At Least One Muslim Country Loves America

Bush is currently visiting Albania - the first US president to do so - and has received an enthusiastic welcome. Many in the media, if they could find Albania on a map might be surprised not only because it's a foreign country (they all hate us, right?) but also because it's 70% Muslim. Of course until 1985, Albania was ruled by paranoid, xenophobic Enver Hoxha, a man who might give Kim Jong Il a run for his money if there was a "Least Cuddly World Leader" competition.

I think the warmth of Bush's reception is based on three interrelated factors. First off, Albania's traumatic experience with the "wonders" of Communism are so fresh - and the country still so desperately poor - that unlike elsewhere there is no knee-jerk lefty response; closely-linked is the fact that America is still seen as a force for good in the region. On a personal level, as the article noted, US programs (probably through USAID) are lending to Albanians - microfinance is one of the developing world's greatest weapons against poverty. On a regional level, the US remains a bulwark against Russian meddling, as with Putin's opposition to an independent Kosovo.

The Balkans have always been a playground for Russian imperialist/expansionist efforts. Prior to World War I, this was because Tsarist Russia feared the Ottoman Empire and later because (oftentimes wrapped in the veil of pan-Slav ideology) the declining Ottomans, the "sick man of Europe," was for Russian expansion. Russian and Austria sparred in the region (though not as far west as Albania) too before the Great War, again jockeying for control of former Ottoman possessions. After the Second World War, much of the region fell under communist (though not always Soviet) rule. Thus in a lingering Cold War sense, America is the regional Good Guy; the autocratic resurgence of Putin's Russia isn't likely to change that perception in the immediate future. (In fact, I'm wondering if such attitudes aren't prevalent in many parts of the former USSR).

Heh - two follow-ups

First another Ramirez gem:




Secondly, this quote from some Progressive Loon/Edwards-Lover over at Kos suggests how far from comprehension the Left really is:
"The best way to reduce terrorism

as was so eloquently stated here by another poster who I don't recall....

Stop being a dick to the rest of the world.

The "terrorists" don't hate us because we're free or rich or white or because we drive nice cars or have nice houses or any other bullshit right wing talking points.

They hate us because of what we do around the world.

If America stops being a dick to much of the third world, very few people would be willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in hopes of taking a few of us with them."

So far from the truth as to be comic if ignorance were not so dangerous.

Some Thoughts on John Edwards

It's not hard for me to be disappointed with the majority of the 18 Democrats and Republicans running for President right now. Democrats are hardly paying attention to some of their more thoughtful contenders (Joe Biden); Barack Obama's rhetorical gift is wasted, much as Churchill's would have been if it hadn't been paired with his clear-eyed understanding of the world and history, something Obama obviously lacks. On the right side of the aisle, I'm hard-pressed to be enthused about anyone - especially since many (the majority?) eschew science in favor of creationism - though for what it's worth that does align them with the majority of Americans.

But of everyone running, there is no one I despise as much as John Edwards. He's a smarmy shill, made rich off of frivolous lawsuits, boldly hypocritical and regularly espousing dangerous and/or stupid policies. No wonder the Left fawns all over him.

Let's begin with the hypocritical. For a man whose spent years harping on his ridiculous "Two Americas" theme, he's certainly done a fine job of exemplifying it. He is the anti-poverty crusader who famously paid $400 for a haircut and owns the largest house in Wake County, North Carolina. He is the anti-corporate activist who spent time working for a hedge fund; his excuse of "research" is as pathetic as they come. Why Leftists continue to willingly overlook all of these follies is confounding, until you look at his policies.

His platform kowtows to environmentalists and to the Democratic strawman of a struggling middle class, among other things. Though he's understandably vague, one cannot read his policies without suspecting that his economic program would be simple: raise taxes. But it's on our national struggle against Islamo-fascism that his rhetoric becomes truly dangerous.

Edwards recently dismissed the War on Terror as a mere "bumper sticker," showing that he is either naively unaware - or willfully ignorant - of the nature of our enemy. His recently released plan for fighting terrorism comprises six major planks:

• Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century
• Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods
• Hold regular meetings with top military leadership
• Create a "Marshall Corps" to stabilize weak and failing states
• Rebuild equipment
• Create a National Security Budget

The first of these is the usual Democratic argument that our troops are returning to Iraq with insufficient time home, and presumably that we're ill-equipped for our current mission. Never mind, of course, that our soldiers in World War II rarely got off the line at all, let alone a year home. And if our army is not the force we need for counter-insurgency and nation-building, much of the blame for that can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration. The nature of our War on Terror, which began far before 9/11, should have been clear to them; they failed, however, to respond accordingly.

His second is, if possible, even more extreme, ridiculously claiming that we cannot do anything that might "give terrorists, or even other nations, an excuse to abandon international law." Johnny Boy, any foe we face in this struggle doesn't give a damn for international law. And as for us, we should comply only so far as it corresponds to our national interest. He also promises to close Gitmo, restore habeas corpus, and ban terror, though he fails to say what will happen to current Gitmo detainees, that habeas isn't really dead, and that American personnel do not torture (unless of course you use the most absurd definitions of torture, as Democrats and the Left do so often); I suppose this means that in the "ticking bomb" scenario, we'll be left to sweet-talk any suspect into cooperating.

