Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog

I worked in the New York State Office of the Attorney General the summer after my first year in law school. I was so proud to work for an AG who was willing to step up when the incompetent and politicized federal Department of Justice wouldn't. Sure, a lot of those Wall Street indictments turned out to have been based on thin evidence, but at the time I was thrilled that my boss was a bold and strong Democrat.

I first met the AG when the interns were shepherded into a small room in groups of about 30 at a time to hear him speak. I found out later that a lot of his anecdotes were taken from his stump speech, but he seemed at once fresh, innovative, brilliant, and above all else a friendly and normal guy who just happened to be unbelievably good at both politics and the law. I was a believer. Best of all, we got photos with him, as a group, and I was slick enough to stand right next to him in our photo. We got the photos back a few weeks later: I looked great, the AG looked great, and the photo was too blurry to make out much of anything besides our identities. Still, it was a real treat to meet him.

The next time I met Eliot Spitzer was after he became governor of New York. I was helping out the Edwards campaign on some of their NYC fundraisers, which mostly meant that I stood around at a table in front and checked people in to the art gallery or ridiculous Upper East Side condo hosting the event. One night, we realized that the apartment, while enormous, had no natural place to put the table, so we just set up shop in the building's lobby as the residents came and went around us. The setup was a little weird, but the evening went by without incident until one of the residents walked in. "Hey governor," I said, and sure enough, Eliot Spitzer just so happened to live there. He graciously came over and talked to us poor schlubs for a couple of minutes, though I'm sure he didn't feel like it at the end of a long day. Again, he was charming and friendly.

I've met a fair number of politicians, and they are almost always underwhelming in person. I don't hold it against any of them, since neither charisma nor brilliance is really part of the job description. Still, being around Eliot Spitzer felt like a genuinely rare experience: meeting someone supremely talented who was actually living up to his potential while still being a nice guy. I was sure Spitzer would become president someday, even after his shaky first year as governor. I assumed that this Princeton/Harvard Law guy, with his limitless ambition, bold policies, and alpha-male personality, needed an experience like this, where he'd get smacked down for the first time in his life and finally learn humility. The last piece of the puzzle.

I guess it doesn't matter how badly that photo turned out. I've cared about politicians who have lost. I've cared about politicians who have been caught up in scandals. I've cared about politicians who have made me proud even if they couldn't come through in the clutch. I've just never felt let down before. I guess it's one thing if a politician turns out to do something so colossally unexpected that you have no idea to react. I'm certainly surprised that Eliot Spitzer was involved in prostitution, but I thought he had moved past the arrogance of thinking he could do that kind of thing and have a successful political career too. I guess I just thought this was the kind of bad habit that could be fixed with a little effort.

Maybe it's tougher than that, and it's unfair to expect someone to fix their unfortunate personality traits once they're elected to high office. It would be a shame if that were true. Governor, I'm sorry this is the end. I really hoped.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'm going to need a few examples of John McCain opposing military action before I take him seriously on foreign policy.

Unless he rhymes a few more upcoming wars with Beach Boys songs, in which case I'll support him pretty vigorously.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Democrats:

Clinton 31
Obama 28
Edwards 24

Republicans:

Romney 35
Huckabee 28
McCain 18

That is not how I want it to go, but that's my guess.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cross-posted over at the Law Students for Edwards blog.

I'll quote the CNN Political Ticker in full:

Howard Dean says it is incumbent on Democrats to bring the war in Iraq to a close, or risk becoming the minority party again.

“The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure we end this war, so let me be clear.” Dean made the remarks Saturday in the Democratic response the President’s weekly radio address. “We know if we don’t keep our promise, we may find ourself in the minority again. But we have to face the reality. The Republicans in Congress are standing with President Bush as he stubbornly wields his veto pen in the face of overwhelming opposition to this war from the American people.”

I honestly don't see what's so difficult about this. Principled disagreements about the war and its direction are fine, but as a strictly political matter, the war is wildly unpopular, Democrats rode a wave of anti-war sentiment into control of both houses of Congress, and Democratic capitulation on the war funding bill last month collapsed Congress' approval rating. If Democrats want to win in 2008, they need to stand strong against the war.

The worst part is I've heard a line of thought that believes that if Democrats succeed in ending the war now, they'll be painted as weak on national security. Now, leaving out the point that Republicans will attack Democrats on national security from now until the end of time no matter what happens, ending the war would be a fantastic move politically.

How about this for a tagline: "Republicans got us into this war. Democrats got us out." Works for me.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A friend of mine posted to the NYU Law Democrats listserv today asking leaders of the various "NYU Law for ____" groups to post why they support their candidate. Since I've taken it upon myself to launch Law Students for Edwards, I figured I'd write a little something. And since I'm starved for posts here, I might as well post it here:

First off, I can speak only for myself, but I really think it's all just a gut feeling. But even though you don't choose who you fall in love with, I'll detail my opinion of John Edwards in hopes that some folks will consider things they previously haven't. (Side note: I love everyone running and would be thrilled to work for any of them in the general.)

I signed on with the first Edwards presidential in March 2003 for a bunch of reasons. My first goal was taking back the White House, and I thought Edwards was most likely to win. I still do: I have a long-held theory that the best presidential candidates are the ones who appeal to the mainstream and the base. Rocket science, I know, but I was always amazed at how our current president could appeal so well to both economic and social conservatives, while making swing voters and the mainstream press still think he's an effective leader. That's a tricky balancing act and I think Edwards, then and now, is especially well positioned for it. Everyone always tries to come up with ways to figure out electability, and, well, I think that's it. I also like deserving underdogs, which is why I'm a Democrat and probably while I like trial lawyers, especially real honest ones like Edwards. (For the record, the reason you didn't hear about awful plaintiffs Edwards represented is because none exist. I know for a fact they looked.) And even though we've all heard it a million times, I like his story: a guy who majored in textiles at NC State in case the lawyer thing fell through, since his dad, not having his own college degree, was shut out for promotions he deserved at the mill. So that's why I liked Edwards before I worked for him.

I thought he acquitted himself really well in the campaign (aside from losing, which I think is more the result of the Terry McMahon Curse). I would read through his policy book (I don't know if it's online, but I still have it) and find nuggets of small-bore policy proposals that weren't exciting but could help countless people live better lives: exactly the politics I look for. I also thought the distinction he drew in his tax plan - we should cut taxes on work-based income instead of on wealth-based income - was a stroke of genius, as did Will Saletan at http://www.slate.com/id/2084686/ in a really terrific article from those heady days in 2003. So that's why I liked him as a candidate: I liked how he framed the debate to focus on the people who, as Bill Clinton put it, worked hard and played by the rules.

I think his 2005-2006 was the best off-cycle performance of any presidential candidate I've ever seen. He met with foreign leaders to learn about the rest of the world. He started a poverty center, focusing on an issue that helps himself the least and helps the country the most. He built up an exciting internet presence (PC Magazine just called johnedwards.com the best campaign website, and let's not forget that Dean '04 manager Joe Trippi just came on board) and he spent 2005 and 2006 campaigning for Democrats in almost every state, while successfully advocating for a minimum wage increase in a bunch of states too. I don't know what he could have done better.

As for this campaign, he's taken all those experiences and become more himself and less a politician. What I love the most about Edwards '08 is that it's about as far as a presidential campaign can go from being about the candidate. It's about ending poverty, it's about re-establishing America's position in the world, and it's about returning the sense of community to America. But he never claims that only John Edwards can do all that; rather, his online operation is geared around a community service organization, OneCorps, that adopts a new progressive policy every month that can be helped by real-life actions by everyday people. (Cut down your carbon footprint, that kind of thing.) He wants to change the campaign structure from waiting for a savior to take back the White House to taking steps now to make a real difference.

I think his "it's not about me" approach is best illustrated by a remark he made a few days after they announced that Elizabeth's cancer had returned. Now, sure I was inspired at their strength in deciding to make the most of every moment they have. But what really got me was this quote from their 60 Minutes interview:

First of all, there's not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. If you're considering doing it, don't do it. Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us. That would be an enormous mistake. The vote for the presidency is far too important for any of those things to influence it.

It's not about him, it's not about her, it's about the mission. That's why I support John Edwards.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Election Night 2006 was apocalyptic for New Hampshire Republicans. Traditionally New Hampshire's dominant party, they lost the governor's race for the fifth time in six elections (and yes, I worked on the one Democratic campaign that lost), and Democrats picked up both U.S. House seats and made staggering gains in both houses of the state legislature to win control of both houses for the first time since around the Civil War. (Without looking up the numbers, I recall the 2005-2006 GOP advantage in the state House to be something like 250-150 and in the state Senate to be 16-8. Yet Democrats still took over both chambers.)

Today, we have real proof that elections have consequences. The state House has already passed a civil unions bill that appears likely to pass the state Senate next week. Democratic Gov. John Lynch, reelected in 2006 with 74 percent of the vote, announced today he will sign the civil unions bill should it come to his desk. So barring a surprise setback, it looks like all the roadblocks to making civil unions a reality have disappeared.

I've probably paid closer attention to politics in New Hampshire than in any other state, even my own, so this is particularly exciting for me. This would make New Hampshire the fifth state (after Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut) to allow either gay marriage or civil unions. I think marriage equality is the major civil rights issue of our day, and I'm thrilled to see real progress in such a great state.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I mean, how can he not?

But in an unusually critical assessment of his party's political blunders and failures in the last election cycle, the Nevada lawmaker said, "We're not off-guard anymore, and we are busting our rear ends over here now."
...
"We were elected to govern as Republicans, and we lost our way and the voters saw little difference between us and the Democrats. We need to get the heart and soul back in our party," he said.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Not to cite Paul Waldman any time he writes anything, but his latest blog post is spot-on. He covers two topics: the media tendency to ask Democrats tougher questions on religion than they do Republicans, and the vulnerabilities the Republican presidential candidates face on those same questions. Here's how it starts:

So now John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have all been asked, with varying results, whether they agree with Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace’s assertion that homosexuality is “immoral.” Much ink has been spilled on their answers. But I haven’t seen that the leading Republican candidates for president have been asked the question, and I’d be interested to hear the results.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just read Chris Cillizza's look at Mitt Romney's ridiculous decision to start running TV ads, and there are a couple points that show clearly that this is a colossal mistake . For the record, Edwards was considered appallingly early when he became the first candidate to start broadcasting ads in June of the last cycle. Even beyond strategic measures, this is getting ridiculous. I don't want to live in a permanent presidential campaign.

Problem one:

But, in going up with a 60-second commercial in select markets in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida, (over the next week) Romney is vastly expanding the universe of people he hopes to reach and forcing his opponents to re-evaluate when they might begin their own paid advertising campaigns in early states. (emphasis added)

So airing TV ads before the primaries start on states besides Iowa and New Hampshire is almost certainly wasted money. TV ads a year before the primary is absolutely wasted money. TV ads a year before the primary in the fourth-biggest state in the union is borderline insane. Don't forget: the people making these decisions are the ones who get high-level appointments in the White House.

My second problem is this:

Romney still trails Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani badly in both state and national polling. Romney must, therefore, start to make his case for the nomination sooner rather than later.

This brings up a larger point that really baffles me. Cillizza has been doing this for years. He knows this already. Is he forgetful, or is he just making stuff up to try to make the race as exciting as possible for as long as possible? So either he's not putting in the effort to learn lessons from each successive campaign, or he's not interested in reporting the honest nature of presidential campaigns. Fantastic!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's way too fucking early for this.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I got this from Bluegrass Report since the primary source requires registration:

ELIZABETHTOWN — Anne Northup said she does not like to criticize,

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Barack Obama:

"There's a big part of me that's pretty lazy," he says.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yep, I'm fairly confident I'm going to fail out of law school and I'm still spending class time reading politics on the internet, so you know it must be December. Instead of listening to my corporations review session (stock? board of what?) I spent the last ten minutes reading this story of life as a GOP volunteer shipped up from DC to Rhode Island to try to save Lincoln Chafee on the weekend before the election. It is hilarious and it'll either open your eyes or bring back painful memories, depending on your experience.

Here's the link again. I urge you to give it a read.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Portsmouth Herald:

Going from a constituency of 15,000 to 1.2 million would be quite a challenge, but political leaders in the state believe Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand may have the stuff to challenge U.S. Sen. John Sununu in 2008.

And, for the record, I hope he does. People in the article call Steve "very smart, very personable" and "a very hard worker," all of which is true. He's also a fundamentally good guy and exactly the kind of person we need in the Senate. The article calls him "wildly popular" as mayor, and he's already shown a terrific ability to win over the ideologically disparate elements of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. I always thought former Governor Jeanne Shaheen would run against Sununu, but Steve Marchand may be an even better candidate.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm thrilled with how the elections turned out, especially the amazing fact that Democrats didn't lose a single seat in either the House or the Senate, and they kept their hold on all their governorships. And it took me a few days to realize this, but Democrats also took back the Senate by beating six Republican incumbents without losing a single seat. That is ridiculous: open seats are easier to take over by leaps and bounds, and the fact that Democrats somehow beat six ideologically diverse incumbents (Chafee, Santorum, DeWine, Allen, Burns and Talent) makes regaining the Senate all the more impressive.

I'm also impressed by how many of the House winners came out of nowhere. Most of the Democratic pickups were in districts considered uncompetitive at the beginning of the cycle, and very few of the candidates heralded as major stars actually wound up winning. It's tempting to chalk it up to a number of factors - the netroots doing a better job of finding and promoting candidates than the DC establishment, the early effort to recruit Democratic war veterans largely washing out - but I have a feeling that it's simply a matter of which Republican incumbents were better prepared for strong challengers. I can think of very few examples (Clay Shaw in Florida and maybe Rob Simmons in Connecticut) where Republican incumbents knew all along they would face a tough opponent and lost anyway. A good example that distinguishes netroots support from late-breaking races is Kansas' 2nd district, where Democrat Nancy Boyda made a really stunning upset of incumbent Republican Jim Ryun. This race was never on the netroots' radar screens, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made a big investment in the district a week or so before the election, catching by surprise the DC Republicans who didn't expect to have to compete there. So even though the DCCC was much more interested in the district than Democratic bloggers, that didn't mean the Democratic candidate lost: it was the element of surprise that won it. I'm not sure if how far we can extrapolate from these results, but this is a concern of mine for 2008 House races.

Still, 2006 retired the increasingly troubling feeling (deja vu for us Red Sox fans) that maybe the Democrats could just never have a successful Election Day again. I'm also excited that another one of my major concerns about democracy looks like it's beginning the path to a solution. For the first time in a while, Republicans as well as Democrats have been upset at how many voters are incorrectly refused the opportunity to vote. Democrats are more concerned about what appears to be a stolen election for, appropriately, the seat Katherine Harris is giving up in Florida, but a fair number of actual Republican officeholders were prevented from voting due to registry mistakes or not bringing proper ID. Provisional ballots, where they let you vote anyway and then check later whether they can count it, are a good start. Two good posts on DailyKos, though, illustrate how we should just drop polling places entirely and move to vote-by-mail. Apparently these systems work marvelously: there's much higher turnout, people have time to study the candidates, there's an automatic paper trail, and if you happen to work late on election day you don't have to skip voting. You can read the arguments here and here. I'm feeling good that we can turn these proposals into reality fairly soon.

But despite all the progress, I'm still only cautiously optimistic about Democratic expansion into previously Republican-dominated areas. I love this "the Republican Party is now a regional party confined to the Deep South" idea, but it's a little early to start gloating. I understand that Democrats are now the dominant party in the Northeast, things went well in the Midwest, and we're making serious inroads in the Plains states and the Rocky Mountain states, but Bush carried most of the states from Oklahoma to Montana with 60% of the vote in our last presidential election and the people of Kansas have still never elected a Democratic senator. I'm optimistic that this will be a progressive region someday, but let's celebrate once we pick up Senate seats in Wyoming and Texas and our presidential candidates start carrying Utah.

The other sad part of Election Day were that a lot of Democratic candidates came very close to winning. It's terrific that Democrats picked up three seats in New York, but two other New York candidates hit 49%, another candidate took 48%, and all three of them lost. There are plenty of other examples throughout the country, like Darcy Burner in Washington or Gary Trauner in Wyoming. I'm not sure what this means in a big-picture sense, but it does underscore the importance of tactics. After 2004, Democrats realized their relative inadequacy at get-out-the-vote programs, and hopefully by 2008 they will catch up.

I'm also optimistic about 2008 because the Senate outlook looks terrific. Look at these posts on DailyKos and TAPPED to see two competing but similarly optimistic outlooks, and neither of those mentions that U.S. Rep. Artur Davis is thinking of challenging Jeff Sessions, even if an African-American Democrat running for Senate in Alabama probably starts at a disadvantage.

Finally, the truth is that even though the balance of power has shifted, Washington is still a pretty fucked-up place. I have two great examples of the judgment calls Washington reporters bring to their jobs. Look at this quick comparison of Newsweek covers after the 1994 and 2006 elections to remind yourself how unwilling the mainstream media is to cheer for Democrats. And if you want to see a real profile in courage, read this article from a longtime CBS reporter in Washington who says that the Republican leadership who came to power in 1994 is "a bunch of weirdos." Seriously, he felt like now was the appropriate time to point this out. Thanks for the news, buddy. I also read this post by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz alum Glenn Greenwald where he responds to the ridiculous and usually sexist Washington insider critiques of Nancy Pelosi thusly:

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 dixstort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters.

I'll give two examples of annoying behavior that doesn't help anybody. First, I remember one time I was at a Democratic job fair and I was breathlessly introduced to some guy who was political director at the DSCC (or something), in the way that's supposed to make you think you're talking to someone special. Our well-established protagonist was catching up with friends, one of whom asked him why he hadn't helped a certain younger contact find a job in DC. "Oh, I didn't know he was your friend!" said the godfather with a grin. "I just saw the name and thought I didn't recognize it, and then why would I call them back?" Chortle chortle. I love this attitude: if you don't know someone, there's no reason to talk to them. You know you've made it when you have so many friends that you can function without reaching out to new people. That's awesome, and it establishes this guy as the alpha male, regardless of what everyone said in high school. Except for two things: one, Democratic politics is devoid of accountability, and half of why this guy was in the position he was in was because he didn't go to law school or find a job back wherever he was from. Two, that is a ridiculous attitude for a prominent figure in a political party: the point of a party is to bring in more people, especially the dedicated young activists who are trying to get involved. That's a pretty cheap elitism to sacrifice the next generation over.

Similarly, I was at the same early 2003 job fair, and I was standing with my friend Brian at the bottom of a staircase with a crowd of people lined up behind us. (It was a popular event, and they were only letting in so many people at a time.) Some Democratic staffer comes strolling out and announces to the crowd that the best experience you can get is to work on a campaign that year, during the off-year, specifically citing the New Jersey and Virginia legislative races. (For reference, and I don't know why the guy didn't mention this, while NJ and VA only had races that year for the state legislature, Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi all had competitive governor's races.) My friend Brian says, "what about the San Francisco mayor's race?" (This is the one that ended up with Gavin Newsom barely beating out a Green Party candidate and then legalizing gay marriage.) The Democratic staffer guy, who mind you had only come out to let us know how much more experienced he has, paused for a second, mentioned the name of some other kool kid he knew, tried finding them for 30 seconds, looked kind of lost, and then when Brian said "should I talk to the California Democratic Party?" confidently proclaimed, "yeah, talk to the California Democratic Party" and promptly walked away. Brian turns to me: "Or, 'hey, I can't find the person who's working on that race, so give me one of the 50 resumes you brought and I'll find a way to get it to someone on that campaign.'" Ever since then I've been especially attuned to connecting people when I can. It's just common sense. Oh, that was the next thing Brian said: "Would the Republicans have blown me off like that?"

These stories are neither conclusory, relevant, or well-written, but I hope they underscore the atmosphere of getting a Democratic job in DC so much as it resembles the long-delayed consolation prize for not being very cool in high school, and a poorly operated one at that. Election Day was a good start for fixing Washington, but we have a very long way to go.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Alaska-GOV:
Prediction: Tony Knowles (D) 51 - Sarah Palin (R) 48
Reality: Palin 49 - Knowles 41

CO-04:
Prediction: Angie Paccione (D) 50 - Marilyn Musgrave (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Musgrave 46 - Paccione 43
This is a tough loss since Musgrave is so awful and thinks that gay marriage is the biggest danger facing America. Hopefully Paccione will win this one in 2008, when Colorado becomes a swing state too.

CO-05:
Prediction: Jay Fawcett (D) 48 - Doug Lamborn (R) 47
Reality: Lamborn 59 - Fawcett 41
My first state with two misses! This prediction was not close. I admit I look ridiculous here in retrospect, but for some reason I thought the Ted Haggard scandal would depress turnout more than it did. That's my mistake.

CT-02
Prediction: Rob Simmons (R-inc.) 51 - Joe Courtney (D) 49
Reality: Courtney 50 - Simmons 50
This one was very close, with Courtney winning by about 100 votes. The only Haverford alum in Congress took a long time to give up, but ultimately he's no longer joining Chris Shays as the only House Republicans left from New England. I still think my guess was pretty good.

CT-04
Prediction: Diane Farrell (D) 51 - Christopher Shays (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Shays 51 - Farrell 48
Things didn't go as well for Connecticut Democrats as I had hoped, what with Shays retaining yet again and that mess of a Senate race. This is congressional run #2 for Farrell, so despite hitting at least 48% both times, it looks like we'll need someone new against Shays next time. When is that guy going to get sick of the acrimony in Congress and retire?

FL-13
Prediction: Christine Jennings (D) 52 - Vern Buchanan (R) 47
Reality: Buchanan 50 - Jennings 50
This election was stolen and needs to be re-run, for separate reasons. On the stolen part, the National Republican Campaign Committee called voters repeatedly, at early-morning hours, calling back more often if people hung up quickly. They suggested in the calls that they were coming from the Democratic candidate, so everyone would get mad at the Democrat. They did that here to Christine Jennings, and the current total has her down 400 votes out of over 237,000 cast, so I don't feel badly about mis-calling this race. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that there needs to be criminal penalties for shit like this, because civil damages (i.e. payouts from lawsuits) aren't doing the trick. As for the re-run, amid reports that the electronic voting machines were screwed up and didn't have this race listed, something like 18,000 people just didn't vote for anyone in the congressional race. I don't know if that's a high number for how many people voted, but going off the rest of their ballots, those 18,000 voters skewed heavily Democratic. Again, this race was "decided" by 400 votes. It's not unprecedented for campaigns with indecipherable wins to be re-run, and this time I think we would get a representative who represents the will of the district.

Idaho-GOV:
Prediction: Jerry Brady (D) 49 - Butch Otter (R) 47
Reality: Otter 52 - Brady 44
This might not have been my best pick.

Illinois-06:
Prediction: Tammy Duckworth (D) 49 - Peter Roskam (R) 47
Reality: Roskam 51 - Duckworth 49
Thanks to DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel for putting $3 million into this race when there were clearly better options. I am starting to suspect that if the DCCC treated this as a normal race instead of its marquee race we would have won: Duckworth has an appealing personal history but that just isn't enough to win a campaign. Narrow primary loser Christine Cegelis had a much more energetic campaign.

Iowa-02:
Prediction: Jim Leach (R-inc.) 55 - David Loebsack (D) 43
Reality: Loebsack 51 - Leach 49
Aw! I did NOT see that coming! I call this the second-biggest upset of the night.

Maryland-GOV:
Prediction: Robert Ehrlich (R-inc.) 51 - Martin O'Malley (D) 49
Reality: O'Malley 53 - Ehrlich 46
O'Malley held a big lead for most of this campaign, but by Election Day it looked like it had narrowed into a tie. Momentum matters in politics and the World Series, so I don't feel too moronic for missing this call, even if it's one of my worst predictions overall. I'm not complaining!

Minnesota-GOV:
Prediction: Mike Hatch (D) 52 - Tim Pawlenty (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Pawlenty 47 - Hatch 46
Now, if I had said something like "There's no way Tim Pawlenty's support goes above 47," then I look like a smart guy. Here, not so much. I thought Pawlenty would be swept up in the anti-Republican mood both nationally and within Minnesota, but apparently it didn't work out that way. On paper these both look like strong candidates, but I guess I'm not as sharp on Minnesota politics as I could be.

MN-01:
Prediction: Gil Gutknecht (R-inc.) 51 - Tim Walz (D) 48
Reality: Walz 53 - Gutknecht 47
Apparently Gil Gutknecht is a really good guy, and now he'll be a really good guy in the private sector. Seriously, I've never understood why people want to keep elected officials who differ from them drastically on the issues that matter. It's not my responsibility to make sure that members of Congress have gainful employment; if I don't like their politics, I think they should leave. Anyway, Gutknecht's loss is mitigated by Tim Walz being one of my favorite candidates and now one of my favorite congressmen. From his Wikipedia entry:

Walz was inspired to run for office in part by an occurrence at a 2004 rally for George W. Bush in Mankato "where he and two students were removed due to a John Kerry sticker on one of the students' wallets". Walz had no opponent in the race for the DFL nomination for the seat in the September 12, 2006 primary election. He beat incumbent Republican Gil Gutknecht in the general election on November 7, and will take office in January 2007. In his victory speech, Walz said, "maybe they should have let us in" to that event.

NE-03:
Prediction: Scott Kleeb (D) 51 - Adrian Smith (R) 47
Reality: Smith 55 - Kleeb 45
This is another one where I was really far off. I had heard the internals for both parties looked really good for Kleeb going into the final weekend, but apparently this is one of the few districts in the country where a late visit from President Bush will actually help your campaign. This is a tough one to take since Scott Kleeb is so awesome and Adrian Smith is such a bad fit for the district. I've heard rumors of pushing Kleeb into the Senate race if Chuck Hagel retires in 2008, but that may be too ambitious.

Nevada-GOV:
Prediction: Dina Titus (D) 54 - Jim Gibbons (R) 45
Reality: Gibbons 48 - Titus 44
I underestimated Nevada voters' ability to look past assaulting a cocktail waitress when they choose a governor. That was my mistake.

NH-01:
Prediction: Jeb Bradley (R-inc.) 54 - Carol Shea-Porter (D) 45
Reality: Shea-Porter 52 - Bradley 48
This is the biggest political upset I have ever seen. Shea-Porter was an absolute underdog in the primary, but you can explain away her win because her primary was the only strongly contested race that day, and her supporters were the only ones eager to go to the polls. That sometimes happens. The general election, though, is an entirely different story: plenty of candidates think they can win an election by not raising money, hardly running any TV ads, and somehow energizing the community enough that everyone will just turn out and vote for them. That plan is usually ridiculous, but Carol Shea-Porter just pulled it off. There is a DailyKos post by the tech guy on her campaign which is truly amazing, as he goes through what it was like to be on this campaign in both the primary and general elections. That link has my highest recommendations. (One example for my campaign-veteran friends: they couldn't afford the state party voter file, so they went to every town hall's voter registration lists and made their own. That's ballsy, brilliant and the sign of a really dedicated team.) I thought my prediction here was being generous.

New Mexico-01:
Prediction: Patricia Madrid (D) 53 - Heather Wilson (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Wilson 50 - Madrid 50
This race was very recently called. What happened here was that in their last debate, Wilson's question for Madrid was something like, "how are you going to protect New Mexico voters from a tax increase?" The answer (which, to be fair, I had to think about) is to ignore the question and say that after Heather Wilson, her friend George Bush, and the Republican Congress racked up such a record deficit, there no longer are any easy answers, and maybe Heather Wilson should have thought about basic budget balancing before she voted for the war in Iraq, costing taxpayers millions a day. Madrid kind of froze, started an answer, and froze again. That moment turned into pretty much the only ad the Wilson campaign ran from there on out. Wilson was really living the dream there: every candidate and staffer always hopes that their question in the candidates-ask-each-other section of the debate will somehow magically knock the other candidate out of the race. This is the only time I've ever seen it happen.

New York-29:
Prediction: Eric Massa (D) 50 - Randy Kuhl (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Kuhl 52 - Massa 48
It's fantastic that Democrats picked up three House seats in New York, but it's depressing how close they came in so many other races: Democratic candidates lost three House races in New York while still taking at least 48% of the vote. Hopefully that bodes well for next time but there's always the possibility 2006 was the best shot in a while.

North Carolina-08:
Prediction: Larry Kissell (D) 54 - Robin Hayes (R) 45
Reality: Hayes 50 - Kissell 50
This one is still up in the air until all the provisional ballots are counted (and may actually switch) but I'm counting it as a loss. It's a shame, too, since Kissell is so awesome. I'm not sure if he'll be an even better candidate next time or if Hayes was more vulnerable caught off-guard.

Ohio-01:
Prediction: John Cranley (D) 50 - Steve Chabot (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Chabot 53 - Cranley 47
Despite lots of success in the races for governor and senator, I was expecting Democrats to pick up more seats in House races in Ohio than they did. I'm not really sure what happened; the environment was toxic both nationally and statewide. I can guess that most of the GOP incumbents like Chabot hadn't been softened up in a while, but there were plenty of incumbents nationally who lost their first serious challenge in years.

OH-02:
Prediction: Victoria Wulsin (D) 51 - Jean Schmidt (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Schmidt 51 - Wulsin 49
It's still amazing that Democrats have kept this district competitive, but it may be that Schmidt's repeated inanity has contributed too. I guess we'll see in 2008: find out the district's presidential vote and compare it to the national popular vote, then compare that difference to what it was in 2004. I hope and suspect that this district is beginning to become more Democratic.

OH-15:
Prediction: Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 53 - Deborah Pryce (R) 45
Reality: Pryce 51 - Kilroy 49
I really thought Pryce, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, would be swept up in the anti-Republican environment, but apparently she did a great job campaigning. I still think we can take her out next time.

Pennsylvania-04:
Prediction: Melissa Hart (R-inc.) 51 - Jason Altmire (D) 49
Reality: Altmire 52 - Hart 48
Melissa Hart will retire from Congress without me knowing much about her, but I do know a bit more about Jason Altmire. He worked for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, he was a legislative aide on health care in the 1990s, and he played for Florida State when they won the Sugar Bowl. When I originally saw that Democrats had a serious House candidate named Jason, I assumed he was in his late 30s, and sure enough, he is. I went to the Social Security Administration's awesome Baby Names Database and discovered that Jason, besides being the #2 name for boys for five years in a row in the 70s, went from out of the top 100 to a top-10 name in the span of five years from 1966-1971. Does anyone know how this happened? Was the lead singer of Strawberry Alarm Clock named Jason?

PA-06:
Prediction: Lois Murphy (D) 51 - Jim Gerlach (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Gerlach 51 - Murphy 49
I think this is the exact same margin from 2004, and it would be odd if it were again so close. I'm not sure how many times Murphy can run, but it seems like one of these times she should be able to pull it off. That said, I think Myrth York shouldn't have run a third time for governor of Rhode Island after winning the nomination and failing twice, so hopefully PA-06 has someone else who can come through for Team Democrat.

PA-08:
Prediction: Mike Fitzpatrick (R-inc.) 51 - Patrick Murphy (D) 48
Reality: Murphy 50 - Fitzpatrick 50
Man, I did not do well on the Pennsylvania House races.

Virginia-02:
Prediction: Phil Kellam (D) 50 - Thelma Drake (R) 49
Reality: Drake 51 - Kellam 49
I just don't get the feeling that Thelma Drake is that strong a candidate. I think if Kellam learns from his mistakes this time around, he could beat her in 2008.

Wisconsin-08:
Prediction: John Gard (R) 54 - Steve Kagen (D) 45
Reality: Kagen 51 - Gard 49
This one was a pretty random guess, and I missed. Kagen's a doctor, though, which reminds me of a funny anecdote Howard Dean told. Apparently when he first became governor of Vermont there weren't many doctors in public office, so he used to go to medical conventions and tell doctors to run for office. Then he discovered that all the doctors who ran were right-wing Republicans (I'm sure he was thinking of Bill Frist here) so he decided to stop. Steve Kagen: reversing the trend!

Wyoming-AL:
Prediction: Gary Trauner (D) 49 - Barbara Cubin (R) 47
Reality: Cubin 48 - Trauner 48
This one hurt, mostly because Cubin is so terrible. I hope she loses next time.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Alabama-GOV:
Prediction: Bob Riley (R-inc.) 55 - Lucy Baxley (D) 42
Reality: Riley 58 - Baxley 42

Arizona-SEN:
Prediction: Jon Kyl (R-inc.) 51 - Jim Pederson (D) 46
Reality: Kyl 53 - Pederson 44
I keep waiting on Arizona to become a Democratic state. It's notoriously conservative, being the home of both Barry Goldwater and John McCain. Clinton carried it in 1996, but that seems to have been the major federal success of Arizona Democrats. Hopefully next time.

AZ-01
Prediction: Rick Renzi (R-inc.) 53 - Ellen Simon (D) 45
Reality: Renzi 51 - Simon 44

AZ-05
Prediction: Harry Mitchell (D) 49 - J.D. Hayworth (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Mitchell 51 - Hayworth 46
This may be a race in which I predicted a Democratic takeover simply because I don't really like the Republican incumbent, and I got it right simply on dumb luck. On the other hand, this wasn't an unbelievably close outcome, and the outcome may have had something to do with Mitchell's longstanding popularity. Now, I have a pretty high standard for the argument that voters have a long history with a guy and will vote for him as a result. In Louisville in 2004 we argued that the district had been voting Tony Miller as Circuit Court Clerk for 18 years, so they'd feel comfortable voting for him for Congress, and reality didn't really bear that out. Harry Mitchell, on the other hand, was mayor of Tempe for about 20 years, and there's even a statute of him in the town square. Protip: if there's a statue of you in the town square, you might be a viable candidate for Congress.

AZ-08:
Prediction: Gabrielle Giffords (D) 56 - Randy Graf (R) 43
Reality: Giffords 54 - Graf 42
Giffords spent one term in the Arizona House before running for Arizona Senate, and one term in the state Senate before running for Congress. That rocks. Also, Giffords was a Fulbright scholar and went to the Kennedy School of Government, and she returned to Arizona in 1996 to take over the family business when her father took ill. That rocks. I like Gabrielle Giffords.

Arkansas-GOV:
Prediction: Mike Beebe (D) 56 - Asa Hutchinson (R) 42
Reality: Beebe 55 - Hutchinson 41
Oddly enough, Democrats have super-majorities in both houses of the state legislature (and four of the five members of Congress, both U.S. Senators, and now the governor) but the last time Arkansas voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, excepting President Clinton, was in 1976.

California-GOV:
Prediction: Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-inc.) 55 - Phil Angelides (D) 42
Reality: Schwarzenegger 56 - Angelides 39
I looked up the last time the Democratic candidate for governor of California didn't break 40%, and it turns out it was 1986. It almost happened in 1994. That said, California didn't skew heavily Democratic until the late 90s, and I am sure this is the first time the Democratic candidate for governor finished about 20 points behind the statewide performance of the last Democratic presidential candidate here.

CA-04:
Prediction: John Doolittle (R-inc.) 54 - Charles Brown (D) 45
Reality: Doolittle 49 - Brown 46
Even though Brown lost, I'm still impressed. Do you think the Brown campaign ran with or away from any other associations that may exist with the name "Charlie Brown"?

CA-11:
Prediction: Jerry McNerney (D) 51 - Richard Pombo (R-inc.) 48
Reality: McNerney 53 - Pombo 47
This was a great contrast: the wind turbine engineer beating the anti-environmentalist chair of the House Resources Committee. For the record, McNerney ran a simply outstanding campaign. I was looking at his press photo page, and they were sharp enough not only to include mega-high-resolution photos but great shots that effectively summed up the campaign. There's one with McNerney standing by a bunch of wind turbines, one of McNerney standing by President Clinton at a huge McNerney rally, and one of McNerney with former Republican congressman Pete McCloskey, with one of those backgrounds alternating between "Republicans for McNerney" and "McCloskey for McNerney." He also did a terrific job of energizing local activists. He deserved to win, and I hope he's in Congress for a long time.

CA-45:
Prediction: Mary Bono (R-inc.) 59 - David Roth (D) 39
Reality: Bono 59 - Roth 41
We may have gotten rid of the only Haverford alum in Congress, but at least there's still a Scientologist.

CA-50:
Prediction: Brian Bilbray (R-inc.) 51 - Francine Busby (D) 45
Reality: Bilbray 54 - Busby 43

Colorado-GOV:
Prediction: Bill Ritter (D) 56 - Bob Beauprez (R) 41
Reality: Ritter 56 - Beauprez 41
My first and only correct pick. For next time, I'm torn between finding out whether there are third-party candidates in each race next time (which would affect whether my predicted percentages add up to 100), not spending that much time doing further research when I spent enough time making the prediction guide in the first place, and, of course, not doing this at all. Still, if I had the total percentages right, I would have nailed a lot more than just this one!

CO-06:
Prediction: Tom Tancredo (R-inc.) 53 - Bill Winter (D) 46
Reality: Tancredo 59 - Winter 40
Man, I paid for that perfect pick in the governor's race with some mediocre predictions in the Colorado House races. You can see even worse performances in the misses. Anyway, I guess xenophobia is still popular in these parts.

CO-07:
Prediction: Ed Perlmutter (D) 54 - Rick O'Donnell (R) 45
Reality: Perlmutter 55 - O'Donnell 42
I believe Democrats now have four of the seven Colorado congressional seats, and the remaining three will be contested in 2008. I am very excited to have new swing states.

Connecticut-SEN
Prediction: Joe Lieberman (CfL-inc.) 47 - Ned Lamont (D) 42 - Alan Schlesinger (R) 11
Reality: Lieberman 50 - Lamont 40 - Schlesinger 10
Actually, my disappointment over this loss is mitigated somewhat by everyone's percentage being divisible by ten. Look at that! Also, we gave Republicans a thumpin' everywhere else. My favorite political writer, Matt Taibbi, said, "I can't see any way to describe any day in which Joe Lieberman wins an election as a good day." I disagree, but this is still pretty depressing. One of the top staffers for the Lamont campaign, David Sirota, wrote a post-mortem on the campaign. I found this section edifying:

Immediately after the primary, we could have, for instance, done a better job of embarrassing Lieberman for having the nerve to ignore a taxpayer-funded democratic election and exploit a legal loophole for his own personal gain. The campaign made a strategic error in trusting the Chuck Schumers of the world when they told us not to hammer Lieberman, because they were working to politely ease him out of the race. Those efforts never happened because, as we saw, Senate Democrats really had no interest in getting him out.

CT-05
Prediction: Chris Murphy (D) 53 - Nancy Johnson (R-inc.) 45
Reality: Murphy 56 - Johnson 44
I thought my prediction was generous to Murphy, actually; that's a big margin for a 33-year-old challenging a 24-year incumbent. Johnson ran pretty good ads, too, so I'm not sure how he did it. Nonetheless it's good to see Connecticut will finally have a Democratic majority in its House delegation. Actually, I'm pretty sure Chris Shays is chairman of the House New England Republican Caucus, given that House members from New England skew 21-1 Democrat. Awesome!

Delaware-AL
Prediction: Mike Castle (R-inc.) 55 - Dennis Spivack (D) 44
Reality: Castle 57 - Spivack 39
Well, this turned out to be nothing. Still, I bet Democrats target it for 2008: Delaware isn't even a swing state.

Florida-GOV
Prediction: Charlie Crist (R) 52 - Jim Davis (D) 47
Reality: Crist 52 - Davis 45

FL-SEN
Prediction: Bill Nelson (D-inc.) 61 - Katherine Harris (R) 37
Reality: Nelson 60 - Harris 38
What else can we get Katherine Harris to run for?

FL-09
Prediction: Gus Bilirakis (R) 54 - Phyllis Busansky (D) 45
Reality: Bilirakis 56 - Busansky 44

FL-16
Prediction: Tim Mahoney (D) 52 - Joe Negron (R) 46
Reality: Mahoney 49 - Negron 48
This kind of freaks me out for how the district will go in 2008, but honestly I doubt many voters thought they were voting for Mark Foley. Still, here's hoping Mahoney puts all his congressional office funding into constituent service.

FL-22
Prediction: Ron Klein (D) 50 - Clay Shaw (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Klein 51 - Shaw 47
I switched this pick at the last second too! I love how I view all my correct picks as strokes of genius, and with all my incorrect picks, well, these things just happen.

Georgia-GOV
Prediction: Sonny Perdue (R) 55 - Mark Taylor (D) 43
Reality: Perdue 58 - Taylor 38
Ugh. Remember Perdue was considered completely unqualified when he beat Roy Barnes in 2002. Hey, would Roy Barnes run for Senate?

GA-08
Prediction: Jim Marshall (D-inc.) 51 - Mac Collins (R) 48
Reality: Marshall 51 - Collins 49
This was only close because Georgia Republicans pulled a Texas-style re-redistricting effort. I wouldn't be immediately opposed to a constitutional amendment mandating that states not redraw their congressional maps more than once a decade.

GA-12
Prediction: John Barrow (D-inc.) 52 - Max Burns (R) 47
Reality: Barrow 50 - Burns 50
This was the closest Democrats came to losing a seat in any of the House, Senate, or gubernatorial races. That is unprecedented. Also, I still don't understand what made Max Burns such a good candidate.

Idaho-02:
Prediction: Bill Sali (R) 47 - Larry Grant (D) 43
Reality: Sali 50 - Grant 45
When Bill Sali was in the Idaho state legislature he suggested that breast cancer is caused by abortions, causing the Democratic House leader (a breast-cancer survivor herself!) to run from the room in tears. Ladies and gentleman, your House Republican freshman class president!

Illinois-GOV:
Prediction: Rod Blagojevich (D-inc.) 54 - Judy Baar Topinka (R) 43
Reality: Blagojevich 50 - Topinka 40
Another round numbers result! I love these.

IL-08:
Prediction: Melissa Bean (D-inc.) 51 - David McSweeney (R) 48
Reality: Bean 51 - McSweeney 44

IL-10
Prediction: Mark Kirk (R-inc.) 52 - Dan Seals (D) 47
Reality: Kirk 53 - Seals 47
I think Seals can win this one in 2008. Also I love when CNN calls IL-08 a "key race" and it turns out to be not as close as IL-10. Smooth. I love pompous journalists who claim an "inside scoop" on which races are the most contested, and then they really have no better idea than you would if you spent the weekend before the election looking at polls (which is probably what they actually did) or wrote 18,000 words predicting races. For the record, no campaigns that I failed to cover switched party control.

Indiana-02:
Prediction: Joe Donnelly (D) 53 - Chris Chocola (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Donnelly 54 - Chocola 46

IN-03:
Prediction: Mark Souder (R-inc.) 54 - Tim Hayhurst (D) 44
Reality: Souder 54 - Hayhurst 46

IN-07:
Prediction: Julia Carson (D-inc.) 52 - Eric Dickerson (R) 48
Reality: Carson 54 - Dickerson 46
Hey look, three races in the same state that had the same percentage result! Also, I really hope Carson either gets healthy, campaigns more, or retires from Congress next time. This one could be close.

IN-08:
Prediction: Brad Ellsworth (D) 53 - John Hostettler (R-inc.) 46
Reality: Ellsworth 61 - Hostettler 39
"Hostettler has a great ground game," I said. "This one will be close," I said. I wonder how many other House incumbents failed to break 40.

IN-09:
Prediction: Baron Hill (D) 50 - Mike Sodrel (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Hill 50 - Sodrel 46
Outside of Texas, the only House Democrat to lose his seat in 2004 or 2006 is Baron Hill. And now he's back!

Iowa-GOV:
Prediction: Chet Culver (D) 52 - Jim Nussle (R) 47
Reality: Culver 54 - Nussle 44

IA-01:
Prediction: Bruce Braley (D) 53 - Mike Whalen (R) 46
Reality: Braley 55 - Whalen 43
I give myself more credit than this looks here. The polls were close!

IA-03:
Prediction: Leonard Boswell (D-inc.) 54 - Jeff Lamberti (R) 46
Reality: Boswell 52 - Lamberti 46
I know that Lamberti is the state Senate President, but this still doesn't bode well for 2008.

Kansas-GOV:
Prediction: Kathleen Sebelius (D-inc.) 55 - Jim Barnett (R) 45
Reality: Sebelius 58 - Barnett 40
I cannot give myself credit here; the polls were never close. Sebelius is Kos' early pick for VP in 2008. Did you notice that the state Attorney General who tried to find out who had had abortions lost?

KS-02:
Prediction: Nancy Boyda (D) 50 - Jim Ryun (R-inc.) 49
Reality: Boyda 51 - Ryun 47
Note that it is not an upset if I predicted it correctly. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ignored this race until the last week or so, coming in with a big ad buy at the last minute. This is the first instance I've seen in politics of lulling someone into a false sense of security actually working.

Kentucky-02:
Prediction: Ron Lewis (R-inc.) 53 - Mike Weaver (D) 46
Reality: Lewis 55 - Weaver 45

KY-03:
Prediction: John Yarmuth (D) 52 - Anne Northup (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Yarmuth 51 - Northup 48
I dislike Jack Conway less for not helping us in 2004 now that we (eventually) took the seat back this time. To recap: Jack Conway almost beat Northup in 2002, declined to help Tony Miller much in 2004 so that Miller would lose and Conway could run again in 2006, Miller wound up losing by so much that it scared Conway off from running in 2006, and then somebody else ran and won the seat. That's good irony. But it's water under the bridge, and if he wants to run for governor in 2007, all the best. This was one of the first dominoes to fall for Team Republican on election night, and conservative commentators sounded upset that voters turfed out some kind of sweetheart hero who stood up so well for her constituents. That's not true. Anne Northup's campaigns are so genuinely mean that I can't imagine anyone would ever want her back in the public sphere. She has no significant accomplishments in Congress that a member of Congress isn't supposed to do already, and her signature effort, building two bridges between Louisville and Indiana to ease congestion, hasn't even broken ground after her ten years in Congress. This and her personal style (from what I've seen) make me think she won't have much more success in the future even without pointing out some of the more unsavory stories I've heard. Good riddance.

KY-04:
Prediction: Geoff Davis (R-inc.) 52 - Ken Lucas (D) 48
Reality: Davis 51 - Lucas 44
Lucas is reputed to be the only Democrat who can win in this district, so that's depressing. Also, I paid close attention to this district in 2004 when George Clooney's dad ran, and this district never seems to have public polling.

Louisiana-02:
Prediction: William Jefferson (D-inc.) 42 - Everyone else 48
Reality: Jefferson 30 - Everyone else 70
Since Jefferson was under 50% in this open primary, there's a runoff next month. I think he's done.

Maine-GOV:
Prediction: John Baldacci (D) 39 - Chandler Woodcock (R) 35 - Barbara Merrill (I) 16 - Pat LeMarche (G) 10
Reality: Baldacci 38 - Woodcock 30 - Merrill 21 - LeMarche 10
You know, for a four-way race this isn't half bad. I mostly overstated Woodcock's support and understated Merrill's support by about 5%. Also, rumor has it that we're finally going to get a top-tier Senate candidate in Maine next time, which is very exciting.

Maryland-SEN:
Prediction: Ben Cardin (D) 52 - Michael Steele (R) 47
Reality: Cardin 54 - Steele 44
I wish I could say Steele was done, but even if he missed out on RNC chair he's still going to get a TV show and run again sometime soon, either for governor in 2010 or Senate again when Mikulski retires. Funny how these Democratic-held Senate seats looked close at the time, and yet none of them turned out that way.

MD-01:
Prediction: Roscoe Bartlett (R-inc.) 56 - Andrew Duck (D) 42
Reality: Bartlett 59 - Duck 39
It's hard for me to fault candidates who get results like this too much, since this is pretty much the result of both of the non-presidential races I worked on. Still, that's pretty disappointing.

Massachusetts-GOV:
Prediction: Deval Patrick (D) 58 - Kerry Healey (R) 29 - Christy Mihos (I) 11
Reality: Patrick 56 - Healey 35 - Mihos 7
Kerry Healey did a smidgen better than I thought she would, but this was a landslide for pretty much the entire campaign. This is the first time a Democrat has been governor of Massachusetts since Dukakis.

Michigan-GOV:
Prediction: Jennifer Granholm (D-inc.) 53 - Dick DeVos (R) 46
Reality: Granholm 56 - DeVos 42
Earlier in the summer, DeVos had leads in this race outside the margin of error. It must have been tough for Granholm to hold her fire while he attacked her throughout the summer, but she saved her money for the fall and it paid off. She successfully turned the massive job losses in the state to a referendum on Bush, by blaming the president and linking Bush to DeVos. That's very slick.

MI-SEN:
Prediction: Debbie Stabenow (D-inc.) 52 - Michael Bouchard (R) 47
Reality: Stabenow 57 - Bouchard 41
If I had to make a prediction on this race a year or so ago, I probably would have guessed something very close to the eventual result. Michigan polls looked soggy for Democratic candidates for a while, though, and Republicans put a ton of money into Michigan in the final week of the campaign. Looks like a smooth move now!

MI-11:
Prediction: Thaddeus McCotter (R-inc.) 60 - Tony Trupiano (D) 40
Reality: McCotter 54 - Trupiano 43
Apparently this is a swing district in presidential races, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became more competitive in future cycles. Actually, two Democratic challengers in Michigan came within five and six points of actually winning, which I totally didn't see coming.

Minnesota-SEN:
Prediction: Amy Klobuchar (D) 60 - Mark Kennedy (R) 39
Reality: Klobuchar 58 - Kennedy 38
I had been worried at the start of the cycle that Minnesota Democrats never seemed to put up all-star candidates for federal office, but Klobuchar turned out to be a really terrific candidate. I just hope Al Franken's as good when he tries to turf out Norm Coleman in 2008.

MN-02:
Prediction: John Kline (R-inc.) 55 - Colleen Rowley (D) 44
Reality: Kline 56 - Rowley 40

MN-06:
Prediction: Michele Bachmann (R) 50 - Patty Wetterling (D) 49
Reality: Bachmann 50 - Wetterling 42
Patty Wetterling has a compelling personal story, but I'm starting to wonder whether she can translate those skills into the political arena.

Missouri-SEN:
Prediction: Claire McCaskill (D) 51 - Jim Talent (R-inc.) 49
Reality: McCaskill 50 - Talent 47
McCaskill won by having a strong rural performance, apparently regretting not doing much outside of St. Louis and Kansas City on her unsuccessful 2004 run for governor. This is both a good sign for whatever dynamo we put up as our presidential candidate in 2008: I think rural voters, especially outside the South, are much softer Republicans than the national commentariat believes.

Montana-SEN:
Prediction: Jon Tester (D) 51 - Conrad Burns (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Tester 49 - Burns 48
Conrad Burns has already yelled at reporters that he doesn't have to deal with them anymore.

