A Double-Edged Sword

While trolling Kos this morning [note: I do so for 2 reasons: 1) often times some real gems in their if you can strip away the reality-free spin and 2) whenever I find myself despising the GOP, a brief visit to Kosland reminds me that as bad as they may be, the alternative is incomparably worse], I came across a diary entry by Russ Feingold, the contents of which I feel are worth reporting and discussing.

Progressives/socialists/whatever label you love while despising corporations/Republicans/private property: you can exhale. Your knight in shining armor (I apologize for not using a gender neutral term like "person") is not running for President.

To clarify, this is the same Senator Feingold who voted against the Patriot Act, against the tax cuts, against the partial-birth abortion ban, and to restrict missile defense. Basically, if you were to combine every element of Democratic wackiness into an animate form you'd either get an ass or Russ Feingold...though I'm not sure the two are much different. On another note, Feingold is slated to be Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights & Property Rights...I'm hoping he doesn't think Kelo v. New London didn't go far enough!

But why do I say this is a double-edged sword? Although I think Feingold could be a semi-dangerous candidate, perhaps even winning himself a Cabinet post were he to make a decent enough showing (and at worst he'd STILL be in the Senate!), he would also adversely affect the whole race by dragging the rhetoric in the Democratic primaries far to the Left. If Tuesday was an aberation then this would be a good thing for the GOP. If, however, Tuesday was more than a moment of temporary insanity, and the American people are ready to vote Democratic regardless of the drivel they spout, this is noticeably a bad thing.

However, given that I'm optimistically embracing scenario 1 for the time being, and hoping the American people were only pissed off and will return to their senses about a hundred hours after Pelosi grabs the Speaker's gavel, then I would say Russ Feingold should run. Why? Because he'll bring out the true-blue loons on the left of his party, and the American people would get to see the Democrats for the head-cases they really are (as if a John Conyers-chaired Judiciary wouldn't do that already!)

Somewhere in all of this, one of my favorite Churchill aphorisms keeps bubbling up: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

Let the Infighting Begin

I would say that only the Democrats are about ready to go to the mattresses over leadership positions but sadly it's not true. In the new majority, Pelosi's rise to the Speaker's seat seems uncontested. But that means that the majority leader's position is open, as is that of majority whip (the old whip, Steny Hoyer, is ostensibly the heir apparent for the majority leadership). Hoyer has obviously thrown his hat into the ring; Roll Call says he's gotten support from a broad cross-section of the party. But crazy old Jack Murtha wants to run too, though for reasons that have many Democrats scratching their heads. If I had to guess I'd say Steny wins this one, though perhaps not without making some concessions to the Murtha faction (probably on the war). As to the majority whip, Rahm Emmanuel is said to be considering a run. I despise Rahm with just about every fiber of my being - but I'll say this for the man, he's a damn good politician and his party owes him everything. If he runs, expect him to be a shoe-in (the fact that he's an all-star fundraiser certainly won't hurt his chances).

On the other side in the GOP minority, Hastert made headlines when he (rather as expected) announced that he will seek to be minority leader. Fact of the matter is he deserves to be stripped of his seniority - I'm blaming him for Foleygate. That of course leaves a wide-open seat...and if there's one thing our new minority doesn't need, it's a civil war. Thus far, I've only heard of two candidates seeking the spot: currently Majority Leader John Boehner and Mike Pence. Boehner hasn't been in the spotlight long enough for me to get a good sense of him. Pence has, however: he's conservative as hell (and may piss off the handful of moderates who didn't get blown away) but a great mind and a good leader. I think Pence could keep a minority pretty disciplined, which may prove invaluable but I'm not sure whether or not Boehner wouldn't be able to do the same. I can't make any sort of prediction on this one, but if the survivors are feeling embittered about where the present leadership has taken them, expect Boehner to be returned to the party ranks.

First of the 08s

The Senate only "officially" went blue yesterday (Allen is expected to concede at some point today, making it really official), but already things are shaping up for 2008. Unofficially, contenders have been locking up key operatives in states like Iowa for months. According to the Des Moines Register, however, things are getting rolling today with an announcement by outgoing Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack that he will be running for the Democratic nomination in 2008.


Vilsack has neither the star power nor the fundraising ability to truly challenge a top-tier candidate of the Obama/Clinton/(Edwards?) league. In fact, I don't even think he's a viable #2 like Richardson or Bayh might be. But as the Iowa hometown boy, he could be something of a spoiler in that state's caucus. By later throwing his support to Clinton or Obama, he could certainly lock up some cushy post like Ag Secretary...which is probably what he's really aiming for.

Let me reiterate: the important part of this story is not that Vilsack is running. It's that two days after the midterm elections, people are starting to throw their hats in the ring.

I'm Back!

So sometime in September school/political disillusionement caught up with me. My decision (not made explicitly) not to blog was also a product of being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of news about the elections.

However, Tuesday night, the Democratic wave wiped away much of my disgust with the party and was replaced by the knowledge that we can better ourselves in the minority. And because I feel like I can do some good by keeping an eye on the new Democratic Congress, I'm back!

Ohio Called

D Strickland over R Blackwell...while it's not surprising, I am surprised they've called it now.

First Round of Updates

Things are looking up in the IN2, down in the IN8...

KY3 is looking worse than the KY4 (which is surprising...)

Lugar wins. Big surprise.
MSNBC has already called it for Sanders in VT.

Gubernatorial Scorecard

State	Republican	%	Democrat	%
Alaska	Murkowski		Knowles
Arizona	Goldwater		Napolitano
Arkansas	Beebe		Hutchison
California	Schwarzenegger		Angelides
Colorado	Beauprez		Ritter
Florida	Crist		Davis
Illinois	Topinka		Blagojevich
Iowa	Culver		Nussle
Maine	Woodcock		Baldacci
Maryland	Ehrlich		O'Malley
Michigan	DeVos		Granholm
Minnesota	Pawlenty		Hatch
Nevada	Titus		Gibbons
Oklahoma	Istook		Henry
Oregon	Kulongoski		Saxton
Rhode Island	Fogarty		Carcierri
Texas	Perry		Bell		Strayhorn		Friedman
Wisconsin	Green		Doyle
Wyoming	Hunkins		Freudenthal