As to meeting with military officials: what nonsense. He claims that civil-military relations are strained and retired officers are speaking out as a result, thus necessitating this empty gesture. That the majority of officers remain aligned with the President's policies - with varying degrees of criticism - reduces this to mere rhetoric (not that the rest is anything else).

A "Marshall Corps"? Excuse me? We're effectively creating an Anti-Terror Peace Corps. I suppose we might be able to find 10,000 out of work idealistic ex-hippies to send to foreign countries, but it won't do any good. Such a suggestion suggests a basic misunderstanding of our struggle.

Equipment repair? Filler. Of course things are being used outside of their peacetime usage - this is a war. I have no problem stockpiling additional armored vehicles, helicopters, etc. However, such weapons seem at least partially antithetical to his warm, fuzzy approach to the issue - it's boots on the ground, face to face, not behind inches of steel armor, that will win people over.

A national security budget? Among other things, this means declassifying the Pentagon budget, which should be reason enough to discard it.

Is it clear I despise this man? Is it equally clear that he is utterly incapable of acknowledging the nature of our enemy, and that his plan is uniquely unsuited to face them? Thankfully, if the polls have even a kernel of truth, he has no chance of winning.

Stand by Impeached Men?

Hillary announced her Florida Campaign Co-Chairs today, Reps Debbie Wasserman Schultz and (drum roll) Alcee Hastings. Wait for it...wait for the media outrage...

Nothing.

No complaints from the media about the leading Democratic contender naming an impeached federal judge to be her Florida co-chair? No? Imagine the uproar if a Republican named, say, Mark Foley to be their Florida chair. Hastings has contended in the past that the impeachment was a political hatchet job - something akin to Dollar Bill Jefferson saying he's innocent - but even Democrats have said that the procedure was justified.

(oh and if the blogosphere gets on Hillary's case for this one, I predict we'll hear the Left whining about how vicious and abusive we all are...)

(h/t Taranto/Best of the Web)

Academic Inanity

KC Johnson (over at the peerless Durham-In-Wonderland) continues to blog about the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse Travesty. Those unlucky enough to be under his microscope today? The "Group of 88," those academics (I use the term in the loosest possible sense of the word, and Johnson's research supports that) who decried the lacrosse case and the whole culture of the university on the tired lines of class/race/gender. Specifically, he highlights the kind of nonsense these people are teaching, often with an aim to brainwash their students. Just to cite a few gems:

Maurice Wallace (African-American Literature): 16 of 40 [It would seem that most Duke students do not respond to the pedagogical approach preferred by Wallace: “I have a responsibility to all of my students—every single one of them—to disabuse them of all of the national, racial, middle-class, gender and sexual myths they’ve been taught to comfort or flatter themselves and, of course, the people who, perhaps unknowingly, miseducated them.”

Kim Curtis (Ecological Crisis and Political Theory): 18 of 30 [The class explores the “ethical, political, economic, aesthetic, social, and technological approaches to contemporary ecological crisis,” though how Kim Curtis, of all people, can teach others about “ethics” is not clear.]

Wahneema Lubiano (Social Facts and Narrative: “Story telling as it establishes, relies on, and transforms socially recognized categories of [naturally] gender, class, race, sexual orientation, and region): 13 of 18

BS doesn't begin to do all of this justice. In laying all of this out, Johnson devastates the fallacious argument that the Group of 88 are popular; 'scuse me? Popular and under half-full? Mind you I've taken some incredible courses that were under-enrolled, but most of the truly great classes I've had at Duke have been over-enrolled! He also rightly points out that the reason for some of these somewhat respectable enrollment numbers may not be "quality of instruction;" when all you have to do is parrot your professor's neomarxist gobdleygook to get an A, many students will be there for the wrong reason (it's also reasonable to assume that these students don't entirely buy into the nonsense their professors peddle).

Check out the full post here.

Morning Amusement

Tunagate, Dollar Bill Jefferson, her own son being hired by shady, Clinton-connected InfoUSA, a failure to pass any sort of ethics reform. Thanks to Ramirez for pointing out the obvious...




















PS - how dumb does Jefferson have to be plead not guilty. How much more guilty can you get? A NoLa-born friend of mine and I have a running debate over whether pols from the Crescent City or Chicago are more corrupt; I finally have to concede defeat.

Updates

So I've spent some time tonight watching old Bond movies and working on the blog. The only new features of any note are: you can now subscribe via email! if you're using a feed reader (including the simple Google Reader) - click "Subscribe in a Reader" on the bottom to simply add it to your reader and get updated every time I post; hopefully that will be more frequently. So basically, that's the two of note. I've also been tagging or retagging posts so my Technorati cloud (if it ever gets working) can more accurately provide a sense of my musings.

