Like Jeff says, even Clinton gets it:

Last week, American voters gave Republicans the order of the boot, stripping them of at least 29 seats in the House of Representatives and six in the Senate, and once again making Democrats the kings of Capitol Hill. It was the GOP’s worst showing in decades, and since Tuesday analysts galore have been reading the entrails. It is easy to be wise after the event. But consider the judgment rendered by one of the keenest minds in American politics, who explained nearly a week *before* the election why Republican candidates were about to take a beating: “The reason we are at this moment,” former president Bill Clinton told a group of Democratic donors on Nov. 1, “is that they do not represent faithfully the Republicans and the more conservative independents in the country. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here tonight. This is a sweeping, deep, big thing.” According to the nation’s most popular Democrat, in other words, Republicans were about to be punished for having abandoned their Republican principles. Voters were going to demote the GOP not because its agenda had grown too conservative—but because it hadn’t been conservative enough.

But if Novak is right, the Republicans don’t get it:

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called “the stupid party.”

“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to . . . The Outer Limits!”

Let’s check out some of these Democrats who won, and see how they match up with the current Democrat leadership (presented in no particular order, btw).

Brad Ellsworth IN-08:

Terrorism

The flag is an ideal, not a piece of cloth. There’s not a person here that wouldn’t lay down their life for it, and thank God for those overseas who do. We certainly didn’t start this war with the terrorists, and until it’s won I’m going to support the brave men and women fighting it. That means weapons, equipment, and support here at home. They’re laying it all on the line for us, and they deserve nothing less in return.

Immigration

We face a national crisis when it comes to illegal immigration. The honest truth is that part of it is our own making. When we capture illegals here in Vanderburgh County, my deputies call INS and INS tells them there’s no place to put them. That’s not right. It’s also not right when an Indiana employer passes over an American for a job only because an illegal worker is cheaper. We need to tighten our borders, enforce the laws we have, and punish employers who break them. This is about economic security as much as it is national security.

Crime

I’ll protect our communities. I’ve been a cop for almost 25 years now, and I can tell you that today we face challenges I would have never dreamed of when I started. I know better than most the dangers that threaten to break up our communities: a coarse popular culture that assaults the values we try to teach our children, meth labs popping up near our schools, and gangs moving in from the big cities because they smell opportunity. When I go to Washington I’m going keep on fighting these things with the same passion I’ve had for the last 25 years. I know we can’t afford not to.

Family Values

I’ll protect our families. In my house, we were raised by my parents, not our television. Strong communities are anchored in strong families. I learned that church is about our community as much as it is our faith. This is important in this community and it’s important in my family. The church helps all of us decide who we are. We’re all weak in our own ways, but I believe that none of us is so weak that we’re beyond hope. The church has guided my life and my career. I believe in justice, I believe in hope, I believe in salvation, and I believe in the value of life in all its forms, not just what people say to get elected.

Ellsworth is the Sheriff of Vanderburgh County. Next up is Joe Donnelly, IN-02 (I find it interesting that the quotation the campaign chose to put at in the header is, “I will be an independent voice in Congress for the people of Indiana’s Second Congressional District.” Independent, eh?)

Life Issues

In keeping with my personal faith and family values, I have consistently opposed abortion and will continue to do so in Congress. I believe that being pro-life means promoting life at every stage, from conception until natural death. I will always vote according to my faith and my conscience on life issues.

Gun Rights

I believe in and support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees us the right to possess guns.

Hmmm. Nothing about Roe v. Wade, a woman’s right to choose, or “sensible” gun control?

Heath Schuler NC-11:

Private Property Rights

“Property is the foundation of all civilized society.” – Thomas Jefferson

Owning a home has always been a fundamental part of the American dream. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, CT. has endangered that right. This decision resulted in a corporation taking private property away from an individual under the pretext of eminent domain.

I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kelo case and I will never support using eminent domain to take away any individual’s private property for the benefit of another individual or corporation.

While this case must be remedied at the state level, I will work closely with the Governor and our state legislature to protect the rights of individual property owners.

