

Doing a search via Google I began reading the stories printed about the burned six and each and every one had one thing in common.  The only person stating that this incident happened was one Capt. Jamil Hussein.  Every news report printed this man as the source of the information. ... Since this guy's name is in every single story printed about the burning six I have to dig way down to get to older stories involving this guy. ...

  So the Baghdad police had not received reports fo this burning either?  Who in the hell is this Capt. Jamil Hussein then?  Is he part of the Iraqi police or an insurgent stringer for the AP?

  After The New York Times and The Washington Post both ran with the "burning" story, Curt contacted the U.S. military's Central Command (CENTCOM) and received this reply:

We are checking with the Iraqi Government to verify that Capt. Jamil Hussein is a legitimate Iraqi Government spokesperson.  We haven’t heard back yet.  Unfortunately, people posing as government officials often do call the media to make statements.

  We have no confirmation that this event happened; so it is very likely that this is not a legitimate source.  In addition, of the four mosques that were suppose to have been burned/destroyed at that time; we only confirmed one mosque was damaged by a fire that lasted an hour and then was extinguished with no casualties.

  "[T]hese reporters," writes Curt, "seem to be relying on stringers and others to do their reporting for them instead of going to the scene and gathering real facts."  Junkyard Blog's SeeDubya, reflecting on Curt's findings, says "[T]he worst scenario is that the Western press is negligently or carelessly (I’m not ready to believe knowingly) passing along terrorist propaganda disguised as news.  But even the best case scenario in each one involves some notable journalistic malfeasance."

  In an additional update, Curt found that "Jamil Hussein" had likely exaggerated casualities in a June incident, per a CBS article.  "Wonder if this guy is regular at KOS?" quips Curt. "His attempts to spread disinformation would fit in quite well with that crowd."

  And then Curt got word from CENTCOM that "Jamil Hussein is NOT a Police Officer nor is he employed by the Ministry of the Interior."  Curt writes:

The insurgency knows what they are doing here.  They understand the ONLY way they are going to win against us is to borrow a page out of the North Vietnamese playbook.  Namely, forcing the morale of this country down to the point where funding is withdrawn and we leave. ...

  This has been my main point all along.  The average American picks up a paper or watches 10 minutes of the evening news and believes they are well informed.  The MSM prints stories that show all this chaos and mayhem and the average American swallows it all.

  Curt and other inspired bloggers then turn their sights on the Associated Press reporter, Qais al-Bashir, who has been using Hussein as a "source."  Lorie Byrd at Wizbang! eggs them on:

I just hold a small sliver of hope that the truth will win out.  It ain't gonna happen by accident though.  It will happen when the American public demand accountability from their media.  Unfortunately they have been too busy demanding entertainment value from it to pay much attention to the other stuff -- you know, like facts and such.  So, it is up to the bloggers at this point.  Okay bloggers, let's keep the heat on them.  It looks like it's going to be a full time job.

  The frenzy finally catches the attention and ire of Michelle Malkin:

While bloggers and a few mainstream journalists questioning sloppy war coverage (see Neil Munro's devastating piece in the National Journal) continue to try and hold the MSM accountable, what are media watchdogs whose job it is to police the industry doing?

  Churning out pabulum like this, defending the use of dubious Iraqi stringers with terrorist ties.

  Journalists in the legacy press are too busy trying to write the Bush administration's obituary to notice that they are writing their own.

  MSM credibility, R.I.P.

  Not to be outdone, The Anchoress rages:

I wonder how many of our troops are being further endangered by the fakery we’re discovering here?  I wonder how many of their deaths in the coming weeks will be due to this sort of stuff? ...

  I frankly don’t know how the president had endured this non-stop game, the incessant lying and leaking, distortion and hate-mongering in the press.  I don’t know how anyone can endure it and not lose heart.  Perhaps he has.  The press is literally trying to not simply destroy the man but take down his government and surrender a military action that is important to the survival of our identity, and the West’s.  And, sadly, they seem to be succeeding.

  This cannot end well.  The government needs to slap down the press and demand some accountability.  They’ve needed to do it for a couple of years now.

  Egad!  Yet she admits, "They won’t."

  Bob Owens, a.k.a. Confederate Yankee spies a "conspiracy," too, on a somewhat lesser, though no less serious, scale.  Are Reuters editors doctoring photos again?  Yank analyzes a picture of an Iraqi woman who bears a "rather uncanny resemblance" to President Bush.  Never mind that she's grieving before a coffin:

[T]his Reuters picture has all the earmarks of a crudely-edited PhotoShop, from the rather odd smudges and apparent artifacts around the heads of the two women on the left when the photo is enlarged, to the [similarity to Bush]."

  Yank's analysis of potential fakery somehow got promoted all the way up to The Drudge Report, where its host prominently displayed the photo in question... and posed questions of his own, which Will Bunch at Attytood felt was a bunch of bunk:

Conservative bloggers showed their respect for this tragedy by...claiming that the grieving woman at top left is actually a Photoshopped version of George W. Bush in a burqa.  If the one blogger who came up with this insane idea ... had been alone out there, it would have been fairly ignorable.

  Instead, this off-the-wall theory was picked up by one of the most popular sites on the Internet, the Drudge Report... In fact, the "Bush in a burqa" story (that was the headline on the top left of the Drudge Report an hour ago) is so ludicrous that even Drudge didn't promo it for very long.  However, it was up long enough for Raw Story to catch a screen grab, which we are showing here.

  We doubt this is the last time you'll see this type of ploy.  We just feel horrible for this woman in Sadr City, who already suffered once this week with the loss of a loved one, only to suffer a second time at the hands of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Commandos, firing willy-nilly to hit a political target and not caring who gets caught in their ridiculous crossfire.

  Jesus' General heaps it on, addressing an open letter to Yankee:

Your ability to sniff out Demoslamunistofascist conspiracies never ceases to amaze me.  ...[Y]ou've delivered up evidence that Reuters is pasting Our Leader's bold and resolute image over the faces of burqa-clad mourners.

  Of course there are those who will fail to see your genius and will refer to you using word combinations like "delusional douchebag," "f**king nut job," and "Michelle Malkin."  Pay them no mind.  They are simply trying to distract you from examining the photo more closely.  They're hoping you will miss the other areas of the photo where there is obvious tampering.

  Look at the woman below Our Leader for example.  Obviously, her face has been replaced with Mel Martinez's.  And the woman on the right looks suspiciously like Junior Leader Jeb.  And what about that suspicious bulge poking out from Leader woman's back?  Could it be that Reuters photoshopped a burqa fold to hide Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.  That deserves further inspection, but I'll leave it to you since it requires someone with your imagination.

[Mike Sheehan]

11/28: Better Focus Group Than Pollster

Not that online straw polls had a ton of credibility, but even cursory monitoring of MyDD '08 straw polling demonstrate how susceptible such devices are to "ballot stuffing." The stuffers say their efforts show legitimate online support for their candidate. While this may be true, the efforts also destroy any ability the polls have of gauging dedicated MyDD reader interest in candidates. That's not to say that blogs offer no insight into the potential strength and weaknesses of '08 candidates. RedState's continued posts on MA Gov. Mitt Romney's record on issues from immigration to abortion can serve as a testing ground for questions he is sure to face in GOP primary debates. Pro- and anti-Romney blogger arguments over these issues ought to serve as a good preview for actual '08 debates.

DEMS: Jane Lieberman?

Netroots opposition to outgoing ranking Intel Cmt. member Jane Harman's (D-CA) for Intel Cmt. chair is growing. Glenn Greenwald's 11/27 anti-Harman brief was approvingly linked to by DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas and Atrios. On NSA surveillance Greenwald says Harman "was repeatedly used by the administration -- with her consent -- as a potent instrument to shield itself from scrutiny, by creating the "Responsible Democrat" (Harman, Lieberman) v. "Irresponsible Democrat" dichotomy and then arguing that they enjoyed bipartisan support from the Good, Sensible Democrats like Harman. That's why, just like Joe Lieberman, Harman's most vociferous defenders are the most extreme Bush followers and neoconservatives."

Greenwald further argues that pro-MSM Harman coverage stems from "institutionalized Beltway" fear of "a repudiation of their brand of Serious Washington Centrism -- the disease which enabled the Bush administration and brought us this war." Atrios and Kos quote Greenwald:

There is nothing "credible" about Harman. Yes, she is smart and knowledgeable, but she has been wrong about everything that matters, particularly in the intelligence area. But she was wrong in exactly the same way that the Beltway geniuses and The New Republic and David Broder and Fred Hiatt were wrong. For that reason, they don't want her to be repudiated and rejected because that would constitute a repudiation and rejection of them. So they build up and glorify the "credible," responsible Harman because she represents them, and they hate Pelosi in advance for rejecting Harman for being wrong about everything because they feel rejected by that choice.

Less activist lefty bloggers thought less of Greenwald's thesis. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall writes: "If this were only about Iraq, I might agree. But it's not. You cannot ignore the fact that the two people who opposed Hoyer and Harman were two people surrounded by ethical clouds just after the Democrats won an historic election in which congressional corruption was one of the two main issues." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum adds: "There's also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive. After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security.

Marshall goes on to endorse Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) for Intel chair joining Matthew Yglesias, David Corn, and Joe Conason. Drum isn't sold though:

Holt is a good guy, and his reasons for opposing the war resolution showed good judgment. He'd probably do fine as chair of the Intelligence Committee. ... However, if Holt made any firm statements questioning the existence of Iraq's WMD programs back in 2002, I haven't been able to find them. He appears to have believed Iraq had an active WMD program as much as anyone, which shouldn't be a surprise since this belief was shared at the time by virtually every intelligence agency in the world, including the CIA. (Yes, the Bush administration exaggerated the CIA's finding, but the CIA did clearly report their belief that Iraqi WMD programs were active and dangerous.)

TPMmuckraker has collected a "Harman: In Her Own Words" page with quotes in Iraq and NSA issues. Meanwhile, Kos looks at Roll Call's 11/27 story on Dem reluctance to let Lieberman aide Marshall Wittman sit in on weekly press secretary meetings and writes: "But that's the bargain they made with Lieberman. Now Senate Dems will act surprised? We can't say we didn't warn them. Two more years. Once the Dems increase their Senate advantage, they can put Lieberman out to pasture in the backbench. In the meantime, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to freeze Wittmann out."

'08 FIELD: "People Really Don't Like John Kerry"

Plenty of blogger reax to Quinnipiac's latest National Thermometer poll. '08er results include (the poll measures "warmth" of feeling to pols with percentage not knowing enough about the individual to rate him or her in parenthesis:

Rudolph Giuliani - 64.2. (9) Sen. Barack Obama 58.8 (41) Sen. John McCain 57.7 (12) Condoleezza Rice - 56.1 (7) John Edwards - 49.9 (20) Sen. Hillary Clinton - 49 (1) N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson - 47.7 (65) Sen. Joseph Biden 47 (52) Gov. Mitt Romney - 45.9 (64) Former VP Al Gore - 44.9 (3) Sen. Evan Bayh - 43.3 (75) Newt Gingrich - 42 (15) Sen. John Kerry - 39.6 (5)

MyDD's Chris Bowers remarks: "What this tells me is that we have a lot of work to do on Giuliani and McCain in the coming months. The Democratic Party may be flying high right now, but the successful work the Republican Noise Machine has done against our leaders continues to sting us." Bloggers noticed Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) weak numbers. The Plank's Michael Crowley: "Hard to see how John Kerry runs for president again. I honestly feel bad for the guy. Maybe he can hunker down and find a second act, like Ted Kennedy after his presidential ambitions died, as a productive and venerated senator. AMERICAblog: "People really don't like John Kerry"

DEM FIELD: Gotta Wake Up Pretty Early In The Morning To Beat Bayh

Attempting to avoid straw poll ballot stuffing, MyDD's Chris Bowers held a "instant runoff" straw poll from 2 AM to 9 AM. He should have ended the voting sooner. The instant runoff feature allows voters to redirect their votes after their favorite candidate has been eliminated. At 6 AM a four way Dem race looked like this:

Al Gore 138 (41.6%)
Barack Obama 73 (22.0%)
John Edwards 70 (21.1%)
Wes Clark 51 (15.4%)

By 9 AM those results had changed significantly:

Al Gore 457 (36.8%)
John Edwards 406 (32.7%)
Barack Obama 222 (17.9%)
Evan Bayh 156 (12.6%)

In the 6 AM sample, Clark voters split for Edwards, putting him above Obama in a three way:

Al Gore 364 (28.8%)
John Edwards 301 (23.8%)
Barack Obama 179 (14.2%)

In the 9 AM sample, Bayh voters split mostly for Obama, but not enough for him to close his gap on Edwards.

Al Gore 162 (49.2%)
Barack Obama 78 (23.7%)
John Edwards 89 (27.1%)

BIDEN: Maybe He Should Blame Canada

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) failed to make inroads into lefty blogging communities with his 11/27 "get tough with Mexico" rhetoric. AMERICAblog writes: "Jumping on the "blame Mexico for everything" doesn't strike me as a winning approach but if that gets him out of the race faster, so be it. ... If Biden wants to talk about great disparities of wealth maybe he can take a drive around DC and tell us about the differences between the northwest and the northeast. What a goof. Who is actually supporting his presidential run?"

BROWNBACK: Uncommon Conversions

National Review Online's Larry Kudlow hopes Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) enters the '08 race: "Sam Brownback is an economic, fiscal and social conservative who has strongly backed human rights and democratization in the Middle East. He is an uncommonly moral person, who can make an uncommonly good contribution to the uncommonly sagging post-election Republican fortunes."

Fellow CorneriteKathryn Jean Lopez let a full three minutes go by before responding: "The Kansas senator says he wants to be the "full-scale conservative " in the presidential race. The newly Catholic senator might have a hard time hitting Governor Romney on public conversions."

ROMNEY: McCain Lite?

RedState's Leon Wolf tracked the Corner's Romney/Brownback exchange and takes up Lopez' "public conversion" defense of Romney: "Romney's problem, in this case, is not that he's had a public conversion on the life issue. ... The problem for Romney is that this is, in fact, at least his second public conversion on the abortion issue. You see, the problem with Romney is not merely that he claimed to be pro-choice during his 1994 campaign against Senator Kennedy, and during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, it is that he at that time claimed to have had a public conversion to the pro-choice position because at that time he was speaking to (primarily) Democratic voters who were wary of his pro-choice creds."

RedState's Erick Erickson also takes a hand at tarnishing Romney's conservative credentials noting Romney coyness on immigration reform and comparing him to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "Several of us here have believed that the Republican nominee for President is going to be an outsider willing to criticize President Bush from the right. Romney has a better chance of doing that than John McCain. The problem is, at the substantive level, both Governor Romney and John McCain have thus far echoed similar positions on a host of issues from immigration to the war."

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan kicks off "Mormon Week on the Dish!" with two South Park videos on the Mormon faith. Later Sullivan adds: "It's Official. I've now had more emails about Mormon underwear than gay marriage."

MCCAIN: "The Fastest Flip-Flop in the West"

The Right Angle's Amanda Carpenter reports the following This Week exchange between George Stephanopoulus and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was sent to her with the title "The Fastest Flip-Flop in the West"

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:

You voted for an initiative in Arizona that went beyond that and actually denied any government benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Are you against civil unions for gay couples?

SEN. MCCAIN:No, I am not.

I -- but the -- that initiative I think was misinterpreted. I think that initiative did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others. I think there was a-- I think that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of
that constitutional amendment in Arizona.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions?

SEN. MCCAIN:No,

I am for ability of two people -- I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people have relationships can enter into.

'08 ROUNDUP: Don't Stop Campaigning Against Emmanuel

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes 74 year old Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) only has "about" $264K COH and reports Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez is strongly considering a run. Also at MyDD, Chris Bowers urges netrooters not to forget deep blue districts when choosing primary targets in '08. Bowers reminds readers: "just remember that in 2002, Rahm Emmanuel narrowly defeated a grassroots candidate in his ultra-blue open seat."

On the right, The Right Angle's John Gizzi identifies three recruitment targets for GOPers looking to take bake seats in NY: state Ag Cmr Patrick Brennan in NY-24, ex-state Sen. John Faso in NY-20, and ex-Pres. Bush press sec. Ari Fleischer in NY-19.

Looking backwards Not Al Groh at Not Larry Sabato argues the Sen.-elect James Webb (D)/outgoing-Sen. George Allen (R) race is best understood by comparing it to the 2005 VA LG between Bill Bolling (R) and Leslie Byrneand (D) concludes: "Going forward; the Dems cannot count on a "Macaca" comment from every GOP statewide office seeker in the future, nor can they expect to consistently get candidates who have the same military credentials as Webb. To a lesser extent, it also proves NOVA isn't big enough yet to single-handedly control state politics. Only campaigning in NOVA will not deliver a victory unless you have other benefits going for you (a mistake by your opponent, ability to make inroads in a group of voters, bad GOP environment, etc). Even with all the other factors, had Allen been able to stay even with Bolling in the 3rd CD; he would still be a Senator."

IRAQ: Homecomings And Accountability

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D_CA) addressed Daily Kos readers 11/27:

Americans did not give my party a mandate simply to "work with the President," or to wait for cues from a blue-ribbon committee. ...The message is clear - the American public has directed the Democratic Party to be bold, to change course on Iraq, with the main goal of bringing our troops home. ... Congress has the power to end this occupation. We must stand up to our responsibility and bring every pressure to bear on this Administration. We must use every lever and pursue any avenue to hold them accountable for their immeasurable failures in Iraq. This isn't just another priority for the new Congress. According to the voters who have elected us, this is the 110th Congress' most solemn duty.

Eric Altermann wants to hold more than just the administration accountable for Iraq: "It's becoming clearer every day that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is the worst catastrophe ever voluntarily undertaken by this nation, including Vietnam ... How about every pundit who got on board with Bush and Co. to create this hell on Earth that is now engulfing Iraq explain to us why they were so wrong and what they've learned from their mistake? And if they're not willing to admit how wrong they were and explain how they have since amended their ways, why in the world should anyone listen to anything they say in the future? How many Iraqs can we -- and the rest of the world -- afford?

IRAQ II: It's Hell In A Landslide

Many bloggers leapt on findings by Flopping Aces'Curt that a story of six Sunni civilian's being burned alive was possibly made up. Power Line's John Hinderaker explains: "The only official source for the account, however, was "Police Capt. Jammil Hussein." CENTCOM initially said that it had not been able to confirm the account of the burned-alive Sunnis. Upon further investigation, it appears that the incident probably never occurred at all. In addition, "Police Capt. Jamil Hussein" appears to be non-existent." Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham adds: "Bush and conservative supporters of the war in Iraq are often accused of not facing up to the reality on the ground, attempting to paint a rosier picture than that which exists, maintaining blindspots for sectarian violence, and outright lying about conditions in-country. But is it any wonder that we wonder whether the all-bad, all-the-time story we're getting out of Iraq is completely trustworthy?

RedState currently has a poll up gauging readers preference for certain Iraq courses of action. Results include:

Cut and Run 11% (43 votes) S-U-M-M-I-T 3% (12 votes) Stay the Course 10% (38 votes) Can we unleash hell yet? 59% (219 votes) Redeploy to the country of Kurdistan (which we create by fiat) and wait six months. 17% (62 votes)

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: School's Out For Never

Matthew Yglesias argues The Hamilton Project may actually be on to something when with the creation of Summer Opportunity Scholarships to finance summer school or other summer enrichment programs for poorer children at risk of falling behind over the summer. Ygelsias writes: "On another level, of course, it would make sense to revisit our national commitment to very long summer vacations, a policy which as best I can tell is grounded in the belief that kids' labor is needed on the farm during those months. Budget constraints are obviously backing up blind adherence to tradition here, and I really loved my time at Camp Winnebago, but along with being dubious education policy this has to be a huge pain-in-the-ass to single parents and dual-income families, especially those of modest means."

LEST WE FORGET: World's Biggest Doctor's Note Not Included

National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg links to reports of pot activist plans "to build biggest doobie." The Physorg.com article explains that Los Angeles resident Brett Stone plans to build a three-foot joint using 112 grams of dope. The article continues: "Stone said he would be careful to ensure that his record attempt would remain legal, indicating that the joint would be smoked in a local medical marijuana collective. "We're probably going to do it as a fund raiser," he said. "And the mayor and police chief would be most welcome if they have a doctor's note to consume cannabis."

11/27: Forever Backing The Underdog?

While it's unclear what alternatives will eventually emerge (ex-Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama for Dems; ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani and MA Gov. Mitt Romney for GOPers), it can safely be said that the respective sides of the 'sphere both will fight their parties' current '08 frontrunners (Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ)). Is blogger preference for underdogs an emerging pattern, or the fluke of a unique cycle absent an incumbent Pres. or VP from either party? In '04, the netroots staunchly supported "outsider" Howard Dean while righty bloggers uniformly backed Pres. Bush, who was unopposed in the '04 GOP primary. But had the blogosphere existed in '00, how would online support have broken down? Al Gore is lefty favorite now, but it seems a stretch to believe he would have been a huge favorite over then-Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NY Knicks). And on the GOP side, it's hard to imagine righty bloggers lining up for McCain.

DEM FIELD: Hillary Haters Or Alternative Lovers?

MyDD's Chris Bowers looks ahead to '08 and wonders what role the netroots will play in Dem primaries without a DNC chair Howard Dean-like standard bearer support. Bowers's acknowledges "[s]everal potential candidates, most notably Clark, Edwards, Gore and Obama, appear to have a substantial amount of online support" but still worries whether "a divided progressive movement in 2008 will result in a dilution of netroots influence over the primary season."

Bowers also "fear[s]" a divided netroots could lead to "a very, very ugly scene online" during the primary season and is not sure whether the netroots biggest '08 impact will be "how they drag Hillary Clinton down," or "how they build a different candidate up." Bowers argues HRC's netroot approval numbers "should be very worrying to any member of her 2008 campaign team" and worries about what an HRC victory would mean "to the influence of the netroots within the Democratic Party."

OBAMA: The Next Ford Model?

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merrit links to a Times Online piece on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) efforts to connect with evangelicals and asks: "Bible-thumping didn't get Harold Ford elected. Can it help Obama?"

GOP FIELD: It's Nice To See Hugh Hewitt And Chris Bowers Have Something In Common

Apart from selecting their own nominee, MyDD's Chris Bowers announces the netroots second biggest '08 primary priority is "to take McCain and Giuliani down, and significantly tarnish their images among Democrats and Independents." Bowers writes: "If we can succeed in taking out McCain and Giuliani, it would virtually make the Democratic primary the general election. It is in this way that we can virtually win the 2008 election in 2007."

MCCAIN: And You Thought Christmas Came Early

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes Matt Welch's 11/26 Los Angeles Times Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) op-ed, "His father was a drunk, and his second wife battled addiction to pain pills," and comments: "Dear heavens the 2008 campaign has begun." Lopez does see some positive for McCain: "For primary purposes, the senator might be grateful for a bit of it, especially the gay-marriage dig at the end."

PoliPundit's W.C. Varones thinks the article should serve as an important warning to GOPers looking for a general-election winner: "If anyone supports McCain because he is popular among moderates, think again. He is only popular with moderates now because the media fawn all over him when he backstabs conservatives. If McCain becomes the nominee, that will end and the media will turn on him viciously. They'll expose him as the nutjob he is."

ROMNEY: The Hewitt/Sullivan Blood Feud Continues

Andrew Sullivan ended any remaining suspense about his feelings for MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R), linking to his 11/26 Times Online column and writing: "I'm impressed by Romney's fiscal conservatism and healthcare initiative. The rest? Not so much." Earlier Sullivan claimed he was "uninterested in Romney's personal religious practices" but told readers "[p]eople will want to know about secret handshakes, secret rituals, tithing, and so on. Would part of his presidential salary go to the LDS church, for example? Does he tithe already?" Sullivan also identifies questions surounding Romney's belief in a "divine founding" of America including: "So what role did the Mormon God play in founding America? This is an important question for understanding a potential president's political philosophy. And since the theocons believe in bringing religious doctrine into the public square as a basis for political decisions, and Romney is the theocon candidate, how can they object to the dialogue?"

Ann Althouse describes Sullivan's attack on Romney as "an ugly one" and adds: "He [Sullivan] doesn't like social conservatives and the way they use religion, and he sees an opportunity to drive a wedge into them by raising questions about religious doctrine and prodding people to feel hostility toward Mormons. He thinks this is justified because -- he asserts -- the Republicans have won power by styling themselves as a "religious organization." They've used religion to their advantage, so they deserve to have it used against them. But stirring up hostility toward one sect? That is a dangerous thing that goes far beyond the targets you think you're aiming at."

Race 4 2008's Republius claims Townhall's Hugh Hewitt's upcoming book about Romney "is reportedly going to be very favorable to the candidate" and notes the fellow Townhall blogger Dean Barnett "admits that he is an unabashed fan of Governor Romney because he knows him and has volunteered previously for him." R4'08 concludes: "I guess the Hugh Hewitt web site is no longer undecided when it comes to the presidential race of 2008."

And over at The Corner, Jonathan Martin reports Team Romney signed SC GOP consultant Warren Tompkins and writes: "This is inside baseball to some degree, but that Tompkins would sign on so early with Romney is another indicator - and the respected Bandy says as much - that the Massachusetts governor is firming up his role as the chief McCain alternative in the early GOP running. Tompkins and his firm had been seen as leaning in Sen. George Allen's direction earlier this year, before the, ahem, recent unpleasantness."

IRAQ: Who You Callin' Extreme?

Lefty bloggers are not liking much about what they here of the Iraq Study Group. Responses to Washington Post stories on the exclusion of "extreme" views from the committee include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "The more I read about this commission the less I like it. The news that the commission deliberate excluded "extreme" views even though the "extreme" left view has majority support is pretty maddening. The real problem, though, is that as best I can tell the Commission has the wrong mandate. Rather than a group charged with finding an optimal Iraq policy for the United States of America, it's charged with finding a formula that suits the interests of the American political establishment -- of Democrats who backed the war, and of Republicans who'd like to see their political party survive the disaster of George W. Bush. So while they'd like a policy that makes things better, what they need is a policy that can espoused while minimizing embarrassment to said establishment. Unfortunately, the latter goal makes the former substantially impossible.
• Glenn Greenwald: "I'd really like to know what the excluded anti-war "extreme view" is that is the equivalent of the neonconservative desire for endless warfare in Iraq and beyond. ... Is withdrawal -- whether incremental or total -- considered to be an "extreme view" that the Washington "centrists" have not only rejected but have excluded in advance even from consideration? ... There is nothing "centrist" about a Commission which decides in advance that it will not remove our troops from a war which is an unmitigated disaster and getting worse every day.
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "[T]he two proposals getting the most flagpole time at the moment include talks with Syria and Iran (opposed strenuously by Dick Cheney) and the temporary addition of 20,000 soldiers in Baghdad (pretty much dismissed by the military brass as either impossible or useless). The only other alternative is withdrawal, but virtually no one is willing to sign up to that since it would mean expulsion from the Sober Sensible Analyst club. It's just too hard for most of these guys to break ranks and admit in public that the fate of Iraq is no longer something we can control.

Also in lefty Iraq news, Daily Kos' Georgia10 has a list of retired senior military personal favoring withdrawal to counter MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell's 11/26 assertion that: "There is not one military or foreign policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that and second that it would be a good idea." The quote won O'Donnell "Wanker of the Day" honors from Atrios. Also at Daily Kos, Mcjoan celebrates the increased willingnes of MSM outlets to describe Iraq as a "civil war" and Atrios has collected the due dates for various pol/media "Friedmanesque predictions/deadlines" in Iraq, including ("The dates posted are the dates the predictions/deadlines are due"):

• 11/19/06 Lee Hamilton says next 3 months are critical.
• 12/31/06 Joe Lieberman says significant troop withdrawals begin.
• 1/06/07 Senator Warner sez "In two or three months if this thing hasn't come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control," Warner said, "I think it's a responsibility of our government to determine: Is there a change of course we should take?"
• 05/20/07 Obama says reduction should start in 4 to 6 months.
• 06/12/07 McCain sez we're going to win or lose this thing within the next several months.

IRAQ II: Righty Bloggers New Favorite Chairman

Incoming Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangle (D-NY) rankled righty bloggers with his Fox News Sunday 11/26 line: "If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." Reactions include:

• Hot Air: "Rangel's neither as prominent nor as unlikeable as Kerry, nor do vets bear him a grudge the way they do Waffles for his Winter Soldier testimony. But they're both talking out of the same ass. In the Kerry/Rangel worldview, American troops aren't the guy who crawls into a lion's cage to rescue the kid inside; they're the guy who's forced into the cage at gunpoint by the gangster who wants something valuable that's in there. Both are sympathetic, but only one's a hero."
• Captain's Quarters: "Charles Rangel has decided to take up where John Kerry left off, only this time he's not kidding about our military men and women being a collection of lazy dolts. The proposed chairman of the House Ways and Means committee and therefore one of the most powerful Democratic leaders in Congress told Fox News that only those with no options for a decent career would enlist in the military."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Better yet, Rangel promises hearings that will prove that American soldiers are dumb, ill-educated and otherwise unemployable! I can't wait. Rangel is a fool, but it's possible to get away with foolishness. It's foolishness plus arrogance that is a deadly combination.

Many on the right also took issue with MSM notation of the length of the current deployment in Iraq surpassing US involvement in WWII. RedState's Academic Elephant wants to know why time is the only relevant metric and points out that the Iraq war's 2,303 US deaths is 290K less than WWII US deaths. Mudville Gazette's Greyhawk notes that the Iraq War would have to last "another 10 or 12 years or so" before it passed the death toll of the Mexican War.

DEMS: Pelosi's Mini-Iraq?

Whether or not incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has unnecessarily divided Dems by not yet announcing an incoming House Intel Cmte chair, the debate has divided lefty bloggers. Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz criticizes Pelosi's "drag-it-out approach" and posts a reader'sassessment of "Pelosi's mini-Iraq":

Don't assume that there's a strategic logic, however inept, behind the delay in the selection of the Committee Chair. If she knew what to do, she would do it. The problem is: a) She hates Harman; 2)Hastings is blatantly inappropriate (and thus will not be selected, no matter how much the CBC squawks); 3) alternative selections to Harman seem strained. ... Therefore, she will likely select Harman anyway--appeasing at least two factions, the Blue Dogs, and the MSM, who will praise her for being centrist and pragmatic, rather than vindictive and "ideological." But she just can't stand the thought of it--thus the delay.

MyDD's Matt Stoller derides the above analysis as "the immediate reaction among white male liberal DC kewl kidz" and argues that Pelosi just "might want someone who ... can do a good job running the Intelligence Committee." Stoller continues: "[T]he single most important thing Pelosi can do is find a a good Intelligence Chair and make sure he or she has the political capital to fix the mess this country is in. Doing so could require time to find a compromise candidate, or to work with the CBC or Blue Dogs to assuage egos or horse-trade other committee assignments. That's what leaders do."

Few on the left are happy with either Harman or Hastings. Kausfiles brother and Stephen Kaus at The Huffington Post links to House and Senate records of Hastings 1988 impeachment for bribery and writes: "Whether the answer is Jane Harmon, Silvestre Reyes or Rush Holt, it is not disgraced former federal judge Alcee Hastings." The Plank's Michael Crowley hits Harman for 2003 statements acknowledging "a growing al Qaeda presence in Iraq" and writes: "I knew that Harman supported the war. I hadn't realized quite how much bad intel she swallowed whole." Matthew Yglesias endorses Holt for the post but also lets us know who he'd choose between Hastings and Harmon if he had to: "But let's assume it's true. Hastings shook some dudes down for $150,000 and ruined three FBI investigations. Jane Harman, by contrast, supported an invasion of Iraq based on bogus intelligence that's costs hundreds of billions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Who do I have more doubts about?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe It Was One Of Those 16-Inch Tsunami's

Kausfiles raises doubts about Charlie Cook's claim when '06's "6-point Democratic popular vote win is measured against the GOP's 5-point win in 2002 and its 3-point win in 2004, it clearly constituted a wave." Kaus comments: "Wow. So in 2002, a humdrum, non-wave election, the GOP won by 5 points. But this year, in a "wave election that rivaled the 1994 tsunami," the Dems won by 6 points. See? No wave: 5. Wave: 6! Cook has a powerful way of putting things."

LEST WE FORGET: No Word On Funding For Turkey Fencing

The Right Angle's Mac Johnson takes advantage of the annual WH Turkey pardoning to poke fun at Pres. Bush's immigration policy:

President George W. Bush shocked onlookers today when he misunderstood aides' description of the traditional pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkeys and instead issued a blanket amnesty for the perplexed poultry. "Apparently he believed they were from Turkey," an anonymous White House source explained. "Hearing that they were there for the dinner ceremony, he assumed they were illegal alien waiters," the source continued. "And so he made them citizens."

"I hope the GOP can count on the votes of 'Flier' and 'Fryer' and all their amigos in the 2008 elections," Bush quipped during a 90-minute impromptu speech extolling the contributions of Turkish Americans to our nation's culture and economy. Further confusing supporters and opponents alike, Bush then made the older bird, Flier, Secretary of Transportation - believing that the bird had served in his father's administration. "Flier is good people," Bush told reporters.

11/21: A Pre-Thanksgiving '08 Buffet

A bevy of pre-Thanksgiving '08 buzz dominated the blogosphere 11/20. On the left, an otherwise positive John Edwards (D) reception at Daily Kos was marred by charges of inadequate support for cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT), and Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) Iraq war stance draws fire from longtime anti-warriors. On the right, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) quietly moves toward joining the race, ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is welcomed less as a contender than a debate changer, and Cornerites come to grips with conservative GOP support for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).

EDWARDS: Heaven, Hell, And In Between On The Daily Kos Comment Boards

Edwards thanked Kossacks for everything they did "to make Election Day a historic victory for Democrats all across the country" and spent an hour answering reader questions on issues 11/20. Topics addressed by Edwards included:

• On his foreign policy experience: "As to foreign policy, what I've been doing for the last several years includes travels to Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Russia; meeting with leaders; speaking and meeting with ordinary citizens and meeting with NGOs and humanitarian organizations. I've also done work with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society."
• On economic fairness: "A few specifics: raise the minimum wage; universal health care coverage; tax system reform so that income is treated with at least as much respect as wealth; making college available to everyone regardless of wealth (College for Everyone); a trade policy that includes both free trade and fair trade (enforceable environmental and labor protections).
• On energy: "As to energy, it's clear to me that we need serious, long term investment in wind, solar, biomass, biodiesel, biofuels, etc. It's also clear that we need serious conservation, including fuel efficient vehicles. My own view is that it's time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something more than war, and this is a place we should ask people to be willing to sacrifice on behalf of their country."
• On health care: "As to healthcare, it is clear to me that we have a dysfunctional health care system. We have the moral issue of approximately 47 million Americans who have no health care coverage, plus many millions who are terrified they will lost their coverage. The only answer is universal health care coverage.
• On earmarking: "The answer is public financing for political campaigns, and mechanisms for eliminating or controlling earmarks."

Edwards did not escape his Daily Kos experience with out taking criticism for a perceived lack of support for Lamont. Thirdparty from the unofficial LamontBlog and Matt Stoller from MyDD led the recriminations against Edwards anti-Lieberman record.

Not everyone in the Edwards comment thread appreciated the distraction. Sherrylynn summed up the exchange:

To any innocent soul who has happened upon this thread and hopes to learn what Senator and Mrs. Edwards have to say, I recommend that you skip way, way down to the first comment from Senator Edwards. If you do so, you will be spared an unedifying display of unpleasantness and rampant egomania. On the other hand, if you have a taste for endless vituperation, the top portion of this thread will be heaven or, as you may perhaps prefer, hell. If you are only mildly interested in vituperative comments, let me summarize. Apparently some people who worked for Ned Lamont are peeved because Senator Edwards showed up--uninvited--to give a speech too much devoted to poverty and with too few (or possibly no) references to Mr. Lamont. Obviously, Senator Edwards' appearance must have been a real dud ... But get this, these Lamont people are mad because Senator Edwards, whose speech they found so dreadful, didn't come back to campaign for Mr. Lamont a second time. Since Senator John Kerry is lauded as having been much more helpful, wouldn't the simple solution have been to invite Kerry back? I understand he had a bit of free time at the end of the campaign.

OBAMA: Not A Playa' Hata

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) continues to disappointment segments of the netroots especially Atrios who was not happy with Obama's 11/20 call for a "gradual and substantial" reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq. Atrios writes: "The basic content of what Obama is saying, divorced from the larger debate, is fine, but as to how it plays in the current debate it's not fine. It allows us to wait around one more Friedman... and then something will happen. Except it won't happen. Troops will not start coming home 4-6 months from now. And, most likely, 4-6 months from now Obama won't be saying "bring them home now," though I've put him on my little calendar and will make sure to check back then and let you know."

The Huffington Post's Stan Goff also has problem's with Plan Obama: "Obama's so-called plan is to redeploy troops to Iraqi Kurdistan (demonstrating that he knows next to nothing about what is going on there, and how big a role Kurdish leaders are playing in the current occupation-catalyzed civil war). Obama wants to put more forces on the ground in another un-winnable war in Afghanistan. He refused, a la Bush, to give any timetable, and said that any withdrawal should be "gradual and substantial."