House Scorecard

Arizona	GOP	%	Dem	%
1	Renzi		Simon
5	Hayworth		Mitchell
8	Graf		Giffords
California
4	Doolittle		Brown
11	Pombo		McNerney
50	Bilbray		Busbee
Colorado
3	Tipton		Salazar
4	Musgrave		Paccione
5	Lamborn		Fawcett
7	O'Donnell		Perlmutter
Connecticut
2	Simmons		Courtney
4	Shays		Farrell
5	Johnson		Murphy
Florida
13	Buchanan		Jennings
16	"Foley"		Mahoney
22	Shaw		Klein
Georgia
8	Collins		Marshall
12	Burns		Barrow
Idaho
1	Sali		Grant
Illinois
6	Roskam		Duckworth
8	McSweeney		Bean
10	Kirk		Seals
13	Biggert		Shannon
17	Zinga		Hare
Indiana
2	Chocola		Donnelly
8	Hostetter		Ellsworth
9	Sodrel		Hill
Iowa
1	Whalen		Braley
3	Lamberti		Boswell
Kentucky
2	Lewis		Weaver
3	Northup		Yarmuth
4	Davis		Lucas
Minnesota
1	Gutknecht		Walz
5	Fine		Ellsworth
6	Bachmann		Wetterling
Nebraska
3	Smith		Kleeb
New Hampshire
1	Bradley		Shea-Porter
2	Bass		Hodes
New Mexico
1	Wilson		Madrid
New York
19	Kelly		Hall
20	Sweeney		Gillibrand
24	Meier		Arcuri
25	Walsh		Maffei
26	Reynolds		Davis
29	Kuhl		Massa
Nevada
2	Heller		Derby
3	Porter		Hafen
North Carolina
11	Taylor		Shuler
Ohio
1	Chabot		Cranley
2	Schmidt		Wulsin
6	Blasdel		Wilson
13	Foltin		Sutton
15	Pryce		Kilroy
18	Padgett		Space
Pennsylvania
4	Hart		Altmire
6	Gerlach		Murphy
7	Weldon		Sestak
8	Fitzpatrick		Murphy
10	Sherwood		Carney
Texas
22	Write-In		Lampson
Vermont
0	Rainville		Welch
Virginia
2	Drake		Kellam
Washington
8	Reichert		Burner
Wisconsin
8	Gard		Kagen
Wyoming
0	Cubin		Trauner

Senate Scorecard

Arizona

Kyl

Pederson

Connecticut

Lieberman

Lamont

Schlesinger

Maryland

Steele

Cardin

Michigan

Stabenow

Bouchard

Minnesota

Kennedy

Klobuchar

Missouri

Talent

McCaskill

Montana

Burns

Tester

New Jersey

Menendez

Kean

Nevada

Ensign

Carter

Pennsylvania

Santorum

Casey

Rhode Island

Chafee

Whitehouse

Tennessee

Corker

Ford

Virginia

Allen

Webb

Vermont

Tarrant

Sanders

Washington

Cantwell

McGavick

GOP Bids Adieu to AZ08?

Only from the DCCC thus far, but apparently NRCC has pulled all of their ad buys from the AZ08 - which may or may not be translated as an admission of defeat. Randy Graff seems to be the consensus wrong candidate for the district, and this just confirms that yup, the GOP thinks so too.

Coup Brewing in Thailand?

Clearly not the first to get this one - but it looks like the military is undertaking a putsch against the Thai government, taking advantage of the fact that the PM is presently at the UN. Thailand has never been a model democracy, but it's been better than the alternative. I'll try and keep an eye on this one.

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

But within a party, this may be the strangest yet: Obama's stumping for the Old Man of the Senate, Robert Byrd. Now that's all well and good - party members stump for eachother regularly - but Obama is only the Senate's sole black man, and Byrd a former KKK member. Either Obama truly buys into Byrd's shtick about his membership being a political necessity back in the day (isn't that a sign that you might want to work for another line of work? Did they hold fundraiser lynchings?), or he's holding his nose in a big way. But this also says a little something else to me - even though Byrd looks ready to romp to reelection (I've said before only death will take this man from his seat), someone's a little nervous if they're pulling out the big guns like Obama for $5k a head.

Primary Preview

Let's start with the less complicated of tomorrow's two high-profile primaries. In Rhode Island, as I blogged last Wednesday, two polls are painting two different numbers. I still think the NRSC's numbers from Public Opinion Surveys might be closer to the fact, especially since there is no doubt in my mind that Chafee will have a significantly better turnout operation. But should Laffey win, no one dares suggest that the GOP can hold this one. The DSCC and Sheldon Whitehouse's hopes are pinned on Chafee going down in flames; if he holds on, it's going to be a great race.

Let's turn our eyes to the border and the Arizona 08 where retiring Republican Jim Kolbe is giving
the DCCC one of their best pickup chances of the cycle. On the left, it looks like Gabrielle Giffords will wrap up the Democratic nomination. But the real fight is on the right, between former Kolbe challenger Randy Graf (a true conservative) and Steve Huffman (a more moderate Republican) who has the backing of both Kolbe (or at least Kolbe has said that Graf is too conservative to win in the district) and the NRCC. Problem is all of this is backfiring; not only is Huffman's campaign poorly run, some analysis suggests that Graf will better motivate the base. More than that, according to a friend of mine observing the race closely, "Huffman's excessive use of negative campaigning has also turned off a great deal of the electorate to him" to the point that he's at risk of splitting the GOP base in a district that is already less than bright red. But according to my friend, Huffman's problems only get worse from here:

Huffman has also been very short on public appearances this campaign season. This could be because he is such a poor public speaker and a weak presence. It is difficult to see him as "congressional" and against a stronger Gabrielle Giffords (the likely Democratic nominee for the seat), he may be torn to pieces in any sort of debate. Randy Graf (currently the leader in the polls for the Republican nomination by more than 10 points) has been written off by many as having no chance of winning in a general election. However, more good may come from his nomination. Graf's supporters are extremely passionate about his election and would fight hard for his victory, more so than Huffman's from my personal experience. In addition, the other three candidates (Mike Hellon, Frank Antenori, and Mike Jenkins) all have pledged to support Randy should he win. Randy is far more confident, a better speaker, and a stronger presence than Steve Huffman, and this will certainly help him in any sort of debate.

So the NRCC has picked the politically palatable moderate who happens to be a stiff, over someone with better base credentials and more charisma - does anyone else see this as a sign of extreme nervousness? After all, they have an unabashed conservative at the top of the ticket in Jon Kyl, and while the 8th is more liberal than other parts of the state, a well-motivated candidate might still hold the district. Chris Cilizza said today that this race would vaunt into the top 2 House races should Graf win, meaning that Cilizza thinks it's likely to flip blue. But voices on the ground are saying otherwise. Bottom line? Kolbe had a lot of success here; the NRCC picked someone who might be his ideological heir, but they may have picked the wrong man. No matter how tomorrow turns out, the GOP isn't out of the woods just yet.

Rasmussen Weekly Roundup

Just got my Rasmussen Report weekly newsletter and I thought I'd pass along, and reanalyze, a gem within.

Our focus today is on New Jersey, where I think it's worthwhile to quote Rasmussen at length before offering my own take (the original piece can be found here).

Republican State Senator Tom Kean Jr., son of the former NJ Governor, again leads Democratic Senator Bob Menendez in New Jersey's race for U.S. Senate. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows Kean with 44% of the vote while Menendez is at 39%. In our last two polls, Menendez, an appointed incumbent, held a six-point lead.

