Powered by TypePad

« Stripper's Story Refuted - So What? | Main | Far From Over! (The Re-energized Report) »

October 14, 2006



A guy's penis will get in you into all sorts of trouble.

Learned that when I was about 16.

And have re-learned it several times since.



Does this mean that Republicans are cutting and running from their own party?

Rick Ballard

"Oh, I'll trudge to the polls and vote, all right. But don't anyone dare send me a fundraising appeal."

S'OK - your carcass at the polls is all that is needed.

BTW - Does it look like this tremendous Dem wave is going to knock out Johnson or Shays or Simmons or Rell? After all CT is true blue, so there should be a 4 seat pickup, right?

Or maybe there's just a tad of hype floating in the air.

The RNCC spent $9M on advertising on Friday. The DCCC is keeping their powder dry for another week. Possibly another six weeks, given the intelligence of the party leaders.

A week from today the "in a surprising turnaround" stories start, followed by the "this couldn't have been forseen last month" follwed by the "a late surge has switched the momentum" follwed by "this is a real shocker" follwed by "we wuz robbed".

Here is the RCP "danger list. Quick, pick 15 Dem "sure things" in the House races and get your money down.


Oh man, those lists and the self-serving "They should have listened to the blogs, man!" is driving me crazy. It's the same as saying, "they should have listened to me"

Let me pick out the Dubai Ports deal here. Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and every Democrat except for Bill Clinton came out swinging in an ill-informed broadside on that. Later, Reynolds was swayed (I think) that it wasn't so bad...but we know Malkin stayed the course. I don't know if I've ever seen Michelle back down from her first, usually very strong, position. On any issue.

How in the world was Bush supposed to handle that properly? Glenn called Bush's response ham-handed, but don't the bloggers who want to be listened to have some responsibility for getting their facts together before they start an assault on the administration? I think Malkin et al were ham-handed, and wrong. They wouldn't be swayed and they won.

Wouldn't the blogs who want to be listened to find some benefit in doing some listening themselves?

Although I have to say, I don't favor the idea of blogs being political players anyway. I don't buy the idea that someone with a blog speaks for anyone but himself, and their voice no more powerful than anyone else in this democracy of ours.




Late at night, when there is no noise to distract you, say "speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi" out loud, so you can hear it.


It is Bush's fault, but not because of his policies. Terry Schiavo? Please, nothing to do with Bush. Harriet Miers? Who can imagine her being a worse Justice than, say, Souter? The ports? Bush was right, there's nothing wrong with letting experienced allies run ports, and the "disaster" stems from the public's xenophobia. William Jefferson? Are we to believe that Congress deserves a shied so strong that they're protected from common criminality? Foleygate? Please, don't make me laugh. Social Security is only a debacle in the sense that Democratic fear-mongering about it has prevented overhaul of a system the desparately needs privatization. And Bush is right on Iraq, of course, even while the general public becomes muddle-headed; if the only thing the war achieved was killing Zarqawi then it's an unqualified success, considering the harm he intended to inflict on the United States. No, Bush almost always gets it right, and his stubborness in the face of all the equivocation around him might very well have made us more safe, but the fault lies in his allowing the above "issues" to even be framed as pertinent in voters minds. His tax cuts worked, dammit, and we've got a strong economy with low inflation. Low unemployment, shrinking deficits. And no terrorist attacks at home. That Bush (and, by extension, Rove, who could only manage a squeaker victory over a candidate who ran on his war record despite various treasonous acts) is unable to use his bully pulpit to rouse the common sense in people, that's the problem. But, lest bitter recriminations begin too early, I'd add that the election hasn't happened yet, and there's perhaps still time...


... followed by "this is a real shocker" followed by "we wuz robbed".
I knew the good people at Diebold would save us!


I think the chances for Hillary would be far better in '08 if the Republicans were to hold both houses this year than they will be if the public gets a nice dose of Pelosi, Conyers, Rangle & the rest. I'm not too happy with the stale and unprincipled state of the Republican congress these days either, but the real battle is '08, and I can see related silver lining in an '06 Dem win of the House. Keeping the Senate could be the best-case scenario, even though that's where the least principled Republicans are.


I believe the main problem was Bush's terrible communication skills. In addition, he seems afraid of the media and reluctant to take them on. I started to get alarmed in the spring on 2005 on how passive Bush was, shortly after that the media started its polling and cheering Bush's declining approval ratings.

The media was depressed for several weeks after the election, quickly cheered up with the story of the evil Fallujah Marine and turned toward the 2006 election and decided to win.

If Bush could have taken on his enemies, especially the MSM, they would have been discredited and less enboldened to be such enthusiastic and partisan participants in this campaign.

It's hard to support a President who won't fight back. It is totally demoralizing.


Oh, I agree with the poster above re Rove. His tenure as policy point man in the Bush White House was a disaster.

Although, I was very happy he was not indicted for the Plame nonsense, I think he is overrated as a polical strategist.


I take it the malaise is why we haven't had a Harry Reid post at JOM yet?

T Miller

"If Bush could have taken on his enemies..."

What about the enemies like Al-qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, North Koreans? A few more successes on those fronts would have helped reelect Republicans.



Otherwise, although I could spend the afternoon (and early evening, and late evening) making the case against the Democrats, I am a bit fed up with being a lesser of two evils voter.

To be honest, I can't think of the last time I got everything I wanted from one candidate or one party. I wonder who has been completely thrilled with their voting choices in the last few...decades?

So my question is why all the doom and gloom now? What's changed, really? I love my country, but it seems to me people are getting less and less able to cope with not getting their way anymore. In general, it feels like the country is getting sucked into this vortex of negativity. And there's no reason for it. America is a great country and we are all so lucky, but that isn't how I feel when I read about the US on blogs, or watch the news.
I would have loved it if political blogs would have come on the scene to change that, but it feels to me they are just adding to it. There's too much noise creating more stress.
As I tell myself and my kids...find something to be happy about. There's a lot out there.

I'm babbling. Wake me up when Guiliani is President.



Possibly another six weeks, given the intelligence of the party leaders.


Rick Ballard

"I think he is overrated as a polical strategist."

