The Blue Pages

Cue the Violins: A Matthew Jerome Hiatus

2006-12-27T20:04:00.000-05:00

I have to give the bad news today that this will be my last blog post, at least for a while.

Say what? Yeah, it is true. Don't slam your head against your keyboard in anger--it can't bring the Blue Pages back.

I am pretty bummed about this and I'm actually surprsingly sad as I write this post. But I've come to the conclusion that this is necessary for two important reasons. Let me 'splain:

1) Potential Conflict of Interest. I've wanted my blog to be an accurate representation of my opinions, and never a propaganda arm. And I feel it has been just that. However, I currently work with a Democratic political organization, and with a new electoral cycle starting up (a presidential one, no less), I am worried that I may have opinions that are opposed to those for which my firm works. Sure, I write with a pen name and have never named the organization I work for, but it wouldn't be rocket science if someone wanted to try to figure it out.

So, that left me with three options; either refuse to write about campaigns that my firm is involved in (even though campaigns are the things I am most excited about), write about clients my firm works with only in a favorable light, or continue to keep my fingers crossed that no one would ever make the connection. All 3 options are unacceptable to me, so I had to choose the none-of-the-above option.

2) Time vs. Quality. When I began this blog, I was employed part time while taking grad school classes. This was the case through August 2006, when I decided to work full time and take grad classes. Almost instantly, the amount of free time I had to write this blog dropped, yet my excitement during the election season allowed me to quickly jot down thoughts and get some of the energy out that I would've spent thinking about politics anyway.

Now, however, I am finding it more difficult to blog in my spare time. It is always a pet peeve of mine when other blogs aren't updated frequently, or when my own blog isn't updated frequently; it makes for a less-than-quality product. So again I saw two realistic options; either I post whenever I can, which may only be once a week, or I post frequently but with questionable quality. Again, I found both options unacceptable.

SO--what does this mean to my eight or nine fans?

Well, I really have loved this Matthew Jerome experiment, and I am not done with it. I may be able to be a contributor on another blog (where I wouldn't have to cover the whole gamut of politics and thus have to omit issues that there are conflicts of interest on). I may write a different blog with only a partial focus on politics. The point is that this has been kind of addictive for me, so I highly doubt that I'll never go back in some form. I just need to figure out what that form is.

That's why I've mentioned in the title that this is a hiatus--I do plan to come back.

In the meantime, if I can talk highly about myself a bit, I'm pretty proud of this blog. I don't think anyone can doubt that I was personally responsible for the overwhelming Democratic wave that swept the country this past year.

Well, maybe not--but still, I think I was able to intelligently and interestingly address politics without being too reactionary-partisan. And I'm glad to have connected up with many other bloggers, and to have had some really intelligent discussions and debates in the comments section. And it was pretty gratifying that people seemed to enjoy what I have to say and the manner in which I say it.

Blah blah blah.

So, stay tuned, because I do plan to continue in some fashion. But for now, we'll have to gently tuck the Blue Pages to bed, sneak out, wait for 15 minutes, sneak back in, and smother it with a pillow until it can't breathe anymore. Wow--that was a violent end. Sort of didn't expect that.

But in all seriousness, many thanks to all for being a part of this very fun part of my life, and I'll be back when I think of something else to do. Here's to a successful Democratic Congress in '06 and a Dem victory in '08.

Matthew Jerome

The Cyber Hammer is a Comedian

2006-12-21T08:25:00.000-05:00

Tom DeLay has a blog. The aptly name TomDeLay.com is the disgraced former Republican's main media mouthpiece these days. It is an interesting experiment, in all seriousness, as I don't know that many politicians keep blogs that are as uncensored as his is (that is, it is common for candidates and elected officials to have blogs these days, but really they are mostly just press releases being written by their assistants).

My guess is that Tom sees the netroots angle, which he hasn't really engaged in before, as the way for him to fester under the radar for a few years until he regains his power and the time is right for his reemergence, sort of like Voldemort. So who knows, stranger things have happened, and this may be a way for DeLay to connect with the right-wingers to become influential again. (Sample comment from one fan on his blog: "I have hardly seen as eloquent a rebuttal to [Nancy Pelosi's] antics at this. Nice work. Now...RUN FOR PRESIDENT!" Yikes!)

However, this post by DeLay is funny. Specifically, the following lines, if you keep in mind the author: "By hand-picking Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) to do in her longtime rival Hoyer, Nancy seemed to forget all about the ‘culture of corruption’ that she blamed on the House Republicans (and me in particular). Instead she went to bat for Murtha, her trusted henchman, whose screen credits include appearing to be holding out for a better deal in the FBI’s ABSCAM bribery sting. Compounding her problems, one of her less subtle allies, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) was reported by even the liberal Washington Post to have made not-so-veiled threats on behalf of the Pelosi/Murtha team."

There you have it, folks--Tom DeLay, the king of corruption, cronyism, and strong-arm tactics, speaking out against corruption, cronyism, and strong-arm tactics. I don't even necessarily disagree with DeLay on these points (except for his assertion that Murtha was "holding out for a better deal" in ABSCAM), but it is amazing that after all that has happened with DeLay, after he resigned in disgrace, and arguably precipitated the downfall of Congressional Republicans, that he would still not get it. DeLay has the nerve to criticize someone for the evils for which he was most infamous. And that actually makes me laugh.

Van Holla

2006-12-20T07:57:00.000-05:00

Progressive wonder-boy Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), whom I campaigned for as a volunteer in 2002 and am now represented by since I moved to Bethesda, was just named head of the DCCC, or the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He is succeeding Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), whom he worked with as a DCCC deputy during this past cycle.

Here's the story. And here's a picture of him in the lunch room at my high school which for some reason the administration called the SAC. (The lunchroom was called the SAC--not the high school, which was called Montgomery Blair).

For those who don't know, the DCCC chair is the Democratic member of the House that is responsible for allocating funds and candidate recruitment in Congress. An ineffective chair may produce a nationwide slate of weak candidates. This cycle, Democrats put up very strong candidates and were able to win 30 House seats, largely because the candidates were particularly strong, and because of smart strategic decisions regarding resource allocation.

So, this is very cool. Van Hollen won two tough elections as an underdog in 2002. He beat the heavily favored Mark Shriver (of Kennedy fame) in the primary by organizing a strong grassroots base, and he then beat multi-term Republican incumbent Connie Morella in the general by taking advantage of a gerrymandered district (hey, its true.) He fits the bill well--he is very polished, he's intelligent, and he knows how to win tough races against strong candidates, which is just what you need in a DCCC chair if you want to win races.

Van Hollen may have a bigger challenge than Rahm had, because Rahm had the benefit of only having to play any kind of defense at all on 3 seats (which he successfully defended). However, Republicans are already targeting many of the seats they lost which are in reliably Republican areas, specifically the former seats of DeLay, Foley, Pombo, and whoever lost in Kansas. And of course, the political environment will be tough to be predict, but its hard to imagine Van Hollen could have a better environment to run Democrats in than Rahm had.

So with Maryland natives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Chris Van Hollen rising to power this electoral cycle, we may be seeing a lot more Old Bay in the House cafeteria (which is still the only thing that I associate with Maryland, despite living here my whole life.) Van Holla!

Me?

2006-12-19T08:00:00.000-05:00

Did you hear the news? I've been named Time Person of the Year. No, really--me. I hope there's some sort of prize money.

Well, more accurately, YOU were named Time Person of the Year, too. "You," you'll see if you follow the link, refers to YouTubers, Bloggers, and other individuals who now have a capacity to affect their country in far greater manner than ever before. The argument is that bloggers helped put funding and momentum behind candidates, George Allen wouldn't have been defeated if it weren't for YouTube, Facebook and MySpace have made it easier for individuals to get their messages out, and blah blah blah.

So congratulations, You. You're right up there with FDR, Deng Xioaping, and Bono.

No offense, You, but I don't think You would've made my list. I might pick Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for being the politicos behind the successful election season (as, respectively, DCCC and DSCC chairs). Or how about Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who is about to become the first female speaker of the House? Or perhaps Rummy, since 2006 was shaped politically by the American public's consensus that Rumsfeld's war has been a complete failure.

Still, as much as this year's person of the year is a nauseoutingly cutesy selection from the geniuses at Time ("I know!! How about YOU!" "Promote this man. Break time!"), there is no doubt that the Internet is really being harnessed as a tool for democracy. But does this make our country better, or worse? Is this something we should be celebrating--that the slightest gaffe will be immortalized and can ruin a public servant's career because someone out there put it up on YouTube, or that the same out-of-context arguments can be cited over and over by rabid partisans? I think there will be some time before we know if the costs outweigh the benefits.

I forgot who brought this up to me, but someone pointed out recently that journalism is really reverting back into what it was at the beginning of the 1900s. Originally, newspapers were blatantly partisan, and that was the expectation--many were paid for by political parties. There were multiple news sources, and people pretty much adhered to the ones with which they agreed. We eventually entered a world of objective journalism, but now with cable and the internet, we've created narrow niche markets to the point that being objective may no longer be financially feasible. That is, when there are 3 news sources on TV, a large segment of the population is up for grabs, so they to appeal more broadly. With 40 cable news stations, they may each have difficulty accessing enough of the market to be profitable, so they have to distinguish themselves, and thus become conservative news or liberal news or whatever. More so with the Internet--what's the most popular "moderate" or "centrist" blog? I don't know, because there probably isn't one.

So, don't get me wrong, I'm proud of You. You clearly affected things, for better or for worse. And at the very least, it will be hard to imagine a larger cop-out for Time in years to go (2007's Person of the Year: Carbon-based Life Forms!)

Oh, and this is funny. When you go to the Time website, you get a Chrysler ad (I don't know if it is still there, but see the Daily Kos, which pointed this out, for the screenshot) before you can proceed to the Person of the Year section. Clearly Chrysler wanted to play off the fact that people would be going to check out person of the year, and wanted to incorporate that into their ad.

So, the first line? "You may not be Time Person of the Year." Wow--they probably thought that one was pretty safe. D'oh!

Senator Johnson is in Critical Condition

2006-12-14T09:07:00.000-05:00

Yesterday afternoon, Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) was taken to the hospital for "stroke-like symptoms." His spokeswoman has announced that he did not have a stroke or a heart attack, but MSNBC is reporting that the Senator is in "critical condition" and according to "unconfirmed reports" is having brain surgery. Reports are kind of flakey so far, as it appears everyone is hush hush, so you have to take this all with a grain of salt. Story here.

Also, a CNN and AP update, c/o a coworker's email: "Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) was diagnosed with a congenital arteriovenous malformation (CNN). He underwent brain surgery last night and is in critical condition. Harry Reid, who went to the hospital, called Johnson 'a "dear friend to me and to all of us' (AP). "

First and foremost, I really hope he comes out ok. I've always liked Senator Johnson. He is one of these decent, earnest, soft-spoken, Midwestern populist types. He's more conservative than your average Democrat, which may be expected in South Dakota. In any case, he must be doing something right: According to SurveyUSA, he has the 9th highest approval rating of all 100 Senators in the Senate, at 70%.

Obviously, there are political implications to this. Let's go through them. (I don't know if it seems crass to discuss these immediately, but let me assure you that it isn't. They are my secondary concern right now, but obviously this man's health affects the country, so it is important to look at what may happen.)

A) If Senator Johnson dies or resigns, South Dakota state law allows Republican Governor Mike Rounds to choose Johnson's successor. In all likelihood, Rounds will choose a Republican to fill Johnson's seat, making the Senate 50/50 for D's and R's. With VP Cheney as the tiebreaker, this gives the Republicans the Senate back.

B) If Johnson is too ill to serve but decides not to resign, then he keeps the seat, and the Democrats keep the Senate. The 17th Amendment of the Constitution allows state legislatures to empower their executive to choose successors in the case of "vacancies," but being too ill to serve does not make the seat vacant. (Recently, Strom Thurmond and Jim Jeffords both were arguably too ill to serve yet held onto their seats.)

Let's hope that it doesn't come to either of these; not because of the political consequences, but because of the man's health.

Uno Mas!

2006-12-13T08:22:00.000-05:00

Take out your Jeromegress scorecards, everybody--The Dems have picked up another House seat. (Actually, don't take out your Jeromegress scorecards--those scores are final! Besides, Adam already gave his concession speech, and that's a prize that can't be taken away).

Former Democratic Congressman Ciro Rodriguez beat 7-term Republican Henry Bonilla in the 23rd District of Texas yesterday (AP story here). In the general election, Bonilla got 48% of the vote and Rodriguez split the other 52% with about 8 candidates (Rodriguez himself lead the pack with 20%). I've had a hard time finding official results, but Rodriguez won pretty convincingly, with anywhere from 54-57% of the vote. So, interestingly, Bonilla got a lower share of the vote in the run-off than he did in the general.

What is there to say about this race? No, seriously, what is there to say? I don't know much about either candidate. I've heard that Rodriguez is a moderate-to-conservative Democrat, but I suppose you have to be in Texas. But it is nice to get this cherry on top to the hot fudge sundae that was the 2006 Democratic wave.

This election did not mean that Texas is turning blue, or more liberal, or anything like that. But it did mean that under the right circumstances, Democrats can win in gerrymandered Texas districts without running against, oh, let's say, a write-in Republican candidate with a hard-to-spell name and a Katherine Harris personality (that would be Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who actually served the rest of Tom DeLay's lame duck term and had DeLay's entire staff quit on her within the first couple of days.)

This puts the Democratic pick-up in the House at 31 (but really 30, since one of the seats they "picked-up" was from Independent Bernie Sanders, who was caucusing with them anyway). The only undecided race is Florida 13, Katherine Harris' old district, where the election results are rightfully disputed. And about Florida 13, I'm amazed I haven't blogged about this. I'm a bit behind the times on the story, but basically, the whole thing is a huge mess.

As it stands, Republican Vern Buchanan narrowly edged out Christine Jennings, with both receiving about 50% of the vote and Buchanan leading by a mere 373 votes. However, some 18,000 voters in the district voted on electronic machines for Senate and Governor and down-ballot races, but oddly they decided not to vote in the House race. Everyone agrees that something went wrong, but the question becomes waes it merely a glitch or was it a theft of Democratic votes? When you consider that those 18,000 voters split for Democrat candidates at the top of the ballot about 60-40, which would have easily been enough for Jennings assuming they broke similarly in the House race, it looks pretty suspicious.

So we'll wait to see what happens with that election. In the meantime, let's celebrate election night once more with the addition of Ciro.

A Bipartisan Solution to Iraq?

2006-12-12T13:29:00.000-05:00

Interesting op-ed in the LA Times today by GOP consultant Mike Murphy on what Bush should do next in his conduct of the Iraq War. The gist of his argument: Bush needs to draft Democrats to help him run the war in Iraq.

Murphy says: "[Bush] should establish a bipartisan war council made up of his national security team and the Democratic leaders of the key national security committees in Congress. Under the president's leadership, this council would conduct the Iraq war, becoming the key coordinating vehicle for Iraqi policy. The president would not cede his authority as commander in chief, but he would work with this group — which would include such leaders as Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Reps. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) — to develop a consensus policy for Iraq."

He continues: "The war in Iraq has become partisan — and partisan wars are impossible to fight successfully. . . . Developing compromise inside such a war council would not be easy. The president would find ceding power a very bitter pill to swallow, and his Democratic critics would find that the Iraq war is much easier to criticize than to manage. But only legitimate bipartisanship can give the president back the authority he needs to move diplomatically and militarily."

So, first, let's get all the criticisms out of the way: this is a radical solution, and an imperfect one, and one that I could not imagine happening in any administration, least of all this one. I'm not crazy about conducting a war by committee either.

But all of that aside, I do like the general principle behind the idea, which is that issues of war and security should rise beyond partisanship. If we give both parties a stake in conducting this war, I think we may start to see solutions that are less partisan and more pragmatist. Additionally, those running the war will hopefully focus more on what the right moves are in the war, as opposed to what their opponents will say about those moves: the bipartisan council would own a decision to withdraw troops just as they would own a decision to increase troops.

This war's been so bungled and disastrous from the beginning, maybe it would take a radical solution like this to really help us make the right decisions over there.

The 2008 W's

2006-12-09T16:13:00.000-05:00

Ok, ok, I guess it is time to start asking questions about the 2008 presidential race. Why not?

Let's use the official First Grade Standard Current Events Format by focusing on the five W's: who, what, when, where, and (sometimes) why.

Who . . . supports Hillary, and how strong is that support? Polls always have her as the clear Dem favorite (with Obama and Edwards making some gains), but is that a product of name recognition? I suspect it is.

What . . . is Joe Biden thinking with his stupid jokes about Delaware being a former slave state? In South Carolina (I think), he recently made some comment about how Delaware would've fought with the south in the civil war if they could've found it, but there were a couple states in the way. Har har. That's not funny, it is weird, and it is politically dangerous. I don't think he really means that he thinks Delaware should've thought with the confederacy, but why is he even going there at all? I actually like Biden and think he'd be a great President, but the guy makes botched jokes every other week (though he actually has a sense of humor to play it off slightly better, unlike Kerry).

When . . . should these candidates formally announce their intentions to run? So far, only scrub candidates (Duncan Hunter, Tom Vilsack) have done it formally, because that is their only prayer for any media attention. But does it really matter whether Hillary announces now or in next September? What about possible insurgent candidates, like Newt Gingrich--should they establish themselves early, or only come when people are tired of the other politicians?

Where . . . are the areas of the country that are truly in play? The 2006 midterms wiped out Republicans in the northeast the way Dems have been wiped-out in non-black areas of the south. The industrial midwest leans pretty strongly Dem these days as well. Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas seem to be toying with a return to Democrats. But most interesting is the libertarian west's distaste for Republicans these days. The most shocking result of the 2006 midterms to me was actually only a near-loss for the Republicans, but the Wyoming congressional race (which is a statewide election since WY has only one congressperson) split 48%-48. That shocks me. Is there really an opportunity for Dems in the west, particularly with libertarians?

Why . . . has no one mentioned what a liability McCain's steadfastly stubborn position on Iraq will be for him in the 2008 presidential race? Do we expect that American sentiment about the war in Iraq will go back up in the next two years? Imagine that we actually pull out most to all of our troops by 2008 against McCain's wishes--do you think he'd suggest that because we shouldn't have left, we should go back in? I think that the conventional wisdom about McCain's strength totally ignores the Iraq issue.

Tap Dancing Penguins? Unpatriotic

2006-12-05T07:04:00.000-05:00

Recently, a Blue Pages fan noticed the dramatic slowdown in posts coming through this blog, and he asked me when I would post again. "When the spirit moves me," I replied.

Well, the spirit hadn't naturally moved me, so I realized that my readership would get anxious if I didn't find some way for the spirit to move me. So, in search of material that would jumpstart me, I traveled on over to www.redstate.com, which I believe is the nation's most read conservative blog, and is consequently a haven for the lunatic wing of the Republican party.

A cheap shot? Read this post and tell me they aren't nuts.

The post is the author's very earnest attempt to decry Happy Feet as left-wing, environmentalist propaganda. Happy Feet, as you may or may not know, is a movie about penguins that can tap-dance.

Pat Cleary of Redstate writes: "It seems that Hollywood just can't make a kids' movie -- or any movie -- these days without some political angle worked into it. The trailers for 'Happy Feet,' would lead you to believe that it's just another animated film about a bunch of cute little penguins who sing and dance. However, if you believed this, you would be wrong. . .

"When we looked at it closely, we realized that the lead penguin (voiced in the movie by Robin Williams) has a six-pack ring around his neck. 'Uh-oh,' we thought, 'Where are they going with this?' Where they were going, of course, is to the place they always go in kids movies -- to propaganda-town."

Hmm. The posting then goes into a highly scientific discussion of why it would be impossible for a penguin to get caught in a six-pack ring ("From the people who make rings, we know this: All of these rings sold worldwide are made from a special non-toxic plastic which is 100% photodegradable. Rings exposed to sun, wind and rain will break apart.") In a glaring omission, however, Redstate does not go into a highly scientific discussion of why it would be impossible for a penguin to TAP DANCE IN A HIGHLY CHOREOGRAPHED MANNER!

And besides, is Redstate's point that the "political angle" here is "Don't litter?" I didn't know the pro-litter faction of the Republican party had gained such strength. Or, publicly, anyway. Maybe they're just so used to freaking out about everything Al Gore says that they've lost their minds entirely. If Al Gore told them not to jump off a cliff, I wonder if they would.

Media Matters, which by the way I hate but occassionally is useful, reminds us that plenty of right-wingers see a conspiracy in Happy Feet. (The Medved link is from USA Today).

Glen Beck: "If you're going to include those themes, the least you could do is tell me, a parent. Tell me about it first, OK, so I know I'm walking into propaganda. I'd like to teach my children how to think for themselves about the issues, including global warming and the environment, instead of having them indoctrinated by some Hollywood director."

Neil Cavuto: "What I found offensive -- I don't care what your stands are on the environment -- is that they shove this in a kids movie. So you hear the penguins are starving, and they're starving because of mean old man, mean old companies, Arctic fishing, a big taboo. And they're foisting this on my kids. . ."

Michael Medved: "Unfortunately, the marketing never acknowledged the movie's unmistakably alarming, discomfiting and politically potent elements — enraging no small number of unprepared parents. . . As children grow and develop, their natural curiosity and ongoing media exposure will lead them inevitably into divisive issues, which all conscientious parents should prepare to help explain. In the earliest stages of life, however, it makes sense to keep them protected from such conflicts and to avoid using preschoolers — and penguins — as the pawns of propaganda."

I have to stress to you that none of these articles--none--are written with an Onion-style tongue-in-cheek sense of humor. They sound like they should be coming from the likes of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, rather than allegedly "respected" conservative pundits. These people are dead-serious, though, and they are outraged.

So, remember, the conservatives stand for, and I quote, avoiding "using preschoolers and penguins as the pawns of propaganda." Whose side are you on?

It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid

2006-11-30T12:01:00.000-05:00

The Hotline (subscription required) has a feature every now and then where they will interview some hotshot political consultant. Today, they interviewed Dawn Laguens, President of the media and communications firm Laguens Hamburger Kelly Klose. I thought one thought was particularly interesting.

The interviewer asked, "What one event in a candidate's past would pose the biggest problem in a campaign?" Laguens responded, "We can probably help you if you have a tax problem, a divorce problem, a drinking problem, even a small Jack Abramoff problem. The overall biggest negative is if you profess to be one thing but are really another."

Makes sense to me.

The conventional wisdom (which, incidentally, is always wrong) seems to be that the Republicans lost in 2006 because of massive corruption, but people forget that Democrats were shopping the Jack Abramoff scandal for the past couple years and could barely get people outside of the beltway to care. The event that really put the nail in the coffin was the Foley scandal--but more than that, it was the fact that all these family values conservatives knew about and willingly covered up Foley's advances toward underage boys. So it wasn't really the corruption in and of itself, but the hypocrisy, that sunk the Republicans.

Civil War, What is it Good For?

2006-11-28T07:49:00.000-05:00

Ok, back from turkey-related festivities.

Yesterday, NBC decided to announce that from now on, it would refer to the sectarian violence in Iraq as a "civil war." In other news, it announced that it would refer to four-legged animals that neigh as "horses," and the giant ball of gas that the earth revolves around as "the sun." (The sun is a giant ball of gas, or something, yes? Can we get fact-checkers on this?)

Matt Lauer, on Monday morning's Today show, said this: "For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war. And, for the most part, news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as a 'civil war.'"

I have mixed feelings. Not on the change in terminology, but on NBC's approach to changing the terminology.

On the one hand, I think this change is warranted. Many on the right (though not all, since many are coming around to the Iraq-was-a-bad-idea-camp) resist this notion that Iraq has fallen into civil war. To me, I think it is pretty obvious that the situation can be characterized as a civil war, but I also think we are arguing semantics here. We have groups that violently hate each other butchering each other each day. We can all agree on that much, right? Whether we all agree to call it sectarian violence or a civil war doesn't change much on the ground, nor should it change our approach. But in any event, it is indeed a civil war.

On the other hand, I'm sort of embarassed for the state of journalism, however, that NBC should have to unveil its characterization of the war in such a deliberate manner, in preparation for the onslaught of so right wingers eager to declare the mainstream media as defeatist. The way NBC came out so deliberately and with its rationale prepared, you get the sense that they are bracing for a storm of protest from certain segments of the population, and journalism shouldn't have to take public pressures like that into consideration.

Anyway, if that wasn't enough for you to be adequately depressed about how bad Iraq is going for us, Tim Russert pointed out the following on Meet the Press this past Sunday: "Today marks the 1,347th day of the war in Iraq, which is the exact length of direct U.S. involvement in the Second World War. Yet in Iraq, there is still no end in sight."

Pretty sobering when you put it that way. Obviously, the death tolls are nowhere near comparable, but this still is indicative of what an unforeseen (or foreseen-but-ignored) disaster this war is becoming.

Blogsgiving

2006-11-22T14:32:00.000-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving! I'll be in Ohio this holiday and probably won't be back in blogging form until Sunday at the earliest. And by "in blogging form" I mean "sitting upright."

In the meantime, turkey legs all around to Democrats that particularly deserved their wins: Martin O'Malley, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Jim McNerney, Ted Strickland, Patrick Murphy, to name a few.

And, in the spirit of bipartisanship, one single yam to Republicans who particularly deserved their losses: George Allen, Ken Blackwell, Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, Bob Ehrlich, Katherine Harris, J.D. Hayworth, Curt Weldon, Don Sherwood, Richard Pombo, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, to name a very, very few.

The Democrats may not solve all the nation's problems. But let's be thankful that we're finally on a different track.

Obama-rama

2006-11-21T12:41:00.000-05:00

It is not too long until an election-starved cadre of pundits and politicos start talking presidential politics for 2008. In fact, in that 7-week period between election day and the day the new Congress is sworn in, there is little else to talk about, politically speaking.

Now, I don't want to get too far ahead of the game, because there is literally an eternity between now and 2008 (and by "literally," I mean, "not literally.") But the following question is worth consideration right now:

Should Barack Obama run for President in 2008?

Obama had as good an October as George Allen had a bad August. His new book was released, he was on the cover of Time, and he was basically the most sought-after Democratic fundraiser to bring in enthusiastic crowds to rev up Democratic bases all over the United States. What's amazing is the man's nationwide popularity began with his overwhelmingly well-received speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention--he was born as a star literally ("not literally") in an instance.

Inevitably, rumblings have emerged for the Democratic party's only star (other than Bill Clinton and Howard Dean, both of whom can't run for Prez in '08) to seek the top office. He made news not by announcing that he'd run for President, but by announcing that he hadn't ruled it out. By the way, I also haven't ruled out running for President in 2008 . . . where's my news story?

Here are a couple reasons Obama should, and shouldn't, run.

Should: Obama has a very rare quality, particularly among Democratic politicians--when he speaks, people want to listen. As opposed to our last couple of nominees; when they spoke, people felt lectured.

Should not: Why now? He's a young guy, and he entered the national stage two short years ago. Maybe the guy is literally a bottle of wine (not literally), who will improve with time. But unlike dinosaurs like McCain or Kerry, Obama doesn't need to rush.

Should: Ideologically, Obama is a liberal Democrat, but I think he's one guy that people think can transcend ideological and partisan labels to get things accomplished. After such a divisive 6 years, we could use someone who is able to pull us together.

Should not: Similar to the previous "should not", Obama may be too inexperienced to preside over foreign policy matters during war time. Or, he may be perceived as such and thus will have difficulty winning.

Should: C'mon, I really like him.

Maybe Should, Maybe Shouldn't: This may be a broader question, and I'm interested to hear people's opinions on this--but do you think a black man can win a nationwide race at this point in history? Since Obama will be around for a long time, he may want to wait another 15 years or so for some of the racists to simply die off. On the other hand, it would no doubt be an landmark moment in our nation's history, and I'd argue he could achieve it now.

Thoughts on Obama-rama?

Jeromegress Picktacular Award Ceremony

2006-11-20T08:30:00.000-05:00

In what I hope now will be the conclusion to a long and drawn-out 2006 Jeromegress Picktacular, I humbly present to Lauren her prize for besting the field of 13: a concession letter from Adam, who placed 2nd in the contest. He was as gracious in defeat as I would expect of him, which you could probably interpret as a compliment or an insult.

"Dear Lauren,

As Neil Sedaka once so memorably sang "Breakin' Up is Hard to Do." Yet, I think what he was really getting at was that losing to you in the 2006 Matthew Jerome Mid-Term Elections Picktacular is "hard to do." Going in to November 7 (or whenever election day was (I'm too lazy to look it up right now)) I felt like I had all the momentum: (1) confidence -- having been a winning member of the 1998 Washington Post Crystal Ball competition (and having picked my House race successfully in that competition) I knew I had a track record of winning. (2) a winning strategy: basically I picked the Senate races according to recent polls and hunches, and the Governors races and House races on how "rednecky" I thought those states were. (3) the support of Charlie Cook who once called me "a god among unknown political pundits, destined to forever change the blogosphere with the astounding accuracy of his picks." In sum, I was on top of the world. But, as George Costanza so famously put it "I flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami."

On election day, I spent the day preparing my transition to my new office as "Inaugural Matthew Jerome Picktacular Picker" (or is the office called "Inaugural Matthew Jerome Picktacular Picktacular Picker"?). I thought about how, having defeated both you and Mr. Jerome I would start my own blog -- one that would combine snarky political commentary and random quotidian musings provided to us in the Blue Pages and LMNOP -- so as to maximize the efficiency of time-wasting.

But as the results started to trickle in that evening I felt a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, which grew into a full-blown stomachache as the evening progressed. I had failed to account for the strength of my opponent, namely your ability to gauge the pulse of the grassroots. I thought back on how "America's Most Fonted" attracted millions of graphic designers to LMNOP from the darkest corners of the internet. These GDs, as they like to be called, descended on the site to worship at the feet of the all-mighty Lauren and her trusty sidekick, the enchanting Ms. Addison-Weemer. I remembered how since that time, these Johnny-come-lately readers have lingered on the site, cropping up at awkward moments like a stubborn case of the clap. And most importantly, I had failed to realize that as go the GDs, so go the country. With your newfound connections to these critical swing voters, it is no doubt that you were able to pick so accurately.

Warmly,
Adam

P.S. I also wanted to mention that the scoring system in the Picktacular was totally screwed (take note, Mr. Jerome: I had a different word that I would have used if I didn't think you wouldn't post it) up. Everyone knows the the Senate seats were the only ones that any person who isn't Charlie Cook could have realistically known anything about, and so it was a mockery that correctly picking a Senate seat was the same as correctly picking a House seat or a Governorship. I think that if the rules had been set up in such a way to reward actual political knowledge I surely would have won."

(MJ's Note: Thank you for your heartfelt concession Adam. I may not agree with your critique of my scoring system, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I would have to respond, though, that any person who knows enough about Charlie Cook to reference him not once, but twice, in a concession letter should probably know enough about politics to be able to come up with reasonably accurate predictions in the House and in the Governorships as well. Similarly, anyone who uses words such as "quotidian" with such ease should really be too smart for this contest in general. Maybe you should apply to law school, or something.

On another note, I too had a full-blown stomachache on election night when I realized my picks just weren't going to hold up. Unfortunately, the timing of these two instances was coincidental; it turns out that I just had a stomach virus that kept me out of work for a couple days and away from our election eve party. I'm not positive it wasn't an attempt by right-wing operatives to poison known Democratic voters before the election, thus rendering them incapable of traveling to the polls. Joke's on them--I voted absentee.)

Fear the Legislative Turtle: Two Marylanders Control the House

2006-11-17T00:59:00.000-05:00

This is awkward.

Steny looks pretty pleased, but I think Nancy's look is priceless. She sure looks happy to be there, holding hands with the man she was trying to take down, but with whom she will now have to govern. Ah well.

