Colorado

Rasmussen. 7/21. MoE 4.5% (6/17 results)

The Pollster.com composite is 47.6 Obama, 44.9 McCain.

Michigan

EPIC/MRA. 7/13-15. MoE 4% (5/19-22 results)

The Pollster.com composite is 47.6 Obama, 39.1 McCain.

Florida

Rasmussen. 7/22. MoE 4.5% (6/26 results)

American Research Group. 7/19-21. MoE 4% (6/13-17 results)

Those Ras numbers are a little goofy. That's a big shift in a single month, and one seen in few other states. Then we have ARG giving us the exact opposite trendline, though we all know ARG sucks you-know-what.

Thank heavens we can fall back on the composite, which is less sensitive to wild swings and outliers. And on that front, it's really, really, really tight: 45.7 McCain, 44.9 Obama.

New Hampshire

American Research Group. 7/19-21. MoE 4% (6/13-17 results)

U of New Hampshire (PDF). 7/11-20. MoE 4.5% (4/25-30 results)

Two crappy pollsters, but let's plug their numbers into the composite anyway. Currently, it's 47.4 Obama, 40.4 McCain in New Hampshire.

Ohio

Rasmussen. 7/21. MoE 4.5% (6/17 results)

Did Ras juice their (D) sample this month? Or did Obama hit upon the holy grail of Florida and Ohio swing-state politics? I don't know if I buy these particular numbers, but there's no need to. The composite actually feels quite right: 45.9 Obama, 42.4 McCain. Give Obama the twitchy, very nervous lead. Essentially, this one's tied (like Florida, like every fucking election cycle, it seems).

Virginia

Public Policy Polling. 7/17-20. MoE 2.7% (6/26 results)

Just float within the MoE. The composite remains razor tight: 46.7 Obama, 44.1 McCain.

Other: Monmouth University reiterates that yes, Obama is crushing McCain in New Jersey 50-36 (PDF).

Barack Obama isn't the only one facing the dirtiest of race-baiting attacks this cycle.

Rep. Mark Kirk, locked in the race of his life with Orange to Blue candidate Dan Seals, has already made several highly controversial statements about Democratic candidates this cycle, most notably this one (emphasis added):

DON WADE: In fact, yesterday in a conference call, Barack Obama's advisers were asked, "If Osama bin Laden were caught, should he get to challenge his detention in U.S. courts?" And the advisers said that -- should that right to challenge detention that they get at Gitmo based on the Supreme Court ruling, should that be applied to bin Laden? -- and Obama's advisers said, "Yes."

KIRK: Yeah, and I would much rather have a policy where if we see Obama there's a shoot-on-sight order.

DON WADE: Well, okay. I'm with you, but I don't know whether that's going to make 67 -- well it might --

ROMA: I don't think Osama bin Laden -- no one ever sights him.

Kirk apologized to Senator Obama for the alleged mix-up. But he's back to making underhanded, oh-so-subtle statements about Democrats, this time about Dan Seals himself.

The Kirk campaign is going after Seals for being "unemployed".

"After losing his bid for Congress, Seals did not return to GE Finance and was unemployed," according to a Kirk campaign memo out last week. "Near the end of the 2006 campaign, Seals paid himself $25,000 out of his campaign donor funds — an act that is legal but strongly discouraging to donors ... in May, Seals filed his 2008 financial disclosure with the U.S. House showing only $3,300 in earned income through the first quarter of the year."

Unemployed? Seals has been working as a business consultant and lecturer at Northwestern University.

Most candidates for Congress take at least a leave of absence from work to focus on their campaigns, especially campaigns as hotly contested as this one. This is hardly a secret. Candidates frequently sacrifice promising careers out of a commitment to public service; praise to those who do.

Heaven forbid we actually have candidates for office who put public service ahead of their own personal gain. I understand why that concept may be foreign to Republicans, but still.

Regardless of the stupidity and irrelevance of the quote, it is wildly inaccurate, as the Seals campaign pointed out:

But Seals’ campaign said in a new memo distributed Monday that the incumbent is resorting "to demeaning and untruthful smears" reminiscent of slash-and-burn GOP operative Karl Rove.

"Mark Kirk entirely overlooks the fact that Dan Seals has worked as a business consultant and lecturer at Northwestern since 2006 and that Seals’ wife serves in a senior level corporate position," the Seals campaign memo states. "So the question is, what does Mark Kirk find so objectionable that the Seals family, like many families in the 10th district have two working parents?"

"It is this out-of-touch mentality that has guided Kirk’s votes against economic relief for hard-hit families and also driven Seals to devote himself full-time to campaigning, because now more than ever change is needed in Washington," the memo continues.

So why on earth would the Kirk campaign seek to target Seals as "unemployed", given the fact that it isn't true?

Why would they think that dog would hunt, given Seals' stellar professional and educational resume? In addition to his consulting work and teaching at Northwestern, Seals has worked as an English teacher and Senate aide, worked in marketing at Sprint and GE Finance, and holds degrees from Boston University, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Chicago.

Who do they think they're kidding with the "unemployed" line? Who do they think would buy the idea of Dan Seals as a freeloader?

Please tell me it doesn't have anything to do with Seals being African-American, running in an affluent white district.