On a lighter note, The Plank's Noam Scheiber links to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Meaudio of Obama apologizing by phone to Daily Herald's Nicklaus Lovelady for calling him a "baby face" in front of Lovelady's then-romantic interest. Says Obama: "Man, I'm calling to publicly apologize for messin up your game"

BROWNBACK: No Waffles Here

Brownback's 11/20 '08 announcement drew limited righty blogger reaction, but Captain's Quarters was paying attention: "An undercurrent of support has existed for Brownback since earlier this year, when it became plain that conservatives had grown disaffected with the GOP. He faces little competition on the right of the GOP field. ... However, Brownback has the same problem as any Senator or Congressman -- a lack of executive experience. Legislators reach compromises, and those come back to haunt candidates on the presidential trail. ... On the other hand, Brownback doesn't appear to have too many of these waffling points on the resume. On abortion, for instance, Brownback gets a perfect 100 from the National Right to Life Committee and a perfect 0 from NARAL. ... It may not make much difference. Most of the oxygen is already getting sucked up by McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich. Brownback may have some name recognition among the politicos and the blogs, but he barely registers among rank-and-file voters."

GINGRICH: A Movement In G

RedState's Dan McLaughlin looks at Fortune's profile of ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich and concludes: "Newt has adequately assessed his main strength as a candidate (his ideas, which are often spot-on and always provocative) and his main weakness (Newt's own unpopularity and personal failings), and is running a "movement" campaign. Will it work? ... Most "movement" candidates end up losing (even ones like Reagan in 1976 who later get the brass ring), and I'm sure that Newt knows that. The key question for an idea-driven "movement" candidate is whether he can gain sufficient traction to compel the ultimate nominee (or future nominees of the party) to adopt some of his ideas.

GIULIANI: Rudy's For Real?

After surveying National Review post-election cruisers, National Review Online's Rich Lowry recognizes that ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) GOP support tends to come from conservatives and not moderates: "it seems he has some real appeal to conservatives based on his rhetoric, persona, and 9/11 performance." Lowry goes on to speculate that Giuliani's candidacy will draw conservative support away from MA Gov. Mitt Romney (MA) and not Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Lowry adds: "And if Giuliani doesn't make it (I think it's very, very unlikely he will), does anyone doubt that he endorses McCain? So he will help McCain in that more obvious way too."

Also at The Corner, John Derbyshire finds "the whole Rudy phenomenon is fascinating" and goes on to stress the importance of how Giuliani would do in the general election: "He'd take LOTS of votes from Democrats. Just how many would depend of course on the strength of their candidate-but in any case, lots more than any other GOP candidate in sight. A northeastern Republican might in fact be the mirror image of those Southern Democrats-the only Dems to have won the presidency in the last 42 years."

MCCAIN: Always More Troops, Always

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) consultant and Ankle Biting Pundits contributor Pat Hynes responded to ABP co-contributer Bull Dog Pundit's charges of McCain flip-flopping 11/20: "Let's be clear: John McCain is pro-life and supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This has been his position throughout his career in politics and he has a twenty-four year voting record to back it up. ... I was disheartened to see BDP link to a WaPo story from 1999 to blast Sen. McCain on an inartful comment he made at that time, without acknowledging the immediacy of his correction to the remark."

Back at The Corner, Rich Lowry argues McCain's calls for more troops inoculates him from future war failures: "There is lots of talk about how McCain might be hurting himself by his persistent call for more troops, even as support for the war declines. I kind of doubt it will-if the war really goes south, he will be able to say he had a better idea for waging it right from the beginning. Personally, I think his support for higher troop levels has been far-sighted and courageous-McCain at his best.

ROMNEY: Lowry Flips On Romney Flop

The Corner's Rich Lowry first reported MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was a "flop" at the American Spectator's 11/17 dinner but later retracted the view after an email from AS senior editor Quin Hillyer:

Rich - PLEASE quote me on this. I have no idea where you heard that Romney "flopped" at the Spectator dinner, but from where I sat, that was absolutely, positively NOT the general consensus. Indeed, just the opposite: Everybody at my table seemed absolutely enthralled and impressed by Romney, and so did the people I heard talking on the way out of the dinner. My wife, in particular, who is not very political, pronounced herself tremendously impressed. It should also be noted that I am NOT a Romney partisan; I have no favorite yet for 2008

John Derbyshirereports that Romney fan in chief Kathryn Jean Lopez managed to survive the flop scare...barely..

DEMS: Southern Dems Will Someday (But Not Anytime Soon) Rise Again

TAPPED's Tom Schaller reports that his "non-southern strategy" for electoral success "simply drives some people batty." TAPPED's Ezra Klein agrees wholeheartedly but also outlines some benefits of forcing the GOP to rely entirely on the region:

But as a more general strategic note, the southernization of the GOP will have pretty massive effects on the Republican Party -- effects Democrats will find fairly congenial. As a combination of Californian emigration, Hispanic immigration, and economic fluctuation continue diluting the Interior West's libertarianism, the region will cease exerting its current pull on the Republican Party's ideology. And as the Elephant becomes ever more reliant on the South, the concerns of the region's dominant constituence -- economically insecure whites -- will continue permeating the top levels of the Republican coalition, eventually forcing a leftward shift as their base continues to demand entitlement security and public spending.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas again attacks suggestions the Dem victory 11/7 depended on conservative southern Dems, but also refuses to give up hope: "We don't want to abandon the South and we won't. But the short-term path for a Democratic progressive majority runs through our coastal strongholds, and then through the swing Midwest and purpling Mountain West. The South is a long-term reclamation project." Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat sees current DNC plans as the perfect way to become competitive in the south without betraying key Dem principles: "Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy is the path that allows Democrats to adapt to the realities Schaller describes while at the same time searching for the effective political prescriptions for the South. As I wrote, the devolution of power to the state parties is the essential component."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bottom To Top, Not Top To Bottom

Responding to righty blogger Jon Henke's post-election call for increased GOP blog engagement, Shaun Kenny writes:

There's an additional problem to this. Democrats (and particularly the progressive wing) created their blogosphere mostly from grassroots and activist support. Republicans seem to look behind them to political parties and ask them to counteract the left. It can't happen that way. Sure there are things that grasstops can do to help encourage blogs. But when it comes to what Jon Henke consistently called "developing a narrative" for a campaign, the blogs achieve this. Add this narrative into a fundraising schematic, and you have classic copywriting tactics. Build the narrative, get people invested, make the ask. .... We gotta break out.

IRAQ: But What Does Dave's Mom Think?

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Program on International Policy Attitudes poll results showing: "74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis want us to leave within a year (the number is 80% for Shiites in Baghdad). By wide margins, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing, and both groups believe that day-to-day security would improve if we left. Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis." Drum concludes: "Now, it may be that these views are misguided. But it hardly matters: it's simply not possible for us to occupy the country successfully if a majority of Iraqis actively support attacks on our troops and a vast majority think we're responsible for the rising violence. It's time for us to leave."

At Right Wing News, John Hawkins is reassuring his commenters that he has not given up on the war. Instead he forwards a four point plan:

• 1) Keep training Iraqi forces -- although faster please.
• 2) Take apart the militias.
• 3) Make it clear that no nation unless it is part of the coalition forces will be allowed to send men or materials into Iraq.
• 4) Keep a significant number of American troops on hand for air support, special forces, and logistics even after our troops are no longer policing the streets (Hopefully, we should be at that point by some time around the end of 2007).

RCP Blog's John McIntyre argues David Letterman's recent thoughts on Iraq sum "up the growing feelings of many Americans. Letterman said:

Well, you know in the beginning, here is my position in the beginning and I, I think I - I sort of felt the way everybody did, we felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. ... So while it didn't necessarily make sense to go into Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like yes, we needed to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, years and one death became a dozen deaths and hundred deaths and a thousand deaths - then we began to realize you know what? Maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth....What I would like would be uh, for uh, uh Americans to stop dying. And for there to be stability in that part of the world. Now if that means an American victory, ok. But I'm not sure that you can have stability in that part of the world with or without an American presence now, uh, so I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying.

McIntyre replies: "The good-hearted, but utterly naive sentiment of "I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying" in Iraq, will continue to chip away at the public's resolve in the coming weeks and months. And absent a credible plan for victory in Iraq - which right now we do not have - the window for the U.S. to prevent a major loss in this battle of the much longer war is rapidly closing."

LEST WE FORGET: Scarlett Johansson Wants George Bush To Teach Her More About Sex

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham looks at Scarlett Johansson's "We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions" statement and responds: "

Uhh, no, Scarlett. Six children or abortion? You do realize there's a third option, right? Who was your sex-ed teacher, girl? Laura Bush???

See, Scarlett, the thing is that's not what would happen at all. Note that the Bushes themselves managed, somehow, someway, to only have two children, despite being conservative and, hence, completely ignorant of safe-sex practices and contraceptives. Amazing!

Blogometer Extra

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Condition Hypocritical

  On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that "Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions..."  The "don't ask, don't tell" policy remains in place, unfortunately for the military's gay community.

  "Mental health professionals said ... they were not satisfied by the change," the article said, and neither was Pam at House Blend, who writes:

This "upgrade" is so asinine that I can hardly believe it.  The military is jumping through hoops to avoid releasing any guidelines that view homosexuality as normal.

  Among other conditions, [homosexuals] are compared to those suffering from stammering or stuttering, dyslexia, sleepwalking, motion sickness, obesity, and insect venom allergies.  It simply has to end.  Are any of the above-mentioned grounds to disqualify one from serving?  I hardly think that motion sickness precludes anyone from serving either.  This is BS.

  Remember, all branches of the military have resorted to lowering standards, including recruiting people with antisocial personality disorder, autism, as well as welcoming in folks convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.

  Meanwhile, able and ready gay and lesbian servicemembers are stigmatized and marginalized in a time of need.

  John Aravosis, openly gay founder of AMERICAblog, isn't impressed by the "upgrade" either, but wonders why at such a critical time in the terror war that the Pentagon seemingly "has nothing better to do these days."

The great minds of the military have decided gays aren't suffering from mental disorders anymore.  But, they still think homosexuality is a defective condition... You can't make this stuff up.  Note to the military: All the branches are chock full of gays and lesbians.  They do the job.  You need them. Our country needs them.

  "And," he continues, "here's an idea: Spend less time obsessing about gays and try to figure out how to prevail in Afghanistan and Iraq."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Ig And Nancy

  David Ignatius at The Washington Post sets a slew of bloggers off again with yet another provocative post.  While a lot of media attention has been focused on the Carville-Rahm Dem clique hammering away at Howard Dean, Ignatius targets Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi in his latest column:

Some Democratic initiatives are obvious after the November election: The public wants changes in Iraq policy that reduce the costs and dangers for America; reform of an arrogant and corrupt congressional leadership; and an end to partisan political bickering.  The new House speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, had a disastrous post-election week in which her first priority seemed to be settling scores rather than solving these big problems.  Shame on her!  But let's assume for the moment that the new Democratic majority won't commit instant suicide with a continuation of Pelosi's payback politics, and that it will get serious about governing.

  Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos breathes fire first, in a post entitled "Why Hasn't Nancy Pelosi Fixed Everything Yet?":

Seriously, who gave that idiot David Ignatius a platform to say ridiculously stupid shit like this? ... Pelosi isn't speaker, Hastert is.  Nevermind that Republicans had their own tightly contested elections when, well, they still have control of Congress and could be fixing "these big problems".

  Memo to these morons -- elections are held now so that when Pelosi takes over in January, she can start solving "these big problems" with the leadership team in place.

  Atrios at Eschaton, referring to Ignatius as an example of "silly people no one should listen to," writes:

I know I'm just an idiot with a cable modem and David Ignatius gets to write for the Washington Post, but for the record the Speaker of the House is currently Dennis Hastert.  He's running the show.  The Democrats don't take control for another couple of months.  If big problems aren't being solved, it's because Dennis Hastert isn't trying to solve them.

  Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory looks at the larger picture, and sees a concerted, collective effort to belittle Pelosi:

The mindless group-think driving the media's caricatures of Nancy Pelosi is truly astounding to behold, even considering the source.  She's not even Speaker yet, and they've already pronounced her to be a bitchy, vindictive shrew incapable of leading because she's consumed by petty personal bickering rather than serious and substantive considerations.  And all of this is based on nothing.

  Unsurprisingly, all of this has been concocted by the herd of all-knowing Beltway analysts who fancy themselves to be such high-minded warriors against conventional wisdom even though they are its most obedient vessels.

  Greenwald rips a gaggle of righty bloggers, talking heads and molders of opinion who've attacked Pelosi in tandem, and ends his post with a damning dismissal of the media:

Americans just elected new leadership quite deliberately.  They are obviously fine with Nancy Pelosi.  Republicans tried to make the election be about her -- constantly reminding everyone that a vote for Democrats would mean installing super-liberal Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco values in power -- and the Democrats won.  So voters have no problem with Pelosi.  They want Congressional Democrats to take the lead in policy and governance because the Republicans have failed so miserably.  I have no idea whether Pelosi will be a good Speaker, but I'm going to withhold judgment until she actually at least starts, and Americans are obviously doing that as well.

  Yet the Beltway media mavens know better, and so they are already out in force attacking Pelosi's character with petty and baseless chattering.  This country has extremely serious issues facing it, and yet these self-styled "serious" journalists are already trying to cripple Pelosi's ability to do anything before she has even begun, all based on giggly chit-chat and gossipy garbage that has no legitimacy other than the fact that they all repeat it in unison on television and in print.

  It's what these pundits and journalists do.  They have pre-conceived, vapid notions about everything and everyone -- all driven by deep self-love for their own superior wisdom -- and they distort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters.  Nancy Pelosi, and really everyone, would be well-advised not to listen to them and, above all, never adopt as a goal trying to please or satisfy them.  They are frivolous and out of touch with everything that matters and should be treated as such.

  Then Taylor Marsh at Firedoglake blasts away, in even more caustic fashion, grouping all the anti-Pelosis as "corporate hacks":

You can get caught with your fly open and diddling a teenage page and elicit sympathy, while a drug hoarding radio host gets a pass for using his housekeeper as a pusher.  That same host can then get caught with sex drugs in a bogus bottle at an airport, coming back from an all male weekend in one of the child sex capitals of the world, but his radio show doesn't miss a beat.  ... A compulsive gambler is not only kept on radio, but given a spot on CNN, while telling the world about morals.  Newt Gingrich, the disgraced speaker of the House and multiple marriage man, is still the go-to guy for Hannity on Fox.  A man who reportedly married his third cousin (then divorced her), one of 2 (or is it 3?) marriages, just announced his presidential bid; the other GOP bidder a self-proclaimed philanderer, as well.  But God help you if you're a woman against a war with a champion you want to promote to leadership; a person who helped raise the war debate to a campaign issue that carried your party to power, but loses that race.  Let the corporate clucking begin.

  Make no mistake about it, Murtha falling short of majority leader was a loss for Pelosi.  So what?  She stood by the man who brought the Iraq war into the debate and changed the subject from "stay the course" to "change course and redeploy."  Steny Hoyer was gracious in his overwhelming win, as was speaker-elect Pelosi, making it clear that Murtha's power lives on to fight the fight in his subcommittee, where he holds the defense purse strings for the war.

  "I smell something rotten and it's the mass of collected hubris the clucking pundits are sitting upon," Marsh writes, "which they now feel the need to release like the wind escaping from Karl Rove's bubble.

  "Who died and elected these people to anything?  It certainly wasn't the American people.

LABOR: Houston, We Have A Problem

  Matt Stoller at MyDD has an extraordinary pair of photographs and a video (viewable here) of the janitors' strike in Houston ending in a violent confrontation:

Houston police trampled on striking janitors with horses last night.  The janitors make on average $20 a day with no health insurance.  The companies responsible?  Chevron.  And Hines Interest, the city's largest hometown building owner.

  These people make on average $5.35 an hour.  With no health insurance.  That is frakking ridiculous.  It is wrong.  And when these workers protested peacefully, the Houston police department rode into a crowd with horses to intimidate and injure the workers.  It worked, as they arrested 44 workers and hurt 4 of them, including an 83 year old janitor.

  I don't care if you don't like unions.  This is insane.  And if you are a politician reading this site, or a 2008 candidate, now's your chance to stand up and issue a strong statement condemning these actions and demanding that Chevron and Hines Interest pay these people responsibly.

  Mainstream media reports about the crackdown were sparse, but one press release reported that "bail for the striking janitors was set at $888,888," as Perry Dorrell writes at Brains and Eggs:

This is the justice you get when all of the law officials in the nation's third most populous county are Republicans.

  People arraigned on murder charges have had bail set as low as $30,000, but if you're making $5.00 an hour and sit down in the middle of a Houston intersection, you get intimidated -- at best -- by a mounted Houston Police officer, arrested, charged with a Class B misdemeanor, and thrown into jail with your bail set at "send-a-message" level.

  Houston and Harris County truly feels like the belly of the Neo-Fascist beast today.

  Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist has the latest, writing, "Great news, the bond rate was reduced to $1,000 per person by a magistrate."

[Mike Sheehan]

11/20: They're Just Not That Into You

Noting their complete impotence to affect House leadership races, righty bloggers are beginning to examine whether they want to emulate DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas activist tactics. Townhall's Dean Barnett advises his conservative readers upset over the GOP's leadership choices "to deal with the facts. The politicians just aren't that into us." Barnett says he is not quite ready to be "a tool for the Republican Party," but he does acknowledge that Kos and Co. were a positive factor in the Dem victory this cycle. Will defeat in just one cycle be enough to prompt more righty blogger involvement in internal GOP politics?

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: What Would Kos Do?

Townhall's Dean Barnett, tells readers GOP leaders feel free to ignore blogs since "all we do is opine, and often in an annoyingly independent way" and that Kos gets markedly different results since "he also brings something else to the party. He brings volunteers and money and buzz. Although my modem might well explode as I type these words, Jon Tester would not be a senator starting in January if it weren't for the Daily Kos. Same for Jim Webb."

That said, Barnett still is not ready to commit to changing his party the same way Kos is: "I have no interest in being a tool for the Republican Party, or at least not anymore so than I already am. But ... there is no denying that the Daily Kos is an asset to the Democratic Party in terms of winning elections. Or at least it was this past cycle." Outside the Beltway also acknowledges netroot success in laying "a get-out-the-meme network that is unparalleled on the right" but he too shies away from a larger commitment: "The problem, though, is that I don't want the Right Blogosphere to turn into a mirror image of the Left Blogosphere. While I'd love to have the traffic and influence of DailyKos, I'm not interested in emulating its style. It remains to be seen whether there's a way to maximize the influence of the blogosphere while being civil and thoughtful."

Captain's Quarters notes that righty blogs attempted their own organization efforts this cycle but "we started too late to have much of an impact." CQ then uses the GOP leadership defeats as a call for my righty blogger activism: "If the Right blogosphere ... wants to be a player in elections, it needs to start now. The outcry over the GOP's Congressional leadership elections may have galvanized us, convincing us that engagement has to take place soon in order to help shape a Republican Party that will deliver on the core principles we have discussed at length."

QandO's Jon Henke (Sen. George Allen (R-VA) new media coordinator) asserts the netroots helped push Sen.-elect James Webb (D-VA) over the top and predicts the GOP "will either develop strategies and hire experts to engage the blogosphere quickly and bumpily as happened with the successful Democratic engagement of the blogosphere. . .or they will do so slowly and with great regret that they've effectively ceded to Democrats the most important new political battlefield since talk radio."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY II: Clearly Congress Needs To Pass A Blogger Minimum Wage

Picking up on Hotline On Call analysis showing at most only six more seats could have been won with more late DCCC ad buys MyDD's Chris Bowers notes that of those candidates that did not receive national support, the netroots were there helping early and often: "We stepped up in these seats, big time. When [James] Carville criticizes Howard Dean, keep in mind that he is using Howard Dean as a placeholder to attack the entire progressive netroots and the entire progressive movement on behalf of big donors and consultants who once again want to rule the party with an iron fist. But we were the ones fighting for these seats, tooth and nail, along with local Democrats on the ground. National Democrats from the corporate wing of the party were nowhere to be found in these races."

Also at MyDD, Matt Stoller laments the all the netroots raised money that ended up in the bank accounts of Carville and his "consultant" friends, and for reference notes: "MyDD brings in about $1000-1500 apiece in advertising a month for me, Chris, and Singer. That's roughly $15,000 a year, or around $7 an hour if you assume we each spend around 40 hours a week on the site. We're one of the larger blogs so our income is on the high end of the blogosphere."

DEM FIELD: Master Of The Known Universe

MyDD's Chris Bowers utilizes five recent national primary polls (Pew, Gallup, CNN, McLaughlin, and Rasmussen) in combination with Quinnipac national name recognition numbers to produce "Known Universe Metric" numbers for Dem favorites (Bowers divides each candidates average primary poll result by their name recognition number). Bowers explains: "I call this the "known universe" metric because this is the percentage of supporters each candidate is winning within the universe of people who know the candidate well enough to form an opinion about him or her. It is a crude means of normalizing trial heat numbers for name recognition discrepancies." The results:

Known Universe Metric Obama: 42% Clinton: 30% Edwards: 13% Gore: 11% Kerry: 9%

Bowers adds: "I do not think that this metric means Obama should be considered the favorite. What it means is that he has done an extremely good job appealing to people so far."

KERRY: Everyone's Favorite Disappearing Act

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) generated little lefty blogger excitement with his 11/19 Fox News suggestion he is still considering an '08 run. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis writes: "The man needs to go away. He lost. He lost to an idiot. And now he wants another chance to show the country that this time he'll fight back. Just like he fought back one week before the election and almost destroyed our chances at taking back the Congress because, like an idiot, he decided that NOW was the time he was finally going to fight back. ... Kerry never understood how and when to fight back, and he still doesn't. He's not going to be president. He had his chance and blew it."

The Plank's Jason Zengerle thinks Kerry learned the wrong lesson when he told Fox: "Since we had very close races, I made the decision to make certain that I didn't distract. The results speak for themselves." Zengerle replies: "Yes they do. Now Kerry just needs to pull another disappearing act for '08 and the Democrats will take the White House, too!"

MCCAIN: The Straight Woo Express

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 11/19 This Week appearance drew mixed reviews from righty bloggers. RedState's Adam C was impressed with McCain's support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and warned ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani to change his abortion stance if he wanted to maintain support among conservatives. Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit, on the other hand, takes McCain to task for changing his position: "So which is it Senator McCain? Would overturning Roe lead to the deaths of young women as you said in 1999, or do you support the issue going back to the states as you say today, when you happen to be trying to woo social conservatives?"

McCain's 11/16 Federalist Society address also garnered right blogger attention. RedState's Dan McLaughlin reports McCain received standing ovations at the beginning and end of his speech (including an introduction from Ted Olson "who sounded as if he has booked a spot on the Straight Talk Express), but also got a "less than an enthusiastic response when he gushed about his role in saving the filibuster in the judicial nominations process." Townhall's Hugh Hewitt focussed specifically on McCain's role in the Gang of 14 writing: "What Senator McCain needs to do --urgently, right now-- is to come clean and admit he screwed up with the Gang of 14, and in a huge way, a way that he now sincerely regrets. ... No candidate who thinks the Gang of 14 was a good thing for the Constitution, the judiciary, or the GOP is going to win the GOP's nomination."

ROMNEY: McCain's Indy Edge?

The MI Cooler is calling MI GOP chair Saul Anuzis letter urging the legislature to pass an open primary a loss for MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R): "Romney supporters had been arguing that Michigan would not be an Open Primary in 2008 and thus in theory giving their candidate an edge if Independent voters could not vote. The Cooler sees this as a smart move for Saul and the McCain people."

DEMS: Not The Friends Harman Wants Right Now

Righty bloggers are closely following Dem struggles for control of the House Intel. Cmte. Just One Minute tracks lefty attacks on outgoing ranking member Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and offers "a steaming mug of reality to the reality-based community" over claims that Harman is currently under investigation for her ties to AIPAC. JOM examines stories from the New York Times, Washington Post, and AP all suggesting the investigation has been "dormant" for some time but is still open. JOM comments: "It is quite rare for the Feds to formally close an investigation, because who knows what tomorrow may bring in the way of new evidence. But neither Greenwald nor Yglesias have offered any evidence to support their contention that the investigation is current. She was under investigation for engaging in politics, and now she is not."

National Review Online's Byron York looks at Harman's intel-chair rival Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and notes "all" senior Dems in the House "voted to impeach then-federal judge Hastings back in 1988." York even quotes from Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) speech before the Senate arguing for Hastings' removal: "Justice and the integrity of our government depend on the importance of these impeachment proceedings ... and they argue that the judge should be removed from the bench."

The left's case against Harman does not end with AIPAC investigations. MyDD's Chris Bowers is also no fan of Harman's defense of the administration's NSA surveillance program: "Outside of issues relating to national security and foreign policy, where she clearly is a neocon, she is basically a run of the mill Democrat--perhaps even in the liberal mainstream. However, the credibility of the new Democratic Congress is at stake here, and we can't have Democrats illegally winning committee chairs through lobbyist influence so they can support unconstitutional wire-tapping programs on Capitol Hill and on Fox News while accusing the New York Times of treason."

DEMS II: All Roads Lead To Iraq

Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) assures The Huffington Post readers "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker." Pelosi explains: "This morning, I visited our brave men and women at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. It is a place of prayers, of honor, of respect, and reflection. And I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum like's Ron Suskind's list of possible investigation targets: "(a) the energy industry, (b) lying to Congress about domestic issues like global warming and Medicare, (c) lying to the public about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, (d) nonterrorists who have been subjects of warrantless wiretaps, and (e) continued incompetence in the intelligence community." But the Reality Based Community, meanwhile, wants to use hearings to counteract "the fundamental political challenge" facing Dems: fending off the "stab-in-the-back" narrative that worked so well for the Republicans after Vietnam. RBC hopes investigations can establish a counter narrative: ""We took on a tough but potentially manageable challenge and blew it due to the incompetence and corruption of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress." To that end he hopes Dems investigate the following:

• Corruption and patronage in the CPA.
• Corruption and crony capitalism in contracting in Iraq, especially for support of the troops but also for reconstruction.
• Corruption and earmarking in the award of defense contracts.
• Corruption and earmarking in the award of intelligence contracts.
• Corruption and patronage in DHS and its White House predecessor office under Tom Ridge.

LA 02: Jefferson's "Extended Family"

Cable exec Ned Lamont's (D-CT) official blogger Tim Tagaris is now reporting for MyDD from LA 02's run off between Rep. William Jefferson (D) and state Rep. Karen Carter (D). His recent posts include analysis on local GOTV efforts: "I've also heard conflicting reports about the importance of churches and the role they play in mobilizing voters. Best I can tell, in the East Bank (New Orleans area) it's the organizations like BOLD and the "Progressive Democrats" that have the ability to turn voters out to the polls. In the West Bank, it's the churches. During yesterday's endorsement of Congressman Jefferson by State Senator Derrick Shepherd, they were surrounded by no less than five men of the cloth who each took at a turn at the mic; each quite outspoken; each with a body of followers best described as extended family as opposed to simply a congregation. Indeed, the local bloggers believed that Jefferson's support among clergy in the West Bank is a good part of what propelled him to a strong third place primary showing."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: All The Cool Kids Are Doing It

Daily Kos's SLJ offers ten easy steps progressives living in GOP controlled CDs can take to help elect Dems in '08 including:

• Concern yourself more with being regular than being brilliant. Get in the habit of writing something at least every week. The way you get steady traffic is through fresh content every time visitors come.
• Fill out online forms that let you send your member letters on stands for bills, etc. That'll generate letters back to you. That's more fodder for writing about. That'll give you more material that doesn't show up in papers (or elsewhere on the web).
• Find out when he's visiting the district. Go in person, take a digital camera along and blog about it when you get home.

LEST WE FORGET: Regifters 'R Us!

Since shopping Christmas season is now here, AMERICAblog advises stingier or space strapped readers to check out Regiftable before recycling their less than favorite past-Christmas items. Regiftable's how to guide advises readers to ask themselves:

• Is this going to work? Successful regifters use common sense. If you are going to regift, be sure you know who gave you the item, so you don't return something to the original giver. Only regift items to people who are not likely to see the original giver.
• Do you have good intentions? Don't just give a gift to give a gift. Be sure that the recipient will appreciate the item. Remember, if you feel that an item is undesirable, the recipient probably will too. If you are regifting simply because you ran out of time, gift cards are simple to obtain and always well received.
• Can you handle it? If you don't plan to announce the gift as a regift, ask yourself if you can keep the secret. Never feel guilty about regifting once you've done it.

11/17: He's Not A Bad Man

Just in case we haven't made this clear enough, we'll do so now: righty bloggers don't like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (and for many of them, that's putting it mildly). Some people fail to understand why McCain's support for campaign finance reform so irks conservatives but as Team McCain's interaction with right blogger stalwart Captain's Quarters illustrates, it simply does. Following criticism of the AZ Senator, Team McCain sent CQ a copy of McCain's upcoming GOPAC dinner speech. Despite agreeing with most of McCain's thoughts, CQ still concludes: "John McCain is not a bad man, just a seriously misguided one, and his speech tonight is excellent and should get broad dissemination."

MCCAIN: "Regular Republicans" Seen In Public With McCain

RedState's Erick Erickson claims Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is waging a "Secret War Against the GOP." Erickson describes McCain efforts "to slay state Republican Chairmen who are not already loyal lieutenants in the McCain '08 Army." Specifically, Erickson cites efforts to "astroturf" MI GOP chair Saul Anuzis out of his seat usingphonywebsites that accuse Anuzi of favoring MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Erickson also claims McCain's "foot soldiers are preparing to do the same thing to Katon Dawson" in SC.

Back in DC, National Review Online's Jonathan Martin reports on "new faces" in attendance for McCain's GOPAC dinner address 11/16: "Among them, Terry Nelson, a top aide of President Bush's re-election campaign and native of that first caucus state that McCain skipped in 2000 but won't again. Also there was lobbyist Wayne Berman, a top Bush donor in both '00 and '04, whose wife happens to be the current White House Social Secretary. Republican regulars, all."

As for the speech itself, Martin reports that taking a more conservative bent, Ronald Reagan references outnumbered Teddy Roosevelt ones, but there were also "healthy dollops of criticism about his party, a reminder that we're "not a nation of Social Darwinists" and an unvarnished assessment of the "dire" situation in Iraq." Martin concludes: "It seems that, much like the man their candidate alluded to nine separate times in his speech tonight, the 2008 Straight Talk crew thinks it may best to "let McCain be McCain." For the most part."

Following an earlier 11/16 post criticising McCain for violating conservative "First Principles" by sponsoring campaign finance reform, Team McCain emailed Captain's Quarters an advance copy of McCain's GOPAC speech, and CQ was impressed but still hammered McCain on BCRA:

McCain invokes Reagan often in this speech. However, one has to wonder how Reagan would have viewed the BCRA, McCain's brainchild. Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine and allowed for the maximum possible political debate, while McCain's BCRA criminalizes the criticism of incumbents by independent groups within 60 days of an election. Freedom of speech is a conservative value that McCain doesn't applaud. Hypocrisy, indeed. ... John McCain is not a bad man, just a seriously misguided one, and his speech tonight is excellent and should get broad dissemination.

ROMNEY: Clearly A Threat To Democracy

The netroots have taken notice of MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) founded Bain Capital's purchase of Clear Channel. MyDD's Chris Bowers picked up the story from Rochester Turning who writes: "Mitt Romney is running for president in 2008 (some consider him the frontrunner for the Republican nomination). I bet a fleet of t.v.and radio stations might come in handy. Remember - this is how Berlusconi got elected in Italy." Bowers adds: "To prepare for their 2008 runs, most potential candidates stock up on staff, a Leadership PAC, and support from party leaders, advocacy organizations, and grassroots groups. Mitt Romney buys a media empire. I can't argue with what will probably be an effective strategy, but I can fear for American Democracy. Maybe Romney did this in order to match Giuliani's defacto news organization, Bloomberg."

GIULIANI: A Steady Hand Through Darkness

IA's Caucus Cooler has text of ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani radios ads currently running in IA and NH and paid for by Draft Giuliani:

At times of crisis, Americans look to their leaders for strength, hope, and leadership. Five years ago, Americans looked to our president first, but we also looked to another man to help guide us through the darkness, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He wasn't just the mayor of New York, he was America's mayor . . . Rudy Giuliani has shown us what it takes to lead in the toughest of circumstances.

As America begins to focus on who will be our next president, we want change. We want someone who will rise above partisan politics and get things done . . . Please join us in asking Rudy Giuliani to run for president of the United States. We need his steady hand and his steadfast leadership. Sign a petition to draft Rudy Giuliani for President at draftrudygiuliani.com.

EDWARDS: Only 38 Shopping Days Left!!!

The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson takes Wal-Mart to task for publicizing efforts of a John Edwards volunteer to secure a Playstation 3 from a Wal-Mart on the same day Edwards criticized the company in a conference call with union-backed activists. Wal-Mart released a statement: "While the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently in line, Sen. Edwards wants to cut to the front." Johnson responds: "That is an official Wal-Mart statement! Have you ever heard anything like that from a company? Is this the business Wal-Mart is in? What right does a corporation have to issue a statement like that about any citizen? Is this a company that ought to have its right to operate examined, or what?"

GORE: Chubby Happy People Don't Run For President

Andrew Sullivan links to SFGate's Mick LaSalle's tips for telling if Al Gore will or will not be running:

• When Al Gore started to run for the presidency in 2000, he was thin. By the time the race was over, he had gained a lot of weight (like Clinton in 1992), and then he kept on gaining weight in the months after the election. ... Big Al is back to being pretty big right now, or at least he was a few months ago when he was going around promoting An Inconvenient Truth. But if he shows up on TV six months from now, looking 40 pounds lighter while promoting The Assault on Reason, then get ready, he's running.
• An Inconvenient Truth will probably be nominated for an Oscar. It's the third highest grossing documentary in history and the most successful documentary of 2006. It will probably win. If you see a chubby, happy Al Gore standing next to the producer and director, celebrating the win at the Oscars, forget it, he's not running. ... The cultural resentment of Hollywood is almost pathological in certain sections of the country. However, if Gore chooses not to be there -- if he's at the spa that day -- then you can take it to the bank. Big Al's running.

GOP LEADERSHIP: Conservatives Lose Again?

Righty bloggers are already lamenting Rep. Mike Pence's (IN) defeat in the Minority Leader race to Rep. John Boehner (OH). RedState's Erick erickson forwards reaction from a Hill aide: "This is like 1976. Reagan was the guy, but the votes went to Ford." I suspect that in two years, if the GOP does not make gains, both Blunt! and Boehner! will be in trouble. Until then, we're going to rally around the leaders and prepare to fight Nancy and her nattering nabobs of negativism."

Townhall's Dean Barnett is happy the campaign "mercifully" coming to an end. And while he did find Boehner "to be an extremely impressive guy" he again laments the lack of candidate reading on "Islamic terrorism." Also dismayed to learn that Boehner does not read any blogs, Barnett proposes "creating a Congressional-level version of Oprah's book club" and hopes Townhall colleague Hugh Hewitt will use his radio show to induce congressmen to participate.

The Right Angle labels Pence "the Choice of Conservatives ... regardless of how tomorrow's minority leader vote turns out" and posts Human Events Online straw poll results showing Pence receiving 89% of the HEO reader vote. Outside the Beltway finds it "perhaps appropriate" that Boehner and Rep. Roy Blunt (MO) will lead the House Republicans in minority status ... since they helped let them there." OTB adds: "Sadly, one suspects they would have chosen DeLay as Minority Leader if he were still available."

Speaking of ex-Maj. Leader Tom DeLay, he returned to RedState to answer critics of his earlier front page post:

To my RedState critics, I accept your charge that many of the pieces of legislation passed by the Congress in the period from 1995 through 2006 were less-than-perfect. I believe, however, as Bismarck said that, "Politics is the art of the possible". In the U.S. House of Representatives the only things that are possible, in a legislative sense, are those which can get 218 votes. As the House Majority Leader, and before that as the House Majority Whip, I did everything that I could to bring the U.S. government closer to the principles of governance that I put forward in my post. I didn't enjoy the luxury of operating in a pristine policy laboratory; I had to do my best in the world of the possible."

Rep. Adam Putnam's (FL) "white rednecks" flub did not go unnoticed by righty bloggers. National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez calls it "a Macaca-ish moment" and Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham suggests GOPers "should really stop saying dumb stuff" but later minimizes the damage: "Luckily, white Southerners aren't the type to go into identity politics freak-out mode when referred to by a politically incorrect name."

On the RNC chair front, Townhall's Barnett looks at past GOP efforts to operate under "collective leadership" and concludes and quotes ex-Sen./RNC general chairman Paul Laxalt: "[a]s long as the person who is the general chairman has a good relationship with the President, then it works." Power Line's Paul Mirengoff also defends the Sen. Mel Martinez (FL) choice, and takes on National Review Online's Jim Geraghty criticism of Minority Leader Trent Lott (MS).