Book Review: South Park Conservatives

Brian Anderson's South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias is a gem of a book; short, to the point, and leaving its reader (so long as you're right of center) with a renewed sense of hope. Starting with the same premise as so many other authors (Bernard Goldberg comes to mind), Anderson lambasts the hopelessly biased media. Rathergate is only one count of many in his indictment.

He is also, fitting for a fellow who is the editor of City Journal, willing to look at the disturbing degree to which modern liberalism is inherently illiberal. These are the people who whole-heartedly buy into Marcuse's doctrine of "liberating tolerance" and Rawls's argument that political debate must only take into account "reasonable" doctrines; both thinkers' constructs obviously have no place for conservatism or conservative principles. Thus liberal attempts to depict Republicans and conservatives as racist, misogynistic and homophobic bigots is part of their own internal effort to throw conservatism out of the bounds of "reasonableness." This is also, of course, a liberalism with a penchant for ironic Orwellianism and double speak, and the unspoken rule that free speech ends if you don't agree with them. See the treatment at Columbia of the Minutemen (or closer to home, the treatment at Duke of David Horowitz). Further this is the group that refuses to see bias in anyone that agrees with them; thus they can justify calling Dan Rather objective while working themselves into a lather over anyone who airs a conservative perspective. By extension, this is why Democrats are making noises about reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" (itself an Orwellian misnomer) - because only those that disagree with them are biased and in need of balancing.

But whereas this is as far as many go, Anderson rightly points out that things are changing. Quickly. Sure liberals still hold on to the Big 3 (whose viewership is plummeting) and many major newspapers, to say nothing of large swathes of the academe. But technological revolutions have given rise to a new media - talk radio, cable news, the internet - where Republicans are either a major force or effectively dominate. Rush and O'Reilly are the face of this new media. And they're not just disseminating the conservative message like never before, they (and especially the blogs) are holding the mainstream media accountable, calling BS when (often) appropriate, and forcing them to cover stories that would otherwise be ignored as incompatible with the liberal meta-narrative.

He also suggests that times are changing on campuses around the country as conservative principles, journals, College Republicans chapters, etc. are flourishing. He's quick to point out that the faculty, overwhelmingly liberal, still hold the high ground, but that conservatism is no longer invisible on campuses. Some of his interviewees suggest that this is the result of liberal indoctrination, a sort of classroom blowback; universities also act as a sort of ideological forge where faced with liberal nonsense in all its absurd glory, students embrace and refine their conservative principles.

But what Anderson doesn't point out is that these very instruments of conservative campus revival also suggest that liberals are doomed to another generation of failure. The modern Republican revolution - 1994 to the present (?) - has been grounded in ideas, in alternatives to tired Democratic policies (no matter how you frame it, tax and spend is still tax and spend, and cut and run is still cut and run!); the next generation of conservative activists are already getting introduced to that culture of innovation. Their liberal counterparts , in contrast, are too often picketing against some new "injustice" or soaking up the latest drivel of race/gender/class studies - nice if you're seeking a career in navel-gazing, but absolutely insufficient if you're going to shape the future of the nation.

Finally, the title itself points to an entertainment industry that is in places reacting viciously to the PC nonsense and condescension that characterize the Left as a whole and especially its Hollywood incarnation. Leading the charge here is Comedy Central's South Park - not so much conservative as anti-liberal, gleefully destroying liberal idols and mocking liberals such as Al Gore, Rob Reiner, and Michael Moore. Priceless stuff really.

South Park Conservatives isn't an equally intellectual counterpoint to Bloom's Closing of the American Mind; it isn't meant to be. Rather, it chronicles some critical evolutions in the media and suggests that incessant griping about liberalism's chokehold on the MSM is overwrought, that it is in many ways a colossus with clay feet. It's got a message, but it's light enough to be a beach read. Go forth and enjoy.

Check it out on Amazon

[Posted on Amazon as well, FYI]

Day By Day

So I finally got around to adding Day by Day, or what somone accurately called "the conservative Doonesbury." But aesthetically, I'm not sure what I think of it here. Thoughts?

Israel willing to trade security for..."peace"

By which I mean the Golan Heights to Syria for a Syrian promise of peace. Whatever exactly that means. And really, as this article makes clear, it's largely Olmert considering the deal, with widespread dissent by other parties. Olmert isn't so naive as to seek unconditional peace - Syria must sever its ties with Iran and Hezbollah - but they are conditions that the Syrians have little chance of actually living up to. Sadly we've apparently midwifed this deal, as Bush gave Olmert the go-ahead for negotiations last month. While I think any strategy to isolate Iran by splitting Syria from it is an interesting idea, doing so at the cost of Israeli security is dangerous and shortsighted. Most interesting quote:

Meanwhile, a Ma'ariv-TNS poll showed that only 10% of Israelis supported a full withdrawal from the Golan, 40% were in favor of a partial withdrawal and 44% were opposed to any withdrawal. The poll also showed that despite recent peace overtures from Damascus, 74% of Israelis did not trust Assad.

Obviously this deal won't be easily closed.

Another SCOTUS Confirmation?

