‘Live today the best way we know how’

I promise I'll contribute more non-John Edwards political commentary in the near future, but the last week of his campaign has been too interesting to let pass by without additional comment.

 

Last Sunday, Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, appeared on "60 Minutes" to discuss his continued presidential candidacy in the face of her dire cancer diagnosis. I have not endorsed Edwards or any other candidate, but I have stated my reasons for bestowing upon him as much legitimacy as the media given to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

 

Here's the thing: I don't know if I agree with Edwards' decision to stay in the race, but I certainly know I don't possess that kind of courage. I'd want to spend every minute with my wife and give my young children as many happy memories as possible of their complete family.

 

But just because I couldn't or wouldn't do the same thing, I cannot hold it against John Edwards for staying in the race.

 

It was ironic that the Edwards' interviewer, Katie Couric, seemed incredulous about their decision, despite the fact that when her husband died from colon cancer she kept appearing on the "Today" show until the last week of his life. Also, "60 Minutes" icon Ed Bradley contributed to the show until the very end of his battle with leukemia.

 

The capper on the interview belonged to Elizabeth, who acknowledged that she, like everyone else in the world, was staring at possible death. " You really have two choices here," she said. "I mean, either you push forward with the things that you were doing yesterday or you start dying."

 

If your principles are so strong that you can ignore the dark shadow of your own mortality, clearly yours is a voice that deserves to be heard. Here's hoping she has the time to say everything she wants to say.

Why PatRoW doesn’t do ‘Breaking News’

So John Edwards had his press conference and declared that he is not, contrary to published reports, suspending his presidential campaign.

Well I feel like an idiot.

I still wish Elizabeth Edwards a full and speedy recovery, although word is that she has incurable stage 4 metastatic cancer. I can't fault the decision because she seems to be the one pushing her husband to stay in the race. And still…

The conspiracy theorist in me was thinking that Edwards would be able to use his wife's illness to his political advantage. He could "drop out" of the race – a race in which he wasn't given nearly enough attention anyway. Playing the role of "devoted husband" would only cast a better light on him, especially as Hillary and Obama continue to allow underlings to disparage one another.

Next year, after his wife had returned to full health, Edwards could sweep in on a messy primary season and win his party's nomination with a few late wins and a unifying speech at its convention. Sounds like a storybook ending, right?

Of course, Elizabeth's cancer won't allow her to ever be "fully" healthy…and John is still "in it to win it". My well wishes are still extended to the Edwards family, as are my apologies for jumping to make an ill-informed assumption.

Get well soon, Elizabeth

John Edwards' press conference has yet to start, but the news is what we feared yesterday when told the candidate had cancelled some appearances and would talk to the media with his wife: Elizabeth Edwards has suffered a reoccurrence of her cancer that first struck the day after the 2004 presidential election.

 

Sources say that Edwards is " suspending his campaign for the presidency, and may drop out completely" and really, who can blame him? I'd lament the loss of Edwards from the Hillary-Obama primary slugfest, but clearly his priorities are in order.

 

PatRoW wishes Elizabeth Edwards a speedy and healthy recovery. Her husband's absence from the election will be a loss for America, but he belongs at her side. Get well soon, Elizabeth. We are all thinking about you.

Three’s Company

Hillary Clinton is widely knocked for carefully considering every position and pandering any response to curb favor with her immediate audience. In contrast, Barack Obama is widely lauded for his eloquence and charisma from the stump. And yet neither Democratic frontrunner took advantage when given the opportunity to condemn the ignorant social stance of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.

 

Why is a politician playing it safe newsworthy? Because one of their rivals actually said something, something right, something that makes sense. That politician's name is John Edwards.

 

When asked the simple question, "Is homosexuality immoral?" in reference to General Pace's comment, Edwards did not try to massage any nuance into his response. "I don't share that view," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And I would go further than that ... I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy."

 

Was that so hard? Why couldn't Obama and Clinton have been as clear in rebuking the general?

 

I like nearly everything I hear and see out of John Edwards, yet he has been largely relegated to "third wheel" status by the left- and right-wing media. Why are we not giving this guy more of a chance? I'm not saying he is my choice – in fact, PatRoW is not nearly ready to endorse any of the Democratic candidates – but clearly Edwards is a viable candidate. Don't believe me? Check out some of Edwards' qualities compared with other people in the presidential discussion:

 

·      He has a tangible platform and can speak passionately about an issue to which the entire middle- and lower-class can relate.