Nebraska-SEN:
Prediction: Ben Nelson (D-inc.) 62 - Pete Ricketts (R) 27
Reality: Nelson 64 - Ricketts 36
This may have been my worst prediction in terms of math. You would think that if I predicted third-party candidates to take 11% of the vote I could have checked first to see if literally any third-party candidates were running. Not so much. In any event, this stomping more or less makes Ben Nelson the leader of prairie Democrats and hopefully helps him prevent a serious challenge next time he runs. Also I'm pretty sure this means that Ricketts' first run at public office is also his last.

NE-01:
Prediction: Jeff Fortenberry (R-inc.) 55 - Maxine Moul 44
Reality: Fortenberry 59 - Moul 41
For the record, the generally ignored 2nd district was much closer than this, coming in at 55-45.

Nevada-SEN:
Prediction: John Ensign (R-inc.) 58 - Jack Carter (D) 41
Reality: Ensign 55 - Carter 41

NV-02:
Prediction: Dean Heller (R) 53 - Jill Derby (D) 47
Reality: Heller 51 - Derby 45

NV-03:
Prediction: Jon Porter (R-inc.) 52 - Tessa Hafen (D) 47
Reality: Porter 48 - Hafen 47
I can't really claim an understanding of the dynamics of this race, but Hafen is a former Harry Reid press secretary, so Reid's support may have helped keep this one close.

New Hampshire-GOV:
Prediction: John Lynch (D-inc.) 69 - Jim Coburn (R) 28
Reality: Lynch 74 - Coburn 26
You know this is an unusual year when you predict the Democratic candidate for governor in New Hampshire to take 69% of the vote and he actually exceeds your expectations. That's ridiculous. Actually, this is the fifth time out of six that a Democrat has won the governor's race in this state, and in addition to the House pickups in the next post, Democrats took the state House and Senate too. This is not a minor accomplishment: apparently Democrats last had control of both houses of the state legislature just before World War I, and since then Democrats controlled the state Senate for only one term, by a 13-11 margin, and haven't controlled the 400-member state House since. Democrats now control the Senate 14-10 and, after picking up roughly 80 seats, now control the House too. I can't overstate the psychological impact this has on New Hampshire politics: generation after generation of Republican speakers have run the state House, with the only question being whether they're conservative or really conservative. In fact, last term the House Speaker was Doug Scamman and the Democratic Leader was Jim Craig, and their fathers had been House Speaker and Democratic Leader back in the 50s. Some things look like they'll never change, and then, before you know it, it's a whole new ballgame. Lynch has ruled himself out of a Senate run against John Sununu in 2008, though Jeanne Shaheen is considering a rematch. I've been hoping for that outcome: I think Lynch will make a terrific Senate candidate when Judd Gregg comes up for reelection in 2010.

NH-02:
Prediction: Paul Hodes (D) 52 - Charlie Bass (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Hodes 53 - Bass 45
There was a great shot in the Union Leader of Hodes fist-pumping when he won. He plays guitar too: lawyers can be cool.

New Jersey-SEN:
Prediction: Bob Menendez (D-inc.) 53 - Tom Kean Jr. (R) 47
Reality: Menendez 53 - Kean 45
I am concerned that Kean will make another run at this in 2008 against Frank Lautenberg in 2008, who apparently wants to run for reelection despite being 84 and one of the least popular senators in the country.

NJ-07:
Prediction: Mike Ferguson (R-inc.) 56 - Linda Stender (D) 44
Reality: Ferguson 49 - Stender 48
For the record, I only brought this race up in my prediction to dismiss Stender's chances. This was the closest I came to missing a campaign that wound up switching hands. I have changed my opinion on Stender, and I hope she can pull it off in 2008.

New York-GOV:
Prediction: Eliot Spitzer (D) 70 - John Faso (R) 27
Reality: Spitzer 69 - Faso 29
You know Spitzer's a failed governor out of the gate given that he can't even take 70 percent of the vote statewide. That said, always nice when your opponent can't crack 30. Someone asked me who they should support for governor a few days before the election, and I thought they were joking.

NY-SEN:
Prediction: Hillary Clinton (D-inc.) 63 - John Spencer (R) 34
Reality: Clinton 67 - Spencer 31
Unlike every other campaign staff in the country, Senator Clinton's top-level campaign team is going to stay on through December 31st. This is just for clean-up and stuff, and there's no connection between her top strategists staying on board for no reason and anything else she may be planning on doing. Also, although the $30 million she spent on this campaign obviously went largely to 2008 preparation, I am no longer convinced that she's that much of a frontrunner. This is going to be the most crowded Democratic field in decades, and I'm not convinced that Barack Obama won't do better than her in early polling (note that John Edwards has already topped her in Iowa polling), and no one besides White House alums seem to want her as their first choice. We may have to wait for President Herseth before we have a First Husband.

NY-Comptroller
Prediction: Alan Hevesi (D-inc.) 49 - Chris Callaghan (R) 48
Reality: Hevesi 56 - Callaghan 39
Man, thank goodness that's over.

NY-03:
Prediction: Peter King (R-inc.) 57 - Dave Mejias (D) 41
Reality: King 56 - Mejias 44
I think this one can become competitive in 2008.

NY-19:
Prediction: John Hall (D) 52 - Sue Kelly (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Hall 51 - Kelly 49
I'm still not sure exactly what Sue Kelly did to lose, but I guess being a Republican was good enough in competitive districts this year. Also, despite having been a 70s rocker, John Hall is the most conservative-looking of all the Democratic challengers I saw this year.

NY-20:
Prediction: Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 54 - John Sweeney (R-inc.) 46
Reality: Gillibrand 53 - Sweeney 47
Does this mean there's an opening at Boies Schiller?

NY-24:
Prediction: Mike Arcuri (D) 52 - Ray Meier (R) 47
Reality: Arcuri 54 - Meier 45
It's hard to say early on which seats will be uncompetitive in 2008; so much depends on who steps up. But this was a Republican-held open seat, with strong challengers on each side, and Arcuri still won by nine points. Hopefully that scares off a few folks.

NY-25:
Prediction: Jim Walsh (R-inc.) 53 - Dan Maffei (D) 46
Reality: Walsh 51 - Maffei 49
Awesome! I was concerned my prediction skewed too heavily Democratic. Too bad the blogosphere and the DCCC both ignored this district.

NY-26:
Prediction: Tom Reynolds (R-inc.) 54 - Jack Davis (D) 46
Reality: Reynolds 52 - Davis 48
I wonder how this would have gone if the Democratic candidate had gone out and campaigned? Also, I hear this one turned on a freak snowstorm last month that allowed Reynolds to come home and play the experienced congressman who knew how to pull the levers of Washington to get federal help for the district.

North Carolina-11:
Prediction: Heath Shuler (D) 56 - Charles Taylor (R-inc.) 44
Reality: Shuler 54 - Taylor 46
I just like saying "Congressman Shuler." Also, the national pundits seem to think that Heath Shuler is the world's most conservative Democrat, and they're right. Congressman-elect Shuler's first substantive post-election event was about unfair trade agreements with Senator-elect Sherrod Brown, who as we all know is way too liberal to be elected statewide in Ohio. The lesson: there's a reason they're nationally recognized political analysts and I'm some chump with a blog.

Ohio-GOV:
Prediction: Ted Strickland (D) 60 - Kenneth Blackwell (R) 39
Reality: Strickland 60 - Blackwell 37

OH-SEN:
Prediction: Sherrod Brown (D) 54 - Mike DeWine (R-inc.) 46
Reality: Brown 56 - DeWine 44
Sherrod Brown is way too liberal to be elected statewide in Ohio.

OH-06:
Prediction: Charlie Wilson (D) 55 - Chuck Blasdel (R) 45
Reality: Wilson 62 - Blasdel 38
This may not be the swing district I suspected.

OH-12:
Prediction: Pat Tiberi (R-inc.) 58 - Bob Shamansky (D) 41
Reality: Tiberi 58 - Shamansky 42
I completely made up this prediction, and I was so close to getting it right!

OH-13:
Prediction: Betty Sutton (D) 56 - Craig Foltin (R) 43
Reality: Sutton 61 - Foltin 39
This also may not be much of a swing district.

OH-18:
Prediction: Zack Space (D) 55 - Joy Padgett (R) 44
Reality: Space 62 - Padgett 38
The spread here is because of scandal, but I'm still impressed. Space may actually pull this one out in 2008.

Oklahoma-GOV:
Prediction: Brad Henry (D-inc.) 58 - Ernest Istook (R) 42
Reality: Henry 67 - Istook 33
I don't even know why I do this stuff sometimes; I thought I had both candidates and the state dynamics pegged, and I'm still nine points off. Note that Istook is a sitting congressman in a rock-red Republican state. What do you think it feels like to run for governor as a congressman, lose, and then come back to Washington for the lame-duck session? By the way, I hope Henry runs for Senate someday.

Oregon-GOV:
Prediction: Ted Kulongoski (D-inc.) 53 - Ron Saxton (R) 46
Reality: Kulongoski 51 - Saxton 43
Hearing Kulongoski tell it, electoral challenges are more like nuisances. Oh, there's always someone wanting to take you out in the primary if you stand up to unions right before an election year. Oh, the Republicans always come up with somebody. I'm impressed these challenges always seem to end up as unimpressive as he makes them look.

Pennsylvania-GOV:
Prediction: Ed Rendell (D-inc.) 57 - Lynn Swann (R) 42
Reality: Rendell 60 - Swann 40
On Election Day, I saw a van go by with speakers on top, exhorting us all to go vote for Ed Rendell. That's right, Back To The Future style. That made my day. (Actually, maybe taking back the House and Senate made my day. Or at least Anne Northup losing.) So what does Rendell do after this? I don't think he's viable as a presidential candidate, and he's already been DNC chair. I figure either he gets a national TV talk show or he runs for Senate in 2010. I'm happy with either.

PA-SEN:
Prediction: Bob Casey Jr. (D) 55 - Rick Santorum (R-inc.) 45
Reality: Casey 59 - Santorum 41
This race would have gone the other way had I not walked through Philadelphia for a few hours on the afternoon of election day making sure all the polling places were functional. The major crisis that day was a Democratic city committee member passing out "How do you know your vote counted? You don't" cards that a voter considered electioneering. (It's not: that's just issue advocacy, even if it should still probably be outside the polling place.) Anyway, this was high-level stuff well out of the intellectual range of anyone who's not in law school, so it's good they had us doing it. Alas, Santorum has decided that the support of 41% of the Keystone State is not enough to propel him to the presidency. I'm a little disappointed: I was hoping he would help splinter the socially conservative vote and help nominate someone who doesn't really scare me. (As for gaming out the other side's presidential primary, let's just remember that the Carter White House was thrilled when Reagan won the nomination.) I think Casey is a good guy, and hopefully he'll be progressive enough in the Senate that he'll avoid a primary in six years.

PA-07:
Prediction: Joe Sestak (D) 54 - Curt Weldon (R-inc.) 44
Reality: Sestak 56 - Weldon 44
Man, good riddance. I also like saying "Sestak."

PA-10:
Prediction: Chris Carney (D) 54 - Don Sherwood (R) 45
Reality: Carney 53 - Sherwood 47
The only reason it was this close is because this is such a Republican-leaning district. Carney will face a tough challenge next time around.

Rhode Island-GOV:
Prediction: Don Carcieri (R-inc.) 53 - Charlie Fogarty (D) 45
Reality: Carcieri 51 - Fogarty 49
Wow! I don't know anyone who seriously thought Fogarty would win or even come this close. I wonder if he's a great campaigner or if the DSCC just turned out a bunch of Whitehouse voters and this is a subsidiary result. Also, this means 16 straight years of Republican rule in the great state of Rhode Island. Think Lincoln Chafee will run for governor in 2010 as a Democrat?

RI-SEN:
Prediction: Sheldon Whitehouse (D) 52 - Lincoln Chafee (R-inc.) 47
Reality: Whitehouse 53 - Chafee 47
Finally, what might be the most liberal state in the union finally has two Democratic senators. Chafee said after the election that he might leave the Republican Party, which might be the best example I've seen of "too little, too late." I have heard that Whitehouse is not unbelievably intellectually rigorous, which I hope is not true.

South Carolina-GOV:
Prediction: Mark Sanford (R-inc.) 56 - Tommy Moore (D) 43
Reality: Sanford 55 - Moore 45
The funny thing is that I checked out this result a day or so after the election and saw that Sanford had only won 51-49. I was shocked and amazed, to say nothing of thrilled for the future of South Carolina Democrats. Then I came back just now and discovered, actually, South Carolina just counts ballots really slowly. This is still a good showing.

SC-05:
Prediction: John Spratt (D) 56 - Ralph Norman (R) 42
Reality: Spratt 57 - Norman 43

South Dakota: Referendum to repeal the abortion ban
Prediction: Fail 55 - 45
Reality: Fail 56 - 44

Tennessee-SEN:
Prediction: Bob Corker (R) 54 - Harold Ford Jr. (D) 46
Reality: Corker 51 - Ford 48
Lost in the shuffle over Democrats taking back the Senate was the fact that Harold Ford did really, really well, and much better than predicted by the final polls. For an African-American Democrat to pull 48% of the vote in a Tennessee Senate race is nothing short of remarkable. I'm not sure Ford has any better chance against Lamar Alexander in 2008, but I do hope he runs.

Texas-GOV:
Prediction: Rick Perry (R-inc.) 38 - Chris Bell (D) 25 - Carole Strayhorn (I) 24 - Kinky Friedman (I) 11
Reality: Perry 39 - Bell 30 - Strayhorn 18 - Friedman 12
In my preview, I didn't sufficiently criticize Rick Perry's reelection slogan, "I'm proud of Texas. How 'bout you?" Besides the fact that being proud of your state and its people is elitist and offensive if you're from the northeast, this is a ridiculous argument: "if you're proud of the state you live in, vote to reelect its governor." First, I'm pretty sure there was Texas pride before Rick Perry inherited the governorship, so this boils down to "I didn't wreck the place," which for all I know isn't even true. (OK, it's true.) Also, everyone not between the ages of 14 and 18 is proud of the place they live in. Who wants to say "I live in a shithole?" Now Rick Perry's argument becomes, "I want to like the place I live in. How 'bout you?" Finally, I know this is rare in Texas-bred politicians, but the either/or proposition discourages a thoughtful approach to government. "I'm sorry, you want to fix the state water distribution system? Why aren't you proud of Texas?" Myself, I'm proud of Texas for letting the Democrat crack 30 in a four-way race. Apparently we may have some pretty good Senate candidates in 2008 against unpopular Senator John Cornyn too.

TX-17:
Prediction: Chet Edwards (D-inc.) 54 - Van Taylor (R) 46
Reality: Edwards 58 - Taylor 40

TX-22:
Prediction: Nick Lampson (D) 53 - Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) 41
Reality: Lampson 52 - Sekula-Gibbs 42
Even though I didn't get it right, this may be my favorite prediction on account of the difficulty of predicting a write-in performance. Sekula-Gibbs, mind you, is now a congresswoman, having won the special election the same day to hold Tom DeLay's seat until the next Congress takes office in January. It's worth noting that Tom DeLay's old staffers all resigned within two or three days of her taking office. (I repeat: these are the people who thought it was acceptable to work for Tom DeLay.) She called for a congressional investigation into this serious problem. She also became upset when neither the President of the United States nor the Vice President of the United States came to her congressional office opening, and she expects to solve the immigration problem during her seven weeks in lame-duck office. She may not be the Republican nominee in 2008.

Vermont-SEN:
Prediction: Bernie Sanders (I) 59 - Richard Tarrant (R) 38
Reality: Sanders 65 - Tarrant 32

VT-AL:
Prediction: Peter Welch (D) 51 - Martha Rainville (R) 46
Reality: Welch 53 - Rainville 45

Virginia-SEN:
Prediction: Jim Webb (D) 52 - George Allen (R-inc.) 48
Reality: Webb 50 - Allen 49
I am really, really happy that George Allen is out of the Senate. If he and Mark Warner run for governor in 2009, though, that would be one hell of a campaign.

VA-10:
Prediction: Frank Wolf (R-inc.) 54 - Judy Feder (D) 44
Reality: Wolf 57 - Feder 41
So do you think this affects Feder's standing as dean of Georgetown's school of public policy? Also, Wolf is a profile in courage; he came back from Iraq in September 2005 and told everyone how much Iraq is improving. Now, after the election, he points out that Iraq was unbelievably dangerous in September 2005 and he's not surprised it's gotten this bad. Way to buck the party line!

Washington-SEN:
Prediction: Maria Cantwell (D-inc.) 53 - Mike McGavick (R) 47
Reality: Cantwell 57 - McGavick 40
Ha!

WA-05:
Prediction: Cathy McMorris (R-inc.) 53 - Peter Goldmark (D) 46
Reality: McMorris 56 - Goldmark 44
Peter Goldmark is currently the Haverford alum most likely to be elected to Congress in 2008.

WA-08:
Prediction: Dave Reichert (R-inc.) 52 - Darcy Burner (D) 48
Reality: Reichert 51 - Burner 49
This one hurt both because Burner is a fantastic candidate who I really hope goes far and because for some reason the votes took a week to come in. And this was largely Seattle too, not exactly the most rural place on earth. I blame Dave Reichert.

West Virginia-SEN:
Prediction: Robert Byrd (D-inc) 62 - John Raese (R) 37
Reality: Byrd 64 - Raese 34
I decided to go back and see when the last time was when Robert Byrd's vote percentage was greater than his age. In 1982, Byrd was 64 when he won reelection with 68% of the vote. 2006 is actually his worst performance since being elected to the Senate in 1964.

WV-01:
Prediction: Alan Mollohan (D-inc.) 58 - Chris Wakim (R) 41
Reality: Mollohan 64 - Wakim 36
I try to avoid gloating, but I love thinking back to the pickups Republicans were supposedly going to make this cycle, and then seeing how they did.

WV-02:
Prediction: Shelley Moore Capito (R-inc.) 56 - Mike Callaghan (D) 44
Reality: Capito 57 - Callaghan 43

Wisconsin-GOV:
Prediction: Jim Doyle (D-inc.) 53 - Mark Green (R) 46
Reality: Doyle 53 - Green 45

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'll do some election recaps on Thursday. They may be shorter than the 18,000 words I put into the election preview. In the meantime, I'll link this YouTube video which is both outdated and really, totally awesome. I never knew George Michael could see so clearly what was going to happen. Or he was writing about Wham!, but it's still awesome. Link

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the record, I did some checking and my 18,000-word election preview below is by far the longest thing I've ever written, which is both fantastic and frightening.

I also wanted to thank everyone who's been stopping by today, mostly through Technorati and Google Blog Search. Although I knew it was happening already, it's nice to see that there are people out there looking up Mike Arcuri, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tony Trupiano, Michael Steele, and "ted poe freak." Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

WY-AL (Republican-held)
Gary Trauner (D) 49 - Barbara Cubin (R) 47
Winning this one would be nice. The district covers the entire state of Wyoming, which voted overwhelmingly for Bush in both his runs for president. The current incumbent is Barbara Cubin, who once said on the House floor that all African-Americans in African-American communities are being treated for drug use and most recently told her Libertarian opponent after the debate that she would have slapped him in the face if he wasn't in that chair. No, she didn't need leverage; the guy has MS and uses a wheelchair. Fortunately, our Democratic candidate is an all-star who has hit well over 10,000 homes in the district and seems like an upstanding guy. He'll be about a million times better than his opponent.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Jim Doyle (D) 53 - Mark Green (R) 46
Wait, I forgot, Mark Green is Republican congressman #5 who may lose both his state's gubernatorial race and cost his party his congressional seat. Doyle almost definitely would have lost had popular former governor Tommy Thompson decided to enter the race, but given that the Republicans only have Green and everything he's voted for in Washington, Doyle has been able to keep a noticeable if unexciting lead.

WI-08 (Open, Republican-held)
John Gard (R) 54 - Steve Kagen (D) 45
Actually, despite what I just said above, I don't think this result will be very close. It's always good to see doctors like Kagen running as Democrats, but this district is apparently fairly conservative and Gard is the speaker of the WIsconsin Assembly, so he's got some political experience already. It would be nice to see an upset here but I doubt it'll happen this time.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Democratic-held)
Robert Byrd (D) 62 - John Raese (R) 37
For some reason, this race was supposed to be really competitive, but it never turned out that way. Raese almost beat Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia's other Democratic senator, in 1984 but this time he never seemed to have it. Byrd is getting up there in years, but I'm glad he's putting in another round, mostly because Shelley Moore Capito would have run if he had chosen to retire and very well could have won. I'm not sure why Raese didn't get more traction here.

WV-01 (Democratic-held)
Alan Mollohan (D) 58 - Chris Wakim (R) 41
Mollohan supposedly became a target when it came out that he apparently misstated his assets on financial disclosure forms, but again, this race never took off.

WV-03 (Republican-held)
Shelley Moore Capito (R) 56 - Mike Callaghan (D) 44
I really liked Callaghan and I was happy to hear he had won his primary, but for some reason, like the other challengers in West Virginia this year, he never got any traction. Capito is considered a rising star and a likely candidate for Senate as soon as Byrd or Jay Rockefeller steps down. I hope we beat her before then.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Democratic-held)
Maria Cantwell (D) 53 - Mike McGavick (R) 47
Cantwell is a former congresswoman who lost, went to Real Networks before it got big, and then ran for Senate in 2000, barely squeezing out longtime Republican incumbent Slade "Skeletor" Gorton. She had some problems early in her reelection campaign when peace activists started loudly opposing her support for the Iraq war, and then she got a potentially dangerous challenge from Safeco CEO Mike McGavick, who not only self-funded but was Gorton's former chief of staff, suggesting he knows a little about politics too. McGavick turned out not to know everything about politics; he decided to acknowledge an old DUI that he knew would come out eventually so he could set the terms of the debate himself, but he omitted some stuff and misled on some other stuff. That blunted all his momentum, and he was never able to get it back. I don't think this will be a landslide, but I think Cantwell has it. By the way, Maria Cantwell is a big supporter of Jerry Springer's political campaigns, having worked for him when he was mayor of Cincinnati. True story.

WA-05 (Republican-held)
Cathy McMorris (R) 53 - Peter Goldmark (D) 46
Peter Goldmark is the best Haverford alum running for Congress this cycle; he's a rancher with a doctorate in molecular biology from Harvard and he came up with a better strain of wheat to use on his farm. That's good Democrat. Unfortunately, this is a conservative district, and even though McMorris is only a freshman herself, I think we need some more time to make inroads here.

WA-08 (Republican-held)
Dave Reichert (R) 52 - Darcy Burner (D) 48
Darcy Burner is one of everyone's favorite candidates this year; she's a former Microsoft executive running an unbelievable campaign for a first-time candidate and supposedly she's ridiculously funny in person. Reichert is a former sheriff who caught the Green River Killer, but Burner has effectively tied him to Bush even though Reichert has only spent one term in Congress (maybe that Air Force One photo-op with the president wasn't a good idea). Two weeks ago I would have predicted Burner to win but her momentum seems to have slowed. I hope we haven't seen the last of her.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Republican-held)
Jim Webb (D) 52 - George Allen (R) 48
This has been a big success for Democrats and the netroots no matter how it turns out: last year at this time George Allen did all his campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. In fact, for a while in 2005 insider polls had Allen as the frontrunner to take the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Jim Webb won an astonishingly low-turnout primary (seriously, 2 percent) almost entirely based on his blogger buzz, which in turn was almost entirely created by his resume: a former Reagan Secretary of the Navy, he became disillusioned with the modern Republican Party and decided to become a Democrat and take his country back. Also he writes novels, which are apparently pretty good. In any event, 2006 revealed that Allen is both a racist and an asshole, and even if he squeaks out a win here he's pretty much damaged goods for 2008. I heard the interesting argument recently that Allen's fall may wind up a net loss for Democrats. Without Allen in the presidential race there aren't really any social conservatives in good standing running for president (McCain is obviously lying to someone; Romney is, god forbid, a Mormon; and Huckabee has no way to raise money), so instead of potentially nominating George Allen, social conservatives may give up and back a candidate who could actually win the general election. I never like the idea of hoping the other party nominates someone truly awful on the oft-illustrated theory that anything can happen, but there may be something here. McCain will be tough to beat. Incidentally, supposedly Allen's field program sucks.

VA-02 (Republican-held)
Phil Kellam (D) 50 - Thelma Drake (R) 49
Kellam is a good example of the kind of Democrat who I suspect always runs for Congress but never before received any attention from the national committees and thus never had a real shot at winning. Thelma Drake has pretty soft support as a one-term incumbent and Kellam is fairly well known as Virginia Beach's commissioner of the revenue. Actually, Kellam's family has apparently been Virginia Beach elite for decades, so he's counting on a lot of his father's old friends to carry him into office. Polls have been split here, but I read a profile of Kellam and liked him, so I'm giving him the edge.

VA-10 (Republican-held)
Frank Wolf (R) 54 - Judy Feder (D) 44
Man, some schools talk about public policy... Judy Feder is the dean of Georgetown's public policy school, and now she's running for Congress in this suburban DC district. The northern Virginia area is both rapidly gaining in population and trending heavily Democratic, so I suspect this seat will not be in Republican hands for long. Still, I believe this race became competitive too late to win this time, but with luck Frank Wolf won't be in Congress past 2008.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Senate (Open, Independent-held)
Bernie Sanders (I) 59 - Richard Tarrant (R) 38
This is an odd race. First off, the Senate's only independent is going to be succeeded by another independent. Second, Richard Tarrant is the richest guy in the state and a former local college basketball star. Third, Sanders is about to become the Senate's only socialist. Finally, despite all of Tarrant's money, this one won't be close.

VT-AL (Open, Independent-held)
Peter Welch (D) 51 - Martha Rainville (R) 46
Apparently in exchange for Democrats not running a Senate candidate (though Sanders will caucus with Senate Democrats), independent Vermont progressives decided not to run against state Senate Democratic Leader Peter Welch, who from the lack of noise in this race is poised to beat star Republican recruit Martha Rainville, head of the state National Guard. Actually, both parties tried to convince Rainville to run, but she said she's a Republican so now she's going down with the ship. I still think this will be close.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are no exciting races in Utah this year, so I'll point out that outgoing Massachusetts Governor, practicing Mormon, and Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Committee savior Mitt Romney got some fine Utahns in some hot water a few weeks ago by appearing to come a little too close to having the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints and their collegiate vehicle, Brigham Young University, explicitly leverage their connections for his presidential campaign. I mean, it's no secret that Romney is going to rely on exploiting the massive Mormon network for his fundraising, but wow, hold the meetings off-campus guys.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican-held)
Rick Perry (R) 38 - Chris Bell (D) 25 - Carole Strayhorn (I) 24 - Kinky Friedman (I) 11
This is a weird one; it looks like Perry is going to win reelection despite staying under 40 (and if anything my prediction is high). Bell only served one term in Congress, and I think he looks artificially competitive here because he would have the support of all knee-jerk Democrats anyway. (In other words, if his support in a two-way race topped out at 35, here it wouldn't show up.) Strayhorn is Scott McClellan's mom, and she dropped out of the Republican primary to run as an independent when it became clear she wouldn't win. Kinky Friedman is a comedic country singer who is a dilettante at best; he's one of those guys who thinks being unbelievably offensive is inherently funny to everyone except people who "can't take a joke." Finally, Rick Perry's slogan is a ridiculously jingoistic "I'm proud of Texas. How 'bout you?" I can't wait until Texas is competitive again.

TX-17 (Democratic-held)
Chet Edwards (D) 54 - Van Taylor (R) 46
Edwards is the last Democrat standing from the 2003 Republican re-redistricting; all other targets went down in 2004 and to some pretty awful people. Taylor was considered a prize recruit for the Republicans given that he's an Iraq War vet and every other Iraq War vet is running as a Democrat. Unfortunately for the Republicans, Taylor has campaigned like a guy who went to Iraq and still thinks the Republicans are doing a good job. Still, because of the demographics of the district I'm picking this one to be fairly close. I hope Democrats have someone to replace Edwards when he retires.

TX-22 (Open, Republican-held)
Nick Lampson (D) 53 - Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) 41
This might be the toughest race to predict in the country. This is Tom DeLay's old seat, which in a botched withdrawal now can only go Republican via write-in. Republicans have mostly coalesced around Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a Houston City Councilor, and in Texas intent counts for write-ins, so even something like "SSG" would count for Sekula-Gibbs. Still, she better hope people remember her name and even to write her in at all. Republicans claim that the district is well-educated and point to a poll showing Lampson only leading a write-in candidate 36-35, but I think that's is a bridge too far.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Open, Republican-held)
Bob Corker (R) 54 - Harold Ford Jr. (D) 46
Well, at least Bill Frist is leaving the Senate. This has been an ugly race, with blatant racial suggestions on the part of the Corker campaign and the Republican National Committee to remind Tennessee voters that all Harold Ford wants to do is seduce white women. Besides being morally reprehensible, it's a shame because Harold Ford is a terrific Senate candidate: a good guy ideologically in line with the state who is running a fantastic campaign. His ads are actually charming and actually funny, to the point where an African-American Democrat has a serious shot at winning this state that Bush won in a walk in 2004. That, unfortunately, is the problem; even if this race weren't trending away from Ford, it's well established that minority candidates underperform their poll numbers in conservative states. It happened to Doug Wilder in Virginia and it happened to Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. I think some of the polls we've seen are outliers but I don't think Ford will make up the gap.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Referendum to repeal the abortion ban
Fail: 55-45
I am making that number up; I heard this is going to be close but I have no further idea. In 2005, the Republican-dominated state legislature passed and the Republican governor signed a ban on first-trimester abortions, which is clearly unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. The idea is that the ban will be overturned in federal court (with an injunction to allow abortions again), followed by a court of appeals affirming the ruling, followed by the battle royale at the Supreme Court. I have no idea how that will go.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican-held)
Mark Sanford (R) 56 - Tommy Moore (D) 43
Sanford seems to have fallen from the days when he was considered a leading candidate for a spot on the Republicans' 2008 presidential ticket, but Moore seems not to have been able to find much traction.

SC-05 (Democratic-held)
John Spratt (D) 56 - Ralph Norman (R) 42
This was supposed to be one of the GOP's best pickup opportunities; Spratt is the rare southern Democratic congressman not elected from a majority-minority district. The political climate has not been favorable to Republican challengers, even in South Carolina, and Norman hasn't been able to find much traction either.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican-held)
Don Carcieri (R) 53 - Charlie Fogarty (D) 45
Republicans have held the governor's office in Rhode Island for 16 of the last 20 years, and it looks like they're going to win their fourth election in a row here. Carcieri's presence in the governor's office can be chalked up largely to Myrth York, who ran for governor in an open-seat year in 1994 and lost. If someone loses an election, I think there's a very strong presumption against supporting them for a second run, especially in such a Democratic-leaning state such as Rhode Island, unless that candidate can make a strong argument that they deserve another shot. If you've made the first serious Democratic run in your district in years, I say a second try is warranted. If you blew it against Lincoln Almond, you probably don't. Somehow Myrth York got the nomination in 1998 for a second run against Almond, and she lost that too, ending her political career. Or so you'd think. She ran again in 2002, beating out two candidates who definitely would have beaten Republican businessman Carcieri. York's popularity, however, maxes out at 45 percent, so Carcieri has been governor for four years. I never understand how stronger Democratic candidates don't run in such a Democratic-leaning state; there's nothing specifically wrong with Fogarty but there has to be a more compelling figure in state government. (I wonder what would have happened if Matt Brown had run?) I suspect the strong Democratic lean makes being a major player at the state house so appealing that no one wants to risk a higher run. In any event, this race has trended Republican, and I'm afraid Carcieri looks to retain.

Senate (Republican-held)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D) 52 - Lincoln Chafee (R) 47
This Senate seat has been the bete noire of the Democratic Party for thirty years now, as Lincoln Chafee and his father John have beaten back everything the Democrats have thrown at them. Lincoln Chafee is even more liberal than his father, but he's a weaker politician too. Democrats were dealt an unfortunate hand in 1999 when the senior Chafee passed away, so instead of Lincoln running for the open seat his father had already decided to vacate, Lincoln was appointed to the Senate seat and went in with the presumption of incumbency. That said, though, the petulant Democratic Party establishment deserves some of the blame too for sitting on their hands when their preferred candidate lost the primary (and to a sitting congressman too, not even someone crazy). This time, however, my favorite candidate, Matt Brown, wasn't able to reach the primary when a poorly handled campaign finance scandal doomed his campaign. I had no great challenge throwing my support to either the excellent Sheldon Whitehouse or his awesome slogan ("Finally, a Whitehouse in Washington we can trust"), and I was thrilled when Whitehouse opened up an 8-10 point lead earlier in the fall. Again, Democrats always think we can beat Chafee, and it never happens. Much to my horror, Chafee has almost entirely closed the gap and might actually pull this one out again. Still, I think the jig is up.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Ed Rendell (D) 57 - Lynn Swann (R) 42
So Lynn Swann is now overrated as a football player, broadcaster and political candidate. I have yet to figure out either why Swann took the lead last spring or why Rendell so effectively bounced back, but you have to give Team Rendell credit for staying calm and waiting for Swann to make a couple of stupid remarks to show that he wasn't ready for the job. Ed Rendell is a fantastic campaigner, from his days in Philly politics straight up to his tenure as DNC chair, and it's no surprise that he knows how this works.

Senate (Republican-held)
Bob Casey Jr. (D) 55 - Rick Santorum (R) 45
Rick Santorum is one of the most awful members of the Senate, completely sanctimonious and eager to make this country a theocracy. To his credit, he has never vacillated on his positions, even writing a book on his opinions on American culture last year that was an opposition researcher's dream, but he's still well beyond right-wing. Casey faced troubles early when pro-choice activists resented the way establishment Democrats anointed Casey, who is pro-life, as the party's Senate nominee and discouraged anyone else from running. I think the criticisms are a little unfair; the only other serious potential candidate I knew of was the state treasurer who had switched parties only four years ago, which doesn't exactly fire up the partisan base either. Besides, although I'm vigorously pro-choice, I don't resent Casey both because he's relentlessly progressive on most issues from education to the environment to unions and because I understand that a Democratic Senate will be far more supportive of the right to choose than the Senate we have now. If someone wants to find a more progressive primary challenger to Casey in 2012 who will win the general election, be my guest. Fortunately, it looks like my worst fears will not be realized and Casey will be able to pull this one out, all the more surprising because I thought Rick Santorum was supposed to be a fantastic campaigner. (He has, after all, carried this politically split state twice.) As Chris Bowers said on MyDD, Santorum should have run as a conservative in Pennsylvania's conservative areas and an elder statesman fighting for federal funding everywhere else, and he should have attacked Casey from the left in the suburbs just to confuse everyone there. As it is, it looks like Casey's strategy of not doing anything and hoping this race really never happens seems to be paying off. I'm not complaining.

PA-04 (Republican-held)
Melissa Hart (R) 51 - Jason Altmire (D) 49
Literally all I know about this race is that it's in the Pittsburgh suburbs and Hart has somehow gone from safe incumbent to toss-up in about a week. This pick is based on my increasing pessimism, so I'll go ahead and hope I'm wrong.

PA-06 (Republican-held)
Lois Murphy (D) 51 - Jim Gerlach (R) 49
It's hard to tell apart all these competitive suburban Philadelphia districts; the longtime Republican area started trending Democratic in the 1990s when Bill Clinton did such a terrific job as president and the national Republican Party started advocating theocracy. Here, Harvard Law alum Lois Murphy is making her second run at Gerlach after picking up 49% of the vote in 2004. Murphy has led in most polls this time around, but the NRCC has been making robo-calls that call people between 5am and 6am, saying "This is a call about Lois Murphy," then pausing for a long time to make people think Lois Murphy is calling them that early in the morning. The call eventually goes through a litany of anti-Murphy material.

PA-07 (Republican-held)
Joe Sestak (D) 54 - Curt Weldon (R) 44
This is one of the races I most hope turns Democratic. Curt Weldon, besides being your run-of-the-mill archconservative, co-chaired a congressional event for Sun Myung Moon of "Moonie" and owning the Washington Times fame. He also planned a congressional expedition to find WMD in Iraq himself. So that's bad. He then attacked his Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak, for not sending his daughter to a Pennsylvania hospital, even though Children's Hospital in DC was the only hospital that could treat his daughter's malignant brain tumor; Weldon refused to apologize. So Curt Weldon is an asshole. Weldon has a daughter too, and it recently came to light that Weldon is under federal investigation for using his congressional influence to steer contracts to his daughter's business. Sestak, on the other hand, is a 31-year naval veteran who retired at the rank of vice admiral. So I really hope Sestak wins this race. He was a netroots candidate from the start and won over establishment Democrats and political observers quickly. He'll be a terrific congressman.

PA-08 (Republican-held)
Mike Fitzpatrick (R) 51 - Patrick Murphy (D) 48
This is a tough one to give to the GOP, because I think Patrick Murphy is a fantastic candidate too. Murphy is an Iraq War vet and Fitzgerald is only a first-term congressman, but most recent polls have shown Murphy behind by a larger margin than I'd like. I still think this will be close, but for some reason we don't seem to be pulling this one out.

PA-10 (Republican-held)
Chris Carney (D) 54 - Don Sherwood (R) 45
This is the most conservative of the contested Pennsylvania districts, but it's also the most likely to flip because Don Sherwood had to go and assault his mistress. This is the race that provided the impetus for the strategy to contest every district; Sherwood's affair came to light in the middle of 2004 but there was literally no Democrat running against him. This is one of the few campaigns where the Mark Foley scandal had an impact: Carney maximized the effect by running an ad where a Republican who had previously supported Sherwood said he didn't know how he could tell his daughter what her congressman had done. This is another likely pickup.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Ted Kulongoski (D) 53 - Ron Saxton (R) 46
Ted Kulongoski is the most endangered Democratic incumbent I have met in the basement of a church this year. He came and spoke at NYU Law, but this was during that ridiculous graduate-student strike (yes, you read that right) so progressive public speakers all just agreed to speak off-campus and avoid the hassle, uh, support the cause. At NYU this isn't as big a deal because "on-campus" is such a nebulous concept, so instead of at the law school I saw Kulongoski at the church next door. We talked about whether the Marlins would move to Portland.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Brad Henry (D) 58 - Ernest Istook (R) 42
This race is less competitive than other gubernatorial races I didn't write about, but then again, those states had other competitive elections. While Brad Carson's excellent 2004 campaign shows that pretty much no Democrat can win a Senate seat from Oklahoma anymore, Brad Henry shows the governor's office is not out of grasp, winning a shocker against former congressman and NFL Hall of Famer Steve Largent in 2002. His current opponent, U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, hasn't gotten much traction, either from a lackluster campaign or being tied to the handily wide-ranging Jack Abramoff scandal. There are a lot of midwestern and western Democratic governors who will win landslides this year even though their states are tough to impossible for Democratic presidential candidates to carry.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Ted Strickland (D) 60 - Kenneth Blackwell (R) 39
The Ohio Republican Party is in a world of hurt. For starters, Governor Bob Taft is the least popular governor in the country, sitting on a 15% approval rating in some polls. The party has faced any number of scandals in the past two years, my favorite of which is the Republican fundraiser who convinced the state Bureau of Workers' Compensation to invest $50 million into his coin business. Now, whoops, $12 million worth of state-owned coins are missing. So if you get injured on the job, make sure you do it in Ohio. Even without the scandal and rank incompetence, I suspect Democrats would be winning the Ohio governor's office anyway. Ted Strickland is a congressman, minister and avid hunter (he went hunting with John Kerry the week before the 2004 elections), and he has done a fantastic job of keeping Ohio's ideologically diverse Democratic base on his side. Ken Blackwell, on the other hand, is Ohio's Secretary of State, who along with Florida's Katherine Harris will directly lead to a series of laws over the next decade or two preventing state elections coordinators from supporting candidates. (Bush has called Blackwell "a nut" despite Blackwell co-chairing Bush's 2004 Ohio campaign.) Blackwell is also a Pat Robertson/Alan Keyes conservative when it comes to social issues, a position upon which he has inexplicably decided to focus his campaign. This one won't be close, and thank goodness.

Senate (Republican-held)
Sherrod Brown (D) 54 - Mike DeWine (R) 46
I like the symmetry between this race and the governor's race: here the Democrats are running a candidate who might be considered too liberal to win in the general election, whereas Strickland might be considered too conservative to be a Democrat. The campaigns seem to have worked well together, though, and tomorrow they're both going to win. It took me a while to like Sherrod Brown. He declined to run for the Senate seat, and seeing no strong Democrat running, Paul Hackett, hero of the 2005 special election for Ohio's 2nd district, decided to run himself. When Mike DeWine's poll numbers dropped a little further, Brown reversed course and jumped into the race, and then Democratic establishment folks like Chuck Schumer shoved Hackett out. Subsequently I discovered that Hackett had done little to no fundraising, so while he still might have won the primary, there was no way he could have won the general election. So I started liking Sherrod Brown more, especially since he's solidly progressive, unafraid to admit it, and an awesome campaigner. I saw some of his ads and realized that there's an Ohio accent for the first time; he talks exactly the same way my cousins do. That was awesome.

OH-01 (Republican-held)
John Cranley (D) 50 - Steve Chabot (R) 48
I'm not sure what Chabot has done so wrong (besides the worst comb-over in Congress, truly an accomplishment) beyond being your standard everyday knee-jerk Republican, but he does have one of the most African-American districts of any Republican in Congress, and that I can't support. Cranley seems like a pretty good guy, and he's managed to link Chabot to Bob Taft and George Bush's scandals to the point where this race is a tossup, so I hope he pulls this one out.

OH-02 (Republican-held)
Victoria Wulsin (D) 51 - Jean Schmidt (R) 48
This may be wishful thinking, but I can make a pretty good case for hoping for a Democratic win here. This seat became open in the middle of 2005 when Bush appointed Rob Portman to be US Trade Representative, and given that this Cincinnati-area district was his most successful district in Ohio, conventional wisdom held that the Republican primary would amount to the general election. Jean Schmidt won the primary and then ran into a head of steam called Paul Hackett, a lawyer and Iraq war veteran who seemed not to care that he wasn't supposed to win. Hackett proudly promoted Democratic causes and paired his policy views with his own aggressive style, calling Bush a liar and saying he didn't give a whit whether someone else wanted to get a same-sex marriage. He excited Democrats nationwide and seemed a threat to win the thing outright, falling four points short. Congresswoman Schmidt wasn't done, though: when former Marine, conservative Democrat, Iraq War supporter and 24-year U.S. Rep. John Murtha reluctantly concluded that it was time to bring the troops home, Schmidt actually went onto the House floor and told Murtha that Marines don't cut and run. Even Republicans booed (you're not supposed to attack specific House members on the floor), and Schmidt tried to excuse herself by saying she didn't know Murtha was a Marine. She dodged a primary challenge this spring, and now Democratic candidate Victoria Wulsin has stayed close, even leading in some polls. I'm not sure how Democratic this district has really become, but it's clearly more so for Hackett's enthusiasm, and I think he deserves a lot of credit. This district also serves as an example of how supposedly Republican districts can turn blue (or at least less red) with an aggressive local Democratic Party infrastructure.

OH-06 (Open, Democratic-held)
Charlie Wilson (D) 55 - Chuck Blasdel (R) 45
This is the seat that Ted Strickland is giving up to run for governor. Charlie Wilson was considered a strong favorite to win this seat until his campaign failed to come up with the 50 signatures required to run. Now, I know campaigns make mistakes all the time, and really this was some moron staffer and not representative of an entire dysfunctional operation, but some campaigns have much tougher signature thresholds than that. California recall supporters had to submit over 700,000 valid signatures there to make the recall happen. The Wilson campaign then had to gear up for a massive write-in effort to make sure he won the primary (with Republicans doing their part to try to puff up minor Democratic write-in candidates to deny Wilson the nomination), but, as it turns out, the write-in effort wound up turning the Wilson campaign into a whip-smart organization and introduced a lot of voters in the district to Charlie Wilson in the process. That was a close shave, but he should win this one handily.

OH-12 (Republican-held)
Pat Tiberi (R) 58 - Bob Shamansky (D) 41
Shamansky, oddly enough, is a former congressman himself, having served one term in the early 80s. This election is mostly discussed nationally in the sense that if this is a truly Democratic wave election, even Pat Tiberi could lose. He won't.

OH-13 (Open, Democratic-held)
Betty Sutton (D) 56 - Craig Foltin (R) 43
This is the seat that Sherrod Brown is leaving to run for Senate. This district leans Democratic to begin with, but the toxic atmosphere for Republicans in Ohio and the strong Democratic candidate put this seat out of play. Sutton used the support of EMILY's List (Early Money Is Like Yeast - get it?) to win a crowded primary that included a shopping mall heiress in her 20s and a former congressman named Tom Sawyer.

OH-15 (Republican-held)
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 53 - Deborah Pryce (R) 45
This Columbus-area district is trending away from the Republicans, and the incumbent congresswoman is the fourth-ranking Republican in the House and played a leadership role in pretty much everything Congress has done in the last few years. Since Congress has a worse approval rating than even President Bush, I'm picking Kilroy to pull this one out. Pryce also just walked out of an interview with CNN a couple of days ago, publishing a statement that "what's happening in Iraq is not a direct reflection on me." That's a fascinating thought, but do you think that if a member of the House Republican leadership announced that she would not support the war, we would have rushed in nearly so quickly with no plan for the aftermath? I don't think she gets off so easily.

OH-18 (Open, Republican-held)
Zack Space (D) 55 - Joy Padgett (R) 44
Bob Ney, the current congressman here, faces a maximum of ten years for his attempts to cover up the Jack Abramoff scandal, so he's not a real viable candidate this time around. I'm not sure Zack Space is necessarily a viable candidate either, but when Ney withdrew after the primary Republican party leaders got to pick the nominee, and they stupidly let Ney make the call. Here's a tip for all you scandal-mongers out there: if you want your party to hold the seat after you get caught, don't let the Democrat call his opponent "Bob Ney's chosen successor." Also, for some reason Padgett's bankruptcy is a strike against her. This district will be a top Republican target in 2008.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are no competitive races in North Dakota this year, although Republican John Hoeven is one of the most popular governors in the country and could have made a serious challenge to Senator Kent Conrad had he chosen to run. North Dakota has voted Republican for every presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but all three members of the state's congressional delegation are Democrats.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

NC-08 (Republican-held)
Larry Kissell (D) 54 - Robin Hayes (R) 45
Larry Kissell is a great story: laid off from his textile position after 20 years on the job when the company moved overseas, he regained his footing as a high-school social studies teacher, and now he's running for Congress for all his former co-workers who weren't so lucky. For the anti-capitalists of the group, you can cast this race as the textile worker vs. the textile owner, but I prefer to focus on the fact that Robin Hayes brazenly flipped on CAFTA after saying he was "horizontally opposed" to it and claiming he had just voted yes by accident. Polls have shown this one close, and Kissell's activist base is really strong. I am feeling good here.

NC-11 (Republican-held)
Heath Shuler (D) 56 - Charles Taylor (R) 44
I am probably overconfident, but I still think you can call him Congressman Shuler from here on out. Charles Taylor is the richest person in North Carolina and funds his own campaigns, and he's like John Hostettler of Indiana in that he's been counted out in several elections before. Still, Shuler has a huge lead in some polls (bigger than I'm projecting) and has run an effective campaign even though Republicans cited him as an example of a candidate they would tear to shreds. When I heard that Shuler, a former star college quarterback who washed out in the NFL, was running for Congress, I thought, "oh great, yet another Republican athlete cashing in on his success to run for Congress." Then I found out he's a Democrat, and now I support him wholeheartedly. Also, there's a website called StopShuler.com pointing out that Shuler ruined the Redskins the last time he was in Washington; Shuler argues that maybe his return will break the Redskins' recent streak of bad luck. If he wins, Shuler will be one of the most conservative Democrats in the House.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Eliot Spitzer (D) 70 - John Faso (R) 27
Given that I worked for the New York Attorney General's office this summer, does this finally mean I've been on a winning campaign? I say no. Spitzer is probably my second favorite politician behind John Edwards.

Senate (Democratic-held)
Hillary Clinton (D) 63 - John Spencer (R) 34
I love how Senator Clinton polls better when her middle name is included, because somehow Hillary Rodham Clinton is a moderate and Hillary Clinton is a raving lunatic. The theory is that the massive landslides at the top of the ticket will help Democrats in close congressional and state senate races. Senator Clinton is currently my #3 choice for president in 2008 behind Edwards and Obama.

Comptroller (Democrat-held)
Alan Hevesi (D) 49 - Chris Callaghan (R) 48
Hevesi is corrupt and entitled, and Callaghan is a Republican. How am I to choose?

NY-03 (Republican-held)
Peter King (R) 57 - Dave Mejias (D) 41
This is one of those races that Democratic bloggers think will be closely contested, but I don't see where that comes from. During a debate this year, King said that Mejias is supported by "radical organizations" like the AARP and the NAACP. What an all-star!

NY-19 (Republican-held)
John Hall (D) 52 - Sue Kelly (R) 47
John Hall is the former lead singer of Orleans, who had hits back in the 70s with "Still The One" ("we're still having fun, and you're still the one") and "Dance With Me." He would be the only member of Congress who has appeared shirtless on a major-label album cover.

NY-20 (Republican-held)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 54 - John Sweeney (R) 46
Now, don't get me wrong, it's hard not to like John Sweeney: he showed up at some frat party uninvited earlier this year, hammered already, and started hitting on girls. While there are certainly more acceptable ways for congressmen to hit on college-aged girls (hint: they're interns, they work on the Hill and they're attracted to power), Sweeney really topped himself last month: the October Surprise in this race is that Sweeney's wife once put in a 911 call and reported that he was physically abusing her. Yep, that's what Congress gets you these days. Fortunately, Sweeney's opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, is capable, charming, and a partner at a NYC law firm at which I absolutely could not have received an offer. Polling here has fluctuated like mad, but the latest shows Gillibrand leading. She'll be a terrific member of Congress.

NY-24 (Open, Republican-held)
Mike Arcuri (D) 52 - Ray Meier (R) 47
Arcuri is the Oneida County DA; I don't know if Oneida is a major county or what but it seems like it's a party in some case I'm reading every other week. Apparently Arcuri is one of DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel's favorite candidates this cycle.

NY-25 (Republican-held)
Jim Walsh (R) 53 - Dan Maffei (D) 46
I don't think this race has gotten as much traction as a lot of the others in New York. New York has a reputation as having a very conservative upstate with liberal urban pockets that wind up tilting the balance (given that NYC makes up half the state's population) to make the state heavily Democratic in presidential contests. The state is trending even bluer, though, to the point where there are very few Republican congressional incumbents in New York who won't be seriously threatened every year until they retire.