White House is making noises (from ABC) about another Supreme Court nomination, raising questions about whether or not Stevens or Ginsberg may be retiring. I don't see Ginsberg retiring under a Republican president; Stevens also isn't likely but is 87 (?) and thus may not be around much longer regardless. If either does step down, their calculus may be that a retirement with a Democratic Senate is palatable. However (and assuming there are 60 votes for cloture), with Landrieu (LA), Pryor (AR), Johnson (SD) and Baucus (MT) up for reelection (as well as Lieberman), the Republicans may just have the necessary votes. On the other side of the equation, Sununu (NH), Snowe (ME) and Smith (OR) may all be Republicans looking to display their independence and moderation. But on some level, a Bush failure here would be beneficial: bringing Democratic intransigence into focus and rallying the base, as well as acting as a proving ground for Republican presidential candidates and opening Democrats running for reelection to criticism for their actions. Anyways, losing one of those two would make a better court regardless of replacement.

Vets and Free Speech

Today's Trib has an interesting article regarding veterans' right to protest in uniform. Personally I'm torn - they're no longer active duty soldiers so obviously they shouldn't be bound by conventional military rules, but on a less legal level, I feel these guys are disgracing the uniform they wear by consorting with anti-war activists. Not that that will stand up in court.

However, looking at precedent, in the past the Supreme Court has been rather accommodating to the military, as when they noted in Goldman v. Weinberger (475 US 503, 1986), that "[o]ur review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society." Obviously the pressing question is whether or not veterans are equally bound.

Good News

Despite the spate of well-documented clashes between the morality cops and average Iranians, it seems that the biggest issue facing our friends in Tehran is a burgeoning economic crisis. Amir Taheri's got the full story in today's WSJ. Check it out.

Nothing More Needed

Why Liberal Loons May be an Endangered Species...

A "green think tank" has released a report claiming that having multiple kids is an environmental "misdemeanor" on par with things like long-haul flights. Furthermore, such concerns should be factored in to parents family planning and no couple should have more than two kids.

I find this to be something of a mixed bag: on the one hand, if anyone takes this seriously in Europe or the world, it'll be the loons. And trust me, I'd love nothing more than to see them have fewer kids. In fact, many already do - the Democratic Party here is endangered in the long run as they eschew procreation while red-staters are simply pumping out future members of the Young Republicans.

Yet the ones who won't listen in Europe will be the ones of whom we already have far too many: Muslim immigrants with large families who are not only producing a horrific strain on an already overtaxed welfare system but whose children are increasingly being given anti-Western and illiberal educations. We don't need more of them.

Sarko Wins

France's Nicholas Sarkozy has resoundingly won today's French presidential election, defeating Socialist candidate Segolene Royal. Sarko's victory is on so many levels a good sign; it suggests the French are ready to swallow the tough tonic of economic reform. It also suggests that they're willing to deal with the thugs who dominate the suburbs. Closer to home, President Sarko will bring France closer to the US, as he's regularly decried anti-Americanism.

Another "I'm Back" Post

So I took a break because the second half of the semester because of a campaign I was running, finals, what have you. Anyways, I'm back.

Can You Put a Price on National Security?

Apparently Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) thinks there is. For $400 million, he's agreed to vote for the extant version of the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental - that is to say the version with withdrawal provisions.

But there is a silver lining: Queen Loon Maxine Waters has prmised to whip against the bill. Thank god for the crazies.

Earth to Karl Rove

Wow, just wow. Bush's legendary loyalty strikes again. This afternoon's press conference merely reiterated the president's support for embattled AG Gonzales at a time when any competent effort at damage control would throw Gonzo under the bus. This story is a tempest in a teacup but unfortunately, both Schumer and Emanuel feel that they haven't gotten sufficient credit for pointing this out and will react accordingly. What do I mean? They won't stop till they've had satisfaction which is unnecessary pain. Throwing them the AG might just be sufficient.

This isn't the hour for the White House to be truculent but rather for it to pick its battles. Hill Republicans aren't crazy about the guy and I'm not putting retribution past them. I keep getting the feeling that this White House isn't 100% comprehending the reality of a Democratic majority and another example of his misguided loyalty just reinforces that impression.

UPDATE: If I can give them any credit for the mishandling of this mess (they could have thrown some competent, friendly prosecutors out on their ass too - at least Demos might not have caught the scent for a while longer), it's that they didn't axe Fitzgerald and today's Post suggested was under consideration. Oh and I'm pretty angry with Senator Fitzgerald for giving us that hack - anyone with their head screwed on right understands the craven, self-serving motives of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and realize that there really was no case here (to say nothing of the bad precedent) - others would have been sufficient.

Just a little detail called the Constitution...

Democrats in Congress are at it again. A bill, HR 492, the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2007," is expected to come before the House for a vote this week. It proposes that DC residents be allowed to vote in US House races in Maryland. Sounds pretty innocuous, right? After all, DC famously decries "taxation without representation" on its license plates; others claim that opposition to giving DC a voice is a matter of racism. The District is, after all, 60% black and went 89% for Kerry in 2004 (off the top of my head, I think San Francisco went "only" 85% for him).

