Archive for the ‘Midterm Elections’ Category

According to this Strib article, Marty Seifert sees the pendulum swinging back in the GOP’s direction. The basis for his opinion is Steve Drazkowski’s special election victory Tuesday night.

On Tuesday night, House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, celebrated the victory, calling it evidence “of a return to normalcy,” particularly, he said, since significant attention from transportation advocates, unions and progressive groups had devoted so much attention to Pfeilsticker’s campaign.

“To win by several hundred votes in a special election when the national feeling about Republicans is the way it is, this has to be seen as a resounding victory,” he said.

Considering all the money that Education Minnesota, the DFL and the unions poured into the district, this is a solid victory. Part of the DFL’s problem was that they ran a candidate who hadn’t run for office before. Her not showing up for a Taxpayers League forum sent the message that she wasn’t interested in voters who cared about low taxes.

The major contributing factor, though, was the DFL’s first mailing. You’ll recall that that mailing accused Steve Drazkowski of turning “his back on her”, a reference to his daughter. As I said at the time, that was the DFL essentially saying that they couldn’t win the race on the battlefield of ideas. They had to do everything possible to drive GOP turnout down if their candidate had any shot at winning.

The things that factored most into the DFL’s defeat were the DFL’s negativity and Ms. Pfeilsticker’s evasiveness. Minnesotans enjoy a lively back-and-forth but they also demand politeness. When the DFL sent out a mailing that dragged Mr. Drazkowski’s daughter into the campaign, I’d bet a fistful of money that they alienated a bunch of voters. I’d also bet a fistful that they fired up GOP activists to go to 28B and knock on doors or do lit drops. They also contributed fistfuls of money so the campaign could get their message out.

The scuttlebutt that I’m hearing is that the DFL poured about $250K into the race. That isn’t including all the money and people that the unions and Education Minnesota poured into the election.

Considering the effort that these DFL-oriented organizations put into this election, this is a big morale boost to the GOP. It’s also vindication that our GOTV operation is effective when our troops are properly motivated. They definitely did their job, largely because Representative-elect Drazkowski touched base with all of the key constituencies of the GOP.

Some are saying that we should’ve expected to win this race because it’s been a Republican seat for so long. There’s some truth to that, though I’d point out that we lost Phil Krinkie’s seat 10 short months earlier.

The pall of last November’s election disaster is lifting but we need to sustain the momentum that we’ve been seeing. To sustain that momentum, I’d suggest that we look no further than this special election and this year’s legislative session as motivators for GOP activists.

This year’s legislative session was a disaster in terms of getting any part of the GOP agenda passed. The DFL ran roughshod over the GOP. That was caused by the DFL’s ‘my way or the highway’ approach more than anything else. I’d suggest that had it been on the merits of whose legislation made more sense, the DFL wouldn’t have gotten many of their bills passed.

That’s why it’s time for GOP activists to get active in recruiting independents and Lieberman liberals into the party.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cindy at Lady Logician has written two posts about the upside & downside of purists in the GOP. Both are must reads for anyone who wants to make the Minnesota GOP the best it can be. Here’s the most important part of Cindy’s posts:

Today if you ask certain people within the MNGOP why we lost last fall, they will say it was because of dis-satisfaction with the war. However, that is not entirely the case! Large numbers of the Republican base – mostly the purists stayed home because the party was ignoring them. The sooner that the state and national GOP parties realize that, the better off that they will be.

So what’s the solution? The pragmatists and the purists need to realize that they need each other. The purists help us define the issues of the day and the pragmatists help us to get the issues acted on. Winning an election is like sailing across a lake. Pragmatists will argue about which mode is best to get across the lake – do we walk around, fly over, take a sail boat/row boat or do we swim across? Purists help us decide which mode of transport is best – however they will want to sail in a straight line across the lake when sometimes you need to tack across.

Pragmatists and Purists compliment each other. We are two pieces of a greater whole. When the parties and politicians realize that, we can do great things. When they (and we) ignore one for the other – we lose elections. It’s that simple!

Simply put, we need the purists to return & we need the pragmatists to welcome the purists back. The best way to achieve that is reminding ourselves of one of the wisest things Ronald Reagan said:

“It’s amazing what we can accomplish if we don’t care who gets the credit.”

It’s time that we reminded each other of the wisdom in Ronald Reagan’s words.

