Osama is Right

I hate to say it, but ultimately the observation Osama Bin Laden made about Americans following the Black Hawk down incident in Mogadishu holds true. You kill a couple of Americans, and we turn tail and run. In the case of Iraq, it took longer for this to happen and the killing of Americans had to be sustained over three years. Over that time 1800 American men and women have died in Iraq. That works out to about 2 deaths a day. And the media has been there to document and report on every one. Thank goodness the media doesn't pay more attention to our highways which kill 116 people every day. For some perspective, in Vietnam we lost 16 people a day for a total of 58,177 dead over 10 years.

Even with just two dead a day for three years, the American public has turned on the war in Iraq. It looks increasingly unlikely that the American public will allow for the mission to be completed and withdrawal will be demanded. It will be a ringing victory for crazy islamists who will have defeated the premiere power on earth. It will encourage them to take the fight throughout the middle east, Europe, North Africa, South east Asia, and the occasional bloody reminder in the US.

Because of our inherent weakness, we will need to fight and be ready for the next war. We don't need to change our assault tactics and training. Clearly the American military is extremely capable of overruning foreign armies, taking land, disrupting supply, and reducing opposing armies to rubble. We have nearly perfected the conquest phase of combat. The problem comes in the garrison stage of the conflict. It's not that the army isn't effective, it is simply unable to keep casualties below a tolerable threshold for public consumption. With that threshold being essentially zero, it is impracticle to use Americans in this role. We need an alternative. We need to outsource this job.

Thus I'd like to propse the Indian Foreign Legion.

The US would fund, arm, and train large divisions of Indian Infantry. The Indian mission would be very specific to garrison duties such as anti-insurgency activities, urban defense, police training, convoy guarding, and infrastructure guarding. The arms, equipment, vehicles, and uniform would be tailored to the job.

The officer corp would consist of Indians and Americans while the enlisted soldiers would all be Indian. The troops would only be deployed after US troops had finished the conquest phase of combat. In the event of India being invaded by Pakistan, China or anyone else, the units would be turned over to the Indian government for domestic defense.

The advantages to India would include thousands of jobs and job training to India's millions of unemployed, underpaid, young men. A large number of Indians would recieve the professional military training provided by America that could be transferred to modernize and improve India's national forces. The alliance between India and America would be strengthened and provide deterence to possible aggressors such as Pakistan or Iraq. The bases funded by the US would have the same economic boosting impact in India that bases in America have on local communities. Most Indian's have some knowledge of english and would be further educated. Reciprocity of citizenship to America could be offered as an incentive to Indians who complete their enlistment.

The advantage to America is that we will be able to complete our missions, defeat our enemies, and take the time required to establish stable governments without the American public going soft and scared half way through.

Win-Win

Star Tribune + Cindy Sheehan = LUV

Surprise, surprise, the Star Tribune Editorial writers think Cindy is the greatest thing ever. They provide the typical liberal attitude towards Sheehan, the war in Iraq, and protestors. I'll let them speak for themselves...

Thirty-five years ago, the antiwar movement was typified by a long-haired, scruffy young male of draftable age, burning his draft card. A new antiwar movement is being born this summer on a Texas roadside. It presents a much different face -- feminine, older, wiser, and filled with grief and righteous indignation.

Hmm... older? wiser? By god I think these may be the same people, just 30 years older! Sacre bleu! But I digress...

The face is that of mothers who lost sons and daughters in Iraq, first Cindy Sheehan of California, and now more, including Minnesota state Sen. Becky Lourey. The moral authority of the blossoming movement's face is undeniable and, despite concerted conservative efforts to discredit it, unassailable.

Unassailable?!? Surely this is true of the grief they must have experienced in losing sons, but no one has questioned any heartfelt grief by either woman. However the Star Tribune and pretty much liberals everywhere seem to think that grief is equivalent to "moral authority". As if being sad was somehow an argument within itself. No amount of grief gives credence to Sheehan’s assertions that a secret cabal of Jews started the war, George Bush killed her son, or that Afghanistan was perfectly peaceful and safe before we arrived. Cindy's arguments are certainly 'assailable'.

I shall also dare to assail Cindy's motives. Her son died 14 months ago. She met with Bush shortly after and spoke glowingly of their meeting saying that Bush brought back a small amount of joy to her family's life. In the ensuing time, she got caught up with the Michael Moore/Moveon.org crowd. 14 months later she shows up in Crawford and demands a second meeting with Bush to accuse him of killing her son. Is this simply a woman driven by grief to extreme and hysterical action? Or dare I say it, is this the cold calculation of a neo-lefty to further her new cause and embarrass the president? Hmm... once again Cindy has been assailed.

Even those who disagree with the antiwar encampment's contention that the war in Iraq is delivering none of its promised gains for this country are obliged to concede that Sheehan and other Gold Star mothers have the right to express their sorrow and anger as they see fit.

It is this contention that you hear most on TV - "Cindy has a right to protest!" Well certainly, but so what? No one is challenging her 'rights' to publicly protest or grieve. Not a single person has suggested that she be locked up for DARING to show dissent. However, a lot of people have argued that her ideas and desires are wrong and destructive. The left has no answer for those arguments, so they pretend they are protecting her 'rights' from imaginary buggaboos.

To these mothers' credit, they see fit to grieve in silence no longer. Their witness is that stubborn adherence to a failed policy is not patriotism, and that the sacrifice of fallen sons and daughters is not dishonored by an admission that their assignment was flawed, and needs revision.

