RSSRonald Brownstein gets it, why don’t Democrats?
Ronald Brownstein from the LA Times gives on honest and sobering assessment to the Democrats for 2006. Namely, even with the math that is taught in public schools today the Democrats do not have a chance of winning back the Senate.
Democrats are optimistic about their chances of ousting GOP senators in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, states that voted for Democratic presidential candidates John F. Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. But the Democrats are unlikely to regain a Senate majority — in 2006 or soon thereafter — unless they can reverse the GOP consolidation of Senate seats in states that have supported Bush.
Since 2000, both parties have gained Senate seats in the states they typically carry in presidential campaigns. But this political partitioning provides a clear advantage for Republicans because so many more states backed Bush in his bids for the presidency.
If Democrats only gain in their part of the map, “it’s like saying, ‘We’re going to win more home games but never worry about road games,’ ” said Matthew Dowd, a political advisor to the Republican National Committee and senior strategist for Bush’s reelection campaign. “They could have a great home record but never win a majority.”
It is rather peculiar and actually stunning that the LA Times would write such an optimistic piece for Republicans. The fact that most intellectually honest people, notably the blogosphere, saw this trend on November 3, 2004. The numbers never were there for Democrats to gain the Senate back in 2006. Democrats had to win in too many Red states and defend in them as well. No matter where Senate seats are being contested; Republican’s must defend 15 seats while Democrat’s have 18.
Twenty-nine states voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004. Republicans now hold 44 of the 58 Senate seats in those so-called red states. That’s a much higher percentage of in-party Senate seats than Presidents Reagan and Clinton were able to claim in states they carried twice.
More important, on the strength of those states alone, the GOP is on the brink of a majority in the 100-member Senate.
Democrats are just as strong in the states that voted for Kerry and Gore. But there are only 18 of those so-called blue states; Democrats hold 28 of those 36 Senate seats.
Republicans also hold four of the Senate seats in the three states that switched parties from 2000 to 2004 — New Mexico, New Hampshire and Iowa.
This division has reshaped the political landscape most profoundly in the South. Under Bush, the GOP has won the last nine open Southern Senate seats, including five seats vacated by retiring Democrats in 2004. In all, Republicans now control 18 of the 22 Senate seats in the 11 states of the old Confederacy, compared to just 10 of those seats after Reagan’s 1984 landslide.
One of the losing 2004 Southern Democratic Senate candidates, who asked not to be identified while criticizing his party, said today’s highly partisan atmosphere had undermined strategies that once let the region’s Democrats survive even as GOP presidential candidates carried their states.
Other than the fact that Democrats must defend more seats than Republicans in 2006 and Dem’s must defend in red states like FL, NE, NM and ND; Democrats also face another strike against them. Democratic hopes have been placed upon ousting RINO’s like Snowe in ME and Chafee in RI. However, there is a reason why they are called RINO’s. They pretty much follow the political liberal landscape of New England and is the electorate of their respective states willing to replace a Republican Senator who is in the majority with a Democrat who will have no power or influence? Not only would a Democrat be in the minority but would also be first term low on the totem pole minority Senators.
I predict that the voters of ME and RI will not change in 2006 because they realize their state would lose any privilege of power and Committee Chairmanships that it presently has. I will go on record as saying baring any unforeseen major events Republicans will pick up a +3 or +4 Senate seats.
Should Blogs Trust the FEC?
Ever since last Fall when the a court ruling required the FEC to include the Internet in its definition of public communications and to begin regulating activities on line, blogs have been very nervous and concerned exactly what outcome will prevail.
Web loggers, who pride themselves on freewheeling political activism, might face new federal rules on candidate endorsements, on-line fundraising and political ads, though bloggers who don’t take money from political groups would not be affected.
Are we supposed to believe this or is this another slippery slope of campaign finance reform? If a blogger posts for another blog that is funded by political action money what does it do to their own private blog that may be just as opinionated? Are we really supposed to believe after witnessing the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth that politicians on either side will allow blogs, people in their pajamas, to accomplish the same?
The FEC long has been reluctant to craft rules for the Internet, and it has exempted the on-line world from many regulations that apply to other media such as television and radio.
The FEC, which also is striving to clarify regulations about online volunteer campaign activity, is accepting public comments on the proposals until Friday. Hearings will be held June 28 and 29.