·      He is young, charismatic and engaging.

·      He is a strong family man.

·      He can admit a mistake and ask for forgiveness without sounding like a wimp, coward or insincere jackass.

·      He is whip smart.

 

I think it's silly that Edwards trails Hillary and Obama by such large margins and am fully confident that, barring any extraordinary circumstance, he will close out 2007 within striking distance of his rivals. However, we shouldn't wait that long to give Edwards his due as a realistic contender. And, I'm as guilty of this as anyone, we shouldn't only talk about him when someone brings up homosexuality.

Electability and Hypocrites – the peanut butter and jelly of 21st century American politics

I know what you're thinking. "Two posts in one day? Dude, pace yourself." And yet, perhaps this is the pace that should be expected of me, especially when there is so much to say. Furthermore, don't call me "dude"; I think I've earned the respect to be called "sir".

Anyway, I read a few pieces that I just couldn't sit on. One, written by Jonathan Cohn focuses on Democrats' obsession with the notion of electability and how it affected the party's last two wide-open primaries. He remembers how the desire to nominate someone – anyone, really – who could conceivably defeat the Interloper in 2004 drove the rise of John Kerry and initiated reasons to reject all his competitors: Wesley Clark was a novice, Howard Dean was a lefty extremist, John Edwards was too inexperienced, Dick Gephardt was too closely tied to the old, wasteful Democratic Party. And yet, " the calculation of voters was curiously one-sided--measuring candidates almost exclusively in terms of their flaws, rather than taking stock of their attributes, as well". One could argue that Kerry's loss was inevitable:

If Kerry lacked the vulnerabilities of some of his rivals, he also lacked their skills. He couldn't win people over with charm or inspiration. And, while he had a bevy of nifty policy proposals, he had no grandiose, overarching message with which to sell them. So when the general campaign got tough, Kerry had no reservoir of public enthusiasm or support on which to draw. And, when the Republicans attacked what was supposedly his best asset--his record of heroism in Vietnam--Kerry didn't have the tools to fight back successfully.

As a useful counter, Cohn reflects on Bill Clinton's early campaign – a candidacy that would likely have sputtered at its onset if held to 2004's standards. After all, Clinton was the governor of an illiteracy-heavy state, had little international experience and was a documented womanizer. And yet:

… when the time came for Democrats to cast their ballots, they embraced Clinton anyway--for the very simple reason that he reached them in a way other candidates didn't. For some, it was his sheer charisma. For others, it was his ability to identify with the anxiety they were feeling. And for more, it was his serious discussion of ideas that held real promise for improving their lives.

On one hand, Cohn seems to caution against discounting Hillary Clinton's chances simply because we fear her ability to carry a general election. On the other, he clearly believes that the Democrats' best chance is to nominate a candidate who is charismatic and fosters idealism and faith (you know, the antithesis of Hillary). I suppose I will follow Cohn's logic on both ends; maybe I can no longer dismiss Hillary simply because of her low Q rating, just as I will be that much more fervent in my support for Obama, Edwards or any other candidate who seems to possess the ability to make me *want* to believe.

I realize I've approached the perilous 500-word barrier, but I would be remiss if I didn't also comment on the Democrats' plans for making the most of their new congressional majorities. The Washington Post reports that:

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Uh…Nancy? I love the big ideas, but what use is our idealism if we can't be held to our word? I don't want those Republican douchebags clogging up the wheels of change any more than you do, but we're the party that *doesn't* believe that the ends justify the means.

And how about this? Then Speaker Dennis Hastert wouldn't acknowledge Pelosi's 2004 proposed "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Now, Republicans are proposing – wait for it – a "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Who saw that coming?

Three years ago, Pelosi said, " the people's business would be well served" if Congress followed the principles behind her "bill of rights", "no matter which party is in control of the House." Now she will be put to the test; as much as I believe in her platform, I hope she also realizes this: hypocrites can maintain power in the short-term, but can easily lose the support of even the most historic national consensus with a brash disregard for integrity.

Off and Running

It has been a slow two months in PatRoWland, and I'm sure you are as sick as I am of YouTube videos and flash animations. So as we stand on the precipice of a new Democratic majority in Congress (and hope, with baited breath, that they can last a few weeks before their first major fuck up), the time has come to address THE issue of the day in progressive politics:

The Race to Not Do Something Stupid and Nominate an Intelligent and Competent Woman for a Job for which She is Entirely Qualified Yet Stands No Chance of Winning an Electoral or Popular Majority (or, as you call it, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Tomato, toe-mah-toe).

