So I just got back from the Wellstone movie, and I gotta say, it's as heartbreaking as it was two years and three days ago.

It was a great experience, and it changed my perspective on the memorial completely. I used to blame Rick Kahn for losing the race, losing the seat, and losing the Senate, but after taking a closer look at Paul and how he effected change, I can understand how Rick felt up there on stage at Williams Arena. Wellstone would not have faulted him. Rick's pleas, though awkward, were heartfelt.

I don't blame him anymore.

And it's a wonderful film. The elevator guys on Capitol Hill saying Paul was the only Senator who'd talk to them and treat them like they were people too? Totally cool. A highlight.

My eyes are a little red and puffy right now. Kinda like they were two years and three days ago.

Two weeks out from November 2nd, I've got new Senate predictions.

Safe Dem seats plus those not up for election: 40

Safe GOP seats plus those not up: 43

Unchanged predictions (see below):

Murray beats Nethercutt
Boxer beats Jones
Bond beats Farmer
Voinovich beats Fingerhut
Salazar beats Coors
Daschle beats Thune
Castor beats Martinez

Same predictions, new news:

Knowles beats Murkowski - Knowles is leading two weeks out, holding a lead he opened months ago and has never since ceded. It's utterly amazing, but Democrats are going to pick up an Alaska seat. Ironically, if Murkowski were more conservative, she'd probably be winning this one in a walk.

Carson beats Coburn - Months ago I wrote about Coburn's insane statements. Since then he's insulted Indians and residents of Oklahoma, and made bizarre comments about "rampant lesbianism" in the public schools. This guy's a loon, and he's successfully beating himself. Dennis Hastert is already conceding the race.

Feingold beats Michels - Even with Bush polling strongly in Wisconsin, Feingold looks safe. The NRSC's decided against committing any money, so Tim Michels the Millionaire is on his own against Russ.

Obama beats Keyes - The Republican Party of Illinois is just pathetic. They decided to try and bring in another black man with the hopes of bloodying Obama before he gets to the national stage. Instead they're looking a blowout which threatens even some previously safe House incumbents (Crane, Hyde, and Weller, in that order). Even the state chairwoman says she isn't certain she'll vote Keyes. With Bush losing big, Keyes losing even bigger, will IL Republicans have any reason to come out and vote? Looks like they won't.

Isakson beats Majette - I still doubt Majette can pull this race off, but who knows. She's clearly ambitious, and perhaps she knows something I don't, after abandoning a safe House seat for this race. Democratic polls show her within 10 points, but it'd be the largest upset of the cycle if she wins this one. Isakson's pretty safe.

Changed predictions:

Mongiardo beats Bunning - The spectacle in Kentucky is sad. Jim Bunning clearly is unfit to run for reelection, with newspapers speculating about the Senator's deteriorating mental condition. He broke the rules of his first debate with Mongiardo by refusing to appear in person, and by using a telepromter, and refused to show up for the second. He is no longer making stump speeches, and turned down a joint Meet the Press appearance.

Apparently the Kentucky Republicans want to pull a Wendell Anderson. If they can manage to get Bunning over the finish line, he will then resign, and Governor Ernie Fletcher will appoint himself to the seat.

Democrat Wendell Anderson tried that in 1977 Minnesota after Senator Mondale's ascension to the Vice Presidency, and in 1978, Republican Dave Durenberger unseated him in the special election, Rudy Boschwitz won the other open seat, and Republicans took the Governorship. Kentucky Republicans would be wise to remember.

Long story short, this is playing really badly in Kentucky, and I think Mongiardo is a viable candidate. A Dem poll shows the race tied 43-43, and if Bunning refuses to bow out of the race, Mongiardo should win.

Vitter beats field - In the open seat race in Louisiana, Vitter is polling at 47% in the open primary. He very well could break 50% in the November 2nd primary, thus becoming Senator. Even if he doesn't, Louisiana looks set to elect its first Republican Senator. I don't know that either John or Kennedy can beat him in a runoff.

Tenenbaum versus DeMint too close to call - Against all logic, this race seems winnable for the Dems. The DSCC has been hammering DeMint on his national sales tax proposal, and South Carolinians are abandoning him over it. He's also been afflicted with Coburnitis, saying unwed pregnant women and gays shouldn't be allowed to be public school teachers. Still, this is South Carolina, so I make no prediction.

50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 1 too close to call.

So today on C-Span there was a panel discussion on the '04 elections and the future of the judiciary between Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, playing on Team Good, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform (Seemingly a strange choice for a discussion on law), representing Team Evil.

Anyhow, the debate eventually came to the subject of lower court nominations, which I've covered down below before.

To recap: the right has made it a priority to get its ideologues appointed up and down the line to district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court, from Reagan era on. Democrats have been far more lackadaisical while controlling the White House, with both Carter and Clinton making judicial appointments a low priority, often nominating centrist, or even conservative judges.

This fact notwithstanding, Senate Republicans made sure to obstruct Clinton's nominees at every opportunity throughout the 90s. Often times Clinton's moderate nominees were bottled up by the Senate without ever receiving a floor vote, thus keeping vacancies open for Bush, who has tried to fill them with right-wing extremists.

While confirming an overwhelming majority of Bush's nominees (and at a far higher rate than Clinton's ever were), the Democrats have stopped action on a few of the most egregious nominees, like those who supported Jim Crow, and when they lost control of the Senate in 2002, they resorted to the filibuster.

That's the background.

The Republicans scream bloody murder at the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees, regardless of the fact they found it quite useful in blocking Abe Fortas and others back in the day. They've tried to reform the filibuster rules for judicial nominees, effectively eliminating it on the subject matter of their choice.

In the panel discussion, the liberal got herself into the position of defending the filibuster as a key check on unrestrained majority rule, and Grover Norquist called her out on it, saying liberals were no fans of the filibuster rule back when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated, and filibustered by the likes of Strom Thurmond.

He's right. Let's abolish the filibuster on judicial nominees, and let's abolish the filibuster period. If the "advise and consent" responsibility of the Senate is unconstitutionally abridged by the filibuster in judicial confirmations, then the responsibility of the Senate to pass bills is abridged by the use of the filibuster against everything else.