To reflect the reversal, we are now revising our assessment of the contest from "Leans Democrat" to "Toss-Up" in our Senate Balance of Power ratings. Menendez thus becomes the only Senate Democrat not favored to win re-election. Three Republican incumbents (DeWine, Burns, Chafee) find themselves in Toss-Up races. Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s (R) race is ranked as Leans Democrat.

The new numbers in the Garden State represent a dramatic shift from the last two polls, but the contest has been close all year. Neither candidate has been able to move above the low-40s in terms of voter support.

Kean has a famous name, but New Jersey leans Democrat. The candidates have been swapping charges of corruption and ethical conduct, and it may be that the incumbent is getting the worst of it. Kean has been slamming Menendez hard about rent he collected for several years from a nonprofit agency for which he helped get federal funding.

Menendez now attracts just 70% of Democrats (down from 77% in June, whereas Kean's support from the GOP base is now at 85%. Twelve percent (12%) of Democrats are "not sure" who to support. That's a pretty wobbly base as the race enters the home stretch.

Meanwhile, Kean enjoys a clear advantage not only with Republicans and conservatives but also with unaffiliated voters (43% to 29%) and moderates (52% to 33%).

Kean's "very favorable" number (14%) is twice as high as his "very unfavorable" (7%). The reverse is true for Menendez whose numbers are 16% "very unfavorable" and 9% "very favorable."

Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters see Menendez as politically liberal while 33% say he’s a moderate. Twenty-one percent (21%) don’t know enough to have an opinion. That’s high for an incumbent, but Menendez was appointed by Governor Corzine (D) and has held office for less than a year.

A plurality (42%) see the Republican challenger as politically moderate. Thirty-two percent (32%) say he’s a conservative and 19% are not sure.

So what stands out? First of all that Kean's coming back in a year where everyone says the Democratic tide is insurmountable. I think Rasmussen underestimates the effect of name recognition on Kean's success; it can't hurt when your father is a prominent ex-governor. Second is, as Rasmussen states, Menendez's unsteady base of support. This has also been proclaimed the year of change and a house-cleaning to rid Washington of corrupt members of Congress. On both counts, Menendez is hurting - he's the stereotypical crooked New Jersey pol, and he was never elected to this seat, merely appointed to serve out Corzine's term last year. Thus he also lacks a real record to run on. Given McGavick's recent personal admissions out in Washington, I think New Jersey might now be the GOP's best opportunity to pick up another Senate seat.

The Triumph of Order in Mexico

Though it hasn't been as well-reported as I had thought it would be, Mexico's seven person Electoral Court finally and officially declared Felipe Calderon president-elect, after months of challenges by Leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Obrador's protests have not been confined to the halls of power, spilling on the streets chaotically, while driving down his popularity among Mexican citizens who might understandably desire stability more than anything else at this moment. Problem is, Obrador still refuses to admit defeat, and is planning to launch a huge protest in Mexico City on September 16th, where (according to some reports) he might declare himself the head of a parallel government.

In the interest of the Mexican nation, this is the last thing the country needs. Calderon faces enough problems without having this populist thorn in his side, threatening to block critical reforms (i.e. limited privatization of Mexico's state oil company and pension reform). But at the same time, and against the desires of some Mexicans, he should resist calls to disperse AMLO's protests violently - he holds the barest of majorities right now, and not everyone views him as legitimate; violence will merely further weaken his credibility and legitimacy.

The court's ruling, then, is a great step forward for Mexico's democracy, but Calderon & Co. aren't out of the woods yet. For even the hope of serious reform, AMLO and his fellow Chavistas must accept the new administration, and members of Congress must come together to lend support to a series of reforms that, while necessary, will surely prove to be unpopular to entrenched interests.

Mixed News from the Ocean State

With the Rhode Island primaries only six days away, it's no secret that the fate of Lincoln Chafee's Senate seat hangs in the balance. Should Chafee win, the GOP has a shot at holding this seat in the general; should challenger Stephen Laffey win, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse wins in a landslide. It's sort of like a Lamont-Lieberman thing, but Laffey's running more as the anti-incumbent than the true conservative. What is rather like Lamont-Lieberman, however, is the confusion generated by the poll numbers. These two are best summed up by a post on WSJ's Washington Wire blog: two polls, conducted over roughly the same period, and with roughly the same sample size of likely Republican voters. One, from Rhode Island College (and possibly associated with the Laffey campaign, though I'm not certain on this point), shows the challenger up 51%-34%. The other, from Publican Opinion Surveys (but conducted on behalf of the NRSC), shows Chafee up 53%-39%. While at first glance the two effectively negate eachother, the POS numbers look significantly better when you realize that "Of the 53% of respondents who could actually name the primary election date, 58% support Mr. Chafee compared to 37% who back Mr. Laffey" (that from Washington Wire). Not only is that a good thing in and of itself for the Chafee campaign, I have to assume he'll also have the better GOTV operation. So while I'm not in any way calling this one right now, I feel like Chafee's not hurting as much as some might have you think, and I also think that RIC poll has got it wrong.

Santorum-Casey Debate

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum debated his opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. Casey comes across as a smug piece of sh*t...which of course he is, and I think Santorum comes out the winner - but I'm biased. Even Democrats hate this schmuck - so why did the DSCC back him? Still not sure, he's the anti-Lamont, and it's not even clear he's electable. Full debate can be streamed (only on Internet Explorer unfortunately) from the Meet the Press website.

Noteworthy that Cilizza's latest Senate rankings still had Santorum in the most vulnerable spot, but with the concession that "we seriously weighed moving Pennsylvania down to the second position" in their list. But while he still doesn't think Santorum's got a chance, I disagree. Based on Casey's previous implosions, the fact that (and he denies this in the interview, lying through his teeth in the process) bad blood exists between him and Rendell, Santorum's superior debate performance (and I expect it to continue in the future), and Santorum's perpetual underdog status (he never leads in a poll in any race thus making them more or less meaningless except for the magnitude of his opponent's lead), I still think Rick can pull it out, though it'll probably be something like 51%-49% and the sore losers on the Left will scream voter fraud and brand him as illegitimate for the next six years.

Welcome Back!

My own personal August recess is over, and though my posting will not be as prolific as it might have been earlier in the year, it will be more focused on the elections. Labor Day is the traditional beginning of campaign season, so here we go.

WaPo has a great analysis of the problems the GOP faces this fall, but one thing is clear in their conversations with operatives on both sides: no one's sure what's goin' down. Personally speaking, I expect the GOP to lose seats in both Houses, but I don't expect a '94 style tide.

Also noteworthy: the NRCC has backed the more electable candidate in the AZ-08, increasing their chances of holding that seat.

Lieberman Gets It

Lieberman's said something to stir up the blogosphere (though for the Left, his mere continued existance exacerbates them):

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us,” Mr. Lieberman said at the Waterbury event. He called that threat “more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long cold war.”

The left is already screaming that he's done a disservice to Holocaust victims by comparing what they perceive as a limited threat to the fascism of the National Socialist party. Here's Kos on the topic (God I hate this man more every day):

More evil than the guys who gassed 6 million Jews?