Because if it does, Kirk is guilty of engaging in the most shameful and vile brand of politics imaginable.

On the web:
Dan Seals for Congress
Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

Race tracker wiki: IL-10

Barack Obama has won the argument on Iraq. The latest NBC/WSJ Poll, released tonight, shows that 60% of the voters think a timetable is a good idea, and 30% think it's a bad idea. Arguments about the success of the surge are irrelevant.

This is not helping John McCain, who is floundering and (out of frustration, presumably) lashing out at Obama and taking a ton of heat for it. It's getting so bad, even Business Week says John McCain's Brand has Jumped The Shark. Ouch.

Back to the poll:
Presidential choice
6/08 (5/08) (4/08)
Barack Obama  47 (47) (46)
John McCain   41 (41) (43)

But Obama’s lead over McCain expands to 13 points when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added into the mix — with Obama at 48 percent, McCain at 35 percent, Nader at 5 percent and Barr at 2 percent. However, it’s important to note that the pro-Obama vote (48 percent) and anti-Obama vote (adding up to 42 percent) is consistent with the result from the two-way match up.

link

51% of voters are focused on what kind of president Obama will be vs. 27% for McCain.

55% want change, even if less experience, vs 40% for stability

Obama has greater risk (55%) vs. McCain (35%).

Obama is more mainstream (60% agree) compared to McCain (45%), but McCain has shared values lead.

43% of McCain supporters see him as the lesser of two evils vs. 22% for Obama.

Tony Blankley (MSNBC) reminds us this is eerily similar to 1980, and Obama is Ronald Reagan... the public wants him but won't commit until late.

Excited to vote for your candidate? 44% to 14% (guess who?)

In addition, the Republican Party’s brand is in tatters. President Bush’s approval rating is at 30 percent, up two points from last month’s poll. Also, for the 25th consecutive survey, more view the Republican Party negatively (48 percent) than positively (31 percent). By comparison, the Democratic Party has a 43-37 percent positive-negative rating.

Furthermore, just 13 percent in the poll believe that the country is headed in the right direction. That’s the lowest percentage on this question ever in the history of the NBC/Journal poll. [bolded mine] In July 1992 — the year that challenger Bill Clinton beat incumbent President George H.W. Bush — 14 percent said the nation was on the right track.

Perhaps more ominous for McCain, by 55-40 percent, voters say they prefer a presidential candidate who will bring greater changes — even if he’s less experienced and tested — to an experienced candidate who would bring fewer changes to existing policies.

"McCain can’t make this election about experience. Re-running Hillary’s campaign isn’t going to be enough," Newhouse says, referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom Obama edged for his party’s nomination.

Bottom line: Obama holds the lead (no tightening), and attracts the most attention, excitement and interest. However, he has not made the sale as of July. That doesn't mean he won't. The Obama World Tour shows he can look Presidential. McCain will have to shake things up to win. That doesn't mean he can't, but it's not clear he's got it in him to do so.

But you knew that. The poll is merely affirmation.

I likes me some war, my friends, my friends.

Via Politico:

UPDATE: Just over an hour after finalizing plans to visit an oil rig tomorrow, the McCain campaign has cancelled the visit.

"The meeting with Governor Jindal has been postponed and we are cancelling the trip to the rig due to weather," said spokesman MIchael Goldfarb.

McCain will now fly from Pennsylvania to Ohio.  He had originally planned to fly tonight from Pennsylvania to New Orleans to be staged there for morning departure to the rig.

The campaign declined to comment any further about the quick decision to spike the trip other than to cite the weather.

Of course, we could take the McCain campaign at its word (ha!), and assume the cancellation is due to Hurricane Dolly.

Then again, it could be attributable to the unfortunate timing of an oil rig photo op in the Gulf region on top of this semi-breaking news:

(CNN)  -- The U.S. Coast Guard has closed 29 miles of the Mississippi River from New Orleans southward after a tanker and a barge collided, spilling more than 400,000 gallons of fuel oil into the river.

The river, a major shipping route between the Midwest and Gulf of Mexico, could be closed for days during the cleanup, the Coast Guard said Wednesday.

Or the back-handed slap delivered by Bobby Jindal today, long touted as a possible VP candidate for McCain:

Wednesday morning, Jindal made perhaps his strongest statement yet regarding running for Vice President.  Appearing on "FOX and Friends", Jindal said "I'm not going to be the vice presidential nominee or vice president."

Or maybe McCain decided to just stop fighting the media juggernaut surrounding Obama's overseas trip and lay low for a while. At this point, not saying anything or doing anything seems to be the wisest campaign strategy going, given his recent newsmaking.

Emptywheel has Karl Rove's answers to questions from the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee -- you know, the committee before which Rove won't actually go to testify. It's written questions, no follow-ups, so basically Rove's dream scenario.

Promising follow-up, emptywheel offers this initial reading:

Smith repeatedly asks Rove whether or not he ever communicated with:

Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any other individual about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman

And repeatedly, Rove answers that he has never directly or indirectly communicated with:

Justice Department or Alabama officials [] about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman

Rove would not make the same denials about talking to "any other individuals" he did about DOJ and Alabama officials.