Why are we so reluctant to expose the Republican whining for what it is? Call the bluff, Senate Dems. Move to end the anti-democratic filibuster, permanently. It'll bolster democracy, and it will aid liberal aims in the long run with a Senate that's deeply skewed towards conservative, small-state constituencies. As it is, the filibuster can be sustained with something like 20% of the country's population's Senators behind it.

Let's get rid of it.

Let me start this post by saying the 108th Congress is the worst, most unproductive session in recent memory. They've done nothing of note, and it's been marked by scandal, pervasive corruption, and continual breaking of institutional norms. (Three hour roll call votes, closed rules on every fucking bill, excluding minority party members from conference committee, adding unrelated provisions in conference committee, stripping provisions agreed to by both houses in conference committee, calling the police to kick committee members out of their own hearings, etc. All in one two year session!) In short, its leadership deserves turning out, though due to the last round of redistricting, that will never happen.

What about the Senate? Yeah, they've been plenty bad, but for pure venal, entrenched, corrupt scum, you can't beat the Republican House leadership, with Tom Delay pulling the strings.

Anyhow, just because they've done nothing of value doesn't mean they haven't passed reckless, unprecedented legislation. I'm referring to the recent slew of court stripping bills, which normally languish and die in committee, but in the 108th Congress have been brought to the floor and passed.

HR 3313, the "Marriage Protection Act" passed this July, and in lieu of an actual constitutional amendment passed by the normal procedure, the bill revokes federal court jurisdiction over cases challenging the constitutionality of 1996's so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Ie, they grant that that anti-equal rights legislation is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional, so they'll just say the courts can't rule on it.

Does that make any sense? Seems like Congress was established to create laws, and the Supreme Court was there to make sure they didn't conflict with the Constitution. But Article III, Section 2 says "In all the other cases...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions...as the Congress shall make."

So hypothetically Congress can declare anything it wants outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But this is a remarkably bad idea, and Congress rightfully hasn't opened this Pandora's Box before. Once we start taking away the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on any issue we like, there will no longer be a Supreme Court to establish and protect rights under the Constitution.

But no matter! The 108th Congress pathetically admits its hateful anti-gay agenda is unconstitutional, and they seek to circumvent the due process rights all Americans enjoy. Not only that, they're actively pushing votes on similar legislation relating to the Pledge of Allegiance and flag desecration.

Clearly these votes are just meant to put Democrats in marginal districts in an uncomfortable position of voting to uphold the Constitution, while appearing to support gay marriage and flag burning.

Principle would advise against the radical step of court stripping, but principle just allows the Republicans to continue to trample all over us with wedge issues and cynical maneuvering. The only way to get them to maintain a semblance of decorum is to draw some of their blood.

I'm fucking sick of it. House Democrats should start sponsoring bills to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the Violence Against Women Act, which was struck down in 2000 in United States vs. Morrison, or perhaps to strip the Court of jurisdiction over the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990, which was struck down in United States v. Lopez. Let's get some Republicans on record as pro-violence against women and pro-guns in schools. Charge up the discharge positions.

With the ideological tilt of the Rehnquist court there's scores of hideously unpopular decisions to score points off of. Let's get some wedge issues out there ourselves.

Because I'm a all-star forecaster, here are my predictions for the 2004 US Senate races.

Democrats not up for reelection: 30
Republicans not up for reelection: 36

Democratic incumbents who could not possibly lose:

Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Republican incumbents who could not possibly lose:

John McCain (R-AZ)
Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)

That brings us to 40 Democrats, 43 Republicans. That leaves 17 races to predict! Here we go.

Washington: Senator Patty Murray (D) versus Representative George Nethercutt (R)

Patty's a two-term incumbent, which usually means you're unassailable. George Nethercutt has a reputation as a giant slayer, however, due to his historic 1994 victory over sitting Speaker of the House Tom Foley. That said, Nethercutt comes from Eastern Washington when more votes are cast in Western Washington, and Western Washington is heavily Democratic. Senator Murray's led consistently in polls, has plenty of cash, and is running in a state that will likely go for Kerry, so she should win.

Murray wins - 41 Democrats, 43 Republicans

California: Senator Barbara Boxer (D) versus CA Secretary of State Bill Jones (R)

Barbara Boxer, originally elected in 1992, isn't as popular as Dianne Feinstein, but still outpolls Bill Jones consistently. California Republicans were hard pressed to find a good candidate, and they nominated a conservative in a liberal state. Kerry will win here easily, and so will Senator Boxer.

Boxer wins - 42 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Colorado: CO Attorney General Ken Salazar (D) versus beer magnate Pete Coors (R)

Before Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell bowed out of the race, this was a safe Republican seat. However, as an open seat it will be very competitive. Republicans didn't get their first choice of candidate for the Senate seat when Governor Bill Owens decided not to jump in, but Democrats did with Ken Salazar. He's a popular statewide politician who just won a solid reelection in 2002, and is Hispanic in a state whose demographic changes include a large influx of Hispanics.

Pete Coors is a conservative running a campaign based on his name ID, which is a disturbing trend in politics these days. He'll have plenty of money to run his race, but he seems somewhat gaffe prone and not all that well informed.

In the presidential race, Colorado is shaping up to be a swing state. That portends well for Salazar. He should win the race.

Salazar wins - 43 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Alaska: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) versus ex-Governor Tony Knowles (D)

Senator Murkowski was appointed by her father, Governor Frank Murkowski to her seat. That didn't go over too well with voters in Alaska, especially since her dad has made some unpopular moves in the statehouse. In addition, as a pro-choice Republican in a deeply conservative party, her base is not all that enthusiastic about her reelection. Still, Alaska is a state that will vote for George Bush by a wide margin.

Tony Knowles is a two term former Governor who figured out how to win two races in an incredibly Republican state. He's the strongest possible candidate the Democrats could have fielded, and he maintains high favorable ratings among Alaskans.

Polls consistently show Knowles with a tiny lead, and higher favorable ratings than the incumbent Senator. This usually means the incumbent is toast, but this is Alaska and it will probably go down to the wire. I, however, predict Tony Knowles will win.

