The Mystery Pollster analyzes poll data and concludes the general negative view of Hillary in the lefty blogosphere isn't representative of the Democrat base (although it may be closer to that of the primary voters).

Hillary aside, the dichotomy between the base and the lefty blogosphere is a remarkable revelation and begs another question--does the right-wing blogosphere represent the Republican base?

Two articles in the Opinion Journal suggest concern among thinking Republicans over the prospects for 2006. Both deserve to be read in full.

In the first, Incumbency over Ideas, the editors lament the status quo in the GOP and wonder if they understand the lay of the land.

Our sense is that Republicans don't yet appreciate the trouble they're in. Confident of K Street money and gerrymandered districts, they think the voters will never turn Congress over to a party run by Nancy Pelosi. But that's also what Democrats and the media thought about Republicans led by Newt Gingrich in 1994. Eventually, voters may grow more disgusted with Republicans who care only about re-election than they are afraid of Ms. Pelosi's San Francisco liberalism.

Also, John Fund writes:

It's fitting that Rep. Tom DeLay is returning to his seat on the Appropriations Committee now that he is gone for good as House majority leader. It was his years serving in that "favor factory" that gradually turned him into a purveyor of pork who last fall claimed there was no more budget fat to cut. His departure gives Republicans a chance to return to first principles. If they don't, they may face a political drubbing. ...

If the GOP response to the Abramoff scandal is merely to enact "lobbying reforms," the party will skirt the problem that underlies the corruption: runaway spending. "The 2001-2005 period marks the transformation of the Republican party from its traditional role as a win-or-lose guardian of limited government to that of a majority government party just as comfortable with big government as the Democrats, only with different spending priorities," says Chris DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute.

That's dangerous ground, given that the GOP base still believes in smaller government. Mr. Abramoff steered campaign cash to and hired staffers from members of both parties. But in 1994, after 350 members of both parties had been tarred by the House bank scandal, it was Republicans who were able to exploit it because Democrats controlled Congress.

Republicans hold the power right now and it's premature to count them out. Indeed, one wonders the extent to which articles like this play to reassure the base and start some fires under the posteriors of the reluctant.

But they're right to note the opportunities.

Social liberals who shall remain unnamed, have been almost gleeful about the fact that Rick Santorum appears, in recent polls at least, to be at a disadvantage in his race with Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. As is often pointed out, a week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity.

Now Casey finds himself in a tough position--a pro-life Democrat and the son of a notably pro-life governor, Casey has been mum on the Alito nomination, resulting in Santorum taking to calling him "Silent Bob".

Bob Casey Sr. was a defendent in a case with Planned Parenthood that Judge Alito ruled on. The ruling was in favor of Casey Sr, but later overturned by the Surpreme Court. Nevertheless, it did result in additional restrictions on abortion.

Casey Jr.'s was a reluctant choice by the Democrats to oppose Santorum because he is generally too conservative for the Democrat mainstream in that state, but as long as the abortion issue was mute, everyone could believe whatever they wanted to. With the Alito nomination, Casey finds himself in a tough spot. Keeping quiet on Alito serves not to upset his Democrat base, but also allows Santorum to successfully highlight his opponents ambiguity on the topic with conservatives.

I am loath to make predictions so far in advance, but taken at face value, this is bad for Casey--he loses his advantage with conservatives and emphasizes the reasons his base aren't enthusiastic about his candidacy--that affects his potential turnout absent some other polarizing issue.

Last week, we had the pleasure of Harry Reid's company here in Salt Lake City, where he addressed local Democrats. There aren't too many local Democrats judging by the evening news pictures, although Jim Matheson was in fact present. Reid's comments were forgettable, but I found it interesting that he was getting questions about contributions he received from Jack Abramoff (or his clients).

In appearances on his tour, Mr. Reid was asked similar press questions about the Abramoff scandal or was greeted by local Republican officials who accused him of being part of the scandal. During his stop in Salt Lake City, he dismissed a report in The Washington Times that he was a target in the Justice Department investigation, telling the Deseret Morning News that he'd never met Abramoff and the lobbyist had "not given me a penny." "One of the biggest beneficiaries of Jack Abramoff is Harry Reid," said Utah Republican Chairman Joe Cannon during the Democratic leader's stop in the state.

Apparently that wasn't the only occasion that he was questioned on the 60 grand he pocketed from Jack.