Okay, very good. Liberals think the Iraq war is flawed and needs revision. Let's forget the specifics of the flaws for a moment, you can find those written pretty much everywhere else. What, pray tell great oracle of leftism, shall we DO instead? Hmm?

And there's the rub. The left offers NOTHING beyond flaws and demands for ethereal revisions. Now to be fair, there is a small segment of lefties calling for a complete pullout and disengagement from the Middle East, but this sentiment is not yet mainstream and not yet stated by the Star Tribune.

Lourey, who spent three days at the protest site dubbed Camp Casey outside President Bush's ranch, offers the antiwar movement a powerful voice -- one capable of attracting national attention if this summer's grass-roots combustion in Crawford catches lasting fire. Both personally and politically, the DFL state senator from Kerrick commands respect. Lourey, 62, is an indefatigable 15-year legislator admired for her warmth, passion and lawmaking skill. She and her husband raised 12 children, eight of them adopted, while establishing a successful family business. She is as riveting a speaker as exists in Minnesota's liberal camp.

The praise for Lourey's speaking ability says more about the DFL's paucity of talent. As for her other gifts, only those of shared values would describe her that way. A more detached analyst would describe Lourey as reliably liberal, outspoken on liberal topics, and rarely offers compromise.

Lourey fell silent in the weeks after her Army pilot son Matt was shot down and killed near Baghdad in June. Her grief's quiet phase appears to have ended. We expect that she now has much to say that, in coming weeks, Americans should hear.

Becky Lourey has this to say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq". Thank goodness we have one more liberal politician saying Bush is wrong.

The Minnesota contingent at Camp Casey also included DFL Second District congressional candidate Coleen Rowley, the former FBI agent and whistleblower on the agency's inept handling of tips about the terror plot that became 9/11. Rowley's participation drew out U.S. Rep. John Kline, the Second District incumbent whom Rowley is challenging. Kline faulted Lourey, Rowley and other war protesters. Their action "is harmful to the morale of the soldiers, and it encourages the enemy," he said on a visit to the Star Tribune.

To Americans past a certain age, the accusation is familiar. It echoes the rhetoric that hawks used to try to stifle the antiwar movement that burgeoned during the Vietnam War, especially after the Tet offensive in 1968, when Americans came together in large numbers to change this nation's policy in Southeast Asia.

First, this isn't Vietnam. There is no draft. Young people are not being forced to fight a war they dislike. The fighters are volunteers. The left lacks the moral authority of fighting the draft. Second, no one has attempted to "stifle" dissent. There have been no riots or Chicago 1968 type scenes. Protestors go unmolested and fully covered by the media. Third, Kline's words were clearly in the form of political argument with a direct political opponent. They were not in the form of a government edict with the force of law behind them.

As for Kline's specific claims, let's take a closer look. Do Sheehan's protests deter the morale of the troops? I've heard anecdotal evidence that the troops don't appreciate the protests and are particularly sour about the media's coverage of their efforts. On the whole, I think it's a bit of a stretch to make this claim. Do Sheehan's protests encourage the enemy? The protests end up on Al-Jazeera and are referenced in Al-Queda propaganda. The protests are used to justify Osama's assertion after Mogadishu that American's are weak and will cut and run at the first sign of distress. The protests most certainly help Al-Queada recruit more insurgents and give them hope that if they just kill a few more Americans, we'll give up and they'll win. These protests certainly help the enemy.

Some might describe such support for our enemies to be treasonous. I disagree with that sentiment. Misguided? Yes. Foolish? Yes. Patriotic? No.

Suggesting that protesters have insufficient concern for American troops was an easy charge to level against draft-dodging youth, and it probably is to be expected as congressional campaign season gets underway. But it does not ring true when aimed at parents who raised children so patriotic that they volunteered for military service. Such parents understand what support for those sons and daughters requires. They know that it does not require blind loyalty to bad policy.

Honestly I agree. However with a caveat. In Vietnam it was easy to call hippies anti-troops, not because they burned draft cards, but because they literally spat on troops as they returned and greeted them with epithets such as 'baby killer'. That is NOT happening today and that is good. I think most of today’s liberals are at least not anti-troops. I do hear Hannity trying to make the argument that you can only support the troops if you support their mission. As in many things Hannity, I find that asinine.

As for blind loyalty, that's not being asked. Bush has argued that the lost troops have lost their lives for a worthy cause. A cause that will bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. As a result, these newly freed people will be far less inclined to launch attacks against America, provide safe havens for terrorist camps, or develop weapons that could be devastating if delivered by terrorists. It is a long-term process to change a whole region. We had to run Japan (famous for the Nanjing Massacre and Batan Death March) for 10 years after WWII, and we've never left Germany (of holocaust fame). More recently, American troops are still based in Bosnia 9 years later. This is not a fight that will be won in the next news cycle. It is a fight for a generation, and it is one worth having. It beats the alternative of waiting for terrorists to organize and strike at will.

Dog Days of Politics

I was perusing the web today and came across this article by Byron York at the National review. He was outlining the position of Moveon.org in the whole Cindy Sheehan thing. What I found most interesting was this point, "On its website, MoveOn offered protesters what amounted to a pre-fab vigil kit, including talking points, a "sample media advisory," and pre-designed signs — placards that read MOMS FOR PEACE and MEET WITH CINDY and, apparently for pet lovers, DOGS FOR CINDY."

