Blue ... Not Red ... Not Gray ... Just Blue

A School Stepping Way Over the Line

2007-02-03T16:57:00.000-08:00

ABC News this week reported that Pequannock Township High School in New Jersey will be subjecting students to random searches and seizures of their urine. That's right, the school will be conducting random urine tests in an effort to determine if students have been consuming alcohol. The test is capable of detecting any alcohol consumed in the 80 hours before the sample is taken. The goal, of course, is combat underage drinking. Students testing positive will not face any disciplinary action, but the school will notify their parents.

This search and seizure scheme is plainly and simply a bad idea in a free society. While the school's goal is laudable enough, the school is in fact far overstepping its bounds. These are not tests to determine whether students are drinking or intoxicated at school functions. No, these are tests to determine what the students are doing the rest of the time. That is, time for which the school has no responsibility - and, significantly, no authority - to regulate. This time is time for the students' parents (and law enforcement in the actual or reasonably suspected event of criminal activity) - and only their parents (and law enforcement) - are responsible for supervising. In fact, assuming these searches and seizures are even legal, would not a student's parents have to consent to their child being subjected to the same in the first place?

The school's idea seemingly has no limits. Bad driving, even where no alcohol is involved, is a problem among high school students too. Should the school be allowed to install cameras and "black boxes" in student's cars to determine if they are complying with traffic laws? Likewise, students can do all sorts of bad things on their personal computers. Why shouldn't the school require them to bring those computers to school, to have images of the hard disks taken, which could then be forensically analyzed?

Come on, Pequannock, why don't you do your job and leave parents to do their jobs?

Give Bush a Chance? No Way!

2007-01-23T20:06:00.000-08:00

In his State of Union Address tonight, on the subject of the Iraq War, the President asked Congress and all Americans to give him a chance so that we can end up with a good resolution to the Iraq War. Yeah, right. I want a good resolution as much as the next guy, but give Bush a chance to win a war that has now gone on longer than the time it took the United States to win World War II? That's right, FDR's America defeated the combined might of Adolph Hitler and all of the evil of his Nazi Germany (just think about things like the Luftwaffe, blitzkriegs, and the SS to name a few) along with the Empire of Japan in less time than the Dim Bulb has had to deal with Iraq. But then what could we expect when the Dim Bulb's only "plan" for Iraq was to rid it of Saddam. Beyond that, whatever good resolution he is looking for, and that we all want, is substantially unlikely to happen

No, George, we need to begin a staged withdrawal from that rathole, starting right now.

Bush Health Care Proposal Could Be a New Tax on Many Americans

2007-01-23T19:29:00.000-08:00

President Bush has just delivered his State of the Union Address tonight and a central feature was his proposal to allow taxpayers a tax "deduction" of up to $7,500 (single)/$15,000 (married) for the cost of health insurance. Sure, this would provide some financial assistance to those who do not now have health insurance, but only to the extent that they could afford to pony up what would still be the lion's share of the cost for health insurance.

Thus, for a low to moderate income taxpayer who may be in a 10% or 15% tax bracket, the proposal, as a deduction, would still require the taxpayer to foot the bill for the other 85% or 90% of the cost of his or her health insurance. Given that many health insurance packages can easily cost $5,000 a year or more, that taxpayer would still need to find over $4,000 to buy that health insurance. Not so easy for someone who might only be making $30,000 or $40,000 a year, or less, huh, George? Oh, that's right, you and your oil(y) CEO pals like your VP wouldn't know, would you, making millions upon millions off things like "deferred compensation" and "stock options"?

Furthermore, what the Dim Bulb specifically failed to mention is that his proposal also might, in the current year and/or in future years, result in additional tax liability for many other Americans. Go check what your current health insurance actually costs, if you have health insurance. Be sure to confirm how much of the tab your employer picks up. Such health care plans can easily come close to or exceed the limits the Dim Bulb has proposed (and you can count on those costs far exceeding the pace of inflation in years to come). Then what would happen? That's right, you'd get taxed on it.

All you need to know about this comes from a comment made by anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist in this article "President To Propose Tax Increase" in today's DC Examiner. "Norquist said the Bush plan, if enacted, would reduce the overall cost of health insurance in the U.S. by encouraging workers to scale down the cost of their company-sponsored plans." (in order to keep them under the tax-free caps). Specifically, Norquist said, "People will rewrite those gold-plated, union contract insurance plans to be less expensive." Wasn't the biggest reason that people were so unhappy about Bill Clinton's 1994 health care proposal that they were afraid that their quality of care would go down and that they would not have a choice of doctors? And isn't that exactly what would happen if people were forced to "scale down" the cost of their current company health care plans? Funny how it looks entirely different to Bush & Company now that the shoe is on the other foot.

Legislating the "Perfect" Marriage

2007-01-06T19:18:00.000-08:00

The Family Foundation is at it again. Fresh off convincing Virginia voters to add to the Virginia Bill of "Rights" a limitation against the rights of unmarried couples in committed relationships, the Family Foundation wants to make sure that current and future couples that are or become married are more sure to stay married, even if the marriage is a bad marriage. The Washington Post reports that the Family Foundation wants stricter rules for divorces: "The foundation is advocating 'mutual consent divorce' for couples with children, which would require a husband and wife to agree to divorce before a marriage can be legally terminated, except in certain instances, such as abuse or cruelty."

That's right, a marriage might be going terribly, but if the couple has children, and as long as there is no abuse or cruelty and at least one half of the couple refuses to be divorced, the couple would be legislatively forced to remain married. Apparently, one motivation behind the proposal was the observation last year that heterosexual couples were as much to blame as homosexual couples or anyone else for alleged attacks on the "institution of marriage." So, this proposal is said to aim to address that. The Post quotes Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William), who has yet miss an opportunity to legislate the government into the home and the bedroom: "People were saying, 'It is not the homosexuals wrecking marriage, it's the heterosexuals,' so we are saying, 'Is there any truth to that?' "

Of course, children are much better off being raised in a home environment where their parents are miserable together. Indeed, having "saved" Virginia from gay marriage, the same folks that did that are now going to "save" Virginia from divorce by making sure that miserable marriages stay as miserable marriages. Because a miserable marriage surely would not itself be a risk to the "institution of marriage" Yeah, right.

Proposal to Allow Two-Term Virginia Governors is Defective

2007-01-05T17:34:00.000-08:00

Virginia is the only state in nation that does not allow its governors to serve two consecutive terms. Nope, it's one and done in the Old Dominion. Or, at least, it's one and then you have to wait four years before you can run again.

Well, there has been talk on and off for awhile now about changing that and, now, it appears that Gov. Tim Kaine and General Assembly Republicans are talking about a deal to do it once and for all. The change would, however, ultimately require a constitutional amendment. It turns out that the constitutional amendment requirement is a good thing, not because the two-term governor is a bad idea, but because of the terms of the possible deal.

First, I must say that I have always been an opponent of term limits or other restrictive qualifications on holding office. My view is that we live in an democracy and, if a candidate is so bad or inappropriate, for whatever reason, then the people can throw the bum out (or not elect him or her to begin with). But to say that the voters must be protected from themselves by not being allowed to vote for somebody in the first place is just condescending.

Anyway, it turns out that the General Assembly Republicans are only talking about doing the deal if the power to appoint 5 of 9 members of the state Board of Education and some (or all?) members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board* is shifted from the Governor to the General Assembly. Bad idea. Again, if a Governor makes such bad appointments to these bodies, the people can simply not re-elect him or her, but there is no reason to alter the careful separation of executive and legislative powers that has traditionally served Virginia well.

*Changing appointment powers over these two bodies would particularly shaft Northern Virginia (again!) with respect to schools and roads, given the General Assembly's very bad track record of returning tax dollars to Northern Virginia for schools and roads. One more reason that, right now, I would vote "NO".

Keith Ellison's Beautiful Irony

2007-01-04T17:56:00.000-08:00

As we now know, Keith Ellison, a Muslim American, chose to be sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives on a Koran, his holy book. But he chose not just any copy of the Koran, he chose a copy once owned by Virginian Thomas Jefferson.

The fact that he chose to use Jefferson's Koran is most fitting in light of the well-publicized xenophobic comments made by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) about Ellison's use of the Koran and about Muslims generally. You see, Mr. Jefferson lived in a home called Monticello, outside a certain town in Virginia called Charlottesville, and were he alive today, Mr. Jefferson would find that that home is in Virginia's 5th Congressional District, which just so happens to be represented by ... Virgil Goode.

To make matters more interesting, Mr. Jefferson is probably the most famous one time resident of what is now Virginia's 5th Congressional District. Yes, we know that Mr. Jefferson was the 3rd President of the United States and we know that authored the Declaration of Independence, but he also authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which today is still contained in the Constitution of Virginia. Significantly, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom states in its preamble:

... the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right ...

Perhaps Mr. Goode, along with the national and state GOP leadership and the GOP leadership of Mr. Goode's Congressional District, should take heed of this work of a former constituent.

110th Congress - Control of the Senate

2007-01-02T18:38:00.000-08:00

The recent health concerns of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) highlight a broader issue regarding the potential for Senate seats that could change parties over the course of the next two years.

As it turns out, 41 states permit their governors to fill a Senate vacancy without any restrictions. Of the other 9 states, 5 require their governors to fill a Senate vacancy from the same political party of the Senator whose term is being filled (AK, AR, HI, UT, WY). The remaining 4 states do not permit their governors to make any appointments, but instead generally require a special election to fill a Senate vacancy (MA, OK, OR, WI). Update: Source info for the different states' procedures is a 2003 Congressional Research Service report. Massachusetts now has eliminated gubenatorial power to fill Senate vacancies as well. See the entry on US Senate website. Massachusetts made the change in 2004 to prevent then-Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to replace Sen. John Kerry upon Kerry's election to the presidency, but Sen. Kerry still seems to be representing Massachusetts in the Senate.

So, what about the 41 states? There are, in fact, 33 Senate seats that could change hands were a vacancy to occur, considering the party affiliations of the Senators and Governors elected in 2006. Those seats are as follows:

DEM SENATORS - GOP GOVERNORS (16)
CA - Feinstein
CA - Boxer
CT - Dodd
CT - Lieberman (he says he is going to caucus with the Dems)
FL - Bill Nelson
IN - Bayh
MN - Klobuchar
MO - McCaskill
NV - Reid
ND - Conrad
ND - Dorgan
RI - Reed
RI - Whitehouse
SD - Johnson
VT - Leahy
VT - Sanders (caucusing with the Dems)

GOP SENATORS - DEM GOVERNORS (17)
CO - Allard
IA - Grassley
KS - Brownback
KS - Roberts
LA - Vitter
ME - Snowe
ME - Collins
NH - Gregg
NH - Sununu
NM - Domenici
NC - Dole
NC - Burr
OH - Voinovich
PA - Specter
TN - Alexander
TN - Corker
VA - Warner

My quick read here is that, in addition to having one more seat in potential jeopardy, the GOP is more at risk, as it has several older members on the list - Grassley, Domenici, Dole, Specter, and Warner. The Dems have fewer such members - Feinstein is the only one on the list over 70 years old - and 4 on the Dem list were just elected (Klobuchar, McCaskill, Whitehouse, and Sanders).

Hopefully, of course, all Senators will enjoy good health. If not, though, things could get dicey in the Senate.

Update: I forgot IN - Bayh (D) Senator & Daniels (R) Governor, and have made the appropriate changes.

Gerald R. Ford 1913-2006

2006-12-30T12:18:00.000-08:00

I had the opportunity to meet then former President Ford back in 1986, as part of a college class I was taking, called "Living Politicians". The professors brought in various notable journalists, authors, consultants, and politicians, to discuss elections and the political process. For each such guest, the professors also invited a different group of ten or so of the students in the class to have dinner with the guest. For President Ford, they doubled the number of students for the dinner meeting, dividing the group into the dinner group and a dessert group. I was in the dessert group.

President Ford impressed me at that dessert meeting. He was a nice man, knowledgeable, and more than willing to spend the time with us. President Ford was, by and large, the epitome of a "moderate" and much more a consensus builder than we see today. Regardless of one's political leanings (and, heck, I lean left), it should not be a stretch to say that we need more Gerald Ford's in politics today. Gerald Ford, rest in peace.

"That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?"

2006-11-29T18:33:00.000-08:00

I suppose it's not news, but it bears repeating, GWB just doesn't get it.

The Dim Bulb-in-Chief invites the incoming Members of Congress to his end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And he walks up to Sen.-elect Jim Webb (D-VA), who just so happens to have a son serving in the Marines in Iraq. Here's the now well-reported exchange:

GWB: How's your boy?

JW: I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President.

GWB: That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?

JW: That's between me and my boy, Mr. President.

So, that's how the President's responds to a parent who just wants to see his kid come home safe and sound? He snaps at the man, "That's not what I asked you." Classless, totally classless.

In reality, perhaps the error of his ways is beginning to sink in, in a very painful way, for GWB. Painful in the sense that he has probably ruined his presidency with his obsessed decision to invade Iraq. And now, as a result, he is expressing his frustration.

I'm no fan of GWB, but I must say this. If he had played his cards right after 9/11/2001, and if there is no other terrorist attack on American soil before noon on 1/20/2009, GWB's historical legacy could have actually been worthy. Instead, among other things, he totally overplayed his hand, got caught up in some kind of strange family quirk about Saddam Hussein, and listened to the likes of the Prince of Darkness, "Dick" Cheney. So, as a result, he has by now caused us to be in Iraq for a longer time than we were in World War II. And he has only the capture of Saddam Hussein to show for it. Beyond that, he has cost the lives of over 2,000 American troops, plunged Iraq into a civil war, further destabilized an always fragile Middle East, overseen blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions, and made the United States that much more hated by the bad guys. And that's just what he has done in Iraq.

Instead of a chance at perhaps ending up in the top half of the class of US Presidents, GWB seems destined for a place in the bottom half of the class. But could we really expect better from a guy who couldn't find oil in Texas? And, heck, the bottom half of the class is probably a place he knows well from his Yale days.

The "Christian Coalition" is Neither ...

2006-11-29T18:10:00.000-08:00

... just like its predecessor, the "Moral Majority", was neither. Yes, today we have news that these oh so enlightened people (not!) forced the resignation of the organization's incoming president, Reverend Joel Hunter. Why? It seems that Rev. Hunter was perhaps a little too "Christian".