Now to be fair to old Turdblossom, Rove does add this caveat, repeatedly:

nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf

But that's not the same thing as answering whether he spoke to anyone about it all.

Karl Rove being less than fully honest. Big surprise. We know emptywheel (and Kagro X, and other bloggers) will follow up on this. Will Congress?

CO-Sen: After a series of polls showing Democrat Mark Udall with a 9-10 point lead over Republican Bob Schaffer, here's the first one in a while showing a closer race. From Rasmussen:  

Udall isn't likely to win by 12-15 points, or anything like that. Despite myriad missteps and scandals from Schaffer, and despite a solid campaign for Udall so far, this race is far from over. Nevertheless, the edge is Udall's, and has been since the race began.

NC-Sen: Elizabeth Dole's rather shocking attempt to get the high-profile AIDS relief bill named after her predecessor, the late Sen. Jesse Helms, has gone up in smoke.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., introduced an amendment to add Helms, the N.C. Republican who died July 4, to the title of a $48billion bill passed Wednesday in the Senate that triples spending for a much-acclaimed program that has treated and protected millions in Africa and elsewhere from the scourges of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Her measure, though, didn't get a vote. The legislation was already named after two other lawmakers who fought against the spread of AIDS, former Reps. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., and Tom Lantos, D-Calif.

Dole's amendment came as a surprise, of course, because Helms spent a good bit of his life attacking AIDS victims:

Helms changed his view on foreign relief programs late in his Senate career, and teamed up with rock star Bono to help suffering populations overseas.

What many critics won't soon forget are Helms' comments like this one about people with AIDS in his own country: "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."

This, too:

Dole's amendment, quietly introduced Monday, was first reported Wednesday by the Huffington Post. The news quickly spread on the blogosphere, where there was a proliferation of Helms quotes – such as 1995 comments to The New York Times, which quoted him as saying people got AIDS because of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct."

Dole's legislative career in the Senate has been underwhelming by any analysis. And if a failed amendment to get an AIDS relief bill named after the most controversial politician in North Carolina's recent history is her best attempt at padding her resume, it may be time to consider someone else.

NH-Sen: Plenty of movement in the Jeanne Shaheen - John Sununu race. Two polls out, both from pollsters of questionable reliability. From ARG:

Too good to be true, right? So witness UNH:

Too bad to be true? It is. MissLaura has a healthy dose of skepticism about the partisan samples used in the UNH polling, which she articulates at Blue Hampshire. The UNH poll, FWIW, showed Paul Hodes losing by 20-25 points, in late 2006.  

Gazing at these polls, CQ Politics shakes their head, shrugs their shoulders, and moves the race to "Leans Democratic".

MS-Sen: For a race widely considered a tossup, or leaning ever so slightly Republican, Mississippi's Senate race has been relatively quiet. But Mississippi remains one of the closest Senate races in the country in polling, and Barack Obama's campaign apparently intends to seriously contest the state, expecting to increase the black vote in Mississippi by over 30%.

The Politico has an excellent article noting that even if this does not turn Mississippi to Obama, it could win the election for Musgrove.

It is possible for a Mississippi Democrat to win in a statewide election, but it would likely require 30 percent of the white vote along with nearly the entire black vote. In 2003, Musgrove lost his reelection bid for governor to current Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican. Musgrave took about 22 percent of the white vote, and lost the election 53 percent to 46 percent. In 1999, when Musgrove beat Republican gubernatorial nominee Mike Parker in one of the closest races in Mississippi history, he performed even better among white voters, running well ahead of typical Democratic performance in Northeast Mississippi, a Republican stronghold.

The formula that has sometimes worked for Mississippi Democrats is directly at odds with Obama’s strategy for putting Southern states in play. Obama and his aides have made the case that Obama could increase black turnout so substantially — by 30 percent or more — that Southern states with large African-American populations would become competitive even without much of a change in the white turnout. But the math here is much harder than the Obama campaign asserts. If you take the 2004 presidential election results, increase the black vote by 30 percent and assume that the white vote stays the same, Obama would still lose Mississippi by more than 100,000 votes. And most analysts think that a 30 percent increase in the black vote is extremely optimistic. Obama will surely draw African-Americans to the polls in record numbers, but even a 10 percent to 15 percent increase in African-American votes would be historic. Add to that Obama’s problems in attracting white Mississippi voters even in the Democratic primary, where he attracted only a quarter of white Democrats.

What Musgrove hopes is that he can have the best of both worlds. He can run as a more conservative Democrat picking up moderate white voters, just as Travis Childers did in the House special election to replace Roger Wicker. But Musgrove might also benefit from Obama energizing and turning out the black vote even while Musgrove keeps his distance from the presidential nominee.

Musgrove is running even in the polls with incumbent Republican Roger Wicker, so even a small increase in the black vote in Mississippi would be a tremendous boon to Musgrove's campaign.

House Races

AK-AL: Kos wrote last night on the burgeoning scandal surrounding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Long story short, Palin apparently had a personal vendetta against a state trooper (and her former brother-in-law), Mike Wooten,who had been embroiled in a nasty divorce from Palin's sister. Over 25 investigations and complaints were filed against him in an attempt to get him fired. All were dismissed save one, which was deemed not serious enough to sack him.

