Quick Hits

I'm going out to see Barack Obama speak in a couple of hours. I'll have more after that. For now, another edition of Quick Hits:

• CT-SEN: According to the Dean of Washington journalism, supporting a failed policy in Iraq and enabling the most out-of-touch of the neocon cabal who took us there is A SELLING POINT. Memo to Broder: Connecticut is not the only state in which Congressional seats are contested, and therefore is not a national referendum on the Iraq war. Anyway, Joe is an antiwar Democrat, haven't you heard?

• A difference between Democrats and Republicans: Republicans are often investigated and in numerous cases indicted; Democrats are seldom investigated, and, at least in the case of Jane Harman, exonerated. For the record let me say that Harman's closeness with AIPAC, which I feel doesn't represent the interests of American Jews or even most Israelis, gives me pause. Yet she apparently did not seek a quid pro quo with them regarding the potential House Intelligence Committee chairmanship.

• The Foley scandal isn't over, and now it's retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe on the hot seat. Maybe Dan Savage is right, it's dirty but maybe Harold Ford should say this:

The Republicans have accused me of being a heterosexual man. They're implying that I have an interest in women. It would seem that today's Republican Party is more comfortable with elected officials--male elected officials--who take an interest in teenage boys. Mark Foley is acceptable to Ken Mehlman's GOP. Heterosexual men, it seems, are not.

• "Stay the course" may be no longer operative regarding Iraq, but it sure is in Colombia where we continue to sink billions of taxpayer dollars into fighting another failed war, the war on drugs. There's no accountability for this war, because "drugs are bad, m'kay?" I don't do them but the point is that funding military operations in Colombia is having no discernible effect on the drug war, certainly not to the extent education and treatment would.

• A little late, but a fascinating story from the Wall Street Journal about how liberals and conservatives react to fear:

A growing number of studies offer clues as to how terrorism and other deadly events affect people's voting decisions. The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different, and more supportive of extreme military policies, according to a study in April in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

For 20 years, researchers have been exploring how people manage the fear engendered by intimations of mortality. Reminded of the inevitability of their own death (which happens to a lesser degree by merely walking past a funeral parlor), people try to quench or at least manage the resulting "existential terror" in several ways. They become more certain of their worldview or faith. They conform more closely to the norms of their society. They show greater reverence for symbols of their society, such as flags and crucifixes.

All of these make people feel more secure and, crucially, a part of something larger -- something that will outlive them.

Go read this whole thing, it's really interesting stuff. We are in many ways political beings because of who we are as psychological beings. As usual, it's speculative to overgeneralize on these things, but these studies seem pretty solid.

• More smears, this time against Italian-Americans in New Jersey. Good thing there are none of them there. And am I wrong in questioning the effectiveness of a Sopranos-style attack ad against someone with the surname "Menendez"? Come on, Junior Kean, hating the Mexicans is a national Republican theme this year! Why not go the more obvious route? "Bob Menendez tunneled into the Senate..."

• Remember that $100 million dollars Karl Rove was supposed to swamp Democrats with in the final stages of the election? Not so much.

The Associated Press reports that the Democrats' campaign committees raised a total of $15.5 million during the first 18 days in October, while Republicans raised $10.1 million. The AP tallies up the totals: the GOP has $27.2 to spend on candidates in the home stretch, while Dems have $26.7 million -- a GOP advantage of less than a million dollars. Though the GOP claims a $14 million edge held by individual Senate campaigns, that's spread across many races and will partly be offset by the massive spending of the committees.

• God Hates Shrimp. 'Nuff said.