NY-26 (Republican-held)
Tom Reynolds (R) 54 - Jack Davis (D) 46
This was going to be a fun pickup, since Tom Reynolds is the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee and it would be hilarious if he lost his own race. Reynolds was one of the three or four members of House leadership who covered up the Foley scandal, too, so it looked like we'd have a real shot to take him out, especially since the Democrat, Jack Davis, is a self-funding candidate who was already doing fairly well in the polls. Unfortunately - and this is true - Davis refuses to go out and actually campaign, doing nothing but run TV ads. It didn't work for Steve Forbes, and it won't work for you. Apparently Davis is an "eccentric billionaire." Maybe next time we can get one with some political sense?

NY-29 (Republican-held)
Eric Massa (D) 50 - Randy Kuhl (R) 49
Kuhl is a freshman incumbent and the only member of Congress who has pulled a shotgun on his (now surprisingly ex-)wife during a dinner party. Massa is a former Republican and 24-year Navy veteran who became a fan of Wesley Clark when he was one of Clark's aides when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Massa became involved in Clark's presidential campaign, switched to the Democratic Party himself, and now he's running for Congress. Polls here go back and forth too but I'm pretty optimistic that Massa can pull off the upset.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

NM-01 (Republican-held)
Patricia Madrid (D) 53 - Heather Wilson (R) 47
Heather Wilson is one of those Anne Northup types who votes ultraconservative while maintaining a demure public persona, and even though Democrats always contest her seat they never wind up winning. This time, as with Northup, I think things will be different. Wilson is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and was a Rhodes Scholar, yet still cried on the House floor because of that Janet Jackson Super Bowl performance. Patty Madrid is the current state attorney general who was an early supporter of John Edwards' 2004 presidential run, and she's taken a fair lead in most polls in the last two months. I'm feeling good about this longtime target.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Democratic-held)
Bob Menendez (D) 53 - Tom Kean Jr. (R) 47
This is the seat that Jon Corzine won in 2000 and then abandoned to run for governor in 2005. He appointed Menendez to finish his term, and now Menendez is trying to win it for himself. I've been hearing that New Jersey Democratic politics is unbelievably corrupt, but Democratic blogs have pushed back that it's more of a gossip-heavy state than a pay-to-play one and that Menendez really is the best local-boy-makes-good story in Congress. New Jersey has a reputation as a Democratic state, but major elections recently have all wound up closer than everyone expected, with the Democrat pulling it out at the last minute: Corzine in 2000, Jim McGreevey for governor in 2001, Frank Lautenberg for Senate in 2002, the presidential election in 2004, Corzine in 2005, and hopefully now Menendez. Tom Kean Jr. is the son of a very popular former governor and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission; the Keans have been called the Bush family of New Jersey for their hereditary politics and hypercompetitive, elitist personalities. This race has trended Democratic over the past week.

NJ-07 (Republican-held)
Mike Ferguson (R) 56 - Linda Stender (D) 44
Stender was a popular candidate among a lot of progressive bloggers early in the cycle but she seems not to have manifested too serious a threat here.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
John Lynch (D) 69 - Jim Coburn (R) 28
It's worth noting that in supposedly Republican New Hampshire, Democratic presidential candidates have carried this state three of the last four elections (losing only when Ralph Nader's total far exceeded Bush's margin over Al Gore) and Democrats have won four of the last five gubernatorial elections (naturally, losing only when I was working on the campaign). The story is pretty funny: Republican Craig Benson won in 2002, claiming that he would bring business sense and "a clean sheet of paper" to New Hampshire state government even though his business had actually peaked in 1996 and had since hemorrhaged 90% of its jobs. (It's now gone.) No elected Democrat could seriously challenge Benson's $600 million warchest in 2004, so the Democrats lucked out with John Lynch, a former state Democratic Party executive director who had become a businessman himself, specializing in reviving failing businesses. He beat Benson in a close race by running on bipartisanship, a promise he kept while in office, and no serious Republican challenger ran against him. This closely parallels the tenure of Jeanne Shaheen, who became governor in 1996 and also won her first reelection in a landslide. She won again in 2000 before losing a 2002 Senate run against John Sununu (who I hope she beats in a rematch in 2008).

NH-01 (Republican-held)
Jeb Bradley (R) 54 - Carol Shea-Porter (D) 45
Shea-Porter is an alum of the Wesley Clark operation in New Hampshire who followed Jeb Bradley to all his town hall meetings throughout the district in 2005 and then decided to challenge him herself. Relying on a devoted band of followers and little else, she upset the state House Democratic Leader in the primary. Unfortunately, that accomplishment is mitigated by the nature of the primary, which besides being more partisan also had minimal turnout, making it easier for an activist base to win. A general election win takes a lot more.

NH-02 (Republican-held)
Paul Hodes (D) 52 - Charlie Bass (R) 47
Bass is one of those candidates who supposedly always has a tough challenger and yet wins by an increasing margin every year. That luck will run out this year in his rematch against Paul Hodes, who claims now that his 2004 run was done entirely so that John Kerry would have someone else helping the Democratic ticket in the 2nd district. New Hampshire is trending Democratic to the point where the 2nd (generally the western half of the state) may actually lean that way, and Hodes is a stronger candidate this time. For the record, I was surprised when Bass said that Bernie Sanders supporters in Vermont should all move back to the Bronx and drive taxis; I don't agree with his politics but, unlike a lot of Republicans, I never thought he was that kind of asshole that would openly resort to that kind of state-level xenophobia. (Amusingly, he started the remark by saying that he hadn't been drinking.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Dina Titus (D) 54 - Jim Gibbons (R) 45
This race was going to wind up Republican by 8-10 points until it turned out that Jim Gibbons assaulted a cocktail waitress (last month!) and tried to cover it up. That hurt his campaign. Incidentally, Nevada has been the fastest-growing state in the union for about 18 years in a row, and yet they still only have three congressional districts. Also, the revision to the Democratic primary schedule puts a caucus in Nevada between Iowa and New Hampshire, making this state (and the prominent Democrats therein) a major player for 2008. Politically the state is dominated by the UNITE-HERE union that supported John Edwards last time. (Woo!)

Senate (Republican-held)
John Ensign (R) 58 - Jack Carter (D) 41
I was hoping this seat would become more competitive. Jack Carter is indeed the son of our 39th president.

NV-02 (Open, Republican-held)
Dean Heller (R) 53 - Jill Derby (D) 47
First off, take a look at the size of this district. Yikes! Anyway, now that I look at it, Jim Gibbons may be Republican congressman #4 to lose the party both the governor's office and his own seat in Congress. Derby is apparently a really terrific candidate, but this is a pretty conservative district. In fact, apparently Nevada Republicans are focusing their volunteers on NV-03, figuring that even if they lose this district to Derby, they'll be able to take it back in 2008.

NV-03 (Republican-held)
Jon Porter (R) 52 - Tessa Hafen (D) 47
This race is mostly competitive because Tessa Hafen has a lot of support in Washington: before running for Congress, she was press secretary for Senate Minority Leader (and Nevada's senior senator) Harry Reid. So Reid clearly has a personal interest in winning this one in a way he doesn't for the Senate race (where he has a very positive working relationship with incumbent Republican John Ensign). I still think Hafen falls short.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Democratic-held)
Ben Nelson (D) 62 - Pete Ricketts (R) 27
This one was a comedy of errors for Team Republican. Nelson is popular in Nebraska, but he's still a Democrat in a very conservative state. His three biggest threats for reelection were from Governor Mike Johanns, who was appointed Secretary of Agriculture in early 2005; Lt. Gov. Dave Heineman, who ascended to the governor's office and ran for governor in his own right; and legendary Nebraska football coach and current congressman Tom Osborne, who decided to run for governor and lost in the primary. Since none of them ran, the job fell upon Ameritrade heir Pete Ricketts, who self-funded the race but didn't seem to be up to par as a campaigner. The Nelson campaign has stayed aggressive, and since this was considered a potentially close race early in the cycle, the DSCC, the Nelson campaign and the Nebraska Democratic Party have an effective field program in place that will hopefully pay off for down-ticket races. Finally, I want to point out the difference between Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson: they're both conservative, but Ben Nelson never dimes out the Democratic Party. He never publicly criticizes Democrats for some policy position that will lead them down the road to electoral ruin. Even if he privately believed it (and I have no idea one way or the other) he never enables Republican mischaracterizations by calling Democrats tax-hikers or weak on terror. Ben Nelson says he's an independent voice who will side with the president when he's right, and won't when he's wrong. That's the kind of independent I like.

NE-01 (Republican-held)
Jeff Fortenberry (R) 55 - Maxine Moul (D) 44
There have been some favorable polls here recently, but I'm not hearing enough good things to convince me she's pulling this out. Moul is a former lieutenant governor, so theoretically she has some experience and connections. I'm not sure if she's a weak candidate or if she'll be a more serious threat in 2008.

NE-03 (Open, Republican-held)
Scott Kleeb (D) 51 - Adrian Smith (R) 47
This is another great race where no one thought Democrats had a real shot at the beginning of the cycle. Scott Kleeb is a fourth-generation Nebraska rancher with a graduate degree in international relations from Yale. I found his commercials to be kind of dull, but they seem to be popular in the district. His opponent, Adrian Smith, is almost entirely funded by the economically ultraconservative Club for Growth, which just so happens to oppose the farm subsidies that's a primary economic driver in Nebraska's 3rd district, the western two-thirds of the state. So Kleeb has been able to hit Smith pretty hard, and Kleeb internal polling showed him up eight on October 30th. With the Ben Nelson turnout operation and the Nebraska Democratic Party's new 93-county strategy helping them out, I think Kleeb's going to pull off the shocker here.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Republican-held)
Jon Tester (D) 51 - Conrad Burns (R) 48
This one is stressful for me personally. I've been a fan of Tester since early 2005 when I discovered he's a rancher and Montana Senate President who looks like a gym teacher, loves the blogs, and toured the state in a big rig with "You're behind the right guy" written on the back. He upset a better-funded, DC-supported opponent in the primary, and he took a big lead over corrupt and broadly offensive incumbent Senator Conrad Burns in the general election. Unfortunately, Burns has pretty much tied the race by pointing out that Tester wants nothing more in life than to raise the tax rate to 100 percent. If Tester loses, after all he's been through, I will be very, very disappointed.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Republican-held)
Claire McCaskill (D) 51 - Jim Talent (R) 49
The Democrats pulled a major coup by recruiting McCaskill, who lost the governor's race in 2004 and, given the unpopularity of the Republican who won, she would probably win the 2008 rematch she was rumored to covet. Having been convinced to run for Senate, she has put in a skilled and enthusiastic run. From the day she announced, almost every poll has shown this race to be within three points or less, and it will be decided by the GOTV efforts going on while I spend my time writing a campaign analysis. I think Democratic enthusiasm will be higher, plus there will be stem-cell and minimum-wage initiatives on the ballot that may or may not turn out more Democrats but may remind them what they don't like about Republicans.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are no exciting races in Mississippi this year. Did you know Mississippi is the country's second-most Democratic state in terms of voter registration?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican-held)
Mike Hatch (D) 52 - Tim Pawlenty (R) 47
I was unclear in recent years whether Tim Pawlenty was readying himself for a 2008 presidential run or not, which probably means that he was hoping to be picked as VP. While he doesn't have a ton of scandal to his name, the anti-Republican national mood, combined with a surprisingly lackluster Republican Senate effort, has him in more serious trouble than even my prediction suggests. Mike Hatch is the AG and has been prepping a higher run for a long time; it looks like he's made the most of it.

Senate (Open, Democratic-held)
Amy Klobuchar (D) 60 - Mark Kennedy (R) 39
This race has been weird since the start. Incumbent Mark Dayton declined to run for a second term: his poll numbers looked poor, he didn't seem to enjoy the Senate, and while he could afford to self-fund his 2000 campaign, he couldn't do it again. This race is a rare example of a retirement helping the party, even if I was surprised that Amy Klobuchar, the Hennepin County Attorney, had what it took for a Senate run. I mean, a county DA? Amusingly enough, the GOP ran nothing but a resume in Mark Kennedy, one of those fresh-faced, moderate-looking but conservative-voting guys they keep throwing out there who keep winning. Despite being the GOP's prize recruit early in the cycle, his campaign never got off the ground. Klobuchar succeeded in driving out most of her primary opponents even before primary day, and her lead against Kennedy grew ever since. She's a terrific campaigner, an appealing person, and a solid Democrat. She has very effectively used her prosecutorial experience to portray herself as a fighter. I'm a fan.

MN-01 (Republican-held)
Gil Gutknecht (R) 51 - Tim Walz (D) 48
I'm sorry to predict the race this way. Gutknecht has consistently underperformed presidential vote totals in his district, and Tim Walz is one of my favorite Democratic recruits this cycle. He's both a high-school teacher and a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, but I don't think he's got this one this time out. Hopefully he'll stick with us for 2008.

MN-02 (Republican-held)
John Kline (R) 55 - Colleen Rowley (D) 44
It's not often that parties can recruit a Time Person of the Year to run for Congress, but we have one of the honorees from that Whistleblower year on our side this time. Unfortunately, she's pretty liberal and running in a conservative district, so I'm not sure she can keep it close.

MN-06 (Open, Republican-held)
Michele Bachmann (R) 50 - Patty Wetterling (D) 49
This is Patty Wetterling's second run for this seat, having kept Mark Kennedy's 2004 House reelection campaign close until the end. When Kennedy decided to run for Senate, she did the same. That was clearly a mistake, since Kennedy's House retirement made his seat much more competitive, but Wetterling eventually wised up and dropped out to run for the House again. Polls alternated between showing leads for her or for her opponent, theocrat state senator Michele Bachmann. Wetterling was one of the only candidates to run ads against Mark Foley; Wetterling's son was abducted at gunpoint by a masked man who forced the son and his friends to state their ages and then he kidnapped her son, the youngest. The son has not been heard from since, and Wetterling and her husband have been active nationally in child-abduction issues. She wouldn't take any crap about Foley.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Jennifer Granholm (D) 53 - Dick DeVos (R) 46
When Granholm won in 2002, she was considered the Democratic rationale for repealing the native-born requirement for the presidency: polished as a campaigner, a skilled leader, and governor of a swing state, she looked like everything Democrats would want in a president, except she was born in Canada and thus ineligible. Since then, economic turmoil in Michigan, notably hemorrhages at the Detroit auto makers, has put her reelection in doubt; at one point making her the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent of anyone on this list. Since then, however, she's mounted a comeback, blaming Bush instead of herself for the area's economic concerns and accusing her opponent, businessman Dick DeVos, of outsourcing Michigan jobs. She took a strategic risk in not running ads even when she fell 6-8 points behind DeVos in early summer, but her decision to save her money for the fall seems to have paid off.

Senate (Democratic-held)
Debbie Stabenow (D) 52 - Michael Bouchard (R) 47
Stabenow dodged a bullet when Secretary of State Candice Miller decided not to challenge her, but she still faces a tougher-than-expected challenge from Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard. I'm not sure what Bouchard's qualifications for high office are, but he ran suburban-humorous ads involving his family and seems a fairly likable guy, while Stabenow is still not well known as a leader in Washington. I think this one will be closer than many predict, but Stabenow does know how to campaign, having taken out a GOP incumbent in 2000, and she'll pull this one out.

MI-11 (Republican-held)
Thaddeus McCotter (R) 60 - Tony Trupiano (D) 40
I know virtually nothing about this race, but some people think it's competitive. I haven't seen it.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Deval Patrick (D) 58 - Kerry Healey (R) 29 - Christy Mihos (I) 11
Republicans have had the governor's office in Massachusetts since Michael Dukakis left in 1990, but their run ends this time. Traditionally, Republicans have won this office by portraying themselves as moderates who will check the heavily Democratic, machine-driven state legislature. Unfortunately for them, Mitt Romney screwed that up by deciding he wanted to run for president, openly disparaging Massachusetts on the pre-campaign circuit and vetoing the massively popular morning-after pill. The other reason this election is so lopsided is that Deval Patrick is using the Republican playbook against them: as a former national officeholder (he was the chief deputy to the U.S. Attorney General for civil rights in the Clinton years) and his business background to portray himself as a pragmatic type who won't buy into the sausage-and-legislation atmosphere in the Massachusetts state house. Assuming Ken Blackwell loses in Ohio, Patrick will become the second African-American governor in the last half-century, probably longer.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican-held)
Robert Erlich (R) 51 - Martin O'Malley (D) 49
This is a tough one to call: O'Malley had a big lead for a long time, but Erlich successfully used his financial advantage to narrow the gap, criticizing O'Malley's crime record as mayor of Baltimore. Many African-Americans will be voting Republican for Senate, but will they vote for a Republican for governor? I really hope the Democratic lean of the state in this Democratic year pays off for O'Malley, but I no longer believe that will happen.

Senate (Open, Democratic-held)
Ben Cardin (D) 52 - Michael Steele (R) 47
This one is much closer than it should be. I'm not a huge fan of Michael Steele, but he's charming. He ran a pretty good ad saying that Democrats were going to attack him so much they'd even say he hates puppies even though he actually loves puppies. (He even held up a puppy on camera.) The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee responded with an equally smooth ad saying, "It's great that Michael Steele loves puppies. You know who else Michael Steele loves? George W. Bush." That said, this campaign isn't all fun and games, and I think it's the Republicans' best chance for a Senate pickup. Steele is African-American, and a lot of normally Democratic African-Americans in Maryland are upset that the Democratic Party hasn't paid them enough attention and run enough African-American candidates. It doesn't help that an African-American candidate lost the Democratic primary. So while Maryland is a Democratic state, it won't be as easy for Cardin as we would have hoped. I still think he pulls it out.

MD-01 (Republican-held)
Roscoe Bartlett (R) 56 - Andrew Duck (D) 42
Wishful thinking, at least this year. Duck has a nice resume (he's been a leader in the group of Iraq vets running for Congress as Democrats) and I think he'll be back.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
John Baldacci (D) 39 - Chandler Woodcock (R) 35 - Barbara Merrill (I) 16 - Pat LeMarche (G) 10
This is considered Republicans' best pickup opportunity for a governor's race at this point, though I suspect Baldacci is pulling away. By the way, Maine is not as Democratic as the rest of New England, and its electoral votes are apportioned by congressional district (there are two in the state; Nebraska does the same thing), so if a Republican presidential candidate ever carries a Maine congressional district, s/he'd pick up an electoral vote. Also, I was listening to John Linnell's "Maine" the other day, and I think it's the best track from his State Songs album. I have no idea about the dynamics of the race, and I only found out there were other candidates threatening double-digit support on Sunday. Finally, sorry about the name, Chandler Woodcock.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

LA-02 (Democratic-held)
William Jefferson (D) 42 - Everyone else 48
Louisiana has an interesting system without conventional primaries: everyone runs against each other on Election Day and if no one gets 50 percent of the vote, the top two have a runoff a month later. This leads to a lot of post-election campaigns where everyone from around the country goes down to Louisiana for some epic battle. I'm not sure if that will happen this year, but Bill Jefferson is way more corrupt than is acceptable for a party running on change (I mean, who hasn't hidden $90,000 in the freezer), and regardless of what he wants to do to help the New Orleans recovery, I don't think he's cracking 50. I still say he wins the runoff.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

KY-02 (Republican-held)
Ron Lewis (R) 53 - Mike Weaver (D) 46
I would love to see Weaver win here, but I don't see it happening. Lewis, while certainly a knee-jerk conservative, hasn't been directly tied to any of the BS coming out of Washington these days. Col. Mike Weaver has a strong resume and has made inroads in the district thanks to his opposition to the Iraq War, but I fear his campaign inexperience and the Republican tilt of the district make the hill too steep to climb this time around.

KY-03 (Republican-held)
John Yarmuth (D) 52 - Anne Northup (R) 47
OK, I'm a little biased here because I was press secretary for the last guy who ran against Northup, and also I hate her guts. She was first elected to this Louisville district in 1996, and she's held off tough incumbents ever since. Her strongest victory, by far, was against Tony Miller in 2004 (yes, I bear some responsibility here), scaring off several potential challengers for 2006. John Yarmuth, founder and columnist for Louisville's alt-weekly LEO, was a vigorous supporter of ours last time around, and evidently thinking he could do a better job, decided to go out front as the candidate this time. And he was right! Yarmuth is the first candidate to have held significant leads over Northup in multiple polls (especially this close to the election), he has the Louisville Democratic base energized, and he has done a marvelous job of staying strong against Northup's relentless attacks. I have to hand it to Northup; besides being one of the most prolific fundraisers in Congress, she has a remarkable talent for making even the dumbest of campaign attacks come across as both important and lethal, while making seemingly contradictory attacks from year to year that Democrats can never seem to pin down. Yarmuth has stayed tough despite the attacks ("I'll stand by my columns if she'll stand by her votes"), and although some observers say Yarmuth would be dead in the water in any other kind of political environment, I think here the candidate deserves the credit. One final note: Louisville is often considered a Democratic-leaning district. It's true that voter registration tilts that way, but that's also true of Mississippi. Louisville is actually a fairly accurate microcosm of the country's voting habits, with the wealthy Republican East End, the liberal Democratic downtown, the heavily African-American West Louisville, and the socially conservative but recently Democratic South End. The keys here are tamping down Republican support in West Louisville (where Northup has become very popular for a Republican, frankly by buying off several local church leaders) and winning back the economically liberal South End. Yarmuth's campaign claims they've identified 14 kinds of Democrat, and if they're not just blowing smoke here they might really be onto something. I like John Yarmuth a lot as a person and as a candidate, and if I could choose one Democratic pickup this year, it would probably be here.

KY-04 (Republican-held)
Geoff Davis (R) 52 - Ken Lucas (D) 48
Ken Lucas is a conservative Democrat who held this conservative seat for three terms after Jim Bunning left to run for Senate. Honoring his term-limits pledge, he stepped down in 2004 as Geoff Davis, his 2002 opponent, beat George Clooney's dad (seriously) to put this seat in Republican hands. Lucas apparently thinks Davis is either a moron, a terrible congressman, or both, because he's coming out of retirement to take him on. Early polls showed Lucas with a big lead that subsequently narrowed, and the most recent polling suggests Davis is starting to pull away. This would be a tough loss.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Kathleen Sebelius (D) 55 - Jim Barnett (R) 45
This race is widely expected to be a landslide, but I think it will be closer due to Kansas' sharp Republican tilt. Sebelius has done a remarkable job of exploiting the acrimonious disputes between Kansas' moderate business-oriented Republicans and the Christian conservatives who make up most of the party base. In 2002 Sebelius rode Republican intraparty dissent into the state house, and since then she has convinced several prominent moderate Republicans to switch parties and run as Democrats. That track record has led Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos to suggest that she should be a leading candidate for vice president in 2008.

KS-02 (Republican-held)
Nancy Boyda (D) 50 - Jim Ryun (R) 49
I am rating this as a Democratic pickup mostly because I so desperately want to believe, though several polls bear me out. This race is curious: it is certainly a Republican district, represented by former world-record mile runner and Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year Jim Ryun, the only politician I know of who has apparently spoken in tongues at a campaign rally. Nancy Boyda made a semi-competitive challenge against Ryun in 2004, but until recently I hadn't heard of anyone who thought this race was a serious pickup opportunity this year. Then, all of a sudden, the DCCC dropped a ton of money in the district, claiming they had been intending to compete here all along and wanted to catch the Republicans off-guard. I'm not sure I believe that (they said the same thing, even less credibly, in the 2005 Paul Hackett special election in Ohio's 2nd) but I am glad they're competing here. A win here would give Democrats a majority in Kansas' House delegation.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Democratic-held)
Chet Culver (D) 52 - Jim Nussle (R) 47
Some prominent Democratic bloggers believe that viable presidential candidates should have built up significant Democratic operations in their home states before running for national office, with one major example being that outgoing Iowa governor Tom Vilsack should be able to guarantee that Chet Culver will succeed him. I don't think that's fair - there's a lot more to campaigning than the health of the party establishment - but it looks like Culver will still pull this one out. Labeled a lackluster candidate at the start of the cycle, Culver's 2006 performance has impressed many observers and Nussle, a sitting congressman, has problems of his own after voting for all that garbage proposed by the Republican House. Nussle is the third Republican congressman who might lose both the governor's race and the seat he already holds.

IA-01 (Open, Republican-held)
Bruce Braley (D) 53 - Mike Whalen (R) 46
This is Nussle's seat, and a few months ago it was considered a top Democratic pickup opportunity. The likelihood of the seat flipping hasn't changed since then so much as other seats have become more likely to turn. Still, it's not a guaranteed Democratic victory. That said, the district leans Democratic, and without an existing Republican incumbent it's a lot easier to convince voters to switch.

IA-02 (Republican-held)
Jim Leach (R) 55 - David Loebsack (D) 43
A lot of people are claiming Loebsack has a serious shot here, but I haven't seen it.

IA-03 (Democratic-held)
Leonard Boswell (D) 54 - Jeff Lamberti (R) 46
Until the Georgia races turned sour, this was considered the best chance of a Republican pickup in the country due to Boswell's health concerns in 2005. Given that Boswell has apparently made a full-enough-for-political-work recovery, that argument has lessened, but Lamberti is a strong candidate and the current Republican leader in the Iowa Senate. Still, Boswell has been around for a while, so I suspect other races will be closer.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

IN-02 (Republican-held)
Joe Donnelly (D) 53 - Chris Chocola (R) 47
Chris Chocola, affectionately called "The Count" for breakfast-cereal reasons, won a highly competitive open-seat contest in 2002. He won reelection more easily in 2004, but then-and-current challenger Joe Donnelly is a classic example of a candidate who learned from mistakes in his first run to become a stellar candidate his next time out. Because of the 2004 outcome, this race wasn't on most radar screens for most of the 2006 cycle, but now some pundits believe Donnelly has the best chance of winning of any Democratic candidate in Indiana. As we see below, that's saying quite a bit.

IN-03 (Republican-held)
Mark Souder (R) 54 - Tim Hayhurst (D) 44
This race has tightened over the last few weeks, but I suspect it happened too late for Hayhurst to get significant traction. Maybe in 2008.

IN-07 (Democratic-held)
Julia Carson (D) 52 - Eric Dickerson (R) 48
Dickerson, who has never held the onetime NFL single-season rushing record holder, has somehow turned this into a close race despite receiving virtually no attention outside the district. Apparently Carson is sick and has run a lethargic campaign, and now some polls actually show her behind. I hope and assume Democrats have figured out how to hold this one, but this sounds like something that needs to be resolved for 2008.

IN-08 (Republican-held)
Brad Ellsworth (D) 53 - John Hostettler (R) 46
This is an interesting race. In the aftermath of a series of tornadoes that ravaged the district in 2005, I read a profile of Brad Ellsworth, a local county sheriff who had emerged as a resolute and confident leader when the district badly needed one. The profile said that Ellsworth was exactly the kind of candidate Democrats would love to recruit for 2006, if only Ellsworth were both a Democrat and up for running. The article reached a thrilling conclusion when I discovered, actually, Ellsworth was not only a Democrat but already running for Congress. John Hostettler is an all-star (he was arrested in 2004 for carrying a gun onto a plane and he honestly believes the Democrats' raison d'etre is to fight Christianity) but he has always run curious campaigns: devoid of consultants or fundraising, he somehow uses his legions of supporters for a massive GOTV effort that always pulls him over the top against challengers who everyone assumes have already won. Conventional wisdom holds that this is the year Hostettler is finally going down; I don't know how the polls look compared to earlier cycles but some of them show Ellsworth with pretty substantial leads.

IN-09 (Republican-held)
Baron Hill (D) 50 - Mike Sodrel (R) 49
I saw this race up close during my 2004 tenure across the river in Louisville. Baron Hill is the former three-term congressman here, but after holding off Sodrel in 2002, he lost to Sodrel in 2004 in the closest congressional election in the country. Both campaigns have been well run, but Baron is a stellar campaigner in a Democratic year. The troubles of Mitch Daniels, Indiana's unpopular Republican governor, can't help matters much either. This will still be a close race, but hopefully Baron Hill will win the rubber match.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Democratic-held)
Rod Blagojevich (D) 54 - Judy Baar Topinka (R) 43
If I had to put money on it, and there were some conclusive way of finding out, I'd say Blagojevich is probably corrupt. (I know, in Chicago politics?) Still, the Illinois Republican Party has been dysfunctional for years (remember when they chose Alan Keyes to run for Senate over someone who actually lived in Illinois?) and since no top-tier candidates chose to run, it fell upon state treasurer and GOP party chair Judy Baar Topinka not to get any traction running against Blagojevich. It's funny to think that after Blagojevich was first elected governoron in 2002, after serving one term in Congress, he openly discussed the possibility of running for president in 2008. You could call that less likely now that he's hardly throwing off Topinka in this heavily Democratic state.

IL-06 (Open, Republican-held)
Tammy Duckworth (D) 49 - Peter Roskam (R) 47
This is one of the more interesting races this year. The seat opened up when Henry Hyde decided to retire after an illustrious career of running the House impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 despite having had an affair himself. The Republican nominee was state senator Peter Roskam by acclimation, but Democrats had a more contentious primary between Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs in the war, and netroots-supported Christine Cegelis, who ran against Hyde in 2004. DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel hails from the bordering district and has made winning this race a priority, and he backed Duckworth in the primary. This not only raised the ire of Cegelis-supporting activists in the district, but it almost backfired completely when the woefully underfunded Cegelis almost won the primary. Local Democrats have mostly patched things up, but controversy remains: the DCCC just dropped a staggering three million dollars into the district which, win or lose, could have gone to better use elsewhere. So while my prediction may be wishful thinking, Duckworth really better pull this one out. (Also, the Republicans have accused Duckworth of being cut-and-run. Remember how when they accused another multiple amputee, Max Cleland, of being unpatriotic, it was news?)

IL-08 (Democratic-held)
Melissa Bean (D) 51 - David McSweeney (R) 48
Hey, look, another Republican pickup opportunity! Melissa Bean won in 2004 by beating 35-year incumbent Phil Crane, arguing that he took too many taxpayer-funded junkets and had ignored this Republican-leaning district. Crane, indeed, turned out to be a weak campaigner, and Bean pulled it out. She's had a hard time staying moderate in this conservative district without alienating the progressive base; she lost a lot of union support by voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Still, she's raised a ton of money, which in this expensive Chicago-area district may be enough to send her back for another term. I think if she wins this time she'll be in there for a while.

IL-10 (Republican-held)
Mark Kirk (R) 52 - Dan Seals (D) 47
Dan Seals has often been compared to Barack Obama, another African-American Illinois Democrat whose nonthreatening mainstream appeal is fueling his rise to high office. It's a lot to ask of the guy, since Seals is still an underdog congressional challenger and Obama has won the hearts of Democrats throughout the country, but eventually it may prove pretty accurate. Seals' campaign has only caught national attention recently, but he has been invigorating activists in this suburban Illinois district for months now. I suspect he'll get the win in 2008.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Jerry Brady (D) 49 - Butch Otter (R) 47
I am predicting another upset with this one. Otter is the second Republican congressman with the opportunity to cost his party the governor's office as well as his congressional seat, and Otter has the special privilege of doing so in one of the most Republican states in the union. This election should not have been competitive, but apparently Otter assumed he had this won and barely campaigned for most of the year. I should probably predict this race to go the other way, but Brady has been energetic and I don't think Otter will get his ducks in a row in time.

ID-01 (Open, Republican-held)
Bill Sali (R) 47 - Larry Grant (D) 43
This race is one of the jewels of the much-maligned 50-state strategy that pretty much everyone in DC has finally conceded makes a ton of sense. Here's the story: Howard Dean wants Democrats to compete on the presidential level in all 50 states, figuring that we're not going to win in these rock-ribbed Republican states in the near future, but we have to start trying sometime. This is what he ran on when he ran for DNC chair, and it's what he's done. Democratic bloggers picked up on the theme in early 2005 and argued that Democrats should attempt to run serious candidates in every Republican congressional district in the country, on the philosophy that a few will become competitive in 2006 and most of them will become pickup opportunities years down the line. As it turns out, most of the best chances for Democratic pickups are coming in districts that were not considered threats at the beginning of the cycle and likely would not have received DC attention or funding were it not for the 50-state strategy. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to its credit, was one of the first DC organizations to realize the value of this strategy, and after some acrimony early in the cycle, jumped fully on board and now supports something like 70 challenges to Republican-held districts. What's been most amazing, though, is that many of these serious challenges have come in districts no one thought would become competitive even in the near future, such as here in Idaho's first district. The Republican nominee, Bill Sali, is a state representative who the Republican state House speaker said "That idiot is just an absolute idiot. He doesn't have one ounce of empathy in his whole fricking body. And you can put that in the paper." (Follow this link for quotes that are even worse; look for the one on breast cancer.) The Democrat, Larry Grant, is a really good guy who's honest, hard-working, and exactly what you want in a congressman. Unfortunately, the dynamics of the district and the attack ads against Grant probably put this one out of reach. Maybe a rematch will do it?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love Hawaii! Hawaii, however, does not love close political contests, at least not this November. This is another Democratic-leaning state that has inexplicably failed to come up with a serious threat to a Republican incumbent governor. Especially given that current governor is the first Republican governor in Hawaii in the past 40 years, I'm not sure what held back Team Democrat here.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican-held)
Sonny Perdue (R) 55 - Mark Taylor (D) 43
It's hard to overstate how far Georgia Democrats have fallen in the last four years. When Perdue won this office in 2002, beating Democratic incumbent and then-potential presidential candidate Roy Barnes, it was the political shocker of the year. Even afterward, Perdue's win was largely credited to Saxby Chambliss' ill-gotten Senate victory and a voter referendum on the state flag that turned out conservative votes. Since then, Democrats in the state legislature have been party-switching left and right - or I guess just right - and Democrats barely put up a fight in 2004 to contest the Senate seat given up by enormous traitor Zell Miller. Taylor is the lieutenant governor, but it doesn't look like he's found any traction here. I just hope Democrats can mount up enough for Max Cleland (or, as always, any other competent Democrat) to take out Chambliss in 2008.

GA-08 (Democratic-held)
Jim Marshall (D) 51 - Mac Collins (R) 48
Georgia marks the GOP's best chances at House pickups this year, mainly due to mid-decade redistricting exactly like Texas Republicans did in 2003. This time the results will be less dramatic, but there are still two endangered seats. Collins is a former congressman who lost a Senate primary in 2004 and now attempts a comeback. This one will be tough, but Marshall is well-established even in his reshaped district.

GA-12 (Democratic-held)
John Barrow (D) 52 - Max Burns (R) 47
Another seat thrown into doubt because of mid-decade redistricting, Barrow is also running against a former congressman, here opposing the guy he beat in 2004. Actually, Burns was considered an overmatched candidate before, supposedly having won the seat in 2002 only because the Democratic candidate was a poor choice by local machine politicians. I'm not sure what makes Burns such a better candidate this time, but again, the district is less favorable to Barrow than it was last time. I think Barrow pulls this one out.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Charlie Crist (R) 52 - Jim Davis (D) 47
I really couldn't tell you what happened here. Crist never seemed to me to be that appealing a candidate: he revealed earlier this year that he had no idea what expressio unius was right as I was learning it myself my first year at law school, he's running in an unfavorable political climate, and I'm not sure why a semi-closeted Republican isn't facing more of a backlash when he's running in the same state the same year as Mark Foley. Crist had an enormous fundraising advantage over Davis, which some claim has made the difference, but the inoculation of this race from the troubles of national politics (I mean, come on, they're succeeding Jeb Bush here) really troubles me for what it says about the viability of Democrats in Florida politics. That all said, Davis has been closing the gap lately, so he may have a shot yet.

Senate (Democratic-held)
Bill Nelson (D) 61 - Katherine Harris (R) 37
I really, really hope this isn't the end of Katherine Harris's political career, because it turns out she's the best source of comic relief you can find in politics. I mean, her campaign has had it all: rank corruption, massive and repeated staff resignations, religious fanaticism, and inappropriately timed sexual suggestiveness. My favorite anecdote is the time her staffers got so frustrated at her ripping apart everything they wrote for her that they submitted a speech to her that she called "terrible." The speech, of course, was one that Harris had written herself months earlier. Much as I wish Katherine Harris 2000 had never existed, Katherine Harris 2006 has saved the Democrats a potentially vulnerable Senate seat. So we're a millionth of the way to being even!

FL-09 (Open, Republican-held)
Gus Bilirakis (R) 54 - Phyllis Busansky (D) 45
This race is apparently competitive, though I don't know much about it. That said, this seat is currently held by Republican Mike Bilirakis, and it's always charming when a son succeeds his father in Congress, so I hope we can pull this one out.

FL-13 (Open, Republican-held)
Christine Jennings (D) 52 - Vern Buchanan (R) 47
One of the underreported stories of the Katherine Harris saga is that she was never that popular to begin with, and both her elections to Congress have been closer than they should have been. Jennings lost in the primary last time, but she's a better candidate this time out and Democrats have a better chance of taking this seat now that Harris has left it open. Buchanan is your typical successful businessman who hates taxes and thinks he can do politics better than the people already doing it. We'll see if he's right or if he's another Morry Taylor.

FL-16 (Open, Republican-held)
Tim Mahoney (D) 52 - Joe Negron (R) 46
Yep, it's the race to win the protein-stained seat most recently held by Mark Foley. It looked like the Republican Party was dead in the water here, but this race has become competitive again now that the scandal has faded and the Republicans will have some form of polling-place notification that a vote for Foley is a vote for Negron. I actually like Mahoney to begin with, and hopefully his campaign has been strong enough to pull this one out. Here's my strategic question: do you attack Negron? Either you let him into Election Day as a guy without any negatives, or you risk alerting Foley-alienated Republican voters that they're not actually voting for Foley. It's a tough call.

FL-22 (Republican-held)
Ron Klein (D) 50 - Clay Shaw (R) 49
Klein has been the typical Democratic candidate the old-school way of doing things: raise a ton of money and convince DC operatives that you can win the race. He hasn't hit up the blogosphere to impress national Democratic activists, and I also don't know how energized activists in the district are for his campaign. That said, he does have a ton of money, and it's not hard to imagine him pulling this one out. Shaw has been pretty battle-tested over his two decades or so in Congress, and despite catching a break in 2004 when his credible opponent pulled out due to sickness, he seems to be pretty on-the-ball this time. Still, the race will be close. I changed this pick at the last minute.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

DE-AL (Republican-held)
Mike Castle (R) 55 - Dennis Spivack (D) 44
This race is not competitive; Mike Castle is a Delaware institution who's been in Congress for 14 years and was governor before that. That said, Castle had an ostensibly minor stroke in September and hasn't held any public events since. Why this isn't a bigger issue is beyond me, but I do think Spivack (or some other Democrat) will be a serious contender in this Democratic-leaning state in 2008, regardless of whether Castle runs again. (AL stands for At Large, proof that Delaware has fewer people than Rhode Island.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Democratic-held)
Joe Lieberman (CfL) 47 - Ned Lamont (D) 42 - Alan Schlesinger (R) 11
And this is the way the Connecticut Senate race ends, not with a bang but a whimper. Ugh. I think Chris Cillizza's awesome column The Fix had it right when he said that Lieberman's primary campaign was one of the worst in the country and his general-election campaign one of the best. The Lamont campaign had no post-primary plan, and that cost them as it gave Lieberman the political cover to stay in the race at all, as well as the opportunity to define himself as a statesman above trifling party concerns. It's tough to say if Lamont could have successfully tarred him as a sore loser only out for his own gain, or if Lieberman would have done this well regardless on account of the more moderate nature of the Connecticut general electorate. Towards the end of the campaign, the Lamont campaign had been hoping that Republican gadfly candidate Alan Schlesinger would peel Republican support away from Lieberman or that Lieberman's $387,000 petty-cash account (FEC rules say petty cash can't be more than a couple thousand or so) would build into a scandal. I doubt it on Schlesinger's part, and the fact that Lieberman is making substantial expenses that he's not reporting by labeling it "petty cash" doesn't seem to be resonating. Supposedly Lamont has a far superior turnout program, but even so, it looks like the Lamont train ends here. Finally, on a personal note, I can't cover this race without pointing out that putative Democrat Lieberman will only win this race by turning out Republican voters, seriously jeopardizing Democratic chances of picking up the three seriously contested House seats I describe below. If you ask me, Lieberman's refusal to say whether he prefers a Democratic or Republican House of Representatives, after all we've been through in the last six years that ostensibly led him to run for president, is final proof that he cares only about himself. I hope he leaves American politics sooner than later.

CT-02 (Republican-held)
Rob Simmons (R) 51 - Joe Courtney (D) 49
Rob Simmons, representing the eastern half of Connecticut, is currently the only Haverford alum in Congress. He also served in the CIA, and he's the closest House Republican to where I grew up in Rhode Island. He's fairly moderate for a congressional Republican these days, and he's trying to turn this race into a local referendum, since the efforts of Connecticut politicians helped save the Groton naval shipyard from closure. Joe Courtney, of course, is trying to turn this race into a referendum on the direction of the country in this Democratic-leaning district. Courtney ran against Simmons in 2002, taking 46% of the vote, and he's a better candidate this time. Still, Simmons knew he had a tough race. This is a Joe Lieberman special.

CT-04 (Republican-held)
Diane Farrell (D) 51 - Christopher Shays (R) 49
At this point, Shays might be the most prominent moderate Republican in Congress. In a sense, I kind of feel bad for the guy, because he clearly doesn't want to be the avid partisan that the current political environment forces him to be. He's been fairly duplicitous in his Iraq support, and he took a surprising and unnecessary cheap shot at Ted Kennedy in the aftermath of the Mark Foley scandal. Diane Farrell was a good candidate when she took 49% from him in 2004. Like Simmons (and Nancy Johnson below), Shays knew this was coming but I don't think his campaign can hold back the tide this time. This will also be an interesting case study to see if the New York Times endorsement can make a difference anywhere anymore; many people in this affluent suburban district read the Times as their local newspaper, and this is the first time in his 20-year congressional career that the Times has failed to endorse Shays in a contested reelection.

CT-05 (Republican-held)
Chris Murphy (D) 53 - Nancy Johnson (R) 45
Oddly, this race started off as the least competitive of Connecticut's three contested House races, and now it looks like Murphy has the best shot of taking out a Republican incumbent in the state this year. He's ridiculously young (he's something like a 32-year-old state senator) and he had a steep hill in challenging the moderate, well-funded Johnson, who has studiously cultivated a non-threatening grandmotherly persona in her 24 years in Congress. Murphy has run a strong campaign, though, and his poll numbers have held steady despite being on the receiving end of a series of hard-hitting attacks. (Nancy Johnson was the first candidate to run the "24"-style ad that either intentionally misleads or doesn't understand the Democratic position on wiretapping without a warrant.) I've been surprised to discover how many longterm politicians end their careers by defeat rather than retirement, and unless Joe Lieberman finds enough 5th district Republicans to pull out to the polls, I think this may be Johnson's year.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Bill Ritter (D) 56 - Bob Beauprez (R) 41
By my count, Bob Beauprez is one of three Republican congressmen running for governor who have a serious chance of costing their party both the governor's race and their current congressional seat. That's fantastic. Colorado is trending blue, Beauprez turned out to be a surprisingly poor candidate, and this is a Democratic year. This race is not competitive.

CO-04 (Republican-held)
Angie Paccione (D) 50 - Marilyn Musgrave 48
Musgrave is by far the most charming member of Congress, not only being the lead House sponsor behind the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment but very, very accurately calling gay marriage the most serious problem in America today. So I'm not a fan of Marilyn Musgrave. I don't know Paccione as well, but she's run a good campaign. I heard (second-hand) how she tells a story about how when she became a state rep, she'd have a weekly Saturday constituent-concerns meeting in the back room of a restaurant. For weeks and weeks and weeks, she sat there alone as no one came in, but eventually constituents trickled in, and now there are a ton of people every week, some of whom are now her biggest supporters. I'm not sure what that story says (persistence? poor choice of restaurant?) but I still like it. I think Paccione will win, but if she doesn't, I like her chances in 2008. This district is trending blue.

CO-05 (Open, Republican-held)
Jay Fawcett (D) 48 - Doug Lamborn (R) 47
I'm picking a major upset here. This might be one of the most conservative districts in the country: Colorado Springs hosts not only the notoriously conservative Air Force Academy, but most of the top evangelical Christian organizations like James Dobson's Focus On The Family are based here too. That said, incumbent Republican Joel Hefley is retiring from Congress, and he's refused to endorse the Republican nominated to succeed him. Hefley is understandably bitter about losing his Ethics Committee chairmanship after failing to stonewall the Tom DeLay investigation, and his favored candidate lost the GOP primary. Jay Fawcett, the Democrat, is a military veteran and an aggressive campaigner, making him perhaps the only Democratic candidate who could take advantage of this year's Republican dissent within the district. The troubles of Mark Foley, David Kuo's recent book exposing Bush administration antipathy towards Christian conservatives, and the recent scandal involving Colorado Springs' own Ted Haggard may create the perfect storm for Democrats to pull that one out. (And for the record, I don't think anyone who saw Ted Haggard's cameo in Jesus Camp could be that surprised that he's hooked on meth. The gay prostitution thing, though, I did not see coming.)

CO-06 (Republican-held)
Tom Tancredo (R) 53 - Bill Winter (D) 46
Tom Tancredo is the leading activist on illegal immigration in Congress today. It would be unfair of me to call him outright racist, but he primarily advocates stricter enforcement measures. He says he'll run for president in 2008 if the other Republican candidates don't stand up on immigration. He's also pretty heavily conservative across the board, so knocking him off would be a lot of fun for Colorado progressives. Unfortunately, while I hear a lot of good things about Bill Winter, I don't think it's his time yet. Again, 2008 may tell a different story.

CO-07 (Open, Republican-held)
Ed Perlmutter (D) 54 - Rick O'Donnell (R) 45
This is the seat that Bob Beauprez is blowing as he loses the governor's race. Beauprez always had close races, and this district is trending Democrat too, so the Democratic pickup here shouldn't be a surprise. And while O'Donnell's campaign has gained strength in recent weeks, the dynamics of the district and the national environment have made it difficult for a Republican to win here. This was one of the first Republican-held districts conceded to the Democrats.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican-held)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) 55 - Phil Angelides (D) 42
Probably the national leader in combined letters in the major party candidates' last names, that's about as close to interesting as this race gets. Schwarzenegger was considered vulnerable about a year ago, but he hired a Democratic chief of staff, brought in top Bush-Cheney '04 alums for the campaign, and all of a sudden he's not considered incompetent anymore. Neither Angelides nor state controller Steve Westly seemed like an astonishingly great candidate, but they went at each other hard during the primary, which contributed to the problem here: the bitter primary left Democrats depressed and gave Schwarzenegger plenty of negative ammo for the inevitable "even Democrat Steve Westly says that Angelides ... " ads. Can California really not come up with better Democratic candidates?

CA-04 (Republican-held)
John Doolittle (R) 54 - Charles Brown (D) 45
When redistricting in 2001, the two parties in California explicitly reached an agreement that would protect incumbents of both parties, which is perhaps not a smart move when Democrats carry the state by a landslide in every presidential campaign. As a result, state has 53 congressional districts and only one of them wound up being seriously contested in 2004. (And even that one was decided by over ten points.) This year, though, the pro-Democratic environment is breaking some of these districts free. CA-04 is a late bloomer, it's a strong Republican district, and Democratic candidate Charles Brown has not been able to convince Snoopy to campaign with him. I fear this is a loss.

CA-11 (Republican-held)
Jerry McNerney (D) 51 - Richard Pombo (R) 48
Pombo is one of those Republicans you hate: knee-jerk Bush supporter, personally unlikeable and way too close to corrupt interests. National Democrats wanted to nominate Steve Filson, and when grassroots-powered candidate Jerry McNerney won an upset in the primary, the DC establishment begged off. McNerney has run an outstanding campaign, though, and now he's even leading in some polls. One of the lessons I'm going to try to learn from 2006 is how often candidates with an excited volunteer base can pull out a close race. I suspect that they'll be more effective at turning out the vote, and their enthusiasm will spread when their friends, family and colleagues find out that they're so excited about the Democrat running. I could be wrong, but that's why I'm predicting McNerney to pull this one out.

CA-45 (Republican-held)
Mary Bono (R) 59 - David Roth (D) 39
Some are saying this race could be competitive; I don't see it. Mary Bono, Sonny's last wife and heir to his congressional seat, is one of the few Scientologists in Congress. This David Roth was never a member of Van Halen.

CA-50 (Republican-held)
Brian Bilbray (R) 51 - Francine Busby (D) 45
This Republican-leaning district was in the news last June when these two candidates ran a competitive race to see who would succeed currently imprisoned Air Force "Top Gun" alum Duke Cunningham, whose publicly released prison letters show him a worse writer than I was at age eight. Bilbray won the special election by five percent, and while even-numbered special elections usually decide who will win the follow-up race in November, the souring national mood has apparently made this seat competitive again. I'm waiting to be convinced.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held)
Mike Beebe (D) 56 - Asa Hutchinson (R) 42
I find the Republican side of this race a lot more interesting than the Democratic side. Outgoing Governor Mike Huckabee has an interesting resume. He's one of America's longest-serving governors, ascending in 1996 when Bill Clinton's successor went down on corruption charges, he's from the town of Hope just like the greatest president of the last half of the 20th century, he lost 100 pounds and wrote Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork, and next year he's got a serious shot at becoming the preeminent socially conservative candidate in the Republican presidential primary field. Since he's not running for governor, the Republicans have put up former congressman Asa Hutchinson, whose brother Tim lost his Senate seat in 2002 for leaving his wife for one of his staffers. Asa was also the first under-secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and he's a proud graduate of ... Bob Jones! (These Wikipedia entries are like gold.) In any event, Beebe is the state attorney general, and he's opened up a pretty wide lead. This isn't a guaranteed pickup, but it's close.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate (Republican-held)
Jim Kyl (R) 51 - Jim Pederson (D) 46
I was optimistic for this one back in 2005, since Pederson is both independently wealthy as a developer and the outgoing chair of the Arizona Democratic Party. I have this theory that former campaign staffers make better candidates (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Mark Warner...) but this campaign has not effectively demonstrated that theory. Over the past two years, Pederson has been on the air steadily but has only seen his numbers improve twice, once to get within the 10-12 point range and then again recently to put this race in the mid-to-high single digits. Unfortunately, the former chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party somehow decided not to put money into a field campaign, so there's going to be no one in most of Arizona getting Democrats out to vote. That should cost him the election.