Allegedly, Palin subsequently pressured public safety commissioner Walt Monegan to fire the brother-in-law. Monegan didn't, and was subsequently fired himself.

Finally, Monegan's replacement, Chuck Kopp, is highly controversial in his own right, having previously been charged with sexual harassment by an employee.

Palin is not up for reelection until 2010, but her lieutenant governor Sean Parnell represents the biggest threat to a Democratic pickup in the House race. Parnell's main claim to fame is his association with the formerly universally popular Governor, and this scandal may sink him. From Kos:  

Parnell has tied his entire campaign thus far to Sarah Palin, using her popularity to boost his efforts. Today, word is that Parnell has pulled all ads with references to Palin. Her brand is mud.

Yet without her, Parnell isn't shit either. He's dead in the water. (Don) Young will win his primary in several weeks, and prove easy pickings for the Democratic nominee.

Meanwhile, Palin was considered the fallback candidate in case Stevens got indicted. She no longer looks so hot. Nor can she be an asset for Stevens, Young, or any other Republican up and down the ballot in her state. Alaska's most popular Republican has essentially been neutralized. The "popular Republican" is now extinct in Alaska.

This could indeed kill Parnell's campaign, or seriously damage it. Parnell was Palin's golden boy; Palin's good name is his good name.

ID-01: Bill "Absolute Idiot" Sali has screwed up yet again. This time, he is one full week late in filing his FEC reports. His campaign claims technical difficulties:

I am unable to file the 2nd quarter 2008 FEC report, as FEC technical support is still attempting to fix the Sali for Congress data file.  I first attempted to upload a file to the FEC site on June 6. I again tried on June 9, using the new FEC software update, without success. I then sent FEC technical support a copy of the Sali for Congress FEC file. FEC technical support is still attempting to fix the file so that it may be uploaded. I am in regular contact with FEC technical support and the FEC analyst, in an effort to resolve this matter.

Thing is, that was a full week ago. The response from Democrat Walt Minnick's campaign:

"Frankly it is outrageous that he has not filed this report, the people of Idaho deserve to know who his campaign contributors are. And for him to think that he can get away from not filing his federally mandated financial disclosure to the American people and Idahoan is really outrageous," said Foster.

AZ-03: The Arizona Democratic Party has a new ad opposing John Shadegg, on behalf of Orange to Blue candidate Bob Lord:

TX-10: Democratic candidate (and Netroots Nation attendee) Larry Joe Doherty now sports the endorsements of the NEA, the Texas State Teachers' Association, and the national and state branches of the American Federation of Teachers. From a press release:

With membership of more than 4.6 million educators nationwide, these four front-line organizations represent the teachers who are working hard in our classrooms everyday. In fact, in 2007, McCaul received an 'F' rating from the NEA due to his lack of support for 'quality public education.'

"Larry Joe Doherty will take the fight to Washington on behalf of our educators, students and schools," said Louis Malfaro, President of Education Austin.  "We are proud to support a candidate who understands that a strong commitment to our public education system is the key to long-term economic health for Texas kids, families, and businesses."

Doherty is committed to working with these organizations to fix No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Republican incumbent Michael McCaul has voted to strip $806 billion in vital funding from the program (HR 3010, 6/24/05, Vote #321).

"I will be a dependable voice for our nation's teachers and students instead of a rubber stamp for a party whose policies are out of touch with the American people," said Doherty.

LA-07: Democratic candidate Don Cravins, Jr., was just added to the DCCC's Emerging Races list:

"In the short time that Don Cravins has been in the race, he's put together a solid campaign and shown that he is committed to making things easier for middle class families in Southwest Louisiana," said DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen.

Cravins is the 21st candidate named to the DCCC's Emerging Races program. In each of these races, Democratic candidates have generated excitement in their districts for their campaigns for change.  As these campaigns continue to develop and demonstrate increasing strength, candidates will have an opportunity to qualify for the DCCC's Red to Blue program.  

SD-AL: Congratulations to Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and former Rep. Max Sandlin, who are expecting their first child together in December.

On the web:

Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

Seriously painful, arguably pathetic:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Barack Obama is not the only presidential candidate who will be front-and-center in Berlin this Thursday. Well, sort of.

In the latest effort to counter-program Obama’s tour of Europe and the Middle East, the Republican National Committee will air radio ads promoting John McCain’s candidacy in three different Berlins: Berlin, New Hampshire; Berlin, Pennsylvania; and Berlin, Wisconsin.

Why don't McCain's campaign people just give Obama his week, let their candidate rest up, and come up with some brilliant PR moves next week when Obama's settled back in at home? Every day reveals more desperation, whining and stupid "pay attention to me!" gimmicks. This can't be helping the undecideds move his way, can it?

Good news!

I just got word from my publisher that the release date for my forthcoming book, Taking on the System, has been moved up two weeks to August 20. James Wolcott liked the book:

A guerrilla manual for political insurgency, a motivational guide to personal action, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga’s Taking on the System lays out the map on how to transform social networks into a power grid and send the funeral directors of our archaic institutions packing. Written with the high-velocity enthusiasm for a healthy shellacking that has made Daily Kos the Battlestar Galactica of the blogosphere, Taking on the System, studded with practical tips and inspirational tales, teaches and preaches how to turn your voice into a force-multiplier without losing your soul in the process. This is a book that conservatives could learn from too, if they could tear themselves away from Rush Limbaugh long enough to take a jab at something new.