By the way, everyone knows that Hoyer and Pelosi are both Marylanders, right? He's served Maryland in Congress for 25 years, and she is the daughter of the former Mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman. Fascinatingly, they both served as interns, simultaneously, for the same Maryland Senator more than 40 years ago. So, us Marylanders have been catapaulted to prominence, with glory that we haven't seen since Spiro Agnew resigned the Vice Presidency for tax evasion. Expect to see more Old Bay in the House cafeteria from now on.

Still, this whole endorsing-Murtha thing has amounted to a pretty bad start for Pelosi. The whole thing looked to be entirely personal. And despite being the most powerful person in the House and writing a letter on Murtha's behalf, Murtha only got 86 votes to Hoyer's 149. So she looks pretty weak to start. I'm not sure what the best way to govern a legislative body is, but it can't help to start with a chip on your shoulder.

The good news is that this is inside baseball stuff that no one outside of the beltway cares about. It will be forgotten in literally about 5 days. And Pelosi will bounce back, almost instantly. She's way tougher than people give her credit for, and in spite of this setback I really have the feeling that she is going to be a highly effective speaker.

Steele's Double Standards

2006-11-16T07:29:00.000-05:00

Michael Steele (R-MD) stressed to us during his Senate campaign that he'd be a different kind of Senator. One that would put pragmatism ahead of party, one who was a straight-shooter who wasn't going to spin and play games.

I personally almost fell for it. Not that I was close to voting for him, but I was close to believing him. But no; the guy's as partisan as anyone in Washington.

Let's compare and contrast Steele's reaction, as an African-American, to two different racially-tinged incidents.

Incident: Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says Senate candidate Michael Steele "slavishly" supports the GOP.
Controversy: Steele, an African-American, takes offense to being called a slave (which Hoyer wasn't really calling him). While it certainly was an unfortunate choice of words (which Hoyer apologized for), few people believe that Steny is actually a racist given that a) he has been reelected by black voters overwhelmingly throughout his entire career, and black voters don't tend to support racists, and b) connotations or not, the word "slavish" is a legitimate word in the english language, far from being a racial slur.
Steele's Take: "It goes to just the sheer craziness of some in the Democratic Party who think they can use racist terms and infer things about me just because I'm an African American Republican."

Ok. Let's compare to a Republican incident:

Incident: Former majority leader Trent Lott (R-MS), who was just elected minority whip (and I'm not the first to point out what an unfortunate title that is for Lott, given HIS history), tells Strom Thurmond at his 100th birthday party, "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Controversy: While Lott was proud of Thurmond's 1948 run, the rest of the country should be embarrased, since his candidacy was based entirely on the segregationist platform. So hearing someone say in 2002 that "we wouldn't have had all these problems" if a segregationist had been elected concerned some, and ultimately led to Lott's resignation.
Steele's Take: "I think, you know, again, that episode behind him. I think he asked for forgiveness and received it from the party and from the country. And I think he's going to make a good leader in the Senate. . . I mean, you know, you can't hold stuff like that against him. It was a birthday event, you know? The guy's sitting there in the chair. What are you going to say? You say nice things. You get caught up in the moment."

Hmm. So Hoyer uses a legitimate word (though, admittedly, unfortunate), and Steele says he and other Democrats are using racial slurs. Lott tells Thurmond that he wished his segregationist ticket had won, and Steele says "The guy's sitting there in the chair . . . You say nice things."

This can only lead to one conclusion: Michael Steele DOES indeed hate puppies.

No, Really, Drain the Swamp

2006-11-15T08:17:00.000-05:00

Ok, I don't know a whole lot about John Murtha's (D-PA) role in ABSCAM. And I don't know a whole lot about why Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) became the 6th judge in our nation's history to be impeached by a federal court. I don't know if there were extenuating circumstances, if these are right-wing "swift-boat type smears." And I've mostly been hearing about these from Hannity, and I haven't really had a lot of time for my brain to go through right-wing detox.

But I will say, if Nancy Pelosi is as serious as I hope she is about "draining the swamp" of ethics that the Republicans are leaving behind, she damn well better make sure the leaders she endorses are ethically sound. And with the caveat that I led this post with, it doesn't look like Murtha and Hastings are ethically sound. Yet they may be about to become, respectively, the majority leader and the chairman on the intelligence committee.

Let me come at it from another direction: the American people finally realized this past election that the Republican leadership were nothing but a bunch of crooks. The Republicans, still licking their wounds, are anxious to point their fingers and say, "Well, you guys are just as bad." So I would think pragmatically there shouldn't even be a whiff of corruption to our leaders, especially when you consider that those leaders were not the logical choices for those positions. Pelosi went out of her way to pass over the logical choices (Steny Hoyer D-MD for majority leader and Jane Harmon D-CA for intelligence chair) to endorse Murtha and Hastings. That sends a pretty strong message that Pelosi is just like the others in terms of valuing cronyism over good governance.

On Murtha, by the way, I understand the appeal for him as majority leader. He really got the ball rolling on the out-of-Iraq movement in a way that it had been difficult for other Democrats to credibly do. But the combination of ethical uncertainty and a record that is not all that progressive aside from his position on Iraq make me hesitant to support him for leader.

This is our opportunity to show we are better than the Republicans, and that we hold ourselves to higher standards. It won't take long for our leadership to become "more of the same" if we are not careful--one thing the Republicans learned this election cycle is that the American public has little tolerance for what they perceive to be hypocrisy. We can't allow that perception to be valid.

What do other people think on Murtha vs. Hoyer, or Hastings vs. Harmon, or any of this new leadership wackiness?

The Results Are In! (Really)

2006-11-13T08:04:00.000-05:00

The Jeromegress Picktacular Results are in! The winner? Democracy.

But more accurately, Lauren of LMNOP was the winner. Congrats Lauren! You are a true American hero. Just like Paul Revere, or Gallagher. (PS, alternate wording of this joke: "Just like Paul Revere, or Carrot Top." Which one should I have gone with?)

Before we dive into the results, I need to explain some peculiarities in scoring that always seem to result from contests like these.

In the House: Democrats technically gained 29 seats on Tuesday that have already been decided. However, they gained 28 of them from Republicans, and 1 from Independent Bernie Sanders, who caucused with the Democrats. The Jeromegress rules state that all Independents are considered Dems, so I do not recognize that as a Democratic pick-up, because it was already considered a Dem seat. So, MJ's rules mean that the Dems won 28 seats, not 29.

NOW . . . Currently, there are a handful of races that are not officially decided. However, all but one of those can be realistically called for either party (they results aren't official because of run-offs or recounts that will almost certainly result in the way we think it will). WA-08 is the only truly undecided race because of voting irregularities that can only happen in the world's oldest representative form of government, but for now we are counting that one for the Republican, who currently leads. So we are counting CT-02 for the Democrat, and every other seat defaults to the party that had it before.

That puts the House at a grand total of 29 seats gained for Dems, by MJ Rules.

If the guys at the Matthew Jerome Decision Desk make any startling announcements about the races, then I will rush in and declare a breaking news alert, but all that will change by adding a Democrat is that the people in 2nd and 3rd place will switch, as will the people in 8th and 9th place.

So . . . Here are the long-awaited results of the 2006 Annual Jeromegress Picktacular. For all scoring rules, see this post.

1st Place: Lauren with 62 points.
2nd Place: Adam with 56 points.
3rd Place: MoCo with 54 points.
4th Place: (Not prize eligible) Matthew Jerome with 53 points.
5th Place: Dave G with 51 points.
6th Place: Cassidy with 50 points.
7th Place: Jemo with 47 points and the tie-breaker (not the dance-off).
8th Place: On Background with 47 points.
9th Place: Mike Raia with 42 points.
10th Place: Ashley with 41 points.
11th Place: Liberal Journal Man with 39 points.
12th Place: D-Money with 38 points.
13th Place: Michelle with 27 points.

Lauren gets the much coveted Matthew Jerome Picktacular Prize, which is . . . a written concession from the contestant who came in 2nd place. I'm not going to say this isn't a bit personal; when I notified Lauren that she won and narrowly beat out Adam, a mutual friend of ours, she said that that was all she wanted. So, Adam, sorry to make you do the legwork here, but I just offer the prizes here, I don't manufacture them. You can send your concession speech to matthewjerome@gmail.com, which I will post depending on how much profanity there is.

Special Awards:

Picks of the Litter: The bulk of the points came from the picks (as opposed to extra points for picking the right number of House and Senate seats.) So this award is a 4-way split for the four contestants who had the most correct picks: Myself, Adam, Lauren, and Dave G. all picked 17 of the 23 races correctly. Not bad against a point spread.

Master of the House: While no one picked all 5 House seats correctly, both Cassidy and Dave G picked 4 of 'em. Michelle, unfortunately, went 0 for 5 on this one.

Master of the . . . Senate?: Adam cleaned up here, picking a stunning 11 of 12 races correctly. His only downfall was the Virginia Senate race.

Governor's Mansion: Lauren clearly knows everything about governors, being the only contestant to sweep this category.

Cherry Pickers: These awards go to those who correctly picked the right numbers. No one got the House exactly at 29, but MoCo and Lauren were close with 30 and 28, respectively. The most optimistic were rewarded in the Senate, as MoCo and Cassidy both were the only contestants to correctly predict that the Dems would gain 6 seats to take the Senate. Liberal Journal Man, Lauren, and Michelle guessed the Governorship gains. And though it was only worth tie-breaker points, Dave G was the only one to correctly guess that Alan Schlesinger would gain 10% of the vote in the Connecticut Senate race.

Here ends this year's Picktacular. Now we've determined, once and for all, who is slightly more accurate at guessing things. We'll see ya next year. And Adam, Lauren is eagerly awaiting her prize.

Busy Day Today, So . . .

2006-11-10T17:11:00.000-05:00

. . . Jeromegress Picktacular results will be revealed tomorrow. It'll be worth the wait!

The Mandate Myth Exposed

2006-11-09T12:49:00.000-05:00

Fred Barnes, who I saw getting coffee in front of my office the other day, is an ultra-conservative politico who you see on Fox News all the time. He also writes for either the Weekly Standard, or the National Review, or something.

Right after Bush won reelection in 2004, Barnes said this (via Kos): "Karl Rove said last year that the question of realignment--whether Republicans have at last become the majority party--would be decided by the election of 2004. And it has. Even by the cautious reckoning of Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, Republicans now have both an operational majority in Washington (control of the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives) and an ideological majority in the country (51 percent popular vote for a center-right president). They also control a majority of governorships, a plurality of state legislatures, and are at rough parity with Democrats in the number of state legislators. Rove says that under Bush a "rolling realignment" favoring Republicans continues, and he's right. So Republican hegemony in America is now expected to last for years, maybe decades."

Wow. Part of savoring this 2006 victory for Dems is juxtaposing what the conservative pundits said in 2004 with what the reality is now. Doesn't it feel good to know that Rove, Bush, Barnes and others all thought they were on the verge of 30 years of Republican rule, when in reality there would be another summer Olympics before there would be another Republican speaker?

At the time, when Barnes and others were talking about the emerging "permanent Republican majority," I smelled a rat. But I was so dazed by the third bad election for Dems in a row that I couldn't help but wonder if maybe I was in denial.

But now we can look at the facts and look at how silly it was to take the election results of 2004 and act as if those indicated an incoming majority. Bush claimed his mandate because a net 1% of Ohioans was less of sick of him than they were of Kerry that November. Republicans won about 5 seats in the House, mostly care of Tom DeLay's gerrymandering plan in Texas.

Deconstructing the Senate is a little more fun, because Republicans seemed to think winning the net 4 sets that they won was part of their unbreakable mandate. In actuality, the impressiveness of that victory was all smoke and mirrors. Let's look at the states where Republicans won competitive Senate seats: South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Alaska, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Notice anything about those? You feel comfortable about Dems in statewide elections in any of those guys?

The first five Senate seats I mentioned had retiring Southern Democrats, many of whom had been around for a long time. Those Democrats ran the gamut from moderate to conservative to Zell Miller, so it is no surprise that Republicans would take their place. (Also, you can't make that argument this time that the Democrats simply cherry-picked the Northeast, since our Democrats beat incumbents, as opposed to the Republicans who won open-seat races in a comfortable environment). Then, Republicans held onto races in Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Alaska--races that SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CLOSE if R's had a mandate. Yet, on election day, two of those three races were only decided by a couple of percentage points. As for defeating the Democratic leader Tom Daschle, I'll give them that, but still, that was a race in South Dakota. So one impressive Senate victory for the Republicans 2004 mandate, and that's really it.

This post was supposed to be only a couple of lines. I just wanted to throw that Fred Barnes quote out there. But I've been holding in my "You don't have a mandate" rant for so long since I didn't have any definitive proof. Now I have proof, and I suppose it just all came out.

As to our mandate . . . there is none. This election was totally about anti-Republicanism, and our majority is very tenuous right now. We've made the "Fire Bush" argument, and we won on it. But we haven't begun to make the "Hire us" argument. That's where the work begins. I hope the Dem leadership recognizes this, so we don't have some right-wing blogger juxtaposing gleeful Democrats in 2006 with somber ones in 2008.

(Insert Victory Post Here)

2006-11-08T16:06:00.000-05:00

Busy day here at work, and busy couple of nights for me with class/new apartment/watching LOST. The timing is unfortunate, because I know you would all love to hear my various opinions on this spectacular election night.

There will be time for greater depth later. But let me just say right now that I am thrilled. Still waiting on the final tallies from some close House races, but it looks like at the end of the day, the Dems will pick up 30 in the House and 6 in the Senate, for control of both Houses (as long as the Virginia recount breaks Webb's way--that's the only one in question). They also picked up 6 governorships, which has implications for presidential politics and redistricting.

Everything is a bit surrealistic. Even the new phrases that we will be uttering in our new political jargon have an odd ring to them. Speaker Pelosi? Governor O'Malley? Senator Tester? Minority Leader Mike Pence?

Or perhaps we like the new terms of the departed better. Former Governor Ehrlich. Defeated Senator Santorum. Disgraced Conrad Burns. Ex-Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. (Yeah, heard about that one yet?)

So that's my short summary of this election--more analysis to follow undoubtedly.

Also, for those who played the Jeromegress Picktacular, I'll be posting the scores shortly, once all of the races are mostly settled. However, I might make some executive decisions to call races that aren't officially called yet, so you'll have to submit to my discretion.

Wipeout!

2006-11-08T04:09:00.000-05:00

Can you hear those opening drums from the 1960s surf-hit "Wipeout"? Because I think we're seeing a wave . . .

Woke up and turned on the TV, and I appear to be having some sort of wonderful dream. 26 House seats so far for the Dems, including others that are too close to call or are leaning Dem but need recounts. Democrats need to hold onto their lead in Virginia (which has Webb up by 8000 with all the vote question but will face a recount) and Montana, which comes on the heels of necessary victories for McCaskill, Brown, Whitehouse, Casey, Menendez, and Cardin in the Senate. Loudmouth J.D. Hayworth has been defeated.

Sorta don't want to go back to sleep, on the offchance that I'll wakeup again with a different story.

I think we've made Bush a lame duck. It came 6 years too late, but it appears to be here finally.

Back to bed, hopefully to continue the lucky streak . . .

Election Night Update

2006-11-07T23:21:00.000-05:00

Britney Spears and Keven Federline are getting divorced? Say WHAT??

Oh, but onto politics:

Dems are a seat short of the House with plenty of more seats in play to go. Allen still up by a point with 97% of the vote left, though rumors are that the uncounted areas are in .

Arizona Senate is no longer in play. Tennessee is still in play but is not being called. Missouri will be too close to call probably until the next electoral cycle. Returns are just coming in from Montana.

Mark Foley almost got reelected. Well, not him--but a majority almost cast ballots for the Page-Baiter himself. (As in, baiting pages . . . that could be interpreted more filthily, but this is a family blog, so let's keep it clean, guys.)

Tom DeLay's seat has gone blue, as has Bob Ney's.

Lots of Republicans that were expected to fall fell. Sweeney. Graf. Shaw. Lunatic Curt Weldon. Mistress-strangler Don Sherwood.

Heath Shuler wins (hopefully he'll have more success in Washington this time around).

For whichever anonymous commenter told me that I'd eat my words when Van Hollen lost (to Zuibairi, no less)--he's got about 75% of the vote right now.

As much as I think Rick Santorum is the perfect caricature of everything that is wrong with the Republican Party, it is never fun to see someone's kids sobbing on stage when their dad just lost an election. I did not enjoy seeing that.

And dear God, the Washington Post has retracted its projection that Cardin has won the Maryland Senate race. The networks still have Cardin up, so I'm expecting that this one will hold out for Cardin. But as I've said before, Cassidy has never been more right about anything than when he predicted that the MD-Senate race would give everyone a heart attack.

Again, this is a good night so far . . . give me Tester, McCaskill, Webb, and Ford, and I will proclaim this a great night.

So Far, So Good?

2006-11-07T22:42:00.000-05:00

By the time anyone reads this, it will almost undoubtedly be outdated. But still, I thought it'd be amatureish to not havea mid-election-night post.

So far, we've got Cardin, Menendez, Casey, Brown, and Whitehouse all called. With 93% of the vote counted in VA, the race is still too close to call. Dems are gonna need that, plus at least two of Montana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arizona. Tennessee hasn't been called yet, which is a surprisingly good sign. Lieberman won too, which I guess I'm supposed to be disappointed about, but don't particularly care.

The House is looking pretty good too. We've swept the 3 seats in Indiana, picked up a seat in New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Connecticut. Others are still too close to call.

As for Govs, this is the real cakewalk for the Dems tonight, for whatever reason: O'Malley (which I am thrilled about), Strickland, Rendell, Spitzer, Beebe, Ritter, Granholm.

But this is mostly Blue America--how are the gains going to be across the midwest and the mountain west? Those should be coming in the next few hours.

So far, a good night . . . but we're a few victories still from having a great night.

Blue Pages Ballot: General Election Edition

2006-11-06T16:16:00.000-05:00

In the primary, I had a relatively long, drawn-out Blue Pages Ballot with carefully researched, thought-out decisions on who I would endorse in the Democratic primary.

This one won't be so complicated. What follows is the complete, unabridged Blue Page Ballot for the general election in 2006:

You know those names with the little (D)'s next to them? VOTE FOR THEM!!!

Ok, but seriously, other than that general rule of thumb, the only other recommendations I have for Montgomery County voters is to ONLY vote for Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich for County Council (do NOT vote for Nancy Floreen or George Levanthal). Also, vote YES on question 1--this makes it more difficult for Ehrlich to sell-off state parklands. I don't have strong feelings about the other ballot questions

Nationally, the Republicans seem to have gotten some last-minute momentum, though it is unclear how many of those voters represent the inevitable "coming home" of voters claiming to be undecided but in reality supporting the Republicans. Let's effectively end this Bush presidency a couple years early with a sweep of Dem offices tomorrow. It is by no means a given, but is certainly possible.

Good News, Bad News

2006-11-05T12:38:00.000-05:00

Can't make up my mind about how I'm feeling about politics these days. I'm hopeful that the Dems will take control, but I'm nervous that they will somehow blow it. My feeling for the last 6 weeks has been, Geez, can't we just have the election now?? This has been a run-out-the-clock drill, but I fear that the Republicans have made it to the Dem's 35 yard-line, with Karl Rove posed to kick a game-winning field goal. Especially since "winning" for the Republicans this time around will probably be defined as simply keeping the House and Senate, even if they lose a large number of seats in both.

So, should we Dems be optimistic or pessimistic? I can't decide. Here are some of the thoughts that have been going through my head this morning:

Good news: Saddam Hussein was sentenced to hang. I'm no fan of the death penalty, but I think I can make an exception for one of the most brutal dictators in history.

Bad news: Even once Hussein is gone from this earth, we will still be caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, we'll still have American soldiers dying, and we'll still have no conceivable way to get out of there. Hussein's verdict won't change that, and it may actually add fuel to the fire of sectarian violence.

Good news: The most conservative (ideologically and numbers-wise) estimates of Dem gains in Congress are about 20 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate. Let's go a notch below that: 15 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate will be a huge disappointment, but will still give the Dems the House and would've looked unthinkable 1 year ago.

Bad news: It ain't over yet. Burns and Chafee seem to have tied it up. McCaskill and Webb, while running stronger than expected in red states, are no better than toss-ups at this point. And Michael Steele has been determined to prove Cassidy's prediction right, that the MD-Senate race will give everyone a heart attack. Not to mention Ehrlich's closing momentum on O'Malley.

Good news: John Kerry has agreed to go into hiding for the next few days.

Bad news: We're even talking about John Kerry.

Good news: Sen. Liddy Dole (R-NC) said on Meet The Press today, "Democrats are content to lose in Iraq." When she insisted to Tim Russert, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), that that wasn't what she meant, she clarified, "Democrats appear to be content to lose in Iraq." Oh, that clears it up. When about 60-65% of the country side with the Democrats on the issue, it can't be smart for Dole to alienate their sentiment at a time when she is trying to prove that Republicans agree with the rest of the country.

Bad news: Election day is Tuesday. There isn't enough of a news cycle left to really push this issue.

Good news: The Bush administration could be, in practice, over, in about 60 hours.

Bad news: It is gonna be a long 60 hours.

My Picktacular Picks

2006-11-03T07:57:00.000-05:00

For the 10 of you Blue Pagers who entered your picks in the 2006 Jerome Picktacular, thanks for your participation. You are in for quite a competition. Here are some interesting things I noticed:

Three races were unanimous: Tester in MT-SEN, Menendez in NJ-SEN, and Rendell minus 10 in PA-GOV. Nine of you also picked Whitehouse to win RI-SEN and Cardin minus 4 to win MD-SEN, while eight of you picked Shuler to win the House seat, McCaskill to win MO-SEN, and Corker to win TN-SEN. House seats gained by Dems ranged from 17-38, Senate seats from 4-6 (though 3 or 7 are certainly possible), and Gov seats range from 4-8. And MoCoPolitics told me he conceded if the tiebreaker goes to the dance-off. So, there ya go.

Now, I didn't play my own Picktacular (the very notion would be absurd!), so I am not eligible for the prize, which I have yet to make up or decide on. But I do sorta want to see if I can out-pundit you guys, or at the very least, be exposed to the entire online community as a fraud. So here are my picks. If these contradict any of the thousands of predictions I've made before on this blog, cut me some slack. To borrow a line from D-Money when he sent me his picks, "I do the best with what little God gave me." Indeed.

TN-SEN: Corker. No surprises here. Ford needs to be about 6-8 points up before I'd feel confident that a black man can win a statewide election in the south. But the latest polls have him 6-8 points down. However, the wild card here is the degree to which black turnout will be increased this time around, since polls are weighting to previous years' turnout models. (That is to say, if they survey 500 people and they know that in previous elections about 40% of blacks turned out to vote, they will weight the number of blacks in the survey to 40%. But if this time 60% of blacks turn out to vote, and they vote largely for Ford, that might change the math and give Ford an advantage that we don't see in the polls).

MO-SEN: Talent. Talk about a flip-flop here, I've been riding the McCaskill train for the past 6 months. Plus, she is probably my favorite candidate out there. Unfortunately, this is the end of the line, and its time to get off that train. This race is a pure toss-up, but she never has cracked 50% in the polls all this time, indicating that she has a ceiling. This is a 49-49 race right now, but finding that other 1% is going to be tough, because those voters have had a long time to decide to go with the challenger. But, honestly, who knows. I hope I'm wrong here.

MT-SEN: Tester . . . BUT . . . beware the Burns comeback. I think he may have been written off too soon, though Tester certainly is still the favorite at this point.

RI-SEN: Whitehouse. Duh. But seeing Chafee lose is the one victory I won't be reveling in.

NJ: Menendez. I predicted Kean a while back, but Menendez looks to be pulling away a bit. This is a pattern in NJ (and in Washington state, for that matter) where the Republican candidate remains competitive for most of the race and then gets beat pretty convincingly on election day. Independents are supporting Kean at 47-34 in the last poll that I saw, but there are just too many Democrats in the garden state.

MD-SEN: Steele with the points. Cardin's gonna win this one, but it is going to be close. Didn't help that a group of African-American PG County Democrats just endorsed Steele. But I also think that Steele has appeared to be kind of a flake the last few weeks, all sizzle and no steak. And again, there is a huge party advantage in MD. But I would not be surprised with a Cardin 51-Steele 48 victory, so I'm taking Steele and the points.

VA-SEN: Allen. Ok, here's where I have to take a second to be honest. When I implored people to make their picks, Webb was down. But the polls all this week have Webb up. So if I rewrote the polls here, I'd probably make this a pick 'em, if not making Webb the favorite. BUT, the line is what it is, and at the time that I wrote this, I would've picked Allen minus 2, so that's my pick. However, I would now go with Webb plus the two, because he may not even need the two.

CT-SEN: Lieberman. He'll cruise to greater than an 8 point victory. While I've lost a lot of respect for Lieberman this cycle, I'm no Lamonter either. Let's just hope Joe makes good on his promise to caucus with the Dems, despite getting about 75% of the votes of Connecticut Republicans.

OH-SEN: Brown. I made DeWine's line too small. Ohio is a disaster for the GOP this cycle.

AZ-SEN: Kyl. Again, I may have a different opinion if I knew what I learned today, which is that the DSCC is making a last minute extreme ad buy in AZ because they think the seat is in play all of the sudden. Plus, Arizona-8 in the House is the most guaranteed pick-up for the Dems in the whole Congress. Still, at the time of this, I would've picked Kyl to win by 8, and I still think Kyl will win.

PA-SEN: Casey. Pennsylvania will be a blowout, and Santorum will lose by greater than 10 points.

FL-SEN: Nelson. Florida will be a blowout, and Harris will lose by greater than 20 points. Actually, the real number will probably be something like 27 or 28.

MD-GOV: Ehrlich with the points. O'Malley will win, but Bobby is closing that gap. I'd be much more worried about Ehrlich and Steele if there were about 3 more weeks in the election, but I think both of them are going to come up with too little too late.

MA-GOV: Patrick. Healey has flopped, right? I guess 15 points is a big spread, but I think Patrick will cover it in Massachusetts.

MI-GOV: Granholm. She started out vulnerable, put she's pulling away. Michiganians seem more worried about Republicans than about the status quo.

CA-GOV: Schwarzenegger. Fifteen points are a lot, but the Kindergarten Cop will cover it.

PA-GOV: Rendell. I made this line too low for Swann.

OH-GOV: Strickland, minus the 16. What did I say about the GOP in Ohio this year?

NC-11: Shuler. Not a great quarterback, but apparently quite the politician. He's leading considerably, by about 7 or 8 points. And he's pretty invulnerable to being painted as a liberal Dem.

IL-06: Roskam. I think he'll hang on. Duckworth is another one of these McCaskill-ish candidates that can get to 48% easily but can't get to 50%. And remember, this is Henry Hyde's seat they are running for, so it is a relatively conservative electorate.

CT-04: Farrell. In fact, I think Dems are going to sweep the 3 CT seats.

NM-01: Madrid. Another toss-up, but here the coin is landing on D.

CA-11: McNerney. He's going up against the staunchly conservative Pombo, and I think Pombo sorta represents the corrupt fatcat about as well as any targeted member of Congress other than Conrad Burns.

House: +23 Dems.
Senate: +4 Dems.
Governorships: +7 Dems.
Percentage of R in CT-SEN: 6%.

Ok, so those are my picks. We'll see how they hold up on Tuesday!

One Last Bad Ad Thursday

2006-11-02T00:33:00.000-05:00

Ok, everybody was good, so as I promised, here's the 10th and final Bad Ad Thursday of the election season.

This is the worst one. We've seen some lousy ones, but this one is the only ad that actually gets an F in my book.

This ad is courtesy of Pete Ashdown, the Democrat running for Senate against Orrin Hatch in Utah.

I'm very sorry about that. Here we go:

A) The song, both in lyric and in music, sounds like a 6-year-old made it up on the spot to sing for relatives. It reminds of this ad that I saw in one of my classes for John F. Kennedy that had a jingle that went a-little something like this (really): "Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Ken-ne-dy. Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Ken-ne-dy." So Ashdown's song makes a little more sense, but then again, he had 45 years more than Kennedy had to think of a sweeter jingle.

B) Ok, let's be honest. That little girl is adorable. Presumably this is Ashdown's daughter or something, though he doesn't really introduce that information. In fact, for all we know, this could be a rental from the Cute Baby Emporium. Maybe I'm getting a conspiracy theorist reputation here, ever since I suggested that Lichtman didn't really jump in that pond.

But also, what's with this girl? Why is she so spastic, and why is she always so jubilant? Is she on drugs? I've heard of a bouncy baby girl, but this is ridiculous.

C) So forgive me from stating the obvious here, but what is Ashdown's message? Is it stop the war in Iraq, or the middle class is getting squeezed, or we need to tighten border security, or we need a change of agenda? No, if the baby is any indication, Ashdown's message is evidentally, quote, "Awwwwwww!"

On a serious note, though, this is amazing. There is NO message at all ("Score a Touchdown With Ashdown" is not a message), not even a bad or inconsistent one, or several policy proposals, or anythings. It is purely, "Awwwwww!" And "Awwwwww!" might work--MIGHT work--at the beginning of an election, where you are just trying to get your face out there and create good feelings. But with a week or so to go? Nope.

D) I found this ad in one of the Daily Kos diaries. Of this ad, the diary's author said the following:

"Please forward this commercial to as many people as you can. If your friends get it from you, it is much more persuasive than seeing it on TV."

Much more persuasive than seeing it on TV? Who is this intended to persuade? I'm not sure how this diarist thought people would be persuaded by this ad: "Well, I was going to vote for Orrin Hatch, but gosh, how can I vote against that vibrating baby?" Or, "You know, I think I will score a touchdown with Ashdown! I never thought of it like that!" Or, "I saw this on TV, and I thought, nah, not for me. But now that Bill forwarded this to me, I have no choice!" And on and on.

E) The last line of the jingle is, "He's a new Senator for a new century!" Well, as Derek Zoolander would say, earth to Pete Ashdown, but this is 2006. The new century was 6 years ago, unless you are referring to 2100. So, ironically, by trying to be the Senator of the future, you are placing yourself squarely in the past.

Ok, Blue Pagers, here ends Bad Ad Thursday. Hopefully we can start this ol' tradition up again in another 2 years. It'll be here before you can say Ashdown for Senate. Or at least before that song finally gets out of your head.

Blue Page Housekeeping

2006-10-31T14:54:00.000-05:00

Warning: This post is going to be remarkably uncohesive, but it'll get the job done. I have several things I want to talk about/comment on/bring to your attention.

Jeromegress: Ok guys, we currently have 9 hotshots who have turned in their picks for the Jeromegress Picktacular. But as Confucious once said, "Well, 9 is good, but 10 or more would be great!" That wisdom sure is timeless. Get your picks in before the end of the night! Go here, cut and paste the questions into an email, and send to matthewjerome@gmail.com.

Bad Ad Thursday: There WILL be a Bad Ad Thursday on Thursday. And it will be Bad.

Katherine Harris (R-FL) is crazy: While reading this article on her failed Senate campaign against Bill Nelson (D-FL), I kept wavering between pity at Katherine Harris' denial and amazement at what an awful person she seems to be. Those were, in fact, the two leitmotifs of the article:

Denial: "Harris turns stony when she's asked what will happen if she doesn't win.' Haven't even considered it,' she says in a tone that suggests a follow-up question would be foolhardy."

Awful person: "Former chief adviser Ed Rollins, who managed Ronald Reagan's reelection to the White House in 1984, said working for Harris was like 'being in insanity camp.' He likened her staff to dogs that have been kicked."