Technorati: , , ,

That’s the only way to describe this article in the New Republic. Here’s the first tip that it isn’t rooted in the truth:

In the 2000 election, of course, Florida was the ultimate swing state. But in 2004, George W. Bush won the state handily, and Republican Mel Martinez captured retired Democrat Bob Graham’s Senate seat, thanks especially to Christian conservative support in rural districts. Florida, it seemed, was becoming as dependable a red state as Georgia or Alabama. But the closing of Coral Ridges’ political arm is just the latest sign that the Christian right is no longer at the center of Florida politics. Indeed, Florida is becoming less like a Deep South state and more like Virginia or even–perish the thought! — California. It isn’t necessarily becoming Democratic, but its voters are moving steadily away from the conservatism of President Bush and Reverend Kennedy.

I have several friends who are GOP activists in Florida, including one person who chairs his county’s Republican Party. The notion that Florida is getting bluer is nonsense. In fact, my contacts say that Democrat efforts to cut off funding of troops is turning more people off towards the Dems. My contacts also point to several local chairs of the NAACP switching party affiliation to the GOP as proof that this is still a solidly red state.

One obvious indication of this trend was last November’s congressional elections. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson easily won re-election, and the Democrats stole two Republican House seats (and would have won a third around Sarasota if not for touch-screen shenanigans). Democrats also picked up seven seats in the Florida House and the statewide position of chief financial officer.

Bill Nelson ran against the most pathetic candidate in major party history. If Tom Gallagher not been so stubborn in running for governor, Bill Nelson would’ve been retired last election. One of the seats that this article talks about is Mark Foley’s seat, which will return to the GOP in 2008. That’s hardly an ‘etched-in-stone’ type of political shift. In fact, I’d say it qualifies more as a fad than a trend.

I’ve recommended that people read entire articles because they’re well-written and show a solid logic. This isn’t one of those articles.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

When last I wrote about former Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, he’d gotten defeated in a year when Democrats seemed invincible. When I last wrote about him, an ethics cloud hung over his head. (UPDATE: That cloud is still hovering overhead.) Tonight, though, the DFL said that Dean Johnson belonged on the U of M Board of Regents despite the ethical baggage he’ll carry with him to his grave.

At a secretly taped meeting of clergy members in New London in January: “Members of the Supreme Court, I know all of them. I have had a number of visits with them about our law. All of them, every one of them, including the lady who just stepped down, Kathleen Blatz…You know what her response was? ‘Dean, we all stand for election, too, every six years.’ She said, ‘We are not going to touch it.’ That’s what she said to me. I’ve talked with Justice Anderson, and another Justice Anderson…’Dean, we’re not going to do it.’”
In a statement March 15: “I have at no time ever received any promises or commitments regarding any potential judicial cases from any member of the state Supreme Court.”
In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio on March 16: “I asked one of the judges, ‘What do you think about the Minnesota law regarding same-sex marriage, put in place in 1997?’ The justice thought about it, said, ‘I think the law is pretty good and probably something we’re not going to take a look at.’ And you know, kind of as a matter of fact, said, ‘You know, we stand for election too.’”
In a news conference March 17: “After a discussion about the wind and weather and relatives and the Legislature, I simply said, ‘Any thoughts on the ‘97 DOMA law?’ And the person shrugged their shoulders and said, ‘Yeah, we have a law.’ That was it.”
In a Senate floor speech March 27: “I apologize to you for the inaccurate statement which I made in a meeting with pastors in January…I regret the statement I made.”
In an interview Tuesday: “My story has been the same all along.”

As you can see by those statements, Dean Johnson is the Minnesota equivalent of Joe Wilson. Just like with Wilson, the easiest way to tell if Johnson is lying is if his lips are moving. Dean Johnson should be treated like radioactive waste by the DFL. Instead, they applauded him after voting him into this position of power. Minnesotans of all political stripes should call for Johnson’s immediate resignation.

Democrats sounded the theme of diversity early & often tonight. Sen. Johnson represents a new type of diversity: No U of M regent had ever been appointed with such ethical baggage as Johnson’s carrying. That isn’t most Minnesotans’ idea of diversity.