As I stated back in November, I still believe that Hillary's presidential campaign will serve as a smoke screen used to attract the Right's attacks and allow our REAL nominee to rise to the party's forefront virtually unscathed from widespread criticism. Oh sure, there will be hotly contested primaries, but state-wide Democratic races will help us all figure out who is the best-suited to lead the presidential charge in 2008. Not a coronation or manifest destiny as some pro-Hillary folks would have us believe, the best Democrat will emerge from a large field of prospects ranging from likely (Obama, Edwards) to possible (Vilsack, Kerry) to laughable (Kucinich, Sharpton).

The first big name candidate to declare, John Edwards has a real platform, exudes charm and possesses ability to live in and understand the "two Americas" – something vital to relate to the masses and attract funding from the elite. His absence from elected office since his ill-fated 2004 run with John Kerry may prove to be more of a blessing than a hindrance; Edwards has spent the last 2+ years cultivating his resume on matters of international politics, while his lack of a constituency has allowed him to be the only major American political figure talking about poverty and offering a realistic plan for universal health coverage. Plus, relative lack of practical experience shouldn't be held against him, as Edwards himself points out:

"Look at Rumsfeld and Cheney. Both of them had extraordinary experience -- but we've seen that experience does not equal good judgment, and experience is not the same as having a vision, and experience does not guarantee adaptability. We've seen absolutely no capacity to adjust, to move with the world's changes."

The other big names likely to be on the 2008 campaign trail are still clinging to the ridiculous notions that they have yet to decide about their presidential ambitions. An old friend of ours measures up three juggernauts on his Obameter, and finds that the junior senator from Illinois may have an edge over his more experienced chamber-mates (I know I just spoiled his conclusion, but please read the article anyway. You won't regret it…plus YPC needs all the hits it can get).

I suppose it may still be a bit premature to start measuring horses in a race they haven't officially entered, but that's what modern politics has become. Besides, with less than absolute confidence in the ability of Team Pelosi to govern efficiently and effectively, the 2008 presidential campaign may be our only hope to ensure our country doesn't regress back into Republican control of all three branches of government.

And although such a scenario would be conducive for blog content, it's one I'm hoping doesn't come to fruition.

Chalk one up for Panicky Pete

Remember when I was all fired up about the prospect of the Democrats losing the mid-term election because of electronic voting machine fraud? Well, all's well that ends well, right?

Uh…not so much.

The Washington Post reports on National Institute of Standards and Technology findings that confirm my conspiratorial fears. In short, "paperless electronic voting machines… cannot be made secure". Here's a bit more:

NIST says in its report that the lack of a paper trail for each vote "is one of the main reasons behind continued questions about voting system security and diminished public confidence in elections." The report repeats the contention of the computer security community that "a single programmer could 'rig' a major election."

In related news, Karl Rove has begun taking computer programming classes. And yes, even my blind coworker saw that one coming.

Dirty Deeds, Done at the Cost of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars (and one or two elections)

God knows I need something to rant about, and what's better to rant about than douchebag Republicans…especially when it's presented in handy Top 10 format? That is, unless you want more mediocre baseball analysis.

Anyway, just so we get our talking points straight for the 2008 election, here are the Top 10 2006 mid-term election shady tactics:

1. In Maryland, Republicans turn Democrat – being a Republican had such negative connotations this year that three Maryland candidates lied about who endorsed them, handed out "Democratic sample ballots" that listed their names, and hired homeless men to distribute their materials. What, no "I heart abortions" bumper stickers?

2. In Virginia, voter intimidation – some folks were apparently left messages saying that they would be charged criminally if they tried to vote in Virginia. Let's see what the FBI says about this one.

3. The Social Security Administration gets into the act – some Illinois voters received mail from the Social Security Administration that detailed Democrat candidate (and close race loser) Tammy Duckworth's "dangerous" plan to extend benefits to illegal immigrants. There's just one problem: the mailer wasn't from the SSA, it was from the Republican National Committee. Did somebody sail mail fraud?