AZ-01 (Republican-held)
Rick Renzi (R) 53 - Ellen Simon (D) 45
In fairness, I don't know much about this race, although Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington calls Renzi one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress. In 2004 Renzi was a top Democratic target, but it looked like he was going to have a relatively easy reelection this year until some recent polls have suggested that national Republican troubles could push Simon over the top. I'm still not sure I see it.

AZ-05 (Republican-held)
Harry Mitchell (D) 49 - J.D. Hayworth (R) 48
Hayworth is one of the slickest-looking Republicans in Congress. He's got ties to Abramoff, and one of his surrogates went to an event for Jewish women and said that Hayworth was a "more observant Jew" than many of the people there. Then when people started walking out on him, the surrogate said, "No wonder there are anti-Semites." That's good campaigning. Mitchell is another former state Democratic Party chairman (lot of them running in Arizona this year) and he's apparently turned this into a real close race. This is another "wave" election that likely needs a strong pro-Democratic national environment for Mitchell to win.

AZ-08 (Open, Republican-held)
Gabrielle Giffords (D) 56 - Randy Graf (R) 43
This one isn't really contested, but I'm throwing it in anyway. I don't know much about Giffords except that she's a state senator, but this race is awesome because Randy Graf is a true hero. He's ultra-conservative (what ever happened to "ultra-conservative" as a political epithet?) and running on one of those anti-immigration platforms that edges ever so closely to xenophobia. Also, in 2004, he ran against the sitting Republican, Jim Kolbe, who happens to be both moderate and the only openly gay Republican in Congress. So not only is Graf too conservative for the district, but the outgoing Republican congressman hates him and won't lift a finger for him. This one was over as soon as Graf won the primary; it was the first Republican congressional concession in the country.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Open, Republican-held):
Tony Knowles (D) 51 - Sarah Palin (R) 48
This is my first tough call. Incumbent Republican governor Frank Murkowski is unbelievably unpopular; apparently appointing his own daughter to replace him in the U.S. Senate made him unpopular but not her. When Sarah Palin beat him in the primary she was able to take the change message away from Knowles, who was governor from 1994-2002 and lost the 2004 Senate election to Murkowski's already appointed daughter. Knowles has been inching back up lately by making the experience argument, since Palin's only experience is being mayor of Wasilla, which you've never heard of because it has about 800 people. So, how wrong is it to point out that Sarah Palin might be the best-looking candidate for high office this year? I say "kind of." I still hope she loses.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Governor (Republican incumbent)
Bob Riley (R) 55 - Lucy Baxley (D) 42
You know, this was really going to be the most exciting governor's race in the country, and now all we have this. Riley, the Republican incumbent, proposed a tax increase via voter referendum in 2003, saying it was essentially un-Christian not to provide important social services for the less fortunate. (It's an open theological debate: poverty is only mentioned in the Bible 3000 times, casting doubt on whether Jesus meant it.) He faced a primary challenge from massively popular former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (yep, of Ten Commandments fame) who absolutely smote Riley in early 2005 polls but wound up not being that great a candidate, never seriously contesting the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side, former Democratic governor Don Siegelman, who lost reelection in 2002 so closely that some suspect foul play, both ran for governor and defended himself from corruption charges at the same time. Not exactly the best way to stay on message, and he wound up losing the primary by a fair amount. The Democratic nominee, Lucy Baxley, seemed to have a shot at being the first Democratic woman elected governor of Alabama since Lurleen Wallace (hit that link, it's worth reading) but Riley has somehow rebounded in the polls. This one looks out of reach.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Welcome to my midterms election guide. I want to state a few general principles I have about this election, and then I'll list my predictions for all the competitive races I can see, with commentary as warranted.

I am optimistic every year, but this year I'm optimistic because of the size of the playing field. Regardless of how things turn out on Tuesday, I think this election will be remembered for being the year Democrats decided to play all across the country. The Republicans do this on the presidential level (in Bush's first quarter as a reelection candidate, they raised money from every county in the country) and they'll catch up eventually on the congressional front. For now, Democrats are contesting seats in districts without serious challenges in years. A lot of these candidates aren't going to win, but I think a lot of them will, and out of the group that falls short, many of them will come back to become top-tier challenges in 2008. So I think a four-year strategy puts Democrats in solid control of the House.

I feel the same way about the Senate. My official prediction for NYU's Midterm Madness has a 50-50 split, but 2008 has a ton of ripe GOP-held targets: Oregon, New Hampshire, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia (potentially open), and New Mexico (potentially open), off the top of my head, are all going to be Democratic targets, and there may be more I'm forgetting. (OK, I went to Wikipedia, and I forgot Minnesota, which is easily a top target, and we also may be able to contest Tennessee, Georgia or South Carolina if we're feeling frisky. Kentucky too if Mitch McConnell turns to stone over the next couple of years.) Now, 2008 may well have some serious challenges to Democratic-held Senate seats too, but I'm optimistic that we can take back the Senate soon enough.

Finally, a lot of the seats Democrats are targeting are in blood-red Republican territory. Over at MyDD, Chris Bowers said, "Uber-red districts are fun to attack, but over the long-term we can't count on them." I think that's a short-term philosophy. He said it in reference to Texas' 22nd district, which will probably go for Democrat Nick Lampson, since he's running against a write-in candidate for Tom DeLay's old seat. Bowers is right that Lampson will probably only have the seat for one term, but that's not really the point. The point is that we're going to spend the next 20 years going after Republican-held districts literally all over the country, working on the ground and running strong Democratic candidates so that we slowly but surely turn these districts Democratic. It'll be hard to keep any Democrat in TX-22 for long in the current political climate, but if we keep pushing hard there, a long-term Democratic congressional seat may become viable. Again, it's not necessarily likely, but if we keep at it in all the rock-ribbed Republican districts, we'll win some of them.

I'll update this post when I'm done to count up my totals for everything. Until then, we're going race by race.

UPDATE: I counted them all up, and I believe Democrats will pick up nine governorships, 37 seats in the House, and 6 seats in the Senate. If this is true I will explode with joy.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is ridiculous:

This morning on MSNBC, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) apologized for his comments on Monday. "Of course I'm sorry for the botched joke," he said, calling his comments "pretty stupid."

About hour later, Tony Snow said the following on CNBC:

All you have to do is say, I apologize. I said something, it came out wrong, I'm sorry. And instead, what Sen. Kerry has done, is he's tried to whip it into a big thing...

That's exactly what Kerry has said. According to the White House, the story is over.

That's just what I came up with in con law. We need to get on this and fast.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The logic behind all this here. The real story on 2006's prominent Republican candidates!

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love it when people say Democrats, or in particular my main man John Edwards, don't stand for anything, even though he's been awesome for years now. Here's what he said on poverty as part of an online chat over at DailyKos:

Unfortunately the answer is not simple. We will never eliminate poverty in America unless we do it comprehensively and nationally. This is another place for big ideas in our party -- no more incrementalism.

We should start with simple things like raising the minimum wage, strengthening the earned income tax credits, and strengthening the ability of unions to organize their workplace. We should help people create assets by establishing matching savings accounts, and cracking down on predatory and payday lenders. We should radically revamp our national housing system, so that we no longer concentrate poor people in one area. We can do this by transforming HUD and creating a million new housing vouchers, to allow lower income families the ability to move into better neighborhoods. And I've already talked about College for Everyone.

Finally, we have to address the societal and cultural issues surrounding poverty -- particularly teen pregnancy and the plight of young African American men in our inner cities. Our drug laws, particularly crack vs. powder cocaine, are not fair to young African American men, and we don't have a support system (rehabilitation, counseling, retraining, etc) to help in the transition from the prison system back into society. Just building more prisons will never solve this problem. But it is also fair to expect that those we are helping will help themselves, and act responsibly.

Also I think this guy is going places.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Due to a series of technical issues (my browswer windows crashing, a certain individual up on 34th street), I haven't gotten the chance to post on as many topics as I would have liked.

Right. Don't think you won't get your share of links to stuff you've probably already seen, though; they're a-coming. For now I'll just make two minor political points:

The GOP and the right wingers are going to scream bloody murder over these numbers and their coming from the DSCC. But it is important to remember that this poll was conducted by Bennett, Petts & Blumenthal who only make money as long as they're accurate. It is not in the DSCC's, or any other political orginization or candidate for that matter, interest to collect inaccurate data. Polls are used for formulating strategy and if those polls are wrong, the strategy will be flawed.

Also, the Missouri Senate race is also going well. The Democratic candidate, Claire McCaskill, had a good interview with mydd.com a while ago. What I especially found compelling was this:

Singer: Final question. If there's one message you'd like to send out to the progressive blogosphere, to the Netroots, what would that be?

McCaskill: I think you're doing a great thing for our country. What I fear more than anything in the United States of America is an electorate that is not passionate. I may not agree with some of the views held by some of those who spend a lot of time on the progressive blogosphere. There may be times we disagree. But I love the passion, I love the commitment, I love the enthusiasm. It is probably what will save us in this country. And so I say type away and keep working at it. You'll keep us all honest.

Speaking of great trends in American politics, check this out on the Edwards machine gearing up again. All hands on deck.

(Unless you're in law school.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Political Wire posted this a few days ago:

[Connectict Republican Gov. Jodi] Rell, who served with [likely GOP Senate nominee Alan] Schlesinger in the legislature for 8 years, tried to bump him out of the race in the spring before the state GOP convention. The frenetic former Derby mayor, however, hustled his way to the nomination by gathering enough delegates to win before Rell acted. Rell’s unsuccessful assault on Schlesinger confirms Democratic suspicions that the lady can neither land nor take a punch. They are encouraged that they may be able to narrow the race against her with some attacks of their own.

So after months upon months of being the most popular governor in the nation (aided by the fact that, unlike her predecessor, she's not in jail), Jodi Rell now might be vulnerable.* Unfortunately, Team Democrat's two candidates for the August 8th primary are the mayors of New Haven and Stamford, not exactly the most awe-inspiring of options. Wouldn't it be nice if there were some other Connecticut Democrat who's not going to win his own high-profile race but could probably jump into this one and pull it out? I suspect that there are certain Democrats who could switch from the Senate race to the governor's race and immediately become a hero to Connecticut Democrats. It might also prolong that someone's political career too.

* For the love of all that's holy, EVERYONE is vulnerable. A race is never over a year before the election, and Connecticut Democrats should have found a more well-known candidate to take Rell on.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWSN2zbydKw

UPDATE: Somehow this never published, which I can't believe. This link is still worth visiting though.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 6:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Craig Crawford shows why he's a pundit and you're not:

I think Lamont, with all his money, could probably get a suit that fits.

(From MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 7/6)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found these two passages in the same "about this page" site:

he's brilliant and probably the only person on the planet who can keep up with me.

and...

thanks for stopping by our humble little corner of the web.

Christ almighty. Why is it that the smartest person on the planet has to spend all her time writing humble little blogs? That's worse than Clark Kent spending his time writing for newspapers that don't even exist. But don't get me started on that one.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I see four factors affecting the midterm House and Senate races this year:

• The national climate. Right now it's still terrible for Republicans, but the lack of really bad news lately has helped people forget that the Republicans in Washington have screwed up everything they've gotten their hands on. A few months ago I thought the national climate would remain bad for Republicans, but two developments have tempered that impression: first, some of the corruption news seems to be calming down (namely Rove not being indicted), and in a special election in California's 50th district, the Republican congressman who went to jail because of his too-cozy relationship with lobbyists was replaced with ... a Republican lobbyist. So although the Republican corruption scandals are like an octopus (there are a lot more tentacles than just Karl Rove, or even Jack Abramoff), it's becoming apparent that corruption, by itself, will not deliver Congress to the Democrats.

• The Democratic alternative. Fortunately, it gets interesting. I think everyone understands that a positive, affirmative Democratic message on how to improve this country is absolutely necessary for major gains in November. The conventional wisdom, however, holds that either Democrats won't ever come up with real plans, or they'll all be a muddled mess. Like most conventional wisdom in national politics, though, that won't happen. Just in the past couple of weeks, more and more Democrats have been agitating for debate, viewing intraparty dissent not as a sign of disarray, but as a sign of healthy discussion of the issues. As Paul Begala puts it:
  

  The only place in the American government where there is an honest and spirited debate over Iraq is within the Democratic Party.

  
  The more we hash this stuff out, the better the end results are going to be. My suspicion, on the Iraq war and most pressing issues, is that Democrats will debate these issues enough to have viable affirmative options in November. In other words, there are too many people who are too aware of the problem for Democrats to spend October doing nothing but talking about how the GOP has screwed this country up. It's not like we won't have help: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (who I believe is the only Israeli Army veteran in Congress) is writing a book with Democratic Leadership Council co-founder Bruce Reed on The Plan: Big Ideas for America. Whether these "big ideas" are terrific or not is hopefully irrelevant, as with any luck the head of the DCCC writing a book on Democratic ideas and issues will promote enough discussion in the media and online that Democrats will have no choice but to come up with solid, posiitive, affirmative ideas for how to improve the country. On this count, I'm very optimistic.

• Immigration. The Republican justification for focusing on immigration this year is that they're playing defense in the midterms, so their only tactic is to fire up the Republican base as much as possible. (Ever notice that every political situation seems to require the Republicans to pander to their base?) I think this is a long-term mistake. Proposition 187 passed in California in 1996, denying illegal immigrants all but emergency services, but the long-term effect was turning California Hispanics towards the Democratic Party. Everyone forgets this, but California was a swing state right into the 1990s. Now it's not even close.

  Will the strong-arm approach on immigration have the same effect nationally? Will it turn out enough conservatives to stem GOP losses in November? I have no idea, but Hispanics voted for President Bush much more in 2004 than they had in the past. If Republican-leaning Hispanics vote Democrat en masse, that could flip Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and maybe Florida. Republicans would have a very hard time winning presidential elections with that map.

• The caliber of candidates. Democrats have a very small number of A-list candidate recruits, but a high number of B-level candidates. The upshot of this, basically, is that I suspect either 6 of them or 40 of them will win, with not much room in between. With luck, these candidates will get better as the year goes on, especially if, as I said above, the Democrats come up with some solid ideas for these people to run on. I think this will be either a remarkable year or a not very exciting one.

Incidentally, if I''m running for Congress, I start talking about how September 11th was bad (and how the administration had no idea what to do), how Hurricane Katrina was bad (and how the administration had no idea what to do), and the thought that more disasters are possible, and we need plans for them. Does anyone seriously think the Republicans have a plan for a massive earthquake in California? Another terrorist attack anywhere? Is global warming going to make tornados in Nebraska and Kansas better or worse? In my mind, that's why we need Democrats in Congress: to make sure someone's minding the store, and to keep the seat warm in the Oval Office until we take it back. Competence can be a winning issue for the Democrats, but only if we tie it into actual events that could actually happen.

Finally: I have a feeling that this is going to be our first woman president.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today in ABC News' The Note:

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) plans to call for the elimination of poverty over the course of the next 30 years in what his aides are billing as a "major policy address" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at 1:00 pm ET.

An Edwards aide tells The Note that the North Carolinian plans to "lay out a comprehensive agenda to achieve this goal, including: radically overhauling HUD, creating 1 million stepping stone jobs in the next five years, raising the minimum wage, strengthening our educational system, calling for 'second-chance schools' focused on helping dropouts, helping Americans save for the future, and cutting taxes for low-income workers and families."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

What, I had a blog? I hope you were waiting for awesome political commentary, because that's what you're getting. No, I'm not talking about Jim Pederson's surge in the Arizona Senate race, or Pete Ricketts' demand that hard-working Nebraskans pay an extra 30% on everything they buy.

Some people will tell you it's way too early to be thinking about the next presidential race. Those people are assholes. No, it's never too early to begin thinking about the next presidential election, especially now, as the candidates begin seriously positioning themselves for the presidential primary campaign in 2007 and early 2008. I often suggest to people that being in New Hampshire during a midterm election year is a terrific way to meet presidential candidates: they hold events that draw 50 people, at most, and afterwards they're usually more than happy to stand around and meet the activists they're going to have to impress once they announce their campaign. That's how I had an extended conversation with Howard Dean in summer 2002. Sure, it was about skiing, but it's because I waited 15 minutes after his speech to have a chance to talk. Also I didn't mind talking to him in front of C-SPAN. That's how you win ballgames.

At this point, I'd love to know what the candidates and their political folks must be considering. How do you make plans for a many-candidate presidential primary this far out? You don't even know for sure who's running. I imagine most candidates are currently planning their affirmative campaigns, like how John Edwards is running as an outsider focused on poverty this time and Mike Huckabee is running on cultural conservatism, the need to stay healthy and executive experience. (Don't get your hopes up; I don't have any inside information.) But your game plan is going to depend on who else is running and what that means for the shape of the primary. Right now that's just guessing; you never know who's going to be the next Howard Dean. (Although here I have to point out that most of the press coverage in early 2003 asked who would be the next John McCain.)

So I've been thinking lately about these candidate dynamics after hearing rumblings from a few potential candidates who are serious but will not end up winning. Tom Daschle knows how to run the country, but he was never a wildly popular Senate Democratic Leader, and he just lost his last reelection bid. Mike Gravel was an actual U.S. Senator from Alaska, but he hasn't held any public office since he lost his own Senate reelection campaign in 1980. I would include John Kerry and Wesley Clark in there too, but that could be my residual political bitterness talking, so I'll leave them out for now. In any event, it's a good group.

Chris Dodd is a little different, though, if only because The Note reported in 2003 (link long gone to history, sorry) that members of Congress actually did plead for him to run for president, as opposed to the other candidates who just pretend there's some groundswell of support. Still, despite the fact that he remains the only 2008 presidential contender I've seen with his shirt off, I am not convinced what about the Chris Dodd presidential campaign catches fire. Nonetheless, the Hartford Courant story on his announcement makes a fascinating point:

He overcame early skepticism by many party leaders outside New England and proved to be a popular partisan speaker around the country, particularly with minority constituencies.

I will, however, make one bold yet eventually provable prediction. This campaign is going to be different from last time in that there will be several nationally known candidates when the campaign starts in 2007, whereas in 2003 that was only even plausible for Joe Lieberman, and we saw how that went. Most candidates launched their campaigns in late December 2002 or January 2003 last time, but I don't expect that this time around. There will be a glut of candidates and an advantage in appearing above the fray, so I suspect any candidate who can afford to skip the early fundraising and politicking will hold off for months. That means it could be summer or early fall before McCain, Clinton and maybe Kerry and/or Edwards announce their bids. (I think Hillary Clinton especially has to prolong her pretense of focusing only on her job as senator for a long as possible.) But that's not my bold prediction.

Again, I think Clinton and McCain are more or less locks to wait out the campaign season as long as they can, simply because the moment they announce they turn from national leaders into just politicians. In the meantime, I predict either Edwards or Kerry will wise up and decide that the best way to present themselves as a major national figure is to join Clinton and McCain in not announcing their candidacy next winter either. As a result, the press will start dividing the candidates up into tiers based upon the idea that when you announce signifies how much of a longshot you are. If this shakes out early enough, maybe everyone will hold off on the early campaigning, and we might even be spared a presidential campaign that starts a year before the New Hampshire primary. And wouldn't that be wonderful?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

OK, this is a little slow on the uptake, but it's my civic duty at this point to make sure everyone's seen Stephen Colbert's stunning performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner from last weekend. I thought Colbert's show started off a little weak, but once he got the character down - Bill O'Reilly drawn in broad strokes - it became a hilarious sarcastic overview about how morons and Washington Republicans view politics.

The White House Correspondents Dinner almost always brings in comedians to keynote; Al Franken devotes a chapter of Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot to how well he did there in the mid-90s. Colbert's brilliance, though, was that he declined to base his routine on the "hey, I'm an insider too, isn't Tom DeLay funny" schtick that everyone else uses. Colbert stayed in character: a pompous asshole who believes everything the president says because that's what good Washington insiders do. I mean, obviously he was criticizing the president. But a Salon article I read puts it best:

It's not just that Colbert's jokes were hitting their mark. We already know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that the generals hate Rumsfeld or that Fox News lists to the right. Those cracks are old and boring. What Colbert did was expose the whole official, patriotic, right-wing, press-bashing discourse as a sham, as more "truthiness" than truth.
...
So it's no wonder that those journalists at the dinner seemed so uneasy in their seats. They had put on their tuxes to rub shoulders with the president. They were looking forward to spotting Valerie Plame and "American Idol's" Ace Young at the Bloomberg party. They invited Colbert to speak for levity, not because they wanted to be criticized. As a tribe, we journalists are all, at heart, creatures of this silly conversation. We trade in talking points and consultant-speak. We too often depend on empty language for our daily bread, and -- worse -- we sometimes mistake it for reality. Colbert was attacking us as well.

Of course, it's a mistake to think that Colbert just went after Bush because he's a liberal guy. What most of the Washington insider crowd continues to miss is that the Daily Show crowd isn't criticizing their politics so much as how awful the political-media insider conglomerate has become. (I know, it's always been bad, but bear with me.) I'll admit to being as surprised as anyone as when Jon Stewart took his appearance on Crossfire as a chance to go after the scream-fest talk show practitioners to their faces, but after that it should have been apparent to everyone involved that the raison d'etre behind the Daily Show is the entire political process deserves complete and total mockery. I have never seen anyone do that so effectively as Stephen Colbert. I think he just made himself a star.

Text and video.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, that's depressing. Matt Brown was probably my favorite Senate candidate this cycle, and now we can discuss his candidacy in the past tense. I really liked the guy, so I'm pretty disappointed, but there are other great candidates who haven't sat down for coffee for an hour with me, so here's hoping Sheldon Whitehouse wins this Senate seat in November.

I think there are a couple other issues to address here, the first being that I am campaign poison. Many of you will recall that I've worked on three campaigns, none of which came close to winning, and now the 2006 campaign in which I've gotten the most involved (though not much, really) is the first serious Senate campaign of the cycle to withdraw. Awesome. Go Ned Lamont!

My other problem is that the way Brown dropped out is really depressing, even more so than losing my favorite candidate. He got ensnared in a campaign finance scandal: the Hawaii, Massachusetts and Maine Democratic Parties all donated to his campaign, then a couple days later a lot of his maxed-out contributors donated almost the same amount to those state parties. This looks like a finance-limits end run, in which Brown's donors could contribute above the federal limit in money that would all go to Brown eventually. (That's illegal.)

Brown said those state parties were just helping him out on their own volition, and he asked his supporters to donate to them to be nice back. That could be, but the trouble is, there's really no reason for out-of-state parties (especially hawaii) to be getting involved in an RI Senate primary. Like what does the Hawaii Democratic Party care whether it's Brown or Whitehouse?

What complicates this is that there's no bright-line rule, and politicians do similar stuff all the time. Imagine, if you will, Senate candidates challenging Republican incumbents in Rhode Island and Connecticut the same year. The two candidates could host fundraisers for each other, giving each candidate the benefit of the other's donor pool. Sure, you can't do an exact tit-for-tat, but it looks like the Matt Brown situation is somewhere in the middle. The FEC did investigate, but as far as I know they haven't reached any conclusions.

I'm disappointed for two reasons. First, I suspect if Brown had apologized and returned the money right away, saying everything he did was legal but he didn't want a hint of impropriety, he would have been more or less okay. So whether it was the people who made this questionable fundraising decision, or the people who told him to stonewall, what wound up happening is my favorite candidate wound up dropping out of his race because of staff error. I don't begrudge the people who were working for him (this is a LOT easier to say in retrospect, plus, I certainly made my share of staff error*), but it still sucks. And no, I have no solutions for how candidates can avoid getting tanked by a staff mistake, but I'm still complaining.

The second reason this brings me down is why it happened. Note that Matt Brown wasn't lying about his past, switching his issue positions depending on his audience, making ridiculous policy stands, or even being a bad public speaker. He lost because he was desperate to raise money. That's what really gets me about this. If we had public financing like a whole bunch of other places, where it always works just fine, Matt Brown would have had a fair shot to make his case and, in my opnion, win himself a Senate seat. But we don't have public financing, and candidates for office have to spend at least 40 hours a week fundraising that they could spend learning the issues and talking to voters. As a result, the primary skill for winning elections is fundraising ability, which I guess is a neat trick but not really something I care about in an elected official. I've believed for a long time that public financing would go a long way to clean up our political system, and now our current system has just claimed a true all-star.

OK, one last thing bothers me. I really wanted to know if Matt Brown, with a fair shot, could have won this race. Now we never will.

(*I want to add that I've gone on the record as publicly blaming staff error, without mentioning that it was my own error, even though it wasn't my fault! Campaigns can be rough sometimes.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'm still not sure I've grasped the essence of Florida congresswoman, Senate candidate, and liberal bete noire Katherine Harris. In 2000 she seemed like your run-of-the-mill Republican partisan, performing her Secretary of State duties as favorably as possible for the candidate for whom she was Florida state co-chair. (Incidentally, I still can't believe Secretaries of State are allowed to endorse like this. How is that not a conflict of interest?) Then it turned out that she comes from some unbelievably preppy background, making her out to be a country-club Republican and either more or less unpleasant depending on your mood. I've heard tell since that Harris is actually one of the kindest souls you'd ever meet in politics, which for all I know could be true. I mean, theoretically someone nice could run for office and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Democrats and liberal reporters, right? Maybe?

In any event, now I have to reconcile all that with the possibility that Katherine Harris might just be really friendly. She has a history of curious poses, and now there are photos and anecdotes of Rep. Harris, shall we say, leaning on, of all people, a college reporter. Yes, this is worth all the italics. What on earth could she be thinking? At least we know what the kid was thinking:

"I had my face in my notepad a lot, because everytime I looked up she was so close to me."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Time has an article on incoming White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and his five-point plan for optimizing Republican victories in November. The philosophy is that Republican gains are pretty much out of the question at this point, so they're going to play to the base to stem the tide as much as possible. I have no idea if this is the right thing to do when independents have turned on your party, so I can't comment politically. But wasn't playing to the Republican base the idea when they were trying to win the general election in 2004? Dammit Karl, throw me a bone here.

In any event, here are the five prongs of the GOP electoral pentagram, with the benefit of my riotously successful analysis:

1. Immigration enforcement at the Mexican border. After the huge protests in the streets of most major American cities, I no longer think immigration is an electoral winner with anyone but the Republican base. So to the extent that's what Bolten's trying to do, it's a good plan. But Hispanics have been voting Republican more and more in recent elections, and a soft approach to illegal immigration might have proven the tipping point, denying Democrats one of their longtime bases of support. The hardline approach by the Bush administration, though, might turn Hispanics away from the Republican Party for decades. There's local precedent to this theory: conservatives in California successfully passed Proposition 187 in 1994, a voter initiative that barred illegal immigrants from non-emergency social services. But doing so turned enough Hispanics away from the Republican Party that California went from being a presidential swing state as late as 1992 to being one of the most Democratic states in the country. If the administration's tone in 2006 has the same effect nationally, fantastic.

2. Change the tone of discussions on the economy by winning over Wall Street. Basically they want to extend the tax cuts on stock dividends and capital gains. Now, I have family members who are Republicans entirely because of capital gains taxes, but I was pretty swayed by John Edwards' argument that taxes should be higher on income acquired through wealth (i.e. not doing anything) and lower on income acquired by work (i.e. we encourage people to work hard to make money). As for the political ramifications, I have no idea, but this policy plank reminds me of 1993 when the early Clinton administration focused almost exclusively on cutting the deficit (an idea noticeably absent here) to convince Wall Street bond traders that the economy was sound enough to justify their investment. It worked then. With the deficit still in terrible shape, I would be surprised if these tax cuts won Wall Street over.

3. Better PR. Now, see, I'm biased, but I thought the reason that the Bush administration was getting such negative press on Medicare, Iraq and the economy was that they were doing a terrible job on all three fronts, not that they weren't trying hard enough to promote their successes. But Josh Bolten disagrees, so away we go. Trouble is, I think the president's credibililty is too far gone for his arguments on any of these fronts to succeed, assuming they even exist. Which, let's be honest, I don't.

4. Take a hard line on Iran. Yikes. I mean, this could very easily go like 2002, where Democrats get stuck between wanting to look tough on national security and wanting to stand up to the president. Of course, if Democrats come up with a viable alternative for dealing with Iran, or if Democrats stick together in saying that Iran's not a real threat but the issue is just a political game the Republicans are playing, this may not prove an electoral winner. My knowledge of the policy here is limited, so I don't know if Iran's a threat or not, but there's got to be a hefty chunk of Americans no longer willing to trust the administration on anything having to do with Middle Eastern threats. In any event, Democrats should really have no problem coming up with a tough anti-terrorism policy that takes into account Iran's actual menace.

5. Do a better job courting the press. Wasn't this #3? This mostly involves hiring Fox News' fair-and-balanced analyst Tony Snow to be Scott McClellan's replacement as press secretary. I guess having someone more, you know, effective than McClellan might not be a bad idea. How this will stem losses in November, though, I'm not sure.

Funny how reading that made me more optimistic than when I started. Go team!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Joe Klein has his share of hits and misses, but his Time column on the consultant class is a winner. I've had my issues with the Democratic consultant establishment, but I've rarely found a better example of why than when Klein talks here about the Al Gore campaign with top consultant (and, I believe, native Rhode Islander) Tad Devine:

In early 2003, I had dinner with several of the consultants who advised Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign. I asked them why Gore, a passionate environmentalist, had spent so little time and energy talking about the environment during the campaign. Because we told him not to, the consultants said. Why? I asked. Because it wasn't going to help him win. "He wanted to talk about the environment," said Tad Devine, a partner in the firm of Shrum, Devine & Donilon, "and I said to him, 'Look, you can do that, but you're not going to win a single electoral vote more than you now have. If you want to win Michigan and western Pennsylvania, here are the issues that really matter—this is what you should talk about.'"

Gore won Michigan and Pennsylvania, but he lost an election he should have won, and he lost it on intangibles. He lost it because he seemed stiff, phony and uncomfortable in public. The stiffness was, in effect, a campaign strategy: just about every last word he uttered—even the things he said in the debates with George W. Bush—had been market-tested in advance. I asked Devine if he'd ever considered the possibility that Gore might have been a warmer, more credible and inspiring candidate if he'd talked about the things he really wanted to talk about, like the environment. "That's an interesting thought," Devine said.

The worst part is that the Gore consultants were wrong about their conventional advice too. New Hampshire is a swing state with two conservative Republican senators, both of whom are reliable environmentalists. Why do they support such a traditionally Democratic cause? As always, some of it is honest belief, and some of it is that New Hampshire is a pro-environment swing state. Al Gore lost New Hampshire by less than Ralph Nader's total in that state; if he had talked more about the environment he almost surely would have won New Hampshire, and the election. It's one thing to stand for what you believe in and lose. Sacrificing your principles and losing anyway is something else entirely.

The whole article is fascinating; go read it.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have no honest idea how well I can give political advice, but there are a couple here I think are definite winners.

First up is Tom DeLay, who recently announced his upcoming resignation from Congress so that the GOP can still win his seat in November. Whether that happens is up in the air, but conventional wisdom in DC holds that the bigger problem for Democrats is that their charge of a "culture of corruption" has lost its prime example.

In general I think this argument is ridiculous: Republicans run against Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean in every election (and Ted Kennedy before them) regardless of who's on the ballot, and tying pretty much any Republican in the country to Tom DeLay is not hard. But if Team Democrat's not up to it, keeping DeLay front and center as the symbol of Republican excess is even easier:

And it became more and more obvious that I can do more outside of Congress right now than inside.

Second example is a little more innocuous, but in a close race it could prove a decisive edge. I feel kind of bad for Christopher Shays, actually; he seems like a pretty reasonable, well-adjusted and normal guy who's stuck in a DC political culture that values party loyalty above rational, independent thought. That is tough. But still, don't say stuff like this:

"This Congress needs to be rescued," said Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican. He added that members are being put on the defensive and need to tell voters: "We aren't as corrupt as you think."

UPDATE: I got this awesome IM from a friend on an '06 Senate race:

Unfair? Who cares?

How about: Image juxtaposition: Diane Farrell pic next to Capitol pic with the following: "Diane Farrell wants to reform Congress" to Chris Shayes and Tom Delay with names underneath to jail bars and "Chris Shays says 'we're not as corrupt as you think'" to Farrell looking into the camera and saying, "I'm Diane Farrell and I approved this message because, when it comes to reform, Chris Shays just doesn't get it anymore."

It plays on DeLay, it plays on reform, and it plays on Shays' age (he's getting up there, or at least looks it).

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ABC News, 4/3/06:

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

SOURCE: REP. TOM DELAY SAYS HE DOES NOT PLAN TO SEEK RE-ELECTION

Me, 1/15/06:

Now, here's where it gets interesting: Stockman is running as an independent. He apparently still holds a grudge against Lampson, you know, given that Lampson beat his sorry ass, and he's doing this to get revenge. I suspect he thinks DeLay won't even make it to Election Day, and he wants to be there to be a viable Republican in the event DeLay's departure happens after the filing deadline. Good thinking, that.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

You may have heard about the recent imbroglio whereupon the Washington Post website hired a conservative blogger named Ben Domenech to write a "Red America" blog. Guess who was hired to write "Blue America"? That's right: no one! Bitter liberal bloggers decided to take a closer examination of the record, and they found about ten articles by this Domenech kid (he's younger than I am) lifting entire paragraphs whole cloth. Now, adding a slanted blog to your theoretically objective website with no counterpoint isn't particularly damning for a fine institution like washingtonpost.com, apparently, but journalistic plagiarism, by necessity, involves stealing another reporter's work. What if that reporter didn't feel like doing work that day, but spent a couple hours coming up with something anyway?

So Domenech resigned Friday, I guess after realizing he wanted to spend more time with his nonexistent wife and kids. Fortunately he framed the real issues going on here:

To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I intended on a long entry on Bob Shrum, the prime consultant for Al Gore and John Kerry's noted presidential election victories. Suffice it to say it was the worst political experience of my life, I yelled at him, and he never showed any remorse. (He called Kerry in '04 "the unwinnable election" if that gives you any idea.) So I'm abandoning my effort to come up with a summary of said event; I'll send out my notes to anyone who wants them.

So instead of that, I'll move on to writing about things that happened two weeks ago, namely Colin Van Ostern's op-ed on New Hampshire's state slogan. This is my favorite Colin Van Ostern story: back when we both worked on Team Edwards, he was our New Hampshire press secretary and I watched TV from Raleigh. So I'm watching TV one day when who should show up live on MSNBC but Colin, representing the Edwards campaign and just kind of shooting his mouth off. The top-level campaign folks in Raleigh were livid; at the very least Colin should have asked for permission, and they very well might have said no. But when he's already on TV, what are you going to do? All they could do was watch. But then it got amusing: everyone was watching, waiting for a slip-up, hoping he wouldn't ruin the campaign on live TV, and then eventually someone said, "you know... he's actually really good." He did a terrific job.

So that's Colin Van Ostern. Somehow he got an op-ed into the Concord Monitor a couple weeks ago. What compelling topic did he discuss?

New Hampshire isn't just about quaint villages. It is about the many different ways people find freedom and a better quality of life.

Live Free of Die can help the economy by attracting not just tourists but also shoppers and new employers. Whether you agree with our state tax environment or not, we should do our best to maximize its benefits. And that means selling visitors and new businesses on our tax advantage, our philosophy of restrained intrusion into people's lives and our belief that we all have a chance to take our future into our own hands and succeed.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I knew once I made a post with not enough hot links on them that I would suddenly discover a new series of hot links. So here we go!

• First off, I received requests to write on the UAE ports deal, and the only problems were that I was unsure of my position and uninformed of the details. What could go wrong? Thankfully, Robert Reich (whose book I read!) wrote an essay on one of my favorite sites, politicalwire.com, which explained why it's not a big deal. First, he points out that it's a money issue, not a nationality issue:

  About 80 percent of American ports are already run by foreign companies. These companies usually hire Americans to do the day-to-day management. After all, global companies want the best talent they can get. Dubai Port World’s chief operating officer is Edward Bilkey, who's an American. Its former American executive, David Sanborn, was just nominated to be U.S. Maritime Administrator.

  And if this deal goes through, Dubai Ports World will probably keep most of the American executives who have been working for the British company that now runs the six ports in question because they’ve made the company lots of money, which is why Dubai Ports wants to buy it.

  Whatever the arrangement, the day-to-day operations at the ports will still be done by American longshoremen, clerks, and technicians. And control over port security will remain with the U.S. government, the Coast Guard, Customs, harbor police, and port authorities, who make and enforce the rules.

  
  Then he points out the real port security issue:
  

  I don’t mean to minimize the real danger that a terrorist might sneak into an American port or plant a nuclear bomb in a container heading toward an American port, or a container mounted on a truck that crosses an American border headed for Kansas City.

  But if that happens it won't be because of the nationality of the company that has a contract to run a port, or of its managers, or even its workers on the ground.

  It will be because this nation didn't want to pay for the gamma-ray monitors and radiation scanners and inspectors necessary to oversee more than a tiny percent of containers heading into America. ...

  You see, the real issue here isn’t about nationality. It’s about what we’re prepared to pay for our security, and whether we pay mostly for a war in Iraq or we finally get serious about security here at home.

  
  Again, I still don't really know what's going on, but Robert Reich is liberal and an economist, so he couldn't be wrong, right?

• You want to know what's a good-looking headline? Try The Hill's recent "House Republicans could see 10 to 15 more retirements." Open seats are always much easier to win, and they can turn a safe Republican seat into a toss-up in the blink of an eye. Once again I have to confess ignorance: I was under the impression that House incumbents have all decided by now whether or not to say (it's certainly true in the Senate), but that seems contradicted by sentences like these:
  

  Referring to the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, the aide said: “Tom Reynolds is literally begging people not to retire. Everything we hear coming out of their side is every caucus [meeting] is a lecture from Tom Reynolds begging people not to retire, saying, ‘Please stay, please stay, please stay.’”

  
  I still have no idea if we can take back Congress this fall, but as days go by I see fewer reasons to think there's no chance it could happen. A Wall Street Journal piece a few weeks ago pointed to 30-40 Republican-held seats that are theoretically in play, and if we have the wind at our backs Democrats could conceivably only lose 1-2 seats. Can we pick up 15 to make a majority? On the micro level, just a couple of days ago the New Hampshire House Democratic Leader announced that he was challenging the two-term Republican incumbent. On the macro level, it turns out President Bush was specifically warned of the danger faced specifically by New Orleans specifically as a result of Hurricane Katrina? Yikes. If the news keeps sounding like that, I think we can do it.

• Continuing with more substantive matters, the WWE stopped by DC the other day, and the good folks in our modern-day traveling circus decided to get involved politically. Here's a photo of three-time WWF Champion and two-time #1 New York Times bestselling author Mick Foley with a bunch of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee folks. (The narrow site here crops out a guy on the right, Jon Vogel, was one of our consultants for the Kentucky campaign in 2004.)

  

  We also get this gem from the Hotline On-Call story (from where I also ripped off the photo):
  

  RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, ever alert to targeting opportunities, loves the WWE's outreach and particularly its demographic appeal.

  
  So true! I think WWE should be a great opportunity for both parties to reach voters, but then again, I'm biased because I still remember the days when their storylines made sense. Sort of like the Democratic Party!

• Downside of National Journal stories is that they cost a bundle to look at (assuming you're not on a law school ethernet like some of us) and they have no static links. So, if this doesn't work, I found an amusing political anecdote:
  

  Here's what we do know: Whenever a candidate or political party starts trying to claim that congressional elections are going to be decided on local issues, it really means they know the current climate stinks for them. More importantly, the word "local" is also code for "we're going to turn an election so negative as to drive turnout down and make the alternative unelectable."

  
  I'm always hesitant to publish my position on what political strategies "really mean," mostly because there's never just one reason for a politician to do anything. Here they may be so unpopular as to be forced into a negative campaign, but, presumably, all the negative stuff they're saying about the opponent will be true, and hopefully important. So it's hard to say. Nonetheless, that's still pretty funny.

• I also don't want to say that political analyst Stu Rothenberg is kind of a moron, because he's not, but he and I certainly have differing views of what makes a good candidate. Rothenberg seems to think it's "institutional support," which is fine, since his sources are all institutional and he probably doesn't want to be seen as too supportive of outsider candidacies. Nonetheless, his commentary on a Matt Brown dustup (about which I have no knowledge or opinion) is pretty ridiculous. How about this: since Stu Rothenberg is such an independent and unbiased journalist, if I threaten to boldface all the loaded words he uses, I wouldn't be able to boldface anything. Right?
  

  Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown (D) has been desperate for media attention.
  [Saying "desperate" for anything implies the campaign is about to collapse. This is not true.]

  Brown is in the center of a huge controversy ...
  [A huge controversy gets you mocked on the Daily Show. Rothenberg decides that the issue of how this incident is any different from any other product of op research is not worth discussing. I would disagree.]

  ... with political opponents and journalists questioning whether he used Democratic state parties in Massachusetts, Maine, and Hawaii to launder funds that he otherwise would not have been able to accept.
  [Again, I have no idea how this incident plays on the merits. But "people are talking" is the weakest argument I can imagine this side of John Cornyn's "there are those who would say." In politics, "questioning" usually means "attempting to make political gains from." I mean, Matt Brown's political opponents are going after him? Really? They're not just hoping he self-destructs?]

  His outsider/reformer message is at least compromised...
  [See, if this were really true, Rothenberg could just say "His outsider/reformer message is compromised," without the sinister implications of "at least" that Rothenberg has no way of backing up. Then it would just be bad writing. Also, if anyone can tell me how his outsider message is compromised by a campaign finance issue, I would love to hear it. Wouldn't screwing up his campaign finances make him seem less like a guy who knows how to handle the DC institutions?]

  That’s not a message that an alleged “reformer” wants to deliver.
  [OK, this is my favorite. We already know Matt Brown is a reformer, since he reformed Rhode Island's Secretary of State office and state lobbying enforcement. Those are facts. But alleged "writer" Stu Rothenberg is a smart guy: he knows that if you put "alleged" before a word, and then put that word in quotation marks, it sounds like a joke to assume the guy's serious, even though those are just stylistic tricks that provide no evidence.]

  
  Now, I understand, since I support Matt Brown my independence is "at least compromised." But Rothenberg was a dick to Tony Miller, too, and I'm starting to get sick of his attempts to ruin good candidates with bias and rhetorical flourish. Seriously though, I bet he's great to have around.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just got off the phone (update: six hours ago!) from a conference call with Rhode Island Secretary of State and current U.S. Senate candidate Matt Brown, who I've discussed here, here and here. My quick take is that I really like the guy (and prefer him in the Senate race) not just because I like him on the issues and he seems smart, but because I honestly think he's going to be a force in the Senate, a Russ Feingold type who won't follow the conventional wisdom simply because that's how it's done and will stand alone if he has to. He talked about a variety of topics on the conference call, and I'll go through what I found most compelling.

First off, he talked about the campaign's major jump in recent polling. I forget the exact numbers, but according to him he's leading his primary opponent Sheldon Whitehouse (who he never mentioned by name) and he's statistically tied with Lincoln Chafee. Now, the Brown campaign recently tried a bit of a bank shot of a campaign strategy. As the philosophy goes (I'm assuming), Brown was never going to raise as much money as Whitehouse, plus he was down in the polls with less name recognition. He could put his money in TV ads in August (for the September primary) and hope for the best, but he'd probably lose. What he did now was he put a bunch of TV ads on the air this winter, which would theoretically deplete his funds. It would boost his name recognition, though, which at this early stage would mean a boost in the polls. It's a pretty risky move, and most political folks seem to think that early TV ads are a bad idea, since you're not trying to peak in February for a September primary, and funds are limited. For someone like Matt Brown, it's still a risk, but if you can shake up conventional wisdom it might be the way to go. Either way, it's a bold move.

Since it's so hard to say at this point where the candidates will be in terms of polling and fundraising around August, it's hard to draw sharp conclusions. Matt Brown made a pretty solid argument in the conference call, though, for why he's not simply blowing all his money now. First off, he jumped around 25 points in the polling, yet his name recognition only went up 8 points. That means something else is going on. Second, this massive TV buy to get him here apparently only cost $200,000, which is certainly a hell of a lot of money, but also not everything he's got. His fundraising has got to be doing pretty well given his new poll position (he didn't say, also, pun intended), so he may have gotten the best of both worlds: a boost in the polls and enough money to compete in the summer. So far, it looks like a good move.

Still, that raises the question of how he's jumping so much in the polls with a smaller-than-expected ad buy and no corresponding jump in name recognition. Matt says "the reason that we have moved so dramatically in the polls at this early stage is that people here understand that the stakes are very high," which is kind of a politicized answer. I think in future cycles we should start pools on which candidate will be the first to say that the stakes are high or that this is the most important election of our lifetimes. Although I'm sure Rhode Island is looking for "very different and very new kinds of leadership," I'm still not sure that gets us there. I understand that Congress has a terrible approval rating, but is that enough to buck the political axiom that people support the candidates they've heard of?

To tell the truth, I have no idea how his polling has bounced so much. Some of it is his TV ads, some of it is broad dissatisfaction with career politicians, and I think a lot of it is good fortune with his background. When Brown won election as RI Secretary of State, the first thing he did was clean up the lobbying scene. He mandated that lobbyists disclose their interactions and financial arrangements with elected officials. As Matt Brown says, there's a 'very old, very corrupt machine in this state." When lobbyists didn't comply, he hounded them, and if they still ignored him, he posted their names as "delinquent lobbyists" on the Secretary of State website, which of course got those lobbyists negative press coverage. Apparently someone punched him in the back his first week when he fired that guy's cousin; the Secretary of State's office had been a patronage center and Brown got rid of everyone he thought was "incompetent." So now that "lobbyist" has become a swear word in national politics, Brown has run ads talking up his background of limiting lobbying influence. Again, I don't know why Matt Brown is suddenly so successful. But that's my guess.

As for the actual campaign, he talked a lot about leadership. In terms of particulars, he talked about how it was a mistake for the DC establishment to recruit a series of "anti-choice" Democratic Senate candidates (which, personally, I think was a coincidence). He says that the reason we lost in 2004 and the last 30 years is people's "sense that we don't believe in much of anything" and that changing opinions on our core beliefs will give the GOP the permanent majority they've been hoping for. He talks about this in terms of issues, like pointing out that he was the first Senate candidate in the country, back in August 2005, to advocate a timetable for getting our troops out of Iraq. Now it's not that ridiculous a position to have, but as he says, "at the time, I was alone." Apparently at the time Sheldon Whitehouse said having an exit strategy would endanger our troops, "buying the George Bush line on this, which is absolutely absurd." Now he claims that Whitehouse did a poll, and the day after the poll results came out Whitehouse changed his position. (I don't know if that's true, but if Whitehouse released the results of the poll and changed his position the next day, that would be true. And hilarious.)

So it's great that Matt Brown is a leader on the issues. But what really gets me when I hear him speak, and the reason I'm so proud to support him, is how he views the concept of leadership. First off, when he was talking about abortion, he says it's one thing to say what you believe, it's another to stand up for it when it's tough. This is so, so true, and it's one of the things that drives me crazy about national politicians: they can always point to a committee vote or something to pretend support, even if they did nothing when it mattered. (This is true of Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee opposing Alito while not voting for the filibuster. Way to take a stand after you've already lost. Chafee even voted for Roberts.)

So this is how Matt Brown frames leadership: people want to know not just where you stand on the issues, but what you're going to do about it. It's hard to say that Lincoln Chafee really agitates for much of anything in the Senate, but Matt Brown seems like a true rabble-rouser. He talks about how he's taken on the establishment, and that he's glad he did it. More importantly, though, he talks about not just the good fight, but the fights he's won: when he challenged a Democratic incumbent for Secretary of State, when he won lobbying reform in RI, and even starting up the City Year program and expanding it cross-country. In days like these, it's easy for Democrats and progressives to pretend that standing up equals winning. It doesn't. We only win when we make things happen, and I'm very glad to see that Matt Brown is so dedicated to the cause.

In fact, that was one of his most endearing points. He has a four-month-old daughter, and he says he was taken aback when he wondered what the world would be like when his daughter became a grandmother. He says the real factor for success in a campaign is the energy and dedication and conviction the candidate brings to it. After telling us about his daughter, he says he has "no shortage of energy and determination to win this race." We've still got a long way to go, but I think he just might make it.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

The odd thing about living in New York City is how much is right here if you want it. Sometimes I hear these random screams from outside my dorm room that turn out to be some superstar showing up at the Tower Records a couple blocks away, and the other day I was walking through Washington Square Park and saw some women with strollers shooing away a cameraman. What on earth he was there for, I have no idea, but it was a serious video camera. I mean, where else do people say "Sorry, no pictures" and mean it? I can even head over to Magnolia and mack on some cupcakes.

The political equivalent of all this is seeing high-level politicians up close on a fairly regular basis. Last semester I went to events featuring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and just last week I talked to Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski. Yesterday I went to go see U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), possibly the most interesting of them all, because he's expected to take a serious look at a run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, he's half the namesake of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and he's a deficit hawk. He's also twice divorced, Jewish, and a Rhodes Scholar. As a state senator in 1992 he beat an incumbent Republican senator, with clever and funny ads. (My favorite part is when he's touring his house, opens a closet, and says, "huh, no skeletons." Seriously, follow the link.) His most recent reelection was in 2004, where he ran about nine points better than John Kerry in Wisconsin. He is expected to win the support of the more left-leaning Deaniacs from the 2004 primary. I'm not too sure, but then again, Howard Dean seemed like a centrist in 2002 too.

Feingold's general topic was the Patriot Act and President Bush's illegal wiretapping, but he started off saying that America's "greatest priority" is to "stop al-Qaeda and their affiliates." He says we need to fight the war on terror "in the spirit of our country's laws and traditions," and if we don't, then "what is our faith in the ability of our government?" His best line of the night (well, besides the one I linked to before) hit back on Karl Rove's claims that Democrats are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. The real problem, says Feingold, is not that Democrats have a pre-9/11 mindset, but Republicans have a "pre-1776 mindset." That got a laugh. He called Bush's post-9/11 speech the best speech he'd ever heard by a president, and said that he thought then that Bush would win reelection, and it wouldn't matter. Bush had, he said, "a lot of opportunities to make tough decisions that we would support," but instead, the Republicans seem to have made their primary goal to get as much power as possible and see if they can get away with it.

Feingold said his first hint that Bush wasn't going to be the president we'd hoped was the formation of the Patriot Act. Feingold wanted to add a "process of making sure it didn't go too far" but the president and even Democratic leadership "shut the process down." (Personal side note: has Democratic capitulation on national security ever helped them politically? If not, then why do we do it?) He talked about the filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal he led a couple months ago, "which frankly I didn't think was going to work."