Yeah, line him up with all the others that have run back to back winning campaigns for the TX governorship and the Presidency and he's.... Well, he's the only fellow who's ever done it.

If he's not the best, name one better.


I'd like to see something on Dingy, too. Maybe with a CPA's take on the tax consequences of an informal transfer to an LLC and whether regular income or capital gains pertains. I'd love to see the IRS chatting with Dingy.

Cecil Turner

. . . the ongoing debacle in Iraq.

This is disheartening. The mere idea that the other guy might fight back is apparently enough to qualify a war as "a debacle." The Islamists have yet to win a battle in this thing, and yet a near majority in the US are ready to surrender. And while I'm generally dissatisfied with the pace of the Iraq efforts, there's little doubt that turning it over to the Dems would be an unmitigated disaster.

. . . say "speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi" out loud . . .

And, on the main issue of the day (Iraq), more divisiveness, less progress, and assured eventual defeat. The good news is that it's obvious from the above things can take a dramatic turn in only two weeks.


If he's not the best, name one better.
Rove couldn't dust Lee Atwaters's shoes. His "genius", it seems to me, stems mostly from aligning himself with a candidate who are going to win anyway. Even so, '04 was unjustifiably too close for comfort. If any further evidence is needed to show that Rove is over-rated, just look at the landscape now.


On Rove, I think the 2004 race was closer than it needed to be. Also 2000 was almost lost, it slipped away the final weekend and believe it was Rove's decision to have Bush take the final weekend off that contributed to that slide. I do think Rove did a good job overseeing the 2002 congressional races, however.

In the two presidential races, Rove had to deal with the candidates, Cheney, who added nothing to the ticket and Bush who is a good campaigner but put in 2 poor debate performances.

And back to the not fighting back, how was Cheney's approval rating allowed to decrease to the 20's and stay there.


If we Republicans can't or won't keep the House and the Senate in November, the dems will thrash and trash us, along with the nation and plunge us into a political dark ages, complete with high takes, a sinking economy and endless investigations. We need to get out the vote as if our lives depended on it!

Disillusioned Repub

If the Dems win a house or two, the ONLY thing to blame will be the clapping seal-rubber stamping- Bush can do no wrong- blind cheerleading Republicans have displayed for 6 years, and exemplified so well at this very site.

Instead of demanding excellence, Repubs (and, by extension, their representatives) spent the whole time excusing mediocrity.

And now there's a strong possibility Dems could assume power. It's inexcusable.


Bush is pretty effective when confronting enemies, as evidenced by his steadfast performance against foreign ones. His biggest problem is that he never accepted his political enemies as actual enemies, as in enemies of the country, which they unfortunately are. Regardless, his higher tone has gotten him nowhere.

Rick Ballard

Atwater ran a campaign with a popular President against uberlib Mondale and with an unpopular VP against ubererlib Dukakis. Whoopee.

Ann Richards was no slouch and AL Gore, as big a dud as he is, was a sitting VP with a seemingly solid economy. Kerry is comparable to Dukakis (much less honest, though).

If the Reps hold the House it will be because Rove and Mehlman's efforts in professionalizing the GOTV effort - as evidenced in '02 and '04. It's not as though the Dems are 100% brain dead.

The Dems error this year is in placing their focus on Miz Clinton's excellent adventure. They've got too much dough going into WI, MI and CO for the potential return wrt House races. If they don't make it, it will be because Emanuel only works for the Clintons.


Extraneus, the, "higher tone" you speak of is the dead center of the dems shooting gallery.It's good that they weren't able to take out Hastert, otherwise they would have gone after a leader a week up to and beyond the November election. Their goal is to use our,"high moral ground" to do it, and have us deliver ourselves into the fire!


In other words, as a political party goes we, as Republicans, are pretty lame! We need to take a few lessons from the dems and learn how to street fight as well as they do.


I read Fred's book on the president. I think he needs to read it again himself. Bush is not a poll kind of guy. Never was.

A few days ago Bush was creeping up in the polls and then something {Foley, Iraq, who knows} put him back down about 5 points. He is at 43 with Rasmussen again. I doubt however that he sees 50 again. I think he might get into the mid 40's.

But in Congressional races I am not so sure national politics is all it is about. And that makes each race different.

I am sick of the constant bitching and moaning from people like Malkin and Reynolds and Frum and Noonan etc who act as if they actually run something other than their mouths or their keyboards. Maybe they ought to put their money with their mouths are and give running for office a try. Let them be the guy in the hotseat for a change.

I voted for Bush in spite of a lot of the base and not because of it. Neither party is going to say how high when I say jump. At least I am not enough of an adult to understand that.

I wonder sometimes if the insurgents in Iraq are hoping the Democrats will win. And that makes me sure I will vote a straight Republican ticket even if Glenn Reynolds thinks that anyone who does not support internet gambling is a loser.


That should be.... at least I am enough of an adult to understand that. Freudian slip.

Alas... I am afraid I have been a grown up a long long time.


Let’s get the panicking out of your systems now, so.

With the aid of people like Instapundit, NRO, and other center-right bloggers the media have succeded in selling "Foleygate" the same way they sold Katrina.

Nothing happened folks. Foley did nothing wrong and there was no cover-up. The bloggers are supposed to cut through the media noise, not amplify it.

Renyolds list of grievances are amazingly petty, with a couple of exceptions. The libertarian movement seems obsessed with symbolic matters to the exclusion of all else.



Are you the good anon or the bad anon?

Whichever I do agree. I am beginning to wonder if some of the center right bloggers are sometimes a hindrance rather than a help.

Well except for our host here who is a helluva guy.


I'm the good anon. If bad-anon persists in using this handle I'll switch to something else.

Yes, the bloggers and pundits have been more a part of the problem than of the solution. Internet gambling is a huge issue for these people? They are more out of touch than the politicians.

There's plenty of stuff to be upbeat about, between the falling deficit, falling gas prices, and the rising stock market. But you don't find much discussion of the good stuff on the center-right blogs. Three weeks of getting a positive message out can turn around the poll numbers.


Right after anyone gets used to the idea of Speaker Pelosi, I suggest that the Democrats united by their single purpose to regain the House will begin the same process the Republicans did from the first day in 1995 .. doing their own thing.