Here is a rather interesting dilemma. What if a politically influential blog who does not receive money is brought into court claiming they have been? The legal fees themselves would shut the free speech down as a blogger could never afford the cost to defend their freedom of speech.
The FEC also is considering whether to require Web loggers, called bloggers, to disclose whether they get money from a campaign committee or a candidate and to reveal whether they are being paid to write about certain candidates or solicit contributions on their behalf.
These rules would not affect citizens who don’t take money from political action committees or parties.
However, what if political ads are placed on a blog? What if no money is received for the ad being placed on a blog? Isn’t there an implicit benefit to the candidate for getting free advertising?
One wonders how the FEC is going to differentiate between even the large and small blog, let alone lump the blogosphere into the realm of old media.
Advocates for rules say they are necessary to prevent groups such as corporations and labor unions from exploiting loopholes.
“I think FEC needs to regulate ordinary people as lightly as possible,” said Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.
But as Internet technology improves, she said, politicians, corporations and unions will “learn where to go to reach unconverted people. They will use Internet more and more. People like me who are worried about corporate and union abuse are less comfortable with that.”
Opponents of the regulations, including many bloggers, worry that freedom of speech would suffer and that the rules would have a chilling effect on the lively political discussions that occur online. FEC regulation, they say, would unfairly punish individuals, adding that nothing happened in the 2004 elections to warrant intervention.
As posted previously, The FEC Ticking Clock on Internet Freedoms, this is an issue that affects both sides on the blogosphere.
Others talking about this highly controversial topic:
Skeptic Eye says its the same old story and I would have to agree.
National Review Online, The Corner
Draft Russ Blog seems to think that there is no problem.
There is simply no reason – none – to think that the FEC should or intends to regulate blogs or other Internet communications by private citizens.
There is a fine line between private citizen and endorsing candidates on line these days. I wish things were as simple as they once were.
A pretty accurate and well shared opinion from vox populi
And the Denis DeKat’s Symposium will be heading offshore.
Update I: Mike Krempasky at Red State attempts to answer some important questions.
Update II: Love the ideas over at An American Mind
UPDATE III (6/1/05): Scared Monkeys on Connected Blogs: (VIDEO) via The Political Teen.
Zarqawi Admits He was Wounded
Looks as though even Zarqawi admits he was wounded that contradicts some reports that claimed there were no injuries at all.
AP: Iraq’s insurgent terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi purportedly made an audio address to Osama bin Laden on Monday to assure the al-Qaida leader that he was in good health after being wounded in a fire fight with U.S. troops.
“I am sure you have heard through the media that I was wounded and treated in a Ramadi hospital. I would like to assure you and the Muslim nation that these were pure allegations. It was a light wound, thank God. We are back fighting them in the land of the two rivers.”
The speaker addressed the message as “a letter from a soldier on the firing line to his commander.”
The speaker purporting to be al-Zarqawi addressed bin Laden as his “emir,” or commander, asked bin Laden for guidance on conducting the insurgency. He said he sent bin Laden a war plan and asked for comments or approval.
Al-Zarqawi also claimed that his insurgent followers had won this month’s bloody battle against U.S. troops at the town of Qaim near the Syrian border.
“It was one of the greatest battles of Islam,” the speaker said. “We would like to assure you that we are continuing on the path of jihad, we are committed to our pledge. We will either win or die trying.”
Instead of asking Bid Laden for approval maybe Zarqawi should ask the survivors of the many Iraqi Muslim’s families that he has killed? The idea that Zarqawi has now seen fit to justify killing Muslims in his cause is amazing. I had always thought there would eventually be a tipping point with the Iraqi people as they learned to realize that it was Zarqawi rather then the US military who was killing them. The rash of attacks against Iraqi’s recently have only exacerbated the issue.
Related:
Desperation; Zarqawi Tape Says Killing of Muslims Is Justified
Happy Memorial Day; THANK YOU and God Bless
A special thank you to the many men and women of our armed services that have paid the ultimate sacrifice to their country so that we all are afforded the rights and liberties that make us the greatest nation on earth.
Thank you to those also who are presently serving. God Bless All.
President Bush lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. He also delivered some remarks at the Memorial Amphitheater.
The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines we remember today answered the call of service in our nation’s hour of need,” Bush said.
“They stood to fight for America’s highest ideals, and when the sun came up this morning the flag flew at half staff in solemn gratitude and in deep respect.”
