Hm.

A ragtag collection of moderate Republicans (John Eisenhower, former governor of Michigan Milliken), disgruntled Conservatives (Scott McConnell, CATO Institute figures, kinda sorta Bob Barr (!!!)), wistful neo-conserative hawks (Andrew Sullivan, Colkoh), Academic Leftists (Chomsky, Zinn), Naderites from 2000 (Michael Moore, former running mate Winona La Duke, and Conspiratorial Nut-jobs (LaRouche).

Oh, yeah. And the natural coalition that makes up the Democratic Party. (As a former Democratic leader of one of the two chambers put it, if this were a European Parlimentary system, the Democratic Party would be three or four small parties.)

With a coalition like that supporting him, how can Kerry lose? (And for that matter, how can he govern?)

“If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable. Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen.” — Alan Keyes, on what happens when gay couples raise children.

Jim DeMint has a new traveling companion whose job is to keep the Republican U.S. Senate nominee from saying anything he later will regret.

“Since all that screw-up with the homosexuals and that stupid comment,” the campaign has needed someone to help, Perry said. (More on the DeMint — Tenenbaum squabble two entries down.)

Between Keyes, DeMint, Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, and Kentucky’s Bunning… and for that matter George W Bush… the GOP has some real winners.

The scary part being, of course, four out of the five just might win.

The major races in Washington have all been decided. Both major candidates have, in their electoral strategies, the state firmly in the “Kerry” column. Patty Murray has already defeated George Nethercutt for the Senate race. For the House of Representatives? If you live in Nethercutt and Foley’s old district, you have a race. If you live in Jennifer Dunn’s district, you have a house race. And the governor’s race has yet to be decided. Other than that: civic duty says to spill granite or pull that lever or whatever Washingtonians do.

Oregonians: Vote. Right. Now. Thank you.

It’s on the edge of being a late-October true swing state. David Wu and Darlene Hooley are in trouble… decide what that means to you. Tim Riley’s October 18 entry suggests a good way of voting.

Oh, by the way: Vote right now.

Idaho: I think the Libertarian Party is a bigger force than the Democratic Party in Idaho. I could be wrong, though. Ah, the Sagebrush Rebellion. It’s what we need.

Bush delivered what he hyped as a “Major Policy Address about Terrorism”.

Here, for whatever it’s worth, it is.

Reads a lot like the “Major Policy Address” he delivered two weeks ago in Pennsylvania. Example:

Oh, I know it might surprise some to see a Republican presidential candidate in New Jersey in late October. (Applause.) The reason why I’m here, with your help we’ll carry the state of New Jersey in November. (Applause.)

We are now 15 days away from a critical election. Many important domestic issues are at stake. I have a positive, hopeful agenda for job creation, broader health cove

AND

In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he cannot hide. (Applause.) Thank you.

Reportedly, Fox News had on its, as they aired the speech, “a major speech on war on terror.” No word on how MSNBC and CNN handled it.

I vaguely recall Clinton sneaking in “Major Policy Speeches” that were thinly disguised swing-state campaign speeches. But in his case, the speeches actually had substantial “policy” markers (Clinton’s generic list of small ticket items).

How many more “major policy speeches” does Bush have left in him? Frankly, I think the media should ignore this designation — and assume that if anything comes out of any worth, it’ll come out in other ways.

………..

I posted nothing on the Meet the Press Senatorial debate this time around, because frankly, I actually liked the Democratic candidate. (Which may go to explaining why, in general, she’s the only one of the batch of Democratic candidates behind in the polls.)

But, some excerpts from REP. JIM DeMINT, not a Bones member. (a few blog entries downward.)

MR. RUSSERT: But what is our exit strategy?
REP. DeMINT: Our exit strategy is to help the Iraqi people set up a democratic government, a stable democratic government, and we can’t leave until we make sure that they’re free and that they have a stable government.
MR. RUSSERT: If the Iraqis choose to have a fundamentalist Islamic regime, would that be acceptable?
REP. DeMINT: Well, they need a democratic government and if they choose, whatever their leaders are, they’re going to choose that, and I think the president supports them setting up the government that they want, but we just need to make sure it’s a democratic, accountable government, and that they can defend themselves against terrorists.
MR. RUSSERT: But if they vote for an Islamic republic like Iran, that’s their vote, we would accept that?
REP. DeMINT: Well, that’s not a democracy if it’s like Iran. It needs to be an accountable government and they’re going to have elections and they’re going to have an accountable democratic government.
MR. RUSSERT: So we would resist the will of the Iraqi people?
REP. DeMINT: That–we wouldn’t–no, if they get a chance to vote, Tim, they would not be voting to set up a regime like they have in Iran where they don’t have a vote.