Knowles wins - 44 Democrats, 43 Republicans

South Dakota: Senator Tom Daschle (D) versus ex-Representative John Thune (R)

Republicans really want this seat, as they can't stand Senate Minority Leader Daschle's effective leadership of the Democratic caucus. Polls are tight, usually showing Daschle with a small lead. Neither candidate has money problems, and even if they did, South Dakota is an extraordinarily cheap place to advertise.

South Dakota will go for Bush, but its voters recognize the advantages seniority provides to the state, and John Thune famously couldn't deliver drought relief to South Dakota's farmers in 2002, even though he touted his access to President Bush. The fact that the delegation is all Democratic (after the special election on May 1st of Stephanie Herseth) could be bad for Daschle, but John Thune couldn't beat Tim Johnson in 2002, a very Republican year. I don't see why he'd be able to take down Tom Daschle.

Daschle wins - 45 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Oklahoma: Representative Brad Carson (D) versus ex-Representative Tom Coburn (R)

Two guys who have both represented Eastern Oklahoma in Congress are squaring off for the seat of retiring Republican Don Nickles. Brad Carson is a conservative Democrat in a conservative state, and Tom Coburn is a extremely conserative Republican who makes some pretty loony statements, such as advocating the death penalty for abortion doctors (ironically, Coburn has performed abortions), and defending the rights of citizens to own bazookas.

Next to that, Brad Carson is a solid, middle-of-the-road Democrat. The polls show this race as a dead heat, with both candidates barely polling over 40%, but Carson is well-funded, whereas Tom Coburn has a lot of ground to make up after fighting an expensive primary race.

I think Tom Coburn's extremism will make it difficult for him to win this race. Brad Carson should win this race.

Carson wins - 46 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Missouri: Senator Kit Bond (R) versus MO State Treasurer Nancy Farmer

Bond hasn't faced a tough election challenge for twelve years now, and he won reelection comfortably in 1998. That said, his reputation as a moderate is undeserved, as he votes as partisanly as any other Republican in the US Senate.

His opponent is State Treasurer Nancy Farmer, who has raised a respectable amount of cash, but trails in the polls. Her challenge will be to increase her name recognition and convince people to pay attention in a battleground state where both presidential candidates will be campaigning heavily, and where there is an open seat battle for the Governorship.

It's possible that with a solid Kerry win, Nancy Farmer could upset Bond, but my instincts tell me Senator Bond will win reelection.

Bond wins - 46 Democrats, 44 Republicans

Wisconsin: Senator Russ Feingold (D) versus yet-to-be determined (R)

Russ Feingold is running for a third term in Wisconsin, with a record as a liberal, good-government type Democrat. He's most well known for cosponsoring the McCain-Feingold bill (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), and for amassing a Paul Wellstone-esque voting record (like being on the short end of a 99-1 vote for passage of the USA PATRIOT Act).

His opponent will be the winner of a four-way primary to be held September 14th. There's a grab bag of third tier guys running to face Feingold, including a car dealer, a state senator, and a former nominee for WI Secretary of State.

Feingold's got enough money, he's got incumbency, and he's got popularity (his reelect poll numbers are solid). Wisconsin is a swing state, but I don't forsee a Feingold loss unless Bush wins in a landslide. Therefore I predict the reelection of Senator Feingold.

Feingold wins - 47 Democrats, 44 Republicans

Illinois: State Senator Barack Obama (D) versus talk show personality and perennial presidential candidate Alan Keyes (R)

Barack Obama is an up and coming star who swept to a huge victory in his March primary (over 50% in a multicandidate race), and then delivered a superb keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.

Keyes is a frequent candidate for public office whose views are incredibly extreme, and unpopular in a state that's trending as Democratic as Illinois.

Kerry will win big here, and so will Obama. Obama may win by such a large margin that he'll help defeat some vulnerable Republican house members, also.

Obama wins - 48 Democrats, 44 Republicans

Kentucky: Senator Jim Bunning (R) versus State Senator Dan Mongiardo (D)

Senator Bunning is a first term Senator who eked out a 1% victory in 1998. He has a conservative voting record, which is not a liability in a state like Kentucky. He is, however, undistinguished as a Senator, with no real accomplishments.

Dan Mongiardo is a State Senator and a doctor, but he unfortunately doesn't have the name recognition that former Governor Paul Patton had before he became tainted with a sex scandal.

This would be a hard race for Mongiardo to win, and he has trailed in the polls. Kentucky isn't incredibly Republican, but fairly solidly so. I predict the reelection of Jim Bunning.

Bunning wins - 48 Democrats, 45 Republicans

Ohio: Senator George Voinovich (R) versus State Senator Eric Fingerhut (D)

George Voinovich is a former Governor and the incumbent Senator. Eric Fingerhut lacks money, lacks name recognition, and lacks the time to solve these problems. Voinovich will win reelection.

Voinovich wins - 48 Democrats, 46 Republicans

Georgia: Representative Johnny Isakson (R) versus Representative Denise Majette (D)

Isakson is a relatively moderate Republican House member who won a contested primary easily. He's got lots of money to run his race.

Denise Majette is a freshman Democratic Representative from an Atlanta district. She's the first African-American woman to run for the Senate from Georgia, but she's having fundraising problems, and will have to swim hard against the tide in a solidly pro-Bush state.

This is the seat of the unhinged, incoherent turncoat Zell Miller. Georgia is trending Republican, and Democrats have virtually no hope of retaining this seat. The national party committees admit as much.

Isakson wins - 48 Democrats, 47 Republicans

South Carolina: Representative Jim DeMint (R) versus SC Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum (D)

This is the seat being vacated by ancient Senator Fritz Hollings, who as a Democrat managed to survive for forty-plus years in South Carolina.

Jim DeMint emerged from a primary and a run-off primary election, and is a sitting House member. He's pro-free trade in a protectionist state, and he has some zany tax ideas like the flat tax, but it remains to be seen if the voters will punish him for them.

Inez Tenenbaum is the most popular Democrat in an admittedly very Republican state. Still, she's the best Democrats could've hoped for. She's won election statewide with over 55% of the vote, and she's a solid moderate, independent Democrat.

