Casual Soapbox

Missing the Blog

2009-01-26T23:11:00.002-06:00

I miss it, but what can I say? I just don't have a lot of time these days. We adopted, and we had a foster placement for a few months. Work picked up. I'm singing in the Temple choir. I have two Dungeons and Dragons games going. And the next thing on the list is trying to exercise more.

It's not as if politics isn't incredibly exciting right now. I mean, we won. I can't remember feeling this optimistic. Ever. And I especially miss the Texas blogging scene -- Burnt Orange Report, McBlogger and you, scarecrow, most of all. They're doing some good work. Hopefully anyone who still checks back here will take the time to check them out. They're truly excellent sites.

I may still post here from time to time -- I can never seem to let go of the past -- but Casual Soapbox entered a new hibernation phase in early 2007.

Know that I am with you all in spirit. And I hope to blog again someday.

Shalom.

Why Obama?

2008-03-08T00:33:00.002-06:00

So I'm supporting Obama. I voted for him in the primary and at my precinct convention. I'm an Obama delegate to the county convention. Here's what I like about Obama.

1. Obama is creating Democratic organization where none exists. He's bringing more new voters into the party, and especially young voters who tend to be more progressive than older voters on the issues I care most about.

2. Having an African-American president popularly elected with broad support from different racial groups would create a narrative about racial harmony that would be incredibly powerful.

3. Obama draws support generally from groups that have not had power within the Democratic party. Having a candidate who did not depend as heavily on business for funding as past candidates have would be a huge plus. The Democratic party as it exists has given us the lopsided anti-progressive atmosphere of today's politics, and that needs to change. Will Obama do that? I don't know. But I suspect because his support comes from outside traditional Democratic power structures that he would be more likely to. And does it help that the national Democratic blogs I like tend to support Obama too? Yes.

4. Obama would represent an end to the Dyanstic Era. The Bushes have dominated Republican politics after Reagan. The Clintons have to a far lesser extent done the same for the Democrats since 1992. Although I think we're still far from as a country having dangerous monarchical tendencies, I wouldn't mind just a little more distance. Obama would obviously represent a cleaner break with that part of the past than Clinton would.

5. And finally, yes, I'll admit I'm enamored of Obama's speaking style. He clearly isn't able to translate it into debate prowess, but nevertheless I look forward to Obama's Inauguration and State of the Union speeches.

But it was tough getting here. I can totally understand why so many of my Democratic friends and family are supporting Clinton. Here's what I like about Clinton:

1. Personality. I have always liked her personally. She just seems like a genuinely nice and caring person. To a certain extent, I can recognize that it doesn't always translate across television. But I actually credit that more to media hostility than any personal attribute of hers. This is just my opinion of course -- I've never met her. I must say she's also a woman with a long and distinguished career in the Senate and as an attorney, who is made more human by her struggles with her family life that have been publicly played out. I find it fascinating that the first thing most people say they like or dislike about her has to do with her relationship with husband.

2. First woman president. While I don't think it would affect the nation's psyche to the same extent to have the first woman president as opposed to the first black president, that does not mean it wouldn't be profoundly exciting and glass-ceiling-shattering. I mean, it is about time. And it would break through some of the harmful gender stereotypes we all have internalized.

3. Partisan rhetoric, fighter. Man it would be good to stick it the Republicans -- make them feel defeated. And what better way than defeating them with the candidate they idiotically think is the least electable Democrat? I also love the way she talks about fighting and about being a progressive. Almost like John Edwards. I wish she took some more progressive positions on issues, but she sure talks a good game. Not all touchy-feely-togetherness like Obama, which is actually what I like least about him. I don't want to be brought together with Republicans. I want to smite their ruin on the mountainside and shove their noses in it.

That said, I'm supporting Obama, and I find the prospect of an Obama presidency to be exciting and transformative. Generally I feel like an Obama candidacy will be better at generating future nose-shoving opportunities, even if he personally is likely to be overgenerous in his graciousness when he destroys McCain in November.

Anyway, I happen to think either would make a great president. Neither candidate strikes me as a more progressive candidate than the other, which I find a bit discouraging in that neither candidate's victory over the other will be portrayed as a victory for progressives, but also encouraging in that both are actually awfully progressive. I like both personally. I also think both would make a strong Democratic presidential candidate. And I absolutely plan to vote for and support whichever candidate we pick as a party. What an exciting time to be a Democrat!

Precinct Convention 2008

2008-03-06T00:41:00.002-06:00

So last night I attended my Democratic precinct convention here in good old precinct 301. Some of you may remember my posting about my experience at the 2006 precinct convention (here, here, and here). Well, let me tell you it was night and day. Two years ago, there were eight of us in a room, debating the hither-tos and whats-it-fors of platform resolution after platform resolution. Last night there were 71 of us in a room meant for 20. The lines to sign in blended into one another like a giant banana-voter smoothie. (mmm... bananacrats...) Our convention ended up split 36-35 between Obama and Clinton, which distilled down to a 4-4 delegate split... a bananacrat split if you will... And once again we debated platform resolutions into the night. It was quite an experience for me, but it sounds like other precinct conventions around town had far more attendees.

Once again, I shall be attending the county convention as a delegate this year. Since this is a presidential election year, I expect things will run a bit differently. For one thing, delegates were apportioned by presidential candidate support. And since the campaign is still ongoing, I expect there may be some maneuvering at the convention, which I can't wait to see. I'm wondering too if there won't be more people there overall this year. There certainly was room for more. And with interest levels running as high as they have been, maybe that will mean more attendance.

All this participation has inspired me to write again. Casually, of course. So who did I vote for? Who won the all-important Casual Soapbox caucus? More on that in a bit...

Blast from My Past

2007-08-28T23:13:00.000-05:00

Rita Moreno on the Muppet Show, singing Fever with Animal on drums:

When I was a kid, we had a tape of the Muppet Show's 30th anniversary special, and this segment was one of my favorites.

A Postpourri For Thee

2007-08-27T00:02:00.000-05:00

Giuliani's lead in the Republican primary is based on a large lead among low-information voters, and thus he is at risk of dropping in the polls as people learn more about the candidates. Clinton leads in the Democratic primary even among voters who are familiar with all three, thus she is at less risk than Giuliani. (Pollster.com)
Chris Bowers, now at Open Left, releases his first list of 2008 top Democratic House targets.
Non-partisan political analyst Charlie Cook has resumed updating his list of competitive House seats for 2008.
The BBC has a neat map showing the status of gay marriage across the country. There is still a lot of work to be done.
According to non-partisan analyst Stuart Rothenberg's latest 2007-08 Gubernatorial Rankings, Democrats look likely to swap the Louisiana governorship for the Kentucky governorship in this November.
A team of astronomers have discovered the location of the big void in your life. No really.

Not Dead Yet

2007-08-07T20:25:00.000-05:00

Just to let you know. I figure if you are still a regular reader at this point, you are either an extremely devoted follower, a close friend, or a stalker. And in that case, I'm sure you've noticed I let the blog slip away in about January. Although I can't possibly keep up with my previous pace at this point in my life, I plan to begin updating occasionally again soon. So... I guess... thanks for caring enough to be reading this, and watch this space for future musings. Or don't. Your call.

Next on Comedy Central: Joe Biden

2007-01-31T09:12:00.000-06:00

Joe Biden makde it official today, he's running. His television debut as an official candidate will be on Comedy Central. Could it be more fitting? He'll be on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" tonight. Actually, I believe John Edwards announced in 2004 on the Daily Show. So it's not even original.

Anyway, Joe Biden never has seemed to have any problem getting money or media attention, so his candidacy can't be completely dismissed. But, has anyone seen any evidence of a passion for Joe Biden's candidacy among any segment of the population? I certainly haven't.

2008: More Purple States

2007-01-31T09:08:00.000-06:00

Charlie Cook thinks there may be more purple states in 2008 than there were in 2000 and 2004. He lists 11 states that are becoming more purple:

Top strategists in both parties have identified 11 states as moving away from whichever party long dominated them. Seven that had been reliably Republican -- Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia, which have a combined 66 electoral votes -- are becoming less so.

Just four states -- Louisiana, Minnesota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, with a total of 34 electoral votes -- are getting less Democratic. This amounts to a net shift of 32 electoral votes away from the GOP.

That couldn't be anything but a good thing, since it will force presidential candidates to campaign in places where they might not otherwise. Cook goes on to say this about Texas:

And given that non-Hispanic whites are now a minority of the Texas population, they eventually will be a minority of Lone Star State voters. Unless Republicans unexpectedly become dramatically more popular with Texas Hispanics or African-Americans, that state will become less reliably Republican within the next two or three presidential elections. Because Texas has 34 electoral votes, the prospect of its being in play would be terrifying to the GOP.

Too much to hope for? It sure would be nice...

2008 Tidbits

2007-01-29T23:41:00.000-06:00

NH-01: former Rep. Bradley will try to reclaim his seat.
KS-02: Ryun will try to reclaim his old seat also.
MA-Sen: Red Sox Pitcher Curt Schilling will not challenge John Kerry.
Prez 08: Hillary calls for Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal
Prez 08: Hillary way ahead in Democratic primary poll. Clinton 40%, Obama 25%, Edwards 23%
Prez 08: Obama's facebook group is up to 159,000, almost 16% of their goal.
MN-Sen: Al Franken is leaving his show to explore a challenge to Norm Coleman

Senate 2008 Rankings

2007-01-27T20:55:00.000-06:00

Democratic Hold
DE-Biden
IL-Durbin
MI-Levin
RI-Reed
WV-Rockefeller

Democratic Watch-List
MA-Kerry
MT-Baucus

Likely Democratic
IA-Harkin

Leans Democratic
AR-Pryor
SD-Johnson

Tossup (Democratic Held)
LA-Landrieu
NJ-Lautenberg

Tossup (Republican Held)
CO OPEN (Allard)
MN-Coleman
NH-Sununu

Leans Republican
TX-Cornyn

Likely Republican
GA-Chambliss
SC-Graham
TN-Alexander
NC-Dole

Republican Watch List
ME-Collins
OK-Inhofe
AK-Stevens
NM-Domenici
OR-Smith

Republican Hold
AL-Sessions
ID-Craig
KS-Roberts
KY-McConnell
MS-Cochran
NE-Hagel
VA-Warner
WY-Enzi

The Fruits of Victory

2007-01-25T08:46:00.000-06:00

Colorado's Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave have decided not to push for an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage in this Congress. From the Advocate (emphasis mine):

A proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide has been shelved in light of the congressional takeover by the Democratic Party, The Pueblo [Colo.] Chieftain newspaper reports.

The proposal's sponsors, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, said last week they have no plans to reintroduce their antigay legislation in the new Congress. "At this time I haven't discussed it with anyone," Allard told the newspaper on Thursday. "If we thought there was a decent chance to bring it to the floor for debate, I would, but with the new Congress, I'm not sure we will ever have that opportunity."

A Musgrave spokesman confirmed that the congresswoman would not introduce the legislation this year.

This is why it pays off for people interested in gay rights to support Democrats. Thank goodness the wicked wingnuts of the right have given up hope on this hateful amendment.

Kerry is Out

2007-01-25T08:42:00.000-06:00

This is probably for the best (Boston Globe):

Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he will not run in the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials.
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, plans to say he will remain in the Senate to recommit himself to efforts to extricate the United States from the war in Iraq. His decision to stay out of the presidential race reflects a realization that he would have had an uphill climb in capturing the Democratic nomination, given the other party heavyweights who are already in the race, according to the officials, who spoke to the Globe on condition of anonymity.

I did and still do like John Kerry. But he damaged himself with his botched joke before the election last year. And he never was the strongest candidate of the bunch anyway. The Democratic field has shaped up much earlier than for the 2004 election hasn't it? Should be a lot of stuff to blog about...

Democratic Response to the State of the Union

2007-01-24T12:50:00.000-06:00

The response this year was one of the Democrats' strongest. It was delivered by Sen. James Webb, newly elected in 2006, ousting Republican Senator George Allen. Check it out:

Something For Everyone, A Tragedy Tonight!

2007-01-23T09:03:00.000-06:00

Bush is giving his sixth State of the Union tonight from abysmal... nay Nixonian... approval ratings. A CBS poll from yesterday puts his approval rating at just 28%, the lowest of any poll by any polling firm during his presidency. And tonight, he will get a prime-time address in which to try and change that, and if history is any guide, he's going to blow it.

Lately his speeches have caused his approval rating to go down rather than up. There's a simple reason for it. The people want to hear that we're leaving Iraq, and anytime he says something to the contrary, like that we're sending more troops to Baghdad, the people are disappointed. He could change direction here tonight and start the withdrawal, but he won't. And so the people will be disappointed with him.

I usually don't watch his speeches any more. Frankly, he's a boring speaker who hard to listen to, and if I did listen it would only make me angry. But I probably will watch tonight. Why? Well, the Speaker of the House and the Vice President are the two people who sit behind the President during the State of the Union. And for the first time in Bush's Presidency, the Speaker of the House is a Democrat, and the majority of the audience also (Congress) will be Democratic. Which means the silly game those politicians play where some stand while others sit on particular applause lines will be more visible and more fun to watch. Also, for the first time in history, one of the people behind the President will be a woman.

So I'll be watching when Bush talks about human-animal hybrids, switchgrass, and steroids in professional sports, and how armies of steroid-laden human-switchgrass hybrids will be our saviors in Iraq. But what I'll really be looking to see, is a resurgent and confident Democratic Congress reacting. Hopefully, they won't disappoint me.

2008 Takes Shape

2007-01-22T12:44:00.000-06:00

Hillary's in. Richardson's in. Brownback's in. It looks like the field is shaping up early. The candidates that were already running, but just hadn't announced yet were probably forced in by Obama's shrwed announcement strategy to keep from leaving Obama with uncontested media time for the next month or so.

So the Democratic field looks like this: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), fmr Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), fmr Gov Tom Vilsack (D-IA), and fmr Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK). (Did I forget anyone?)

Not too bad I think. Though I would have really liked it if Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) were running. With this group, I feel a little like Treebeard, "Side? I'm not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody's altogether on my side." But, all of them are a good deal preferable to any of the Republicans.