It's easy to unite when you are the minority and have nothing to lose, just ask Newt. On the other hand, when you actually have to run the Congress, each and every committee chairman suddenly becomes his/her own person, just ask Newt.

If Pelosi becomes Speaker, it will be a disaster for Democrats because she just doesn't have enough bitch in her. No matter the fortunes of the Democrats in 2008, she won't be Speaker in 2009. I'm not even convinced she will be Speaker in 2007 with or without a Democratic majority.

If there is a Democratic majority, the minority will unite in their newly reacquired role of chief persecutor, an easy role, and pay back will be the real bitch.


I'm with terrye and good anon. Too much pissing and moaning for me. What attracted me here was the fighting, "we're getting to the bottom of this, and then we're gonna tell everybody" attitude.

Rick Ballard


Plug in the 810K upward revision to the jobs created figure plus a current 4.6 unemployment rate.


Does Bush even care if the GOP retains control of the House and Senate? Maybe OUR guy ought to poke his finger in the other guy's face and call him out for once... Bush has more strengths than weaknesses but his normal political stance seems to put a lot of weight on his heels. Whatever. If the House goes and the Senate goes, the blame should rest with the members. They 'forgot' (to put it nicely) who brung them to the dance. It's the spending, stupid! Also, the leadership, stupid! Frist, Hastert, et.al. - What an inspiring bunch. Add icons like McCain and Ted Stevens and we got trouble right here in River City.

Sara (Squiggler)

I am so angry today, I find myself shaking. All over the blogosphere, conservative pundits and their Republican commenters are whining and bemoaning. I read words like "if Republicans lose, they deserve it." No no no! I do not deserve to have a Code Pink appeasement foreign policy. I do not deserve to have Social Security go down the tubes. I do not deserve more liberal activist judges (nor do I deserve to have Chief Judge John Roberts ignored while you continue to whine about Harriet Miers. Get over it!). I do not deserve years of phony impeachment trials. I do not deserve to have my taxes raised. Neither I, nor my children deserve the appeasement government of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and going back to the Clinton days of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

WE ARE AT WAR! Most of all our brave men and women in the military do not deserve to have their sacrifices nullified by the "cut and run" cowardly tactics of a John Murtha or John Kerry.

I do not care how you feel about Sen. Frist, or Terry Schiavo, or Mark Foley. Do you really think a terrorist is going to say, "oh, you didn't vote or you voted for a Democrat, so you live? Get real. You will be just as dead as the rest of us.

There are 3 weeks left in this election cycle. Get off your butts, get off your couches, and get down to your local county Republican headquarters and work hard. Volunteer for the "get out to vote" phonebanks, volunteer to work the polls, volunteer to walk your neighborhood, put out your yard signs, volunteer to drive elderly voters to the polls on election day. DO SOMETHING besides whine and moan.

As far as I'm concerned, if we end up with socialist appeaser Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and slimy appeaser Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, then you who didn't vote are no different than the traitors and whatever disasters come our way will be on your head.




I'm still letting my money ride on whatever Rick predicts--

And that's because so far he's correct

In the end this will come down to the get out the vote effort in the tight contests--and we have seen ample comparisons in the last three national contests--and no indication that is likely to change.

Rick's the man!

Did you notice BTW the Dems are still paying Acorn to F*() up their registration campaigns?
What does this mean?
To me, it means they still are running their ground campaign thru worst case mercenaries--Consultants are getting rich, nutroots are getting watered and they still do not have the troops they will need.



Too true. Glenn will say something off hand about the deficit falling..yawn... and then we are off to the races with some big ass tantrum about internet gambling. Or pork. I am sorry, but I never did get all that excited about the pork busters thing. It was just one more thing to complain about. OMG they are building a road in Miss, this has to stop. gimme a break.

I don't care if it is Iraq or the economy or Foley these guys just fall all over themselves showing their independence and smacking some poor bastard upside the head for failing to do as he is told.

Now of course they are after Condi Rice. Just who does she think she is the Secretary of State or something?

Bitch Bitch Bitch.

And Malkin has gotten so annoying I can not even read her anymore.


It's not possible to be both a Machiavellian master of spin and a stand up principled leader. Reagan didn't win by out scamming the democrats. He could dismiss and endure their hostility, for a while, but even Reagan was worn down by the relentless scandal mongering and bad press.

It's going to take more than Fox news, a few blogs and Rush to change the dynamic where even good economics can be buried by negativity. The MSM, academia, public schools, democrat activists, movies all beat the drum that everybody should be sick and tired of being sick and tired of those nasty old conservatives.

If Gore had been elected and (somehow) the war on terror had gone exactly the same, it would be portrayed a success by winning slow and hard, the NSA program would still be secret, Valerie would still be "covert", Gitmo would be Gilligan's Island, and if anyone even knew about waterboarding it would be the greatest most humane method for extracting life saving intel ever invented.

It's just the reality we're stuck with. It does no good to complain about it, but ignoring it leads to blaming each other on our side and that's counterproductive.



I disagree. I am tired of the constant bitching about every damn thing all the damn time. I have known grade schoolers who were tougher than certain members of the GOP base.

If they can not complain about anything else, they complain about the personalities of these people. I do not care if Frist is magnetic. I care if he does his job reasonabley well.



There is truth in what you say, there really is but when all these guys want to do is complain about internet gambling or immigration they kind of lose sight of the fact that they are supposed to be on the same side.


Sara, well said.


A fed up commenter over at NRO writes;

And if it doen't go down, it's becuse it had it coming ? Insipid.

I give Dick Cheney's advice to Leahy to all you boneheads who don't have the courage to stand up for the only political party that responds to Conservatives, as the House did in refusing to support the ridiulous Amnesty bill from the Senate.

Many of you live in the Media and Beltway bubble. You actually shiver when the WaPo attacks relentlessly someone like George Allen. You buy into the smearing of Speaker Hastert. You care what your Liberal friends think of you because of your political beliefs.

What will the Dems do when they lose ? That's the question.

A few more people like that and few less people like Renyolds and Lowey and we'd be in a lot better shape.


they kind of lose sight of the fact that they are supposed to be on the same side.