Bush will win South Carolina by a landslide, and Tenenbaum may have a chance (she's led in some polls), but I predict Jim DeMint will win.

DeMint wins - 48 Democrats, 48 Republicans

North Carolina: Ex-Clinton Chief of Staff and 2002 Senate nominee Erskine Bowles (D) versus Representative Richard Burr (R)

Erskine Bowles managed to run a respectable race against now-Senator Elizabeth Dole in 2002, winning 45% of the vote in a banner Republican year. That set him up for a very competitive chance at winning the seat of outgoing Senator and Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards. His name recognition is high, and the Kerry-Edwards ticket has a decent shot at winning North Carolina.

Richard Burr is a House member who has had the advantage of being uncontested for the Republican nomination. He's been pretty under the radar thus far, running few ads, and he's trailed in the polls as a result. He will run more ads, and the race will tighten, but I think Bowles is the stronger candidate and will win.

Bowles wins - 49 Democrats, 48 Republicans

Pennsylvania: Senator Arlen Specter (R) versus Representative Joe Hoeffel (D)

Arlen Specter is a 24 year Senate veteran who survived a bruising primary to win renomination from his party, winning 50-49% over a conservative challenger. He easily won reelection in 1998 after a close race in 1992.

Joe Hoeffel is a two-term Congressman from Pennsylvania's 13th District, which is a swing district in the Philadelphia suburbs. He's demonstrated political acuity by winning tight elections there, but he is very unknown outside of his home region. Very few people outstate know his name, and he needs to raise a lot more to change that.

Arlen Specter has a (deserved or undeserved) reputation as a moderate, and he stole the endorsement of the PA AFL-CIO from Hoeffel. The race is Specter's to lose.

Specter wins - 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans

So now we get to the two races I have no idea how to handicap, but here goes anyhow.

Louisiana: Multicandidate field

Louisiana's open primary takes the place of the general election, meaning all candidates for an office run on the November ballot. If a candidate receives 50% of the vote outright, they win election, but if none break that threshold, there's a December run-off between the top two vote getters.

Republican David Vitter runs as the sole Republican in the race. He will make the run-off. On the Democratic side, Representative Chris John is outgoing Senator John Breaux's pick, and he should make the run-off.

This race likely could decide the composition of the Senate, seeing as my predictions have it at 49-49 right now. There is a recent precedent: in 2002 Senator Mary Landrieu (D) was forced into a run-off against a Republican, and won a fairly solid victory in the December vote.

Louisiana has never elected a Republican to the Senate, and for the pure sake of prediction, let's say they will not this election cycle. Chris John should win this seat in the run-off.

John wins - 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans

Florida: FL Education Commissioner Betty Castor (D) versus ex-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez (R)

On one hand, Florida has an overwhelming Republican state government and just reelected a Bush as governor in 2002. On the other, both its senators are Democrats, and Gore arguably won the state in 2000. The 2004 presidential race is a dead heat.

Betty Castor is widely regarded as the strongest candidate Democrats could've selected, and is a popular statewide politician. She's run a good campaign, and polls strongly. On the downside, there's ongoing innuendo regarding her tenure as an administrator at a Florida university where a professor was convicted of supporting terrorism. The rumors didn't stick in the primary, but the Republicans will probably be more aggressive.

Mel Martinez was the favorite candidate of the Bush/Karl Rove axis, and he won his primary handily over 2000 nominee Bill McCollum. He might tout some achievements as HUD Secretary, but let's be serious. What accomplishments?

Keeping with my belief that demographics are putting Florida out of Bush's reach, and the fact that Bill Nelson won in 2000 even as Gore "lost," I predict Betty Castor will be the next Floridian Senator.

Castor wins - 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans

So that brings our final total to 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, which, of course is subject to change in the event of a Kerry win. (There would be a special election for the remainder of his term that started in 2002)

Yup. We'll see if I was right.

The Politics of Lawn Signs

It's that time of the year. Lawn signs supporting various candidacies are going up near street fronts across the country, only to be defaced or stolen within days. Homeowners resort to tactics like cameras, lighting, and threatening notes to protect their political expression, but it's for naught. The more hotly contested the race, the more certain it is the sign will be stolen or destroyed.

Overly zealous partisans may have good fun stealing the signs of their opponents, without realizing it's a bad idea.

First of all, how do the signs get there? Often times the signs haven't even been deposited at the behest of the homeowner. People can sign up as campaign volunteers months or years ago, and then will find the sign put there by the campaigns without asking.

Why does this matter? It means that people who may not be hardcore partisans are assenting to having signs on their lawns.

Here's where stealing signs is ill-advised for the opposition. The signs serve more of a cathartic purpose for their owners than they move votes of undecideds. For races like US Senate, or the Presidency, the race is already so high visibility that lawn signs aren't going to be convincing anyone one way or the other.

Stealing the signs, however, denies their owners their sense of self-expression. When you do that, you turn somewhat committed, somewhat likely voters into certain voters, once they feel aggrieved by the opposition. If they were not 100% certain to brave bad weather or long lines to vote before you stole their sign, they sure will once you do.

Local races is where stealing signs can have a demonstrable desireable effect. Low visibility races can be decided by name identification, with lawn signs being a critical component. With those signs, chances are their owners had little attachment to them anyhow, and the name ID the candidates represented would've received is likely more valuable than the hardening of partisanship on behalf of the sign's owner. Go ahead and steal signs for state representative if you must steal signs. Not that I advocate that.

So the Republican Party of Minnesota has a new webpage devoted to photos of people they claim to be DFL activists protesting Republican events. They want to discredit Democrats and our supposed incendiary rhetoric.

Here's my simple retort. And more.

So, my $35 2002 contribution to Paul Wellstone notwithstanding, I just joined a very exclusive class of citizens. The political donor class.

In my experience perusing lists of political donors, I'm surprised by how parochial the contributions of even very wealthy people are. Generally, people give to their local candidates, whether they are in competitive races or not, or they give to political action committees of their pet issues. It's surprising how unstrategic most giving is.

