Let me get this straight.

Republicans (up to now, anyway!) have controlled literally every state office here in Ohio -- particularly including the Sec. of State's office, which of course directly controls the electoral process. Now THEY are alleging problems at the polls? THEY are claiming that DEMOCRATS aren't playing fair?

Oh, how sweet. How very SWEET! This is probably the best indication yet that they're conceding a sweeping defeat across the Buckeye State.

Please, please, PLEASE -- let it be true!

Barnes' analysis is exactly correct -- these losses were caused by Republican sins of omission and commission, nothing more and nothing less.

Maloney is also spot-on with his analysis -- Democratic control of Congress is the best gift imaginable to Rush Limbaugh, FauxNews and all the other right-wingers. We need to be ready for unimaginable emissions of hot air and truly toxic gases from all these blowhards over the next two years. Rather than having to defend the indefensible Republicans any longer (while trying to blame every Bush failure on another President who left office almost 7 years six years ago, or on the impotent Democratic minority in Congress), they can take aim at a newly revitalized Democratic House and Senate. It won't take long for the right wing to realize this...

Little has been made of one implication of the apparent Senate takeover by Democrats -- WE MAY NO LONGER BE IN DANGER OF LOSING THE SUPREME COURT WITH BUSH'S NEXT PICK!!! HALLELUJAH!!!

An analysis on Good Morning America compared John McCain's effect where he campaigned this year (not good) with Michael J. Fox's evident success. According to GMA, if Webb wins in Virgina, Mr. Fox went five-for-five in the states where his TV ads ran.

Impressive performance by Fox; not so impressive by McCain! Looks as though the good senator's stature will be a bit diminished, shall we say, by the results of this election. His attempt to cozy up to Dubya will now be quite hard to justify and will NOT help him as 2008 approaches. He bet on the wrong horse this time.

Hardly.

Exit polls show conclusively all across the country that a huge percentage of people voted AGAINST Bush. In a bid to inherit the White House in 2008, McCain made the decision to embrace Bush ("French kiss" him, really) -- so it is no stretch to say that association with Bush tarred McCain. The former Straight Talker has forfeited most of the political capital he earned in 2000 by his performance in the last 18 months.

On the other hand, while I've seen no polling information to confirm this, I really doubt that many people not already inclined to vote against stem cell research (etc.) were turned off by Michael J. Fox's ads in those five Senate contests.

OF COURSE many things play into the reasons people vote for or against issues or candidates; however, it is simply not credible to ignore exit polls that show Bush was a prime reason for Republican losses. Likewise, it is not unfair or inaccurate to ascribe credit or blame to outside campaigners who try to influence local races. For sure, Bush, McCain and other would CLAIM such credit when successes occurred!

How does the old saying go? "Success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan." Quite so.

How about Cheney? It's odd to even hear a question about whether a vice president would serve to the end of his elected term, so does Bush's response last week that Rumsfeld AND Cheney should both remain to the end of his second term call Cheney's tenure into doubt too?

We should be so lucky. Cheney is the "devil we know", and one never knows if someone worse could take his place -- but then again, who in the world COULD be worse than Cheney as the next occupant of the Oval Office?

I guess there are a couple of possibilities, many of them soon-to-be-unemployed Republicans -- Rick Santorum, Ken Blackwell, Conrad Burns and George Allen first leap to mind...

It seemed really weird to hear that Cheney had quit campaigning the day before the election, and was going to go pheasant hunting instead.

Now we can understand that odd behavior -- he KNEW that Bush was going to fire Rumsfeld, replacing him with someone who is NOT part of Cheney's cabal. Our esteemed vice president wouldn't like that one little bit -- so he took his marbles (buck shot?) and went home.

It all fits now, like a jigsaw puzzle with the last missing piece put into place!

Tim put it this way in his item, "Gates, who met with Bush over the weekend in Crawford..."

Two questions come immediately to mind:

1. Did anyone notice at the time that Gates had come to Crawford?

2. Who ELSE came to visit Dubya?

Eagle-eyed reporters and cameramen, and assorted Bush-watchers of all stripes, may have seen other unexpected people, giving clues to OTHER changes in the last half of Bush's second term.

Anyone have any such information?

Not if that's the only change! It ain't just personalities -- it's policies and practices WAY more than the names of the people who happen to be doing the dirty work for Dubya!