Immigration

The United States is a nation built of immigrants, seeking opportunity and freedom. Throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to the greatness of our nation by enriching our culture, traditions and diversity. Hard-working immigrants help our economy grow by starting businesses, creating jobs and providing an essential workforce. The United States benefits from legal immigration, and we should continue to welcome newcomers to our great nation.

However, our current system of immigration is broken. Illegal and undocumented immigrants are flooding into our country in massive numbers. The lure of a better life in the United States has always been strong, in spite of the risks associated with illegal immigration. The economic boom of the 1990’s exacerbated this problem, resulting in increased levels of illegal immigration. Current estimates suggest that there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

We must control immigration and secure our borders. The lessons of September 11th clearly displayed the inability of our immigration policy to keep criminals and terrorists out of our country. We have millions of illegal immigrants in our country and our government has no idea who they are and if they pose a threat to us. Make no mistake about it; this is a National Security issue. The security of the United States and its citizens must be the foremost priority in formulating border and immigration policies. We must know if terrorists are entering our country and whether our visitors are abiding by their visas and our laws. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed by our immigration policies.

Additionally, illegal immigration is imposing a huge financial burden on the American economy. Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers approximately $70 billion a year in financial assistance for welfare benefits, health care, education, and domestic crime-fighting. It is unfair to those who have come to our country legally to provide education, welfare, and health care benefits to people who have broken the law and come here illegally. Our priority must be to educate and employ our citizens.

I believe that to correctly address illegal immigration we must revamp our current system. True immigration reform must be more than just protecting the borders. America needs comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, eliminates the backlog of CIS, and stops illegal immigration. We must increase the resources and funding available to the Border Patrol so more agents can be hired and more patrols conducted to keep people from illegally entering our country. We must also hold companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants responsible for their actions. By offering employment to those who have illegally entered the country, these companies are only encouraging more illegal immigration. While I understand the reasons that prompt some to illegally enter the United States and that America is a nation built by immigrants, I do not support granting amnesty to people who have broken the law.

Granted, they could all (or most) be whipped into line by Pelosi and her nutball crew, but there are more than just a couple of them, enough that they could, if they chose, stand firm. Baron Hill refused to cave to Bill Clinton’s arm-twisting and would not support his gun control agenda (he got graded down by the NRA and GOA for supporting McCain-Feingold); make no mistake, Baron Hill is way to the right of the Clinton squad. We’re starting to see diversity in the Democrats, and that’s certainly a good thing.

Webb is an unknown quantity, given that for twenty years, he refused to speak to Kerry or even shake his hand, but climbed into bed with the Cindy Sheehan Democrats when he decided to run. We’ll see.

But I don’t think Pelosi or her handler Soros is going to be happy.

I’m curled up in a fetal position.

This is excellent news, if it’s true:

The Santorum campaign reports that turnout is high across the state, but rather low in Philadelphia.

That’s exactly what we need.

FIAR, in a comment on this article:

I wuz disenfrenchfried by the confuzing filling in of circles. I got nervous. I thought I wuz taking the SATs again!

Halp me John Carry!

From Let Freedom Ring:

We have no property rights. None. If the government wants what I’ve got, they can take it without compensation.

We’re not quite there yet, but we will be if the Democrats get their way.

We have unfettered abortion. There are no rules.

We are not allowed to bear arms.

We are the second highest taxed population in the free world.

We’re not quite there yet, but we will be if the Democrats get their way.

We rely on others for our national defense. Liberal governments have stripped our military to the point that our soldiers have to hitch rides on US transports.

The Democrats would love to gut the military (again), but here’s a thought: Who would we rely on for our national defense? Who, comparatively, has the military might but us? And why, exactly, should anyone think it a good idea to give up our national defense?

Er, other than Democrats, that is.

Our schools are places of lib-left indoctrination instead of education and critical thought.

Our Supreme Court is stacked with activist judges from the lib-left. They’re writing laws from the bench which completely bypasses our elected representatives.

I’m afraid to say the same is true here.

The Democrats and their far-left base want to make the US a mirror image of Canada. Don’t let them do that. Your society is too precious to give up to socialism. As you folks go to the polls today, please vote Republican.