4. "Not like in Mexico, here there is no benefit to voting." – nearly 14,000 Californians received a letter stating (in grammatically incorrect Spanish) that if they attempted to vote on Nov. 7, they could face jail time or deportation. Every single one of the recipients was a registered Democrat and had a Latino last name. In a shocking development, it was "discovered that campaign officials working for Republican congressional candidate (and staunch supporter of anti-immigration legislation) Tan Nguyen were responsible for composing the letter and compiling names for the mailing list".

5. Blood runs thicker than party affiliation – not exactly GOP dirt here, but it seems that Harold Ford's little brother attempted to pull a Lieberman; that is, if Joe let his daddy distribute fake ballots that misstated his party affiliation.

6. The robot that called. And called. And called – boy I sure did enjoy those auto-dialed election calls (or didn't Bill Clinton leave a personal message on your answering machine? That one's going in my audio scrapbook). Yet it seems I got off easy; voters in some of the most hotly contested House districts received robo-calls " about the local Democrat. But if you hung up, the robot would call back. Hang up again and, like some character out of a Stephen King novel, the robot would call again. And again. And again, sometimes as many as seven times before it gave up. So the voters who had the temerity to want to enjoy their dinner unmolested were left with the impression of a Democratic candidate who simply would not leave them alone; those who stayed on the line were instead treated to a string of disinformation about the Democrat." Thanks, NRCC!

7. Push polls – remember the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh controversy that erupted over stem cell research as a wedge issue in Missouri? Well, one ostensibly impartial pollster group called Show Me Staters and asked if they supported " medical experiments on babies still in the womb -- and were then told that Democrat Claire McCaskill did". Stay classy, St. Louis.

8. The progressive group that wasn't – Pennsylvania Senator-elect Bob Casey may be a Democrat in name only, but voters were apparently satisfied that he was, at least, not Rick Santorum. No liberal heartthrob, Casey was challenged by outspoken progressives. One catch: the "progressives" lose a lot of clout when they're run by one of the Interloper's cronies. Boy, who would have thought something like this could happen in Pennsylvania?

9. Case of the vanished polling place – voters in at least three states were called with erroneous information that their polling places had been changed and were given directions to new locations that didn't exist. In New Mexico, such a call was traced back to the local Republican Party HQ.

10. And last, but not least -- vigilantes – three Arizona activists waved a gun around as they promoted their anti-immigration agenda outside polling stations. No, I don't feel intimidated. Fuck them wet backs. Can you stop pointing the gun at me now?

Missing in Action

I know, I know…the Democrats’ best day in, well, who can remember when, and your buddy PatRoW has nothing to say about it?


Au contraire, mon fraire.


In celebration of Tuesday’s glorious events, I flew to Washington, DC early Wednesday morning and have been celebrating with the movers and shakers of the liberal elite. I’d share some of the stories, but, you know…


Also, I have a conference in suburban Maryland and the internet connectivity at the Rockville Woodfin Suites is spotty, at best. Sorry, true believers.


More on Monday.

Who saw this coming? Tales of electoral deception from the front lines

Despite some positive über-early returns, cautious optimism rules PatRoW land this afternoon. And yet, there is way too much uncertainty for my tastes; while the Interloper is fond of reporting on the alleged success of Iraq’s elections, this year’s American version has been, well, not so hot.


That is, unless you aren’t troubled by broken voting machines leaving Ohioans out in the rain, havoc in Indiana, elected officials in Missouri, South Carolina, Ohio and Ohio (two different politicians) being turned away from the polls (do you think many 9-5ers will come back a second time?), minority voters shut out in Pennsylvania, vandalism in New Jersey and Colorado, and – who’d have thunk it –mistakes made by election officials in Florida.


And of course, there’s the fact that “…the expectations for Democrats are so high now that it will be easy enough for the White House…to spin anything less than control of both houses as a loss.” What can we do? Wake up Wednesday morning and refuse to let GOP arachnids spin their web of deceit, challenge the notion that the Democrats’ win was really a loss, and remind anyone who disputes the truth “that Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have all predicted unequivocally that Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress”.


Even if we win, we lose? Somewhere, Al Gore just had a really, really bad flashback.

Where are the hanging chads when you need them?

I was the first to show up this morning at 6:00 when Chicago's polls opened, and was a bit distraught to learn that the 2006 election is apparently doubling as a Windy City arts & crafts project. Yeah…this won't cause any problems.

The local Board of Elections sent me two postcards hyping their new electronic voting machines, but since I knew better, I was prepared to use the standard paper ballot. But this was no standard paper ballot; instead, one had to draw a one centimeter thick line next to a candidate's name, to complete a broken arrow. Confused? I was…and I'm a fucking genius.