At a televised press conference Tuesday in Phoenix, where Mr. Reid was promoting the Senate candidacy of Jim Pederson, he was hit by a barrage of questions that challenged his assertion that the Democrats did not receive any money in connection with the lobbying scandal. "Not a single penny of the money from Jack Abramoff ... went to a Democrat. Now he has lots of clients. But the fact of the matter is that any money that I've received has come from people who have given me money over a period of time, and Jack Abramoff's fingerprints [are] not anywhere," Mr. Reid said. "You're saying Abramoff's clients gave money to you and other Democrats, not Abramoff?" a reporter asked. "I'm not saying Abramoff clients. I'm saying I have received money from Indian tribes over many, many years. Some of whom he picked up as clients later on," the senator replied. Mr. Reid received $30,500 from three Indian tribes for whom Abramoff lobbied in this election cycle, according to a reassessment of political contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which has compiled campaign funds given to lawmakers by Abramoff, his associates or clients he represented. However, other public-interest groups report that Mr. Reid has received about $61,000 between 2001 and 2004 from clients represented by Abramoff, contributions that the senator has refused to return because, he says, they were not illegal.

Its doubtful that many of Jack Abramoff's contributions were illegal, perhaps none were, but that of course is besides the point. The Abramoff scandal stinks to high heaven, and anyone who took money (and most members of Congress got insignificant contributions of $500.00-$1,000.00) is going to smell stinky too. What exactly is going through Harry's head thinking that he can take 60K and smell like a rose?

Its clear that Republicans are taking the political risks of the Abramoff affair much more seriously than the Democrats are. Some might argue that this is only natural since the Republicans are the governing party, but its a big stretch to say that the public makes such distinctions when it comes to tainted money. The gambling lobby is in most people's minds a shady operation anyways, and when it gets to be significant money--say 60K, then a lot of people are going to be wondering is someone is bought and paid for.

So far, Tom Delay has stepped out of the picture, Ney has resigned his chairmanship and the House leadership race is the dog being wagged by the Abramoff tail. Democrats have largely depended on a spurious notion that the public will see this as a Republican scandal. Reid's press conferences should disabuse them of that idea, but will it?

Right Wing News

Greg's Opinion

Macsmind

Austin Bay

FBIHOP Democrats aren't tainted by Abramoff money because they accept no money from him directly, but only from his clients (at his direction). Right, the public is going to buy that distinction alright.

The other day I posted the Justice Departments explanation of the legal powers of the president to conduct warrantless eavesdropping of terrorists.

The liberal response has been along the lines of "why not use the FISA courts?" I didn't cover that, but Gen. Michael Hayden did:

Gen. Michael Hayden said the NSA program was more effective than the FISA system because investigators were able to target suspected communications if they had "reason to believe" that someone is connected to Al Qaeda, rather than the "probable cause" standard required by the FISA court. The difference, he said, is that the detection methods don't target individuals but trap communications. The probable cause standard, on the other hand, relates to individuals.

Hayden made clear NSA has often used FISA, especially after Sept. 11, but that in some cases, it is not as effective.

"The purpose of all of this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren't likely to protect us. And NSA has no interest in doing so. These are communications that we have reason to believe are Al Qaeda communications," Hayden said.

He also noted that in addition to numerous Justice Department lawyers having said the new program was legal, three senior lawyers at NSA were separately asked about the legality of it before it began. They all said that it was legal and he noted these were people who had rejected some techniques in the past and were not people in the habit of "giving hall passes."

Hayden argued that had the NSA program been in place before the Sept. 11 attacks, the government may had been able to identify the hijackers before they struck.

"You know, I actually find this a little odd. After all the findings of the 9/11 commission and other bodies about the failure to share intelligence, I'm up here feeling like I have to explain pushing data to those who might be able to use it," he said.

Someone should explain the concept of restrain to the Crat leadership. There are generally plenty of things any administration does that merit genuine criticism, and those are the ones you can get the best traction on. On the other hand, indiscriminate criticism is highly problematic, particularly when you get shot down so easily.

Two recent examples of indiscriminate criticism are the entire Alito hearing and of course this NSA leak. The Crats end up looking like losers and worse, fools. On the other hand, the Abramoff scandal is something you can and should work with, unfortunately the final answer to this question is not something the Crats can really deal with--reducing the size of the federal government and moving responsibilities and revenues to the states.

Would you like to understand what all the fuss is about as it concerns judicial activism? Consider the situation in Maryland where a Baltimore judge ruled that a law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Now I am not going to comment on whether that is true or not--its on appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court and they'll decide the issue and a lot of Maryland Democrats are praying that they decide it is constitutional.

What? Maryland Democrats want to ban gay marriage in Maryland?

Well yes. Maryland Crats are hardly monolithic on the issue--most would rather deal with gay civil rights than with expanding the definition of marriage. Republicans on the other hand are pretty much monolithic on the question

The issue of same-sex marriage arrived Friday like an unwelcome houseguest for many Maryland Democrats, who say only a quick reversal from the state's highest court can keep the divisive issue from reshaping the 2006 campaign season.