I did.

the same thing needs to happen: We need Hastert out of any leadership position. Hastert showed himself to be an insufferable, tone-deaf jackass when he howled with Pelosi about the FBI searching Jefferson’s office. He’s been a jackass ever since.

If we lose the House, the situation will take care of itself, and Hastert will be out. If we don’t lose the House, Hastert needs to step down, or be forced out, and somebody like Pence or Shadegg or Flake step into his place. If we don’t lost the House and that doesn’t happen, conservatives will be really angry with the GOP come 08.

And we — and the GOP — don’t want that.

This picture was taken about a year ago from our front door. See the church across the street? That’s where we vote.

There were about forty people waiting to vote when I got there. Again, it seemed very odd that there were people right in front of the door, handing out pamphlets. There are very strict laws about that sort of thing in Indiana. Indiana … oh yes, the 2004 election.

We went to vote (as it happens, we voted at a church there, too) right after the polls opened. It was in the 40s and raining, just miserable weather, and there were over a hundred people. The line was way out into the parking lot. There were so many people waiting in line that we had to call a colleague (two of us were together) and tell her there was no way we were going to be there to teach our 8:00 classes. When we got to campus after voting — about fifteen minutes before class was over — she’d put our classes together and was teaching for us.

I taught the rest of my classes, and since I didn’t have office hours that day, I went to the county GOP headquarters to volunteer. They put me to work as a runner.

Indiana is not a party registration state — that is, you’re just a registered voter. When you vote in the primary, they ask you what ballot you want, and put a D or an R next to your name in the poll book. The poll book has each registered voter’s name, the R or D (if he voted in the primary), and whether he has voted or not yet, repeated several times across the page with perforations in between. The runner goes from site to site and collects the poll book information (the election official tears off the last strips on the page and gives them to the runner). The runner then brings the poll book information back to party headquarters, and that information is used to know who to call (from headquarters).

The night before the election, the Democrats had decided to pull together volunteers to “monitor” for “voter intimidation.” While I was at one site picking up the poll books, this hippie woman walked up to me and demanded to know what I was doing.

So I told her. She asked me what party I was picking up poll books for, and I told her. And then she started screaming, “That’s not legal! That’s voter intimidation!” In fact, she had such a fit that she had to be ejected. It’s too bad the Democrats couldn’t have given their “monitors” a crash course in how elections operate.

You remember the 2004 polls. Well, while driving from election site to election site, I looked at the bumperstickers on the cars and trucks in the parking lots. And I saw notably more Bush-Cheney stickers — in a county with a great many Democrats. It was obvious, at least in the morning and early afternoon, who was turning out in greater numbers.

Remember that it’s who actually goes to vote that decides the elections — not the numbers reported in the polls. If Republicans turn out in droves today, those polls will (again) turn out to be inaccurate.

I spent all afternoon at headquarters, first calling up people to ask them if they’d voted, if they were going to vote, and if they needed a ride to the polls. Again, nearly everybody I got hold of either had voted already, or was going to vote (we called only the people with the R next to their names). I spent the last two hours the election sites were open driving around picking up Republican voters and taking them to vote.

Vote, folks. VOTE!

Have you voted yet? VOTE!

I felt very much as I do now. I’d had a positive feeling about the election, but I had started to lose it. I voted, then went home and didn’t watch a single election return. I didn’t want to.

I woke up the next morning to re-election.

And that’s what I’m doing tomorrow. I’m going to go vote, then no election returns.

And now, I’m signing off.

VOTE!

This release is from the national GOP, instead of the Pennsylvania GOP. Here are a few of the more entertaining bits:

Democrat interest in the election has remained relatively static, while Republican interest (+14) and enthusiasm (+10) have increased significantly, according to Pew, which concludes “Republicans now register a greater likelihood of voting than do Democrats…”

The ABC/ Washington Post poll showed a net 10-point gain for Republicans among independents from last month. Pew showed a similar gain among independents of 10 points since last month and a huge 17-point net gain among moderates.

The ABC/Washington Post poll shows the Republican edge in the generic ballot has increased 10 points among conservatives, from 68-29 (a month ago) to 73-24.