Yes they do. I favor letting them know they should stifle their bellyaching in the middle of serious conflict and that they are being guilty of what my point is. But ... They're not to blame for the situation, nor are moderates nor social cons nor tradionalists, nor Christians, nor for that matter are Bush, Frist and Hastert.


re Diebold

Don't want to shock anybody, nor cause heart attacks among the trolls, but my friend experienced in information security said Diebold safes are not approved for storing classified information. :)

That doesn't necessarily translate to voting machines. But changing electronic votes is like getting a computer virus--everybody is warned, everybody has heard of 'em, everybody thinks IE is the worst security risk on the planet, but few people are ever affected by those famous security holes.

(The REAL problem for elections is all the dead voters and ACORN workers.)

Once upon a time I thought this icky voter fraud stuff could only happen in third world countries. This is America the greatest country on the planet.

Then I realized, um, this is America, the greatest country on the planet where anything goes 'cause we're free--and trying to get away with something is half the fun of life. Capitalism is pretty much based on doing what comes naturally, grabbing opportunities where you find them, working hard, and reaching the top. Wherever you define the top.

Constant vigilance is necessary. We're all kids playing in the backyard and the rule of law is watching us through the window to make sure we don't hit Johnny too hard after he steals our ice cream.

God, I love America.


I live in Indiana and I will vote for Hostettler. He is very conservative. He is enforcement only on immigration, probusiness, he does not support a raise in the minimum wage and he is prolife and prowar and is considered a fiscal conservative. He is touch and go at best. He is running against a sheriff named Ellsworth who is a moderate Democrat.

Now Hostettler is the kind of guy conservatives say they want, but he might not make it because the locals think the oil companies bought him. That is how it works. So while conservatives whine about Congress not being conservative enough, they just might stay home and let some Democrat win this district. That sucks, it really does. This is Bush country. This county went 75% for Bush.

I am not as conservative as Hostettler, but if I can vote for him then the real conservatives can their asses out there and do the same.


Terry Schiavo? The Dubai Ports deal? Willam Jefferson - huh? Foleygate?

Sorry. I just don't see voters focusing on ANY of those things. It's security and my bank account - in that order.

This is a second term, mid-term election. It would be a miracle if the Republicans didn't lose seats. Regardless of the reported lack of enthusiasm in the ranks, people aren't going to vote against their own best interests - no matter what the pundits say.

Rick Ballard


Yeah they still have "register drunks for money" ACORN as their "professional" wing, coordinated by America Votes (successor to ACT) which is also "coordinating" efforts by the AFL, SEIU, Emily's List, Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood. I can even name the races which are the the "coordinated" groups targets. It's not bad, actually, but the Section 8 neighborhoods which are the true focus of the Dems knock and drag successes exist in very few of the contested districts.

Rahm's "secret sauce" is to go after the newly registered (2004) Presidential voters who would generally skip midterms. The only teeny tiny problem is that the Reps outregistered the Dems by about 3 million voters in '04 and a fair slug of them were in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana (Missouri too, I believe - but haven't verified). Indiana is actually part of the firewall - as are the Pennsylvania House districts. As I mentioned above, CT's House seats aren't exactly heavily in play either.

It may be cloudy but the sky isn't coming down in pieces.


Terrye, anon and Sara- exactly.

Clarice and Rick, I agree with both of you also. We've been down this road before, haven't we? How many times now have Reps been headed for this big loss? It will happen sometime, but I'll believe it when I see it.


I just checked out captain's quarters and the thing that is really driving them nuts is..........internet gambling. Puhleaze. I mean I am supposed to believe that all these people are going to stay home because of some dumb internet gambling law?



I don't believe that anyone cares much about Schaivo, Foley, Jefferson, or Miers. Immigration and Dubai Ports caused damage because they go to the security issue. Not securing the borders and outsourcing port operations just don't seem compatible with the country fighting a war. So damage has been done there but it can be repaired.

Internet gambling - I'm still shaking my head is disbelief over that one. The most polite thing I can say is that there are some very unserious people in this country.

Sara (Squiggler)

I have tropical fish tanks. In one of my tanks, I have a breeding pair. When the female is pregnant, the male will agressively fight off all who come near her. He will chase errant fish who stray too close all over the tank to keep them away from the pregnant female. He guards her jealously. When she is giving birth, he becomes extremely protective. And as soon as the babies are born, he eats them.

Just like Michelle Malkin. Just like Glenn Reynolds today, or Ed Morrisey last week over some supposed outrage about Foley.



That was brilliant and so true.

I think the issues that drove me the furthest from some bloggers was immigration, Dubai, Miers and this whole sad silly business with Foley.

I understand differences and debate but it is one thing to have a disagreement, it is quite another to go for an artery.

Hubris is the word that comes to mind.

Sara (Squiggler)

The Internet gambling thing is the stupidest thing to come down the pike in a long time. Save me from sanctimonious idiots.

This country is so splintered and it is all due to the social issues. The Nanny State. For crying out loud, Glenn Reynolds makes beer in his basement or closet or bathtub or something. Do these self-important pundits stop to think what the alternatives are? Blackmarket everything.

I would like to see coffee banned because the smell of it brewing makes me lose my last meal. I would like to see alcohol banned because drunks terrify me and make my skin crawl. I want rapists castrated and locked up for the rest of their lives. I want spouse abusers to get the death penalty. I would like to see all the sadists off the police forces of America and all the metrosexuals be forced to do an honest day's labor where they actually have to get their manicured nails dirty. I want to see Burma Shave signs on the sides of highways.

So what? I also want lower taxes and a VERY strong national defense. Give me that and you get my vote.


The silly thing about all the anger over internet gambling is, a law won't be able to stop it. There are payment companies that are offshore, they disguise what they do, and they will transfer the payments. There will be a brief adjustment time, while the offshore casinos change over to different payment systems. This is all a show - for nothing.

Most credit card issuers won't take the charges anyway, if they recognize that it's gambling, because the disputes and chargebacks are horrendous.

I laugh every time they do something like this.

They did it with cigarettes and prescription drugs - didn't even slow them down.

