Murtha Ordered to Testify

So Jack Murtha, Pennsylvania's resident jerk (I'd like to use a more interesting term, but decency prevents me from doing so) may finally have to eat his words: the Congressman had previously accused Marines in Haditha of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" and is now being called to testify in a defamation case filed by a Marine involved in the case.

Politico's John Bresnahan editorializes extensively at the end of the post, and brings up some potentially relevant questions, but I hold out hope that Murtha will be burned by this case in some way.

This is an impressive post: two paragraphs, two sentences.

Cubs Win, Cubs Win!

For the first time since 2003, when Bartman infamously ended their pennant dreams, the Cubs are going into October.


This is good news for suffering Cubs fans everywhere, but also for the management. It justifies their off-season spending spree ($300 million); not only because they won, of course, but because the enormously expensive Soriano played a crucial role, as did Zambrano. The latter reminded us how good he can be last night, so long as he keeps his emotions in check.

So here's to hoping that we can finally break the curse...and hey, if the Cubs keep it up, we might not have to focus on the suffering Bears!

CQ's First House Race Listing

The fine folks at Congressional Quarterly have put together their first list of 78 potentially competitive House races for next year; I'll take a look at some of them (and hopefully remember to link to their regional analysis in the future...

First Thoughts.
Republican Held, No Clear Favorite
- NC-8: No one saw Robin Hayes' near-defeat coming, but that was 2006, this is 2008. He's won pretty comfortably in the past, and there's no promise that having failed to deliver a knockout blow last year, Democrats can do so this year. That being said, the D Trip paid exactly zero attention to this race, and with their tender concern, Hayes may be in serious trouble. It'll be fun to watch.
- OH-15: There are an obscene number of Ohio races on this list, but while last year was a bloodbath for the Ohio GOP (as it was for their Pennsylvania brethren), this year may not be as bad. However, a lot will come down to the presidential election - if the Republican carries the Buckeye state, most embattled Republican incumbents hold on; if Hillary takes it, we lose more ground here. Thanks Bob Taft!

Republican Held, Leans Republican
- AK at large: Don Young and the rest of the Alaska GOP are in increasingly hot water for potential ethical laxities...but whether or not Alaskans care may be another story entirely. Last I checked there wasn't much of an AK Democratic Party, but we'll see.
- CO-4: Chris Cilizza hits the nail on the head with this one, so I'll just quote him:

Every election we look at the strong Republican performance of this district and conclude that there is no way Rep. Marilyn Musgrave can lose the seat. And every election she barely manages to win. This time we won't be fooled. Democrats are heavily targeting this race and Musgrave has proven that she underperforms in this eastern Colorado seat.

I'll add that in addition, Republicans have been unable to find a strong candidate to run for Senate (Wayne Allard's retirement has opened up a seat) while Democrat Mark Udall has been waiting for this opportunity for years. The state did go for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but I'm leery of describing it as truly red anymore; if it shows its purplishness again next fall, Musgrave may be victim (purple people eater?).

- CT-4: Chris Shays holds a rather macabre distinction: he is the only remaining Republican Representative from New England. The rest were cut down last fall. Again to go to CC, Shays recently threatened retirement (and a de facto loss of the seat) if not given some perks in the House, but it still may be too much. A lot here rides on Iraq - if things are improving, voters may be a bit more forgiving.

- IL-10: Really, CQ? Democrat Dan Seals had no primary opposition last time and an impeccable environment. And he blew it. Now he's got a primary challenger in the person of Clinton White House staffer Jay Footlik (who may have been put up to the task by fellow ex-Clintonista Rahm Emanuel), and Mark Kirk ain't going to be sleeping on the job. But this is a pretty purple district, so a lot may out of Kirk's control. Namely Obama - should the Illinois darling win his party's nomination, Kirk may as well start looking for a position on a corporate board.

Democratic Held Seats, Leans Democratic
- AZ-8: (Again) - really CQ? The GOP held on to this district for as long as it did because Jim Kolbe was sufficiently moderate to do so; he also probably won points in Tucson, a big university town, for his sexual orientation. Conventional Republicans are at a disadvantage here, and Kathy Giffords showed herself to be mildly competent last time. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer once revealed one of his two secrets to advertising to be appear on a horse (the other one was hold a gun): Giffords has taken it to heart, appearing on horseback in many parades and promotional materials. [Note to Arizona Republicans: next time you redistrict, swap some land between the 8th and the neighboring majority-minority 7th. I.e. find the thirty-something percent that vote against Grijalva every two years and tie them into the 8th!]

Again, it's hard to predict much this far out, especially as we don't know who the presidential nominees will be. My guess is that if Hillary's nominated, some of these Republicans won't be feeling the heat so much as she'll turn off swing voters in many purple and light-red states. Many of the Democrats they list are here because they hold seats Bush won in '04, but I don't think that'll make much of a difference now. Long story short, and it's pathetic, but the GOP has little chance of retaking the House next fall.

Democrats and National Security

The latest Gallup poll found that, for the first time since they started asking in 2002, Democrats "will do a better job than the Republican Party of protecting the country from security threats, 47% vs. 42%."

Hillary immediately disproved this silly notion by coming out against torture even in the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. What is especially juicy about this is the fact that not only does it put her and Slick Willy on different sides of the issue (as if that's never happened before), it also contradicts statements she's made previously. So she was for torture before she was against it, or to frame it another way, she was for drastic measures in unforgiving situations for the sake of national security before she was against them. Ladies and gentlemen, the party the American people trust on national security. Cue the Churchill: "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

So what caused the change of heart? Knowing Hillzilla, most likely a poll. But more specifically, she's probably decided that leading in the polls isn't sufficient when the left wing hates you - case in point, the DailyKos diary entitled "Why It's So Important that Hillary be defeated" which has garnered over 1,200 comments (if you choose to visit, please remember to disinfect your browser. It may otherwise become progressive and start demanding union hours or similar follies.).

It's also possible that Hillary's looking for a bomb in New York, if only to end the recent suffering (dare we say torture?) of Mets fans, who have lost ten out of the last fourteen and four in a row.

[[I'm not even going to bother apologizing for my lengthy absence. Also, I amuse myself when I can link to Gallup, Politico, and ESPN in a post, as well as cite Churchill.]