DEM LEADERSHIP: Whatever The Outcome, Pelosi Wins

Arianna Huffington was among the first lefty bloggers with a post up reacting to Rep. John Murtha's (PA) loss to Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) in the Majority Leader race titled: "Murtha Loses... But It's Still a Victory for Pelosi." Huffington explains: "Even though her guy lost, this was still a big win for her. A victory for taking a stand -- and for her leadership. Because that's what real leaders do, they take stands. ... It's not about trying to have a spotless record; it's about knowing which battles are worth fighting, whatever the outcome."

Murtha had has own statement posted at HuffPo thanking supporters, promising to focus on Iraq, and ending, "now let's get to work." MyDD's Chris Bowers was also eager to put the whole episode behind him. Instead Bowers put together a wish list for the still open DCCC chair:

• 1. Little or no possibility of facing a serious re-election challenge him or herself (Reynolds problem)
• 2. I would strongly prefer someone who entered Congress after 1994, so s/he understands being in the minority and does not take our majority as a natural turn of events. We need someone with fire for many more seats.
• 3. Not strongly beholden to any particular wing or political infrastructure within the party. I would prefer someone who is not a Blue Dog, not a Progressive, not a New Democrat, not a Clintonista, not from a big city machine. I want an independent operative who can move freely throughout the party, and is not easily pegged as a specific type of Democrat.
• 4. I want someone who is both respected by, and open to, the ideas coming from places like The New Politics Institute, Crashing the Gate, and the netroots community. We need new campaign ideas for continuing to build upon a new majority.

Bowers goes on to suggest Reps. Tim Ryan (OH) and Zoe Lofgren (CA) fit his guidelines well.

TERROR POLITICS: Finally, A CT Senator The Netroots Can Love

The netroots are celebrating Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) unveiling of his Effective Terrorist Prosecution Act. MyDD's Matt Stoller summarizes the bills contents:

• It prevents a lengthy court battle over the Military Commissions Act.
• It restores our adherence to the Geneva Conventions.
• It restores Habeas Corpus to detainees.
• It prevents information procured by torture from being used in court.
• It narrows the definition of unlawful combatant to people who actually are fighting the US.

Stoller concludes: "This is a direct strike at Bush's expanded Presidential authority, and a repudiation of the last six years of reactionary abuse of civil rights." Atrios and Talk Left are also excited and firedoglake's Swopa speculates on when the Senate will move on the bill: "my coldblooded political calculation would be to do so after hearings on Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons, etc., have raised visibility and broadened the public's revulsion over the Bush regime's tactics - but this early commitment from Dodd seems like a good sign."

IRAQ: When Sorry Is Not Enough

The New Republic is coming under heavy lefty blogger fire for their 11/16 mea culpa on early support for the Iraq war. Ex-TNR contributor Spencer Ackerman is the harshest, responding to TNR's pleas to avoid a rush to "realism" writing: "Please believe me when I say that this makes me want to cry, since I used to love working for TNR. But the magazine is setting itself up for making the same mistake over and over and over again. This is the emptiest of evasions -- a fetishization of "seriousness" without ever actually being serious."

Also responding:

• Ezra Klein: "For TNR, it should be no surprise that "We Were Wrong" actually equates to "They are wrong." The magazine only admits error as a way to sucker punch those they believe are even wronger than they -- "the realists," whose understanding that "American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds...does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously." This comes in an editorial explaining that the magazine's attempt to "take its moral obligations seriously" led it to commit a great and grave misjudgment."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Generally speaking, I favor a warm embrace for people who once supported the war but have since seen the light. ... Even by my soft-hearted standards, though, today's editorial from The New Republic renouncing their support for the war was remarkably clumsy and unsatisfying. ... TNR "deeply regrets its early support for this war," the editors say, but they don't provide a hint about why they regret their support. Is it just because things didn't work out? Because they think things could have worked but they're ashamed of not realizing that George Bush would bollocks it up? Because Saddam turned out not to have any WMD? Or what?"

On the right, RedState featured an Iraq symposium 11/15. Entry titles included:

• Jeff Emanuel: Establish the Objective - then Commit to Victory.
• Dan McLaughlin: The Way Forward in Iraq: Don't exceed the mission - but don't compromise it.
• AcademicElephant: 1945, 1990, and 2006: Some historical perspective.
• streiff: Embracing Defeat
• Robert A. Hahn: Deja Nam All Over Again

Hahn writes: "Iraq is no longer part of the war on terror. Whether that statement is true in any objective sense matters very little. I believe that we are obligated, by the terms of our compact with our fellow American citizens, to treat the statement as if it were true. That is because a majority of our fellow citizens have just voted it to be true."

DEMS: Speaking Conservatively

Captain's Quarters notes that nine of 28 new Dem reps will be "Blue Dogs," and that the House caucus will now number 44. Captain Ed says that thin majorities "amplify the importance of factions such as the Blue Dogs, and they intend to take advantage of it." Meanwhile, Hotline's Josh Kraushaar weighs in on a Real Clear Politics discussion of whether Dem "conservatism" actually helped tip the balance 11/7. "This by no means was a mandate for Dem conservatism..... in most cases, they took advantage of ballot blunders and other ethical snafus by Republicans, plus the uniquely favorable environment for Dems."

On the Dean vs. Carville front, Ezra Klein says that '06 "was not a referendum on the 50 State Strategy. It wouldn't have been had Democrats lost, it isn't now that they've won." Dem gains in places like KS and NH was more tied to the environment than Dean's state party-building. Carville's critique is more "a question of resources: Dean both didn't raise as much as some Democrats thought possible and didn't devote as much to 2006 as some -- like Rahm -- thought necessary. There's an argument to be had there. But it's a different one."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Classic Liberal

If you're a righty blogger, you have a post up today celebrating the life of Milton Friedman. Dynamist Blog's Virginia Postrel writes: "He was a great social scientist, a brilliant popularizer and polemicist, and a mensch. His intellectual influence, on both scholarly economics and the revival of classical liberalism, can hardly be overstated. And, more than any other single person, we can thank him for ending the scourges of the 1970s: inflation and the draft."

LEST WE FORGET: It's Like The Middle East, But Different

Slate hosts a less than vicious exchange between Wolverine Jonathan Chait and Buckeye Aaron Marshall including:

• Chait: "I'm a Michigan graduate and a lifelong fan of the football team. When my non-college-football-fan friends (and here in Washington, D.C., that means almost all of them) inquire about Michigan-Ohio State, they assume the two sides are mirror images. Sort of the way political novices think of the Israel-Arab conflict. In many ways we are alike, but we are different in one critical respect: Ohio State fans are insane hooligans. Not all of them, of course. Not even most. But enough of them."
• Marshall: "spare me the notion that Michigan doesn't care about this game. Your coach revealed this week that he's been practicing for Ohio State all year long. And we haven't forgotten that Michigan fans were in an ugly, coach-firing mood after the Buckeyes snatched another win away in Ann Arbor last year. Besides, any team whose fans willingly wear maize-and-blue checkered pants in public is pretty into the game.

Blogometer Update

The Gates Of Heck

  TPM's David Kurtz is eager to get hearings underway on the nomination of Bob Gates for Defense Secretary... provided that it occurs in January, after the Democrats take over the Senate.

I don't completely understand, quite frankly [is why] Senate Democrats are not demanding full hearings on the Gates nomination after the first of the year.  No one is eager for Rumsfeld to hold the post for a minute longer than necessary, but what better way for Democrats to begin to exert control over Iraq policy.

  Kurtz sees something else at work as well:

One reason the President may be trying to get the Gates nomination through the lame-duck Republican Senate before Democrats take control of the Senate in January is old animosity between Gates and Senator-elect Jim Webb (D-VA), according to Bob Novak. ... Whatever.  In Novak's world, all politics is petty paybacks and trifling personal slights.

  After further reflection, Kurtz has more to say later in the day about his original point:

There is another thing I would point out about the importance of a Democratic-led confirmation hearing on Bob Gates.  The point of such a hearing would not be to torpedo his nomination, but rather to put down some markers on Iraq and attempt to define the parameters within which the Administration will operate going forward.

I don't have much confidence that [key] questions will be addressed in GOP-led hearings.  The thrust of Republican questioning will be, You're not Don Rumsfeld, right?  End of story.

The temptation will be--already is--to dump the Iraq disaster in Rumsfeld's lap and be satisfied that just about anything and anyone will be better than Rumsfeld.  First, that ignores the continuing role of the President and Vice President.  Second, it seems to me that we are at a crossroads, with many options before us.  Simply saying any road is better than the one we just came down is irresponsible.  There are real choices to be made at this juncture.

  "After the 1968 elections," Kurtz wraps, "not many Americans would probably have guessed that we would be in Vietnam for another six and a half years.  We're at a similarly decisive moment now."

  Thoughtful TPM reader BM explores the "political ramifications" of a delay tactic:

[I]f the Republicans are saying the want Gates in and Rumsfeld out next week, how do the Dems respond?  Should they say they want hearings delayed until they take over in January, then a month or more of hearings and a final vote in March?  That is basically saying they want 5 more months of Rumsfeld.  It's not a winning position.  Further, it allows the Republicans to blame the next 400 American deaths on the Dems by pointing out they kept Rumsfeld in even after the "realist Republicans" wanted him out.

  Kurtz responds deftly:

I agree that these are political considerations that need to be addressed.  But they strike me as relatively easy to dispense with.  Bush is responsible for the first six years of Rumsfeld's reign of terror at the Pentagon, and nothing says Rumsfeld has to remain until his successor is chosen.  Ultimately, though, the focus should be on the President.  Iraq is his policy, not Rumsfeld's.  If he's worried about how long it will take to replace Rumsfeld, he shouldn't have waited until now to start the wheels in motion.

  With more emails on the subject coming in, Kurtz notes "a split among readers" on the timing of the hearings.  Reader JW:

[T]hey don't have anything on Gates that would prevent him from becoming Defense Secretary.  It's pretty clear they're going to have to work with Gates; why make him the whipping boy from the outset?  He hasn't done anything wrong yet and isn't likely to know very much more about Iraq right now than the senators do.  I think it's better to take the high road with this nomination, since we all agree we want Rumsfeld out, let Gates get his feet, and ask him in January what he's come up with.

I think the "use nomination hearings as a bully pulpit" logic shows that the Democrats are still thinking like a minority party.  They got the subpoena power, they got the committees, they can open any can of worms any they want to and don't have to snipe at the Administration from the bushes.  Let the rabbits through now and hunt elephants in January.

  Reader EC, meanwhile, sides with Kurtz:

It really is important to maintain that the problems with Iraq don't simply go away with Rumsfeld's departure.  The administration OWNS this one, and whether Rumsfeld leaves immediately or lingers until a successor is confirmed should not matter. ... Democrats should support an extensive, reasonable examination of any nominee for any position; that can't and won't happen if they appear too timid to challenge the administration on the timing.

Foleygate Creaks Opens Wider

  As quickly as the Mark Foley scandal seems to have dissipated into the haze of post-election blues, Pachacutec at Firedoglake is not giving up on it.  Especially when big, fat questions tantalizingly present themselves as new info is revealed.  With help from The Next Hurrah's emptywheel, Pach propounds:

The source for breaking the Mark Foley story on the Internet through the mysterious, new website "Stop Sex Predators" has been uncovered.  He's a moonlighting employee at the Human Rights Campaign.  Or, he was an employee at the Human Rights Campaign.  They fired him right after the story of his role in damaging the Republican party right before the election became public, for "misusing the group's resources."  What "resources" might those be?

Lane Hudson, 29, the activist behind the web site ... [and] a former White House intern, says he had been the recipient of non-sexual emails from Foley when he himself was young, but since then had learned more about Foley's activities.  Where?  He won't say.  All of which raises the question: where did Mr. Hudson learn about Mark Foley's predations?

  Pach especially wants to know more about the involvement of former House clerk Jeff Trandahl, who, "interestingly enough, sits on the Board of the HRC."

The former House clerk seems to have had in depth knowledge of the Foley story and all its ugly permutations for quite some time, while the House GOP covered it all up. ... Was Trandahl pushed out of his Clerk's job, perhaps over objections he may have had to the coverup?  Did he launder revenge through Mr. Hudson, or was he complicit in the coverup?  Did the HRC want to bury the information?  If not, why was Mr. Hudson fired?

  He excoriates the HRC for its "ineffectiveness as a political lobbying outfit, and demands to know more about its complicity in the whole case, if any: "[I]f the HRC had any part in sitting on any knowledge of the Mark Foley story to protect its friends in the Republican party or to sustain its branding as a 'non-partisan' (read: neutered by Republicans) organization, the HRC should cease to exist."

  At any rate, Pachacutec is itching to know the whole story, and even urges Hudson to contact him to get some of the nagging questions answered.  Despite some knocks in the comment thread for blogging "old news," doubtless Pach and firedoglake will stay on this until the dam, in whatever literal guise, breaks.

Reid It And Freep

  Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, on his way to prison, has a lovely parting gift for federal prosecutors that has them all atwitter.  He claims to have the dirt on "seriously corrupt" Democratic senators and on erstwhile electoral genius, Karl Rove.  But with his ample self off to jail, "prosecutors' easy access to Abramoff has now ended," write Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz at The Blotter.  But the court has thrown the feds a bone:

ABC News has learned that the court has granted a request from prosecutors that Abramoff be incarcerated at the closest prison to Washington, D.C., the Federal Correction Institute in Cumberland, Md., where Abramoff is expected to report tomorrow.

  Bloggers, particularly on the right, didn't hesitate to name the Senate Dems that Abramoff was likely to rat out (Dorgan, Kerry, Murray et al.).  It's not new information, but crowing about it just as gloating Democrats are about to take over the House is some salve for the wounds of a bloodied GOP and its loyalists.

  But tops on the right-wing's list of "Corruptocrats" is pending Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was "named in the first group of politicians to be investigated in the Abramoff scandal" and has been the recent target of Associated Press strafer John Solomon.  Nothing would be sweeter for wound-licking righties than to nail "the same Democrats who tried exploiting the scandal for electoral advantage this year," as Captain Ed writes at his Quarters.

  But not all rightys are so quick to pile onto the bandwagon.  John at Powerline is leery of affording too much legitimacy to a vague investigation that could further entangle reeling Republicans as it stains a handful of Dems:

Have Abramoff's purported "revelations" actually yielded evidence against anyone?  Possibly Bob Ney; I'm not sure whether the offense he pled guilty to was Abramoff-related or not.  Otherwise, as far as I know, nobody.

Lots of people ... are now buzzing about the report--anonymous, of course--that Abramoff has provided information on "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic Senators."  Well, maybe.  But the definition of "corruption" that seems to be operative here is that A) someone contributed money to a Congressman's or Senator's campaign, and B) the Congressman or Senator subsequently did something that person approved of.  This isn't corruption, it's democracy.

  "Abramoff might have something on someone," John wraps cautiously, "but I'll have to see the goods..."  And weigh the cost, no doubt.

[Mike Sheehan]

11/16: The Great Webb Hope?

If there's one thing that unites the netroots outside of opposition to the Iraq war and dislike of Pres. Bush, it's economic populism. With his 11/15 Wall Street Journalop-ed , on "Class Struggle" Sen.-elect James Webb (D-VA) is rapidly becoming a lefty favorite. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas' labor friends tell him Webb "is a MAJOR key to bring back white men to the Democratic party." Was '06 the beginning of the return of Reagan Democrats to the Dems?

GOP LEADERSHIP: Campaigns Have Consequences

RedState's House GOP sources tell Erick Erickson that Rep. John Boehner (OH) forced Rep. Joe Barton (TX) out of the race for Majority Leader by threatening to "strip Barton of his ranking position on the Energy & Commerce Committee." Erickson does note "there was no threat from Boehner's office" but does report: "several House staffers ... all say Congressman Boehner, through a third party, did make it clear to Congressman Barton that if he did not back down there would be consequences."

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin first shares the thoughts of a "conservative Hill aide" who claimed Boehner's office quick release of their statement praising Barton's exit was "telling." Martin later clarifies that Boehner's office put out their statement after Barton's committee office sent out their announcement, but before Barton's personal office did. Martin adds, "and therein lies the issue." Also at The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez hears Rep. Mike Pence (IN) picked up support at his 11/15 Republican Study Committee appearance.

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer compiles a list of "conservative bloggers, media, intelligentsia and other leaders who have either endorsed or (where indicated) strongly hinted (or I have interpreted their remarks to be strong hints) at support for Mike Pence for Minority Leader." The list includes: Red State, Human Events, David Keene, ACU, National Review editors (sort of), Robert Novak (hinted), Wall Street Journal (hinted), Kim Priestap, The Washington Examiner, Captain's Quarters, Dick Morris (a semi-conservative, sometimes) (hint), Club for Growth, Right Wing News, Jon Henke, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Investors Business Daily (hint), Laura Ingraham (hint), Larry Kudlow, Fred Barnes (hint), Tapscott's Copy Desk. The Right Angle adds Rush Limbaugh to the pro-Pence camp.

On the other hand, National Review Online's David Frum stands athwart the righty blogosphere and yells "stop-Pence." Frum reasons: "The minority leader's role resembles that of the coach of a weaker team or the general of a retreating army: it requires enormous discipline and skill to choose one's moments, target the opponents' weaknesses, avoid battle at the wrong time, seize opportunity at the right time. ... That's why I find Mike Pence's past support for the so-called Pence immigration compromise so troubling. It's not that I demand perfect ideological orthodoxy from would-be leaders - far from it. But looking back on that strange episode I worry about something else: Pence got suckered."

In the Minority Whip race, National Review Online's Jonathan Martin summarizes Rep. Roy Blunt's (M0) nine-page memo detailing how Blunt plans to take back the House by forcing "the Democrats to be Democrats" by proposing "amendments and substitutes that could be politically damaging" to "60 Democratic members from districts where President Bush won in 2004." The Right Angle's Robert Bluey says the memo shows Blunt "is in search of a new message in hopes of rescuing his campaign."

GOP LEADERSHIP II: "Survivor: The Isle of Crappy Republican Leadership."

Righty bloggers are almost universally unhappy with Sen. Trent Lott's (MS) narrow victory in the Minority Whip race:

• National Review Online's Andrew Stuttaford: "Thanks a Lott"
• RedState's Charles Bird: "This is a bad beginning. The Republicans got drubbed earlier this month in part because of profligate pork-barrel spending yet, before the dust has even settled on the abysmal election results just over a week ago, the caucus elected to leadership one of the biggest pigs in the federal trough.
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "You Guys Are Killin' Me, Part 87,458 ... This season: voting off everyone who could have a shot at turning the flailing party around! Next episode? Boehner and Blunt earn immunity! Season finale? George Bush and Karl Rove beat out DeLay, Boehner, Blunt, Lott, and Frist by forming a smart alliance with Martinez."
• Michelle Malkin: "Another GOP Maalox moment"
• Right Wing News:"Does the GOP Need Another Thumpin' in 2008 to Get the Message?"

It's left to RCP Blog's John McIntyre to make the pro-Lott case: "I suspect it is a triumph for Republicans in the Senate who want to take a considerably more aggressive posture with the new Democratic majority. ... Lott's win can be read as a sign that Senate Republicans are gearing up to be an aggressive and effective minority, and his ascension back into the ranks of the leadership is probably a very smart tactical move by the GOP."

Very little commentary on the election of Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) to Senate min. leader, but Townhall's Hugh Hewitt does like the move and links to a transcript of McConnell's appearance on Hewitt's show.

MCCAIN: Maybe There's Stuff In His Record That Whispers Liberal

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin likes the look of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "Ansel Adams sorta black-and-white" looking exploratory committee website. Meanwhile, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff isn't crazy about Hotline editor Chuck Todd's assertion that "there's nothing in [McCain's] record that screams 'liberal.'" Mirengoff responds: "His lack of conservative support stems, I think, from the positions he has taken on vital issues like campaign finance reform, immigration, tax cuts, and interrogation of terrorists. Joining the gang of 14 didn't help either. To the extent that conservatives dislike McCain, it may have less to do with the media's admiration (a factor, to be sure) than with McCain's tendency to demonize conservatives who disagree with him. But as he gears up to run for president again, McCain has become less of a demonizer. That, and perhaps the opportunism of some conservatives, should boost McCain's prospects."

ROMNEY: 2/3 Of NRO Cruisers Can't Be Wrong

National Review skipper Rich Lowry reports from the post-election NR cruise that MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) "clearly did best with about 2/3 of the crowd supporting him" in a "u.s.s. nr straw poll." Lowry adds: "Giuliani was second, and McCain and Gingrich tied in distant third."

The Right Angle, however, objects to claims that Romney is "continuing to lock up the right-wing mag vote" writing: "I'd like to point out that at HUMAN EVENTS we actually believe in taking a hard look at a candidate's credentials and policy positions before rushing to judgment. Of course, we consider our publication a NEWSpaper, so I suppose it doesn't really matter." The MI Cooler wonders: "Why is Romney so Quiet? Michigan used to hear from Mitt Romney quite often - but not much recently.

THOMPSON: Why Why Not?

IA's Caucus Cooler can't figure out "what's more telling about Tommy Thompson's revelation: that the story was broken in the Des Moines Register by Tony Leys or that the phrase "Why Not" was prominently involved." CC explains: "We at the Cooler have spent the last 15 months religiously reading political articles in the Register and have never seen this guys byline before today. Also in reflecting the seriousness with which the Iowa "Paper of Record" takes Thompson's candidacy they gave the story 5 grafs. Thompson then goes on to make this announcement by saying, "I hope so, "Why not? I'm from the Midwest. There should be a Midwestern candidate for president." RCP Blog's Tom Bevan is also underwhelmed.

DEM FIELD: How Much Drafting Does Joe Biden Really Need?

Netroots fundraising clearinghouse ActBlue has set up a page enabling activists to contribute money to their favorite '08 hopeful: "Money collected in the draft funds will be held until the prospective candidate forms a presidential campaign committee, at which point the funds will be transferred to the campaign. Should the candidate not enter the race by the time of the Democratic National Convention, funds will be sent to the DNC." The 15 candidate list includes the usual suspects and Al Gore, DNC chair Howard Dean, and NJ Gov. Jon Corzine.

DEM LEADERSHIP: Kossacks Love A Winner

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas polled his readers on the job performance of leading Dems 11/15 and included results from similar 7/20 polls. For everybody but DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel, victory breads approval.

Do you approve of the way DNC Chairman Howard Dean is doing his job?
11/15:
Yes 96 %
No 3 %
7/20:
Approve 90 %
Disapprove 7 %
Don't know 1 %

Do you approve of the way Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is doing his job?
11/15:
Yes 80 %
No 19 %
7/20:
Approve 70 %
Disapprove 24 %
Don't know 4 %

Do you approve of the way House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is doing her job?
11/15:
Yes 86 %
No 13 %
7/20:
Approve 36 %
Disapprove 52 %
Don't Know 10 %

Do you approve of Chuck Schumer's job?
11/15:
Yes 75 %
No 24 %
7/20:
Approve 27 %
Disapprove 62 %
Don't know 9 %

Do you approve of the Rahm Emanuel's job?
11/15:
Yes 38 %
No 61 %
7/20:
Approve 30 %
Disapprove 57 %
Don't know 11 %

DEMS: If We Had Ten Divisions Of Jim Webbs ...

Sen.-elect James Webb's (D-VA) 11/15 op-ed is quickly making him a star of lefty bloggers. Reax include:

• TAPPED's Ezra Klein Jim Webb's Wall Street Journal op-ed today is a full-throated blast of up-with-the-people populism. ... He's explicitly tying his beloved white ethnics (he has, in the past, written a book glorifying that under-glorified and undernoted white ethnic group, the Scots-Irish) to Hispanic immigrants, setting both in opposition to the Protestant overclass (and possibly Jews). He's not, it would seem, a neopopulist. He's an actual populist. An old-style populist.
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher quoting an Agonist email: "The US is ripe for populism, and getting riper by the year. One day some politician is going to realize there's a bunch of nitro fuel lying around. I hope it's an FDR, but it doesn't have to be."
• a labor friend of DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "This is the bluntest appeal on behalf of working class Americans, combined with a scathing critique of the inequities of American society, I've heard from any Senator in years, maybe since the death of Wellstone. Edwards/Webb, Obama/Webb, Richardson/Webb in '08--this guy is a MAJOR key to bring back white men to the Democratic party. I wish we had a dozen of him!"
• Atrios: "At this point I don't care if we call it liberal, populist, or conservative. Maybe it'll take a guy like Webb to move this conversation forward.

On the right, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan notes Lou Dobbs has picked up on the "Lou Dobbs Democrat" meme: "Lou Dobbs declares, "I'm a damn proud populist" in the midst of this tirade against his critics on both the left and the right who've been using the term "Lou Dobbs Democrats." He's kinda angry."

In a similar vein The Huffington Post's James Pinkerton argues that populist Reagan Democrats may start seeing policy victories "because America's diminishing clout around the world is undermining the internationalist faith that sustained the elites of both parties. And as the elites retreat from internationalism, they will inevitably default back to nationalism, which has always been the redoubt of the Reagan Democrats." And at Right Wing News, John Hawkins addresses his pro-trade skeptical readers.

CARVILLE: All The Rage

Crooks and Liars has video of one of James Carville's latest anti-Howard Dean remarks. Carville says that Dem candidates "go out and risk everything," and "deserve every bit of support ... that they can get." Carville: "They got it from the [DCCC]. They got it from the [DSCC]. They did not get from it the DNC." At Cox News Service's blog, Scott Shepard reports on further Carville remarks during a breakfast with reporters. Asked to describe Dean's DNC leadership, Carville calls it "Rumsfeldian in its competence." Specifically, Carville says the DNC sat on $6M it could have spent to possibly pick up even more seats than the 30 or so they won.

At Daily Kos, mcjoan wonders if Carville is "Emanuel's Sockpuppet," referring to the DCCC chair. "What 20 other House seats would those be, Carville? And what about that $6 million that Emanuel sunk into just two losing campaigns, Duckworth's and Farrell's? Obviously James Carville is not a stupid man. ... So what's the explanation? ... Covering for Emanuel because he either ignored or got into the third tier of races so late?" MyDD's Chris Bowers says Carville doesn't like Dean for two reasons, the first because Dean "does not trash other Democrats, and Carville prefers Democrats who throw their own party under the bus. The second is that he is a political consultant, and as such many of his friends have gotten rich off of commissions from television advertisements. As far as he is concerned, all donations to all Democratic committees exist so that he and his friends can get richer. Since Howard Dean is spending money on field organizers and grants to state parties, his friends tend to not get rich from the money the DNC raised." Bowers also points out the DCCC's record in its 15 targeted races.

Earlier, Bowers said that every time Carville "opens his mouth like he did today, I'm just going to keep dumping more of this oppo." First, he poitns to a 6/00 Washington Monthly piece in which Carville and Paul Begala tout ex-Sen. Zell Miller (GA) as a VP pick for Al Gore. Meanwhile, Jane Hamsher says Carville's "cartoon cracker schtick has been usurped almost wholly within the party by Mudcat Saunders, who has actually managed to win a few races in this century."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Way Out Of His League

An Andrew Sullivan reader defends (kind of) Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators from Sullivan's attacks:

However, politics is a contact sport. Limbaugh and his fellow travelers are promoting a political program. They have to be team players. They have to hold their tongue when the coaches (President Bush, Hastert, etc.) call dumb plays. They are cheerleaders who are exhorting their listeners to beat the Democrats and the Left in America. Anyone with experience in teams (corporate, athletic, military) that actually function effectively with coordinated action knows that the individual must subordinate his will to the team's goals. It's childish to call a team member a lackey or a hypocrite for sticking with his teammates and refusing to publicly criticize the coaches even if he doesn't like the plays being called.

So cut them some slack. Of course, they cannot engage you on the same level with the same intellectual openness that you demand. That would compromise their mission and their livelihood. Pick on someone in your own league who doesn't get dirty in the arena of political combat.

LEST WE FORGET: We Love The '80s Week Continues

Noting the re-emergence of "Robert Gates, Jim Baker, and other Bush 41ers coming in to rescue Bush 43" Extreme Mortman observes the WH "timing was a bit off" for this announcement:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 15, 2006, as America Recycles Day.

11/15: For Those Of You Keeping Score At Home

For the most part, the netroots have chosen to enjoy their role in the Dems' victory 11/7 instead of focussing on settling scores related to the bruising primary and general-election battles between Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT). Don't pretend for a second, though, that bloggers weren't keeping score of which Dem leaders went to bat for Lamont and which stayed in the dugout. Lamont's official campaign blogger, Tim Tagaris, has a Daily Kos diary up on the race that includes takes on '08 hopeful performances. In short: Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), ex-Gen. Wesley Clark (D), and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) did well; Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), John Edwards (D) did not.

DEM FIELD: Results Of The CT SEN Primary

The netroots made it clear early on to '08 aspirants that they would be paying close attention to how potential candidates handled Lamont's candidacy. As part of a broader must-read post-mortem on the race, Tagaris includes a section "I know you all have been waiting for" on "The Democratic Party, What They Said, Who Was Naughty, Who Was Nice." Entries relevant to '08 include:

• Barack Obama: "Quite possibly the biggest disappointment ... period. While on his book tour, he was in NYC one day, had a scheduled day off, and appeared in Massachusetts the following day. Yet he couldn't make time to stop in the state between the two on his day off. We made it explicitly clear he was the single senator we wanted in the state above all others. He declined."
• Hillary Clinton: "No single senator was quicker to send out $5,000 check after the primary (accompanied by a press release). ... Whatever the reasons, Hillary as an individual was a net positive to our effort."
• ex-Pres. Bill Clinton: "President Clinton, on the other hand, probably provided the singular destructive post-primary moment of anyone outside the campaign. He provided every national Democrat the cover they needed to stay out of the race in one single moment on Larry King Live. He said he wasn't too concerned about who won the election between Ned and Joe. Mind you, this was post-primary, and he was pretty much the first big-name national Democrat to do so."
• Senator Edwards: "When the spotlight wore with time and more races claimed a share of the attention, there were a few people who stuck around and actually held Joe's feet to the fire on Iraq and other issues ... Senator Edwards just wasn't one of them. I'm sorry. I wish he was, but he wasn't."
• John Kerry: "One of two rock stars for the campaign. He refused to endorse Joe Lieberman in the primary. He basically made a mockery of Joe by saying he doesn't get involved in contested primaries despite campaigning for Jim Webb against Harris Miller a few days earlier."
• Wes Clark: "Another rock-star."
• Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer: "open and public discussions about Joe Lieberman remaining with the caucus and retaining seniority if re-elected really put a hamper on anything we could toss at his "experience/seniority" schtick. Tom Swan, the campaign manager who will have more on this soon, thinks the pair were two of the more destructive forces post-primary, but I don't have enough first-hand information to put out anything substantive."

DEM LEADERSHIP: Freshman Fave?

Netroots support for Rep. John Murtha (PA) over Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) for majority leader continues to solidify and strengthen. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong even reports that his Hill Sources have Murtha "ahead by about 25 votes overall, which has come about from the standing members after Nancy Pelosi's letter." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas explains his ambivalence about the race is due to Murtha's ethics perception problems and reports that his freshman sources suggest the in coming class "are gung-ho on Hoyer."

Rep. John Larson (CT) is the latest member to post their Murtha endorsement at The Huffington Post: "I will be voting for Jack Murtha for Majority Leader because of his outstanding leadership qualities developed in the Marines and honed during more than thirty years in the House of Representatives. I will also be voting for him because America has listened to Jack Murtha and embraced his message by electing a Democratic Congress." MyDD's Matt Stoller and Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat both voice support for Murtha on grounds that "The public voted for change in Iraq. Only Jack Murtha represents that change."

The Plank's Michael Crowley links to a list of Hoyer endorsements including: "Attentive House- watchers won't be surprised to learn that Jane Harman has also come out for Steny." On the impending choice between Harman and Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL) for chair of the Intel. Cmte. TPM Cafe's Kenneth Baer argues that after supporting ABSCAM tainted Murtha, Speaker elect Nancy Pelosi (CA) can not afford to choose "a former federal judge who was impeached by an overwhelming vote of a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for taking a $150,000 bribe." Baer adds: "The optics of backing Hastings over the eminently qualified Harman are horrendous: Democrats elected to clean up Washington, and the only senior member passed over for a chairmanship is pushed aside for an impeached judge."

Matthew Yglesias, however, wants no part of a nominee with "all the wrong friends -- AIPAC, liberal hawks like Ken Baer, Marty Peretz." But Yglesias also forwards a more substantive Harman objection: "Harman is, generally speaking, a foreign policy hawk. What's more, like all people who voted for the Iraq War, she has a problem investigating the administration's pre-war manipulation of intelligence. In short, it's hard to fully expose this story without also exposing the extent to which the pro-war Democrats on the intelligence committees botched their own oversight jobs."

In other netroots leadership thoughts, MyDD's Jonathan Singer is happy to have Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) back at the DSCC and AMERICAblog's John Aravosis celebrates Rep. Rahm Emanuel (IL): "The guy is an asshole, to be sure. But he's our asshole. And it's about time we had one."

GOP LEADERSHIP: A Firing Offense?

The Truth Laid Bear is the resource for tracking the blogging outreach efforts of GOP leadership candidates. Rep. Mike Pence (IN)leads the league in blogger related items including audio from a 11/14 conference call, a transcript of the call, and commentary from Extreme Mortman, RedState, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Right Wing News, and Josue Sierra. Reps. Roy Blunt (MO) and John Shadegg (AZ) also have plenty of material up, but for Blunt it is not nearly as positive. The Right Angle's Robert Bluey "Fails" Blunt on his conference call reporting that Blunt "just botched question after question."

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin debunks rumors of draft-Rep. Eric Cantor (VA) movement should Blunt stumble and identifies the leaders of Blunt's campaign team including: Reps. Roger Wicker (MS), Bob Goodlatte (VA), Lamar Smith (TX), John Mica (FL), and Jerry Weller (IL).

The righty 'sphere remains uniformly behind Pence's candidacy and other pro-Pence postings include:

• National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopezpostsaudioof Pence's appearance on Laura Ingraham radio show including: "He no longer supports the "Compromise Plan' that he did over the summer."
• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "One discordant note came when Pence insisted that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between him and the president on the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Since the president's views on the war on Iraq and especially the larger war against radical Islam have become rather opaque over the last couple of years, I don't have a clue as to what he meant by this."
• Tim Chapman: " I have posted the video of today's meeting for anyone interested. I have made no secret of my admiration of Mr. Pence on this blog. He is a straightforward conservative with a gift for communicating. As usual, he lived up to his billing today. Whether or not he wins his bid for Minority Leader, he is an invaluable asset and the sooner GOP establishment recognizes that the better."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: ""This election is a lot more like running for Senior Class President, which is a race I won," [Pence] said. Don't let that discourage you, folks. Call your Congressmen and women and tell them you are looking for a change, for new leadership, for an understanding of the message voters sent last week. They need to hear what you think."

RedState's Erick Erickson follows up his Pence conference call coverage with a hit on Rep. John Boehner for having too "cozy a relationship with the K Street community." Erickson continues: "It is very important that Republicans and Conservatives learn the right lessons from this election. Make no mistake, losing 30 seats is a bad loss. Any CEO and his entire team would be fired if his company suffered such a loss."

In the race for Conference Chair, Townhall's Dean Barnett found Rep. Dan Lungren (R) to be a star: "Articulate, smart, humorous and well-informed, Lungren dazzled." Also, Captain's Quarters backed Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) for Minority Whip.

BAYH: The Great Red Hope?

The KY Democrat sat down with Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) including this '08 exchange:

DS: A lot of pundits were saying that if you were able to help in turning over the 3 seats in IN that it would help your potential candidacy in 2008. Any thoughts on the matter?EB: Our victories in Indiana offer a great example to the Democratic Party of how to win in Red America. Brad, Joe, and Baron were able to convince independents and moderate republicans to put their trust in the Democratic Party. These are the exact same voters that we will need if we want to keep these majorities and win the White House in 2008.

ROMNEY: There Really Should Be A Law Against This Level Of Stalking

National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez continued her unabashed love-affair with MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) noting Romney's efforts to "lock up the right-wing mag vote" with an address to the American Spectator's annual dinner and linking to YouTube of "a friendly profile on the evangelical 700 Club."

GINGRICH: We Didn't Know Gingrich Was Such A Project Runway Fan

RedState's Mark R reports ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) stole the show at a joint Allscripts Healthcare Solutions/Center for Health Transformation new conference: "When commenting further on the current state of the GOP, he referenced Ronald Reagan's 1974 speech to CPAC after a mid-term election defeat, where he stated that we need "bold colors - not pale pastels." ... As I was listening to Newt speak, I couldn't help but think further about the possibility of a White House run in '08. ... Newt said that he is working on the issues now, but if he felt that if it was right to run for the White House, then he certainly has not ruled out the possibility of heading back to the campaign trail."

