Then who is the Katherine Harris character in Allen's story? And where’s the example of the U.S. Supreme Court awarding victory to the guy with less votes rather than the guy with more votes?

Bush handled the Rumsfeld situation just like he's handled everything else over the last five + years: "I'm the decider, and I'll tell everyone else as little as possible. I don't have to show my math." How anyone can separate this one episode from the rest of his actions is quite puzzling to me. Every decision and action he makes has the fingerprints of political expediency. Bush is so out of touch that he couldn't recognize that replacing Rumsfeld before the election would have been viewed as a good thing to most voters. Actually, we'll never really know for sure how big a difference it would have made. But given hindsight, I'm sure Bush would have pulled the trigger a few months ago if he hadn't been so afraid of the political consequences. This episode is the most obvious example that Bush's highest priority is the political ramifications of his actions. And all these Republicans like Gingrich who are complaining about the timing now are really pathetic. If Bush should have done it sooner, why weren't y'all publicly telling him to do so back then? We get to do that in a democracy, you know....

Before any election, every Democratic candidate is painted as some sort of socialist, baby-killing, terrorist supporting freak who wants to push this country to the left of Karl Marx. Once the election is over though, any Democrat who won is all of a sudden a "moderate," or "conservative" Democrat. These guys never quit with the spinning. Ever.

I'll tell you this much, though. One party rule as practiced by the current Republican leadership is quite different than the one party rule that would be practiced by the Democrats. The current Republicans are authoritarians who are quite happy to cede all power to the party leadership, regardless of the leadership's competence. I feel quite comfortable in saying that such a thing would never happen with the Democrats. Uniformity, conformity, and blind adherence to upholding the status quo just isn't in their DNA. It's very "democratic," but makes it hard to win elections.

If you go to the Daou report, and scroll down the right-hand column...

is inherently divisive. Even if it's just paying lip service, it's better than nothing. By making an effort to win votes in the south, the Democrats show that they are trying to make an effort to bring this country back together. Otherwise, why bother? The 50 state strategy makes sense on several levels, but the most important is that it shows we care.

to win as many southern votes as possible. I don't mean pandering: the Democrats need to stand firm on their platform. But the main thing this election cycle has taught me is how important it is to be perceived as the side that is going to win. As inane as it sounds, people want to vote for the winner. I don't know if it's superstition or what, and it may not matter why. If the Democrats can solidify their congressional majority in 2008, I guarantee they will pick up votes in the south simply because of the fact that they are the party in power.

some polling data on how the GOP faithful feels about this. What percentage is actually bothered by Lott being the minority whip?

ps--On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give Lott's title as "minority whip" a twelve!

That last line was supposed to read:

On a scale of 1 to 10 on the irony meter, I give lott's title as "minority whip" a 12.

Gotta stopp posting from work!!

Maybe I'm the narrow-minded one on this, but I can't imagine a context for Lott's comments that makes them anything but racist and ignorant. Can anyone explain this for me?

You know, I still don't really understand why the North was fighting the South. I mean, they all looked the same to me. Same with Vietnam. When I meet someone who's from Vietnam, I never know for sure which side they were on unless I ask. It's a mystery to me. And don't get me started with the Hutus and the Tutsis. I know some people who can tell the difference, but not many....

"At the current rate of things, six additional months in Iraq means that 416 more U.S. soldiers will die. Are we willing to bet their lives on the odds that the six monthers are finally right this time? "

We know this much: George Bush is always willing to bet someone else's

life that things will get better.

beat his head against the wall with the best of 'em, can't he?

oh, since November 8th! I should jot Jack a note to let him know I'll be thinking about him as I'm savoring my Thanksgiving Turkey next week at home with my family while he's off in prison.

Tim Grieve is simply posting the text of an email that the Associated Press already released to the entire world yesterday. If you clicked on his link, you would have known that. The Salon readers who see it here probably comprise less than 1 percent of the people who will actually ever read it. If you think it's inappropriate, then complain to the AP for releasing it in the first place. I think liberals deserve to gloat and bask in the schadenfreude every once in a while. We get so few chances anymore....

"Jack Abramoff is Jewish, and it's fairly common for them to refuse to spell out the word god, considering it to be taking in vain."

Jack Abramoff must be a very a devout guy. Much like Ted Haggard, I presume.