Sara (Squiggler)

The sad thing about Reynolds, Malkin, Morrisey, and the boys at PowerLine and a few others is that they'll get lots of cheerleaders telling them how great what they wrote is. And they'll believe it. But, they should take a hard look at who is doing the cheering. It is not the grass roots or the base. They are sell outs so they can play with who they think are the big boys. They sell out so they can get columns in the print media or so they get asked to be on Reliable Sources or CNN something or other. They sell out so they get asked back to play devil's advocate to some other TV pundit.

They don't speak for me or anyone around me that I've talked to. And I live in California. We are supposed to be the bluest of blue states. Funny, my Congresswoman, a Republican, will win easily and our governor is up by at least 13 points over the dem. And Duke Cunningham went to jail and his seat was supposed to be an easy dem. win because of the scandal, but last I looked, his District still has a Congressman with an (R) after his name.


Well, neither Glenn nor Michelle allow comments, but Ed does. It's good to see how the commenters react to the blogger's views.

I was so angry at Glenn that I started an email but I couldn't get my words right. So then went over to YARGB and wrote a comment about it. But the comment didn't go through. I think Blogger doesn't allow certain words. :)

What I don't understand is WHY the gloom and doom and fatalism. At least TM has the right idea and shows the minutae of the changes in polling in the last couple of weeks.

I mean when insiders said the internal polls say we could lose 7-20 seats everyone fainted. I thought 13 was the magic number--so we could win just as easily as lose.

BTW, that gambling thing affects 23 million people so I don't think it's something to just dismiss. We'll see.


You're on a roll tonight, Sara. (Uh oh. This is kind of a gambling reference and this is the internet, so am I banned?)


The gambling thing may well be very big to a lot of people. As may be any of the things Glenn listed, or Michelle would list, or Rich Lowrey would list. Their lists would differ from a list a Kossack would put together about why Reps lost.
The thing is, every person has her own important issues. What I have a problem with is these bloggers thinking their list is *the* list. Like Tony Snow said about Washington memoir books- they should all be titled If only they'd listened to ME

I don't like the idea that whoever can start the biggest blog meme wins, no matter how ill-informed they may be, no matter how principled their opponent's opinion may be. I don't like the trick of blaming whomever they've attacked for not being prepared for the broadside.

If Glenn and Michelle and NRO start to think my readership means I want them to lead my movement, I'll stop reading.



"They should have listened to the blogs, man!" is driving me crazy. It's the same as saying, "they should have listened to me"

They should listend to you!


--Just like Michelle Malkin. Just like Glenn Reynolds today, or Ed Morrisey last week over some supposed outrage about Foley.--

ONE thing Conservatives should point out an be proud about conservative bloggers vs. the echo chamber of leftist blogs?

Conservatives are innately more honest in self criticism and aren't afraid to criticize.

All I see on the echo chambers of the leftist is the willingness to compromise principle if silence means winning and the ONLY criticisms I see are when a Democrats strays from TownHouses militants rules.


Poor TM-- we've probably destroyed your chances of getting good links on your very thoughtful post!.

I actually respect Reynolds a lot, I'm just very irritated by this bit.

Crunchy Frog

You people who are bitching about immigration being a major focus of the blogging community need to get the hell out of the beltway. We here in SoCal are getting absolutely KILLED by the influx of illegals, who cost the state of California $10 Billion annually. Our schools are overcrowded, our hospitals and emergency rooms are closing, and the roads and traffic are ridiculous. Let me tell you, that May 1 "Day without (illegal) immigrants" was HEAVEN. It actually took me less than an hour to get to work!

The GOP's problem with illegal immigration is that it has been bought off by the agribusiness and construction lobbies, and refuses to listen to the 70% of the general public (85% Republican) that wants the damn wall built NOW. Panty-waisted waffling by the White House and Senate leadership is driving everyone who gives a damn absolutely crazy.

Terry Schiavo? Harriet Miers? Dubai? Please. None of these even registered with anyone other than political junkies anyways, and were long forgotten about two weeks after the fact. But just try going into your local Home Depot (especially in the AM) without having to pass by a couple dozen illegals looking for work.


Funny you folks should mention ACORN. It seems they have been registering dead people in MO.

Internet gambling is a big deal? Really?

Here's the way I see it. In MO you can gamble on the riverboats. Period. Now, to me the internet gambling supercedes the state law. How can that stand?


What I don't understand is WHY the gloom and doom and fatalism.

Because people like to bitch, simple as that. I used to be a service technician working on heating and air conditioning systems on cars. Most of it was pretty high end stuff. It got to the point that we had to take pictures of the cars when they came in to prove we hadn't scratched their baby. Everybody likes to complain, very few like to give a compement. I try to be one of the few!!!

Sara (Squiggler)

WaPo via Drudge:

White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects Self-Assurance of Bush, Rove and Others Is Not Shared by Many in the Party

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 15, 2006; A04

Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more. But party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats -- shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats for the first time since the 1994 elections and probably hobble the balance of Bush's second term.

In the Senate, Rove and associates believe, a Democratic victory would require the opposition to "run the table," as one official put it, to pick up the necessary six seats -- a prospect the White House seems to regard as nearly inconceivable.

The Mark Foley page scandal and its fallout have many Republicans panicked, but Rove professes to be taking it in stride. "The data we are seeing from individual races and the national polls would tend to indicate that people can divorce Foley's personal action from the party," he said in a brief interview Thursday.

The official White House line of supreme self-assurance comes from the top down. Bush has publicly and privately banished any talk of losing the GOP majorities, in part to squelch any loss of nerve among his legions. Come January, he said last week, "We'll have a Republican speaker and a Republican leader of the Senate."

The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence -- based on Bush's and Rove's electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command -- or of self-delusion. Even many Republicans suspect the latter. Three GOP strategists with close ties to the White House flatly predicted the loss of the House, though they would not do so on the record for fear of offending senior Bush aides.

At this point in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, Bush was on the offensive, racing around the country and providing public lifts to many candidates. This year, by contrast, is mostly about defense. Bush lately has been stumping for vulnerable House Republicans who, only a few weeks ago, seemed safe for reelection. Meanwhile, Bush' s own unpopularity has made House and Senate campaigns think twice about using him.

