Inhofe was first elected to the U.S. House in 1986. In his entire career, he has never recieved more than 57% of the vote, and that was only against a scandal-tarred former dem governor. There is no reason he can't be beaten by the right candidate.

If you try an dump blue dogs like Lincoln Davis and Bart Gordon, you'll only get republicans. Bush took 58% in Davis' district and 60% in Gordon's. Yet judging by the National Journal Ratings, both consistently vote more liberal than conservative on economic, social and foreign issues. It makes no sense to invest resources to eliminate moderate democrats from conservative districts, especially when it would be near-impossible to replace them. This is all academic anyway: you might consider them the do-nothing crowd, but both are highly popular within their districts.

First of all, Ford's approval rating pre-pardon was 71%. Post-pardon, it fell to 41%, and led to a loss of 49 seats in the House. A cursory review of the election statistics from the clerk's office in the House shows that in districts barely won by the democrats, such as CA-17, CA-34, CA-35, CO-02, GA-06, GA-07, IL-03, IL-10, IL-15, IN-04, IN-06, IA-02, IA-05, and MD-05, as well as other races down the line, Ford's approval rating would have made the difference. Without those seats, the class of '74 wouldn't have been able to reform the House to the degree where long-serving chairmen such as Bob Poage and Wright Patman would have been kicked out. There would have been no new combative liberal bent to the House, and Ford would have had an easier time deling with Congress. Incidents like WIN and Saigon would have brought down Ford's popularity, but other incidents such as the Mayaguez affair would have enhanced that popularity. Besides, Saigon would have fallen anyway-by the time Ford became president it was far too late to stop it. Ford might not have been wildly popular, but he would have been popular enough to dissuade any primary challenge. I can't recall the last time a popular president was successfully challenged in a primary, especially by a has-been actor who failed spectacularly when he ran in '68. I don't think Ford knew how unpopular his decision would be, but did anticipate it's unpopularity and acted in what he believed to be the country's best interests.

Ford was relatively popular in the month before he pardoned Nixon. Had he not pardoned Nixon, the democrats wouldn't have gained as many seats in 1974, and Ford would not have been as emasculated during the '75-'76 legislative session. Reagan would never have challenged Ford had Ford been popular at the time, so no, the pardon did not in any way help Ford. It may have been the wrong decision for the country, but I don't believe Ford made that decision out of personal political considerations.

Well, this is the most politically oriented district in the country. There's a saying that everyone in the 8th district wants to run for president, not congress.

Van Hollen is my congressman, and I've been very pleased with his performance, so much so that I was very dissapointed when he didn't jump into the 2006 senate race. He'll do a terrific job as DCCC chair. But even better is what this choice says about Pelosi. I was enraged when she publicly supported Murtha over Hoyer (which was totally unprecedented) and used her chief lieutenant George Miller to browbeat members to vote for Murtha. Van Hollen was a pretty active supporter of Hoyer, so this choice shows that Pelosi is not acting in a vindictive fashion. She'll be a great speaker, and Van Hollen will be a great chairman.

Never mind, it's coming in everywhere now. My prayers go out to him and his family.

That's terrible news. Where did you hear it?

Good comment. This might surprise some people, but the democrats have been here before. When Agnew resigned the Vice Presidency, democrats thought they had a narrow opening. All they would have to do is delay confirming a new Veep while Nixon was impeached for Watergate. They could then force the republicans out of the White House and make Speaker Carl Albert the next POTUS. This strategy especially gained force when Nixon signalled that he was considering John Connally as his new #2, a very divisive/racist guy. But Carl Albert, whatever his flaws as a human being (vain, vindictive, not especially strong leader) had great respect for the Constitution and the choice of America's voters, even if they were mistaken in voting in Nixon. In the end, democrats got a new president and a strongly democratic congress. If the democrats had pulled such a power play then, the voters would have been rightfully pissed at us along with the republicans. We've got a chance now to accomplish real, tangible legislation that helps people. Let's not screw it up.

That's fine. I'll admit I was surprised at the number of friendly Bayh people on this thread, because if Bayh is going to win the nomination in 2008, his base will unfortunately not be the netroots.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been here over a year.

On paper he would be the strongest candidate for President were he to win the nomination. But experience and skill in governing are far different from experience and skill at campaigning. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Bayh supporter, but he needs to prove to democrats during the primaries that he won't crack under pressure, and has the ability to win the general election.

What happened, for those of us who couldn't stand Borat?

Believe me, I know. Pelosi make a specific attempt to shaft Crowley when he ran against Larson. Still, I think either him or my home rep, Van Hollen, would be the best picks for the job. Of course, the fact that both supported Hoyer means that neither will likely be chosen.

No chairman would ever give up leading his committee for the DCCC.