Cooked
I ran across Charlie Cook's
dispatch today from the National Journal, and there's some really good stuff in there (I'm a sucker for historical comparisons).
In the House, Republicans are most likely to see a net loss of 20 to 35 seats, and with it their majority. In the Senate, the GOP could lose at least four, but a five- or six-seat loss is more likely. A six-seat change tips the chamber into Democratic hands.
October surprise put into context:
Could the situation change? Could the trajectory of this election be altered if the spotlight shifts from Iraq, congressional scandals, budget deficits, Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schiavo, stem-cell research and immigration onto something else, like terrorism or national security? Of course it could. In the time it takes to read this article, something could happen. A confrontation at sea involving a freighter going into or coming out of North Korea, for example, could dominate the news and the public consciousness. But unless something of that magnitude happens, we have to go with the situation as it stands.
This year, not so local:
Could the situation change? Could the trajectory of this election be altered if the spotlight shifts from Iraq, congressional scandals, budget deficits, Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schiavo, stem-cell research and immigration onto something else, like terrorism or national security? Of course it could. In the time it takes to read this article, something could happen. A confrontation at sea involving a freighter going into or coming out of North Korea, for example, could dominate the news and the public consciousness. But unless something of that magnitude happens, we have to go with the situation as it stands. compare the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted October 13-16 among 1,006 registered voters nationwide, with the comparable NBC/WSJ poll from October 1994. President Bill Clinton and the Democrats were in the hot seat, headed toward a 52-seat loss in the House and an eight-seat Senate defeat. In the October 1994 NBC/WSJ poll, 39 percent of voters thought the country was headed in the right direction, compared with 48 percent who said it was on the wrong track -- a nine-point lead for wrong track. In the recent poll, just 26 percent said right direction and 61 percent said wrong track; a net difference of 35 points, significantly worse than 1994.
Charlie's a pretty shrewd guy, and I tend to agree with most of what he says here. That six-seat Dem grab in the Senate is the one I've got my eye on. If I wake up on November 8th and that has come to fruition, there will be some gleam in this dummy's eye. There's more
there if you want to check it out. I think it's all going to be too close to call in the Senate.
Cheney: Serious About Foreign Policy
That's what the American public was told when he nominated himself to be George W. Bush's running mate in the 2000 election, and then became Vice President. I'm not going to go through the myriad of foreign policy failures he's presided over in the last five years. Let's go with the
past week. On the 17th of this month, our Vice President said
this:
They’ve had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.
The next day,
ten U.S soldiers were killed in Iraq.
And today, the Mahdi militia briefly took total control of the town of
Amarah.
Last night, in a question and answer with a local news outfit, he said
this:
Q: Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?
CHENEY: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni.
No, the fact of the matter is, the Vice President of the United States is a paid professional liar. He's not a stupid man, and he knows that trying to backtrack or reverse course will only lead to more lies, so he keeps telling the same ones over and over again.
By sheer instinct, being the dirty politico that he is, he knows the sloth ridden American media will never ever call him on his horseshit. Al Gore can "invent the Internet" and the dogs line up at the starting gate to chase, but when "Mr. Serious" plunges our nation into a generational conflict, we're all supposed to bow to his wisdom. Because he's "serious about national security".
Why this man is not a national joke by now is astounding.
