Letters to the Editor
-
Which means...
All of these are strong arguments for why Dems might lose. They are also a very important message that when you go to the polls (and I hope you all do) you will elect a Democrat to your state's house of representatives and a democratic governor. Thanks to the Supremes and the rape of Texas, redistricting need no longer wait for the next census. Each state's house can do it any time, including after this election.
Rember, if you are a values oriented type of person, vote early, vote often, and vote Democrat.
-
Futures analysis
The futures market says the dems do have an edge:
http://www.fortnow.com/senate/
-
Unghhh
I had something really pithy to say and I was also going to talk about MN's voting system - which I think is really good (served as an election judge for the primaries this year - first time) Judges get quite a bit of training, judges at sites need to come from both major parties - a lot of activities require 1 judge from each party - same day voter registration, etc.
BUT there were 3 commericals in a row on tv as I was composing my thoughts - they were
Tim Pawlenty(R) (gov race) (anti - Mike Hatch ad)
Mark Kennedy(R) (senate race) (anti Amy Klobuchar)
Tim Pawlety (again) (aren't I wonderful slightly anti - Mike Hatch)
All 3 together were like 20 seconds - but so many distortions, deceptions, aspersions and misrepresntations packed together in so little time - brain reeling - shuting down - going to bed.
-
Chaostician and Lieberman
Chaostician,
The reason why Lieberman is leading is because independents registered voters make up almost half the registered voters in his state. They did not vote in the Democratic Primary.
Far too many people confuse the primary with overall support.
Lieberman is very likely to win the general election, which is why I've been vocal against any plans or ideas to strip him of power in the Senate, because we'll likely need his vote for Senate control.
-
Chaostician -
We'd still have to win back both house and senate to impeach and convict Bush, ...
Hmmm.
In order for the Dems to actually pursue an impeachment, it will be because they've been unquetionably led there by the facts that they turn up in their investigations. And the media will have had to have reported those facts well enough to keep the Republican propaganda from sticking.
That's because the pronouncements made so far by the Dem leaders -- and their other behaviors such as during the recent torture bill debacle -- indicate that the Dems will practically have to be dragged kicking and screaming into actually starting the impeachment process. They aren't going to be doing it as a purely political assault, as was done against Clinton.
But now think about it: what that means is that if the evidence and the sentiment across the country are such that impeachment can begin, it will be nearly impossible for quite a few of the Repubs in the Senate to resist it. By that point, their machine will be broken, and they will have to go along with the popular sentiment just to save their own hides. So if impeachment begins, it could be quite likely that it will be seen through.
I think it is very likely that the Dem's investigations will lead us very close to impeachment. However, it's anybody's guess as to whether the media will let enough people know enough of the facts to let it actually proceed.
-
The Impeachment Dream
At this point I really hope the Dems give up the impeachment dream. If the Dems actually take one or both chambers, it is critical that the Dems try to become something more than the Anti-Bush party. Being the Anti-Bush party may be a short-term way to get elected, and certainly slowing down radical right ideas is and providing oversight is important. But if the Dems would like to remain in power they need to demonstrate that they are capable of both coming up with good ideas to govern the country and spend their time dealing with pressing issues. I dialog and action on Iraq would be a great place to start. Right now, I'd bet that most voters are somewhat uncertain about whether the Dems are up to these tasks.
-
Howard Dean is right
So says the button I wear. It's all-purpose, and especially good right now. Inside the Beltway Democrats have been raging against Howard for months over his "fifty-state strategy" (wildly popular, of course, with the people who actually elect him Chair). How's it going to look next month, if it turns out Democrats take the House by capturing a bunch of those supposedly "safe" seats (like Foley's) that turned out not to be so safe after all -- and what would have happened if the Dems hadn't bothered to put up strong candidates (or any candidates) in those races, as Rahm Emmanuel & Co. would prefer?