The final pre-election Pew poll shows a similar trend with Republicans now planning to support the GOP growing a net-3 points. It also shows a net-6 point increase among conservatives and net-18 points among white evangelical Christians.

The GOP’s 72-hour program has reached 27 million volunteer contacts through Saturday, hitting 3 million voters this Saturday alone. By and large, this effort will have its impact on Election Day and will not show up in most public opinion polls. However, some trends are starting to be seen in the data:

Republicans are casting a wider net: According to the ABC/Washington Post poll, among those who have been contacted by campaigns, 70% were contacted by Republicans while only 61% were contacted by Democrats.

And using better targeting: The Pew study says that we are not only contacting more voters, but contacting the right voters: 40% of our party was contacted by Republicans, while Democrats only connected with 34% of their own party.

The Kerry Factor — John Kerry’s “stuck in Iraq” remark has attracted the attention of eighty-four percent of voters, and 19%—including 18% of independents—say it has raised serious doubts about voting for their local Democratic candidates.

Heh.

Orson Scott Card: “The Only Issue This Election Day“:

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan — the party I joined back in the 1970s — is dead. Of suicide.

It’s been obvious for thirty years that Kerry pays no attention to what he says, and that he’s such an arrogant SOB that he sees no reason anybody should be annoyed or offended by his jack-ass comments. But this goes over the line, even for Kerry.

He un-apologized. Dan has the scoop — and follow the links.

Wow. The man is insane.

Rick Santorum has consistently and energetically supported the war and our troops.

Santorum co-sponsored the “Covering Kids Act of 2005,” which increases health insurance for children.

Santorum helped Pennsylvania’s small businesses provide health insurance to their employees.

Santorum wrote legislation to provide screening for prevention of breast and cervical cancer.

Santorum helped expand access to home health care and worked to expand research for Parkinson’s disease.

Santorum supported the Patients’ Bill of Rights.

Santorum is a leading advocate for a program which funds community health centers.

Santorum fights to cut down frivolous lawsuits that are forcing doctors out of Pennsylvania.

Santorum co-sponsored the bill to increase AIDS funding, both here and abroad; Santorum, working with Durbin, delivered $2 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. And Santorum couldn’t have cared less how “evil” James Dobson thought the fund or the cause.

Santorum has consistently supported greater accountability in education.

Santorum is an energetic supporter of private property rights.

Santorum has fought to toughen laws on child molesters and is almost solely responsible for passing Aimee’s Law.

Want more? Here are other causes Santorum has supported:

Welfare reform, which has lowered welfare caseloads 58 percent nationally, lifting people out of a culture of poverty and dependency and into school or jobs or both.

The fatherhood initiative (cosponsored with Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana), a $100 million program to help churches and community groups bring fathers back into the lives of their children.

Securing almost $800 million to help the Philadelphia Housing Authority move the city from high-rise public housing to affordable townhouse communities (a collaboration with PHA director Carl Greene).

Open-space preservation, securing tax incentives that encourage property owners to save land rather than sell out to developers.

Rick Santorum has repeatedly crossed the aisle to work with Democrats on causes in which he believes. Rick Santorum is perhaps the most principled elected politician in Congress — and stands in stark contrast to the unprincipled Arlen Specter. Bob Casey is an empty suit. Not even at debates will he address the issues, and has even waffled on his “pro-life” credentials. Casey is an outsider, and if he is elected, will be ordered around by his handlers. If Santorum is elected, he will continue to fight for the principles in which he believes.

I’ll take principles over “smart” any day of the week. After all, I know all kinds of “smart” people who have no principles, morals, or ethics whatsoever and couldn’t be relied upon to pay back a nickel loan.

Persian Gulf Conflict Veterans’ Compensation Fund Referendum Act No. 29 of 2006

“Do you favor indebtedness by the Commonwealth of up to $20,000,000 for the payment of compensation for service in the Persian Gulf Conflict of 1990-1991?”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Even the Pittsburgh Trib-Review is for it. But here’s what the referendum doesn’t say up front.

Any Persian Gulf veteran who was a legal resident of Pennsylvania at the time of the Persian Gulf conflict will be eligible for monetary compensation ranging from a minimum of $75 to a maximum of $525.