Democrats have the votes to push these sorts of thing through. If they want to think only about this legislative session, then they’d better be prepared to hear commercials reminding Minnesotans that they voted this ethically stained man into such a high profile position. Rest assured that MOBsters will remind voters that the DFL leadership puts little priority on ethical behavior. We’ll remind them that they value cronyism more than integrity. The SCBA will remind St. Cloud residents that Larry Haws voted for Johnson.

We’ll remind them that the DFL simply doesn’t share most Minnesotans’ values. If they did, they wouldn’t have voted in this charlatan.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

The Defeatocrat wing of the Democrat Party vehemently opposes John Murtha’s ‘Slow Bleed’ plan, saying that it isn’t defeatist enough. Here’s what the Politico is reporting:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is facing a full-blown revolt from liberal House Democrats over the $98 billion Iraq supplemental bill, according to Democratic insiders. Anywhere between 50 to 75 Democrats are now threatening to vote against the bill because it doesn’t go far enough toward ending the war, including setting a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, said the sources. Pelosi and Democratic leaders are expected to postpone markup of the Iraq bill in the House Appropriations Committee by at least a week in order to buy time to resolve the matter.

Liberals are unhappy with the current proposal being discussed by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and the Democratic leadership, which would prevent President Bush from sending more troops to Iraq unless they are certified as being properly equipped, trained and rested to take on combat missions. After weeks of political attacks from Republicans, Murtha softened his original proposal so that Bush can waive the requirements, although the White House would have to report to Congress why they are issuing such waivers. The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats from swing districts, also wanted Murtha to soften his proposal.

But as happens so often in politics, if you move too far in appeasing one group, you then alienate another, which is what’s happening here. Liberals Dems now don’t want to vote for the Iraq supplemental, with many pointing out to Pelosi and party leaders that they never have voted for one before and aren’t about to start doing so now just because Democrats are in the majority. These Democrats also want to offer their own alternative proposal to cut off Iraq funding immediately as an amendment to the supplemental on the House floor, said Democratic leadership aides.

Putting a ton of restrictions into the supplemental is “going too far”? Murtha’s softened proposal “doesn’t go far enough toward ending the war”? People, that speaks volumes as to how defeatist these liberals are.

This isn’t a revolt by just a handful of the most liberal nutjobs, either. This is a revolt of a third of the House Democrats. I’d expect that representatives like Jim McDermott, Dennis Kucinich, Maurice Hinchey, Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison to say that this doesn’t go far enough. To find out that 75 to 100 Democrats would vote against the bill would be a catastrophic defeat for Pelosi. This would tell the nation that a huge portion of Democrats salivate at the thought of engineering America’s defeat in Iraq.

Liberals Democrats like Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Out of Iraq Caucus, want to end the war now, so they want a date certain for a withdrawal or pullout or “strategic redeployment,” and they want it in the Iraq supplemental or they won’t vote for it. “They figure that we won the election on a promise to end the war, and they want to live up to that promise,” said a senior House Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s a tough place the speaker is in right now, but we’ll work all this out.”

Pelosi has a bit of a problem here. If the Democratic leadership puts a date certain for withdrawal in the bill, there’s a chance that enough Blue Dogs Democrats would defect and vote with Republicans, meaning the bill could [go] down for defeat outright. While that might suit anti-war lawmakers and groups, the political consequences could be disastrous for the party. It would end the Iraq war by default since there would be no more money for combat operations, and Republicans would punish the Democrats for years over it.

This senior Democrat legislator is putting it mildly when he’s quoted as saying that the Speaker is in a rough place right now. I’d say that Ms. Pelosi is in ‘God’s Little Half Acre’- east of the Rock, west of the Hard Place.

This was predictable, even from Election Night. I predicted then that the Defeatocrats would want the House and Senate to vote to end the war. It wasn’t difficult to think that there would be plenty of Democrats who would say that that wouldn’t be smart politics even though they’d love to see America defeated. This group of Democrats would say that they couldn’t vote that way because it’d spell electoral defeat. They’d be right about that.

It’ll be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I suspect that things will get worse for Democrats before it gets better.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

You’re undoubtedly wondering what the DFL House has to do with Communist car factories. Here’s a list of similarities between the two:

1. Low productivity levels (passed five bills of low controversy or low importance in 22 days of potential floor discussions).
2. Low consumer demands for products (did anyone campaign on cultural centers, $20 tax cuts for teachers, windmills, voting machines, or water commissions?)
3. Lots of slogans, unmatched by results.
4. Lots of self-congratulation.
5. Daily doses of petty tyranny.
6. World is hopeful that low productivity will continue. (No news is good news from both facilities. Does anybody want to open a “ZIL” dealership?)