RNC: Borders On The Absurd

At The Corner, Ex-Hotliner Jonathan Martin dissects the selection of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) as RNC chair. "The message sent ... is that the WH wants the GOP to be seen as a big-tent party. But I'm not talking about the broader message they had in mind by picking a Hispanic, I mean the inside one, directed at the party's immigration hard-liners. Remember, Martinez was a key player in engineering the Senate immigration bill earlier this year." Michelle Malkin notes Martinez's saying "I was not going to be an attack dog, and I don't intend to, and I wasn't asked to be one." Malkin: "Okay, we get it. You won't be an 'attack dog.' You'll be a roll over-and-fetch dog. Just what we need going up against Howard Dean."Iowa Voice : "When did we become a bunch of feel good, granola-munching hippies?? Grow a pair and get out there and FIGHT, dammit!'"

TPM's Kiel notes that ex-Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) guilty plea includes a confession that he lobbied Martinez when he was HUD sec. "Just two months after he left HUD" to run for SEN in '04, "his campaign netted $250,000 from a fundraiser co-chaired by Abramoff."

Defending the pick, Wizbang Politics' Jim Addison: "I am distressed by the vitriol from conservative bloggers at his nomination. This comes from two sources: those who believe Michael Steele should have been chosen, and those who don't like Martinez' support of comprehensive immigration reform." On the Steele front: "Steele ... is not a conservative, not a supporter of the President, and not able to convert black voters. His attractiveness is . . . what, again?" And on immigration: "How awful he supported the President's position instead of a bunch of internet ranters! Oh, by the way -- WHO appoints the RNC Chairman? Hint: it isn't you."

Back at the CornerK-Lo spoke to a Beltway conservative who "was aggravated" by the pick, but has hope in Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) heading up the NRSC. "He will run that thing, not this part time crap from Martinez, and he is brilliantly conservative, great on fiscal issues, good on immigration, life, etc."

DEM STRATEGY: Somewhere, Howard Dean Is Smiling Softly

Noting Thomas Schaller's new book, "Whistling Past Dixie," which advocates for a lasting Dem majority while ignoring the South, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong compares the notion to the 50-State Strategy: "What makes the 50 state strategy so important and strong, is that it changes the paradigm that the Republicans have created in the last 4 decades. For Democrats to try and turn the table on them, using the same method, leaves me lacking. There's no reason to denigrate the south. As Schaller writes, the Republicans make it a point that it's liberals in the northeast, not the northeast, that they are attacking (just as Bush & Rove point out that its not Democrats' patriotism that they are attacking when they make treasonist-like accusations against Democrats). ... The national Democratic Party has an historical obligation to win the battle of ideas in the south, and to opt out of that, or to run against it, would constitute a moral failure."

Big Tent Democrat, though, takes issue with Armstrong's post: "The strategy is NOT to denigrate the South, it is to NOT kowtow to it. It is to paint the GOP as extreme and unacceptable. Not to paint the South as anything. It is to use the power of negative branding against the GOP, NOT against the South. Armstrong misunderstands the difference between national branding and the 50 state strategy of devolution of power to state parties. He really muddles the entire subject. Not his best by a long shot."

Speaking of 50 states, MyDD's dreaminonempty has some very cool maps of performance by party on 11/7.

Firedoglake's Jordan Barab credits labor with pushing Dems over the "finish line." Barab hails "the return to supremacy of labor's get out the vote effort, as well as labor's influence over the outcome of the election. For the first time in the last couple of elections, labor's get-out-the-vote effort apparently bested Karl Roves GOTV," according to post-election polling.

BUSH: Where Does The Buck Stop Again?

Hotline's Chuck Todd wrote in his "On The Trail" column last week that there is "plenty of evidence to suggest" that Bush "may have been the deciding factor that killed the GOP's momentum in some key Senate races." Some righties aren't totally buying it.

Real Clear Politics' Bevan: "Todd cites the exit polls for Missouri, which do indeed show late breakers going to McCaskill, though it's impossible to say that had anything to do with Bush's visit." On MT, Todd "cites 'anecdotal evidence' to support his argument that Bush somehow stopped Burns' momentum, when in fact those very same exit polls" show the opposite. "In any case, it's impossible to say how much Bush's last-minute visits had to do with the outcome in either of these races." At The Corner, John Podhoretz agrees on the MT front. "You can't say Bush was the reason Republicans lost in Missouri and Montana ... when you use one criterion for Missouri and an entirely different criterion for Montana. In that case, you're just using whatever you can to make a point you want to make."

Meanwhile, ex-House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay does his own post-election handicapping at Red State: "this election was not so much won by the Democrats as it was lost by the Republicans. Too many Republicans failed to continue an aggressive fight for the principles which bring us together as Republicans and as conservatives."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A 72 DPI Is Worth A Thousand Blog Posts

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas has "a tip for all elected officials and campaigns -- please have a media section on your site with photos for download. You'll need the hi-res photos newspapers and magazines use, as well 72 dpi ones for web use. The web ones should be no bigger than 400 px wide."

Kos continues: "Elected officials and candidates wouldn't show up to events all disheveled and looking like crap. So why don't they offer media outlets the ability to provide pictures of them looking the best possible? If you want to see how to do it, check out Jerry McNerney's press photo page. Now there's a guy who understood the value of giving media -- online and off -- the ability to present him in the best possible light. So spring for a professional photog, not some campaign intern with a digital camera. That investment will pay huge dividends."

LEST WE FORGET: The Mile-High Bandits

Outside the Beltway links to an AFPstory on a Southwest Airlines passengers Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell arrests violating the Patriot Act. AFP's story includes:

"Persing was observed nuzzling or kissing Sewell on the neck, and ... with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area. During these actions, Sewell was observed smiling," reads the indictment filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

OTB comments: "Let's stipulate that the seats of a commercial airliner filled with other passengers is an inappropriate venue for sexual exploration. Can we nonetheless agree that this is not what the PATRIOT Act was aimed at? ... Because flight attendants theoretically have extraordinary responsibility during certain emergencies, we have anointed them with extraordinary status in response to the 9/11 attacks. The problem with that is that, on 99.99% of all flights, they are essentially cocktail waitresses. They bring passengers pillows, snacks, and collect our garbage. Let us not transform them into Texas Rangers."

11/14: "The Harriet Miers Of RNC Chairs"

It's notoriously hard to measure the effect bloggers have on events in DC. While the netroots receive no arguments when claiming they defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) in 8/06, it's less clear (outside of Dan Rather) how many scalps righty bloggers can claim. They played roles in Sen. Trent Lott's (R-MS) exit from leadership as well as the withdrawal of WH counsel Harriet Miers nomination to SCOTUS. The frosty reception for Sen. Mel Martinez's (R-FL) RNC chair nomination has set up another Blogger vs. Beltway battle. Can the blogging base of the GOP send the WH another message?

RNC: Kos To Lead "Martinez For Chairman" Campaign

Sen. Mel Martinez's nomination to RNC chair is sparking outrage in the righty blogosphere. RedState's Thomas claims "a lobotomized sea lion" could do a better job, but the line most picked up throughout the right 'sphere belonged to RedState commenter spainishirish who described Martinez as "The Harriet Miers of RNC chairs."

Both Hot Air and RedState have polls up showing readers overwhelmingly against the Martinez nomination. Other negative righty reax include:

• Right Angle Blog's Robert Bluey writes: "GOP Overtly Panders to Hispanics"
• Right Wing News reports: "I talked to more than a half dozen bloggers and congressional aides tonight about the selection of Martinez and there was not one soul who was the slightest bit enthusiastic about his selection."
• National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez shares: "The reaction I've heard most often today in response to? "I don't get it."
• Michelle Malkin reminds readers of Martinez's position on immigration and pleads with GOP state chairman to reject the nomination in Jan.

Even DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas chimes in: "This is good for us. ... Republicans think this will make Latinos -- the widest-swinging swing voters today -- more receptive to the GOP. But given he's Cuban, there's a wide culture gap between them and most other Latinos. We're not culturally homogenous. And politically, Cubans have more in common with Vietnamese immigrants than they do other Latino groups."

DEM LEADERSHIP: Pelosi's Power Play

The netroots are generally impressed with putative Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) increasingly forceful support of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for majority leader. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall describes Pelosi's intent to "ensure" Murtha's victory as "a really bold power-play on a number of levels." Marshall continues: "She's staked her authority and credibility on a Murtha victory. And since she represents the caucus, to a degree she's putting the caucus's authority and credibility on the line too, just after the Dems have taken power in the House for the first time in a dozen years."

TPM reader PJ was also impressed: "What I really like about Pelosi's move is that it suggests that she intends to be an aggressive, kickass leader. My biggest fear is that we could have a "business-as-usual" Democratic Congress. Her out-front position on Murtha gives me reason to think that she means business and has big legislative ambitions." Retuning from DC, Arianna Huffington reports the majority leader race "is anything but wrapped up" and shares this "best summation of why Dems should vote for Jack Murtha" from Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA): "The president's worst nightmare is to have to sit at breakfast with Jack Murtha...Jack will be a real leader."

Murtha himself takes to The Huffington Post posting his "Dear Colleague" letter announcing "the endorsement of Speaker-elect Pelosi." A completely unscientific reading HuffPo comments to Murtha's letter shows 99% of them to endorse his run for majority leader with the minority often sounding like this: "There's no denying that Murtha's brave stance on the war deserves credit. However, when it comes to deciding who will occupy a position like this, it's important to look at the individual's broad spectrum of positions."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) posts her support for Murtha at The Huffington Post writing: "That Jack and I don't see eye to eye on these two issues simply is irrelevant to the majority leader position. ... What we have in Jack Murtha is someone courageous enough to speak out on Iraq when others were afraid to do so. ... I hope that netroots can help make his election a reality by letting your representatives know that this matters to you. The 2006 elections are not quite over!" Also at HuffPoFlavia Colgan argues Murtha's "authenticity" makes him the better choice over "ultimate DC-insider" Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

TAPPED's contributors are split on the race with Blake Hounshellarguing Murtha "has done a lot for a struggling district, but he represents an old-school, local party boss kind of patronage politician that we need to move beyond." TAPPED's Ezra Klein and Sam Rosenfeld both support Murtha, but more as a way to support Pelosi than actual love for Murtha: "Given that, this particular contest comes down to how powerful you think Speaker Pelosi should be. In essence, a vote for Murtha is a vote for Pelosi. A vote for Hoyer is a vote against her. And I've few concerns about Pelosi's liberalism."

The Plank, however, has even fewer positive things to say about Murtha. Michael Crowley notes that Murtha is no slouch when it comes to "K Street fundraising prowess" and Bradford Plumer looks at recent Murtha quotes on Iran ("The big problem in the Middle East is Iran," Murtha said. "We went to the wrong place.") and reminds readers that Murtha "has always planted both feet firmly in hawk territory, consistently voting yes on war and yes on outsized Pentagon budgets."

Sometime 11/4, Talking Points Memo will be putting the best reader email questions to Hoyer.

GOP LEADERSHIP: Is This Race Ohio State Vs. Notre Dame, Or Ohio State Vs. Ball State?

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin reports "the contest for Min Leader isn't much of a contest at all." Martin's "multiple GOP sources ... acknowledge that there is a hunger for change ... but but they say RSC Chair/Rep. Mike Pence (IN) is not a popular alternative." Martin fingers three key Rep. John Boehner (OH) allies, including Reps. Pat Tiberi (OH), Mike Rogers (MI), and Dave Reichert (WA) and notes: "Boehner is devoting his time to member contacts, not media appearances."

Martin further reports that Rep. Jeb Hensarling (TX) is running Pence's campaign with help from Reps. Jeff Flake (AZ), Scott Garrett (NJ), and Trent Franks (AZ). Asked why Pence is not sharing their commitments list, a Pence source says: "Because we saw how well that worked out for Roy Blunt." Martin explains: "Blunt, the current Whip, went in to the Maj Leader race in January claiming the necessary votes, only to fall just short on the first ballot before losing the run-off."

Human Events Online is also closely following the leadership race and Right Angle Blog's Matt Lewis celebrates HEO Pence endorsement over NRO's support for Boehner: "The difference of opinion isn't especially noteworthy. What is noteworthy is that Human Events called out National Review for their endorsement. ... But here's why I'm excited about this whole thing. See, the best thing that ever happened to the New York Yankees was the Boston Red Sox (and vice versa). Competition is healthy (as any conservative will tell you). So I'm laying down the gauntlet. One can only hope this degenerates into a West Coast versus East Coast, um, NYC vs. DC thing..."

Captain's Quarters officially endorses Pence and Rep. John Shadegg (AZ) in their races explaining, "Republicans have to make some changes in order to rebuild trust with the American electorate." At Townhall, Mary Katharine Ham has audio and highlights from Rep. Roy Blunt's (MO) chilly blogger reception including this question from Right Angle's Robert Bluey: "You voted for Medicare, NCLB, farm bill, and voted against Rep. Flake's anti-earmark amendments? How could any conservative support you on that record?" Blunt replied: "Well, a lot of conservatives ended up being for those measures. ... Overall scoring on votes, day-in and day-out, I'm one of the more conservative Members. I think you have to look at the overall record."

In other House leadership races RedState barely chooses Rep. Jack Kingston (GA) over Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN) for conference chair, but make it clear they would rather have either over Rep. Adam Putnam (FL). Right Angle Blog links to a pro-Kingston YouTube.

On the Senate side, RedState and National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez endorse Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL) over Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX) for Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair.

GIULIANI: Looking Better Post 11/7?

Despite downplaying his decision to file documents necessary to explore a possible '08 run, right bloggers have plenty to say about a possible ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani run. RedState reader reactions were mostly positive, but strong feelings against were not hard to find:

• Swamp yankee: "I don't know why Rudy polls so high. I don't think people really know him. He's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro gay marriage. He had a bad divorce that derailed his Senate bid. I think people are still smitten with his whole 9/11 thing. He's bad for the party. McCain and Romney are better candidates. This is a total waste of time."
• Hoyasaxa: "He's someone who is willing to take the fight to Islamofascists overseas, cut taxes and spending at home, and not stick his finger in the eye of Republicans just so the media will love him. Plus, he will put all sorts of states in play, which will make the election interesting, and the possibility of a landslide available, which would be key in bringing back a GOP House and Senate."
• OldLineGOP: "If Guiliani opposes Amnesty, he'll win. It will put him to the right of McCain in the GOP primary, and he'll still be moderate enough on other issues to win the general election. I'm an NRA member, but I'd tolerate another Clinton Gun Ban if it meant no amnesty, and no John McCain."

Right Angle Blog's Ross Billings notes Giuliani's strength against Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in past polling and Outside The Beltway describes Giuliani as "the most interesting of the major contenders and the one that offers the best hope toward ending the virtual 50-50 divide that we've been trapped in the last couple of presidential cycles."

MCCAIN: No Wingnuts Here

Just in case you had forgotten how RedStaters feel about Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Machiavel breaks down the '08 field with a strong focus on why McCain must be defeated: "As for John McCain, there is only one possible answer, and that is 'No.' And I'm not an hysterical, unhinged wingnut. I'm for comprehensive immigration reform of the Pence-Hutchinson variety. I do think we should have gone after independents this year (we just needed the base in tow first). But I'm not the only mainstream conservative who shall fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, fight in the hills, and never surrender in the face of an attempted McCain takeover of a party that was once the best vehicle for advancing conservative ideals, and can be again."

CLINTON: A Living, Breathing Wedge Issue

The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson describes Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as "a living, breathing wedge issue" that is "made-in-heaven balm" for "top cat Republicans licking their wounds over their midterm debacle." Hutchinson claims: "With Hillary as the Democratic presidential standard bearer, the Democrats could be 170 electoral votes in the hole before the first vote is cast."

OBAMA: Better Than Bill

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher claims the bloom is off Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) rose after reading Chicago Sun Timesreports on a questionable real estate deal connected to Obama's book: "I don't know about you, but I did not work my ass off just so a new set of Democratic crooks can set up residence across from the old GOP K-Street crooks."

The Plank's Michael Crowley still has only good things to pass on: "I'm told by someone who watched that he delivered another great speech today--this time at the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial groundbreaking ceremony. My trustworthy witness, who has no agenda, says Obama was better than Bill Clinton, even."

LANDSCAPE: The Cards Won In '46 Too

The blogosphere continues to be divided along mostly predictable lines on the lasting impact of 11/7. RedState's Horaceox argues '06 is more likely to resemble the GOP's 1946 congressional takeover than their 1994 effort and predicts they will "take back the 15-or-so seats they need in 2008." Along similar lines, Tim Chapman notes 10 of 13 GOP freshman "will join the conservative RSC" and "The Blue Dog democratic coalition has increased from 38 members to 44."

TPM Cafe's M.J. Rosenberg calls any message that the "The Dems Didn't Win, The GOP Lost" a "Big Lie" and writes: "Our mandate is no different than every other massive shift in American politics throughout our history. I can think of no watershed election that was positive rather than negative." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, however, looks at NOMINATE data on ideological sorting and comes to the opposite conclusion: "This is just one piece of raw data to noodle over, but I think it supports the notion that this election represented a broad-based revulsion against the war and the Republican Party, not any kind of serious ideological realignment. That's too bad, but I guess I'll take what I can get." MyDD's Matt Stoller also looks at data (comparing '04 Kerry numbers to Senate candidate '06 totals) and finds: " At the top are Jon Tester, Bob Casey, and Sherrod Brown - all three of whom are economic populists. ... All of this lends weight to the economically populist model for Democrats."

There is also plenty of disagreement over the impact of immigration on the '06 results. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall argues GOP "immigrant bashing" hurt them "a lot" at the polls while Power Line's Paul Mirengoff looks at specific races and claims the issue helped Peter Roskam (R) in IL-06, and Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), and Michelle Bachman (R) in MN-06. Right Wing News uses "hard core anti-illegal immigration website" NumbersUSA to show "18.8% of the Republican members in Congress that were tough on illegal immigration (had an A or B grade) lost while 40.9% of the members in Congress who were soft on illegal immigration (C or below) lost their elections."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sharing Is Good

Reacting to a Chicago Sun Timesstory on how DCCC chair Rahm Eamanuel "helped end an era of Republican rule" by "remaking the Democratic Party in his own image" MyDD's Chris Bowers laments all post-election media anointations of "one man behind the curtain or another ... as the primary cause of the change in power." Bowers pleads with beltway dems: "Just thank everyone, and say everyone's efforts are appreciated and valued. Stop hogging all the credit. If you don't want an ornery base, then don't act ornery to the base. We helped you in this election. You didn't do it alone, no matter what you think."

LEST WE FORGET: This Is Your Euro. This Is Your Euro On Drugs. Any Questions?

Captain's Quarters alerts readers to a Der Spiegelstory on the increasing disintegration of Euro notes. Apparently Euro's fall apart after coming into contact with human perspiration and certain sulfuric salts. Where are the extra chemicals coming from: "But where did the sulfuric acid come from? In a recent twist, chemists are now speculating that it may have come from an impure batch of the synthetic drug crystal methamphetamine, also known as "crystal meth."

11/13: Help Control Bipartisanship: Have Your Party's Moderates Spayed Or Neutered

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas rightly points to netroots' electoral success outside of cable exec Ned Lamont's (D-CT) defeat at the hands of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) (see Sens. elect Jon Tester (D-MT) and James Webb (D-VA) in the Senate alone) but it is also undeniable that Lieberman's primary defeat alone accomplished many of the same purposes his actual ouster would have. Kos describes Lieberman as "neutered" and notes that Lieberman's primary defeat prevents any future criticism of the party as playing as a "Democrats versus Democrats" story. Righty bloggers may poke fun at the netroots for backing another losing campaign, but the Blogometer bets that deep down they wish they Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the same box the left currently has Lieberman in.

GOP LEADERSHIP: What Ever You Do, Don't Listen To Us

Righty bloggers continue to push for new faces in the House GOP leadership race and are particularly unhappy with Rep. John Boehner (IN) assertions that he has the race wrapped up already. Right Angle Blog's posts a "Fire John Boehner and Roy Blunt" videoRobert Bluey notes: "Boehner might think he has this race won, but so too did Rep. Roy Blunt back in January when he was running for House majority leader. We all know how that race turned out."

Conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt alerts readers he is broadcasting from D.C. 11/15-16 and invites all candidates "to come to the studio and run through the topics." Hewitt also links to an NZ Bear item inviting readers to vote on questions they would most like to ask GOP leadership candidates. Among the most popular:

• Will the GOP support a "no earmark" policy. If not, why not?
• What is your position on immigration? Specifically: 1. Are you in favor of funding and building the 700 mile fence on the Southern border? 2. Do you support stronger enforcement of criminal laws and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants? 3. Are you for or against an expanded guest worker program and how/when would you implement such a program? 4. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants currently living in the US and, if so, what specific provisions do you support?
• Do you intend to stand strong to win the war on terror no matter where it takes us? Or do you plan on making our soldiers deaths be in vain?

RedState continued their full-throated support for Rep. Mike Pence's (R-IN) run for minority leader, posting a letter from Reps. Dan Burton (IN), Tom Feeney (FL), and Jeb Hensarling (TX) "imploring" their GOP colleagues to support Pence.

Right Wing News, however, wonders how much the GOP really ought to be listening to the righty 'sphere: "To tell you the truth, I think it would be a mistake for the GOP to pay as much attention to the right side of the blogosphere as the Democrats pay to the left side, in part, because the right side of the blogosphere is significantly less socially conservative and more libertarian than the base is as a whole. ... On the other hand, if the Republicans in Washington started paying more attention to the blogosphere, conservative columnists and mags, and conservative talk radio, I think that would be helpful because as the elections proved, as a group, we're a lot more in tune with what the conservative base thinks than most of the Republicans in Washington."

In other GOP leadership blogger endorsements, National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez supports Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL) for the Republican Policy Committee and Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham hopes the RNC nails down LG Michael Steele for RNC chair.

DEM LEADERSHIP: Raging Liberals Wanted

Lefty blog opinion on the Reps. John Murtha (PA)/Steny Hoyer (MD) race for maj. leader continues to be mixed. The hard core netrooters (Kos, the MyDD crowd, etc.) continue to voice neutrality while hinting at a strong Murtha preference (Jonathan Singer's latest: "I'm not wholeheartedly opposed to Steny Hoyer serving as Majority Leader"). AMERICAblog, however, describes Murtha's record on "issues that Dems hold dear" as "a very mixed bag" and voices concerns over Murtha's "ethics problems."

Matthew Yglesias admits his "instinctive sympathies lie with Hoyer's opponent, John Murtha" but goes on to utilize Keith Poole's DW Nominate, a quantitative analysis of all congressional votes, to conclude: "Murtha is consistently to Hoyer's right. Hoyer is pretty consistently to the right of the median Democrat, in with a bloc of people you might characterize as northern moderates. Murtha is further to the right than this bloc, in with a group composed mostly of southerners." but Yglesias adds: "A lot of intra-caucus politics, at the end of the day, have more to do with hard-to-disentangle personal ties rather than ideology -- Murtha and Pelosi have been close for a long time while Hoyer and Pelosi have been rivals. For example, the candidate for Whip associated with Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel, Diana DeGette is, as best I can tell, a raging liberal by pretty much any standard."

Arianna Huffington, however, is not conflicted at all. She not only supports Murtha for majority leader, but for TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" as well. Also at the Huffington Post, Bill Press has audio of Hoyer claiming he has the votes on Press' radio show 11/10.

At The Plank, Michael Crowley handicapps the race after putative Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) Murtha endorsement: "Though it's a dramatic gesture, it still doesn't guarantee a Murtha victory. In fact, from what I can tell, Hoyer was probably in the lead before this weekend. What it does guarantee is that, should Hoyer prevail anyway, the bitterness between him and Pelosi will be far worse than we've seen before--to the point where the House's top two Democrats may be virtually unable to work together, I suspect. The vote will be late this coming week. ... Her letter does not include an exhortation for other members to follow suit and makes clear she is responding to a request from her old friend to take a position--a hint of passivity."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Can't We All Just Get Along?

Seeking to quell intra-party fighting over credit for 11/7, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas begins a post "Dear Everyone Who Thinks They Singled-Handedly Won the Last Election" and reminds the DLC, DCCC, DSCC, the netroots, 527s, and big dollar donors that "They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil." Not on Kos' nice list "know-nothing pundits in DC and the DLC."

Kos also announced that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) "has been neutered" since "If he leaves the caucus for short-term gain, he loses all leverage and power and harms his long-term interests. Yet he doesn't stay in the caucus as a Democrat, but as an independent. And in that capacity he can criticize the Democratic Party all he wants without it being a story of "Democrats versus Democrats". He can flirt with Bush without it being a case of bipartisanship."

Not everyone in the netroots was prepared to live-and-live-let-live with beltway Dems. Reacting to a Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "You have to save the party from not drifting too far over," quote in the New York Postfiredoglake 's Pachacutec writes: "I realize there's a lot of push back online in the last day or so to do kumbayah in the party, to paper over history. ... But just to give him a bit of background about why I say trust is an issue, let's talk a little bit about his DSCC Senate Dem consigliere, Chuck Schumer." Pachacutec goes on to list twelve reasons not to trust Schumer including:

• Discouraging grass roots Paul Hackett over Sherrod Brown, even though we generally like Brown (there is a bad taste over his Military Commissions Act vote, and some seem unable to forgive him).
• Selecting Casey as a cautious pick in PA against the weak Santorum. Casey is good on economic populism but has the minority national view on choice.
• Working against Tester in the primary, before getting on the bandwagon in the general election.

MyDD's Matt Stoller was unamused by Clinton strategist James Carville's suggestion that ex-Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) replace DNC chair Howard Dean: "I honestly don't get this. How exactly are they going to push Dean out? Aside from spreading nasty rumors and cutting off big donors, which they've been doing for years, what leverage do they have on Dean? I'm not defending Dean's tenure, I'm just curious why these people seem to think that they can oust him. What do they know that I don't? Or do they just think that the world works through dishonest rumors spread in the CNN green room?"

Lawyers, Guns, And Money's Scott Lemieux was moved to sully Carville's Dem credentials by pulling out this Carville quote form 2000: "At a time when politics seems moribund, Zell would bring energy. When people are looking for heroes, Zell's the real thing. And when Democrats need someone who's not afraid to open up a can of whupass on the radical right, they need look no further than Zell Miller."

GOP FIELD: The Bizarro Kucinich Campaign

Right Angle Blog's Robert Bluey has straw poll results from over "four hours of voting" at the Virginia Conservative Convention:

Newt Gingrich 31% Mitt Romney 14% Sam Brownback 12% John McCain 12% Mike Huckabee 8% Rudy Giuliani 7% Duncan Hunter 4% Bill Frist 3% Chuck Hagel 1% George Pataki 1%

IA's Caucus Cooler adjusts their IA caucus primary winner odds including:

• Romney with a slight edge over McCain, thanks mostly to McCain's snubbing of Iowa in 2000 and Romney's headstart from an organizational standpoint.
• Pataki moves up a notch from 7-1 to 13-2. They had a very good grassroots operation going on in Polk County that we're sure helped them with the grassroots. Kudos to Team Pataki.
• Giuliani also creeps up a notch as rumors of his announcement get louder in Iowa. His staff talked with a number of Iowa operatives during Rudy's whirlwind Nussle tour. Rudy goes from 8-1 to 15-2.
• Duncan Hunter is a solid conservative and he's an avowed hawk. He is the chairman of the House armed services committee so he has credibility on foreign affairs. He also has been known as a poor fundraiser, not a good quality in a Presidential candidate. Someone close to Hunter in Iowa told us that it would be like the inverse of the Kucinich campaign

Finally, the MI Cooler notes that Tradesports saw post-11/7 bumps for McCain and falls for Romney.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: It's Lou Dobbs World, And We're Just Lucky Not To Be Deported From It

Many lefty bloggers are linking to SirotaBLOG's refutation of MSM assertions that Dems won 11/7 by running "Democrats pretending to be Republicans." Sirota argues: "Dobbs-style populism, along with opposition to the Iraq War, was the overwhelming theme of the 2006 elections." Sirota reminds readers "To be sure, I go after Dobbs for his refusal to comprehensively address immigration in a way that actually deals honestly with the problem" but goes on to conclude

But all in all, there is no denying that if Democrats want to hold a governing majority for the foreseeable future, they cannot continue to deny the populist outrage seething all over the country and highlighted by Dobbs book. They cannot continue to listen only to the former Clintonites now on K Street. They cannot continue to listen only to executives on Wall Street. They cannot continue to openly brag about how close they are to corporate lobbyists. They must see election 2006 for what it was: a mandate for economic populism and a battle cry against the hostile takeover of our government and against the War on the Middle Class.

Striking the same note Daily Kos' DemFromCT notes "unfettered free trade is as dead as John Bolton's nomination" The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum doubts "Democrats are going to focus much on social issues anyway in the upcoming congressional session. Instead, they're going to focus mostly on the Iraq war and on economic issues, where there's a considerable amount of common ground among all Democrats, new and old."

Suggestions for a larger Dem agenda are beginning to pour in from the lefty 'sphere and they include:

• At the top of Democrats.com's Bob Fertik list of 140 items: "Habeas Corpus: restore access to courts for all prisoners of the U.S."
• The Huffington Post's Shayana Kadidal wants to make sure no NSA surveillance legislation includes immunity for phone companies involved in wiretapping.
• The Reality Based Community's Steven Teles wants Dems to glow slow on investigations while The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum just wants a return to a "normal level of oversight."
• TPM Cafe's Reed Hundt warns Dems not to become the "eat your spinach" party and writes: "No, I'm not arguing for irrationality and for wild-eyed spending, but the way D's lost in 1994 was to insist too hard on raising too much tax revenue while doing too little to improve the quality and amount of public goods."
• Matthew Yglesias argues Dems should stay away from social issues and concludes: "This, however, is also the reason why groups seeking progressive social change can ill-afford to abandon the judicial process in favor of a single-minded focus on electoral politics."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, Matthew Yglesias and Kausfiles all address the chances of a Dem congress working on immigration reform. Drum concludes: "In other words, Mickey may be right. Democrats have bigger fish to fry and may be happy to avoid a fight by putting immigration on hold for a while. Ditto for Bush. My guess? It's time for a bipartisan blue ribbon commission!"

IRAQ: Half-Bakered Solutions Not Wanted

Lefty bloggers are applauding Dem calls for a timetable to withdraw all American troops within a year and are wary of the Baker commission's upcoming report. On Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) timetable call MyDD's Jonathan Singer writes: "I like this bold step ... Instead of waiting for the Iraq Study Group -- an unelected group of former bureaucrats -- to come back and provide the Bush administration cover for making changes in strategy (whether the White House ends up doing so or not), the Democrats are clearly paying heed to the American people in calling for a beginning to the redeployment of American forces."

AMERICAblog looks at Washington Postreports that Baker commission member ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) is "cajoling" Dems "to sign on to a plan that falls short of a phased troop withdrawal" and warns: "This is a trap. ... If the bipartisan group can't come up with a real plan, a good plan, the best plan, then let the Republicans in the group come up with their own wacky plan that will fail. ... The last thing Democrats need is to hand George Bush some bipartisan approbation of his failed Iraq policy so that, in the future, he can say we all own Iraq, warts and all. We all don't own Iraq, it's his disaster, his failed state. And nothing we try is going to work because it's already too late - Iraq is lost. Bush had his chance, and he failed."

On the right, National Review Online's Rich Lowry congratulates the New York Times for moving "to the right of the Bush administration" when they call for "at least a temporary increase in American and Iraqi troops on Baghdad streets." Power Line's Paul Mirengoff hopes the Baker commission avoids "consensus for consensus sake." And Captain's Quarters tells readers the administration views Robert Gates "not as a dramatic shift but as a course correction."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Myth Busters

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum looks at exit poll data from '04 and '06 House races and debunks three '06 myths:

• Myth #1: It was the youth vote that pushed Democrats over the top. Nope. In 2004 Dems won 55% of the youth vote. This year they won 60%. That's a swing of 5 points, exactly the same as the overall nationwide swing in favor of Democrats. In fact, it's actually worse than that: the number of young voters (age 18-29) decreased from 16% of the electorate in 2004 to 12% of the electorate in 2006. This means that in 2004 they amounted to 8.8% of the total Dem vote, compared to 7.2% in 2006. The youth vote was a fizzle.
• Myth #2: Democrats won a third of the white evangelical vote. I have no idea where this one came from. In 2004 Dems won 25% of the white evangelical vote. This year Dems won 28%. That's a swing of 3 points, which is actually a bit less than the overall Democratic swing. Turnout was about the same both years. Bottom line: Nothing happened here.
• Myth #3: Democrats won by running conservative candidates. A few high-profile Democratic candidates had conservative views on certain issues (Casey on abortion, Tester on guns), but overall the newly-elected Dems look a lot like the current Democratic caucus. And the exit polls back this up. In 2004, Democrats got 17% of the vote from self-described conservatives. This year it was 20%. As with evangelicals, this is less than the overall nationwide swing. Conservatives are still solidly supporting the Republican Party.

LEST WE FORGET: Fremont Cyborgs Vs. Oakland A's

The Jaunt notes a few ways the Oakland Athletics planned Fremont, CA ballpark will differ from their current home:

• Fans will swipe electronic tickets stored on cell phones.
• Fans will view instant replays at their seats with laptop computers.
• Digital advertising displays will be able to switch images based on the buying habits of the people walking by through data embedded in their cell phones.
• Wireless access

The Jaunt concludes: "Laughingstock? Possibly. Laughing all the way to the bank? No question. The opportunity to finally be able to bring your artificially inseminated cyborg neuro-child to its first ballgame without fear of a frowning society...priceless."

11/10: Victory Breeds Ambivalence?

The contrast between blogger reaction to their respective parties' cong. leadership races says more about human reaction to winning and losing than it does about contrast in styles between the left and right. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas and MyDD's contributors are taking a hands-off approach to the House maj. leader race (although it is quite clear their readership is heavily pro-Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Righty bloggers, on the other hand (with RedState in the lead) can't tell everybody often enough how strongly they endorse Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) for min. leader and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) for whip. Will the netroots' ambivalence continue when the Senate starts handing out cmte chairs?

DEM LEADERSHIP: My Name's Paul, And This Is Between Y'all

The netroots' heavy hitters are being noticeably coy about the maj. leader race between Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and John Murtha (D-PA). DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas tells readers he is "going to take a close look at both candidacies, and all of us should do the same." MyDD's Chris Bowers is "open-minded about this race." Kos does ad though: "One thing to note -- Hoyer has clashed repeatedly with Pelosi the past few years. Murtha is a Pelosi loyalist. I don't feel like dealing with years of "divided Democrats" stories because a Majority Leader Hoyer is constantly undercutting Speaker Pelosi."

Daily Kos and MyDD readers were distinctly less undecided. A Daily Kos poll had Murtha up 83%-16%, and Murtha also led at MyDD's poll 69%-14%.

GOP LEADERSHIP: We Get It, They Want The New Guys

In stark contrast to their lefty brethren, RedState wants to make it extra crispy clear that they endorse Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) in their respective races for minority leader and whip: "Today we would like to make it explicitly clear and reiterate that while we respect Representatives Blunt, Boehnor, and Cantor, we believe a fresh start is in order. We also believe there is no better place to turn than the Guardians of the Reagan Legacy and the 1994 Conservative Revolution."

RedState's Erick Erickson also explains how one has "to feel sorry for John Boehner to some degree" and later pleads with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) not to enter the whip race.

Pence and Shadegg's blog support is not confined to RedState. Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham passes along this evaluation of Blunt's 11/9 performance at the Heritage Foundation: "He stated that the elimination of earmarks would do "nothing but shift funding decisions from one side of Pennsylvania Ave. to the other." This is the platform espoused by appropriators: the money's going to be spent anyway, so we might as well get our share. This is the same attitude that led many to think that there was nothing wrong with spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a Bridge to Nowhere." Ham later concludes on both races: "I think when faced with a choice between the current Republican leadership and fresh leadership that passionately backs 99.9 percent of my issues but gives me pause on one, I'll go with the new guy."

Right Angle Blog's Robert Bluey notes "just hours after frowning on the idea of Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) for min. leader, John Hawkins at Right Wing News has changed his mind." The difference for Hawkins: "I have gotten confirmation from a highly trusted source inside Tom Tancredo's office that Tancredo will be endorsing Pence. Since, in my book, Tom Tancredo is the gold standard on illegal immigration, that turns me around 180 degrees."

Without picking sides National Review Online's Rich Lowry handicap the races: "I haven't been checking around on it much today, but just casual conversations with people following it still seem to suggest Boehner might be OK, Blunt is in trouble."

DEM FIELD: Bayh-ers' Remorse

Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-IN) already shaky netroots reputation is falling. MyDD's Chris Bowers posted a '08 straw poll that did not include Bayh as an option and Bowers became annoyed when he found "poll stuffing" going on in Bayh's favor: "I can't imagine this will help his image in the netroots much either. Here is a hint to poll sutffers--the key to poll stuffing is dong it in a way that no one would notice it is poll stuffing."

Before Bowers pulled the plug on the voting here are the initial and final round results:

Initial John Edwards 1,237 (22.9%) Barack Obama 1,219 (22.6%) Russ Feingold 1,032 (19.1%) Wesley Clark 970 (18.0%) Hillary Clinton 247 (4.6%) None of these 755

Final
John Edwards 2,475 (50.6%)
Barack Obama 2,412 (49.4%)
None of these 1,265

CLINTON: We Thought This Was Spitzer's Fault?