Uh… huh. There you have it: forward thinking in action. Also, the very next line of questioning:

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned the South Carolina reservists. This is articles all across the paper, “All of us refuse to go”; 19 members of the South Carolina-based 343rd, a quartermaster reservist unit, refused to go on a mission because they had ill-equipped trucks and no air cover. What should happen to those men and women?
REP. DeMINT: Well, that is under investigation, and we really don’t know what the facts are there. But it does bring out how important it is that we give the president the money to have the equipment, the resources, the body armor. This is one example of what John Kerry did to vote against that in the Senate, and that’s one of the reasons that we have to worry about my opponent’s support of John Kerry, because that is exactly the problem we’re having.
MR. RUSSERT: So are you tolerating insubordination, near mutiny?
REP. DeMINT: That needs to be investigated, Tim. We don’t really know what happened there, and we need to find out before we start making statements.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, they–no. All of us of them refused to go. They disobeyed a command.
REP. DeMINT: We don’t know the facts behind that, so I think I really need to wait and see what actually happened.

In other words: I cannot risk alienating the South Carolina voter, who have severe mixed opinion in their mind about the situation with sympathy for these reservists along with a sense of military hawkishness.

Where Inez Tenenbaum finally got some traction in a race that had been heading toward the Republican. DeMint’s troubles are summed up with:

RUSSERT: When you talk about federal social welfare largesse, you’re talking about Social Security, Medicare. The fact is there are 500,000 taxpayers in South Carolina who do not pay federal income tax because they don’t make enough money. That’s one out of four South Carolinians. And if you take away the income tax and replace it with a 23 percent sales tax, they will pay that sales tax on everything. When George Bush was asked about a national sales tax a couple of weeks ago, he said it would hurt the middle class. That’s an idea that you co-sponsored.

The show ends with Tenenbaum sitting by while DeMint explains himself Abortion — unable to answer who should be prosecuted if we make Abortion illegal — and backtracking on comments he had made that Single Mothers and Gays should not teach in our schools.

MR. RUSSERT: You also, when asked about your comments about gay teachers, said this: “I would have given the same answer when asked if a single woman, who was pregnant and living with her boyfriend, should be hired to teach my third-grade children.” Do you also still believe that, that a single mom should not be a teacher in South Carolina schools?
REP. DeMINT: I believe that’s a local school board issue. And, Tim, I was answering as a dad who’s put lots of children in the hands of teachers and I answered with my heart. And I should just say, again, I apologize that distracted from the real debate.
MR. RUSSERT: But you apologize for distracting but are you apologizing to gay teachers or to single mom teachers?
REP. DeMINT: No. I’m apologizing for talking about a local school board issue when the voters want us to talk about how we’re going to make them safer, win the war on terror, how we’re going to create jobs, how we’re going to fix our health-care system. And these are things I’ve worked on in the Congress and that’s what I plan to do in the Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think that non-citizens should be teaching in South Carolina schools?
REP. DeMINT: I think that’s up to our state superintendent. I know that we brought in thousands of teachers from other countries. That’s a decision my opponent has made, and I think that should be a state decision who’s teaching in the schools.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re making judgments about gay people or about single moms and, in effect, disqualifying them. Are you certain that you never had a gay teacher?
REP. DeMINT: Listen, I have my personal beliefs, Tim, but I honestly believe that the teachers should be hired by local school districts. They should be making the decisions on who should be in the classroom.
MR. RUSSERT: But don’t the voters have a right to know about whether or not you still stand by comments you made in the campaign? Do you stand by your comments?
REP. DeMINT: I apologized for answering a local school board question.
MR. RUSSERT: No, you’re apologizing for the distraction, but it’s a simple question. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in South Carolina schools?
REP. DeMINT: Well, Tim…
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that single moms should be able to teach?
REP. DeMINT: It’s a very simple answer. I think the local school board should make that issue, not Senate can–I mean, make that decision.
MR. RUSSERT: But you didn’t think that a month ago when you answered the question.
REP. DeMINT: And I apologize for that, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: For answering the question?
REP. DeMINT: Yeah, for distracting from the real thing.
MR. RUSSERT: But not for the substance of your comments.