Did I mention that it took me 10 minutes to fill out this ballot? Or that there were no available alternatives for the elderly or disabled (besides a wheelchair-friendly voting vestibule)? Oh, the dubious electronic voting machines? They weren't there either.

This is going to be a clusterfuck.

Check him out now

Few, if any, Republican congressional challengers will unseat Democratic incumbents tomorrow, but that hasn't slowed down Wisconsin's Paul R. Nelson and one of the most hilariously nasty campaigns in recent memory. You remember him, right?

Nelson's new ad can be summed up by two words: Bruce and Bubba. I didn't realize that the Badger State was facing a full frontal assault on marriage by partridges in pear trees. No really.

Say what you want about this douche – and I have – but he does have one redeeming quality. And I swear to you, you will have this song stuck in your head all day.

If you use an electronic voting machine, the terrorists win

Or at least, the Republicans. But if the last six years have taught us anything, it's that if the Republicans win, the terrorists win. And big business. And incompetent cronies – incompetent cronies win a lot too.

You see, I read a pretty shocking story about the ease with which mischief-minded hackers or douchebag election-fixing officials (I'm looking at you, Ohio) have altering results tabulated by electronic voting machines. And to think – I even bought a brand new 2006 Mid-Term Election Commemorative Electronic Voting Booth Touch Screen Stylus and everything! I don't think germophobetechnophile.com offers a refund…

Loyal PatRoWians, I call on you to watch the HBO documentary and cast your ballot on Tuesday the old fashioned way. I know it's a sacrifice; believe me, I'm not looking forward to the human interaction or – perish the thought – eye contact any more than you are.

Where was this guy two years ago?

Remember when John Kerry was "Swift Boated" into passivity during the 2004 election? Well, apparently he has learned how to fight GOP smear campaign tactics 101…and only two years too late.

I'm sure you've heard by now about the flack Kerry received over a "botched joke" he made Monday while campaigning with California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. Kerry said, "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." After some early questions about and criticisms of this quote, Kerry clarified that he was referring to President Bush as the one who didn't do his homework and is now stuck in Iraq.

Of course, the Interloper happily seized on the opportunity to go on the offensive (apparently, some folks have been tough on him recently), dispensing Tony Snow to spew some badly-drawn conclusions:

Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who have given their lives in this. This is an absolute insult, and I'm a little astonished that he didn't figure it out already… Meanwhile, it's probably reasonable to ask some of the Democrats -- ask Jim Webb or Tammy Duckworth, both of whom are citing their military record, "Okay. What do you think about? What do you think about this quote? Do you agree with him? He was your presidential nominee."

How's that again, douchebag? No matter the ridiculous notions that GOP vultures attempted to seize upon, Kerry himself has stepped up to quash such talk and launch a counter-attack. He released a statement yesterday that addressed the debate, calling it "the classic GOP playbook" from "a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece", "doughy rush Limbaugh" and "Republican hacks who have never worn the uniform of our country [that] lie and distort so blatantly about those who have".

Wow, pretty tough words from a man who "looks French". And you know what else? Kerry was just getting warmed up. At a press conference, the Senator hit back even harder:

This president and his administration didn't do their homework. They didn't study what would happen in Iraq. They didn't study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them. And they know that's what I was talking about yesterday.

I think Americans are sick and tired of this game. These Republicans are afraid to stand up and debate a real veteran on this topic. And…they want to debate strawmen because they're afraid to debate real men. Well, we're going to have a real debate in this country about this policy. The bottom line is: These Republicans want to distort this policy. And, this time, it won't work because we are going to stay in their face with the truth. No Democrat is going to be bullied by these people, by these kinds of attacks that have no place in American politics. It's time to set our policy correct. They have a stand-still-and-lose policy in Iraq, and they have a cut-and-run policy in Afghanistan. And the fact is, our troops, who have served heroically, who deserve better, deserve leadership that is up to their sacrifice -- period.

Can you imagine where we would be today if Kerry has used this tactic – standing up to, not cowering before, deliberately misleading GOP smear campaigns? Oh, I'm sure we'd still be in Iraq. We will be there during the 2008 election, and likely for some years after that as well – no matter which party controls Congress or the White House.