HBO So Totally Rocks

2007-01-20T00:25:00.000-06:00

If I've never told you to read A Game of Thrones, the first book in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire eries, you must not have been listening. And I'm happy to report that it's about to get more difficult to ignore me on this. Variety reports that HBO is planning on turning the series into a series. A TV series. On HBO. One book per season. I have died and gone to heaven. Variety:

HBO has acquired the rights to turn George R.R. Martin's bestselling fantasy series "A Song of Fire & Ice" into a dramatic series to be written and exec produced by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.
"Fire" is the first TV project for Benioff ("Troy") and Weiss ("Halo") and will shoot in Europe or New Zealand. Benioff and Weiss will write every episode of each season together save one, which the author (a former TV writer) will script.
The series will begin with the 1996 first book, "A Game of Thrones," and the intention is for each novel (they average 1,000 pages each) to fuel a season's worth of episodes. Martin has nearly finished the fifth installment, but won't complete the seven-book cycle until 2011.

Martin confirms the rumors on his blog, Not a Blog:

I've already gotten close to a hundred emails this morning, just off the VARIETY article. I expect that number will have swollen to several hundred before the day is out. I appreciate all the good wishes and congratulations, but I am NOT going to be able to respond to all of you individually.

I will be making my own announcement on my news page, of course, and that may answer some of your questions, but I haven't actually written it yet, so please be patient.

I appreciate all the casting suggestions too, but guys, you're getting way way WAY ahead of yourselves. Developing a television series is a long and time-consuming process, and we're just getting started here. We only closed the deal a couple of days ago.

Casting suggestions... hmm... I'll be getting back to you all on that. But let me just say that Tyrion should not be played by Warwick Davis or a technoshrunk Elijah Wood.

Barack Obama, Shirtless

2007-01-18T23:52:00.000-06:00

I'll admit to being taken a little aback by the Obama-mania in the media these last few weeks. I had thought Hillary would go into 2008 as the strong front-runner and would only begin to be seriously challenged in the waning months of 2007. I now think I was wrong and that Hillary is in danger of losing her front-runner status to Obama. Heck, I didn't even think Obama would run, considering that he was first elected to the Senate in 2004. Now Zogby has him leading in New Hampshire.

But it seems Democrats crave inspiration, and Obama provides that like few others. He is a media darling, the way McCain was during the 2000 campaign. It doesn't make him invincible, but it helps. As long as the media keeps its story going, that is. The press can be notoriously fickle, preferring to build someone up only to tear them down later. But McCain's had a long run of positive press. Obama might too.

Ok, so I'll also admit to having stolen my title from a post by Pink Lady over at In the Pink Texas. I think she should have used it as her title. Why? Because some people actually do google for 'Barack Obama, shirtless'. And when I do.. I mean when they do... they might be more likely to come across her excellent blog. But she didn't, so I did.

Anyway, here's what you googlers were looking for, via Hotline on Call of all places (Hint: he's not Hugh Jackman or Penelope Cruz):

Ok well maybe he's Penelope Cruz...

Oh, and I don't know if this has anything to do with anything, but it amuses me. Apparently he went by "Barry" in high school.

LA-Gov: Blanco Trails Big Time

2007-01-18T01:15:00.000-06:00

New Orleans Times-Picayune:

Bobby Jindal (R) 59%
Kathleen Blanco (D) 35%

Hurricane Katrina really weakened Blanco. I don't know how she would survive a strong challenge from Jindal.

Life in Prison for Adultery

2007-01-18T01:11:00.000-06:00

Scarlet letter, shmarlet shmletter. Adulterers can now get life in prison in Michigan. From the Detroit Free Press:

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.
"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.
No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

This is how conservatives want the courts to be, folks. Activist. Their rhetoric is designed to obscure that.

Obama Is In

2007-01-17T01:09:00.000-06:00

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) announced today that he forming an exploratory committee to investigate the ease with which he could run for President. This means he is running. From his website:

As many of you know, over the last few months I have been thinking hard about my plans for 2008. Running for the presidency is a profound decision - a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone - and so before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country.
I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago. But as I've spoken to many of you in my travels across the states these past months; as I've read your emails and read your letters; I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics.

So I've spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need.

The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place. Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people. Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing health care bills, the pensions you've lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids. Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged.

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

And that's what we have to change first.

We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

This won't happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there's a better way and are willing to work for it.

Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.

So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you.

And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.

In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for your time, your suggestions, your encouragement and your prayers. And I look forward to continuing our conversation in the weeks and months to come.

Chris Bowers explains why Obama's move is smart politics in the context of the Democratic primary. Edwards has already announced. This will likely force Hillary into the race. (Officially I mean). And unless Al Gore or John Kerry jumps in, and I think they won't, that will be the first tier for the Democratic nomination. I couldn't be more thrilled. I like all of these politicians. They would all be a heck of a lot better than what we've got now in the White House.

CO-Sen: Allard Retiring

2007-01-15T18:02:00.000-06:00

According to the Rocky Mountain News, Republican Senator Wayne Allard, the sponsor of the despicable Federal Marriage Amendement in the Senate, is providing Democrats with their first 2008 Senate open seat opportunity:

Sen. Wayne Allard said today he will honor his term-limits pledge and leave at the end of 2008, creating a replacement fight that should turn Colorado into one of the country’s biggest electoral battlegrounds.
"I just didn't think I could back away from the (term limits) commitment. It is a matter of integrity and keeping your commitments. I have never wavered on that," Allard told the Rocky Mountain News.

Allard was already a top Democratic target since Colorado has been trending blue lately, and Allard has always been a weak incumbent. Plus if he ran, he'd be reneging on a term limits pledge. Well, anyway, good news for Senate Democrats.

Republicans Divided

2007-01-14T13:33:00.001-06:00

The fallout from the 2006 wave election continues. After years of stories about how divided Democrats are, the press is apparently starting to catch on to the fact that Republicans are now more divided than Democrats. From today's Washington Post:

Freed from the pressures of being the majority and from the heavy hand of former leaders including retired representative Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), many back-bench Republicans are showing themselves to be more moderate than their conservative leadership and increasingly mindful of shifting voter sentiment. The closest vote last week -- Friday's push to require the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare -- pulled 24 Republicans. The Democrats' homeland security bill attracted 68 Republicans, the minimum wage increase 82.

Division among Republicans is showing because Democrats are finally able to spotlight them with legislation of their choosing, now that they are in control of Congress.

Democrats didn't create the divisions among Republicans. They've always been there. But past strong-arming from DeLay in the House and from a then popular President Bush in the White House (and his emissary of evil Karl Rove) had managed to whip the Republicans into a legislative monolith. That is now gone. And Democrats deserve some credit for pulling down the monolith.

From 2004 to 2006, Democrats showed incredible unity in comparison with the past, while Republicans chose corruption and unpopular positions on issues. It all began with Bush's failure to unify the country after his narrow re-election. Then came the Schiavo case, the failure of Social Security reform, deterioration of the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the Dubai ports deal, Bob Ney, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Mark Foley, to name a few Republican failures.

The public soundly rejected Bush and his party in the 2006 election, delivering Congress to the Democrats. But Bush continues to defy the will of the people on the most important issue: Iraq. He plans to send more troops when the public wants him to start withdrawing. That is driving down his popularity, and driving away his allies in Congress. And that's what is ultimately behind stories like the one in the Post.

Friday Night Postpourri

2007-01-12T20:40:00.000-06:00

Karl-Thomas is moving to Boston and handing over Burnt Orange Report. Good luck, Karl-Thomas!

2/3 of Americans oppose Bush's plans to escalate the Iraq war by sending more troops. When I think about Bush these days, why can I not get the image of the ignominious end of Denethor in Return of the King out of my head?

Coahuila, just across the border, became the second Mexican state to legalize same-sex civil unions. They're really not that far behind us. We've got Massachusetts, where we can marry, and Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey with civil unions, and California with domestic partnerships. That's 5 of 50, compared with Mexico's 2 of 31.

Stuart Rothenberg asks, "Can a Republican Win the Presidential Race in 2008?" The answer.. may surprise you.

A good old-fashioned piano party! My greatest achievement in the last few months was a devastatingly complicated three-handed concerto with my nephew Noah:

Back in Gear

2007-01-12T20:30:00.000-06:00

If Rep. Eddie Rodriguez has his way, established bloggers will be given access to the floor of the Texas State House. Via McBlogger:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday January 12, 2007 For More Information: Tashara Mitchell (512) 463-0674
Representative Eddie Rodriguez to propose amendment to support Bloggers
AUSTIN-- Representative Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) will propose an amendment to the house rules today that will give established Bloggers access to the House floor.
"With the rise of citizen journalism, it no longer makes sense to limit access to House business solely to the traditional press outlets," said Representative Rodriguez.
Political blogs are some of the limited media that focus solely on reporting the happenings at the Capital and many of these Bloggers regularly break stories that show up in the traditional media.
Bloggers, as defined by this revised rule, produce original reporting and informed comment worthy of credentials. This amendment will allow increasingly popular non-traditional media, the privileges necessary to more effectively inform citizens on governmental issues.
"This kind of measure would encourage citizen participation in government and help demystify the system for the general public," said Rodriguez.

I suppose I better get my butt back in gear and start posting again if I'm to have any hope in being classified as an "established" blogger, huh? Thanks for the motivation, Rep. Rodriguez.

TX-23: Ciro Rodriguez Wins!

2006-12-12T21:43:00.000-06:00

Wow. I thought I'd never get to write that headline, but the Associated Press (and Burnt Orange Report) have called the race for Congress in Texas' 23rd distict for Ciro Rodriguez! Congratulations to the new congressman from TX-23!

Let's review how we got here, shall we? Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla was first elected in TX-23 in 1992. Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez was first elected in nearby TX-28 in 1996. In 2002, Democratic former Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar, came within 2 points of defeating him. The Texas Republican redistricting scheme of 2003 protected Bonilla, making TX-23 quite a bit more Republican, and moving most of Laredo, Cuellar's power center, into TX-28.

So in 2004, Cuellar switched districts to challenge Rodriguez in the Democratic primary and successfully ousted him, and went on to win the general election. Rodriguez continued campaigning through to the March 2006 Democratic primary, in which he narrowly lost to Cuellar, despite the fervent and ultimately inconsequential support of Casual Soapbox.

Then, in June 2006, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the TX-23 drawn in 2003 violated the Voting Rights Act, and a three-judge panel redrew a district that was much less favorable to Bonilla, and included Rodriguez's strongholds in San Antonio. Rodriguez decided to challenge Bonilla in the newly redrawn TX-23.

After dropping out, and getting back in, Rodriguez won the right to participate in a runoff this November by coming in second with 20.3% to Bonilla's 48.1%. Well, the runoff was today. And Rodriguez won. With 54.57% to 45.43% with 97% of precincts reporting.

And that makes 30 seats the Democrats picked up from Republicans this election cycle. Hmm... that number sounds familiar... It looks like my predictions were almost all right. If only Hatch hadn't stuck his foot in his mouth, it could have been perfect...

Anyway, I think it's awesome that Ciro Rodriguez will now be in Congress. And in defeating Bonilla, he knocked down a Republican who had statewide potential. And it appears he did it handily. Not a bad night. Not bad at all.

The Conservative War on Christmas

2006-11-27T21:56:00.000-06:00

Remember last year when all the conservative talk people were all up in your face about how there was a war on Christmas? Remember how they were harassing poor little Mom-and-Pop retailers like Wal-Mart into saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays"? Remember how civilization hung in the balance? Well... it's baaaa-aaaaack!

Think Progress, from Nov 14th (It's funny how they didn't even wait until after Thanksgiving to start their war on Christmas...)

Last night, Bill O’Reilly revived his baseless claim that Christmas is “under seige” in America from “secular progressives,” highlighting Wal-Mart’s recent announcement that it will use the phrase “Merry Christmas” in its promotional materials this year.

O’Reilly portrayed Wal-Mart’s decision as a victory in the “culture war battle” for those who “want to retain the Christmas tradition,” and lauded Wal-Mart as “the Christmas guys!”

Ah yes. Victory. It's been so long since Christmas had a victory. I mean, since the Santa robot we created went all Frankenstein's monster on us...

And just when I thought there couldn't possibly be anything more in this story that was worth my time, I saw this on CNN:

A homeowners' association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.
Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs.

Don't you hate it when Christmas-hating liberals complain about peace-nik wreaths that worship Satan and don't support our troops? Wait... hmm.. that doesn't sound like liberals... I mean come on. Oh and get this.. the article concludes with this little gem (emphasis mine):

The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.
Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything.
Kearns fired all five committee members.

Now, that's the conservatism I know. Bringing their War on Christmas to an architectural control committee near you.

Happy Holidays, folks!

South Africa Legalizes Gay Marriage

2006-11-15T00:38:00.000-06:00

South Africa has become the 5th country in the world to legalize gay marriage. The others are Canada, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Via 365gay:

(Cape Town, South Africa) South Africa on Tuesday became the fifth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

The government made last minute changes to the bill, removing language which created separate categories for same and opposite sex unions. It passed the National Assembly 230 to 41.

The new law allows the "voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union".

The government had originally proposed allowing only civil unions for same-sex couples - something that LGBT rights groups and constitutional law experts said created a "separate but equal" status that would be challenged in the Constitutional Court.

A provision in the new law that allows churches to refuse to perform same-sex marriage continues to rankle gay groups but overall reaction has been favorable.

Amazing, isn't it, that South Africa of all places has passed us on a civil rights issue?

Taking Stock: Part I

2006-11-12T23:45:00.000-06:00

So Democrats had a great election on Tuesday. This post is my way of chronicling what exactly happened.

First of all, Democrats retook control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994. They essentially control the Senate 51-49, though two of their votes are independents who caucus with the Democrats: Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders in Vermont. The shorthand interpretation of the independents' positioning is that Sanders is to the left of the Democratic party while Lieberman is to the right. There has been talk before the election that Lieberman might, should he be re-elected, switch parties and hand control of the Senate back to the Republicans. This does not appear to be happening.