I sought to avoid this parochialism. I'm a rational guy looking at the whole table. So, flush with birthday money, and casino winnings won with that birthday money, I decided to make some contributions.

$20 - Patty Wetterling, CD6 - Minnesota
$15 - Dan Mongiardo, US Senate - Kentucky
$30 - Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
$20 - Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
$40 - Tom Daschle, US Senate - South Dakota
$50 - Minnesota DFL House Caucus
$30 - Brad Carson, US Senate - Oklahoma
$40 - Martin Frost, CD32 - Texas

I think it's a healthy mix. We've got a very competitive house race in the homestate (with an eye towards picking off a possible 2006 challenger to Mark Dayton), a fairly long shot US Senate candidate who is on the cusp of running a competitive campaign, and an incumbent US Senator who's highly targeted and despised by the opposition that would be fun to keep in office.

Donations to the DSCC are to bolster our fairly strong odds of retaking the Senate, and the money kicked to the DCCC is an optimistic long shot. It's unlikely to make the difference in obtaining a House majority, but we can at least build toward it as the decade progresses.

Addendums: Added MN DFL House caucus to help retake the Minnesota legislature. After the dismal 2002 election cycle, where DFL House candidates lost nearly all of the close races, we should be able to pick up more and cut down on the Republican majority. And the $50 gets refunded by the state.

Added Brad Carson. Tom Coburn is quite possibly the most extreme right wing candidate running for the US Senate, and we're lucky we have a very viable candidate in Brad Carson to compete for the seat. But it'll be close. Hence the contribution.

Added Martin Frost. Tom Delay's redistricting put him in the same district as another incumbent, Pete Sessions. Frost, on paper, should be losing, as the district is in Dallas and is overwhelmingly Republican. But Frost is a very solid campaigner, and frankly, a smarter politician than Sessions. That, and he's got a strong liberal record. I want to keep him in the US House.

Total donated this election cycle: $255.

I was commenting on a thread on Matthew Yglesias' blog, and I figured I'd cross post it here.

Minnesota's much heralded lurch to the right is largely a myth.

In 2000, Gore/Nader beat Bush 54-46%, with Bush running as a mushy moderate Republican.

The 2002 elections were an anomaly, due to Wellstone's death and the memorial debacle. Even after a backlash that was at least partially real (I knew we were screwed when even I felt uncomfortable watching Rick Kahn speak), Coleman, whose tone was of moderation, won only by a 1% margin. Polls prior to Wellstone's death had shown a Wellstone lead, polls prior to the memorial had given Mondale a solid lead.

Governor Pawlenty won due to the center-left vote being split among three candidates. The Democrat Moe won 34%, the Green Pentel won 2%, and the Independence candidate Penny took 17%. Penny unmistakeably drew from Moe more than Pawlenty. (Mondale outran Moe by 13%, whereas Coleman outran Pawlenty by only 4%. Penny = 17%)

Polling for 2004's general election looks pretty superb. I think it's around 51-37 for Kerry. Minnesota should be lean, if not solidly Democratic. Hopefully we'll hear the end of the swing state rumors after November.

Looking forward to 2006, Mark Dayton is well-positioned, with approval/disapproval ratings in the ballpark of 57/15 or so. Coleman's approval is in the same range, but with approximately double the disapproval (in the 30s).

Reports of the DFL's death have been greatly exaggerated.

George W. Bush: "Bring it on."

How much do you want to bet that the ricin poison discovered in the Senate Office Buildings was sent to Democrats?

Anthrax-laden letters were never sent to the President, nor to the much more powerful House leadership. No. They were sent to the Democratic Senate leadership, and random Democratic Senators. What's more, it was sent from in the US.

But hey, it's us Democrats who spew the "political hate speech."

Seems like it's always liberals who tend to die. JFK, RFK, MLK, Mel Carnahan, Paul Wellstone, Nick Begich. And yes, I'm aware of John Heinz.

PS: Fine, it wasn't sent to a Democrat. But the rest of post stands.

The only, and I stress only, reason I'm disappointed with the failure of Lieberman's campaign is that with him out of the field, there'll be no more reason for the word Joementum to exist.

It's promising to read about a real, actual grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame affair (written about here, and here).

According to one of the witnesses, the "administration people are all terrified." So they're squirming.

Good.

Now here's the kind of story that warms my heart. It's a great example of what US humanitarianism can accomplish when it's actually humanitarianism.

The Kosovars are very happy that we intervened; you don't see stories about rebels ambushing our soldiers. Bill Clinton is revered, along with Tony Blair and Wesley Clark. Giant paintings and street names are devoted to them.

That's the kind of international reputation I miss. It'll never be back as long as George Bush and his puppetmasters control our foreign policy, regrettably.

The only result of the repeated calls for bipartisanship and comity in government is inevitable strife and extremism. Why's that? Because whenever people yearn to define themselves as "in the middle," the middle is defined by how far either side pulls, and the fact is, the right wing has pulled to the extreme right far, far harder than the left has gone its way.

Take for example this Washington Post profile of Grover Norquist. Karl Rover calls him an "impresario of the center-right." Apparently nowadays the center right wants to "get the federal government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub," equates estate taxes with the Holocaust, and compares eradicating Democrats to eradicating cancer.

Republican books always have titles like "The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military," "The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language, and Culture" (Geez, Mike, what creative names for both your books), or "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism." And these are by people who are invited on television all the time to share their views. No one on the left matches their vitriol; certainly none whose books are sold at Barnes & Noble or given shows on MSNBC do.

They've never wanted to play nice. Why does it matter?

Because they're much scummier than we ever are. Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. delayed the release of the Iranian hostages until his inauguration for his political gain. George W. Bush outed an undercover CIA operative working on WMD non-proliferation to punish her husband for presenting uncomfortable facts to the world. These are actual, concrete examples of treason.

How about just being immoral? The irony of the impeachment of Clinton is that almost all of the major players in the House who prosecuted him were adulterers. Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde admitted to having an affair, Bob Barr was an adulterer, Bob Livingston, who was the heir apparent to the Speakership, resigned from the House when it was revealed he was an adulterer, and Newt Gingrich divorced his second wife while she was in the hospital with cancer to begin a third marriage, this time to a twenty-something aide.