MyDD's Matt Stoller notes NY Dems only picked up three House seats and one state Senate seat "in one of the blueish states in the country" and blames "Hillary Clinton's Coattail Problem." Stoller concludes: "Hillary Clinton may win the nomination, and she may be able to win the White House. Or she may decide not to run for President, and become a wonky technocratic Senator. But regardless of what happens, don't expect her to bring anyone into office with her. That's not how the Clinton's work."

GOP FIELD: Allen Officially Out Of This Poll

GOP Bloggers is up with their Nov. straw poll. Currently righty blog reader voting breaks down as follows

Candidate Votes %
Gingrich 1020 24%
Giuliani 927 21.8%
Romney 798 18.7%
McCain 287 6.7%
Tancredo 282 6.6%
Hagel 128 3%
Brownback 102 2.4%
Huckabee 86 2%
Hunter 84 2%
Frist 53 1.2%
Pataki 26 0.6%

IA's Caucus Cooler has names winners and losers from 11/7. Winners include:

• Rudy Giuliani- With an ugly environment, Rudy looks like a real uniter that can take the Party and the Country out of this funk and into the future


• John McCain- Like Giuliani, McCain seems like the kind of candidate that can bridge the gap with the independents that have become disenfranchised from the GOP.

Losers:

• Mitt Romney- In a year where the GOP lost anything, Mitt certainly is not to blame for the 6 Governorships the GOP lost and the "0" pickups. But it certainly didn't help him either.
• Mike Huckabee- If your successor can't even muster a competitive race in a Red state, that's not a very good legacy to leave.

MCCAIN: Wither The Chafee Brand

RedState's Streiff posts a photo of "John McCain accepting the "Chafee Award" (really people I could not make this crap up because I try to make up stuff that is believable) from the Republican Main Street Partnership." He adds: "Senator McCain has positioned himself as the presumptive frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and his supporters regularly tout his conservative credentials. But this is a latest in a series of actions that calls those credentials into question."

'08 SENATE LANDSCAPE: Permanent Realignment?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas sees good things ahead for Dems in the Senate: "If all goes well, we should be lining up for an absolute slaughter of the GOP. In two years, Republicans will be defending 21 seats, to 12 of our own. A large number of those Republicans will be freshmen." Kos' top Dem pickups include: CO, KY, MN, NH, NM, OR, TN, and VA. His second tier consists of: MS, NE, and OK.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Better Ned Than Red?

TAPPED's Charles Pierce adds his thoughts on the "Rahm-v.-netroots" debate arguing that Sam Rosenfeld "makes a critical mistake by minimizing the fact that the DCCC's support in many cases came, as he put it, "relatively late." That, it seems to me, is understating what actually happened." Pierce concludes: "And, it should be noted that a lot of the problem is that an awful lot of people in Washington really don't like Rahm Emanuel, who has a reputation as a supercilious gombeen that is remarkable even by the standards set by employees of the first Clinton Administration, which are considerable."

At TPM CafeGreg Sargent argues that 11/7 vindicated those "who backed Ned Lamont's antiwar candidacy" since the campaign encouraged Dems to engage and win foreign policy arguments instead of shying away from them. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is in total agreement and claims Dems the episode shows "the DLC has lost just about all influence in DC." Kos explains the reason behind the DLC's fall: "It's because they have no natural constituency other than their corporate masters. It's because they were so wrong about everything and everyone knew it. And it's because this election, above all else, has exposed their utter lack of understanding of the nation's pulse."

Later Kos pens a love letter to MSMers critical of netroots support for Lamont: "Dear know-nothings, I know most of you are stupid, and proud to remain that way. But the Netroots backed more than just Ned Lamont. For example, Jim Webb and Jon Tester in the Senate, and dozens more in the House. Jim Webb, for example, said this about the netroots: "The netroots have been a tremendous help to my campaign and a huge inspiration to me personally. I am where I am in large part because of their support." So Lieberman won. Lots of our candidates lost. Lots of them won. It's called elections. Hugs and kisses."

On the right, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan notes netroots supported "fighting Dems" faced a mix fate 11/7 but concludes: "There is one exception. I think you could make a persuasive argument that Jim Webb's status as a decorated war veteran made just enough of a difference in Virginia to prove decisive. ... So, to sum up: the "Fightin' Dem" strategy proved not to matter almost every single instance on Tuesday, except in the one case where it did. And what a momentous case it ended up being."

Also on the right, RedState's Dan McLaughlin notes that with Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) victory control of the Senate rests in the hands of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and asks his lefty counterparts: "But of course, you have Power! You have Influence! You can Make Your Voices Heard! So I ask you: Do you support welcoming Rape Gurney Joe back into your party with open arms? Are you willing to stand up and say: that man is one of us? And if not, what are you gonna do about it?

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Water-Carrying Season Is Over!

Righty bloggers continue to stress that "conservatism did not lose" 11/7. RedState's Erick Erickson links to Tim Chapman's analysis that: "conservatives were least likely to fall victim to the wave, while moderate to liberal Republicans had a tough go at it." RedState's directors later add:

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said he felt liberated because he was "no longer going to have to carry the water for people who [he doesn't] think deserve having their water carried." ... Yes, it is liberating now. We don't have to worry that something we'll say will negatively impact turnout of the base in the midterms. That's just life. As We've said on the front page before, "Suck it up." We're conservatives first, but in the general election, we're on the Republican team. ... RedState is unique from other blogs on the internet simply because we're not as "bloggy." We occasionally lose perspective and focus on the blogosphere and blog wars and things like that. But, we never forget that RedState is here as an internet home for the conservative grassroots. We remain committed to being conservative first and Republican second.

Ankle Biting PunditsPatrick Hynes (a Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) advisor), however, argues fellow right bloggers ought to read 11/7's results more carefully before concluding that abandonment of "core conservative values" was really the cause of defeat:

The emotional me wants to cheer for some of this rhetoric-well ... Here's the problem: There was no "base revolt." ... There was no suppression of the Republican vote. Republicans made up almost the exact percentage of the electorate in 2006 (36%) that they made up in 2004 (37%). There was no suppression of the self-identified conservative vote. Conservatives comprised only a slightly lower percentage of the vote in 2006 (32%) than they did in 2004 (34%). ... Nevertheless, something very bad happened with this last coupling of groups. Independents supported John Kerry over George W. Bush by the razor thin margin of 49% to 48%. This year, Independents split their votes in favor of Democrats over Republicans by 57% to 39%. That is among the most significant swings of any subgroup of voters represented in the exit polls."

The Plank's Bradford Plumer also throws water on prospects of congressional GOP return to small government principles: "The two dominant themes in Republican ads, meanwhile, were taxes and--of all things--pork. In Ohio, Deborah Pryce, an incumbent Republican, cut ad after ad near the end of her campaign emphasizing all of the great pork projects she had brought home to her district. ... I wonder if this was true for other races--if it was, then I'd assume that congressional Republicans won't be too sympathetic to the argument, floated by many a conservative these days, that the GOP lost mainly because of its addiction to pork and discretionary spending."

LANDSCAPE: Apparently, The GOP Isn't Popular These Days

On the left The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum Looks at 11/7 exit poll data and declares: "Anyone planning to make any grand pronouncements about the "lesson" of the election really ought to spend a few minutes comparing the 2006 exit poll data to the 2004 exit poll data first. It turns out that the big lesson is that there's no big lesson. ... And what you find from the exit polls is that Dems gained 2-7 points in practically every demographic group surveyed. ... Based on the exit poll data, it was just a broad-based wave of disgust against Republican rule."

On the right, Outside the Beltway echoes Drum's conclusions but adds: "I think he undersells things more than a bit, though, when he says, "I suppose the higher totals among Latinos and independents are the big news." Given that Hispanics are easily the fastest growing cohort nationwide and in several key states, a 14% shift should definitely spark interest among Republicans. The party will need to figure out a way ahead on immigration that simultaneously addresses the legitimate concerns of conservatives on border security, fairness, and enforcement of our laws while not coming across as "anti-immigration" and hostile to Hispanics. To say the least, that's not going to be an easy task."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Hotline Welcomes Our New Blogger Overlords

Comedy Central Insider was the first "news" source to break Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld's demise. At 12:15 AM 11/8 CCI'c "Token Conservative" Michael Brendan Dougherty reported:

The buzz I'm hearing from a friend, and a totally unconfirmed White House source (remember Comedy Central doesn't have journalistic standards), is that Rumsfeld will be out of the administration tomorrow. This is a shocker even to the totally unnamed source in the White House. Already, we are seeing reports of a White House Press conference scheduled for tomorrow at 1 p.m. Could this be it?

CCI added: "Suck it, Drudge!"

LEST WE FORGET: What? No "Shotgunning Beer" Entry?

Before Wikipedia's standards police scrub the entry, be sure to check out a detailed guide to "Calling shotgun" including these three different rules of calling shotgun, "only one rule is in effect at a given time."

• Shotgun may be called as soon as a driver has been established and the passengers are outside. This is the most common method for calling shotgun. "As soon as you see a cloud or a star, shotgun decides where you sit in the car."
• Shotgun may be called as soon as a driver is established and the car of choice is in view of the passengers. "As soon as the car's in your line of vision, you may make the shotgun decision."
• Shotgun may be called by any passenger as soon as a driver has been established, regardless of where they are (inside or outside). "No matter where you are, either morning, noon, or night; shotgun gives you the front seat right."

Wiki also clears up one misconception: "Some people misunderstand the idea behind calling out "shotgun", thinking that it is a transitive verb used to claim something as yours before anyone else does (such as "dibs" or "bags"). Hence the redundantly incorrect usage: "I shotgun the front seat!". Once understood this way, it is then used incorrectly in other contexts, such as "I shotgun the last piece of cake!"

11/9: Timing Is Everything

Our two top stories emanating from the righty 'sphere both deal with the timing of recent and upcoming GOP events. Like some analysts, many on the right want to know why Pres. Bush waited til 11/8 to announce the resignation of Sec/Def Donald Rumsfeld, when that information could have helped some candidates in close races. Other bloggers are focussing on 11/17's anticipated House GOP leadership elections and are suggesting a postponement so that "its troops" can better vet the potential candidates.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Slow Down, You're Voting Too Fast

Led by Townhall's Hugh Hewitt righty bloggers are pushing for a postponement of House leadership races to allow more time for "careful introspection and analysis that the loss of the majority should automatically trigger." Hewitt writes: "In no other company or organization would a leadership change take place on such a schedule and with so little input from key constituencies. At a minimum the GOP needs to give its troops and especially its donors the opportunity to weigh in, and to allow for candidates to declare."

N.Z. Bear adds: "I don't claim to speak for right-leaning bloggers as a whole; I speak only for myself. But if you ask me, the imperative right now for the GOP is clear: to slow the heck down, and to take the time necessary to consult with the true grassroots of the party to find the absolute best leadership team possible that will lead the GOP back into majority in 2008."

Onto the race itself, Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham, Human Events and RedState have all come out in support of Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) for minority leader. RedState also disparages Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) as the "status quo."

Pence's online support is not universal. While not endorsing or opposing him National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez notes Pence has some problems with "that amnesty stuff." And Right Angle Blog's Mac Johnson dissents from Human Events endorsement of Pence on immigration grounds.

National Review Online's Rich Lowry handicaps the leader and whip races. Short versions: "Pence will have a tough fight" and "[John] Shadegg should be in a real strong position here."

On the left, MyDD's Matt Stoller voices widespread netroots support for Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) over Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), despite Murtha's "little pork problem." For Stoller "Hoyer too much wants to be liked by his abusive Republican boyfriends" and will too easily succumb to "date rape bipartisanship."

TERROR POLITICS: Once Again, Things That Could've Been Brought To My Attention Yesterday!

Many on the right questioned why Pres. Bush did not make his Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld decision early enough to help GOP chances this fall. Among these, National Review Online's Rich Lowry: "As a friend points out, a lot of Republicans are probably yelling right now, "Why didn't you do it BEFORE the election?" Of course, he couldn't have done it right before the election, but a few months ago it might have been a step toward giving the public the fresh look/approach it wanted with regard to Iraq." Also at The Corner, Mario Loyola speculates that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) likely elevation to to Chairman of Armed Services played a role in the timing of Rumsfeld's resignation.

Righty blogger reaction to the actual resignation was mixed. RedState's Erick Erickson writes: "Dear Mr. President, Right now I think I'd rather you keep Mr. Rumsfeld and replace yourself with Mr. Cheney." National Review Online's Mark Levin warns: "Warning to the White House: Nixon tried buying peace with the Left. Hence, we have the EPA, OSHA, affirmative action, etc., and it didn't work."

The selection of ex-CIA dir. Robert Gates was also underwhelming. The CornerMichael Rubin worries about Gates' past position on Iran but hopes once in power gates will "may overcome his inclinations." Power Line's Paul Mirengoff argues the selection only makes sense if the impending Baker Commission plan closely matches with administration plans for Iraq already. Austin Bay thinks it does: "One of the very smart young officers I know suggests the resignation is political prep for prosecuting the war even more vociferously. I think he's on to something." (Bay is also on The Glenn and Helen Show with Jim Dunnigan discussing Rumsfeld, the Elections, and the War on Terror)

TAPPED's Blake Hounshell sums up lefty blogger reaction to Gates' appointment: "Gentleman, Start Your Googling." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to reports showing Gates "was close" to many Iran/contra figures and comments: "Brilliant. Bush's penchant for bringing out the most corrupt of retreads of past Republican administrations continues.

TAPPED's Ezra Klein explains why Rumsfeld's departure is another victory for Dems and Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall comments: "Watching this Bush presser, one thing about Republicans: man, they dispatch their dead quickly, don't they?"

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY II: The Paternity Debate Begins

MyDD's Chris Bowers argues "it is vitally important for the netroots and the people-powered movement" "declare victory and be recognized as playing a (the) key role" in 11/7. Bowers goes on to list things the netroots brought to the table: "the silent revolution, the small donor explosion, the fifty-state strategy, new progressive media, confrontational opposition to Bush and Republicans, serving as media watchdogs, developing new online campaign techniques, bringing about the revival of campaign volunteer activism, keeping the base excited, building new communities and infrastructure, holding our advocacy groups and consultants up to the light, running primaries against Democrats complicity with the Republican machine."

Bowers concludes: "Had it not been for all of the progressive movement and netroots innovations developed over the last four or five years, there is no doubt in my mind that we would not have won yesterday." The New Republic's Rick Perlstein looks at netroots success 11/7 and argues "the rest of us" ought to start taking the netroot seriously.

The Washington Monthly's Zachary Roth, The Nation's Ari Melber, and The Plank's Ryan Lizza and Noam Scheiber all throw water on the idea that the netroots deserve more credit than DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) does. Each of the posts argue that many netroots candidates received both DCCC and netroot supports, and they point out that Perlstein cherry picked his results when trying to demonstrate that the netroots did better in races where the DCCC picked a different candidate.

MyDD's Matt Stoller is particularly frustrated with any credit given to Emanuel for Dem wins: "Rahm Emanuel did everything he could to lose the House. His recruiting and use of money was strategically unwise, and he was bailed out by a national trend that brought us the Senate, the Governorships, state legislative chambers, and state constitutional officers all over the country."

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith is specifically unhappy with Washington Postreports that: "In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year." Smith reacts: "Let me get this straight, we have just taken back the House and, looking more likely as of this morning, the Senate, and Rahm's first priority is to shore up his power base and his ties to KStreet. Heckuva job, Rahm. If you think for a moment that those of us who just worked our asses off for a win are simply going to roll over and say thank you when you spit on us, you can think again.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY III: Who Are We? Why Are We Here?

Righty blogger consensus on the reason behind defeat 11/7 is clear: too much spending:

• Tapscott's Copy Desk: "When Republicans worry more about staying in government than about limiting government, they get thrown out of government. That's the lesson of Nov. 7, 2006."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Until the Republican party can clearly and firmly demonstrate that it will spend less of the public's money than the Democrats, the GOP will be playing with a significant self-imposed handicap on what ought to be one of its defining signature issues."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Republicans lost because we forgot who we were. We were supposed to be the small-government, low taxes party. We got the "low taxes" part right but we forgot about that all-important "small-government" aspect. In doing so, we angered and infuriated our base, many of whom decided that divided government was a better and more effective way of achieving small-government goals than was electing Republicans."

GIULIANI: So, By Spring Training At Least?

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt talked with ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani 11/8 including:

HH: And when do you think you have to make a decision by? RG: Next year, and probably the early part. HH: The first quarter? Maybe January? RG: Well, at least take some real serious steps toward it. I mean, I don't know exactly the process you follow, but I think just from what I can see now, that might change. But it seems to me that you've got to be prepared to start putting an organization together by the beginning of the year.

MCCAIN: We're Glad Somebody Stated The Obvious

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt begins his take on the GOP's defeat: "The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body's leadership the Democrats."

ROMNEY: Isn't That Somebody Else's Nickname?

Under the header "The Comeback Kid" Right Angle Blog's D.R. Tucker acknowledges: "There's no question that Tuesday's defeat of Romney's lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey, at the hands of former Clinton Administration official Deval Patrick represented a repudiation of Romney's social conservatism by liberal voters in the Bay State." However, Tucker concludes: "Romney left the state of Massachusetts in a far better condition than when he found it. Despite the results of Tuesday's gubernatorial election, voters in 2008 are still likely to conclude that he'll make similar improvements for the country as a whole."

SPITZER: That's What You Get For Winning By Forty Points

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong notes a New York Timesstory on weak NY DSCC fundraising and the failure of Dems to take the state senate and remarks: "I think all the '12 chatter about Spitzer just got flushed."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Fred Barnes, Genuine Netroots Hero

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas takes on MSM suggestions ("one of the most moronic media lines last night") that winning Dems 11/7 were more conservative than the rest of the party. Markos runs through many of the victors positions including:

• Jon Tester, MT: One of the people accused of being a "conservative" Dem, yet he's against flag burning amendment, against an amendment banning gay marriage, against the Patriot Act, and against the war. He's an economic populist, social libertarian, pro-choice Democrat. He may be one of the very few senators who actually lives paycheck to paycheck. He's an organic farmer.
• Jim Webb, VA: Politically very similar to Tester. He's libertarian on social issues, an economic populist. He wants out of Iraq and he has a personal stake in the war -- his son is actually deployed to Iraq. Sure, he served in the Reagan Administration, and sure, he can be classified as a "moderate" (whatever that means), but he's no "conservative".

TAPPED's Ezra Klein also calls on bloggers to "punch back against the remarkably coordinated and quick campaign from the right (and sometimes the right includes the left) seeking to paint this election as some sort of victory for ... conservatism." Glenn Greenwald obliges: "Many of the Democrats who won were exactly those candidates who were supported most enthusiastically by the most liberal blogs. ... Given those facts, the idea that this was some great repudiation of the blog-wing of the Democratic Party or that it was an endorsement of Broder-like, plodding centrism is purely wishful thinking on the part of those who wish it were so."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsherr congratulates Fred Barnes for pointing out that MSMers are "exaggerating the number of these unconventional Democrats." Hamsher comments: "It might take a while for journalists who like to have their stories pre-chewed by crack teams of DC establishment PR flacks to catch on, but this "triumph of the centrists" meme is a Rahm Emanuel spittle-soaked fantasy. The country ran from conservatives like a bad case of crotch lice and no amount of PR spin can re-write that."

ETHICS: Late To The Game?

DavidNYC announces the DailyKos, MyDD and Swing State Project endorsement of state Rep. Karen Carter over "corrupt" Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). David writes: "This race matters because we need to send a strong message, a message that the Democratic Party won't tolerate corruption on either side of the aisle."

Over at TPM Muckraker, Justin Rood has a "Tribute to the Fallen" on GOPers brought down by scandal this cycle.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Turdblossum Has No Clothes

Matthew Yglesias tries to "demolish the Myth of Karl Rove" arguing the GOP should have focussed all their efforts on VA, MT,MO, and TN instead of trying "an ambitious strategy of picking off Democratic seats in New Jersey and Maryland, two solidly blue states." Yglesias concludes:

Interestingly, Rove made the exact same error in 2000, engaging in an absurd late-game effort to campaign in California. He then lost the election, only to wind up with Bush securing the White House through a series of incredibly unlikely events plus a partisan Supreme Court. Then in 2004, he did something similar with weird last minute gambits in Hawaii and New Jersey that put his candidates perilously close to losing Ohio (and with it the presidency) not withstanding a decent-sized popular majority. Learning nothing from his good fortune except an unhealthy sense of infallibility, he proceeded to do it again and then, finally, have things genuinely blow up in his face.

LEST WE FORGET: He Forgot, "The Conrad Burns Guide To Firefighting"

National Review Online's John Podhoretz surveys book titles "Soon to Hit the Remainder Table" including: The Collected Literary Criticism of George Allen, How to Be Sensitive to People in Wheelchairs by Barbara Cubin, and Bush Country.

11/8: Eye Of The Storm

For more than six months now it has been impossible to read through lefty blogs without seeing some mention of cable exec Ned Lamont's (D-CT) challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). But after an initial round of reaction following networks calls of Lieberman's victory, CT SEN posting has been light. Now the netroots do have plenty to celebrate (including a 7 for 17 performance for their ActBlue endorsed candidates) but a Dem leadership race in the House is guaranteed (Rep. John Murtha (PA) v. Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD)) and possible in the Senate. How big of a role will the netroots play in these internal Dem contests? Will Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) escape blogger ire for his inability to force Lieberman out of the race?

On the right, RedState wrote on the need to "scrub" Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) before the polls even closed, and they already have favorites picked for minority leader and whip (Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) respectively). The battle for control of Congress may be over, but the fight for leadership of both parties is just beginning. Stay tuned to see how well the blogger favorites in both parties fair.

LANDSCAPE: And Subpoena Powers For All

MyDD's Chris Bowers best summed up netroot reaction to Dem victories 11/7: "DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!! YESSSSSSSS!!!!!! ... I just started crying uncontrollably. I haven't done that in years. It was so hard to do this. There have been so many painfully close losses tonight. But we did it."

After celebrating, taunting was the order of the day on lefty blogs. Firedoglake's Pachacutec writes: "the Old Confederacy is the big loser tonight, relegated to the minority in the House. There is no reason, none, nada, zilch, to allow legislation in the House to be held hostage to Southern authoritarian Theocrats and racists anymore. Buh-bye. Meet the losers, folks: Karl Rove, George Bush and the Republicans." Also at firedoglake, TRex adds: "Suck it, Reich Wingers!! Cos now that means we'll have some real honest-to-god oversight in Washington. Subpoena powers! Go, John Conyers!! Give em hell!!"

Other Bowers quick hits on Dem victory include:

• Progressive Caucus Rising. Make no mistake about it -- a member of the Progressive Caucus is now speaker of the House. Further, both Progressive caucus members who ran for Senate won easily, Sanders in Vermont and Brown in Ohio. And now, the Progressive Caucus will control half of all House committees.
• We won bigger than they ever did. Democrats look set to take the House, and with a larger majority than Republicans ever had during their 1994-2006 "revolution." We also won more Senate campaigns in a single cycle, 23-24, than either party has won since at least 1980.
• We are just getting started. This is a big step, and much need vindication for our efforts. But it is still just a step. This is no time to start being risk-averse. We must continue to pursue the strategies that brought us here: silent revolution, fifty-state strategy, small donor explosion, progressive movement, we are all in this together.

Daily Kos commenter tomhodukavich adds: "Never again do we have to hear "Nyah, nyah, you crazy netroots guys - what've you actually won?"

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Progress On The March

Lefty bloggers sharply watched MSM coverage of 11/7 Dem wins to make sure they played as the progressive victories they felt they were. When Joe Scarborough and others on MSNBC suggested "that Democrats are winning by running as conservatives" TAPPED's Tom Schaller responded: "the House in 110th Congress will witness the replacement of the Republican moderates who followed along with Bush-style, hard-right politics -- and deserve their fate almost as much as the conservatives who led them to their slaughter -- with progressive Democrats." TAPPED's Charles Pierce added: "the result in Tennessee pretty much obliterates a good piece of that theory. Harold Ford makes Bob Casey look like Emma Goldman, and he got handled pretty well by the nebbishy Bob Corker. (And the voters down there should be ashamed that the odious TV ad worked as well as it did.) Ford talked about Jesus, guns, and his own heterosexuality, and he lost to a guy so nondescript that he has no shadow."

Matthew Yglesias made a similar case: "It's true that a few races have seen culturally conservative Democrats winning conservative districts but beyond Health Shuler there really aren't very many clear-cut examples of this. The overwhelmingly predominant trend has been for moderate-to-liberal districts in the Northeast and Midwest to dump faux moderate Republicans in favor of fairly orthodox progressive Democrats. It's regional realignment backlash, not a new Democratic thrust into Dixie."

BLOGGERS VS. WAVE: Are Titanic Comparison's Really The Best Way To Go?

Righty bloggers sensed bad news early in the night, but refused panic about imminent defeat. National Review Online's James Robbins writes: "Tonight I had a wonderful time at the Republican Club on Capitol Hill, enjoying the company of good friends, eating a fine dinner, enjoying lovely wine, smoking excellent cigars, telling jokes and stories, and watching the slowly rising Democratic tide. An homage to Benjamin Guggenheim on the Titanic: "We've dressed up in our best and are prepared to go down like gentlemen."

Michelle Malkin acknowledged defeat for the GOP, but not conservatism and promised: "Unlike Michael Moore in 2004, however, I will not be staying in bed for three days in a catatonic state." At Townhall, Dean Barnett reminded readers to "comport ourselves with dignity and class right now. No shrieks of foulplay, no whining. There's no crying in politics, at least not in public. Let's remember what we want to do more than anything else - better our country. Sore loser antics won't help, and neither will slagging on our countrymen for not seeing things the way we did. We didn't make the sale, and that falls on us."

Other righty reax include:

• National Review Online's Larry Kudlow: "Look at blue dog conservative Dem victories, and look at Northeast liberal GOP defeats. The changeover in the House may well be a conservative victory, not a liberal one. Blue dogs are rabid budget balancers. At tomorrow's news conference, President Bush should reach out to them, and to Republican base, with a spending limitation pay-as-you go proposal that gets to a balanced budget in a couple of years. Any spending increases (defense) must be offset with spending cuts (domestic pork). A spending limit paygo was used effectively by the Gingrich Congresses between 1995 and 1998, the high tide of their limited government period."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "bad but not horrific night ... And it is a wonderful day for new media, especially talk radio. For two years we have had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn't shoot straight. Now we get to play offense."
• Captain's Quarters: "a trip to the woodshed for the Republicans. ... Free trade is a goner. ... We can certainly criticize it -- and we will -- but we have to respect the voice of the American electorate. They wanted a different direction, and now they have to experience its consequences."
• RedState's Directors: "First, the GOP must scrub its leadership, starting with Speaker Hastert. ... Second, the GOP must re-dedicate itself to first principles. Without a White House governing with conservative principles first, the GOP has been rudderless. The House Republicans must decisively reject the idea of "big government conservatism" and set about, again, reducing the burdens of government on the people. They can start by making Mike Pence the leader of the House GOP and John Shadegg the Whip. ... Lastly, in returning to first principles, the GOP must reunite social and fiscal conservatives.

LANDSCAPE '08: Has This Wave Even Crested?

TAPPED's Mark Schmitt is already looking ahead to '08 Senate races noting: "There are 12 Democrats, and 21 Republicans." Schmitt goes on to peg one Dem retirement (Frank Lautenberg (NJ)) and identifies seven vulnerable GOP incumbents including Wayne Allard (CO), Norm Coleman (MN), Gordon Smith (OR), and John Sununu (NH) in one tier and Mike Enzi (WY), James Inhofe (OK) , and Pat Roberts (KS) in another. Schmitt concludes: "That's seven possible pick-ups in 2008, plus three more that could be picked up with the right candidate. And what if Harold Ford runs against Lamar Alexander in Tennessee? What if Susan Collins in Maine draws a strong opponent? What about Elizabeth Dole, whose image of competence is as shattered as Dick Cheney's? That's thirteen seats the Republicans have to worry about either a little or a lot."

On the right, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff looks at Dem blowouts in supposedly purple IA and MN and worries about GOP chances in '08. Also Ankle Biting Pundits' Bull Dog Pundit offers winners and losers from 11/7 including:

Winners

• Nancy Pelosi - You have to give her credit for her "strategy of no" the last 2 years. She sensed that voters were so angry at the President and the war, she kept House Dems in line and united.
• "Blue-Dog" Dems - Many of the Dems who won tonight ran as "conservative" or "moderate" Democrats. Whether that was a ploy or not we'll find out soon enough. They could, if they so choose, become a bloc of brokers in the House, much like the "Gang of 14? tried to do in the House.
• John McCain and Mitt Romney - Because even in the unlikely event he wins the recount, George Allen's presidential aspirations got flushed down the john tonight.

Losers

• Pres. Bush and his Iraq policy - Let's face it, people didn't like it and it showed in the vote totals.
• Rabid Anti-War Dems: See Lamont, Gene
• Elizabeth Dole -- A pathetic performance from a pathetic choice to head the NRSC.

BLOGGER SCORECARDS: Atrios Bats Over .500!

The blogs Daily Kos, MyDD, and Swing State Project endorsed the following candidates and encouraged their readers to donate to them through their combined Netroots Act Blue page. None are incumbents.

Race     Candidate         Result    Race    Candidate         Result
CT SEN   Lamont (D)        L         VA SEN  Webb (D)          W
MT SEN   Tester (D)        W       

CA 11   McNerney (D)       W         NJ 07   Stender (D)       L
CO 05   Fawcett (D)        L         NY 29   Massa (D)         L
ID 01   Grant (D)          L         PA 07   Sestak (D)        W
IL 10   Seals (D)          L         PA 08   Murphy (D)        W
MN 01   Walz (D)           W         TX 21   Courage (D)       L
NC 08   Kissell (D)        L         WA 08   Burner (D)        L
NH 02   Hodes (D)          W         WY AL   Trauner (D)       L

AMERICAblog endorsed the following candidates and encouraged readers to donate to them through their Act Blue page. None are incumbents.

Race     Candidate         Result    Race    Candidate         Result
AZ 01    Simnon (D)        L         OH 02   Wulsin (D)        L
AZ 05    Mitchell (D)      W         MN 01   Walz (D)          W
CA 04    Brown (D)         L         NY 19   Hall (D)          W
CA 45    Roth (D)          L         NY 25   Maffei (D)        L
IL 10    Duckworth (D)     L         VA 10   Feder (D)         L
IL 06    Seals (D)         L         WA 05   Goldmark (D)      L
KS 02    Boyda (D)         W

Atrios endorsed the following candidates and encouraged his readers to donate to them through his Act Blue page. None are incumbents.

Race     Candidate         Result    Race    Candidate         Result
MT SEN   Tester (D)        W  

CO 04    Paccione (D       L         PA 07   Sestak (D)        W
NY 19    Hall (D)          W         PA 08   Murphy (D)        W
OH 02    Wulsin (D)        L         PA 10   Carney (D)        W
PA 06    Murphy (D)        L         WA 08   Burner (D)        L

The blogs Firedoglake, DownWithTyranny, and Crooks & Liars endorsed the following candidates and encouraged their readers to donate to them through their combined Netroots Act Blue page. None are incumbents.

Race     Candidate         Result    Race    Candidate         Result
CT SEN   Lamont (D)        L         MD SEN  Klobuchar (D)     W
MD SEN   Cardin (D)        W         MT SEN  Tester (D)        W   

CA 04    Brown (D)         L		 NH 02   Hodes (D)         W
CA 11    McNerney (D)      W		 NY 03   Mejias (D)        L
CA 25    Rodriguez (D)     L		 NY 19   Hall (D)          W
CA 45    Roth (D)          L		 NY 20   Gillibrand (D)    W
CA 50    Busby (D)         L		 NY 24   Arcuri (D)        W
CO 04    Paccione (D)      L    	 NY 29   Massa (D)         L
CO 05    Fawcett (D)       L		 OH 02   Wulsin (D)        L
CO 06    Winter (D)        L		 PA 03   Porter (D)        L
IA 01    Braley (D)        W		 PA 06   Murphy (D)        L
IL 14    Laesch (D)        L		 PA 07   Sestak (D)        W
MI 11    Trupiano (D)      L		 PA 08   Murphy (D)        W
MN 02    Rowley (D)        L		 PA 10   Carney (D)        W
NC 05    Sharpe (D)        L		 VA 05   Weed (D)          L
NC 08    Kissell (D)       L

NY SD 41 Keeler (D)        L

OR HD 39 Caudle (D)        L

WI HD 89 Koehn (D)         L

Conservtive blogs Ankle Biting Pundits, Captain's Quarters, RedState, Right Angle Blog, Right Wing News, Townhall, and Wizbang endorsed the following candidates and encouraged their readers to donate to them through ABC PAC. None are incumbents.

Race     Candidate         Result    Race    Candidate         Result

MD SEN   Steele (R)        L		 NJ SEN  Kean (R)          L

MI SEN   Bouchard (R)      L		 WA SEN  McGavick (R)      L

MN SEN   Kennedy (R)       L   

CO 03    Tipton (R)        L         MN 06   Bachmann (R)      W

CO 07    O'Donnell (R)     L         NY 24   Meier (R)         L

GA 12    Burns (R)         L         OH 06   Blasdel (R)       L

IA 01    Whalen (R)        L         PA 12   Irey (R)          L

IA 03    Lamberti (R)      L         SC 05   Norman (R)        L

IL 06    Roskam (R)        W         TX 17   Taylor (R)        L

IL 08    McSweeney (R)     L         WI 08   Gard (R)          L

IL 17    Zinga (R)         L         WV 01   Wakim (R)         W

BLOGMOM VS. BELTWAY: Look Out Charlie Cook!

As part of a 11/7 Hotline "Mother Knows Best" feature, Blogmom Jean Carroll predicted local (CA 09) statewide races and three national races. She was five for five. Go mom! Here's what she wrote: "In California it will unfortunately be Gov. Schwarzenegger, however we will elect our very best Dianne Feinstein back to Washington. In Colorado they will elect Dem Bill Ritter for governor. In Connecticut they will elect Dem J Lieberman. In Virginia they will elect James Webb for senate. These are the races I have been following."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just Like The Founders Drew It Up?

Andrew Sullivan celebrates Dem victory and the wisdom of the founders:

The House of Representatives has now become a key check on an out-of-control executive. It reflects a big shift in the minds and souls of Americans. The Senate is still unclear - but the Dems have made gains, clearly. The founders knew what they were doing. The country wants to go back to the center, to have a sane, reality-based debate about what to do in Iraq, how to rescue the looming fiscal catastrophe, and how to defeat Islamo-fascism and how to detain and interrogate terror suspects.

LEST WE FORGET: Just Like Rove Drew It Up?

Before all came crashing down on the GOP, Daniel Drezner spun his theory on how the Spears/Fed-Ex break up could be the perfect October/November GOP surprise:

This is perfect timing for the GOP. She's demonstrated her love of George W. Bush in the past. Now consider the following chain of events:

• 1) Her divorce will fire up Andrew Sullivan to point out -- again -- how Britney has defiled the institution of marriage more than any gay man ever could.


• 2) This in turn fires up the conservative base over at NRO's The Corner.


• 3) In the next three hours, a outpouring of social conservatives forget the Ted Haggard follies and vote for the GOP.


• 4) At the same time, under-30 voters -- considered to be overwhelmingly Democratic -- decide not to vote in favor of surfing the web to find out how the young Ms. Spears is looking doing.


• 5) The combined effects push the Republicans to actually pick up seats in Congress and in state capitols.
  It's genius. Pure genius.

Blogometer Update: There's A House Party Goin' On

Netroots celebration of the Dem House takeover ranged from understated (DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: Update VII: Dems win the House) to all caps excitement (MyDD's Chris Bowers: DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!! YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!)

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall advised readers to "savor" the victory, and Matthew Yglesias loved the smell. AMERICblog mixes the sacred with the profane: "Halle-f--king-lujah."

While Kos' reaction was understated, his commenters we're ready to celebrate:

• smugbug: "PLUS 29-Dem Seats in DA HOUSE. MSNBC just called it. That's it....tears of happiness."
• panicbean: "We did it, thank you kos, and Dean, and Kossacks, we did it, and it would have been possible w/o all of the aforementionded folks."
• Phil S 33: ""Bogeyman" Speaker Pelosi!!!! Take that--you effing Rethugs!!!!!"
• kovie: "CNN JUST CALLED THE HOUSE FOR DEMS!!! SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI!!! BRING ON THOSE SUBPOENAS!!!"
• dietznbach: "CNN calls the House for us! Let the celebrations begin!"
• hillary42008: "NEW MAJORITY HOUSE LEADER NANCY PELOSI. FIRST WOMAN IN HISTORY TO BE ELECTED FOR THE POST. TIMES ARE CHANGING... FOR THE BETTER.
• bhlogger: "My GOD this feels good! I was crying during the last election and I'm crying now too, but for SUCH a different reason!!! Congratulations, my fellow Kossacks. Now... time to take the Senate.
• Leggy Starlitz: "CNN just called the House for Dems! IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.
• funnywittobunny: "Let the Impeachment Hearings Begin!"

