The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight

I'm still mad at the Democratic Congress, but there is a silver lining - they're not Republicans. I can hardly believe these two stories.

In New Mexico, Senate candidate and all-around wingnut Steve Pearce decided to attack his opponent Tom Udall for language in a bill that would prevent leases to extract oil from shale in the Rocky Mountains. Only problem is, it wasn't Tom Udall's bill. It was MARK Udall's. He's also running for the Senate, and when both of these Democrats get there they can have a laugh about how pathetic their opponents were.

In Minnesota, Sen. Norm Coleman put together an ad featuring his family. His wife actually lives in LA and drops in to Minnesota every now and again for campaigning. So maybe it isn't surprising that he's appeared to green-screen her into the ad the way she's green-screened into his personal life. You can see for yourself - something certainly look weird:



"Keystone Kops" would be a competent version of Republicans circa 2008.

The Drive For 60 In The Senate

It's close enough to the general election that polls can be somewhat descriptive, and if you look at these US Senate seats, there's lots of good news for Democrats.

In Colorado, Rep. Mark Udall has moved to a 6-point lead against the ethically challenged former Rep. Bob Schaffer, last seen touring the Marianas Islands obvlious to the rampant abuse and sexual slavery going on at its factories. The Democratic Congress just tightened controls on the CNMI.

In Alaska, Mark Begich is out in front of Series of Tubes Ted Stevens by five points, with the 50-year Senator well under 50%. The recent ethical scandals that have shown Stevens to be running a favor factory in the Great White North are taking a toll on his re-election chances.

In North Carolina, Liddy Dole is in great danger from a challenge by state Sen. Kay Hagan. The fact that Dole was so crappy at her job at the NRSC that the Republicans lost the Senate in 2006 means that she's not likely to have a lot of friends coming out to raise money for her, either.

In Texas, netroots hero Rick Noriega is very close to beating John "Box Turtle" Cornyn.

And this one blows my mind. In Mississippi - yes, that's right, Mississippi - former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove leads Sen. Roger Wicker by 8 points, 48-40. Wicker gave up his House seat in MS-01 to replace Trent Lott in the Senate. That House seat was taken by Democrat Travis Childers, and now Wicker might lose as well.

Add this to the big leads for Mark Warner in Virginia, Tom Udall in New Mexico and Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, and the challenges by Jeff Merkley in Oregon (where he won his Senate primary yesterday and Gordon Smith is running scared and pretending to be a bipartisan moderate), Al Franken in Minnesota and Tom Allen in Maine, and longshot races like Scott Kleeb in Nebraska and Jim Slattery in Kansas and Larry LaRocco in Idaho, and you're certainly in the ballpark where 60 Senate seats can be a possibility, especially considering that Republicans are, you know, poison.

Now, I'll have something about the fact that we need better Democrats in addition to more. But for the record, I think Noriega and Begich and Tom Udall and Allen would be great, Franken and Merkley and Mark Udall would be pretty good, and Warner and Shaheen and Hagan are moderates who can get somebody else to give them money.

Quote-Unquote Experts

The Clinton campaign, the campaign pushing the pointless gas tax, represents the serious adults.

“There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with. And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with.”

Talk about "creating your own reality."

I don't want to keep finding these parallels between Clinton and Bush, I really don't...

UPDATE: This is fucking pathetic. And the thing is that amplifying the right-wing smear machine to official Washington probably works. It does, however, happen on both sides and it's a necessary consequence of rabid partisanship and the easy facility of linking things around.

UPDATE II: Ouch. And Mark Udall is an uncommitted superdelegate. This is another reason why Clinton's gambit is so tactically stupid - by trying to bully Congress into passing this cynical policy, she's alienating the very people she needs to actually get the nomination - uncommitted supers. Mark Udall probably saw the next eight years flash before his eyes and he didn't like it.

"The so-called ‘temporary gas tax holiday' that Senators Clinton and McCain propose won't deliver this needed relief. This will not create the economic relief they say it will, because prices will continue to rise until we address the real source of this problem. We do need to provide immediate relief for families hard-hit by spiraling gas prices, and we can do that by demanding the President stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will ease the production crunch that is causing these skyrocketing gas prices.

"Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren't looking for bumper sticker fixes that don't fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy. We can't afford more Washington-style pandering while families keep getting squeezed.

"It is exactly the kind of short-sighted Washington game that keeps us from getting real results to our energy problem. Experts across the ideological spectrum agree that it will increase the deficit, drain money away from Colorado roads and bridges, and hurt the environment, all without actually making prices lower for drivers."

Ritual Rending Of Garments

I wish the Congress would stop being offended by words and start being offended by actions, like the egregious actions taken to sell and perpetuate a catastrophic war. I understand what Trapper John is saying here, but really, they call it free speech because it's free:

But from my perspective, the point of this resolution isn't to receive a majority vote, or even really to condemn Limbaugh. After all, a great number of us in the Democratic Party don't believe that the United States Congress should be in the business of "condemning" the speech of American citizens. As I see it, the point of this exercise is: 1) to highlight the hypocrisy of those Republicans who would vote to condemn the speech of MoveOn, but not that of America's Favorite Chickenhawk -- even as he smeared rank-and-file service members -- and 2) to make sure that those Democrats who saw fit to publicly condemn their ally on the floor of Congress are willing to do the same to a man who despises them and the Democratic Party.

All well and good. I believe in highlighting the hypocrisy and making that point. But doing so through yet another resolution of condemnation is not only a time-waster, it betrays (there's that word again the values of America.

This brings me to the flap over MoveOn.org's recent ad about "General Betray Us." The ad suggested that General Petraeus was "cooking the books for the White House" by presenting to the American public and to the Congress a misleading picture of the situation in Iraq. There is absolutely no question but that this statement was fully protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has often and clearly explained, the First Amendment embodies "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The MoveOn.org ad is well within the bounds of this fundamental constitutional protection and well within the long tradition in this nation of challenging our public officials -- military as well as civilian [...]

Just as it is not the business of Columbia University to declare some views "right" and other views "wrong," it is not the business of the United States Senate to enact resolutions condemning the constitutionally protected expression of private citizens. To be sure, many of us sometimes find the constitutionally protected expression of others offensive. Some of us may despise speech that espouses racial inferiority; some of us may find odious speech calling abortion murder; some of us may dislike the views of presidential candidates on the issue of gay marriage; and some of us may be offended by claims that torture is sometimes moral. In this nation, we are all free as individuals to "condemn" the views with which we disagree, and individual senators, acting in their individual capacities, are similarly free to declare their distaste for certain expression.

But it is not a legitimate role for the Senate of the United States to pass formal resolutions condemning the expression of constitutionally protected views. Do the supporters of this resolution honestly believe that it would be appropriate for the Senate officially to condemn those who question the integrity of Vice President Cheney, or the wisdom of Justice Scalia, or the candor of President Bush? Do they honestly believe that it would be appropriate for the Senate officially to condemn those who support campaign finance reform or greater gun regulation or an invasion of Iran?

Such expression, like MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus, is not only protected by the First Amendment, but is essential to the functioning of a self-governing society. For the very same reasons that Columbia University should not declare particular ideas, perspectives, or positions "out of bounds," so too, the United States Senate should foster "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" public debate and not attempt to intimidate citizens by irresponsible public declarations of official condemnation. Such a tactic smacks of the excesses of the McCarthy Era.

Absolutely, and McCarthyism is McCarthyism no matter who's holding the gavel.

UPDATE: It should be noted that Mark Udall is introducing this resolution. He's also running for Senate next year in Colorado and could use rank-and-file support. You see where I'm going with this.

CO-SEN: Score One For The Good Guys

It's terribly early, but at least one Democratic pickup in the Senate is looking pretty good:

In a move that could help pave the way for Dems to grab a key open seat in Colorado, the only announced Republican candidate for the seat is expected to drop out of the race, The Washington Post reports. The move by former GOP Rep. Scott McInnis leaves the GOP without a candidate for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Wayne Allard — a top target for national Dems in their quest to expand on their 2006 electoral successes in the West.

The Republicans will obviously have a candidate, but McInnis was the least hard-core Colorado Springs fundie conservative, and the most likely to present a real challenge to Rep. Mark Udall, who will have a clear field for the Democratic nomination. Udall was going to be formidable anyway; without McInnis it could be a blowout, especially if Colorado goes blue in the Presidential race.