Why weren't these facts publicized? I don't know. But it goes to show how all-controlling yet undeserving these Republicans are.

Wow. I for one thought Zell Miller was a Republican, Ralph Hall was really Republican, and Lincoln Chafee was a Democrat.

Nope. Apparently Zell Miller is very, very Republican (voted with Republicans on contested votes 91.5% of the time), and compared to him, Ralph Hall is a Ben and Jerry's-eating, perverted arts-supporting, recumbant bicycle-riding liberal (with due credit to the Club for Growth), since he voted with the Democrats 49% of the time.

Lincoln Chafee, for how much the conservatives loathe him, jumps ship only 28% of the time to support the Democratic position. Yeesh. I'm sure we have plenty of 28 percenters in our caucus (Breaux, B. Nelson, Landrieu..)

So the Taxpayer's League of Minnesota's up to their billboard antics once again. In recent weeks I've noticed a ton of billboards that try and claim Minnesota's quality of life is not a consequence of our public services and investment. They say nebulous, feel-good buzzwords like "Community," "Hard Work," and "Friends" are the source of Minnesota's quality of life.

Gee, so I guess elsewhere, they don't work hard or have friends. The reason our child mortality statistics are low is community. Alabama isn't dead last in test scores because they perennially underfund their schools, it's because Alabamans don't work hard. Remember that next budget cycle when they cut Minncare funding.

It's such a joke. The "Taxpayer's League" doesn't represent Minnesota taxpayers, they represent a bunch of super rich whiners who think they have earned the right to opt out of paying for the Minnesota that treated them so well. Minnesota historically invested in the education of the young people, invested in the environment and parks, invested in infrastructure, and those investments are what made Minnesota such a nice place to live in.

These people want to turn our state into another Mississippi, or another Alabama. Governor Pawlenty, the Minnesota House, all of 'em, they're in cahoots. You want a vibrant, liveable Minnesota? Turn the bastards out.

Remember Norm Coleman promising to "change the tone?" Remember George Bush saying the same thing in 2000? They were lying. Not only have they not changed the tone, the President and the Republican House and Senate are the most partisan in recent generations.

Norman Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute (which is not a liberal organization) said the Republicans "have been gradually using, on a regular basis, techniques that violate all the norms of conduct and behavior. And they've gotten away with it." These include denying the minority the right to appoint their proportionate members to conference committees, holding roll call votes open for hours on end frequently until they can finally twist enough arms to win key votes (three hours on the medicare bill), and scheduling votes mere minutes after showing Democrats the legislation for the very first time.

Not only that, if you happen to have a Democratic congressperson, they make sure the federal government will not spend money on you. Districts with Republican congresspeople receive an average of $612,000,000 more per year than ones with Democratic representatives.

They have no shame, either. Democrats never dared denied Republicans their representation on conference committees. When then-Speaker of the House Jim Wright held a roll call vote open for an extra 10 minutes, they decried it as tyranny. Finally, when Democrats controlled Congress, the disparity in spending between Democratic-controlled House districts and Republican-controlled ones was only $35 million (1/36th of the current gap) in favor of the Democrats, and Republicans lambasted the Democratic leadership as corrupt for its pork-barrel spending.

The Republicans have no tact, either. When Democrats refused to leave a committee room where tax legislation was being considered, Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas called the cops on them. The cops fortunately just laughed at him.

Why is partisanship such a problem? One reason is the nature of congressional redistricting. With incumbent protection placed at such a premium, 400 of 435 members are consistently reelected by landslide (20%) margins. This means they're not accountable to the voting public at large, they're accountable only to their party, ie, they're only vulnerable to primary challenges. This ensures a starkly partisan house.

Frankly, though, Democrats never ran the House in the ruthlessly partisan fashion Delay and Hastert do. But the sad thing is, the incentives are set up for the Republicans to be as vicious and nasty as they want to be, because angry partisanship creates voter apathy, and committed Republicans already vote, whereas the hundred million or so nonvoters would be natural Democrats.

As a larger theme, it's also in the interest of Republicans to make government perform badly; they can't run against government unless it's something people are angry at. They really can't be considered good stewards of the state.

Remember these things next time you're thinking of pulling the lever for Ramstad, Gutknecht, Kennedy, or Kline. You're voting for divisive partisanship and non-deliberative government.

'Tis the season..

Looks like that eminent conservative publication, the National Review, has finally come out against charitable giving.

The author of the article discovers the roots of poverty and insights into the underclass via contact with one deadbeat mom and her children. Her conclusion? She wants her $5 back, she's pissed the deadbeat mom's children gave her children strep, and "as long as the neighborhood — the village — cared for them, her mother never would."

A true conservative; never does she once considering getting "big government" involved by calling child protective services, she pins the destructive behavior of the mom on the children, and she sure as hell gets sick of helping out the kids.

Wanna scrub toilets? The Bush recovery will give you that opportunity, but not much else.

A NATO-led peacekeeping force operates in the capital, Kabul, but has not yet been expanded throughout the country, where warlords hold sway and Taliban and al-Qaida militants launch frequent attacks. - AP, November 18th, 2003.

This is abominable. In the upcoming campaign, you're going to hear Bush make his case for reelection based on the war on terrorism.

Even as we have 150,000 people in Iraq, we can't spare the manpower to secure anywhere outside of Kabul, even though Al-Qaida is the direct threat to us, and the Taliban must be crushed to make ourselves safe. A prosperous, secured Afghanistan is the key to our safety. And heck, in Afghanistan, they actually viewed us as liberators.

So I have to ask the President, why are you endangering us all with your ignore-Afghanistan policy?

The most noteworthy part of the Newsweek November 6-7 poll on Bush's reelect numbers is down on the generic question, and the demographic responses to it.

Usually any time there's a poll that reflects party affiliation, or tests generic votes, there's a marked gender gap between the men and the women; the men skewing toward the Republican, while the women lean more Democratic. The gap tends to run around 10% or so. (Say, women go 55-45% to the Democrats, while the men go 45-55%.)