As a blog dedicated to the idea of dog ownership, I suppose it is incumbent upon me to inlcude my pooch Maggie into the great political discussions of the day. I am somewhat embarrassed that it required the forethinking of a Moveon.com demonstration to spark this revelation. After all, Maggie is known for spending her afternoons taking in talk radio, perusing the Weekly Standard and Mother Jones, and participating in the dog equivalent of blogging - barking at random strangers who cross the yard.

Without further adieu, I give you Maggie:

BILL: So Maggie, welcome to the blog. As you know, the name dogparkwalker is very much inspired by our relationship. But I gotta ask you, are you a Republican or a Democrat?

MAGGIE: Well, I have to demur. I really thought Maureen Dowd had a good thing going as she remained coy about her ideology and partisan affiliation. That veneer has since been ripped away, and so has the joy of reading Maureen.

BILL: I think some would argue that you are a democrat. Afterall, you are dependent on me for food, beg for additional food which is not yours, and are easily frightened by thunder, guitars, and Franklin.

MAGGIE: Let me address the food issue - I'm a dog. Food is my life. I am very grateful that you provide a bowl of dry stuff forsustenancee, but am doubly grateful for the nibbles of vittles which you enjoy in mass quantities. Am I slightly bitter? Yes, yes I am. However I recognize there is an order of things. I'm quite confident I could find food on my own, however this would involve many dumpsters and carci of small creatures. We are honestly better off in this traditional relationship.

As for my fear of guitars, thunder and Franklin... let's just say they all stem from my fear of Franklin.

BILL: What's so frightening about Franklin?!?

MAGGIE: I'd rather not say...

BILL: Alright... now some say you might be a conservative. Afterall you have been known to chew up my issues of Mother Jones while leaving the Weekly Standard intact.

MAGGIE: About the Mother Jones thing. I was young, impetuous, and liked to chew things. Every Mother Jones article I read was a variation of 6 Degrees of Big Oil. Take on the merits of an argument? Nope. Put forth a reasonable and progressive alternative to their opponents? Uh-uh. Show how some guy's grand father's cousin owned shares of Standard Oil? AH-HA! GOTCHA! Again, I was young, impetuous, and driven to chew by the drivel inside.

As for the Weekly Standard, while I didn't always agree with those neocons, at least they made cogent arguments that didn't drive me to chewing destruction. Besides, it didn't taste very good.

BILL: What about your appreciation of Garage Logic?

MAGGIE: This may come as a surprise, but dogs can't tell time. When old Souchy boy comes on I know that one of two things will happen. You'll either take me to the dog park or Franklin will come home and terrify me yet again.

BILL: So Maggie, what's your take on the Cindy Sheehan stories out of Crawford, TX.

MAGGIE: My main concern in all things is the general welfare of dogs everywhere. War is never a good thing for dogs. Owners die, we step on land mines, water gets dirty - it's nasty stuff. However, I understand the purpose of this war is to diminish the opportunities for crazy muslims to bring the war to America. I can appreciate this goal.

After all, you had your buddy from Iraq come back and tell what was going on over there. One thing that really struck me was that in the 6 months he was there killing and capturing insurgents - the vast majority were Syrians, with a good number of Iranians, a few Iraqis and even a suspected North Korean sniper. It really sounds like the war in Iraq isn't against Iraq, it is against every other crazy anti-American in the world.

It brought to mind that Iraq is serving as a proxy battlefield for America's enemies. Personally I much prefer they fight there than at the dog park.

Mother Sheehan is right now indistinguishable from Mother Jones. While I have grown and no longer feel an urge to chew that which annoys me, in this case I am tempted. Right now she is only expressing her ignorance and idiocy and cloaking it in the honor of her son's service.

BILL: Do you have any suggestions for Democrats or centrists?

MAGGIE: Yes! There is a valid critique of Bush's policies in Iraq and in the war on terror. What we need as a country is for Democrats to step up and not just stop at the critique of Bush. They need to provide real alternatives and real solutions to fighting terrorism. Right now you can boil down the left's policies, such as they are, to leaving the middle east entirely and creating Fortress America with better harbor (but not border) security. This is not a reasonable response, thus we can't have a reasonable discussion of alternatives. All we have is Bush doing his thing, Republicans calling it good, and Democrats calling it bad.

BILL: And Cindy Sheehan...?

MAGGIE: She simply perpetuates the unproductive tact of the "debate" we are failing to have.
BILL: Maggie, I had no idea you had such strong opinions.

MAGGIE: Well, you never asked before. Now let's go to the park.

Thought of the Day

If you just can't get enough of my blogging, you'll find my reaction to the environmental left's slow acceptance of nuclear power over at www.cfactcampus.org.

I also leave you with this profound thought I had last night. Mathew LeCroy had hit a ball to the right side that forced the second baseman to field the ball deep in the hole. LeCroy made it safely to first. I commented, "I love it when LeCroy gets infield hits. It's an affront to nature."

Pot Smoking Hippies Destroying Western Wilderness

At least that what the headline should have been for this story. Turns out drug cartels are using public parks and land to grow massive amounts of pot to avoid border crossings. Before 9/11, a typical bust netted a hundred plants. Now the busts are netting thousands of high grade pot plants.

"Last year alone, rangers and drug enforcement officials removed 100,000 marijuana plants from California national parks, with almost half coming out of Sequoia. Meanwhile, authorities removed half a million pot plants from national forest and federal Bureau of Land Management lands in California during 2004."

Californians sure love their pot. Environmentalists are extremely concerned, about the fact that drug cartels are operating on American soil? Not so much...

"What bothers environmentalists primarily is the effect on the health of protected public lands. The armed growers feast on poached venison, spill pesticides, divert water from streams and dump tons of trash."

Well now! Here is an opportunity for environmentalists to think globally, act locally, and knock off smoking all that weed! Right?!?

"But funding droughts in recent years have meant the slashing of law enforcement budgets for public lands. With the massive expansion of operations deep in the woods, a few agents here and there stand little chance of even making a dent in the cartels' cultivation efforts. So until more money makes its way to Sequoia and other public lands, visitors would be wise not to venture too far off trail."

So Environmentalists are calling for an expansion in drug war funding. I guess it was naive to think that they would approach the demand side and start posting bumper stickers about pot smoking leading to eco-trashing. It's much easier for them to ask for increased government spending to make pot smoking eco-guilt free. Talk about a buzz kill.

BANG!

It would seem that the Big Bang Theory is more appropriate for blogging than it is for astronomy. Not only are there more bloggers, but bloggers are getting more blogs. Marty invited me to join an event planning blog for the University of Minnesota, and now at CFACT we have our internal blogger up and running. You can find my post on our recently concluded Eco-Summit now.

I think I will also take this time to make something clear. I've been meaning to do this for awhile, but with the CFACT blogger now up and running, it is timely indeed.

The posts I make on the CFACT blog are official CFACT correspondence. They are not simply being posted by me, they are being posted by the office of the National Director. Those are CFACT's official positions.

Anything posted here at Dog Park Walker are posted solely by me and have nothing to do with CFACT whatsoever. There is zero relation between my posts on Dog Park Walker and those at CFACT. Opinions posted at Dog Park Walker should never be assumed or associated with the opionions and positions of CFACT. If you want those - go to the CFACT site.

In that light, I'll rarely address consumer and environmental issues at this blog to help reduce confusion. However, I might reference that brilliant blogger over at CFACT who I seem to always agree.

The Senate Supreme

I don't know what it is, but I'm suffering from a political bug these days. I'm also suffering from a stomach bug, but this isn't that kind of blog. The 2006 Senate elections could be very important. The Dems have a generic advantage right now with the right/wrong track numbers now polling around 57% wrong track and Bush in the mid-40's approval. However, for the GOP they are taking on a lot of freshman democrats who won in a very good year for them back in 2000.

The GOP managed to lose a net 5 seats in 2000. It started a few months before the election when Paul Coverdell died in office and Zell Miller was appointed to replace him. On election day, the GOP picked up seats in Nevada and Virginia with John Ensign and George Allen. The Dems managed to take 5 GOP seats in MN (Dayton), Michigan (Stabenow), Missouri (Carnahan), Florida (Nelson) and Delaware (Carper). A month later the Washington state recount ended with a Dem pickup (Cantwell).

The GOP also managed to narrowly lose a bunch of seats. In Nebraska, Ben Nelson held a dem seat by narrowly beating Stenberg 51-49. In New Jersey Corzine, despite his millions only won 51-48. Most aggravating was Hillary's win in NY, which wasn't close, but might have been if Rudy stayed in the race.

Since then the GOP has rebuilt to 55 seats in 2002 and 2004 by getting the Missouri seat back and a bunch of southern seats.

Hawaii - Daniel Akaka (D)
Akaka said he's running again, and will win if he does. The danger for dems is that Akaka is old. There is a serious chance he won't make it through the next term and the present Hawaii gov is GOP. This could eventually be a GOP pickup, but not this cycle.
DEM HOLD

California - Diane Feinstein (D)
Feinstein will easily win re-election. Polling pitting her against Arnold and Condoleeza Rice have her winning easy. The CA GOP bench is thin and no one else commands the name recognition of those two. Fact is, this seat, or any other Diane might want in Cali, is hers for the taking - and she wants her senate seat.
DEM HOLD

Washington - Maria Cantwell (D)
Maria is a weak candidate. The bad news for her is that her approval rating is 47% - only 4 points better than Bush and 10 points less than fellow senator Patty Murray. The good news for Maria is that Washington is a blue state and the head to head with GOPer Costco exec Mike McGavick is 46-38.

McGavick is very rich, and only being 8 points back generates some hope. But the GOP would much rather have had Dino Rossi run, but Rossi is intent on a rematch in 2008 for Gov with Christine Gregoire who he currently beats 55-39 in the polls. Personally, I think Rossi is a fool. It is a lot to expect the voters of Washington to hold a grudge for 4 years. He should cash in his goodwill now while he still has it.

While there is some hope that McGavick will take this seat, I find it highly improbable.
DEM HOLD, but worth tracking

Nevada - John Ensign (R)
Dems made a lot of noise about this being a race. They were encouraged by Bush's narrow win and Ensign's staunch conservatism which is somewhat out of line with the Vegas mindset. However, every candidate worth a damn has taken a pass on this race. I believe Ensign would have beat a good dem candidate such as Vegas Mayor Oscar Goode, or Vegas U.S. Rep Shelly
Berkely. Ensign is a solid campaigner who almost beat Harry Reid in 1998 (losing by 400 votes) and then cruised to an open seat election in 2000. This is an easy GOP hold.
GOP HOLD

Montana - Conrad Burns (R)
This is another one where Dems think they have a chance, largely due to Brian Schweitzer winning the gov seat 2 years ago. You have to hand it to Schweitzer, he had the money and the tenacity to keep trying. He took on Burns 6 years ago and lost, ran for the house and lost 2 years after that, then finally won the gov 2 years later. Persistent, and rich. The dems don't have any more of those. There is a smorgasbord in the dem primary including former speakers, current senate president, current state auditor, former secretary of state, and other state office holders. Burns dispatches whichever one of these B-teamers comes out of the primary.
GOP HOLD

Wyoming - Craig Thomas (R)
It's Wyoming. Thomas wins 3rd term easy.
GOP HOLD

Utah - Orrin Hatch (R)
The biggest danger Hatch faces is from a GOP state Rep who may challenge him in the Primary. It seems highly unlikely such a challenge would be successful. Even if it is, it is even more unlikely the Dems pick up the seat.
GOP HOLD

Arizona - Jon Kyl (R)
Kyl will probably face Jim Pederson, the DEM chair in Arizona and rich guy. Arizona is still a pretty red state and I have trouble thinking that a party hack has any chance of unseating a fairly popular incumbent. I'm somewhat worried about Arizona overall, especially if the GOP fails at Hispanic outreach, but I don't think this is the year Arizona goes purple.
GOP HOLD

New Mexico - Jeff Bingaman (D)
The GOP has rolled out the B team for a possible challenge. The problem is, New Mexico is a light shade of blue and Bingaman will be seeking his 5th term. Unless Heather Wilson gives up her house seat (which the GOP would lose if she did) this won't be a race. And even then I'd give Bingaman a large edge.
DEM HOLD

North Dakota - Kent Conrad (D)
Now we're talking! Conrad is a deep blue senator in a blood red state. He has been fortunate for many years since the GOP has had an awfully weak bench. But no longer, now they have extremely popular governor John Hoeven who won re-election with 70% in 2004. Hoeven is being wooed by Rove and the White House, but has not yet entered the race. My feeling is that he will enter the race. If he does, he wins. If not and the GOP has to go to the bench, Conrad likely holds but it would be wise to keep tabs on this race.
GOP PICKUP

Nebraska - Ben Nelson (D)
There are a slew of GOPers who want a piece of Nelson in this red state. They include a rich Ameritrade exec, Stenberg who lost last time, the current AG, the current party chair, and former gov Johanns and current gov Heineman are still being recruited. Nelson has done a pretty good job of maintaining a moderate record and will probably be tougher to beat than all these GOPers think. However, I think he is ripe for the picking and so long as the primary voters don't saddle us with a has been, Nelson goes down.
GOP PICKUP

Texas - Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R)
Kay finally gave up the flirtation of challenging Rick Perry for Gov and will seek re-election. She wins easily.
GOP HOLD

Minnesota - Mark Dayton (D) Retiring
This race is US Rep Mark Kenedy (R) vs.
Patty Wetterling (D) - Patty lost a house seat to Kennedy by 8 points last time in a conservative district. She would no doubt do better in a statewide race. The house race did her good, since early on she was described as an inept amateur for most of the race, but had grown into the candidate's role by the end of the campaign. She is the dems best chance to hold this seat, but even then it's 50-50.

Amy Klobuchar (D) - The Hennepin County attorney is the darling of the party and leads in money and endorsements. She is a solid politician, but would not garner the sympathy of Wetterling or the name ID. She is a viable candidate and give the dems a serious shot at holding this seat, but I'd give Kennedy the nod over her.

Kelly Doran (D) - Rich guy who wants to raise taxes. Won't win primary, endorsement, or general.

Mike Ciresi (D) - Not yet in the race and may stay out. Klobuchar has done a good job of rallying the party around her, Wetterling's name ID is much higher, and Doran is just as rich. Really has no shot.

My gut tells me Kennedy wins, but it will be razor close. It will help that it's not a presidential year, which tends to bring out the lefties in MN.
GOP PICKUP

Missouri - Jim Talent (R)
Talent dispatched with widower Jean Carnahan 4 years ago and will likely trounce whoever the dems put up. The Dems are begging Gov loser Claire McKaskill to run. Claire did beat a dem gov in the primary two years ago, but was then crunched in the general. Same result here.
GOP HOLD

Michigan - Debbie Stabenow (D)
When I think of the shrill, liberal woman, I think of Stabenow. Sadly, Michigan is a blue state and all the blue chippers on the GOP side are waiting for Carl Levin to retire. There is a small chance that black minister Keith Butler makes this interesting, but not likely. Stabenow wins.
DEM HOLD

Indiana - Dick Lugar (R)
He has no opponent in this red state. I like his chances.
GOP HOLD

Tennessee - Bill Frist (R) Retiring
US Rep from Memphis Harold Ford Jr. (D) is the man to beat. He's already on the airwaves, but his family keeps showing up on the police blotter, and Harold Ford Sr. was considered as corrupt as they come. I honestly don't think Jr. is corrupt, but everyone in his family a generation older is. This won't help. The GOP has a smorgasbord in the primary. My hope is that gov loser Van Hillearly doesn't get it, and that US Rep Marsha Blackburn is the pick. She is very conservative, but it helps that she's attractive and female - softens the edge. Ideally, Frist gives up his term limit pledge and quixotic presidential hopes and runs for re-election. Overall, this is trouble for the GOP. TN is a red state, but Ford is a good candidate.
DEM PICKUP

Mississippi - Trent Lott (R)
No identified opponent in a red state. Despite his demotion from leader, he wins easily.
GOP HOLD

Ohio - Mike DeWine (R)
DeWine is a pansy GOPer who is part of the GOP's problems in Ohio - mainly moderation and corruption. His son got blasted in OH-2 House primary, and he may also face a primary challenge. Right now, Jerry Springer is his biggest opponent. However, a couple of more serious Dem candidates are still weighing a run or holding their house seats (Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown). If either of those guys gets in, kiss DeWine goodbye. I see this happening and you'll see me shed no tears.
DEM PICKUP

Pennsylvania - Rick Santorum (R)
Santorum, despite being a two term incumbent, is trailing Bob Casey Jr by 10 points. Bob is the state treasure and son of former and popular gov Bob Casey Sr. Santorum is in trouble, right up there with Rod Gramms in 2000. His career is over.
DEM PICKUP

Florida - Bill Nelson (R)
Nelson got this seat in a good year against a bad opponent. If those conditions hold up, he'll be back. A bad opponent? Right now that would be GOP front runner Katherine Harris who polls about 8 points behind Nelson. A good opponent would be Charlie Crist or Tom Gallagher who are currently squaring off in the GOP primary for gov. Both men currently beat Nelson in the polls by 5 points. Ideally these guys get together and sort things out. A glorious candidate would be Jeb Bush, but he continues to maintain that he's seeking no office in 2006 or 2008. Unless Harris is dislodged, Nelson holds. I hold out hope for Crist or Gallagher and a GOP win.
GOP PICKUP

Virginia - George Allen (R)
Allen's only real danger comes from a challenge from Gov. Mark Warner. If Warner is a good party guy, he'll take on Allen and this race becomes a tossup. If Warner is greedy, he'll sit this out and run for Prez in 2008. If Warner is smart he will run for geriatric Sen. John Warner's senate seat in 2008. Warner's pretty smart.
GOP HOLD

Maryland - Paul Sarbannes (D) Retiring
Black Lt. Gov Micheal Steele is the likely GOP candidate, and creates a good deal of hope in this sky blue state. The dem field is packed but there are really only two serious contenders - white US Rep Ben Cardin and black NAACP head and former US Rep Kweisi Mfume. It may seem gratuitous to throw race around, but race is everything in this race. Polling shows Cardin beating Steele by 5 points by holding the white vote. Steele beats Mfume by 5 points by getting the white vote. But Mfume beats Cardin in a Dem primary by getting the black vote, which is everything in MD Dem primaries. Now there are a lot of candidates in the primary, and they may skew the dynamics for a Cardin win. But I see Mfume winning the primary and losing the general.
GOP PICKUP

Delaware - Thomas Carper (D)
Former Gov. Carper beat GOP geriatric lion Bill Roth in 2006. The only person on the GOP bench who has a chance, and not a very good one at that, is US Rep Mike Newcastle. Newcastle has bowed out of the race and will probably not run for senate unless there is an open seat.
DEM HOLD

New Jersey - John Corzine (D) Retiring?
Corzine is currently running for gov and is winning in the polls by 7 - 10 points. Assuming Corzine is out of the way and this is a an open seat, things get mildly interesting. The GOP has Tom Kean Jr, a state sen and son of former gov and 9/11 commissioner Tom Kean Sr. He is the best they can do. The Dems have many choices amongst their house delegation, but their best choice is acting gov Richard Codey, who also happens to be extremely popular. Corzine will get to play a part if he wins the gov seat by picking his replacement for the next year.

There are many dynamics at play, including the post 9/11 shift to the GOP that has thrown some bleach on that New Jersey blue. Ultimately we need to keep tabs on this race, but my best guess is the dems hold.
DEM HOLD

New York - Hillary Clinton (D)
Hillary and the NY Dems will have a cake walk in 2006 with Pataki not running for Gov and Pirro not running for senate. Rudy is being asked to run for the senate or the gov seat, either of which he leads in the polls by 5 points - but Rudy has his eye on 2008. Why would he squander his presidential chances with a tough race in NY? Hillary wins easy.
DEM HOLD

Rhode Island - Lincoln Chaffee (R)
Chaffee is the most liberal republican in the senate. A party switch isn't out of the question, and his vote is rarely counted on. He also lives in a deep blue state and was polling way behind Rep. Jim Langevin. Langevin eventually bowed out, with a lot of suspicion that Chuck Schumer chased him off because of his pro-life views. Now Chucky is stuck with Sec. State Matt Brown who is young, shrill, and polls 15 points below Chaffee.
GOP HOLD - I guess

Connecticut - Joe Lieberman (D)
Lieberman's biggest challenge will be facing down a liberal peacenik college professor in the primary. Not a single GOPer of note has stepped up to challenge for this seat, and even the GOPers of note would get smoked.
DEM HOLD

Mass - Teddy Kennedy (D)
It's hard to beat someone with no one. It is looking increasingly likely that Kennedy's biggest opposition will once again come from the Libertarian party.
DEM HOLD

Vermont - Jim Jeffords (I) Retiring
Jumping Jim is out, and the front runner to replace him is another (I) - socialist Bernie Sanders. On the GOP side all we know is that Gov Jim Douglas will not run. A slew of former speakers, Lt. Govs, and state office holders are still considering. I find it sickening that we'll have a self avowed socialist in the senate (although Bernie's politics are identical to most New England Dems) but its going to happen. There is a slight chance the GOPer will catch fire, but don't hold your breath.
DEM HOLD - I HOLD

Maine - Olympia Snowe (R)
So far Snowe is unopposed. I find this surprising. Maine is a blue state and even a B-lister would stand a reasonable shot. Till then, Snowe is re-elected.
GOP HOLD

West Virginia - Robert Byrd (D)
The geriatric Klan Kleagle is in real trouble... if US REP Shelly Moore Capito runs. Byrd's liberalism has caught up to him in a state that went for Bush twice. Moore has polled even to slightly ahead of Byrd, but has not yet committed. If she runs, she puts the old Byrd out to pasture. I think she might.
GOP PICKUP

Wisconsin - Herb Kohl (D)
The good natured rich guy dem will cruise to re-election. If he ever faces real trouble, he can buy his way out of it. However, there is a glimmer of GOP hope in former Gov. Tommy Thompson. However, its getting late in the game and I don't see it happening.
DEM HOLD


So lets check the score card:
DEM HOLD: 12
GOP HOLD: 12
DEM PICK UP: 3
GOP PICK UP: 6
NEXT SENATE: 58 GOP - 41 DEM - 1 IND (DEM)

Juice and Jacks

ESPN has been deleted from my web bookmarks. They have taken everything I love and put it behind the "INSIDER" pay per view. Once again, I find myself going to my friends at Fox in FoxSports and leaving the old media ESPN behind.

Now don't get me wrong, I'll still watch ESPN on tv. In fact I watched many baseball games this weekend and a snippet or two of Sportscenter. It would seem that ESPN thinks that the Rafeal Palmeiro steroid scandal is the worst thing to ever happen to baseball and that his Hall of Fame future is shot. ESPN sugested that the scandal eclipses Pete Rose and the Black Sox. It doesn't. Those two scandals put the integrity of the game seriously in doubt. The sad fact is that Palmeiro's steroid cheating hardly impacted the game, at least not more than better equipment, or in this case chemistry, has impacted comparisons between generations.

Since MLB failed to seriously test for steroids in the 80's and 90's, most of the sluggers are under a cloud, but they all had the same advantages in a chemically induced way. Palmeiro might be the only guilty slugger caught red-handed, but there is little doubt that Bonds, McGuire and Giambi used. Sosa, Bret Boone, Juan Gonzalez, and Ivan Rodriquez are also under serious suspicion.

It would be a tragedy if Palmeiro was kept out of the hall while sluggers who wised up, retired, or hid on the DL were let in. The fact is, steroids were a part of the game. My only hope is that sluggers such as Griffey and McGriff who have over 500 HR and Zero suspicion get extra special consideration. I'm not too worried about Griffey, he'll be a first ballot selection. However, the unspectacular McGriff who just managed to hit 35 HR every year for 20 years is likely to be overlooked until there is a weak year.

Quick Quiz

Lest my nerd-like exterior shine through - take this great, short quiz and find out which character from Star Trek you are.

I'm unsurprised to find out my result:

Quark

A shrewd businessman with an ear to ground, you always hear opportunities before anyone else. Your greed is off-set by compassion which you try to hide.

Your mother says you are full of spit and vinegar, or maybe worse.

How Bush Saved the Environment

I'm not one for social engineering through the tax code. If I had my way, there would be a flat tax and absolutely no deductions for owning a house, going to college, living in North Minneapolis, working in an enterprise zone, locating a baseball team in town, buying groceries, or low flow flushing.

However, this is the system we have and the recently passed energy bill includes some tweaking to the current system that gives people tax credits for purchasing hybrid vehicles. This includes a tax credit of $3000 for the hybrid Ford Escape.

I happen to own a 2004 Escape, not the hybrid version, but it is a perfectly capable small SUV. While it is the 'small' SUV, it is as big as the '98 Explorer. As a good conservative, I do believe in economics and that people will largely behave as predicted to maximize their benefit. With the addition of the tax credit, these hybrids may be hitting our streets in serious numbers.

A 2006 Ford Escape - 4cyl, 153 horse power, 4wd, Blue Books for $21,759
It also gets 21 MPG in the city.

A 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid - 4cyl, 133 horsepower, 4 wd, Blue Books for $29,125
It gets 33 MPG in the city.

Lets assume 15,000 miles driven a year and an average gas price of $2.25/gallon.
The hybrid needs 455 gallons for a gas bill of $1022.
The standard model needs 715 gallons for a bill of $1607.
Gas saving - $585 annually

Hybrid cost: $29,125
- Standard Cost $21,759
- tax credit $3,000
= $4,366

That $4,366 is still pretty significant since it would take 7.5 years to break even -(for you financial types, longer if you discount over time).

However, if you get a top of the line Escape with a 200hp V6, you'll pay $25,653. After the tax credit, a hybrid is only $472 more! The difference is made up in the first year of gas savings.

Bottom line, for consumers who can afford a top end Escape, they have an equal dollar option between the powerful Escape that can tow boats, or the economical Escape that will seriously reduce future gas bills. It would seem that Bush has single handedly leveled the economic playing field for hybrids. As most conservatives have been telling environmentalists for year, the market will set you free, clean the air, and lead to environmental solutions.

A "Special" Addiction

I love politics! Especially elections. And last night we were given the rare treat of an August special election between GOPer Jean Schmidt and Dem Paul Hackett for the US Congress seat in Ohio's 2nd District (near Cinci). Schmidt pulled off a 4 point victory winning 52-48. To put some perspective on this, Bush won with 64% and Rob Portman (our new Trade Rep and previous GOP officehoder in the 2nd) won with 70% in 2004. A large lead in a 'safe' seat was squandered. Today the Dems are glowing with happiness about how this sets up a political tsunami in 2006 that will be on par with 1974 and 1994. If the 12 generic GOP points squandered by Schmidt holds up nation wide, they are right.

But...

This election wasn't a referendum on Bush and the national GOP in particular. It was certainly an issue, but one of many. First, let's give some credit where credit is due. An old sports cliche is that the only important stat is W's. Last night the GOP put a W on the board and held an open seat. In real politique, the Dems gained no additional power last night.

This election was about...

The Iraq War - Hackett is an Iraq war vet. He is personally against the war and endeared himself to liberals with his harsh words of Bush and the war. This helped him raise beaucoup bucks as a minor cause celeb from the Dean/Micheal Moore wing of the left. Back in the 2nd, he ran clips of Bush praising the troups for serving and then coming onscreen to say how proud he was to answer that call. Hackett did a masterful job of using his views to raise money, and his biography of being a Marine vet to appeal to the GOP dominated and military sympathetic district.

This strategy may have worked had Rush Limbaugh not spent the bulk of his show exposing the contradictions, or the half million the NRCC dumped in the final days. If Dems could do this nation wide in multiple places, they can water down what Rush was able to accomplish by focusing his show on one election. However, how many anti-war, liberal, marine corp, Iraq vets can they recruit and run? My guess is not many. I would also consider this the largest factor in making this election close, but not a factor Dems can easily replicate in 2006.

The Suckiest Bunch of Sucks who ever Sucked (aka - The Ohio GOP Leadership) - Ohio has about the lousiest bunch of Republicans running their party and state. Sen. Voinovich is best known for crying on the senate floor - literally weeping - while discussing his opposition to Bush nominee John Bolton to the UN. Sen. Mike DeWine most recently made news when he joined the "Gang of 14" to give Harry Reid a victory in the Filibuster compromise. A few weeks later, his son Pat DeWine who had been leading the polls in the Republican primary for this very seat, dropped from 1st to a distant 3rd - all of which attributed to holding the name DeWine. Then there is Gov. Taft who led his legistlative majorities into a tax raising bonanza. Schmidt, being a good party girl and a bad conservative, voted for a few of these tax hikes.

This crappy GOP leadership has been a huge issue in Ohio and helped to suppress GOP turnout. In the GOP primary, there were 45,000 voters. In the actual election, the GOP recieved only 59,000. You generally expect a doubling or even tripling of turnout in the general over the primary. Hackett went from 15,000 in the primary to 55,000 in the general.

The Iraq war helped get Hackett votes, the GOP Leadership capped Schmidt's support. Unfortunately for the Dems, this is another condition that won't be replicated nation wide. In most states, the GOP leadership is fairly decent. Even in MN where Pawlenty caved to miniscule tax hikes on cigarettes - at least he caved and can point to Dean Johnson as the bad guy. Taft and the Ohio GOP led the charge for massive tax hikes. I'll give the Dems credit for creating these conditions in many states, but the antipathy found in Ohio is unique.

Open Seat and Special Elections- Open seats always tend to be closer. The fact that the GOP was not running an incumbent meant that the new GOPer would be hard pressed to perform as well as the popular incumbent. Since this was a special election, turnout would be low. This district averages 300,000 voters in Presidential years, 200,000 in off years, and this election only brought out 114,000. Those 114,000 tend to be harder left or right. If you can get your base out, you can win in any district. Even the dems who lost in the previous years 70-30 to Portman still had similiar vote totals as Schmidt. Now this is encouraging to Dems. It suggests that they won't have to work as hard to turn out their voters. GOP beware - the dems are motivated and will show up to vote.

But in the end, that's the only national advantage Dems currently have. Newsflash: Democrats vote for Democrats.

Return from the Left Coast

I have returned from the West and my first trip to the Bay area. It was cut short by a day because America West Airlines broke their plane, and I arrived at 4:30PM on Friday instead of 11:30 PM on Thursday. However, I did get to share some time with a lovely couple of Bush supporters on the way out.

Last bit of consumer news - our trunk on the Camry - rented at Hertz - refused to close after Sunday morning. Much tape and piling of luggage in the back seat later - we got a $30 voucher out of it.

Other observations of the left coast:

-The Geography is visually stunning, especially around the Golden Gate Bridge where the Bay meets the Pacific and is ringed by the coastal range. However, those hill covered in dead grass, those are not "Golden Hills". It's just dead grass.

-Berkeley is overrated. I've seen many a liberal college town in my day, and Berkeley doesn't fit the hype. If you want to hang in a freaked out, hippie liberal environment AND have a hell of a time doing it - just go to Madison. There is none finer. Congratulations Madtown, you have put Beserkely to shame.

-Those little dashes on the interstate aren't what I thought. Going into the atrocious Bay area traffic, I thought they were lane dividers, uh-uh. They are motorcycle lanes. And it turns out they are perfectly legal motorcycle lanes. I haven't had so many close encounters of the Harley kind since I was in Milwaukee for the 100 year Harley-Davidson anniversary.

-San Francisco has a certain reputation. However, I was hard pressed to see much evidence of it. During my few trips to Seattle I saw much more overt, public, and dare I say pornographic, displays.

-San Francisco has a population of 798,000. San Jose - 923,000.

-The A's will be a playoff team. The Giants will not.