--James Wolcott, Vanity Fair columnist and author of Attack Poodles (Miramax)

I passed out a bunch of press galleys to people at Netroots Nation, including many a prominent diarist. Hopefully they start sharing what they thought about the book with us. And as always, you can pre-order the book to ensure you get it at the earliest possible time.

• Um, Katharine? I wrote that post a year ago. The 2007 should've given that way.
• The AP's Ron Fournier really is a problem.
• BooMan tallies the candidates and elected officials who were present at Netroots Nation. There's a crapload of them. So I guess Democrats really aren't afraid of us. And the good ones really do have little to fear.

  There were a lot of politicians from red and purple states and districts who had the common sense to understand that the (New) New Left may be anti-war but they have little else in common with the 60's counterculture (except insofar as the Netroots welcomes the veterans of those wars with open arms). The Netroots is unapologetically pro-Constitution, anti-torture, and pro-Small Business. Our consensus positions on the war, on reproductive rights, on gay rights, and the environment are now majority American opinions. They aren't fringe. We have the (Old) New Left to thank for a lot of that, but the Netroots' culture is decidedly different, as are our primary goals. The (Old) New Left was tackling the Establishment on desegregation and women's liberation in an attempt to tear down centuries-old injustices. The (New) New Left is not attempting anything so bold or transformative. We're trying to get universal health care, Fair Trade, a green energy plan, and a restoration of the consensus American governmental and legal values of the post-war period...including internationalism and human rights.

• Cool pictures of a leopard ambushing and killing a croc, apparently for no reason at all (crocodiles don't have enough meat to justify the risk and danger). (Via John Cole's place.)
• The McCain campaign lied to Bob Novak, telling him they'd be choosing a veep on Tuesday to try and steal some of the thunder from Obama's overseas trip. Now Novak is pissed. So pissed, apparently, that he ran over a pedestrian. He drives a black corvette.
• Jindal is reportedly taking himself out of the veep-stakes. Too bad. The GOP has just lost its only "not ancient and white" option.
• I write in The Hill that the left has inherent advantages online.

  This disparity isn’t surprising. While conservative bloggers can rightfully claim a couple of minor successes, they’ve been generally relegated to the fringes of their movement. There’s been little need for them. Conservatives eager for conservative voices have long had a smorgasbord of options from which to choose, from Fox News Channel to an AM radio buffet dominated by Rush Limbaugh and clones, to hordes of movement conservatives clogging up newspaper op-ed pages, to well-established online message boards. Despite "liberal media" cries, there has never been any medium truly dominated by movement progressives. So-called "liberal" voices, like Joe Klein and Richard Cohen, have been more concerned with getting approbation from their friends in the D.C. cocktail party circuit than truly fighting for progressive causes.

  Furthermore, the right-wing media machine operates in a top-bottom fashion, relying heavily on its firebrand personalities — Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Progressives instinctively chafe at this hierarchical approach. Yet the Republican ability to march in lockstep has paid huge political dividends, yielding GOP victories on the strength of simplistic, well-crafted, oft-repeated (and even more often, bogus) messages, like the fabricated quote that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet.

  But the horizontal, collaborative structure of successful online communities clearly poses a problem for right-wing bloggers, precisely because their movement excels in following orders instead of participating in bottom-up discussion and organizing. Americans get enough one-way communication on TV, radio and print; those who follow politics online do so because it allows them to engage in something larger, not because they want to hear yet another bloviator blather.

• CO-04: The wide consensus is that this is Marilyn Musgrave's swang song, increasingly out of touch with a blue-ing district and done in by her single-minded obsession with gay bashing. Colorado Independent takes a look at the numbers of one of the district's key counties:

  The number of Weld County Republicans has remained relatively flat since 2004, rising 2 percent to 50,110 as of last month, according to Secretary of State data.

  Although the number of registered Weld Democrats during the same time is up 5 percent to 31,289, it’s the 12 percent increase in unaffiliated voters that has Democrats smiling.

• Way back in the day, Obama was a rare vote against eliminating rent control in Illinois.
• Yup. This is certainly pretty darn stupid.

Memo to Republican candidates: There is actually an outer limit to fake outrage stories. Let's allow NJ-03 Republican candidate Chris Myers to demonstrate, shall we?

Release Date: Jul 22 2008

Myers Demands Adler Apologize to Troops, Veterans, Military Families for Web Video Comments

Adler referred to radical liberal bloggers as "the new citizen soldiers"

         Mount Holly, July 22, 2008-Decorated combat veteran and congressional candidate Chris Myers (NJ-3) today demanded that his opponent, career Trenton politician John Adler, apologize to United States active duty troops, veterans and military families for comments he made in a YouTube video posted on his web site.

         In the video, entitled "John Adler: a progressive," Adler admiringly refers to radical liberal bloggers from the Daily Kos and other liberal blog sites as "the new citizen soldiers".  The video can be found at Adler's campaign web site (www.adlerforcongress.com/video), or on YouTube at the following link: http://youtube.com/...

