November 2006

2008 Congressional Elections–Open Thread

Okay, I want some feedback on what people think of the three candidates from this cycle:

Duckworth, Pavich and Seals.

The aim is to get a variety of opinions about the three candidates and their campaigns. From there, there will more open threads about whether to encourage the above candidates, discourage them, and lay out potential candidates for each race if discouraging the last candidate is a good idea.

My point is to evaluate the three of them as candidates in their own right and from that discuss whether they should run again.

I don’t have strong opinions on Duckworth and Pavich at this point, but I’ve already said, I want Seals to run again. In fact, I hope he is already running again. If Kirk loses his mind and shoots for Senate against Durbin in a Blue State in a Presidential year with the next two years looking rocky for Republicans, Seals should win that race. If not, Kirk has a great shot at it anyway. In fact, that might push Kirk up since he might as well shoot big if he’s a top tier target. I’m not discouraging a primary–I generally think they are good things, but it would take an awful lot for me to not back Seals. He’s that good.

People read so take this seriously.

Confusing Famous and Infamous

Red State has Tom DeLay blogging. Next up Conrad Burns and Jack Abramoff.

For the left wing of the left wing–think about how assanine it sounds when Tom DeLay says if we just become more right wing and move from the center we will win elections again. Then think about the mirror image.

Playing only to your base works for a short time in the right circumstances. Like after the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil. However, it only works for so long.

Please Check the Water at the Tribune

Confirm Bolton

Because Asia isn’t adding nuclear nations fast enough. Let’s get Japan to go nuclear!

In the interim, Bolton has proved he doesn’t have horns. In fact, he has answered any questions about whether he has the right temperament and diplomatic skills for the job. He has worked to build consensus on the world’s response to North Korea’s nuclear test, Iran’s nuclear program, the Middle East conflict and genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The Trib should read one of its own properties for why this is one of the most assanine statements ever published by the Tribune including the usual crap by Byrne and Kass.

His record since taking over as ambassador in August 2005 has shown that his adversarial stance toward the institution has not softened. In his first month as U.N. envoy, he gleefully undermined the most comprehensive reform movement in U.N. history by insisting on the adoption of hundreds of irrelevant amendments that were never going to be accepted by the General Assembly.

Later, when the U.N. did agree on one important change — creating a new, reformed Human Rights Council — he argued furiously against it, rallied just three other nations to the cause (out of 191) and eventually saw the U.S. go down to a humiliating defeat. Then he turned around and said he would work with the council and help it financially but not join it. Which left Washington looking not just like a loser, but a whiny one at that. As Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) remarked, Bolton was not just a bully, but an “ineffective” one.

In furtherance of his mission, Bolton also has promoted various pet causes at the institution. For example, when issues of population control or limiting the use of small arms come up, he brings into his office antiabortion activists and National Rifle Assn. members, respectively, to take the other side.

He has, on occasion, reportedly sneaked around his own nominal boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office to get support for his own hard-line views at the U.N. — for example, his refusal last summer to endorse the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals aimed at reducing poverty in the developing world. Rice eventually forced him to reverse that stance.

To the extent that he has been able to operate at all at the United Nations — most recently in the Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire — he has had to bow to a new realism within the Bush administration, and yes, sometimes, to international pressure. Even then, though, according to published news reports, he doesn’t get along well with our allies. His bristling nature has left many bruised feelings among his colleagues. His accomplishments are marginal at best. He may be among the most ineffective envoys the United States has ever sent to the U.N.

The man is not only shrill, but stupid. He had the US almost completely shut out of the the peace deal for the Israel-Lebanaon war. He has specifically undermined Rice in attempts to engage Iran–something now being pushed by the Baker Commission.

Confirming John Bolton would only enable the Cheney faction to make more of a hash out of US Foreign Policy than it already has and leaving him at the UN will only mean that any attempt to find a regional solution to Iraq will have to fight a two front war against him and those factions in the Middle East who don’t want any sort of peace. The Trib’s editorial is one of the single most irresponsible and unfathomable editorials ever produced by the Tribune. It is an endorsement of endangering the few alliances we have left, a nuclear arms race in Asia, and continued quagmire in Iraq.

And the Democrats are supposed to go along with the Administration to show responsible bipartisanship.

I’m sorry, but this election was an intervention. Irresponsible bipartisanship–something I took part in at the beginning needs to end. Enabling this Administration to continue a failed foreign policy because it’s good to get along failed miserably already. Denying that failure and asking for more of the same only demonstrates how out of touch with reality are those who continue to view this administration as somehow competent to fix the disasters they have created.

Would the Tribune Rejoin the Reality Based Community Please

hat tip Rich

Kass is spreading Jack Roeser’s conspiracy theory that Bill Brady was a plant by the combine. Worse, he claims Burris was a plant.

Because, you know, Burris never ran before. Like in 1994 and 1998. People may have taken advantage of Burris’ candidacy, but he wanted to win.

Here’s another reason people enter crowded fields–ambition. I’m no fan of Bill Brady other than he was an upgrade to Gordon Ropp’s career crusade for a state soil. Brady is ambitious and he ran a hell of a lot stronger of a campaign than I thought he could. He ran for Congress in 2000 and has been looking to move up the political ladder for some time.

If anything, Brady offered Republicans a chance to actually elect a conservative to statewide office. Oberweis is the Democratic dream candidate. He’s not terribly bright, he makes really dumb decisions, he’s not charismatic, and he’s no where close to the median voter. The only worry about Oberweis was whether he’d actually do worse than Keyes in the percentage of vote.

If the Illinois GOP is going to try and rely on Jack Roeser and friends to bring them back to winning, that’s going to be a long, long wait. In the short term, the numbers for Republicans make winning nearly impossible given the national GOP’s shift to the right. Following that drift isn’t going to help.

Criticism of IL-6

I know this has become conventional wisdom in some parts to claim too much money was wasted in IL-6, but the reality is all that money was a two way street. Republicans and their allies probably got close to $7 million spent on that race—all money that couldn’t be switched to races where their incumbents were running. By strongly contesting a long time seat, the attention paid to it pulled resources from other seats. Sure some of that money could have gone elsewhere for Democrats, but putting Republicans on defense is the whole point of the 50 State Strategy.

And no, I’m not having the Cegelis debate again. If anything, the time to win that District is in a Presidential year–same with 10 and 11. Part of the problem is that since there is little Democratic infrastructure in the area for 6, many of the Democratic votes for Kerry were Presidential election voters who called themselves independents and are more marginal voters. Trying to get them out there during a non-Presdintial year is like difficult when facing a fading, but still relatively strong Republican apparatus in the area.

Just add me to the signature line

Memo to every Democrat
by kos
Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:06:06 PM PST
Dear Everyone Who Thinks They Singled-Handedly Won the Last Election,

The DNC and Howard Dean couldn’t have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The DCCC and Emanuel Rahm couldn’t have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The DSCC Chuck Schumer couldn’t have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The netroots and grassroots couldn’t have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The 527s and unions and allied organizations couldn’t have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The big dollar donors couldn’t have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

They were all part of a glorious puzzle. And working together, even if not always harmoniously, led to great, great things.

Hugs and kisses.

kos

p.s. As for the know-nothing pundits in DC and the DLC? Well, we won because they were ignored.

You know, Rahm’s far from perfect, but he kinda gets that the netroots allow more candidates to be funded than the DCCC ever could. Then they can help when those people get into position and prove they’ve run a decent race. They make dumb calls, but so do all of us. Trying to create a fight after winning is a good way to stop winning.