You’ve got to hand it to the DFL. They campaigned on major changes, which they’ve certainly done. The GOP-controlled House at least worked on bills that mattered before Democrats took over. As I’ve chronicled, the DFL legislature has wasted hundreds of man-hours (person-hours?) working on some of the silliest legislation in the history of Western civilization.

They’ve proposed legislation that mandates seatbelts being installed in shopping carts; building regional community centers miles from population centers; creating a bureaucracy that would monitor “hair Transplant facilities” and “create permanent budget increases for the Local Government Aids program which shifts money from all townships and most suburbs to all large cities and many mid-sized communities.”

If you think that’s productive, check this out:


1. WED, JAN 03: The DFL House met, adopted temporary rules, adjourned.
2. THU, JAN 04: The DFL House did not work, although the Senate met.
3. MON, JAN 08: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
4. THU, JAN 11: The DFL House passed HF 8 (Federal Tax Conformity Bill) by 132-0 margin. DFL rejects all pro-worker amendments.
5. MON, JAN 15: The DFL House takes a breather, does not meet on the Martin Luther King Holiday.
6. TUE, JAN 16: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
7. WED, JAN 17: The DFL House shows up to hear Governor Tim Pawlenty’s “State of the State” Address, then adjourns to criticize the speech.
8. THU, JAN 18: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
9. MON, JAN 22: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
10. THU, JAN 25: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
11. MON, JAN 29: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
12. THU, FEB 01: The DFL House passed HF 110 (Include Minnesota in an international Great Lakes Commission) by a 97-35 margin.
13. MON, FEB 05: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
14. WED, FEB 07: The DFL House did not work, although the Senate met.
15. THU, FEB 08: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
16. MON, FEB 12: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
17. TUE, FEB 13: The DFL House passed HF 160 (minor changes in election rules) by a 106-25 margin.
18. THU, FEB 15: The DFL House adopted a schedule of deadlines for guiding the House.
19. MON, FEB 19: The DFL House passed HF 87 (Pre-design funds for an Asian-Pacific Cultural Center in St. Paul) by a 124-8 margin and SF 4 (loophole-filled schedule to add more windmills in Minnesota) by a 123-10 margin.
20. WED, FEB 21: The DFL House did not work, although the Senate met.
21. THU, FEB 22: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
22. MON, FEB 26: The DFL House approved permanent rules and adjourned.

In the next 23 days, the 40 committees of the DFL House must complete work on all policy bills, if their deadlines have any meaning.

I’m praying that the House ‘maintains’ this pace because, with this bunch in charge, no news is indeed good news.

On a serious note, it’s difficult to fathom just how unproductive the DFL legislature has been. They’ve found time to pass per diem increases in the House and Senate but they House refuses to debate several GOP tax cut proposals.

I’d doubt that that sounds like the type of ‘leadership’ you voted for. In fact, I’m betting that you don’t think of that as leadership even if you use that term loosely. I’m further betting that you think that it’s an outrage that you’re paying these legislators to waste time on such frivolous legislation.

I ask you this: Will this type of legislation produce the type of Minnesota you want to live in? I’m betting that you want a refund on the DFL legislators’ salaries for wasting this much time.

Rest assured that plenty of MOBsters will be keeping a watchful eye on the DFL’s leadership.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Keith Ellison missed another deadline, proving yet again that once you’re a lawbreaker, you’re always a lawbreaker.

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison has missed another reporting deadline with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board for his state House of Representatives fundraising committee.

The board sent certified letters Tuesday to all who had missed deadlines. The politicians have 10 days to file the 2006 year-end reports or face fines of $5 a day. Ellison was among those who received letters because he failed to file a timely report for his state House committee, said Jeff Sigurdson, the board’s assistant director.

It didn’t take long for the Ellison camp to dispute the report:

Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert said the state paperwork was filed Wednesday. But Sigurdson said he was unaware of that filing. Reports are scanned and appear on the board’s website the day they are received, he said.