"That would end the debate, and we could get back to a normal campaign season," said Timothy Maloney, a lawyer and former Democratic state delegate. "If not, there are all kinds of possibilities for mischief. . . . The Republicans will use this to beat the hell out of moderate Democrats."

All that is pretty obvious, but then look at this statement.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) said salvation for Democrats who feel hamstrung by the issue could come before Election Day if the Baltimore court ruling is quickly reversed on appeal, and he said he is "confident it will be overturned."

For that strategy to succeed, the high court would have to work fast.

M. Albert Figinski, a Baltimore lawyer, said most expedited reviews by the seven-member court take 85 days, meaning a ruling would come after the General Assembly adjourns April 10.

"But," he said, "the court has been known to accommodate swift hearings in cases that are of great public importance."

That in a nutshell is why Democrats voted along party lines to kill the Alito nomination--the court isolates the Crats from the fallout from their more controversial political alliances. No one even seriously disputes that gay marriage is a political non-starter which is why liberal judges will just have to establish that the right has always existed

Unfortunately, the Crats have been hoisted on their own petard--if the court rules "liberally", they are in a world of hurt

Excuse me while I shed some crocodile tears.

Joe Klein went out to Ohio to check out the Hackett-Brown Democrat primary. Joe was not impressed with liberal darling, Iraq-veteran and fire-breater Mark Hackett.

At the wings joint, he approached a small crowd of potential supporters with a combative abrasiveness that made Howard Dean seem like Mister Rogers. "I'm a strong Democrat from the great state of Ohio and damned proud of it," he thundered. "What does the Democratic Party stand for? Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility." Limited government? That was the fun part: "I don't want to send someone to Washington to invade my private life, control what goes on in my kid's school, get involved in the decisions made by my wife and her physician or to find out how many guns there are in Hackett's gun safe." He paused, looking for a reaction from any wussified, gun-hating Dems in the crowd. Finding none, he seemed lost. He didn't rise to his preferred state of indignation until the question period, when he was asked about Iraq. "The war is over. Bring 'em home. The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. We have a saying in the Marines: It's easy to be hard and hard to be smart."

Hackett appears to prefer hard to smart.

Klein gets in a gratituous dig at bloggers too.

In the end, Hackett seemed something new under the sun: a blogger candidate—all attitude, all opinions, very little information.

Of course, Klein thinks Daily Kos is the sum total of the blogosphere experience, which explains his broad-brushing.

It seems to me at this early date that everyone wants to be Howard Dean this year, except with more screaming. Does anyone over in the Crat trenches realize that Dean lost in 2004? There seems to be blinkered focus on the process of the Dean campaign with very little attention to the outcomes. Republicans loved Dean--prayed that he would win the nomination. On the other hand, cooler heads among the left were finding God in extremis as Dean headed into Iowa.

I also think we are going to see more equivocation than ever before. A "strong national defense" will mean high-tailing it out of Iraq and Afghanistan and conceding bin Laden's "requests". Limited government means that the DEA will be enjoined from raiding your pot garden or insisting that parents be notified when their fourteen year old daughters are being cajoled in an abortion by those nice folks at Planned Parenthood. Fiscal Responsibility means that you and I will have to pay for all the things the Democrats can figure on buying (mainly our votes).

Its going to be a maddening year, so if you are going to take up drinking, now might be a good time to start.

Its being reported that Cindy Sheehan, currently down in Caracas, Venezuela hobnobbing with the communists, has declared her intention to run for the Senate seat currently held by Diane Feinstein.

"I think this is so urgent and necessary that this is what I have to do," Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview, adding she would make a final decision on whether to run after talking it over with her three adult children in California in the coming days.

The Democratic primary will be held in June, and candidates must submit their statements by Feb. 14.

Sheehan, 48, who lives in Berkeley, Calif., accused Feinstein of being out-of-touch with Californians on Iraq.

"She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops," said Sheehan, who gained international attention when she set up a protest camp near U.S. President George W. Bush's Texas ranch last year.

"I think our senator needs to be held accountable for her support of George Bush and his war policies," she added.

Hmmm. Does this explain Feinstein's flip-flop on the filibuster? I think it does.

Feinstein is seen by the left as a Republican in Democrat's clothing--not adequately radical. She is consider pro-business and voted for some very unpopular legislation among moonbats--tax cuts, law-suit reform among other things.

Feinstein's political career hasn't been characterized by her tremendous appeal to liberal California voters, but more of a case of serendipity and then doing a good enough job to allow the advantage of incumbency to carry her through. She became mayor of San Francisco where George Moscone was assassinated and a Senator when she won a special election to fill Pete Wilson's Senate seat after challenging him (and losing) to the governorship.

CIndy Sheehan could give her some grief.

Mother Sheehan is a flake, but it doubtful that she made this announcement without some groundwork already having been laid. Sheehan is the face of a corporate political entity, not the leader of a movement, so its entirely possible that she has money and an organization already in place to sustain a bid for the Senate seat.

Its a mid-term election with all the implications of lower voter turnout, which favors the politician with an enthusiastic base. Sheehan has a shot at this--an outside shot, but a shot nonetheless and it seems clear that Feinstein is taking her seriously.

Chris Wallace seems to have found his rhythm at Fox News Sunday. He's asking tough and probing questions of people on both sides of the aisle and refusing to let people slide on by with obfuscations and detours. I was particularly interested to watch this week as Howard Dean agreed to appear--the first time ever I believe. It may be awhile until he comes back.

Dean seemed well-prepared, leaving his crazy Howard persona at home and refining his "Democrats are strong on defense" rhetoric, however when Dean stepped into the guilt-by-association nonsense about the grip-and-grin pictures of Bush with Abramoff, Wallace began jigging his lure.

You and other top Democrats are going after what you call a Republican "culture of corruption" but you deny any Democrats are involved.

Let looks at some exchanges on that:

Dean on: Lobbying Scandal

CNN: "But through various Abramhoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff."

Dean: "That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either."

-CNN Late Edition, January 8

Governor, its certain true that Republicans got twice as much money from Abramoff-related contributions than Democrats did, but Democrats are clean in this area either?

Dean replied, " Yeah they are pretty clean Chris, and I'll tell you why. First of all, every dime of Jack Abramoff's money went to Republicans. Not one dime went to and Democrat or Democrat organization--his personal money. Secondly, he did direct contributions to mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats. But the Democrats--(a) didn't know that he directed his clients to give them money and (b) they never produced anything for Abramoff...

Wallace now starts reeling him in, flat out contradicting the statement Dean had made by pointing out that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte but received large amounts directly from Abramoff ($298,980 and $243,500 respectively)

At this point, Dean is stuttering and emphasizing that NO DEMOCRAT DELIVERED ANYTHING FOR JACK ABRAMOFF.

... netted and flopping around on the deck.

Wallace: "But if we find, we have to wrap this up, there were some Democrats who wrote some letters on behalf of Indian tribes that Abramoff represented--then what do you say sir?

Dean: That's a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble and they should be in trouble, and our party, if the American people will put us back in power in '06, we will have on the President's desk, things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now its a Republican scandal. Maybe they will find that some Democrats did some things wrong to. That hasn't been the case yet.

Wallace then engages in a cordial farewell, come back soon exigence, but after Howard has vacated the studio and during the panel discussion, Wallace interrupts a discussion on Kerry's bid for a filibuster to make an announcement.

"For those of you who were watching earlier on when we were talking with Governor Dean, he said that no Democrats ever did anything in response to the money that they got from Abramoff or Abramoff clients like the Indian tribes, and if they did, they were in trouble. Well the Washington Post reported in November that Senator Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, wrote a letter to the Interior Secretary back in March 5th, 2002, opposing a casino, that one of those Indian tribes opposed. On March 6th the next day, Abramoff tribal client wrote a $5,000 check to Mr. Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund. Mr. Reid's spokesman said there was absolutely no connection between the letter and the fund-raising, but its worth noting Mr. Reid;s Abramoff-related total was $66,000 between 2001 and 2004. He says he's not returning any of the money because he has done nothing wrong."

Clubbed and gutted.

I think Howard Dean just made this a Crat scandal. He came on the program making bold assertions and Wallace made him eat his own words. He went from Democrats are totally innocent in this, to "maybe some Democrats did some bad things..."

Harry is going to have lot's of 'splaining' to do and insistence that he hasn't done anything wrong just won't do the trick. Tom Delay in all likelyhood had done nothing wrong either, Bob Ney is innocent until proven guilty, but in both cases the court of public opinion decides you are guilty until proven innocent.

The fact that Delay and Ney have stepped aside and Reid hasn't makes a strong case that Republicans have paradoxically seized the high ground on the corruption scandal even while Democrats are out of power--D'oh!

When you work at home, a lot of unwanted issues like debt or previous loans sprout up. Take care of the pressing issues first. Then deal with the exigent mortgages and get rid of all the cheap insurance deals you already have.

Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post notes something we've all be aware of for years--the far left are working hard to destroy the Crats electoral viability.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.

First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

The voters are with Kaine, who reflects the views of the vast majority of Democrats I know personally- faithful, patriotic Americans who mainly differ from Americans on economic issues.