Denial: "While talking about her love for Queen Esther, she runs to the passenger seat of her SUV and seizes a Bible. 'I'll give you one verse,' she says. 'On the day that the enemies of the Jews had hoped to overpower them, the opposite occurred, in that the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them.' What does that have to do with this race?" November 7th," she replies."

Awful person: "Before he became the first of three campaign managers to quit, Jim Dornan programmed his cellphone to play the theme song from 'The Exorcist' when Harris called. . . Dornan says he once infuriated Harris right before an event by setting it up so she could make a grand entrance. Instead, she wanted to greet supporters at the door as they arrived. . . Instead, she wanted to greet supporters at the door as they arrived. 'She just goes completely ballistic,' Dornan recalls. He says she yelled at him for 10 minutes and accused him of ruining her life."

Denial: "'They can make the polls say whatever they want,' Harris says. She says pollsters sometimes call her house and then hang up 'cause we're not answering them the way they like.'"

Awful person: "They describe her as a micromanager, unable to trust her staff, prone to tears and rages over tiny things. They say she would rewrite speeches and press releases over and over. She would get upset if an aide hadn't brought her the correct coffee order from Starbucks."

And on and on.

Don Young (R-AK) is in more denial than Katherine Harris. The zillion-term Congressman from Alaska said today, "I'm predicting that we're not going to lose any seats. My prediction is as good as anybody else's. The day after the election, we'll see who was right." If he were Egyptian, I would comment that De-nile ain't just a river in Egypt. But since he is from Alaska, I will cleverly say that Denali ain't just a mountain in Alaska . . . (?) (Is Mt. Denali in Alaska? I need to hire some fact checkers).

You Know Its Bad For the GOP When . . .

2006-10-30T14:44:00.000-05:00

. . . the super-ultra-conservative New York Post endorses Hillary Clinton for Senator (D-NY) and Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) for Governor.

Seriously, if you've ever read the NY Post, these endorsements are a pair of jaw-droppers.

The New York Post, which is owned by the same conglomerate that owns Fox News, says this of their Hillary endorsement: "Surprised? Well, so are we - a little . . . She's worked hard the last six years, and it shows. . . she's been a pretty good senator - popular with her colleagues and as productive as a first-term legislator from the minority party probably can be . . . We think she's done such a good job these last six years that she'd do well to serve six more."

And on the Spitz: "For too long, corrupt politicians, union bosses, trade groups and well-situated favor-seekers have controlled government in New York - and their grip has only tightened during the tenure of lame-duck Gov. Pataki. So it's time to take back New York. To that end, The Post today endorses the gubernatorial candidacy of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer is a Democrat, and a resolutely liberal Democrat at that . . . these times demand a reformist governor possessed of the smarts - to say nothing of the energy - needed to get the job done. Spitzer qualifies on both counts. But is he truly dedicated to reform? We're betting that he is."

-----

Two days left to play the 2006 Jeromegress Picktacular! Just think of the glory you will receive from being slightly better at picking races than everyone else. And we still need 2 more if we want to see the Worst-Ad-Ever on Thursday! Send picks to matthewjerome@gmail.com.

Let's Make A Deal

2006-10-29T15:38:00.000-05:00

Hey Blue Pagers. I'm moving to Bethesda this weekend, and I won't have internet until Wednesday night. Posts will erratic in that time. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I think I found, possibly, the worst ad of the election season. It is from a Democratic nominee in a Senate race (so in other words, it is not just some state legislator out there who can't help making a lousy ad).

SO . . . if just five more people send me their picks to matthewjerome@gmail.com for The 2006 Jeromegress Picktacular, we'll revive Bad Ad Thursday for the last Thursday of the year. And not to hype it up too much, but I don't think this ad will disappoint.

Get your picks in before November 1st! You've got the rest of today, tomorrow, and Tuesday. It is already shaping up to be quite a match--and it'll make it fun to watch the returns on November 7th.

Attention!! Play This Year's Jeromegress Picktacular!

2006-10-27T18:00:00.000-04:00

Well, folks, there are 11 shopping days until election day, so you know what that means. It means that it is time for . . .

THE FIRST ANNUAL JEROMEGRESS PICKTACULAR!

What?

Um, basically, picks for the 2006 election. All you Blue Pagers can finally settle, once and for all, who is a little better at guessing who will win elections. Here's the deal.

Step 1) This is the most important step. If you want to play, but aren't sure about it, or you think you don't know enough or even anything about politics, or you are too embarassed to admit you read this blog--throw all that to the wind. Decide to just play. The more people play, the more fun it is. It'll take you two minutes to do the whole thing.

Step 2) Copy and paste the picks below into an email. If you don't have an email account, organizations like Google, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc., all do fine work in this exciting new field.

Step 3) Fill out the picks. You are picking against a point spread for all gov races and most senate races. House races are pick 'ems. More explanation on this below, but basically if there is a number next to one of the names, you are picking against a point spread.

Step 3) Send to matthewjerome@gmail.com with "2006 Jeromegress Picktacular" in the subject line. I mean, if you don't put that in the subject line, I'll still get it eventually, but it would crack me up to get a bunch of emails with that as the subject line.

Rules, Explanations, Etc: You are picking against a point spread. For those of you who don't watch football, it will work like this: Let's look at the first governor's line, which says O'Malley vs Ehrlich +5. This means if you pick Ehlrich, who is the underdog in this race, you get 5% points added to his final vote percentage. So, if O'Malley wins 51% to 48%, those picking Ehrlich would win, because his 48% +5 = 53%, which is higher than O'Malley's 51%.

The lines are arbitrary, I eyeballed some polls and other lines but ultimately decided on these myself. They are roughly intended to make it so there is an equal likelihood of the winner falling on either side.

The metric we are using to judge is whatever number CNN.com rounds to once election totals are final. Ties go to the underdog, because hell, why not. So, if O'Malley gets 52% and Ehrlich gets 47%, the 52%-52% tie goes to Ehrlich.

Each pick is worth 3 points for correct House, Gov, Senate seats. For the final tallies at the bottom, anyone who gets the exact number of House seats gets 10 points, and 5 points if you are within 2 in either direction. Anyone who gets the exact number of Senate seats gets 5 points, and 3 points if you are within one in either direction. Anyone who gets the exact number of Gov seats gets 3 points, and 2 points if you are within one in either direction.

DEADLINE: 11:59 PM on October 31st. Ah, hell, I'll give ya until midnight.

DID I MENTION: Winner gets a prize? Not sure what it is yet, but they'll get one.

Name__________________

Dems are listed first, Republicans (and Lieberman) second. Incumbents are in all caps, though that doesn't mean necessarily that that person IS the incumbent, but rather that either that person or a member of that party currently holds that seat.

Remember, underdogs have the numbers next to them, so if you pick someone with a number next to them, you are saying that their total plus that number will be greater than the opponent's total. Questions with no spreads are "pick 'ems" meaning that they are toss-ups, so you aren't picking against a spread.

Senate
MO: McCaskill vs. TALENT (pick 'em)
RI: Whitehouse vs. CHAFEE (pick 'em)
TN: Ford vs. CORKER (pick 'em)
NJ: MENENDEZ vs. Kean (pick 'em)
MT: Tester vs. BURNS (pick 'em)
MD: CARDIN vs. Steele +4
VA: Webb +2 vs. ALLEN
CT: Lamont +8 vs. LIEBERMAN
OH: Brown vs. DEWINE +6
AZ: Pederson +8 vs. KYL
PA: Casey vs. SANTORUM +10
FL: NELSON vs. Harris +20

Gov
MD: O'Malley vs EHRLICH +5
MA: Patrick vs HEALEY +15
MI: GRANHOLM vs DeVos +8
CA: Angelides +15 vs SCHWARZENEGGER
PA: RENDELL vs Swann +10
OH: Strickland vs BLACKWELL +16

House
NC-11: Heath Shuler vs. CHARLES TAYLOR (pick 'em)
IL-06: Tammy Duckworth vs. PETER ROSKAM (pick 'em)
CT-04: Diane Farrell vs. CHRIS SHAYS (pick 'em)
NM-01: Patty Madrid vs. HEATHER WILSON (pick 'em)
CA-11: Jim McNerney vs. RICHARD POMBO (pick 'em)

Final Tallies: All Ind candidates are considered Dems here. These questions are not asking for total seats, (eg 230 or 220 total seats for Dems in the House after the election), but net seats, (eg +10 or -5 or +25 or 0):

Seats Dems will win in House:
Seats Dems will win in Senate:
Governorships Dems will win:

Tiebreaker 1: What percentage of the vote will Republican Connecticut candidate Alan Schlesinger, running against Lieberman (I) and Lamont (D) get in the CT-Senate race?

Tiebreaker 2: Dance-off.

Field Trip: Bush, Rush, Norris, Plinko

2006-10-26T08:21:00.000-04:00

Late summer was full of Field Trips for Blue Pagers, possibly because the weather was nice for trips to the beach or the waterpark or wherever. But we haven't had a field trip in a while. So, with the weather crisping up in Washington DC this fall, thought it might be fun to take a little field trip to our political pumpkin patch. Feel free to help yourself to some hot apple cider by the cash register.

--Bush, on Iraq this week: "Listen, we've never been 'Stay the course.'" In the words of one of my co-workers, "Say WHAT?" Bush this week cut and run from his position of staying the course in Iraq, which is a good idea, except that he expects us to believe that "Stay the course" was never the policy in Iraq, despite the fact that he used the phrase over 30 times. I guess he was for staying the course before he was against it?

--The most recent National Journal race rankings (you may be able to see these without a subscription, I can't remember) are in for the House, Senate, and Govs. The first 7 Senate seats, the first 6 Gov seats, and the first 38 (!!) House seats, ranked in terms of likelihood of switching to the other party, are held by Republicans. The question is how far down those lists will the seats actually switch.

--"You think Rush Limbaugh is dumb enough to lay into a person for exhibiting symptoms of a debilitating disease? Come on. Nobody's that dumb." Slate.com accuses Rush Limbaugh, oddly, of not being an idiot.

--Chuck Norris has become a columnist for the super-duper conservative WorldNetDaily. His vehicle for his columns? Refuting the "Chuck Norris facts" that were all the rage about 6 or so months ago.

Example, which as Dave Barry would say, I am not making up, in the words of Chuck Norris' column: "Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: 'Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer. Too bad he never cries. Ever.'

There was a man whose tears could cure cancer or any other disease, including the real cause of all diseases – sin. His blood did. His name was Jesus, not Chuck Norris."

Well, that sets the record straight.

--Remember the Plinko board from The Price Is Right? I always sorta liked it, but nowhere near as much as this guy.

Et Tu, Liberal Media?

2006-10-25T12:46:00.000-04:00

Here are a couple quotes from the Washington Post's editorial today, about who should assume the governorship:

On O'Malley (D): "Mr. O'Malley, who has run a carefully scripted campaign for governor, has put his plentiful ambition to good use in one of the toughest big-city mayor's jobs in the nation. He made progress in stanching Baltimore's outflow of population, reviving some of its more blighted neighborhoods, reducing its level of violent crime, and adapting corporate methods of efficiency and accountability to the functions of government. Mr. O'Malley did not solve the problems of rampant crime and rough schools in Baltimore, but he put a dent in them."

On Ehrlich (R): "There have been disappointments and dithering during Mr. Ehrlich's term as well, mostly of his own making. Relishing battle and cherishing his status as a besieged underdog, he picked fights needlessly, as in the childish blacklisting of two journalists from the Baltimore Sun. Likewise, his tiresome quarrels with the leaders of the General Assembly look more like clashes of puffed-up egos than hard legislative bargaining. Mr. Ehrlich could be a more effective governor if he applied himself more to the mechanics of governing and less to the skewering of his enemies on talk radio."

Ok, so judging from those two statements, it should be clear why the Washington Post endorsed Martin O' . . . Bob Ehrlich?? Really??

Yes, the Washington Post endorsed Ehrlich for MD governor today, citing his successes, among other things, on the environment and transportation. Odd, I'm voting against Ehrlich because of his failures on the environment and transportation.

Says the Post: "Mr. Ehrlich was able to revive, accelerate and push through approval of a highway to connect interstates 270 and 95 north of the District, which would be the first major road to be built in the Maryland suburbs in years and one that is badly needed. Though it had been on the state's drawing board for decades, the intercounty connector was a dead letter when Mr. Ehrlich took office. On the environment, Mr. Ehrlich rightly claims authorship of the "flush tax" bill, under which households pay a $30 annual fee to finance upgrades in sewage plants that pollute the Chesapeake Bay; it represents an important step toward cleaning the state's waterways."

Ugh. I'll spare you another anti-ICC rant (though you can check a couple out here and here), but a Governor (and a Democratic Montgomery County Council, I'm not being partisan here) who pushes through one of the most environmentally disastrous projects cannot be given credit for the environment; I don't care what environmentally-friendly measure it is juxtaposed with. And transportation wise, as I have mentioned in my rants, the ICC will barely relieve traffic, and any benefits at all will only be felt by those willing to fork over about 8 bucks or so during rush hour. The ICC doesn't solve the problem of transportation, it solves the problem of wealthy developers not being able to afford a third Bentley. This is what the WaPo is patting Ehrlich on the back for?

The editorial is also woefully light on the question of "Why not O'Malley?" Here's what they say: "His opponent in the gubernatorial race, Democrat Martin O'Malley, is a smart, adroit politician who has compiled a creditable record as mayor of Baltimore for the past seven years, but he has not made a compelling case for toppling the incumbent. . . While it is easy to admire Mr. O'Malley's fluency as a public speaker and his winning ways on the stump, his campaign is seen by some of his own allies as insular -- a worrisome trait in a governor. More worrisome yet is the fact that an O'Malley victory would herald a return to the brand of one-party Democratic rule that has served the state poorly in the past. "

I don't know, that just kind of strikes me as gibberish. O'Malley hasn't made the case, or maybe his campaign is insular, or one-party rule doesn't work . . . there are traces of good arguments in there, but I don't really buy any of them.

I generally respect the WaPo, but it got it wrong in a big way today.

Kevin Tillman on His Brother's Death

2006-10-24T08:48:00.000-04:00

Most people probably remember the story of Pat Tillman, but in case you don't, here's the elevator-talk version of it (an elevator-talk, I'm told, is a version so brief that you can tell someone while traveling in an elevator): Tillman played for the Arizona Cardinals. After 9/11, he quit professional football, as he and his brother decided to enlist. Tillman was killed a few years ago, and it later come out that a) he was likely killed by friendly fire, which was different than what the Tillman family had been told, and b) the US Army knew about this and covered it up. His brother has since been honorably discharged from the military. Ok, that was a longer than average elevator ride.

So, Tillman is a hero in the truest sense of the word; he gave up fortune, fame, and ultimately his life, to protect his countrymen. It is an incredibly moving story.

But the bitterness about the cover-up of how he died is very real and totally dishonors the memory of such a selfless act. So Pat's bro Kevin, who I mentioned survived him in Afghanistan/Iraq, has written an incredibly biting column about the U.S. government's conduct after 9/11, particularly with Iraq.

It reads like a gunshot in a dark room, if that is an apt (metaphor? simile? analogy?). Very powerful stuff. The whole thing is here; and I have some excerpts below.

"It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday. "

Wow.

Happy Birthday To Blue

2006-10-21T23:59:00.000-04:00

Well, since no one threw my blog a surprise party, I guess I'll have to be the one to announce that . . . The Blue Pages turns one year old today. Surprise!!

Yes, thanks to the Blue Pages, Matthew Jerome has been able to spread his witty political and strategic insights to literally 15 or so people on a regular basis. On October 21st, 2005, it burst on the scene with this post, starting innocuously enough: "This seems as good a place to start as any for a political blog. Let's set the political stage." What a year those words would begin.

Here's a year in review of sorts, to look at what I got right, what I got wrong, and what other miscellaneous political info has made The Blue Pages semi-enjoyable over the past year.

The Good, the Bad, the Blue:

Blue Pages Blue Ribbon Post: For some reason, I got the warmest reaction to The Old Lady Voice (8/15), where I described the experience of getting a call from the Cardin campaign, and how it reminded me of my days as a teenage volunteer calling for Van Hollen. It is a well-written post, but I can't read it without feeling that it is a bit too positive to fit in with a blogosphere wrought with cynicism and sarcasm. Ah well, maybe that's why people liked it.

Honorable mentions: This post about some yahoo in Pennsylvania putting up jingoistic billboards outside his diner (7/3) and this post about candidate for Congress Daniel Zubairi (R-MD) (5/11). The comments in that section are particularly interesting, as several of them were left months after I originally made the post. (One of the last comments: "I think this blogger will have to eat his words when Zubairi destroys Van Hollen!!!" Sorry, three explanation points or not, Zubairi has already lost in the primary.

Most Regretable Post: Like everyone in the entire world, I think I flipped out too much over the Dubai ports deal. I was mostly just shocked that Bush would do something that would so clearly freak out the xenophobes in the Republican party, but I think in retrospect the scandal of this whole thing was overblown. (2/21)

Biggest Success: Bad Ad Thursday. Sure, it had to come to an end. But 9 terrible ads in a row gave Blue Pagers something to look forward to on Thursday, since Survivor was on reruns in the summer. And how else would any of us be aware of the most amazingly intriguing and bizarre candidacy of punmaster Allan Lichtmann? See some of your favorites here: Menendez, Lichtman 1, Lieberman, Robinson, Sanders, Sheeler, Perry, Lichtman 2, Ring. (Each Thursday from 7/20-9/14).

Also succesful: Field Trips, so I could pay tribute to other bright spots around the Internet. How else would Blue Pagers learn, among other things, about Al Franken's plan to rehabilitate Mel Gibson, stupid yard signs, William Donald Schaefer's sanity, bad congressional hairstyles, and Pluto's demotion? (Various dates in September and August)

Biggest flop: Right Wing Style Manual. Seemed like a promising idea: Reader Arman said of the original post "excellent matt! this is a great idea and extremely well written. i think it'll be a great way to introduce all these ideas about what's happening in america while adding continuity to your blog." Well, sorry to disappoint, but I didn't follow up on it at all. This post is called Volume 1 because I was supposed to make subsequent volumes of it, yet I have not. (7/17)

Genius Predictions:

On Republican Senators in '06: Three Republican Senators most likely to lose their seats in 2006: 1) Rick Santorum of PA, who is polling abysmally in a state way bluer than he is. 2) Conrad Burns of MT, who is caught up in this Jack Abramoff scandal and running against two strong moderate Democrats. 3) Lincoln Chafee of RI, who will be under assault from the left and right for being too moderate. (2/27)

On Running from W: I guarantee you, Republicans that win close races in '06 will win by running against Bush. W Brand Republicans are so last year. (3/28)

On Dems electoral startegy: The Democrats aren't running against Bush, they are running against the various opponents in each district. But look for any smart Democrat in any race this 2006 season to relentlessly tie their opponent to Bush and his policies. Winning races are hard for challengers in our current system no matter what their party affiliation, but the Democrats can't afford to blow such a wide-open opportunity as this. (2/20)

Less Than Genius Predictions:

On the '08 Presidential race: Sadly, right now my crystal ball says Republican Senator from Virginia George Allen. Hope I'm wrong. (11/24)

On Democratic Senators in '06: A couple of these are open races, which is why this category is phrased differently than its Republican counterpart. 1) Mark Dayton's seat in Minnesota is up, and only the Republicans have fielded a strong candidate so far, Congressman Mark Kennedy. 2) Paul Sarbanes' seat, which I have predicted will be won by Republican Michael Steele over Democrat Ben Cardin. 3) Ben Nelson of Nebraska, as the Senate's most conservative Democrat will still not be red enough for the heartland. (2/27) [Note: Minnesota and Nebraska will stay Democratic easily, and Maryland is still highly likely to stay Democratic. Whoops!]

On the Governator: The moderate sure is a dying breed. Not that [CA GOV] Arnold [Schwarzenegger] has much of a reelection chance anyway, with his disapproval ratings so staggeringly high (62%, vs. 34% who approve). (1/20) [Note: He's up by like a billion points now to win re-election. Whoops again!]

Good Lines:

On Cheney shooting someone in the face: I can't help but find the comments from Cheney's advisor, Mary Matalin, amusing: " . . . He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do." What? I think a more accurate statement would have been, "He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do . . . except for SHOOTING A PERSON IN THE FACE!" (2/12)

On Freedom Fries getting removed from the House cafeteria: It's not so much that changing the name of french fries to freedom fries was bad foreign policy. It's more just disturbing that changing the name of french fries to freedom fries was the House Republicans idea of foreign policy. (8/2)

On the Minutemen Project: The Minutemen are basically 1 part wannabe cowboy and 1 part tattletale. They think they are being patriotic, and seem to think they are worthy to stand on the same podium as our troops in Iraq, but really all they are doing is forcing the impoverished out of a land of opportunity. I'd advise them to do something that the immigrants are at least coming here to do: GET A JOB! (4/12)

On opposition to stem-cell research: Once again the right-wing and its mouthpieces in Congress are all too eager to decry the "murder" of a cell that is barely a fraction of the size of the dot over this i, yet are pretty silent on war, the death penalty, worldwide famine and genocide. You know, life or death issues regarding people who have, um, been born. (7/19)

On Jean Schmidt (R-OH): During their special election in August, Schmidt said of [Democratic challenger and Iraqi war veteran Paul] Hackett, "Active military, veterans, and military families have stopped me on the street and told me that Hackett does not speak for them. The people of the Second Congressional District of Ohio support the troops." Of course, Hackett was actually IN Iraq and Afghanistan, so you would think it would be hard for her to imply that Hackett somehow did not support the troops. He WAS the troops! (11/19)

On the month of March: It's March, and every March I'm reminded of the immortal words of Ms. Casely, my 7th and 8th grade Spanish teacher, "March is a month of candy." I'm still not sure what she meant by that--something must've been lost in translation. (3/1)

On sucking up to Tom DeLay: "DeLay, when asked who might be the House's 'next Tom Delay:' Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC). McHenry, when told of DeLay's remark: 'I'm blown away ...I'm so excited that Tom DeLay would say that about me.'(Hallow, Washington Times, 4/10)." You'd think McHenry was an underclassman that Tom DeLay just asked to the prom. (4/11)

On Bill Richardson coming clean about his baseball past: I like that line . . . "I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A's." What?!? Bill, I came to the conclusion that I wasn't drafted by the A's years ago. What took you so long? (11/25)

And, I Also Talked About:

Hilarious Congressional photos (4/5), Hollywood Republicans (12/31), the American Values Agenda (6/27), HRC's plantationgate (1/19), gubernatorial noogies (12/20), Tim Kaine's eyebrow (late feb), Howard Dean's gaydar (12/5), purple pen edits (4/4), paternity test hypocrisy (2/24), Brokeback media (1/21), Haikus (4/28), the bear vote (6/16), and Bill O'Reilly's Foxstapo (3/27).

So, happy birthday to me. Here's to another year!

An Eloquent And Thoughtful Hail Mary

2006-10-20T18:20:00.000-04:00

Update, 1 hour after originally posting: I'm wrong about some--SOME--of the stuff in this post. If not wrong, exactly, I definitely would've said things differently upon further review. Read the first two comments in the comments section to see what I'm talking about. Thought I'd amend the post up-front rather than take it down entirely, because I believe pretty firmly that by publishing my opinions on a blog, they ought to stand up to scrutiny. They usually do, but when they don't, I can't just cut and run from the post, now can I?

But still, I stand by MOST of this post.

Have I mentioned on this blog yet that the upcoming election doesn't look good for the Republicans?

As we head into the last 2 and a half weeks of the election season, be on the lookout for Hail Mary plays all over the country. And by Hail Mary plays, I mean particularly nasty negative ads that don't make a whole lot of sense but are the last desperate attempt to win.

For example, here's an ad by Massachusetts Governor hopeful Kerry Healey (R). This was supposed to be a close-ish race, but Deval Patrick (D) is running away with this one. (By the way, I don't know much about Deval Patrick, but I do happen to know someone named Patrick Duvall, so, that's kind of interesting).

The ad, courtesy of today's Hotline (subscription required): ANNCR: Here's a question. If a teacher at your kid's school, or a friend, or a co-worker, if anyone you knew actually praised a convicted rapist, what would you think? Deval Patrick did. Here's what he said about brutal rapist Ben LaGuer. PATRICK: He is eloquent, and he is thoughtful, there's no doubt about that. ANNCR: "Here's another question, have you ever heard a woman compliment a rapist?" ANNCR: "Deval Patrick, he should be ashamed...not governor"

Um . . . ok. Who made this ad, SNL? This looks SOOOOO contrived.

What a weak attack on Patrick by the Healey camp. You can tell they are really reaching here. If the quote had been something like, "Man, I totally think that rapist is awesome!", then maybe there'd be a point. But that he is eloquent and thoughtful? I'm willing to bet that this is a reference to some speech he gave in defense of his actions, and that Patrick immediately rebutted the notion that we should believe anything this rapist says right after the so-called "compliment." It probably wasn't part of a litany of words of praise for rapists.

Show of hands--how many people think Patrick was seeking to compliment a rapist? Ok, 1, 2, 3 . . . thank you Rush, Ann, Sean. Anyone else? No? Now, how many people think this statement was sandwiched with "His actions are totally condemnable, and he should be put in jail forever. And that speech he made today attempting to defend his deplorable actions was pathetic. He is eloquent, and he is thoughtful, there's no doubt about that. But eloquence and thoughtfulness mean nothing in our judicial system, and I hope they put him away for a long time." (In case it is unclear, I made that up--but I'm saying that the compliment no doubt came in that form. If anyone finds the actual context, I'd be glad to post it.)

With all the glee over the posibilities of Dems winning the House and/or Senate, the forgotten story has been how many governorships they are going to pick up. And unlike the House and Senate races, the governorships are barely competitive. In addition to Massachusetts, it looks like, if leads hold the D's will pick up Maryland, New York, Colorado, Ohio, and Arkansas, while holding onto races that looked difficult in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. Oregon is really the only D-state that is a toss-up right now, which means the Dems ultimately will likely gain at least 5 governorships, giving them the majority (From 27 R's and 23 D's to 22 R's and 28 D's).

A Few Jaw-Droppers, Courtesy America's PAC and Chris Plante

2006-10-18T19:35:00.000-04:00

Remember Chris Plante? He's one of these lightweight right-wing poor-man's-Rush-Limbaugh-clones on talk radio. You may remember how I had to explain to him delicately that he was wrong about the national implications of the Lieberman-Lamont primary. In our heated conversation, he said that Lamont's liberalism and the purge of Lieberman from the Dems would turn the nation away from the Democratic party--yeah, look at the polls, and tell me Chris, how's that working out?

Anyway, last night on his radio show he was discussing these new ads put out by a group called America's PAC that seek to draw blacks to the Republican party by basically slandering the Democratic party.

One ad: "Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies. The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual's right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote. Why don't they want our lives?"

Hmm. (For the record, actually, I want both--the votes and the lives.)

Another one, with an even more bizarre distortion: "I can understand why a Ku Klux Klan cracker like David Duke makes nice with the terrorists. What I want to know is why so many of the Democrat politicians I helped elect are on the same side of the Iraq war as David Duke."

WOW! Anyone on the same side of ANY issue as David Duke--particularly an issue that has nothing to do with race--is automatically a racist! Who knew? I hate to break it to America's PAC, but you guys are on the same side of some of Duke's issues too. He's pro-life, for example--Why don't they just go ahead and make that ad? "I want to know why so many members of America's PAC, like myself, are on the same side of the abortion issue as David Duke."

Anyway, Chris Plante was talking about how edgy this ads were, and how they really drew attention to the fact that Democrats don't really care about blacks and are only pandering for their votes and blah blah blah. It was all standard 'winger stuff, until he went off the super-duper deep end with this quote that I am paraphrasing but I swear am not making up: "You know how Ronald Reagan was the first to ask 'Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?' Well, I think many blacks should ask themselves, 'Are you better off than you were 40 years ago', and I think most of the time, the answer would be 'No!'"

(I don't have a transcript for this, but you can listen to a recording here. They only keep the transcripts for the show for a week. The show was Tuesday, 10/17, from 8-10, and he made this comment at about 9:40 pm, so it should be toward the end of the show. If anyone wants to listen and transcribe that quote for me, I'll repost it.)

Ok, so time to take a poll of all my black readers, assuming there are any: Anyone want to go back 40 years? Particular those of you in the south? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Now, I'm not trying to say Chris Plante thinks that we should go back to Jim Crow and desegregation and all that. But what made my jaw drop was the fact that Plante is so incredibly out of touch to even suggest that most blacks in this country would rather set the clock back 40 years.

I'm not really all that ourgaged, because I'm sure no one will believe these ads, and if anything there will be a backlash. However, I would be offended if I were a black person listening to these ads. The logical stretches are an insult to the intelligence. Who in their right mind equates supporting a woman's right to choose with actively wanting those aborted to die, and who in their right mind really thinks that because David Duke likes peanut butter and jelly, anyone else who likes PBJ is a racist? The fact that America's PAC expects blacks to believe these arguments shows that they don't think very highly of them.

And they wonder why blacks are reluctant to vote Republican?

Noe Answerman

2006-10-16T07:41:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I might have endorsed Joe Lieberman for Senate in the general.

(Spit-take. A progressive blog endorsing Lieberman? I might as well be endorsing Foley for Page Board chairman. But hold on, this post has a happy ending.)

I endorsed Lamont in the primary, but have become pretty unimpressed by him. I am also really turned off by the way Democrats, at the behest of Ned Lamont and his band of merry Kossacks, demonize Lieberman as if he is Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. I differ tremendously with Lieberman on Iraq and some economic and social policy, but ultimately I think he's a good guy, a devoted public servant, and more liberal than liberals give him credit for. And, I do earnestly believe that you need people who do not spout the party line on both sides of the aisle if you really want progress.

Ok. But today, Lieberman couldn't answer (or was intentionally mum on) what I consider perhaps to be the easiest and most important question any progressive candidate ought to answer.

From the Harford Courant: "Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives. . . 'Uh, I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer,' Lieberman said, as though Democrats' strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn't been the fall's top political story."

What?!?

I mean, c'mon my fellow Dems. You may not trust Lieberman, you may have even used the phrase "Bush's lapdog" once or twice, but did you ever really think this former VP nominee would profess to be undecided about whether or not we should give Denny Hastert and the gang another couple years?

If the guy can't say whether the Dems should control the House, why should we think an embittered Lieberman, angry at former Senate friends campaigning on behalf of Lamont, would caucus with the Dems in the Senate?

Could he have said this strategically, because he was worried that endorsing a Democratic House would make him seem too liberal? Of course not. This is Connecticut, not Oklahoma. Besides, he's up by 10 points over Lamont right now with 67 percent of Republicans, 45 percent of unaffiliated voters and 35 percent of Democrats making up his support base right now, according to the Courant. The Republican candidate in the race has literally about 5% of the vote. Lieberman can say anything he wants, and moderate conservatives will prefer him to Lamont and to the Republican that can't win.

Similarly, Lieberman didn't say what his vote for Governor of Connecticut would be. Republican incumbent Jodi Rell is way up on Democratic candidate John DeStefano, and she is supported by many Democrats, so I'm not saying Lieberman needed to support DeStefano. But he needed to have a better answer, one better than this: "'I'm, uh, I'm having,' he stammered, then laughed and said his decision would remain private."

Isn't Joe always talking about how he'll take principled stands even if they are unpopular? Answer a question!

So, as much as I think Lamont is an overrated lightweight, he is the best choice for Connecticut. At least we know which side of the aisle he'll be on in November.

Maybe He Should Run For Talk Show Host After All

2006-10-13T23:31:00.000-04:00

Steele has been talking about the problems in both parties, since he doesn't want to talk about his own party. That I get. And one of the chief complaints that many citizens have about the D's and the R's is out of control of spending. So for all the credit I give Michael Steele (R) for being a smart politician, how can he possibly not have thought of a smart answer to the budget question? Or forget smart--an answer to the question at all?

According to today's Hotline, Steele has been talking a big game about fiscal responsibility, as evidenced here: "We should not be in the business of passing on debt to future generations. We should be passing on the opportunity of an economy that is the most robust in the world."

Great. So, any suggestions? "I don't know. I'm not doing the budget. Do you know how big the nation's budget is? Throw a few things out there. I don't know. I'm not going to do that."

And everyone says the Democrats have no ideas?

I've Had a Few of Those Book Reports Myself

2006-10-12T17:00:00.000-04:00

Conflicted today. On the one hand, I think this blog should be more than just simply regurgitating something I found somewhere else and then expecting accolades because somehow because I was so clever as to have thought to have posted it. On the other hand, I do what I want!

A good line from Jon Stewart, quoted in today's Hotline (subscription required), on Bush's last press conference: "He answers questions the way an eight-year-old does when he doesn't read a book."

Discuss? That's all I got today. What do you want from me?

Bennett: "Not Leahy! Please, God, Anyone But Leahy!"

2006-10-11T00:48:00.000-04:00

Interesting words from super-conservative Bill Bennett to disaffected conservatives that might stay home on election day:

"In 1960, Barry Goldwater famously shouted, 'Grow Up Conservatives.' It took 20 years for that call to be heeded . . . The stakes are large, we can't afford twenty years, we can't afford two years of this. . . Two years ago we sent a message by reelecting the President, have things fallen so hard since then that we can't muster those numbers again and see that the good should not be traded in for the bad? You want to rue a day? You will rue a day with John Conyers as head of the House Judiciary and Pat Leahy as head of the Senate Judiciary. Don't do it. Please don't do it."

Wow. A good rule of thumb, I think, is that anyone who starts a sentence with "You will rue a day [when] . . . " means business. Though I'm not particularly scared of Leahy as chairman of Judiciary, since I interned for him when he was (as he still is) the ranking Dem on Judiciary. He's a standup guy, and even for conservatives I don't think it'll be a reign of terror.

As for Bennett's fear-of-the-Democrats-mongering, did anyone expect any different strategy? That's all they have. Sounds like I was right when I said on this blog back in early May that Republicans would use the fear of Democrats as their only possible talking point, since they have an abysmal record.

From MJ's Vault: "Here's a sneak peak of the main talking point that each Republican candidate in close races in 2006 will repeat relentlessly. . . The Republican Party has given up on trying to proclaim their own merits. The argument now is going to be 'We screwed up, but they'd screw it up worse.' . . . their only hope is to get the American people to think they are the lesser of two evils."

Bill Bennett, why did you wait until now? I dreamed up your strategy months ago.

It's Not Bigotry; He Meant In Dog Years

2006-10-10T07:51:00.000-04:00

I love writing a title that makes people wonder what the hell I'm getting at. Oh, sorry, that sentence should end "at which what the hell I'm getting."

I guess if I'm going to give Republicans like George Allen, Bill Bennett, and Katherine Harris a hard time on this blog for bigotry, I ought to be Fair and/or Balanced by making sure I point out Democratic bigotry as well.

This from The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, which of course I read every day (not really), on comments made by Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer: "[State] Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, called Schweitzer's statement 'incredibly bigoted.' . . . Koopman called the comments insulting. 'He insulted many Christian people and other people of faith that arrived at that position other than the way I arrived at it,' he said."

So what could Schweitzer have said that was so insulting to Christians? I'm a Christian, so I'm ready to be insulted. Let's go to the videotape (er, article), also from The Bozeman DC.

"Speaking to a crowd of school children, parents and teachers in Bozeman on Friday about global warming, Schweitzer asked how many in the crowd thought the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old. Most of the children in the audience raised their hands. He then asked how many believed the planet was less than a million years old. At least two people, including Koopman, who was in the crowd, raised their hands. . . [Later, when asked about the assembly], Schweitzer said he needs support from a state Legislature that will help move Montana's agenda forward, 'not people who think the Earth is 4,000 years old.'"

Strange, I didn't find that insulting. I just found that scientifically accurate. Is this bigotry? Or just a pretty good point? I'd vote for the latter.

It gets messy when you start talking about people's religious beliefs, because they almost certainly sound wacky if they aren't a part of your own faith tradition. In all seriousness, to each his own, when it comes to religion. Fine.

But I have a hard time with the whole earth-is-5000-years-old thing, because of, you know, science. And just like I would want a surgeon operating on me who understands science, I would want a legislator representing me who understands at least the MOST BASIC principles of science. Do we kick the guy out? Of course not. But do we ridicule him when he's one of two people in a room full of children who thinks the earth was around for less than a million years? Of course.

Holy Foley! Look at Those Numbers

2006-10-09T07:30:00.000-04:00

How bad is it for the GOP?

As I've mentioned before, the non-partisan National Journal periodically ranks House and Senate races based on the likelihood of each seat switching parties. In the aftermath of the Foley scandal, anyone want to guess how many of the top 30 seats that are likely to switch parties are currently held by Republicans? Eighteen? Twenty? Twenty-five?

Too low. The number is a big ol' twenty-nine. The first twenty-nine seats, in fact, are held by Republicans. (Poor Leonard Boswell of Iowa's 3rd comes in as the first Dem to make the charts at number 30). And of the 50 most likely-to-switch seats, only 7 are held by Democrats.

Wow. The question for the GOP isn't whether they will win or lose anymore, it would seem. The question is how much damage can they avoid. Which is why we're seeing these House Republicans, so often respected for their overwhelming partisan unity, throw anyone of their own under the bus as fast and as severely as they can.

It'll also be interesting to see if the Foley scandal, perpetuated by Hastert's refusal to resign, will continue to wreak more havoc with the GOP, or if the scandal will cool-off and be somewhat forgotten by November 7th, or if Dems will get overzealous and turn-off voters with their opportunism, creating a backlash. I think the first and third option are both somewhat likely.

To paraphrase George Will from his column the other day: if the folks running Democratic campaigns this fall aren't able to make huge gains, they need to find another line of work.

No, Really, Steele Hates Puppies, Says Cardin (Sort of)

2006-10-05T07:50:00.000-04:00

RIP Bad Ad Thursday. It will be missed, but my time has been pretty constrained lately, and I get stressed out trying to find really bad ads. So maybe I'll pop a bad ad up there now and then, but as a regular feature, it ran its course.

And now, for your regularly scheduled post:

I take a class Tuesday nights with Bob Beckel. Beckel is a Democratic political strategist, a frequent Fox News Channel commentator, and I guy I like a whole lot. He's also the guy who lost 49 states for Mondale against Reagan in 1984, which makes me wonder why I'm taking a class from him. But in all seriousness, the guy is extremely politically astute and I respect his advice on all things politic.

Anyway, he mentioned to us the other day that one of the most common mistakes lousy strategists will make is that they will poll an issue for support, they will see that the electorate agrees mostly with them and mostly against their opponent on that issue, and then they will try to ride that one issue all the way to the bank. The reason this is a bad strategy is because even if the electorate feels one way about an issue overwhelmingly, it may not be one of the top 2 or 5 or 10 issues in the district, so the candidate ends up doing a lot of yammering about an issue that the electorate agrees with but doesn't care much about.

Why am I mentioning this? Because every damn ad I see of Ben Cardin's mentions stem cell research.

From an outside perspective, I'm going to make an educated guess on what happened. The Cardin campaign polled and found that most Marylanders (as well as most Americans) disagreed with Bush's decision to veto the stem cell research bill. I'd guess about 75% of Marylanders felt that way, so pretty overwhelming numbers. They also knew that Steele supported Bush's veto, and probably asked if that would make people less likely to vote for Steele. Again, people probably said yes. Plus, this was another chance to tie Steele to Bush.

The pitfall, though, is that while I also support stem cell research, and I also think Bush was wrong to veto that bill, and I also would be less likely to vote for Steele for supporting that decision, there are so many other things that I care about more. Go down the list: terrorism, jobs, Iraq, gas prices, health care, ethics, corruption, budget issues. There; I thought of seven issues I'm more likely to base my vote on before I even stopped typing. I'm sure I could pile on 15 more that are more important than stem-cell research.

And I hate to say it, but he might as well be attacking Steele for hating puppies. If Steele did hate puppies, that would make me marginally less likely to vote for him, but ultimately I don't care, so stop talking about Steele and puppies!

I gotta tell ya, the MD senate race is really starting to make me nervous. As Beckel pointed out to our class, what we Democrats perceive to be overwhelming anti-Bush sentiment may in fact be more anti-incumbent sentiment (another Bob Beckel insight). And Steele has done quite a fine job fitting into that outsider role, while Cardin hasn't done anything to make him look like he hasn't been buried in Washington this whole time. (Though I will say the one pitfall I see to Steele's strategy is that suburban Maryland is probably one of two places--the other being northern Virginia--that actually looks positively on someone "going Washington." Going Washington doesn't resonate with me--I am Washington!)

So we need to be careful. It would be a shame for Dems to sweep in red Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, and lose their back yard because a Democratic candidate who should've been talking about a progressive vision was going on and on about stem cell research.

A Scandal What If Game

2006-10-03T10:56:00.000-04:00

My posts that rehash polls or races (ie ones like the previous one) are generally momentum killers as far as comments on this blog are concerned. So I'm gonna break my rule of no-more-than-one-post-a-day to put out a discussion question about the Mark Foley scandal that I've been toying with (or, to be gramatically correct, a discussion question with which I've been toying.) That should get the ball rolling again.

What if the pages to whom Foley was being "overly friendly" (The Republican leadership's words) and was "simply sending naughty emails too" (Tony Snow's words) were 16 year old girls instead of 16 year old boys? Do you think that would make the scandal more or less serious, and would there be more or less uproar about it?

I have an opinion on this but I'm interested to hear what people think.

Polls and Folls

2006-10-03T00:30:00.000-04:00

For the purposes of this title, can we all just pretend that everyone calls Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) "Folls"? It'd really help me out.

Anyway, a good quote today on the Foley situation from the super duper conservative National Review Online: "Foley could become the new Jack Abramoff. Except that whereas the details of Abramoff's were always a bit complicated for the public to follow closely, the accusations now leveled at Foley are much simpler and more appalling. Foley is on the verge of becoming the poster child of a party that is concerned about little more than preserving its power."

Yep. The Jack Abramoff scandal was an inside-the-beltway scandal that didn't resonate and was hard to understand. But everyone understands that you can't shield sexual predators, no matter how much you want your party to win.

So, that was the Folls, so let's give ya the polls. These are from the most recent Mason-Dixon polls (all are from M-Dixon, except the Minnesota poll, which was conducted by the Republican firm Fabrizio McLaughlin & Associates).

And man do these look promising for the Democrats. Out of these 11 most competitive Senate races this cycle, Democrats currently have an astounding 9-0-2 record in these polls.

Before we pop our moderately priced champagne in celebration, I should note that all polls are within the margin of error except for PA and MN, making them statistical dead heats. Meaning a Democrat who is up 2 or 3 or 4 points may be down 2 or 3 or 4 points. Still, they are coming out just slightly on top consistently.

Take a look, the Democrat in the race is listed first.

RI: Whitehouse 42%, Chafee 41%
PA: Casey 49%, Santorum 40%
MO: McCaskill 43%, Talent 43%
NJ: Menendez 44%, Kean 41%
WA: Cantwell 50%, McGavick 40%
VA: Webb 43%, Allen 43%
OH: Brown 45%, DeWine 43%
MD: Cardin 47%, Steele 41%
TN: Ford 43%, Corker 42%
MT: Tester 47%, Burns 40%

The real shockers here are Virginia and Tennessee. I'm amazed that Allen could have fell so fast despite all the recent racial troubles, and I am thrilled that Harold Ford has been able to stay on top of Corker. And Santorum and Tester are looking like they're done more and more every day. I'm still nervous about the MO race and the NJ race, however. But if you assume that the undecideds are disaffected with the current government and are likely to break toward the challenger, we really may be looking at a banner year. We've got 5 weeks to the day, so let's close it out.

Foley's Folly: The Crime and the Coverup

2006-10-01T20:08:00.000-04:00

Ok, so we all know by now that Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned because he had sent sexually graphic emails to two different 16 year old boys that had worked as Congressional Pages, right? Well, obviously, that is horrible.

What is far more horrible, though, is that it now looks like speaker Hastert, majority leader John Boehner, and NRCC chair Tom Reynolds, knew about these graphic emails as late as 2005. The New York Times reports, "Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday."

So, basically, the party of family values would rather neatly push a sex scandal under the rug than jeopardize one of their safe Congressional seats, with absolutely no regard for the safety of this minor or other minors in the Page system.

(By the way, before some right-winger throws the Clinton argument into the mix, I should say that I'm not worked up about this because it is a sex scandal--if I'm going to argue that we shoulda stayed out of Clinton's personal business then I will argue that in other cases--but because the sexual conduct was both unwanted and directed toward a minor).

You know, listen, I'm a progressive Democrat. Ideologically, I dislike conservatism for the most part. But my problem with this crop of Republicans isn't their conservatism. Most of the country is more conservative than I am, and I'm not stupid enough to think that all of those people are bad people. Most of them are fine people.

No, my problem with these particular guys is their astounding lack of morality when it comes to winning elections. From Gingrich to Armey to DeLay to Boehner to Hastert and on and on, I have never seen so many grown men so easily ignore their consciences. Maybe the world of politics, with negative campaigning and big money contributions may be acceptable, there is a sliding scale of morality. But protecting a minor from a sexually hostile situation is one of the few slam-dunk answers when asking oneself what the morally correct thing is to do, no matter what the damn consequences are. So you lose a Congressional seat. Big deal. At least you can sleep at night.

Will this scandal be the nail in the coffin for the Republican party? I think it might. I bet many conservatives have wanted, time and time again, to believe that their leaders were better for the country than the Democrats. But when the party's leaders fail to protect children for their own political gain, I think that last chunk of the coalition may say "Enough is enough."

Steele Gets Out-Puppied

2006-09-27T16:06:00.000-04:00

Since one of the stories we are following here at the Blue Pages is the degree to which Michael Steele does or does not like puppies, I thought I'd print the text of a response ad, courtesy of The Hotline (subscription required).

Says the DSCC: "It's nice that Michael Steele likes puppies, but he's running for the United States Senate, and it's important to know where he stands on the issues. Michael Steele is a longtime supporter of George Bush. He supports the war in Iraq. Supported Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell research. And he's against a woman's right to choose. Michael Steele, he likes puppies, but he loves George Bush. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising."

Which means that Steele will counter with a "There go the Washington establishment types again. They keep mentioning me with George W. Bush because they don't want you to listen to my ideas."

Which means Cardin will say "Steele can try to distance himself from Bush, but he can't distance himself from his record of being a Karl Rove/George Bush Republican. He's running from his right-wing positions that are out of the conservative mainstream."

To which Steele will say "I've said Bush made mistakes on Iraq, I've said I disagree with him on many things. I'll tell you what's wrong with both parties, which is what Maryland wants, not party loyalists who only serve their own careers."

To which Cardin will say, "It is funny that Steele all of the sudden decided to be independent in an election year. He wasn't independent when he was GOP state party chair."

To which Steele will say, "Well, that may be true, but I sure do like puppies."

(Repeat for the next 7 weeks)

(Oh, and here's a Blue Pages Magic 8 Ball question for ya. Q: Will there be a long-awaited Bad Ad Thursday tomorrow? A: Outlook not so good.)

Senate Predictions From Seven Weeks Out

2006-09-26T07:59:00.000-04:00

Politics is incredibly dynamic which is why it is so fun to watch. Part of that fun for me involves making predictions and watching those predictions look ridiculous in hindsight. For example, in this post I predicted that George Allen would be our next President in 2008. Of course, that was pre-macaca; Nowadays, I'd hesitate to predict that George Allen could win a race for dogcatcher.

In this post I wrote 5 months ago, I took the non-partisan National Journal's top 10 Senate races (ranked in likelihood of switching partys) and made predictions on who I thought would win. It is time to revisit those predictions and re-assess the situation.

Before we get started, I have a stray thought that belongs somewhere in this post, though I can't figure out how to work it in seemlessly, so I'll just plop it down here as the 3rd paragraph. Basically, not only am I amazed that Republicans like George Allen (VA), Jim Talent (MO), and Jon Kyl (AZ) are in trouble, but I am more amazed at some of the Democrats who are safe. When Bush won reelection in 2004, there was talk about how the Republicans had their eyes set on the seats of Democrats Bill Nelson (FL), Ben Nelson (NE), and the open seat in Minnesota. If things got really good for the Republicans, they even thought they had a shot at Hillary Clinton (NY) and Robert Byrd (WV). Instead, Bill Nelson is literally about 50 points ahead of supervillain Katherine Harris, Ben Nelson has totally marginalized challenger Pete Ricketts, and Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota has a double digit lead over a candidate believed to be very strong. And of course, Clinton and Byrd have challengers so obscure that I don't remember theirs names and can't be bothered to look them up. So I guess my point is, wow, what a difference 2 years makes. And if us Dems succeed this time around, we need to keep that in mind.

Okey dokey. Let's review.

Race: Pennsylvania. Incumbent Senator Rick Santorum (R) vs. Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 1. Previous; 1.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Casey.
New Assessment: Casey. Throughout this whole race, Santorum has barely cracked 40% in the polls. Those numbers might be dangerous if you are a challenger, but those are bad bad news if you are an incumbent. It means that most people have already made up their mind that they don't like ya, as opposed to simply not knowing enough about you. We keep hearing rumblings from Santorum's campaign and the NRSC about what a great closer Santorum is, but I will be shocked if Santorum can pull this one off.

Race: Montana. Incumbent Senator Conrad Burns (R) vs. state Senate President Jon Tester (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 2. Previous; 3.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Tester.
New Assessment: Tester. Montana's a red state, but Burns has become a caricature for politicians that have "gone Washington." In addition to gaining quite the reputation as one of our most corrupt Senators, Burns keeps playing into the hands of those that would wish to portray him as out of touch with the ordinary Montana folk. Last week, the multibillion (probably) dollar firm Vonage chartered a private jet to take Burns to and from a golf tournament a couple of days after he pushed through an amendment to a bill that Vonage was lobbying for. Now, that is all legal and standard business and not even necessarily unethical, but how stupid is Burns to play into the stereotype that his opponent has set for him? Tester, on the other hand, comes across as phenomenally authentic.

Race: Ohio. Incumbent Senator Mike DeWine (R) vs. Congressman Sherrod Brown (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 3. Previous; 6.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Brown.
New Assessment: Brown. Ohio Republicans all around have the stench of corruption, from Bob Ney to Governor Taft to Deborah Pryce. DeWine seems clean enough, but if ever there was an anti-incumbent mood, it is in Ohio (though New Jersey is high too; see number 6). Brown has been slightly up in the polls that I've seen, usually about 3-5 points but often within the margin of error. This will be a squeaker, but it'll squeak for Brown.

Race: Rhode Island. Incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) vs. former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 4. Previous; 2.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Matt Brown.
New Assessment: Matt Brown lost in the primary, but I'm staying with Whitehouse on this one, though it'll be close. Chafee is pretty well-liked, and there are a lot of independents. Whitehouse would've won in a cakewalk if Chafee hadn't been able to hang on in the primary against conservative Cranston mayor Steve Laffey. But Rhode Islanders are used to writing down Chafee's name from both him and his father, and I think that tradition can be hard to break. Ultimately, though, the anti-Bush administration sentiment in Rhode Island is way too high for them to vote for a Republican, albeit a fairly liberal Republican. We'll see.

Race: Incumbent Senator Jim Talent (R) vs. State Auditor Claire McCaskill (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 5. Previous; 4.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Talent, but then McCaskill in a post a few days later.
New Assessment: I don't know. It is hard for me to fight my biases. I think McCaskill has shown herself to be stronger than others expected. But as I read in the National Journal a few weeks ago, "Getting McCaskill to 48% is easy. Getting her to 50% is hard." I think there are too many undecided voters that are going to break for Talent in the end. But McCaskill is campaigning hard in the rural areas, trying to chip away at some of the votes she lost when she lost the Governorship to the now-unpopular Matt Blunt (R) in 2004. So, I'm going for my 5th straight D in a row here. I think McCaskill narrowly pulls it out.

Race: New Jersey. Incumbent Senator Bob Menendez (D) vs. State Senator Tom Kean, Jr. (R).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 6. Previous; 10.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Menendez.
New Assessment: Kean. Menendez is down in the polls, about 50-44, in a blue state that is tired of its incumbents. New Jeresey is the Democrats' Ohio. Kean has successfully tried to tie Menendez to corrupt state politics, referring to him as one of the "Hudson county bosses," a phrase that I don't know what it means but I assume resonates with New Jeresians. Despite not liking Bush, and despite voting for Kerry, I think NJ has no affection for Menendez--he was appointed by Governor Corzine, not voted in--and some affection for Kean, whose father was Governor. Add that to the fact that Menendez has no charm whatsoever and I think you have the exception to the wisdom that it is the Democrats' year.

Race: Tennessee. Open seat (Bill Frist-R). Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker (R) vs. Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 7. Previous; 9.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Corker.
New Assessment: Corker. Ford has campaigned strong, and has done a lot to show that he is no liberal. In fact, I've started to sour on him a bit, because he is too conservative on some issues. I sure do like Ford a lot on the whole, but I am still reluctant to think that a black Democrat can win a statewide election in Tennessee, provided that Corker seems palatable at all. But if the Dems can pick this one up, they'll probably pick up the Senate as well.

Race: Maryland. Open seat (Paul Sarbanes-D). Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele (R) vs. Congressman Ben Cardin (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 8. Previous; 7.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Cardin.
New Assessment: Cardin. Look folks, Steele is an incredibly smart campaigner, he is starting to tap into anti-incumbent sentiment, he's charismatic, he is portraying himself as beyond politics. He's also behind Cardin by 10-12 points in spite of all of this. If Steele was a weak candidate and had 40% of the vote, that would be scary, but the fact that he is strong indicates that he may be topping out. Now, a Cardin gaffe could be enough for Steele to make some traction, and Cardin makes me a little bit nervous for the time being. But I'd be more nervous in 2004 or 2002. This isn't the year Maryland is sending a Republican to the Senate.

Race: Washington. Incumbent Senator Maria Cantwell (D) vs. Safeco CEO Mike McGavick.
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 9. Previous; 8.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Cantwell.
New Assessment: Cantwell. I've always thought this race was all sizzle and no steak. And there isn't even much sizzle. The most interesting moment of this race occurred when McGavick bared his soul on his campaign blog about mistakes he had made in his life, both personal and professional: a DUI, not spending time with his kids, making an unfair political ad, etc. I actually think this was incredibly bold and admirable, though the cynic in me knows it was probably a political manuever to get all the negatives out on the table on his own terms. But this backfired, and now people are talking about these things he brought up, without Cantwell having to even say a word. Also, Washington is trending too Democratic. Last year was a large year for Republicans, but George Nethercutt (R) was unable to defeat Patty Murray (D) or even come very close, when many thought that that was a significant race. This looks like deja vu to me.

Race: Virginia. Incumbent Senator George Allen (R) vs. former Navy secretary Jim Webb (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 9. Previous; 12.
MJ's Previous Prediction: None--wasn't in top 10 at the time. But would've said Allen.
New Assessment: Narrowly, I gotta choose Webb. Allen is unraveling at an unbelievable rate, as this week 3 former football teammates said he would routinely use the N-word. In the (paraphrased; forgot where I found this quote) words of George Will, "I can't remember anyone in politics having a worse month than George Allen." I mean, when you add macaca-gate to his previous support for the confederate flag despite growing up in California to his hanging of a noose in his office to his angry reaction over questions about his newfound Judaism to these N-word allegations . . . well, at some point enough has gotta be enough, right? 1 or 2 or 3 gaffes can be gaffes. Five of these things start to look pretty strongly racist. And even if he holds onto his Senate seat, I don't see how his Presdential aspirations can be realized.

And, one more race that was in the top 10 when I ranked it and has plummeted out of it:
Race: Minnesota. Open seat (Mark Dayton-D). Congressman Mark Kennedy (R) vs. attorney Amy Klobuchar (D).
National Journal's Ranking: Current; 12. Previous; 5.
MJ's Previous Prediction: Kennedy.
New Assessment: Klobuchar. I was sold on all this hype about Kennedy, but he is down by double digits. In a swing state like Minnesota, it is hard to believe the election isn't closer. The way this race has dropped off of the national radar shows how good the fortunes are for Democrats.

If my predictions hold, the Dems net 5 seats. They need 6 to win the Senate, meaning that I'd have to be wrong about New Jersey or Tennessee, or Jim Pederson (D) would have to beat Jon Kyl (R) in Arizona (National Journal's 11th ranked race). Today, this might work, but 7 weeks from now might show us a landscape that is more favorable to the Republicans. But signs continue to look good, and I remain, as most Democrats used to be crushed do, cautiously optimistic.

Chris Wallace Tries to Play With the Big Boys

2006-09-25T08:48:00.000-04:00

President Bill Clinton, to the wannabe-Tim-Russert Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday yesterday morning: "So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me."

(Clinton was also on with the real Tim Russert's show, but I don't know how that went.)

This was quite an interview--Clinton did not hold his tongue on things that he probably has been holding his tongue on for way too long. He vigorously confronted these right-wing criticisms about his ability to pursue Bin Laden, and he also called Fox News out on their double standards, and why they would criticize Clinton for not pursuing Bin Laden but not ask the same questions to W.

In short, Clinton was angry. And he wasn't going to let Chris Wallace lecture him.

If you have 15 minutes, I highly recommend you spend it watching the video at Crooks and Liars. At the very least, read the transcript, but the video shows Clinton's anger and passion far better than the transcript does.

Three important interchanges from the sorta-inaccurate-but-basically-the-same transcript at C&L:

"WJC: Let’s look at what [former National Security Advisor under 4 Presidents] Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke had a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?

CW: Yes, I do.

WJC: You do?

CW: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.

WJC: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H.W. Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. [But the Bush administration] downgraded him and the terrorist operation."

"WJC: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill [Bin Laden]. The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack/search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got (only) after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do (think we should have done) that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too? All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

CW: Do you think you did enough, sir?

WJC: No, because I didn’t get him. But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country: Dick Clarke."

"CW: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

WJC: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you’ve asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked ‘Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?’ I want to know how many you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?’ I want to know.

CW: We ask plenty of questions of…

WJC: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth.

CW: About the USS Cole?

WJC: Tell the truth…

CW: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask."

A couple thoughts: I've never been one to second guess either administration for 9/11. I know that many people disagree with me, especially with my position that the Bush administration doesn't really hold much blame for not going after Bin Laden. I don't think any administration could've understood this threat until we saw its destruction firsthand.

That being said, I don't give blame to Clinton, and I certainly give him credit for taking the steps he said he took. He has every right to be furious. While he admits that, no, he didn't do enough, he knows that there are still those who act as if he personally checked Mohammed Atta's luggage at Dulles, and he has to fight back against that misinformation.

Additionally, I am glad he called out Fox News so directly. I'm sure there will be those, particularly on the right, who will gloat about how Clinton lost his cool under the pressure of the interview. Maybe I'm being partisan here, but I saw that interview as Clinton putting his foot down on Fox, saying definitively that enough is enough. That they can be conservative and can put down Clinton and wail about how the other stations won't play the "good news" in Iraq and so forth, but when it comes to an influential media outlet insinuating that Clinton let 9/11 happen, they've gone too damn far. Good for him.

If You Can't Beat 'em, Trick 'em, Says Rush

2006-09-23T11:18:00.000-04:00

You've probably heard all the stories about Republicans sending out fliers to black neighborhoods telling them that a particular election is on Wednesday instead of Tuesday, or things of that nature. I've heard allegations about that from Jesse Helms' Senate campaign, from Florida in 2000, and from Ehrlich's campaign in Baltimore neighborhoods in 2002.

To be fair, I suspect that this happened in 1, 2, 3 or more of the above instances, but I currently do not have any proof. (Can anyone do my dirtywork for me and send me info about the above things?) And Republicans are always denying this, fervently.

Well, almost all Republicans. But not Rush, who just openly encouraged this.

This, via Crooks and Liars, from the Rush Limbaugh show on 9/19: "I mean, you take a look at the average Democrat voter registration drive, you can take for every hundred thousand voters they register, the cumulative IQ would probably be less than a pencil eraser. So when it comes time for the election, half of them can be fooled in saying, 'No, it’s not Election Day. It’s tomorrow, Wednesday.' And they show up on Wednesday to vote when the polls are closed, and the Democrats claim a trick has been played on them. That’s how stupid some of their voters are."

And, continuing on, "You think I’m lying? That happened. Republicans did a dirty trick and sent a flier out a week early and said due to unfortunate circumstances, certain precincts, Election Day will be held on Wednesday, blah, blah, blah, blah. Democrats heard about it, this is such a dirty trick. They were worried because they knew it would work, because half their voters are stupid idiots! They have to be when you look at the way they vote."

Wow. After years of denials from the RNC and other top wingers, Rush lets the cat out of the bag so he could get some cheap laughs about the stupidity of Democrats. Let's hope the joke is on him 7 Tuesdays--yes, TUESDAYS--from now.

I Don't Heart Huckabee

2006-09-22T17:11:00.000-04:00

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) is probably running for President in 2008. He spoke to the socially right-wing Family Research Council's Washington briefing according to The Hotline Blog. And of course, to prove he was one of them, he was willing to pass the FRC's litmus of test of whether they will support you or not, which basically is, "are you willing to ridicule gays?"

From Huckabee: "Until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying he's changed the rules, let's keep it like it is."

Of course, the Hotline Blog notes that this was one of 3 lines that drew wild applause.

Poor taste. And irrelevant. And besides, I know what you mean, Huck, but still, Moses didn't create the rules on marriage, did he?

A Maryland Ad Two-fer

2006-09-20T17:49:00.000-04:00

Bad News: No Bad Ad Thursday tomorrow--I'll be out of town and won't have time to look for one tonight. But hey, 9 in a row's not so bad, right?

Good news: Instead, I have the text of two ads from Maryland Republicans, one of which is bad and the other involves puppies.

Here we go. All quotes and citations are from The Hotline (subscription required), on either 9/19 or 9/18.

Steele's new ad: "Hey, me again. Michael Steele. Soon your TV will be jammed with negative ads from the Washington crowd. Grainy pictures and spooky music saying 'Steele hates puppies.' And worse. For the record, I love puppies. And I think you deserve better. Some real ideas for change. Like a ban on all gifts from lobbyists to Congressmen. And no last minute amendments for pork barrel spending. That's a start. Because Washington can't fix our problems until we fix theirs. I'm Michael Steele and this is my message."

Ok. On the one hand, I kinda like the ad and it fits pretty well into Steele's strategy to run, according to sources of The Hotline, as "the candidate as your pal, the friendly, reasonable guy who's beyond politics." And, I too enjoy puppies, and certainly wouldn't vote for a man who hated them. Steele's going for the above-Washington thing which is really his only possible angle, and who knows, maybe this works.

On the other hand, we're at a very serious time and politics is serious business. While this sort of ad may have been more effective during the Clinton years of peace and prosperity, I think this makes Steele seem a little too goofy. A good Hotline quote about this: "[Steele] looks and sounds like a man running for talk show host."

As for his good government amendments, kudos and I'm all for them, but I'll believe it when it happens. Steele isn't above politics; he's the former GOP chair for Maryland and was a fervent Bush supporter before it magically got unpopular. To be sure, I actually like Steele, and I don't think he'd make a bad Senator if he is accountable to a left-leaning state. But this is not the time to take a chance on voting Republican.

And now, to a politician with far less charisma, Governor Robert Ehrlich's hit-piece on future gov Martin O'Malley: "Recently, the Baltimore City Board of Education voted to lower the passing grade for students. Martin O'Malley supported this measure. I think it's outrageous. Two of every three schools in Baltimore are performing so badly they're on a federal watch list. That must change. And it starts with keeping standards high and schools safe. While some support the status quo I think it's time for change right away. And that's just another difference between us."

Ok. Here's a general rule of thumb. If you are running for re-election, you can't run on a platform of change. It begs the question, "If you wanted change, why did you wait until election year to tell us?" Don't talk about rejecting the status quo--you ARE the status quo! For this ad to be effective, it should be framed around the issue of how O'Malley is unfit to be an executive, not about change vs. more of the same, since voting for Ehrlich is by definition voting for more of the same.

Ok--that's what I got. It is off to Miami on business (sorry, just wanted a chance to say that) and back Friday, hopefully to catch up on some posting this weekend.

"Better Than Our Enemies"

2006-09-18T09:21:00.000-04:00

I've heard many 'wingers on these awful radio shows talk about how the rules on enemy interrogation and torture set forth in the Geneva conventions are too soft and are not congruent with fighting the war on terror. John McCain (R-AZ), who was tortured as a Vietnamese POW, has had a lot to say in defense of the Geneva conventions--I blogged about a Newsweek op-ed from Senator McCain on the same topic here last November when the Senate voted 90-9 to outlaw "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" punishment for Gitmo detainees.

(In case you were wondering, Republican Senators Wayne Allard (CO), Kit Bond (MO), Tom Coburn (OK), Thad Cochran (MS), John Cornyn (TX), James Inhofe (OK), Pat Roberts (KS), Jeff Sessions (AL), and Ted Stevens (AK) boldly put themselves in the pro-cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment camp.)

Anyway, now that there is talk of trying to rewrite our rules on interrogation and torture, McCain, along with semi-principled Republicans Lindsey Graham (SC) and John Warner (VA), is speaking out again about why relaxing our torture standards is a terrible idea. I really like McCain's quote, below:

From the New York Times: “This issue is not them — this issue is about us. The United States has always been better than our enemies. I’ll tell you right now: one of the things in prison, in North Vietnam, that kept us strong was that we knew we were not like our enemies. That we came from a better nation, with better values, with better standards.”

Isn't this what we are aiming for?

Field Trip: Heros, Hairstyles, and Orange Soda

2006-09-17T23:18:00.000-04:00

Back from my own field trip, so time to send you on one:

--Santorum's (R-PA) new ad (read about it here) suggests his opponent Casey (D-PA) should hold his meetings in jail, because of alleged shady dealings with PA citizens who are under investigation for this or that. But it looks like a stretch. Though the ad describes the citizens as "Bob Casey's campaign team," every man mentioned has neither contribued money to or served a role in Casey's '06 Senate run, as the ad suggests, and one of the guys actually "died nearly two years ago."

Quote Casey spokesperson Larry Smar: "It's the type of ad you'd run if your back was up against the wall and your career was about to end."

--I guess you can't argue it; this guy really is The People's Hero. Or, Thu People's Hero, anyway.

--Q: What do Congressman Hastert (R-IL), Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI), and Senator Levin (D-MI) have in common? A: Crazy-old-white-guy hair. As Lauren of LMNOP suggests, "congressmen's hair may be the only thing dumber than senators' web pages."

--And while we are talking about hairstyles--how about a new Whig? Best official Party website I've seen.

--And this may not be about politics, but it certainly is the most in-depth article I've ever seen about which orange sodas taste the best.

The Rhode to Victory

2006-09-15T00:37:00.000-04:00

I know that Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) is a moderate/liberal Republican, and I know they like the Chafee family up there, and I know that there are a large number of independents living in Rhode Island . . .

. . . but it can't be good for the GOP when last Tuesday in the RI primary, more Democrats voted for the Democratic nominee than Republicans that voted in the primary at all.

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) won the nomination with 81.6% of the vote, which is 65,676 votes. Lincoln Chafee and Cranston mayor Steve Laffey in the Republican primary earned 35,102 and 29,496 votes respectively, for a total of 64,598 votes.

Oh, and our Bad Ad buddy Carl Sheeler only got 6,336 votes, which was 7.9% of the total Democratic vote.

Anyway, as I've mentioned, the Dems look likely to pick up this seat, though I'm sure it will be close, and I won't be shocked if Chafee squeaks it out. Chafee's alright, but I don't understand him. This is from the Hotline on 9/13 (subscription required):

"Chafee acknowledged being asked often: 'Why are you a Republican?' And 'he repeated his definition of Republicanism,' including fiscal discipline, environmental protection, individual liberty, aversion to foreign entanglements and 'a willingess to use the tools of government to help the poor and the vulnerable.'"

Ok, let's look at that. Just on a gut level, think about which party you associate with the things that are in Chafee's definition of Republicanism.

Environmental protection? Dems.

Aversion to foreign entanglements? Dems.

Fiscal discipline? Maybe not the Dems, but definitely not Republicans.

Individual liberty? Push--in the tax sense, Republicans, but Dems in the civil liberty sense (except perhaps on gun issues).

Willingness to use the tools of government to help the poor and the vulnerable--are you kidding me? That one's a slam dunk. Of course the Democrats.

So why doesn't Chafee look around and say, "hey, wait a minute, I'm a Democrat"? I suppose it isn't that simple, but I'd like a better answer from Chafee on why on earth he is a Republican.

And I think many Rhode Islanders might want a better answer, too. That R could be the death of him in about 8 weeks.

Bad Ad Thursday: Um, This Ad is Terrible

2006-09-14T00:01:00.000-04:00

Is this getting old? Perhaps. But there are 8 more shopping Thursdays between now and Tuesday, November 7th, so you'd better buckle up and enjoy the ride.

This week, the ride will be given by Florida state senate candidate Jeremy Ring (D). He brings us this gift of an ugly, rambling, somewhat incoherent and stylistically dead advertisement. In other words, he brings us about 90% of what we want in a Bad Ad Thursday, though I also wouldn't mind if he jumped in a pond in his next ad.

Alright Jeremy Ring, time to tackle the issues voters care about. Or a point. Or ANYTHING of ANY VALUE at all. Please!

Watch the ad:

Jeremy Ring is David Sanders without the charisma (Gary Sanders being a distinguished Bad Ad alum) and without having inspected a biological facility in Siberia. Let us analyze:

A) I guess I can't give this guy a hard time for having a lisp--he probably can't help it. But he should probably avoid words like "themselvths" and "pioneerstzth."

B) "My parents worked hard. Too hard to dream for themselves. The dreams fell to me." Ok, fine. What's your point? I guess he's just trying to be biographical, and have the audience get to know him a little better, but it just strikes me as a waste of valuable words in a 30 second ad.

C) "I was among the pioneers helping to build Yahoo in the first days of the information age." Yeah, remember when Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet? How'd that work out for him?

D) I have a feeling that the 2-second graphic of "creativity" and "conviction" in the style of the Matrix probably cost more than the rest of Ring's other ads combined.

E) At 16 seconds, we have the second weirdest shot in the ad. Ring points at us, standing at a 45 degree angle, and lectures, "It can surely change Tallahasee." As he says this, two elderly women are looking curiously at Ring and nodding at him in a pharmacy for no apparent reason. Apparently, Ring shoots ads while grocery shopping.

F) And after this, is the weirdest, most inexplicable second of the ad. Ring ups the ante be proclaiming, "It WILL change Tallahasee," over a totally inexplicable shot of several kids standing around in some housing complex doing nothing. Please tell me--what is the point of that shot? Talk about strong visuals! I have no idea who these kids are, where they are, what their relevance is to the text. Seriously, I feel like I'm missing something--how can these kids standing around have anything to do with changing Tallahasee?

G) Finally, at the end, Ring at least seems to realize he has nothing to say and turns it over to Congressman Robert Wexler, who is best known outside of Florida for saying on The Colbert Report, "I enjoy cocaine because its a fun thing to do." Sounds like a solid endorsement. Good thing you found a photo of you and your wife meeting the guy and gaping at him.

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: D? I don't even know anymore. This ad tries to tell a story at first, and then ends up telling no story at all. It shifts in and out of styles, so that each shot looks like it belongs in a different commercial from the next. And this is one of the most visually unappealing montages I've ever seen.

Previous Bad Ad Thursdays: Menendez, Lichtman 1, Lieberman, Robinson, Sanders, Sheeler, Perry, Lichtman 2.

Marylanders (Mostly) Get it Right, Even if the Board of Elections Didn't

2006-09-13T09:14:00.000-04:00

Maryland election results are in! (Non-Maryland readers; don't worry, I'll get back to national stuff now that the election is over.)

Anyway, Maryland results are really only sort of in. Apparently even though Maryland is one of the most well-educated states in the nation, and even though the United States is the oldest form of representative government in the world, we're still having trouble running simple elections.

From the Washington Post: "The most basic of human errors threw Maryland's primary election into chaos yesterday: Someone forgot the wallet-size plastic cards needed to operate the voting machines in Montgomery County, frustrating early morning voters who lined up outside polling places and often were turned away without voting. . . Some Montgomery County polling places didn't receive word of the order to remain open until minutes before 8 p.m., when they had been scheduled to close. Others ran short on the paper ballots that the court instructed be used during the extended hour of voting, with voters scribbling their choices on scraps of paper in Takoma Park."

So I should've started this post off with "SOME of Maryland's election results are in." If I could do it over again, I would. But what's done is done, there is no possible way to change it.

Anyway, the good news is that most of the good guys won, which is a rarity. This is the first post-election day of any kind where I've been in a generally good mood since I started paying attention to politics in 2000. Here is the selected good news, as of 9:30 AM, from the MD Board of Elections and the Montgomery County Board of Elections.

See if you notice an anti-incumbent or anti-machine politics trend here.

--Ike Leggett defeats Steve Silverman for Montgomery County Exec fairly significantly by a margin of 61% to 36%. Looks like no one bought Silverman's huge "Sick of Traffic?" and "Want the Purple Line?" signs.

--Jamie Raskin absolutely slaughtered Ida Ruben in State Senate district 20, by a 2-1 margin. Wow!! Unbelievable that a 30 year state politics veteran could let such ego and poor judgment destroy that career. Raskin would've been thrilled to squeak by, but this sends a strong message that voters rejected Ruben's Karl Rove tactics.

--Donna Edwards had a slight lead over Al Wynn this morning! However, many PG County precincts haven't been counted yet, and Wynn is expected to emerge there. Still, I am absolutely shocked and quite impressed at Edwards, whose name I didn't know a month ago, and she may just pull this thing out. And if not now, the stage is set for a Coup D'Wynn in 2008.

--Cardin beat Mfume. I didn't vote for Cardin, but I agree with my guy Mfume when he says Cardin will "be a damn good Senator." Again, this is one of the few races I've witnessed where there are two strong spots at the top.

--Pretty good news for the County Council, as well. In 2002, the anti-ICC folks were purged by the likes of Silverman, Michael Subin, Nancy Floreen, and George Levanthal. What's that they say about karma? So while Levanthal and Floreen were reelected, which I'm disappointed but not surprsied about, two strong anti-special-interests candidates in Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg also made the top four. Subin came in 5th, and the county is richer for having this loose cannon developer mouthpiece no longer serving in Montgomery. Silverman will be gone as well, since he lost to Ike Leggett, as I mentioned. Also, Marilyn Praisner's reelection and Valerie Ervin's election make the County Council something I am far more comfortable with.

--Former governor and former Baltimore mayor William Donald Schaefer has another "former" title to add to his long and controversial career: former comptroller. We don't know if he was beaten by Peter Franchot or Janet Owens, but we know that he came in 3rd place with about 70% of the voters voting for someone else.

The fact that Maryland Democrats want have cried out decisively for change in this election could be indicative of the overall anger voters have towards their leaders in this country. Silverman, Ruben, Subin, Schaefer, and Al Wynn were all candidates that to some degree felt that they had earned the right to their political positions and no longer needed to respond to their community. Maryland voters proved four of these guys wrong, and possibly a fifth in Al Wynn (and even a Wynn-win situation-haha-would be a huge wakeup call, since he would've almost lost to a virtual no-name).

So though I would've liked Floreen, Levanthal and Wynn (if he hangs on) to lose, I really couldn't have realistically asked for a much better election day.

Oh, and Zubairi lost, too.

Oh, and so did Allan Lichtman.

A Dick Cheney Logic Puzzle

2006-09-12T07:49:00.000-04:00

Remember a couple weeks ago how that guy won a million dollars for proving one of Poincare's famous conjectures? I'm sure that was difficult to solve. So I'd like to give him a chance to solve another logic puzzle that I am proposing. It emerged during last Sunday's Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. Lord knows I haven't solved it.

All Cheney and Russert quotes can be found in the transcript of Sunday's MTP. And now, here is your logic puzzle:

USING STANDARD AND ACCEPTED RULES OF LOGIC, USE THE FOLLOWING SIX PREMISES TO ARRIVE AT THE THEN-STATEMENT CONCLUSION BELOW:

PREMISE 1. IF: Cheney says, “[Saddam] did not have stockpiles [of WMDs]—clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong.”

PREMISE 2. AND IF: Russert says, "You said Saddam Hussein was bottled up," and Cheney replies, "Mm hmm."

PREMISE 3. AND IF: Russert says, "Well, I asked you, I said, 'is there a connection between Saddam and 9/11 on September ‘03' and you said 'we don’t know,'" and Cheney says, "That’s right."

PREMISE 4. AND IF: Cheney says, "I think there’s no question, Tim, that the insurgency’s gone on longer and been more difficult that I had anticipated. I’ll be the first to admit that."

PREMISE 5. AND IF: Russert says, "Now the president has been asked, 'What did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?' and he said 'nothing.' Do you agree with that?" and Cheney says "I do. . . We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11."

PREMISE 6. AND IF: Russert says, "It has been a long, costly and bloody war," and Cheney replies, "It has."

THEN

WHY WOULD CHENEY SAY: "It was the right thing to do and if we had it to do over again, we’d do exactly the same thing."

One million Blue Page Dollars to whoever can solve this one.

Printable Blue Page Ballot

2006-09-10T10:54:00.000-04:00

I will get rid of this post after the election; this is a more printable version of my endorsements for September 12th.

PRINT THIS BLUE PAGE BALLOT: You CAN take this in the booth with you.
Governor: Martin O'Malley
Senator: Kweisi Mfume
House: District 4, Donna Edwards. District 8, Chris Van Hollen
Montgomery County Exec: Ike Leggett
Montgomery County Council, at large: Marc Elrich, Cary Lamari, Duchy Trachtenberg, Hugh Bailey
Montgomery County Council, districts: District 1: Howard Denis (R); District 2: Sharon Dooley; District 3: Phil Andrews; District 4: Marilyn Praisner; District 5: Valerie Ervin
Comptroller: Peter Franchot
Attorney General: Stuart Simms
State Delegate: District 14: Ann Kaiser, Karen Montgomery, Herman Taylor; District 20; Aaron Klein, Heather Mizeur, Tom Hucker.
State Senate: District 14: No endorsement; District 20: Jamie Raskin.
School Board: Personally unfamiliar with this race, but according to my teacher friend Ms. Boyd, the teacher's union recommends: District 1 Judy Docca; District 3 Patricia O’Neill; District 5 Nancy Navarro; At-Large Shirley Brandman.
DO NOT VOTE LIST, Alphabetically with the race in parentheses: Nancy Floreen (County Council), Michael Knapp (County Council), Rona Kramer (State Senate District 14), George Leventhal (County Council), Ida Ruben (State Senate District 20), William Donald Schaefer (Comptroller), Steve Silverman (County Executive), Michael Subin (County Council), Al Wynn (U.S. House District 4).

Blue Page Ballot

2006-09-09T17:51:00.000-04:00

If I were going to do a "frequently asked questions" section on The Blue Pages, the only one I would post would be "Who am I supposed to vote for in the Maryland Democratic primary elections on September 12th?" That qualifies as frequent because Kelly asked me once, and I think someone else asked me once also.

Well, in honor of this being my landmark 200th Blue Page post, today that FAQ will finally be answered.

The Maryland Democratic primary is tough to figure out, because, oddly enough, all of the candidates are Democrats. It is hard to have concrete opinions about all of these guys, much less remember who is who and who is running for what seat. I'm obsessive about politics, and even I have a really difficult time remembering this stuff.

So this is the shorthand. PRINT THIS OUT and take it to the house (by which I mean the polls). You are allowed to bring in voting guides to the polls, which not everyone realizes.

I'm not going to go into details about each race, because I really don't know enough about most of the races or the candidates to say much intelligently. But generally speaking, this county and much of the state will elect Democrats pretty consistently, so I have chosen which Democrats I support based largely on who is more accountable to the people versus who is more beholden to special interests. The Democrats I am endorsing are, in my opinion, true progressives, not merely liberal leaning mouthpieces for big business and developing interests.

Ok, here we go: The Official September 12th Blue Page Ballot.

Governor: Martin O'Malley. He may even be the only name on there at this point, but I think he will make an excellent governor. This would've been a high stakes race is Doug Duncan was still searching for the seat, but we all know what happened to him.

Senate: Allan Lichtman. Just kidding, my real endorsement is Kweisi Mfume. This was the toughest one for me, because I think Rep. Ben Cardin will also make an excellent senator. According to the Washington Post, "Both candidates are substantive, serious and broadly experienced; either would make a fine senator." Isn't it nice to have an election where you would still be happy with the candidate even if your guy didn't win?

I was leaning toward Cardin for most of the summer, but I came down on Mfume for the following reasons. A) He seems more likely to shake things up in the Senate, and be a strong voice for Maryland. B) Many people suspected that as an underdog he would run a nasty campaign, but he has run a very positive, inclusive campaign, which I think is admirable. C) I just like him. I like his story and I find him inspiring, which we need today in politics. D) Frankly, we need more black members in the U.S. Senate. While blacks make up about 12% of the American population, we have a grand total of one black in the Senate (Obama D-IL).

U.S. House District 4: Donna Edwards. I have previously endorsed her here. She's a very strong candidate giving incumbent Al Wynn a run for his money. The Washington Post endorsed her recently, and though I don't think she will win, she just might give an impressive showing.

U.S. House District 8: Chris Van Hollen. Van Hollen is a solid, intelligent progressive wonderboy through and through. He'll win easily.

Montgomery County Executive: Ike Leggett. A very strong alternative to the sleazeball Steve Silverman, who has been saying Leggett won't build the Metro Purple Line since he apparently voted against some version of it in like 1989 or something. Of course Silverman, who was County Council chair, could have made the Purple Line a priority all these years that he was sucking up to developers to get the ICC built, but there wasn't any money in it, and it wasn't election season.

Montgomery County Council: Here, I am basically taking my endorsements directly from NeighborsPAC.org, whose self-described mission is "to assure that citizens, not developers or special interests, control the future of Montgomery County." These are the guys who are not in the pockets of big developers, and respond well to, you know, the citizens. Here are the endorsements:
--District 1: Howard Denis, who is (gasp) a Republican. So if there are any liberal Republicans in Montgomery County district 1 reading this blog, go nuts and vote for Denis. I'm not sure who the Democrat is, but I'm guessing that it is one of these big business types if NeighborsPAC actually endorsed the Republican.
--District 2: Sharon Dooley. No idea who this is.
--District 3: Phil Andrews. One of the most solid, anti-ICC politicians this county has to offer.
--District 4: Marilyn Praisner. She is kinda eh but she'll have to do.
--District 5: Valerie Ervin. Ervin is interesting, because she beat my friend's dad in the race for school board, and she is endorsed by a Blair student's mom on her webpage. (For locals who know me, I'm referring to Ezra Fishman and Joel Sternbach respectively.) So her slogan ought to be "Vote for Valerie Ervin, the woman who has had coincidental encounters with your friends' parents."
--At Large: Marc Elrich, Cary Lamari, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Hugh Bailey. The last 3 I am basically voting for because of the Neighbors PAC endorsement, but Marc Elrich is the only one I feel strongly about--he is an outstanding choice.

Comptroller: Peter Franchot. William Donald Schaefer, as I mentioned here, is insane. I don't know much about Janet Owens, but Franchot is another one of these Takoma Park progressives, though I think he has never been great on the ICC.

Maryland Attorney General: Push? Not sure here. Narrowly, though, I think I'm going with Stuart Simms, despite having the worst yard sign I've ever seen. (Check his website. It isn't unattractive, it is just impossible to read when you are driving.)

Tom Perez was the top choice, but he had to resign because of some technicality. I'm also down on Doug Gansler because he has been the Montgomery County Attorney General and hasn't done anything, to my knowledge, about some of the blatant environmental laws that the ICC will break in Maryland. If I'm wrong about this, I'll vote for Gansler, but he sure didn't brag about any of that on his website.

State Delegate: District 20 (Takoma Park and Silver Spring): Aaron Klein, Heather Mizeur, Tom Hucker. District 14 (North Silver Spring and probably Wheaton or something) Karen Montgomery, Ann Kaiser, Herman Taylor.

State Senate: Jamie Raskin, who is another progressive star, for district 20. No endorsement for district 14--I oppose incumbent Rona Kramer.

School Board, judges, etc: Update, 9/10: Kelly tells me who the teacher's union recommends, check it out in the comments sectino or the printable Blue Page Ballot. Still unsure about the judges.

DON'T VOTE LIST! Sometimes it isn't who you vote for, it is who you don't vote for. So here is an alphabetical do-not-vote list. If you see a familiar name on the ballot that I haven't endorsed, you may want to check alphabetically to see if they make these list:

DO NOT VOTE FOR . . . Nancy Floreen, Michael Knapp, Rona Kramer, George Leventhal, Ida Ruben, William Donald Schaefer, Steve Silverman, Michael Subin, Al Wynn.

Here is a list, by the way, of all the percentage of contributions from developers that many of the above politicians have, to get a sense of how in-the-pocket of big business they really are.

And make sure you vote on Tuesday!

Field Trip: House Races, Hitler Comparisons, Hubbard Dresses, Holy Aliens

2006-09-08T00:37:00.000-04:00

Man, what a title for a post. Anyway, now that I have your attention . . .

--I've been writing a lot about the Dems odds in the Senate. I'll let MyDD handle the House, which just released a whole bunch of polls from close House districts. Chris Bowers of MyDD: "These polls are great news for Dems. These polls show thirteen Democrats leading out of twenty-two Republican districts polled. Another three Democrats are within the margin of error. All Democratic targets, except in FL-13 and MN-06, are either ahead or within single digits. . . Virtually no Democratic seats are threatened."

--"Yes, Mr. President, Hitler was bad. And your point would be?" Eugene Robinson, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite Washington Post columnists, on all this nonsense about how those who don't support the war in Iraq are appeasing Osama bin Laden. Pretty funny how the right can't help comparing this war to WWII and the left can't help comparing this war to Vietnam.

--Cassidy on the Bush admin's latest line after admitting that the secret CIA prisons do exist: "We don't torture, but the Hamdan decision was a bad one. It says we can't torture. That is a bad thing for us not to be able to torture. Even though we don't torture. We never have. But it would suck if we couldn't, you know?"

--I've complained about a lot of lousy Democrats in the great state of Maryland (Albert Wynn, Ida Ruben, Doug Duncan) but for outright lousiness it is hard to beat former governor, current comptroller, and career lunatic William Donald Schaefer.

According to the Washington Post, Schaefer has made degrading comments about one of his opponents in the race for comptroller, Janet Owens: "Schaefer told Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher in comments published yesterday that Owens, the Anne Arundel County executive, is a 'prissy little miss' who wears 'long dresses, looks like Mother Hubbard -- it's sort of like she was a man.' Schaefer made similar comments in a taped interview with NewsChannel 8. 'She's got these long clothes on and an old-fashioned hairdo,' he said. 'You know it sort of makes you real mad.'"

It sort of makes you real mad? This guy is losing his mind. And lest you think this is an isolated incident: "The remarks came as Schaefer is airing a television ad apologizing for past comments that have offended women, immigrants and other groups." Wow.

--The website Faithful Democrats, a site that describes itself as an online Christian community for Christian Democrats, went live today. A cursory glance of it has left me feeling conflicted. This isn't religion, this is politics.

As a Democrat and a Christian, I'm the first guy to tell you that I'm sick of the Republicans acting like they have the monopoly on religion, and that I know many many progressive Christians, and that some of us think moral values are more about war and poverty than stem-cell research and gay marriage. But I don't want to live by the right's religious value any more than I want to live by the left's religious values. If you want to make policy, even based on your own religious morality, argue that it is the right thing to do, don't argue that it is what Jesus would do. That's a discussion for Sunday mornings.

And besides, articles like "Jesus Was an Illegal Alien" (as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up) seem like kind of a misfire.

Bad Ad Thursday: The Return of the Pond-Jumper

2006-09-07T00:09:00.000-04:00

Allan Lichtman (D-MD) has done it again, folks.

You may remember Lichtman as the senate candidate who spouted some nonsense and then jumped in a pond. While we can only hope that all Senators would jump in a pond after they spout nonsense, Lichtman appeared to put his money where his mouth was, until I noted that it doesn't look like it is actually him jumping in. Sadly, by the way, that ad was about middle of the pack by Bad Ad Thursday standards.

Being the Marylander that I am, I wanted to give my homeboy Lichtman another try.

Is this one better or worse than the first? You tell me. Watch the ad:

Heavy sarcasm to follow:

A) Allan Lichtman is big on these visual metaphors. In the last ad, Lichtman told us he would make a big splash by jumping into a pond or something. That same ad guy (who probably is just Lichtman) must've spent all of two minutes thinking, "Ok, now how are we supposed to show that Allan is going to stand corrupt politics on its head?"

So one stupid visual pun is corny and two is a coincidence. But three? Lauren of LMNOP recently saw Lichtman at the Gaithersburg Labor Day parade, and this is what she had to say:

"At the labor day parade, instead of the traditional walking around and shaking hands, he was doing this weird hyper jog-run thing up to people and then saying, 'Hi, I'm Alan Lichtman and I'm the only candidate who's ACTUALLY RUNNING for Senate this year.' Due to my prior knowledge of Lichtman and his affinity for cheesy ass puns, I got the joke, but the girl next to me waited until he jogged away and then was like, 'Wait, does that mean he's the only person running for Senate, or the only Democrat?'"

Is this guy a mental giant or what?

B) Sorry, still not done with that first line. "Allan Lichtman will stand corrupt politics on its head." What? What does that even mean? What a gramatically awkward and un-snappy sentence. I get the feeling that the Lichtman campaign must've just purchased a video editor that looked really cool in the brochure but in reality could only turn images upside-down. Again, the ad guy and his campaign buddies must've been thinking, "Now, what will Lichtman stand on its head." "I know, corrupt politics!" "You son of a bitch, you've done it again. Promote that man."

C) Watch the rhythms of the sentence, Allan. Did anyone else hear seconds 10-15 as "Corporations and lobbyists looking for special treatment should find another candidate--like you!" I couldn't believe it--like me? What's with the antagonizing attitude toward the constituents? Of course, listening to the rest of it, I now know that the "like you" begins the sentence, "Like you, I'm tired of corruption and wasted tax dollars." But I spent the rest of the ad feeling defensive and accused.

D) The last line comes across as very begging and very car salesman-y. "Listen, I'm a lifetime teacher, schooled in public service, who'll make government work for you."

E) Who is in charge of scouting locations here? We've got a) some house, b) the capital building in a year when people are more fed up at politicians than ever, and c) the least charming medium-sized playground I've seen in a while to bring home the point about Allan being a lifetime teacher. I know this is a low-budget operation, but how hard is it to get to the Chesapeake Bay? Allan, if you are out there, I'll let you borrow my EZ Pass for ad number 3.

F) For a really painful experience, watch the ad with the sound off. Particularly the first 6 seconds of Lichtman hanging upside down. It is brutal.

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: D--. Honestly, you can't keep turning in this shoddy product and expect to pass. And charisma isn't your thing, I've never seen anyone try to phone in charisma so hard. You've got until next Tuesday to turn it around, mister, or I may have to expel you for the rest of the election season.

Past Bad Ad Thursdays: Menendez, Lichtman 1, Lieberman, Robinson, Sanders, Sheeler, Perry.

IslamoSayWhatism?

2006-09-06T07:27:00.000-04:00

Here are two words that really shouldn't be entering our vernacular: "Islamofascism" and "Islamonazism." Yet they are emerging as the right's favored label on today's threat of terrorism. Not only are they offensive terms, they are strategically dangerous.

If you listen to a lot of right wing talk radio, as I do, you'll know that this is the new term that the right is throwing around for what us polite liberals call terrorists-that-happen-to-be-muslim-though-actually-they-are-not-like-other-muslims-who-are-a-very-peaceful-people. Our term is nicer. Their term, at least, is shorter. But Savage and Limbaugh and Hannity and Levin all throw the term around, daring someone to challenge them on it for being offensive.

With the exception of Savage, who really is a racist, the other loudmouths claim that the term isn't meant to insinuate that all Muslims are terrorists, but merely that there is a movement of Islamic terrorism. They say that use of the terms Islamofascism or Islamonazism is only meant for those in that movement, and that some college kid named Mohammed who listens to the Red Hot Chili Peppers and loves Seinfeld isn't a part of that. They say he shouldn't be offended to hear that other Muslims, the ones that we all agree are evil, are labeled in such a way.

Ok. Fine. I get it. But here's the thing:

We are at a time in the world where we need all the allies we can get. Specifically, we need Muslim allies. Remember how they thwarted that attack in England? It began with a tip from a Muslim who knew other extremist Muslims. The fact that that one Muslim felt some compassion, as opposed to alienation, towards his government and his fellow countrymen, saved thousands of lives. Do we want that guy offended by what he perceives to be a direct insult to all Muslims?

In other words, this is not about merely being sensitive or PC for sensitivity's or PC's sake. This is about making sure Muslims know that they ought to be on our side, that we hate extremism but embrace their diversity. Forget the touchy-feely stuff, though that stuff is important too, but this is just smart strategically.

Here's the other thing: Why even use the term? We already know that these terrorists are fundamentalist muslims, and we also know that use of such a term, when used casually, can sound to a slur to all muslims. What benefit do we get from it?

Or another thing, to be congruent: Picture an inner-city that is 90% black, as many of our inner-cities are, that has a problem with armed robbery. And because 90% of the city's population is black, roughly 90% of the armed robbers, and thus the overwhelming majority, of the armed robbers are black. Can you imagine a mayor addressing this by decrying the problem of "black armed robbery"? Even if he said, "Now, for those of you who are black and are NOT robbers, please do not be offended, I'm not including you in that group," it makes you wonder why he would've brought up race at all. (This is not a perfectly congruent example, but I'm just trying to illustrate how the marriage of a racial characteristic and a crime just hits the ears offensively.)

So why ARE these hosts bringing this up at all? Like I said, it isn't useful, it isn't informative, it can only have net negative effects, so what do they gain? They are using the terms for the reasons they do anything--to be provactive, and to rail on liberals about how they don't understand the nature of the enemy and blah blah blah when someone does question their use of the term.

So congrats, all you right-wing loudmouths. Your stubborn insistence on using those terms and getting them into the mainstream is helping anger the very people whose help we need the most, just so you can stick it to PC liberals one more time.

Election Snapshot

2006-09-05T07:06:00.000-04:00

From today's Hotline Wake-Up Call (subscription required):

"A series of USA Today/Gallup polls show Amy Klobuchar (D) leading Mark Kennedy (R) 50%-40% in MN SEN; Jim Talent (R) leading Claire McCaskill (D) 50%-44% in MO SEN; Jon Tester (D) leading Conrad Burns (R) 48%-45% in MT SEN; Sherrod Brown (D) leading Mike DeWine (R) 46%-40% in OH SEN; and Bob Casey Jr. (D) leading Rick Santorum (R) 56%-38% in PA SEN (release)."