Well uh, actually folks, there's a pretty damn good reason why DC votes. Little thing called the Constitution - you may have heard of it? There's a lot of people in Congress who seem to believe they're recommendations. Or to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, Democrats often seem to say "Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway. " Unnecessary pop culture references aside, that musty old document proclaims in Section 8 that

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States

In modern English - DC's not a state, Congress has jurisdiction over it and it doesn't get its own representation. I've always wondered if this was because they never really intended DC to be a place of residence, merely one for the bureaucrats?

Now for the pragmatism: if Congress is going to force this sort of BS down our throats, this is relatively tame. After all, Maryland abutting the district is bright blue - throwing in DC isn't going to change anything. However questions need to be asked: is this going to cause a reapportionment of seats after the next census? If so, who's losing a seat? (Based on recent historical trends I'd have to guess another coastal state). If nothing then this is pretty much tame.

Why am I willing to not scream absolute bloody murder? Because this is a lot more palatable than making DC its own state (God forbid). The Constitution clearly didn't intend that to happen. And again on a pragmatic level, we really don't need two more Democratic loons in the Senate (51 is plenty, thanks) or any more kooks in the House. It's not racism folks, it's pure party politics.

...Unless of course they're willing to consider my other idea: separate Illinois into two states: Chicago and another part (they can keep Illinois or call it Corn or Soy - their pick), while ceding East St. Louis to Missouri. It'll give us two more Republicans in the Senate, a few in the House we can give Dick Durbin to Missouri (I almost feel bad doing that), and downstaters will no longer have to pay for Chicago's screwed up schools/Chicagoans will no longer have to pay for farm bailouts. Everyone wins. Except Missouri. Sorry guys.

Wow

This will have some people screaming. Great homage to daisies at the end.

Beware the Pander Bear?

Great new release from RNC Research here. Best line by far is Conan's:

"Hillary Clinton marched in today's St. Patrick's Day Parade, and spectators accused her of pandering to voters. They might be right because Hillary was wearing a button that said, 'Kiss me, I'm also Jewish, black, Puerto Rican, and a huge Yankee fan.'"

Just as true now, though these days she's also trying to be everything to everyone on Iraq...

Helped Wanted; Attorney General

Well some said Gonzo's political career had less than a week to go - it may be less than that. According to Politico, Republicans are actively searching for replacements. These might include:

--Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, the "Law & Order" star who is now considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

--Olson, who was Bush's first solicitor general and now is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington.

--Larry Thompson, who has been general counsel of PepsiCo Inc. since leaving his first-term job as deputy to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

--Retired federal judge Laurence H. Silberman, who was named by Bush to be co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

--George J. Terwilliger III, a former deputy attorney general and acting attorney general who was a leader of Bush's legal team during the Florida election recount.

Bush apparently hasn't spoken to Gonzales since last week.

Money Makes the World Go Round...

Also from Novak: potential signs that Giuliani's not fundraising as much as he'd like. While nothing's definite, as today's Note pointed out,

5. Heaven will need to help Hillary Clinton and/or John McCain if they are not the gross cash leaders in their respective party first-quarter fundraising derbies.

6. Every one of the Big 6 has the potential to be the big money story of the quarter.

7. It is possible that every one of the Big 3 Democrats will outraise every one of the Big 3 Republican candidates, which will cause the Old Media to go ga-ga-ga.

8. The only one of the Big 6 who appears to have the potential to be a first-quarter break-through candidate in terms of web fundraising is Senator Obama.

It's a perception game. Everyone with an eye to the race (myself included) is waiting with baited breath for the quarterly financials to be reported.

Law & Order DA as President?

Fred Thompson's better known as DA Arthur Branch of Law & Order than as the Senator he was previously, which is a sad statement on our polity. But he's making noises about running for president. I'm not going to judge but provide links to others' opinions.

• WSJ's John Fund's interesting interview with Thompson
• The Post's Chris Cilizza lays out "The Case for Fred Thompson"
• On This Week yesterday, Donna Brazile (I think) suggested that Thompson's candidacy may simply be a "stalking horse" for McCain, with whom he is close friends. The argument goes that Thompson would put together a campaign, gather some momentum andgarner some headlines, then endorse McCain
• From Novak's Inside Report:

  Actor-politician Fred Thompson's unexpected expression of interest in seeking the Republican presidential nomination has attracted an equally unexpected favorable reaction, especially among social conservatives.
  
  In Tennessee Republican politics, former Sen. Thompson was allied with Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander in the state party's more liberal wing. However, his voting record in the Senate was solidly conservative. He is viewed by the Christian right as more acceptable than any of the three Republican candidates leading in the polls: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
  
  Nobody is sure that Thompson really will run. He has been reported in line as successor to radio commentator Paul Harvey to fill one of the most prestigious and profitable broadcasting niches.

  Novak also touches on one of Thompson's other assets: he might get Frist's nomination, whatever that's worth after Schiavo.
  

What do you think?