More dangerous than the guys who had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us and could've snuffed out all life on the planet at the press of a button?

Lieberman has lost it. Completely and utterly. He is insane.

Uhh Markos? You're the one whose lost it buddy. Ever heard of this little thing called MAD? Mutual Assured Destruction - yeah, maybe if your history classes didn't use Howard Zinn as the gold standard, you would have read about it. MAD ensured that although the USSR was dangerous, yes, they were never a truly existential threat to the United States. Why? Because we were an existential threat to them as well, in that we would wipe them off the face of the earth and that was that. Marx didn't prescribe a heaven for Communist martyrs who died spreading proletarian bliss. Mohammed, on the other hand, prescribed exactly that for those who give their lives for the expansion of Islam. Don't believe me? Try this on for size: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter?" (Koran 9:38) A call to martyrdom, a promise of a better world beyond this one: such assurances (and remember, the Koran is infallible: to pious Muslims this is a promise) mean that MAD is useless to those seeking martyrdom. This sort of fanatical willingness to cast one's life away with reckless abandon was unknown to the Soviet Union's Politburo, and makes Islamo-fascism a much graver and more unpredictable danger that Communism.


What of fascism? I will not in any way attempt to be an apologist for Hitler - he was truly evil, and sought the destruction of worldy Jewry. But how much different, to Muslim literalists, are the commands of Mohammed? There exist among the Muslim scriptures a collection of what are known as haditha (sing. hadith), sayings attributed to Mohammed and treated as law. One of these also captures the eschatological worldview inherent in Islam, and sets as a precondition for Judgement day the destruction of Jewry:

The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!"

Can we honestly say that this is any less serious a threat than Hitler? Critics may reply that of course Hitler killed six million Jews and turned mass murder into a science. The world view of Islamo-fascists demands nothing less - there is a reason that among those seeking to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, Hitler was viewed with reverence. This, I think, puts Islamo-fascists on the same plane of evil as Hitler, because although the means differ, their end is the same. To push Islamo-fascism beyond the evil of Hitler requires a bit of thought, but is really a matter of personal opinion; I won't offer my own, merely the following observation. Hitler's goals were not clearly and demonstrably internationalist - he might not have sought to dominate the whole world.

The foe we face today is explicitly internationalist, calling for jihad until all non-believers submit, often in the face of a choice between submission and death (or conversion and death: in the Balkans, so frequent were such Ottoman threats that when locals were asked whether or not they accepted Islam, they refused by nodding their head up and down as if submitting - some say that tradition continues today so that a shake of the head signals agreement). For Islamo-fascists, their struggles end only when the entire world has either converted or submitted to Islamic rule; there is no American exceptionalism here, which, some may argue, renders it a more existential threat to our way of life than Nazism.

Was Lieberman right to say these things, and highlight the global underestimation of the threat before us? Given the harsh response of the Left, I think so - they cleary don't understand. We face a foe as equally bent on the destruction of Judaism as Hitler was, imbued with the same internationalism of Marxist ideology, but lacking the rational desire for self-preservation that permitted us to bring down Communism without the world suffering a nuclear exchange. In short, our present foe combines some of the worst traits of the two of our greatest 20th century enemies.

Lieberman was, and is, right - and for his clear perception he deserves reelection.

MI-07 = Bad News for Chafee?

Another primary I followed with whatever attention wasn't devoted to Lamont/Lieberman and McKinney's meltdown last night was up in Michigan's 7th District, where moderate Republican incumbent Joe Schwarz was offed by his conservative challenger, Tim Walberg, who had the support of Michigan Right to Life and the Club for Growth. There's a little on it from Hotline blog here. But my point in bringing up Schwarz's defeat was its parallels for another embattled moderate, namely Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. To me, the defeat of two relatively popular incumbents (Schwarz and Lieberman - I'm not counting McKinney on this list) verifies the oft-cited argument about unpopular incumbents - to a point. While I'm still not ready to concede an anti-incumbent spirit on the general level (still don't believe a large number of seats will flip), there is clearly a measure of intraparty anti-incumbent sentiment.

This of course is not a good omen for Lincoln Chafee, a moderate's moderate, a Senator who epitomizes the idea of a Rockefeller Republican. Not only is Chafee locked in a hard-fought political battle with insurgent mayor Steve Laffey, he's losing ground to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who's up 6% in the latest Rasmussen poll. This was at one point Chafee's to win, but now that he's finding himself occupied with trying to maintain the party's nomination, I think Whitehouse has the momentum.

Of course all of this presumes that Chafee slips past Laffey in a year that's seen pissed off partisans on both sides, and one Club for Growth candidate already triumph. Again, I don't like taking bold positions on elections (not enough experience to do that yet) but I have a bad feeling about Chafee's chances on this one; a Chafee defeat on September 12th will probably mean the Democrats only need to take four seats to tie up the Senate (or five to give themselves true control).

Connecticut: Further Thoughts

I should start by venting a wee bit. Many of the moonbats have taken extreme umbrage at a particular line (some may come to call it Lieberman's nine words) in last night's concession speech: "I cannot and will not let that result stand." They're citing it is as further proof of delusion, of a man out for himself and not for state or nation. Lieberman squeaked by Weicker in the '88 primary even more narrowly than Lamont won last night, which is to say that at one point the Democratic Party up there thought very highly of him. But since then, I would say, and especially in the last decade or so, he's been more a man of his state than a man of his party, independent from partisan pressures because of his widespread popularity at home. Let me restate that: because of his widespread popularity at home. Not because of his popularity among fellow Dems but because of his broad base of support. In 2000, Lieberman won with 63% of the vote, meaning his support extended far beyond his party. As of last October, party registration in Connecticut was roughly as follows: 453,000 registered Republicans (~22%), 700,000 Democrats (~34%), 929,000 unaffiliated (~45%). Given those registrations and his usual broad base of appeal, of course he cannot let the results stand: last night he was run out of his party by some loons who in other states might be on the political fringe. As a three-term incumbent, and one with widespread popularity and respect in the state, the whole state deserves another referendum on him, not just the peaceniks who claimed victory last night (and while calling them peaceniks, I should note that one of Lieberman's first political acts back in the 70s was the creation of an anti-war caucus).

Looking forward, what does all of this mean? Some have suggested, and I partially believe, that Lamont's victory on an avowedly cut and run strategy will force the Democrats to line up behind a cut and run resolution on Iraq (like the one Kerry floated about 6 weeks ago). However they'll only do that if they feel the Connecticut results are nationally consistent, that is to say that there is some sort of anti-war tide not just among Democrats but voters at large (although the poll numbers indicate public dissatisfaction with the war, I think most Americans haven't lost their minds just yet and recognize the disastrous consequences of leaving before Iraq can stand on its own). They may feel threatened by netroots activism and the spectre of primary challenges, which already many Kossacks are talking about - but I think the activists are off their rockers and the establishment will be overestimating their power if they worry about that. They might be able to push Lieberman out of the party in Connecticut, but that's in one of the bluest states in the nation - I'm not sure it could happen in many other places.