Of course, races in Missouri, Montana, and Ohio are likely in the margin of error. But if these percentages hold, that is a 4-1 advantage for the Democrats. However, to win the Senate, we need all these races and a couple more. The general rule of thumb, barring any weird happenings elsewhere, is that whoever wins 2 of 3 in Ohio, Tennesee and Missouri will maintain control of the Senate--sort of like the rule that whoever won 2 of 3 of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida in 2004 would win the presidency. So by the 2/3rds rule, the Dems pick up OH but the Republicans would hold onto MO and TN. There is still work to be done.

As for the Pennsylvania race--did anyone see the Meet the Press debate between Senator Santorum (R) and PA state treasure Bob Casey, Jr.? I try not to be biased in debates and really judge who was more effective (for example, I thought Cheney killed Edwards in the 2004 Veep debates). But I thought Casey was spectacular, and really stuck it to Santorum on Iraq, fiscal responsibility, holding the Bush administration accountable, Plan B contraception, and his general hypocrisy. Santorum looked defensive, angry, and intellectually overmatched. I'll try to post some quotes from the debate later tonight or tomorrow.

So things don't look too bad. But anything can happen in politics in 2 long months.

The Internet 2, Ted Stevens 0

2006-09-04T13:47:00.000-04:00

The Senate's president pro tempore (meaning the most senior member of the majority party) is Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). He is known for his explosive temper (I once read an article that surveyed R and D hill staffers, who voted him and Arlen Specter the meanest Senators on Capitol Hill), his skill at acquiring pork for Alaska (most notably his bridge to nowhere), and for his fierce partisanship.

This past summer, Stevens got hammered for his lack of understanding about the Internet. Stevens is in charge of making informed decisions about the regulation of the Internet. Bloggers, bear with me, because this is old news, but I feel like I need to rehash Stevens' still-comical statement: "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially. . . They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes."
An internet was sent to you by your staff? It is a series of tubes? Ok. That might be ok for the average old guy, but as chairman of the senate committee on commerce, Stevens is basically in charge of regulating the Internet. And I think the Internet resents that, because it has come back to hurt Stevens again.

Recently, Senators Obama (D-IL) and Coburn (R-OK) introduced a bill that essentially would detail information about which lobbyists are involved with earmarks on the appropriations bills, so, as one conservative blogger put it, "The left can very easily find out which earmarks Halliburton are involved with, and the right can very easily find out which earmarks Planned Parenthood is involved with." (Apparently conservatives don't want to conserve the English language, by the way, which requires that sentences not end with prepositions.) This bill would make it more difficult for Congress to hide its transactions with lobbyists, so that we-the-people can know what special interests are involved as well. It is thought of as a bipartisan step towards good government.

So here's the part where the Internet hurts Stevens: One Senator put a hold on this bill, which is a parliamentary manuever where any Senator has the right to halt the progress of legislation without the public knowing that they were the ones to put the hold on the bill. Normally, it is impossible for anyone to figure out who this Senator was. But, according to The Hotline on 8/31(subscription required), "Several blogs 'had urged readers to call senators and ask whether they had placed a 'hold' on the legislation.' As of midday 8/30 the blogs 'had been able to obtain denials from 97 senators that they had placed the hold.' With the suspects narrowed to a small group, Stevens' office 'acknowledged that he had blocked the bill.'

Wow. Pretty cool, huh? The blogosphere came together in a coordinated way to demand accountability from their government, and they got it within a couple of days.

How long before Stevens asks Congress to shut down these tubes for good?

Bad Ad Thursday: Vote for the Guy Who Likes Texas A Lot

2006-08-31T08:01:00.000-04:00

Warning: This ad is not that bad. I've really set the bar too high (too low?) with some of the garbage I've shown you the last few weeks.

So instead I invite you, in our 7th week now, to think about different types of bad ads. As we watch a bunch of them, I realize that they all suffer from different symptoms. Some primarily suffer from message confusion (Lieberman, Menendez), others from poor production value (Lichtman, Sheeler), others from hate-mongering (Robinson) and still others pathetic adorability (Sanders).

Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) is running for reelection and introduces us today to another sufficiently bad ad concept: extreme corniness.

In other words, his ad isn't particularly bad itself (at least, compared to the others); rather it is emblematic of a category of bad ads. This is every corny positive ad that you've ever seen. The model for this type of ad is Reagan's upbeat and super-effective Morning in America ad. (No joke. If you have time, watch it here, it really is a fabulous ad.) The point of these ads is to paint a rosy picture of the candidate and a way of life by appealing to baseball and apple pie, often simultaneously. Though I guess we're in Texas, so replace "baseball" with "a man on a horse" and "apple pie" with "a ridiculous amount of cattle."

So, this isn't so bad. But it still has its corny moments.

Watch it:

Here's what I got:

A) "I've never been more proud to call myself a Texan." Ok, stop yourself right there. That's a nice thing for a governor to say about his state, but at a time when Texas is best known for producing idiot governors, I just have a feeling that Perry couldn't say that under oath.

B) Should we count the cliches? Lots of little ones, but the three big ones I noticed were 1) a large number of people in hard hats grinning approvingly, 2) someone getting a hearty backslap from the candidate (in this case an air traffic controller or something) and 3) the candidate helping some kid with his long division.

C) "Lawsuit reform is bringing better health care to millions." Ok, this is not quite a lie, but what Al Franken likes to call a "weasel"; something that may not be provably false but is intended to deceive. For example, you'd have thought that Rick Perry gave a damn about providing health care. But he didn't sign a bill to help give health care to children, or anything like that.

He did it through lawsuit reform, which means setting a limit on the amount that people can sue a malpracticing doctor. The right's argument is that people being able to sue for millions drives up the cost of malpractice insurance and discourages doctors from doctor-ing. The other side points out that if a doctor who shouldn't be operating on you ruins your life by leaving a surgical sponge inside of you, people shouldn't be limited to sue for an amount far below what is suitable. Generally, the right favors the doctors' points of view, and the left favors the patients' points of view.

So, by Perry's argument, lawsuit reform equals making life easier doctors which equals doctors being happier and more available which equals higher quality health care. But you could also argue that there is worse quality health care for those who have to file malpractice suits. And in any event, this isn't about health care, it is about lawsuit reform, so this is really just weird spin to make people think Perry has done something for health care.

D) "Our people are compassionate, our vision bold, our values strong." Fascinating. Note the Bush pronounciation on the word "compassionate." This doesn't say much about what he wants to do as governor. It just sort of says, "I like Texas." Maybe that's a winning message. But that's all this ad really does, just prattles on about how great Texas is. I'd think you would need more.

E) Watch for what I can only assume is Perry's signature move at the end of the ad: The 3 point nod. Remind me to learn this if I ever run for office. It is assertive and masculine. Watch it and count the 1-2-3 integral parts of this movement. Step 1) Steady 45 degree turn to look directly and masculinely at your target. Step 2) Acknowledging upward nod. Think of an 8th grader greeting a friend in the hallway with a very cool "'Sup." Step 3) Returning terse downward nod, to show you aren't messing around. Deliver punchline, "How bout you?"

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: C. Not bad--if it were original. Stop copying off of other papers! And add some substance--"vote for me because you live in Texas" isn't really enough, is it?

Vote Donna Edwards in MD-04, Even if She Can't Wynn

2006-08-30T19:29:00.000-04:00

In something of a surprise move, The Washington Post today endorsed the opponent of Congressman Albert Wynn (D-MD-04) in the Democratic primary. That opponent is lawyer Donna Edwards, who is perhaps the strongest candidate Wynn has had to fight in a primary since he got to Congress (I say "perhaps" because I have done absolutely no fact-checking on that whatsoever. But, c'mon. It's probably true.)

Good choice, Washington Post. I'm voting for her--she's one of several exciting progressive underdog candidates in local Maryland races along with Jamie Raskin (running for state Senate), Marc Elrich (running for County Council), and Ike Leggett (running for County Executive). I don't see how she'll win, especially with this publicity coming this late in the game, but it probably gives her about as good a shot as she will get this election season. Her slogan is "Leadership that Listens." Well-played, seriously. That's Wynn's biggest weakness--no one really thinks he gives a damn about his constituency.

I live in the 4th district, and I have had the (insert word meaning something less than privilege) of being served by Albert Wynn. Wynn is very mediocre. In the words of the Post's editorial: "As we've noted in the past, Mr. Wynn has often seemed more involved in playing the role of a kingmaker in Prince George's than in his duties in Congress."

Also, anecdotally, I once met someone who interned for him who said that there was absolutely nothing to do because Wynn has absolutely no agenda. Additionally, Wynn is a big ICC supporter, which avid readers of this blog will know I am unhappy about. Most importantly, though, there is the feeling that Wynn has felt his seat was so safe that he didn't have to work hard for his constituents.

Also, this is a highly Democratic area, which means to me that we need a highly Democratic Congressperson. The Washington Post points out several key votes that seem at odds with his progressive constituency: ". . . Too often his votes have been at odds with good government and the interests of his constituents. He has backed the estate tax repeal, a measure that benefits the richest Americans at the expense of the poor and middle class. He supported the Bush administration's energy bill in 2003, offering subsidies to oil and gas companies even as they were headed toward record profits. He has flip-flopped on fuel efficiency standards and opposed campaign finance reform. And he has tried to clear the way for casino gambling in Prince George's. All in all, it is a lackluster record."

Lackluster indeed. And, chances are that Wynn's name recognition will be enough to win him the nomination again, and the November ballot will be between lackluster-osity and a Republican. (Guess which one I'm voting for.) But in the meantime, Edwards is bringing some hope that even Democrats represented by Democrats are getting tired of the status quo.

Schumer on Katrina: "Perception-Altering"

2006-08-29T08:38:00.000-04:00

Who knew fall 2006 would be so grim? We've got significant anniversaries of the two most tragic American events in my lifetime all within a couple weeks of each other. Katrina's one-year anniversary is now-ish, and 9/11 was five years ago on, well, 9/11, coincidentally enough.

Anyway, I don't want to wallow in the mourning for both of these awful things. But I did find a quote from Chuck Schumer that really hit the nail on the head as to what the Katrina situation really did to the Bush administration, and W in particular:

(From The Hotline 8/28; subscription required): "I might argue that this was the worst thing that's happened to George Bush in the whole six years of his presidency. It was a perception-altering event. People had questioned his ideology. People had even questioned his intelligence. But before this, average people rarely questioned his competence or his caring."

It is also interesting to contrast these two disasters. 9/11 was so horrifying and shocking that it forced us, as Americans, to come together in a way that no one had seen before and that did not last all that long. We came out of those attacks determined, patriotic, and unified. Not so with Katrina. There was nothing unifying about it, in a national sense--only depression, anxiety, frustration, sadness.

Which is why the phrase "perception-altering" really hits the spot. If 9/11 turned a bumbling president into a bold wartime leader, the winds of Katrina blew him back into a guy that could tell Michael "Can I Go Home Now" Brown that he was doing a heck of a job. In other words, Katrina absolutely shattered what was left of the free goodwill that he inherited from 9/11.

Which is probably why the last year has gone so miserably for the President and his crew--they no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

Field Trip: 'Wingers, 'Signers, 'Kitlers

2006-08-27T15:26:00.000-04:00

--Cassidy wants to know which right-wing pundits you hate the most. Stop by and tell him.

--Here's a few that Cassidy's list missed. You hear a lot of right-wingers talk about how you can't argue with a liberal without getting shouted down or without them taking it personal and acting like children. But I dunno, it always seems to me like the conservatives are the ones to lose their cool first, like Chris Hitchens, Bob Novak, and Ann Coulter.

--Ashley and I often have heated debates about which yard signs in Maryland are good and which ones are just terrible. I'm glad that Mike Raia is also interested in this.

--"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin." Some extremist like Falwell or Robertson? Nah. Meet your likely Republican nominee for Senate in Florida.

A year ago, conservatives were salivating over the possibility of taking out Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). Now, he is running literally 50 points ahead the owner of the above gem of a statement, Rep. Katherine Harris. This interview, where she says that the separation of church and state is a lie and proudly announces that she does "not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality", may shed some light as to why even a center-right state like Florida can't stomach her.

This would be a huge controversy--of macacagate proportions--if Harris wasn't an absolute joke and destined to lose this race.

--Is this really what Al Gore invented the Internet for--so we can look at pictures of cats that look like Hitler?

Bad Ad Thursday: New England Stereotype for Sheeler

2006-08-24T19:19:00.000-04:00

I really want to be balanced here. The current scorecard on Bad Ad Thursday chalks up 4 bad ads by Democrats (Bob Menendez, Allan Lichtman, Joe Lieberman, and David Sanders) and only 1 by a Republican (Vernon Robinson). And Vernon Robinson's ad didn't really count cause it was more evil than stupid.

So this week I searched a bunch of mediocre ads from Republicans, but none of the ads were quite bad enough. The worst ad I was able to find belonged to yet another Democrat.

Enter Carl Sheeler, who I've never ever heard of. He is running for Senate in Rhode Island in the Democratic primary, which he will definitely lose to Sheldon Whitehouse. He wins a special award for "Advertisement that was most obviously filmed in one take."

Watch the ad:

Ok. Here goes:

A) If I had to describe this video in four words or less, those words would be, "It was due today?" As in, those are the four words Carl Sheeler must've blurted out at 10 PM at this Rhode Island bar when his media consultant told him he damn well better come up with some kind of ad so he can FedEx it to the cable stations the next day.

B) Talk about production value. The video jumps four times and cuts off the last words of poor Billy Shaw's sentences. The Sheeler camp didn't even EDIT this--they just turned the camera on and off 4 times sequentially. Now, THAT is low budget.

C) I promise you that this is the only campaign ad of the season you will see where the guy you thought was simply a random drunk is actually the candidate for Congress. The video jump cuts only further that notion, as it makes it look like Sheeler is wobbling in his chair.

D) This Billy Shaw seems like a pleasant bloke, and I guess they were going for the whole average-Joe-upstanding-citizen endorsement thing. But they should have picked an upstanding citizen who didn't have a bizarre pinky twitch. Seriously, I thought that thing was going to jump off his hand. And I guess it doesn't hurt to have a guy with such a stereotypical Rhode Island accent, but I still wouldn't feel right if I didn't make fun of Billy Shaw for sounding like every stock character on Family Guy.

E) The end of the ad sorta lacks the punch that I think Sheeler was going for. First of all, there is something goofy about Sheeler flaunting this jumbo-sized Constitution that he got from a gift shop. And then the "and so do we!" which is meant to show this overwhelming populist support for Sheeler comes from about 8 people. Not as impressive as it must have been on paper (if Sheeler even planned this out on paper at all.)

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: D+. The text of the ad isn't all that bad. But an investment in some audio / visual equipment could go a long way. Please do this over--and no more waiting until the last minute to complete your assignments!

A Michael Steele Prelude: Bad Ad Wednesday Eve

2006-08-23T18:55:00.000-04:00

Don't worry, this doesn't replace Bad Ad Thursday. The difference is that BA Wednesday Eve doesn't have video or much in the way of commentary. No, it is just something I found on today's Hotline (subscription required). Also, I may be a tad late on the Bad Ad Thursday this week, so I needed something to placate John L. Powell of Democrats at War so he doesn't start a revolution against my blog.

This is the text of a video I have not seen, for Maryland candidate Michael Steele (R). Steele is a pretty strong candidate, which is why this ad surprised me.

STEELE: "I know what you're thinking. I know what you're feeling. Washington has no clue what's going on in your life. They blame each other... they work the angles... while you're just trying to make today better than yesterday. You just want someone to get something done. I'm Michael Steele. Instead of the spin, I'll talk straight about what's wrong in both parties. You know, to get a different kind of government, you're gonna need a different kind of Senator. I'm Michael Steele and that's why I approved this message." ANNCR: "Ready for Change? Get Ready for Steele!"

Ok. Now, like I said, I haven't seen the video, and maybe it is stronger. But this ad reads like a student council speech at best.

Thank you, Michael Steele, for cliche upon cliche, such as "I know what you're feeling," "You just want someone to get something done," and "You're gonna need a different kind of Senator," "I'll talk straight about what's wrong in both parties."

It is amazing that an ad aimed at making Steele seem different than other politicians actually makes him seem even more like every other politician than the other candidates.

Can the Dems Do It? Maybe So.

2006-08-22T21:15:00.000-04:00

In this post written 4 months ago, I was pretty dubious about the Dems chances to win either house. I concluded that "2006 is not a takeover year. It is a stepping stone year. The Democrats need to win enough of these elections to put the 2008 elections within reach." Now that the Dems numbers are holding as we go into September, however, I am far more optimistic.

Here's why: I'm looking at the Cook Election Preview, which is a National Journal supplement. This is a non-partisan insider horse-race kind of magazine, so it doesn't have a vested interested in saying that R's will win or that D's will win. It has a vested interested in being correct, so they study the data and the trends and base their guesses on that. And this issue of the Cook Election Preview, published on 7/29/06, has the following good news for Dems:

A) For The House: "Forty-six House districts now look as if they will have truly competitive races this November. All 14 of the seats mostly likely to switch party are now held by Republicans." These seats include:

Colorado's 7th: This is a notorious swing district, and the current Republican Bob Beauprez is retiring to run for governor.

Illinois's 6th: This is a conservative district seeking to replace the retiring Henry Hyde. However, Iraq war hero Tammy Duckworth (D) is putting up a strong fight against an unimpressive candidate.

North Carolina's 11th: Charles Taylor's (R) seat is being contended by former Redskins quarterback Heath Shuler (D). He is running surprisingly well, as I believe I scoffed at the notion initially.

New Mexico's 1st: Heather Wilson (R) is running in a district that voted for Kerry with 51% of the vote, and she is being hammered on her support for President Bush and the war on Iraq.

Ohio's 18th: And who could forget disgraced corrupt politico Bob Ney (R), who recently quit the race upon realizations that he was going to lose big. Will Ohio voters vote for Ney's successor the way California voters voted for corrupt Duke Cunningham's succesor? Or will they vote for a clean break from corrupt politics, since they are so angry at their governor, Bob Taft (R), who has a 17% approval rating?

Texas' 22nd: This is Tom DeLay country, and a judge ruled that Tom DeLay's name has to stay on the ballot since he won the March primary and THEN decided to resign when he too realized he was too tainted to govern. Democrat Nick Lampson now faces a write-in candidate that the Republicans have yet to coalesce around. (This race wasn't on Cook's list of 14, but it was printed before the judge made the decision that made this seat pretty much a gimme for the Democrats).

B) For the Senate: The Dems need 6 seats, and they need to hold on to each seat they currently have. Today's Hotline (subscription only) said that if polls held today, Dems would pick up the Senate, though all of these polls were within the margin of error and were therefore a statistical dead heat. Still, it is pretty good news. Assuming the Dems can hold onto competitive seats in Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington (which all voted for Kerry and Gore), they would then have to get the following (ranked in order of difficulty):

Pennsylvania: Bob Casey should be elected pretty easily over Rick Santorum, who is polling in the high 30s against Casey--never a good sign for an incumbent Senator.

Rhode Island: The most liberal Republican in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee, will probably lose this election due to RI arguably being the bluest state in the nation. Chafee is pretty well-liked, but it will be a Connie Morella situation where being likable and on the wrong team doesn't cut it.

Montana: Conrad Burns is one of the most implicated members of Congress in the Abramoff scandal next to Tom DeLay. Jon Tester (D) is about as strong a candidate I've seen, and Montana has been able to elect Democrats in statewide elections, such as Senator Max Baucus and Governor Brian Schweitzer (who currently is the second most popular governor in the country).

Ohio: Ohio has been a center for corrupt Republicans, with Bob Ney, Deborah Pryce, Steve Chabot, and Bob Taft all tied up with ethical problems. While Senator Mike DeWine (R) doesn't have those problems, that is the environment he is up against, and challenger Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) is no rookie.

Missouri: This will be a close one, but Missouri has been registering low numbers for Bush and for Governor Matt Blunt. Senator Jim Talent (R) has been a strong supporter for both of these, and Claire McCaskill (D) has been impressively close to him in the polls.

Ok. That was 5. The next 4 races are longshots, but the Dems just need to pick up one.

Virginia: The once invincible George Allen (R) is running against a very strong candidate in Jim Webb (D), a former secretary of the Navy under Reagan. The whole macaca thing is giving him the kind of bad press to wonder if maybe socially liberal economic conservative northern Virginia voters might flee from the guy.

Tennessee: Harold Ford Jr. (D), who is one of my favorite politicians, is running against a Republican to be named later. I still think a black man like Ford is going to have a hard time winning a statewide race in the south, especially if he is a Democrat, no matter what the national environment. But Ford has positioned himself as relatively conservative and the Republicans have mostly been bloodying up each other at this point.

Arizona: Jim Pedersen (D) is challenging the ultra-conservative Jon Kyl (R). Kyl should have been ignoring or marginalizing Pedersen, but his ego got in the way and he has attacked Pedersen early on in the campaign, which may have given some oxygen to it. Still, Arizona likes its Republicans.

Nevada: Jack Carter (D), son of Jimmy Carter, is challenging incumbent John Ensign (R). Ensign's pretty popular, and the only thing Carter really has going for him is his name recognition. Sadly, that name is "Carter." I don't think this one's likely.

So, it is still an uphill battle . . . the Dems really would need to run the table. But more and more the polls are trending Democratic, and the timing might work out that they are really surging in November. Count me a little more optimistic than in April.

A Blue Page Slowdown

2006-08-20T13:35:00.000-04:00

I'm starting a new job tomorrow. I'm pretty excited about it. But enough about me--What does that mean for you?

Well, probably not much. But my free time will be diminished, especially since I will have classes Tuesdays and Thursdays, so on those days I will be unable to blog from 7 in the morning until about 10:30 at night.

In other words, you all have been spoiled by my previous lack of a full-time job. This summer I've been able to blog whenever I damn well please. Sadly, that will no longer be the case.

So while I still intend to update these Blue Pages regularly in my free time, the updates may not come with the regularity that I have been posting this past summer.

--MJ

P.S. It also doesn't help that I'm playing in a kickball league, that the Redskins season starts in 2 weeks, and that the new season of LOST starts in October. But I really enjoy blogging and I will make every effort to, no pun intended, keep you posted.

Field Trip: Gamblers, Racists, and Planets

2006-08-18T14:00:00.000-04:00

Lots of video in this field trip.

--There is a Republican in the Connecticut Senate race? Who knew? Check out Chris Matthews' very interesting grilling of gambling enthusiast (and former addict?) Alan Schlesinger, the Republican nominee that RNC chair Ken Mehlman and other prominent Republicans have refused to enthusiastically endorse.

--Is George Allen (R-VA) a racist? I report, you decide. I'd narrowly say no, but calling an Indian American from Fairfax "macaca" and telling him "welcome to America" sure doesn't help. Allen's non-apology apology (ya know, "I regret if my words unintentionally offended anyone . . . ") is here.

--Ok, let's be fair. Is Joe Biden (D-DE) a racist? I report, you decide. Here, I'd definitely say no, and early on he's my guy for 2008. But still, I suppose if I'm gonna blog an Indian American slur from the right, I ought to blog an Indian American slur from the left. This one's from a month or two ago.

--Conservative former Congressmen and current MSNBC loudmouth Joe Scarborough (R) has concluded that Bush may not be all that intelligent.

--Pluto may no longer be considered a planet? Say WHAT? LMNOP has the scoop on what this means for all of us. And a follow-up scoop.

Bad Ad Thursday: Sanders Tries His Hardest

2006-08-17T14:21:00.000-04:00

The point of Bad Ad Thursdays is primarily to make fun of the ad, not necessarily the politician. Yet, ads by Bob Menendez, Allan Lichtman, Joe Lieberman, and Vernon Robinson made these candidates seem dislikable at best and contemptible at worst.

So while this next ad is unbelievably terrible, the candidate himself is--and there's just no other way to put this--kind of adorable. David Sanders (D), who is challenging Steve Buyer (R) in Indiana's 4th, has a nerdy charm to him, and you kind of want to cuddle up to him and say, "Aww, did you make this ad yourself?"

So let's not be cruel, shall we? The little guy tried his hardest.

Watch the ad:

Alright. Let's do this, in a roughly chronological order:

A) Weak start. David, if you can't say, "I'm David Sanders, your candidate for Congress in the 4th district" without conviction, don't say it at all. You trail off at the end of the statement as if you are ashamed to be David Sanders. Be proud!

B) Horrible visuals, part 1. Nothing moves voters to the polls like what appears to be my 9th grade biology classroom.

C) We're not speed readers. How many words can this guy fit on the screen, and how many are we going to absorb? A total of 68 words appeared on screen during the course of the ad, and all of them are going simultaneously with Sanders' narration (and that doesn't include the "Paid for by . . . " messages that twice clutter up the bottom of the screen). I'm not sure if that sounds like a lot, but that's insane. Were you able to pick up on the following words and phrases: "Will ensure a real and cost-effective medicare prescription drug benefit," "National Science Foundation Career Award Recipient," or "Vote for Integrity and Real Constituent Service"? Because they were there, on-screen, and I picked up on none of them the first 2 or 3 times I watched it.

D) Message inconsistency. He's talking about several thousand things, which means he might as well be talking about nothing at all. He mentions Medicare, stem-cell research, health care, vaccine safety, WMDS. And then his tagline, "Vote for Integrity and Real Constituent Service," has nothing to do with anything in the rest of his ad. So what is your impression? Just a general hodgepodge, which again doesn't really move voters to the polls.

E) Horrible visuals, part 2. How 'bout that map of Afghanistan with a quote from his opponent about Afghanistan in it (which, by the way, was hard to read and comprehend in the 3 seconds that it is on screen)? And do we really need to see the former bio-weapons lab in Siberia that he inspected?

F) Which reminds me: One line in this ad wins easily for political non-sequitur of the year. I've put it in between the sentence before and after, with the non-sequitur in bold, so that you can see the context (since context is what makes a non-sequitur in the first place): "I'm working to prevent weapons use. Because of my expertise on the ebola virus, I recently inspected a former bio-weapons lab in Siberia. I'm David Sanders, Democratic candidate for Congress, and I authorize this message." What? Did someone slip that sentence in as a joke? What does that have to do with anything?

How many swing voters are marching into the polls saying, "Well, I've voted for Steve Buyer before, but it's about damn time we elect someone who's been to Siberia and knows something about the ebola virus!"?

G) Horrible visuals, part 3. The last screen shot is one of the most visually unattractive shots I've ever seen. A slogan that is hard to read, a picture of Indiana with the 4th district highlighted awkwardly, a harsh and clashing blue and red scheme, a website address that looks out of place, and a goofy picture of Sanders blinking.

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: D+. This ad is problematic for so many reasons, but I know you put a lot of effort into it. Pick one or two things that Indianans care about--Siberia is not one of them--and say a short, simple sentence about your position on those things. And don't make us read, we as Americans resent that. And you do get style points for saying "I authorize this message" as opposed to "I approve this message;" it makes you sound decisive and in charge.

Seeking: A Little Dignity

2006-08-16T21:04:00.000-04:00

Local election time! Let's look at some sleaziness occuring in Maryland's 20th senatorial district, which includes Takoma Park and Silver Spring.

Ashley's dad showed me a direct mail piece that he received from Ida Ruben (D), who is the incumbent running for Maryland state Senate that Jamie Raskin (D) is trying to unseat. (I previously endorsed Raskin here.) The mail piece is entitled, "Seeking: A Real Democrat." The pdf file for it is here.

The text of the mail piece follows. I've put numbers in parentheses where they cited some of these "facts" about Jamie Raskin:

"Jamie Raskin: He's not even a real Democrat. Democrats have had a hard time winning national elections lately, and Jamie Raskin's had a lot to do with that. Raskin worked against Bill Clinton and Al Gore, helping put George W. Bush in office (1) through his support of third party candidates like conservative Ross Perot. (2) Raskin's even stood with radical pro-life groups that intimidate women and doctors. (3) That's not the kind of Democrat Montgomery County needs. In fact, that's not even a Democrat at all."

Ok. So Ruben basically alleges that Jamie worked against Gore and Clinton, helped put Bush in office, is conservative like Perot, and has supports pro-life groups that intimidate women and doctors. Can you tell me then, please, why Raskin is so phenomenally popular in Takoma Park, which has a semi-official reputation as one of the most liberal towns in America?

Oh yeah, it is because Ruben is twisting the truth to an extent that it is almost as hilarious as it is egregious.

Before we debunk that ad, you can almost tell something is fishy just by the careful word choice in the ad. Look at these weak verb choices used to explain Raskin's alleged support for the right: he "worked against" Clinton and Gore, "helped put" W in office, and "stood with" the radical doctors. Those phrases are so vague that they could, and do, mean anything.

So here's the little trick Ruben used to try to make Raskin look like (gasp) a conservative. She cited, with each one of those citations, cases that Raskin had argued. And each case is very nuanced and has little to do with what Ruben alleges, such as being pro-Bush, anti-Clinton, anti-Gore, pro-Perot, and anti-choice. His cases have nothing to do with being for or against these various causes--it is sort of like if you got in a traffic dispute with Martin Luther King Jr, and the two of you settled the matter in court, and then you are later accused of being against civil rights because you once were on the other side of the table in court than MLK.

A response from one spokeswoman of Raskin's: "Yesterday Ida Ruben mailed to voters a brochure that is filled with lies, fabrications, and distortions of Jamie Raskin's record. . .It is sad that, three and a half decades after Ida Ruben began her public service, she has no positive legislative accomplishments to talk about and has resorted to false attacks to hang on to her power. It is intemperate and reckless conduct like this that led the Gazette of Politics and Business to conclude in January, after interviewing 100 Annapolis insiders, that Senator Ruben is one of the Senate's 10 'least effective' members. "

Additionally, Raskin's campaign is calling on voters who have received this "garbage" in their mailboxes to send it back to Ida, like so:

In response, Raskin explained each case on this page entitled, appropriately, The Truth.

For the first citation (Raskin worked against Clinton and Gore, helping put W into office), Raskin's page says, "In this case, the plaintiffs challenged the legality under the Federal Election Campaign Act of large corporations funneling hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called "soft money" into the political parties. Jamie Raskin argued that this practice violated FECA's categorical ban on corporate contributions in federal races." In other words, Ruben says that Raskin's fight for a reduction in the influence of corporations on elections hurt Clinton and Gore since Clinton and Gore were in power at the time of this case. Yes, if Raskin had won, Clinton and Gore would've had fundraising restrictions . . . but SO WOULD EVERY POLITICIAN in the country of all political stripes. She might as well have said that he was working against Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, too.

For the second citation (through his support of . . . Ross Perot), Raskin had indeed taken the side of Ross Perot when Perot was excluded from the Presidential debates in 1996. First of all, Raskin wanting all candidates to have equal access to television time does not necessarily make him a Perot conservative. But more importantly, Perot's presence in the 1992 and 1996 race helped Clinton incredibly, particularly in 1996, as Perot chipped off a sizable amount of Dole voters. So this action of Raskin, had it passed, would have HELPED Clinton, not hurt him.

Finally, the most amazingly inaccurate citation has to do with painting Raskin as anti-choice. Strange that such an anti-choice individual should have such incredible from the two heavy hitters in women's rights when it comes to abortion: Raskin has NOW's endorsement and a 100% approval rating from Maryland NARAL. Why would NOW and NARAL support someone who "stood with radical pro-life groups that intimidate women and doctors"? Well, because that is not accurate.

I'll let Raskin's website explain: "The question was whether political protesters who blockade a building - such as a corporate headquarters, a draft induction center, or a health or abortion clinic - can be prosecuted . . . Jamie took the position, upheld by 8 justices [four of whom are reliably pro-choice], that protesters in this situation do not 'obtain the property' of the people being picketed."