The energy and the money is with the moonbats, as John F. Kerry's bit of pandering these past few days demonstrates so well. What is less well known is that he managed to convince 25 Democrat senators to go along with him. Not enough, but impressive indeed when you consider that a good number of these people were on the record as against a filibuster.

The fact that the two essential components for victory cannot abide each other spells doom for the Democrats and not just for 2006, but long term.

You won't be hearing this much this year, at least not until after the election, but it is nonethless the central truth of our politics. What I find terribly ironic is that the Abramoff scandal seemed to be all it took to heal the rift in the Republican party. Conservatives have been deeply annoyed by the Republican shopping spree and it threatened to undermine party unity. The speed at which elected officials "found God" was remarkable. The Bush administration seems also to have rediscovered core principles, as I believe will be underscored in tomorrow evening's State of the Union Address.

It is said of the Palestinians that they miss no opportunity to miss an opportunity.

They apparently aren't the only ones.

Daily Kos:

I'm not naming names. The list is up for all to see. And each one on that list has just made my life more difficult. Because every time I walk a precinct or call somebody for a financial contribution this election year, I'm going to run into a lot more "Screw the Democrats. They don't stand up for me." And my only reply will have to be a sheepish, we have to elect more Democrats so those unwilling to stand up for you don't weigh as heavily on the party.

Case in point. Inside the bubble, the kossacks think they are mainstream. I have no doubt they can nominate a lot of Democrats who reflect their views, but they simply can't win an election, at least not by honestly representing the moonbat dogma.

You can be pissed or President, but not both.

"Angry people are not nice people. They are people to stay away from. They explode now and then," said George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His book "Don't Think of an Elephant" has become something of a bible for Democrats trying to improve their communication with voters. Political history is dotted with failed presidential candidates perceived by the voters as too angry -- think of Howard Dean's famous scream in 2004, or Bob Dole admonishing George H.W. Bush in 1988 to "stop lying about my record." Each party's most revered figures in recent years, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, projected optimism and hope. The latest example of the anger strategy came Sunday, when Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said on ABC that Mrs. Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger." He cited comments she made in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day in which she likened the Republican-led House to a "plantation" and called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history. "I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," he said.

Democrats disagree--what a surprise, but they are as usual, quite wrong. Anger is a turn-off unless you are angry about the same things, and the reality is that most Americans are not angry.

If you want to be somebody in politics and you're black, which party do you join?

Dick Morris states unequivocally, the Republicans.

Paul Hackett explains himself, and decides to make himself the hero of his own story.

But as I stood there in my desert utilities, tears running down my cheeks, my wife next to me, one kid on each leg and one in my arms for the first time in almost eight months, I thought of my service in Iraq, and the idea made sense. Service in Congress, as I saw it, would be a natural extension of service to my country in Iraq.

It has taken me 11 months to finally make it home from that scene at the airport. What I learned in the process is that, even though I'm a big Bruce Springsteen fan, I was not born to run. Serve yes, run for office no.

Somewhere along the way I became something I'm not: a political rock star. But I only wanted to help my country.

Kind of gets you right there, doesn't it?

The facts are clear--Hackett was "asked to retire" from the race, but the question remains as to why Hackett is out. Only a few short months ago, Hackett was a hero for "coming close" to unseating Jean Schmidt. Suddenly he is persona non grata as a candidate for Mike DeWine's seat in the Senate.

Operating under the principle that if you don't tell your own story, someone else will, Hackett goes on the offensive and blames his retirement on "careerism" and lack of principle.

That's true as far as it goes, but let me translate--the Crats wanted as least a reasonable chance of winning, not to settle for a moral victory. As Joe Klein points out, Hackett bears a disturbing stylistic resemblance to Howard Dean--bombast, superficiality and self-righteousness. Like Dean, Hackett is the darling of the moonbats, but he has zero chance of winning in Ohio, which the Democrats badly want to do.

"The republican party has been hijacked by religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of other religious nuts around the world," said Paul Hackett, a recent Iraq-war combat veteran who is running for the U.S. Senate from Ohio. As you may have surmised, Hackett is a Democrat, and his statement, to the Columbus Dispatch, raised an immediate call by the Ohio G.O.P. for an apology. "I said it," Hackett replied. "I meant it. I stand by it." In fact, he has taken to repeating it at every stop along the campaign trail.