I wouldn’t trust Ellison as far as I could throw him if I had two broken arms & a broken back. I’d trust his account about as much as I’d trust a guy with bad credit telling me that “the check is in the mail.” Here’s why I don’t trust Ellison:

Ellison’s problems with past filings were a prominent topic in last fall’s election. In May 2006 he became the first candidate to be fined for a “willful failure to amend” reports.

What Ellison is asking us to believe is that, contrary to past history, he’s changed his ways & that he’s running a tight operation now. Forgive me if I’m unpersuaded with his response.

Ellison said at the time that he took full responsibility. He also pledged that if he won his congressional campaign, he would run a “tight” office. Past efforts to get Ellison to comply with the law involved the state attorney general’s office, a collection agency and Hennepin and Ramsey county attorneys.

In other words, Ellison isn’t as trustworthy as a used car salesman. It’s difficult imagining a person that’s less qualified to handle the responsibilities of elected office.

Technorati: , , , ,

I’m sure that Andy will have more to say but let me get my 2 cents in on Ron Carey’s statement. Here’s what he said:

Republican Party Chairman Ron Carey said he knows of no opponent “on the horizon” and says he likely also will seek a second term at that party’s June convention. “There’s no groundswell of anger or assigning of culpability” to party officials and there’s an acceptance that anti-war sentiment and Washington scandals drove the election verdicts in all states, Carey said.
“We were one of the very few purple [competitive] states to hold onto key Republican seats.”

Thanks to Mr. Carey, many candidates didn’t get the funding that they needed. I’ve talked with several candidates that said they didn’t get a nickel from the state party. Thanks to Mr. Carey, we’re no longer a purple state. In case he hadn’t noticed, we lost a seat in the U.S. House to a one term wonder like Tim Walz, our Minnesota House & Senate are only a few votes short of a veto proof majority. This is noteworthy stuff because Republicans controlled the House prior to the election.

I’d further say that Carey’s lying through his teeth when he said that “There’s no groundswell of anger or assigning of culpability”. He obviously didn’t read this:

But I did have a lot of support today. We set in motion the movement to take back our party. It may not have been by brow beating Ron Carey from the mic. It may not have been by taking away his $95,000 a year salary he so graciously set himself, but we did identify who was with us or against us.

Andy’s been a warrior in challenging Carey’s ‘leadership’ & decisionmaking. One of the things that Andy’s talked about is that Carey’s communications staff only tore down Democrats. It did nothing to talk about what we stood for. I’ve talked before about the midterms being called an ‘ideology-free’ election. When that happens, the election is, by definition, mostly about personalities.

That’s a disaster waiting to happen. The GOP must be the party of ideas to win. Carey deserves to get fired from his position because he hasn’t shown that he has a vision for the MNGOP. He hasn’t lived up to his promises of funding candidates all around the state. Mr. Carey knows that there’s a fight brewing in the MNGOP. Thus far, the conservatives in the Minnesota House are standing up for conservative principles. They’ll get lots of support from the activists.

On the other hand, if Carey doesn’t show a vision for 2008, we’ll come up with one ourselves. And we won’t support the state party. The activists will support the candidates that they agree with but we won’t support a spineless state party that’s adrift & without principles. It’s just that simple.

Technorati: , , , , ,

I’ve long known that John Murtha’s arrogance knows no bounds. Still, this article surprised me in its stupidity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Murtha Must GO. Here’s what I read that infuriated me:

For example, Murtha said, funding could be manipulated to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where accused terrorists have been held indefinitely; to limit overall troop levels in Iraq; and to require that troops be properly trained and equipped before being shipped overseas. “We’ve got some specifics that we can do to change the course of the war,” Murtha said.

The first thing I thought after reading this is: I hope that Diana Irey is running again in 2008. the second thing I thought was how much I’d love shipping the Gitmo ‘detainees’ to live with the Murthas. Seriously, it’s impossible for me to take this jackass seriously. How can I when he’s ready to introduce legislation that would close Gitmo without providing an alternative place for the terrorists to be held? Further, the old fart wants to limit the President’s warfighting options without cutting off funding entirely. You’d think that that’s of suspect constitutionality:

Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, said he has no problem with holding a debate on a resolution critical of the troop surge, but he was wary of legislative efforts to micromanage the war. “I don’t believe Congress can effectively manage a battle,” Young said.