Romney: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Thus far, Mitt Romney seems to have run a flawless campaign. That he did so is on some level unsurprising; he seems to be running it with a Third Way business-political outlook. No longer though. Speaking last night in Miami to the Cuban community, Romney finished his speech with Patria o muerte, venceremos! Bravo for speaking Spanish, Romney, but next time stay away from Castro slogans? Apparently the line, "Fatherland or death we shall overcome," is vintage Fidel, a conclusion to many of his speeches over the years. Whoops.

Beyond the fact that a Romney staffer is looking for another job this morning, this could have consequences. Romney's been aggressively courting the Cuban community, with one of the community's heavyweights, Al Cardenas, cutting radio spots for him and chairing his Florida campaign. His concern is understandable given the amount of support McCain seems to have in the state (remember when Charlie Crist ditched Bush to campaign with McCain late last cycle?) and the fact that Florida's angling to move way up in the primary calendar (which is a topic for another day, but it's bad for democracy).

The damage is done and it'll be interesting to see if Romney's shunned by the Cubans for his idiocy. But what will be more interesting to see is how his thus-far lillywhite campaign manages damage control. Can they handle it or are we going to begin seeing some cracks?

Wow

This is the first ad that's made me say that in a while. It's anti-Hillary, in the mold of Apple's infamous 1984 Ridley Scott ad, and while it's explicitly pro-Obama, his camp decries all knowledge.

Gathering of Eagles Wrap-Up

Apparently the Gathering of Eagles in Washington yesterday was a smashing success. That of the anti-war folks? Not so much. Oops. Not that the media cares to report that. Malkin's got the full run-down here.

Gems from the Journal

I'd missed it until the White House public liaison sent it out to the "White House Jewish Leaders" email list of which I am a member (don't ask, I don't know - but please don't disabuse them of the notion that I am in fact a Jewish leader!), but yesterday's WSJ op-ed is priceless. Though I'm unclear on the questions of constitutionality it raises towards the end, its satire of Congress's micromanagement is dead on. Even more, it highlights Pelosi's fundamental dilemma with her out-of-control majority. Both flanks - the progressives and the Blue Dogs - are both getting restless. I don't think anything too drastic will happen, but given that there are roughly 40 conservative Democrats, Pelosi can't afford to offend. Next few months should be priceless.

POLL: Iraqi Life Better Now Than Under Sadaam

Despite what George Stephanopolous's claiming on This Week right now, a new British poll finds that Iraqis perceive their life as better now than under Sadaam. Beyond the main finding, the most intriguing is that only 27% of Iraqis think their country is plagued by a civil war. This in contrast to the whole of the Left here, for whom "civil war" is a buzz word.

In the meantime, the Iraqi government is beginning to act with some assurance on things like the new oil bill. Am I the only one who believes that such confidence and the surge are unrelated? Funny what happens when you demonstrate your commitment and work for greater security.

Chuck the Schmuck Strikes Again

Has Senator Chuck Schumer been using AttorneyGate for political advantage? Looks like it. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Apparently Schumer's been mixing his roles as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, taking testimony from that fired New Mexico attorney and the next day using parts of that same testimony to slam Senator Pete Domenici in a press release. CQ's got the story here.

Happy St. Patricks Day!

Days like today that I miss sweet home Chicago. May the luck of the Irish be with you all.

Gathering of Eagles

In opposition to the aforementioned ANSWER-coordinated protest in DC, and motivated by concerns that the anti-American organizers would use the Vietnam Wall as a backdrop for their protest, a nationwide network of veterans known as the Gathering of Eagles has come together to silently protect the memorials and honor the memory of those who gave their lives for this country. They died so that ANSWER protestors and others (including mainstream Democrats, as evinced by Kerry and Rangel's comments) had the freedom of speech to slander our men and women in uniform. What exactly does the Gathering of Eagles stand for? Their mission statement says that

Our Mission Statement

1. Gathering of Eagles is non-partisan. While each member has his or her own political beliefs, our common love and respect for America and her heroes is what brings us together.

2. We are a non-violent, non-confrontational group. We look to defend, not attack. Our focus is guarding our memorials and their grounds.

3. We believe that the war memorials are sacred ground; as such, we will not allow them to be desecrated, used as props for political statements, or treated with anything less than the solemn and heartfelt respect they–and the heroes they honor–deserve.

4. We are wholly and forever committed to our brothers and sisters in uniform. As veterans, we understand their incredible and noble sacrifices, made of their own accord for a nation they love more than life itself. As family members, we stand by them, and as Americans, we thank God for them.

5. We believe in and would give our lives for the precious freedoms found in our Constitution. We believe that our freedom of speech is one of the greatest things our country espouses, and we absolutely hold that any American citizen has the right to express his or her approval or disapproval with any policy, law, or action of our nation and her government in a peaceful manner as afforded by the laws of our land.

6. However, we are adamantly opposed to the use of violence, vandalism, physical or verbal assaults on our veterans, and the destruction or desecration of our memorials. By defending and honoring these sacred places, we defend and honor those whose blood gave all of us the right to speak as freely as our minds think.

7. We vehemently oppose the notion that it is possible to “support the troops but not the war.” We are opposed to those groups who would claim support for the troops yet engage in behavior that is demeaning and abusive to the men and women who wear our nation’s uniform.