No, if Kerry – and other Democrats – had stood up for the truth, rather than issue quick apologies so as not to offend any possible vote, perhaps he would not be president today, but surely he'd have made it a tighter race. And if Kerry and the Dems employ this strategy from now on, well, maybe this is the first cause for real optimism that a tougher Democratic Party can draw support from the middle of the country without sacrificing their ideals or placating every dissenting voice.

Then again, Democratic candidates around the country are taking Kerry appearances off their campaign schedules, and some are even joining the White House in calling for his apology. Oh well. That was a nice few minutes of solidarity and basking in warmth of the moral high ground.

At least his voice is less dweebish than Paul R. Nelson’s

Buried in a nice piece about presidential wannabe Evan Bayh and what he's doing in Indiana, was a note about a nasty campaign ad being run in the Hoosier State's 8^th District.

A [incumbent Republican John] Hostettler radio spot that warns that, if elected, [Brad] Ellsworth will vote for "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi ... who will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home."

How did I miss this one? It has all the trademarks of great/awful marketing to which I gravitate. Who can't get behind homophobic, dyslexic and geographically confused logic like that…especially when it's being read in the worst Clint Eastwood impersonation I've ever heard? But hey, Hoss, thanks for letting me hear the ad for myself.

Seven Heaven?

We are one week away. Things are looking good. The Interloper continues to make an ass of himself. Why can't I be optimistic?

Perhaps it's alarmingly naïve logic like this:

If the election were held today, and if the latest polls turned out to be accurate predictors of the outcome -- and let's be clear here, it's too early to start assuming either of those things -- Democrats would hold on to seats in Maryland and New Jersey and pick up seats in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Ohio and Virginia. If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they take the Senate. If they don't, Dick Cheney spends the next two years breaking 50-50 ties in favor of the GOP.

But here's the thing – that's not exactly true. Cheney's vote means that 50/50 split is still a Republican majority, at least until after the 2008 elections (and likely after those elections as well). And what about Joe Lieberman – why are we counting the Independent candidate in the "Democrat" column? Oh sure, he'll be receptive to some core liberal ideals, but don't you think he'll be the least bit bitter that he lost the financial support of the party that nominated him as its #2 guy six years ago?

If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they will indeed have taken the Senate 50-49-1 (Lieberman's independent vote would be as meaningless as Cheney's tie-breaker). And aren't we putting the cart before the horse a bit in Virginia? Let's not overreact to one poll, which may or may not have been unfairly skewed by the days of the week in which information was collected (although I'd love to ask national GOP consultant Christopher J. LaCivita, how or why "everybody knows surveys conducted Fridays and Saturdays…are skewed toward Democrats.").

The House still looks like a safer bet, although some of the left's most respected voices still have their doubts about that as well.

What Dreams May Come

Despite the [Ro]villains equation of a vote for Democrats to a vote for al Qaeda, it seems there is a very real possibility that Republicans may lose their majority in the House and perhaps even the Senate. But what would the Dems do with such power?

I read two interesting pieces this week that explore that very question. Both Newsweek and TNR agree that despite "the party's frothing liberal base", Democrats would not use majority power and committee chairmanship to "turn the Capitol into a courthouse" with Republicans standing trial. Why not, you ask? Two words: Newt Gingrich.

In 1994, after capturing a congressional majority for the first time in decades, Speaker Gingrich embarked on a comprehensive agenda that would prove to be a constant thorn in Democrats' (and specifically, President Clinton's) side. How did that turn out again?

Republicans throughout Congress pushed anti-Clinton charges flimsy enough to embarrass a Soviet-bloc secret police agent. In the Senate, Al D'Amato conducted dozens of Whitewater hearings that flopped badly and contributed to his 1998 defeat by Chuck Schumer.

Most memorable, however, was the famously unhinged chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Indiana Republican Dan Burton. During his tenure, Burton issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to 141 different Clintonites. His inquiries included ten days of hearings on whether the White House used its Christmas card list for political purposes. In one case, Burton's investigators managed to subpoena the wrong man. His low point came in 1998, when Burton released misleadingly edited transcripts of secretly recorded phone conversations conducted in prison by former Clinton associate Webb Hubbell. Burton apologized, and his notorious lead investigator, David Bossie, resigned; but, by then, fellow Republicans were furious over the damage Burton had done to his own party. "There were a lot of self-inflicted wounds," one Republican fumed to The Washington Post .

OK, so Newt and friends wrote the "what not to do" playbook, but without the numbers to override executive veto power, what else could a Democratic majority do?

