Democrats are forever touting some new scandal as the herald of their return to political power. Abu Graib was going to cripple the Bush presidency, Valerie Plame was going to cripple the Bush presidency, NSA domestic eavesdropping is going to cripple the Bush presidency.

Now of course, the Abramoff scandal is going to cripple the 2006 congressional races for the Republicans.

As prophets, the Democrats really suck.

The ever optimistic media and lefty-blogosphere hope and pray that dozens of Republican congresspersons are sent up the river by a cooperative Abramoff, but that is wishful thinking on the order of a Karl Rove indictment. Somewhat more predictable is the political fallout, which I don't think will amount to much.

Its already clear that Harry Reid took Abramoff money as did many other Democrats (Rep. Patrick Kennedy got over 100K...). Quibbles such as not taking money directly, or the contributions being legal, or that Republicans got more than Democrats, are not subtle odors that will be perceived over the rank stink of the affair. If you have a race this year and you took money, its going to be a campaign issue, regardless of whether the contribution was legal or not.

That said, there are ALWAYS campaign issues with which the opposition wants to beat you over the head with. The real question is whether those issues will resonate enough with voters that they will elect weak-on-defense Democrats in a time of war.

Once again, the real play for the Democrats is to hope and pray for bad news--bad news from Iraq, Iran or North Korea, bad news economically, just bad news generally.

I think they are going to be disappointed.

The reality is that attacks have been declining in Iraq all year and that 2006 can expect modest improvements and some troop drawdowns. The economy has really surprising strength as attested to by its performance even while carrying Katrina on its back.

In the end though, the 2006 elections are likely to be a rather ho-hum affair decided by demographics rather than current events. The bottom line is that congressional races are local, not national affairs. The local perception of a Senator or congressman can differ wildly from the national impression. Ted Stevens, castigated for his pork barrel antics in the national forums, was referred to by one journalist as the most popular man in Alaska. I have little doubt that's true.

What kind of funny about the Abramoff thing is how John McCain is looking heroic again. I wonder how many people remember that McCain was part of the Keating Five, embroiled in an ethics probe involving the default of the Lincoln Savings & Loan on 2.6 billion dollars in bad loans. McCain, like Tom Delay, was joined at the hip with Charles Keating, accepting several trips, including to Keating's Bahamas retreat. He also got the lion's share of campaign contributions that Keating made and invested in a Keating strip mall in Arizona.

No doubt, many great and wise pundits predicted McCain's political demise at the time, but they were wrong, weren't they?

Captain Ed concurs with my own predictions about the 2006 races, although he steps out on a limb somewhat to suggest that Hillary and others thinking about 2008 have had their legs taken out from under them by the taint of the scandal. Just because something is a campaign issue, doesn't mean that its effective in moving votes. Who would have believed that John Kerry could get nominated with the baggage he has?