Indeed, as we learn in the link, Rev. Hunter wanted the organization to become interested in issues like poverty, global warming, and HIV/AIDS. Yes, things like caring for the less fortunate and things like leaving God's earth better than you found it. Those sure sound like the things that I always heard, when I was a child, were what "being Christian" was all about.

Apparently, however, this did not mesh with the "Christian Coalition"'s idea of "being Christian". Seems that the CC is only concerned about things like abortion and that very threat to the fabric of human society ... gasp ... same-sex marriage ... you know, the idea that two people in a committed relationship can enjoy the legal rights and privileges of ... being in committed relationship.

Actually, Rev. Hunter said it best: "My position is, unless we are caring as much for the vulnerable outside the womb as inside the womb, we're not carrying out the full message of Jesus." Bravo, Rev. Hunter. Nonetheless, the situation over at the CC is so bad that four state chapters have seceded from teh national CC. So, in addition to not being very Christian, it doesn't sound like they have much of a coalition either. Oh well, no loss.

Do These People Actually Think About What They're Doing?

2006-11-17T17:22:00.000-08:00

There have been some interesting things in the news this week, especially in the political world. Which leads me to ask - "What are (or were) these people thinking?":

Nancy Pelosi - OK, you just won a House majority, so you decide to spend your first new political capital inflaming an intraparty fight over who should be the majority leader, and you lend your support to a guy whose sole creditable contribution to the cause is his anti-Iraq War stance? And you basically do so because the other guy ran against you once? Sure, a lot of people voted the way they did last week because they were sick and tired of the war, but a lot of them were also sick and tired of corruption. And you, Nancy, support a guy who probably would have been nailed in Abscam had the FBI simply offered him more money. The same guy who just called your ethics reform proposal a piece of "crap." Nancy, you lost this fight, and rightfully so.

US Senate GOP - While Nancy is off shooting herself in the feet, the Senate GOP does no better. You elect the same guy to the #2 spot in your leadership who got run out of the leadership four years ago for making what were pretty much downright racist remarks? And what exactly has this good old boy done to acquit himself in the intervening time? Nothing, as I see it, unless you count sitting on the sidelines for four years as something.

George W. Bush - So the Dim Bulb decides he needs to visit Vietman to, among other things, see what lessons the US Vietnam experience can offer in dealing with the morass in Iraq? Perhaps maybe if you had gone to Vietnam the first time, like the 57,000 men and women whose names are on a black marble wall a few blocks from the White House, you would have understood enough never to send a single soldier to Iraq in the first place.

Virginia GOP Conservatives - Today's Washington Post reports that conservatives in the VA GOP blame last year's gubenatorial loss and last week's George Allen loss on "a reluctance by mainstream Republicans to stick to conservative principles." You just don't get it, do you? Mainstream Republicans are mainstream Republicans because they don't buy into all of your "conservative principles" stuff, and they never did in the first place. Yeah, mainstream Republicans favor lower taxes, but they also expect the government to do something for them, perhaps something other than spend its greatest efforts on things like banning every last abortion, "saving" the country from gay marriage, legalizing assault weapons, and keeping perfectly safe American-made prescription drugs from being imported from, of all places, Canada.

This Week's Sony PS3 Purchasers - You camped out in line outside stores for two days or more just to buy an electronic game system? Others of you are going to pay in excess of $1000 - many times the retail price - for this system? A month after Christmas you will most likely be able to walk into any major store and immediately purchase one of these things for the regular retail price. Do you and/or your obviously spoiled children really need these things that badly, right now? Folks with half a brain will wait until after Christmas and meanwhile be able to use the money they saved for other presents if they want (or just save it - what a radical thought?) and won't be the ones with cases of pneumonia caught after having urban camping experiences.

Allen Concession ... Dems to Control Senate

2006-11-09T18:22:00.000-08:00

A big thank you to George Allen for today deciding not to pursue the Senate campaign further. He saw the handwriting on the wall, but very easily could have taken the view that, because the law allowed him an automatic recount, he owed it to himself and his party to pursue one. Whether or not he is a viable candidate for the future may be a subject of some debate, but this certainly gains some goodwill for him and, more importantly for the GOP, some goodwill for his party. It it perhaps no surprise here to say that I have historically been very turned off by George Allen, but he did earn a point or two in my book today.

And congratulations to Senator-elect Jim Webb. "Born Fighting" at first seemed a bit cheesy as a campaign slogan, even when put in its actual context, but Jim Webb proved every step of the way that he is a fighter ... and a winner. He done Virginia good. Here's hoping he continues to make Virginia proud as a member of the United States Senate.

So, we will have divided government for the next two years. Our country has often done well with divided government - we need look no further back than to most of the 1980's and 1990's. Here's hoping as well that George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid find a way to work well together.