Not exactly a vote getter among people of faith in Ohio

At the wings joint, he approached a small crowd of potential supporters with a combative abrasiveness that made Howard Dean seem like Mister Rogers. "I'm a strong Democrat from the great state of Ohio and damned proud of it," he thundered. "What does the Democratic Party stand for? Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility." Limited government? That was the fun part: "I don't want to send someone to Washington to invade my private life, control what goes on in my kid's school, get involved in the decisions made by my wife and her physician or to find out how many guns there are in Hackett's gun safe." He paused, looking for a reaction from any wussified, gun-hating Dems in the crowd. Finding none, he seemed lost. He didn't rise to his preferred state of indignation until the question period, when he was asked about Iraq. "The war is over. Bring 'em home. The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. We have a saying in the Marines: It's easy to be hard and hard to be smart."

Hackett's problems with the Reid and Schumer illustrate the larger problem the Crats are faced with--The party desperately needs authenticity, but the Hackett-Dean authenticity is like being an "out" pedophile--repellant to normal people.

A man is strolling down the walk and passes a house that has men's clothes being tossed from the bedroom window. A woman sticks her head out of the window and points to a classic Shelby Cobra and says, "20 bucks!". After assuring the man that she will indeed sell him this jewel of an automobile for twenty, he fumbles through his pants and realizes all he has is a couple of singles...

I don't recall what the commercial was selling, but the image was priceless. I am reminded of it often when considering the Democrats dilemma of having all the stars finally align for them with an election coming up, and finding their pockets empty.

"By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand," Reid said.

But many in the party have their doubts. On Feb. 27, Reid and Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association. At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states?

According to multiple accounts from those in the room, Reid said they had narrowed the list to six and proceeded to talk about them. Pelosi then offered her six -- not all the same as Reid's. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said later: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' "

Chuck Schumer initially promised the agenda for early this year, and now claims that he wants it delayed for strategic purposes. Lets be frank--there simply is no consensus in the party and certainly no ideas for solving this country's problems except of course to confiscate private wealth.

I've said it before--I think its going to be a suicide-watch for the Democrats after the elections this year...

Don't be silly.

Of course, if you are reading or listening to the elite media, the American public is ready to "throw the bums out". Of course every so often you get a glimmer of political reality like the 89-10 vote to renew the Patriot Act with only token changes to some minor provisions.

The reality of Congressional races is that they are less about the emphermal national mood and far more about concrete factors like demographics, the economy, encumbency and who controls the state house.

Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics outlines the realities of this election cycle and how they will affect the outcome.

All political scientists agree that open seats are a key method of party changes in the House of Representatives. Only a half dozen (or fewer) incumbents tend to lose every year, so an open seat is the only way for a challenger to get around what is known as the “incumbency advantage”. This is the massive advantage that incumbent politicians enjoy in terms of money, approval rating and name recognition; because of this advantage, contests where the incumbent is running tend to be referenda on the incumbent. It is in open seat races where national trends can influence the election and where partisanship becomes more important. Thus, it is in open seat races – and open seat races alone – that the Republicans could seriously suffer from today’s anti-Republican mood. A handful of Republican incumbents will bite the bullet because of today’s political climate, but if the Democrats hope to retake the House, they will need to net a dozen or so open seats.

Cost analyses the election from the point of view of open seats, of which the Republicans have 17 and the Democrats 9. Open seats represent the best opportunity for change since the advantage of encumbency is negated. Yet Republican open seats are of "poor quality" for Democrats since they are in areas where Bush ran strongly in 2000, and even stronger in 2004.

The Cook Partisan Voting Index (named for Charlie Cook whose Cook Political Report is a valuable source of electoral political information) has the median value for these districsts as +5 Republican.

In the final analysis, Cost suggests that the Democrats might pick up 2 Republican open seats--CO-07 and IA-01

I suppose they could defeat 13 Republican encumbents to retake the house--but what would that take?

Historically, the relationship between public approval of Congress and changes in the number of seats is a little weird. Congressional approval worsened considerable between 2000 and 2002 (by 10%), but Republicans still picked up ten seats. In 1994, when Democrats lost 54 seats, Congressional approval had actually improved by 5 points over 1992.

A better indicator is the political climate for one party or the other and whether the top tier candidates for the challenging party think they have a chance to win. A good way to consider this is to look at the NY Senate race against Hillary Clinton. Why isn't say, Rudy Guiliani throwing his hat into the race? Guiliani has a good shot at higher office but he is going to make sure that when he takes it, he'll be sure to win. Absent that, your candidate is going to be a party-loyalist trading future consideration for political self-immolation. So are the Democrats putting up quality candidates against Republican candidates?

Nope.

Such a stand-pat outcome doesn't thrill the media who would prefer a lot more drama, but the reality is that the current political climate has a lot more to do with structural considerations than the weekly political flourishes we so enjoy blogging about.