8. We believe in freedom at all costs, including our own lives. We served to protect the freedoms Americans enjoy, and we agree with Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

9. We will accept nothing less than total, unqualified victory in the current conflict. Surrender is not an option, nor is defeat.

10. We stand to challenge any group that seeks the destruction of our nation, its founding precepts of liberty and freedom, or those who have given of themselves to secure those things for another generation. We will be silent no more.

All I can say is God bless these people; I hope the media provides them some fair coverage (not likely) and that their clear-eyed and patriotic statements can be accepted (or reaccepted) by the majority of Americans. I feel that more and more, as the despicable tactics of Congressional Democrats become visible, as they continue to mouth their support of the troops while stabbing them in the back, Americans may be coming to realize that you can't support the troops without supporting the war.

Moonbats of the World Unite

To show their opposition of the fourth anniversary of the Iraq (and obviously winning converts by blocking roads and inconveniencing everyone, in addition to no doubt smelling foul), the usual moonbats are going to be protesting across the nation. CODEPINK has been camped out in front of Pelosi's house for days, prompting the usual questions about whether these people actually have jobs and if not are they simply suckling at the governmental teat while stabbing said government in the back? CODEPINK activists also took the time to be obnoxiously present in the background of the Plame circus yesterday; that video is here. The two biggest demonstrations, however, are planned for New York and DC.

In New York, the marchers are brought together under the umbrella organization "United for Peace & Justice," an innocent-enough sounding name. But in addition to grieving parents and veterans, you also have some out and out wack-jobs participating. Just to list a few, the Black Radical Congress, Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization - National, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, Socialist Party USA - National, Socialist Alternative, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and Young Communists League. Those are only the ones whose names are indicative of where they stand. Then there are others, such as the 50 Years is Enough Network; an examination of their website finds them to be a fringe anti-globalization group that demands a cessation to the activities of the IMF and World Bank and the formation of a "Truth Commission" to investigate the "crimes" of these organizations. The full list of these loons can be found here (excel file).

The DC march is organized by ANSWER ("Act Now to Stop War and End Racism" - what the hell is that supposed to mean?). Though they seem too bright to post a list of all the nebulous groups behind the facade - or perhaps they want both the Marxists and the Trotskyists to remain blissfully unaware that the other is involved? - but they do list a handful. Among these are the Muslim Student Organization, acting on many campuses as a front for Saudi extremism (an eye-opening article from the Middle East Forum can be found here), as well as the Party for Socialism and Liberation; the coexistance of such groups provides anecdotal evidence of the "unholy alliance" alleged by Horowitz in his thus-titled book. And although they don't list their constituents they do list something of a platform (so it's 18 months old - I doubt it's changed):

* Stop the War in Iraq
* End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti
* Support the Palestinian People’s Right of Return
* Stop the Threats Against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran & North Korea
* U.S. Out of the Philippines
* U.S. Out of Puerto Rico
* Bring all the troops home now
* Stop the Racist, anti-Immigrant and anti-Labor Offensive at Home, Defend Civil Rights
* Military Recruiters Out of Our Schools and Communities

Wow.

What kills me is that these loons - most of them anti-American in the extreme - have become visible symbols of opposition to the war, a position now held by a majority of Americans (no doubt in part due to the misleading spin of the media). But if that majority were to realize who they stand with, some might reconsider their position. So any sane anti-Iraq war types out there, please consider letting the world know that these moonbats don't represent you?

Strange Bedfellows

Alaska's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case from 2002 will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow. Best of all, some Christian groups are supporting the sign-bearing student fearing a curtailment of religious speech on campus. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed

Khalid Sheik Mohammed testified in a hearing on his "enemy combatant" status yesterday at Gitmo, listing 31 different al Qaeda plots he was involved with in some capacity or another, including the September 11th attacks. Also,

I decapitated with my blessed right hand the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan

Bastard. The whole redacted and released transcript of the hearing can be found here. While I'm glad to see documents such as this one being released, I don't think it's necessary to have hearings to do so.

Amusing Loons

[NOTE: I almost wrote a radically different post on this topic, then went back and checked my story...first impressions can be deceiving (MATT STOLLER)] I'd privately noted a few weeks ago that when the DCCC released their "Frontline '08" list - the most vulnerable of their freshman reps, Carol Shea-Porter (NH1) was not on there. I was rather surprised as her opponent Jeb Bradley said he was running again and this is the kind of race that the DCCC must win to keep control of the House. I wondered if ideological disputes (and her rejection of establishment aid in 06) had come back to haunt her?

Apparently Matt Stoller, of progressive blog MyDD.com, thought the same thing, saying in a recent column bemoaning the alleged exclusion of progressives from party decision-making

From what I understand from talking to a few progressives on the Hill, the freshmen in Congress are being extensively 'trained' by Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record)'s DLC band of consultants and pollsters, which is one reason they've been silent. Carol Shea-Porter is an exception, and notice how she was shut out of the DCCC's front line program.

Uh Matt? Check any sources lately? That column was published March 3rd. On Febraury 19th, CQPolitics noted that Shea-Porter and another grassroots candidate, Nancy Boyda, both

ran as political outsiders last year, and they aim to maintain that independent posture even as they seek re-election from inside Congress.

“I wanted to stay with the kind of campaign I ran before,” Shea-Porter told CQPolitics.com on Friday. The freshman explained her desire to continue her state’s tradition of “retail politics,” which favors local, door-to-door efforts. “It’s really about building trust and relationships.”

So Stoller flips out citing Shea-Porter's absence from the list as evidence of an alleged anti-progressive conspiracy. In reality, it was public knowledge almost two weeks before that Shea-Porter herself rejected DCCC aid.

It's been said before but bears repeting: this faction of the Democratic Party exists in a reality-free void - factcheck, factcheck, factcheck.

Remembering a Travesty

I missed it by two days but it's still worth noting the one year anniversary of the Duke Lacrosse Fraud. What happens when a politically-motivated DA seeks to make hay out of the drug-addled accusations of a felon and a whore with the complicity of a hopelessly-biased, ultra sensationalist media establishment and a cabal of professors of dubious intellectual capacity involved in the worst sort of navel-gazing concerned only with undermining society and criticizing "white privilege"? You ruin innocent lives. Almost as bad as all of the component parts of this hoax is the silence of the university's administration.

That the administration, Trustees, and faculty council have not yet begun a serious discussion (though I'd prefer termination proceedings) of the inexplicable, inexusable commentary of the "Group of 88" is ridiculous. We should be questioning what every one of these faculty members adds to the university community. At a time when we're looking to hire more faculty in some major disciplines, wouldn't we be helped in unburdening ourselves of professors researching (to cite one example) "feminism & queer studies" in 16th C France or those (no names) who falsely claim to have published books and articles.

Every individual and organization that had a hand in ruining the lives of Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans and tarnishing the reputation of one of the nation's finest universities should be ashamed of themselves, and in many cases (Nifong, the hooker) subject to litigation.

Just Throwing It Out There

It's been asked before but I'll ask it again. If a Republican candidate belonged to a church which proclaimed that:

We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

It goes without saying they'd be reviled and demonized by the media, particularly by Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, etc. But change white to black and what do you get? Barack Obama and nary a peep in the mainstream media. This should put to rest any questions about Obama's "blackness" but should raise serious issues about his dedication to an America where race doesn't matter, which essentially is what he praised in his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Just food for thought.

A Real Senate Race in Texas?

Trolling through the online insane asylum that is DailyKos today (as I do every day if only for amusement's sake), I found that Kos - who is sadly gaining more and more control of the Democratic Party, which should instead be finding and running more sane rational and admirable candidates like Lieberman - has selected for himself a candidate to run against John Cornyn in Texas. Now my initial thought was that a good Republican like Cornyn would be basically untouchable in so red a state as Texas but Kossacks are crowing about poll numbers that might suggest otherwise. Cornyn's fav/unfav are tighter than a candidate might want going into an election, but certainly not bad (Hillary's are pretty much in the same awful region too).

So who's this newly-crowned "people powered candidate" (and is only Kos's support needed to make him people-powered or do the...um...people actually need to approve too?)? He's a state senator from Houston by the name of Rick Noriega. Compelling resume, I must admit - Afghanistan veteran, KSG graduate - but whether he's got the substance to actually run remains to be seen. Should Noriega prove to be somewhat viable (and get past whatever the Texas DP establishment throws at him), this could be a noteworthy race in Texas. What's always an interesting aspect to Texas politics is the Hispanic dimension as both parties understand the importance of that vote and thus neither engages in the sort of anti-immigrant sentiment that too often boils over into xenophobic/racist anti-Latino rhetoric elsewhere. I love race season.

Bear on the Prowl

So we all know that Russia's awash in petrodollars, much like the theocracies of the Middle East are. But what I didn't know till today is that much like their Gulf counterparts, the Russians are also cozying up to anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. According to a story from the Weekly Standard, Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal is the guest of the Russian Foreign Minister - for the second time this year. The Kremlin willfully insists that Hamas isn't allied with Muslim terrorists in Chechyna, but Levitt's article makes the falsehood of such beliefs painfully obvious.

That of course begs questions about Russian aims and motives. Historically speaking, Russia has always been a bastion of antisemitism - the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion were authored by the Csarist secret police - but more more recently, the Soviet Union sided with Arab states against Israel. Now seeing that Israel is basically our only friend in the region (many regional leaders feared Sadaam but fear a viable democracy as well), it makes sense to encourage their enemies. But there's a larger lesson for our leaders in all of this: the Cold War is basically back, with a rich Russia funding mischief around the world, and we should begin to understand Russian machinations less as aberations but more as intentional practice. They've shown themselves willing to cause trouble (meddling with gas supplies, killing critics, threatening those who would host our missile shield, etc.) and we can't keep wishing the problem away.

(How Often Do I Post These Mea Culpas?)

So it goes without saying that I've been absent and silent for a while, really AWOL more than anything else as I could no doubt find the time to blog. That being said, I'm back for at least the time being. Not that anyone's missed me.

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