Complete Election Wrap-Up

2006-11-08T18:36:00.000-08:00

What a past couple of days! The AP has just called the VA Senate race for Jim Webb, and correctly so. Webb is up by over 7,000 votes (about 0.3%) with the electoral boards around the state currently completing their "canvass" of the results. This is basically verifying that they added everything up correctly and crediting those conditional votes that should be credited. Barring a major mathematical error, Webb will be the certified winner. As for a recount, this race is in line with Doug Wilder's 1989 Gubenatorial win in VA, which was recounted, with no effect on the outcome. And, this race currently has a margin of over 20 times that of last year's recounted Attorney General race in VA, where the numbers also hardly changed at all in the recount. And, just found out that Allen has called a press conference for tomorrow - a concession may be forthcoming.

So, we have a Dem Senate, 51-49, and a Dem House, likely to be about 234-201, and a majority of Dem governors, 28-22.

How did Not Mario Cuomo do? I was off by one on the Senate (I had it 50-50) and a little low on the House (I had it 225-210). As for the governors, I mistakenly thought that a Dem win in IA would be a pick-up, when the incumbent there already was a Dem. Adjusting for this, I predicted a 30-20 Dem majority. I missed by two, specifically my two upset picks - NV and AK. Neither worked out.

Specific breakdown of House district predictions/outcomes (incumbents/former incumbents in parens):
AZ-8 (Kolbe) - correct
CA-11 (Pombo) - correct
CO-7 (Beauprez) - correct
CT-2 (Simmons) - still pending
FL-13 (Harris) - wrong
FL-16 (Foley) - correct
GA-8 (Marshall) - wrong
IN-2 (Chocola) - correct
IN-8 (Hostetter) - correct
IN-9 (Sodrel) - correct
IA-1 (Nussle) - correct
KY-4 (Davis) - wrong
MN-6 (Kennedy) - wrong
NM-1 (Wilson) - still pending
NY-20 (Sweeney) - correct
NY-24 (Boehlert) - correct
NC-11 (Taylor) - correct
OH-1 (Chabot) - wrong
OH-15 (Pryce) -still pending
OH-18 (Ney) - correct
PA-6 (Gerlach) - wrong
PA-7 (Weldon) - correct
PA-10 (Sherwood) - correct
TX-22 (DeLay) - correct
And, obviously, wrong on the other districts that I did not predict party changes on.

The next two years will be very interesting. Bush has already thrown Rummy under the bus (finally) today and is going to have to decide whether really to make nice with Nancy & Harry. If he is concerned about his historical legacy as an "accomplisherer", he will sign some of what they send him.

Keep your eyes on the Senate for possible seat - and therefore, control - changes. Seeing as how most states allow their governors to make interim appointments to fill Senate vacancies, there are a number of states that have Senators and Governors of opposite parties. Of particular note would be those D Senators with R Governors - HI, CA, CT, RI, VT, IN, SD, and NE come to mind.

Final thought on the VA Senate future - It is widely expected that John Warner will not run for re-election in 2008. There was already expected to be quite a line on both sides of the aisle to run for this seat. The Webb-Allen outcome may just add one more person to that line - George Allen. The GOP field could be particularly competitive - Allen, Rep. Tom Davis, and former Gov. Jim Gilmore all may be interested. Likewise the Dem field likely will be too - a lot of names have surfaced for Gov/Lt Gov/Atty Gen in 2009 - former Gov. Mark Warner, former Lt. Gov. Don Beyer, 2005 Atty. Gen. nominee Creigh Deeds, Del. Brian Moran, Secy of the Commonwealth and former Fairfax County Chair Kate Hanley, current Fairfax County Chair Gerry Connolly, former Del. Chap Peterson, to name a few - and some may think about moving over for Senate in 2008.

The Day After ... AM Election Wrap-Up

2006-11-08T05:21:00.000-08:00

Wow! So, I watched the results for another hour last night and saw the shift in the VA Senate race, then to +2400 votes for Webb and this morning up to +8000 votes for Webb. Allen can ask for recounts until the cows come home, but we are now talking about a margin of 0.36%...

... Which brings up an interesting thought. Did the marriage amendment ballot question actually hurt Allen? How, you ask? Perhaps it gave conservative values voters a chance to split their ticket. In other words, if they were not that pleased with some of Allen's non-issues shenanigans and wanted to vote Webb, they could do so and then they could also vote "Yes" on the ballot question and feel that they were still living up to their moral convictions. Had the ballot question not been there, however, they may have felt that they had to vote for Allen as their only way to express their moral views.

More analysis later.

Late PM Election Wrap-Up

2006-11-07T20:20:00.000-08:00

Well, it is just past 11:00 here on the East Coast, NBC & CNN have both projected the House for the Dems. NBC is saying the Dems will have 231 seats +/- 10. That is in line with, though a tad higher, than my prediction of 225.

As for the Senate, I am giving TN to the GOP, which leaves it 49-48 (counting the I's as D's) for the GOP, with VA, MO, and MT undecided. VA will probably end with Allen leading. Webb is talking recount. MO is truly a "who knows". MT early returns show Tester up, but it is way too early. My prediction may end up being 1 or 2 high for the Dems.