The 6 Democratic pickups were in Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jon Tester in Montana, and Jim Webb in Virginia. All 6 were Democratic challengers defeating Republican incumbents -- respectively to their challengers: Lincoln Chafee, Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, and George Allen. Virginia and Montana were close enough that recounts were possible, but both losers conceded. Democats won the overall nationwide popular vote for the Senate: 55%/42.4%

In the House, Democrats picked up at least 28 Republican seats: AZ-05, AZ-08, CA-11, CO-07, CT-05, FL-16, FL-22, IN-02, IN-08, IN-09, IA-01, IA-02, KS-02, KY-03, MN-01, NH-01, NH-02, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, NC-11, OH-18, PA-04, PA-07, PA-08, PA-10, TX-22, and WI-08. Nine seats remain undecided as of this post: GA-12 is the only Democratic-held seat in this list. If John Barrow loses, he will be the only Democratic incumbent to lose in a race for House, Senate, or Governor. The other 8 are: CT-02, FL-13, NM-01, NC-08, OH-02, OH-15, WA-08, and WY-AL. As of this post, Republicans lead in most of those races.

Among governorships, Democrats picked up 6 and lost none. Those 6 were open seats in Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and Colorado, and the Maryland governorship, where Democrat Martin O'Malley beat Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich.

In the state legislatures, Democrats also did well (NCSL):

As of 3 p.m. MT on November 9, Democrats control both houses of the legislature in 23 states; Republicans in 15 and ten are split. Pennsylvania is undecided. The Republicans control the Senate, but the House is still in limbo. This adds up to 49 states because Nebraska's legislature is nonpartisan.

Before the election, Republicans controlled 20 state legislatures; Democrats 19 and 10 were split. Complete pre- and post-election control is at StateVote 2006.
Democrats picked up close to 320 more state legislative seats, adding up to new majorities in at least nine chambers: the Iowa House and Senate, the Indiana House, the Minnesota House, the Michigan House, the New Hampshire House and Senate, the Oregon House and the Wisconsin Senate. (The Iowa Senate was previously tied.)
The Montana House is the only new chamber Republicans won.

The GOP gained a few seats in the Oklahoma Senate and Montana Senate to tie those chambers, but Democrats will likely retain functional control of both. In Oklahoma, the Constitution says the lieutenant governor casts deciding votes. And he is a Democrat. In Montana, statutes say that the if there's a tie vote for picking a presiding officer, the winner will be the person from the same party as the governor. The governor is a Democrat.

Here in Texas, Democrats picked up 5 seats in the state house, and lost 1 in the state senate. I'll look more closely at the state of the states in a future post. In Travis County, all 6 state representatives are now Democrats, up from a 3-3 split before the 2004 election. Valinda Bolton and Susan Steeg, the two candidates I had yard signs up for, both won.

Bush's approval rating this weekend sunk back down to 31%. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has resigned. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is not seeking a return to leadership among House Republicans. Ken Mehlman is retiring from his position at the RNC. Outgoing Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee has effectively killed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton's renomination.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is set to be the first woman to become Speaker of the House. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is on track to become Senate Majority Leader.

It's a different world today. Boy does it feel good to win.

Democrats take the Senate Too!

2006-11-09T00:30:00.000-06:00

AP declares Jim Webb the victor over Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia (CNN):

A Democratic takeover of the Senate is appearing likely after an ongoing canvass of votes in Virginia produced no significant changes in the outcome of the hard-fought race led by Democratic challenger Jim Webb, sources told CNN Wednesday.
Wednesday night, with Webb leading Republican Sen. George Allen by about 7,200 votes and the canvass about half complete, The Associated Press declared Webb the winner.
CNN does not declare a winner when race results are less than 1 percent and the potential loser may request a recount vote. (Full Senate news)
A source close to Allen also told CNN that the senator "has no intention of dragging this out."
Meanwhile, a Webb aide told CNN that he plans a formal news conference Thursday morning to declare victory.
A victory by Webb would put the new Senate lineup at 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- who have said they would caucus with the Democrats.
That would give the Democrats the 51 votes they need to claim a majority for the first time since 2002.

Woohoo!

Big Night For Democrats

2006-11-08T02:31:00.000-06:00

Wow. The electorate has unequivocally rebuked Bush and the Republicans. Democrats took the House, and maybe the Senate. It's still too close to call as of 2:24 am, and I'm going to bed. I think the only race I projected incorrectly so far has been the Minnesota governorship, which Republicans managed to hang on to. I'll take a closer look at everything that happened tomorrow night.

Good night!

Equations

2006-11-07T01:40:00.000-06:00

CQ Politics has an equation from some guy who claims to be able to predict the election results based on a mathematical formula:

It's a pretty creative endeavor, I think. The numerator represents the Democrats. The denominator represents the Republicans. Whichever is higher wins the election (by making V positive or negative). Both parties' politicians are affected primarily by money, media (measured through Google) and incumbency. Republicans are weighed down to some mathematical extent by Bush's approval ratings and their own Abramoff donations. The W part at the end of the denominator is the weather factor, which helps Republicans when the weather is bad and Democrats when the weather is good.

Of course, as a believer in free will over predestination, I would point out that the best any formula can do in predicting human behavior is generate a probable outcome, as opposed to a required outcome. But it's still a nifty formula.

Cook's Final Analysis

2006-11-07T01:36:00.000-06:00

From the Cook Political Report:

Going into Election Day, we see a 20-35 seat gain for Democrats in the House, a four to six seat gain for Democrats in the Senate and a six to eight seat gain for Democrats in the governor's races.
All Monday there was considerable talk that the national picture had suddenly changed and that there was a significant tightening in the election. This was based in part on two national polls that showed the generic congressional ballot test having tightened to four (Pew) and six (ABC/Wash Post) points.

Seven national polls have been conducted since Wednesday, November 1. They give Democrats an average lead of 11.6 percentage points, larger than any party has had going into an Election Day in memory. Even if you knock five points off of it, it's 6.6 percentage points, bigger than the advantage that Republicans had going into 1994.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a trend in the generic ballot test. In chronological order of interviewing (using the midpoint of field dates), the margins were: 15 points (Time 11/1-3), 6 points (ABC/Wash Post), 4 points (Pew), 7 points (Gallup), 16 points (Newsweek), 20 points (CNN) and 13 points (Fox).

In individual races, some Republican pollsters see some movement, voters "coming home," in their direction, and/or some increase in intensity among GOP voters. All seem to think that it was too little, too late to significantly change the outcome. However, it might be enough to save a few candidates. None think it is a major change in the dynamics of races, and most remain somewhere between fairly and extremely pessimistic about tomorrow's outcome.

I think I agree, but I must say that 4-point spread in the Pew poll makes me nervous. But something always make me nervous before every election. I think I have more confidence today than I have ever had going into election day. And it feels good.

Predictions

2006-11-04T20:15:00.000-06:00

Amazingly, my predictions have aligned almost exactly with those of Larry Sabato. I swear I came up with mine independently, but what are you gonna do? My predictions: Democrats will pick up 6 seats in the Senate (PA, MT, OH, RI, VA, MO), giving them the barest 51-49 majority there, and 7 governorships (NY, OH, MA, AR, CO, MD, MN). In the House, Democrats will pick up about 30 seats, grabbing control for the first time since 1994.

There you have it. Let's see how I do...

Ted Haggard Fired

2006-11-04T19:41:00.000-06:00

CNN:

The Rev. Ted Haggard agreed Saturday to resign as leader of the megachurch he started in his basement more than 20 years ago after its independent investigative board said he was guilty of "sexually immoral conduct."
On Friday, Haggard admitted he had received a massage from a Denver man who claimed the prominent pastor had paid him for sex over three years. Haggard also admitted he had bought methamphetamine.
Haggard, in an interview with CNN affiliate KUSA, denied having sex with Mike Jones and said he did not use the drug and threw it away.
After the allegations were made public, Haggard resigned as president of the influential National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group representing more than 45,000 churches with 30 million members.
He also temporarily stepped aside as pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church. (Parishioners stand by Haggard)
But on Saturday overseers of the church recommended he be permanently removed.
"We, the Overseer Board of New Life Church, have concluded our deliberations concerning the moral failings of Pastor Ted Haggard," a statement from the church said.
"Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."

Not the story Republicans wanted the weekend before the election, I'm sure. While I find it awful that anyone would be dismissed from their job because of being gay, this guy, like a lot of caught closeted cheaters I imagine, deserves no credibility with regard to his public denials. His story, that he only went to the hooker for a massage, and that he bought methamphetamines, he simply threw them away, is utterly laughable.

Republicans' "Hail Kerry" Pass

2006-11-02T00:26:00.000-06:00

Today, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry apologized for what he said was a poorly stated joke about President Bush:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

The joke was (mis)stated thusly:

"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

But, according to Kerry's staff, his prepared text was actually this (emphasis mine):

"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

You see the difference the word "us" makes there? And apparently, that's the stuff elections hang on. The media, of course, were all over the he-said-he-said of this whirling tempest, struggling mightily to illuminate an exceptionally crucial issue facing voters next week. Voters, you see, absolutely must focus with laserlike intensity on John Kerry's mangled joke for the few days before the election, even though he's not running for anything, because they just might decide to write in John Kerry instead of the candidates who are actually on the ballot. They might! They could! Though I think here in Texas, write-in candidates must be certified ahead of time... Hmm... Anyway...

All of this will probably be rather meaningless. I'm not sure that focusing on Kerry's comments does much to take voters' minds off of Iraq, which is a net negative for the Republicans. It's just that they don't have much else to run on, besides feigned outrage over the verbal gaffes of national Democratic figures. It's the Republican media machine doing the only thing it knows how to do: Pillory. But I think they're just shoveling sand on the beach. Recent polls show approval ratings for Congress in the 20's, and Bush mired in the mid 30's. The generic congressional ballot polls show unnamed Democrat leading unnamed Republican by 19% in some polls. That's something I've never seen in my adult years. This is going to be a wave election, in the Democrats' favor. The only questions are, how high is the wave, and how strong are the pillars of the Republican majorities?

I have a feeling that Kerry's blunder won't change the underlying character of America's coming rejection of Bush and the Republican Party.

Happy Halloween!

2006-10-31T23:56:00.000-06:00

TX-Gov: Zogby Shows Tightening Race

2006-10-30T23:57:00.000-06:00

Yes I know Zogby's Internet polls are questionable. But has that ever stopped me from posting them? Here's his latest on the Texas governor's race:

Perry (R) 36.7%
Bell (D) 28.5%
Strayhorn (I) 15.0%
Friedman (I) 14.4%

It's an 8.2 point race! That's actually the closest I've seen any candidate to Perry in a long time. Bell's second place showing is clearly in line with other (less questionable) polls. That, at least, is good news. I'm holding out for a miracle here.

Cook On the Wave

2006-10-30T23:43:00.000-06:00

Charlie Cook, election analyst extraordinaire, sees no ebb in the wave:

With the election just eight days away, there are no signs that this wave is abating. Barring a dramatic event, we are looking at the prospect of GOP losses in the House of at least 20 to 35 seats, possibly more, and at least four in the Senate, with five or six most likely.

If independents vote in fairly low numbers, as is customary in midterm elections, losses in the House will be on the lower end of that range. But if they turn out at a higher than normal level, their strong preference for Democrats in most races would likely push the GOP House losses to or above the upper levels.

The dynamics we are seeing this year are eerily similar to those in 1994. The President and party are different, so are the issues, but the dynamics are comparable.

I can't wait for election night...

National Election Sites I Like

2006-10-30T00:10:00.000-06:00

I'm sure I'm forgetting some. If you know of any I missed, please leave them in the comments.

Long Absence

2006-10-28T12:58:00.000-05:00

Well, after a month-long hiatus, I am returning to posting again. There's a lot of great stuff out there I missed, but I think rather than try and cover it all, I think I'm just going to pick up again and get moving.

As you all know, there's an election on, and that means all sorts of silly and remarkable things are happening. For example, 30% of all state legislative candidates are running unopposed. In North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Arkansas, it rises to 50% or more. That's some election, isn't it, when there's only one choice?

Republicans in Florida are pulling a vote switcheroo, allowing voters to select disgraced non-candidate Mark Foley, and yet have their vote count for someone entirely different. They just won the right to post signs informing voters of their nefarious plans. How can this possibly be constitutional? People's votes should count for who they vote for, and no one else.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, was challenged to a Blackberry typing contest by ABC News and she won (Video). It wasn't close. If only elections could be won that way... (hat tip to BOR)

The best-looking congressional candidate this year is Democrat Scott Kleeb, who's put together a strong campaign in Nebraska's third congressional district, the seat of Rep. Tom Osborne, who challenged incumbent Republican governor Dave Heineman in the primary and lost. That's right, you heard me earlier. There are Democrats in Nebraska. And the fact that they're putting together strong challenges in Nebraska is a sign of just how powerful the anti-Republican mood is right now.

And amazingly, the approval ratings of Alaska's Republican governor Frank Murkowski have sunk to the point where he now less popular that Gov. Bob Taft of Ohio. My lord.

Wow that feels good to write again...

Happy New Year!

2006-09-25T00:38:00.000-05:00

Happy Rosh Hashana to all!

(link)

Senate Conventional Wisdom Chart

2006-09-22T00:34:00.000-05:00

Here's how the various free rankings on the web rate each race for Senator this year. Yes, I'm including myself in the conventional wisdom. It's my blog. I can do what I want. Here you go:

Republican Seats	Sabato	Cook	CQ Politics	MyDD	Casual Soapbox
IN-Lugar	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R
ME-Snowe	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R
MS-Lott	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R
NV-Ensign	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R
TX-Hutchison	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R
UT-Hatch	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R
WY-Thomas	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R	Solid R
AZ-Kyl	Likely R	Leans R	Likely R	Likely R	Leans R
VA-Allen	Leans R	Leans R	Leans R	Leans R	Leans R
MO-Talent	Tossup	Tossup	Leans R	Tossup	Tossup
TN OPEN	Tossup	Tossup	Leans R	Tossup	Tossup
OH-DeWine	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup
RI-Chafee	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup	Leans D	Tossup
MT-Burns	Leans D	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup
PA-Santorum	Leans D	Tossup	Leans D	Leans D	Tossup

Democratic Seats	Sabato	Cook	CQ Politics	MyDD	Casual Soapbox
WI-Kohl	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
NY-Clinton	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
NM-Bingaman	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
ND-Conrad	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
MA-Kennedy	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
HI-Akaka	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
DE-Carper	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
CA-Feinstein	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
FL-Nelson	Solid D	Solid D	Likely D	Solid D	Solid D
CT OPEN	Solid D	Solid D	Likely D	Solid D	Likely D*
WV-Byrd	Solid D	Likely D	Solid D	Solid D	Solid D
VT OPEN	Likely D	Likely D	Likely D	Solid D	Solid D
NE-Nelson	Leans D	Leans D	Leans D	Solid D	Likely D
MI-Stabenow	Leans D	Leans D	Likely D	Likely D	Leans D
WA-Cantwell	Leans D	Leans D	Leans D	Likely D	Leans D
MD OPEN	Leans D	Leans D	Leans D	Leans D	Leans D
MN OPEN	Leans D	Leans D	Tossup	Likely D	Leans D
NJ-Menendez	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup	Tossup

*The Connecticut seat will be Democratic unless Lieberman wins as an independent and caucuses with the Republicans. Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger has no chance to win.

Sabato's Crystal Ball
Cook Political Report
CQ Politics
MyDD
Casual Soapbox

AZ-Sen: A Closer Race

2006-09-20T00:33:00.000-05:00

A new Survey USA poll shows a narrower race for Republican Jon Kyl's Arizona senate seat than before:

Jon Kyl (R) 48%
Jim Pederson (D) 43%

If confirmed, that would put this race into the same category as the Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee races -- competetive with a slightly Republican tilt. Demcorats will need two from that category to gain control of the Senate, along with seats in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, and Ohio that Democrats look set to pick up. While still unlikely, it's looking less impossible right now than I would have thought.

Anti-Republican Election

2006-09-18T22:10:00.000-05:00

Stuart Rothenberg, that incarnation of conventional political wisdom, takes issue with those who would call the upcoming election an anti-incumbent election:

Republican incumbents are in trouble not because they are incumbents, but because they are Republicans.

This election isn’t really about agendas. Sure, Democrats have something called their “New Direction,” but most voters aren’t regarding November primarily as a choice between two visions or two ideologies. No, it’s about sending a message to the president and to Congress that they aren’t happy — specifically with the Iraq War, but more generally as well.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman is quite correct when he says Republicans will do better when the election is a choice rather than a referendum. Unfortunately for him, that’s not likely to happen until 2008.

So what about the defeats of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Reps. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) and Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), and even Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (R)? The answer is simple. Each lost for specific reasons, not because of a trend. It isn’t their incumbency that unites them. They lost because of their own voting records and style.

While it is true that voters are not particularly impressed with Congress in general or either of the two major parties, the midterm elections have developed into a referendum on the president. Republicans may well succeed in minimizing the damage in November by localizing elections and re-electing incumbents, but there is no indication that voters will send a message of dissatisfaction with all incumbents in the fall.

That means that all but a handful of Democratic House incumbents can rest easy.

This is the first time in my conscious memory of political events (basically since 1992) that being a Republican was a net negative in a nationwide election. America looks poised to shift to the left for a few years.

RIP Ann Richards

2006-09-14T22:34:00.000-05:00

"Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." -- Ann Richards at the 1988 Democratic Convention.

Ann Richards, former Democratic governor of Texas, has passed away at the age of 73. Read the whole San Antonio Express article. There's so much there about her, I don't know where to begin.

She was governor for one term - 1990-1994, and was the first female governor of Texas since Ma Ferguson. She was defeated for re-election in a landslide Republican year by none other than George W. Bush, now our president.

Even during my Republican phase (Sep-Dec 1994), I still knew Texas had something special in Ann Richards. She was the only Democrat I voted for that year. I went to a campaign rally in the Texas Union where she spoke, and she was truly a powerful speaker. I only wish I had gotten the opportunity to speak to her in person, and to tell her how great it was the way she stood up for women and minorities, and in such a uniquely Texan way. Boy she sure had a way with words like few other politicians I've seen.

Rest in peace, Ann Richards.

RI-Sen: Chafee Survives Primary... Barely

2006-09-12T23:53:00.000-05:00

Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee seems to have just barely survived his primary against conservative Cranston mayor Stephen Laffey:

Chafee (R) 54%
Laffey (R) 46%

Too bad. Not that I dislike Chafee particularly. It's just that had Laffey won, this seat would have been a virtual Democratic lock. Chafee, on the other hand, has up to a 50-50 chance to hold his seat this year. It should be a close race with Democratic nominee Sheldon Whitehouse.

TX-Gov, TX-Sen Zogby Polls: Closing the Gap

2006-09-11T00:40:00.000-05:00

If Zogby Interactive is to be believed -- a big if mind you -- Democrats are closing the gaps in both the races for Texas governor and senator.

TX-Sen:

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) 45.2%
Barbara Ann Radnofsky (D) 36.8%

TX-Gov:

Rick Perry (R) 30.7%
Chris Bell (D) 25.3%
Kinky Friedman (I) 22.4%
Carole Keeton Strayhorn (I) 11.1%

These numbers are a lot nicer for Texas Democrats than any others I've seen. But Zogby Interactive has one big question mark around its numbers: participants in the poll are self-selecting. You can check out their methodology down at the bottom of the screen if you follow this link.

Another Reason to Love Brad Pitt

2006-09-11T00:38:00.000-05:00

If his dashing good looks and 12 Monkeys aren't enough for you that is...

NEW YORK - Brad Pitt, ever the social activist, says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.

(Via the BCS Eagle, a newspaper that's a sentimental favorite of mine.)

A Whimsical Reverie

2006-09-08T00:25:00.000-05:00

On the 5-year anniversary of 9/11, ABC plans to run a right-wing propaganda piece masquerading as a docudrama that blames Clinton for and absolves Bush of the government's failure to prevent the attack. Check out the Open Letter to ABC:

ABC/Disney plans to memorialize the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a fictional docudrama called "The Path to 9/11". Written by an avowed right-wing activist, this work of fiction directly contradicts the accepted record of the 9/11 Commission Report. President Clinton and former administration officials were denied an advance copy; Rush Limbaugh and obscure right-wing bloggers saw it last week. ABC plans to distribute this docudrama to 100,000 educators across the country. We've set up this site to encourage ABC to change its strategy...

This is a serious mistake by ABC. They're going to end up antagonizing a lot of people if they run this. And there's a significant possibility the Clintons will be in the White House again in a few years. Amazingly, Disney's Chairman of the Board is former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. Think Progress thinks he'll make a good pressure point. What with Bill Clinton and the Democratic leadership in Congress making veiled threats against Disney, it should be obvious to ABC that Democrats take it seriously when the media shows its Republican nature and makes up stories that falsely portray Democrats as responsible for 9/11.

Honestly though, if John Aravosis of AmericaBlog is taking this one on (and he is), there's a good chance the pressure will work. That guy is amazing.

TX-23: Ciro Pulls a Perot

2006-09-05T23:58:00.000-05:00

I know, I know. This is yesterday's news. But I hadn't mentioned it yet. So here it is.

Ciro Rodriguez pulled out of the race for Congress last Wednesday night in the newly redrawn TX-23 against Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla. Then, Friday, he jumped back in (CQ Politics):

In his statement Friday, Rodriguez said that “running for Congress takes considerable resources,” adding, “On Wednesday, I considered whether I should continue this race.” But, he said, he subsequently received “an outpouring of support” — “my phone has not stopped ringing” — from constituents “who have been asking me to continue and be their voice,” and that he would stay in the race on behalf of these backers.

The contest marks a second comeback bid for Rodriguez, who previously represented the adjacent 28th District from 1997 to 2005. Rodriguez lost his seat to Democrat Henry Cuellar in the 2004 primary and lost again in a primary rematch this March.

Dropping out and jumping back in to any race doesn't look good. It makes a candidate look indecisive and strange. I like Ciro Rodriguez a lot. I think he was a great congressman. And I think he's good on the issues. But I don't know about this... I remember another Texas politician who did an in-and-out routine like that: Ross Perot in 1992. He lost.

FL-Sen: Katharine Harris Wins!!!

2006-09-05T23:51:00.000-05:00

It's official. Katharine Harris will be the Republican nominee for Senate in Florida. Her opponent, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, probably held off opening the champagne, but just barely. Here's the latest poll from Rasmussen Reports on the race (Aug 28):

Bill Nelson (D) 57%
Katharine Harris (R) 34%

Not even close. Sorry folks. That race is all but over.

RIP Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin

2006-09-05T23:13:00.000-05:00

I already miss Steve Irwin -- more than I thought I would. It was amazing how he brought out an awe of nature in everybody who watched his show -- even for a single segment -- with his fearless adventuring. And he was a tireless advocate of conservation as well. All while doing what he loved best. Rest in peace, Steve Irwin, in a happy nest of crocodiles and poisonous vipers.

Nifty New Site

2006-09-05T01:16:00.000-05:00

Mark Blumenthal of Mystery Pollster and Charles Franklin of Political Arithmetik have combined forces to create a fun new polling site: Pollster.com. They are collecting and charting polls in most of the close Senate and Governor races. The current situation in the Senate appears to be as follows, based on their "Last 5" average:

MT-Sen: Tester (D) 47% Burns (R) 44% - Democratic pickup
PA-Sen: Casey (D) 49% Santorum (R) 40% - Democratic pickup
OH-Sen: Brown (D) 46% DeWine (R) 40% - Democratic pickup
RI-Sen: Whitehouse (D) 42% Chafee (R) 40% - Democratic pickup
MO-Sen: Talent (R) 47% McCaskill (D) 45%
TN-Sen: Corker (R) 46% Ford (D) 42%
VA-Sen: Allen (R) 48% Webb (D) 42%
AZ-Sen: Kyl (R) 48% Pederson (D) 37%

MN-Sen: Klobuchar (D) 49% Kennedy (R) 40%
NJ-Sen: Menendez (D) 43% Kean (R) 40%
WA-Sen: Cantwell (D) 51% McGavick (R) 40%

I love poll aggregators... I'm such a geek...

Tactical Advice

2006-09-05T00:33:00.000-05:00

Tom Schaller has some tactical advice for the Democrats:

Where’s Osama? The mastermind of the September 11 attacks is still at large five years later. This is a colossal failure Democrats have hesitated to point out relentlessly for fear that, were Osama bin Laden suddenly captured or killed, Bush and the Republicans would enjoy a huge partisan windfall. But they would anyway, so why hesitate? Democrats should do as the Republicans would: Wait until two or three weeks before the election and start asking why Osama bin Laden remains on the lamb. (The Bush-Cheney campaign held its 2004 closing message -- that America had not been attacked since 9/11 -- in reserve until the very end of the election.) Democrats might enlist folks like Wes Clark or Max Cleland to put the GOP on the defensive during the closing moments of 2006 by calling for a renewed international manhunt and asking repeatedly, “Where’s Osama?” It’s a question few Republican incumbents want to answer in the closing moments of Campaign 2006.

There was no tax cut. The Democratic critique of Bush’s tax policy is three-fold: One, the richest sliver of the population received the bulk of the cuts; two, lost revenues have increased the national debt; and, three, any windfalls the middle classes enjoyed are more than offset by rising health care costs, new state taxes and “fees,” higher consumer prices, and so on. Simply put, Democrats argue that Americans didn’t get much of a tax cut, what they got didn’t lessen their financial burdens, and they or their children will have to pay it back with interest. In a country where most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, a concise and electorally audacious way to attack the Republicans on taxes is to assert, simply, there was no tax cut. Democrats could invite voters to pull out their federal tax forms from recent years and search for the savings. Most won’t find much, and those who do already overwhelmingly vote Republican.

Health-coverage solidarity. Instead of using the congressional health care plan, Ohio Representative and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ted Strickland pays for his own health insurance, because he believes it’s wrong for constituents who are either uninsured or under-insured to pick up the tab for his coverage. Would any congressional candidate dare criticize Strickland’s personal ethic? Members of Congress enjoy steady pay raises and cushy benefits at a time when millions of Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and higher costs for health-care coverage -- if they are insured at all. To signal solidarity, Democratic incumbents and challengers should join Strickland in pledging to refuse the government’s health package, beginning January 2007, until they can fix the nation’s health care system. The vast majority can afford private insurance anyway.

Sponsor a New Orleans precinct. Hurricane-devastated New Orleans has almost the exact same number of precincts (443) as the combined number of House districts (425) and key, Republican-held Senate seats (seven) with a Democratic candidate filed to run in 2006. Some precincts suffered relatively mild damage from Katrina, others were devastated, but all were affected. To personalize the criticism of the administration’s bungled Katrina response, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee should familiarize each candidate with the specific details of the plight and progress of one New Orleans precinct. Americans wear colored bracelets to express solidarity with countless causes, so why not get Democratic nominees to wear Mardi Gras-inspired, gold-green-and-purple bracelets, each with the number of the precinct the candidate and her district are sponsoring? This would not only bring the nation’s commitment to rebuilding New Orleans into high relief, but every candidate would have a specific story to share and a vested stake in the city’s revival after re-taking majority control.

Fiscal lapel pins. Sadly, when Democrats on the Hill want to communicate, they still rely on the three P’s -- press release, press conference, and (National) Press Club event. In the age of the Blackberry, this is akin to using rotary phones. Rather than issue another white paper about Republicans’ fiscal chicanery which a few national reporters and a handful of voters will actually read, Hill Democrats should come up with three or four key numbers that epitomize big-government Republican budgeting: 0, for the number of spending bills Bush has vetoed; 4, representing the number of times the government has raised the national debt ceiling; or perhaps 300, for the billions of dollars thus far spent in Iraq. Take these numbers, put them on understated lapel pins, pass them out to every congressional candidate … and wait. National beat reporters and the local media will soon take notice. What they’ll discover is another neat visual, like the bracelets, around which to build a story about how Democrats across America are calling the Republicans to the mat for their fiscal recklessness.

All interesting ideas, and all offered in the place of in-depth explicit policy proposals. The struggle between on the one hand those who favor offering detailed solutions to problems and on the other those who favor not offering Republicans a change of topic from their own troubled policies has been a source of consternation among Democrats in the last year or so.

Another similar internal struggle Democrats are facing is between candidates who shy away from an unpopular party label (in their district or state), and partisans who seek to resuscitate the Democratic brand. The candidates see a weakened brand and abstain from using it except when absolutely necessary. Chris Bowers explains the partisan resuscitation argument here:

Someone needs to explain to me how Democrats plan to nationalize this election against Republicans without identifying themselves as Democrats. I might also need a refresher course on how people are going to develop a better image of the Democratic Party if our own candidates refuse to identify themselves as Democrats. As a third request, I would like someone to explain to me how Democratic congressional challengers plan to win without people being willing to press the "Democratic" button on November 7th. Virtually no challengers are going to manage higher name ID than incumbents this cycle, so in order to win back Congress we are going to have to rely on large numbers of people being willing to vote for the Democratic Party itself, rather than individual Democratic candidates. Not only is that never going to happen if our own candidates refuse to self-identify as Democrats, we can also see from Republican quotes that avoiding partisan self-identification altogether is exactly what Republicans want in this cycle. We can't win back congress unless we are willing to be partisans.

It seems to me that we absolutely can win back Congress both without partisanship, and without putting out any of our ideas in proposal form for Republicans to attack. But both would be short-sighted. It looks to me like Democrats are about to have a very good midterm election, and will likely retake one or both houses of Congress. But what then?

At that point, Democratis will be in power with no goodwill built up for the Democratic party itself, and little ability to claim a mandate for any particular initiative, having not told the people what they will do once elected.

Consider the Republicans' Contract With America from the leadup to the 1994 midterm elections. Few people had heard of it, and it made maybe a small impact on the election among those who had heard of it. But after the Republican victory, the document was both a unifying force for their party in the next Congress, and a public relations coup because it represented an agenda they could claim the people voted for.

Democrats don't have to be too specific in the ideas they put forward. And they don't have to mimic the Contract in form either. But they should put something out there that they can then point to and say, "The people voted for this." after the election. Because if they don't make their agenda public and then try to claim a mandate after the election, the people will withdraw their support very quickly.

Support for the party brand might keep their support though. Honestly, it is critical that Democrats build up some trust among the people. If they can do that, the people will be more forgiving of failure and more rewarding of success. And if people get used to voting for Democrats, the party will find it easier to both keep its popular support, and to keep its caucus unified.

None of this is to take away from any of Schaller's tactical ideas. It's just important to keep sight of the larger picture as well.

The Conventional Wisdom on the November Elections

2006-09-03T12:55:00.000-05:00

From Reuters today, some quotes from establishment sorts on the November election (emphasis mine):

"I don't think the question any longer is can Democrats win control of Congress, it's can Republicans do anything to stop it?" said Amy Walter, House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report newsletter. "All the factors and issues are pushing so strongly against Republicans."
...

"It's too late to fix the national mood -- it's not going to be fixed," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. "The major issues are not playing well for Republicans this year, and Republicans are not playing well with America this year."
...

"This looks like a classic sixth-year election," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, who called the president's low approval ratings, hovering at about 40 percent, "the single best indicator for any mid-term election."

The conventional wisdom is not a guarantee of anything. It's just what insiders think of the political environment right now.

It All Starts With Arizona

2006-08-31T21:38:00.000-05:00

It looks like Arizona voters oppose a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Support amendment 38%
Oppose amendment 51%

I'll admint was skeptical when I saw polls out of Wisconsin and South Dakota indicating much rougher terrain for these amendments than in the past. But maybe this represents a trend, a fundamental reordering of the political system vis-a-vis marriage equality... I'm crossing my fingers, yes, but until I see a state actually reject one of these amendments, I'm not holding my breath.

RI-Sen: Chafee Could Be the Next Lieberman

2006-08-31T20:48:00.000-05:00

New England senators are having a rough go of it. A new Rhode Island College poll shows Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee headed for defeat in the Sept 12 Republican primary:

Steve Laffey (R) 51%
Lincoln Chafee (R) 34%

Could Chafee be the next Lieberman? Here's how the situation in Rhode Island is different from the primary battle Sen. Joe Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

Connecticut is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and the primary battle was in the Democratic party. When Lieberman lost, the battle became an open seat in a liberal state with a weak Republican (Schlesinger), a moderately conservative independent (Lieberman), and a strong Democrat (Lamont). The latest Rasmussen poll has Lieberman leading, but only barely.

Rhode Island is also an overwhelmingly Democratic state, but the primary battle is in the Republican party. If Chafee loses, the battle becomes an open seat in a liberal state with a very conservative Republican candidate (Laffey), and a strong Democratic challenger (Whitehouse). No word yet if Chafee would run a feisty independent campaign on a "Rhode Island for Chafee" party ticket. The latest Rasmussen poll has Whitehouse beating Chafee, but utterly annihilating Laffey.

So basically there are two important differences to keep in mind when comparing the two races: the first is that Rhode Island is not a good state for a conservative candidate like Laffey in an open seat, while Connecticut is a good state for a progressive candidate like Lamont in an open seat. The second is that Republicans have a poor candidate in Connecticut and are thus unable to capitalize on the Democratic division, while Democrats have a strong candidate in Rhode Island and are very much able to capitalize on Republican division there.

Make sense?

TX-22: Special!

2006-08-29T23:58:00.000-05:00

Who could possibly have seen it coming? Gov Rick Perry calls a special election to fill a vacant Republican office. This time, it's Tom DeLay's empty seat in TX-22. The date of the special election is November 7, which sounds awfully, naggingly familiar... But let me just say that if there's one thing Rick Perry knows how to do well, it's gain partisan advantage by setting special election dates. We all saw how well that worked for Rep. Ben Bentzin in state house district 48... oh wait... Donna Howard won that one didn't she?

Yes, November 7. The same November 7 as the general election. That means there will be two simultaneous elections that day: one for two-months' worth of representation, from November to January, and one for the next two years after that. Presumably, there will be a Republican and a Democrat on the ballot in the first race, but only a Democrat and a Libertarian in the second, with Republican candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs trying to win that race with a write-in campaign.

Anyway, Charles Kuffner thinks it will help Sekula-Gibbs by boosting the profile of the race and thereby getting more people informed about how to properly cast a write-in ballot, while Chris Elam at the Texas Safety Forum thinks it will just confuse voters. Personally, I think Lampson will win the full-term race just due to the money gap. (I think he's the single best funded Democratic challenger in the country, but I don't have the energy to find proof tonight. SSG, meanwhile, is just starting to campaign now.) But one effect might be to make Lampson seem more vulnerable in 2008 if SSG manages to win the special, which given the Republican tilt of the district, is not unthinkable.

Also, the Lone Star Project notes that the November special election date will make TX-22 the longest-vacant congressional seat since 1905.

CA-Gov: Schwarzenegger Looking Safer and Safer

2006-08-28T21:50:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry to say it to all my readers out there in California, but Schwarzenegger is looking stronger and stronger for re-election. The latest Survey USA poll is mind-bogglingly good for him:

Schwarzenegger (R) 52%
Angelides (D) 38%

It makes me sad, because I am absolutely convinced that California would legislatively legalize gay marriage with a Democratic governor in office. Why? Because Schwarzenegger vetoed gay marriage legislation last year.

US House Predictions

2006-08-28T21:22:00.000-05:00

A number of prognosticators have released their predictions for the balance in the US House after the November elections. Stuart Rothenberg, a non-partisan Washington establishment prognosticator if ever there was one, is predicting 15-20 seats will be picked up by the Democrats. They need just 15 to take control. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute, a non-partisan think-tank, is more optimistic about the Democrats' chances, predicting Democrats will pick up 25-35 seats.

And today, Chris Bowers of MyDD broke out his own predictions for the November congressional elections (with an incredibly detailed chart). He's predicting a Democratic gain of 15-25 seats.

My personal prediction, as of today, is the Democrats will pick up between 20 and 25 seats, making Nancy Pelosi the first female Speaker of the House. With just a 5-10 seat majority, Democrats will be less secure in their control of the House than Republicans do now, or than they did after coming to power in the 1994 midterm elections. The Democratic party will also be more internally divided than the Republican party, since more Democrats represent cross-partisan districts than Republicans. But Democrats will also be less internally divided, and more progressive, than they were last time they controlled the House (1994).

If the Democrats control just the House, without also taking control of the Senate, they will be in a precarious position. After a triumphant election victory, the people will expect results from Democrats. But with only one house of Congress, Democrats will be unable to truly drive their legislative agenda. So in that case, I think the Democrats will turn to the one tool they will have gained: subpoena power. They will begin to hold hearings into every Bush administration failure in the previous 6 years. And control of the Senate seems less likely for Democrats. Most predictions are for a Democratic pickup of 3-5 seats in the Senate. They need 6 for control. So this is likely the situation we'll be looking at.

AL-HD-54: Did I Do That?

2006-08-26T19:05:00.000-05:00

The Alabama Democratic Party has reversed course and dismissed the challenge to Patricia Todd's victory in the Democratic primary for HD-54. The excellent Alabama Democratic blog Birmingham Blues has the skinny:

Of course, Patricia’s dispute was last on the agenda. Amy Burks, chair of the subcommittee that recommended disqualifying both Patricia and Gaynell Hendricks, read the recommendation. Chair Joe Turnham explained that a vote to uphold the recommendation would result in the disqualification of both candidates and a vacancy in District 54, while a vote to overturn it would end the contest and make Patricia the nominee.

Then Raymond Johnson spoke, supposedly on behalf of Gaynell, but primarily to insist that the committee hold Patricia to a standard no one else had to meet.

Bobby Segall was just as eloquent and impassioned on Patricia’s behalf today as he was on Thursday, and he dropped a minor bombshell — he had an affidavit from a former Democratic party chair stating that the portion of the bylaws used against both candidates had been repealed and replaced with a rule in line with the 1988 Fair Campaign Practices Act. He also continued to point out that no Democratic candidate had filed financial disclosure forms with the party this year, and that disqualifying Patricia on that basis would open the entire slate to challenge. In fact, he said that Gerald Dial (D-not really) was already planning to sue if the subcommittee decision was upheld. He said that real Democrats don’t discriminate against each other, they don’t selectively apply the rules, and they don’t consider elections to be preference polls for leaders to approve or disapprove.

Then we endured quite a few “points of order” that were primarily opportunities for individual committee members to express their opinions.

Finally, the chair called for a vote. He asked those who supported upholding the subcommittee’s recommendation to stand. They did, and at that point, I began to hope. Joe Reed prowled the aisles, glaring at those who remained seated, and succeeded in coercing a few more votes. Joe Turnham had to ask everyone to stand again because Reed’s machinations had screwed up the count. Then those opposed to the resolution stood. The counters counted, we sweated, my hands started shaking, and finally Joe Turnham announced the count:

87 votes to uphold the recommendation, 95 to overturn it. Those of us in the back of the room started cheering, and I ran for the lobby — and a wireless signal — so I could spread the word.

I suppose they must have read my previous post calling them out for selectively applying their bylaws to overturn primary results they didn't like and felt guilty enough to change their minds. All in a day's work... What's next?

Kudos to the Alabama Democrats. They deserve it for doing the right thing. And kudos also to Patricia Todd who, lacking a Republican opponent in the fall, is now all set to become a state legislator and the first openly gay elected official in Alabama.

Ridiculous

2006-08-25T20:50:00.000-05:00

Patricia Todd was on track to become Alabama's first openly gay elected official, but a Democratic party committee just overturned her primary victory. MSNBC:

A Democratic Party committee Thursday night disqualified an openly gay candidate for the Alabama Legislature and the woman she defeated in the primary runoff because both women violated a party rule that party officials said no other candidate has obeyed since 1988.
The committee voted 5-0 to disqualify Patricia Todd, who was attempting to become the state's first openly gay legislator, and Gaynell Hendricks.
Committee chairwoman Amy Burks said earlier Thursday the party's executive committee would make the final decision and select a nominee for the seat from Birmingham's House District 54 at a meeting in Montgomery Saturday.

I don't know whether it was racism (Todd is white) or homophobia (also a lesbian), a little bit of both, or something else entirely, but applying a different standard to a single close race because party insiders don't like the result is unfair and undemocratic. The Alabama Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself.

AK-Gov: Murkowski Takes Third in Republican Primary

2006-08-25T00:10:00.000-05:00

Alaska's Republican Governor Frank Murkowski didn't make it. The four-term-senator-turned-one-term-governor took third in the Republican primary the other day, losing to Republican nominee and former Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin, as well as finishing behind John Binkley, a state senator, with my favorite name of those in the race. Murkowski never really recovered from appointing his daughter Lisa to his Senate seat when he vacated it, and he regularly scores among the lowest approval ratings of any governor.

Palin will go on to face former two-term Democratic governor Tony Knowles. It should be a close race.

Pluto the Dwarf

2006-08-24T23:44:00.000-05:00

Poor Pluto can't get no respect. Apparently, the International Astronomers' Union has demoted Pluto from planet to "dwarf planet", a new category made up just for Pluto. Solar System models the world over will now have to be decommissioned.

Just last week, it looked like we were being upgraded to a 12-planet solar system, as the astronomers appeared to be settling on a definition of planet that basically included all round things that orbited the sun. Pluto would have remained a planet, but its moon Charon would have been upgraded from moon to planet. The asteroid Ceres and the Kuiper Belt object Xena would have also received similar upgrades.

Which way is really better? Well, to be honest it doesn't matter all that much. Calling something a planet or not doesn't really add much to an understanding of what a world is or how it came to be. At least not to us regular non-astronomer folks. We're used to sci-fi books televion shows in which planets are alive, or teleport from solar system to solar system, or are built by all-powerful aliens. All of those fantastic imaginary worlds we happily call planets without a care in the world about whether the word is failing to distinguish the rocky inner solar system and gas giants from the small icy objects of the outer solar system.

The definition of planet has certainly evolved over time, but I'm a little sentimental about it. I think Pluto will always be a planet to me. But still, it is hard to justify calling Pluto a planet and leaving other objects out there. I mean look at all the similarly worlds we could be calling planets:

I suppose we'll have to make our solar system models a little more complex now. 8 planets and a few other things to boot...

Not Haley Joel!

2006-08-18T01:08:00.000-05:00

I can't understand how such a great actor could do something so dreadful! CNN (emphasis mine):

Teen actor Haley Joel Osment, who suffered a broken rib last month when his car struck a mailbox, faces up to six months in jail on charges of driving drunk and possessing marijuana, authorities said.

The 18-year-old actor was charged Thursday with misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence, marijuana possession and driving under the influence with the special allegation of having a blood-alcohol content of .15 percent or higher. He also faces a vehicle code infraction of being under the age of 21 and driving with a blood-alcohol level of .05 or greater.

Osment's blood-alcohol level after the July 20 crash was measured at .16, twice the legal limit, said Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

Damn you Haley Joel Osment! I mean, plowing through mailboxes in a drunken haze, holding your friend's weed for him, being underage, all this I can forgive, but Haley... does the hair have to be so long? Oh the humanity!

VA-Sen: Poll Shows Allen Slipping

2006-08-18T01:04:00.000-05:00

New poll coming out tomorrow. Dailykos' mcjoan has it (last months' numbers in parentheses):

George Allen (R) 47% (51%)
James Webb (D) 42% (41%)

Could it be that Virginia doesn't like racism? I mean, I suppose it could be...

VA-Sen: Allen Makes a Boo-Boo

2006-08-16T01:00:00.000-05:00

George Allen has a problem. Rumors of racism swirl about him like a whirlpool and then he goes and says something like this:

Then, he half-apologizes for it. That should be just enough to make right-wingers angry he apologized without getting left-wingers to accept his apology. I'm with Matt Stoller on this one (bold emphasis mine):

I think Mr. Big Tough Republican just knuckled under to the PC police. If I were Jim Webb, I'd say something along the lines of 'Look, apologize, or don't. But be a man about it.'

If Allen can be pushed around by a 20 year old college student's hurt feelings and runs crying like a little girl to the liberal media to apologize, how's he going to stand up to, well, anything at all?

Democrat James Webb's chances to unseat Allen just inched up a little.

Alabama Legislative Primary Turns Ugly

2006-08-15T00:33:00.000-05:00

What an unusual thing to read about happening in Alabama:

Patricia Todd is openly gay, and she expected her sexual orientation to be an issue when she ran for a legislative seat representing a majority black district. What she didn't anticipate was the fight that broke out over the fact she is white.
Todd, who defeated a black candidate in a runoff election last month (story), goes before a Democratic Party subcommittee on Tuesday to defend her 59-vote runoff win in House District 54, an area that includes both the richest and poorest neighborhoods of Birmingham.

A challenge filed over Todd's victory will turn solely on what happened during the vote and state election law, according to Joe Turnham, the state party chairman.

But the issue people are talking about is whether a white woman should get to represent a mostly black district in a state where blacks couldn't vote two generations ago and where race is still an overriding factor in carving out election districts.

A black Democratic leader urged black voters to support Todd's black opponent, Gaynell Hendricks, on the basis of race, and Todd fears racial politics may taint proceedings before the subcommittee.

"When do we get past this?" said Todd, who would become the first openly gay member of the Alabama Legislature. "I can't believe that in 2006 we're still electing people on the basis of race."

Ok, Todd won 51% to 49%. If some party committee somewhere ignores the results and hands the nomination to someone else on any basis other than who actually won, I imagine there are going to be a lot of pissed off voters out there. I know I'd be pissed off if my candidate won her primary and then was denied the nomination by some shadowy subcommittee of party functionaries. Wouldn't you?

South Dakota Would Reject Anti-Gay Marriage Ban???

2006-08-10T22:22:00.000-05:00

This doesn't sound like South Dakota to me, but I'd sure love it if this were true:

A survey of 800 South Dakota voters shows that a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships would likely fail.
The poll shows that 49 percent of voters oppose the amendment with 41 percent supporting it and the rest undecided.

The results startled even LGBT rights groups which noted the state supported President Bush in 2004 by a margin of 60 percent to 40.

The marriage measure, called Amendment C, is scheduled to appear on the ballot this November.

How great would that be for South Freaking Dakota to reject an anti-gay marriage ban?

CT-Sen: Lieberman Loses Primary

2006-08-08T23:18:00.000-05:00

Tonight, Sen. Joe Lieberman narrowly lost the Democratic nomination to his Senate seat in Connecticut to Ned Lamont - about 52% to 48%. Lieberman is going to continue to run as an independent. While he might still win in November, it's going to be harder than it looks from here. He's going to get tremendous media scrutiny as a loser over the next couple weeks, and there will be pressure from other Democrats to withdraw. Every Democrat who plans to run for president in 2008 will endorse Lamont. Lieberman might still pull it off, but at this point he's definitely the underdog.

Might the Republicans sneak one through this time by splitting the Democrats between Lieberman and Lamont? Well, not to be cruel, but not with their current candidate. Alan Schlesinger will not be the next senator from Connecticut. Republicans may try and bump him off the ticket, maybe for someone like Rep. Chris Shays or Rep. Rob Simmons, both of whom may well lose re-election if they don't go. Or they may funnel money and media support to Lieberman. Or maybe both. But they really don't want Lamont to win, because Lamont won't be cozy with Bush and Fox News the way Lieberman is.

So what happened to Lieberman? Well, there are a number of things he did wrong and Lamont did right, but it can be summed up this way: Lieberman lost touch with Connecticut. Lieberman sees himself as a statesman, a forger of grand compromises. So he continually positions himself as a centrist on any issue that might get attention, like being wishy-washy on social security, and a foreign-policy hawk. On lower profile bread-and-butter issues, he's a fairly reliable progressive, which explains why most of the traditional Democratic interest groups supported Lieberman in the primary. But Connecticut is one of the most Democratic states in the nation. And right now, Connecticut voters don't want grand compromises. They want Republican electoral blood. Especially on the Iraq war. And Lieberman gave them every indication he didn't hear them.

Not only has he been strangely stubborn about admitting anything is going wrong in Iraq, but he wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal demanding Democrats fall in line behind President Bush because of the war (this might be the link). To the ears of most Democrats who pay attention to politics, this sounded like Republican talking points being spouted by a Democrat in an outlet that is part of the Republican Noise Machine. Lieberman's active support for the Republican position in the Terri Schiavo case was also troubling to many Democrats. Connecticut voters are among the nation's most likely to support Democratic positions on these issues, and here's their senator, behaving like a Republican.

That's not to say there's no place in the party for a senator like Lieberman. There is: Nebraska. Democratic Senator Ben Nelson is one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, and he's perfectly suited for his home state. Though I don't particularly care for his issues, I'm aware that any Republican that replaces him is likely to be far far worse. And should Nelson fall in a Democratic primary, Republicans would surely take the seat. But Connecticut is a deep deep blue state that could support a much more progressive-minded Democrat than Lieberman. And it's trying to.

Personally, I like Lieberman. I like the way he talks -- his speaking style is very Jewish. And I respect his urge to compromise, even though I don't like some of the compromises he's chosen. But he's from the wrong state for his style, and that's just all there is.

Expect the results of this unusual night to act as a whip on the Democrats on the Iraq war, and on opposing President Bush more forcefully. It will probably throw them off message for a week or two though first.

TX-22: Tom DeLay Must Remain On the Ballot - Final Word

2006-08-07T20:10:00.000-05:00

Justice Antonin Scalia, probably Tom DeLay's closest ally on the Supreme Court denied the Republican Party's request to overturn lower court rulings denying the party the right to switch out another nominee for DeLay on the November ballot. Since DeLay is utterly scandal-tainted, this is about the best result Democratic candidate Nick Lampson could have hoped for. If Republicans had been able to finagle a replacement candidate, they would have had an edge going into the election, but the race is definitely a tossup now. I wonder whether DeLay will actively campaign for his seat now, after having retired, resigned, moved to Virginia, and declared himself ineligible?

Note: Sorry for the long absence. No excuses. Just busy. But I still should have written something.

Survey USA 50-State Poll

2006-07-27T23:49:00.000-05:00

Survey USA's approval ratings of all U.S. Senators are out. Here are the approval/disapproval rating for those Senators running for re-election this fall:

Republicans

ME Olympia Snowe 72%/24%
MS Trent Lott 68%/28%
IN Richard Lugar 65%/29%
WY Craig Thomas 62%/29%
TX Kay Bailey Hutchison 60%/31%
UT Orrin Hatch 58%/37%
NV John Ensign 52%/38%
VA George Allen 51%/39%
MO Jim Talent 49%/44%
RI Lincoln Chafee 48%/46%
AZ Jon Kyl 47%/40%
OH Mike DeWine 45%/45%
PA Rick Santorum 43%/50%
MT Conrad Burns 37%/57%

Democrats

ND Kent Conrad 72%/23%
NE Ben Nelson 68%/27%
WV Robert Byrd 64%/33%
DE Tom Carper 62%/31%
NY Hillary Clinton 62%/36%
MA Edward Kennedy 59%/37%
NM Jeff Bingaman 58%/33%
CA Dianne Feinstein 57%/34%
WI Herb Kohl 57%/33%
CT Joseph Lieberman 54%/41%
HI Daniel Akaka 51%/43%
MI Debbie Stabenow 50%/39%
WA Maria Cantwell 49%/43%
FL Bill Nelson 48%/33%
NJ Robert Menendez 45%/39%

Those in red are under the magic 50% marker in approval. That's bad news for an incumbent. While the 6 Republicans under 50% are consistently considered the most endangered Republicans, Democrat Bill Nelson is considered safe now because of Katharine Harris magical mystical imploding campaign. So it's really 6-2 in terms of actual danger. I'm guessing at this point Democrats will pick up 4 seats in the Senate, not enough to gain control, sadly. But I think it's more likely they'll pick up more than 4 than it is they'll pick up less than 4.

Six Bullet Points From Success

2006-07-27T23:22:00.000-05:00

As Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today rightfully dismissed the Contract On America as unimportant in Republicans' 1994 mditerm election victores, he also promoted Democrats' "Six for '06", a set of broad legislative goals that Democrats would work toward in 2006. Here are the six bullet points Democrats want you to remember and associate with them:

National security
Jobs and wages
Energy independence
Affordable health care
Retirement security
College access for all

Not a bad list. Let me just say this about the Contract and its relevance today. First, while it's true the Contract did very little to help Republicans win in 1994, it did a lot to help them win in 1995. By getting universally behind a set of policy proposals before the election, Republicans were able to claim a mandate for those goals after the election. Much of the Contract is now law, and Republicans' huge psychological victory gave new life to the "Democrats don't win" narrative that Clinton had briefly squelched with his 1992 landslide victory.

So should Democrats emulate the Contract? Well, that's a funny question. My guess is that yes they should, but mostly because it drives home the narrative that the coming election will be for Democrats what 1994 was for Republicans. To some extent, they'll be able to use it as a mandate for reform (pending the uncertain coming takeover of Congress of course). But its usefulness will be limited by the fact that it's just a set of bullet points to the media, not a set of proposals. And the fact that it will be a pale imitation of the original Contract. But that's not to say they shouldn't do it. Just don't get your expectations of it up too high.

Granny Slap-Suit Self-Slaps With Sloppy Suit

2006-07-27T00:40:00.000-05:00

Comptroller Strayhorn, former Republican and now independent candidate for the Texas governorship, who I have dubbed Granny Slap-Suit for her libertine attitude toward lawsuits, is apparently now suing herself. Vince:

Evidently, The Comptroller Formerly Known As Rylander can’t get enough of seeing the word “plaintiff” following her many names.

Now, she wants to join a conservative group opposed to the Texas Tax Reform Commission/Rick Perry tax plan in a lawsuit they’ve filed challenging the plan in relation to the state’s constitutional spending cap—in which Strayhorn and other state leaders were named as defendants.

And, since Strayhorn is a state officeholder, by becoming a plaintiff in the suit against the state, she’d be suing…herself? When it boils down to it, that’s probably about right.

Good lord this governor's race is insane.

Washington High Court Nixes Same-Sex Marriage

2006-07-27T00:29:00.000-05:00

A 5-4 decision though. 365gay:

The state of Washington's ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In a 5 - 4 split decision the justices ruled that only opposite-sex couples are biologically capable of having children and the legislature acted reasonably and in the best interests of children.

The court did, however, say that the legislature could repeal DOMA and pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington," the ruling, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, said.

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be."

In a dissent, Justice Bobbe J Bridge said that " if the DOMA is really about the 'sanctity' of marriage, as its title implies, then it is clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief. If the DOMA purports to further some State purpose of preserving the family unit, as the plurality would interpret it, then I cannot imagine better candidates to fulfill that purpose than the same-sex couples who are the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions."

It looks like gay marriage advocates in the Washington legislature will introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. The Washington legislature is probably one of the friendlier ones in the country at the moment too, being controlled by Democrats in both houses (56 of 98 in the state house and 26 of 49 in the state senate), and the Democratic governor has promised to sign gay marriage legislation as well.

Honestly, I hope that in November the Washington state voters choose to vent their anger at the federal government (Republicans) instead of the equally unpopular state government (Democrats). They may need even more Democrats than they've got to get same-sex marriage legislation through. I'm crossing my fingers though.

Oh Lance, Say It Ain't So!

2006-07-27T00:16:00.000-05:00

Lance Bass, formerly of 'N S'y'nc'' has come out of the closet. The way it should be done. On the cover of People Magazine. (Hat tip to Daisy at McBlogger)

I suppose I can forgive him for waiting so long, since he's got a sitcom in the works, in which he actually plays a gay character. So many gay celebrities are afraid to come out lest they ruin their careers. I mean, I imagine. I have no specific information. *Cough* Ricky Martin *Cough*. But Lance has come out while he still has at least the possibility of a career as a journeyman pop icon. And for that, I say, bravo!

And honestly, was there any other phrase Lance Bass could utter that would land him on the cover of People Magazine these days? I mean besides, "I'm getting married to Katie Holmes too."

Talk Amongst Yourselves

2006-07-25T23:07:00.000-05:00

1994 v 2006: House Fundraising

2006-07-24T21:29:00.000-05:00

I'm always a sucker for 1994-2006 political environment comparisons. This one comes from the subscription-only section of Cook Political Report, brought public via Daily Kos:

Democrats have also kept up a good pace with Republicans in the most competitive contests. Of the 15 Republican-held seats we list as Toss-Ups (there are no Democratic seats currently in this category), Republican incumbents had an average of $ 1,221,578 million in the bank to $982,830 for their Democratic challengers.
But for the perennially underfunded Rep. John Hostettler and Rep. Charles Taylor who is notorious for self-funding his races, every other targeted Republican incumbent had a healthy cash-on-hand showing. And, say Republicans, a well-funded and well-prepared incumbent can weather even the worst political environment.
Still, in looking at FEC filings at this point in 1994, we noticed that Democratic incumbents had a much more significant cash advantage over their GOP opponents, yet that obviously was not enough to protect them from the oncoming tidal wave.
Tim Sahd, our webmaster and researcher and intern Ford Porter, looked at the fundraising figures of the 34 Democratic incumbents who would go on to lose in November as well as the figures of their challengers.
What they found was that as of the 2nd quarter of 1994, the 34 House Democrats average cash-on-hand amount was $260,577.79. Their Republican challengers, meanwhile, had a cash-on-hand average of just $48,994.47. This translated into a five-to-one advantage for Democratic incumbents over their GOP challengers.
This year, the average cash-on-hand total for the 29 Republican incumbents who are in Lean Republican or Toss Up is $1,143,575. Their Democratic challengers had an average of $586,575, giving GOP incumbents just a 2-1 cash advantage over their opponents.

So basically, Democrats in 2006 are ahead of where Republicans were in 1994 among close House races. Go Team!

CT-Sen: Lieberman Behind in More Polls

2006-07-23T21:03:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Rasmussen Reports has a new poll available only through their subscription-only service (thanks, Political Wire, for the numbers!), showing Lamont leading Lieberman in the primary:

Ned Lamont (D) 51%
Joe Lieberman (D) 40%

But that's actually not the most interesting nugget to come out of this poll. It also shows that Lamont has reached a tie with Lieberman in the 3-way general election:

Ned Lamont (D) 40%
Joe Lieberman (I) 40%
Arthur Schlesinger (R) 13%

And I would think Republicans should be just a little embarrassed by the mere 13% their candidate gets in the polls. I mean, who do they think they are? Texas Democrats?

CT-Sen: Lieberman Behind in Polls

2006-07-20T19:30:00.000-05:00

Lieberman is now behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. First, Quinnipiac released a new poll (6/8 numbers in parentheses):

Lieberman (D) 47% (55%)
Lamont (D) 51% (40%)

And in the general election, with Lieberman running as an independent:

Lieberman (I) 51% (56%)
Lamont (D) 27% (18%)
Schlesinger (R) 9% (8%)

Don't let this one fool you though. If Lieberman loses the primary, watch for his numbers here to drop and Lamont's to rise as people beyond the activist base of the Democratic party begin to pay attention. It does look a little like the Republicans stand no chance at all of taking advantage of the intra-party fight here, doesn't it?

The other poll wasn't actually released to the public, but was referenced by Jason Zengerle of the New Republic:

I just wrote a piece for the latest print issue on the Lieberman campaign and I thought I had a bit of a scoop: a recent unpublished independent poll actually had Lieberman trailing Lamont 48 to 44.

I think Lieberman is going to lose the primary. Not that polls can't change or anything, but Lieberman has been taking his base voters for granted for years, and it's catching up to him now. He had the perfect opportunity to change his situation last December with his bizarre editorial telling Democrats to stop criticizing Bush. Yes, that Bush, the unpopular President.

Does he understand he represents the state of Connecticut, one of the most liberal Democratic states in the nation? Does he think he's Ben Nelson? Incumbents usually win primaries like this handily. It's not usually hard. Imagine what would have happened if Lieberman had started being more critical of Bush and less critical of the Democratic party in that editorial, and continued that strategy through today. Lamont wouldn't have had a chance.

And now Lieberman insults the people he wants to vote for him by collecting signatures to run as an independent, and flirts with (or at least doesn't deny for a strangely long time) the idea of running as a Republican. I agree with Matt Stoller. Lieberman's campaign is melting down.

Sadly, There Will Be No Peace in Lebanon

2006-07-20T00:02:00.000-05:00

As I've said before, the Israel-Lebanon crisis has me depressed. I'm both a lover of peace and a supporter of Israel, and it annoys me when I can't have my cake and eat it too. I'm fairly certain a fearsome ground invasion of southern Lebanon by the Israelis is coming, and I'm sad for the devastation I know this will cause innocent Lebanese bystanders. But I have to support Israel's right to defend itself here. Here's the analogy I think is relevant for most Americans:

If a Mexican gang, that held positions in the Mexican government, were launching rockets at Houston, demanding the return of California, what would we do? If the gang kidnapped a couple of National Guardsmen keeping watch on the border? Would it be an acceptable solution to let an international peacekeeping force made up of Cuban, Venezuelan, and Chinese soldiers patrol Juarez and Nuevo Laredo?

Disclaimers: I support Israel. I support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I don't support terrorism. I don't like war and wish there were a way for Israel to be secure without attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. I wish war had no casualties. I wish there could be no innocent civilians killed in war. And I certainly don't think it's fair for Lebanese civilians to have to be punished for Hezbollah's actions. If I could see a peaceful solution, I would support it, but I just don't.

Israel cannot allow rockets to rain down on its heartland without retribution any more than any other country. Israel cannot allow French and Russian troops to be responsible for securing Israel -- they won't be truly willing to do what it takes. Israel might agree to American peacekeepers, but we'd never do it, and we're stretched pretty thin as it is. The Lebanese government is incapable of publicly criticizing, much less disarming, Hezbollah. And an air war alone will not be sufficient to neutralize Hezbollah to any lasting extent. The world political situation is about as favorable for an Israeli strike on Hezbollah as it's likely to get for decades. Israel sees this as an opportunity for at least a medium term solution. It seems to me that Israel will invade and crush Hezbollah (or at least try).

Our government wants nothing more than for Israel to go right ahead. In fact, Condoleeza Rice's trip to the region is not going to produce any sort of diplomatic settlement because we don't want one, and Israel won't accept any plan that Lebanon is capable of meeting. In fact, I'm not really sure how her trip is going to do anything other than make her look ineffective. She probably shouldn't be going.

Syria could bring pressure on Hezbollah to stop the escalation, but they won't. Israel probably won't go into Syria because they're afraid of what might arise there in the place of the Syrian regime. But of course, in war, the unexpected can and will happen. That's what's getting Bill Kristol and the neoconservatives all worked up again -- the prospects of a wider war in which all the governements they don't like get toppled after all. If Bush won't do it, how about Olmert?

But Lebanon will face terrible destruction. Israel doesn't intend to occupy Lebanon again. They intend to inflict as much damage as possible in order to knock Hezbollah back years. And then they'll withdraw. The Lebanese government may well fall. I wonder if we won't see more hostage-taking of Americans in Lebanon. But then again, our government is being awfully carefree about getting our people out of Beirut. I wonder if our government knows something, or is just utterly incompetent? Not that they're mutually exclusive.

Again, all of this has me very depressed. I want a peaceful settlement, but I doubt Lebanon can deliver one the Israelis will accept -- one in which Hezbollah is brought under control by the Lebanese government. And in absence of such a settlement, I'll support Israel's right to defend itself. What would we do if the rockets were hitting Houston?

Oh, How the Mighty Have Fallen

2006-07-19T01:16:00.000-05:00

Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, has lost his bid to be Georgia's Lieutenant Governor, and becomes the first political casualty of the Abramoff scandal. Alas.

Ralph Reed, Circa 1995

Ralph Reed conceding, circa 2006.

2006 Election Postpourri

2006-07-17T21:43:00.000-05:00

CO-Gov: Denver Post: Bill Ritter (D) 42% Bob Beauprez (R) 35% Dem Pickup
MN-Sen: Star Tribune-Minnesota Poll: Amy Klobuchar (D) 50% Mark Kennedy (R) 31% Dem Hold
NJ-Sen: Monmouth University: Robert Menendez (D) 38% Tom Kean, Jr. (R) 37% Dem Hold
NJ-Sen: Quinnipiac: Tom Kean Jr. (R) 40% Robert Menendez (D) 38% Rep Pickup
MD-Sen: Baltimore Sun poll: Ben Cardin (D) 47% Michael Steele (R) 36% Dem Hold
MD-Sen: Baltimore Sun poll: Kweise Mfume (D) 42% Michael Steele (R) 40% Dem Hold
MD-Sen: Dem Primary: Baltimore Sun poll: Ben Cardin 32% Kweise Mfume 28%
MD-Sen: Rasmussen Reports: Ben Cardin (D) 47% Michael Steele (R) 41% Dem Hold
MD-Sen: Rasmussen Reports: Michael Steele (R) 45% Kweise Mfume (D) 44% Rep Pickup
NE-Sen: Rasmussen Reports: Ben Nelson (D) 57% Pete Rickets (R) 31% Dem Hold
NE-Gov: Rasmussen Reports: Dave Heineman (R) 66% David Hahn (D) 21% Rep Hold
AZ-Sen: Survey USA: Jon Kyl (R) 52% Jim Pederson (D) 40% Rep Hold
OH-13: Survey USA: Sutton (D) 48% Folton (R) 30% Dem Hold
NV-Gov: Dem Primary: Survey USA: Titus 42% Gibson 39%
NV-Gov: Rep Primary: Survey USA: Gibbons 44% Beers 23% Hunt 16%
SC-Gov: State Sen. Jake Knotts (R) declines to run as an independent. Darn it.

Whew! A lot of stuff tonight...

When I Have Fears

2006-07-16T23:27:00.000-05:00

I just finished Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion by Dan Simmons. Great books. In their honor, here's one of my favorite John Keats poems, beautiful and sad. You'll understand why Keats if you read the books. When I Have Fears:

When I have fears that I may cease to be
Before my pen has glean'd my teeming brain,
Before high-piled books, in charactery,
Hold like rich garners the full ripen'd grain;
When I behold, upon the night's starr'd face,
Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance,
And think that I may never live to trace
Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance;
And when I feel, fair creature of an hour,
That I shall never look upon thee more,
Never have relish in the faery power
Of unreflecting love;--then on the shore
Of the wide world I stand alone, and think
Till love and fame to nothingness do sink.

2006 Election Postpourri

2006-07-16T23:19:00.000-05:00

MD-Gov: Baltimore Sun Poll: O'Malley (D) 46% Ehrlich (R) 38%
MN-Gov: Star Tribune Minnesota Poll: Pawlenty (R) 43% Hatch (D) 41%
MI-Gov: Detroit Free Press-Michigan Poll: DeVos (R) 47% Granholm (D) 42%
OK-Gov: Oklahoma Poll: Henry (D) 57% Istook (R) 29%
HI-Gov: Hawaii County Mayor Harry Kim is reportedly considering running against popular Republican incumbent Linda Lingle. It will be an uphill battle for him, but Kim would be a contender for Democrats. He may still not jump in - we'll have to wait and see.

Granny Slap-Suit

2006-07-14T07:16:00.000-05:00

According to the Houston Chronicle, Texas Comptroller and independent candidate for Texas governor Carole Keeton Strayhorn is suing the Texas Secretary of State... again... to be called "Grandma" on the ballot. Is it just me, or have we all had enough of Granny Slap-Suit? Bring back One Tough Grandma. She was peppy.

Anyway, I still say she should be trying to get on as "Your Grandma", and drop all those other names. That'd be a sure winner. For example, here is what the ballot might look like:

Richard "Kinky" Friedman (Independent)
Rick "Guv'nah" Perry (Republican)
Chris "[null]" Bell (Democrat)
Your Grandma (Independent)

How would you vote? (I would vote for Bell, despite the null, but this is about you.)

Charles Kuffner has more. As does SuperWow at PinkDome.

McBlogger Swats Gladys Kravitz on the Tuckus

2006-07-14T07:06:00.000-05:00

I used to watch Bewitched reruns religiously, so when I read McBlogger's post "The REAL Problem with America", once I got past the all-caps-style emphasis, I immediately thought of Gladys Kravitz, the nosy neighbor from that show. She continually observed Samantha and her relatives commiting various acts of witchcraft, but never could prove it beyond shouting "Abner! Abner!" in a really nasally voice, until her husband slapped her silly. Offscreen of course.

So here's McBlogger on America's real problem (emphasis from original, censorship mine):

It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal. It has to do with nosey, bossy people who can't seem to focus on anything other than what they perceive others are doing 'wrong'.

In short, the problem with America are all these Americans who refuse to mind their own f---ing business.

I couldn't agree more. Gladys, this is America. Go back home to TV Land!

Texas State Senate Rankings Update, Jul 14

2006-07-14T00:33:00.000-05:00

Only one change here as well. I meant to move SD-18 to Solid Republican Takeover due to the lack of a Democratic candidate.

Solid Democratic Hold
Ellis (SD-13)
Whitmire (SD-15)
Shapleigh (SD-29)
SD-14 Open (Barrientos)

Likely Democratic Hold
SD-19 Open (Madla)

Leans Democratic Hold
(none)

Solid Republican Takeover
SD-18 Open (Armbrister)

Republican-Held Tossup
(none)

Leans Republican Hold
Eltife (SD-01)

Likely Republican Hold
(none)

Solid Republican Hold
Deuell (SD-02)
SD-03 Open (Staples)
Ogden (SD-05)
SD-07 Open (Lindsay)
Shapiro (SD-08)
Nelson (SD-12)
Janek (SD-17)
Averitt (SD-22)
Wentworth (SD-25)

Previous State House Rankings: Dec 8, 2005; Jan 18, 2006; Feb 15, 2006, Mar 28, 2006, Jul 14, 2006
Previous State Senate Rankings: Dec 5, 2006; Jan 17, 2006; Mar 27, 2006

Texas State House Rankings Update, Jul 14

2006-07-14T00:28:00.000-05:00

Not much change, if only because I'm not sure where to go from here. But, I've decided to move Martha Wong from Likely Republican to Leans Republican based on the strength her Democratic opponent Ellen Cohen is showing in fundraising. It's something I actually meant to do months ago.

Likely Democratic Hold
Homer (HD-003)
McReynolds (HD-012)
HD-038 Open (Solis)
Rose (HD-045)
Howard (HD-048)
Leibowitz (HD-117)
Hernandez (HD-143)

Leans Democratic Hold
Hopson (HD-011)
Cook (HD-017)
Toureilles (HD-035)
Strama (HD-050)
Farbee (HD-069)
HD-118 Open (Uresti)

Democratic-Held Tossup
HD-085 Open (Laney)
Vo (HD-149)

Republican-Held Tossup
HD-047 Open (Keel)

Leans Republican Hold
HD-054 Open (Hupp)
Anderson (HD-056)
England (HD-106)
HD-126 Open (Hamric)
Wong (HD-134)

Likely Republican Hold
Seaman (HD-032)
Orr (HD-058)
Phillips (HD-062)
HD-071 Open (Hunter)
HD-091 Open (Griggs)
HD-094 Open (Grusendorf)
Goolsby (HD-102)
HD-133 Open (Nixon)

Previous State House Rankings: Dec 8, 2005; Jan 18, 2006; Feb 15, 2006, Mar 28, 2006
Previous State Senate Rankings: Dec 5, 2006; Jan 17, 2006; Mar 27, 2006

Stratfor on the Israel-Lebanon Crisis

2006-07-13T23:53:00.000-05:00

I subscribe to "security consulting intelligence agency" Stratfor's excellent email list because I find their take on international relations fascinating and informative. Usually they send 3 regular emails a week on different topics, but occasionally, they send a "Stratfor Red Alert - Breaking Intelligence" email, and then I know something serious is going on. The one I remember most vividly was their eerily prescient description of what could happen should Katrina strike New Orleans about a day or maybe two before the hurricane hit. That email was titled "The Geopolitics of Katrina", and might be a topic for another day. Today I got one about the Israel-Lebanon crisis. Here's Stratfor's conclusions:

1. Israel cannot tolerate an insurgency on its northern frontier;
if there is one, it wants it farther north.

2. It cannot tolerate attacks on Haifa.

3. It cannot endure a crisis of confidence in its military

4. Hezbollah cannot back off of its engagement with Israel.

5. Syria can stop this, but the cost to it stopping it is higher
than the cost of letting it go on.

It would appear Israel will invade Lebanon. The global response
will be noisy. There will be no substantial international action
against Israel. Beirut's tourism and transportation industry, as
well as its financial sectors, are very much at risk.

This whole situation has me very depressed.

2006 Election Postpourri

2006-07-13T23:43:00.000-05:00

OH-02 Momentum Analysis (D): Jean Schmidt (R) 44% Victoria Wulsin (D) 44%
NC-11 Public Policy Polling: Charles Taylor (R) 42% Heath Shuler (D) 46%
CA-50 Survey USA: Brian Bilbray (R) 51% Francine Busby (D) 40%
GA-Lt-Gov: (Rep Primary) Strategic Vision (R): Casey Cagle 42% Ralph Reed 41%
GA-Lt-Gov: (Rep Primary) Insider Advantage: Casey Cagle 41% Ralph Reed 36%
CT-Sen: Republicans try and force their candidate out so they can try and take advantage of the Democratic primary and possible independent candidacy of Sen. Lieberman. Schlesinger won't go quietly though.
IL-Gov: Rasmussen: Blagojevich (D) 45% Topinka (R) 34%
CA-Gov: Rasmussen: Angelides (D) 46% Schwarzenegger (R) 44%
MT-Sen: Lake Research: Tester (D) 43% Burns (R) 42%
CA-Sen: Rasmussen: Feinstein (D) 60% Mountjoy (R) 30%

House Votes to Renew Voting Rights Act

2006-07-13T20:25:00.000-05:00

The House voted today to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act unamended, rejecting attempts to modify the VRA to (among other things) require 10-year renewal periods instead of 25 and no longer require multi-lingual ballots. The final vote for passage was 390-33. I expect the Senate will follow suit, and President Bush will sign the VRA renewal into law.

I'm proud of Democrats for sticking together on this. The fact that the Supreme Court just this year ruled Texas violated the Voting Rights Act in drawing one of its congressional districts (TX-23 if you recall) shows how necessary the VRA still is. And Democrats did stick together to prevent any modification whatsoever, threatening to bolt en masse and vote against any amended version of the VRA. The states the Voting Rights Act applies to are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Vince over at Capitol Annex has put together a terrific chart (I'm a sucker for charts and maps and things) showing just how each of Texas' representatives voted on each amendment and on final passage. My representative, Rep. Lamar Smith (TX-21) voted for every amendment, and then for final passage. Amazingly, several representatives from Texas (all Republicans, naturally) actually voted against this landmark legislation's renewal. They are: Sam Johnson, Jeb Hensarling, Joe Barton, Michael Conway, Mac Thornberry, and Ron Paul. They should be ashamed of themselves.

A Series Of Tubes

2006-07-12T23:49:00.000-05:00

I can't believe I missed writing about this. During last week's debate over net neutrality, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) showed us why politicians should be very afraid of discussing technology in public. He thinks he understands. But he really, really, really doesn't. I know we've all pointed and laughed at Ted Stevens for a week already, but one more time won't really hurt, will it? Stevens take on the Internet, via Wired Magazine's blog 27B Stroke 6:

There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

But this service is now going to go through the internet* and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

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.

So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [¿]

The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [¿]

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.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

[¿]

Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.

Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.

It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.

The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me.

Audio can be found here. A hilarious techno remix can be found here.

2006 Postpourri

2006-07-12T12:52:00.000-05:00

ME-Gov: Baldacci struggles... Survey USA: Woodcock (R) 43% Baldacci (D) 41%
WI-Gov: Doyle gets safer. Badger Poll: Doyle (D) 49% Green (R) 36%
NJ-Sen: Menendez leads. Strategic Vision (R): Menendez (D) 43% Kean (R) 37%
GA-Gov: Taylor leads Dem primary: Strategic Vision (R): Taylor 48% Cox 42%
FL-Gov: Crist seems secure in Rep primary. Survey USA: Cirst 61% Gallagher 23%
FL-Sen: Poor candidate Katherine Harris assured of Rep nomination. Survey USA: Harris 51% McBride 14%
MA-Gov: Patrick surges in the Dem primary. State House Poll: Patrick 35% Gabrieli 22% Reilly 19%
MA-Gov: And Patrick surges against Healey as well. State House Poll: Patrick (D) 40% Healey (R) 31% Mihos (I) 9%.
OH-18: Ney puts out his own numbers: Public Opinion Strategies (R): Ney (R) 45% Space (D) 41% to counter Space's previous poll release, which showed: Space (D) 46% Ney (R) 35%.

Karl-Thomas Steps Back

2006-07-12T01:07:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite Texas-oriented progressive bloggers, Karl-Thomas Musselman of Burnt Orange Report, is taking a step back from blogging to concentrate on the other aspects of life. He says he'll be back in August, and I hope that is so. Good luck, Karl-Thomas! I'm sure I'm just one of many who will be waiting anxiously for your return.

MT-Sen: Tester Up

2006-07-11T12:44:00.000-05:00

Rasmussen:

Jon Tester (D) 50%
Conrad Burns (R) 43%

This race looks like it's about to move into the "Leans Takeover" category, along with Rick Santorum's seat in Pennsylvania.

Wisconsin Anti-gay Marriage Amendment Poll

2006-07-11T08:00:00.000-05:00

The ballot measure defining marriage as between a man and a woman could come down to the wire:

Support Amendment: 49%
Oppose Amendment: 48%

It should be noted that this is much different than previous polls, which showed support for the amendment around 60%.

MO-Sen: McCaskill and Talent are Tied

2006-07-11T07:58:00.000-05:00

Rasmussen:

Jim Talent (R) 42%
Claire McCaskill (D) 42%

2006 Postpourri

2006-07-10T12:57:00.000-05:00

TX-22: Tom DeLay has three options: run again, officially withdraw, or get the legislature to change the rules on his behalf. Now which sounds most like Tom DeLay to you?
VA-05: Rep. Virgil Goode (R) leads for re-election 49.2% to 35%
OH-18: But Bob Ney (R) looks like he's going down, trailing Democrat Zach Wamp 45% to 36%
SC-Gov: Republican Governor Mark Sanford just hit a snag. Republican State Senator Jake Knotts is going to run against him as an independent, possibly splitting the Republican vote. State Senator Tommy Moore is the Democratic nominee.
TX-Gov: Looks like Kinky get to be Richard "Kinky" Friedman on the ballot, but Strayhorn can't be "Your Grandma". Now that it's no longer taken, maybe Chris Bell can be Chris "Grandma" Bell? Please leave other such ideas in the comments if you're so inclined.

Casual Soapbox Interviews A Famous Historian

2006-07-07T18:41:00.000-05:00

Since becoming Leading News Correspondent for Casual Soapbox, I was recently forced to admit I have never actually done an interview. After hanging my head in shame for more than ten seconds, I defiantly promised myself and the Almighty that I would conduct an interview with a famous historian, regardless of the inevitably horrific consequences. So, after waging an unsuccessful campaign of kidnapping and blackmailing various moderately unknown television news personalities, I finally settled on the one historian I know personally, Dr. Nigel Augustus Cranston, a contributing member of Blowhard International Press Syndicate and nightly regular of several Austin microbreweries, whose most recent work, entitled Deconstructing Perfection: Post-Deconstructionist Dialectic Theory in the Works of Moi, is a celebration of his own previous works. Without further ado, here is my interview.

Casual Soapbox: Dr. Cranston, in your book, you referred to history as "the leading cause of more history". What did you mean by that?

Famous Historian: Well, when we examine the current dynamic, namely that history constructs, in a sense, the status quo, it becomes utterly obvious that this status quo will finally be caterogorized as 'more history.' That is, of course, if the French have nothing to do with it. (Rule Britannia.) If we look towards deconstruction, we see a 2000 pound silverback mountain gorilla with foul breath and a sexual apetite unseen since 1970s era B movies breathing down the back, so to speak, of history. It is history's job, I think, to outrun it, to create more history which can, in turn, employ more historians who will talk about literary theory as history. Ergo 'Look at derrida and what he said about late capitalist society and his personal debt to failed marxism' and not the other way round, meaning, I think, eschewing history in favor of theory. Or maybe it's all a load of sweaty donkey bollocks. Come to speak of it, where am I? I mean, where was I. Oh! Yes, I suppose I am now history. And so forth.

Casual Soapbox: A most welcome perspective on the reasons underlying the necessity of employing more historians I say! Now, in an attempt to humanize the primary subject of your book, which is of course yourself, you also share some very fond memories of various tragedies that affected you growing up during the time period you refer to as "history". Can you talk a little about the sense of despair and loathing for all things that you laud so emphatically in your book, and in particular how these strong emotions serve to make history more entertaining for historians like yourself to study?

Famous Historian: Well, I grew to adulthood in a Carthaginian salt mine, and was finally awarded a scholarship to attend oxford....a most advantageous escape mechanism, if I might add. Before my tenure in the salt mine, I was involved in a slave uprising which covered most of the....wait....that was not my history.....I...um...read that somewhere. I am actually from Twichenham, London, but I grew up in a Turkish prison (my parents were opium smugglers out of Istanbul with liasons in the East End.) So, that was in a sense how I afforded Oxford. As I recount such tales of hardship, water torture, ritual scarification, gorilla sodomy, and other triubulations, I insert possible historiographical figurations of how we might contextualize these events within a larger body of work, namely, history.

Famous Historian: History, in all senses, is finally "his story", the story of the historian, though the better "his story"s are based on things we call 'facts,' shunted through a process called 'analysis.' We only can read the breadth of our own life, so to speak.

Casual Soapbox: A more experienced or female news correspondent might take issue with your definition of "his"story, but, luckily for you, this correspondent is consisitently and intentionally insensitive to all gender related conflicts, for reasons that might be obvious. I must, however, take issue with your blatant plagiarism of my life story. I talked quite extensively about my own scholarship at Trackside Peoria Community College from the Carthaginian Slave Reparatory Scholarship Fund, maintained by the Italian government, in my collection of personal essays, Pure Treacle. Never wear sandals to a salt mine, by the way. Perhaps I should ask you pointedly about the penchant for famous historians, such as Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Ambrose, and yourself, to pilfer the work of others, willy-nilly, and then apologize unconvincingly about it on the blue moon when someone actually reads your work. How about it good sir? How about it?

Famous Historian: I would now like to challenge you to a mumbly peg competition, which, if you are an historian...or certainly a former Carthaginian slave, you should be quite familiar with. In fact, I think it is the only way I shall achieve satisfaction. So what if I read that book and it became my own life....I have a medical condition called 'Cautioned Placement,' the symptoms of which involve me not only projecting myself into stories and accounts, but into history itself, thence becoming part of it. But I digress.....mumbly peg is all that can remain after such an assault!

Casual Soapbox: Whoa...uh... looks like we're out of time, and... Well, strike that. My producer and trained (although apparently not. quite. so. well. as. I'd. thought.) monkey Bobo is telling me that we have time for one last question. But definitely, absolutely no time whatsoever, under the sun, for any "game" involving either mumblies or pegs, which, by the way, sounds quite improper. And I suppose in our blame-casting society of victims, we can excuse any manner of intellectual sloth, or what have you, simply by referring to it as a "condition" or an "addiction" or an "alien mind-control technology". So, que sera sera, and on we go. Anyway. Ahem. One last question. You read my book? Er, no wait. That isn't my question. This is my question: In a time such as this, a time of pure and consummate nihilism, a time when there is no overriding social directive instructing us for what ends it is proper or even desirable to strive, what does it all mean? What's on next week's episode of history for God, the universe, mankind and the other bits?

Famous Historian: I would propose that one could come to a clearer understanding of what it is all about via said mumbly peg competition. If, as Einstein says, God plays dice with the universe, then perhaps God plays mumbly peg as well. And we would be most prudent to move quickly in such a situation, if we value our bollocks. For perhaps God cheats at Mumbly Peg. Ask Bobo. He cheats. And by the way, you refrained from informing me that Bobo was running the interview. Now your true intentions surface. So it is not to be mumbly peg, but gorilla fun of a Biblical nature. In that case, I plan to exit from the...... .[Exit, pursued by a silverback mountain gorilla]

(This interview was terminated by a gorilla attack. Authorities are investigating the whereabouts of Cranston, but have no leads.)

Final thoughts ( a la Jerry Springer ):

Casual Soapbox: I end more conversations that way... Well, after what must surely be described as the most important interview ever, I can only say that I, abramcf, Leading News Correspondent for Casual Soapbox, have produced the single most ground-breaking piece of journalism ever (throughout history) forged in the creative fires of this website. And it only took five months to complete. Although he misquoted Einstein -- God does not play dice with the universe, said Einstein, does not --called Bobo a cheater, and threatened repeatedly and quite viciously to mumble my peg, it was obvious Dr. Nigel Augustus Cranston was one of the great minds of the century, and it has been my great pleasure to flatter him obsequiously and indulge his delusions of grandeur. We and the Austin Microbreweries Association hope he yet lives.

Essential Note: The above interview is fictional and did not actually occur. Any resemblance of Dr. Cranston, Bobo, or the silverback mountain gorilla to real persons is purely coincidental and can be properly blamed on a vast left-wing conspiracy. This interview was co-written by me and a friend who shall at this time remain nameless, but wishes anonymous credit.