This is where he went into the wiretapping discussion. He said the Patriot Act has become "a retreat from who we are and who we should be," a great line, and said "it's not inconceivable" that the president could be impeached for doing this, since wiretapping American citizens without a warrant clearly qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors." He implied that he doesn't support impeachment, since it wouldn't be good for the country, but I suspect he was suggesting that he would support censure. He did say that Bush should apologize for wiretapping at tomorrow night's State of the Union, not an unusual suggestion from a Democrat, but striking from a guy who spent the rest of the speech being so pragmatic.

As for the potentially newsmaking topics, he says he was willing to consider an invasion of Iraq because he wanted to do whatever it took to take out al-Qaeda. Once he started seeing "shifting justifications" for the war, he pulled his support. He had a weird answer on gay marriage, saying he doesn't think the federal government should be getting involved, but seemed to imply that "more successful monogamous relationships" is a good thing. I think he supports gay marriage but doesn't want to say so, but, really, I'm not sure. In terms of the Democrats-as-wusses angle that carried Howard Dean throughout 2003, Feingold said that the real test of Democrats' spines is how they act in the next few weeks and months, as the president starts hitting them with everything he's got. It's been easy to criticize Bush in past months when his approval rating was in the mid-30s, but we're not going to see how strong the Democrats really are until we get into the next few months and campaign season. (Here's hoping.)

Of course, none of this is the reason I went. I wanted to see if Russ Feingold sounds like a normal human being. I am convinced that with every Democratic presidentail candidate in 2007 and 2008: how can we know that you can win? Electability was a serious issue in 2004, and I think a lot of people feel snookered by Kerry. Our candidate in 2008 simply has to be able to a) resist consultants; and b) give short, to-the-point answers. I am not saying this to advocate for or denigrate anyone (except Kerry, I guess), but it's clear that we need a candidate who's proud to be a Democrat and can explain why in a way that people appreciate.

So how did Feingold do? I'd say pretty well. In terms of pure political talent, he's a lot better than the other candidates I've spoken and worked with recently. My Moneyball studies have taught me not to cite "intangibles" as a reason for liking a guy, but I'll see what I can do. He does look presidential, in that he comes into a room and exudes confidence and a sense that he knows what he's doing. It's a neat trick when you see it. He knows the issues cold, he seems genuinely to enjoy politics and the Senate, and his politics diverge pretty frequently from the stale and blunt left-right continuum. All in all, he is one heck of a guy. I'm glad he's in the Senate and he'd make a pretty good presidential candidate.

I'm a little concerned that he sounded too intellectual. Again, this is a Rhodes Scholar speaking at a law school, but I am concerned that his remarks weren't as succinct and featured too much legal and legislative talk. One of Bill Clinton's tricks, worth learning for any politician, was that he always answered every question in one sentence, and then elaborated. It's easy, sure, to start talking on the topic and a couple minutes later say, "So, to answer your question..." It's harder to take a second, think of what the answer is, say the answer, and then explain it. That way you let the audience listen to your answer, instead of spending their time wondering what it is, or if you're even going to say it.

I'm not sure Feingold was that concise, which could be trouble in the long run. He comes across as a completely normal guy though, even while showing all the polish of a top-notch politician. He was funny, he was quick on his feet, and he handled every audience interruption with just the right level of direct response, humor, and appropriate dismissal. I wouldn't say he's our shining light for 2008, but I think he might just have what it takes.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I was starting to think already that I prefer Paul Hackett over Sherrod Brown in Ohio's Democratic Senate primary this year, but this latest article in the Columbus Dispatch settles it. I wish I had decent commentary here, but Hackett just nails it. Watch how this all develops:

Hackett said he opposes capital punishment – too much risk of executing an innocent person – for everybody except the fool who violates his family and home.

"Break into my house, we won’t have to worry about the application of the death penalty. It’s going to be a simple 911 call: Come pick up the body."

With succinct coherence, Hackett said: "I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gayrights, I’m pro-gun-rights. Call me nuts, but I think they’re all based on the same principle and that is we don’t need government dictating to us how we live our private lives."

Asked to define being pro-gayrights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

"If what they believe is that we’re going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that’s un-American. They’ve got to accept that. It’s absolutely un-American."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You know, I kind of like Mike Huckabee, to the extent that I like Republicans. You know, if a guy has good ideas, likes working with Democrats, and means what he says, I don't really begrudge him a few differences on issues. But then I saw this:

He spoke frequently on his faith, the need to rise above the morass of coarse popular culture, and elicited a laugh when calling U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy a "gas bag" for his questioning last week of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

UPDATE: I wrote the reporter, and this is what he said:

The first two parts of that sentence (faith and coarse popular culture) were said at numerous points in the speech, while the Kennedy thing was a takeoff on energy policy, linking "gas" to "gas bag" Whether Huckabee meant it as a barb or a joke or both is something you'd likely need to ask him, but the crowd took the Kennedy line as a joke and laughed.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You know, I was just thinking that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running the risk of alienating the liberal base by pushing her centrist side too much. The conventional wisdom is that she's got an advantage in that the base loves her enough to free her up to chase the center, but I'm not sure that's true. In fact, I wonder if in a presidential election the base will think she's sold out and the middle will think she's too liberal.

In any event, Clinton certainly can losing progressives, especially since she's been so hawkish on the war. (Side note for my feminist friends: sometime take a look at how often women in politics are referred to by their first name. It's hilarious.) My feeling was that she spent 2005 establishing herself as a somewhat reasonable centrist, and she should spend at least part of 2006 reestablishing her liberal credentials. She's got a two-step ahead of her: she's still got to suck up to both sides.

So will Clinton spend any of 2006 going hard after the Republicans? Let's see what she said up in Harlem yesterday:

The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-N.Y. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

POSTSCRIPT: What did the host of the event say?

As for Sharpton, he jokingly suggested that Clinton, who many believe is eying a run for President in 2008, had stolen his material.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

What I learned from the Bush administration: If you appeal to the worst in people, never do the right thing if it doesn't benefit you personally, you can still win.

What I learned from MLK: Respect everyone's humanity, fight hard, and you can still win.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A congressional race that you may want to pay attention to is Texas' 22nd, encompassing parts of Houston and its suburbs. It's an interesting race in its own rights, but I'm happy to report that if we succeed at the very real chance of beating the Republican incumbent, that means we'll be taking out the one, the only, "The Hammer" Tom DeLay.

Here's what's neat: there's not one, but two former congressmen challenging DeLay in the general election. Nick Lampson was a Democratic member of Congress until the Texas redistricting put his home in Tom DeLay's district. This presented Lampson with a challenge: run against DeLay in his new home district, or run for reelection in the district he represented. (The Constitution actually only requires that people live in the same state as their district.) He went with the latter, and lost his seat to Ted Poe, one of the worst people in America. DeLay won his district, but by a much smaller margin than anyone expected: 55-44% against an underfunded and unknown challenger.

So Nick Lampson, wising up a bit, decides to run against a weakened Tom DeLay in both candidates' home district. Now that DeLay is even more weakened then before, it looks like a smart move, but this contest gets more fascinating from here. Former U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, the Republican who Nick Lampson beat in his original district the first time he ran in 1996, just so happens to live in DeLay's district now too, and he's running too.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: Stockman is running as an independent. He apparently still holds a grudge against Lampson, you know, given that Lampson beat his sorry ass, and he's doing this to get revenge. I suspect he thinks DeLay won't even make it to Election Day, and he wants to be there to be a viable Republican in the event DeLay's departure happens after the filing deadline. Good thinking, that.

One small problem, as the Houston Chronicle reports today (though I cite DailyKos):

1/10-12. MoE ~ 4.2% (No trend lines.)

Lampson (D) 30
DeLay (R) 22
Stockman (I) 11

As a final note, Louisiana has supposedly become rock-solid Republican, because New Orleans' Democratic base all had to leave. But didn't a good chunk of those folks relocate to Houston? Could that affect this race? Most claims of "we're going to turn out new voters" are hollow, but here we might really have something.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I don't know about you, but I have to say that I've had a hard time getting it up for the Sam Alito nomination. I mean, Roberts was fascinating, Miers was hilarious, and I don't know if I can take really caring about a third Bush Supreme Court nominee in a row. So I figured he would make it onto the Court, I wouldn't really care, and sooner or later a dark conservative cloud would come over America. The curiousity, then, was why I didn't care.

Paul Waldman, the senior fellow at Media Matters, the founder of Gadflyer, and one of the references on my law school apps, may have some answers. He just wrote a really fantastic article for tompaine.com about the Alito nomination, why we should care, and how the Democrats can get a win out of this. First, he shows how Democrats, per usual, are focusing on the wrong message for no real reason:

It seems pretty clear that Alito should have recused himself from any cases involving Vanguard. So what’s wrong with making this such a key part of the campaign against him? The problem is twofold. First of all, liberals are going to have an exceedingly hard time convincing large numbers of people that Alito is some kind of crook. ... Like it or not, to most Americans the recusal issue will seem too technical and nit-picky.

Secondly, this issue says nothing about the fundamental debate progressives should want Americans to be having about this nomination. The Alito nomination isn’t about whether the Supreme Court will follow legal ethics on recusal, it’s about whether abortion will be legal, about whether civil rights and liberties will be maintained, about whether the head of our government is a president or a king.

So what is the one thing Democrats and liberals want you to believe about Samuel Alito, the one reason he should not be on the Supreme Court? Is it that Alito is unethical, or that he’ll overturn Roe, or that he’ll let the government intrude on your privacy, or that he’ll give the executive branch unfettered authority? To return to the Kerry analogy, the story has it that at one point during the campaign Paul Begala went to Kerry headquarters, and in a meeting with some of the senior staff, he wrote out a number of central themes the campaign could employ. Pick one, he begged them—I don’t care which one you pick, but pick one.

The first thing that George Bush and Mike DeWine have to do is end their addiction to drug company money. Once you do that, then you can put on the table all of the issues that we need to address to bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

There is a prohibition in the Medicare drug bill on allowing the government to negotiate drug prices on the behalf of 30 million or 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. That's the most important change to make. But the drug industry is not going to let their acolytes - those elected officials they've helped so much - make any major changes that might in some ways make a dent in drug company profits.

His second point is better, but he falls victim to the next prominent Democratic malaise. Protip #2: Make sense. It took me a while on Team Tony in 2004 to phrase Brown's point here effectively, and here it is: when you buy in bulk, you get lower prices. Since the government buys a lot of stuff in bulk, they almost always negotiate lower prices. In fact, the one time the government doesn't negotiate for lower prices is when they cover seniors for prescription drugs in Medicare. That's right: the drug companies set the prices, and the federal government can't do anything about it. We need to take this Republican Medicare plan, scrap it, and start over.

How hard is that? But this other part is even worse:

Singer: Let's look at the primary, just briefly. This is the place where the blogosphere is very impassioned on one side or the other. Here's the difficult question: Why did it take so long to make the decision to jump in the race?

Brown: I was not working on any politician's timetable when I made the decision to run.

(On the side note of the actual question, further in the interview he answers the question of why he took so long to get into the race, but he really screwed that up too. He said he wouldn't run, then Paul Hackett jumped in, and as things continued to worsen for Republicans, Brown jumped in. Come on, man.)

So that's me and message. Figure out what's important to people, phrase it well, and keep hitting it. I like to think it's just me, and Democrats aren't this bad, and Republicans aren't much better, but I suspect it's really this bad.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This is from a two-month-old Congressional Quarterly article:

John Cornyn, R-Texas, said it was “shameful” for Democrats to use the war in Iraq for political gain. Criticizing earlier Democratic calls to begin withdrawing troops, he said a premature withdrawal would lead to Sept. 11-style attacks “over and over and over again.”

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So there's a Democratic commission considering whether or not to redo the presidential primary process. In other words, people from other states are claiming a) it's unfair the same two states always get to go first, and b) there should be more diversity in the states that get to go early. The counter-argument is that Iowa and especially New Hampshire have been doing this for so long that their residents are really good at judging candidates, tossing out the frontrunners and making the prospective candidates answer hard questions instead of run TV ads. Also, the diverse states are usually big, and to win in small states you have to do person-to-person campaigning, which, they say, is how it should be.

These are fair points on both sides. My personal perspective is, as usual, that the two sides are talking past each other, and pretty much all of what they say is true. So we've got three situations here: what the New Hampshire primary protectionists want to do, what the primary progressives want to do, and what I want to do. Guess which one is best? More than which state goes first, my problem is with the frontloading of the primary process. Longtime observers will note that seriously contested primaries often continued until June of the election year, and those with shorter memories may recall that the 2004 Democratic nomination was probably decided on February 3rd and definitely by February 10th. For a November general election, that's pretty early. The argument in favor of frontloading is that an early nomination gives the party activists time to get going on the general election, but I honestly don't see it. I mean, the other party has just as much time to work against your nominee, right?

I believe stretching out the primary season is a much better idea. First off, no matter what there's going to be a segment of the campaign dedicated to the idea of a frontrunner and whether anyone can knock that frontrunner off. The question is whether it's going to take place the year before the primary (as it did the last time around, when the frontrunner was Howard Dean) or whether it's going to take place during the primary. Put another way, do you want the power to judge candidates going to the media and political establishment, or do you want it going to the voters? I'm not just being altruistic here; these guys have got to have the skills to win over voters if they're going to be any good in November.

So what's my solution? First, let's address when we want the primary resolved? I say late June, but my point here more broadly is that with a nominating convention in late July or August, we can afford to have the primary season extend several months past February. We could start the primary season with the Iowa caucuses in March, the New Hampshire primary two weeks later. Still with me? Then we can go with another small-state primary two weeks after that; I say Rhode Island for the sake of argument (and that it's small enough for personal campaigning, has mostly Democrats, and has an ethnically diverse population), though you could go with any number of other choices.* Then you can go with another small-state primary two weeks after that, like, say, New Mexico, which is still small, home to a lot of Hispanics, and a swing state to boot. (And lest we worry that there aren't enough small states to get the coveted after-NH positions, other states with as many or fewer congressional districts as Iowa include Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Mississippi, off the top of my head.) Once we've covered small-state and diverse primaries, then we can acknowledge the reality that we can't do 50 primaries every two weeks and still have time for an actual general election. I like the suggestion that we should go with regional primaries; I'd say four regions, each primary two weeks after the other. Every four years, the order of each region can vary, so every 16 years, say, the South will count as Super Tuesday, then four years after that it's the western states. Sound good?

First off, I should say my idea is a markedly improved version of the idea espoused by Salon Washington bureau chief Walter Shapiro, so, blame him. This is a massively complicated process, with lots of people wanting pieces of the pie, so it's understandable that, while we should usually absolutely take my ideas and implement them without question, the primary schedule is open for debate. But why can't we resolve the Iowa & NH vs. everyone else problem by spreading out the primary season with single-shot primaries in a few diverse states after the first two states, and then go by region? The small-state, person-to-person tradition is worth keeping: not because it's tradition, but because it's the best idea, for the party and the presidency.

* Seriously, would anyone oppose a Hawaii primary right after spending winter in New Hampshire?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I got a letter published in the Louisville Courier-Journal a while ago. When I lived out there last year, letter-to-the-editor links were never permanent, but this one seems to be.

In any event, here's the full text. The title is not mine, the rest is.

Scared off challengers

I noted with interest David Hawpe's column concerning the likelihood that U.S. Rep. Anne Northup will "get a pass this next election." Hawpe cites several of Northup's less popular positions -- such as support for the ill-advised war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, and privatizing Social Security -- suggesting that these stands could become a campaign liability.

But Northup held all of those positions during the last campaign, too, with not a peep from Hawpe during the 2004 campaign season. Hawpe casually dismisses Tony Miller, Northup's 2004 opponent, implying without backup that Miller failed to demonstrate the "courage, conviction and commitment" that Hawpe longs for in a Democratic candidate.

Perhaps if certain prominent progressive Louisvillians had better promoted the Democratic cause in 2004, Northup's margin would not have sufficed to scare off potential challengers for 2006. Northup owes Hawpe a debt of gratitude.

TERRY McMAHON
2004 Press Secretary
Tony Miller for Congress
New York, N.Y. 10012

Oh, snap. He really deserves this too. In 2002, Jack Conway ran for Congress against Anne Northup. (For the record, he almost won, and if Bush hadn't announced the then-popular Iraq war at an event in Louisville for Northup, he probably would have. He also would have won if Northup hadn't implied he's a pedophile, but that's neither here nor there.) David Hawpe, the preeminent progressive commentator for Louisville's only major newspaper, wrote a ton of columns supporting Conway and, more often, disparaging Northup. In 2004, on the other hand, not so much. I arrived in Louisville at the end of April, and he never wrote a positive column about Tony Miller or a negative column about Anne Northup while I was there. I believe he stopped in January. (Fortunately, the paper did write unfair editorials holding Tony to an impossible standard and Anne to no standard. I only wish that were neither here nor there.)

On the one hand, Tony Miller lacked some skills as a candidate, he, alas, did not have a very good press secretary, and I suspect a lot of the Louisville Democratic establishment had it in for him. On the other hand, the issues involved (i.e., the ones Hawpe cites himself that I quote in the letter) are important enough that a less petty progressive might suck it up and help out Tony regardless. I remember one volunteer on our campaign who once told me she didn't really agree with Tony on everything, but she agreed with him on a lot, and he was so much better than Northup it wasn't funny. She was awesome.

In general, cutting off your nose to spite your face will naturally progress towards missing your nose. To wit, the Louisville Democratic establishment abandoned Tony, and then Tony lost by so much that Northup appears unbeatable. If the 2004 race had been decided by four or five points again, plenty of challengers would be eager to enter a race against Northup in what appears a much more favorable campaign year. But now that Tony lost 60-38, it's not as easy for a Democrat to claim s/he has a realistic shot at winning. In other words, if David Hawpe had written three or four columns (he writes two or three a week) to help us out during the 2004 season, he might have avoided not having a candidate now. You get what you pay for.

This is why I'm not that upset that Jack Conway has to skip the race. Conway was a terrific candidate and will be in the future, but throughout 2004, I always had the impression that he wanted us to lose, so he could run again in 2006. He refused, for example, to speak at events immediately before or after Tony, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do fundraising for us, and he wouldn't do campaign ads for us. I wrote a blog entry a long time ago that alluded to a future post that would excoriate the guy blocked by this photo. That guy was Conway, then the Kerry-Edwards state chair, who everyone expected would challenge Northup in 2006. As the plan went, I would write a quick endorsement post, explaining both why he's a jerk and why we should support him anyway. Now Tony Miller lost by a far greater margin than anyone ever had to Northup before, and Conway's got too high a hill to climb. Tough deal. Wonder if there's anything he could have done?

As long as I'm disparaging prominent Louisville Democrats, the third person my letter alludes to when I say "certain prominent progressive Louisvillians" is Mayor Jerry Abramson. Abramson was mayor for about 12 years before being term-limited in the late 1990s, but when Louisville merged with the surrounding counties earlier this decade, he became eligible again. Now, thanks to his approval ratings in the mid-80s, he's presumably mayor until 2014. You can see where he gets the nickname "Mayor for Life." He's a Democrat.

Abramson supported Jack Conway heavily in his 2002 race against Northup. His support for Tony Miller, however, was mixed. He did not donate to Tony personally, but his campaign committee did put in $1000. Since Abramson never has to contest his elections, apparently that campaign fund only had one fundraiser, ever. So, you could argue that, instead of Jerry Abramson, the guy who was actually supporting Tony was whoever hosted the event and convinced the donors to give. And yes, that guy was Tony Miller. At least, that's what I heard. Thanks, mayor!

But no, Jerry Abramson supported Tony. He said so! The Tuesday before the election, Tony had a fundraiser in downtown Louisville with U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House Minority Whip. Given the presence of prominent campaign donors and Washington Democrats, looks like the mayor couldn't resist, and he came on in to make everyone stand up when he entered. He told the assembled guests that it was crucial that we elected Tony to Congress, and he asked that we all support Tony as strongly as he was. (To his credit, he didn't add that supporting Tony as strongly as he was would be not at all.) I was already pissed at the hypocrisy, but, fortunately, it would only get worse.

One of Northup's perpetual campaign gimmicks is that she's so awesome at bringing federal money back to Louisville. Yes, this is pork. She sits on Appropriations, with only about 35 other members of Congress ahead of her in seniority, and she does an average job of bringing money back for local works projects. She is, however, a fantastic self-promoter, and when another one of these federal-money announcements came down the pike towards the end of the campaign, she insisted that the two officials who had worked hardest for this money get together to announce it jointly. That's right: Anne Northup and Democratic Mayor Jerry Abramson.

Those of us on Team Tony submitted to the mayor and his staff that he could decline to appear in public with our opponent the last week of the campaign, lest it appear that the mayor actually supported her. We never got a satisfactory answer, for reasons that will soon become clear. So it happened, and Northup and Abramson held a joint event to compliment each other, and the assembled press asked only about whether this means the mayor actually supports Northup instead of his fellow Democrat Tony Miller. Abramson said he supported Tony but there were two great candidates in the race. Northup said that she and Abramson got along great together, and the fact that he was standing there with her said something. Abramson didn't respond.

There were other classic moments in the history of Jerry Abramson trying to distance himself from Tony Miller, but we didn't know the extent of it until after the election, when the son of a bitch told Newsweek that he voted for Northup.

In conclusion, what a dick. Now you guys are stuck with Northup through at least 2008, because you refused to help Tony when you didn't feel like it and couldn't see how it helped you. Now you're stuck, and it's your own damn fault.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I spent the 2002 campaign up in New Hampshire, helping out on that year's governor's race. After the September primary, I had the opportunity to move from the state party to the campaign of our nominee, Mark Fernald, as deputy press secretary. I jumped at the chance for two reasons. First, I knew the value of a good title, but second, I'd get to work with the press secretary, Steve Marchand. I'd already gotten to know Steve on the summer political event circuit, and I could tell early that he was both an all-around great guy and one of the sharpest political minds I've met, before or since. Sure enough, as under-funded campaigns go, working with Steve was a real lot of fun. We showed up an hour early every morning, ostensibly to review our coverage in the local papers but really to talk about the latest in New Hampshire political news: who the Democratic establishment was throwing under the bus, what strategies were working, what campaigns had a shot, and so on. It was absolutely my pleasure to work for him. Besides being a great boss, Steve's ideas for the campaign were creative and terrific. He wound up getting vetoed from from the top more often than not, but I think, had his advice been followed, the election result would have been a lot different.

Why do I bring this all up? Well, a lot of campaign operatives like to say they'd do a better job than the candidate, and Steve actually went out and did it. He ran for Portsmouth City Council in 2003, and came in fifth on a ballot that elects nine councilors and makes the top finisher the mayor. I checked the vote totals, and he actually finished closer than being mayor than he did to finishing out of the running in tenth place. For a first-time candidate, that ain't bad.

He ran for reelection in 2005, with a different subtext. This time, the incumbent mayor was retiring, and Steve thought he had a serious shot at finishing #1. The Portsmout Herald said "this may seem like an upset victory" for him, but for those of us who knew him, it wasn't much of a shock. Another Herald article (with a good Election Night photo) quotes him as saying "I knew one thing, no matter what the outcome was going to be tonight - nobody was going to outwork me," which, let's be honest, is the remark of a winner. The way you win local elections, of course, is by introducing yourself to voters one by one, and sure enough, Steve went to 2500 houses in his hometown. That's how you get 67% of the vote, and sweep every ward in the city. You could say the Portsmouth Herald editorial board supports him too, since they called themselves "genuinely excited about Marchand as mayor" since "the guy has guts, energy and ambition." All told, not a bad Election Day result.

What's funny is the fallout. See, a couple wacky things happened in New Hampshire that day. First, Mayor Bob Baines lost in Manchester, the state's biggest city. Every two years the GOP puts someone up against Baines, and every time it's going to be the year they finally beat him, and every time they don't even come close. This year, I don't even remember the Republicans going through the this-is-the-year motions for their guy Frank Guinta, except on Election Day when Guinta actually won. No one saw this coming.

Now, Guinta ran a solid anti-tax campaign, and Steve has some creative ideas to hold the line on spending. So this compels the Boston Globe to declare "N.H. on verge of a taxpayer revolt." So, along with the Manchester mayoral race and some City Council races in some second-tier towns, we have new Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand and his push "for a 4 percent budget cap," which is almost close to the truth. According to the Portsmouth Herald, Steve moved first that city departments had to submit budgets with increases of 4% or less, and if they wanted more, they had to go to the City Council and explain it. I have no idea why anyone would oppose this move. This is a democracy: if you can't explain to the City Council why you need the extra money, they shouldn't have to give it to you. Right?

In an op-ed for the Union Leader, GOP activist Charlie Arlinghaus, who once sent a cute young female aide to try to charm me into revealing what organization had sent me to an event, phrases it even better:

In Portsmouth, conservative Democrat Steve Marchand may have single-handedly resurrected the old Preston-Stephen conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Last year, Marchand pushed unsuccessfully for a 4 percent budget cap. This year, he’ll be called “Mayor Marchand” after topping the citywide ticket by a large margin.

Now, speaking of Steve and his political ideas, it's one thing when a friend of yours wins political office. It's something else when you think his philosophy could actually be a new vision for the party and for the country. Here's a quote from the DFNH endorsement:

I believe government can be a real force for good in improving people's lives," says Steve, "but only if we earn the trust of citizens through being accountable, transparent, fair, and inclusive."

As the old tax-and-spend party, Democratic leaders have to hold themselves to a higher standard before the American public will trust that they'll manage their money well. In a way, I think that's good: Democrats have to work at it, and Republicans don't. And Democrats who want to become better stewards would do well to listen to Steve and his advice to stick to "being accountable, transparent, fair, and inclusive." Do all that, and you're in pretty good shape.

So congratulations to Steve on an awesome electoral victory, and hopefully the first of many. I'm not sure the rumors of him running for Congress in 2006 are accurate, but Steve Marchand is on the way up. It's nice to know that someone with this much success in his future is a good Democrat - and a really good guy, too.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

No, I haven't made any blog posts since the Theo Epstein Era. I do have a rock-solid excuse, though, which is that my baby is in the shop (arrived yesterday!) and should return the day after I'm required to use it for finals. OK, I'm pessimistic.

My recap of the NYC mayor's race will be pretty short, because I think all that surprised anyone is that Fernando Ferrer wound up finishing less than 20 points behind Mike Bloomberg, when everyone was expecting a margin of around 33. I will say, though, that I agree with Dick Morris's opinion of the mistake in Ferrer's strategy. Morris is kind of crazy these days, but his book Behind the Oval Office on the 1996 Clinton campaign really shows the genius he used to be; that book is still a valid campaign strategy instruction manual. Another book of his, Power Plays, is almost as good and much more recent. There he goes through six or seven political strategies, with two or three chapters in each on how famous political leaders succeeded or failed to pull that strategy off.

I say all that, because, best I can tell, Dick Morris at this point is generally insane. Almost all of his columns in 2003 were about Hillary's guaranteed run for President in 2004, and he wrote entire books refuting both Hillary's book and Bill's book. Now he's moved back from Hillary-refuting to Hillary-campaign-predicting, with his latest book Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.

That said, he was weaned on NYC politics, and I think his anecdote on the Ferrer-Bloomberg race is instructive. Ferrer was considered pretty divisive when he ran in 2001 on the "Two New Yorks" theme, and while he mostly abandoned the attack on wealthy New Yorkers time around, he did stick early to the minority label, to try to emphasize the poor-boy-made-good motif. By the time even the primary campaign heated up, it was too late to redefine him.

Morris argues that Ferrer should have skipped the minority label and defined himself as a Catholic instead. I think that would have been a good idea. First, I'm not sure what exactly being a minority or a Hispanic says about your character. I do know Catholics are supposed to be highly moral and committed to justice, life, and helping the poor. I assume Ferrer's pro-choice, but he could have spent the campaign focusing on how his Catholic faith has prompted him to spend his life helping people and how he wants to be mayor to help all the people who aren't getting bought off under Bloomberg. This isn't that far from what he wound up saying, but Morris argues, and he's right, that how you frame a candidate and a position can make all the difference. People who'll take a racial-minority focus to be a liberal guilt trip will embrace the idea of standing up for what's right.

The weird part is that I don't understand why Ferrer didn't go with it. He started off, about a year ago, trying to frame his campaign as a way for Democrats pissed off after 2004 to stick it to George Bush and the Republicans. Good idea, no? But the real lesson from 2004, besides that we need a fucking plan on terrorism, is that Democrats should be unafraid to embrace morality. We absolutely have the moral high ground on most issues, and when we talk of the Republicans and say, "That's immoral, and it should be illegal," we'll relate to the voting public. Unfortunately, it seems that the only lesson Ferrer took from the 2004 elections is that the Democrats lost.

The other part of the New York mayor's race worth noting is that Ferrer didn't have an average opponent. We should note not only that Bloomberg spent some ridiculous figure (like $75 million) on his actual campaign, but also that during his term he spent about $300 million on conveniently placed NYC charitable donations. Talk about patronage! If the mayor helps you out, you help him out. That's basic human nature. If Fernando Ferrer, on the other hand, had an opponent who couldn't buy off the city, would this election be different? Honestly, I think so. So while Ferrer probably dug his own hole too deep for anyone to get him out, I think this may be one case where the problem wasn't the candidate. The problem was a billionaire for an opponent.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As promised, we continue with our look back at Election Day 2005. Next up, New Jersey!

I still don't get how this race worked out. On the one hand, Doug Forrester, politically, is not much more than a failed Senate candidate with deep pockets. In a race for governor against a sitting U.S. Senator, why would anyone expect him to lose? New Jersey is a fairly closely divided state, given that it has voted Democrat four presidential elections in a row, but this was clearly Jon Corzine's race to lose all along.

And in fact, he almost did: those polls in October were pretty close, and given New Jersey's Bob Torricelli/Jim McGreevey tradition of Democratic corruption, this race could have very easily turned into a referendum on incumbent-party corruption. So did Forrester blow the Republicans' best possible chance at winning the governor's mansion, or did he have no shot all along? I really have no idea.

Oddly enough, I heard tell that the only reason Corzine ran for governor is so he can run for president. Frankly, I suspect that's a bit of only-game-in-town overanalysis of an off-off-year election. But I think Mark Warner could have pulled off the rapid switch from Senate campaign to presidential campaign better than Corzine could now pivot to a presidential run.

First off, abandoning your job in the Senate is a lot easier than abandoning your job as governor. All you really need to do in the Senate is vote, and you usually don't even have to do that. Governors, on the other hand, need not only to make decisions but to be the heavy in state government who can lean on legislators to push things through. Governors can certainly run for president, but for Jon Corzine the burden is tougher: if he runs for president in 2008, he'll have done so as a governor and former senator who hasn't completed a term in anything. Mark Warner in the Senate, on the other hand, could miss a bunch of non-essential votes, leave constituent service up to his staff and more or less be okay. I think Jon Corzine would find a rockier road.

That said, I don't think Corzine necessarily really wants to do it. Chuck Schumer in New York and personal friend Chris Dodd in Connecticut both considered leaving the Senate to run for governor. Maybe it's just the tri-state area (and Frank Murkowski in Alaska, and Dirk Kempthorne in Idaho) but a fair amount of senators seem to be more interested in going back home to be governor. All the appeal of being a powerful statewide elected official, none of the trouble of living in Washington with a bunch of dickheads. I think Corzine, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, is more interested in being an executive.

Fortunately, Corzine has quite the compelling executive decision coming up: his appointment for his successor in the U.S. Senate. Corzine's imminently open Senate seat is up for election in 2006, and presumably whoever he appoints is going to be, at the very least, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the full term next November. The trick, though, is that the Republicans are running state Sen. Tom Kean, whose dad is a popular ex-governor (and, you'll remember, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission). So no matter who Corzine appoints, that person will have a tough race ahead of them in 2006.

Now, at first I was thrilled to hear rumors that Corzine was leading towards picking Acting Gov. Dick Codey for the Senate seat. It's only fair: Codey took over as governor when Jim McGreevey resigned, and he planned on running for a full term of his own until Corzine came in and said he wasn't leaving. Corzine has murdered primary opponents before by dropping tons of money on them, so there's no reason he couldn't have just outspent Codey into oblivion. Codey wound up taking one for the team and declined to run. So it'd only be fair to think that Corzine would pay him back by appointing him to his old Senate seat.

But then I discovered that national Democrats really want Corzine to pick Codey ahead of several of New Jersey's Democratic congressmen who have been waiting for years. The idea, basically, is that internal Democratic polling shows that Codey's the only candidate who can beat Kean in the general election next November. Fair point, until I realized why: name recognition! Codey's been the governor for over a year now, and Kean is the son of a former governor. The other potential Democrats are all congressmen, representing a small part of the state each. In other words, suggesting that Codey is the only Democrat who can beat Kean is like suggesting that John McCain is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton, and vice-versa. Name recognition is valuable, but not for picking Senate winners a year out.

This doesn't reflect poorly on Codey, of course; I just can't stand inaccurate political statements. Interestingly enough though, there's a rumor that Corzine's actually considering state Sen. Nia Gill, who would be the first female or African-American senator in New Jersey history. Now that would be interesting: I have no idea her ambitions, or even if she'd run for the full term in 2006, but kudos to Corzine for thinking out of the box.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Based off my predictions the other day, you could say I went 7 for 7. I won't say that though, because it was a Team Democrat kind of night, and I'm not going to bet against my own team and still expect to get into the Hall of Fame for it. But pretty much all the races wound up going leaning five points further towards the Democrats than I expected, which is fine by me.

Of course I won't let an Election Day go by without any of my trenchant commentary. For the sake of not having an unbelievably long post, I'm going to break things up by state. First up, the first runner-up for my undergraduate and law school selections: Virginia!

Congrats to everyone who got Tim Kaine the win in the governor's race here. I was never totally convinced that Tim Kaine was that great a candidate, a sentiment that may be implicitly supported in all the morning-after coverage about how Virginia's now a purple state. (Kerry contested it briefly in 2004, and the fast-growing DC suburbs and exurbs are either heavily Democratic or moving in that direction.) This is true especially because outgoing Gov. Mark Warner received a lot of credit, and rightly so, for winning his campaign in 2001 by sponsoring NASCAR cars, playing a bluegrass-flavored theme song for his radio ads, forming a big Sportsmen for Warner group: in other words, doing a better job of appealing to rural voters than pretty much any statewide Democrat in ages. Especially since Mark Warner is a Connecticut-born, DC-suburbs kind of Virginian, it seemed like he had finally found a way for a Democrat to carry the state.

Tim Kaine, on the other hand, ran a much more straightforward progressive campaign. He did talk a lot about his Catholic faith and how it drove him to public office, which I think is smart for all Democrats of faith, but he didn't do as much rural campaigning as Warner (which the results in rural Virginia showed). The crazy thing, though, is that Kaine still won by a bigger margin than Warner did, which I think reflects two facts of Virginia politics. The first is the trend towards Team Democrat that I think will definitely make Virginia competitive in 2008.

The second thing I found interesting is the ridiculous popularity of Mark Warner, whose approval rating is something like 80 percent in a state that hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. I don't have any material with which to back this up, but I suspect Warner's the second example I've noticed of an odd political phenomenon: self-fulfilling popularity. You may recall in the California recall of 2003, political observers first raised the question of whether California's most popular politician, Senator Dianne Feinstein, would run for governor. When she declined to run, her name still came up, because every Democrat considered as a candidate had to be viewed through the lens of not being as popular as California's most popular politician, Dianne Feinstein. By the end of three months of that kind of press coverage, Feinstein, despite having done very little on the public radar in the meantime, had her already high approval ratings go through the roof. I guess if you're wicked popular, it's good to have people compared to you.

I think the same thing happened to Mark Warner here, because I'm pretty sure his approval rating wasn't at 80 percent when this whole campaign started. But one of the overarching themes of this campaign, politically at least, was whether Tim Kaine can take advantage of the fact that Mark Warner is outrageously popular. And, as with the California recall, if so much of the Virginia gubernatorial coverage depends on Mark Warner being considered that popular, people take it for granted that Warner's doing a great job (which he did) and his approval rating only goes up. It's a neat trick, especially it only helps Warner with his "future plans," whatever they "may be."

That said, I still think Mark Warner is a little overrated. He's clearly running for president in 2008 (the invitations to his first New Hampshire event arrived in the mail, of all days, on Tuesdsay), and if he's the Democratic nominee, I will absolutely be thrilled to support him. But let's not call Warner an electoral marvel yet, not least because he's only won one campaign in his life. The difference between Mark Warner and John Edwards on electoral success, though, is in why they didn't run for Senate. John Edwards decided in September 2003 that he had to decide between the presidential campaign and the Senate campaign, and he decided to roll the dice. Mark Warner could have challenged George Allen for Senate in 2006 and still run for president in 2008, but he didn't: if he lost, his presidential hopes would be gone. So Mark Warner took the easy way out and decided he wouldn't run for Senate in 2006. He can do whatever he wants, of course, but keep this in mind when his people go around telling everyone how Mark Warner is a campaign Midas.

Especially since, look, I know I keep saying this, but George Allen sucks. Look at this video (it'll start right away) and tell me this guy deserves to be the overwhelming Beltway favorite to be the next Republican presidential nominee. Besides the fact that I've never heard a good idea out of him, and you will get sick of his football metaphors well in advance of 2008, there is nothing about him that makes him seem presidential. The trick is that the GOP insiders are looking for a guy who will appeal to both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives while having the charm to win over swing voters. That was always Bush's greatest political appeal, and I think it's valuable (yet another reason why I support John Edwards, by the way), but I suspect it works less effectively as the electorate becomes smarter. Thanks to blogs and the internet, people have a better idea of who's playing both sides, and I have a suspicion that if George Allen gets the spotlight in 2008 he'll be seen as a hypocrite if he doesn't choose between conservatism and moderation. I have seen absolutely no indication that he can pull it off.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sure, I could forsake looking like an idiot, but then where's the payoff once it turns out I'm right?

Anyway, here's my prediction from last year:

Percentage-wise I'll go Kerry by five, 52-47. I predict states that will switch will be New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida and the upset special Arkansas. Bush will not pick up any new ones, giving Kerry a handy 317-221 victory. For Senate races, I predict Democrats will lose seats in Georgia and Louisiana and pick up seats in Illinois, Oklahoma, Alaska and Colorado, bringing the Senate situation to 50-49-1.

New Jersey Governor: Jon Corzine comes through in the clutch, proving once again that Edwards Research alums, besides being honest and conscientious, also get shit done. Thanks to research director Brian Horan and, I guess, the candidate himself, Corzine wins by five.

Virginia Governor: Tim Kaine in a close one, percentage-wise 49-49, thanks to "progressive" Russ Potts), and the GOP doesn't give up for months.

New York Mayor: I say Bloomberg takes this one by a 25-percent margin, despite the heroic efforts of Ferrer campaign manager, NYU Law graduate and close personal friend Nick Baldick, and his dashing yet glamorous assistant Kinsey Casey.

California/Ohio redistricting initiative: These are both going to fail, but I include them because I have no idea why anyone would oppose them. Basically they make a nonpartisan commission do all the redistricting for state legislative and congressional seats, so incumbents can't make agreements to just gerrymander themselves into reelection. Besides the fact that this could help Democrats a lot in both states, it's just the right thing to do. But it looks like they'll fail.

St. Paul Mayor: Smooth move, buddy.

And finally, my good friend Steve Marchand becomes the next Mayor of Portsmouth, NH. Good luck Steve!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So, best I can tell, the Washington Post picked up Chris Cillizza from Roll Call pretty much exclusively to write a new blog, called The Fix. Since he's a real reporter, you get three or four mini-articles a day, and since the Post already has a fine crop o' political reporters, Cillizza seems to have free rein to talk about whatever under-covered political story he wants. Last week he spent the day with Mark Warner and wrote periodic updates on the Virginia governor's race and Warner's prospects for 2008. When you do that four or five times a day, you start covering real new ground. So I'm glad he's doing this.

Today he comments on a poll gauging the popularity of likely 2008 presidential candidates and, specifically, their popularity amongst members of both parties and political independents. I found this paragraph particularly on point:

Of Democrats, Edwards was the strongest potential 2008 candidate among Republicans and independents. He was thought of favorably by 68 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans. Eighty-five percent of Democrats had a favorable view of Edwards, who had the highest favorability score of any of the Democrats tested -- including former president Bill Clinton. Edwards allies are likely to circulate the poll results among the chattering class over the next few days to try and cement the idea that he is the only Democratic candidate that can win back the centrist voters who gave Bush two terms in the White House.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From my earlier posting (last April!):

Fans of the Michael Lewis baseball book "Moneyball" will know that taking a hard look at statistics can offer insights that the human eye cannot. According to Lewis and his subject, Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane, baseball teams with limited payrolls can compete - and win - against overfunded franchises like the Yankees and Red Sox, if they have the creativity and determination to find inefficiencies in the game. On-base percentage, formerly a comparatively unheralded statistic, turned out to be just that kind of ineffiency. So the A's loaded up on undervalued players with major flaws but who walked a ton, and sure enough, Oakland was able to end up near the top of the league in runs scored - and in wins. That's Moneyball.

Here's what I've been wondering: could any of the lessons of Moneyball apply to the world of politics?

Could a secret of Republican electoral success be ... baseball? Actually, it's Moneyball, Michael Lewis' best-seller about how Oakland A's manager Billy Beane built a top team by picking players on the basis of their stats, not their reputations. Republican National Committee chairman and Baltimore Orioles fan Ken Mehlman is applying Moneyball's stats-centric strategy to his own game. "Politics, like baseball, for years was less effective than it could be because you didn't try to quantify things," he told TIME. Mehlman managed Bush-Cheney '04, which set "metrics" for making phone calls and knocking on doors, and tracked ads on spreadsheets. He obsesses over detailed data like turnout in Florida among newly registered Republicans who call themselves fiscal conservatives (91.2% last year), all new G.O.P.ers (75.7%) and overall (65.3%)--numbers that he says show the power of tax cuts. Mehlman sets goals for volunteer recruiting by state, county and precinct, and uses stats to pick his team: "The performance-based approach says that whoever produces the best results is the person you put in charge." One problem: figures don't always reflect rapid change or account for the element of surprise. But Mehlman is a believer. He's already crunching numbers for the next big game: the 2006 midterm elections.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

SHOT . . .

"With the series scheduled to start Saturday in Chicago, the mood in and around Houston was positively giddy" (Houston Chronicle, 10/21/05).

. . . CHASER

Look, props to the guy. A lot of people were confused as to why Tom DeLay was smiling like an idiot for his mugshot. Those people didn't read this AP story:

Why is Tom DeLay smiling? After all, he's been indicted. Forced out of his job as House majority leader. And called into court for fingerprinting and a mugshot like a common criminal.

Answer: A photo of DeLay grinning from ear to ear doesn't pack quite the punch in a Democratic attack ad as one that looks more like the mugshot of, say, actor Hugh Grant.

So well done to the DeLay political team for realizing that a "positively giddy" mugshot will make it harder for Democrats to use it in campaign ads. That said, this is still not a huge problem. I see two things happening:

1. The mugshot becomes such a running joke that Democrats wind up using it anyway. This probably won't happen, but we didn't expect the president's "Mission Accomplished" event to become such a liability either.
   
2. We just go ahead and use photos like this:

   

   or this:

   
   

Not that there's any connection between the two.

Finally, here's the opening of a Tom DeLay speech from July 2003:

Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: �Bonjour!�

(Thanks to National Journal's Hotline for the joke at the top.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's the AP headline: "Bill Clinton Backs Fellow Democrat, but Event Is Marred by Snags."

Here's the first mention of what those snags actually were:

Less than an hour before the event, people from Clinton's team and the Ferrer campaign stood shouting at each other in the middle of the blocked-off street, arguing about logistics. An area reserved for press was moved, reconfigured and pushed back several times.

Representatives from Clinton's office also vetoed the use of speakers and a small stage. Left without any way to hear Clinton and Ferrer as they spoke, many reporters handed their tape recorders and microphones to children who were standing closer.

Seriously, this should be a lesson: when the press complains about the organization of the event, usually the prime victim is the press. A falling rock could crush the local high school band, and it would be called a "slightly marred" event. Fuck with the press box though, and you're asking for trouble.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I need y'all to help me out here. I'm pretty sure there's a movie scene where a baseball player wins the lottery, everyone gets pissed at him for whooping it up, he asks a reporter why everyone's upset, and she says, "nobody likes the guy who wins the lottery twice."

He rarely takes a chance with lottery tickets, but, on a whim, Senator Judd Gregg, a notorious fiscal conservative, plunked down $20 for 20 Powerball tickets Monday night when he stopped at a gas station on his way to the Capitol for a vote.

That small, random investment won a stunned Gregg $853,492 yesterday, when he learned that he was one of 49 people to get a piece of the Powerball Lottery jackpot.

Thank you Boston Globe. In fairness, it's not like he grew up easy with his dad being a former president or anything. Actually, Judd Gregg's dad Hugh was governor of one of the smallest states in the country, well before it became the center of the presidential primary (incidentally, the shit is about to hit the fan on that one). So to imply that Judd Gregg doesn't deserve what he openly acknowledges is only about $500,000 after taxes is ridiculous. He's only held major elective office - U.S. House or higher - since 1980.

P.S.: I hate being somewhat honest. The Globe article also mentions this: "He added that he would give an unspecified portion of the cash to his family's Hugh Gregg Foundation, which helps local charities in New Hampshire." On the one hand, it is his money, but on the other hand, I mean, come on. Read the above imaginary movie scene.

(The image above is pretty sweet: it's three taps and foot-operated. Why hasn't anyone come up with this before? Thanks to fellow Elizabethtown moviegoer Katy Hight for the pickup.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

OK, so I haven't been updating my blog a whole lot lately. You should already know I went to NYU to have a life, and now I've got one.

Nonetheless, some things are still worth mentioning. E.J. Dionne wrote in the Washington Post last week on National Review founder William F. Buckley, generally considered the primary intellectual basis of the modern conservative movement. It's a fascinating column on a fascinating man: there's a New York Times Magazine article on him (already TimesSelect!) from a couple weeks ago, and there's a mini-scandal going on in Team Democratic Blogosphere about whether Joe Lieberman's appearance at Buckley's recent big birthday bash constitutes an endorsement of racism. (National Review has never repudiated its own anti-civil rights position in the 1960s.)

It's the Joe Lieberman issue I'm going to focus on here. Dionne's article is complicated, since he starts off admitting it's unusual for a liberal like Dionne to spend so much time complimenting such a passionate conservative. So that takes up most of the column, but he also says this:

And it's not easy for any liberal to agree with Buckley's support long ago for Joe McCarthy. (His novel about McCarthy was better). It's hard to credit his views in the civil rights era or to identify with his many knocks on that courageous liberal Republican, former senator Lowell Weicker.

Why does any of this matter? Well, 18 years later, we may have a rematch. That's right, the now-Independent Weicker is considering a run against Joe Lieberman in 2006. I'm not sure who I would support in that race (Weicker would almost certainly caucus with the Democrats, like Jim Jeffords does now and Bernie Sanders does in the House) but it would certainly be a hell of a race, not least from the rampant irony.

Now, I really have no point here, mostly because I'm not sure what's going on. I can't believe Dionne would bring up Weicker for one of a list of only two crappy things William F. Buckley has ever done (and there are hundreds) if he weren't thinking of the 2006 Connecticut Senate race as much as the one in 1988. But what's his point? Weicker's such a great guy that we should get rid of a conservative Democrat like Lieberman? If so, then why in a column that's basically an ode to a conservative Republican? I don't get it. Maybe Dionne just hates Lieberman? I may not understand subtleties, but I know 'em when I see 'em.

Anyway, my last conspiracy theory got me written up (almost as if I had a point) in the National Journal's Hotline, so apparently this one is true too. I always knew I was the next Drudge.

Also, I just discovered the Flying Spaghetti Monster today. This is both hilarious and completely apt in the context of an issue that really shouldn't be an issue. Anyway, this link reaches "you owe it to yourself" status, so give it a look.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Democratic Party infrastructure is really missing out these days by not understanding the wonderful innovations of the Howard Dean campaign. I konw it's easy to reference the Scream and dismiss Dean as crazy, but his campaign was astonishingly successful in so many ways. So while I understand that kind of reaction in general, I am both shocked and amazed by how many dedicated and active Democrats still refuse to acknowledge just how awesome the Dean campaign was. This is a quote from the Washington Post, about a progressive group in Colorado trying to reproduce the grassroots energy of Dean for America:

ProgressNow said it has encountered some resistance from local Democratic Party officials who fear the effort will siphon people and money from their activities. Patricia Waak, who heads the state party, acknowledged that some see the group as little more than unwanted competition. She said that she wished it would somehow work through the party, but that she nevertheless supported its efforts.

"The fact is that they're going on a premise here that worked for Howard Dean when he was running and was pretty effective for him," Waak said. "But in the end, it still only picks up a certain group of people. There are still tons of people out there who don't even have a computer and who could care less what blogs say."

But let me comment on those two remarks I boldfaced above:

she wished it would somehow work through the party,

But here they don't. Think of where the Howard Dean campaign would be if it worked closely with the rest of the Democratic Party and asked permission before they did anything. The reason the Dean campaign succeeded was because it was bold and unafraid to challenge the party establishment. If the folks at ProgressNow tried working through the state party, they would be put on the phones to do fundraising or persuasion calls within hours, and in a few days only the diehards would remain. But by trying to be an independent group doing new things, the members are free to be fun and creative, and like the Dean campaign, they're likely to stumble upon something that works.

I would understand if the establishment Democrats in Colorado didn't see that logic. I don't understand how this was the biggest campaign story of 2003, and yet they completely missed it.

in the end, it still only picks up a certain group of people.

But again, that attitude above misses the larger point. Sure these groups only get upper-middle-class Internet-connected activisits. So what? Can those people do anything? Answer: you better believe it. Besides the manpower they provide, if you get those people to start chucking in $50 donations every few months, and if you keep them feeling empowered in the politics of their state and country, you've got a donor for life. I have no idea how this doesn't resonate. And even if it doesn't, at the very least you've got a more and more well-informed electorate who can go out into the world with ammunition to counter Republican misinformation. So yes, these campaign groups will only take in a certain group of people, who could make a really big difference.

(I think I've seen it before, but the title and image come from a list of ready.gov Homeland Security warning signs and what they actually mean. Courtesy of, believe it or not, bentickner.com.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Quoting John McCain at an American Society of Magazine Editors conference:

On partisanship, McCain waxed nostalgic for the days when "Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan would fight all day and then he'd come down and it'd be two Irishmen telling corny jokes over drinks...We need more of that today."

Compare and contrast:

Reagan and Tip O'Neill scrapped like tigers during the day, but after 5:00 P.M., they were two Irishmen topping each other with jokes. [Eyewitness to Power, David Gergen, p.191.]