This poll doesn't really show a significant gender gap; the slight one it does show is negligable and in the margin of error, and a majority of men are against his reelection. That surprises me.

Additionally, independents are pretty heavily against Bush, 53-40%, which isn't surpising, given Bush's hard right tendencies.

All the Democrats (with the exception of Gephardt) are within the margin of error against Bush, in the specific matchups. With a 4% margin of error, George Bush's 48% vs. Wesley Clark's 45% is a tie. The dems do well, considering their name recognitions are all very low, and people don't like to endorse candidates they know nothing about.

All in all, Bush's numbers continue to trend down, unlike Clinton's or Reagan's at this point in their terms. That is bad news for GW.

Check out this graph. A lot of combat fatalities in Iraq are piling up. So's the cost.

The derivative of the deaths has been positive, but nearly constant, but in the last month or so, the second derivative is positive.

That means the number of deaths is going up, and the rate at which the number of deaths is going up is going up. 15 killed the other day, 6 killed today. All from the people who wanted us to liberate them.

Is it just me, or are Republicans cynical and hypocritical when it comes to their own promotion of minority members from within?

Desperate to conceal the fact that they're the white person's party, they parade out the gospel singers and R&B artists at the national convention, while actual black delegates are asked to "fetch a taxi or carry luggage" for the white people in attendance.

That said, for a party that opposes affirmative action and claims to favor meritocracy (notwithstanding their opposition to equalized school funding, or the widespread use of legacies in college admissions), it's very unseemly how Republicans tend to find minorities for high judicial positions, and how they claim they're always the most qualified for the job.

Clarence Thomas's judicial experience consisted of a year on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals following chairing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a position he held due to the fact that he opposed affirmative action and the civil rights movement's objectives, all while conveniently being black.

A whole one year spent on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals isn't much experience (just compare Thomas's judicial experience with that of every other justice's biography here) at all. Yet when Thurgood Marshall's seat (Justice Marshall was a great champion of civil rights; he argued Brown vs. Board of Education on behalf of Brown) opened up in 1991, George H.W. Bush claimed he was the "most qualified for the job."

Notice where Clarence Thomas came from: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Who are George W. Bush's two most recent nominees for the DC Circuit Court? Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, hispanic and African-American, respectively.

Am I insinuating that minorities aren't qualified for high judicial office? Absolutely not. There are tons of superb minority jurists on the federal bench. They just tend to have gotten there due to the efforts of Democratic presidents. Or didn't get there due to Republicans in the Senate. Liberals also tend to follow the normal path: state courts, district courts, then circuit courts of appeals. When Republicans want the facade of diversity, they just put whatever ideologue that's on hand up for high court.

Chris Matthews is good for nothing if you ask me. I don't see how someone who was an aide to former House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-MA) can be so soft-hitting and forgiving to the cast of hard conservatives and wishy-washy centrists he has on his show.

Tonight he matched up an apolitical reporter (Howard Fineman) from Newsweek with a right wing Republican press secretary flack (Mindy Tucker) to discuss a recent ad run by the Democratic National Committee, which slammed the Bush White House over the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

After it was aired, Chris immediately turned to Mindy Tucker (R-Prevaricator's Haven) to get her response. She blustered off a series of sentence fragments about "unproven allegations" before Chris turns to Howard Fineman who says, and I quote, " ." Yeah, I quote him as saying absolutely nothing.

The search for truth, thus advanced, ended.

What's too bad is that there wasn't a panel capable of actual discussion. Had I been there, my response would have gone something like this:

"What's unproven? The CIA has said that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative who had been supervising and overseeing multiple field agents and operated a front company, all meant to fight WMD proliferation. These were all compromised. The CIA further said that the release of her identity has damaged our national security. Robert Novak wrote in his original July column that he was told the name of said agent by senior administration officials.

That the White House's actions were treasonous and grossly illegal cannot be contested. The only "unproven" part is George W. Bush personal authorization or consent."

The fact that White House talking heads are pushing the "unproven" line of argument tells me that they're running scared about what will be uncovered.

If the President and the White House as a whole were innocent of wrong doing, and were truly ignorant of who leaked the information, Mindy should have had no problem saying that someone did break the law and George Bush wants to find out who, so they can be handcuffed and escorted out of the White House.

Instead she (and other right wingers) denies that there was even any crime committed. Who is she trying to protect?

Bush knows who did it. Administration officials know who did it. Their silence and their lack of cooperation in the investigation is inexcusable and repugnant. These people are traitors and dishonorable scum. They'll do whatever they can to obtain and hold onto power, and they've got to be exposed and destroyed.

Here's a question for the supposed anti-terrorism warriors in the White House: Why are the Taliban doing anything besides being dead and gone?

Why is it that Afghanistan is unsecure outside of Kabul?

Why is it that we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden?

It is undeniable that the Iraq war diverted intelligence and special ops resources away from Afghanistan. This is perplexing, considering Al-Qaida and the Taliban pose a continuing, deadly threat to the US, whereas it's self-evidently clear Iraq didn't and wasn't going to ever.

The idea that George W. Bush is an effective leader in the "war against terrorism" is a myth. He's pathetic. He's failing to stablize and democratize Afghanistan, he squandered a massive windfall of international goodwill following 9/11 on a personal grudge match in Iraq, and he can't even find his two main enemies.

Then again, he can't even find a leaker in his own White House. Maybe he's not really pathetic, just dangerously incompetent.

Something I truly do not understand in this day and age is the habit, almost a reflexive tic, of the right to deride all and anything liberal as "communist," as if that's an end-all pejorative label. The Cold War ended in 1991, but you'll still have communism trotted out as the red bogeyman very frequently.

There's also the tendency to equate nazism with communism as the two polar extremes of evil. I don't agree with that formulation.

Nazism's legacy to the world was racial hate, eugenic theory, and rocket technology. And of course the millions of dead from WWII.

Communism had a huge body count, but I'd venture a guess that given the time and geographical extent that the USSR enjoyed that Germany's tally would be much higher.

I'm not a communist. I believe in property rights and the market system as the most efficient means of production. But I do resent "communist" used as a last retort. There's a much longer, indepth discussion here, on maxspeak.org.