Blogometer Update: Say It Ain't So Joe

Early netroot reaction to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D) victory over cable exec Ned Lamont (D) was disbelief (I won't count out Lamont...until the last vote is counted) and anger (CNN are wankers ... Prepare to eat crow, Wolf).

Many, however, focussed on the good Lamont's candidacy had accomplished for Dems. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "But the wave of Democratic victory that is happening across the country would not be happening if the Lamont campaign did not step forward and change the narrative for Democrats. Despite the fact that Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Bill and Hillary Clinton planted a big, fat knife in Lamont's back and sneered at Democratic voters, the the blue victories that are happening are a direct result of this battle. The genie came out of the bottle and they could not put it back in. It was a damn good fight and I'm proud to have been a part of it."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas commented: "The White House celebrates Joe Lieberman's victory. So do war mongers." A sampling of the more popular Lieberman related comments include:

• betterdonkeys: "I hope more than you can ever imagine that Ned Lamont has a future in Connecticut politics. I don't know what position or what year. But I hope he runs for something again, and I'd be thrilled to support him again."
• desmoinesdem: "Worst possible outcome. I wish Lieberman had won the primary narrowly. Then he would owe something to Democrats. As things stand, he owes everything to Republicans. Expect him not just to talk like Zell Miller, but to vote like Zell Miller.
• worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry: "It is the first time that I became enlightened to the Beltway politics over grassroots sentiments and I'm not likely to forget it any more than my awakening over the Supreme Court. Some of us have very long memories!"
• Christopher: "I want to reiterate my objections to Reid and Schumer's treatment of the DEMOCRATIC candidate in the Connecticut Senate DEMOCRATIC primary and Connecticut Senate race. Heckuva job, Chuckie.
• Albatross: "Beating the incumbent in the primary was a coup. Lieberman was elected to office by Republicans. At least it's honest now. I'm so proud of Lamont, his campaign, and everyone who worked or voted for him!"
• Inland: "Joe didn't start voicing any questions about Rummy or Bush's handling of the war and national security until democratic opposition forced his hand. Ergo, the way to "work with him" is for him to stop deferring to Bush as the only president we have, and the only way for him to stop deferring to Bush is to challenge him constantly."
• IndyScott: "To Ned Lamont. No one -- and I mean no one -- has represented the netroots better than Ned. Intelligence. Passion. Class. Grace. Dignity. Ned, we'll never, ever forget what you did for us."

Blogometer Update: When Thank You Is Not Enough

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) posted a diary titled "You got us here" on DailyKos 11/7. Beginning "YearlyKos seems so long ago doesn't it?" Reid goes on to thank Kossacks and credit them with Dem success this cycle: "In the past five months, you have donated countless hours exposing Republicans and volunteering for Democratic candidates. Your Actblue page has raised more than $1.5 million, more than $500,000 of that for Senate candidates. Thank you for everything you have done. Without the netroots, Democrats would not be in the position we are in today. It is as simple as that." Reid concluded with a video: "Blogging is here to stay. It's part of our American life. It's even going to become more paramount in the years to come. Keep up the good work." Reid recieved plenty of positive reactions from Kos readers, but plenty of unhappiness, particularly over Reid's handling of cable exec Ned Lamont's (D) candidacy:

• EdwardsRaysOfSunshine: "I hope the staffer that wrote this knows how pissed people are at your treatment of lamont. Lieberman is a cancer on democracy.
• mombadanes: "The problem is that if DC Dems had supported Ned, Joe wouldn't "be winning"/win and then there would be no discussion about "will Joe or won't Joe". But Harry et al were too weak to stand up and say "Joe, you've gotta go!" So when Holy Joe has everybody in DC by the balls, remember why!"
• psnyder: "The hands-off approach to Ned Lamont by the big shots of the party has stunk of triangulation, timidity, and misplaced loyalty. Shame on them."
• SteveLCo: "Seriously, "we're" going to have to decide how to treat the dems that hung Mr. Lamont out to dry. Particularly the two so-called "superstars" that are going to be the front runners for the dem Presidential nomination in '08. (OK I mean Hilary and Barack). My personal opinion is that they can both go f--k themselves."
• CTLarry: "Although it's disappointing to admit, Reid and the rest of the DC dems are losers. That's why they're in the minority -- they like it there, they're used to it. DC Democrats are the worst, except for Republicans."

Reid had has defenders though:

• Cheez Whiz: "save it work together now tear apart later."
• Big Tent Democrat: "This is very irritating. You do not want to beat Lieberman more than I do. No one does. But what we want emotionally is not the way Reid had to analyze this situation. It was up to the rest of the DC Establishment, NOT Reid to fight Lieberman. When we make basically irrational attacks on Reid for things he does, it makes our rational critiques of him resonate much less. Your attack is, imo, irrational."
• The Lighthouse Keeper: "Thank you Harry. For fighting the good fight against heavy odds the last several years. We will be watching with great tension but also great hope this evening, watching for the event that you may be Majority Leader Reid by this time tomorrow. We have all done everything we could and can be quietly satisfied that we are engaged in the fight to take back our country, to re-establish justice and competent governance in the Federal government, and to establish accountability for those who have attempted to corrupt our precious constitutional Republic. Godspeed.

Blogometer Update: First Exits Posted

MyDD's Chris Bowers wins the prize for first big league blogger to post exit polls numbers. Bowers warns: "These numebrs are both unconfirmed and they are exit polls. I am going to keep looking into this." He does post:

Democrats leading in:
VA: 53-46
RI: 53-46
PA: 57-42
OH: 57-43
NJ: 53-45
MT: 53-46
MO: 50-48

Republicans leading:
TN: 51-48
AZ: 50-46

Blogometer Update: Tricks And Travails

Tons of stories of voting troubles and and underhanded behavior coming from both sides of the blogosphere. Right and left have stories on voting machines either pre-set with a certain candidate or unable to register votes for a certain candidate. In the shenanigan department, The Washington Monthly has reports of GOPers bussing in homeless from Philadelphia, PA to pass out "DEMOCRATIC SAMPLE BALLOT"s showing Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) and LG Michael Steele (R) as Dems. Righty bloggers are most upset about a Dem County Clerk in NM sending to few ballots to a heavily GOP NM 01 precinct.

Lefty dirty tricks stories include:

• The Washington Monthly's Jesse Signal interviewed a "man in an Ehrlich-Cox shirt" at Parkdale High School in Riverdale, MD who gave her a "DEMOCRATIC SAMPLE BALLOT" showing Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) and LG Michael Steele (R) as Dems. Singal shares: "A thirty-something African-American who wouldn't give his name, he told me that, starting last Friday, some people had come to the Philadelphia homeless shelter where he said he volunteers, and had begun to recruit residents. Eventually, he said that 300 people filled five buses. He said he was paid $100 for the day's work. He was honest with me: He didn't actually support Ehrlich, but was pro-Steele."
• TPM Muckraker's Paul Kiel shares from reader JN: "just got a call in CT from a Mr. Gallo of the, i think, CT State Central Republican Committee. It was something like that. It was from the republican state senate committee i think. I think gallo said he was some kind of leader. The poll identified itself pretty quickly as being from a republican group, and then it went on to promise that if you vote republicans then they would stop the robocalls."
• From TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood: "I just spoke with a Latino election monitor in Arizona who said that a trio of men, one with a handgun visible, is harassing Latino voters as they go to the polls in Tucson, Ariz. Nina Perales, a senior poll-watcher for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), said that three men are approaching Latino voters and videotaping them on their way to vote at a polling place in Tucson's Iglesia Bautista precinct."

Righty complaints include:

• Erick Erickson at RedState shares: "In wards 7, 19, 51 in Philly, PA, the crowds are going wild. Inside several voting locations, individuals have poured white out onto the polling books and the poll workers are allowing voters to go into the polls and vote without first registering. Several individuals are on hand demanding that voters vote straight Democrat. RNC lawyers have headed to the scene of the incidents, which are occurring in mostly hispanic precinct locations. The District Attorney has also been contacted. More from the ground: Reports of voter intimidation by son-in-law of Philadelphia City Commissioner in 19th Ward. Carlos Mantos is not allowing Republican poll watchers with valid poll-watching certificates monitor polling places."
• RedState also links to this Wednesday Morning Politics post: "At Bernalillo County precinct 603 in Albququerque's NE Heights - where there are over 2400 registered voters, County Clerk Mary Herrera (who is also running for Secretary of State) only sent over 150 ballots. They ran out. A long time ago. At a press conference today, Republicans called on Dem Clerk Mary Herrera to follow election law and get ENOUGH ballots at once out to the precincts where people are being turned away. Apparently, the same thing has happened in precinct 57 on Albuquerque's west side.

In the voting trouble department:

• TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood posts reader PW email: "My wife just came home from voting here in Webster Groves MO. She used the electronic touch-screen voting system. . . She touched Claire McCaskill's picture and the machine recorded a vote for Jim Talent. She then called one of the people running the polling center who helped her correct the problem. My wife then had to call the person over another time after it recorded her vote a Republican again. In her frustration she asked the person who was responsible for the design of this system. The polling person leaned in very close to my wife and whispered, "We're f----d."
• Michelle Malkin posts email from reader Bob Schoeffler: "I live in Tustin, Ca. Our machines were not working when I got to the polls. I was told the only ballots they had left were either Korean, Vietnamese or Chinese. I ended up choosing Chinese. How confusing!
• Also from Malkin reader Jessica McBride: " The state Elections Board (Dem controlled and already accused of rigging claims against the GOP candidate for guv) has just ordered the Milwaukee Election Commission to remove signs that tell felons on parole they can't legally vote or they will be prosecuted. They admit it's an accurate statement of the law. They don't want to "intimidate" voters. They are doing this even though prosecutors want the signs up otherwise it will be hard to prove their case.

11/7: Mission Accomplished?

The diffuse nature of the netroots makes it more difficult to determine whether their influence is primarily responsible for pushing a story into the MSM (it's somewhat easier to tell when a Drudge flash has set the agenda). But it seems as though the netroots made significant progress 11/6 getting NRCC robo-calling stories covered nationally. CNN, ABC News, New York Times, Washington Post, and Keith Olbermann all ran items on the story, although lefty bloggers were not pleased with each outlet's coverage.

Plus, what's this second-hand rumor about Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) saying he might pull a post-election Jeffords?

CT SEN: Mmmmmmmmmm, Kool Aid Tastes Good

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas offers his final cable exec Ned Lamont (D) prediction: "And what about Connecticut? I'll probably live to regret it, but I've bought the hype of Lamont's ground operation and excitement. And I'm convinced that pollsters have no idea how to poll a three-way race with the dynamics we're seeing in Connecticut. So I'm going to go with Lamont by the thinnest of margins over Lieberman -- 43.1-42.9, with Schlesinger picking up 14 percent of the vote."

MD SEN: We Must've Missed That Mfume Endorsement

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts images of a flyer claiming to be paid for by the LG Michael Steele (R) campaign titled: "Ehrlich Steele Democrats." The front of the flyer features photos of African-Americans Wayne Curry, Kweisi Mfume, and Jack Johnson. Kos writes: "Did you know that those guys -- Mfume, Curry, and Johnson all endorsed Michael Steele? Well, except that they didn't." [Ed. note: Wayne Curry did endorse Steele.] Kos concludes: "These guys can't win honestly, so they're trying to lie and confuse their way through the election."

NJ SEN: They're Not Even Immigrants Any More

Blue Jersey has audio of robocalls for state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R), including: "Now he wants us to give your Social Security benefits to illegal migrants. New Jersey seniors deserve far better than having your money go to those who broke the law. You can stop the Menendez plan to give your money to illegal migrants by voting for Tom Kean."

RI SEN: Heck'uv A Job, Liddy!

The Plank's Franklin Foer passes along this nugget: "I have a friend in Rhode Island -- a Democrat torn between his affections for Lincoln Chafee and his desire to make Harry Reid majority leader. Over the weekend, my friend attended a Chafee event and cornered the senator. Now, my friend doesn't have a personal relationship with Chafee, but he put the question bluntly to him: Why should I stick with you in a race with so many national implications? Chafee pulled my friend aside, lowered his voice, and told him that he might not be a Republican for much longer."

VA SEN: Tripping Over Immigrants While Running Away From Terrorists On The Way To The Poorhouse

Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator and Raising Kaine founder Lowell Feld posts video of ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's "riff" from 11/6's Alexandria, VA rally including Clinton imitating a GOPer:

'OK, we really messed up. I mean, this Iraq deal didn't work out too good and now we put Afghanistan at risk. And we probably shouldn't have put that horse show association guy in charge of FEMA. ... Yeah, we've got a lot of problems but you've still got to vote for us. 'Cuz my opponent is a slug. And they're going to tax you into the poorhouse. On the way to the poorhouse you'll meet a terrorist on every street corner. And when you try to run away from that terrorist you're going to trip over an illegal immigrant. You can't vote for 'em. I mean, is that it?'

RCP Blog's Jay Cost offers a Sen. George Allen (R) pre-mortem from "John in Danville" arguing Allen should have spent the campaign "on a tropical island." John writes: "While Webb literally did nothing on the campaign front (except for the occasional fundraiser or small "kitchen" event), Allen wasted 1.5 million dollars, alienated the press corps and made a gigantic verbal gaffe."

Back on the left, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas shares audio form the Webb campaign showing voter suppression in Clarendon, VA. Kos reader Tim Daly received a call 11/6 with this message: "This message is for Timothy Daly. This is the Virginia Elections Commission. We've determined you are registered in New York to vote. Therefore, you will not be allowed to cast your vote on Tuesday. If you do show up, you will be charged criminally."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Maybe If The Calls Included A Botched Joke They's Get More Coverage

Talking Points Memo continued to lead left blogger coverage of NRCC robocalling 11/6. However, the main target of lefty ire focussed in on the MSM for not covering the story more, not the NRCC. Josh Marshall writes: "CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and Fox are each ignoring the GOP's nationwide campaign of false-flag robocalls meant to harass voters and fool them into thinking the calls come from Democrats. If it were Dem on GOP, if it were on Drudge, the cable nets would be on it wall-to-wall. As it is, they're content to ignore it."

Marshall then went on to track MSM coverage of the story throughout the day including CNN, ABC News, New York Times, Washington Post, and, of course, Keith Olbermann. Marshall also reports: "Seems a couple of the major dailies (the Los Angeles Times being one of them, I'm told) were priming to write up the robocall story then got cold feet. Maybe they'll run a considered analysis in a week, when the election is in the history books."

Even when the story did get covered, lefty bloggers often did not like the results. The Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris recaps 11/6 Diane Rehm Show coverage of the robocall story and comments: "I agree with Josh and Kevin and Atrios about the pathetic unwillingness of the mainstream press to cover the onslaught of abusive GOP robocalls and push polls as the big story that it is. But it's actually worse than that. Reporters aren't just loath to bring the subject up. They're actively dodging the subject when someone else brings it up."

Back at TPM, Marshall anticipates GOP defense of robocalling: "Everybody does it. Everybody does robocalls. Another lie. ... Both parties deliver millions of robocalls during election season. ... Only one party has a nationwide campaign to deliver millions of intentionally-harassing calls disguised to appear that they're from the opposite party. That party is the Republican party. And the calls are funded by the NRCC -- the House GOP election committee. It's the party of election subversion. Deal with it."

Indeed, righties did reach for the everybody-does-it defense:

• Michelle Malkin: "Democrats use them too. The firefighters union in Montana ignored state law and placed robo calls attacking GOP Sen. incumbent Conrad Burns. ... By the way, when GOP moderate Chris Shays pointed out deceptive robo calls, liberal critics ridiculed him for complaining about trivialities and mocked him for resorting to desperate diversions. ... These are only going to backfire, especially the deceptive ones. Tell the genius political strategists on both sides: Just. Knock. It. Off."
• Outside the Beltway: "I'm not sure, though, that it's any more despicable than myriad other "dirty tricks" that have been around for years, such as push polling. Or intentionally dishonest negative ads distorting people's voting records, positions on the issues, relationships with controversial groups, and so forth. ... One would prefer, certainly, that elections be about an honest comparison of the candidate's stances on the issues, their experience, and the like. Sadly, close elections seldom seem to be run that way. And most elections are close these days."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Round Up

MyDD's Matt Stoller agrees with firedoglake's Jane Hamsher that "very clearly that NARAL needs to be de-funded." Stoller continues: "The leadership is corrupt and dishonest, and is simply no longer protecting women's rights. Every NARAL member I have spoken with is either outraged or unaware that they have endorsed Lieberman. If they knew that NARAL is also lying about Lamont, I think they would be more than outraged."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent has a "A Roundup Of 9/11 Exploitation By The GOP And Its Allies" and Andrew Sullivan links to sites where readers can track three "Anti-Gay Initiatives" in VA, CO, and AZ.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY II: First, Blame All The Lawyers

Loyola Law School Los Angeles prof. Rick Hasen at Election Law lowers the "Election Litigation Threat Level" to orange, 11/6 rejecting suggestions that the biggest obstacle to knowing who will control Congress 11/7 will be lawyers: "In jurisdictions where many absentee votes have been cast (I just heard a report, which I have not verified, that up to 80% of Maryland voters are voting by absentee), it could take up to a few days for the ballots to be processed and a winner announced if the election is close."

Hasen does suggest that litigation is still possible in some battle grounds: "How likely is it that litigation would cause a delay in knowing which party controls the House or Senate, a sort of mini-Florida Debacle II? I would say that the chances are fairly small. Here's what would need to happen: control of the Senate or House would have to turn on the results of a single seat or a handful of seats, and those elections would have to be either (1) too close to call because the absolute margin of votes is very close (in the hundreds or low thousands) or (2) in dispute because of widespread problems or irregularities at the polls (such as a massive failure of equipment, shortage of ballots, etc.). I've predicted that the Missouri Senate race is the most likely site for such problems."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Nice Work, If You Can Get It

Following up on Beltway Blogroll reporting on campaign hiring of bloggers/advisers, Blog P.I. wanted to know: "Who is the best-paid campaign blogger? Which campaign spent the most? What would these bloggers make if prorated to a yearly salary?" His findings include the following top-five blogger/advisor prorated campaign salaries.

• Peter Daou, $60,000, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
• Michael Brodkorb, $55,200, Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN)
• Mindy Finn, $52,800, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
• Luke Bernstein, $51,600, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
• Laura Packard, $44,400, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

LEST WE FORGET: Vampires Vote Democrat, Zombies Vote Republican

The Huffington Post's Joshuah Bearman links to an Amazon Bookstore item noting 'Zombie Arts' zeniths now (28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, and Land of the Dead) and in the mid-80's (Day of the Dead, Re-Animator, The Return of the Living Dead, and The Evil Dead 2. Amazon writes: "You may have noticed that these two great zombie eras coincide with consecutive terms of Republican presidents..." Bearman responds:

In the spirit of non-partisanship, Amazon Bookstore's Jon adds that he also has a theory about Democratic administrations coinciding with vampire stories. But Jon's analysis forgets a third data point on the zombie graph helps his theory -- 1968: the simultaneous dawn of Nixon and Romero's Living Dead. Think about it, people.

Blogometer Update

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: No Love At The Freak Show

  ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin is not well loved in the blogosphere.  He's sniffed at by the right, loathed by the left.  It probably comes down to what Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory calls Halperin: "[T]he living, breathing embodiment of the 'mainstream media,'" and we all know how well bloggers and the beltway get along.

  What initially torques Greenwald off about Halperin is his promotion of a book he's co-written with Washington Post National Political Editor John Harris that takes, in discussing the strategies of modern politics, potshots at bloggers--or, as the book describes them, the "shrill voices" of "partisan megaphones."

  One of Halperin's stops in his promotional tour was at right-winger Hugh Hewitt's radio show.  And here's where Greenwald, and just about everyone else, has a fit:

  [Halperin] went on Hugh Hewitt's radio show for a three hour interview last night, and Hewitt spent the entire time trying to attack Halperin as one of the symbols of overwhelming, systemic left-wing bias in the "mainstream media."

  The ironic problem for Hewitt?  Halperin -- like so many of the most entrenched establishment journalists -- not only agrees with Hewitt about virtually everything, but was literally desperate to convince Hewitt that this is the case, that he is on Hewitt's side.  In front of an approving Sean Hannity, Halperin last week announced his self-debasing quest "to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances."  He escalated that crusade by many levels with yesterday's interview.

  So many "journalists" like Halperin seemingly have as their principal objective convincing right-wing extremists like Hewitt that they are good boys and girls and do their job in a way that pleases the Right.  The effort is always tinged with self-flagellating confessions that they have not been Good enough -- they have been trying to be more fair to the Right, they insist, but they still need to do much better -- but these assurances are accompanied by pleas for the Right to recognize that they are not as bad as most of the other journalists.

  Greenwald goes on to illustrate several examples of Halperin's pandering to Hewitt, then wraps:

  In sum, Halperin, in one interview, illustrated the crux of the sickness of the national media -- every tenet of right-wing mythology, embraced.  Every opportunity to debase himself before Hewitt in the hope of getting a little head pat as one of the Good Boys, seized.  Every left-wing bogeyman, bashed.  Every right-wing hero, glorified and praised and treated with intense reverence.

  Following up on his own post later in the day, Greenwald heaps more onto Halperin:

Today, Halperin is very upset -- very emotionally distraught -- because Hewitt remarked both during and after the interview that he thinks Halperin is "very liberal."  Halperin spent three hours in the interview desperately trying to convince Hewitt that he is on Hewitt's side, but that wasn't enough to win Hewitt's approval.

  If anything, it prompted derisive, dismissive cracks from Hewitt, who writes at Townhall:

Mark Halperin was upset by my conclusion that he is a very liberal MSMer. ... Arguing for a sort of "sovereign immunity" from opinions being formed about his ideology and agenda is at first baffling and then humorous.  Smart and pleasant, but the condescension in his offense taking is startling.  This is the MSM disease, one associated with all aristocracies --that it will not endure criticism or questioning, is easily offended, and quick to cast aspersions on opponents.

  For the record, Mark Halperin e-mailed me and asked if he could be a guest.  Not only did I agree, I thought his position worthy of a three hour interview and the offer of a return visit.  His anger with me comes from my opinion that he is very liberal, and as I explained below, I don't think it is easy to come to any other conclusion with the evidence at hand.

  Then the volleys from the left picked up again.  Ezra Klein ID's Halperin as "what's wrong with the press corps."  He writes:

  It is now a matter of public record ... that Mark Halperin is writing with an eye towards Hugh Hewitt's approval.  Everything he writes must be judged through that lens.  Much of it must be discarded for that reason.  He's no longer a journalist, can no longer protect his pretensions of intellectual independence.  He's no longer, if he ever was, worth reading.

  Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED fires away at Halperin's "rules of mindless balance," too, in a post addressed to journalists:

  Halperin's a salon-sniffer with all the sincerity of a man who sells potions out of a wagon...

  It's step-up time today, boys and girls.  Are you going to play along with the bullshit controversy du jour or are you going to do your actual jobs?  By all means, let's talk about Iraq for the next six days.

  Rather than loathe Halperin, Atrios at Eschaton feels sorry for him.  To wit:

I've always really disliked Mark Halperin, but now I just pity him.  I really wonder what kind of psychological development he had in life which has led him get down on his knees and beg for the approval of... Hugh Hewitt.

  More than that, he's the political director of ABC news.  Last I checked it's a rather important time for such news.  And he's spending his time crafting whining emails to a conservative hack radio host?  There's no better use of his time 7 days before an election?

  Imagine how embarrassed his friends, family, and coworkers must be for him.  What a pathetic shell of a human being.

  Halperin got wind of Atrios' post, and--seemingly aware of all the net criticism directed toward him--this time he responded, via John at wtfwjd?:

  [A]s I have said to you privately, I am beginning to think you are intellectually dishonest on a few points.  It seems strange that someone who seems to be trying to bring truth to people would do such a thing, but I can't really explain your behavior any other way.  As I said to Hugh Hewitt, you and I disagree on almost everything.  On most of the points of agreement, I disrespect your position and thus my own, and plan to modify my beliefs in accord. ...

  I am mystified by your determination to lump me in with others.  Acknowledging the liberal bias that exists in the Old Media -- as John Harris and I do in The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 doesn't necessarily prove that I am not a "wanker," but I would think you would be open to giving me the benefit of the doubt, when you have no actual evidence to the contrary.

  No sooner does Halperin put the period on the end than Jeff Borden has this posted at Poynter Online:

  So, Mark Halperin doesn't vote to maintain his journalistic purity, but he runs panting after a second-tier conservative talk show host's approval and slanders the entire press corps as anti-military in the process?  I know these self-absorbed DC creatures have some strange ideas, but what's up with this?

  It doesn't say much for Halperin's abilities as political director for a major network news operation that he fears casting a vote behind the privacy curtain of a polling place will hurt his reputation but transforming into a lickspittle for a rightwing radio host doesn't.  I'll certainly be looking elsewhere for political coverage.

  As if that weren't all enough, Halperin's writing partner Harris "begs Mark Halperin to shut up," as Weldon Berger writes at BTC News:

  Harris keeps telling Halperin, politely, to shut up about their book.  The reason Harris wants Halperin to shut up is that during the course of his promotion tour for the book, Halperin has courted right-wing talk and radio hosts and in so doing has disintegrated into a 10-year-old boy begging the bullies to like him.  ... Billmon likens [Halperin's behavior with Hewitt] to the desperate self-criticism sessions common in Soviet Russia and vividly described by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

  It isn’t just Halperin’s character or his ability to provide rational coverage of politics in this country that his courtship of Hewitt, and Sean Hannity before, calls into question: it’s his mental acuity.  At one point he tells Hewitt that “I am beginning to think you are intellectually dishonest on a few points.”  He is, mind you, writing to a man whose very trade is intellectual dishonesty and demagoguery.  Maybe Hewitt is capable of intellectual honesty off the clock, but when he’s on duty it has no part in his performance.

  The public disintegration of Halperin’s character, in both the critical and psychological senses, is extremely unpleasant to watch.  Harris is clearly uncomfortable with it: throughout his exchanges with Halperin he hints at that discomfort, telling Halperin in regard to “freak show” politics that “you know my view of the freak show, because I learned it from you.  It should be marginalized.  What incentives induced you to not follow your own advice?”

  Gadzooks!  Berger eases up on Halperin for a microsecond, knocking Harris' "traditional [press] myopia," before delivering a withering blow on Halperin again as he wraps:

[He] clearly has no business representing the national press in a discussion of that institution.  At the same time, his high profile going into the elections offers a valuable and rather depressing confirmation of the degree to which a great many journalists are operating with the equivalent of Jack Sparrow’s compass in Pirates of the Caribbean: it points neither east nor west nor north nor south, but only in the direction of the thing you most desire.  In Halperin’s case, what he most desires is acceptance from people who have always and will ever find him nothing but contemptible, and his only success is in broadening that demographic.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: A.P. Freely

  Associated Press gun-for-hire John Solomon would be earning the wrath of lefty watchdogs, were his attacks... er, reports something more than wet noodle slaps, as folks at Talking Points Memo point out.

  First there was Solomon's carping that started back in June on Sen. Harry Reid's real estate troubles.  Josh Marshall's take on it, from mid-October:

  I know a number of people who know or have worked for Solomon.  And I've never gotten the impression that Solomon has any political or ideological ax to grind.  His rep is as an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling their wares -- and from both sides.

  Here's what one former colleague of Solomon's said last week: "I worked [X] years in the same office as Solomon, sometimes with him.  The consensus: he's lazy, and takes hit jobs handed him on a platter by opps research teams (and anyone will do.)  And doesn't do much to clean it up.  I also know one of his fave and frequent sources is Barbara Comstock, former DOJ spxwoman and GOP attack dog."

  I've heard the same from numerous oppo researchers and journalists.  If you're interested in finding out more about this, you might also look at this 2004 article in The Atlantic Monthly about how oppo researchers get their goods into articles.  Look at the articles referenced and then go back and see the bylines.

  On Reid, I think it's a combination of two things.  One, as I said, he's an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling stuff that other journos didn't think met the laugh test.  And two, he hasn't really landed a punch yet and Reid's fought back.  So now it's a bit personal.

  Well apparently Solomon got bored and went sniffing around for something else, and got it with a quick rip on Sen. John Kerry's soldier-education gaffery.  Reader DK at TPM was close to being entertained by Solomon's freestylin':

  Josh posted a couple of weeks ago about the modus operandi of the AP's John Solomon: "His rep is as an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling their wares -- and from both sides."

  So I was almost amused when I saw Solomon's hit piece today on John Kerry.  In a story that purports to follow up on Kerry's botched Iraq joke (the headline is "Kerry's '72 Army comments mirror latest"), Solomon reports: "During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

  Phrased that way, it appears that Kerry was linking being underprivileged to the commission of war crimes.  But once you read the rest of Solomon's piece it becomes pretty clear that Kerry thought that a professional army would be more likely to commit war crimes (which may be arguable but is not implausible) and also thought that an all-volunteer force would be comprised disproportionately (and unfairly) of the underprivileged.  Solomon commits the causal fallacy of concluding that Kerry therefore said that the underprivileged are more likely to commit war crimes.

  Now back to the Solomon MO.  His sources for the story were "a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities" and "someone who gathered" the document in which the comments appear"from archives during Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign."  The first source gave Solomon the tip.  The second source, apparently an opposition researcher, provided the document.

  Like I said, almost funny.  Then I considered what a treasure trove the current national security apparatus must be yielding even as we speak for some oppo researcher to exploit against a yet unknown Iraq War veteran 34 years from now.

[Mike Sheehan]

11/6: Dial R For Robocall

Analysis of the latest Pew, Gallup, Mason-Dixon, and Washington Post polling dominated the blogosphere over the weekend. The only news coming out of the 'sphere are reports from mostly Talking Points Memo readers about persistent NRCC robo-calls designed to depress Dem turnout. Can the netroots push one more negative GOP story into the headlines in time?

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: What Ever You Do, Don't Answer The Phone

Talking Points Memo is leading lefty blogger reporting on robocalls going to voters throughout the country including NH-02, NY-19, IL-06, IL-08, CA-04, and CT-04. the calls begin: "I'm calling with information about [fill in name of Democratic candidate]" and then "goes on to bash the Democratic candidate." TPM also reports if listeners try to hang up, they are automatically called back as many as eight times. Josh Marshall writes: "Hang-ups are the achilles heal of robo-calls. So this seems to be an attempt to cover for that weakness by making those who hang up think the Democratic candidate is basically harassing them with phone calls. The GOP wins either way.

Marshall suggests readers fight back by recording as much info on the call as possible and then calling "the 'metro desk' of your local paper. They're looking for political stories in the final days. And this is a good one. ... This is a form of election sabotage that everyone should know about -- not three weeks from now, but now, when voters are still making up their minds."

Daily Kos' Georgia10 has follows the NH AG's success in shutting down NRCC calls to NH residents on the national "Do Not Call" registry.

LANDSCAPE: Will Indies Show Up For Dems?

Pew's 11/5 poll showing Dems up 47%-43% among likely voters pierced "the protective bubble of massive, double-digit generic ballot polls" buoying netroots expectations for 11/7. MyDD's Chris Bowers, however, noted some issues with Pew's sampling: "The problem is that Pew's current turnout model suggests a 10% advancement for Republicans on 2004 ... There also is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Democrats and Republicans have remained at parity since 2004. All evidence indicates just the opposite."

Other lefty bloggers reacted to the Pew poll by highlighting positive Dem numbers. Daily Kos' DemFromCT hoped indies turned out: "D's lead committed voters 44-35%; D's lead 44-33 with indies; leaners are divided evenly. There's still a big D lead with indies, and the question remains whether they show. if they do, there's still big numbers in there for the Democrats, and if not, we have a nailbiter." While MyDD's Jonathan Singer noted the GOP base was depressed: "However the survey ... also found that 51 percent of Democratic voters are "more enthusiastic about voting than usual" while just 42 percent of Republicans say the same. True, this margin is smaller than it was last month; nonetheless it represents a a real problem for the GOP turnout machine that is seeking to activate a still depressed base."

The Plank's Noam Scheiber found the poll "alarming" but argued that Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) joke did damage not Dems: "Nearly 20 percent of independents told Pew that the joke raised doubts in their minds about voting Democratic ... My feeling is that a good quarter to a third of all independents are basically Republicans. And, if you'll permit me a little armchair psychologizing, I think people who call themselves independents but are almost certain to vote Republican typically look for a convenient pretext to justify their vote. My guess is that the Kerry joke has provided that pretext, even though the outcome of their vote was never really in doubt.

On the right, Captain's Quarters compares the latest Pew poll to their 10/18 numbers and argues: "GOP has rolled back the Democratic intrusion onto Republican demographics." Specifically, CQ cites: "In a month, the Democrats have lost non-minorities altogether. The gap among all whites went from +5 Democrats to +5 GOP, a ten-point swing. White females had supported Democrats by a 15-point margin and a majority (55-40), but now give the GOP a 2-point lead." CQ also looked at religous voters: "They held a thin lead (5 points) among all Protestants, but now trail by 9. Their ten-point lead among white mainline Protestants has dissipated into a tie. They lead among all Catholic, having lost three points off of an eight-point lead, but non-Hispanic Catholics now favor the GOP by 5 points, a ten-point shift."

LANDSCAPE II: Neither Side Believes These Numbers

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas found Gallup's 11/6 numbers "Delicious, but too optimistic?" Kos writes: "Man, I wish these Gallup numbers were accurate, but they look nothing like any other polls at this time. Subtract 3-4 points from the Democratic candidate and it should be closer to what other pollsters peg as the state of these races. Well, except for Virginia, where you should subtract four from Allen." MyDD's Chris Bowers also doesn't believe Gallup's numbers will prevail in all of the close races: "I just think that we will lose more than one of the really close races in Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Montana and Maryland. With numbers like these, my final prediction will probably be a four or five seat Democratic gain--I haven't decided yet." Finally, many, including Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall noted that Dems 51%-44% generic congressional ballot is "exactly where the congressional generic was for the Gallup poll for the Republicans in 1994."

On the right, RCP Blog's John McIntyre casts doubts on Gallups numbers showing Mason-Dixon beating Gallup badly in OH, PA, and FL in '04.

LANDSCAPE III: Just Throw Them All Together!

Pollster.com tries to sort through widely differing Senate poll numbers with "Pollster Compare" charts that allow you to compare the trend in the vote margin between the various pollsters in each race and spot the "house effects" that make one set of results consistently different across." For example in MD SEN: "the three automated polls by SurveyUSA have all shown the race virtually tied, while other polls (including the automated surveys from Rasmussen Reports) show a narrowing race, with Democrat Ben Cardin typically leading by roughly five percentage points."

Also at Pollster.com, Charles Franklin notes recent Dem "turn down" on the congressional ballot, but still pegs the current Dem advantage at "roughly +11." In a different post, Franklin argues: "the wave boosting the Democrats crested about 10 days ago. ... While forces are still a net positive to the Democrats, these forces are weaker than they were during the week before Halloween." Kausfiles links and suggests this data exonerates Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as the tide changer: "Ten days ago was Thursday, Oct. 26.--but Kerry's comments didn't come until four days later. That means the Dems had started downhill before Kerry even opened his mouth."

LANDSCAPE IV: "Come on Home, Baby!"

Righty bloggers are almost giddy over lefty counterpart angst over "natural tightening" in the latest polling. National Review Online's John Podhoretz writes "Panic! Panic! .... This post by Noam Scheiber at the New Republic's Plank blog says it all: Liberals and Democrats in a state of terror that their victory is being snatched from them." RedState's Erick Erickson writes: "I've been on the phone with campaigns around the country this weekend and there are a lot of upbeat people who, two weeks ago, were ready to commit Hari Kari." Ankle Biting PunditsPatrick Hynes is hearing the same thing from his GOP sources: "Whereas a week ago we were looking at the possibility of losing 25 seats, we now think that number is closer to 10," a Congressional Republican insider told me."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt promises five but only delivers four "Explanations For Democrats Feeling That [Cleveland] Browns' Fans Feeling" including: "a.) the pollsters consistently underweighted GOP turnout and are scrambling to avoid being Zogbied; b.) GOP faithful and center-right independents are unhappy with President Bush and the Congress for a number of reasons and told pollsters, but have now relented as they realize that no matter what the problem is, the answer can't be more Democrats; c.) John Kerry reminded Americans of the left's contempt for the military; and d.) The Rove-Mehlman GOTV machine is rolling out, powered by polite volunteers who understand the need to persuade not merely berate."

Also at Townhall, Mary Katharine Ham looks at downturns in Dem congressional ballot leads and writes: "Momentum Shifting? Come on Home, Baby!" Elsewhere, Ham also has a video plugging GOP.com's "Get On the Phone" program: "There are so many fun and exciting Republicans just waiting for you to call them."