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I think I'm about ready to give up on Nancy Pelosi as House Democratic Leader. I found this press release from a few days ago, and a couple things I saw give me pause.

First is the headline:

Pelosi: �What You Saw on the House Floor This Afternoon Was a Shameless Display of the Republican Culture of Corruption�

Unfortunately, that's a terrible way of framing the issue. "What you saw on the House floor today" was NOTHING. No one saw what happened on the House floor. Maybe the 15 or so reporters who have to watch this, or everyone who watches C-SPAN. Those groups, together, add up to zero of the United States voting population. No one who has anything non-political driving their lives saw anything on the House floor, and they probably wouldn't give a shit if they did. Don't get me wrong, you can frame the issue to speak to people, but it has to be point #5 as to why the Republican agenda is ruining our country: (wait for applause to die down) "Not only that, but the Republicans in Congress will routinely hold a five-minute vote, realize they don't have enough votes, and then turn a five-minute vote into twenty, thirty, even forty-five minutes desperately begging, cajoling, and even threatening their own Republicans to vote for a bill that most people in the House know is a sham." See, that's not too bad.

Unfortunately, Pelosi seems to think that the vote itself is the issue. This is her statement:

Democrats have proposed guidelines for how we think the House of Representatives should operate, a Minority Bill of Rights. Included in this document is the declaration that �No vote shall be held open in order to manipulate the outcome.� When we take back the People�s House, we will heed that declaration.

You guys know I think Paul Waldman is great, and not just because he's my former Mass Media professor. Last week a report by a couple of prominent consultant-class Democrats came out saying Democrats were in danger if they moved too far to the left. Waldman, writing over at Gadflyer, properly eviscerates the report, but in doing so crystallizes a point I had only rarely remembered in my three years in politics:

The ugly fact of American public opinion is that most people know next to nothing about politics. They don't have a clear understanding of where the parties stand on most things, and they don't have a meaningful grasp of exactly what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative." Tweaking your issue positions just won't register with them.

Similarly, until 1992 the NES asked respondents which party is more conservative on the national level. This may be the most basic fact about American politics one could imagine; if you don't know that the answer is "the Republicans," then you really don't know anything. The last time the proportion of people answering this question correctly cracked 60% was 1968; the last time it was asked, in 1992, 57% got it right (and they had a 50-50 chance by guessing, after all).

But I'm not just flailing wildly here: there's another thing about this Pelosi press release that pissed me off. The top of the release has a heading, which seems to appear on every other release too, which reads, and this is good:

Democratic priorities are clear: we will fight to get the economy back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed workers.

But that's not the real issue. I know I've said this before, and I will be more than happy to say it again, but Democrats will not win nationally in this country until we are taken seriously on terrorism. Republicans are tanking on this issue (uh, no pun intended), but terrorism still can lead the Democrats to losses in 2006 if we're not chickenshit about speaking out on it. That's right, I said it: we can actually lose more ground in 2006 if we don't start speaking out on terrorism. Here's a bold statement: The American people realize the Republican policy on terrorism has failed, and they desperately want an alternative. I suspect, honestly, that the public would buy any plan at all from the Democrats on Iraq, from "withdraw now" to "come up with benchmarks and stick to them," even if they proposed nothing else. But we don't even have to do that. If Democrats started speaking of terrorism in broader terms - my personal favorite is to say that accounting for and securing nuclear weapons should be our top priority, but, oh, I don't know, shutting down al-Qaeda might be a good one too - I honestly believe the Democrats could become the party of national security within only a few years.

I desperately want Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to succeed, but just as A-Rod can't hit a hanging curve in the playoffs, sometimes you can blow even the easy ones. Here's hoping our team comes through.

(P.S. That picture's from Germany. There's an actual bridge of water over a river. Here's the Snopes entry.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Today on CNN's Late Edition:

"The elimination of Roe v. Wade won't stop abortion. Abortion's a private decision. But I just think it shouldn't be federalized."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Understand that I'm not convinced we can know what a SCOTUS justice is going to do until they're on the court, so I mostly love this nomination for the boatloads of political intrigue. All the following stories are individually fascinating, and they're only going to develop in the next few weeks.

1. Conservatives are wicked pissed. The RedState.org summary says flatly, "Harriet Miers is unqualified for the position," and David Frum at the National Review has this fantastic opening:

   I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking.

   None of that is necessarily false, or even out of the range of conservative thought. What's surprising is that the wheels have come off the once well-oiled conservative message machine. Seriously, does anyone remember the political climate in early 2003? Could you imagine conservatives teeing off on a Bush Supreme Court nominee the day she got nominated? What the hell?

   UPDATE: I actually just found this: "There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination." Oh wow.
   

2. The cronyism is outstanding. Miers is the first non-judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court since Rehnquist in 1971, and, as you probably know, her main qualification is being Bush's current personal lawyer. The idea of this president actually giving someone a job for which they're not qualified is pretty shocking, I know, but this pick in light of Brownie, the Tom DeLay-Jack Abramoff fountain of free golfing trips and lobbyist connections, and whatever the hell Karl Rove and Cheney's chief of staff were really doing about Valerie Plame, makes the corruption argument harder for Democrats to screw up by the day.
   
3. Harry Reid specifically requested Miers for the nomination. Seriously, on a blogger conference call last week, Reid related his conversation with Cheney in which he said, "I think that rather than looking at the people your lawyer�s recommending, pick her.� Regardless of whether or not that was a smooth move, how are Democrats going to oppose a broadly unqualified nominee when their own leader announces on the first day of her nomination that it was his idea? The upcoming developments within the Democratic Party on Miers should be fascinating.
   
4. Is she even conservative? Personally, I don't think it's a big deal that she donated to Gore in 1988 and Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas (Dukakis' running mate!) around the same time; pretty much all Texans were still Democrats then. But check out this nugget from the New Republic:
   

   For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA's House of Delegates. Here are two of the report's recommendations:

   • Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...

   • Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

   
   Wow. She is, apparently, hugely pro-life (remember Roe?) but she also voted for a property tax increase whilst on the Dallas City Council, so apparently she once exhibited some independent thought. Maybe she's not that bad for us after all.
   
5. More from National Review: "She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." Handsome, too. And while President Bush certainly is the smartest man in America, will this just convince everyone she's an idiot? Last night David Letterman did "Top Ten Signs Your Supreme Court Pick Isn't Qualified." That's gotta hurt.

I'll leave you with this awesome impression from some anonymous White House official, with a shout to Wonkette:

She's a nit-picky micromanager who failed upwards at the White House: "She failed in Card's office for two reasons," the [former White House] official says. "First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.

Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country." - Tom Delay, 1998

(Thanks to DailyKos for the tag.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just got a hot tip from the "What Did You Expect" department here at TMAB. (Note: this branch differs from the Department of Redundancy Department in which my high-school friends will eventually be given cushy jobs.) Anyway, you may remember my treatise on the trouble with interest-group politics when pro-choice advocacy organization NARAL went ahead and endorsed Lincoln Chafee in the RI Senate race, despite the fact that both Democratic candidates are firmly pro-choice. Here's the latest news:

Some national abortion-rights activists have sharply criticized Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee's decision to support the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States.

[NARAL]'s former president, Kate Michelman, pronounced herself "deeply disturbed and disappointed" by Chafee's support for Roberts. "As a women's rights leader, I must say it does raise an enormous amount of questions about whether women can depend on Senator Chafee to stand on principle," she said.

Because of Chafee's legislative record, Michelman said, she has counted on Chafee as an abortion-rights supporter "who'll never flinch at a threat to women's rights -- and he flinched this time."

NARAL should not be surprised: they tried to play politics, endorsing Chafee to try to get the Democrats to stop promoting pro-lifers in their ranks, and now they look like idiots. If NARAL takes away their endorsement, as it looks like they might, that would be a great sign that they've decided to stop fucking around.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

OK, first up, I'll assume you all read New Hampshire political news as vigorously as I do, but just as a refresher, from the Concord Monitor's political-notes column:

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "We've come a long way from Amos and Andy." - State Sen. Jack Barnes (R) laments the loss of old-fashioned values at a meeting of the legislative panel studying same-sex marriage.

Next, I wouldn't be able to go to sleep tonight without commenting on something else from that ridiculous column I eviscerated earlier. You'll remember this quote:

Why did Democrats led by Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., bitterly oppose the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown?

Robert Byrd was actually a member of the KKK in the early 1940s. He chalks it up to overambition, and has apologized for it in two separate books.

Granted, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and even George Wallace entered politics as products of their day and culture; but these men, by the grace of "Almighty God," had the scales removed from their eyes.

OK, so we have three Republican and one long-retired Democrat (Wallace, who last ran in 1984) who, fortunately enough, have been redeemed with God at their sides. Awesome! Contrast with this:

That all Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, [Bill] Clinton's mentor William Fullbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Man, why didn't THEY get God on their side? Fucking Democrats. It'd be neither productive nor interesting to go through why all of these guys are less racist than the guys who were saved, apparently, solely because they were either Republicans or Democratic pariahs. But I thought this one would be fun:

Gore [Sr.] fended off this primary challenge, but he was ultimately unseated in the 1970 general election by Republican Congressman William E. Brock III. In this Senate race, Brock was widely perceived to have won by playing on white voters' fears of civil rights and desegregation for blacks. In fact, Gore was one of the key targets in the Nixon/Agnew "Southern strategy."

Don't forget: this column was titled "The Lie That Keeps On Living." Stopped clock, it's your time of day.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks to the hotties at Feministe for finding this awesome column about how the Republicans have never been racist. My friends over there - ok, this girl I know in my lawyering class - astutely point out that, uh, what about the southern strategy, but this is the kind of comment that really deserves an explanation. So I have two solid points here, just to show once and for all that Republicans, indeed, have been racist.

1. First off, they admitted it! Minor detail, I know. Here's the Washington Post story (from just this past July!) in which current Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized for the Republican Party's 1968 strategy of winning over southern Democrats with racial appeals, as well as future trangressions in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It was a pretty crappy apology (claiming the GOP mostly didn't "reach out,") but Mehlman did use the exact words "trying to benefit politically from racial polarization." And three lines his boss seems not to understand: "we were wrong."

2. What do you know about Philadelphia, Mississippi? It's a small town, population 7303, that has been the site of two major events in our country's history. The later event was in 1980, when Ronald Reagan launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Right in that small town! So you'd have to think, if only one other big event had ever happened there, you'd have to believe Reagan wanted you to connect his event with the old one. Right? So what could it be? If you guessed "the 1964 slayings of three political activists during the Civil Rights Movement," you might have what it takes to be a Republican!

3. I know I said I had two points, but I said I had two solid points, and now I'm just ranting. But do you remember the "Hands" ad Jesse Helms ran in his 1990 North Carolina Senate race, the one depicting a white man losing his job to "a minority," when Helms was running against a black guy? (Watch it online, it's much worse than I'm implying.) Why are Democrats so fucking racist?

Really though, I'm just warming up. This guy's column is so ludicrous that it deserves a point-by-point rebuttal. That's right, if Fire Joe Morgan can do it with baseball, I can do it with politics. Here we go:

Common sense questions would be: If Southern bigots fled the Democrat Party to the Republican Party during 1964 and following, why was it the Republicans who fought for civil rights? Why was a Republican president (Richard Nixon) responsible for affirmative action?

I actually had to plead ignorance on the first question, until I looked it up. Here's the party breakdown of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the Senate:
* Democratic Party: 46-22
* Republican Party: 27-6
Here it is for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
* Democrats: 49-17
* Republicans: 30-2
So, in direct response to the first question, actually, Democrats voted for it too. Sean Hannity loves to quote that Republicans voted for this bill in a higher percentage (it's all he's got on this issue), but that's easy: in 1964 and 1965, southern racists were all Democrats! Remember? They didn't start voting Republican until the Republican Party's 1968 southern strategy! (The one your party chair just apologized for?)

As for the Republican president and affirmative action, honestly, I have no idea. In fact, I'm confused by a lot of things: why is it that when a Democratic president, a southern Democrat at that, uses his legendary persuasive ability to convince senators to vote for the 1964 and 1965 civil rights bills, it's actually because of the Republican senators, but when affirmative action starts in 1968, it's actually because of the Republican president? I seriously don't get this; I guess I was just taught poorly by liberal academics.

Why do Republicans have the stellar record of meritocratic inclusion in the highest echelons of their administrations?

Man, good thing I found a letter from Terry Edmonds here, that made a couple corrections to the record:

Do the names Ron Brown, Mike Espy, Jesse Brown, Alexis Herman, Hazel O'Leary, Togo West, and Rodney Slater mean anything to you? They represent the largest number of African Americans ever appointed to Cabinet-level positions, before or after the current administration--more than all other presidents combined. Clinton's African American judicial appointments also far exceeded those of any other president in history. In addition, Clinton appointed seven African Americans to the uppermost staff level in the White House, also the largest number in history. They included Bob Nash, Thurgood Marshall Jr., Minyon Moore, Ben Johnson, Mark Lindsay, Sharon Farmer, and me, the first director of speechwriting for an American president.

These next few are easy.

Why did Democrats led by Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., bitterly oppose the nomination of Thurgood Marshall,

Southern Democrats in the 60s were racists.

Clarence Thomas
Gross incompetence, sexual harassment.

and Janice Rogers Brown?
Batshit crazy.

Why did the Democrats sit silent as Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Janice Rogers Brown suffered vicious ad hominem attacks based on their race?

Well, now, I can only speak for one Democrat, but the reason I never commented on the racist attacks against Rice, Powell and Brown not because I'm racist, but because those attacks didn't exist, and you just fucking made them up. Subtle distinction.

Why was it the Democrats who opposed every civil-rights bill introduced in Congress (by Republicans) from 1856 well into the 1970s?

Man, if I hadn't listed all the Democrats above who supported the civil rights bills, I sure would have nothing to say right now. Well, except that southern Democrats "from 1856 well into the 1970s" were racists. Now, granted, other people from 100 years ago who are members of the same party as me and were overt racists probably makes me a racist too, the same way being in the same party as Henry Wallace makes me a communist and being in the same party as George Bush makes you a fucking idiot. But, it happens. What can you do?

Why do Democrats today support measures that retard self-sufficiency pursuant to blacks and the so-called poor, while Republicans champion the exact opposite (President Bush's "We will rebuild New Orleans" speech notwithstanding)?

This sentence is more or less inscrutable, so I'll leave you with this: anyone who would use the phrase "so-called poor" is a horse's ass and doesn't deserve one bit of your attention.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

From the Washington Post:

Two soldiers and an officer with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division have told a human rights organization of systemic detainee abuse and human rights violations at U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, recounting beatings, forced physical exertion and psychological torture of prisoners, the group said.
...
"Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid," an unidentified sergeant who worked at the base from August 2003 to April 2004 told Human Rights Watch. "This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement."
...
"They were directed to get intel from them so we had to set the conditions by banging on their cages, crashing them into the cages, kicking them, kicking dirt, yelling," the soldier was quoted as saying. Later he described how he and others beat the detainees. "But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug."

Look, I don't want to minimize the seriousness of the subject here. I hope, somehow, American POWs don't become victims of "fraternity hazing" like this. Hopefully al-Qaeda's media monitors slept late today.

But how are we still surprised? Why is it going to be news every time it turns out the administration has fudged scientific data that contradicts their paleoconservativism, or underfunded some safety precaution that only might save thousands of lives, or treated enemy prisoners in a way we thought only other countries did? This is simply how our government operates, and it's what we've got for the next three years. At least.

So thanks to our friends in Ohio and Florida for correctly prioritizing; now we don't have to worry about whether John Kerry was actually in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 35 years ago. Go team!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

From the Seattle P-I:

A message King County elections workers found scrawled on a yellow Post-it note and mailed with an absentee ballot left little doubt about what was at stake in Tuesday's otherwise ho-hum primary election.

"Please count my vote this time you Marxist morons. Have a nice day."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

John Kerry and John Edwards, through coincidence I assume, both delivered speeches knocking Bush on Katrina. Supposedly JRE had more of a proactive vision; he wants a WPA-like rebuilding agency that will employ the displaced people themselves to rebuild the city. Which isn't a bad idea, but I have to say, having never been to New Orleans, that I kind of have a Hastertian view of the whole thing. Is there any way to rebuild New Orleans and make it a lot safer than it was before? Higher levees? Hoverboards?

Anyway, as noted in Political Wire, Kerry got the line of the day:

Brownie is to Katrina what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq, what George Tenet is to slam-dunk intelligence, what Paul Wolfowitz is to parades paved with flowers in Baghdad, what Dick Cheney is to visionary energy policy, what Donald Rumsfeld is to basic war planning, what Tom DeLay is to ethics and what George Bush is to 'Mission Accomplished' and 'Wanted Dead or Alive.'

In a clue to his instinctive understanding of poverty, Edwards's summary of first principles includes the central concept (I first heard it from Hubert Humphrey on the subject of civil rights some 40 years ago) that confronting poverty is not something ''we" do for ''them."

''This is something we do for us -- for all of us. It makes us stronger; it makes us better," he said.
...
Edwards is also attentive to bad ideas. Yesterday, he spent a few moments decrying post-Katrina visions of mass trailer parks and the Bush idea of pseudo-homesteaders crammed onto federally owned land.

''If we know anything from a half-century of urban development, it is that concentrating poor people close to each other and away from jobs is a lousy idea," he said. ''If the Great Depression brought forth Hoovervilles, these trailer towns may someday be known as Bushvilles."

Does anyone at this point think John Edwards wouldn't be a fantastic president?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I tried to explain earlier why I like SurveyUSA so much as a polling firm: basically, it's cheaper and more accurate. I lamented back then, though, that I had become so convinced (as has a lot of the political establishment) based on one impossible-to-find seminal interview the SurveyUSA editor did with the Hotline political rag.

Anyway, I found it and reread it, and it was just as compelling today as it was when I first read it in February of this year. If you're interested in current trends in political polling, it's a long but extraordinarily interesting read. If you're not interested, well, that's your own damn problem, but I'll do you a favor and put the article under the fold.

Continue reading "Let's Get Illuminated" »

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First off, Political Wire is apparently desperate for more attention, and, hell, I'm up for it. They're not quite a blog, but if you're looking for interesting political news updates throughout the day, you can't do better.

Second, I have worked on three campaigns during which, for most of my tenure, the campaign didn't really get a whole lot of respect or attention. This is somewhat frustrating when your argument could go either way, but it's much worse when you're completely right and no one even cares. Perhaps there's no better example than when we were running against Craig Benson for governor of New Hampshire in 2002. Not only were we pretty confident that Benson himself was a crook, one of his finance chairmen ACTUALLY WAS

Dennis Kozlowski! How good does it get? Our opponent's campaign was being run by Lex Luthor! And yet nothing. All we got from the New Hampshire press that fall was Mark Fernald's attempt to institute an income tax. Well, and all of Craig Benson's convictions. Of course sexual discrimination sounds bad if you remember it. I digress.

Anyway, I mention it because Kozlowski, convicted of a felony in the workplace just like Craig Benson, is going up the river for at least eight years. Now all we have to do is get Ken Lay and we're back in business.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In the spirit of making nonsensical, ranting posts on Hurricane Katrina, a friend of mine asked me recently what I thought would be the political fallout of Katrina and I thought I'd post my reply. This was written before the president said he would spend more money on Gulf Coast reconstruction than on the Iraq war, and pay for it by cutting federal spending. (Looks like there won't be money for Social Security after all!) Anyway, here's what I said:

anyway, you asked what I thought about the political fallout of katrina. I think it hit Bush and the Republicans immediately for about seven points in approval, and I suspect long-term it further erodes the idea that the Republicans in Washington can do anything right. (I think democrats running for congress should be saying stuff like, "look, I don't think they're bad people, they're just not any good at this.") unfortunately, I suspect democrats are getting nowhere on this, much like they get nowhere with every GOP fuckup from iraq to tom delay. for some reason, and I'm not sure what it is, the DC establishment filters certain things through the lens of "things democrats and liberals whine about," and it seems like every time the democrats try to make a new issue, within about a week no one takes them seriously. I mean, they're completely right to go after republicans on the terrible response to katrina, but now it just sounds like whining. is it because DC republicans are so much better at muddying the waters to make it a he-said/she-said deal? I suspect democrats need to get better at picking two or three clear, unassailable points, and not really talking about anything else. like the state-federal government issues of who needed whose permission to do what and where is complicated. how about, "george bush sealed the fate of new orleans when he made michael brown FEMA director" or "I don't care if there were limits on what the federal government could do, if they saw what was going on down there - and we could all see it on TV - they should have gone in, saved lives, and gotten permission later." wouldn't that be two great messages? I don't know why we can't go with that. we're right here; we just have to explain why.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So how long until conservatives start using Katrina as an example of how the federal government can't do anything right?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

AP:

Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey on Thursday said he would run against fellow Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee in the 2006 race for Senate, expected to be the most expensive in state history.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have said this over and over, but Robert Novak, for all his evils, consistently writes interesting columns. Read this:

In August, the American Family Business Institute sent letters to all of McCain's supporters recorded as giving him $1,000 or more, requesting their help in changing his vote to support repeal. [link]

Also, if you want an example of something you don't want to happen to you as a politician, read this. "Just what was the councilor paying for? And why?"

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

From the paleoliberals at the Boston Herald, about our super-awesome FEMA head Michael Brown:

Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president's re-election campaign.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thanks to DailyKos for this gem:

"Like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."

Also, thanks to The Onion for showing us the numbers that shape our world:

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sorry mom, not me. I was reading Bill Simmons' recap of WWE Summerslam from last Sunday, when I saw this:

Apparently this was one of those pointless backstage sketches, here showing a couple of bimbos hopping into the car before Vince stuck his head out the window and said, "hey, why not?" Well, here are a couple reasons why the first President McMahon should not be named Vince:

1. There's nothing his opponents could attack him on. Jeez, where to begin? Besides spending his life in an outgrowth of the carnival industry, in which the point was to dupe the rubes into handing over their money, he then turned said industry towards excessive, brutal violence, cheap sex, and the occasional mock crucifixion. Sure, you can write that off as having his finger on the pulse of today's (or 1999's) youth, but I can assure you that specific instances more than reinforce the notion that Vince McMahon is just a terrific guy. There was the time when Owen Hart really didn't want to rappel down from the ceiling on pay-per-view with only one harness, but Vince made him do it anyway. Now, sure, Owen literally died when the harness snapped, but come on, that's no reason to stop the show. Stone Cold still had to defend the world title against Undertaker!

   And lest you forget, chump, he was acquitted in that massive steroid trial.
   

2. He knows his politics. Even after getting that terrible reputation (well, of course the past looks bad if you remember it), he proceeded to prove his naysayers wrong by setting up a storyline in which he, incidentally married to WWE's CEO in their lifelong family business, engaged in sexual behavior with all of WWE's hottest chicks, the apex, of course, being when he forced then-storyline-girlfriend Trish Stratus to come out, strip down to her underwear, and crawl around barking like a dog to prove her love for him. Did I mention this is a publicly traded company?

3. WWE is still roaring ahead. Someday I'll write a great essay on how WWE (then the WWF, for those of you still confused) peaked on September 25, 2000, so instead let's note this: have you ever noticed that a lot of businessmen turn to politics when their businesses start to decline, they try to revive the business, the business keeps declining, and the candidate says, "ah hell with it, I'm running for Congress"? Craig Benson certainly did the same thing with Cabletron up in New Hampshire before being the first NH governor in 78 years to lose his bid for a second term, and even an awesome guy like Jon Corzine was fired from Goldman before dumping $70 million into a Senate race. In any case, I'll urge you to note that WWE books are no longer tearing up the bestseller lists, WWE guys are no longer hosting Saturday Night Live, Smackdown just got moved to Fridays, attendance is way down, ratings are about 60% (at best) of what they used to be, and the company's been like that for at least four years. Remember that when Vince McMahon claims to be able to get this country back on track.

4. His sense of timing is impeccable. What better time to announce your presumably independent run for the presidency than 38 months before the election? If the guy had a damn bit of sense about him, he wouldn't be doing this until mid-to-late 2007 at the earliest, and probably not until 2008. I suspect he's just doing this because another WWE alum has said "we need to put a wrestler in the White House for 2008," and future first black president The Rock is otherwise engaged. Plus, as stated, his legacy falls further with each passing day, as WWE struggles to regain a connection to the buying public. He's a big conservative populist, though, so if he does run, we'll have a lot of awesome reheated Reaganaut government-bashing to look forward to.

   And speaking of his sense of timing, let's note that he did take the WWF to unprecendented heights for wrestling in 2000, to the point where his chief competition became not WCW but the rest of the entertainment world. With that opportunity, he should have started sucking up to the mainstream press and entertainment figures so that pro wrestling could stay hip for as long as Hollywood. Vince, of course, needed to revel in his success, and when he did an HBO interview with Bob Costas, the two of them nearly got into a fistfight. And yet somehow the XFL failed?

All told, this will be a surprise to longtime readers -- but I may not vote for him.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

You may know Pat Robertson from his televangelism on the 700 Club, his "Out of Staters Can Caucus Too" strategy for finishing second in the 1988 Iowa caucuses, or for finally calling feminism what it is, "a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." [More Pat Robertson quotes.]

But now he's finally stopped fucking around, and now he's showing that real Christians support killing. Or, at least, as long as it doesn't fuck up our oil supply. According to a story in the Washington Post, this is what he said on the 700 Club this week about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Anyway, I suspect my Republican-leaning extended family is going to start taking looks at the blog sooner than later, so I'm thinking I should start putting my generic yet hilarious "see conservatives stumble" posts into a single rant-like post. In that spirit, I'm going to endorse Gadflyer yet again with the entirety of a recent Cliff Schecter post:

I remember what a harrowing time it was in recent years when I hit my 30s. I wondered, should I change my behvavior in any way? Should I feel any different?

Now that President Bush's poll numbers are falling down to around the number of heart valve malfunctions our VP has in average month, The Great Clearer of Brush will have to ask himself some questions (or ask Uncle Karl, in abbreviated sentences).

But, of course, he never does that, and anyway he's still too busy reading about Dean Acheson, you know the Rat Packer with the drink always handy. So why even bother contemplating in what ways he might change. It will be fun, however, to watch as President Popularity scrambles to explain why 62% of people think he understands the economy about as well as John Maynard Keynes. Since he died that is. And 36% approval vs. 58% disapproval? Impressive. Keep sliming Cindy Sheehan, I'm sure that'll turn the corner for you soon... [Terry side note: Well, it worked in 2004.]

Oh, and one more thing, any Democrats running for office who don't live in a state George Wallace won in 1968, or maybe Idaho, and choose not to directly attack these Pam Anderson-sized boobs in 2006 directly, you're idiots. And some other word I can't use here that roughly means you are serious wimps.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In my mind, SurveyUSA is one of the best polling companies out there, a heretical statement for most political pollsters. SurveyUSA is an independent company that does what we in the business call a "cat poll," in that they call you up, and an automated message asks if you want to take a poll, how old you are, and then, if the election were held today, whether you support Tony Miller or Anne Northup for Congress. So in other words, a cat could knock over the phone and hit enough buttons to respond to the poll, and if not a cat, your 16-year-old kid, an alien, or someone else who's not a registered voter. Conventional pollsters do not support SurveyUSA's methodology.

So it's counterintuitive to think SurveyUSA actually works (and believe you me, we had this response prepped when they wreaked their ugly havoc on Louisville), but these guys apparently get some of the best results of any pollster in America. For starters, the voice recording is usually that of a local personality, usually a newscaster from the sponsoring TV station, so it's a "trusted source," as opposed to one of those weird polls you get where they won't tell you who they're from, but really, really want to know your opinion on the Israel/Palestine situation. Plus, scientifically, the automated voice is a control, as opposed to some schmuck on a headset who might be doing who knows what: as SurveyUSA points out, with live pollsters, even if not intentionally skewing the process (though they might), they might read too fast or too slow, they might mispronounce words, they might be too loud, they might change their tone as they keep calling people and getting tired, etc. etc. etc. While it's true that people could make stuff up taking a cat poll, apparently not enough of them do to make a SurveyUSA poll any less valuable than the industry standard headset poll. Finally, since it's automated, it's a hell of a lot cheaper. Frankly I don't understand why more candidates don't try SurveyUSA, or why polling firms don't offer an automated option for cash-strapped campaigns.

So why am I fellating SurveyUSA? Because they just proved that my state hates Bush more than yours does. Idaho, we're all very disappointed.

Incidentally, I wish I could quote from the National Journal interview with SurveyUSA from last November or December, but unfortunately I have access to neither National Journal nor Nexis. I trust that if someone has a password for either, they will not contact me at the email address at the top of the screen.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

DailyKos went ahead and posted a list of quotes from prominent Republicans back when Clinton was sending US troops into Bosnia, where, Kos points out, no Americans died. Here are some choice excerpts from a post you might want to see yourself:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Speaking of which, all of John Roberts' writings on affirmative action have all of a sudden turned up missing. Will we be this consistently awesome when we finally take our government back?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You may be aware of the broad overview of how the 2006 Senate situation looks right now. Rick Santorum is probably the underdog in Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafee will probably have a tougher fight here in Rhode Island than he did last time, Mike DeWine looks like a chump out in Ohio (even if Sherrod Brown announced today he's not running) and it looks like we may be able to get something going in Montana to take out Conrad Burns (whose middle name is Montgomery in style if not in name). As for Democratic seats, we may have trouble holding onto our open seat in Minnesota, the COO of Ameritrade is going back to Nebraska to take on Ben Nelson, and everyone says that Florida's Bill Nelson is the last holdout in a state that's trending Republican.

The Florida race seems the most interesting. First off, the incumbent Bill Nelson, a fine upstanding Democrat, actually went into space for a while as a sitting U.S. Representative. As a result, he's a much better person than me or you, and in a halfway decent country his Senate reelection would go uncontested. Fortunately, though, in this reality we've got Katherine Harris. Yes, the 2000 Florida secretary of state who, as Bush's Florida chairwoman, did everything she could to make sure Bush would "carry" the state so he could "win" the presidency, is making a run for the Senate.

Now, the idea of Katherine Harris as their party's Senate nominee has made a lot of Republicans in Florida and DC pretty nervous. First, there's the ongoing hilarity of her appearance, which you can see in two alluring Wonkette links as she explains her campaign assets (what a great look on her face, too) and, well, stops looking like a clown. So Katherine Harris is never a dull candidate. The second reason she has Team Republican antsy, of course, is the fact that every Democrat in the country hates her, so all astronaut Bill Nelson has to do is tell Democratic donors that he's the only thing blocking Katherine Harris from the Senate, and he can basically print money.

So, apparently casting aside Team Bush's legendary loyalty to those who have stuck with them, national Republicans (i.e. Karl Rove) are looking for a new candidate. The speaker of the state House decided not to run, so it looks like now Republicans have come up with Plan C: turn this whole land into Scarborough Country. So if you're anything like me and you've spent many a 10 o'clock hour watching MSNBC, you know the awesome punditry skills of talk show host and former congressman Joe Scarborough. I kind of hope he runs, actually; the attack ads on him will be like shooting fish in a barrel, and Ms. Harris's continued presence means Nelson can still raise a shitload of money. So this should be a fun one. Why is everything in Florida always weird?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You know I enjoy pointing out the various foibles and inadequacies of the Bush administration. Here's a good one, care of a pretty decent op-ed from the Manchester Union Leader:

President Bush signed a $286 billion transportation bill that was $30 billion higher than the amount he had pledged to veto.

"This bill is by far the most expensive, wasteful highway bill in the nation's history," Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told The Washington Times. "It is filled to the brim with 6,371 projects at a cost of $24 billion for almost every congressional district in the country."

The reason I think of Anne Northup in particular, though, is that she brings up pork projects in all of her campaigns, specifically, the Ohio River bridges project. See, Louisville really needs two more bridges across the Ohio River into Indiana, and Northup has won reelection to Congress every two years, in part, by claiming that the bridge project is invariably just around the corner. We just hired someone to start the design work. We just finished the design work. We're about to pick a construction company. Always one more step, that will only come with Appropriations Committee member Anne Northup returned to Congress. Again, smart politics, but again, I don't take her seriously.

So, now that we have that outrageously porkish transportation bill, I thought I'd see if there were any news on the Louisville bridges. Sure enough, there is!

For the Ohio River Bridges Project to move forward, Kentucky and Indiana must commit significant money in the coming years, U.S. Rep Anne Northup said yesterday.

"I want them to step up, and I want them to fund this project," Northup, R-3rd District, said during a luncheon meeting of the Regional Leadership Coalition.
...
Yesterday's meeting came on the heels of Northup and [Indiana U.S. Rep. Mike] Sodrel securing $58 million last week for the bridges. The money was included in the six-year federal transportation bill.

The bridges project is estimated to cost $1.9 billion in 2003 dollars -- but with inflation factored in, the estimate is $2.5 billion.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Great news - we officially have the dumbest thing I've ever read. I found it in The Hill two days ago, but I needed that much time to disparage it effectively enough:

[A]s the 2008 election approaches there are signs that an equally intriguing McCain-Kerry ticket could be in the works. If such an improbable thing comes to pass, its genesis might well be traced back to a one-on-one breakfast meeting July 27, when the two decorated Vietnam veterans huddled for more than an hour at La Colline restaurant on Capitol Hill.

Fellow diners said the pair was engaged in earnest conversation throughout the breakfast, although Kerry spokesman David Wade characterized it simply as a chat between two �longtime friends.�

And yes, I know, August is a slow news month, but a lack of breaking news never excuses idiocy. If you doubt the insanity quotient of this piece, let's revisit a line already pasted in:

[A]s the 2008 election approaches

(The Point Judith Country Club, last month when the grass around here was still green, and not a depressingly droughted shade of brown.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A reminder from DailyKos on Tuesday's special election for the most conservative House seat in Ohio:

In 2004, the Democrat running in OH-02 lost by 44 points. Tonight, the Democrat, Paul Hackett, lost by a mere 4 points.

Also, I think "Running On Empty" is Jackson Browne's best song.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks to Laura for the photo. I'm sorry, that's just funny.

So George Pataki had a meeting with close associates last night to tell them he's not running for a fourth term as New York governor. While I think Eliot Spitzer is New York's next governor whether Pataki ran or not, a small bit of the New York Times story jumped out at me:

But the meeting at the governor's mansion, a hastily arranged affair that had supporters from across the state scurrying to attend, was almost more like a family reunion than a political gathering, according to someone who was there who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the governor's planned announcement on Wednesday.

• If you're never going to talk to this reporter again (as was potentially the case with here) you can't trust them for anything. This is just common sense. You can tell them it's off the record, and they might keep it off the record, but there's nothing really stopping them from screwing you over. When you're talking to a reporter you won't be working with in the future, it's best not to say anything you don't want to see in print. Wait, let me make that stronger: think of what you want to see in print, and only say that.
  
• A corollary: when you're going to be working with a reporter on an ongoing basis, you have a little more leeway. You're still putting your fate in someone else's hands though, so my off-the-record remarks are usually just inside-baseball versions of whatever I was saying before. I do this for two reasons: one, if I contradict my on-the-record remarks, then I'm undercutting my credibility; and two, if there's stuff I just desperately want to level with someone on, I can call up a friend. Reporters are not your friends. (Hmmm... maybe that should be its own remark.)
  
• Specify "off the record" before you make your remarks, not after. This is the most important thing I can tell someone before they start talking to the press. Reporters understand the limitations of their sources and, in my experience, have been totally cool with me, as long as I treat them right. That means I interrupt an on-the-record conversation to say, "can we go off the record here?" and they say yes, we go there, and then I say, "okay, now back on the record..." and go from there. I haven't been screwed yet, but that's because I haven't said something I shouldn't and immediately said, "oh, wait, that was off the record" right when the reporter's thinking, "great, I've got a quote."
  
• Don't be afraid of a dull conversation. Reporters are well practiced in endearing themselves to sources. When I was a deputy press secretary on a campaign in New Hampshire, I was introduced to one of the best reporters in the state, who told me to call him so we could go out to dinner. Much as I would have liked to believe he saw greatness in my eyes, he was just looking for another source. Don't fall for people who suck up to you: just stay on message. With experience it's possible to do this in a natural way, saying stuff like, "look, I know it's not exciting, but that's really true, we're still counting checks," and my personal favorite, "oh, we'll definitely let you know when we have a comment on that."
  
• Reporters are not your friends. You can't ever assume the reporter wants you either happy or employed, no matter how nice they seem or even if they say they're "on your side." So even if you go off the record, a casual remark about how your opponent drinks and drives is not going into a vault by any stretch of the imagination. Reporters have different ideas of what "off the record" really means: can they talk about it with their friends at the bar that night? Can they write that "insiders say" what you just told them not to repeat? Once last year I asked a questioning journalist if the other campaign had already made their remarks. The reporter told me, oh, they said x, y and z, but "off the record they told me..." I didn't go off the record with that reporter after that.

So I hope this is helpful, or at least interesting. I know I'm not the world's greatest authority on press relations, given the stunning 36% of the vote we pulled in my only tenure as press secretary. Still, I never screwed up that badly in public, so I have relevant experience with the deer-in-the-headlights phase of talking to the press. Actually, that reminds me, last rule: if you get a call that you have absolutely no idea how to handle, it's easy. Say, "ooh, that's a good question, let me look it up and call you back," then email your consultants and say, "what the fuck do I do?" Works like a charm.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When I was living in Louisville, Kentucky last year, I remember reading a letter to the editor in the local rag that I found uncommonly insightful. A New England transplant (like me!) was saying how shocked she was, upon moving to Louisville, that her neighbors would ask her flat-out about her religion, often before knowing anything else but her name. As the letter writer put it, up north, we don't do that. Here, asking someone about their religion and how often they go to church and whether they've accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior is a lot like asking them their salary: it's just personal.

So, a lot of us up here in the liberal northeast don't think of personal religion as something to talk about in public in a whole lot of detail. And, apparently, a lot of folks who vote in elections think you're kind of weird if you don't. What's a national Democrat to do? Fortunately, we have the Rev. Jim Wallis.

Jim Wallis, the author of God's Politics: How the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, is a longtime progressive activist, a self-described evangelical Christian, and the founder and editor of the left-leaning Christian magazine Sojourners. While Wallis's book is not funny, the man himself has impeccable timing, as evidenced by his appearance on the Daily Show this past January. So I like Jim Wallis.

This book had an interesting effect on me. I read it, bluntly, to get some advice on how to talk about religion and morality in a way I'm comfortable with, in a way that would also sound comfortable to people who buy lattes at their 5000-person megachurch. Fair? What's funny, though, is that I read a book by a religious liberal to be more comfortable about religion, and I wound up being more comfortable about liberalism. Let's be honest here: being a Democrat and talking about morality and religion is not hard. If something's immoral, call it that. If you found an awesome Bible quote, use it. People are already doing this: John Edwards says that "budgets are moral documents," which is not only true (it's a list of priorities, like how much money for the poor, how much for Star Wars missile defense, and so on) but taken straight out of Jim Wallis's introduction. Not bad.

Jim Wallis is not the only guy who's written a book espousing a liberal viewpoirt. But the way Wallis does it, using Scripture and the words of prophets, gives his arguments a lot more credence. I have to say I was convinced, and on several occasions. For example, before reading God's Politics I would have called terrorism America's most important issue, and poverty to be the second. Wallis seems to agree, but he frames it much better. First, he quotes Gordon Brown, Labour's second-in-command, that this is the first generation in history with the resources to end global poverty. Again, that's true, but morally that puts us in an awkward position: every other generation could say, "if only," and we just don't have the will to do it. Wallis shows how the discussion is important, too, turning to the eighth-century Jewish prophet Micah, who sees a day in which "nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war, and each of them will sit under his vine and under his fig tree, with no one to make them afraid." As Jim Wallis sees it, and I agree, Micah draws a connection here. To "sit under his vine and fig tree" means not just peace but freedom, a freedom that's not possible for the 50% of the world making under two dollars a day. As an example, let's be blunt: the Palestinians live in shitholes and no one has a job. Do you really think they'd care that much about blowing up Israelis if they all had houses, jobs and cars? A real commitment to global poverty would be our best long-term solution for eradicating terrorism, and the plight of the poor is mentioned 3,000 times in the Bible to boot. (Spoiler alert: that's a lot more than they talk about gay marriage.) So now, personally, I feel the United States and the developed world should take stronger steps to eliminate global poverty. There are other issues, too, like race and the Israel/Palestine continual conflagration, on which Wallis has shifted my viewpoint a bit to the left. I'm still staying away from slavery reparations, but Wallis uses religion to create a very compelling case.

Wallis also brings a healthy understanding of what's going on these days in American politics. When talking about race, he flat-out says that Republicans win elections on fear so that they can usher in corporate governance. Of course this isn't true of all Republicans or all campaigns, but it's ain't as far off as it should be. He also accuses Republicans of engineering what amounts to a nationalist civil religion in which America itself is deified. I never would have thought to consider it that way, but it's exactly true. America is the ideal; America cannot be criticized. But Wallis goes back to the prophets to warn us against us-versus-them thought and deeds, quoting St. Augustine that "the line between good and evil runs through every human heart." So true, so important, and so often ignored.

I do disagree with Wallis on some points. First off, he takes an aggressive view on prescribing morality, which I find to infringe on personal freedom. Political dorks may recognize Wallis's apparent position as the "authoritarian" side of the Libertarians' World's Smallest Political Quiz, which is a pretty bad sign. But Wallis deserves to be taken seriously even here, and I'm sure it's true that raising children these days is often a counter-cultural activity. But I'm not sure disparaging premarital sex is going to solve any of that, and to be honest, if Wallis mentioned any actual solutions to this cultural problem, I don't remember it. (I can't necessarily solve the problem of crap coming out of Hollywood myself, by the way, but I do have one good idea. As I see it, Hollywood writers put dumb jokes into sitcoms and unreasonably hedonistic movie characters not to promote bad moral values, but because they're not very good writers. Why do they spend $100 million on special effects in these movies and pay the screenwriter $50,000? How about you spend $98 million on almost identical special effects, and then spend $2 million to get someone like Stephen King to write your movie? Wouldn't the plot be a lot better? I mean, they did this already with Spider-Man 2, yet there's not even a fad going here. What gives?) Back to Wallis, Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show last week that our so-called cultural cesspool is a natural part of any capitalistic society, and I'm not sure he's wrong. In any case, I definitely think supporting personal freedom has to be a priority of any democracy. How am I wrong here?

Still, the sections of God's Politics on social issues are generally about as liberally acceptable as a preacher of God's word can get. On abortion, he apes Hillary Clinton's positioning (I don't care who went first) that abortion is always a tragedy, and we need to expand opportunities for single women and for adoption so that we can reduce the number of abortions. I think that's an awesome example of common ground on a very contentious issue, and I applaud Wallis for bringing it up. And on gay marriage, it turns out he and I have basically the same opinion: give everyone the same damn civil unions form when they go to the town hall, and let the churches do what they want. (And if anyone says that getting a civil union license instead a marriage license from a dank government basement somehow threatens their bond, I say we kick them in the gonads. Remember, one of them will be a guy.)

So I wouldn't at all suggest that Jim Wallis is out of bounds on hot-button social issues. I disagree with him on a few of the above issues and some others unmentioned, but his presence in the national discussion is great for everybody.
As a piece of writing, God's Politics improves as it develops; the first few chapters were more repetitive than anything I can remember reading, but Wallis's closing is a humdinger. He uses personal testimony to illustrate his conclusion, that hope is a decision and each of us can improve our world now. Again, this is not a unique opinion, but Wallis's stories and the credibility he develops make it much more powerful.

So God's Politics gives me a better perspective on how personal morality can affect our politics. Look at President Bush and his relationship with Karl Rove. Will the president stick with loyalty, his most cherished personal value, or national security, the country's most important issue? It is wrong for Bush to put a personal friendship over the safety of our covert agents, their ability to gather intelligence, and the superior national security that results. So it raises the question: is Bush a good man? Will he do the right thing when it matters most, or will he fall short again and refuse to hold any of his friends accountable? These happen to be times that try men's souls, and I'm not sure our president is shining through. I always knew that didn't mean I hate America, and thanks to Jim Wallis, now I know how to back it up.

(More of the sunset at Lake Winnipesaukee.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There's not much I can add regarding the London terrorist bombings, so let me first thank Josh Marshall's blog for the idea, and then let me quote London Mayor Ken Livingston's statement in its entirety:

�This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded.

Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11 in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour. The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved.

I�d like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case. I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London.

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn�t an ideology, it isn�t even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I�m proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don�t want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.�

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My uncle and cousin yesterday were talking about my uncle's college thesis. Let me state, for the record, that my kids will never, ever read my college thesis, inasmuch as I, let's say, didn't apply sufficient intellectual rigor to the task at hand. One exception is my acknowledgements page, which I think stands as one of the funniest things I've ever written. Rereading it now, it still holds up, but for now you'll have to live with just this one line: "I also want to thank my suitemates in Lloyd 60s for the frequent distractions. I hope I made no inadvertent video-game references in the preceding work."

I have to acknowledge, however, that my acknowledgements page has one major flaw: I thanked Peggy Noonan. Noonan, Reagan's former speechwriter, really does have excellent writing skills, which proved useful to have around when I was hammering out my thesis. It's a touching story, right? Except that she's a bitch. I admit, I fell for it: she sounds all sweet, happy and good-intentioned, but she's even worse a hypocrite as the rest of the chumps in Washington. Take a look at some choice quotes from her latest Wall Street Journal column:

What's wrong with them? That's what I'm thinking more and more as I watch the news from Washington.
...
What is in the air there in Washington, what is in the water?

What is wrong with them? This is not a rhetorical question. I think it is unspoken question No. 1 as Americans look at so many of the individuals in our government. What is wrong with them?

Seriously here everyone, correct me if I'm wrong: isn't this like me acting honestly aghast that anyone would have written my thesis? Peggy Noonan has been part of the Washington establishment for 20 years. For her to criticize Washington now is the height of hypocrisy. That's right, I said it: the height of hypocrisy. Thanks for proving me wrong about you, Peggy.

Oh, and P.S.: No posts for at least through Tuesday. Happy Fourth of July!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As I'm sure anyone with a computer, TV or political-dork friends now knows, moderate Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, and Bush gets to nominate a new justice for Senate approval. Two points to consider:

1. Republicans feel burned by Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices of the past, and they are going to go way extreme this time to make sure their nominee stays a true believer forever. Going way back to Earl Warren, a Republican governor before he became Chief Justice of one of the most liberal Courts in history, Republican-appointed justices have tended to drift left over time. Souter is the obvious example these days, but conservatives are plenty mad at Anthony Kennedy (Reagan's replacement nominee after the Democrats, led by Joe Biden, took down Robert Bork). And lest we forget, O'Connor is a Reagan appointee herself. As Ted Kennedy pointed out on a conference call today, if Bush were going to nominate a consensus pick, why have conservative groups raised $18 million already to support the nominee?

2. I have no idea if or when Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned, but conventional wisdom has it that three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) would actually vote to overturn it. Now, that means that the GOP has to get their ducks in a row for both this new nominee and whatever pro-Roe justice (i.e., not Rehnquist) retires next, before we can even think about Roe being overturned.

But just so we start thinking about this now, I assume that the current political climate would support a federal law or state laws across the majority of the country banning abortion. Fortunately, I think this is because the abortion debate has shifted while it's been off the radar screen of the political/media establishment. In other words, supporting abortion is being increasingly equated to supporting killing babies. What liberals/Democrats have to do, should Roe be overturned, is to remind everyone that they oppose abortions (policies to lower poverty among single women would help), but focus the choice on whether you support back-alley abortions. Back-alley/bathtub/wire-hanger abortions will return to American life post-Roe whether social right-wingers like it or not, and if we can claim that we want to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare," and push hard to back up all three of those terms, I think the public will go for it. So the days of not having to fight on abortion may be ending, but it's still a fight we can win.

(P.S. That photo above is Schilling at the PawSox game. Uh-huh.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Today's political lesson concerns the old adage that in politics, a few months can be a lifetime. When California treasurer Phil Angelides announced this winter that he would challenge Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, I thought, like many other Democrats, "well, good that he's doing it, but yikes. Good luck."

Oh, how things can change. A new Field Poll shows that both Angelides and state comptroller Steve Westly are now ahead of Schwarzenegger, by four points each. Schwarzenegger's reelect stands at 39%, an atrocious number by any standard and worse for a governor once so popular that people were trying to rewrite the Constitution so that he could be president. Now granted, this election still has 16 months of change to go, but who ever would have guessed we'd be here now?

In a similar vein, you may have heard that President Bush's approval ratings these days is around 42 or 43 percent. Sure, that's bad, but I just found an American Research Group poll showing Bush's approval/disapproval among independents is an astonishing 17/75. That's right: only 17% of independent voters approve of the job Bush is doing. These numbers are worse than Schwarzenegger's, and it's yet another reminder of the difference in coverage of Bush and Clinton. Does anyone doubt that a Clinton with a 42% approval rating would be pelted with "failed presidency" coverage? In any case, this much is true: George W. Bush is an unpopular president.

Hopefully on the increasingly popular side of the ledger, the DNC just relaunched their website. I really like it. The old version just screamed, "hey look, we're diversity!" This one is a lot more snazzy. If you're into this kind of thing, I'd highly recommend a look.

Okay, one last note: you may have heard that the FEC has proposed limiting bloggers' political conversation and contributions the way they do for radio, TV and print. Here's a hilarious post that I think about sums it all up.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

So I called up U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd's DC office this afternoon, to see if that was actually him I saw out in front of the Dunes Club yesterday when I was jogging. The lovely young lady who answered the phone said, "I don't know, I'll go check" in a "the rest of the office is NOT going to believe this" tone that I recognized from when I've answered the phone on campaigns. (You don't have to be a dick to work in politics, but it helps.) Anyway, her response was, "I can't confirm that," the rough equivalent of, "who did you say you knew in the office again?" Bitch. You know what I love doing to people like that? Getting the last laugh.

I figured starting off with "This is probably a weird question" was probably a mistake, so I didn't use the same opening when I then called Dodd's Connecticut office. The people there were much more helpful, not surprisingly, and the guy who wound up taking my call didn't scoff when I related my admittedly uncommon concern. In fact, after he put me on hold to go check, he said, "Senator Dodd was indeed in Rhode Island yesterday. He played in a charity golf tournament."

That's confirmation enough for me, but when I related this story to some of my less politically intrigued coworkers, one of them mentioned yesterday's Steven Follett Memorial Golf Tournament before remarking that former Rhode Island Gov. Joe Garrahy goes to the Dunes Club a lot too. Sounded extraneous at the time, but I can tell you that Steve Follett was my year at South Kingstown High School, one town over from Narragansett, so the chances that Senator Dodd was playing golf around here yesterday are pretty good. And I also happen to know that Senator Dodd's sister is a Dunes Club member, so if he was in the area, no doubt he would have visited, especially since, as mentioned, the beach is awesome. So I conclude that I saw Christopher Dodd at the beach yesterday. Think this'll show up in The Note? (Also, the water was 63 degrees: now that's a real man.)

