Oh, that's the beauty of this whole thing from the Republican point of view. First, they get the extra seat in Utah to make up for the Dem one in DC. But the DC seat is obviously unconstitutional, so the Dems would lose that one. Plus, the redistricting will put Matheson at risk, potentially costing the Democrats another seat. So the Repubs would likely gain two seats in this scenario. Honestly, any Democrats that are falling for this scheme really are a bunch of maroons.
"flag-burning, gay marriage and stem cell issues, what do we always say? That these issues have little bearing on real middle class Americans' lives. The fact that Junior has come down on the wrong side of these issues should be equally immaterial. These are throwaway issues, and he knows it."
Ahem. Ford also voted for the bankruptcy bill and the energy bill. Did these bills, especially the bankruptcy bill, have "little bearing on real middle class Americans' lives"? Ford's a classic corporate-whore Democrat, the type that does immeasurable damage to the brand. I have no problem with a democrat in TN drifting to the right on social issues; even in Ford's House district, that's probably necessary. But the bankruptcy bill? That's just payback for the million bucks or so Ford has raised from the financial industry.
All that said, if his leadership vote is the one that makes Reid majority leader, then I hope he wins.
No, see, the problem is that he's attacking both the Bush administration and unnamed "other Democrats" who come off as "whiners." This kind of quote drives me crazy: "We've got to start saying X instead of Y.... Those Democrats who say Y are making us lose middle America." Shut up! If you don't think Y is an effective argument, why talk about it at all? Just say X! What Bayh does here reinforces the Republican meme that Democrats are "wimps" and "whiners" who can't keep Americans safe.
In the above quote, if Bayh had left out the first sentence and the first clause of the second, and just said, "We're speaking out because we're concerned the administration is undermining our security. Their competence and their priorities have been wrong," then it would be true to say that he attacks the Bush administration and not Democrats. That would be good. Instead, he is making, in the media, comments that should only be made in private strategy meetings.
I've seen similar comments from Democrats (I think the latest may have been Obama), where they say, "We Democrats need to do more to appeal to religious voters." This reinforces the idea that Democrats are hostile to religion. Instead, if you think Democrats should appeal to religious voters, then say things that would appeal to religious voters. Use quotes from the Bible about helping the poor, that sort of thing. Don't spout Republican talking points.
She's worse (and also better) in one way than any possible Republican opponent, which is that she carries a D after her name. This means that by repeatedly voting like a Republican, she makes the Democratic label meaningless. The "better" part is that she will (probably) vote for Reid for majority leader. That said, I hope she loses in '08 (not that I need to wish for it, since, as others have noted, without the NOLA African-American voters, she's toast). I hope this loss will not cost us the Senate, but even if it does, or might, I won't give her a cent.
You know what? I actually hope Landrieu does lose in 2008. Only if she's the deciding vote on the leadership is she worth having around. Except possibly for Nelson-NE she is the worst Senate Dem on environmental issues. She voted for the bankruptcy bill, etc. Moreover, she's inept. She sold out I don't know how many votes to get more Katrina relief, and isn't that going well? Do we see her clamoring for better oversight of the funds? Do we see her leading the reconstruction efforts?
Democratic politicians like Landrieu destroy the brand and it's better if they lose, even at the cost of a seat in a conservative state. When people say they don't know what democrats stand for, it's pols like Landrieu who are the reason.
Just to be clear, so no one is confused, Nussle is running for governor and so is not running for re-election. IA-01 is open and a very slightly lean-dem district, which is why the DCCC is targeting it.
And frankly I am sort of surprised that the Club for Growth hasn't tried to take Leach down.
I agree with the above comment about IA-02. No way. I used to live in this district (Go Hawks!), and it will be an easy win for the Dems when Leach retires. Before that, I just don't see it. Of course, it doesn't help that the Dems failed to recruit a decent candidate. I suppose maybe if the DCCC pumped a bunch of cash in there, maybe it could be competitive, but that doesn't seem on the horizon even though they are targeting IA-01, which has an overlapping media market.
Btw, this is a classic example of the phenomenon you mentioned the other day about the single-issue enviro groups; the Sierra Club has endorsed Leach again in what is a pretty damn blue district. I could kinda understand it in past years (though I still didn't really agree), when control of the chamber was not an issue, but this year, wow it's annoying.
Just for accuracy's sake, the idiot who used to be governor of Iowa is Terry Branstad, not "Jim." For those unfamiliar with Iowa politics, Terry Branstad was George W before George W. He was embarrassingly stupid, ill-informed, extremely conservative but viewed as moderate.... He even had a kid who had a history of drinking and getting in trouble. I am guessing that was not this Marcus mentioned here (I don't remember how many kids he had), but I'll have to check. At the time, I just remember something like "Oh, that idiot Branstad kid got another DUI."
I realize this is snark, but it just reminds me how angry I am that Boxer endorsed, and even appeared in commercials for, Fiona Ma in CA assembly dist 12. As easily the least effective and arguably least progressive member of the SF board of supervisors, of course she deserved a promotion. Feh.
Well, Paulson turned down the job earlier in the year, evidently because he did not receive adequate assurance that he would play a significant role in shaping policy. Since he now has accepted the job, it seems relatively clear that he was promised such a role. Now, whether Rove et al will actually pay attention to someone who knows more than they about economic policy is anyone's guess. The fact that the new White House Chief of Staff is also a Goldman alum probably bodes well.
I hate to say it, but I like this guy. Over on his blog, Brad Delong quotes Robert Waldmann as saying "Looks like [the Bush admin is] so desperate for a treasury secretary who adds rather than removes credibility that they have resorted to scraping the top of the barrel."
I'm not buying it. McCain is many things, including a pandering opportunist, but he is not GWB.
For starters, unlike GWB, he is not an idiot. He is actually interested in policy details, at least some of the time. Unlike GWB, he has pushed for campaign finance reform. Unlike GWB, he is trying to do something about global warming. Unlike GWB, he is actually fiscally conservative.
I'm no fan of McCain and I certainly won't vote for him, mainly because his extraordinarily hawkish views on foreign policy and the military convince me that a McCain administration would continue the ruinous path of Bush in this area. But come on. There's a reason people call GWB the worst president ever. He's bad on everything. McCain would be an improvement on some issues.
Well, right now (ca 2am EDT) we have roughly 89% in, but it looks like the vast majority of the uncounted votes are in Cuyahoga County, which is overwhelmingly D. With 40% in in Cuyahoga, roughly 38k votes have been cast in the D gov race, vs. only about 17k in the R column. So I'm thinking we're probably going to see in the range of 60k more D votes and maybe 20k more R votes. As of now we have D=646k, R=737k, for 41% and 34% increases, respectively. If we toss in the aforementioned numbers we get D=706 and R=767, for 54% and 39% increases.
Granted, I would like to see a much greater disparity, but I would characterize this as very good turnout, considering the D gov race was not competitive. Also, it's worth mentioning that two R incumbents, Jean Schmidt in OH-2 and Ralph Regula in OH-16, just barely escaped their primaries, and Ney's opponent in OH-18 also got a bunch of votes. So part of the higher R turnout was made up of people who are not happy with their current reps.