As for the governors, CNN is already showing the Dems at +6 (MA, NY, OH, AR, MD, CO). I realized my predictions contained a mistake. I said that a Dem win in IA would be a pick-up. The Dems already had IA - apologies to Gov. Tom Vilsack. So, my +9 prediction should have been a +8. My upset picks - NV & AK - and whether I get to +8 - remain to be decided.

That's it from here for tonight.

2006 Election Results Analysis ... Live

2006-11-07T16:49:00.000-08:00

My quick read here at about 7:45 pm EST looks good for the Dems.

VA - Allen & Webb both at 49.3%, but with only about 4 precincts from NoVa reporting. Also, the same results show the marriage amendment up better than 60-40, which is probably over 5% better than it was polling. So, Allen's results are coming from more conservative precincts. CNN exit poll shows it as Webb, 51-48.

IN - Ellsworth (D) leading Hostetter (R) big in CD8, with a significant number of precincts in.

KY - Northrup (R) in trouble in CD3, down 50-49 with over 2/3's of the vote in. This was likely only the 2nd most likely KY district to flip to the Dems.

7:55 pm EST update:

Van Dorn precinct, Fairfax County, home to Not Mario Cuomo, has reported 62.5% for Webb. This is 3% better than its showing last year for Kaine. Again, this looks real good for Webb. And in a bizarre twist, Webb has run 1.5% better than long-time Dem Congressman Jim Moran this year in this precinct.

8:05 pm EST update:

CNN Senate exit polls suggest big Dem wins in PA & OH, and close Dem wins in VA & MO. Nothing on RI yet and MT of course is later. And they show a close GOP win in TN. This would make for +4 to +6 for the Dems in the Senate.

8:25 pm EST update:

VA Senate - OK, it is tight. About 3/4 of Fairfax County is reporting and Webb is 1.2% behind what Kaine did last year. This would put him at 50.5% statewide if the results elsewhere are parallel. 3rd party candidate is taking about 1.0% of the vote right now, which means that the winner will likely need to beat 49.5%. Not Larry Sabato reporting that Allen is pulling great numbers downstate, however. This will be close.

8:55 pm EST update:

House - Right now, Dem +3 in IN still looks more likely than not, along with Dem +1 in FL (Shaw losing, not Foley), Dem +1 in KY (Northrup losing, not Davis), a possible Dem +1 in NH, and a GOP +2 in GA.

9:10 pm EST update:

Senate - Dems +2 (OH & PA). Undecided: RI, VA, MO, and MT. TN is a likely GOP victory. NJ has been called by at least one network for the Dems. MD? - nothing called and no results yet, but CNN exit polls seem to show enough for Dems.

Governors - Dems +3 (MA, NY, OH).

9:15 pm EST update:

VA Senate - If I'm doing my math right, and the yet to report precincts in each CD report similar to the reporting precincts, Webb comes up just short.

9:40 pm EST update:

Senate - Multiple news outlets calling RI, PA & OH as pick-ups for the Dems and NJ and MD as key retentions for the Dems. TN will likely stay GOP. So, that is a +3 for the Dems. Key states left (all with GOP incumbents) are VA (leaning GOP at the moment), MO (???), and MT (too early).

9:50 pm EST update:

House -
CT - slow to report - could still be +1 to +3 Dem
FL - +1 or +2 Dem
GA - +2 GOP
IN - +2 or +3 Dem
KY - +1 Dem (Yarmuth over Northrup)
NH - +1 Dem
NY - too early to tell - at least +1 Dem
OH - too early to tell - probably about +2 Dem
PA - this could go as high as +4 Dem
This totals to probably about at least +9 Dem, bearing in mind this does not count some strong Dem possibilities in CO, NM, and AZ.

10:00 pm EST update:

VA Senate - Current margin is +0.13% Allen. CD's with biggest numbers yet to come are 2nd (running close to even), 3rd (Dem), 7th (GOP), 10th (close to even), and 11th (Dem). Hmm.

10:02 pm EST update:

VA Senate - OK, the 7th just reported a bunch more votes. Webb needs to make up 27,000 votes, with the 3rd, 8th, 10th, and 11th CD having the most precincts yet to report. Those cover central Richmond and Northern Virginia. This is getting more interesting.

10:45 pm EST update:

VA Senate - Allen currently +0.79%. It looks like the two biggest places still missing significant returns are the City of Richmond, which would cut the Allen lead about in half and Prince William County. PWC is somewhat of a wildcard, depending upon the precincts, but even if it goes for Webb, as it did for Kaine, it probably will not be enough to make the gap and offset other Allen votes yet to come in.

Rest of Senate - Dems still +3. Still waiting on MO (this one will be tomorrow) & MT (too early still). TN likely GOP. That's really all that remains relevant for the Senate.