So, what's weirder here?

• I was jogging down the beach when I saw a guy enjoying the ocean surf, and my first thought was, "that guy looks like U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT);"
  
• I actually called around to find out if it was him;
  
• I was right.

And two lessons:

1. Jiminy H. Cricket, how hard is this to understand: don't give up easy.

2. DC offices are filled with assholes; local offices want to help you. Fight the power.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I mentioned earlier that there's plenty of good stuff being said by and about likely 2008 presidential candidates. I was perusing the PAC blog of Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who I like, even if he clearly ripped off the idea from John Edwards. But yikes, I found this blunder:

Energy is the national security issue of our time.

I'm sorry, I have to say it: bloggers making these remarks is okay for now, but if the senator actually goes ahead and agrees, his chances of winning the nomination will go - ready? - Bayh-Bayh. Oh I love it.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

All right, now this is funny. You guys all know I'm no Yankees fan, but I love politics and baseball and making fun of those I oppose in each. Look:

Karl Ravech: So what do you attribute to Randy Johnson's ballooning ERA?

Harold Reynolds: Oh, the lack of support from the spectators, definitely.

Karl Ravech: Really... you don't think there's a problem with his delivery?

Harold Reynolds: Now you're trying to divert the issue. This isn't about mechanics. When Yankees fans fail to cheer loudly enough, the opponents start to feel like they can win. That's what this is about.

Karl Ravech: But you don't think his age might be a factor?

Harold Reynolds: Shut up, Karl. Out of respect for the men who go out there on the field every day, just shut the hell up. I'm cutting your mike. Just shut up.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Interesting set of columns from the New York Times recently, as I suspect bipartisanship as a theme is intentional. I am a firm believer that there are a lot of inefficiencies in solving problems in our current political climate, to use a Moneyball phrasing. Both Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton have advocated saving thousands of lives and millions of dollars every year by moving health care record-keeping to computers, but we're still not doing it. Are we really so divided that we couldn't work out the details over lunch? Maureen Dowd's current replacement has an odd debut in Saturday's paper, but she makes the same point in an astute paragraph:

When I find myself puzzled and even vexed by the opinions and beliefs of other people, I invite them to have lunch. Multiple experiments have supported what we will call, in Jeff's honor, the Limerick Hypothesis: in the bitter contests of values and political rhetoric that characterize our times, 90 percent of the uproar is noise, and 10 percent is what the scientists call "signal," or solid, substantive information that will reward study and interpretation. If we could eliminate much of the noise, we might find that the actual, meaningful disagreements are on a scale we can manage.

The president, with the skill of an actor, would begin: "Ev, I wouldn't treat a cut dog the way you treated me on the floor today."

Dirksen, with a mock somber expression, would answer, "Mr. President, I have a vow to be faithful to the truth, so I had no choice in what I said."

L.B.J. would laugh. Touch�. Dirksen, pleased with his retort, would rumble up a laugh as well. They would trade stories and gossip.

Then the president would say something like: "Ev, I need three Republican votes on my civil rights bill, and you can get them."

Dirksen would frown. Without answering, he would reach into his jacket and pull out a list of nominees to just about every operational regulatory commission in Washington. He would also suggest that the president relax his opposition to a bill the Republicans found congenial to their aims.

They would ramble on, reminiscing and teasing each other. When the Frescas were finished, Dirksen would depart. There would be no summary of what they had said. Their relationship was built on something that is sorely missing today: trust. Both men knew that plenty of quarrels would be played out on the Senate floor and on the campaign trail. But they also knew that once a commitment had been made, it would be kept. If they disagreed, they would keep talking.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson began as friends. The tensions and frictions of the early Republic took care of that. Then, after years of silence between them, a mutual friend persuaded them to write to each other. In 1812, they launched into a correspondence that continued until it was ended by their deaths.

That ending point was on their minds and drove their correspondence. As Mr. Adams wrote Mr. Jefferson, "You and I ought not to die, before we have explained ourselves to each other."

The trouble is that working well with others is easy in theory and harder in practice. You get a couple Frescas in you and all of a sudden you're conceding major parts of your Social Security plan. But to return to our friend Senator Clinton, she's made joint policy proposals with Newt Gingrich, Lindsay Graham and Tom DeLay, among others. Since she likes to focus on genuinely common-sense issues, Senator Clinton a) finds more opportunity to get more done and help more people and b) comes across as moderate. And every time Clinton stands up there with another conservative Republican, it gets harder and harder to attack her as a crazy liberal. Best of all, since she picks her issues well, you can't attack her for doing it, or you're attacking something like reducing hospital errors. So there's plenty of room to get more done in Washington.

Unfortunately, the challenge is that a willingness to work with the other side can be faked for political purposes. I'm sure you saw Karl Rove's ridiculous comment last week about how liberals wanted to offer "understanding" to the perpetrators of 9/11. One of the few Republicans to distance himself from those remarks so far is Rick Santorum: he has a really tough election to win next year, and acting like he values the other side of the aisle makes him come across as more moderate.

Right, right, despite his votes. Nonetheless, there's still hope for an effective American government. We've just got a ways to go.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Recently, conventional-wisdom political publication National Journal did an insiders' survey of who were the early frontrunners for the 2008 presidential election. (Look, otherwise they'd be forced to think about the issues.) The winner on the Republican side might be a surprise: it was Senator George Allen of Virginia. Allen's dad is an NFL Hall of Fame coach, and the son would be the first president since Andrew Johnson to have also been a governor and senator.

Anyway, apparently he's got a real moderate style, he's really conservative, and he's really driven, so the thinking is that he'd make a great presidential candidate. I was reading an interview with him and he made this remark:

The 9th Circuit is Exhibit A of activist judges who ignore the will of the people, who are reversed more than any other court by far in this country.

Rival candidates bring up each other's old quotes often enough that you might think they cover everything, but they don't. Candidates speak much more freely three years out of a presidential election, and it is not likely that all of their mistakes will get caught. So remember this one, and point out any others you see.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So my hometown of South County, according to this headline, is a national leader in marijuana use. Those fortunate enough to have heard my passionate tales of the South Kingstown social scene may infer for themselves that I was not typically included in this South County marijuana use. As we know, though, I'll show them all someday, plus, this is still an interesting story. Look at the beginning:

South County, where pristine beaches and million-dollar houses provide a scenic refuge from the hustle and bustle of the cities to its north, has a surprising secret.

In many ways, the red and blue map that accompanies the report looks like an inverse of the 2004 election results, with a the dark red that indicates frequent usage lining the coasts and urban areas and a broad swath of abstinence blue lining the center of the map, excepting Colorado (and its population of itinerant ski bums).

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The AP helpfully informs us that Condoleezza Rice is suggesting that Bush may bypass Senate approval for John Bolton, his nominee for ambassador to the UN. Apparently the Democrats are stalling the nomination because the Bush administration isn't providing certain information about Bolton the Democrats think will doom his candidacy. Rice is suggesting, in response, that the administration might just go ahead and nominate Bolton during the July 4th recess, since the president can make temporary appointments during a congressional recess (since they're not in session to advise and consent). Here's what the AP says:

Under the Constitution, a president can make an appointment during a Senate recess without the chamber's approval of the nominee. That appointment lasts only through the next one-year session of Congress � which in this case would mean until January 2007.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Also, I'm not sure this is related, but I don't think Condoleezza Rice is human.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I just found out from a Roll Call article (sorry, it's subscription, get better connected, losers) that noted former Democratic consultant Bob Shrum is teaching at NYU's school of public service. Shrum, you may recall, is the first-among-equals of Democratic consultants who are awesome at winning the primary and not so much in the general election. The guy's presidential campaign record is 0-8 lifetime, which besides being the same win percentage that I have, prompted his assistants to make up "Reverse the Curse" T-shirts for him at the Democratic convention. (Man, if I had to predict one of those curses to be reversed...)

Anyway, think they'll let me audit one of his classes?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Now that he's become culturally irrelevant, I love Ralph Nader. Take a look at some of his more interesting comments from the other night:

Speaking Wednesday night at a Washington fund-raiser to retire the debt from his 2004 presidential campaign, Nader complained that Democratic Party powerbrokers had kept him off the ballot in such Southern states as Georgia and Virginia - which reminded him of the oppressive Jim Crow laws that denied African-Americans equal rights.

"I felt like a [n-word]," remarked the 70-year-old white multimillionaire graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

Thanks to Lloyd Grove at the New York Daily News for the writeup (Hamptons news too!!!), and for this witty rejoinder:

Yesterday, Nader told me he was using the word in the same spirit as the Black Panthers of the 1960s - "as a word of defiance."

But Sharpton retorted: "He's not a Black Panther."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In other news, the sun rose in the east, chocolate tastes good, and I took 17 minutes for my 15-minute break today. Let's go straight to the quotes:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings,'' Durbin said.

Said McClellan: "I think the senator's remarks are reprehensible. It's a real disservice to our men and women in uniform who adhere to high standards and uphold our values and our laws.''

I know this stuff should be boring me by now, but I just remain appalled. Make sure you don't fall for these GOP attacks, though, where they rush to defend the honor of those not impugned. It's the cheapest kind of politics.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

OK, that title isn't true for a second, but energetic young GOP go-getters sure can get a lot of perks. I'm referring, of course, to the New York Times article yesterday about the awesome summer intern experience at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but also to another comment I saw on the topic.

Quick digression: My favorite class in college was Politics and the Mass Media in Fall 2000. I, a Haverford student, took it over at Bryn Mawr with Paul Waldman, a Swarthmore alum then a fellow at UPenn's Annenberg School of Communications. (Indeed, that's the preppy-Philly-colleges Grand Slam you have there.) Sure, the class was fun, thought-provoking and instructive, but more I'm happy to see my professor's sterling rise through the world of actually useful political commentary. He's written a book on why the media gives Bush such an easy time, he's the senior editor at Media Matters, and he runs his own liberal political site The Gadflyer.

Now I mention all this to point you to Prof. Waldman's Gadflyer post on the NYT Heritage internship story. I can't excerpt his post (which is short) without losing its wit, so I'll just urge you to read the whole thing yourself.

All right, here's one line:

What horrific trauma could young Ms. Rogers have endured to turn her into the terrifying beast she is today?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you're not from Rhode Island, your capital city's convention center is neither called the Dunkin' Donuts Arena nor conventionally known as "The Dunk." That's okay, because you too probably participate in the most common activity at The Dunk and most other convention centers: losing money! The Providence Journal (affectionately known as the ProJo) reports that the Dunkin' Donuts Arena only owes $2.4 million in unpaid bills. (Didn't NSync sell 2.4 million copies of one of their albums the first week?

Now, from what I've heard from steamed-ham and urban-planning experts, including those currently on vacation in Trenton, is that convention centers always lose money. As in, mayors will propose expensive new convention centers, on the idea that this will bring in conventions and thus give the city's whole economy a boost. Of course, these things cost a ton to build and maintain, and if it's in the middle of the city there's always the chance the land could be used for something better. As the chairman of the state House Finance Committee says, "That's what's important here ... what is the value of that building? If we're going to purchase the building and land -- the land is the valuable piece."

So I write with two purposes: one, to see if anyone has any insight to whether it's true that these things lose so much money, and two, to dissuade any future urban planners from thinking, yet again, that a new convention center will be a cure-all for the city's financial woes. At least look at past examples before you take a Dunk, if you will, on taxpayer money in an expanded Javits Center on Manhattan's West Side. OK?

UPDATE 6/17: She's hot as a tamale and smart as a whip, and Katy Hight lets us know in the comments that the nonpartisan Brookings Institution did a report confirming Team SOTW's hypothesis. Way to go!

P.S. Am I the only one who thinks the Brookings logo looks a little like the shape of RI? Have I been here too long?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

So the New York Times yesterday (sorry, I'm catching up) featured an op-ed from a couple of people on madrassas, and whether they're really using official state textbooks to teach Middle Eastern kids to hate America. I'm not hugely interested in that discussion (these folks argue no) but I found an interesting set of statistics about something I've been thinking about:

The 1993 World Trade Center attack involved 12 men, all of whom had a college education. The 9/11 pilots, as well as the secondary planners identified by the 9/11 commission, all attended Western universities, a prestigious and elite endeavor for anyone from the Middle East. Indeed, the lead 9/11 pilot, Mohamed Atta, had a degree from a German university in, of all things, urban preservation, while the operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, studied engineering in North Carolina. We also found that two-thirds of the 25 hijackers and planners involved in 9/11 had attended college.

Of the 75 terrorists we investigated, only nine had attended madrassas, and all of those played a role in one attack - the Bali bombing. Even in this instance, however, five college-educated "masterminds" - including two university lecturers - helped to shape the Bali plot.

Frankly, I'm not completely sure why the terrorists do this stuff when they should know better, or at least know that they have better options. The refrain you hear is that terrorists hate America more than they love life, which, while true, leaves too much unsaid. My suspicion is that these kids are raised to believe America only wants to hoard the world's resources at the expense of everyone else, comes to America (or some other Western country), discovers that, indeed, we are that rich, vapid, and uninterested in befriending culturally unadjusted Middle Easterners, and sure enough they come home ticked off and ready to tell their fellow countrymen that all they had believed is true. Now, having read the preceding sentence means you've thought about the terrorists' thought process and motives, thus meaning they've already won, but does that have any sense to it? It's the best idea I can come up with.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Look, I've long suspected that Texans have foul judgment skills. I mean, the executions, the unrestrained ego, the Cowboys, the 31 statewide elected Republicans, but this takes the cake. SurveyUSA did a ton of polls on the popularity of all 100 senators, and who's the least popular senator in the country? That's right: John Cornyn. I mean, you send a guy to Washington to bring nothing new to the table, and jump onto whatever cruel method of discrimination is politically expedient, and then you don't even appreciate it? Assholes.

Thanks to DailyKos for the pickup.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Mickey Kaus points out how a third-party presidential candidate pretty much needs a majority (270 majority votes) to win:

the real problem is the House of Representatives which will choose the President from among the top three in electoral votes unless one of the three candidates gets an absolute majority of all electoral votes. Thus, if each of the major party candidates can simply scrape together one-fourth of the total electoral votes, the election will be decided by the House, each state delegation casting a single vote with the votes of 26 state delegations necessary to a win. Regardless of how their district and states vote, there will be very strong party pressure on both Republican and Democratic members of Congress to cast a party vote. There will be no Independent party members in the House, making it virtually impossible for McCain to assemble 26 states even assuming he runs first by a significant margin.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

To be honest, I'm not sure how to talk about Michael Lewis and the book I just read, Trail Fever: Spin Doctors, Rented Strangers, Thumb Wrestlers, Toe Suckers, Grizzly Bears, and Other Creatures on the Road to the White House. I should say first off that it's apparent Michael Lewis has a talent for finding the interesting side of life and seeing what's over there. I mean, he was wondering why the Oakland A's kept winning their division with one of the lowest payrolls in baseball, and his Moneyball changed baseball forever. Think of it: so many baseball books every year, and this guy's book had the biggest impact of any of them in the past 30 years. So you can imagine my interest in seeing Michael Lewis' book on politics, specifically the 1996 presidential elections. This is a much more personal book than Moneyball - there's a difference between the story of a campaign and the story of reporting on a campaign - so Michael Lewis lets us know a lot about what it means to be Michael Lewis.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad approach to take: after all, that's certainly how I write this blog. At first, though, Lewis' personal tack wasn't working for me. In other words, I thought he was an asshole. The original title he wanted didn't help; Losers: The Road to Everywhere but the White House sounds like a Wall Street alum (he is, as detailed in his first book Liar's Poker) wondering why everyone in politics is such an idiot. The opening of his book, set during the primaries, only makes things worse: blah blah blah, Clinton's campaign is soulless, blah blah, Dole's campaign is the Republican version of Clinton. If only there were a guy who meant business who could clean this up, right? (More on that later.)

Upon further reading, though, I discovered that Lewis is less an out-and-out asshole, and more just relentlessly honest. Now, I know, sometimes the difference between jerk and a smirking "hey, I'm just being honest" is slight, but true honesty, to muddle FDR, is sometimes the best policy. Sure, Lewis picks on Clinton and Dole and complains about the state of politics (and how Pat Buchanan's campaign lost his bags, the boredom of the press plane, and so on), but he's equally forthcoming in his compliments. He doesn't even do the backhanded compliments you'd expect. When Steve Forbes turns out to have an astonishing talent for disarming reporters' tough questions, Lewis comes across as genuinely impressed. The outsider credentials that I thought would create a tale of extended condescension and bemusement turned out to give Lewis a real objectivity. Because he doesn't obsess over politics like most political journalists, Lewis has a fresher outlook on the events as they unfold. Put another way, he doesn't care about the stuff anyone can tell you is pointless (he mentions Bob Dole's cavalcade of endorsements a few times, but never who these major political figures actually are) and actually finds real insight.

That's when I realized I had shifted my opinion again: I was actually finding Michael Lewis to be likeable. I mean, really so. Once I had gotten around the fact that he might be honest and not just a jerk, I saw that Michael Lewis is, simply, astonishingly insightful. You remember the political journalist's book I reviewed earlier? While that book offered up four or five real good insights and topics for discussion, Lewis does that at least once a page. I'm not kidding. I could literally devote a paragraph or so here to any of about 200 fascinating issues that Lewis casually tosses off in a sentence or two. Some of these revelations are about politics (on page 91, he realizes that the "rented strangers" who staff Dole's campaign and advise him on how to proceed have a huge personal interest in telling him to run, even if he can't win) and some not political (on page 163, he relates a story someone once told him on how to take a mental photograph and keep it). Michael Lewis is clearly a smart guy, and he applies it well to the subject matter. That's what makes this book worth reading.

It's not just Lewis' intelligence that makes Trail Fever a winner, though: the man knows where to look. He decides early on that Clinton and Dole are running campaigns specifically designed to avoid real issues, and his impressions thereof are the weak part of the book. Fortunately, he also realizes that this means he should go see other candidates and situations. For me, that's what makes the book: sure, Lewis spends a lot of time with candidates, discovering the genuine effectiveness of Alan Keyes and his apparently amazing speeches, and attempting to connect Pat Buchanan's newfound protectionism with the Republican pro-business ideal. But Lewis leaves the campaign trail too, to talk to Jesse Jackson, failed presidential candidates like Michael Dukakis and George McGovern, the head of conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, Bob Dole's sister who still lives in his childhood house, the guy down the street from Lewis's NYC apartment who started a mini-economy on can recycling, and so on, each more interesting than the last. In contrast to his disappointment in the overall intellectual crumminess of the Clinton and Dole campaigns, this is where Lewis finds inspiration, and he conveys it well. The book benefits as a result.

The first-among-equals of Lewis' digressions is relationship with Republican primary candidate Morry Taylor. Taylor, a Midwestern tire executive, just barely qualifies as a serious candidate; imagine, if you will, a right-wing Kucinich getting into the debates with no elected experience. What's interesting about Morry Taylor, on a superficial level, is Lewis' clear fondness for him: during the primary season Lewis repeatedly ditches the campaigns that could actually win in favor of another few days with Morry, and even does this a few more times during the general election. For someone who's spent a little more time reading Michael Lewis, though, a real parallel emerges. The brash rejection of conventional wisdom, the business-oriented approach, and the determined interest in combining disciplines describe not just Morry Taylor but Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane... and Michael Lewis himself. I can't tell if Lewis intends to draw these parallels, or if he's just driven towards subjects who share his outlook on life, but the connection is unmistakable. What's funny, though, is while Michael Lewis may not come off as an asshole in his book, Morry Taylor sure does. Morry does good things (he was genuinely enraged when his big secret came out, even though it was that he had anonymously donated $19,000 so a poor Iowa family could make their house wheelchair-accessible for their disabled son). Generally, though, Morry Taylor is the guy I feared I saw in Lewis: he jumps into a new profession and immediately makes fun of the people in it. He brags about being rich and calls people idiots if they don't have the all-important business know-how. He makes fun of political operatives for being fat to their face and hands out a ridiculous survey with questions like "Do you agree with my plan to truly reform government?" I suspect Lewis relishes not only Taylor's ability to cut through the bull-crap of politics to receive, say, a standing ovation for being pro-choice at a social-conservative Republican event, but also the fact that Taylor's aggressive style also ensures his downfall. To Lewis, without the guys like Morry Taylor (and Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes) to tell the truth, the mainstream politicians would have nothing to steal.

Now, I have a probable future bride up in the Pacific Northwest with a crush here, so I'll indulge everyone and talk about my favorite part of the book. Everyone knows that John McCain decided to use his sincere honesty to "kill 'em with access" and open up to reporters about anything and everything, successfully winning them over so that they'd give his campaign the best possible coverage. So when a guy with McCain's honesty runs into a guy with Michael Lewis' desperate search for truth, the results are great. No less than three times do the two meet, and each is rife with insights. Here's my favorite paragraph from the entire book:

The senator appears to commit indiscretions by the score. But I have no idea whether these are indiscretions everyone has already heard, and thus part of McCain's political persona, or true gaffes that will get him in trouble and make me famous for my reportorial skills. Is it shocking that while every elected official in America is busy sucking up to Ross Perot, McCain not only describes Perot as "nutty" but also tells me that Perot calls him constantly to whine about even mild criticism? Should I stop the presses when he says that Buchanan drew more people to rallies in Arizona than he ever could? I don't know, and I'm not even sure I want to.

And I like Michael Lewis. His book is like the best of life: it starts with a solid plan, gets rid of the plan to do something better, and always pursues real insight, even if it's not where everyone else is looking. Maybe every reporter has a similarly haphazard and happy-go-luck lifestyle, but Lewis is the first one I've read to convey it in print. It's not that different from a current reporter's campaign blog; in fact the book is modified from Lewis's articles for the New Republic. (And I know people who write for that!)

So I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone who's interested in politics. As a book, Trail Fever is just as good as Moneyball and better than Liar's Poker, and if you can stand the subject matter, you should read it. One final note: though it's not listed on the author's bio here, I know Lewis is now married to former MTV VJ Tabitha Soren and lives with her in Paris. I believe he meets her in this book, when he stops by a Rock the Vote event. Sure enough, his acknowledgements conclude with his thanks to a Tabitha Sornberger: "Some interviews never end." The best ones never do.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mark Leibovich in the Washington Post today (I'm still referring to Friday at this point) gives up and writes not about the Howard Dean/Harry Reid joint press conference, but about how screwed up the whole thing was. Here's an example:

About 60 reporters and cameramen attempted to shove their way into an office equipped to handle about 20. The resulting spectacle offered yet another distillation of why so many people believe that politicians and the media deserve each other.

The madness began at 10:30 a.m. when the media horde was invited to enter Reid's office. Photographers poured in first, equipment slamming into the sides of a narrow doorway and -- in one case -- the temple of a female staffer. Reporters were invited in next, but roughly 20 reporters were unable to crowd in and were left to shout objections through the bottleneck. "You can't start yet," one yelled from the back. "The reporters aren't in."

After several seconds, a booming voice cut through the noise. It belonged to Brian Wilson, a Fox News correspondent who was standing in the middle of the crowd. He asked Dean "if people are focused on the other things that you've said about hating Republicans, about Republicans being dishonest and then this latest comment about the Republican Party is full of white Christians. You say you hate Republicans -- does that mean you also'' hate white Christians?

Dean didn't respond and Reid talked about having a "positive agenda." Wilson was so insistent that at one point, Durbin asked, "Does he run the press conference?"

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Policy guys are interesting to work with on campaigns. On Team Edwards we put up a big sign saying "Wonk Wonk Wonk" on the door to the policy wing. Good folks all: one of them, I honestly forget whom, once said, as a surprise to him/herself, "You know, I can pretty much come up with a policy in two hours now." Of course, the guys who walked into my office cubicle in Louisville seemed to be able to do it on the fly, but for a presidential campaign, that's pretty impressive. So I liked the policy folks.

I'll assume that the story of impromptu policy-making did not come from campaign policy director Robert Gordon, who was really nice to me when we ran into each other in Louisville at an Edwards-for-VP event, at a time when I really appreciated seeing old friends. Robert also has a real talent for detailed and thoughtful policy analyses, and I still have a copy of the Edwards policy platform for future reference.

Robert shows off his talent for thoughtful policy with a really fantastic article on education in the New Republic. (Yes, I'm name-dropping New Republic contributors. Wait until I get started on Gadflyer.)

I'm not just recommending this article because I know the guy who wrote it, though I do, or because I agree with everything he says, because I don't. Just as Moneyball pretended to be about on-base percentage and was really about exploiting inefficiencies, Gordon's article (I have to be formal) lays out a series of suggestions on improving education, but I suspect he really wants Democrats to stop worrying and love No Child Left Behind. For me, that's a tall order: once a teachers' union president laid out for me the problems with NCLB, and I was truly horrified. The way I saw NCLB, the new standards for accountability were merely a front for declaring most schools in the country unfit for education. Then, if none of the public schools are functional, where are we going to educate our kids? That's right: private schools. I think at least some of the people who wrote NCLB intended it so that ten years from now, we have a massive public outcry for school vouchers. I think this way about a lot of Bush plans. And I still don't think I'm that far off.

So I'm not an easy convert. But Robert, I mean, Gordon, does a good job of refocusing the debate. Democratic criticism of NCLB so far has almost entirely claimed that subsequent Bush budgets have underfunded his own education reforms, so local communities (and sometimes teachers' own pockets) have to foot the bill. Howard Dean said during the primaries that NCLB amounted to a local-tax increase. (This is usually property taxes, I think.) While this is true, in terms of politics it just reinforces the notion that Democrats just want to spend more tax money, and in terms of policy, anyone who thinks more money will itself fix education hasn't been paying attention to the last half-century.

So, fair enough, high standards are important. But what should that mean in practice? I see four topics for discussion:

• National tests with national standards;
• Teacher quality;
• Class sizes;
• Small schools.

This is not a coherent vision, and I'm intentionally leaving out school vouchers because of my ignorance and its overpoliticization. Still, sometimes the only vision you need is a desire for results and the iron will to make it happen, so in this case I think it makes sense to come up with good ideas and move forward.

I like the national testing idea. In third and sixth grade I took statewide standardized tests, and obviously an elementary school kid doesn't care what jurisdiction is administering the scantron sheets. So point for that one. I'm not as convinced about national standards, though, because the impression I had is that NCLB only tests two subjects: reading and math, which is like saying the SAT shows how smart you are. Relying on only two subjects, no matter how important, is a step away from making students well rounded enough intellectually to be qualified for their chosen career paths down the line. Here's an example: writing! Everyone knows how important writing skills are to coming across as a reasonably effective adult, but NCLB ignores it. Then you've got science, history, computer science, shop, and a lot of other stuff that would either be good to know or a useful opportunity for people who are perfectly smart but not traditionally intelligent. While Mr. Gordon here is insistent that we stick to student performance as our goal, not hedging by including weaker goals like parent satisfaction that wouldn't really get the job done, he suggests we can just write better, more complicated tests, and those will be fine.

Actually, I think he might be right. How about this: reading section includes writing, math section includes lots of science questions (no prior knowledge, but ability to handle the concepts), and we can throw the social sciences back into the reading section. That might actually work. Right?

Improving teacher quality is also a great idea. I think, honestly, I'd have been a great teacher, but I never considered it a long-term career option because of the comparatively low pay, and even to start a post-college career, you have to spend years getting certified. Robert covers both those points, suggesting trial runs that would allow teachers to teach in their majors without an education degree and that would pay our teachers a lot more, especially for those who go to underperforming schools. (If you're following, that would mean the money would have to come from at least the state level, probably nationally.) And he means it: he uses one example of a kid graduating college and teaching at a poor school, suggesting a starting salary of $60,000 that jumps up to $80,000 two successful years later. That's real money, and if it's actually there to spend, I can't think of a better way to do it. Robert suggests we tie salary increases, again exclusively, to student performance, which is a bit troubling in the sense that teachers aren't always dealt a straight flush. Can incentives make a difference? Maybe it's worth trying.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I saw Matt Brown, the Rhode Island Senate candidate, speak to a small group. To hear him talk of education, all you need is good teachers, small schools, and small class sizes and you're good to go. I'm not sure that's true, but anecdotally there might be something to it: I know in New Hampshire, local control of schools is a cherished institution, and I had some of my best classroom experiences in the smallest classes. Robert Gordon doesn't discuss small schools and small class sizes in his article, but he does make a more encompassing point: we should try out good ideas that might work.

I can't say I disagree. Another book I'm reading related an anecdote of a family about a hundred years ago moving from a New York City suburb into the city because of NYC's then-superior school system. Imagine that! That's the kind of goal we should have when we pursue education reform.

Now, I don't all of a sudden love No Child Left Behind. I'm not real sure Robert Gordon does either. (Here's the link again.) Like him, I think we can spend our time in the political wilderness working within the NCLB system, making common-sense changes that can lead to real improvements in the public education system. To me, that's what politics is about: taking what you can get and using it for the greatest good. Applying that philosophy to education is a great place to start.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Let's be clear on this: If Elizabeth Edwards is healthy, John Edwards is going to run for president in 2008. As most readers know, I am a big John Edwards fan, and I have to say I'm pretty much committed for 2008. I've declined to gush about his greatness too much here, but I think it's worth revisiting the state of Edwards' political career.

The biggest concern facing John Edwards is the perception that, having no official position, he has no voice in the debate and as a result will fade from the public consciousness long before 2008. I disagree pretty strongly with this assessment, for two reasons.

There is plenty of historical precedent for candidates in Edwards' situation to be successful. First, I'll bring to mind Walter Mondale, who also returned to private citizenship after he and Carter lost in 1980. Mondale did something or other for the next four years, yet still won the Democratic nomination in 1984. Sure, he lost 49 states to Ronald Reagan, but for an even better example, let's take a look at the Gipper himself. In 1980, not only had Reagan not been in office for the four years since he had previously run (he almost beat President Ford in the primary in 1976), he had even been out of office the first time: his second term as California governor ended in January 1975. But Reagan didn't disappear off the political landscape, and now we can thank him and his persistence for giving us the supply-side economic theory that's still paying dividends today!

So I'm not that concerned about Edwards' chances of staying in the limelight, also because he's doing a ton of stuff. Don't forget, with the primary campaigns launching in early 2007, he's only got to fill up two years, not four. And even so, here's a quick list of all the stuff he's doing and will do:

• He's touring the country to talk to Democratic groups. According to the Charlotte Observer, he's hit 15 states since he left office in January and he's already scheduled trips to 8 more. That's how you keep Democratic activists interested in you.
  
• He's the chairman of the UNC Center on Poverty. This is a great way for him to focus on - and get publicity for - what may be the most underrated issue in American politics. Plus, let's not forget, when Robert F. Kennedy made poverty his signature issue in 1968, he was on track to win the presidency before he was assassinated. So besides being the right thing to do, raising the issue of poverty is smart politics too.
  
• He's the co-chair, with former VP candidate Jack Kemp, of the Council on Foreign Relations task force on Russia. Now, I believe pretty strongly that a candidate with good values will do fine on foreign policy if given the relevant information, i.e. I don't think foreign policy experience should be a major concern. That said, this will give Edwards the appearance of becoming a much better candidate on foreigh policy, and unfortunately, on campaigns appearances often mean as much as reality. He also went to England to meet with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown a few weeks ago for some reason. (Side note: If you're not sure the Council on Foreign Relations is well connected enough, read this example of how crazy folks think it's a major cog in the Illuminati/Freemasons/secret society machine. That stuff's awesome.)
  
• He's giving money to other candidates. After he lost his presidential campaign, he started up a PAC called the One America Committee, which is raising money to distribute to like-minded candidates. This is a bit hot-dogs-and-laws here, but giving money to candidates makes them more likely to endorse you. Helps good candidates win, too.
  
• He's staying active in the online community. This is a big one, for reasons I'll discuss below, but the blog at oneamericacommittee.com still gets a ton of traffic and posts. When Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo decided to go group-blog with TPMCafe.com, his special guest blogger the first week was John Edwards (who made some great posts, too). He's even created an online book club. Internet activists will prove to be a big help in a future presidential run, so engaging in a dialogue with them now is a fantastic idea.
  
• He'll campaign for other candidates. He'll still be a name politician by the time serious campaigning starts for 2006, so having John Edwards show up for your fundraiser or rally will be a big boost for a lot of candidates. And with the time Edwards will have, hopefully he'll be able to keep up the frenetic travel pace he's been on so far this year. Again, that will help endear him to the candidates, Democratic activists, and to the voters who will see his name in papers all across the country.
  
• He's coming out with a creative new book. Called Blueprints: The Architecture of Our Lives, the book will be a photo essay on the childhood homes of people, famous and not so much, showing how their early homes shaped their lives. Neat topic, and it's scheduled to drop in fall 2006. Great stuff.
  
• UPDATE: I forgot to mention he's staying on top of the latest blogging techniques. Edwards is doing podcasts, which is an mp3 audio-blog (like broadcasting, see, but you're casting to iPods), and videoblogging, which I assume is self-explanatory since I've never done it. I hear from various sources that this is getting Edwards some real attention in the blogosphere; thanks to Jackie in the comments for the reminder.
  

In the immediate 2004 election postmortem, Edwards said that Democrats cannot be afraid to talk about their agenda in terms of moral values. I agree fully, and it looks like Edwards is already on the ball with how to do it. From his appearance at the Take Back America conference in DC last week:

Don't tell me the Democrats don't stand for anything ... We believe we have a moral responsibility to help those around us who are struggling.

Now, my final point about Edwards is not necessarily relevant to his political future, and I'm basing it only on my own suspicions: I think he's writing his own stuff again. Let's not forget, this guy was one of the best trial lawyers in the country; he has the skills to make an argument. To illustrate the point, there was a bit of a tiff between Edwards and Howard Dean over the weekend. Basically, Dean had said that most Republicans have never worked a day in their lives. Now, while it's pretty clear that Dean meant prominent Washington Republicans, it didn't necessarily come out that way, and Edwards remarked that he didn't necessarily endorse everything Howard Dean says.

So, bloodsport, right? Hardly. Take a look at what Edwards wrote on his blog:

What a flap has arisen over a disagreement about the way something is said! I was in Nashville over the weekend, thanking the good people of Tennessee who supported the Democratic presidential ticket this year, when I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn�t done a good day�s work. Of course, I didn�t think so, and I said that. I don�t think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either. I disagreed with him, and I said so. And, I want to be clear, I would have to say so again if I were asked again. I said a lot of good things about Howard�s outreach program and invigoration of the internet as a communication and fundraising tool, but no one wrote about that. Instead the headlines blared that I disagreed with Howard. And then the flap arose: A chasm! A split! A revolt!

Instead, how about: Nonsense!
We are both talking about the Republicans and their failure to address the needs of working people. We both agree with this basic truth: This Republican president and this Republican majority are not doing what they should be doing for working people in this country. That�s a core belief we need to fight for... And we have.

Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years. Have I ever put it some way that Howard wouldn't agree with? Probably. And he put it in a way, once, just the other day, that I can�t agree with, since I come from a place where hard-working people, who are better served by the agenda and passion of the Democrats, somehow still vote Republican. But Howard and I are committed to a 50-state strategy that will reach out to those voters, in North Carolina, and in Kansas, and in Tennessee, across this country and tell the truth about what is happening in this country to their jobs, to their health care, to their forests and streams, to their vision of what this country is and should be.

And in any case, I'm not familiar with seeing that writing style from him. It may just be yet another sign that the full John Edwards is about to be released.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

So a whistleblower at the Los Alamos labs in New Mexico was about to testify before Congress, and last weekend a bunch of guys beat him up and said, "If you know what's good for you, you'll keep your mouth shut."

Now, I know pretty much jack about the Los Alamos shenanigans, what whistles need to be blown, and what side I'm on here. But yikes, beating up a guy before he testifies to Congress is way past the line. So, despite my ignorance of the situation, I post it here so everyone knows about it and we pay this stuff enough attention that it doesn't gradually become acceptable. I don't want to get my beautiful face beaten in when I propose mandatory gay marriage or ban the Yankees, so I'm publicizing this now. Good thing this guy really did know what was good for him. Mad props.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Do you think Clarence Thomas ever wishes he weren't Antonin Scalia's lackey on the Supreme Court? Do you think he might want someone else to push around, someone who will follow his lead every time, decision for decision, vote for vote?

We may be in luck. Texas Senator John Cornyn, head of the "me too" generation of Republican politicians, may be headed for the Supreme Court. Recall, if you will, that kid in the playground who always stood behind the bully and said "yeah!" as if he were the one actually doing anything. That's John Cornyn. He did, of course, sponsor the Senate version of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, truly a courageous step in last year's political climate. That is:

Bush: We need to protect America from al-Qae - wait, what am I saying. The gays, we need to protect America from the gays.

Cornyn: Yeah!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

You may remember one of the subplots from last year's immensely edifying general election was whether John Kerry would release his military records, and the more damaging subplot of why John Kerry refuses to release his military records. (The cover-up's not always worse than the crime, but crime sure does run a distant second.) Sometimes with these things, the drumbeat makes the politician magnify his anxieties of imagined humiliations in the sealed documents, and other times, they arbitrarily decide releasing this document or another just crosses the line. I mean, if you spend all your time pushing back people who claim they're entitled to know everything that you've ever done, especially your weak moments, it makes sense that eventually something would crack.

So I guess one of those two is what happened here. Today's Boston Globe helpfully demonstrates the last part of this document-release model, in which the delayed release shows not a whole lot wrong and some stuff that could have helped, if only. I'll let them take it from here:

The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records.

But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's not fair to you, the blog readers, for me to post inane links to inane Republicans saying inane things. It doesn't help the democratic process, it's not insightful writing, and it's not going to get me any more hits.

In other news, this is hilarious:

Ingraham: Kerry constituencies not "regular people"

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham argued that the 2004 presidential election returns show that "Republicans are clearly connecting with the regular people, where the Democrats are not." To back up her claim, she asserted that in the 2004 presidential election, among those earning between $23,000 and $50,000, President Bush "won by six points in all Americans and 22 points in white middle-class voters."
...
Further, exit poll income data show that Bush's largest margin of victory came from "regular people" making $200,000 or more per year; his second-largest among those making between $150,000 and $200,000; and his third-largest among those making between $100,000 and $150,000. Kerry, meanwhile, won among those making between $30,000 and $50,000 and those making less than $15,000, in addition to those making $15,000 to $30,000.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In case you haven't noticed from the lack of Watergate posts, I don't really care much about the revelation of Deep Throat, which always struck me as more of a journalistic than a political story. Since I care about one more than the other, the recent news, especially as mundane as the identity turned out to be, led me to focus more on Average Joe and this webcam in my hometown.

As it turns out, the process of journalism can occasionally be exciting. Bob Woodward retells in yesterday's Washington Post how he met Mark Felt, and how their relationship developed to the point where Felt could become a crucial source towards unraveling the Watergate break-in.

I found the article really fascinating. I recommend it.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Team Liberal Blog has taken to calling New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks "Mr. Magoo" these days for his ding-batted walk-into-walls confidence through ignorance. I try to leave the discussion to them, but today he really tops himself. Here, watch his intellectual rigor develop in the first two paragraphs:

Forgive me for making a blunt and obvious point, but events in Western Europe are slowly discrediting large swaths of American liberalism.

Most of the policy ideas advocated by American liberals have already been enacted in Europe: generous welfare measures, ample labor protections, highly progressive tax rates, single-payer health care systems, zoning restrictions to limit big retailers, and cradle-to-grave middle-class subsidies supporting everything from child care to pension security. And yet far from thriving, continental Europe has endured a lost decade of relative decline.

Look, here's nothing you don't already know: our health care system is completely out of whack, we're fighting a war with neither an exit nor a victory strategy, we're 20 years away from being completely economically overtaken by China, India and who knows who else, and David Brooks thinks the region in serious trouble is Europe. Sorry homeslice, the highest standards of living in the world still lie with the cradle-to-grave welfare states, so you may want to look elsewhere to jump to wildly inaccurate conclusions. How about you go back into the real America and tell us more about how Republicans are real people and Democrats are out-of-touch elitists? Good doggy.

So to all my damn-foreigner readers (there are some, thank you SiteMeter), please keep in mind, we're not all this dumb, misleading or opportunistic. Also, start playing more baseball, stop breeding terrorists, and of course, thanks for Westlife.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I figure as long as the country's going to hell in a handbasket and thanking their drivers for the ride, I might as well just start rooting that politics stays interesting. I'll still hold off on Hillary Clinton joining the presidential race in hopes that my main man John Edwards (check out his really great guest blogging on Josh Marshall's new group blog, TPMCafe) will have a better shot to win the Oval Office and save this frickin' country.

But on all points otherwise, it's whatever will make the best blog posts. Point one: Florida congresswoman, former presidential election heistress and Tammy Faye Bakker makeup proteg�e Katherine Harris is thinking of running for Senate. I know this is a reminder for some, but I see no better hope for the future of our democracy than a woman who oversaw the resolution of contested election results while simultaneously serving as state chair for one of the combatants.

Sure, I want to see her run because incumbent Democratic Senator and former astronaut Bill Nelson would kick the daylights out of her. But isn't that part of the appeal? Tell me you wouldn't want to see Katherine Harris lose on a big stage. So what if Republicans always win these things? What else is new? Isn't democracy fun?

P.S. So what's causing these thoughts of political intrigue at all costs? Is it the new book I'm reading?? Here's a hint: it's by Michael Lewis!!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hey, so it turns out Trent Reznor is a liberal! Good for him. We discover this crucial fact because Nine Inch Nails wanted to perform "The Hand That Feeds" at the MTV Movie Awards in front of an image of George Bush. Given that the Los Angeles Times described the song as "a warning against blind acceptance of authority," MTV said thanks but no thanks.

So now the sparks fly: the band is upset, they're quitting the show, and woe to those who underestimate the online petition. While Trent did get off a good line, "Apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me," he's either doing this for publicity or, amusingly enough, he's biting the hand that feeds.

In this politically charged climate, I think it's important to remember that politics is inherently divisive, and pretty much everything else in life seeks to bring us together. The MTV Music Awards are a great example: everyone loves music, everyone loves movies, everyone loves to have a good time. The minute you start telling people they're better or worse for supporting a candidate or ideology, you're splitting up your fanbase. Sorry Trent, you have Republican fans.

You could still argue that it's Nine Inch Nails' performance and they should be allowed to perform how they want anyway, but then again, it's an MTV-produced show on MTV programming. So given that it's a gray area, kudos to MTV for putting its foot down. Nine Inch Nails can attribute its success to a music industry so conditioned to help stars rise, and by attempting a with-us-or-against-us strategy among their own fans, they really are biting the hand that feeds. Didn't they pay attention to their own song? Lest anyone think I'm a closet conservative here, the same thing happened last year when Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were planning to go up to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown for a 15th-anniversary celebration of Bull Durham. Unfortunately, Hall of Fame president and HoFer at life Dale Petrosky banned the two from showing up on account of how unbelievably liberal they both are. It's a dumb move no matter what party's being attacked. If you're in a public setting for apolitical reasons, give it some real good thought before you force your fans and observers to make unreasonable and unrelated choices if they want to be with you. Does anyone think that's really what America is about?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have a bias against reporters. In my professional life to date, I have run into some of the most talented and dedicated reporters I could imagine: people who fact-checked, held your feet to the fire and ultimately gave you a fair shot. People like those are a tribute to the profession and the freedoms they're afforded in the Constitution. Those are folks I like.

Then there's everybody else. The conduct of reporters on my last two campaigns have often left me genuinely appalled. I've written before on the blog about how uninformed reporters can be, even as they spout off on news-talk shows with utter confidence in their simply incorrect beliefs. What's truly stunning, though, is how many of them never even try. Last year in Kentucky, what I saw really confirmed the stereotype of political reporters: a lot of the news organizations (mostly TV) just never showed up if you were holding a substantive event like a jobs plan, and if they did show up, all their questions were on process and attack politics. Show a whiff of scandal, on the other hand, and they're on you like bias on Fox News. (I'm thinking specifically of the time I got one of our policy positions wrong on a questionnaire. I had to go on TV and get out of it the day after we did our health care launch and nobody came.) True, the local print and NPR reporters were generally great, but I have ten stories just like that about the extent to which the press misuses the public trust.

It's not much better on the national scene, either. I remember seeing the coverage of some Democratic debate around October 2003, and I was wondering why the pundits in the studio kept talking as if they knew so much less than I did. Granted, I was basically poring over the news as my job, but in a few months I found out whence my superior knowledge: a lot of reporters just didn't do the job. In the throes of Iowa caucus season, there were Hotline-ish insider-journalism stories detailing how hilarious it was that national reporters stayed in the Hotel Fort Des Moines lobby, because it was just too darned cold to go outside. Because of this attitude, all they did was ask each other about the hot rumors du jour while the actual campaign raged (and changed dramatically) in towns just a half-hour from the city. How they can keep their jobs after that kind of abandonment is beyond me.

So I'm not that inclined to love the professionalism of journalism. It's funny, actually, I think journalists and political operatives both tend to think of the other as having an inferior job. Journalists think of themselves as seeking the truth while campaign staffers seek to obscure it, and campaign operatives think of themselves as trying to change the world while journalists lamely sit and watch. It's not necessarily a healthy relationship. In truth it's the person, not the job, who's good or bad, but in weaker moments this is what gets brought up during fights.

So when I see the title of Walter Mears' Deadlines Past: Forty Years of Campaigning: A Reporter's Story, I snicker, "Who cares about a reporter's story? All they can do is talk about somebody else." This is true: thankfully, Mears writes about his impressions of the eleven presidential campaigns he's covered, and keeps the Walter Mears discussion to a few casual asides. Still, journalists' memoirs are usually not that great. It's admirable that a reporter give us just the facts in a news story, but that same trait tends to make their memoirs inconsequential. I read the autobiography of notably well connected sports journalist Dick Schaap a while ago, and Schaap never really gives you a compelling reason to care about the book. He just piles on the anecdotes and hopes the reader doesn't mind. With Mears, the same is true: if you care about politics, you'll relish the trip down memory lane with someone who was paying better attention than you were. If you're not interested in the minutiae, you won't find a whole lot that's compelling. At least Schaap's book had a conclusion; here's the last paragraph of Mears:

With that final story it was time for me to go. I'd had a front row seat on national politics for forty years. It was exhilarating, exhausting, satisfying, tense, frustrating, and fun - my ticket to see, hear, and write about winners and losers, flaws and failings, in the imperfect American way of nominating and electing presidents.

So it is what it is: the ebb and flow of the careers of other people. I personally like this stuff, so I enjoyed reading it, but I can't imagine anyone uninterested in politics being glad they read it. Even the structure is a little off-putting; devoting a chapter to each election probably makes the most sense, but it leaves important stories without a natural setting. (Where do you put Watergate? With McGoverrn or Carter?) Essentially, this is the political version of watching someone else's slides from Bermuda: you know a little more about what the trip was like, but in the back of your mind you're not sure what was the point.

Still, Mears isn't a bad guy. He freely admits that reporters always think they could do a better job than the candidates they cover, yet the journalists who run themselves rarely justify the assumption. While you can tell, more or less, that Mears is a Democrat, he never says so explicitly and gives a pretty fair shake to all the candidates. In fact, he helped cure me of one of my biggest complaints about reporters, namely the rank hypocrisy. A reporter asking a candidate why he's stonewalling on releasing potentially damaging documents will turn around two weeks later and ask him why he released such damaging documents. There are, of course, still jerks in reporting, and I don't mean to absolve those idiot columnists whose sage advice contradicts itself from week to week. Still, Mears offers a much better sense of the journalistic mentality. The questions sound accusatory because they have to provoke to get an answer. The journalist usually neither knows nor cares what the answers are, but it's his job to get an answer, and that's all he wants. In retrospect it should have been obvious, but now it'll be much easier for me to exclude journalists from those who have to be responsible enough to be consistent. They have a job to do, nothing else.

Unfortunately, Mears is still prone to making the same mistakes as most reporters. Like all national journalists, Mears has an annoying tendency to make blunt statements, the real story he couldn't tell you in the papers, even though he's usually wrong. When it's someone like Humphrey, I have no way to judge for myself, but I do know a fair amount about Bill Clinton's presidency, so there the errors and assumptions became annoying. Further, he has the annoying journalistic habit of focusing more on new material than on importance. Say you're a candidate who unveils a health care plan, and goes on the road to support it. Most reporters these days will report on the substance of the first health care event, and spend subsequent events waiting for the candidate to do something different. I suspect this mentality comes from two sources. First, there aren't many forms of competition between news organizations, so they're all driven to find new material and get it out first. Second, I'm pretty sure they teach you early in journalism school that "dog bites man" isn't a story, and "man bites dog" is a story. So if a candidate says something a little wild in a post-health care event press conference, that becomes the story, and any readers who don't know about the candidate's health care plan find out exactly nothing. This is why I wish journalists would consider "dog bites man" a story if the man, the dog, or the bite were important enough. In any event, Mears isn't doing himself any favors by assuming this is acceptable behavior.

So, in the interest of journalistic fairness, I'll conclude with one useful correction and one amusing anecdote. First, the correction: Mears says "While Dole was trying to transform himself, Clinton already had, adopting an old-fashioned strategy with a newfangled name: triangulation. ... Triangulation meant blaming the Republicans on the right when things went wrong, scorning Democrats on the left, planting Clinton back in the middle."

Triangulation was not old-fashioned, it certainly wasn't a blunt centrism, and it was more policy than politics. Back in reality, triangulation is the process of solving the other side's problems with your side's solutions to convey a sense of effectiveness and bipartisanship. The best example for Clinton is probably crime: Republicans had railed about liberals being weak on crime for years, without much in the way of a Democratic response. Clinton became the first national Democrat to focus on crime as a problem, but instead of the standard Republican solution (tougher sentences) he went with a more Democratic solution (more cops on the street). Clinton's triangulation appealed to liberals because he was using the power of government for good, to conservatives because he was solving one of their pet peeves, and to moderates because he looked like he was abandoning politics for the good of the country. And it's not just Clinton who did this: when George W. Bush decided to take on education by emphasizing accountability, that's triangulation too. He took a Democratic problem and solved it (I know, but bear with me here) and he used a Republican strategy. Sure, blunt centrism is easier to get your head around, but triangulation isn't that hard to understand either. I don't know why reporters don't get this.

So here's my favorite anecdote from the book:

While Goldwater campaigned by chartered jet, sometimes taking the controls himself against federal aviation rules, his running mate, a little-noted congressman named William E. Miller, traveled by turbo-prop, which took longer and gave him more time to play cards. Goldwater said he picked Miller, an upstate New York representative who had been party chairman, because the man drove Johnson nuts. That wasn't the case in 1964, when the LBJ Democrats welcomed the nomination of a candidate so anonymous then and later that he wound up appearing in American Express commercials about the power of the card even in the hands of the obscure.

The Miller campaign became a nonstop card game. The plane would taxi to a stop and he'd tell the aides and reporters in the game to put the cards down while he went to make his speech. When he got back they would pick up the hands and resume the game. One stop was in Phoenix, where he met with Goldwater at the airport, returned to the cards, and said, "Poor guy thinks he's going to win." Late in the campaign, a reporter offered him long odds on a bet for the Republican ticket. "I may be a gambler, but I'm not crazy enough to bet on this election," Miller said.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think everyone can agree with me that John Edwards really is focused like a laser on the North Carolina 2008 Senate race. The UNC center on poverty, positioning for the 2008 presidential race and his wife's cancer are all just ruses; Edwards, according to Senator Elizabeth Dole, "is conducting meetings throughout our state. Edwards is a multimillionaire who put millions of dollars of his personal wealth into his last campaign for the U.S. Senate and defeated a popular incumbent Republican." (Thanks to Political Wire for the catch.)

It's not fair to make fun of Dole for this; you have to have crazy stuff like this in fundraising letters this far away from the election. I remember the mid-2003 fundraising letters from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, basing their pleas on the assumption that Hillary Clinton was running for the 2004 presidency, irrelevant to senatorial campaigns even if anyone but Craig Crawford still believed she would run. But it's still funny to look at these things, since they're clearly not meant to see the light of day. This is what we'll be seeing next:

• Florida Senate 2006: Bill Nelson is the Democratic incumbent. But former Mets pitcher Al Leiter, widely assumed to be a 2008 New Jersey Republican Senate candidate, just signed with the Marlins. Will Senator Al turn his eyes to the Sunshine State? If not, is Josh Beckett old enough to run?

• California Governor 2006: "Friends, Tom Cruise is the very definition of girlie man. That's fine when he's still making movies, but if he and the liberal special interests have their way, the War of the Worlds we'll be seeing will be between the liberal special interests and my termination of California's problems."
  

Well, pretty much.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Portsmouth Herald had an article a few days ago on the Free State Project, the group of libertarians hoping to all move to New Hampshire en large enough masse to shift the politics in the libertarian direction, since attempting to convince the current electorate isn't doing the trick. They expected 20,000 people to actually show up; since turnout has turned out, shall we say, slightly lower, they decided to just relocate to the specific town of Gorham, NH. Yes, if you're lucky, your sleepy New England town may have already been invaded by a group of near-anarchist fanatics who equally loathe drug laws, taxpayer-funded public schools, and idiots like you who don't get it. So the good folks of Gorham got ticked off at the new neighbors for the unfortunate tone of recent town meetings, and the Free Staters decided to calm things down a notch.

Now they're back with a new tactic: publicity arrests! The Free Staters say New Hampshire has ridiculous laws that only clog freedom, so they've taken it upon themselves to violate these laws and get arrested so that we may understand what a police state we've become. The first blow for freedom is already in the books; turns out manicuring without a license (watch out, ladies) carries a sentence of "one year of good behavior." Did we lose a war? Fortunately, the Herald article focuses on the Free Staters' continued quest, and their next target: refusing to show ID at airports! The guinea pig, a Free Stater named Russell Kanning, may be right when he says, "No one really knows what the rules are in that world," a thought that I hope consoles him when he's hanging upside down in an Uzbeki prison.

Beyond this one guy's story, however, the current protest strategy shows the Free Staters still have a long way to go before they start winning over the masses. Publicity arrests are a big improvement over antagonizing the entire town you're trying to make over, sure, but who's going to look at these incidents and come over to their side? No one gives a what-for about manicure licenses, and no one agrees with them on airport IDing. I mean, they really chose airport IDs as an issue? "Come on, join up with us - we'll make you less safe from terrorists." Great idea, guys. How's the revolution coming?

If they really wanted to make a scene, they'd go to the Circuit City in Manchester (it's where I bought my cell phone!), buy a high-def TV, and refuse to pay the sales tax. The assembled press will have an opportunity to buy their niece a graduation present after they cover the arrest, and the Free Staters would finally have a cause that normal people could rally behind. See, it sounds so easy. The only problem is that New Hampshire doesn't have a sales tax, which might serve as a clue that the Free Staters have picked a pretty free state (the "Live Free or Die" motto might have been another hint) and there's not much need for political upheaval. Try telling that to the poor souls who have to manicure with a license, though. Who ever could have guessed libertarians would be politically inept?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Rhode Island's Future blog has been focusing (like a laser!) on the Rhode Island Senate race, a cursory look shows that things are likely to get a lot more interesting. (Yes, this is the same race that Matt Brown is running in. Yes, that's the guy I wrote about five pages down. No, he didn't write this post. Yes, he's Rhode Island's future.) First off, our friends at RI Future are saying the evidence shows that Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey will challenge incumbent Lincoln Chafee in the GOP primary. They say the best proof is that one of Laffey's friends just registered laffeyforsenate.com; I say their best proof is this National Review story ripping Chafee and predicting Laffey's rise. National Review, and its community-oriented online counterpart, are super-effective conservative advocacy machines, about as well connected in Republican Washington as an organization can get. Honestly, I no longer believe in coincidences in Republican messaging, and if websites are registered for the conservative challenger the same week an influential magazine writes, "Conservatives would not be any worse off with a Democrat than with Chafee in the Senate," look, the guy's running. So here we are: two solid Democratic candidates, our nominally Republican incumbent, and a primary challenge from the right. If you like interesting campaigns half as much as I do, this should be a good one.

Still, I'm not sure what this means for the race. The conventional wisdom is that Laffey could well beat Chafee in the primary, but he'd never win the general election. The logic's not bad. Primary electorates skew away from the center, Rhode Island has some of the lowest turnout rates in the country, you've only got a population around a million to begin with. Add that up, and you could easily imagine Laffey convincing just enough conservatives to pull off the upset. Then, the philosophy goes, Laffey loses the general election: Laffey is way conservative and Rhode Island is way liberal. RI usually has amongst the highest support in the country for Democratic presidential candidates, the state legislature is seriously something like 85% Democratic, and anecdotally, it was only when I left the state after growing up here that I realized there were valid reasons to support Republican candidates. In such a Democratic state, then, it's not that unfeasible that Laffey could win a low-turnout GOP primary, at which point he'd get shellacked by Brown or Whitehouse.

Still, I'm not convinced about the general election either. For starters, you really can't count Chafee out until he's lost. Sure, his reelect is something like 36, but I can see Chafee assembling a strong coalition regardless. For all the supposed conservatism of Republican primary electorates, Rhode Island is still a pretty liberal state, and the generally preferred level of government activity is pretty high. Chafee's name recognition will be an asset, too: I've always found incumbents to do surprisingly well in primaries, usually because some people vote every time and vote for the guy they know better. Finally, look, in Rhode Island a lot of people just know each other. It just happens, people know the guy, they've worked with him, or they're good friends with his cousin. That's the state I live in. So add all those factors together, and Chafee just might be able to work his way into a win here. They thought he'd be an easy target in 2000 too.

I also disagree that Laffey will be an easy knockdown in the general election. If he beats the incumbent in the primary, he's going to ride a wave of momentum that he might be able to turn into widespread populism in the two months between the primary and the general. He's a really popular guy, and he's been skilled at casting his actions while mayor as populist uprisings against the entrenched establishment. That always plays well around here (the statue on top of the state house is a guy named Independence Man, and we declared our indepedence from the Brits two months early), so I'm not convinced that a Democrat listing Laffey's conservative viewpoints will necessarily win. He'll have no shortage of money, and apparently he's got the fire in the belly worse than any politician out there.

Now, I'm not saying it'll be a surprise for Democrats to pick up a seat by smooshing Laffey around for being worse than Hitler, but I suggest there remain other possibilities. But it's always great to have an exciting campaign in your home state, so to all my readers starved for more commentary on topics peripherally related to wrestling and video games: you haven't heard the last of this one!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

David Asman is an anchor and reporter for Fox News Channel. I watched a considerable amount of his broadcasts when I did TV monitoring for the Edwards campaign, and he was the absolute typical Fox News guy: I was sure his reporting was biased, but I could never quite put my finger on how.

But while I failed to come up with concrete proof, Media Matters sure didn't. Here's how he interviewed Trent Lott on the judicial nominees deal:

ASMAN: So, Senator, if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it in the Senate -- if you guys in the Republican Party did -- then why did you need a compromise?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I can't tell if the feeling I have is schadenfreude or sour grapes, but it's great fun regardless. Here are choice paragraphs from a Washington Post article titled, "Business Groups Tire of GOP Focus On Social Issues."

"I'm inclined to support the Republican Party, but the question becomes, how much other stuff do I have to put up with to maintain that identification?" asked Andrew A. Samwick, a Dartmouth College economics professor who until recently was chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

"I don't know a single business group involved in the judicial nominees," said R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Nada, none, zip."
...
Economic conservatives grew restless during the first Bush term, when federal budget surpluses turned to yawning deficits, federal spending soared and the Republican-controlled Congress passed a Medicare drug benefit that marked the largest new federal entitlement since Lyndon B. Johnson was president.
...
"The potential for high-minded policy reforms to fix entitlements and spur growth and prosperity has degenerated into a hopeless morass," Republican economist Lawrence Kudlow wrote yesterday on the National Review's Web site.
...
But the shift in emphasis may be taking a toll on Republican political support. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last week, 57 percent of the people polled said Bush had different priorities for the country from their own. Only 35 percent said he shared their priorities. The poll found the president's approval rating at 47 percent, but Congress's rating stood at just 33 percent. Among Republicans, approval of Congress's performance has dropped 11 percentage points since April.

"A big part of the base is pretty disappointed," Kudlow said. "Is this irreparably damaging anything? Probably not yet. But this has been a dreary political springtime."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

People keep talking to me as if my review of the Rick Santorum profile was supposed to be positive. I feel like I deflated pretty much the whole rationale of his brand of politics, but if it wasn't clear enough, let's go back to the record.

We'll start off with an example of Republican hypocrisy in using legal justifications for clearly social-engineering causes:

In a much-publicized interview in 2003, he argued that the Supreme Court should not overturn state sodomy laws that ban homosexual sex and suggested that such a ruling would create a justification for bigamy, polygamy and incest. At one point, he even raised the specter of bestiality, using the phrase ''man on dog.''

In 2002, in a little-noticed interview that took place in Rome, Santorum told National Catholic Reporter, a U.S.-based weekly, that he considered George W. Bush, a Methodist, to be ''the first Catholic president of the United States.'' (His remark was reminiscent of the novelist Toni Morrison's saying that Bill Clinton was the nation's first black president, although an obvious difference is that there actually has been a Catholic president.)
...
And what about John F. Kennedy? Santorum says he believes that in a political sense, Kennedy shed his Catholicism. (Kennedy's most famous statement on church and state was: ''I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.'')

He would go a step further in loosening the reins on charities by letting them read from Bibles and speak of their faith. He said he did not see the difference between a Bible and ''the teachings of Aristotle -- that's a philosophy of life.'' He added: ''Here you have a book that's been pretty well tested over time. So to say, here are some passages from the Bible that may help you, I don't necessarily see that as a negative.''

Fortunately, in the end Santorum shows what got his ideas about faith so fucked up:

Santorum is not a reader of Scripture -- ''I've never read the Bible cover to cover; maybe I should have'' -- and has no passages he clings to when seeking spiritual guidance. ''I'm a Catholic, so I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm not someone who has verses he can pop out. That's not how I interact with the faith.''

He reads magazines and journals offering commentary on religion, among them First Things, which is edited by the theologian Richard John Neuhaus, a former Lutheran minister and a convert to Catholicism.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just got back from a meeting and discussion with Rhode Island Secretary of State and U.S. Senate candidate Matt Brown. First off, I really enjoyed going to a political event that, instead of being in far-off states as in my prior experience, was held at a house that I think literally borders mine. (For those of you from around here, it was on Pond Street.) So that was hot stuff. Fortunately the event itself turned out great on its own merits.

Matt Brown has an interesting background for a Senate candidate. He started the City Year program in which kids do community service for a year. Some kids do it for a year before they go to college, and some kids do it who aren't going to school. It's a great program, besides the community service itself, a lot of the kids doing it are underprivileged or talented people whose lives have lost a bit of momentum. A lot of people have really benefited from this program.

Eventually Matt Brown realizes that if City Year can only accept one out of every 17 kids, there are 16 other talented kids out there who aren't being given the chance to succeed. So he decides that he has to find a bigger organization that can help people get a fair shot, and concludes the only organization big enough is the federal government. Matt Brown has experience in government as Secretary of State, and he decided that the real way to effect change on the level he seeks is the federal government. Hence, the run for U.S. Senate. A lot of candidates, even the ones I like, don't have a real reason for running other than some generic "I can fight for you" reasoning. It's neat (and a little off-putting) to see a candidate who really wants to do something with the office.

In terms of issues, I got the impression that Matt Brown wants to focus on the point where the importance of education meets our government's failure to do enough about it. Everyone knows a lot of our public schools aren't good enough to get those students an education that will prepare them for life. A lot of public universities are now pricing themselves out of a lot of kids' budgets, and more and more good students can't go to public universities because of the money. Aren't our public schools designed to service everybody? They shouldn't be this bad, especially since Matt Brown claims that it's pretty well proven that good schools come from small schools, small classes, and good teachers. If that's true, this ain't rocket science, and you sure don't need to have a series of unfair tests on only two (count 'em) subjects and then start dismissing schools as failures, as Team Republican seems to think will fix our educational system.

But more than that, Matt Brown wants government and elected officials to stop acting like compromise is inherently a victory. Compromise can lead to a lot of good things, but it's a means, not an end. The goal, of course, is to solve problems. This is in stark contrast to our current senator; Lincoln Chafee seems to think of his moderate Republicanism as a gimmick he can use to talk about how he compromises all the time. Again, I don't mind it as a means, but Chafee always leaves out the part about what his compromises did for the state of Rhode Island. What a chump. Anyway, it was good to see Matt Brown keeps his eye on the ball.

So I like Matt Brown. I was most relieved, though, to see his political skills in action. Like it or not, to win a statewide campaign, these guys have to have talents that don't necessarily indicate future performance in office. But Matt Brown is a genuinely funny guy, he's an engaging speaker, he knows how to turn a question his way and, most important, he raised more money in the first quarter than any other Senate challenger. So I'm feeling good about his chances, especially against a guy like Chafee with something like a 36 reelect. All in all, I left the meeting with one thought: I really want Matt Brown to win. Very good times.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The New York Times Magazine yesterday (hey, I'm still catching up) did an extended profile of Pennsylvania's conservative junior senator, Rick Santorum. The profile is sympathetic; I certainly don't like his politics and I approve of naming disgusting forms of fecal matter after him, but a lot of his worldview sounds downright acceptable. Not better than a Democratic alternative, but it turns out I don't disagree with him on everything. Let's start light:

Lately he has been talking about issues of poverty, and the initiatives he put forward in March, bundled in the Senate Republican Poverty Alleviation Agenda (tax breaks to increase giving to faith-based and community charities; a ''level playing field'' for faith-based groups; programs to promote fatherhood, strengthen families and mentor children of inmates), were consistent with his conservative values.

His line of reasoning usually goes like this: The founding fathers were men of faith. They believed in a nation based on traditional, religiously derived values, the same ''moral absolutes'' that he finds in his faith, and to diverge from them is to undermine the health of American society.

So I think Santorum's trying to emphasize a pretty weak link between himself and the founders. More importantly, though, my reading of history doesn't jive with Santorum's at all. When I see references to God in 18th and 19th century politics, it seems to me that politicians use them to explain their philosophies, not to dictate anyone else's. There's a huge difference. The second half of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address is pretty much entirely about God, but take a look at what he says:

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

(Speaking of Lincoln and faith: John Edwards once opened a Senate prayer breakfast by telling a story of President Lincoln at a similar gathering. One of his generals suggested that Lincoln pray that God was on their side. Lincoln said, "well, I can't do that, but I will pray that we're on God's side." Again, I don't see how this necessitates back-alley abortions.)

So Rick Santorum raises some thoughtful issues. He also raises some less thoughtful issues:

When I asked him if he viewed gay marriage as a threat to his own marriage, he answered quickly. ''Yes, absolutely,'' he said. ''It threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.''

The author of the piece, Michael Sokolove, does his part to find the roots of Santorum's beliefs. Here's where he hits the nail on the head:

Through his 20's and early 30's ... Santorum ... briefly lobbied for the World Wrestling Federation.

In 1999, the family received a malpractice award after Karen Santorum sued a chiropractor in Virginia. She testified that she sought treatment for back pain after childbirth in 1996 and suffered a ruptured disk from an improperly administered spinal manipulation. Santorum has been a vocal critic of large malpractice awards and has backed measures to limit damages. Karen Santorum asked for $500,000 and was awarded $350,000 by a jury. A judge finally reduced the award to $175,000, of which Santorum said they received about $75,000 after their lawyer took his share. ''I'm not against all lawsuits,'' Santorum said. ''I think they're appropriate where the case warrants it, and this one did. It was not frivolous.''

Santorum's view is that government programs to help people in need are almost destined to fail, and that a social worker, a substance-abuse counselor or a nurse receiving a paycheck from a faith-based group, rather than from government, will be more caring and more likely to get results. This seems like a stereotype -- a government-employed social worker may, after all, have the same training as the one working for a charity and the same urgent calling to help others -- but Santorum nonetheless sees the secular world as intrinsically cold and unfeeling. Filled with experts.

And dismissing experts as a concept is hilarious too. Santorum says they're "narrow experts," which I guess means they're not as well-versed in life as he is. Thank God we can get condescending jerks out of our government in favor of guys like Rick Santorum, who simply know better than you how you should live your life.

In conclusion, I'd recommend taking in the full tour of Santorum's life as presented, but I do wish the author had written on Santorum's campaign victories. Put another way, he may be a decent guy with some decent ideas, but all told, how the hell did he get elected?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well this is some ridiculous news for a Monday morning. NARAL, the big pro-choice group, went and endorsed Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island's Senate race. I speculate they started the process when it looked like pro-lifer and otherwise awesome congressman Jim Langevin was going to run, but he declined. The Democratic candidates are Secretary of State Matt Brown, who I support, and former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, another good guy. So which of the two is the pro-life candidate that drove NARAL into Chafee's arms? According to the Projo:

Chafee, Brown and Whitehouse all classify themselves as strongly "pro-choice," meaning they support the right of women to choose abortions.

I really don't know why NARAL's doing this. There's one idea, that they may just be spiteful about the Democrats making Harry Reid the Senate leader, running Bob Casey against Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, and flirting with Jim Langevin in RI. All three are pro-life, and they can't exactly endorse Rick Santorum, so they're going with Chafee instead of the two pro-choice candidates in Rhode Island. They also claim Brown and Whitehouse don't have voting records, so they've yet to display their true pro-choice credentials, but if you ask me that's a red herring. Brown has actually gone ahead and said he'd apply a litmus test to judges: if you're pro-life, he'll vote you down. Does that pledge not count? If he broke it, he couldn't get away with it.

Here's one more reason, also from the Projo:

A further wrinkle on the other side of the abortion issue: NARAL President Nancy Keenan said she hoped the group's early endorsement -- to be formalized when Chafee addresses the organization today -- will help the senator sink a potential primary fight from Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey.

Fortunately, this has sparked a movement at the fabulously influential DailyKos blog, namely, that Democrats have got to stop being held hostage by interest-group politics. The whole post is gold, but my favorite part is the close:

The era of the single issue group is in its closing days. Note the new generation of activist organizations -- MoveOn, Democracy for America, the blogs -- all confederations of activists, banding together for the common progressive cause.

That's the future of our party. I'd love to see the single issue groups become quasi-think tanks, pumping out research and information the rest of us could use to generate activism. Unlike NARAL or Sierra Club, these confederations can walk and chew gum at the same time. We could work to defend a women's right to choose on Monday and fight to proctect ANWR on Tuesday.

To those who fight to defend the status quo, in which the single issue groups dominate the Democratic Party, just one more argument -- they've lost. We haven't won a majority of the popular vote in a presidential election since 1976. We've lost our congressional majorities. We've lost the courts. A unified conservative movement has systematically attacked and destroyed our divided side -- from labor, to the environmental movement, to the choice groups. Those groups have failed.

Their singular focus on themselves, at the exclusion of all else, has cost our movement dearly. And if there's one thing none of us should tolerate, it's failure.

So defend your favorite issue, but don't defend the system. A system of special interest checkboxes won't win elections. A principled core philosophy will.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Yeah, yeah, we all get it - Newt Gingrich is crazy and still way too politically radioactive to run a presidential campaign. But it's a good thing he's touring New Hampshire and Iowa, because he's saying a lot of things other people aren't. Here are some choice bits from David Yepsen's column yesterday in the Des Moines Register:

He's also searching for improved ways to conduct campaigns so the nation can better focus on serious issues.
...
Gingrich, during a visit with a group of us at the paper, admitted, "I don't have an answer. The reason I wrote the book and the reason I'm out here is trying to begin to figure out: How do you set a different tone? Ironically, Hillary (Clinton) and I have the same instinct, which is the country is just sick of it. Our partisans aren't, but the country is just sick of it."

Gingrich the historian said a little perspective is in order. "It's helpful not to over-romanticize the past," and he noted how political campaigns have always been raucous affairs. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton "subsidized papers to smear the other side." And a great deal of rum and whiskey was poured around election time for voters in many early elections. Abraham Lincoln was vilified by his enemies as a black man, which was about the worst thing you could say about someone at the time.

"It is inevitable we're going to have a lot of junk, just as we had a lot of junk in the 19th century," Gingrich said.

However, there were also things like the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates in the Illinois U.S. Senate race that year. ... Gingrich said a modern-day version of that might be helpful. He also said there should be no moderator in the 2008 presidential debates. "Just two adults talking . . . that would change the quality of those debates."

And, he said, "I've thought seriously that if I ever did run, I'd refuse to do any cattle shows. If you think that gets you good leadership, you shouldn't even think about running. It's silly. It demeans the office. Any random person who thinks they can run can show up. A lot of it trivializes the whole process of picking the leader of the most complicated society in the world."

(So I guess we might not see him at that mother of all cattle shows - the big straw poll Iowa Republicans do in Ames each summer before their January presidential caucuses.)

So, again, I wouldn't support Newt Gingrich for dogcatcher. But he's got a lot of great ideas, and the other candidates would be wise to pay attention.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love the idea of doing book reports on all of the books I read, but that leaves out everything I've done since Christmas. So you're not going to get reviews of What's the Matter with Kansas?, Dick Schaap's autobiography, James Chace's 1912 on that year's presidential campaign, the Daily Show book, Howard Dean's informative post-meltdown pamphlet on what's wrong with the Democrats, or anything else I've been reading.

Fortunately, I do remember enough of the book I read immediately before the DiMaggio biography, James Carville and Paul Begala's Buck Up, Suck Up, and Come Back When You Foul Up. I love the title: it's funny, it's valuable to remember, and it's clearly not the same words they used in the War Room. Fortunately, the book is much the same way.

Carville and Begala make two main arguments here: one, that lessons in politics are useful in life, and two, that good living makes good politics. The first argument is simple and true. Anyone who ever wants to convince people or win an argument can learn effective strategies from Carville and Begala. The second point implies a Seven Habits of Highly Effective People-style list of strategies and philosophies for good living and good politics, which is thankfully exactly what we get. (I believe strongly that the Seven Habits is about as close you can get to a literal must-read.) The presentation is solid and lively, with anecdotes about politicians, friends from home, and happily, self-effacing examples of when our authors screwed up. It's a light read, a fun read, and a tremendously useful read. I find it easy to give this book a thumbs up.

The authors make one stumble by omission. The idea that good values make good politics is true, but it's not as easy as Carville and Begala imply. They make their point at the end, almost as a reflection: wow, look, these are the strategies, and they're honest too, that's great. But the truth, and the authors know it, is that poor long-term values can work effectively in the short term, and in campaign life, sometimes short-term is all you need. Here's an example: Carville and Begala title a chapter "Be Open." That's true if the Washington Post is getting on your case for stonewalling on Whitewater. (Incidentally, yikes, if I ever stonewall the Washington Post, please slap me. That's like flipping off a cop when he's following you with the sirens on.) But honesty doesn't always work like it should. Sure, if you can pierce through the claptrap and tell people what they already know, but no one will admit, it can be a powerful way to connect. That won't always work, though. A candidate can tell the truth about his old affair and think it's a smart move - hey, at least I was honest - but it's not. You'll still get smacked for it. If the press doesn't, your opponent will. Don't always "be open."

To be fair, Carville and Begala don't live in this kind of dream world. They advocate tough strategies, like a section called "Attack, Dammit, Attack" and another on mastering the counterpunch. Taken as a whole, their strategies do work, and they're honest, and they'll give your audience a fair opportunity to make a decision. It's too bad they couldn't find a cure for temptation.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was shocked and outraged today to discover that MSNBC analyst and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford has just written a book called, I shit you not, Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media. The title is both amusing and ironic, because it implies politicians turn the public against the media to deflect attention from their own transgressions, whereas actually the public should be turned against Craig Crawford because he's an idiot.

I am confident that Craig Crawford is a wonderful guy, and I'm sure he's a great father to a fantastic family. I'm so confident of this, because he obviously spends all his work hours being a great dad when he should be studying politics. On the Edwards campaign, Craig Crawford had the rep among the media-monitoring team and our fellow TV fans as being the most reliable spewer of conventional wisdom in TV news, no matter how out of touch with reality he may be.

It's all the worse because I appreciate Crawford's apparent focus on the Bush administration moves like attacking Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, and Newsweek, while creating their own news reports and relying on reliably Republican and dreadfully unqualified former male escorts during press conferences. But if the guy never has any insight on TV or in his column, why would I want to read his book?

Let me give a couple examples. I remember in mid-2003 seeing Craig Crawford say on MSNBC that he had reserved hotel rooms for the November filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary. Yes, it's what you think it is: he wanted to be there when Hillary Clinton registered to run for president. I did a real quick Nexis search, and the first result I clicked on, a CNBC appearance with Brian Williams on 11/13/2003, yields pretty much the same thing:

DAWN FRATANGELO, anchor: This is an important weekend for the Democratic Party in Iowa. Craig Crawford, a CNBC political analyst, is with us tonight from Des Moines.

Good place to be, because this is a big weekend for the Democrats there, right?

Mr. CRAIG CRAWFORD (Congressional Quarterly): It sure is, Dawn. They're all coming out, and Hillary Clinton will be here.

FRATANGELO: And Hillary Clinton, you believe--you're talking a lot about her. November 21st is the cutoff date to file in New Hampshire. Are you--do you believe that she could slip in to New Hampshire?

Mr. CRAWFORD: It's running out of time, isn't it? I'm going to go out there to New Hampshire next week and wait for her. It's sort of like waiting for Godot, though, I think, or the Maytag repairman. I don't think Hillary will get in but it's a possibility. It's not out of the--out of this world. Believing Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2004 is much like believing in UFOs, Dawn. You know, some people do and some people don't. I'm not sure I rule out UFOs either. [Terry side note: At this point in the campaign, the correct answer to her question is "No."]

FRATANGELO: But they're--you--you're talking about the weekend for the Democrats, the big dinner there. This will be the caucuses there, this will be before the debate hosted by Tom Brokaw. How important is this weekend for the Democrats?

Mr. CRAWFORD: Well, this is getting to the point.
...
It--it--all the premium is on organization. This weekend all the candidates are here. Hillary Clinton headlines a big dinner, the big annual dinner of the Iowa Democratic Party tomorrow night. Got a lot of people scratching their heads. If she wants to dampen speculation about her presidential ambitions, coming here to Iowa to give a speech to 7500 Democrats is kind of a weird way to do that.

Fortunately, Crawford storms ahead into another blunder:

FRATANGELO: But the Democrats have to look at some numbers. One number is good for them. The falling approval rating for the president dropped a bit this week. The other number they have to be concerned about is that President Bush passed the $100 million fund-raising mark. How can they compete with that?

Mr. CRAWFORD: I know. When you look at the new economic numbers coming out, company growth as high as 20 percent in some sectors, and then President Bush, as you say, raising $100 million in six months, and 1 1/2 million in Florida today, I look at these Democrats and look at that news and think it's like that movie "Sixth Sense," you know, where the clairvoyant boy says, 'I see dead people.' Sometimes when I look at the Democrats, I think of that line.

FRATANGELO: OK, Craig, I'm sure they appreciate that.

Mr. CRAWFORD: Yeah, I guess.

Yeah, I guess too. Except that the DNC outraised the RNC in 2004. I'm pretty sure Bush wound up outraising Kerry, but it wasn't by much, and the Democratic candidates as a whole may have outraised the Republican field as a whole (i.e. Bush). Did anyone expect this to happen? Not really. But how are we supposed to take this guy seriously when he treats his warmed-over predictions like gospel, and then keeps getting them wrong? How about this, homeslice: if you're not sure, don't act like you are.

That's what's causing the disconnect between the press and the public these days. Journalists speak with authority, and they're wrong more often than they're not. (Does anyone remember when pollster John Zogby announced that Kerry would win on the Daily Show a week before the election?) National Journal, the influential insider publication, did a weekly survey of top insiders in fall 2003 on who would win the Democratic nomination. I remember one week, out of 50 votes, Dean had 48 and Edwards had 2. (Two Edwards advisors were inexplicably included in the voting pool.) Sure, I thought Dean was going to win too, but what kind of record of accuracy is this? I know, it's tough going to Georgetown dinner parties and admitting you really don't know who's going to win. But you're not an oracle, so stop acting like it. Maybe then we can talk about how unfair it is to attack the messenger.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The New York Times today takes a look at that community down in North Carolina where the preacher had to step down after kicking John Kerry supporters out of his flock. I'm actually not that happy to gloat in the story (it looks mostly like a small rural town being torn asunder, and that's about it) but the story has a surprising amount of interesting subplots. Here's one:

Mr. Chandler told members: "The question then comes in the Baptist Church, 'How do I vote?'; let me just say this right now, if you vote for John Kerry this year you need to repent or resign. You have been holding back God's church way too long."

Mr. Chandler, according to a tape recording of his sermon, added, "And I know I may get in trouble for saying that, but just pour it on."

Most of those who left were Democrats, but the conflict cannot be reduced to party lines - Haywood County, like many parts of the South, has more registered Democrats than Republicans, but voted for President Bush by a significant margin.

For Mr. Buchanan, it came down to what he said was the Christian principle that one person cannot judge another. "People try to separate sin, and you can't separate sin," he said. "They're the same, abortion and treating your neighbor like dirt. Anything that separates you from your God is sin. I can't say who's ungodly and who ain't."

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So I read an interesting blog post on how, contrary to popular opinion, the PR debate over "option" nomenclature is not limited to just "nuclear" and "constitutional." No, this guy here found no less than six attempts by the GOP to rename the nuclear option as something a little less frightening.

You can read the whole thing if you want, but I'd like to point out option #6:

6. Majority Rules Option � John Cornyn coined this clunker in April, but since it seems to run into the Dems� argument about preserving Senate respect for minority rights, Cornyn didn�t convince any of his colleagues to use it. (It appeared in a CQ article, so there�s no link available.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Turns out this is what Eisenhower really said in that quote that's been going around. I got this from Snopes, who says it's true:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

OK, so here's the Bush administration spin: Newsweek erroneously reports that US forces at Guantanamo Bay have mutilated copies of the Koran, causing Afghanis, believing the Koran the word of God and all copies sacred, to riot and kill people. Here's a choice quote from Scott McClellan, whom I hope to punch in the face one day:

"The report has had serious consequences," he said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

Snide comments aside, the Bush administration is doing something really nasty here. Here's the last line of the same article:

But the source later told the magazine he could not be certain he had seen an account of the Koran incident in the military report and that it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts, Newsweek said.

Side note #1: Does anyone really think the actual incident, that of US forces flushing the Koran down the toilet to get detainees to talk, could possibly be false? After Abu Ghraib, and this weird ship-'em-out-to-Uzbeki-prisons story from a couple weeks back, and the fact that the Bush administration sees everything with divine moral clarity, I'd be shocked if they didn't. I am surprised heartland Muslims care so much though. It's not just a book?

Side note #2: You may know that Scott McClellan's brother, Mark McClellan, is head of the FDA, but did you also know that their mom, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, is the Texas state comptroller? She's thinking of running for governor in 2006 too.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since the New York Times Magazine seems to have inexplicably devoted this week's entire issue to ockitectiuh, of all things, I thought it'd be appropriate to review my favorite NYT Magazine article, Ron Suskind's "Without A Doubt" from last October. (Thanks to truthout.org for still having it on their server.)

As you may recall, while the Kerry campaign was widely derided for not explaining what he would do differently than Bush, the president himself rarely interrupted his repetition of the words "September 11th" often enough to lay out a real second-term agenda. (Not that it stopped him from claiming a mandate to privatize Social Security.) Since I was expecting a massive Kerry comeback, a topic for another day, I didn't really consider what would happen should Bush be reelected.

Ron Suskind, fortunately, was on the ball. A liberal darling at least since he co-authored Paul O'Neill's Bush administration tell-all The Price of Loyalty, Suskind follows up with a devastating look at behind-the-scenes Republican Washington and their then-unannounced schedule for a second Bush administration. It's fascinating stuff, and I think you'll agree it's worth a second look.

Suskind frames his article as a look at Bush's moral certitude in his daily decision-making, but we all knew that already. The real insights come from his interviews with well-connected Republicans:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend - but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Our next entry comes from Bush's pollster, Mark McKinnon. I'm pretty sure he used to be a Democratic pollster who turned heel, but he's from Texas, so his word is good:

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

Here's the trump card, the trompe l'oeil you could say:

"I'm going to be real positive, while I keep my foot on John Kerry's throat," George W. Bush said last month at a confidential luncheon a block away from the White House with a hundred or so of his most ardent, longtime supporters, the so-called R.N.C. Regents.
...
The Bush these supporters heard was a triumphal Bush, actively beginning to plan his second term. It is a second term, should it come to pass, that will alter American life in many ways, if predictions that Bush voiced at the luncheon come true. He said emphatically that he expects the Republicans will gain seats to expand their control of the House and the Senate.
...
He said that there will be an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice shortly after his inauguration, and perhaps three more high-court vacancies during his second term.
...
Bush said: "I'm going to push nuclear energy, drilling in Alaska and clean coal. Some nuclear-fusion technologies are interesting." He mentions energy from "processing corn."
...
"I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in," Bush said, "with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security." The victories he expects in November, he said, will give us "two years, at least, until the next midterm. We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck."
...
The president, listing priorities for his second term, placed near the top of his agenda the expansion of federal support for faith-based institutions. The president talked at length about giving the initiative the full measure of his devotion and said that questions about separation of church and state were not an issue.

The Bush campaign disavowed the blind quotes in Suskind's story, and attacked both Suskind and the Times for printing them. If I were either Ron Suskind or the New York Times, I would trumpet this article as a prime example of their reporting skills. The Bush presidency may be terrifying, but we can't say we weren't warned.

(Less relevant but equally great lines from the piece are excerpted if you click on "Continue reading..." below.)

Continue reading "Let's Review" »

Posted by Terry McMahon at 8:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Interesting nuclear-option news today. As you may know, the latest rumor is that Bill Frist is going to try to use the nuclear option to end judicial filibusters this week, maybe as early as Wednesday. DailyKos and other liberal blogs claim that Frist just doesn't have the votes (he needs a simple majority of 51, or I guess 50 with Cheney), but I'm still not convinced. Fortunately, today the Kansas City Star reports that Pat Roberts, the normally lockstep GOP senator from Kansas, is wavering pretty hard on the nuclear option himself. Jonathan Singer has a fine analysis of who's where on the issue if you're curious as to how things stand.

As a side note, though, while I believe the Republicans intend only to end filibusters specifically on judicial nominees, it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world if the Senate were no longer allowed to filibuster. At least as EJ Dionne claimed a couple months ago:

Conservatives say that liberals are a strange bunch to be defending the filibuster -- and the conservatives have a point. Liberals fought the filibuster when it was used by the Senate's Southern segregationist minority to stall civil rights bills. I'll acknowledge that when Republicans used the filibuster to obstruct health care reform and other pieces of progressive legislation in the first years of President Bill Clinton's term, I was tempted to support changes in the filibuster rules.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Will Saletan was my favorite political writer for a long time, mostly because he liked Edwards before anyone else*, but also because he had a feel for politics that struck me as smart (mostly because it seemed so close to mine, and his was more attentive). He's focusing now almost exclusively on social-conservative issues and the intersection of science and ethics, so I don't care as much and now Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine is my favorite political writer. But Will Saletan still knows how to write.

He showed his talent again this week with an insightful look at the intelligent-design debate going on in Kansas. He makes two points that I found instructive. First, us liberal elitists should resist the urge to dismiss intelligent design as more wacko bullcrap from the crazies:

Liberals, editorialists, and biologists wonder aloud how people can refuse to see evolution when it's staring them in the face. Maybe they should ask themselves. It's the creationists in Kansas who are evolving. And it's the evolutionists who can't see it.

To understand the fight in Kansas, you have to study what evolutionists accuse creationists of neglecting: the historical record. In the Scopes trial, creationists defended a ban on the teaching of evolution. That was the early, authoritarian stage of creationism�the equivalent of Australopithecus, the earliest hominid. Gradually, evolution gained the upper hand. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn't even require equal treatment of evolution and creationism. By 1999, creationists were asking the Kansas board not to rule out their beliefs entirely. This was creationism's more advanced Homo erectus phase: pluralism.

The new challenger, ID, differs fundamentally from fundamentalism. Like its creationist forebears, ID is theistic. But unlike them, it abandons Biblical literalism, embraces open-minded inquiry, and accepts falsification, not authority, as the ultimate test. These concessions, sincere or not, define a new species of creationism�Homo sapiens�that fatally undermines its ancestors. Creationists aren't threatening us. They're becoming us.

Essentially, ID proponents are gambling that they can concede evolutionist earth science without conceding evolutionist life science. But they can't. They already acknowledge microevolution�mutation and natural selection within a species. Once you accept conventional fossil dating and four billion years of life, the sequential kinship of species loses its implausibility. You can't fall back on the Bible; you've already admitted it can't always be taken literally. All you're left with is an assortment of gaps in evolutionary theory�how did DNA emerge, what happened between this and that fossil�and the vague default assumption that an "intelligence" might fill in those gaps. Calvert and Harris call this assumption a big tent. But guess what happens to a tent without poles.

* Examples of Saletan's political genius and Edwards support include his
admiration of the Edwards tax plan and his plea for an Edwards surge.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Noted shithead Robert Novak wrote another gem of a column today. In fairness, I like his columns, since he has a deal with himself to always write at least one bit of previously unreported news. Sure, he may have outed a CIA agent for no particular reason (no, to serve as an outlet of Karl Rove's frustrations is not a particular reason), but reading his column usually leaves me knowing more about American politics than I did when I started. So I recommend reading it.

That's not to say what you learn makes you confident in the fate of our republic. Besides his ridiculous headline, which perpetuates the unhelpful and incorrect notion that predicting presidential nominees more than two weeks before Iowa is either useful or possible, he makes two comments that I found instructive. Here's the first:

Lott was trying to show that every effort had been made to negotiate a settlement before Republicans attempted to use the ''nuclear option'' (a phrase coined by Lott) to force a majority vote on judicial confirmations.

Incredibly, Novak dings the Republican message machine again later in his column:

Gray was White House counsel in the first George Bush administration and has led citizens' efforts for the confirmation of George W. Bush's judicial nominations.

And why is Novak admitting all this?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm afraid to say my opinion of Thomas Friedman's columns has been declining as late; usually I find him more condescending than enlightening. (I have read a hell of a lot of Thomas Friedman columns, so maybe I just know his material already. On the other hand, his Wednesday column on how to solve the North Korean and Iranian nuclear problems in one fell swoop was pretty bad.) Still, every so often Friedman can use his status as the only columnist on Earth who still likes reporting to come up with an underreported gem. Here's the conclusion of his column today:

America today reminds me of our last Olympic basketball team - that lackadaisical group that brought home the bronze medal. We think that all we need to do is show up and everyone else will fold - because, after all, we're just competing with ourselves.

And we think we don't need to get focused and play together like a team, with Democrats and Republicans actually working together. Well, on the basketball court - and in a flat world, where everyone now has access to all the same coaching techniques, training methods and scouting reports - a more focused, motivated team always beats a collection of more talented but complacent individuals.

But that's just the theme, and a mediocre analogy. If you read the whole thing, and go through his examples, one by one, of the ways in which America is falling behind China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe and who knows what else, I suspect you'll end up as concerned as I am. Personally, it's no longer out of the question for me that America loses its superpower status sooner than later.

But anyway, I blame Tom DeLay. Who do you think's gonna win Idol?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You may be able to guess what I think about Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, since it's the same opinion as a lot of Democratic activists: he's great. He's aggressive in standing up for Democratic values, and he's had a Theo Epstein-level boldness with some of his strategic moves. Here's one story from earlier this year: after the Republicans beat Tom Daschle in South Dakota, in no small part by calling him an obstructionist with no vision of his own, they released a 200-page document on how Reid himself was just as bad an obstructionist as Daschle. So did Reid retreat to the bunker, to try to plan an appropriate response? No way - he immediately said that kind of attack had no place in politics, and at his meeting the next day with Bush, he made the president disavow his own party's tactics. Not bad. So Harry Reid is a real man.

He showed off his cajones again today by calling Frist out on the nuclear option to abandon judicial filibusters in the Senate. Via Kos, I found out Reid has just put out a statement, with a message for Frist: put up or shut up.

I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary and irresponsible. The White House manufactured this crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees.

This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it's about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That's not how America works.

I believe there are two options for avoiding the nuclear showdown, which so many of us believe is bad for the Senate, and bad for America.

But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

...

Either of these options offers a path away from the precipice of the nuclear option. But if neither of these options is acceptable to you, let's vote.

As Kos mentions, the two alternatives Reid proposes are a previously issued proposal that the Democrats will let most of these judges slide in exchange for keeping the filibuster, or a regular vote on changing Senate rules. (The latter requires a two-thirds vote, the GOP is skirting the rules to do it with a simple majority.)

But you gotta love a guy who's not afraid to call a bluff. Time for Bill Frist to show his hand.

(And as an addendum, former Senate Democratic Leader George Mitchell lays out a history of the judicial filibuster in today's New York Times. Yes, the Republicans used it, and apparently quite a lot.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is good. Real good. In case anyone couldn't tell from his poll numbers, showing him winning the governor's seat by 20 points whether Pataki runs or not, the guy just keeps hitting the right notes every time he's on stage:

First and foremost, he's best known for turning the state AG's office into an aggressive prosecutor of Wall Street crime and shenanigans. Underrated tactic: going after the criminally rich is extraordinarily popular, difficult to criticize, and the right thing to do. To continue shaping his honest, reformist persona, Spitzer's refusing to take donations from any employee of a company currently under investigation by the AG's office. Already that shows a politician who knows his stuff.

Second, he's embracing the blog community. He went up with his campaign website early, in late December 2004, to appeal to online Democratic activists still nursing wounds from the previous month's lamentable events. Plus his own blog is on the front page of his website. Seriously, check it out: name, grinning photo, blog entries. Not a bad deal. I only hope he changes his policy of updating his page less frequently than I do.

So what kind of move can help his campaign even more? That's right: Eliot Spitzer just saved the Mets. OK, that's not true, but he got negotiations together to get the Mets back on TV. Time Warner Cable and Cablevision had a showdown this preseason as to whether Time Warner customers could watch Mets games on Fox Sports and MSG. It looked like the season would go ahead without a deal, leaving Mets fans across the state with no way to watch the games, and then - nothing. For almost a month and a half, Mets fans from Matt to Harrison to Mooney have been telling me how awful it is to miss all these hilarious 8-run, 3 2/3-inning appearances by Tom Glavine. Now Eliot Spitzer has helped broker a deal between the warring factions, and Mets games are back on the air.

So thank you, Eliot Spitzer. Thank you for making the whining stop.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a New York Times op-ed today, Adam Cohen drops into the world of blog-journalism, criticizing bloggers for not holding themselves to the same journalistic standards for which they routinely excoriate reporters for breaking. You can probably guess how the whole thing reads, but here's one choice remark:

Richard Hofstadter noted in "The Age of Reform" that American reformers had been prone to an "enormous amount of self-accusation." Throughout history, reform movements have ostentatiously held themselves to higher standards than the institutions they attacked.
...
Many bloggers who criticize the MSM's ethics, however, are in the anomalous position of holding themselves to lower standards, or no standards at all.

(MSM stands for "mainstream media." This is your final warning.)

But here's what our friend Mr. Cohen misses in his essay: blogging ain't journalism. The mantra of blogging, political or otherwise, is "call it as you see it." Or, to continue with Mr. Cohen's newspaper motif, blogs are not news reports. They're op-eds. Until recently, the opportunity to write down a critique of the news of the day, and to expect anyone to read it, was limited to a very select group of people, i.e. the newspaper columnists. Now, anyone can have their own newspaper columns. While most of these new columnists still can't expect anyone to read them, a lot of them can.

This advent of blogs, and the resultant stream of populist opinion-makers, means great things for journalism. First, blogs have dramatically expanded the source material for column-writing, allowing people to read and write about fascinating topics that would be otherwise ignored. (I'm reminded of the "Here's what I saw at the DNC's southern meeting" blogs from last winter.) Even better, writing criticisms without talking to everyone involved beforehand, an approach Mr. Cohen seems to deplore, allows bloggers to get the hell away from the Washington timidity that's crippling our country. So, horror of horrors, I suspect our friend Adam Cohen will survive having to share the floor with thousands of opinion-makers - even if they're sometimes wrong. Just like him.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We all know Democrats supposedly have a connection gap going on between the party leadership and the regular American voters. My last post disputed the extent of the problem, but at least among Washington cognoscenti, the Democratic Party needs to figure out how to express their inner Joe Schmo more effectively in public.

This great post has some ideas, from a standup comic. As he says, he's got to win over swing audiences every night. I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but I do think John Kerry might have gotten more serious consideration from a lot of folks if he could have said "ain't" naturally.

And thinking about professions that could teach the Democrats a little something gave me an idea: what about punk rockers? They're wicked tough, and wicked liberal. Sure, some of them are radical, skinny chumps who dress weird, but it's hard not to appreciate the political boldness of Bad Religion and their latest album, The Empire Strikes First. (Incidentally, I've only heard the title track, but it really, really rocks.)

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You've probably heard the story running through the punditocracy these days: working-class voters are voting Republican now, ever since those sum'bitch Democrats insist on mandatory gay marriage and abortion. Authentic, everyday folks, after all, have long gone Republican because the GOP is the only party that cares about the values of real people and winning the war on terror.

And like most conventional wisdom in politics, it's not true, or even close. MyDD has color maps of who each state voted for in the last election - first for voters making under $50,000, and then for voters making over $100,000. Turns out that rancher in Texas is a lot more popular with the white-tie crowd than we thought. Check out the link - and don't let anyone twist the facts on this again.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With British campaign season full upon us, I found a few links to the British campaign posters of the last campaign, in 2001. I happened to be working outside of London during most of the month-long campaign, missing election day only for a quick jaunt stateside for my sister's wedding. (Hi Laura!)

Anyway, since the Brits aren't allowed to do paid TV commercials (they get free broadcast time for that), they spend their campaign funds on big giant billboards. And unlike the political discourse we get here in America, these are hilarious. My favorite example was the movie-parody series that Labour did, with one billboard predicting "Economic Disaster II" if the Tories got back in control, and another one showing the Conservatives walking around like zombies, because if they won your house would become one of "The Repossessed."

And now, I've finally found links to revisit the memories. I'll just jump right in:

A substantive discussion, from 2001, of that election's posters

The posters themselves, more easily visible

Campaign posters throughout history

And no, I don't have the 2005 posters; if anyone else has a link, let me know.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I posted this on DailyKos, so I thought I'd repost it here.

Fans of the Michael Lewis baseball book "Moneyball" will know that taking a hard look at statistics can offer insights that the human eye cannot. According to Lewis and his subject, Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane, baseball teams with limited payrolls can compete - and win - against overfunded franchises like the Yankees and Red Sox, if they have the creativity and determination to find inefficiencies in the game. On-base percentage, formerly a comparatively unheralded statistic, turned out to be just that kind of ineffiency. So the A's loaded up on undervalued players with major flaws but who walked a ton, and sure enough, Oakland was able to end up near the top of the league in runs scored - and in wins. That's Moneyball.
Here's what I've been wondering: could any of the lessons of Moneyball apply to the world of politics?

Continue reading "Moneyball and Politics" »

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why people keep saying the DLC is a Republican front group is beyond me. Here are some clips from their update today:

So let's examine some of the leftist conspirators who are concerned about DeLay's behavior, and what it says about the GOP-controlled Congress:

For starters, there's us. We have long argued that DeLay's modus operandi, focused on a crude play-for-pay approach to lobbyists interested in legislation, and including the most savagely partisan management of the House since the Gilded Age, is a disgrace, even if it turns out he has simply violated Congress' toothless ethics rules rather than any actual criminal statutes. Somehow or other we have reached this conclusion without receiving any advice, instruction, or donations from Mr. Soros, and few of our friends or critics would do anything but laugh at the idea that the DLC is some sort of "leftist" front organization.

...

For their part, Democrats need to remember this controversy is not simply about Tom DeLay. The real goal is stopping the pattern of partisan and ethical abuses he represents. As even Republicans are beginning to say, DeLay's real significance is his role in the degeneration of key leaders of the conservative movement into a power-hungry cabal that has avidly pursued the maximum use of government to reward Republican constituency groups, to entrench wealth and privilege at the expense of the national interest, and to perpetuate their power as far into the future as possible.

No complaints from me.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love it when gross media distortions get called on. Thanks to Media Matters for America, the awesome DC firm I turned down to go off to Kentucky.

CRANFORD: Can I tell you why? Because I have done this 25 to 50 times. I don't know how many times Joe has done it, but I've done it 25 to 50 times in similar situations. And they die within 10 to 14 days.

Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days [as guest Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition suggested earlier in the program]. She died in 11 days, 11.5 hours. And Terri Schiavo will die within 10 to 14 days. And they are dying of dehydration, not starvation. And that's just a lie. And Joe doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. And you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Okay, that was just my favorite part. Follow the link for the whole thing.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)