The Dems' likely choice as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, "is concerned that too many flying subpoenas would make her party appear petty and revenge-hungry, obsessed with blaming Bush". Would-be House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, 26-term Michigander John Dingell, seems to be on board – promoting an agenda that "targets policies, not people". And the discipline preached by these two senior leaders seems to be sinking in across the caucus.

Several months ago, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, who is set to take over the House Judiciary Committee, was publicly musing about the possibility of Bush's impeachment. But Nancy Pelosi clamped down on such talk, and, for the most part, Conyers seems to have abandoned any such ambitions.

Alright, you're saying. You've hit me over the head with what Democrats won't do. I get it – they learned from Republican mistakes. But enough already...what WILL they do?

Fair enough. How about this:

Pelosi's true focus for the next two years will be to position the Democrats for the 2008 presidential race.

The idea is to bring popular bills that the GOP has opposed to the floor of the House—a minimum-wage hike, prescription-drug reform—and dare Republicans to vote against them. It's part of a larger package the Dems are billing as Six for '06, their version of the "Contract with America," which the GOP used to win in '94. Democrats plan to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations and screen all containers at U.S. ports, put more money into counter-terror operations and increase benefits for veterans. At home, they say they'll vote for tax deductions for college tuition and cut student-loan rates while raising taxes on big oil companies and corporations that move overseas. They say they'll also put a popular stem-cell-research bill up for a vote.

Now then, that all seems reasonable and (dare I go there?) fair and balanced. And yet The Interloper insists that a "wild Democratic majority" would be a "ghastly thing" for the country.

But that's the answer right there, isn't it? The truth is that wild Republican legislative and executive control have produced countless "ghastly things" already – "ghastly things" that will (pretty, pretty please) force the long overdue end of the 1994's conservative revolution. If Dubya's interpretation of "ghastly" means common sense solutions to domestic issues and original thought put to resolving international clusterfucks, sign me up…and keep your fingers crossed.

Nasty campaign ads that don’t involve the study of bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos

It's amazing how the threat of losing power brings out the worst in someone; in the case of the Republican Congressional majority, that's really saying something. As a favor for those who love nasty politics or simply like to laugh, TNR has compiled the seven most egregious immigration ads from around the county (Paul R. Nelson missed the cut). My favorite included this line:

"Well the next thing you know [North Carolina Democrat] Brad [Miller]'s a congressman with all the sneaky aliens eating from his hand. Sugar Daddy Miller's what they call him in DC, giving them the taxes he stole from you and me."

Brilliant. It seems that illegal immigration is the one core issue on which the GOP still thinks it can push the Dems, and don't be confused – "illegal immigration" means "dirty wetbacks stealing our jobs" to the Republican Party. But anti-Latino sentiment wasn't always standard practice, that is, if we choose to recall the halcyon days of the 2000 presidential primary:

When he ran for president in 2000, George W. Bush implicitly promised that the era of Republican race-baiting was over. If compassionate conservatism meant anything, it was intended to exchange carefully calibrated attacks on welfare queens for a new Republican willingness to talk about the urban poor. But the true hallmark of the Bush ethos of tolerance was its political embrace of Latinos. Remember when el presidente blurted out Spanish phrases in nearly every stump appearance?

OK, so it's no news that Republicans are hypocrites. But when conservative candidates stoop to using lines like "These illegal aliens pay no taxes but take our jobs and our government handouts, then spit in our face and burn our flags", why can't more people see through the transparency? Why won't any Democrat ever accuse his race-baiting opponent from "cut-and-running" from his compassionate conservative agenda in a last gasp attempt to shore up rapidly diminishing power? And why do so many Americans – themselves the sons and daughters of immigrants – accept the premise?

I’m a whiney douchebag and I approved this message

Doing follow-up work I should have done before yesterday's post, I had the pleasure to spend some time on Wisconsin Republican candidate Paul R. Nelson's website. And boy is it a hoot.

Nelson's website is considerate enough to post the sex study ad I wrote about yesterday ("Ron Kind pays for sex, not for soldiers"), as well as two others that are almost as full of vile half-truths. But the "Marine vet and hockey dad" (???) saves his best material for the radio.