There’s a reason why the Constitution spells out the position of Commander-in-Chief. It doesn’t spell out a position called Commanders-in-Chief. I’d have to think that, constitutionally, it’s one thing to cut off funding for the war. It’s another to legislate the things a sitting president must do before sending troops to fight an authorized war.

The good news is that the Senate won’t let this pass. If nothing else, Republicans will filibuster such legislation.

People who stayed home last November need to think long and hard about their actions. Their inaction has led to Murtha having this position of influence. Their staying home in 2008 would endanger us all. That’s unacceptable. It’s time that conservatives realized that they need to vote for candidates that will try to keep America safe. If the thought of Murtha running roughshod isn’t enough to scare you, then perhaps this story will:

To the surprise of the Bush administration, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously Wednesday night to allow all 435 House members to see the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq sent to the White House last week. The report is classified in part because it contains information about sources and methods used in intelligence-gathering.

I’d hope that the White House would challenge the constitutionality of such a vote. After all, it’s the Executive branch that can make documents available except to those with the proper security clearances.

What’s to say that a representative could view the information, then leak the information to the press? Remember that some of the people who will be looking at this classified report are John Conyers, Baghdad Jim McDermott, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey and Maxine Waters.

Does anyone think that some of this NIE won’t get leaked or shared with subversives? Are people naive enough to think that some of this information won’t make it into CAIR’s hands? If it makes it into CAIR’s hands, it’s a given that it’ll make its way into others’ hands.

If you think that scares you, it gets worse:

Remarkably, each House member will be given five minutes to speak.

Five minutes to speak is a bunch of time, especially since the classified portion of the NIE contains sources and methods used in collecting intelligence.

Silvestre Reyes delivered this pronouncement justifying the opening of the NIE:

“It is critical that all Members of Congress understand the consensus view of the Intelligence Community on the gravity of the situation in Iraq and the consequences for U.S. troops and our long-term national security interests.”

Representative Reyes, It isn’t important that every blabbermouth congressman knows the sources and methods used to compile the NIE. There’s a reason why there’s different levels of security clearances for different representatives. You can color it any way you want but that’s reality.

This is a prime example of what happens when Democrats deal with national security issues. They put together a meaningless resolution that criticizes the president. Then they give blabbermouth representatives the right to view documents that they don’t have the security clearance for. Then they tell the people who’ve viewed the sources and methods that they can each talk for five minutes on the resolution.

Conservatives who stayed home last time better know that they’ve helped put us in this compromised national security situation. It’s unacceptable for them to wash their hands and say that Democrats are the only ones to blame. If they hadn’t cast protest votes, we wouldn’t have a Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Reyes and we certainly wouldn’t have had blabbermouth congressmen and women viewing the sources and methods that were used to compile the NIE.

That said, Democrats deserve the lion’s share of the blame on this. Their actions have potentially compromised our national security by potentially compromising our agents in the field.

I ask my readers a simple question: Is that the type of America you want to live in? If you don’t, then it’s time to fire up everyone you know to make national security the only issue of importance in 2008.

If we don’t get this right, the rest is irrelevant.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza already has an article outlining which Democratic seats are most vulnerable in 2008. I pretty much agree with him with one exception. Nowhere does Cillizza list MN-1, Gil Gutknecht’s former seat. Democrats know that Tim Walz, the man that defeated Gutknecht last November, is vulnerable. Here’s how the Rochester Post-Bulletin puts it (H/T MDE’s Michael Broadkorb):

“It’s understandable why Republican candidates would be drawn to the flame of a congressional race, political observers note. The defeat of former GOP Rep. Gil Gutknecht, who held the seat from 1994 to 2006, offers other Republicans a shot at the endorsement for the first time in 14 years. Moreover, Walz is in his first term, a time when an incumbent is thought to be at his most vulnerable.

Putting it bluntly, Walz is a one-term wonder. He barely pulled out a victory in a year when Democrats were winning everywhere. Walz’s only chance for re-election is if Republicans totally screw this nomination up, which I’m confident they won’t do.

It’s still pretty early to be predicting things but I’d say that the GOP will regain a bunch of the seats that they lost in 2006, especially TX-22 (Tom DeLay’s old seat), FL-16 (Mark Foley’s old seat), OH-18 (Bob Ney’s old seat) and MN-1 (Gil Gutknecht’s old seat).

Technorati: , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative