I guess I should start with the usual disclaimers that a) I'm going to support heavily the eventual nominee, even if it's Swett, and b) Shaheen would be a significantly formidable (if perhaps not progressive) candidate if she decides on a run.

Having said that, I remain absolutely convinced that if Shaheen doesn't run, Marchand would beat Swett in the primary.  I know that may sound like pure spin because I like Marchand, and I'm not blind to the importance of money, but it's how I feel based on a couple factors.

First, at least in 1Q, something like 90% of Swett's contributions were from out-of-state, and a good deal of it was money for the general after having maxed out the primary limits.  Conversely, I'm getting the serious impression that Marchand's financial support is being dampened by the possibility of a Shaheen run, which in turn tells me that if she decides not to, that the bulk of the players in-state and dollars, and perhaps even the DSCC (which currently wants Shaheen) will rally around him.

Of course none of this matters if Shaheen runs, as Marchand has said he would step aside if that happens.

Oh, and Guru: it's great to see you over here.  This site is the better for it.

Why is Marchand the blog candidate?  The possible candidate all the blogs are talking about is Jeanne Shaheen?  Also, Buckey is getting some blog buzz.    

My suggestion is that we spend the next ten to twelve months recruiting the strongest possible challengers in all Republican seats that are up in 2008. Including the ones everyone knows are impossible (the way everyone on July 1, 2005 knew Macaca guy was unbeatable, it would be dumb to waste resources there).

If, after the filing deadline, it turns out the best we could get against some popular red-state incumbent was a town clerk nobody ever heard of, well, ok, we can winnow that one out then and focus on the more promising targets. But for the time being, there are no byes for Republicans. Worst case scenario, we make them work for their wins and keep them focused on defending seats while our twelve incumbents have an easy time.  Better case than that, we end up with a few surprise dark horse wins.

Suppose Stevens gets forced to resign at the eleventh hour due to scandal? Suppose Graham gets primaried out because of his immigration vote?  There's a lot of our worst shots at seats where a sudden opening would be the best shot at winning we'd see in decades. Heck, Wyoming's B seat is probably that right now.  don't we want to be prepared everywhere in case lightning strikes?

As for your first question, when a Republican breaks a term limits pledge, it is a broken promise such that you can't trust a thing he says or any promise he makes about anything else.  If a Democrat does it, no big deal--we could use her added experience to continue to get things done in Washington.  Consistency be the hobgoblin of little minds.

(I believe "TheVirginian" is our own concern troll "va blogger" - welcome.)

1) I think the voters decide what's important to them.  I think a broken promise is a bad thing.  If some voters wanted to hold Wellstone accountable for breaking his term limit pledge, they're absolutely justified.  If some voters don't care about Collins' broken promise, that's their prerogative.  No double standard, as much as you'd like to evidence one in order to have an argumentative leg to stand on.

However, my deeper contentions here are twofold:

A) Wellstone was a college professor.  He didn't know the day-to-day life in the Senate.  He ostensibly had good intentions.  That doesn't change the fact that he was going to break a promise, but it's there for whatever it's worth.  Collins, however, served - how long? - yes, twelve years as a Senate aide to Senator Cohen of Maine and then made her pledge and then reiterated her pledge as her first term concluded and she ran for a second.  There is every reason to believe that Collins never had any intention of keeping her promise.  She wasn't a stranger to day-to-day life in the Senate or what serving 12 years in the Senate meant.

B) For Collins, it's part of a deeper narrative on her duplicity.  She lied about term limits.  She's all over the place on Iraq.  She says she's pro-choice and then supports far-righty Alito for the Supreme Court.  A pattern of duplicity for Collins.

2) I think the newscaster for the local NBC affiliate is probably a better arbiter of decency in Montana than either you or I, and he too suggested that the tirade contained strong language and that kids should leave the room.  While the language might not be as obscene as some of the language in some of your comments on my blog, it's still obscene and laced throughout his tirade.  If all there is left to quibble is the fine point of how obscene the guy's tirade was (against a popular Governor, no less), maybe he's not a great candidate for Senate.