Do yourself a favor and listen to these ads yourself – one is about partial-birth abortion and the other is focused on the defense of marriage. They were so much fun to listen to that I've copied both ads below, but trust me, the transcripts do *not* do them justice:

Little Girl: My name is Rebecca and I'm 7. I'm learning a lot in school but there is still a lot I don't know. One day, grandma said I was going to have a little sister. I couldn't wait to have someone to play with. Mommy's stomach started to get bigger and I got really excited. Today, Mommy came home from the doctor and I don't have a sister anymore.

Older Woman: Rebecca's mother has a partial-birth abortion. Ron Kind actually supports this heinous procedure.

PRN: As the father of four children and expecting our fifth, I understand how beautiful a life is. I'm Paul R. Nelson and I approve of this message. Elect me to Congress and I will work to end the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

Older Man: Paid for by Marine Corps veteran and hockey dad, Paul R. Nelson.

~~~

(Organ music playing "Bridal Chorus")

Man: This wedding paid for by Marine Corps veteran and hockey dad, Paul R. Nelson for Congress.

Mom: Look how beautiful she is.

Little Girl: Mommy, her dress is so pretty.

Priest: If anyone objects to defending marriage, may you speak now or forever hold your peace.

Excited Guy: I OBJECT!

(oohs and ahhs and gasps and a few hisses)

Little Girl: Is Ron Kind against marriage?

Man V/O: Ron Kind actually voted twice for the destruction of marriage.

PRN: My name is Paul R. Nelson and I approve of this message because the foundation of a family is a mom and a dad.

Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.

Little Girl: Mommy – can we trust anyone to defend marriage?

Mom: Don't worry, honey. Daddy and I are voting for Paul R. Nelson for Congress.

I shit you not, I changed nary a word. Paul R. Nelson – I dare say you're a ninny.

T-Minus Thirteen

We are less than two weeks away from Election Day, and Americans will likely welcome the post November 7 reprieve from Macaca, maf54 and, most of all, negative attacking campaign advertisements. Not me, however; I love this shit.

Here in the Windy City, freshman Democratic Representative Melissa Bean looks to be secure in retaining her seat, but that hasn't stopped her opponent David McSweeney from going negative. Of course, his only tangible point seems to be that folks shouldn't re-elect Bean because Nancy Pelosi is ugly. Really. McSweeney doesn't say anything too bad about either Bean or Pelosi, he simply uses unflattering pictures of the House Minority Leader to make (or more accurately, not make) his point. A non-sequitur? Sure…but this is Chicago politics.

Just north in cheese-head land, Republican Paul R. Nelson is challenging incumbent Ron Kind and using recycled GOP verbiage to do so. Try guessing which "offense" Kind is not accused of supporting:

• Studying bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos
• Studying the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes
• Studying the masturbation habits of old men
• Paying teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia
• Studying the affects of sleep deprivation on the sexual appetites of pre- and post-pubescent boys

(Calm down, Mr. Foley. I made up the last one)

Rush Limbaugh, apparently offended that his name has recently slipped to #2 or #3 on the national Republican windbag wacko list, is attacking Michael J. Fox for his support of several national Democratic candidates who support stem cell research. Limbaugh's beef? That Fox is "exaggerating" his Parkinson's to make for more compelling TV. Really, Rush? If Fox cared enough about compelling TV that he was willing to exploit his own disease, wouldn't he have taken steps to ensure that Spin City didn't suck so badly?

In Tennessee, rising star Dem Harold Ford is in a surprisingly tight race for the Senate seat held by Bob Corker (not too many liberals with family baggage make it in the South…and his black skin doesn't help matters either). And yet, Ford has become so much of a threat that Corker's campaign has resorted to using thinly-veiled racial attacks to support his more obvious political ones:

Corker depicts himself as "more senatorial" than Ford but is running an almost entirely negative campaign at this point. He depicts Ford as a smooth-talking city slicker… [but] the hardest blows have come from the national GOP. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ridicules Ford's expensive tastes on a "Fancy Ford" website, and the Republican National Committee is airing a controversial new ad that features a scantily clad blonde who says she met Ford at a Playboy party. "Harold, call me!" the woman chirps.

Democrats, meanwhile, seem content to simply allow voters to draw their own lines between GOP candidates and a certain historically unpopular president. I mean, who knew that simply shaking hands with the Interloper could be enough to decide an otherwise tight election? Of course, Dennis Hastert has decided to do his GOP cronies one better, inviting to his home and posing with the self-described "spiritual advisor to the scum of the Earth". I wonder if K.A. Paul has ever been to Crawford, TX?