President Bush also went on to say:
“The names of the men buried there are known only to God but their courage and sacrifice will never be forgotten by our nation,” Bush said in remarks after a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, which featured songs like “The Star Spangled Banner” and “Taps.”
On a personal note. In memory of my soft spoken highly decorated uncle, who was always too modest to talk about his heroics in WWII. A true gentleman and my hero. Thank you for your service Uncle Red, God Bless you. I miss you.
Update I: Video from the President’s speech thanks to Trey Jackson
President at Arlington National Cemetery
Others sending their well wishes:
Musing Minds We Remember.
John, the Armorer and Master of Castle Argghhh!!! A must read MilBlogger.
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, letter from 6 year old to military
Sailor in the Desert Speech to Veterans group.
Red State Rant, well done and powerful.
Smash, a must read post as usual.
The Captain’s Quarters, extremely powerful.
UPDATE II: More from President Bush’s speech from Arlington National Cemetery.
President Bush honored America’s “brave defenders” Monday in a dual Memorial Day salute to the dead and missing in action from wars of yesteryear and those on the front lines of today’s war against terrorism.
“… And when the sun came up this morning,” he added, “the flag flew at half staff in solemn gratitude and in deep respect. We receive the fallen in sorrow and we take them to an honored place to rest. Looking across this field, we see the scale of heroism and sacrifice.”
Bush said America “has always been a reluctant warrior,” but then noted the more than 400,000 who perished in World War II alone.
“All who are buried here understood their duty,” he said, “and all carried with them memories of a family they hoped to keep safe by their sacrifice.”
“Today, we also remember the Americans who were still missing. We honor them, and our nation is determined to account for all of them,” Bush said.
Turning to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he noted that the nation is “fighting a new war.”
“Across the globe, the military is standing directly between our people and the worst dangers in the world,” Bush declared. “And America is grateful to have such brave defenders.”
“The war on terror brought great causes,” he said, noting conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Because of the brave sacrifice,” Bush added, “two terrorist regimes are gone forever. Freedom is on the march and America is more secure.”
Update III: President’s Memorial Day Weekend radio address
Previous Post:
Memorial Day Weekend – George W. Bush
Judicial Filibuster Compromise; Next Stop the Supreme Court
The filibuster compromise enacted by the 7 dwarves x 2 was a farce. It did not take long for actions in the Senate to go back to partisanship. The air of good will and a wink and a nod from Harry Reid to pass John Bolton through have all but dissipated. However, for anyone to think that Democrats are not going to filibuster President Bush’s first nominee to the Supreme Court , one would have to live in fantasy land.
The White House has laid the groundwork to place more conservatives on the Supreme Court, scrutinizing the backgrounds and legal views of a shrinking list of candidates amid speculation that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist soon will step down.
Keenly aware that a chapter of President Bush’s legacy is at stake, conservative and liberal advocacy groups are preparing for what both sides believe will be a bruising confirmation fight.
Court experts expect that Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer, will leave by the end of June when the current court session concludes.
“The vacancy could come anytime after this Memorial Day weekend, we think,” said Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, which has close ties to the White House counsel’s office.
“They have been winnowing the list down for some time now. I imagine they’re down to maybe three or five — a handful anyway — who are their first choices,” he said.
Everyone knows that Democrats define “extraordinary circumstances” as any George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court.
Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush’s future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in “extraordinary circumstances.”
To leave the definition up to each Senator is as ridiculous as the filibuster compromise itself. The Senate was just putting off the inevitable. President Bush is going to nominate who he wants and that is his right as President. He certainly will not discuss his choices with the Senate as the idiot 14 thinks he will.
The other pipe dream is that some how President Bush is not going to nominate a conservative judge to the bench. Here is a possible list of Supreme Court Justice nominees.
Liberals hope Bush will fill his first vacancy with a centrist, a consensus candidate, instead of one who would please right-wing Republicans who were instrumental in the president’s re-election. But they acknowledge that may be wishful thinking.
Bush has shown he is willing to stick by his nominees. When Senate Democrats denied votes on 10 of his picks for the federal bench, the president did not back down. Instead, he sent the same group of conservatives back to the Senate. That set the stage for the recent showdown over the filibuster — a political maneuver the Democrats used to stall the votes through protracted debate.
I believe President Bush will nominate Ted Olson, former Solicitor General as his first choice for the Supreme Court.