LANDSCAPE V: You've Come A Long Way, Baby

Whether it's in response to the "Inevitable Tightening Of Polls" or not, the netroots are in full expectations control mode. DailyKos' DemFromCT warns: "With 48 hours left, expect a roller coaster of emotions. ... The helpful thing about this is that it puts things back in perspective. Any number of seats that allows the Dems to take the House is a win. ... If the Speaker is a Democrat, Bush and Rove have lost. ... We were never expected to take the Senate. That it is a distinct possibility is amazing. That it is in play in essentially red states is a comment on how badly the Republicans have governed."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum pitches in rebutting Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer assertions that double digit House losses are the norm for second term presidents. Drum responds: "Nice try, guys, but here's the reality. Up through the 70s, big swings in House elections were common, but in the last 20 years there's only been a single year with a big swing (1994). Aside from that, the average change has been less than five seats. ... Thirty years ago a pickup of 25 seats wouldn't have been that big a deal. Today it is. If Dems win that many seats, it really will be a historic victory."

For many in the netroots, the fact that the election is close at all is already a major victory for them:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Remember how electing Howard Dean chair of the Democratic Party would spell the end of Democratic chances in 2006? Remember how the netroots would spell the end of Democratic chances in 2006? Remember how calling for an Iraq pullout would spell the end of Democratic chances in 2006? In a couple of days, we'll find out if those claims turned out to be true.
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "Democrats will make noticeable gains in the House, the Senate, in Governorships, and basically everywhere else in this election. Even our worst case scenario yields progress, as well as the majority vote of the nation. Our fight has most definitely not been for nothing. And if this doesn't work well, then fine, we will try something new shortly."
• Daily Kos' Georgia10: "It's fun to watch you minimize our success. I'm not talking about Tuesday. No, I'm talking about today's success, this success of ours which has caused you to gulp and curse the day you declared us dead. We may win big on Tuesday. We may not. But today, this pulsating life in our party wasn't supposed to happen. But it's here. We're here."

Finally, Atrios promises that win or lose, the netroots will not be taking any days off after the election: "The big mistake in 2004 was that the netroots or whatever the hell we are at some point started deferring to the powers that be, and then post-election disillusionment combined with a leadership vacuum from those powers meant that things stagnated. Either way, not this time. Time to keep marching. Worry about, and try to affect, the things you have some control over right now. Wednesday morning you can figure out how to do it better.

CT SEN: The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy In Action

MyDD's Matt Stoller is blaming cable exec Ned Lamont's (D) troubles on "the institutional establishment." Stoller writes: "It's not just the Republicans who want Joe in the Senate. It's Bill Clinton, who lied about his support of Ned. It's Chuck Schumer, who tried to keep Ned from running, and Harry Reid, who's negotiating with Joe on seniority. It's Fred Wurtheimer, who doesn't care about street money buying votes but wants to regulate blogs. It's a very big list."

The occasion for Stoller's beltway bashing is House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) refusal to criticize Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) for marching with Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT): "Nancy Pelosi, the head of the Congressional wing of the party, won't give Lamont the kind of backup she'd give to every other Democrat in the country, even against someone who has combined his GOTV machine with Republican Congressional candidates running against the people she's stumping for."

MT SEN: We Can't Believe This Is Just The First One Of These

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent posts video of the Free Enterprise Fund's "Brokebank Democrats" ad attacking state Sen. Pres. Jon Tester (D) on taxes.

VA SEN: Kos' First '06 Prediction

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes the last '05 Mason-Dixon numbers on Gov. Tim Kaine/ex-AG Jerry Kilgore showed a one point Dem lead like 11/3's Mason Dixon numbers did and then looks at Kaine's eventual margin and writes: "That's a nearly 6-point spread, or 3-5 boost over the final polls in the race. And that was against a fully-functional ground game. In Virginia, Republicans are grumbling about the neglected state of Allen's ground game. It's virtually non-existent and the NRSC didn't expect to have a competitive race. I may be overly optimistic given these numbers and trends and on-the-ground reports, but I'll project a 4-point Webb victory when I release my predictions tomorrow."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Somebody Doesn't Think Sasha Cohen Is God!!!

Matthew Yglesias pens the first lukewarm review of Borat we've seen:

Is it okay to be disappointed by a comedy that, at the end of the day, is genuinely very funny? Expectations for this were sky-high and even though it was good, I feel they weren't meant. This was definitely a movie worth seeing, but not a timeless comedy classic. I thought Talladega Nights's send-up of Americana was, ultimately, superior just among films released in 2006. Also, I know this is sort of part of the joke, but I'm not really sure why SBC made Borat from Kazakhstan. The country being satirized seems to be a Slavic backwater, someplace like Belarus or just rural Russia, rather than Muslim, Turkic-speaking Kazakhstan.

LEST WE FORGET: Separated At Mirth

In case you missed it, Blog P.I. posts YouTube video purporting to show Hotline editor Chuck Todd winning $5K on the price is right. BPI writes: "If you ask me, it only really looks like him for a split second - but if I'm wrong, congrats on winning the five grand. I hereby nominate this for the Friday "Separated at Birth" section of Last Call."

Blogometer Update

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: The Downward Spiral

  John Cole at Balloon Juice writes a piece titled simply, 'This Is No Fun.'  "I just thought I would go on record stating that the last few weeks and months have really sucked for me."  He continues, dramatically:

  I spent my whole life in the GOP- starting in 1984 with county meetings, going to Teenage Republican camp, and spending the better part the fall of 1984 going door to door for John Raese in his race against Rockefeller (Raese, as you know, lost).  Now, 22 years later, I find myself not only refusing to support Raese against Robert Byrd, but I have come to the conclusion that the Republicans are so corrupt, so dishonest, so beholden to special interests and fanatical lobbying groups that Byrd not only looks to be the better option, but the entire Democratic party looks better.

  I don’t know when things went south with this party, but for me, Terri Schiavo was the real eye-opener.  Sure, the Prescription Drug Plan was hideous and still gets my blood pressure pumping, and the awful bankruptcy bill was equally bad, and there were other things that should have clued me in, but really, it was Schiavo that made me realize this party was not as advertised.  And it is frustrating as hell.

  What makes this even more frustrating is that not only do I feel like I have been duped, but I established a lot of friends in the right wing of the blogging community- and now I read their pages and I can’t believe what I am reading, even though I know that five years ago I probably would have been saying the same or similar things.  I know many of them as people- and not just GOP parrots- having spent time working on collaborative projects with them, serving on the editorial board at Red State, appearing on radio shows with them- you name it.  I have, at one point in time, defended many of them from what I perceived to be unfair attacks.  So I know that by and large they are not bad people.  Yet I read their pages now, and through my eyes, it looks like they are so divorced from reality it makes me question what, if anything, I ever believed in.

  Egad.  Cole doesn't let up...

In short, it really sucks looking around at the wreckage that is my party and realizing that the only decent thing to do is to pull the plug on them.  I am not really having any fun attacking my old friends- but I don’t know how else to respond when people call decent men like Jim Webb a pervert for no other reason than to win an election.  I don’t know how to deal with people who think savaging a man with Parkinson’s for electoral gain is appropriate election-year discourse.  I don’t know how to react to people who think that calling anyone who disagrees with them on Iraq a “terrorist-enabler” than to swing back.  I don’t know how to react to people who think that media reports of party hacks in the administration overruling scientists on issues like global warming, endangered species, intelligent design, prescription drugs, etc., are signs of… liberal media bias.

  And it makes me mad.  I still think of myself as a Republican- but I think the whole party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills, and it frustrates me to no end to see my former friends enabling them, and I wonder ‘Why can’t they see what I see?”  I don’t think I am crazy, I don’t think my beliefs have changed radically, and I don’t think I have been brainwashed by my commentariat.

  I hate getting up in the morning, surfing the news, and finding more and more evidence that my party is nothing but a bunch of frauds.  I feel like I am betraying my friends in the party and the blogosphere when I attack them, even though I believe it is they who have betrayed what ‘we’ allegedly believe in.  Bush has been a terrible President.  The past Congresses have been horrible- spending excessively, engaging in widespread corruption, butting in to things they should have no say in, refusing to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING, and using wedge issues to keep themselves in power at the expense of gays, etc.  And I don’t know why my friends on the right still keep fighting for these guys to stay in power.  Why do they keep attacking decent people like Jim Webb- to keep this corrupt lot of fools in office?  Why can’t they just admit they were sold a bill of goods and start over?  Why do they want to remain in power, but without any principles?  Are tax cuts that important?  What is gained by keeping troops in harms way with no clear plan for victory?  With no desire to change course?  With our guys dying every day in what looks to be for no real good reason?  Why?

  Cole ends his bewildered admission, "I really don’t know where this post is going, so I will just end it now, but I do have to say the past few months have really sucked, and I am completely disillusioned."

  Commenter CaseyL remarks, "John, think of it as having left a cult.  Seriously."  Another commenter, in a moment of levity, says, "To cheer you up, John, I have a funny story about the Hitler Youth..."  (Read the rest of LLeo's comment here if you must.)

  But it's Markos Moulitsas' words at Daily Kos that are almost as remarkable as Cole's.  Kos writes, "Some might read [the post] from conservative blogger John Cole with glee, but I don't.  It makes me sad."  He continues:

 Lest I come off as condescending or patronizing, please understand that I left the Republican Party in 1992 for pretty much the same reasons, if in a different era.  It was at the height of the Christian Coalition's rise to power.  The deficit was a mess.  The politics of Lee Atwater were dragging politics into the gutter -- a foreshadowing of the Reign of Rove.  And really, as socially liberal as I am, I am still and always will be a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and a healthy, robust entrepreneurial business climate.  I was a Libertarian Republican in a party already moving toward its present authoritarian foundation.

  I was a precinct captain for the Republican Party at the age of 16.  I campaigned for Bush Sr.  I door knocked, phone banked, stuffed envelopes -- whatever.  I have a picture somewhere of me and Papa Bush, taken during one of his campaign swings through Illinois in 1988.  I dug up an old comic book I had drawn together.  In the dedication page, I dedicated it to the "Republican Party."

  And despite all that work, all the emotional investment, all the fights I had gotten into because of my trust in the GOP, I had to come to a realization that it was all for naught.  That what I thought and hoped the Republican Party was about really, at the end of the day, was nowhere near the reality.  Coming just two years after I tore myself away from the Catholic Church, I felt like everything I had believed in for so long was a cruel lie.

  I could be flip and say, "come on in, the water's fine on our side!"  But first of all, it's not like our party doesn't have its own problems.  And more importantly, partisan fealty, like religion, goes much deeper than the intellect.  It cuts to the very core of who we are, of how we define ourselves.  That's why for many of the disillusioned, it's simply easier to tune out or become "independent" than it is to jump in bed with the other party.

  "Cole will obviously have to figure out for himself where he goes from here," says Kos. "He can decide to fight for his party and hopefully restore some sense of sanity in those quarters.  He can join us. ... He can tune out.  Or become a dispassionate, 'independent' observer of the political process.  But whatever decision he has ahead, he has already made one important one -- he'll refuse to be a conservative sycophant. ... His next step, no matter which one he takes, will be much, much tougher.

KERRY: Kerrypicker

  The aforementioned Cole, in an earlier piece which may have triggered his confession above, was not happy with the "predictable, lamentable" overreaction to Sen. John Kerry's remark about education and Iraq that have been played ad-nauseum by cable news outlets.  Cole writes:

  A general rule of thumb regarding controversies like this is to count how many posts Michelle Malkin has about the issue, and to note that there is a positive correlation to how trivial the matter is and how many posts she has about it.  At my last count, she had four on her site, two on her spin-off site Hot Air (who I still think ripped their name off from me).  That would tell me that this issue would be somewhere between Cindy Sheehan and crescent-shaped 9/11 memorials and Terri Schaivo in importance, but the possibility is there for a new record.

  Predictably, lamentably, the right-wing blogosphere is grievously insulted and has put the grass-roots outrage machine in high gear.  Expect record levels of umbrage from all corners.

 I wish Kerry had not made the remark (even though he was trying to insult the President and not the troops), but I do find it a little amusing that the people who are ‘upset’ about this remark managed to remain completely silent about this:

  Cole posts a thumbnail of the despicable, infamous "purple bandage" stunt at the 2004 Republican Convention, worn by some attendees to mock the wounds that Kerry received Purple Hearts for in Vietnam.  Cole continues:

  I am sure we all remember the Bush supporters wearing fake purple heart stickers at the 2004 RNC to mock Kerry’s service.  Additionally, I note that Malkin and company have not yet moved to condemn the treatment Vietnam war hero Jim Webb is getting at the hands of Red State, where he has been compared to John Mark Karr and today called a pervert. ...

  Again, I wish Kerry had not made the remark, but really, it changes nothing.  The Republican party has no plan for Iraq other than rhetorical shifts, their policies are not constructed or implemented to actually accomplish anything but rather to maintain Congressional power, and we all will be better off if the GOP is swept out of power.  The Republicans are corrupt, morally bankrupt, have no ideas, no principles, and are hoping upon hope that this latest distraction will help to stop the bleeding.  Unfortunately, the bleeding they care about is at the polls and not the bleeding in Iraq.

  "Let’s crush their hopes," Cole wraps.

RI SEN: Severe Chafeeng

  Lightning rod/hapless maverick/incumbent GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee, locked in a tight election battle with the extraordinarily-surnamed Dem challenger Sheldon Whitehouse, released a new 30-second spot in which he simply says, straight to the camera:

All the time, people tell me, "Linc, I really like you.  But I have to send Bush a message."  I say, when we rushed into Iraq, a majority of Republicans and Democrats voted for the war.  I stood against the Senate and the President and voted no.  I've always stood for principle, even if it meant standing alone -- and that's a message worth sending to Washington.

  Markos Moulitsas quips at Daily Kos, "Chafee admits the reason he will lose."  Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review's The Corner mock-imitates Chafee: "I may take Republican money, but you won't see me vote with them on important issues."  LeftCoastTimm comments, "If the twit had just switched to the Democratic Party, he'd be cruising to an easy re-election."  lemon999 rues, "I feel bad for Linc, [b]ut I'd rather send the message."

  Meanwhile, at YouTube, where the ad is viewable, karlcol snipes, "What a weasel.  It may cost the Republicans the Senate, but getting rid of this RINO [Republican In Name Only] would be worth it."  And we leave off with fishhead06's rib: "If Chafee puts any more distance between himself and Bush, he'll start orbiting the Earth."

[Mike Sheehan]

11/3: Arizona Dreamin'

Reports of strong Dem performance in early AZ voting have lefty bloggers not just thinking upset in the Grand Canyon State, but also feeling confident nat'lly. If a gap once existed between older and younger generations on the size of this wave, it's narrowing rapidly. Only TN seems to be bucking a pro-Dem trend in lefty blogger eyes. On the right, confidence is still high, at least for the Senate, where victories in MO and TN buoy GOP hopes they'll retain the chamber.

LANDSCAPE: Not A Freak Of Nature

The DSCC's AZ Early Voters memo is inspiring the netroots to think big. After talking to to MyDD/Courage Campaign Accountability memo pollster Joel Wright, MyDD's Matt Stoller sees "dynamics here seem eerily similar to 1994." Stoller writes on "Intellectual Trends" similar to 1994: "In 2006, progressives are coming into partial control of Congress for the first time, sweeping a coastal and western majority into power that will push new environmental and economic policies. This movement is taking over from the dying embers of Clintonian-Reaganite policies built on a corrupt media machine. This movement has fresh ideas and energy."

Also on MyDD, Chris Bowers moved his Dem House seat pick up number to 21-26 which he reminds readers is more conservative that Cook (20-35+), Sabato (23-30), or Rothenberg (34-40). Bowers also sees a 35-40% chance of Dems controlling the Senate "Lieberman and any unforeseen surprises." Bowers then turns to the expectations game: "For us to have gotten even that close in a year when we have both more open seats to defend, and more overall seats to defend, is mind-blowing. I am not writing that as a sort of pre-emptive moral victory line, but simply to remind everyone how difficult taking the Senate this year was always going to be."

Daily Kos' DemFromCT also is controlling expectations: "This idea creeping in that 'if Dems don't get 30 seats in the House it's a loss' is garbage. Either Pelosi is Speaker or non-Hastert is. The rest is detail." TPM Reader DK hopes GOPers learn from their defeat: "I suspect there is going to emerge a common theme among Republicans, a declaration that the political environment was so toxic that no incumbent party could expect to emerge unscathed. ... What will be missing is any sense that the Republicans made their own bed and were forced to lay in it. The 2006 "political environment" will be treated like a weather phenomenon, something beyond our control, a freak of nature, instead of what it is: a reaction to the GOP's man-made calamity."

TPM Cafe posts two new DSCC ads attacking GOPers "On Character, Bush." TPM also reports "NRCC Dumps Over $6 Million Into House Races - Over A Third Of It In PA."

At The Huffington Post, Rolling Stone political blog author Tim Dickinson picks "10 Key Races for taking back the House." NM 01, CT 05, PA 07, OH 15, CA 04, AZ 05, NC 11, IN 08, NY 24, and MN 06 make the list. Also at HuffPo Washington Progress Alliance board member Paul Abrams promises civil disobedience "[i]f the election results are, nonetheless, a narrow Democratic victory in the House and failure for the Democrats to take control of the Senate." Abrams explains: "The day of reckoning approaches. If they again abuse our elections as they have abused our patience on so many matters, their "long train of abuses and usurpations" must be resisted. Be prepared."

LANDSCAPE II: Where's Nancy?

Running with a Drudge Report story on House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) lack of high-profile appearances leading up to 11/7, many righty bloggers are posting pictures of Pelosi on the back of a milk carton. Right Angle Blog Robert Bluey reports: "Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) wants to know why the House Democrat leader is nowhere to be found on the campaign trail. Could it be that no one -- not even the most liberal candidates running for the U.S. House -- want Nancy Pelosi to campaign on their behalf?"

Over at The Corner, Kate O'Beirne and Rich Lowry are feeding readers takes from GOP insiders. O'Beirne's "guru" sees GOP victories in VA, MO, and MT and rejects comparisons to 1994: "when Republicans were winning most offices in 40 states, while Democrats were doing the same in 5 and the remaining 5 were tied or mixed." This year, Republicans are dominating in 21 states, Democrats in 22 with 7 tied or mixed. For example, Republicans are in trouble in PA with governor and senate race but Republicans might not lose a majority of the congressional delegation and will hold the state senate." Lowry reports that Senate internal "looked a little better than the night before. (Possible Kerry effect?)"

At RedStateErick Erickson has an interview with Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) on "Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, John Kerry's remarks, and the outlook for the GOP as we head toward Tuesday." Also at RedStateDan McLaughlin asks disgruntled conservatives to take a second look at the accomplishments of the 109th Congress.

AZ SEN: Desert Storm Brewing?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to reports of early Dem voting strength and argues ex-AZ Dem chair Jim Pederson's (D) late surge is due to a change in campaign rhetoric: "I have no doubt that Pederson's fortunes improved after he gave up on his "blur the differences" strategy and started running ads like this one."

CT SEN: Cool Hand Ned

The Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) slush fund story finally gained some MSM traction 11/2 when the New Haven Register ran down Lieberman campaign staff who admitted to not providing the campaign with documentation for money spent. MyDD's Matt Stoller comments: "What happened on the Lieberman campaign is both illegal and weirdly incompetent." The official Lamont Blog reported cable exec Ned Lamont (D) filed a supplemental FEC complaint incorporating the new information.

Stoller also posts from the final debate: "As is somewhat fitting, Senator Lieberman was absent, just as he's been absent from Connecticut for the past ten years, and just as he'll be absent from Connecticut for the next six if he wins. ... Lamont is a candidate in this race because the people of Connecticut put him here. Yes he put a lot of money into the race, but a lot of people support him, volunteer for him, and phone-bank every day. Lamont is a people-powered candidate who is making the case for change against a longtime skilled incumbent who has successfully muddled his position on Iraq."

Firedoglake posts a Lou Reed remix of Walk on the Wild Side who has "been a big supporter of our Blue America PAC." Daily Kos has video of Paul Newman endorsing Lamont, and TPMReader DK links to "spooky" video of "Ned Lamont as Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

MD SEN: Girls Gone Annapolis!

Michelle Malkin and Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham were in Annapolis, MD for a LG Michael Steele (R) press conf. featuring "an endorsement of Steele by a number of black Maryland clergymen and women, mostly from the Baltimore area." Ham adds: "That is something of a sea change. If Steele can pull this off, and I think he can, it's a significant win for the Republican Party, and I think, for the black community of Maryland. All the speakers to take the podium conceded that being wedded to the Democratic Party had not been an effective road out of poverty for that community."

Malkin and Ham also both follow up with video from the event: Malkin at Hot Air and Ham for HamNation. National Review Online's Jim Geraghty has doubts about Baltimore Sunreports that Rep. Ben Cardin (D-03) "is outperforming Steele in Steele's backyard, Prince George's County." Geraghty responds: "Steele picks up the highest-profile endorsement in the county, if not the state, and he promptly loses 14 points? I'll give the Sun's pollsters the benefit of the doubt, but you have to ask, what would make them say, "Okay, these numbers just don't look right?"

At The Huffington PostEarl Ofari Hutchinson notes some od Steele's endorsements have "troubled some Democrats" but concludes: "Black Republicans crash against a hard political fact of life. Though blacks grouse at and bash the Democrats they overwhelmingly vote for them, and even when they don't they're more likely to stay home rather than vote Republican."

MO SEN: We're Betting Eckstein Out Polls Rush Among Cards Fans At Least

Right Angle Blog's Robert Bluey posts images of a "new ad running in newspapers across that state of Missouri features three baseball players, including the MVP of this year's World Series, opposing the pro-cloning Amendment 2. St. Louis Cardinals second baseman David Eckstein, who was named MVP of last week's World Series, is featured prominently along with teammate Jeff Suppan and Kansas City Royals first baseman Mike Sweeney.

The Corner's Rich Lowry shares confident reports from the field that if the GOP replicates '04 turnout this year, then Sen. Jim Talent (R) will prevail.

MT SEN: Confidence Is High

While reminding readers "to take everything with a grain of salt" since "[e]arly voting results and exit polling both conspired to give us big hope in 2004" DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas reports "Tester's camp is feeling really good about the early numbers." Markos links to Tester campaign reports that "shows Tester leading Burns 58% to 37% among Montanans who have already voted. According to the Montana Secretary of State's office, 56,453 Montanans have cast early ballots as of this morning." Markos adds: "I went hunting for the 2002 results, when Max Baucus easily defeated his Republican opponent. About 325,000 votes were cast in that non-presidential year."

PA SEN: Just The Next Stop For Casey

Atrios was pleasantly surprised by Treas. Bob Casey (D) performance at a 11/2 fundrasier: "At this point it's largely irrelevant, but I have to admit Casey surprised me quite a bit. He had a lot more charisma, and a much better ability to control a room, than I expected or I'd ever seen before. He even made a couple funnies. ... I'm still pissed at the Wise Old Democrats who pushed away more progressive candidates, thinking it was necessary in order to defeat the already-a-national-joke Santorum. But he'll probably just run for governor in 4 years anyway."

TN SEN: All In The Family

Nat'l lefty blogger optimism does not stretch into TN. MyDD's Chris Bowers writes: "Ford's campaign seems to be moving in the opposite direction, and I am expecting the undecideds in that race to break for Corker. I actually wouldn't be surprised if both Pederson and Lamont outperform Ford."

Erick Erickson has video on "the Ford family racket" at RedState.

VA SEN: Fox And Friends

Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator and Raising Kaine founder Lowell Feld has photos and write ups from Webb stops with Michael J. Fox and retired Gen. Wes Clark in Arlington, VA and with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in Richmond, VA. Also 'Lost' star Daniel Dae Kim cut a pro-Webb video.

On the right, National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru is accusing Webb of plagiarism. Coutnertop Chronicles offers a pro-Webb argument for gun owners and AllenHQ responds. And finally, AllenHQ helps Webb with his math on minimum wage earners in VA.

TERROR POLITICS: Bombs Away

Lefty bloggers ran with a New York Timesstory on the end of a web site set up by Pres. Bush "under pressure from congressional Republicans" that published Iraqi WMD documents. AMERICAblog writes: "Remember how the Republicans have always been trying to spend federal dollars on propaganda to convince the American public that the war in Iraq was really going well? Well, one of those projects, you may recall, was to publish tons of found Iraqi documents online so that the conservative blogosphere and conservative pundits could use the documents to bolster the pro-war effort at home. Well, in the Republicans' zeal to push their propaganda campaign against the American people they published the plans for making an atomic bomb."

National Review Online's Jim Geraghty had a slightly different take: "Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb. ... But the story retains its own inherent contradiction: The information in these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to ensure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands... except for topping the regime that actually has the documents."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner suggests Geraghty is overplaying his hand: "The problem with that theory is that nobody ever argued that Saddam didn't have an advanced nuclear program before the Gulf War. The debate as to the state of Saddam's program circa the March 2003 invasion. All available evidence (of which I'm aware, anyway) would seem to indicate that it was essentially defunct. That's what the UN inspectors were telling us in late 2002."

Also in Iraq news, Andrew Sullivan tracks down the name of the soldier "abandoned" by U.S. forces "On the orders of Moqtada al-Sadr."

GORE: Baby, You Can Call Me Al

Atrios is one of a few lefty bloggers with a photo of Al Gore working the phones for MoveOn.org at a "Call for Change" cubicle.

OBAMA: Who are the Obamans?

Lefty Stirling Newberry points to a CNN WH '08 Poll in which Obama is "whacking 10% out of" HRC's support and "bits and pieces out of the third tier." HRC's "risk" and "advantage" because "Obama sucks the oxygen out of any other unHillary." But Obama also "exposes the center of Hurricane Hillary to increasing amounts of shear, and exposed storms can disintegrate."

Big Tent Democrat response to Newberry's post and "defends" Obama:

"I've been on the receiving end, in general terms, of Obama's harshness, and to be honest, Obama is not particularly nasty in my opinion. Perhaps Stirling knows things I don't know, check that, Stirling DEFINITELY knows things I don't know, but this ultra-nasty Obama is something I have not seen anyway."

MCCAIN: Breaking Sully's Heart

TPM's Matt Corley writes about McCain's catering to the conservatives with his appearence in anti-gay marriages ads in Michigan:

"John McCain appears to be as serious as ever about making nice with the conservative base. He's now starring in not one, but two ads backing Proposition 107, which would not only amend the state constitution to bar same-sex marriage of all kinds permanently, but also prohibiting cities, towns, and universities from providing benefits to unmarried domestic partners."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Just Like MSNBC Drew It Up

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is urging readers to participate in MSNBC's "funniest, dumbest, and meanest ads of the cycle" contest. Markos explains: "They've got some Chris Murphy (D) ad on there that they must've added for "balance" sake. Yet it's being freeped by the other side. And since the "winners" get shown on the Today Show friday, don't let the NRCC get a free last dig at our guy. We need a couple thousand votes for the Corker ad, so let's make it happen."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Couch Campaigners

MyDD's Zack Exley explains the importance of participating in MoveOn.org's "Call for Change" program (motto: "It's too close NOT to call"). Exley writes: "This weekend, an army of more than 100,000 ordinary voters, spread across every state in the nation, will work together as single disciplined team as they conduct a sophisticated GOTV operation to reach "drop off" Democratic voters in competitive House and Senate races."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham promotes the GOP's "Get On the Phone" program writing: "You know what's great about modern campaigning? You don't have to leave the house to do it. Sure it's awesome and highly recommended that you do that if you have time, but if you don't, you can sit back, watch some football, and make some GOTV calls from your very own couch."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY II: Gay Hookers!!!

AMERICAblog is far and away the league leader in lefty blogger coverage of the demise of National Association of Evangelicals pres. Rev. Ted Haggard. Aravosis best post links to audio of phone calls from Haggard to his gay prostitute conspiring to score meth.

In non-gay hooker scandal news, this video showing people trying to "read all the names of the corrupt Republicans in one breath" for $100 is widely posted on lefty blogs.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Al l Part Of The Vast ______ Wing Conspiracy Now

Ruminating on this week's Kerry flap Matthew Yglesias writes: "K-Lo denies that the Corner's all-misrepresenting-Kerry-all-the-time strategy is "part of any kind of coordinated response." That's just silly. In the new information age, pretty much all responses are coordinated responses. Statements and press releases get emailed around lightning quick, and it's perfectly clear on any given day what it is the Powers That Be would like me to be writing about. That doesn't mean anyone needs to take the bait -- I haven't, for example, been plugging the Allen Assault Gambit story -- but people know what's on-message and what isn't. The fact that Kerry's "insult" to the troops is not only a trivial matter, but wasn't actually an insult is immaterial; this is the distraction the GOP wants today, and it's a distraction conservative pundits are happy to provide."

LEST WE FORGET: Why Must California Get Blamed For Everything??

The Plank's Jason Zengerle is warming to Failed NFL QB, A Former College QB, A Real Estate Magnate, or A Tool of San Francisco liberals Heath Shuler after reading his interview with StopShuler.com. Zengerle excerpts:

SS: Okay, one last question. One of the things we want to do before the election is to ask the mainstream media to stop referring to you as a "former NFL quarterback." The theory being that they shouldn't, since you weren't successful at it. I mean, they don't call Michael Jordan a "former professional baseball player." So, what you would rather be described as?

A Failed NFL QB A Former college QB A Real Estate Magnate A Tool of San Francisco liberals (suggested by the Taylor campaign)

HS: [Laughs] I like that last one. Hold on, read them again, maybe we can combine them.

SS: A Failed NFL QB, A Former College QB, A Real Estate Magnate, or A Tool of San Francisco liberals.

HS: How about a "Failed former college and NFL quarterback who also failed in the west coast offense." That way we get the California thing in there, too. [Laughs]

Blogometer Update

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Sullivan's Travels

  It all started with Amy Sullivan's review of a book by ex-Bushie David Kuo that dispelled the myth that the Bush administration was at the beck and call of evangelicals.  Sullivan, writing online for The New Republic, said Kuo's book "hit Washington like a small explosion, generating at least a color orange political threat level.  Here was a conservative Republican, someone who had been on the inside of the president's signature domestic policy agenda of the first term, leveling damaging accusations of hypocrisy, wide-scale manipulation, and deceit."

  She asserted at last that "despite the evidence Kuo presents in Tempting Faith, liberals simply don't believe him.  They've spent so much time fear-mongering about American theocracy that a book illustrating the opposite simply makes no sense to them.  In fact, the real revelation of Kuo's book is not that the Bushies don't care about evangelicals; it's that liberals are too wedded to their views to capitalize on it."

  This set off Scott Lemieux at The American Prospect's TAPPED.  "I have a lot of problems with Amy Sullivan's recent piece about the opportunities allegedly presented by David Kuo's new book," he writes.

  First of all, I reject her entire premise that Democratic politicians don't reach out to religious believers, and since she never mentions the names of prominent Democrats who treat believers with contempt it's impossible to evaluate her claims.

  Second, Sullivan's claim that liberal bloggers have "spent so much time fear-mongering about American theocracy that a book illustrating the opposite simply makes no sense to them" is belied by the fact that what is surely the most-discussed liberal book of the second Bush era makes the well-known case that evangelicals are being played for suckers by the business elite that really holds the power in the GOP.  Kuo's revelations aren't so shocking as to be incomprehensible to knowledgeable liberals, but are rather banal.

  But my biggest problem with Sullivan's argument continues to be that she's frustratingly vague about how, exactly, Democrats should "reach out to disaffected evangelicals."  My understanding is that she's not saying that Democrats should sacrifice core principles such as reproductive freedom.  But if that's the case, I don't know what more Democrats can do.

  Sam Rosenfeld, also writing at TAPPED, replied to Lemieux:

  I agree with you that Amy Sullivan's prescriptive arguments about Democratic outreach to evangelicals are thin.  But I do feel compelled to take Sullivan's side on the broader issue of liberal "theocracy" narratives.  You're right that the "religious right taken for suckers" notion is widely understood by plenty of liberals, that it is central to Thomas Frank's argument, and that it renders David Kuo's book more banal confirmation than explosive revelation.

  But I think Sullivan's right that there is some real tension and dissonance between that understanding of Republican political dynamics and works such as Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming, Jesus Camp, ... and many many more.  The reality is always complicated and contradictory, of course, but it seems to me one that of these two narratives -- the religious-right-as-suckers, and the encroaching theocratic takeover of the GOP (and the country) -- has to be more true than the other one.  And I really think the empirical evidence -- the substantive policy outcomes under Republican rule -- lends credence to the former rather than the latter notion.

  Sullivan got wind of Lemieux's critique and responded (sharply) in kind at The Plank:

  Scott Lemieux "rejects [the] entire premise" of the ... piece I wrote a few weeks ago about why liberals have largely ignored David Kuo's new book.  But the premise he states--that Democratic politicians don't reach out to religious believers--is not the premise of my Kuo piece.  It is also not the premise of anything I've ever written. ...

  If he had bothered to read the article, Lemieux might have realized that it was simply an argument against the idea that evangelicals aren't worth targeting as Democratic voters (an argument he endorses in his post). ...

  Finally, if Lemieux doubts any of this is worthwhile, he has only to pick up a newspaper these days to see poll numbers indicating that the number of white evangelicals who are fed up with Republicans (but not yet migrating over to Democrats) is significantly larger than the number that would fit in even Sienna Miller's walk-in closet.

  Then Ezra Klein at TAPPED weighed in on a related series of correspondences between Sullivan and Joe Loconte at TNR, regarding Sullivan's take on evangelicals and the Bush administration.  Klein was moved to comment:

  As for the larger debate on whether to target evangelicals, such discussions always put me in the mind of a report finding that, if you put together the findings of all those studies saying that X amount of productivity is wiped out by the flu, and Y from smoking in cars, and Z from picking your nose, you're eventually left with a number far larger than the entire global economy.  Democrats, it seems, are supposed to be fighting for libertarians, Southerners, Westerners, churchgoers, Indians, blacks, whites, "ideopolises," rural voters, and all the rest.  Add them up and I'm sure you'll have a couple electorates stacked atop each other.  Seems to me the party would be better off crafting a compelling message that assembles a broad coalition, not adopting the specificity needed to wrest a single group.

  Adele M. Stan, posting at Prospect via Rosenfeld, finds Sullivan's argument "over whether or not the religious right is a tool of the man, or poised to become the man himself, largely irrelevant; either way, we wind up with law written by self-appointed religious sages."  She later rues liberal acceptance of the argument being framed as whether Democrats are too for or too against religion.  "We focus on religion at the expense of spirituality.  There are a great many 'unchurched' among the electorate, and most of them vote Democratic.  And most of them believe in God."

  Then Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly took a crack at the discussion, in particular Lemieux's reaction.  He wrote:

  [L]et's get real: It's true that Democratic politicians are uniformly respectful toward religion, but it's equally true that the Democratic Party responds to liberal concerns, and that means it's more sympathetic than the Republican Party is to a whole raft of positions that even some moderate believers view as anti-religious.  Maybe Democrats should do something about this, maybe they shouldn't.  We all have our own take on that.  But it's not as if the problem is just a figment of Amy Sullivan's imagination.

  But it's Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft who gets the last word for now.  "I have tried to ignore Amy Sullivan's return to her rather inane fixation on Democrats and religious voters," says BTD, "but Kevin Drum wrote an annoying post so here I am again."  He asserts:

  [T]here is only one thing that will satisfy "values" voters enough to put them in play for Democrats -- [Drum] knows it, Amy Sullivan knows it, you know it.  Abandon a woman's right to choose.  And not only will Democrats not do that, it would boggle the mind if they even contemplated it.  It would be political suicide.  The Democratic Party would cease to exist.  If the repeal of a woman's right to choose is your number one issue - then you should be a Republican really.  And nothing is going to change that.  So now, what is the correct political response to the Republican Party's marriage to the Religious Right?

  Let's think now.  Terri Schiavo.  Stem cell research.  The attack on science.  How's that working out for the GOP this cycle?  Does anyone see any political opportunities for Democrats here?  Of course there are.  Anyone who is not a fool knows what is there - like Lincoln and FDR, the Democrats need to negatively brand the GOP - now as a Party enslaved to the extremist, anti-science, anti-choice, anti-education Religious Right - the Party of Dobson.

  Moderate voters disapprove of this aspect of the GOP.  EVERY poll says so.  Why then this contiued nonsense from Amy Sullivan, the DLC, Barack Obama and now, Kevin Drum?  Frankly, I have no idea.  These are smart people.  I can not explain why they are so dumb on this.  And yes, what they are on this is dumb.

[Mike Sheehan]

11/2: If Not Pelosi, Then Who?

Noting netroot ambivalence towards probable Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Hotline editor-in-chief Chuck Todd caused a minor stir 11/1 suggesting bloggers might get behind a DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) campaign for Speaker. The netroots were not open to the idea. Todd now asks: "Regarding the blowback my 'Speaker Rahm' speculation is receiving with the liberal blogs, I just didn't realize how bad his rep was with some. Frankly, I should have been more aware of how the Rahm-Dean strategy feud damaged things. So, here's a question for the left; if not Pelosi and if not Rahm, then who could you support as Speaker?"

TERROR POLITICS: Kerrypalooza!

If you read any righty blogs 11/01, you saw a picture of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division (MN National Guard) holding up a sign reading:

"HALP US JON CARRY-WE R STUCK [backwards k] HEAR N IRAK."

National Review Online's Victor Davis Hanson comments: "One of the things I love about America is the spontaneous brilliance and humor that undermine all pretension. ... 20 million Americans must have seen it all over the Internet, and nothing sums up the nothingness of Kerryism better than those smiling soldiers."

The right continued to argue that Kerry did not misspeak. National Review Online's Mario Loyola writes: "It is a basic talking point of the Pelosi/Kerry/Dean wing of the Democratic party that the troops are in Iraq not because they are deeply committed to the mission (they need to deny that) but rather because of a system that takes advantage of their lack of social and economic opportunities." NZ Bear notes Kerry has a history of dragging "the reputation of American soldiers through the mud" that forfeits any benefit of the doubt that a Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would have gotten. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts similar thoughts from John O'Neill.

Riehl World View looks at a San Francisco Chronicleitem asking Bay Area natives if Kerry should apologize including these response:

Amy Altschul, Oakland. Why should a person apologize for telling the truth? The truth is, for those who are not educated, the military is one of their only outlets. This does not mean the people are stupid, it means they are uneducated. Their lack of education often means the military, which currently means Iraq.

Vernon Burton, San Leandro. For what? Telling the truth? If a few more so-called leaders started telling the truth about Iraq, maybe we could save some of those lives that are being thrown away for nothing.

Michelle Malkin comments: "John Kerry's elitist, anti-military smear is no errant remark. It's emblematic. Just look who Kerry has turned to for support: Markos Moulitsas of The Daily Kos. Yes, the "Screw Them" guy.

RedState's Erick Erickson looks at netroots reaction to "Kerrypalooza!" and responds:

It's very simple. Either what's happening to Senator Kerry is meaningful in a larger political sense, or it's not. We've been hearing a good deal about how it's not... but we're also getting reports that Kerry's been cancelling appearances - and having appearances cancelled for him. This clashes with the desired narrative; ... They can't have it both ways: if Kerry's comments were unacceptable, then they needed to say so; and if Kerry's comments weren't that big a deal, they didn't need to clear his calendar. The fact that they're trying to handle the situation in a certain frantic hush suggests a great deal about them - and reinforces a common stereotype about them, to boot.

National Review's The Corner was dominated by Kerry coverage 11/01. Kathryn Jean Lopez has reactions from "from very hot military guys;" Jonah Goldberg was for Kerry's apology before he was against it; and John Derbyshire expresses the minority viewpoint that Kerry was insulting Bush and not the troops.

TERROR POLITICS II: Code Talkers

Two new lefty blogger Kerry talking points emerged 11/01. MyDD's Chris Bowers argues "Kerry gets by far the better line" in APcoverage ofthe incident and adds: "This is not even to mention that Kerry's strange line about kids struggling in the educational system "get stuck in Iraq" might as well be left-wing code every bit as much as Dred Scott is for theocons, since it brings up clear echoes of Vietnam and a looming draft. That's how people ended up in Vietnam, and a lot of people are noticing the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam these days anyway."

Bowers concludes: "In the end, Kerry could end up kickstarting a big, final week debate about Iraq, and give us the opportunity to engage in some of our toughest anti-Iraq messaging yet. That fits with our 2006 Candidate Memo perfectly." Steve Gilliard is on the same page: "John Kerry is telling the truth and everyone knows it. Rich kids do not join the military, college bound kids don't join the military, only the poor and those who can't get scholarships do. Acting like he was lying or insulting people is just bullshit. This is supposed to hurt Dems?"

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) largely escaped blogger criticism for her description of Kerry's statement as "inappropriate." Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher wasn't about to let her off the hook though writing: "Sista Souljah is obviously a family affair." Hamsher also adds: "First of all - I don't care if John Kerry was eating live babies on TV, one week out from an election you do not repeat GOP talking points. Ever. It makes you look like a big pussy who can't stand up to the Republicans, even when they're playing from an exceptionally weak hand on an issue you own."

And Keith Olbernmann added to his already sterling lefty blogger reputation with a lengthy special comment demanding Pres. Bush apologize. AMERICAblog links to Crooks and Liars video and transcript.

The second lefty blogger Kerry item came courtesy of House maj. Leader John Boehner (R-OH) who told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld. ... But the fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president." AMERICAblog responded under the header "Republican House leader blames troops for Iraq mess" writing: "So US generals aren't as patriotic as other US service members in Iraq? They haven't made the same sacrifice? They aren't risking their lives? They're not just as much heroes as everyone else, doing the best they can in an impossible situation?" DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas and Talking Points MemoJosh Marshall both picked up on the attack.

AMERICAblog later followed up with statements from DNC chair Howard Dean and Senate min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) demanding an Boehner apologize to the troops.

In other Kerry related items: TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent attacks McCain for his involvement in "phony GOP attack[s]" on Kerry and posts "New RNC Web Ad Attacking Kerry Really About Firing Up GOP Activists;" and Ed Kilgore seeks outrage over "the president's and vice president's coordinated message two days ago that essentially said a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorism."

TERROR POLITICS III: Back In Iraq

Lefty bloggers continued to plead for more coverage of Iraqi PM Maliki's order for American soldiers to back of pressure on Sadr City designed to find abducted American soldiers. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes: "So far, though, Democrats have restrained themselves. Is this because they know in their hearts that letting Maliki call the shots in this case was the right thing to do, and they've decided they don't want to politicize the situation? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. The Dubai port deal was almost certainly the right thing to do too, but that didn't stop Dems from mounting a two-week frenzy over the whole thing. There's probably some other calculation going on. Or maybe they just need a day or two to get their act together."

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake notes the story and comments: "I am shaking with rage at the moment. American soldiers do not abandon their own. Unless, of course, someone orders them to do so. Which is exactly what happened when the Bush Administration via it's envoy Zalmay Khalilzad agreed to lift the eight day long blockade and search and rescue mission for the captured American soldier on the demand and order of the Iraqi government." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts a new DCCC ad on Iraq that "will run nationally."

On the Maliki story, National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez notes: "Michael Rubin talked about this at length on Bill Bennett's show yesterday (some audio here). In short: Not good." But Gateway Pundit did have some good news on Iraqi security forces.

LANDSCAPE: Is Lieberman The 1/2 Senate Seat?

Pollster.com guest Alan I. Abramowitz discusses his generic ballot to actual outcome model and predicts a 29 seat Dem gain in the House and a 2.5 seat gain in the Senate.

At Washington Monthly's Showdown '06Ruy Teixeira also looks at recent generic congressional data and notes: "In the nine polls finished since 10/20 that are listed on PollingReport.com, the Democrats' average lead is 14 points. That's huge by historical standards. Democrats haven't seen these kind of leads this late in an off-year election campaign, since the elections of 1974 and 1982, when they gained 43 and 26 seats respectively."

On the right, Ankle Biting PunditsBull Dog Pundit tackles the accuracy of New York Times' latest poll: " In the NYT poll, 23% of respondents aren't even eligible to vote. And of those 77% that are registered, a full 37% didn't vote in the last mid-term election, and an additional 13% don't remember if they voted then. Folks, that means that OVER HALF OF THE TOTAL RESPONDENTS DIDN'T VOTE/CAN'T REMEMBER VOTING IN 2002. How in God's name can the NYT seriously this poll to be reflective of anything?"

Swing State Project and RCP Blog both have round ups of recent committee spending in congressional races. SSP writes: "The NRCC spent nearly $650,000 smearing Joe Sestak and $230,000 attacking Zack Space today. Does that sound like "retreat" to you?" RCP notes: "You can see a couple of big numbers that jump out. Dems dumped a million two in NH-2 and $320K in NY-25. Republicans spent $203K in NC-11 and $155K in PA-4."

LANDSCAPE II: The Undressing Of Rove Continues

Both TAPPED's Greg Sargent and MyDD's Matt Stoller post on Washington Postdoubts about Karl Rove's effectiveness. Sargent: "It looks like it may be time for pundits to drop the "Karl Rove is supremely confident about winning" storyline -- because it's now pretty clear that Rove, for all his outward expressions of confidence, has also begun to lay the groundwork to spin his way out of blame and preserve his reputation should the GOP get shellacked next Tuesday." Stoller: "This is a remarkable admission - the 1938 election was not the end of the New Deal because even though the Republicans picked up 6 seats, the Democrats still held two thirds of the Senate. It also presaged the first fracturing of the Democratic coalition. If this is their 1938 election, the Rove plan is basically over. ... Rove is also unable to comprehend that his strategy isn't working." Stoller later adds thoughts on Rove and early early voting reports.

CT SEN: The Right's Loan Gloat 11/8?

RedState's Thomas looks at recent CT SEN news and pens an open letter:

Dear Nutroots:

Although I could point out that we told you so (aw, heck: We told you so), I'd instead like to point out that you really should have known that Ned was toast (we told you so), and not just because of Nutroots-intensive Mentos commercials (we told you so), because, and learn this rule now, If Bob Shrum ever judges a candidate viable, that candidate is doomed. Ya'd think you'd've learned that in 2000 and 2004. (And 1980, and 1984, and 1998, and...) Oh, yeah: We told you so.

Sincerely, T.

Lefty bloggers are still conceding nothing. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts two cable exec Ned Lamont(D) ads and comments: "These are the final two Lamont ads in the race, and the message is clear: A vote for Lieberman is a vote for more war." Firedoglake's TRex posts Lamont's schedule through 11/4 and LamontBlog asks readers to "Keep Your Eyes Open" for "Rove-backed" "slimy stuff." Daily Kos' Sadie thinks she's already identified one; a mailer "from Lieberman" attacking Lamont for his relationship with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.

TN SEN: Please Do Forward Us That Picture

Instapundit passes along a Insta-Mom update: "So the Insta-Mom volunteered at Harold Ford, Jr. headquarters today. Downside for Ford: This was because a friend of hers who was volunteering said they had a shortage of people making phone calls. Upside for Ford: She said that most of the people she called (obviously identified as likely Democratic voters) said that they'd already voted for him in early voting.

Instapundit further reports: "Also, I note that you see a lot of Ford signs out in the rural countryside. I have a friend who keeps promising to send me a picture of a house in Sixmile with a Harold Ford sign in the yard and a Confederate flag hanging on the porch, but so far he hasn't delivered. I trust his report, though.

VA SEN: A Genuine Netroots Hero

Righty bloggers pushed back against Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark. The A-Team linked to AllenHQ "photographic evidence" showing "Senator Allen's stalker initiated the physical altercation" and comments: "Having worked 10 years ago on a presidential campaign that received Secret Service protection and being part of the staff that received regular briefings on possible threats, had this guy been stalking Steve Forbes the way he has been George Allen, he would have been on the Secret Service watch list distributed to us. This individual is obviously disturbed and we can only hope that he receives the treatment he may require in order to get better."

Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb's Netroots Coordinator and Raising Kaine founder Lowell Feld fires back: "*Mike Stark is NOT a Webb staffer!!!!! *Mike Stark is NOT even a Webb volunteer (we checked our huge volunteer database)!!!! *Mike Stark was criminally assaulted by Allen thugs!!!!! *Jim Webb had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this!!!! *George Allen and his staff are 100% at fault, and will likely end up facing criminal charges!!!!" Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher helps out, linking to video of "Genuine netroots hero Mike Stark on Olbermann here. "

In non-Stark related VA SEN news The A-Team and Raising Kaine have competing lists of newspaper endorsements for their candidates. For Allen: Washington Times, Richmond Times Dispatch, The (Fredericksburg) Free Lance-Star, Staunton News Leader, Daily News Record, The Virginia Mountaineer, The Voice Newspapers, Kingsport Times, The Bristol Herald-Courier, The Sun Gazette Newspapers.

For Webb:

The Washington Post

, The Virginian-Pilot, The Richmond Free Press, The Roanoke Times, The Martinsville Bulletin, The Fairfax Chronicle, The Daily Press, The Alexandria Times, University of Virginia's Cavalier Daily, The Connection Newspapers, Loudoun Times Mirror, Gloucester-Matthews Gazette Journal.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Coup De Fizzle

Lefty bloggers rejected Hotline editor Chuck Toddsuggestions that their might be a netroots backed Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) for Speaker campaign post-11/8. After disclaiming any netroots control DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas writes: "a serious grassroots effort to get behind Emanuel for Speaker? Not in a million years. Rahm is too much of an ass. ... I'm pretty confident in predicting that bloggers 1) wouldn't launch a grassroots effort to promote a Rahm Speakership, and 2) would actively and energetically oppose it. Perhaps a Murtha could get some support, but I doubt it."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer adds: "it's difficult for me to envision Emanuel being able to marshall the support for his own bid -- particularly from the Netroots. While Todd is correct that Pelosi is not terribly popular within the progressive blogosphere, polling (albeit non-scientific polling) shows that Emanuel is even less popular. ... And just to make sure that I'm not taking the sentiments of the readers of this site and others for granted and am completely off base, I ask you this: Should the Democrats gain 18 seats, giving them a slim majority in the House, would you support a Pelosi speakership, an Emanuel speakership or the speakership of someone else?"

CLARK: Sideshow Kerry

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D) takes to The Huffington Post to defend Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "John Kerry made a mistake trying to joke about "getting stuck in Iraq." But this election isn't about John Kerry; he isn't running. But, for a crazy day or two, his gaffe has provided a powerful distraction to an election shaping up to be a referendum on the President's national security policy, and his mission in Iraq, in particular. We can not allow the most powerful country in the world to get sidetracked when American lives and the future of our leadership in the world is at stake."

ROMNEY: Like Moths To Flame

Watching too much television National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez notes: "No sooner is Mitt Romney off the phone with Sean Hannity, I look up and see him on FNC with John Gibson. ... Mitt Romney is to conservative media (FNC isn't really, but that's CW, so I'll go with it) what John McCain is to The Today Show (he seems to be always on)."

GINGRICH: Don't Forget Newt

The Worldwide Standard's Daniel McKivergan wants to know why George Will saw only benefit to MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) from Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) rapid demise: "But what about Newt Gingrich? ... a candidate Gingrich ... would likely hit Romney from the right on several fronts on which he is vulnerable, making it more difficult for any one candidate to consolidate the right in the early races."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: More GOPers Online?

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner links at a Nielsen//NetRatings report showing "Republicans outnumber Democrats online" including analysts Ken Cassar assertion: "The fact that the online population is more heavily composed of Republicans than Democrats is principally a function of the Republican party's higher composition within the overall electorate."

Joyner responds: "That's not only not demonstrable through this survey but almost certainly untrue. Indeed, he himself points to the far more logical explanation: "This is exacerbated by the fact that online penetration continues to be deeper among affluent households, which have historically skewed Republican."

LEST WE FORGET: The ACC Sucks

The Plank's Jonathan Chait notes: "Some of the best attack ads you'll see this campaign season have nothing to do with politics, but rather something even more tribal: college football."

11/1: Just The Beginning

Nobody likes to see a man tackled at a campaign event just as, we hope, nobody likes to see candidates asked if they ever spit on their first wife. But unless campaigns begin to change the way they relate to their blogger supporters, we should only expect to see more incidents like the one witnessed in Charlottesville, VA on 10/31. Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark made no secret about his desire to cause disruptions at Sen. George Allen (R-VA) events. He had done so in the past. In a previous era, Stark might have been told by local Dems that his behavior was not helpful, but today Stark finds glowing support for his activities in blogging communities. Unless campaigns take a more active role in policing supporters' behavior, lawn-sign stealing will soon look quaint by comparison.

TERROR POLITICS: Why Won't The MSM Cover This Story?

Video of Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) remarks on the relation between doing your homework and getting stuck in Iraq spread slowly throughout the righty blogosphere at first. Michelle Malkin was one of the first to post on the subject at 9:54 AM under the header "Attention GOP: Spread this video; Attention readers: Help support the troops." By noon most every righty blogger had the video up or a link to it. Malkin followed up on her original post at 11:43 AM proclaiming "The MSM is AWOL" and noting neither the Los Angeles Times or San Francisco Chronicle mentioned Kerry's quote. Malkin later updates with truncated video of Kerry on Don Imus this morning, but doesn't include Kerry's promise not to campaign for any more Dems this year.

The dominate righty reaction was to tie Kerry's remarks into a larger "Dems hate the troops" theme. Comments along these lines include:

• RCP Blog's Jed Babbin: "Kerry's remarks began as just icing atop the Democrats' contempt for the military. It's a subset of Jack Murtha's remarks about how the army is broken, how our troops are disgruntled and why we have to bring everybody out of Iraq to rebuild the force before it falls apart all together."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The stereotype of the poor, dumb soldier is firmly entrenched among liberals of the Vietnam era. We often see it repeated by younger liberals today, even though the stereotype has no application whatever to our current volunteer army, which is demonstrably equal, at least, to the civilian population in talent and accomplishment. Why are liberals so determined to hang on to these discredited stereotypes of the past?
• Wizbang's Kim Priestap: "You'll be shocked at what John Kerry said about our troops in Iraq while at a campaign stop. At the same time you won't be shocked because it's so condescending, so offensive that no one else but John Kerry could have said it. Except Murtha. And Sheehan. And Maher. Ok, it's so condescending and so offensive that there are several leftists who could have said it."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Today Kerry also reminded all Americans of the deep, anti-military bias that has infected the left since Vietnam, and through the left, the MSM. ... The Democrats remain the party of Michael Moore, Ned Lamont, Kosputin, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dan Rather and Howard Dean. Any vote for any Democrat is a vote for every one of those folks, and many more besides.
• Michelle Malkin: "This is no isolated case of Democrat incompetence and insensitivity toward the military. Kerry's party is the party of Dick Durbin, who likened American interrogators and Gitmo military staff to Nazis, Soviet gulag operators and genocidal maniac Pol Pot."

Many righty bloggers also posted anti-Kerry messages from military personnel.

Captain's Quarters offered a constructive response: "Do you want to support the troops? Then make your contribution to Soldier's Angels. They have a new effort called Project Valour that will be raising money from various bloggers." The Mudville Gazette also linked to Valour-IT poking fun at Kerry by asking reader to help out "the under privileged." Instapundit joined the campaign and argued: "Kerry's suggestion that the troops in Iraq are dumb failures is not only reprehensible, but false on the facts. In other words, a typical Kerry performance, just in time for the elections. Democrats must be wondering what they were thinking to nominate him in 2004, and why he won't go away now."

Righty bloggers were elated when Kerry kept the story going with his 10/31 afternoon press conference. Under the header "In which we 'Swiftboat' Senator Kerry yet again..." RedState's Moe Lane writes: "Here's a hint to Kerry's handlers: it's bad when the right wing nut-jobs have a quick fight over who gets the byline of publishing your press release." RCP Blog's Tom Bevan on Kerry's push back: "I understand that Kerry has been eager to show off his tough new, "I WONT BE SWIFT-BOATED AGAIN!!!" strategy that he thinks will help convince Democrats to give him another chance at the brass ring in 2008, but to trot out this tripe to defend an insult against U.S. troops is breathtakingly arrogant - and it's an absolute gift to the GOP seven days before an election." Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "John Kerry is now outdoing Al Gore when it comes to loser derangement syndrome. And Kerry doesn't even have the excuse of having almost won the presidency."

In other Kerry related righty blogger posts: Townhall's Dean Barnett compliments "the progressive blogging aristocracy" on their "message discipline" and ability to "Sense what a serious issue this is, even if the most recent Democratic standard bearer does not." Wizbang's Jay Tea defends Kerry on the grounds his statement was a joke and an Andrew Sullivan reader defends Kerry on the grounds it wasn't. Finally, National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez explains Kerry's mishap has buoyed her hopes for a strong GOP GOTV effort.

TERROR POLITICS II: Tone Deaf At The Freak Show

The Huffington Post's James Boyce succinctly, if not profanely, summed up lefty blogger reaction to Kerry's Iraq/education statement: "John Kerry botched a joke. George Bush f----d up a war. Pick one." Fellow HuffPoster's with similar thoughts include: Arianna Huffington, Brent Budowsky, and Bob Cesca.

Kerry even one won HuffPoster over, Steve Anderson writes on Kerry's press conference: "John, John, John...where was this John Kerry 2 years ago? This was what I wanted, this was the outrage I had been hoping for back then. That it comes now is great!" Most, however, on the left acknowledged that Kerry was not helping. Under the header "You're Not Helping" The Plank's Michael Crowley writes: "I actually feel sorry for John Kerry. He wants to help. And, yes, this is mainly a controversy manufactured by the highly depressing "Freak Show." But Kerry has a tone-deaf appreciation for his own role in the Freak Show. And for that reason, he was foolish to hold a long press conference responding to his GOP tormenters."

The true netrooters added a twist to their Kerry defenses. In addition to writing "And showing that he has learned from his Swiftboating days, Kerry hit back hard ... Kerry has nothing to apologize for. The people who have turned their backs on the troops do," DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas takes a swipe at Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for visiting injured troops at Walter Reed hospital: "Sure. Uplifting. Except he said this at a campaign appearance with Pete Roskam, who is running against Democrat Tammy Duckworth -- an Iraq war vet who lost both her legs in combat." Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, and MyDD's Jerome Armstrong take similar digs at McCain for his Walter Reed visit.

TERROR POLITICS III: Who's Running This War?

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall wants to know why more isn't being made of the US military ending a blockade of Sadr City at the order of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. Marshall writes: "But that cordon was in place to help find the recently abducted US soldier. So it sounds a lot like on Maliki's say-so we've essentially called off the search. Is President Bush being asked about this?"

Also on the left, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum takes on the National Review's assertion that: "Nancy Pelosi has opposed having international phone calls to and from terrorists monitored by American intelligence agencies." Drum writes: "This is, flatly, a lie. Pelosi, like many Democrats, opposes NSA surveillance of American residents without a warrant. That is all she opposes. Period. The rest of the piece isn't much more honest. But this business of liberals "opposing surveillance of terrorists" is McCarthyish mendacity of the worst kind. Even National Review should be embarrassed to peddle it."

VA SEN: 'Cause Bloggers Love Wife-Spitting

Daily Kos' "very own Mike Stark" was the blogger wrestled to the ground by Sen. George Allen (R-VA) campaign staffers 10/31. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to video of the incident and writes: "Sounds like assault and battery to me."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent interviewed Stark by phone twice including this recounting of the event:

"My question was, 'Senator Allen, Democrats are making this election about accountability. You can shut them up by telling us what was in your police records from the seventies.' He kind of muttered to himself, kind of, 'I'm not gonna go there.' Immediately his campaign staff started pushing me around, shoving me around, trying to form a human wall between me and him. I continued to pace him out into the lobby. My next question was, 'Is it true that you spit on your wife?'" "Then somebody said, `Now you're getting personal,' and wrestled me to the ground.'"

AMERICAblog, who alerts journalists that he has Stark's contact info if they would like to speak with him, recounts: "The reporter says the man was simply asking questions that the Allen staff thought were rude. So they tackled the guy and threw him against a window. George Allen's sticker is clearly visible on the guy who grabbed the questioner in a head lock. ... You are witnessing a multi-million dollar lawsuit, not to mention a crime." Later AMERICAblog links to better video of the exchange and adds: "This guy didn't do a thing -- they jumped him and threw him into a window."

TPM Cafe also posts a letter by Stark promising to file charges against his assailants. And Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall questions the Washington Post's description of Stark's behavior as "heckling." Marshall later warns: "And if you think this campaign is getting bitter now, just wait. Both the NRSC and DSCC are dumping a combined total of total of over $3.5 million into the race -- with only a week to go."

Later Kos returns to Allen's past again under the header "Allen's sister recounts beatings" linking to A Liberal Dose's posting of excerpts from Jennifer Allen's book Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach's Daughter. Kos comments: "No wonder Allen's thugs beat up Mike Stark. They are taking their cues from their boss." Kos then adds: "Webb has a new ad. He's going positive this last week."

Righty blogs were mostly distracted by Kerry's words all day but AllenHQ describes Stark as "a Democratic activist and Webb supporter with a history of aggressively harassing Senator Allen and pulling stunts for media attention." AllenHQ writes "Stark has openly admitted that he's trying to start trouble" and quotes from Stark's Daily Kos diary: "Recently I've been thinking about how to put these "guerrilla tactics" to use where it matters: winning elections." AllenHQ also posts an official campaign press release calling on Webb to "Restrain Out of Control Supporter."

VA SEN II: We're For The Whatever Guy

MyDD's Chris Bowers looks at four recent VA SEN polls showing Webb pulling ahead of Allen and writes: "This is starting to look like a replay of 2005, where Tom Kaine pulled ahead right at the end of the Virginia campaign. ... Whether Jim Webb is a progressive, a conservative, a libertarian, or whatever, it is becoming clear that campaigns which have the people-powered, progressive movement behind them are smashing all expectations this year."

Also on the left, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to a New Donkey post on Allen's novel attack on Webb and writes: "Allen is a fake in much the same way that George Bush is a fake - except that he's not quite as good as it. Perhaps Virginians will finally cotton to Allen's peculiar brand of condescension next week." Webb Netroots Coordinator and Raising Kaine founder Lowell Feld links to similar conclusions reached by George Will and writes: "Exactly right, Mr. Will. You have discovered what the majority of Virginians have now found out about George Allen, that he doesn't know a lot about a whole LOT of things. That he's a phony."

LANDSCAPE: It's Expectations Game Time

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall links to Fred Barnes admissions that the GOP will lose the House but Dems won't win a ""working governing majority" and responds: "Nice attempt to move the goal posts. But this doesn't cut it. ... Everyone knows what's at stake here: the end or the continuation of one-party rule in Washington."

Daily Kos' DemFromCT is also plating the expectation game: "In the meantime, let's be clear. Any takeover in the House by any margin is huge. That's true whether it's 16 or 40, and let's go with the expectation that we've won nothing yet. In the Senate, which we are not expected to win, picking up seats and defeating Santorum is the main course. Defeating Allen, Talent or Corker is icing on dessert. CW here is 4 seats. Less than that is a disappointment."

LANDSCAPE II: As Kos Goes, So Goes Cook

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Cook Political Report updates and notes: "Interesting that of these 12 races, six are on our ActBlue page, while another four have gotten extensive coverage and support from the netroots. And to think they were all long-shots when we started writing about them."

On the Senate side, blogger CW has settled on MO as the controlling race. MyDD's Chris Bowers writes: "Webb continues to rise in Virginia, and Menendez has seized the lead in New Jersey as well. Tester continues to hang on in Montana, as does Cardin in Maryland. With Ford struggling a bit in Tennessee, despite internals showing him up five, the Senate thus comes down to one race: Missouri." On the right, RCP Blog's John McIntyre notes: "Since then there is a new SurveyUSA poll in Missouri that has McCaskill up 3 points and has swung the RCP Average to McCaskill + 0.2. Right now, just strictly off the RCP Averages, the Dems would pick up 6 seats (PA, OH, RI, MT, VA & MO) and control of the Senate."

LANDSCAPE III: No Children Have Ever Meddled With The Republican Party And Lived To Tell About It!

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall pens a "closing argument" for his undecided readers: "And that's the closer in this election. How do you think Iraq has gone? How do you think Congress is doing its job? How did you think Katrina was handled? Different people are going to have different hot button issues. But across the board I think what we're seeing in the country is that sense of disconnect -- things are seriously off course but the folks in charge won't admit it and don't know what to do about it. ... So to voters I think the pitch is, think back over the last two years. You only have one chance to go on record with your verdict. Thumbs up or thumbs down. One chance before you have to go back and sit in the stands again for another two years."

Opening with Sideshow Bob's "your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king" explanation for his villainy, MyDD's Matt Stoller offers a more historic critique of the GOP, focussing on the evils of moderate GOPers: "Political systems are built through symbols, and no symbol has been more pernicious than the idea of a moderate Republican. Since 1964, the Republican Party has gradually turned itself into a neo-Confederate group of extremists attached to a political network of partisan pagan church groups."

LANDSCAPE IV: Foley Who?

Right Wing News "emailed more than 230 right-of-center bloggers to ask them about the 2006 election. The following 62 blogs responded." Questions include:

1) Do you think the GOP is going to retain control of the House?

Yes (38) -- 61.3% No (24) -- 38.7%

2) Do you think the GOP is going to retain control of the Senate?

Yes (56) -- 90.3% No (6) -- 9.7%

3) The Republican Party has been having a lot of difficulty during this election cycle. If you had to pick 1-6 reasons for that, what would they be?

The way the war in Iraq has gone. (48) -- 77.4% The GOP isn't doing enough to control spending. (46) -- 74.2% Republicans don't fight back hard enough against Democratic attacks. (37) -- 59.7% Because the GOP is perceived as being too soft on illegal immigration. (32) -- 51.6% The perception that the GOP is corrupt. (32) -- 51.6% President Bush's approval rating. (21) -- 33.9% The GOP isn't being aggressive enough in the war on terror. (19) -- 30.6% The perception that the Federal Government did a poor job of handling Hurricane Katrina. (19) -- 30.6% The Mark Foley scandal. (17) -- 27.4%

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It May Not Be A Thought Experiment Much Longer

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner links to a Jacob Sallum article arguing for a GOP loss of Congress partly based on a study showing "federal employees "shrank by 200,000 under Bill Clinton but have grown by 79,000 under George W. Bush." Joyner responds:

Clinton presided over a post-Cold War drawdown in the size of the Defense Department whereas Bush is presiding over a post-9/11 expansion in defense and homeland security spending. Indeed, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the decision to go to war in Iraq, the passage of No Child Left Behind, and various other decisions that have created this growth occurred during the period when the Democrats controlled the Senate.

After looking at other rises in federal domestic spending Joyner adds:

Again, though, many of these decisions were being made during the post-Jeffords defection period when the Democrats seized control of the Senate. And, anyway, does Sallum really believe that a Congress controlled by Democrats would be less likely to pass increases in social welfare programs? Or that they'd suddenly stop inserting outrageous earmarks into the budget? Really? Thought experiment: Imagine a world where Robert Byrd was chairman of the committee in charge of allocating highway monies.

LEST WE FORGET: Less Than Meets The Eye

National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg links to this video of a "dude" demonstrating his fully functional ("well, save for the rockets and lasers and such") Transformer halloween costume.

Blogometer Update

LANDSCAPE: Volunteer Army

  sidinny at Daily Kos is excited about a very ambitious project at the site to cover as many races (of interest to Dems, natch) as possible across the country.  "This is an attempt to compile a fairly comprehensive listing of election-related diaries that have recently been posted.  Most of them are House or Senate races but there are also some local ones, as well as the occasional 'general info' diary."

  And how goes it?  sidinny says, "We're doing pretty well with volunteers for now.  You can still drop us a line and I'm sure we'll find something for you to do."

  At the time of this writing, there were 71 diaries writing on 33 House races, 21 Senate, and 17 gubernatorial and other.

CA 11: Pomb Voyage

  Carl Pope writes at Huffington Post that incumbent GOP Rep.--and (somehow) chairman of the House Resources Committee--Richard Pombo is "on the ropes" in his attempt to retain his House seat.  Dem challenger Jerry McNerney has been all over Pombo like a developer on virgin land.  Pope writes:

  Pombo has been the subject of a truly unprecedented array of attacks by the state's editorial boards.  A recent local story showed how Pombo's bill to weaken protections for wildlife was actually drafted to help his family's real estate speculations.

  The Republicans have just dumped another $600,000 into the race, making a total of $1.3 million that they have spent... Overall Pombo's campaign is likely to cost $5 million, and since there are probably about 10,000 votes at stake here, that's $500 a vote.  This, plus Pombo's unwillingness to release his own polls, is pretty strong proof that he knows he is in trouble.

  That's great news for environmentalists, who consider Pombo to be the worst man in the worst place at the worst time.  Pope explains:

  [T]he White House is standing by its man.  While Pombo continues to deny that his agenda includes drilling for oil and gas off California's coast, even though he's authorized a bill that would do exactly that, he's being positioned by the Bush Administration to control drilling decisions for the next two years.  Todd Willens, Pombo's policy director at the House Resources Committee, has been named Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Interior Department.  It was Willens whose trip to the Marianas Islands was paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and who remains the key link in the Abramoff/Pombo chain.  Now Willens -- and Pombo -- will get to peddle influence to a much bigger lobby than the Marianas sweatshop moguls -- big oil itself.

  Pope discusses his pleasure at seeing "more than 240 volunteers from the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, the Humane Society, and the League of Conservation Voters" at a park recently, encouraging environmental voters to vote.  He also talks about how similar efforts are happening across the country.  "[I]t's critical this is happening," writes Pope.  "The New York Times reported that the election is coming down to the efforts by the two parties to get out the vote, since about one third of those who voted in 2004 are at risk of staying home this year."

CO 04: From Beyond Musgrave

  The fine activist folks at ProgressNowAction have a doozy of a video (viewable here) that Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo calls "priceless."

  In the vid, PNA talker Ben Gelt attempts to ask [incumbent GOP Rep. Marilyn Musgrave], as she's exiting a GOP office in Sterling, a "question from an undecided voter," namely, "If you had a choice between saving a soldier's life or preventing a gay marriage, which one you would stop?"  Musgrave tries her best to dodge Gelt as her assistants give Gelt and his cameraman the hand.  As Gelt continues trying to get Musgrave to say something, she finally reaches a car and gets in.  That's when a man grabs Gelt and gets in his face.  "This is a public street," asserts Gelt.  "I don't give a damn what it is," says the man, who continues to glower at Gelt on the sidewalk before walking off with other Musgrave diggers.

  Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos says, "Pretty amazing, how these thugs think they literally own the streets."

  (One minor quibble, though; the vid lists Musgrave as being from "Colorado District 5," when she's actually in District 4.)

NE 03: Kleebing The Faith

  Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos has the latest on "excellent" Dem candidate Scott Kleeb's battle with GOP adversary Adrian Smith for the open 3rd District seat.

  No wonder the national Republican Party and Club for Growth are dumping $350K to tell the people of this district how scary and liberal Democrat Scott Kleeb is.  Their own internals must look as bad for their side, as Kleeb's own numbers look good for our side in the open race...

  "This is the first time that Kleeb has led in its internals," writes Kos.  "There's a reason the GOP and Club for Growth are running scared."

  Kleeb's latest vid can be seen here.

NM 01: Madread

  "Republican insiders are swooning," writes Rich Lowry at National Review's The Corner, over a new ad from GOP incumbent Rep. Heather Wilson, with footage from a televised debate in which Dem challenger Patricia Madrid appears to be stumped by a question regarding the raising of taxes.  (The vid's viewable here.)

  Lowry posts a reader email:

  Because of that fiasco, Madrid is refusing any more debates.  It is the ONLY time I have ever seen a political race where the challenger is the one ducking debates.  Maybe you know of others.

  I’ve been following politics for 20 years.&nsbp; Patricia Madrid is the worst candidate I’ve seen since Michael Huffington.

  "Asking her for policy analysis," the email ends strangely, "would be like asking a beagle for a good golfing anecdote."

  More good news for Wilson, per Liz Mair at GOPProgress.com:

  "Not only is The Wall Street Journal reporting that Republicans in New Mexico's first district have already requested 22,000 absentee ballots (only 2,000 less than by election day in 2004)-- almost certainly guaranteeing Wilson 22,000 Republican votes already-- but the party says it's on target to exceed the 24,000 high water mark set two years ago (during a contentious Presidential election marked by very, very high voter turnout).

  In light of that and other information, Mair suggests that "for Halloween, Wilson invest in a Superwoman costume, and that Madrid and her team dress up as, well, ghosts...

  She adds an update about a couple of polls that have Wilson ahead of Madrid, with that lead growing as more people see the aforementioned ad.  "If this trend carries on, by this time next week, Wilson should have a clean 6 point lead," writes Mair.  "Thanks for playing, Patricia Madrid!"

PA 07: Stick A Fork In Him, He's Weldon

  Jonathan Singer at MyDD is flabbergasted:

  As if this Republican Congress were not corrupt enough, yet more allegations of GOP Representatives misusing their office for their own gain or the benefit of friends and relatives has emerged.  Perhaps unsuprisingly, the latest charges sound familiar, come from a familiar district and surround a familiar Congressman.

  That, of course, would be embattled GOP incumbent Rep. Curt Weldon, who is, as Singer writes, the "subject of a rather unflattering investigative piece" in The New York Times.  In short, writer Leslie Wayne portrays Weldon as being guilty of taxpayer abuse, collusion with Italian defense contractors, influence peddling, jaywalking and all sorts of other crimes and misdemeanors.

  Singer's had it.  "Weldon is a real disgrace to both his district and his country," he writes, before venting about GOP corruption's national implications.  "[T]he list of Republican scandals involving members of Congress or high-ranking administration officials misusing the power vested in them by the American people rivals any other period in American history.  In fact, it nearly rivals all other periods in American history."

  Which, as you might naturally expect, leads Singer to plug Weldon's formidable foe, Dem challenger Joe Sestak, who appeared to be leading Weldon in the polls even before the damning Times article came out.  "[Weldon] appears to be on track for a defeat in ignominy," wraps Singer.

[Mike Sheehan]