House - These are not all calls, they are guesses based on current results
AZ - probably +1 Dem
CO - probably +1 Dem
CT - still waiting - +1 to +3 Dem?
FL - +1 or +2 Dem
GA - +2 GOP
IN - +3 Dem
KY - +1 Dem
NH - +1 Dem
NY - still waiting - +1 or +2 Dem?
NC - +1 Dem (former Redskin QB Heath Shuler takes it)
OH - still waiting - +1 Dem
PA - this is seriously looking like it could be +5 Dem
TX - +1 Dem
That's +16 Dem right now. They need 15.

This looks like it will be a Dem year, but not a tsunami.

Webb Rally with Bill Clinton in Alexandria

2006-11-06T18:29:00.000-08:00

I went to the Webb rally in Alexandria tonight. Very impressive event. Big-time politicos there for Webb were Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Bob Kerrey, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine.

As for Clinton, love him or hate him, he is a commanding presence who can really hold an audience's attention. He can talk about pretty boring stuff, like the intricacies of tax policies, and still be interesting.

I had a pretty good view of the podium, except for the guy a few people in front of me who kept trying to stand on the bench for extended periods, despite the security rule that no one was to stand on elevated surfaces. The Sheriff's Deputy had to tell him on more than one occasion to step down and I had to let out a "Down in front" yell once. Some people are just rude morons.

I also got to thinking how much Jim Webb and John Warner would actually make a good team together as Virginia's Senators, what with each of their extensive military experience. I have to imagine that, in his heart, John Warner would rather work with a guy like Webb - a Marine who graduated from the Naval Academy - than a yahoo frat boy Rebel-wannabe like Macaca Allen. I guess we'll find out tomorrow which one he'll get.

2006 Election Predictions

2006-11-05T08:23:00.000-08:00

Well, it’s time for my once every two years attempt to see how much I really know about politics and offer up my election predictions. This year’s elections, of course, have had a lot of intrigue, with some hot issues facing the electorate – the Iraq War, corruption on Capitol Hill, a pedophile Congressman, stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, to name a few. So, here goes:

UNITED STATES SENATE

Currently 55-45 GOP.

Dem pickups will be as follows:
Whitehouse over Chafee in RI
Casey over Santorum in PA
Brown over DeWine in OH
Tester over Burns in MT, but barely
And one more – read on below

There will be no GOP pickups:
Menendez will hold off Kean in NJ
Cardin will handle Steele in MD

The GOP will retain TN, with Corker over Ford, 53-47

And, yes, Lieberman (D-leaning I) over Lamont (D) and Schlesinger (R) in CT.

This leaves me with two races. I struggled with these two picks and they ended up being the last two I did:
Talent (R) over McCaskill (D) in MO, 51-49
Webb (D) over Allen (R) in VA, 50-49-1, for a Dem pickup

Look for the following to be closer than expected, but see the incumbents re-elected (if these incumbents do happen to lose, then I would be wrong about MO and probably TN and we would have a Dem tidal wave on our hands):
Kyl (R) over Pederson (D) in AZ
Ensign (R) over Carter (D) in NV

What does all of this mean? As I see things most likely to be, this is a +5 for the Dems. The Senate will remain controlled by the GOP, 50-50, by virtue of Vice President Richard “Dick” Cheney’s tiebreaking vote.

I see that Army Times now is going to call for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation too. This leads to a possible interesting scenario I saw mentioned in an online new chat: Lieberman is quite friendly with the President and is a hawk. Perhaps GWB replaces Rummy with Joe (been rumored before). A benefit to the GOP would be that CT’s GOP governor would be able to appoint Joe’s Senate replacement (perhaps one of CT’s three GOP House members who may lose on Tuesday?). Why this won’t happen: 1.) GWB will not fire Rummy. 2.) Joe would be trading a brand-new 6-year Senate term (and a likely committee chair if the Dems take over now or at some later point) for a tough stint of just 2 years in the administration (and likely be out of office come 1/20/09). 3.) This only makes sense for the GOP if the Senate ends up at exactly 51-49 Dem, the only scenario where the move would change working control of the Senate to the GOP. 4.) Not sure who else is available to be appointed to the Senate in CT, but as to the three GOP House members, each is probably more liberal than Joe.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Currently 232-203 GOP (assigning vacant seats to the last party holding them).

Dem pickups will be (most recent holder of seat in parens):
AZ-8 (Kolbe), CA-11 (Pombo), CO-7 (Beauprez), CT-2 (Simmons), FL-13 (Harris), FL-16 (Foley), IN-2 (Chocola), IN-8 (Hostetter), IN-9 (Sodrel), IA-1 (Nussle), KY-4 (Davis), MN-6 (Kennedy), NM-1 (Wilson), NY-20 (Sweeney), NY-24 (Boehlert), NC-11 (Taylor), OH-1 (Chabot), OH-15 (Pryce), OH-18 (Ney), PA-6 (Gerlach), PA-7 (Weldon), PA-10 (Sherwood), TX-22 (DeLay)

GOP pickup will be GA-8 (Marshall).

What does this mean? This is a +22 for the Dems. The House will be controlled by the Dems, 225-210.