See that? $75-$525. That’s it. For military service? It’s like throwing these people a bone and saying, “Thanks for your service, and aren’t we great for giving it to you!”

How insulting.

This is nothing more than a feel-good referendum, and the condescension of the small amount of money it would award Veterans doesn’t even qualify it as a symbolic statement of support.

Then there’s the dismal state of the economy here, thanks to Fast Eddie (who we’re going to have to put up with for another four years, it appears). $20 million dollars in debt? I don’t think so, at least not for a referendum just to make non-Veterans feel good about supporting Veterans — and giving them no support in the process. Oh, and the House Appropriations Committee estimates that once consulting fees, overhead, and interest are factored in, the referendum will cost us $30.49 million.

Oh, and did I mention that this is the second time this referendum has been on the ballot? Or that the first time it was on the ballot it was voted down?

So yes, I know, it seems cold-hearted, but no, I will not vote for this idiotic referendum.

Just in case there was any ambiguity …

United States Senator

Rick Santorum

Governor and Lieutenant Governor

Lynn Swann and Jim Matthews

Representative in Congress 5th District

John E. Peterson

Senator in the General Assembly 34th District

Jacob D. Corman, III

Representative in the General Assembly, 7th District

Barbara H. Spencer

And however cold-hearted, I’m voting “No” on the idiotic, feel-good referendum.

The NYT has come out with another cheerleading poll, and again, Ankle Biting Pundits is all over it:

My point here is not to complain about the poll methodology, etc., but rather to again the decry the use of these polls to drive “news” stories and do “analysis” about the midterm election. The reason - the “news” stories provide no context about the poll demographics, nor do the polls accurately reflect who is actually going to show up on Election Day.

Here’s why I say this…

In the NYT poll, 23% of respondents aren’t even eligible to vote.

And of those 77% that are registered, a full 37% didn’t vote in the last mid-term election, and an additional 13% don’t remember if they voted then. Folks, that means that OVER HALF OF THE TOTAL RESPONDENTS DIDN’T VOTE/CAN’T REMEMBER VOTING IN 2002.

Plus, some 26% didn’t even bother to vote in the friggin 2004 Presidential election.

How in God’s name can the NYT seriously this poll to be reflective of anything?

Now let’s look at some of the specific demographic information that should give you pause.

You really should read the whole thing. Here in Pennsylvania, we have more of the same. Let’s look at that most recent Keystone Poll that’s been getting so much press here (you can download the poll results in a PDF file here).

First, ths sample is ridiculously small, particularly for a statewide (Senate) election. The sample for this poll should be a thousand. But having said that, llet’s add and subtract the margin of error to get the most conservative results:

It still doesn’t look good for Santorum. Casey’s lead is almost twice the undecided percentage. However, if you download the poll results and read through them, instead of relying on press releases, there are a couple of oddities the press releases neglect to mention. Here’s one:

"Are you absolutely CERTAIN you will vote FOR [fill Vote_Sen] in the election, or are you still making up your mind (asked of those who selected either Santorum or Casey)?"

So a full 17% of those who responded either Casey or Santorum are still making up their minds, and could go either way. That alone makes this poll less black and white than the press releases would have you believe. But this next question, asked of undecided voters, is even more interesting.

"As of today, do you lean more to Bob Casey, Jr., the Democrat, or Rick Santorum, the Republican?"

Note that of the undecided respondents, more lean toward Santorum than Casey — yet the press releases say nothing about that. Interesting, isn’t it?

The poll isn’t good for Santorum, but it’s not the "doom and gloom" the press releases would have you believe.

I hesitate to make a prediction, just because I’ve only lived here for fifteen months, and I don’t have a “feel” for Pennsylvania politics like I did/do Indiana politics. But I suspect conservatives who are still mad at Santorum for backing Specter against Toomey will show up in droves on Tuesday and vote — for Santorum.

Lynn Swann, on the other hand, doesn’t have a chance. I’ll rant about that one of these days.

and I approved this message!”

Hat tip: Bullwinkle Blog

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Jim Talent for re-election to the United States Senate.