3) I do consistantly champion Robert (not Ron) Barber as a possible Democratic challenger to Lindsey Graham (or whoever wins the SC-GOP Senate primary next year).  I have not yet heard anything substantial about him considering a Senate bid.  Doesn't mean I don't think he'd be a strong candidate for a number of reasons.  So I continue to float his name.

4) Draft efforts don't always have to be connected to or need the blessing of the potential draftee.  And we don't know anything for sure about who runs the Draft Forgy blog.  However, the content on the Draft Forgy blog is what is important.  And many conservatives are disappointed in McConnell, and Forgy is making the rounds in the Kentucky media.  Draw your own conclusions.

Any other questions?

Democrats would lose a lot of support doing this. The Republicans were going to lose support for doing it--even though their version only applied to judicial nominees--and that brought about the Gang of 14. Trying to extend it to all filibusters would be a lot more consequential, and would bring about a much bigger backlash.

I'm with the estimates of a 5-6ish seat Democratic Senate gain in '08.  Maybe 7 if Specter has to resign.  61 will come into sight for Democrats in '10.

Getting rid of the cloture/filibuster minority protection is dumb.  Maybe you're right, the stupidest ones should have some geezers reading newspaper columns into the Congressional record until they keel over.  If you can't get 60 or 61 Senators to agree that something has to be done, then maybe it's not important enough to the voters on the proponent side or resisting it is too important to the opponent side's voters.  In either case, one side is not convinced of the real urgency of the matter (as represented) and is willing to prevent action.  

I don't think any significant number of voters is ignorant that Democrats do the proposing of bills and Republicans do the denying of cloture in the Senate.  For all the upset, average Americans don't necessarily disagree with the outcomes or the lack of decisions.

In my opinion Washington is in fact reflecting where the middle of public opinion is in the country right now.  The middle of public opinion wants a wind-down of war in Iraq, but not ending it before all Al Qaeda there is fatally damaged and "victory" has been given all reasonable (which is to say, even some obviously unreasonable) chance to be accomplished.  The middle of public opinion is willing to let illegals get citizenship eventually, forcing them to jump a lot of hoops, but there isn't a sense of enough urgency to the problem to slap down the nativist morons just yet.  (In fact, the political/material stalemate turns out to serve a psychological purpose- all the idiots get to vent all their bigotry, denial, paranoia, et cetera until it wears out.)  So 'obstruction' and venting is, despite everyone's frustration with it, where The People is.

Public opinion splits 50%-1 for Democrats, 40% plus White House powers for Republicans, and that's how the country and its political system are behaving.  We've turned the ship around but the willingness to turn on the engine and go somewhere particular isn't there yet, and so we drift slowly in some random direction- but with the ship pointing the right way, while the crew has two factions which are fighting for the engine key.

Right now the fundamental game is really all about Republican support slowly bleeding away, with just about everything Democrats do and their various minor debacles and such relatively secondary.  The 2008 election will be simple: choose between making progress (Democrats running Congress and the Presidency), or continued stalemate (Democrats running Congress and Republicans the Presidency) that'll keep the country feeling like it does now-a group therapy session gone out of control.  

I am somewhat shocked, that you, as a conservative Republican, do not find the phrase "shove it up your ass" to be obscene.

Guru is a partisan.  Breaking a promise is something he is going to use.  Who cares if Wellstone did it too?  The point isn't to be fair, the point is to trash Collins.  

If I'm not mistaken, Democrats have run early ads against targeted Republican opponents in 100% of the elections held in the past five years. But if you're talking about playing the "obstructionist" card specifically, that really only works very well when you're in the majority (too easy to dismiss as whining when it comes from the minority party) and it definitely adds some extra punch when you've got a stack of bills that were already passed by one house to wave around and say, "SEE!" Both of those things are relatively new developments and advantages the Democrats have not enjoyed previously.

Lean to tossup  republican are NH and OR.