I also somehow suspect that Lamont's victory will be a boon for the GOP, at least in Connecticut. In November, GOP voters will come out and vote - either for Schlesinger or Lieberman, or at least (if the GOP does its job well) against Lamont, in the process hopefully voting for their Congressmen too (three of whom are Republicans). Nationwide, or at least in select markets, invoking the idea of the Democratic Party as a bunch of hippie peaceniks, led by Lamont and his merry band of netroots loons, might serve as a catalyst for turnout. We'll see.

I'll try and post on some of the other races later.

Watching the Lamont Acceptance

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are in the background...this is the sort of support he's got. And he should be a Senator why?

Kos is already going on the November warpath.

Lamont is also yelling...hoping he shrieks
Calling for healthcare reform (Hillarycare?), whining about deficits (should we fix Social Security? NOOOO!), complaining about the 63 lobbyists per Congressman in DC - so he'll only meet with 62 if he wins in November (which would require Lieberman getting run over by a semi). Can't stand to watch this tripe anymore, Daily Show time.

Update
Hotline Blog has the full text of Lieberman's concession here.

Calling It

For Lamont. With 93.85% of precincts reporting, Lamont is leading 51.65%-48.35%. But with that slim of a margin, Joe will no doubt challenge as an independent.

Update:
Lieberman conceded at 11:oo PM, saying he will go forward, that

"[t]he old politics of polarization won today. For the sake of our state, my country and my party, I cannot and will not let those results stands today."
"I will continue to offer Connecticut a different path forward."
"People are fed up with the petty partisanship and angry bickering in Washington."

Connecticut Update

I'll be following the Connecticut primary from now until they call it...I should start by taking back my earlier comment about tonight being a squeaker. Having said that, the Hartford Courant reports that with about 44% of precincts reporting, Lamont is up 53%-47%. Of course Kos had reports from earlier tonight (only 4% reporting) that showed Lamont up 60%-40% - so things are looking slightly better. At this point, should he lose, I think Lieberman will mount an independent bid for the Senate.

Hotline Blog is reporting that turnout is higher in more affluent areas (always the case but usually addressed most in presidential races and no so much in such solidly blue states); tonight I'm not sure which way it goes. I'm inclined to believe that there are plenty of wealthy members of both parties in Connecticut, so it may be a wash

Courant should be updating results here.

Big Day in Politics (GA)

In Georgia, another nutjob, this time an incumbent, tries to save her bacon. Cynthia "My Job in Life is to Play the Race Card" McKinney, who failed to top 50% in her primary, is in the 2nd fight of her political life, as a more sane man attempts to get on the ballot as a Democrat this fall. While I think McKinney's a nutjob, and a disgrace to Congress, she's a far bigger disgrace to her party (which should be working actively for her ouster, though if that were to happen the whole of the CBC and McKinney would whip out their race cards and raise hell) - and for that reason, pure partisan hackery, I'd love to have her stay around. For every time Democrats talk about getting tough on national security, we can roll out the comments of loonies like her and say, "No, no you're not getting serious on national security" (though if party unity's the standard, I suppose that justifies Lamont and would require the GOP to deal with Gil Gutknecht and Walter Jones, to say nothing of Ron Paul; I guess it's back to the drawing board on that one).

Big Day in Politics (CT)

Save for those of you who live under a political rock/haven't looked at a major news source in about two weeks, today as most know is the Connecticut primary. When you have an incumbent, primaries are usually a mere formality; the incumbent sweeps aside the usual array of challenging flakes and extremist nutjobs and turnout is pathetically low. In the nutmeg state, however, incumbent Joe Lieberman is confronted by a well-funded, and especially well-supported nutjob in the form of multimillionaire Ned Lamont.

Lamont's insurgency (for in reality is little more than that) is interestingly fired by a combination of old and new media; he's been the darling of the ultra-left Daily Kos and his ragtag band of anti-American peaceniks, socialists, and anarchists (with a nice mixture of conspiracy theorists thrown in for kicks), and the New York Times, which endorsed Lamont. Same politics, different mediums. Of course the real impetus for this campaign has come from the netroots, activists like Kos et. al, and if their darling wins tonight, it will be their greatest triumph to date. As an aside, a netroots activist noted with cynicism this morning that

no matter what happens later today, Wednesday will be the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years. If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive.

He goes on to say he'd prefer the latter outcome; personally I'd like the former - but either way he is right, and the media will be right.

Why is it that Connecticut Democrats are even thinking about ditching their three-term incumbent, the man who at one point was poised to become Vice-President of the United States? The first, most obvious, and most oft-touted answer is simply the war. Since Day 1, Lieberman has been the President's most steadfast supporter across the aisle, and the voice of sanity in a party that seems to be rapidly losing its grip on reality. Lieberman, in contrast with the majority of his fellow Dems, understands the importance of finishing what we have started in Iraq. Agree or disagree with the war, I think we should all be able to say in unison that we must finish what we've started; his party disagreed, and so Lieberman's suffering for taking a stand. But there's more to it than simply that. One of the best analyses, I think, came from the Weekly Standard last month, when they noted that while the war was the most germane issue, most Lamont activists have problems with Lieberman far beyond that, starting

in 1998, when Lieberman scolded President Clinton on the floor of the Senate, and pass through 2000, when he declined to give up his Senate seat after joining the presidential ticket, before detouring in 2002, when he picked a public fight with Gore over campaign strategy, and then careening toward November 2004, when he appeared on Fox News after John Kerry's loss and "smiled," before arriving in 2005, when he held open the idea of compromise with Republicans on adding personal retirement accounts to Social Security, lent support to the Republican congressional intervention in the battle over Terri Schiavo, and voted for the "Cheney energy bill." Finally, the Nedheads end up with last winter, when Lieberman voted for cloture--allowing a final vote to proceed--on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. Iraq is only one count in this indictment.

Let's go through some of those points again, as I think it says a lot not only about Lamonters but also about the state of the Democratic party. They begrudge the man for chastising a lying, unfaithful President who abused the station of his office and shamed the White House, for not joining in the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Kerry lost (given the two mens' stances on Iraq, it's understandable), for sanity on Social Security, and for cloture - for allowing judicial nominations to forward as dictated by the Constitution - on the nomination of Samuel Alito, a surpremely qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Many allege that this day is all about whether or not the Democratic Party's proverbial tent is big enough for disparate opinions on the war; the Standard suggests today is more about whether or not that tent is big enough for any dissent.