I think there will be a lot of people like this guy who emailed Jonah Goldberg:

Over on Freerepublic, I’ve been one of the people who consistently has been chanting for abandoning the Republicans. The fact of the matter is a republican in congress has a lot more in common with a democrat in congress than either of them has with me and the other folks who only get to spend their own money. The contempt they hold for your average American slips out from time to time and it’s always disheartening. So come election time, it seems the only tool I have to get them to listen to me is to threaten to withhold my vote and potentially move the scope of all political discourse further to the right. But when the moment arrives, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for the republican lying weasel instead of handing a victory to the democratic lying weasel.

I mean I’m angry… but I’m not an idiot.

The Right Place did an impressive ranking of all the members of Congress based on a conservative score, a non-partisan score, and a liberal score. The scale is 0-100, and the lower the number, the more liberal. (My House representative scored an 88, pretty good, though he does like pork too much).

He also used the House and Senate scores to rank states, though since his purpose was to rank politicians and not states, you have to scroll through his rankings to see the states. So I’ve compiled them here, from most conservative to least. The results are just a bit surprising.

The latest Battleground Poll is out, and it doesn’t look good for the Democrats. But let’s start by reviewing the last Battleground Poll:

When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be

Since it’s not clear where the line falls between “somewhat” and “very,” let’s conflate the above:

So in that last Battleground Poll, 61% of the respondents considered themselves to be conservative, while only 35% considered themselves to be liberal — and just as importantly, only 2% considered themselves to be moderate, blowing the myth of the "moderate majority" out of the water.

Let’s turn to the latest Battleground Poll results (warning: PDF file):

When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be

And conflated, the data look like this:

So we still have 61% of the respondents identifying themselves as conservative. In fact, the only change (a trivial one) is that there is one fewer percent of the respondents identifying as liberal, and one more percent identifying themselves as moderate.

Again, the "moderate majority" myth is shown to be just that, and again, the "progressive" Democrats are pushing themselves further away from the American voter. Are we surprised yet?

From Steele’s website (for those of you out of the loop, Michael Steele is a black Republican running for Lt. Governor in Maryland):

Steele Letter to Cardin, Dean, Schumer, Lierman

October 4, 2006
Congressman Ben Cardin
Ben Cardin for Senate
22 Bloomsbury Avenue
Catonsville, Maryland 21228

Governor Howard Dean
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Senator Chuck Schumer
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Mr. Terry Lierman
Chairman, Maryland Democratic Party
188 Main Street, Suite 1
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Congressman Cardin, Governor Dean, Chairman Lierman and Senator Schumer:

For several months, I have been trailed by Democrat operatives filming my public events. At these events – speeches, press conferences, county fairs and parades – my every word and move has been recorded.

I realize this has become a part of modern campaigning and I welcome the scrutiny. In fact, I always make a point to say a friendly hello to whomever the Democrat Party sends to follow me. However, recent actions have crossed the line from political activity to an invasion of privacy.

On the morning of September 30, I participated in a homecoming ceremony for the Army National Guard 243rd Engineers. The event – as fitting for the occasion – was non-political. Republicans and Democrats joined together to welcome home brave men and women returning from Iraq and I attended in my official capacity to spend time with the troops and their families.

While speaking with two mothers whose sons had died in Iraq, I noticed the ever present Democrat operative filming our conversation. A conversation with parents who have lost a loved one in combat is private in nature and has no place in partisan politics, and certainly not in the smear campaign you have waged against me even before I entered the race for United States Senate. The filming of this conversation demonstrates a callous disregard for families who have lost a loved one and is an indefensible invasion of privacy.

Unfortunately, I have come to expect such ugly, gutter politics from you. Congressman Cardin, while saying you have expressed outrage to “all concerned parties” for the racist comments on your senior staffer’s blog, you have yet to apologize to me. Chairman Dean, your personal pollster, Cornell Belcher, advocated racist attacks to “knock” me down and “discredit” me, and yet I have received no apology from you. And, Senator Schumer, your staffers pled guilty to a crime when they stole my credit report and violated my privacy and that of my family, but I have had no apology from you either.

I did not think until this past Saturday, however, that such ugliness would intrude upon the return of our troops from Iraq. As I told your colleague, Congressman Steny Hoyer, who attended the event, this action represents a new low in Maryland politics and has no place in this campaign.

My campaign is focused on having a conversation with the voters of our state about the issues affecting Maryland and I am committed to building bridges over that which divides us. But, ugly partisan political tricks only work to divide our communities and represent the very type of political behavior voters are sick of.

If your respective organizations are as concerned as I am about the use of such poor judgment by your staff(s), you would take immediate steps to hold all responsible parties accountable.

I eagerly await your prompt response.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL S. STEELE

I consulted an astrologist, and the stars say: No response.

Biglizards has an excellent cluebat for you:

Just within the last week, Republicans pushed the following major (and excellent) bills through to the Senate or to the White House:

• September 26th, 6:10 pm: a bill to protect public seals that contain religious elements (like the tiny cross in the seal of the County of Los Angeles) and other public expressions of religion from lawsuit under the First Amendment’s “establishment” clause; 218 Republicans and 26 Democrats supported this bill. The bill has been received in the Senate.
• September 26th, 7:19 pm: a bill to expand and enhance the Border Patrol; passed by voice vote, no roll call available.
• September 27th, 4:45 pm: a bill authorizing military tribunals, almost exactly in the format that the Bush administration proposed; 219 Republicans and only 34 Democrats voted for it.. The bill was also passed by the Senate (54 Republicans, 12 Democrats supporting) and sent to the president for signature.
• September 26th, 12:48 pm: a bill making it a federal crime for a non-custodial person to transport a minor across state lines in order to procure an abortion to evade parental-notification requirements; 215 Republicans and 34 Democrats supported this. 153 Democrats opposed it! What on earth were they thinking? Are they nakedly championing adult cads who get some teenaged girl pregnant, then spirit her to another state for an abortion, so Mom and Dad won’t find out? The Senate hasn’t received this one yet.
• September 28th, 1:51 pm: a bill authorizing sanctions on Iran if they don’t suspend their Uranium enrichment. Passed by voice vote, no roll call available.
• September 28th, 10:19 pm: a bill enshrining the president’s terrorist-communications intercept program (NSA “wiretapping“) into law; 214 Republicans and 18 Democrats supported.
• September 29th, 6:31 pm: a bill expanding the rights of private-property owners against eminent domain seizures by states or the feds; the aye vote consisted of 194 Republicans and 37 Democrats, and the bill has been received by the Senate.

And although this one was longer than a week ago, it still deserves a round of applause:

• September 20th, 1:11 pm: a bill requiring potential voters show proof that they are American citizens before being allowed to register; the bill passed with 223 Republican supporters and zero Democrats. Evidently, the Democrats support a right of non-citizens to vote in American elections… probably because that’s the only way Democrats win close elections anymore.

I sent this letter today to Dole, Frist, Specter, Santorum, and Ken Mehlman.

Dear Senators Dole, Frist, Santorum and Specter, and Chairman Mehlman:

Sincerely,

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Max Burns for the US Congress for the 12th District of Georgia. He is running a tight race against Democratic incumbent John Barrow.

The Israeli war in Lebanon has shown what will happen if we pull out of Iraq… the terrorists will claim victory and emerge even stronger and more emboldened. Max Burns understands this and supports the troops to complete their mission. We should live in a society that respects and supports those who risk their lives for our benefit. Sadly, we don’t live in that society.

Max Burns understands that immigration doesn’t require reform; it requires actually enforcing the laws on the books. Not enforcing the law has led to lawlessness and before any question of guest workers can be introduced, law and order needs to return to that segment of society.

The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” has shown us that even a GOP lead Congress can still waste money. That is why earmark reform and a line item veto is all the more necessary. When pork can be put into budgets without debate (earmarks), the line item veto allows voters to put the heat on the President to bring sense back to Congressional spending. The GOP has gotten half of the equation right in lowering taxes… now they need to cut spending. Max Burns supports this in the form of a balanced budget.

Families waste days and weeks each year trying to figure out their “fair share” of taxes. Not even the IRS can figure out the tax code… a book that is over 12 times larger than the Bible! Max Burns supports cleaning up the tax code so that families can clearly understand what the owe… and the IRS can even figure it out too.

Please consider donating or volunteering to the Max Burns campaign. Help turn this blue seat red!

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

Don Surber helpfully points out a few strategies Howard Dean left out of his campaign missive:

Pray for chaos in Iraq, a rise in gas prices and a drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Whine about Republicans going “negative” when they point to Democratic voting records.

Register the dog to vote.

On Election Day, vote early and often, and keep those polls open late so Democrats can vote in as many precincts as possible.

Challenge any “close” vote — even if the margin is 125,000 votes.

I have posted before on why polls and surveys are not predictive. Jay Cost at Realclearpolitics has an excellent article discussing further problems with polls — and why they are not predictive.

But, we also have expectations of this error. One expectation is that its rate should be roughly constant. We should not have one set of observations where our model has only a little bit of error - and another set of observations where there is a great deal of error. It means that our model does not perform equally well across all observations. Another expectation has to do with over- and underestimation. We expect our model to sometimes overestimate the true value and to sometimes underestimate the true value. But there should be no pattern to this over- and underestimation. For instance, we should not expect it to underestimate the first ten observations and then overestimate the second ten.

The generic ballot seems to have both of these problems. Specifically, as it makes a larger prediction for the Democrats, the model’s error rate tends to increase. Furthermore, as it makes a larger prediction for the Democrats, the model tends to underestimate their final result. What does that mean for the 51.75/48.25 prediction? It means that it is not valid.

Why is this the case? It gets back to the skew. As the Democratic lead in the generic ballot increases, two things happen. First, the size of the skew increases. When the Democrats have a small lead - the generic ballot overestimates the Democrats’ share by an average of 9%. When they have a big lead - it overestimates their share by an average of 14%. Second, the variability of the skew increases. When the Democrats have a small lead, the skew varies between 0% and 11%. When they have a big lead, it varies between 2% and 24%. Both of these are violations of assumptions needed to use the generic ballot as a predictive tool. Thus, we cannot use it as one. Is it possible to salvage it - to “reconstruct” the data in such a way that it does not violate these assumptions, or to use another statistical test whose assumptions it does not violate? It might be - but to my knowledge nobody has, as of yet, found a way to do it. Without this “reconstructive surgery,” the generic ballot remains an invalid indicator of election results.

I think that the reason for both violations relates to the presence of non-voters who are registering a party preference. We know two things about non-voters that are relevant for this discussion - they are more inclined to the Democrats than voters are, and they know less about politics than voters do. This could make all the difference.

This week, Wictory Wednesday present Thomas Kean for the US Senate for the state of New Jersey. Tom is a known conservative supporting sound economic and political policies that will keep America going in the right direction.

If you’re down from hearing all the Dhimmirat spin about how they’re going to sweep the elections, then go read this at Don Surber. Highlights include:

“81 percent of Republican voters are “almost certain” to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are “very likely.” It goes without saying that they’ll vote Republican: By a margin of 84 percent to 6 percent, they will pull the GOP toggle switch in the voting booth. And here is something you don’t hear very often: 88 percent of Republicans approve of how the prez is handling his job”

[ . . . ]

1. “Ranking at the top of what will motivate Republicans in 2006 is dealing with the foreign threats to our national security and supporting the President’s leadership in the War on Terror.”

2. “Republicans see the renewal of the Patriot Act, better protection of our borders, and NSA surveillance of terrorist phone calls and phone records as an interrelated set of issues. Fully 80% of the Base expresses extremely strong feelings about at least one of these steps to enhance our national security.”

3. “Of the five issues on which we tested Democratic Party positions, its position on the War on Terror causes the strongest negative feelings, on average, from Republicans. A 56% majority of the Base has extremely strong feelings about the Democratic Party’s WOT position.”

4. “Proposals to erase the Bush tax cuts generate considerable anger from the Base.”

Note that the memo (Don linked to it) is a PDF file.

Neil Cavuto interviewed Lynn Swann yesterday. Here’s the link to the video (sorry, you’ll have to sit through the orbitz ad at the beginning).