"You have to be careful where you take him," said an adviser to a GOP candidate in a close Senate race. In the past, this source said, the White House usually dictated where the president went. "They are probably more cooperative. They will go into the places and formats we suggest," he added.

To Rove and the small cadre of operatives who have been at his side throughout the administration -- including Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and White House political director Sara Taylor -- confidence flows from a conviction that a political operation that has produced three consecutive national victories is capable of one more, despite voter disaffection with Iraq and GOP scandals in Washington.

Republican officials say the three closely coordinate strategy, with constant e-mails and a daily conference call. They see this familiarity -- in many respects it is the same team leading GOP strategy as in the past two elections -- as one advantage they have over Democrats, whose leaders on Capitol Hill and national party officials have been at odds on strategy.

So far, there have been few surprises in the Bush-Rove playbook, which seems little changed over the past four years. It includes tapping the powers of incumbency, mobilizing Christian conservatives and others in the GOP base, and seeking to polarize the electorate around national security and taxes. A huge effort to raise money by Bush, Vice President Cheney and first lady Laura Bush seems to be paying off: By Taylor's calculation, the various GOP campaigns and party committees will have a $55 million money advantage in the final three weeks of the campaign.

The RNC is also planning another big get-out-the-vote drive in the final three days before the elections. Rove believes that many of the polls in individual House and Senate races understate what he expects to be a GOP advantage in turnout, according to one party strategist who has heard him discuss the midterms.

Taylor, an Iowa native and protege of Mehlman's, said the administration recognized long ago that this would be a difficult campaign, coming in the sixth year of a presidency. "History suggests this will be a tough year for us," she said. "But at some point, the weight of our structural advantages makes up ground. And the message is really more important than all of that. When it comes to the war on terror, people have confidence in the policies that are keeping the country safe."

Polling suggests that may be changing -- the recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of terrorism, the lowest number he has ever received on what has been a signature strength. But in every campaign appearance, Bush continues to attack Democrats for being purportedly soft on national security.

The frustration for the White House is that, until two weeks ago, the Bush-Rove plan seemed to be having an impact. The White House used the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as an opportunity to redefine the Nov. 7 elections around the terrorism issue. A modest uptick in Bush's approval ratings followed, and GOP lawmakers began to feel better about their prospects.

But recent events combined to change the campaign conversation. These include the leak of a classified intelligence document suggesting that the Iraq war was complicating the fight against terrorism, a Bob Woodward book alleging administration deceptions about the war, and -- perhaps most critically -- the Foley scandal, which raised questions about whether the GOP tolerated the abuse of minors to protect one of its own.

Nonetheless, White House officials say the president plans to use the final weeks of the campaign to try to reshape the national agenda and to help as many candidates as he can, starting this week with fundraisers for Sen. George Allen (Va.) and Rep. Don Sherwood (Pa.), who is in trouble after admitting an extramarital affair.

"The president is going to be articulating the big issues and do so in a way that grabs people's attention," Rove said, although he quickly added that he believes many of the races will turn on local issues.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, predicted that it will not work: "The bottom line is that people are tired of the president and his policies, and he has been unable to escape it."

He voiced skepticism that Bush is helping Republicans much, despite what he concedes is the president's fundraising prowess. "Most candidates don't want to show up in public with him, and those that do are embarrassed," Schumer said. "If Bush were popular, these races would not be close."

A key focus is Tennessee, central to GOP hopes of holding the Senate, where Republican Bob Corker is locked in an expectedly tight race with Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D). Bush has visited there twice, and Republicans anticipate another visit from Bush and the first lady. White House officials have also pushed Corker to go after Ford more aggressively.

Taylor, who with Rove helps determine Bush's political travel, said the president has helped raise money for some of the most endangered GOP House incumbents, such as Reps. Heather A. Wilson (N.M.) and E. Clay Shaw Jr. (Fla.). Some of Bush's focus more recently has been on helping GOP candidates who are in less intensely competitive districts, she said, citing recent presidential stops on behalf of California Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo. "For Democrats to take back control of the House, they have to go to this outer ring," she said. "One of the things that's important now is to make sure this outer tier is solid and candidates have the resources they need."

Amy Walter, who tracks the House races for the Cook Political Report, views such stops differently. "It speaks to the fact that there are Republican districts that are now in serious jeopardy," she said.


70% of the general public (85% Republican) that wants the damn wall built NOW. Panty-waisted waffling by the White House and Senate leadership is driving everyone who gives a damn absolutely crazy

So ... now that the wall bill is passed, that must mean a big big win for Republicans with all those grateful immigration hawks ready to reward them.

Sara (Squiggler)

Crunchy Frog -- EXACTLY!


So...in reading through all the gripes at the GOP, has anyone got a flipping clue what the Dem platform is?

- other than monitoring Gay republicans internet communications and endless hearings and investigations as to why the CIA was so lousy, but god-dammit when did the WH know the CIA sucked butt and WHY didn't the WH tell us? - investigations.

Because I have not heard ONE bit of a Dem Plan.


---The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence -- based on Bush's and Rove's electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command -- or of self-delusion.---


See Rick Ballard's comment ...#2 of this thread...

..."Oh, I'll trudge to the polls and vote, all right. But don't anyone dare send me a fundraising appeal."

S'OK - your carcass at the polls is all that is needed.

BTW - Does it look like this tremendous Dem wave is going to knock out Johnson or Shays or Simmons or Rell? After all CT is true blue, so there should be a 4 seat pickup, right?

Or maybe there's just a tad of hype floating in the air.

The RNCC spent $9M on advertising on Friday. The DCCC is keeping their powder dry for another week. Possibly another six weeks, given the intelligence of the party leaders.

A week from today the "in a surprising turnaround" stories start, followed by the "this couldn't have been forseen last month" follwed by the "a late surge has switched the momentum" follwed by "this is a real shocker" follwed by "we wuz robbed".

Here is the RCP "danger list. Quick, pick 15 Dem "sure things" in the House races and get your money down.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 14, 2006 at 05:16 PM

remember that little Prowler bit about the Dems and CREW shooting their wad a bit too soon? Why did they make that shot too soon? OH...because the GOP was cleaning their clock on internals...as much as the MSM wants it all to be true - it's cacooning "doom and gloom" stories and when the stat just doesn't add up? Read Rick.