         "On behalf of our active duty military personnel and their families, and the tens of thousands of veterans living in the 3rd Congressional District, I am calling on John Adler to remove this video and apologize for his outrageous comments," said Myers, himself a former Navy Lieutenant and decorated combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War.  "These radical liberal bloggers are in no way, shape or form ‘soldiers,' and referring to them in that way is an affront to the brave men and women in uniform fighting to defend our freedoms around the globe, the veterans who have done so in generations past, and their proud families."

Without even bothering to get into the fact that the progressive netroots do in fact encompass many actual soldiers (which should come as no surprise, since all you need to have is a computer and a modem -- there are lots of dentists, too, but Republicans don't get outraged about dentists, even "radical liberal dentists"), I think we can safely say that Myers' ridiculous tirade is about as stupid a thing as anyone could ever imagine a candidate attaching his name to.

Thank God for geniuses like Myers, who can finally save confused New Jerseyans from metaphors, analogies and all sorts of linguo-fascism! They hate us for our figurative language, you know!

Does anyone think Myers would ever be able to find us the critical mass of soldiers who demand this apology? Who need it more than, say, some body armor and a lift home for their buddies?

The "falling off a log" response to this idiocy (note to Myers: I'm not actually on a log) would be to name some of the prominent members of our community who've served. But that understates the mendacity of his comments and legitimizes them. Better for residents of New Jersey's third district to take a closer look at Myers' own rhetoric and remember that everything he says must be taken literally. Anyone care to scour his web site and see who's owed an apology next?

With the need for constant vigilance against comparisons of mass destruction, one wonders when Myers will find time to campaign. By which I mean campaign for office, not conduct a military campaign! My apologies to everyone who ever has conducted such a campaign, or watched one on the History Channel!

What a friggin' dork.

UPDATE: Local color and the Adler response at (where else?) BlueJersey.

Race tracker wiki: NJ-03

Following yesterday's monumental screw-up by John McCain, proving once again that he either doesn't understand or has forgotten key elements about this war, McCain's campaign has responded to questions about his claim that the surge made the "Anbar Awakening" possible:

Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge ... but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain.

Wrong. That is not the debate. That's a cheap strawman by the McCain campaign, has no basis in reality, and has nothing to do with what John McCain said yesterday.  

Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

Portraying questions about that statement as a cricicism of McCain and the troops is nearly as contemptible as McCain's recent claims that Obama "would rather lose a war than lose a campaign." The debate, the question, is, was John McCain unaware that the "Anbar Awakening" began in 2006, did he forget, or was he lying for political gain?

McCain's campaign has been complaining endlessly about the lack of media coverage they're receiving. Well, here's a chance for the media to give McCain what he's been asking for...and a chance for them to do their job.  

Six years ago today, Matthew Rycroft, private secretary to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, wrote a secret memorandum to the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.S., David Manning. The memo contained the minutes of a meeting held that same morning between Blair and a few senior foreign policy advisers. It was exposed by the Sunday Times nearly three years later. Two paragraphs stood out.

Rycroft spoke about a trip that Sir Richard Dearlove had recently taken to Washington. Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service or MI6, is referred to officially as "C":

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

And there was this:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Many people who were attentive to the White House’s public statements saw hints that a decision already had been made to invade Iraq well before that secret memo was sent to its select group of addressees. There was the 2002 State of Union in late January and the West Point graduation speech in June.

But concerns raised by these speeches were tempered somewhat by the idea that Congress wouldn’t go along, that public support was soft, that the media would yank on the reins, and that the British weren’t on board. This all spurred most observers to believe that an invasion might encounter too many obstacles to go forward. Unless, that is, some definitive evidence could be delivered showing that Saddam Hussein had massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction and was close to building nuclear bombs.

Providing such evidence was exactly what the neoconservative war hounds had been intent on doing, as we now know, ever since September 11 – using the terrible events of that day to achieve what former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill had told us in Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty and former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke had written in Against All Enemies. That is, they proposed from their very first National Security Council meeting in February 2001 to invade Iraq, eight months before al Qaeda’s attacks. Even after September 11, however, getting the public and Congress to go along, as the Downing Street memo stated  in the summer of 2002, required that the facts be "fixed around the policy." Fixed, as in exaggerated and concocted.

On May 1, 2005, Michael Smith at the Sunday Times revealed Rycroft’s memorandum. It was still April 30 in the U.S. when the news appeared, and a Diarist named smintheus picked up on it at Daily Kos, where he garnered comments from five Kossacks. The follow-up Diary the next morning drew more than 300 comments. By May 5, John Conyers, then the ranking Democratic Congressman on the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, who had first read of the Downing Street memo at Daily Kos, sent a letter to the White House signed by 89 of his colleagues asking for answers.  

Soon, frustrated by the thin gruel of traditional media coverage, there was a blogswarm to Awaken the Media, formation of various Web sites, including After Downing Street, and the The Downing Street Memos, and a blogger grouping called the Big Brass Alliance.

For me and others who had for various reasons resisted calls for impeachment prior to 2005, the Downing Street Memo was a turning point. Here was the kind of evidence that we had hoped would someday come to light, evidence that - together with what Clarke and O’Neill had already provided, plus the Valerie Plame affair and the lack of WMDs in Iraq - directly called into question the administration’s claims that the decision to go to war was not made until February 2003. Here was strong evidence that the President had lied to Americans, broken his oath of office and violated national and international law. Not incontestable proof, but certainly grounds for inquiry.  