What a joke. California voters are sick of empty rhetoric and unfulfilled promises? Then could someone kindly explain to me what Arnold's legislative plan consists of.

Oh, wait a second. He never created one. But he sure knows how to say "taxes are too high" and how to sexually assault women.

Arnold is a novelty. He'll wear thin real quick. Jesse Ventura sure did here in Minnesota.

Remember the Valerie Plame affair back in July and August? Yeah, you don't. That's 'cause it didn't go anywhere when it first broke.

Here's the deal. George W. Bush predicated his case for the war against Iraq on the assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which, as we all know, did not exist. He declared in his 2003 State of the Union address that ''the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

This was false. The CIA knew and told the administration long before the SOTU address that it was false; Iraq hadn't sought uranium from Africa. James Wilson, former ambassador to Niger was the key player who revealed that fact to the press, making a mockery of the White House's case for war.

So what does the White House do? It reveals the identity of James Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA agent who was working on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and when a CIA agent's identity is made public, their career is over.

In other words, a US ambassador reveals the truth and shows George Bush to be a liar, so George Bush's White House ends his wife's career, and in the process imperils our efforts to prevent WMDs from getting into the hands of terrorists.

"Senior administration officials" told Robert Novak the identity of Valerie Plame as an undercover agent, which he then published in a July 14th syndicated newspaper column. In press-speak, a "senior administration official" is a cabinet secretary or deputy secretary, or a senior advisor like national security advisor Condoleezza Rice or political advisor Karl Rover. High level people.

But interestingly enough, revealing the classified identity of an intelligence operative is a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. Not to mention imbecilic from the perspective of anyone who cares about our national security.

If Bush approved or condoned such acts, it would certainly be an impeachable offense. All it took to impeach the last guy was lying to a grand jury about private, consensual sexual acts. GW may have broken federal laws against the disclosure of classified intelligence assets, ended the career of a CIA agent out of spite, set back our efforts to prevent WMDs from getting into the hands of terrorists, and endangered the lives of anyone who aided or made contact with said CIA agent while she was performing her duties. Serious stuff.

And it's not just rumor and hearsay. Another "senior administration official" confirmed on Saturday that not only did two other "senior administration officials" did indeed violate federal law in disclosing intelligence information to Robert Novak, but that they called at least six other journalists to ensure that the deed was done, and that it was "clearly meant purely and simply for revenge."

This is shocking stuff. Whoever in the Bush administration broke the law must resign and be put in jail. If Bush had a part in it, he must be impeached and removed from office. And he very well may.

Call me a contrarian, but I like the French. I like their attitudes, their lifestyle, and their politics.

The whole "deck of cards" thing has been taken to its logical conclusion by the French. George Bush is featured as the King of Diamonds, which a caption that reads (in French) "Head of a baseball club and director of Salem bin Laden's oil company (brother of Osama). Designated President of the US by his dad's friends on the Supreme Court before the vote count showed he'd lost." No foolin', eh?

When I went to France, everywhere they asked, "how could you have elected Bush?" Thankfully, I'm not a Bush fan, so the questioning didn't bother me. But then again, I doubt the hardcore Republicans would enjoy a trip to France, anyhow.

Bush's polling numbers aren't looking too good these days. Wesley Clark is beating him (albeit, within the margin of error) in a head-to-head poll, with all other major Democratic candidates managing statistical ties within the margin of error against Bush.

If you look at Bush's reelect numbers, they're generally pretty dismal as well. No polls show him besting 50% against a generic Democrat, and many show him below 50% against Democrats with far, far lower name recognition. Whenever an incumbent is below 50%, that's a warning sign. It's doubly a warning sign if the incumbent can't even garner a plurality.

A strange fact about the America-hating Democratic politicians is that they tend to be much more likely to have served in combat, and those who received distinctions for serving in combat (Medals of Honor, Silver Stars, etc.) tend to be the most vocally anti-war. Examples: Sen. John Kerry (Silver and Bronze Star, D-MA), Sen. Daniel Inouye (Medal of Honor, D-HI), Fmr. Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA, Silver and Bronze Star, triple amputee), Fmr. Sen. George McGovern (D-SD, Distinguished Flying Cross for bomber missions in WW2), Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC, Bronze Star), Fmr. Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE, Medal of Honor) and many others.

Why does this matter? Because of the disgusting, contemptible rhetoric of the Republicans. One of the most egregious examples of Republican treachery and slime was the 2002 Georgia Senate race. Senator Max Cleland, a moderate Democrat who served in Vietnam, losing three limbs at the battle of Khe Sahn, was running for reelection against Rep. Saxby Chambliss, who sat the war out because of a "bad knee."

Max Cleland is up on his security issues. He was an original author and sponsor of legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security, long before Bush embraced the idea. In fact, President Bush held out as long as he could to avoid creating a new cabinet-level department, but flip-flopped after learning the polling numbers and political mileage he could get out of it.

Once passage of the bill was assured, Bush tacked on anti-union provisions that vastly changed the contracts under which hundreds of thousands of federal employees work, making it easier to fire and dismiss career employees. Bush did this as a cynical political ploy to force Democratic congresspeople to either vote against their core supporters, or appear to oppose Homeland Security efforts.

Max Cleland, an original author of the Homeland Security bill, balked at the anti-worker legislation tacked onto his bill, so he and the rest of the Senate Democrats held it up while trying to remove the Bush union-busting provisions.

What happened back in the Georgia campaign in the summer of 2002? Republicans ran ads claiming Cleland "lacked the courage to lead" while running a montage of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Cleland together. Cleland lost his seat in an election day shocker that also saw Georgia's Governor's mansion change hands over the issue of the Confederate flag. Articles describe the Republican candidate talking about the flag with angry whites at every campaign stop throughout rural counties.

In any case, Max Cleland just wrote a concise, coherent critique of the Bush administration's mishandling of the Iraq war and of the public's trust. Kids are dying over there every day, but hey, the Republicans did pick up some nice Senate seats following the vote on the war resolution.

The problem with having an personal/political weblog is that no one I know cares about the political stuff, and no one who doesn't know me cares about the personal.

Hence, my political blog. Welcome.