Sara (Squiggler)

The key words in the WaPo article are "the Republican establishment." There is no difference between Dem or Repub ESTABLISHMENT. They are all self-centered fools. Now go out and ask the guy who has worn the uniform for his country, ask the everyday citizen whether Harriet Miers or fighting terrorists is more important to them.


the lesser of two evils

Welcome to democracy, TM- an idealist at heart;>). When is it ever not that? Got a better alternative?

Sara (Squiggler)

And one more thing and then I'm off my soap box. Ask those same people if they want the Clinton foreign policy of toasting Kim Jong-il and giving in to the little tyrant twerp, or whether they prefer a get tough, stand tough policy that gets the Chinese, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Russians onboard. Ask them if they would rather we do it Kerry's French way, or George Bush's "dead or alive" way. And ask them if they really want to go back to the Carter Doctrine. Remember what those years were like? God help us all.



Your analogy was incredible! Until the last line I thought it was an analogy about national security. The twist at the end makes it more powerful. It's pretty sad how true that is.

Sara (Squiggler)

We need more like Pletka

I wish I'd seen it.



THANK you for that link!

After reading the entire post then seeing the update...I realized that liberal braintrust really is derived from dumbass celebrities!

...In fact, it seems to me that America needs a lot more experts like her on the airwaves, and a lot fewer pretenders like Bill Maher, Ben Affleck, Alec Baldwin, and Barbra Streisand whose lack of intellectual capacity and political acumen add precious little to the discussion the nation is engaged in during such a complex period in its history.

Maher is not a stupid person...I can only think his guest list is ego padding/


Why have elections lets just let the NYTimes take a poll, I am sure they will do it fair.

Speaker Pelosi, got a good ring to it, like a gay pride parade, sounds nice, until you actually see one and realize, the pride is just busting out all over the place.

I return you to the regularly scheduled Democrats gay witch hunt, in progress.


Also...I think the suit worn by renown foreign policy scholar/expert Affleck really, really worked.../sarcasm off.

Well... one thing to remember at the booth.. Affleck's bona fides really ARE the hiring equivalent/threshold of a Clinton Administration.

Sara (Squiggler)

I have published my Election Editorial that I posted way upthread. I'm not blowing my own horn since you all have read it, but I've added at the end of my post a Reliapundit link excerpt and an email I received awhile ago that I wish everyone would read.

Click HERE and scroll down.


What the Republians needs is a good old fashioned Liberal Democrat Memorial service like the one for Paul Wellstone.

Gerry Studds would be a great choice for the Democrats to hold a memorial for. The Democrats could give speeches about how evil Republicans attack and sterotype homosexuals.

We could hear glowing eulogies to the old page rapist himself, who never stooped low enough to actuall send a page an e-mail sking for a picture.


Meanwhile, back at Democrat Morals Central:


San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's new squeeze, Brittanie Mountz, just turned 20 last month -- and that raises a couple of questions about the couple's nights on the town.

The biggest question is whether Mountz has been drinking, and it's been swirling since the pair made their first public appearance and walked down the red carpet together at the San Francisco Symphony in September.

At the time, Mountz had a MySpace page that said she was 19. ((OHHH, HOW CUTE, THE LITTLE DARLING HAS A MY SPACE PAGE ))

But according to the Sonoma County registrar of voters, the Rohnert Park resident turned 20 on Sept. 17 -- three weeks and two days before Newsom turned 39.

A model by day, by night the Sonoma State alum works as a hostess at San Francisco's trendy Aqua restaurant, where she and the mayor met.

Photos of Mountz holding a wine glass during the opening of the new Westfield San Francisco Shopping Center, where Newsom also made an appearance, raised some eyebrows.

The photos had been posted on society photographer Drew Altizer's Web site this past week. After Chronicle City Hall reporter Cecilia Vega began asking whether Mountz had been drinking alcohol at an event where the mayor was present...





Two things I've noticed in the McCaskill/Talent race.

1) Liberals do not like called being Liberals!!!(even when their statements back up the label)

2) Liberal Democratic organizations can't be honest in their ads, not even a little bit.

3) There is not enough talk about policy from either side.(although I realize that is hard in a 60 second soundbit)

From the ads it almost sounds like the two candidates are pretty much politically the same. If you actually know their stands, there is a huge difference. If the Dem's would start being honest about their positions, they would be down 60 seats in a heartbeat.


I'm not that worried. As Mort Kondracke mentioned last night, this is the 6th year into a Presidency, and historically speaking the Republicans are doing better than the average for the past 30+ years.

But having said that I believe what clarice said is true. The Dems are still worried, which makes one believe they don't believe the polls either. Let's face most all polling is taken by liberal leaning organizations, and usually don't ever come true... there's something in those numbers the Dems don't like!

I believe this election is a local thing, and here in CT. our Nancy Johnson will be re-elected... nobody is blaming her for the Foley thing, etc..

Maybe I trust Rove too much, but I do believe there is a method to his madness!


The Democrat mayors 19 year old girlfriands proclaimed on her MySpace site that she GET(s) CRUNKED, DO AWESOME THINGS AND FORGET ABOUT THEM BEFORE MORNING.

Of course, Crunked mean getting HIGH and DRUNK at the same time. Quite the lady the Mayor has picked up, and at just 19...

Don't the Democrats have a HIGHER moral standard then Mark Foley??


Crunchy Frog:

I am not saying that immigration is not important. But most people support comprehensive reform and that does not mean that they all "sold out". I support it and I did not sell out. I just do not see why people have to be so damn nasty about it. Most people do not get into the details that much. They support overall reform and better security at the border, the rest is just detail to them. The two are not inherently mutually exclusive.

My point is that people got a lot nasier than was necessary and that just alienates people.


Terrye: """My point is that people got a lot nasier than was necessary and that just alienates people"""

Comprehensive means nothing more then giving illegal invaders amnesty and a free ride to citizenship while those that follow the law are punished.