On June 16, 2005, spurred by the revelations in the secret memo, John Conyers held an unofficial hearing with 35 other Democrats, hearing testimony from, among others, former Ambassador Joe Wilson and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. It was there that the prospect of a Resolution of Inquiry into impeachment was first raised.

That, of course, was 37 months ago. Much vitriolic talk about impeachment has gone down since then. But very little of it has taken place in the halls of Congress despite considerable new information. Additional memos, like the one David Manning wrote on January 31, 2003, have come to light. Plus, it was learned that a classified version of a National Intelligence Estimate stated that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. Just before the congressional vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq in October 2002, the Bush Administration released a declassified version for public consumption which conveniently deleted NIE's no-imminent-threat assessment.

This Friday, thanks to a long-term grassroots effort as well as the unwillingness to yield by a handful of Congressional Democrats, most notably Dennis Kucinich, impeachment will be on the table at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. This could and should have started in 2007. Only time will tell whether "better late than never" applies.

After months of trying to shame Obama into visiting Iraq, Obama is now on perhaps the most successful campaign week the entire campaign, and his trip was the hot media ticket. By contrast, the McCain press corps apparently numbers in the 20s.

Barack Obama has a newly chartered jumbo jet, loaded to the gills with reporters and network anchors accompanying him to the Middle East and Europe, while McCain's traveling press corps numbers only about 25, including camera crews. While CBS News anchor Katie Couric and ABC News anchor Charles Gibson are traveling with Obama, neither CBS News nor ABC News sent even a correspondent to cover McCain. (NBC News is covering both). And this is hardly unique to this week. Only the Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal among big newspapers are consistently covering McCain. NEWSWEEK almost always has a reporter on the plane, but Time and U.S. News do not.

Hmmm, who is missing from that list? It couldn't be Fox News, since we're told that Obama has been "reaching out" to them to appeal to "the middle" people pretend watch the RNC's official propaganda mouthpiece. Not that they didn't try to get a ticket on the hottest political act of the summer. Crooks and Liars has the admission via Stephen Colbert. (Really.)

video of FOX & Friends]
DOOCY: Why are you not on Barack Obama’s airplane heading to the Middle East right now?
WALLACE: Well, I called the Obama campaign several weeks ago and said that I’d like to go and my invitation has apparently been lost in the mail.
[end video]

Well played, Obama campaign.

Meanwhile, McCain left another rambling message about how none of his family will visit. No wonder Wallace is steering clear.

In this video (in Spanish) O2B candidate Joe Garcia essentially accuses the right-wing Cuban-American Frank Calzon of the Center for Free Cuba of essentially pilfering tax-payer funds. Later in the show, Calzon throws a hissy fit and storms out (and you don't need to know Spanish to be entertained by this clip):

A subsequent federal audit found $500,000 missing from Calzon's operation, lost into the pocket of the corrupt South Florida Cuban-American mafia. Just like Garcia had charged. Now, after finding more such discrepancies, Congress has frozen all funding for these corrupt groups.

Congress has put the U.S. Agency for International Development's $45 million Cuba program's 2008 funding on hold, following a series of troubling audits and cases of massive fraud, The Miami Herald has learned.

In a quest to get the funding hold lifted, U.S. AID on Friday ordered a bottoms-up review of all its Cuba democracy programs and suspended a Miami anti-Castro exile group that spent at least $11,000 of federal grant money on personal items.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., ordered a hold on the U.S. AID Cuba program funding last month, in part in response to a $500,000 embezzlement at the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington disclosed earlier this year, federal officials said.

In a memo sent Friday to various members of Congress, Stephen Driesler, AID's deputy assistant administrator for legislative and public affairs, said the agency recently implemented stricter financial reviews. That new review turned up irregularities at the Grupo de Apoyo a la Democracia (Group in Support of Democracy), a Miami group criticized in the past for using federal funds to send Nintendo games to Cuba [...]

A report by the Cuban-American National Foundation released in May showed that less than 17 percent of $65 million in federal Cuba aid funds spent during the past 10 years went to ''direct, on-island assistance.'' The bulk of the money, the report said, went to academic studies and expenses of exile organizations, mostly in Miami and Washington.

The report echoed findings by The Miami Herald in 2006 and a congressional Government Accountability Office audit that found lax oversight of the programs and came as the Bush administration prepares to dole out a record $45.7 million in Cuba democracy grants.

This is essentially a big chunk of the payoff the corrupt Cuban exile community gets for having its three South Florida Cuban American representatives (and Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, too). $45.7 million doled out in patronage fashion to all the co-conspirators, and that's not even including the millions wasted on Radio Marti in similar fashion. Democracy in Cuba? Pshaw! There are fancy dinners to be bought! The high life to be lived.

As you can see in the videos above (even if you don't speak Spanish) is that Joe Garcia has been fighting for accountability for those who receive US tax dollars, and isn't one to let ideology override the interests of the taxpayers.

On the web:
Joe Garcia for Congress
Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

Race tracker wiki: FL-21 FL-18 FL-25

Hurricane Dolly is undergoing a round of intensification prior to landfall later today near the resort town of South Padre Island, Texas, and could possibly even reach Category 2 intensity in the next few hours. From Jeff Masters:

Hurricane Dolly is putting on a impressive burst of rapid intensification as it approaches landfall on the Texas coast near Brownsville. Reports from the Hurricane Hunters show that Dolly's pressure is dropping rapidly, down 9 mb in just four hours, to 967 mb (as of the 8:30 am EDT Hurricane Hunter eye report). Dolly's central pressure dropped 15 mb in the 18 hours previous to that, so this is an impressive sudden drop this morning. Radar imagery out of Brownsville, Texas shows an well-organized hurricane, with excellent spiral banding and a 20-mile diameter eye. Visible satellite loops show an impressive eye, excellent upper-level outflow, and good symmetry. It's a good thing Dolly does not have another 24 hours over water, or it would have become a major hurricane.

[Update 11:55AM EDT by DS] NOAA/NWS is now reporting Dolly is a Cat 2 hurricane with additional strengthening still possible:

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS HAVE INCREASED TO NEAR 100 MPH...160 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER GUSTS.  DOLLY IS A CATEGORY TWO HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. STRONGER WINDS...ESPECIALLY IN GUSTS...ARE LIKELY ON HIGH RISE BUILDINGS. SOME ADDITIONAL STRENGTHENING IS POSSIBLE BEFORE LANDFALL.

Katie Couric in a speech before the National Press Club, September 2007:

Couric took Rather to task for his reporting. "There were things in there that were quite egregious in terms of how it was reported," she said. "And sloppy work is sloppy work...They did not dot their I’s and cross their T’s when it came to that story...And our job is to get [it] right."

It's hard to figure out whose credibility is sinking faster: John McCain, who's apparently as unaware of recent history as he is of geography, or CBS, who covers up his ignorance for him.

First, a short primer:

2006----> The Anbar Awakening, in which Sunni tribes unite to resist Al Qaida.

2007----> Bush's troop surge

Enter Katie Couric, interviewing John McCain yesterday:

Couric Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

Well, it's just a matter of history if you live life in reverse, I guess. And yes, it's tough indeed to figure out how to respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened, Senator McCain. But CBS figured out how to do it: just cut the inconveniently false portion out, as Keith Olbermann caught CBS doing last night.

Here's some masterful evidence presented by masterp2323:

Remember this is the same Katie Couric who confessed in the 2007 speech to the National Press Club to feeling "uncomfortable," and that somebody--certainly not her, but somebody with ... oh ... say ... a national media platform--ought to do something about the inevitable march to war back in 2003:

And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring The Today Show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this? And is this being properly challenged by the right people?’

One thing's become crystal clear: Couric isn't one of the "right people." And sloppy work is sloppy work. And oh, yeah. Someone once said it's your job to get it right.

(Hat tips to Daily Kos diarist rogereaton and Think Progress for publicizing this story.)

USAToday reports:

Democrats in Congress hope to ignite a drive to reverse the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy Wednesday with the first hearing on the subject since 1993, when President Clinton said gays could serve in uniform if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation.

Without this hearing, said former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, "you will never repeal the law. It's a great idea." He is among more than 50 retired generals and admirals who have said it is time to rethink the policy.

Solid thinking by General Shalikashvili. That seems to me to be exactly right. That is, that Democratic Members of Congress need to be thinking ahead now about exactly how they propose to manage drinking from the firehose of needed reforms and repairs coming after Liberation Day in January of next year.

But it's not just the Bush-bots who are to blame for the fact that there hasn't even been a hearing on the subject for 15 years:

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee tried to have a hearing on the policy in April 2007, but opposition from conservatives in their party sank the idea.

More and better, people. More and better.

The conditions are right for revisiting this issue:

[T]he volunteer armed forces struggle to retain troops to fight two wars. Changing attitudes are seen in polls such as one by The Washington Post, published Saturday, showing that 75% favor allowing gays to serve openly, up from 44% in 1993.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, has said that if elected, he would work to repeal the bar on open service — and the "don't ask" compromise designed to work around it. His Republican rival, John McCain, wants no change.

"At a time when the military is relaxing every possible standard to attract new recruits, and at the same time is losing mission-critical specialists such as Arabic linguists, medical professionals and others, one would hope and expect that Defense Department leaders would be first in line to call on Congress to repeal the law," says Steve Ralls of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

They're not, of course. Because active duty military personnel generally feel restrained from challenging policy.

But the numbers tell the hidden part of the story:

The military has booted 12,500 servicemembers under "don't ask, don't tell." Annual discharges peaked at 1,273 in 2001. Discharges have declined sharply since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Pentagon discharged 627 servicemembers last year.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is just one of many legislative fixes needed, of course. Kudos to Military Personnel Subcommittee chair Susan Davis (D-CA) for holding the hearing, and to Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who's been beaten up plenty around these parts before, for sponsoring the bill designed to enact the repeal.

Hopefully an early success -- meaning that it comes shortly after the current maniac is finally purged from the White House -- will embolden Democrats in the 111th Congress to move quickly on repeals promised more recently, such as that of the Military Commissions Act and the recent FISA disaster.