Mutts Against Mitt

post from Firedoglake on 22 August 2007 04:15:58 PM. © Firedoglake

Okay let’s just get this out of the way up front. Nobody has peed on more bushes, sniffed more dog butt or chased more squirrels than me hollering “screw Michael Vick.” I don’t get the guy. Who gets off watching dogs tear each[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/22/mutts-against-mitt/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Rasmussen: Clinton Holds Lead in South Carolina

post from MyDD on 22 August 2007 04:11:12 PM. © MyDD

Rasmussen Reports has released its latest numbers out of South Carolina (500 LVs; August 14, 2007; MoE +/- 4.5%), which I have coupled below with the Pollster.com average out of the state (including the new Rasmussen poll). RasmussenPollster.com [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/147027272/120

Digg this

2010, another good Democratic map

post from Daily Kos on 22 August 2007 04:11:00 PM. © Daily Kos

As good as things look for Democrats this cycle, it's amazing to think that the 2010 map could look even better -- giving us a legitimate possibility at 60 Senate seats over the next two cycles.

A caveat -- we don't know who will retire and what effects the first two years of a Democratic administration might have down ticket (traditionally the White House party loses seats, though Bush bucked that trend). So lots can and will change in the next three years. But it's never a bad idea to take a look down the road to see what's coming up ahead.

By my very early and tentative count, I see 18 races that have the potential of becoming competitive. Of those, 13 are Republican and five Democrat.

POTENTIALLY COMPETITIVE SEATS

Alabama (R)

The strongest two Democrats in Alabama, Rep. Artur Davis and Ag Comish Ron Sparks, passed on a Senate race in 2008. Both want the governor's mansion, but it seems likely that they'll defer to each other and work out who runs for what office. Either would provide Richard Shelby (R) potential trouble, and that's assuming that Shelby, who will be 76 in 2010, decides to try for another term.

Alaska (D)

Lisa Murkowski (R) could get dragged down with the rest of the corrupt Alaskan Republican Party. Her own affairs are definitely not squeaky clean.

Arizona (R)

As today's poll shows, John McCain (R) is in trouble against a potential challenge from Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano if he runs again.

Colorado (D)

Ken Salazar (D) is probably going to be okay in this Blue-trending state, but he is a freshman in a state that has traditionally been Republican. I'm not ready to let my guard down just yet.

Florida (R)

Mel Martinez (R) hasn't shone his freshman term, and sports poor approval ratings. Being Chairman of the RNC (remember that? Yeah, I had almost forgotten as well) won't do him any wonders at a time when the GOP brand is in the toilet.

Georgia (R)

Johnny Isakson (R) wants to run for governor, giving us a shot at a competitive open seat race. However, Georgia Democrats are on the run and the bench is thin. This race is on the "potentially competitive" column because it might be an open seat. But even then, we'll have to see a lot more life out of Georgia Democrats before we get our hopes up.

Hawaii (D)

Daniel Inouye will be 86 in 2010, and perhaps retirement. How he can keep making the flight between DC and Hawaii at his age is beyond me. I don't have that kind of stamina. Popular Republican Gov. Linda Lingle could make this a competitive race if she ran, though Hawaiians have little love for Republicans at the federal level. This is like Georgia above -- not likely to be competitive, but it's not out of the question.

Iowa (R)

Chuck Grassley (R) will be a target in this evenly split state. Former Democratic Gov. Vilsack would be a strong contender for the seat (assuming he doesn't end up on a Hillary presidential ticket), whether Grassley retires (he'll be 77 in 2010) or not.

Kansas (R)

Sam Brownback (R) has said he will not run in 2010 thanks to self-imposed term limits. This will provide an opportunity for the resurgent Kansas Democratic Party to take a seat. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, anyone?

Kentucky (R)

The senile Jim Bunning (R) will probably retire, but even if he doesn't, he'll probably face a challenge from popular Democrat Ben Chandler. Chandler has recently refused to rule out a 2008 run, but in either case, this will be a top tier race next cycle.

Louisiana (R)

David Vitter (R) has the benefit of representing one of only a handful of states actually trending Republican (accelerated by Katrina, of course). The first opinion poll after his prostitute scandal shows that his approval ratings haven't taken much of a hit. And the LA Democratic Party is weak and sports a thin bench. So while there's a good chance this turns into something, there's also an equally good chance we end up muttering to ourselves about GOP hypocrisy and how IOKIYAR.

Missouri (R)

Kit Bond (R) will face a strong challenge in a state where Democrats are starting to feel frisky again and Republicans are weighed down by corruption and scandal. If Democratic AG Jay Nixon can win the governorship in 2008, we're looking at some nice Democratic momentum heading into the 2010 cycle.

New Hampshire (R)

Judd Gregg (R) should be getting his resume out to interested K Street parties.

North Carolina (R)

The state is trending Blue, and freshman Richard Burr (R) will have plenty of potential opponents.

North Dakota (D)

Expect Republicans to heavily target populist Democrat Byron Dorgan. The GOP bench is deep, and a candidacy by popular Gov. John Hoeven would be brutal.

Ohio (R)

George Voinovich (R) is sooooo gone. The last SUSA poll puts him at 40/50 approval/disapproval ratings, making him one of the nation's most unpopular Senators. Can he turn it around in the next couple of years? I wouldn't count on it. And the Democratic bench in Ohio is getting much, much better.

Pennsylvania (R)

Is this the year we finally get rid of weak "moderate" Arlen Specter (R)? Heck, the GOP may take care of that for us in a primary like they almost did in 2004.

Washington (D)

Patty Murray (D) will always generate strong Republican opposition. They think she's weak, even if she beat a strong challenge from a sitting congressman in a Bush year (2004) by 10 points.

TENTATIVELY SAFE SEATS

Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln (D)
California: Barbara Boxer (D)
Connecticut: Chris Dodd (D)
Idaho: Mike Crapo (R)
Indiana: Evan Bayh (D)
Maryland: Barbara Mikulski (D)
Nevada: Harry Reid (D)
Oklahoma: Tom Coburn (R)
Oregon: Ron Wyden (D)
South Carolina: John DeMint (R)
South Dakota: John Thune (R)
Utah: Bob Bennet (R)
Vermont: Patrick Leahy (D)
Wisconsin: Russ Feingold (D)

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/147029066/601

Digg this

Maliki On Timetables and Courtesy

post from Daily Kos on 22 August 2007 04:10:38 PM. © Daily Kos

With just a few weeks until Congress receives the ~~long-awaited Petraeus~~ White House report on political progress in Iraq, it seems that the "right guy" for the job, Prime Minister Maliki, might be looking for some new friends.

At a news conference in Syria, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the growing chorus of American leaders who have questioned his ability to govern the country or reconcile with Sunnis and Kurds in time for an American status report on Iraq that is due before Congress next month.

"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government," he said, according to news service reports from Damascus. "It was elected by its people." [...]

Mr. Maliki called the criticism "discourteous" — a particularly strong insult in a culture where pride and personal relationships are paramount.

He suggested that if he was not treated well by the Americans, he would find another patron perhaps less to their liking, such as Syria or Iran.

"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria," he said. "We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our Constitution and can find friends elsewhere."

Well, as Bush has often pointed out, Iraq is a sovereign nation and can do what they want. But when he writes that report on all the progress happening in Iraq, perhaps he can explain why it was worth the deaths of 3722 U.S. troops, with tens of thousands wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars, to prop up a new ally for Iran and Syria. And perhaps he can tell us again how he:

...made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/147029068/809

Digg this

Foley Using House Loophole To Withhold Evidence

post from The Newshoggers on 22 August 2007 04:07:00 PM. © The Newshoggers

By Cernig

Time to remind everyone what the "rule of law" means to the Republican leadership - using the law as a club with which to beat justice insensible.

Florida's top police agency said Wednesday its investigation into former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's lurid Internet communications with teenage boys has been hindered because neither Foley nor the House will let investigators examine his congressional computers.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement says it hopes to conclude its investigation next week. Foley, a Republican, resigned from Congress on Sept. 29 after being confronted with the computer messages he sent to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill.

``We have requested to review federally owned computers that Mr. Foley used during his time as a representative, but the U.S. House of Representatives ... cited case law restrictions that prohibited them from releasing those computers,'' said Heather Smith, an FDLE spokeswoman.

Smith said that the House claims the computers are considered congressional work papers, and that only Foley can release them for review.

The Dem House leadership is simply applying the law here - it's a pity Foley sees that as an opportunity to stonewall a police investigation.

Read The Full Article:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/08/foley-using-house-loophole-to-withhold
.html

Digg this

More Republican Insanity

post from Daily Kos on 22 August 2007 04:04:44 PM. © Daily Kos

Remember that bat-s#!t crazy rant from the foamy-mouthed wacko now working for Family Security Matters?

And remember how Family Security Matters isn't actually supposed to be a bunch of bat-s#!t crazy ranters, but rather a group of Very Serious People^TM, like Barbara Comstock, Monica Crowley, Frank Gaffney, Laura Ingraham and James Woolsey?

Well, guess what else they now own?

Mexico now colonising the USA
Mexico is now (circa 2000) colonising America and imposing its language and culture. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognise that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence (see 'the communal attitude to violence') and instead embrace delusion. They pretend their futile defence is not folly, ignore the slow but inevitable takeover of their country and persecute anyone who tries to dispel their illusions. America has lost its ability to defend itself and must eventually be overrun by people from other cultures.

Same author: Philip Atkinson

Shame on any traditional media organization that takes Family Security Matters seriously.

Shame on any traditional media organization that does not require Very Serious Guests^TM Barbara Comstock, Monica Crowley, Frank Gaffney, Laura Ingraham and James Woolsey to answer for this raving lunatic who speaks for them.

Mass enslavement or execution of Mexicans? Are you f-ing kidding me?

What's it gonna take to get the media to face up to the reality of the disgusting tactics such Very Serious People^TM are using, sub rosa of course, to get and keep themselves in position to be regarded as so Very Serious?

How is it that in America in 2007, television news and talk shows are willing to host anybody who'll put on a suit and tie, and let them paper over the kind of writing that would get an 8th grader red flagged by the FBI and sent to a court-appointed psychiatrist?

(Thanks to The General for the find.)

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/147029069/349

Digg this

Take it from Afonso: Aim high

post from William K. Wolfrum on 22 August 2007 04:01:14 PM. © William K. Wolfrum

Afonso is constantly teaching us lessons. In this case, the message is clear - never be afraid to aim high.--WKW

Read The Full Article:
http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/?p=763

Digg this

Gloria R. Lalumia's World Media Watch for August
22, 2007

post from BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash on 22 August 2007 03:59:17 PM. © BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash

WORLD MEDIA WATCH

Summaries are excerpted from the source articles; the featured article follows the summary section. A recommended "site of the day" will also appear occasionally following the summaries.

Technorati Tags: Gloria R. Lalumia Taliban Afghanistan France Muslims Iraq Pakistan India nuclear testing Australia

Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lalumia/264

Digg this

Gen. Batistes Op-Ed That The WSJ And The
Washington Times Didnt Want You To See

Our guest blogger is Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former Commanding General of 1st Infantry Division.

For my first post here at ThinkProgress, I thought I would share something a little different from what you usually read here — something from a conservative perspective. I think this is especially fitting, given the new poll of foreign policy experts by Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress, which shows 64 percent of conservative analysts feel the co-called “surge” in Iraq is having no impact, or a negative effect.

The following is an op-ed I wrote two weeks ago, which neither the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times wanted to consider, so I’m posting it here…

Over a year and a half ago, I made a gut-wrenching decision to leave the Army in order to speak out about the war in Iraq. I turned my back on over 31 years of service and what by all accounts would have been a great career. I realized that I was in a unique position to speak out on behalf of Soldiers and their families. I had a moral obligation and duty to do so. My family and I left the only life we knew and entered the political debate. As a two-time combat veteran, I understand the value of thorough planning and deliberate execution. I understand what it takes to win. As a life-long Republican, I am prepared to carry on with the debate for as long as necessary. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.
As a conservative, I am all for a strong military and setting the conditions for success. America goes to war to win. I am not anti-war and am committed to winning the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism. But, I am outraged that elected officials of my own party do not comprehend the predicament we are in with a strategy in the Middle East that lacks focus and is all but relying on the military to solve the diplomatic, political, and economic Rubik’s Cube that defines Iraq. Our dysfunctional interagency process in Washington DC lacks leadership and direction. Many conservatives in Congress have allowed the charade to go on for too long.
It is disappointing that so many elected representatives of my party continue to blindly support the administration rather than doing what is in the best interests of our country. Traditionally, my party has maintained a conservative view on questions regarding our Armed Forces. For example, we commit our military only when absolutely necessary. In the same way conservatives have always argued against government excess in social programs, the lives our young men and women in uniform, our most precious resource, are not to be used on wars of choice or for nation building. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz taught us that wars are to be fought only as a last resort–the extension of politics by other means.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/22/batiste-conservatives/

Digg this

Gen. Batiste: I’m Outraged That Elected
Officials Of My Own Party Do Not Comprehend The Need For Redeployment

Our guest blogger is Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former Commanding General of 1st Infantry Division.

The following is an op-ed I wrote two weeks ago, which neither the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times wanted to consider, so I’m posting it here…

Over a year and a half ago, I made a gut-wrenching decision to leave the Army in order to speak out about the war in Iraq. I turned my back on over 31 years of service and what by all accounts would have been a great career. I realized that I was in a unique position to speak out on behalf of Soldiers and their families. I had a moral obligation and duty to do so. My family and I left the only life we knew and entered the political debate. As a two-time combat veteran, I understand the value of thorough planning and deliberate execution. I understand what it takes to win. As a life-long Republican, I am prepared to carry on with the debate for as long as necessary. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.
As a conservative, I am all for a strong military and setting the conditions for success. America goes to war to win. I am not anti-war and am committed to winning the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism. But, I am outraged that elected officials of my own party do not comprehend the predicament we are in with a strategy in the Middle East that lacks focus and is all but relying on the military to solve the diplomatic, political, and economic Rubik’s Cube that defines Iraq. Our dysfunctional interagency process in Washington DC lacks leadership and direction. Many conservatives in Congress have allowed the charade to go on for too long.
It is disappointing that so many elected representatives of my party continue to blindly support the administration rather than doing what is in the best interests of our country. Traditionally, my party has maintained a conservative view on questions regarding our Armed Forces. For example, we commit our military only when absolutely necessary. In the same way conservatives have always argued against government excess in social programs, the lives our young men and women in uniform, our most precious resource, are not to be used on wars of choice or for nation building. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz taught us that wars are to be fought only as a last resort–the extension of politics by other means.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/22/batiste-conservatives/

Digg this