Got that? It was a freedom of assembly case, which basically held the right of abortion protesters to protest--something that all of us as Americans should be for, regardless of our opinions of abortion protesters.
Again, the irony of all this is that Ruben probably doesn't need to attack Raskin. She's a 30+ year incumbent, and the only way Raskin can succeed in taking her down is by getting positive attention and feeding off Ruben's negative attention. She's playing right into his hands.

That's all I got. Expect a Bad Ad Thursday sometime mid-tomorrow, and a Field Trip sometime mid-Friday.

The Old Lady Voice

2006-08-15T17:31:00.000-04:00

The following is based on a true story. Well, actually, it happened pretty much exactly the way I said it happened, so I guess it isn't based on a true story. The following IS a true story.

Scene: It is several minutes ago at MJ's residence. The phone rings, which it tends to do far more frequently during the fall months of even-numbered years. MJ picks it up, and the following conversation transpires:

Matthew Jerome: Hello?

Idealistic Teen: Um, Hi, I'm calling with the Ben Cardin for Senate campaign. So, how are you today?

[Inward smile. He sounds like me about 4 years ago to this day, when I played the role of Idealistic Teen calling Montgomery County residences while volunteering for Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).]

MJ: Oh, hi. I'm fine.

IT (surprised that I didn't hang up): Oh! Ok. Well, are you familiar with Ben Cardin?

[He is also using a voice that I like to call the "Old Lady Voice," which is a bit of a misnomer--he doesn't sound like an old lady, but he talks in a voice in which no old lady that receives his call could possibly feel threatened. The Old Lady Voice is high, effeminate, lilting, deferential, insanely polite. It makes you sound like the pimple-faced kid from the Simpsons. I would know, I invented the Old Lady Voice in the summer of 2002 with CVH. Word must've gotten around.]

MJ: Yes, I am familiar with Cardin.

[Now he must improvise, as clearly no one has ever been on the phone with him this long.]

IT: Oh, ok great. So I was kinda wondering if Ben Cardin can count on your support in the Democratic primary?

[I face a moral dilemma. Should I lie to the Idealistic Teen to make him happy? Or should I tell him the truth, forcing him to accept the cruel reality that not everyone is as obsessively dedicated to Ben Cardin as he--and anyone on any campaign--is? You guys know me--I opt for the high road.]

MJ: Um, well I'm not sure how I'm going to vote just yet. I'm leaning towards Mfume right now, but I'm undecided at this point, so I wouldn't say that he could "count on my support."

[One might think this would disappoint the Idealistic Teen. Not at all. He is just thrilled that I am being polite.]

IT: Ok. Well if you want to know more about Ben Cardin, you can go to his website, which is www.bencardin.com [his voice didn't hyperlink--that was my decision], and it is just really great, and um, um . . . well, that's all I really have to say about that. Have a great day (nervous quick hang-up).

I do NOT miss phone-banking. I'm sure there is some use to it, but most campaigns just stick the idealistic teens on the job. The teens stammer and don't really say anything compelling ("Would you please go to our website? Please?"). The results of how many people plan to support the candidate, be it Cardin or Van Hollen or whoever, are not reliable, because many people will lie, and people who are enthusiastic for that candidate are more likely to stay on the phone than others.

On the other hand, I kinda felt good that there are still these Idealistic Teens around. They'll call people, they'll stuff envelopes, they'll knock on doors, they'll use the Old Lady Voice. They don't care, they're just happy to be there and to vaguely be helping a cause. That's democracy.

So I can get all cynical and sarcastic (which I plan to do tomorrow with an Ida Ruben direct mail piece and Thursday with yet another bad bad ad), but there are elements that I love about politics as well. Awkward phone calls from these eager teens are one of the many.

Five Things the Right Should Learn From the London Arrests

2006-08-13T15:48:00.000-04:00

This whole near-terror attack is scary. Thank God the British government thwarted it. For those of you who don't know what happened, the British government arrested 21 men who were hatching a plot to simultaneously blow up about 10 U.S.-bound planes by igniting explosives disguised as common liquids with devices disguised as cell phones or cameras.

Not only is this an ENORMOUS victory, it is a refutation of the Bush's administration's strategy in fighting terror. Our administration argues that Iraq is part of the war on terror and that we need to curtail civil liberties to fight this war. Others on the right, though not necessarily the administration, think we need to racially profile, that we need to shun fair-weather friends, and that we need to stop being so careful not to offend Muslims. The British government's victory in preventing these attacks shows that those on the right are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here are 5 lessons the Bush administration needs to learn on how to fight terrorism:

A) It's the terrorists, stupid. I think the biggest lesson learned from this near-attack is that al-Qaeda is quite capable of murdering thousands of us. This is in contrast to other dictators around the world, such as, to pick one at complete random, Saddam Hussein, who do not have the imminent capability to destroy us (though I am glad that Hussein no longer has the capability to destroy Iraqis either.) We've spent hundreds of billions on this Iraq war. I think we'd be safer having spent a 1/5 of that on fighting terrorism and saving the rest.

B) Befriend the moderate Muslim. As the racial profiling in airports debate is about to rear its ugly head again, many Americans are starting to be less careful about using the "not all Muslims are terrorists" caveat in their everyday conversations. The worry of this, however, is that moderate Muslims will begin to feel alienated from American society if they perceive that America is in fact at war with the Islamic religion itself.

Outside of general civility, why is this important? Because the prevention of this attack came from one of these non-alienated moderate Muslims, who saw what was going on with the extremist community, didn't like it, and did the right thing by reporting it. According to this article, "It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings on London's transit system, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance. From that vague but vital piece of information, according to a senior European intelligence official, British authorities opened the investigation into what they said turned out to be a well-coordinated and long-planned plot to bomb multiple transatlantic flights heading toward the United States."

In other words, the last thing we need is for that Muslim, who had ties to terrorists within his community, to feel no allegiance or affinity for his country, be it America or England or Israel.

C) I spy, but legally. I, along with all Democrats and liberals and progressives who are supposedly so weak on the war on terror, am 100% for spying on terrorists. And this is because spying on terrorists works, and dismantled this particular near-terror attack. But in this instance, illegal means were entirely unnecessary. I am no expert on the British legal system, but had the situation taken place in this country where a Muslim informant gave a tip about a colleague, LEGAL wiretaps, spying, and all those other goods would have been obtained within a day or two.

Basically, the government was strong enough to spy on the bad guys without having to sell off the rights of the good guys. That's a model that works in fighting terrorism.

D) Cooperation isn't bad. The right has had fun the last 6 years or so bashing our allies, particularly France, Germany, Russia, and Mexico, to the point that the relationships are rocky at best. You can argue that it is our fault or their fault, and certainly none of our allies are perfect, but none of that matters when you are trying to save lives. In this age, when you are trying to prevent terror attacks, you need global cooperation. Here, Britain conspired with governments all over the globe to get these guys. And the terrorists know that our airports are pretty strict, so they are going to try to get on airports with looser regulations, which means that we need the leverage to tell other governments to tighten those regulations.

The more alienated our allies are (again, whether it is our fault or not), the less likely we are to receive cooperation from them when we really need it. Britain succeeded by playing nice. Let's play nice too.

E) There is no ticking time bomb. Many of the for torture, illegal wiretaps, secret courts, etc, are based on a hypothetical ethical question, saying, "If you knew that a terrorist knew the location of a ticking time bomb, and you could only get the information on its whereabouts by [torture, illegal wiretapping, telling knock-knock jokes, etc.], what would you do?" This question assumes that terrorists are as quick as Fox's 24. In this near-attack, however, the planning had been going on for just over a year. The attack wasn't thwarted by Jack Bauer sweeping in at the last minute; it was thwarted by a year's worth of surveillance and measured actions.

Bad Ad Thursday: Stupid Vs. Evil

2006-08-10T09:23:00.000-04:00

First, a preface: An alum of my fraternity came to speak to our chapter on a couple of occasions. In his professional life, he had served as a judge for many years. He said that as a judge, there were generally two types of people who came before his bench: stupid people and evil people. Stupid people would be teens who were caught drinking and driving or vandalizing property on a dare, while the evil people were off robbing or killing or raping people.

In this context, if you look at whichever politicians in the country you deem to be in some way bad, you can probably divide them roughly into the stupid and evil categories. Some politicians aren't serving us because of their incompetence, while some aren't serving us because of their greed and maliciousness.

So, let's apply this to the Bad Ads. Previous ads by Bob Menendez, Allan Lichtman, and Joe Lieberman, were bad for a variety of reasons. However, the overriding badness of those ads had mostly to do with their ineffectiveness, or their silliness, or their incompetence in expressing a meaningful message. Originally, I wanted most of the bad ads to be in that mold. Or in the language of the judge who talked to my fraternity, I wanted only "stupid" ads.

The following ad is not ineffective, nor silly, nor incompetent. The judge would call it "evil."

That is to say, challenger Vernon Robinson (R-NC) has produced an ad that relies on discourse that belongs in only the ugliest parts of American society. Count it; racism, sexism, homophobia, immigrant-bashing, and some outright lies.

Let's watch. Try not to gasp.

He ought to be ashamed of this ad. Of course, I'm not sure that he is--his website prominently proclaims "See the Ad Everyone is Talking About!" Just about every line in this ad deserves a response:

A) "If you are a conservative Republican, watching news these days can make you feel like you're in the Twilight Zone." Oh yeah? Why's that? Is it because conservative Republicans have the presidency? Or is it because they have both of the houses of Congress? Or because 7 out 9 of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans? Or because they have a majority of the governorships? Or because they have a majority of the lower circuit court judgeships? 'Cause those are the reasons that I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. So please, Vernon, tell me why conservatives feel that way.

B) "Homosexuals are mocking holy matrimony and the lesbians and feminists are attacking everything sacred." Here's the point at which we all went, Oh, so it's gonna be this kind of ad. What do I say here that isn't obvious? I don't call homosexuals wanting to publicly declare their monogamous love and lifelong commitment to each other "mocking holy matrimony," but hey, potatos, potatos. (Hmm, that potatos thing doesn't work too well if you are writing it. Hopefully you know which syllables I'm emphasizing). And I have to say, that's the first picture I've seen of lesbians and feminists (who I guess must be mentioned in the same breath since they are women and, ya know, want equal rights) "attacking everything sacred."

C) "Liberal judges have completely rewritten the constitution." Oh really? The Constitution looks the same to me. It hasn't changed since the twenty-seventh amendment limited Congressional pay raises in 1992. But of course, the new Republican talking point is to attack these so-called liberal judges that don't really exist.

A little tangent here, but let's follow the whole liberal judge argument. Assume that Democrats vote for liberal judges and Republicans vote for conservative judges. This is an oversimplification, obviously, but something close to this may be true, and it is helpful in illustrating a point. Ok. So, in the last 26 years, only 8 of those years have had a Democratic President, which is less than 1/3 of the time, so less than 1/3 of those appointees would've been liberal. Then, factor in that during the 8 years Clinton was President, 6 of those years the judges would have had to have been confirmed by 2/3 vote in a Republican Senate. Also, keep in mind that Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and did not even schedule hearings for some of Clinton's appointed judges.

So, when conservatives talk about liberal judges, they are talking about judges that, over the past 26 years, would either have to have been appointed by a Republican president or confirmed by a Republican in Senate in 24 of those 26 years. Did Clinton just ram thousands of flag-burning, gay-loving, tree-hugging judges from 1992-1994, and they are the ones ruining everything today? Gimme a break. So my point is, if Republicans are actually mad about liberal judges, they have as much guilt for that as the Democrats.

The truth is, there are very few liberal judges. Republicans just call judges liberal if those judges INTREPRET THE LAW in a way that doesn't fit their ideological extremist mold.

Ok. Let's continue.

D) "You can burn the American flag and kill 1 million babies a year . . . " Are we killing 1 million babies a year? Or are they referring to a week-old clump of cells as a baby? I guess they are putting all abortions in that category. But it is a tad disingenuous, then, to show a picture of a nearly full-grown fetus, clearly 8 or 9 months old, when third-trimester abortions are illegal! That is, our country does NOT abort babies of the size in Robinson's picture. According to the Center for Disease Control in 2005, "The CDC estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.5 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks." (Info here--the link is from Planned Parenthood, but they are the ones citing the CDC study.)

E) " . . . but you can't post the 10 commandments or say 'God' in public." (Cue children: "One nation . . . under . . . Huh!!). Remember when I said this ad had some outright lies in it? Here they are, 3 quick ones. Here is a little lesson. A) You CAN post the 10 commandments in public. B) You CAN say "God" in public. C) Children say the pledge in EVERY SCHOOL, EVERY DAY, and all of the pledges contain the words "One Nation, Under God." If Vernon Robinson doesn't know that, I wouldn't vote for him for sanitation commissioner.

F) "Seven out of 10 black children are born out of wedlock, and [Jesse] Jackson and [Al] Sharpton claim the answers are racial quotas." A million Blue Page dollars to the person who finds me a quote where Jackson and Sharpton say that the answer to black children being born out of wedlock is racial quotas. Also, here we go with the liberal bogeyman again. Hasn't anyone told Vernon Robinson that Jackson and Sharpton aren't in power, and that their views have nothing to do with the direction of Congress?

Also, I should say that I don't think he's racist against blacks--after all, he himself is an African-American. But he is trying to bank on racism of some in his district, which is pretty dispicable

G) "And the aliens are here, but they didn't come in a spaceship, they came across our unguarded border, by the millions." Inaccurate, our border is guarded. Maybe I'm nitpicking and saying that he should be clearer (he could argue that it is inadequately guarded), but the average person voting in this election might think it is actually, literally, unguarded, which is false.

H) "I'm Vernon Robinson. If you send me to Congress, I'll send that back to the twilight zone." Really. Even if I accept your premise--which I don't--that liberals are responsible for all these bad things, what does your presence in Congress change? Why weren't the current Republican House, Senate, and presidency, able to prevent all of these liberal things, and why are you going to succeed?

I) "I approve of this message, and of traditional American values." Like I said, the only values I saw in this ad were racism, sexism, homophobia, immigrant-bashing, and dishonesty. That's not the America I know, and those are traditions I want abolished.

J) A Leave-it-to-Beaver clip at the end. How cute. But you've gotta be kidding.

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: B-. I don't know your district very well, but people might believe your scare tactics, which makes this (gulp) a good ad. Still, you've sold your soul to create a moderately effective ad, when you could have been talking about issues--even these same issues that I disagree with you on--in an honest and less vitriolic way. And some of your claims are hard to believe. So while I'm giving you a good grade on this, I'm also giving you a week's worth of detention. Maybe not having recess will help you think about what you've done.

Adventures in Talk Radio

2006-08-09T12:08:00.000-04:00

I don't know that I've ever mentioned this on the Blue Pages, but I would love to have a talk radio show. My first experiment in talk radio, as mentioned, occurred yesterday when I called in and got about 4 minutes of back-and-forth debate with host Chris Plante, whom I thought was another host named Chris Core.

As promised, the following is the transcript between Chris Plante and I on 630 WMAL around 10 PM last night, 8/8/06. I basically made 3 points; the first of which I got him to grudgingly admit that I may be right, and the second and third were refutations of his points. I recall myself being more convincing and having a less whiny voice, but I assume the staff realized what a firm-voiced stud had run circles around Chris Plante and they messed around with it digitally or something. Probably.

If you want to listen to me, go here, click on Chris Plante, Listen Now, Tuesday, and go to about 1 hour and 8 minutes and listen until the end. (Yesterday I said that I was probably less than halfway through the broadcast; turns out that was wrong). For those of you stalking me anonymously through the internet, this is an execellent opportunity to hear my voice. I don't mind if you download this and listen to me on your iPod on the way to work. This show will only be available for the next week, so hurry!

Ok, here goes. As a special behind-the-scenes look at this call, I've added comments in parentheses in between the bodies of the quotes. Also, most ums, uhs, likes, and ya knows, particularly on my part, have been removed, unless they are interesting to the rhythm of the sentence:

PLANTE: I was just arguing that the best thing to happen for Republicans is for Senator Lieberman to be defeated. For America, it would be better to have Lieberman in there than some crazy lefty, but if you're a purely political person, I think Republicans have to look at this as a gift, as a political gift. Maybe I'm crazy, some people disagree with me: 202-432-9625, let me go to Matt in Silver Spring. Matt! You're on 630 WMAL.

MJ (genially): Hey, Chris, buddy, how ya doin', man.

PLANTE: Hey, good, how 'bout you.

MJ (still trying to be very genial): I'm doing pretty good. I gotta tell ya Chris, I was once like you on this, I thought that this was probably pretty bad news for the Democrats of the party to beat Lieberman. The thing about it is, can you tell me one place other than the state of Connecticut and then the little Washington insider DC bubble that really is going to be able to use this effectively?

(Confounded pause; that was an awkwardly-worded question. Don't worry, I come back stronger.)

PLANTE: Well. . .

MJ: . . . like, as an attack ad?

PLANTE: In terms of national political, uh, the consequences of throwing Lieberman out?

MJ: Yeah, like here's the thing: I feel like, ya know, the Republicans are definitely going to make this an issue in little House races and Senate races across the country; I think, ya know, your average Joe Six-pack, who's got a job to hold down and isn't a political geek like you and me

PLANTE: Right . . .

MJ: Isn't gonna be, ya know, they're gonna basically say, "Ok, I remember Joe Lieberman from 2000, I don't really know his positions all that well. . ."

PLANTE: Yeah, "He's got a really a deep voice . . . "

MJ: . . . And I don't really think it is gonna play very well.

PLANTE: "He's got a wife with a funny name . . . "

MJ (exercising that he knows just as much about political trivia as Plante): Right . . . Hadasa!

PLANTE (in a Joe Lieberman voice that doesn't sound at all like Joe Lieberman): "My wife, Hadasa . . . "

MJ (uncomfortably): Yeah, haha.

PLANTE: ". . . He's a dynamic speaker." He's NOT a dynamic speaker, he's not, and you know you may be right. Across is this the kind of thing that resonates across the country with voters everywhere? I'm not sure that it is, but you know it helps to, you know, on the Sunday morning talk shows, you've got one sort of moderate voice in the Senate, and what happens? Well, it appears that the Democratic Party . . . cause he's a bit of a bellwether for where the Democratic Party is going for '08 . . .

MJ (killing him softly with facts, which I hope to God are accurate): Well, let me say something about that real quick. I don't agree with that, necessarily. I mean, if you go to National Journal's rankings, there are 17 Democrats who are actually to the right of him. Now, the reason he's being ousted is because he's in Connecticut, which is a very very very blue state.

PLANTE (wanting to be right): Sure.

MJ (name-dropping left and right): But in Montana you've got [Senator] Max Baucus, ya know you've got [Senator] Ken Salazar in Colorado. You still have plenty of moderate Democrats!

PLANTE (with a decent rebuttal): Yeah but nobody talks about Max Baucus.

MJ: Well, yeah I guess not if we're talking about the Sunday morning news shows, I'm not talking about . . .

(Here, before he cut me off, I was going to say that the only people deciding on the Sunday morning news shows are that inside-the-beltway geeky crowd I was talking about earlier.)

PLANTE: Well, it's true. But Max Baucus wasn't the vice presidential candidate just a few years ago and one of the leaders of the Democratic party, and he doesn't have the same national recognition as Lieberman does, even though it may not be as resonant as, you know, whoever won whatever reality show. I don't watch those shows.

MJ: Yeah, that's true. Hey, whatcha got against . . . "

(Ok, here's a good behind-the-scenes moment. How was MJ gonna finish that sentence? Whatcha got against . . . Max Baucus? Anti-war protesters? The Democratic Party? Nope. I was a few seconds from saying "Whatcha got against Diet Fresca," because in the previous segment he had described bloggers as drinking a lot of Diet Fresca, which I totally didn't understand. Maybe he has stock in regular Fresca.)

PLANTE: He's not American Idol. But when it comes to framing the debate and framing the discussion as to where the Democratic Party stands, where the Democratic Party is going and whether you are going to vote Democrat, you're looking at a party that in my opinion has been taken over by basement-dwellers, by people that live in their mom's basement and play on the computer and campaign in their underwear, and, um . . .

(Basement-dwellers? I'll have you know that our computer is in the den, thank you very much.)

MJ (seeing an opportunity): Can I ask you something on that real quick?

PLANTE: You bet.

MJ (setting a trap, by getting Plante to agree to a premise that will weaken his argument): If they've been "taken over" by that fringe, then how come in Connecticut . . . well, first of all, would you agree that Connecticut is one of the most liberal states we have?

PLANTE (taking the bait): Sure it is.

MJ: So, almost 50% [of voters in Connecticut] are supporting a pro-war Democrat right now. Now even if Lamont wins, let's say Joe Lieberman has 40%; we're talking about only 6 out of 10, in one of the most liberal states is supporting the anti-war Democrat. So I don't see how we've been taken over by that fringe.

(D'oh! I revealed my bias, saying "we" when before I had been saying "they.")

PLANTE (not really addressing my point): Well, I would have to say that to me, this indicates that the MoveOn.org people have been victorious in unseating the guy that they targetted to unseat, and that is meaningful. I'll tell you that the MoveOn.org people, the left wing of the Democratic Party is going to rejoice, because . . .

MJ (no longer making any good points, just sorta filling airspace): Oh yeah I know, I mean that's another thing, that's kind of weird . . .

PLANTE: This is an expression of their political power and of their clout and that's a big deal I think. I've gotta tell ya, if I'm on the RNC, i'm looking at this as a gift.

This Time, Dems are Calling Him a Sore Loserman

2006-08-08T23:59:00.000-04:00

Well, the results are in for the Connecticut Democratic primary, and Ned Lamont won the nomination from Joe Lieberman 52%-48%. Article here. I'm glad Connecticut has finally decided on Lieberman vs. Lamont. Now, it's off to the general election, which will be. . . um . . . Lieberman vs. Lamont.

So what we thought would be a huge climactic election is actually just a momentary blip until these two go at each others throats again. Except, of course, this time instead of both men having D's next to their name, only Ned gets to wear the "D." Joe, meanwhile, has to wear an "I", or an "ID", or a "PD", or even a "C4L", depending on what he decides. (You have to click on those links to see what they stand for. Think of it as a fun little game.)

Not to minimize it, of course: This Lamont victory is a big deal, as only 4 incumbent Senators have lost primaries since 1980. But it is funny because you expect elections to end on election day, yet this one's gonna keep on going.

Incidentally, I called into the Chris Plante show, though I could've sworn it was the Chris Core show, on our local right-wing loudmouth station 630 WMAL last night to talk about Lieberman vs. Lamont. Both Chris Plante and Chris Core are basically less-talented-but-just-as-obnoxious Rush Limbaugh wannabes. Anyway, Chris, whichever one it was, was going on and on about how a Lamont victory was a gift to the Republicans. I called up and made 3 totally awesome points why he was wrong. I'll transcribe and post our conversation as soon as 630 WMAL posts the show online. If you want to listen to it, you can check here, and scroll down to box that says "Chris Plante Weeknights" and click on Tuesday, either for Listen Now or Listen Later. If the announcement at the beginning says the show is for August 1st, they haven't updated it yet, but if it says August 8th, go a little less than halfway through the show, and you'll hear about 3-5 minutes of me yammering away very convincingly and intelligently at Chris.

Anyway, Lieberman the Independent will be a stronger candidate than Lieberman the Democrat. He is hugely popular with independents and with some Republicans. Yet, I've learned not to underestimate Ned Lamont. The guy might do a lot of damage to Joe in the next few months, though it will be a challenge to Lamont to see if anyone outside of the Democratic base is buying his message. Maybe, maybe not.

In other news, incumbent Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney lost her primary in Georgia to Democrat Hank Johnson. You may remember Cynthia McKinney from punching a Capitol Hill police office with her cell phone and from her father blaming "J-E-W-S" for a Congressional loss in 2002. Normally, I'd say you can't infer someone is an anti-semite by their father's actions, but recent news would of course prove me otherwise. Good riddance to probably one of the most embarassing and flamboyant-in-the-bad-way Congresswomen. Hank Johnson will make an excellent Congressman.

That's it for now . . . hopefully I can post the transcript of my adventures in talk radio sometime tomorrow.

A Judgment Day Warning

2006-08-07T14:15:00.000-04:00

Alright, just when I was beginning to be embraced by the liberal blogging community, I have a feeling this post may reverse that trend. But I have something to say about Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

Now, as I've said, I support Ned Lamont in this race. But we're getting too wild-eyed in hoping for his victory. So here's my message to Lamonters: Please don't overdo it. If it is not too late.

That is to say, don't fool yourselves into thinking Joe Lieberman is the real enemy, as many of you already have. The real enemy is the radical Republican agenda, which, believe or not, Joe fights against far more often than not.

Tomorrow is the long-awaited Democratic primary between Lieberman and Lamont in Connecticut, and it looks like Lamont will probably win. And he probably should; he is the kind of progressive Democrat that should be elected in a progressive state like Connecticut. A Lieberman would be better-suited representing Florida or Iowa or Minnesota or Colorado.

So, Connecticut, vote Lamont. But, remember:

Lieberman is not a bad guy. Can you say that outloud with me, please? Try it: "Lieberman is not a bad guy." I think he's misguided with his support for the war, and he has run a pretty disingenuous and bizarre campaign against Ned Lamont, and he can be incredibly pompous and condescending. But this whole thing about him being Bush's lapdog is frankly ridiculous. He's voted with the Democrats 90% of the time according to National Journal (I don't have the link for that, but I heard that on Meet the Press yesterday.)

I think for those supporting Lamont, they ought to get out and vote for Lamont, and campaign aggressively against Joe Lieberman. But there's a difference between aggressiveness and viciousness, and as much as I like the Daily Kos and other liberal blogs, they are very often vicious when they should merely be aggressive (for example, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. To name a few.)

We can't stomp on Lieberman's grave if he loses. We are starting to look like a party that demands ideological purity. I hate to say it, but the ousting of Lieberman from the party makes the storyline all too believable to moderate and independent voters that us Democrats are simply a bunch of crazed left-wingers. Which is not to say that Lamont is a crazed left-winger, because he's not, but the mob mentality that many have for getting rid of Lieberman makes us look crazed at the very least.

Anyway, tomorrow will be interesting, and I hope Lamont wins. But I hope his supporters keep in mind that Lieberman was a patriot, and still will be as he runs as an independent.

Field Trip: Republicans, Robertson, and Rehabilitation

2006-08-06T10:56:00.000-04:00

I'd like to introduce (or as avid Blue Pagers will note, reintroduce) the Blue Page Field Trip.

From time to time, if I see a bunch of things online that are particularly insightful, hilarious, interesting, or bizarre, I'll package them together into an all-expenses-paid field trip for Blue Pagers only. Think of it as a blog round-up.

And we're off:

--Remember when I debunked that sarcastic "21 ways to be a good Democrat" list? It is much funnier when someone does a similar list for the Republicans. See it here at The Liberal Journal, and make sure you check out the picture at the top of the post.

--Al Franken is willing to let Mel Gibson work in Hollywood again if he undergoes his rehabilitation program.

--In the Tennessee Senate race for retiring majority leader Bill Frist's seat, "An RNC poll taken last week gives Bob Corker (R) a 15 point lead over Harold Ford (D) in a head-to-head match up. Corker scored 53.5 percent of the survey," according to the Hotline Blog. I love Harold Ford, but things look a tad unlikely for him to win, and I had predicted here that he would ultimately lose, sadly. The RNC's nauseating but nonetheless effective Fancy Ford website doesn't help the cause.

--Chuck Hagel (R-NE), one of the few Republicans who have come to their senses on this war, or at least are willing to admit having come to their senses in public, on what to do about Iraq from here on out. "Ask the president. Ask Secretary (of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. They're the ones who got us into this." The rest at Kos.

--All this hot hot heat has made Pat Robertson a believer in global warming, after years of denying its plausibility. Robertson also likes to talk about the fact that disasters around the globe mean the apocalypse is coming. Personally, I think the surest sign of a coming apocalypse is that a lunatic like Robertson would say something as sane as, "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air." When a man with Robertson's history starts saying things that are scientifically accurate and reasonable, up becomes down and black becomes white. Repent!

A Little Inside Info About the Next McCampain

2006-08-05T14:47:00.000-04:00

A week ago last Tuesday, Rick Davis came to talk to my Political Communication Strategy class. Rick Davis managed John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. We got to partake in some Q & A, which was pretty fun. He also looks like he's been awkwardly compelled to sing karaoke in the picture on the right.

He was an excellent speaker; funny, intelligent, shrewd, and most importantly, candid. That is to say, in almost any venue you can expect political operatives to spin spin spin. But Davis seemed to let his guard down almost entirely when talking to us about strategy, and it has been my experience in this program that all guest speakers, Republican or Democrat, pretty much let their guards down as well.

Here are some things Davis said that were of note:

1) McCain is not officially running in 2008, wink wink, but yeah of course he's running. Basically, Davis is already laying the groundwork for McCain's 2008 campaign. While McCain obviously hasn't announced for the race yet and is still being coy about it, Davis kept slipping up when he was talking about 2008. He kept saying things like "We're already the frontrunner in 2008" or "Our pollster says this, but keep in mind, we don't officially have a pollster since we aren't officially running" or "We have this much money in the bank for 2008" or "Next time we need to make sure we . . . " So barring any unforeseen circumstances, his hat will be in the ring in '08.

2) McCain will have no problem winning the primary. I asked Davis if he bought into this whole "McCain can win the general but isn't conservative enough to win the primary" thing. I happen to think that that's true, but Davis disagreed with me pretty emphatically. He said that McCain is the clear frontrunner in all Republican primary polls right now. Still, I think while McCain will finish first or second in multi-candidate primaries, he still may have difficulty winning when the primary inevitably boils down to him and a more conservative Republican, as I'm pretty sure that a large part of the conservative wing of the party distrusts the guy.

3) Liberal criticism of McCain is good for McCain. As I mentioned, many of the conservatives distrust McCain, and even call him a liberal (which he certainly isn't.) So Davis basically implied that the more McCain can garner contempt from liberals, the better, which was evidenced by two news stories that would seem to be negative about McCain but actually Davis insists were positive. The first story was where he mended fences with Jerry Falwell by giving the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University, which I thought really hurt McCain because the very reason people like him is because he is willing to stand up to guys like Falwell. The second story was where McCain was heckled upon giving another commencement address at Bob Kerrey's (D-NE) New School in New York City.

Davis commented on these two stories, saying, "So let's see. Conservative Christians have made up with us. Liberals are booing us. That's bad for winning the Republican primary how?"

4) In the general, McCain wants ABH--anyone but Hillary. I personally think that not only would Hillary lose in 2008 if she's the nominee, but that she would get slaughtered if she ran against McCain. Davis disagrees. He said, "She's smarter, she's tougher, she's got more money, she's got more support, and she has Bill. No one wants to run up against that." She's smarter and tougher, eh? See, I told you this was a candid session.

He said that their pollster (who, remember, is not officially their pollster) polled Democrats to see a) if they described themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal, and b) if they described certain Democratic presidential hopefuls as conservative, moderate, or liberal. Most Democrats of all ideologies identified Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) as somewhat conservative, and most Democrats of all ideologies identified Senator Kerry (D-MA) as mostly liberal. But he said an interesting thing happened with Hillary. Conservative Dems called her a conservative, moderate Dems called her a moderate, and liberal Dems called her a liberal. That is why Davis fears Hillary.

5) McCain ran to his strengths in 2000. I didn't really realize this, since I mostly started paying attention to politics during the 2000 presidential race, but McCain was not a household name before he ran for president in 2000; he was a nobody. Davis said that the challenge was trying to get this guy known.