My +22 for the Dems is likely lower than what a lot of the pundits are offering. Why? While this is clearly a Dem year, a lot of the seats “in play” are ones in which the GOP has in recent years had good numbers. This is in part thanks to gerrymandering, which by contrast is not a factor in the statewide races, where the Dem gains may be bigger. Also, in particular House districts, the power of the Bush/Cheney/Rove machine should not be underestimated.

For some of the local interest in Northern Virginia & Upstate New York:
For the past two election cycles, I have correctly predicted that Jim Moran (D) would be held under 60% in VA-8. No such thing this year – it’s too strong a Dem year, especially in this district. Jimbo breaks 67%.
Davis (R) over Hurst (D) in VA-11, with at least 60%
Wolf (R) over Feder (D) in VA-10, with at least 55%
Also in VA, though not Northern VA, Drake (R) over Kellam (D) in VA-2, 52-48.
In NY, per the above, I am giving the Dems takeovers in NY-20 & NY-24. As for NY-25 (Walsh), make it 53-47 Walsh, NY-26 (Reynolds), make it 52-48 Reynolds, and NY-29 (Kuhl), make it 52-48 Kuhl.

GOVERNORS

Currently 28-22 GOP.

The big four states:
Ah-nold (R) over Angelides (D) in CA
Perry (R) over Bell (D) in TX
Spitzer (D) over Faso (R) in NY – Dem pickup
Crist (R) over Davis (D) in FL

The next four states:
Rendell (D) over Swann (R) in PA
Strickland (D) over Blackwell (R) in OH – Dem pickup
Blagojevich (D) over Topinka (R) in IL
Granholm (D) over DeVos (R) in MI

Others:
Patrick (D) over Healey (R) in MA – Dem pickup
Carcieri (R) holds on (barely) over Fogarty in RI
O’Malley (D) barely (51-49) over Steele (R) in MD – Dem pickup
Culver (D) over Nussle (R) in IA – Dem pickup
Beebe (D) over Hutchinson (R) in AR – Dem pickup
Ritter (D) over Beuprez (R) in CO – Dem pickup
Kulongoski (D) over Saxton (R) in OR (thanks only to this being a strong Dem year)
Upset pick #1 – Titus (D) over Gibbons (R) in NV – Dem pickup
Upset pick #2 – Knowles (D) over Palin (R) in AK – Dem pickup

What does this mean? This is a +9 for the Dems. The governors will be 31-19 Dem.

OTHER

Virginia voters will approve Ballot Item #1 on the rights (or lack thereof) of unmarried persons, Marriage_Amendment, 53-47. This will, by amendment to the Constitution of Virginia, add a restriction on the rights of the people, prohibiting some Virginians from marrying and/or from entering into contracts which include provisions that resemble the of the rights of married persons. Somehow, there are apparently voters who are primarily motivated to vote by this issue. Let me make sure I understand this – there are any number of things that can affect one’s daily life – taxes, transportation, education, the threat of terrorism, to name a few – but there are people who are going to wake up on Election Day most concerned about whether Bob & Jim next door, who’ve been in a committed relationship for years, or Mike & Sue down the street, who have also been in a committed relationship for years, want to have all or some of the same rights as married people? I just don’t get it.

Anyway, this vote will somehow place the restriction on freedom in the Virginia “Bill of Rights”, alongside, among other things, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to petition the government for redress, things that great Virginians like Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and James Madison insisted upon and things for which many Virginia men and women have through the years given their lives in wars to protect, and alongside more recent additions such as the rights of victims of crime and, elsewhere in the Constitution of Virginia, the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game. It seems that perhaps the state motto of “Sic Semper Tyrannis” – Thus always to tyrants – may be in need of revision, as it appears that the tyrants are going to be welcomed back.

UPDATE:
This year's predictions by various big-time pundits were in today's Washington Post.

Welcome to this Blog

2006-11-03T18:03:00.000-08:00

For those who do not know me, I am a transplanted Yankee. I grew up in New York (a place Blue politically and which was Blue in the Civil War) and moved to Virginia (a place perhaps Red no more politically and which was Gray in the Civil War) after college (and now you know about the name of this blog). My two biggest entertainment interests are politics and baseball. So I am hoping to have a lot of commentary about both on this blog, along with some other thoughts too.

As for politics, as the name of this blog tells you, I am a proud Democrat. I believe in a government that is there to help its people when they need help and that defends its people's safety and freedom, but also a government keeps its nose out its people's private matters. My political hero is Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York. So my signature on this blog will be "Not Mario Cuomo" seeing as how I am not him.

As for baseball, I am a proud fan of the blue-pinstriped New York Yankees, the twenty-six time world champions. Guys like Reggie Jackson, Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly, Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, and Mariano Rivera are my baseball heroes.

Well, that's my introduction. Coming this Sunday will be my biannual election predictions. I started doing these a few years back, get a kick out of doing them, and found out other people liked reading them. I try to be as objective as possible, despite my own personal partisan leanings. Anyway, they are coming up on Sunday.