Everything seems to need to be decided on the local local local level, apparently.

Al Gore lives on my street,
Three-twenty-something, Lynwood Boulevard.
And, he doesn’t know me
but I voted for him. Yeah, I punched the card!
I don’t know how he lives with knowing,
That even though he won the popular vote
He still lives on my street, right down the street
From me.

One time, I had a bike
And I was a kid, and someone stole it from me
And still I’m mad about that,
Carrying anger, I just can’t let it be.
I need to be more forgiving, I know it,
‘Cause even with the popular vote,
Al Gore lives on my street, right down the street,
From me.

Life isn’t fair, don’t tell me, I know it
‘Cause even with the popular vote,
Al Gore lives on my street, right down the street from me [repeats]
President Gore lives on my street, right down the street from me.

— Robert Oral of “Monkey Bowl“

Tom Oliphant posits that Arizona is in play, precisely because its not being bombarded with advertisements.

Here it is.

Campaign manager Ken Mehlman said flatly, “They gave up. The Kerry campaign gave up its advertising here.”

In the absence of commercials (the Republicans pulled their ads as well), the news dominates — a point driven home here the day after the debate.

NOW THERE’S a Kerry – Edwards strategy for Arizona, perhaps we can apply it to other states of the nation: get Kerry and Edwards to just BUG OFF and STAY AWAY FROM US.

(On the other hand, you could call it somewhat disingenuous “spin” from the Arizona campaign.)

The other odd piece of political punditry I’ve ran across, but can’t find right now, is that Bush appearing in New Jersey tomorrow is not a sign that he’s taking New Jersey seriously, even with a bit of “head-fakery” designed to force Kerry to consider taking a challenge seriously. It’s a play to get into Pennsylvania media markets. If Bush were taking New Jersey seriously, he’d be appearing in New York.

(At this point in time, I think it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other: New Jersey and Pennsylvania are not as blue as Bugle Boys, but are probably voting Kerry… a corrupt New Jersey Democratic Party, Suburban “Soccer Moms” made “Security Moms”, and proximity to the WTC notwithstanding for New Jersey…)

About that New Jersey appearance:

While Kerry was campaigning in two of those states on Sunday – Ohio and Florida – Bush took the day off, choosing instead to concentrate on a major speech on terrorism he is scheduled to deliver in New Jersey on Monday.

The last time that Bush promised a “major policy speech”, and convinced the major cable news networks to cover it, he delivered a stump speech before a pep rally crowd. Apparently Bush considers a bash-fest of Kerry’s flip-flopping “major policy”. We’ll… see.

Evidentally, Tony Blankley — right-wing pundit for the Washington Times — (perhaps on today’s blathering show The McLaughlin Group) said that John Kerry evoking Mary Cheney was akin to Gerald Ford’s “Poland Moment”.

Gerald Ford’s “Poland Moment” came when, during the second debate, he pronoucned:

There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe, and under my administration there never will be.

Poland, of course, being under Soviet control. Carter’s huge lead had been whittled away throughout the summer, and it was likely because of this that Carter squeaked out a victory in November. Which explains the rationale for hyping the Mary Cheney comment into a “Poland Moment”. (It also explains the media obsession, echoed in political strategy, of finding the single soundbyte.)

Kerry’s supposed “Poland Moment” goes like this:

We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.

I think we have to respect that.

I thought it was a politcally – designed statement, a way of embarrassing Bush / Cheney’s base of right-wing evangelical base (I did hear a gay radio host describe joy at hearing Kerry’s comment, so perhaps I’m being too cynical here and not considering the opposite part of the equation). But, accepting the, quote-in-quote “worst”: What a way to embarrass them! With polite empathy.

As for President Bush: It seems like his “Poland Moments” have more meat to them. Some are rather trivial. Some merely display a lack of comprehension on Bush’s part. Some are deadly serious.

And one of these “Poland Moments” actually involves Poland!!