So he and his cohorts basically said to each other, look, if the press gets to know this guy, they're going to love him. Enter the straight-talk express, McCain's campaign bus that journalists were always welcome on. Enter invitations to Howard Fineman to spend several days with McCain. Enter unprecedented access to the candidate from the press.

Davis' point was not that candidates need to always play to the press; in fact, he said such a strategy would be terrible for many candidates. Rather, candidates need to play to their strengths, and McCain's strength was the press.

6) Look to the little things to win. While McCain had appeal with Republicans, he had tremendous appeal with independents and moderates. But why should that matter during primary season? Because of open primaries.

Different states have different rules about primaries, but the basic distinction is open vs. closed primaries. In a closed primary, Republicans get Republican ballots, Democrats get Democratic ballots, and independents get to vote for the school board. In an open primary, generally, anyone can ask for any ballot, R or D, but that's the only one they get. So most R's grab an R ballot and most D's grab a D ballot, but the independents grab the ballot that has their favorite overall candidate on it. And many independents in 2000 were enthusiastic about McCain.

Davis and the McCain team looked at the primary map and realized that the first four primaries, after the Iowa caucus, were all open primaries. So they came up with a plan: skip the Iowa caucus and admit to the press that you're not going to play there because you don't think you can win. Then win the next four primaries (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and McCain's home state of Arizona) with the assumption that even if the more conservative Republicans voted for Bush, independents in these states would be gaga for McCain.

And it turned out to be a pretty good strategy that almost worked. They skipped Iowa, and then shocked Bush with a 49%-30% trouncing in New Hampshire. While they won Michigan and Arizona, they lost in South Carolina, in part because of push polling suggesting that McCain had an illegitimate black child (which looked plausible, because he has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter--for more on push polling against McCain in 2000, read this.) Davis said if they had prevailed in South Carolina, it would have been next to impossible for Bush to come back after losing the first 4 races that McCain had competed in.

7) McCain called, he wants his campaign manager back. My favorite moment of the speech ocurred when Davis got a call on his cell during the middle of class. He took the phone out of his briefcase to silence it, but then said with a grin, "Actually, I'm gonna take this." As he picked it up, he said "Hello Senator . . . Actually, I'm giving a speech at GW right now about the 2000 election. . . I'm sorry I lost it for you."

Bad Ad Thursday: Lie-bear-man's Cave

2006-08-03T09:50:00.000-04:00

Today's Bad Ad Thursday teaches us an important lesson: You don't have to be a lightweight like Bob "One Senator Can Create Change" Menendez or a novice like Allan "Pebble On A Pond" Lichtman to produce a terrible ad. Political heavyweight pros like Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) are just as vulnerable.

By my count, we are 5 shopping days away from the Connecticut primary, where Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont will square off for the Democratic nomination. Ned Lamont sorta came out of nowhere, hitting Lieberman hard on his support for the Iraq War and Bush's social security privatization plan. When it became obvious that Lamont's insurgent candidacy couldn't be ignored, Lieberman created today's ad.

The following ad is Lieberman's famous bear cub ad that I posted about here. (Forgive the redundancy of this post, but I wanted to make sure everyone could see the video.) Anyway, this ad is unspeakably awful. Were I the type to resort to shameless puns, I might comment that it is unbearable. Fortunately, shameless puns aren't my thing. (The title of this post doesn't count.)

Ok, gather round and let's watch the ad. Please turn off your cell phones and pagers.

Ok. I articulated most of my complaints about this ad in my previous post about it. So I'll be relatively brief. But here are the biggest reasons this ad is horrible:

A) Conspiracy theory. The whole premise of this ad is that former Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT) was so mad about losing to Joe Lieberman that he recruited bearcub Ned Lamont to do his evil bidding. There is no truth to this whatsoever, and it doesn't even pass the can-it-be test.

B) Confused message on Lamont's ideology. The beginning of the ad accuses Lamont of being the puppet of Weicker, a Republican. But then the ad points out that Lamont was supporting Joe Lieberman and had just given him a campaign contribution. And then the ad swings back the other way and claims that Lamont agreed with Republicans 80% of the time (which, by the way, is a total BS statistic, as this was when he was voting on things like stop sign placement and the names of new roads). So is Lamont a Lieberman-supporter or a Republican-supporter? It can't be both (and in fact, it is neither.)

C) Bizarre assumptions about bears. The narrator claims that "Bears never forget" and "One thing about bear cubs; they always do what they're told." What? Neither of those statements are true. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling Lieberman a liar for his lack of bear-related accuracy. I just think that if you are going to draw on common folk wisdom, you ought to get it right, instead of just pulling it out of thin air.

And why is Weicker a bear anyway? The whole bear thing is absolutely irrelevant to any point at all. In other words, if they made Weicker an elephant, because elephants never forget, then the ad would still be stupid, but at least there would be a reason for choosing the damn elephant. Right? Or am I just losing my mind?

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: D-. This ad is weird, implausible, and incoherent. The only reason you are even getting a D- is because I kind of like bears, and because I like the high-pitched whine of the bear cub's voice.

And They Will No Longer Be Serving Liberty Onion Soup

2006-08-02T15:44:00.000-04:00

The following is hardly the most newsworthy item today, but I had to get something up on these Blue Pages quick so we can all stop looking at Mel Gibson stroking his beard every time we come to this page.

From Think Progress: "'Freedom fries' and 'freedom toast' are off the congressional menu. 'Three years after House Republicans trumpeted the new names to get back at the French for snubbing the coalition of the willing in Iraq,' both fries and toast have been returned to their traditional names."

Same subject, from the Washington Times: "'Now that they've changed the name of the french fries back, maybe they will admit their other foreign policy mistakes were wrong, too,' said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader."

Brendan Daly almost has it right. It's not so much that changing the name of french fries to freedom fries was bad foreign policy. It's more just disturbing that changing the name of french fries to freedom fries was the House Republicans idea of foreign policy. I'd imagine dining in the congressional cafeteria will now be a far less idiotic experience all around.

Mel Gibson Terrifies Me

2006-07-31T16:03:00.000-04:00

Mel Gibson, rambling after his recent DUI arrest, according to this Washington Post article: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Oh my God. He sounds like Hezbollah.

According to the Washington Post, he also turned to his arresting officer and asked, "Are you a Jew?" and also launched "an expletive-laden barrage of anti-Semitic remarks." For what it is worth (very little), he apologized, saying, "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said, and I apologize to anyone who I have offended."

Remember all that controversy over whether Mel Gibson was anti-semitic? I was never sure that he was, despite his father's denial that the holocaust ocurred and despite the fact that some think The Passion of the Christ was anti-semitic.

However, while I was never sure that he WAS anti-semitic, right-wing commentators lined-up to make sure they assured everyone he WASN'T anti-semitic. Why did they do this? Because it played into their bogus storyline that liberals hate Christianity and will smear anyone who makes a movie about Jesus.

Bill O'Reilly, 1/17/03, interviewing Gibson: "We have heard that there is a reporter trying to dig up dirt on you, and who has bothered your 85-year-old father, trying to get provocative statements from him, and trying to portray you as a fanatic and perhaps a bigot, that this guy is operating right now. He's trying to dig up dirt on Mel Gibson. And do you believe it's because you're making this movie about Jesus?"

Rush Limbaugh, 2/27/04: "Quoting unnamed studio execs, the article said 'some of Hollywood's biggest producers were angry over Gibson's refusal to repudiate remarks made by his father.' His father had nothing to do with the movie! . . . this business of dumping this on his dad is BS, anyway. That's not why they opposed Gibson and that's not why they opposed this movie. The dad, Gibson's dad, just gave them a convenient thing to lean on. They didn't like Gibson because they didn't like the subject matter of the movie."

James Dobson, 2/04: "The movie — and Mel Gibson himself — have been mercilessly dogged by liberal commentators hurling unfair criticism and baseless allegations of anti-Semitism. . . Shaky charges of 'anti-Semitism' are really just a smokescreen. I believe that the real problem the liberal establishment has with this movie is that it has the audacity to portray Christ as He really was — not only as an historical figure, but as the Savior of mankind."

So again, be careful with what you conclude here; I'm not saying that O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Dobson are anti-semitic. I'm saying that they were so eager to prove that liberals want to attack religious figures that they gave Mel Gibson a free pass.

It now looks like the liberals may have been right about Gibson. In the meantime, I'll be waiting patiently for O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Dobson to acknowledge that maybe liberals don't hate Jesus after all, maybe they merely hate anti-semites.

Secrets Secrets Are No Fun . . .

2006-07-30T21:00:00.000-04:00

. . . unless they help Mike Steele run.

Ok. Pardon my cynicism. I think Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele (R) just pulled a fast one over on everybody.

Michael Steele is trying to win a Senate race in a state where registerd Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2-1, in a year where Republicans are unpopular nationally and expected to lose seats. Not easy. So if you are Steele's strategist, you've got to be trying to think of a way to let Maryland liberals know that you have a lot of trouble with the national Republicans. But you've also got to make sure you don't openly rebuke the national Republicans who will basically be the campaign's biggest cash cow.

Hmm. What's a political operative to do? Well, I'd suggest a political operative do exactly what Steele did, in three simple steps.

Step 1: Sit down with Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank for an anonymous interview. Be real coy about it. Say things that Democrats like to hear from Republicans, like "[The Iraq war] didn't work. . . . We didn't prepare for the peace," or "[the response to Hurricane Katrina was] a monumental failure of government," or "We've lost our way, we've gone to the well and we drank the water, and we shouldn't have."

Step 2: Knowing that there are political nerds all around wondering who this fantasy Republican could be, let the inevitable speculation stew. All those bloggers and political know-it-alls will be salivating over figuring out who the secret Republican is. And in this fast-pace cybersociety we live in, it won't take long for Kos or FishbowlDC to guess the right answer.

Step 3: Admit that aw shucks, it was me after all. Then let the syncophants praise your independent streak. National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Dan Ronayne: "Michael's always been an independent voice and speaks his mind, always has been." Steele spokesman Doug Heye: "When he agrees with the Republican administration, he absolutely does so. When he disagrees, he speaks his mind."

Look, if Steele is going to get elected in Maryland, it is going to be because of a combination of three things: A) a perception that he's a straight-shooter in the John McCain mold who transcends partisan politics, B) his substantial and undeniable likability and charisma, and C) big bucks coming in from out-of-state Republicans.

My little conspiracy theory plays to all three of these points. By trying his very hardest to talk anonymously about the Republican Party, but ultimately getting caught in the act, Steele looks like a sensible independent voice without looking like a backstabber. If I were fond of inane expressions, I might remark that with this strategy he gets to have his cake and eat it too. But I hate inane expressions, so I would never remark that.

I don't think that such a strategy will win Steele the election--this is a very, very blue state. But I do think it is his best shot, and that if everything went down the way I'm almost positive it went down, then he's playing his cards exceptionally.

The Ruben-Raskin Rumble

2006-07-28T00:06:00.000-04:00

I don't usually get excited about state senate races, but one real good one is going in the Democratic primary for Maryland's 20th district. Takoma Park hotshot Jamie Raskin is taking on the 30+ incumbent veteran Ida Ruben. It is a classic David v. Goliath battle, except here Goliath is a 77-year women.

Jamie Raskin has earned the coveted Blue Pages endorsement for Maryland's 20th this year. He's an articulate, intelligent candidate who opposes the ICC and doesn't take any corporate campaign contributions (unlike Ruben, who supports the ICC and does take corporate contributions). He's the kind of rock-solid progressive you'd expect from Takoma Park, and our state needs his voice.

Ruben, on the other hand, is an exceptionally poor candidate. She also is not exactly what we at the Blue Pages would call a mental giant. I remember once watching Crossfire (before Jon Stewart reminded America that the show was horrible) and Ida Ruben went head to head with Tucker Carlson to debate a provision to make it illegal to smoke cigarettes in a car with a kid inside the vehicle.

Now, without debating that issue too much, proponents of the ban are obviously worried about the health effects of secondhand smoke on children who are held captive to that smoke. Opponents, like Carlson, want to portray the proponents of the bill as nanny-state liberals who want the government to tell people what they can and can't do. So look how easily he baits Ida Ruben in that trap (CNN transcript here):

"CARLSON: I think that's a really interesting point, children do, of course . . . spend the vast majority of the time in the home. And with parents that smoke, that's the primary place they're getting secondhand smoke. Why not ban it in the home?

RUBEN: Because someone's home is their private place.

CARLSON: Your car's not?

RUBEN: The car is, yes, but I will tell you that...

CARLSON: Well, yes or no, is it or not?

RUBEN: Is a car private not if you have a child in there, no.

CARLSON: Why is that -- how is that -- wait, wait, then why is a house not private?

RUBEN: If I had my way they wouldn't smoke in the home either.

CARLSON: So you would make that illegal if you could?

RUBEN: If I could, but I can't. And I'm aware of that."

Great. So while she could've simply said that the density of the smoke in a car versus the density of smoke in a house produces a greater health risk for the child, she instead gets tricked into admitting she'd like to ban smoking in the home outright. She must be the very nanny-state liberal that Tucker wants everyone to believe we all are. I don't want someone with that lack of intellect representing me.

This episode was broadcast in January of 2003 and I still remember it because I was so shocked.

The other Ida Ruben incident of note ocurred when she made an ass of herself over Silver Chips endorsing Jamie Raskin. Silver Chips is an award-winning high school newspaper from Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, where I graduated from in 2001.

Here comes a long quote from the Washington Post's editorial on the subject. Read it though, it tells the story well, and the good parts are in bold: ". . . In Maryland, a politician and a high school principal were reprimanding some teenage student journalists. Their sin? Taking an interest -- and taking sides -- in a state Senate campaign.

The journalists, students at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, work on the school's award-winning paper, Silver Chips. They had the audacity to write an editorial supporting law professor Jamin Raskin, who is challenging state Sen. Ida G. Ruben (D-Montgomery) in the September primary. The incoming co-editor of the newspaper, Isaac Arnsdorf, said a staffer for the paper tried repeatedly to contact Mrs. Ruben, leaving multiple messages and even reaching her once, fleetingly, by phone; she didn't call back. Mrs. Ruben, who is irate about the paper's endorsement, said she doesn't recall getting the messages.

Now Mrs. Ruben is making demands (equal time!). Montgomery Blair's principal, evidently squirming at having provoked a state senator, has harrumphed at the editorial ("not appropriate"). As for the paper's main readers, students at Montgomery Blair . . . well, mostly they're too young to vote. The only real grown-up in the debate seems to be Mr. Arnsdorf, who is 16. "Silver Chips is a public forum for student expression," he told The Post's Lori Aratani. "It's an unsigned editorial representing the viewpoint of the editorial board and not necessarily the school."

Mrs. Ruben has been a member of Maryland's General Assembly since 1975, twice as long as Mr. Arnsdorf has been alive. Yet in this tussle he looks like the cool-headed pro and she looks like an ill-tempered rookie. Why is Mrs. Ruben so worked up about an editorial in a student newspaper? And why shouldn't a student newspaper write about and express its opinion on political races? It clearly serves an educational purpose, and, who knows, it might even generate some interest among students in local politics."

The operative question in that editorial is "Why is Mrs. Ruben so worked up about an editorial ina student newspaper?" Answer: Ego. Barely anyone of voting age would've read the endorsement, but she took it personally, so now she's blown the whole thing out of proportion and it ends up making her look like a fool in The Washington Post. Can you believe the lack of restraint?

Raskin, on the other hand, is a star. He's got an uphill battle against an entrenched machine Democrat like Ruben, but I know who I'll be casting my vote for on September 12th.

Bad Ad Thursday: Lichtman's Pebble Sinks

2006-07-27T13:44:00.000-04:00

Doing a Bad Ad Thursday once is a fluke. But doing it twice makes it a tradition.

Meet Democrat Allan Lichtman. He is running for Senate right in my own backyard. Actually, judging by this ad, I think he may have filmed it in my own backyard.

Watch the ad:

Ok, message-wise this one isn't as bad as Menendez's bad ad; Lichtman at least has a point to get across. I know the metaphor may have been difficult to discern, but fortunately Lichtman's website helps us out: "This humorous and edgy ad literally shows the difference between the minor ripple of conventional politics and the big splash that Allan will make in Washington." Oh, that's why he jumped in the pond. Thank God someone cleared that up, I just assumed he was a lunatic.

Anyway, this is all very nice, but somehow I doubt Lichtman will make a big splash. First of all, who throws a pebble into a pond with such a lack of authority? How's he gonna survive in a Senate with former hall-of-fame pitcher Jim Bunning (R-KY) with a half-skip-toss like that?

Additionally, effective senators generally don't have the same body language as that guy who appears on TV in that question mark suit talking about free government grants (who, by the way, I saw in Silver Spring the other day)? Seriously, pause the ad at 20 seconds and compare to the picture below.

Not exactly Senatorial. Mr. President, I would now like to relinquish the remainder of my time to the distinguished gentleman in the brightly colored punctuation-based suit, who may or may not in fact be "The Riddler."

Ok. The other big problem didn't really set in until I watched the ad a few times, but here's the thing: The concept of this ad is basically, "Hey look, a full grown man is going to jump into a pond in a suit! How wacky and unconventional! Let's vote for him!" So we see him throw the pebble, and then we see him jump into the pond.

Or do we? We see someone jump into the pond, yet we never see Lichtman emerge all wet, which I would think would be an essential part of the whole man-jumping-in-a-pond narrative. Hmm . . . so I'm suspicious. Did he really jump in the pond, or is that a stunt double? I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I have a feeling that's an intern with a toupee.

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: C. I like your creativity, but I'm pretty sure you want me to vote for you simply because no one else has jumped in a pond yet. I know there are a couple of debates coming up, but I haven't heard of one cannonball contest. Please do this assignment over, and this time, we better see algae and/or plankton all over your sopping-wet suit.

Field Trip: Cowboys, Catastrophes, and Cocaine

2006-07-25T10:54:00.000-04:00

I'm busy writing a paper today and studying for a final exam tomorrow. Normally, this would be a time of heavy blogging, because I procrastinate immensely and do anything other than what I need to do when I have papers and exams.

So I had to promise myself to avoid the Blue Pages altogether today and tomorrow. Therefore, today's and tomorrow's political musings will be occuring places other than these very blue pages.

--A Jewish cowboy running 2nd as the independent candidate for Governor in Texas? Whose campaign slogan is "Why the hell not?" and publicly smokes illegal cuban cigars? Who says "All politicians speak in one-liners and sound bites. They're just not as funny as mine." Read this Washington Post article about Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, who may shock the world Jesse Ventura style come election day.

--Chris Cillizza, who writes the Washington Post's ocassionally-disappointing-but-I'm-starting-to-warm-to-it political blog The Fix, says that Democratic messiah Barack Obama may run for the presidency sooner than he claims.

--Are you comforted to know that Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who is (gulp) chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, believes vociferously that global warming is a hoax? His press release states, "The issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it's more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith." That's where the radical right is in this country: religion is science and science is religion.

--Cassidy points out "We're only 15 days away from the biggest non-presidential primary in a long time. Lieberman vs. Lamont." Check out his interesting analysis on the most unexpectedly fascinating race of the election season.

--Only Steve Colbert could get a Congressman to say, with a straight face, "I enjoy cocaine because it is a fun thing to do." Watch the YouTube on the Liberal Journal.

Ok! I'm putting these pages away, probably, until Thursday. Pace yourselves in the meantime.

I'm Snow Sorry

2006-07-24T19:53:00.000-04:00

WH Press Secretary Tony Snow rightfully apologized today for his moronically oversimplified statement that "The simple answer [to why President Bush vetoed the stem-cell bill] is: he thinks murder is wrong."

Quote the AP: "White House press secretary Tony Snow apologized on Monday for suggesting that President Bush believed stem-cell research amounted to 'murder,' saying he was 'overstating the president's position.' 'He would not use that term,' Snow told reporters."

I am bringing this up because I gave him a hard time about this in a previous post, where I pointed out that it was strange that the large majority in both houses who voted for the bill, R's and D's, somehow didn't think murder was wrong. Snow has downgraded "murder" to the still painfully misleading but marginally more accurate "destruction of human life." But murder, which of course means to kill maliciously in cold blood, was undeniably over-the-top, so he corrected himself, and I thought it was only fair to point that out. Apologizing for this was the right thing to do.

C&L points out that Snow "should apologize for the veto itself." That's another issue, and I doubt that'll happen, so I'll take any sign of contrition that a public figure is willing to make, particularly one from this administration.

Don't Think About This Too Hard

2006-07-24T00:56:00.000-04:00

Ok, quick civics review: Bills becomes law, basically, by passing both houses with majority votes and getting signed by the President. 17 words--take that, Schoolhouse Rock! You may make learning fun through the magic of song. But at the Blue Pages we keep it short and sweet.

Now, anyway, that's what is supposed to happen under most circumstances. However, President Bush has increasingly used so-called "signing statements" when signing legislation. Here's how signing statements work: President Bush files a statement with the law he signs saying he doesn't have to follow parts of it, or that his interpretation is such-and-such, or that certain of his policies shouldn't be considered under the jurisdiction of that law.

In other words, it is his way of writing the legislation the way he wanted it, or of formally saying that he doesn't have to follow it. This is a pretty dangerous thing for ANY President, R or D, to have, because it essentially means that separation of powers turn out to be much weaker than we thought. What Congress thought was a law now becomes merely a suggestion.

According to The Boston Globe, through these signing statements "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, 'whistle-blower' protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research."

Lovely. So, I found in this blog that "a special task force commissioned by the American Bar Association is recommending Congress pass a law allowing them to sue the President over issuing signing statements."

Passing a law allowing Congress to sue the President over issuing signing statements. Ok. Um. May be a good idea, but see if you can follow me on this.

What happens if Congress passes a bill saying Congress can sue the President for signing statements, and President Bush signs a signing statement saying that that law about signing statements doens't apply to him?

Or did I just blow your mind?

Yo Quiero Participatory Democracy

2006-07-23T16:31:00.000-04:00

How did this news story slip through the cracks?

David Broder's column today points out, "In a vote last week, 181 House Republicans supported a ban on bilingual ballots, but nearly all Democrats and a minority of Republicans joined to defeat the measure."

I'm sure that those voting for the bill would say this is really about protecting our culture and language, and making sure people assimilate, and blah blah blah. But such a bill would also have the convenient effect of making it difficult for the Democratic-leaning Hispanic-American community to partake in our democracy, to which they have a right to as citizens.

Is anyone out there shocked that the House Republicans would favor making it harder for minorities to vote? Is this something new?

Up until perhaps the last couple of years or so, the Republican Party seemed poised to start winning over the Hispanic population. According to CNN's 2004 exit polls, Kerry only carried the Hispanic population 53% to 44%, which was much smaller than the 2-to-1 advantage usually gained by Democrats in this category. George Bush successfully pushed through our first Hispanic attorney general, Republican Alberto Gonzalez, and Florida saw its first Hispanic Senator, Republican Mel Martinez. (Of course, Democratic Hispanic Ken Salazar was elected to the Senate from Colorado that year as well). Also, in my opinion, Bush spoke to Hispanic citizens on the campaign trail much more naturally than either Kerry or Gore.

Broder's point is that the Hispanic vote seems to be trending back towards the Democrats, partially as a backlash to the viciousness of some of Minute-men-types on the far right. According to Broder, the Democratic-affiliated NDN recently surveyed Hispanic voters and found that among them "Bush's favorability rating has sunk from the 60 percent level to 38 percent among these voters, and Democrats as a party lead the GOP by 24 percentage points."

And Senator Martinez noted, "immigration is not really an issue for Cubans, but we want to see people treated with respect. When they start saying that it's un-American to have ballots printed in Spanish, it sends a message that we're not wanted, not respected." Well said.

Listen, there are principled arguments for being tough on illegal immigration. But the problem is that you can't listen to someone decrying illegal immigration before they start complaining about how no one speaks English anymore. Or how the Hispanics are going to be the majority population soon (who cares if they are?). Or how they don't know the difference between a chalupa and a gordita and they sure as hell don't want to know. (Answer: a gordita is served in "warm, pillowy flatbread" whereas a chalupa is served in a "crispy, chewy, chalupa shell" according to Taco Bell's official website). And this tendency to tiptoe towards xenophobia does send the kind of message that Martinez is worried about, which makes Hispanics wary, if not outright frightened, of the Republican Party.

The Snow-Man Can't Help But Melt

2006-07-21T01:33:00.000-04:00

Alright! With the amount of blog posts I've been doing lately, I may end up saving what could have been a dismal July for the Blue Pages.

Anyway, anybody ever see that episode of The West Wing where Josh Lyman does the press briefing instead of C.J., and he ends up being really hostile and sarcastic? White House Press Secretary Tony Snow reminds me of that.

Bush has had three press secretaries. I think his first one, Ari Fleischer, was by far the most competent, but he also only served during the first term, which was obviously a stronger term than the second. Scott McClellan was an absolute joke, but he was a master at sticking to the script (remember this blame-game fight with reporter David Gregory?).

But Tony Snow, who himself was a "journalist" (quotes are obligatory when discussing someone who worked for Fox News), knows the game of asking tricky questions, so he gets real annoyed when people asks him tricky questions. While McClellan answered tricky questions by sticking painfully to the script, Snow is more inclined to take the bait.

As he did with this exchange from Think Progress on the topic of minorities in the Bush administration:

"QUESTION: If he is proud of the diversity in his Cabinet, wouldn’t you expect him to improve diversity amongst the White House staff?

SNOW: What the president does is he looks for the best available people.

QUESTION: And they’re all white?

SNOW: I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me? You can come aboard and do personnel. You want it?

QUESTION: I’m asking a question.

SNOW: I know you are, but it’s an argumentative question that also applied to other previous administrations. Would we like more blacks and Hispanics on? Yes, sure.

QUESTION: And Asians?

SNOW: Asians, too, yes, thank you. Let me leave no one behind. Just, every group, raise your hand, we want you."

In a way, I sort of give T-Snow some credit. I'm sure it gets real annoying smelling a reporter's "gotcha" angle and not being able to call them out on it. But still, showing some restraint would be the more presidential way out. After all, Snow's angsty-teenager approach to the role of Press Secretary actually drew much more attention to the lack of racial diversity in Bush's staff than the question itself.

(Oh, and a sidenote: President Bush is a lot of things, but he's not a racist. I think the lack of diversity in his staff is alarming, but I'm fairly sure that Clinton's staff wasn't much better. And you cannot discount the fact that he has appointed the first black male Secretary of State, the first black female Secretary of State, and the first Hispanic Attorney General. That doesn't mean that he's great, or even decent, on issues important to minorities, particularly blacks, but I just think we ought to give credit where credit is due.)

Bad Ad Thursday: A Menendud for Menendez

2006-07-20T16:21:00.000-04:00

I've already been fortunate enough to have stumbled upon the Right Wing Style Manual, which I will be revealing portions of to you as time goes by. I'd now like to begin a new tradition here at The Blue Pages, called Bad Ad Thursday. Each Thursday from now until the end of the election season, I hope to illuminate a particularly unbearble ad.

But first, what makes a bad ad? I'm not grading them on a curve of truthfulness, or fairness, or common decency. Those swift boat ads in 2004 failed all 3 of those criteria, yet I'd still consider them great ads.

But a bad ad has some or all or more of the following problems:

--Confused message/ No message/ Cliched message: "I'm a fighter and will stand up for our citizens. I never give in and I believe in America's promise."
--Weak visuals
--Verbosity
--Fails the "Can-It-Be-Test": "My opponent has pledged to resurrect Hitler and install him as the local Boy Scout Troup leader."
--Highlights the candidate's weaknesses, not strengths
--Boring
--Lack of creativity
--Tone-deafness, that is it speaks to the wrong audience: "And this I promise you, citizens of Texas, that every oilman, rancher, and big-hat-maker in this state will pay their dues under my administration!"

So, at this point let's all watch Senator Bob Menendez's reelection ad from New Jersey. Bob is a Democrat from New Jersey who was appointed to his seat by former Senator and current NJ Governor Democrat Jon Corzine.

"Wait, but before I watch this ad, Matt Jerome, I don't understand why you are trashing a Democrat! One of your own! Isn't this The Blue Pages?"

Oh, sorry, yes I should explain that my trashing of an ad has nothing to do with my support or lack of support for any candidate (though I don't like Senator Menendez all that much, and I actually have a feeling he may lose in November). As far as ads go, I'm an equal-opportunity thrasher.

NOW let's watch this ad.

Ok. Terrible ad. Here's a few of my biggest complaints:

A) First of all, there is no concept here. The ad is basically a videotape of one of Menendez's speeches, and not even a particularly compelling speech, set to pseudo-patriotic music.

B) Is this a positive ad or an attack ad? It looks like a positive ad but reads like an attack ad. Watch seconds 16-24. Menendez says the following negative things about the Republican administration and his opponent, "They were wrong on Iraq. Wrong on siding with big oil. My opponent supports George Bush's war." I think those are good points for the ad, but why would they juxtapose these negative things about Bush and Menendez's opponent Tom Kean Jr over 3 different still shots of Menendez and the happy patriotic music?

Watching a political ad (or any ad for that matter) isn't a rational experience. The majority of Americans don't write down a candidate's policy positions from an ad so much as they get a feeling from the entire package of an ad. So coupling these negative things about the opponent with positive images of Menendez weakens that entire package.

C) Is there one image in this ad that moves you, motivates you, even vaguely interests you? Let me know if you find one. My guess is Menendez is so motivated by himself that he thinks everyone would have the same impression upon viewing his lovely profile.

D) Highlighting weaknesses: Menendez is not a great speaker, and this is not a great speech. It is a mediocre speech at best. And if you have the time, watch the video once with your eyes closed. Listening to this guy's voice is a little grating.

Matt Jerome's Grade and Comments: D+. Senator, pick one theme--ONE THEME--and go with it. And pick a positive or negative angle and go with it. And please do not expect New Jersey to be as enamoured with your speech and profile as you and your campaign staff are. See me after class.

Ma'am, Your Stem Cell Sure is Getting Big!

2006-07-20T12:21:00.000-04:00

President Bush did in fact veto the stem-cell research legislation by hiding himself behind an army of babies that had been adopted while they were still embryos. And as expected, his veto did not have the votes to be overturned. He proclaimed, "These boys and girls are not spare parts."

No argument here--that bouncy baby boy is not a spare part.

But, quote today's Reuters article: "The stem cells are taken from a ball of cells known as a blastocyst, which develops five to seven days after conception. These embryonic stem cells are pluripotent -- meaning they can differentiate into all the types of cells that make up an animal, including a human being, but do not form placenta and cannot become a fetus."

Also, what Bush isn't saying is that vast majority of stem cells that are not spare parts are going to be destroyed because there are too many of them. If they aren't researched to potentially save future lives and suffering, then they are thrown in a heap of medical waste (medical waste comes in heaps.) As the arch-conservative, super-duper pro-life Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), "It's very difficult to justify abandoning 7,000 to 20,000 in vitro eggs as medical waste."

Here's an interesting religious perspective on this from Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), a mormon complete with a mormon haircut (He is quoted here on Hatch's website):

". . .When does life begin? . . . I turn to what I regard as sources of truth. I find this: 'And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.' This allegory of creation describes a two-step process to life, one of the flesh, the other of the spirit . . . Cells, stem cells, adult cells, are, I believe, the dust of the earth. They are essential to life, but standing alone will never constitute life. A stem cell in a petri dish or frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years, become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. An ancient apostle once said: 'For the body without the spirit is dead.' I believe that life begins in the mother’s womb, not in a scientist’s laboratory. Indeed, scientists tell me that nearly one-half of fertilized eggs never attach to a mother’s womb, but naturally slough off. Surely, life is not being taken here by God or by anyone else."

The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is being in favor of stem-cell research really doesn't have anything to do with thinking human babies are spare parts.