Sorry if people get nasty, but an illegal invader ran my 76 year old mother off the road and into a bank building. Of course since they were here illegally, they had no license, no insurance, and when they went to court, all of the sudden, they couldn't speak any english.

People get nasty because they see their government failing to protect them by upholding existing laws. We had 19 terrorists attack our citizens on Sept 11th and look at the lenghts this government has gone to repel that invasion.


Internet gambling - I'm still shaking my head is disbelief over that one. The most polite thing I can say is that there are some very unserious people in this country.

Oh I understand the revolt about internet gambling. The prohibition is dumb since if handled properly the tax revenues generated would be enormous. And it feels like another government in the bedroom move to a lot of people.

My bitch is with the media - In a fair fight, the democrats would be laughed out of office.


Is anyone picking up on this today?


NPR has a headline on google news calling studs a Congressional Pioneer. Nuff said.


-- Most people do not get into the details that much. --

-- people got a lot nastier than was necessary ... --

I think the two go hand in hand. Politically inclined people like to argue, and, I think lack the intelligence and/or patience to get into the details.

Not that it matters much, elections are glorified high-school popularity contests. Very few voters have a clue, thanks to crappy media, and the aforementioned absence of understanding the details, where the rubber meets the road.

I'll throw in my two cents, although it's not worth even that much. The internet gambling thing bothers me because of the process by which it was passed. Likewise the revisions to the Insurrection Act, passed with no public debate. Likewise the smokescreen erected around the detainee interrogation and tribunal act; and around immigration and the inexorable forces that will eventually result in a North American Union. If one looks, one will see both sides lying their asses off.

The Democrats are worse, but I am underwhelmed and unhappy with the Republican elites too.



Oh puhleaze. This is my point. The other day I was talking to an man who raises water melons, he as for years. He is selling out because half his crop rotted in the fields this year because no one around here would pick it, the Mexicans finally showed up and picked the other half. He has had enough after a lifetime of farming.

I was run off the road by a drunk who lives a mile and a half from me and was born right here in this county, what does that have to do with anything?

My point is that most people do not get into the details that much. They do support tougher border security but they don't get really insane about the nannies and roofers. But when people make a point of picking a fight with them when it is completely unnecessary to do so just because they can not stand it when someone disagrees with them, that only makes it more difficult to get the wall.

But it looks like you did get your wall. Now instead of going out of your way to piss off someone who plans to vote for one of the Republicans who voted for your wall maybe you should just ease up a little.



Brent Bozell makes a good point...liberals have no RIGHT to be outraged by mark Foley, unfortunately the Republicans are too scared to take them on, on this very issue.

The President himslef should address the Democrat leadership directlhy and tell them, the Republicans HAVE been cleaning up their house whenever abuses have been found.. But the Democrats have been protecting their perverts for decades.


I have heard that the Russian mafia and international terrorists are into that gambling. That might have something to do with it too.

But it is still a dumb issue. I work in health care. The pundits like Reynolds might care about some new drug that will keep them young forever or something but most people just worry about being able to afford pescriptions and pay doctor's visits. Hospital bills are so high as to be laughable.

Now which do you think most people care about? Internet gambling or the cost of health care?


These right of center pundits who are backing away from Republicans right now are not individuals I would want beside me in a fight. Nobody gets 100% of what they want out of a politician and our Republicans in congress have had to deal with bullshit tactics from the other side of the aisle. I'm straight ticket and will do it with a smile on my face. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.


If one looks, one will see both sides lying their asses off.

The senators for my state and the representitive for my district are all democrats so nobody I voted for engages in the sausage making of congress. AFAIC mox nix. Representitive democracy is what it is and the survivors adapt to the environment.

Jane says "In a fair fight, the democrats would ..." get their butts kicked. Tolerating a degree of unfairness when winning despite the disadvantage is understandable. When the winning anyway stops arguments like "we coulda still won by being MORE PERFECT" sounds like loser speak.

It is what it is and we are who we are. Fairness is not an absolute, it is simply the rules both sides agree to abide by. There is no such thing as one side fighting "fair". One side can stick to rules the other has abandoned but "fair" does not apply.

If it's all just a game and wonk entertainment, no big deal. When bigger issues are at stake, like natural selection, it's ok to play for keeps.


Jane, I suspect that the gambling thing has been pushed by the US casino industry and their lobbyists... they don't want any competition - especially foreign.

SunnyDay with regards to Weldon.... of course the MSM will spend the time on this, but won't go near Harry Reid. My guess is that Reid and the MSM are taking a shot over the bow of the GOP. It's sickening!


Judging by the fact that you can hardly make it through the TV channels without seeing at least one "championship tournament," it seems a lot of people must be playing at Texas Hold 'Em poker sites nowadays. I'm not sure if they're more the Republican or Democrat type, but I'd bet they're all pretty pissed off, and it doesn't help their view of Republicans that the ban was tucked into a defense bill, and wasn't widely discussed.


For sake of clarity I should have written:

Tolerating a degree of unfairness when winning despite the disadvantage is understandable. When winning anyway is no loger possible, arguments like "we coulda still won by being MORE PERFECT" sounds like loser speak.

-- Fairness is not an absolute, it is simply the rules both sides agree to abide by. --

Ahh, but the sides don't agree, see for example the charge that "we kick our guys out, but you circle the wagons for your (on behavior or conduct XYZ). Pointing out that difference is intended to appeal to "moral absolutes" voters.

Said another way, the very fact that the two sides disagree as to what constitutes "fair play" is itself part of the election campaign soup-mix.

At any rate, politics is a game played more on the emotional level than on the rational level.


Ahh, but the sides don't agree

When both play by a different set of rules, and one side's rules are very "flexible" then fairness is not really possible. Ultimately democracy isn't about fairness, but if the different rule sets become too disjoint, democracy breaks down.

At some point you have to decide between the democracy and the rules your side plays by. When they move their rule set down the ladder, it may be necessary to track them. Doesn't have to be the same ladder.


this is a Townhouse type deal right??

a memo has been sent to all righty bloggers to embrace the gloom and doom, predict defeat and start talking about "Speaker Pelosi"

then we defrost Osama next week...

The comments to this entry are closed.