(Note: I did the customary google search for this entry, and I found this take on the “Poland Moment”:

I haven’t heard much from the media about John Kerry’s huge gaffe in last night’s debate when he left Poland out of the list of allies who joined the United States in the liberation of Iraq. This is an especially egregious gaffe since Kerry is touting himself as someone who can bring a “real” coalition together. President Bush picked right up on it and pointed out Kerry had left out Poland. I thought it was very reminiscent of the second Presidential debate in 1976 between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

It’s a mistake to ascribe representation of any vast political group to random postings at Free Republic (except, perhaps, Free Republic posters)… but, gee whiz, that’s funny. And it explains a few things.

A scan of Campaign Oddsmakers shows DeLay still at 90%. Which, I suppose, is below the 99% threshold one would expect of the super-incumbant. But they don’t seem to do any down or up grading for House canidates — leaving close inspection to the Senate, Presidential, and perhaps the Governor races — and the national accumulated races. (Understandably: how in the world would you keep track of 435 individual races?) [Example: they’ve downgraded Jim Bunning’s chances for his Senate race in Kentucky — due to questions about his mental state of being, they’ve not downgraded David Wu for his House seat in Oregon — who has brought new meaning to the colloquial term of his campaign-workers “The Wu Crew”.)

“If not now when?”…

While Republicans vigorously defended Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, in the wake of a series of ethics rebukes, members of both parties said on Thursday that Mr. DeLay, a tough-talking Texan who holds a tight rein over the House, could have difficulty retaining his leadership job if his party loses seats in next month’s elections.

“Without Tom DeLay it would be complete and total chaos,” said one Republican strategist with close ties to the White House. “The House would descend into ‘Lord of the Flies.’ “

There’s the national political word on DeLay. Nancy Pelosi sneaks in, somewhat sneakily, a scathing attack on DeLay on the House floor. And the conservative, and as it has turned out during the Bush Administration prinipled conservative Judicial Watch thinks DeLay oughta step down. (Which, come to think of it, brings a “Why Not?” question: after all, he was the “hammer” who pushed Bush’s “big government” Medicare Bill through by whipping a few miscreant Republican dissenters into line.)

Everything is all good and jolly, but really… how is it playing in DeLay’s district?

Just enough of a challenge that DeLay actually feels the need to do actual campaigning in Sugarland.

For, in the vast background some poll or other has the challenger — Morrison– eight or so points back.

Since House races aren’t polled too often, anecdotal evidence becomes more important than statewide races: the anecdotal evidence of “mood on the street” suggests some hope. (The tenor of the article is described by the following image: grab a Morrison sign, grab a Bush sign).

The area newspapers are endorsing Morrison. Here. (which sort of is the tenor of the Houston Chronicle’s editorial opinion of the man.)

In my continued — and oft-accidental– spotlighting of this group… the LaRouche Youth Squad are in full force. I’d prefer that they cease and desist, as I find it hard to imagine that the Republican residents of Sugarland, Texas will be swayed by pamphlets regarding the “Children of Satan”. (Note: for what it’s worth, this actual article doesn’t appear to diverge from the reality of the situation.)

DeLay will most likely win. In the event that Richard Morrison is elected, he will more than likely be booted out in two years by a Republican – backed Ficus. The Republicans appear to be much better at hoistering party leaders up from safe districts than the Democrats are. (Tom Foley… Tom Daschle.) As with the candidates that ran against Foley and Daschle, Morrison’s campaign is based on alienation from the local district and the gospel that his interests are his own and not ours… but… Republicans outnumber Democrats by a large margin.

(Ironically, due to the DeLay – backed Texas redistricting plot … it’s not quite as red as it used to be– ie: for the sake of getting some more safe Republican districts, he moved in a few Democrats into his super-safe district. If he loses the election in November, let it be said that DeLay outsmarted himself and drew himself right out of his job… a crucial part to the “Perfect Storm” that would be the story of his undoing.)

To whoever asked this question, as per the stats:

I can’t figure out whether Representative Jim DeMint, Republican Senate candidate for South Carolina, is a member of Skull and Bones. If he is, then I guess Tim Russert will be obliged to ask the question when he appears on Meet the Press tomorrow for one of those Senatorial debates.

BUT … he is a member of a somewhat more grown-up secret society of sorts…

THE FAMILY. Or is it THE FELLOWSHIP. An article appeared in Harpers over a year ago. An “undercover” operation infiltrating “The Family.” One of those articles that doesn’t quite inspire confidence in Harpers, and leaves only vague pronouncements of what they’re trying to tell you. Another article made its way into the Associated Press, but they were more impressed with the rent they pay.

More Commentary found here.