Whatever the reason, Lieberman's future as a Democrat is on the line. Should he lose narrowly today, there is plenty of speculation that he'll get on the ballot as an independent; if the outcome is a Lamont landslide, however, I think Lieberman will go into the sunset. But problematically, no one can predict what's going to happen. An August primary seems like a ready-made recipe for low turnout, though the peculiar dynamics of this race means that no one really knows what's going on. Nearly 700,000 registered Democrats who can vote today, and I've seen turnout estimates ranging from 25%-40%. Although Quinnipiac has released two much-touted polls in the last two weeks, the first of which showed Lamont up 15%, the second only by 6%, I'm inclined to think things are much tighter than that. Want me to pick a winner? I won't. All I'm going to say is that this fight is a preview of November and of 2008, and of the acceptability of diversity on key issues in the Democratic Party - and oh yeah, it's going to be a squeaker.

Ney Announces Retirement

Embattled (and supposedly on the verge of indictment) Republican incumbent Bob Ney (OH-18) has announced he won't run for reelection. This is Abramoff claiming another victim, and a pretty clear sign that Ney will be indicted soon, perhaps before the end of the August recess. A K Street lawyer I spoke to a few weeks back said that after the recess, the pace of the indictments will increase substantially; we may be seeing that already. Not entirely sure that Ney's retirement will hurt the already-reeling Ohio GOP, but it probably won't help.

Tennessee Primary Predictions

So today (yes Thursday) the fine people of Tennesse will go to the polls. The only primary I'm really concerned about is the Republican Senate primary as the GOP seeks its candidate for the retiring Senator Frist's seat. If you haven't been paying attention it's a three way contest between former Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker (whose daughter infamously appeared on wonkette a while back), Van Hilleary (honestly don't know what this guy does) and Ed Bryant, a former Congressman. Hilleary and Bryant are generally viewed as the conservatives in the field, a fact that is certainly to Corker's benefit. Most polls I've seen have Corker winning, presumably because the other two are splitting the conservative bloc between them. However, the campaign has apparently turned nasty of late, which may place added emphasis on get out the vote operations. A poll released about ten days ago showed Corker up by 11% but with a 7% MOE, findings that are apparently consistent with Corker's internals but hotly disputed by the others' campaigns.

On the other side of the aisle, the Dems have succesfully cleared the way for their chosen candidate, Representative Harold Ford. Ford, whose family are essentially the Kennedys of Memphis, is educated, articulate, young, and black. In the South, this last factor may prove decisive. Ford is running as a moderate, though the GOP loudly disputes that assertion; regardless, he seems pretty popular with average Tennesseans (though this may be in part a reaction to the nastiness among GOPers).

As crazy as it seems, I can't bring myself to write off a black Democrat in Tennessee. Although all three Republicans lead Ford according to a Rasmussen report, Corker boasts the largest lead 49%-37%. Although a Ford poll conducted by Zogby disputes that, showing Ford up, the margin is so slim, and the poll's lack of sample data, that I'm disregarding it. But it still comes down to this: a Corker win tommorow and this seat is pretty much sewn up for the GOP; a surprise by Hilleary and and Bryant, and ladies and gentlemen, we have a race.

Cilizza's preview can be found here.

When I'm not dog-tired, I'll find some primary poll data.

Hope and Trepidation in the Congo

So for only the second time since independence from Belgium, Congolese citizens went to the polls yesterday. Although we won't know anything for weeks (can you imagine the lather our pundits would work themselves into in such a situation?), twenty-five million voted. However, like an election in our own backyard, the outcome of the Congolese election threatens to be problematic. The nation has suffered two wars in the last ten years, so merely holding an election is in its own way a triumph. But, tragically, the public doesn't seem to understand that an election's outcome is binding and if one's tribe or ethnic bretheren isn't happy, the appropriate recourse isn't to take to the streets, gun in hand. The unelected incumbent, Joseph Kabila, appears to be the front-runner, though some indicate a great degree of hostility towards him, stemming partially from his failure to provide for the average Congolese. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, many claim that this election is rigged in favor of Kabila. But unlike most allegedly rigged elections, the majority of people seem unconvinced, or at least unwilling to accept that claim. Tellingly, 9,000 people stood for parliament, a sign that many Congolese believe in the process. Regardless of the outcome, be it Kabila or a challenger, I think the most important indicators of stability in this nation far too accustomed to bloodshed will be whether or not the announcement of a victor is greeted with violence. There was only minimal strife leading up to election day (perhaps in part because of the 17,000 UN peacekeepers); future quiet will bode well for the future.

Senatorial Sanity?

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be applauding Chuck Schumer's actions, but today might be that day! According to a report in the New York Sun, a source close to the nutball from New York says there will be no fillibuster of John Bolton's confirmation. Yes, Bolton currently is serving as US ambassador to the UN, but only as a recess appointment; he must now be confirmed by the Senate. The report from Schumer's office, if true, means that he'll quickly be voted in (though if I had to guess, largely along party lines). But the report isn't the herald of a return to sanity among Democrats, who still quietly adore the UN and believe it's working (lalala I can't hear you lalala seems to be their refrain when confronted with details like, oh, the oil-for-food scandal and its kickbacks). Rather, I think the Bolton decision is election-year politicking, primarily to avoid riling up the Republican base (who feel that the UN is broken and a waste of money, "rat hole" was the term that Ron Paul used, I believe). Of course for the GOP it's a welcome break as it won't force moderate Senators into the unenviable position of having to vote for cloture. What will be interesting to see is how Joe Lieberman votes. I suspect, being a man of principle, he'll vote for Bolton despite the likely pressure from the Lamont/Kos crowd to do otherwise.

158 Democrats Vote Against the Minimum Wage

And against a reduction in the death tax, but it's the minimum wage part that hurts. If you haven't turned on a TV in the last 18 hours, the Republicans pulled a brilliant bait and switch - they agreed to let the minimum wage come up for a vote, in a package that would also exempt the first $5 million of an individual's estate or $10 million of a couple's estate from the death tax. Democrats have understandably been screaming bloody murder, but I'm not all that sure if they're angrier about the "principle" of the bill (which hopefully is at worst a wash for small business) than about the fact they got cornered by Rove & Co...brilliantly. This minimum wage hike affect a miniscule number of families, and a large number of suburban teenagers flipping burgers at the Golden Arches (and after reading Fast Food Nation I find myself with a shortage of charity towards McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, etc.); the estate tax reduction (and can we be honest and admit that claiming this minor adjustment affects the "super-rich" is pathetic? The super-rich measure their wealth not in millions but in billions) benefits small businesses and working farms who are asset rich and cash poor and to whom the estate tax truly is a death tax. Taking a stand on the minimum wage is merely symbolic, but working to alleviate the threat of lost livelihoods for future generations.
Decent coverage from the AP here.
The full roll-call (#425) here.

Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

Kos has polling data showing Cynthia "I Beat Cops and Get Away With It" McKinney losing to a primary challenger in the upcoming runoff (damn fool couldn't top 50% and avoid said runoff). That's a sad day for Republicans - she's the sort of Democrat we all love. But what's really funny is the Kossacks calling her an embarassment to their party...excuse me? She is, but all you moonbats most certainly are too. Y'all are in the same boat. Indeed, I don't think the Democratic Party has had someone to be truly proud of since they lost Scoop Jackson and more recently, Moynihan.