In my view, the work that Howard Dean is supposed to be doing is far more important to the Crat's long-term prospects. Democrats act as if all their problems started in 1994, but the reality is that Republicans had been laying groundwork for the two decades previously. There are no magic bullets and the sooner the Crats resolve their own internal conflicts to come up with a consistent philosophy and buckle down to the hard work of evangelizing the country on the merits, the sooner they'll become a legitimate competitor for power.

The Congressional "Progressive" Caucus (too many negatives associated with "liberal caucus"...) is recommending 60B in defense spending cuts.

When I was eighteen, my father and I travelled down to Washington D.C. and while we were there we visited the Smithsonian. We passed through an exhibit of old machine tools, driven by a thick leather belt attached to an overhead axle and pulley which was in turn driven by some sort of engine--probably a steam engine in the very early days. Operators manually arranged a stack of gears to acheive different turning rates.

My father made an astonishing comment to me, "I used to work on these as an apprentice..."

He was about the age I am now and it just blew my mind how his life had transected the technological span between the 19th and 20th centuries. In the next few years, he would purchase CNC machine tools for his shop--programmable mills and lathes whose relationship with the tools of his youth are like the relationship between the Wright flyer and a Boeing 777. All in a matter of thirty odd years.

That process is repeating itself almost endlessly. My kiids had no concept of Black & White television until I turned off all the color to show them what it used to look like. My wife took a COBOL class as a freshman that required her to use punch cards for programming. I remember the first fax machines (and thought they were useless...), the first "car phones", the first "microcomputers". I remember 5-1/4 floppies.

For a lot of older people, and some not-so-old, the pace of technological change is bewildering. My mother is in her early sixties and tells me most people her age are very frustrated by the new world where you can't get anybody on the telephone and everybody wants you to go to their website. They are strangers in a strange land, finding themselves infantilized.

Its perhaps not surprising then that Maryland finds itself forced to trash its 90 million dollar investment in touch-screen e-voting machines and leasing old-fashioned, paper-based optical scanners (at a cost of 12-16 million).

The state House of Delegates this week voted 137-0 to approve a bill prohibiting election officials from using AccuVote-TSx touch-screen systems in 2006 primary and general elections.

The legislation calls for the state to lease paper-based optical-scan systems for this year's votes. State Delegate Anne Healey estimated the leasing cost at $12.5 million to $16 million for the two elections.

Healey is the vice chairwoman of the Maryland House Ways and Means Committee, which recommended the passage of the bill.

The bill was sent onto the State Senate for a vote after the House action, she said.

Healey said the effort was inspired in part by concerns raised by officials in California and Florida that the Diebold systems have inherent security problems caused by technological and procedural flaws.

“We’ve been hearing from the public for the last several years that it doesn’t have confidence in a system without a paper trail,” Healey said. “We need to provide that level of confidence going forward.”

If the bill becomes law, the state’s Diebold systems will be placed in “abeyance” and the vendor will be required to equip them so that they provide the requisite paper trail, she said.

Apparently, the moonbat conspiracy theories about rigged voting machines struck a cord among the technologically fearful.

The irony here is that Diebold has long been manufacturing ATMs which produce paper receipts largely as a pallative function to people used to dealing with human tellers. Unfortunately, the marketing insights that lead to that decision weren't applied to the voting machine business. Undoubtedly, young. technologically literate marketing people from Diebold were talking to young technocrats in the various state offices and never considered how the rest of the country outside their narrow generational and education niche would react to the "newfangled" paperless devices.

Maryland is following in the footsteps of several other states in expressing concern over the lack of a paper trail in the Diebold machines.

Earlier this month, Florida adopted a new set of security procedures for users of e-voting systems from all suppliers of e-voting machines.

The implementation of these new procedures in Florida was largely a response to reports issued last month by California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson that tests of the Diebold systems found them vulnerable to external access via hacking or bugs.

Nonetheless, McPherson has granted conditional certification for the Diebold machines in California’s elections — with the proviso that supervisors adhere to new security guidelines when using the gear.

The guidelines require that administrators reset the cryptographic keys on every AccuVote-TSx machine from the factory-installed default before every election. Additionally, each memory card must be programmed securely under the supervision of the registrar of voters.

Over an unspecified long term, Diebold must fix the security vulnerabilities to retain the California certification.

In a statement, Diebold said it “wholeheartedly agrees” with the proposed security procedures and said it plans to improve the security of the optical-scan firmware in its machines and create digital signatures to detect tampering.

Of course, ignored in this entire discussion is the scale and context of these theoretical security vunerabilities next to the gaping security holes in the traditional paper ballot counting process--which of course along with resistance to voter ID, is why the Democrats really, really want a paper trail.

You can manipulate a paper trail far, far easier than you can an encrypted data stream.

I will make a prediction here: In spite of Diebold's laudable efforts to implement improved security features like digital signatures, its the paper receipts that the Democrats will insist is the "real" tabulation of votes.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but as the 2004 election demonstrated all too well, the Crats not only have a long history of messing with the ballot box, but increasingly its a matter of political survival. If they don't think twice about throwing a stick in the spokes of the war on terror, a little thing like stealing elections won't bother them a bit.

I'll make a prediction here: Sometime in the next two election cycles, probably this year, the Democrats will call foul on a ballot count and insist that the paper ballot count is the correct tabulation.

I also strong suspect that the Maryland House of Delegates' actions are no coincidence. Michael Steele leads Democrat candidates Kweisi Mfume and Ben Cardin 45-38% and 45-40% respectively. It appears like a good time for some vote rigging...

Harry Reid's six page memo on the elections strategy to regain control of the Senate is right up Karl Rove's alley--fighting on National Security ground.

Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.

"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states.

There's a certain delicious irony in this memo--his inexperience with military affairs is evident by the fact that he has no idea that you can't stage political events at military installations, but more importantly, anybody with a minimum of military education knows that you don't fight battles on the ground the enemy has chosen for you.

Democrats have been touting the number of Iraq War vets running as Democrats in 2006, but veteran status isn't the ticket to ride that they expected.

Democrat Tim Dunn, a lawyer and veteran of the Iraq war, announced Tuesday he was dropping out of the race for the U.S. House seat held by Republican Robin Hayes.

Dunn, whose fundraising has lagged behind his GOP opponent's, said he was exiting because the campaign endangered his ability to meet his financial obligations to his family.

"It has come down to a choice between my family obligations and the campaign for Congress and my family will always come first," he said in a statement.

Dunn has followed a host of other drop outs.

The Crats shouldn't be so surprised--it didn't work during the Vietnam war either.

John Kerry returned to the U.S. from Vietnam and made an abortive first attempt to run for Congress as a war hero. He failed to garner adequate support in that guise and tried again later as a full-blown anti-war activist. He lost that one too.

Kerry finally acheived elected office through a more traditional path--law school, District Attorney, Lieutenant Governor and finally Senator.

No, not military ranks, the Democrat ranks.

One of the interesting differences apparent between liberal and conservative blogs is the former's tendancy to high-wonkish discussion on the details of individual races.

The reason for it becomes apparent when looking at the race for IL-06, a district that encompasses Dupage county and the area around O'Hare airport. Henry Hyde held this seat for a long time, but its open now and the "smart money" has been that it was a possible pickup for Democrats.

That of course assumes that the Democrats don't blow it, and that my friends, is rarely a good bet these days.

Hard lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD is getting a sinking feeling after the primaries in that district, which only managed to nominate the "slam-dunk" establishment candidate with 44% of the vote.

The netroots gang is kicking themselves that they didn't push harder for their preferred candidate, Christine Cegalis.

The Democratic primary in the IL-06 was not supposed to be close. I travel to DC often these days (in fact, I am about to leave for DC now), and from everyone I had talked to down there, I was told more or less the same thing: Duckworth will win this primary, and win it huge. I did not have access to the data they were using to make that assessment, but I also did not question it. A big Duckworth victory made sense. She had the support of every major elected Democrat in Illinois. She had the support of the DCCC. She was endorsed by every major union and progressive advocacy organization. She had more money. She had a lot more free media. In pretty much every measure I cold think of, she looked very strong. It seemed as though nearly every Democratic and progressive organization that works to elect Democrats and progressives was behind her. A few months ago, I floated the idea of the netroots getting behind Cegalis full-force to a few other bloggers, but after we had all heard pretty much the same stories on how Duckworth was going to cruise, we agreed it probably wasn't a very good idea. Better to focus our resources elsewhere.

Last night, however, something happened that made me extremely worried about our electoral prospects nationwide in 2006. Nearly the full-force of the Democratic and progressive electoral apparatus "succeeded" in only helping Duckworth win 44% of the vote in the Democratic primary. This wasn't the blow out I was told it was going to be. This wasn't the blowout I imagined it would be considering the establishment support Duckworth had. It wasn't even close to a blowout. It looks like the final margin will be somewhere around 1,000-1,100 votes. IT was very close, and it was a real nailbiter.

This makes me very worried about 2006. The same people and the same organizations who supported Duckworth remain in charge of winning elections of nearly every Democrat nationwide in 2006. If they produce anemic results like this in IL-06, what results can we expect across the country in November? Believe me, whatever group of rag-tag GOTV activists Cegalis had in this election, using their theocon grassroots, the Republican machine will more than match that nationwide in 2006.

Bowers is leaving unsaid the fact that while the establishm