NOTE: One of my readers (and I have my suspicions as to who) playfully asked if by Scoop Jackson I meant the basketball pundit. Hardly. I meant Henry "Scoop" Jackson the senator from Washington for thirty years and a two-time Democratic presidential candidate.

Can't Believe I've Been Silent for So Long!

Okay so honestly, I've been quiet and quit blogging regularly going on two weeks now. But there's something addictive about all of this, especially since it lets me vent the frustration that comes with my daily news fix...

I suppose I could start talking about Israel and keep talking about it all day, but what's most worth noting for the time being is that Hizbullah rockets have hit deeper into Israel than they had previously, some thirty miles south of the Israeli-Lebanon border. These are apparently a new type, but whether or not they have the capability to hit Tel Aviv is at present unclear. AP's got it here; I'll get commentary from other blogs soon.

Two news stories that have been underreported but deserve to be highlighted from Latin America. First of all, in Nicaragua, former Sandinista cauldillo Daniel Ortega looks poised to win his country's upcoming presidential election. Needless to say, he's close amigos with everyone's favor dictator Hugo Chavez. This is also part of a larger trend of political amnesia that's sweeping Latin America (see Garcia's reelection about two months ago, after he already ruined the Peruvian economy in the 80s). What I'm unsure of is whether this is part and parcel of the short-sighted renunciation of neo-liberal economics or something marginally different.

The second and equally disturbing story is that Russia and Venezuela have inked a series of arms deals for military helicopters and and aircraft. Although details, such as models, are hard to come by, the package was apparently valued at more than $3 billion and included 24 planes and 53 helicopters. While Chavez is mum on their purpose, I have a guess: regional intimidation. Reports claim he's been in league with FARC in Colombia, no doubt an attempt to destabilize our strongest ally in the region, and though an all-out war is rather unlikely, such arms deals (which Chavez can clearly afford with oil at its current price) may be a sort of warning shot across the bow of the Colombian ship of state.

Morning News Roundup July 20th

Bush is live at the NAACP convention right now, discussing education...needless to say the crowd's not all that enthusiastic, but there is some applause. He's doing okay, but I think it's telling that the loudest applause he's gotten so far was when he asked if anyone from Texas was in the audience. Besides education he's harping on the inequality of opportunity in this nation and the importance of home and business ownership as well as what his administration's done to further those goals. Now...death tax. Guessing this one will go over like a lead balloon. Talking Condi up...talking about the Voting Rights Act as well, to thunderous applause.

Israel dropped twenty-three tons of high explosive on the suspected refuge of Hizbullah high command; as far as I can tell, the Israelis didn't get any of their targets. Israel's also talking about a full-scale invasion, an option that isn't out of the question considering their goal of at least driving Hizbullah out of rocket range from northern Israel. The New York Times cites some military analysts who note that this operation might not be succesful without boots on the ground - and I suspect they may be right in that. But whereas I suspect the NYT is trying to suggest that Israel cannot succeed, I disagree - they have the chutzpah to do what's nececssary to secure their northern border.

The collateral damage toll continues to rise, with some estimates claiming 300 Lebanese civilians dead (and half a million in flight), and about a tenth of that dead in Israel (can't find Palestinian death tolls). As tragic as all of this is, I'll reiterate what I've said before: the blood is on the hands of the terrorists who take refuge among civilian populations and deliberately target civilians leaving the Israelis no option but to respond.

Marines are aiding in the evacuation of US civilians from the region. I think it's pretty clear that the greater the efforts to get our people out of there, the greater the level of concern at State and elsewhere about the potential for this to get worse before it gets better.

After Bush's first veto on that stem cell bill (HR 810?), the House failed to override by about 50 votes. A lot of critics are claiming this was little more than a ploy for socially moderate Republicans to distance themselves from the President, but regardless, the President's veto was a bad move.

The Kossacks are jubilantly citing a new Quinnipiac poll showing Lamont narrowly beating Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary. But it's really just a moot point when the poll shows Lieberman romping to victory as an independent. Though he'll never caucus with the Republicans, it'll be interesting to see Lieberman's greeting when he returns to the Senate as an independent...

Back After the Break

So now that my six week stint of sitting in a cubicle for 45 hours a week is over, I'm finding it slightly more difficult to sit down and blog. But I promise I'll try to do so, just because I know I have a small cadre of devoted readers out there. Anyways...

The Middle East continues to blow up, if you weren't aware, I think you're beyond any help. Anyways, Bush was caught on open mike today using less than diplomatic four-letter words while expressing a correct and crucial sentiment. The setting's even better:

"'See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll."

A caller on Cavuto today complained about his manners - I think Bush's disapproval just shot up among the Newport and Martha's Vineyard demographics...

Israel also launched a brief incursion into southern Lebanon this morning, but pulled back after a brief stay. They were clearly trying to drive off or destroy rocket launchers and crews; whether or not they were succesful is debatable at present. Obviously, early suspicions that this might be the recreation of a buffer zone such as the one that existed previously in southern Lebanon were unfounded. However it is noteworthy that the most recent rocket barrages have not been the regular Katyushas, but rather more sophisticated missiles designed by Iran and built by Syria, intended to do maximum damage to people by spraying a concentrated blast of ball-bearings (think a rocket shotgun). Bastards.

A Note on Polling

I'd never paid much attention to all of the various firms out there until I got into campaigning last summer; when you're alert, you notice that some are better than others, and more accurately predict elections. A regular reader over at The Fix posted a statistical breakdown of the various big firms' successes in 2004, and I thought it worth posting here, just to give you all an idea of how credible all of these numbers are:

In reviewing state by state polling by various firms in the 2004 Presidential race, I set up a quick scoring system to judge accuracy.

Taking the final poll done by each firm in a state and matching with actual results, I scored 1 pt for each correct call of the state, 3 pts for the exact margin of victory/1 pt if within margin of error (3%) and 3 pts for calling the candidate vote total by exacft percentage / 1 pt. within MoE.

I also tracked misses (states called incorrectly) and quality picks (where the state was called and the margin and candidate percentages were all within the MoE). No points were awarded for misses:

Results:

ARG (American Research Group)
44 states polled
131 pts. (avg. 2.997)
5 misses (11.36%)
10 quality picks (22.73%)

Gallup
10 states
19 pts. (avg. 1.9)
4 misses (40%)
2 quality picks (20%)

Mason Dixon
21 states
92 pts. (avg. 4.381)
1 miss (4.76%)
7 quality picks (33.33%)

Quinnipiac
5 states
11 pts. (avg. 2.2)
1 miss (20%)
0 quality picks (0%)

Rasmussen
30 states
101 pts. (avg. 3.367)
1 miss (3.33%)
13 quality picks (43.33%)

Research 2000
11 states
39 pts. (avg. 3.545)
0 misses (0.0%)
6 quality picks (54.55%)

Strategic Vision
11 states
24 pts. (avg. 2.182)
4 misses (36.36%)
3 quality picks (27.27%)

Survey USA
30 states
116 pts. (avg. 3.867)
1 miss (3.33%)
16 quality picks (53.33%)

Zogby
20 states
55 pts. (avg. 2.75)
3 misses (15%)
6 quality picks (30%)
1 perfect call- Missouri

The state by state polling data was compiled at: www.tripias.com/state/

The point system may be worthless as I just concocted it myself but it allows a comparison since all firms did not poll in all states.

As far as accuracy, Mason Dixon, Rasmussen and Survey USA came away with only 1 miss and had the most net quality picks minus misses

Thanks RMill - awesome as always.

New Numbers in Rhode Island

And they aren't all that hot. Rasmussen (which a friend of mine described as "in the same septic tankas Lake [Tester's polling firm] - only floating a little higher") released them to members only today but someone released them at the Providence Journal. They show Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee losing to Democratic nominee Sheldon Whitehouse 41%-46%, and Republican insurgent Steve Laffey getting destroyed by Whitehouse 29%-57%. In June, the Chafee-Whitehouse numbers were 42%-44%; a month before, Chafee was up by 3%. All this time, Laffey has been unequivocally being swept aside by Whitehouse. Rasmussen here. The July poll questioned 500 likely voters, margin of error +/-4.5%.

Assuming Chafee pulls past Laffey in the primary, he'll receive a small bounce - but with only 5% separating the two candidates, every little bit helps. I don't think debates will be to Chafee's benefit, but then again I'm not sure they'll help Whitehouse either (for that matter I don't think I've heard either campaign even mention the idea).

Oil Update

With afternoon trading continuing, and the prospect of prices rising even higher in after-hours trading as they did yesterday, prices on futures of both Brent and light sweet crude are up, passing $78/barrel. Analysts are predicting prices to rise further, breaking $80/barrel under the combined pressure of events in the Middle East and Africa; another hurricane in the producing regions of the Gulf of Mexico could also cause a further spike in oil prices. Gas prices presently average $2.96 but are expected to rise.

Heh

After what was a relatively close special election in the CA50 (and an expensive special for the GOP!), Republican victor Brian Bilbray is seeing some sort of incumbent bump. New numbers from SurveyUSA show him beating Democratic nominee/special election nominee Francine Busby 51%-40% (566 LV, +/- 4.2%)

Middle East Muddle

Breaking: Multiple sources are saying that the Israeli air force has struck at a Beirut building suspected to be housing a high-ranking member of the Hizbullah terrorist organization.

Israel seems to be isolating Beirut, blockading the city, shutting down the airports, and taking out bridges on the highway to Syria, according to AP. What this seems to indicate to me is a serious willingness to take care of the Hizbullah leadership, finishing what should have been done long ago. Israel, meantime, claims its goal is a more difficult disarmament; considering that on a per capita basis your average unstable Middle Eastern nation has more guns than an Idaho militia, I think a more focused goal might be desirable.

If indeed Syria and/or Iran are behind the kidnappings and the escalation, then it appears they've miscalculated - and they've blinked. JPost reports that both Syria and Saudi Arabia criticized Hizbullah's attacks, Syria calling for them to stop their missile attacks in northern Israel. Syria's reaction, I think, is informed by a fear of Israel turning its focus to Damascus. However, I don't think Syria's attempts to separate themselves from Hizbullah's attacks will work if Israel feels that sufficient pressure on Damascus might resolve the crisis to their liking.

One telling report from JPost serves to strengthen the case for implicating Iran in all of this: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised to repair the damages to Lebanese infrastructure caused by Israeli airstrikes. The man clearly doesn't want to directly involve his own forces (though Iran has apparently used Revolutionary Guards units in Lebanon before), but sees his Hizbullah proxies seriously shaken by the Israeli counteroffensive. Thus an obvious solution is to indirectly support them through infrastructure repair, allowing Iran to continue to arm the terrorist group.

Another clue to Israel's role will come next week in the wake of the G8 conference. Concerns about Israeli reactions to terrorist aggression have supplanted any substantive discussion of Iran's attempts to secure nuclear weapons. If this was, as I suspect, one of Tehran's goals in unleashing Hizbullah and Hamas, we should see a significant reduction in missile attacks and overall aggression, perhaps even the surrender of the captured soldiers, next week.

Apparently conservative fears about Syria and Iran being the puppeteers in this fracas are catching on as Chirac said essentially the same thing yesterday. Chirac also joined the growing chorus of world opinion that called Israel's reactions to the kidnappings disproportionate, a typical response to most Israeli actions. Of course in typical European hypocrisy, UN humanitarian official Jan Egeland said "You are supposed to do something to the armed group. You are not supposed to hurt the children of people who have nothing to do with this." While Egeland was talking about Israeli targeted airstrikes with civilian collateral damage, the sentiment is far more apropos to the missile barrages launched by Hizbullah without pretense of a military target.

It's becoming clear that, despite Lebanese pleas and public pressure, President Bush will make no effort to force a cease-fire upon Israel. Although there are justifiable concerns about Lebanon's fledgling democracy being weakened by the continued conflict, I certainly think this is a classic example of "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Even the democratic, nominally pro-Western Lebanese government of the present post-Syria era has resisted disarming Hizbullah as such an action could potentially reignited civil war such as the one that tore the country apart in the 1980s. If the government will not undertake to disarm the terrorists, then perhaps the Israelis can do it for them. There are of course weaknesses in this plan, such as turning more Lebanese against the Israelis, but in the long run an essential ingredient for Middle Eastern peace is a stable Lebanon free of terrorist parasites like Hizbullah.

Also from JPost: Mahmoud Abbas has apparently threatened to resign, dismantle the Palestinian Authority, and withdraw from the Palestinian Territories during a call with Condoleeza Rice, claiming he no longer has any authority and that Israel is destroying his infrastructure. There is a sort of historical precedent for such actions, as the PLO under Arafat spent several years in exile in Tunis during the early to mid 1980s, having fled an Israeli invasion of Lebanon and displacing them from their old haunts in Beirut.

An interesting op-ed by the editor of the Lebanese Daily Star. Although I don't agree with all of his points, it's worth reading; I'll try and deconstruct it fully later.

In examining the roots of this contest, Charles Kruathamer cuts to the heart of the matter and places the blame where it belongs: with terrorist organizations seeking an end to what they see as an illegal, racist, Zionist state. Two quotes will suffice; I'd suggest reading the whole thing:

The fighting is about "the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967."

In 1967 Israel acquired the "occupied territories." In 1948 Israel acquired life. The fighting raging now in 2006 -- between Israel and the "genocidal Islamism" (to quote the writer Yossi Klein Halevi) of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran behind them -- is about whether that life should and will continue to exist.

Also, and more succintly: "The issue is, and has always been, Israel's existence. That is what is at stake." That's all for now folks.