GOP Dirty Tricks

Ken AshfordElection 2006Leave a Comment

As we come down to the wire on Election Day, reports are popping up of widespread Repubican dirty tricks.  It’s called robo-calling:

What we’re talking about is something a bit different. What we’re seeing is an apparent coordinated effort from the NRCC — the House GOP committee — to place calls that appear to be from the local Democratic candidate and then automatically call the same number back as many as seven or eight times each time the caller hang-ups. If the caller listens to the whole message it goes on to bash the Democratic candidate. But if the caller hangs up prematurely, the computer calls right back. Hang-ups are the achilles heal of robo-calls. So this seems to be an attempt to cover for that weakness by making those who hang up think the Democratic candidate is basically harassing them with phone calls. The GOP wins either way.

What is there to do about it. As described, the calls appear to be in violation of federal regulations which mandate that these calls clearly identify their origin. The repetitive call back may also be a violation in different states. The New Hampshire AG apparently just intervened to force the NRCC to stop the calls in that state. But frankly, none of that matters. Because the folks placing the calls factor in the price of whatever fines might be meted out after the election when the damage is already done.

Nathan Tabor Is Insane

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Latest screed:

I  find it interesting that, in today’s maniacal media world, conservatives are taken to task for every syllable they utter, but liberals are given a pass.

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Sen. John Kerry is the latest case in point.

Yeah,  John Kerry was given a pass by tyhe liberal media.  That’s why you never heard about it . . . because it wasn’t discussed as nauseum on CNN, MSNBC, Fox….

Haggard Fesses Up; So Does Doogie

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Sex/Morality/Family Values2 Comments

CNN:

Less than 24 hours after being fired from the mega-church he founded, evangelical Pastor Ted Haggard confessed to a "lifelong" sexual problem.

In a letter read to members of his New Life Church Sunday, Haggard said he is "a deceiver and a liar." Haggard apologized to his congregation in the letter and asked for their forgiveness.

You like irony?  Here’s a quote from Haggard’s last sermon, delivered a week ago from last Sunday, before the whole scandal broke:

"Heavenly Father give us grace and mercy, help us this next week and a half as we go into national elections and Lord we pray for our country. Father we pray lies would be exposed and deception exposed. Father we pray that wisdom would come upon our electorate …"

Lies and deception exposed?  They sure were, Ted!  Guess there’s something to that "Lord moving in strange and mysterious ways" thing.

RELATED:  Neil Patrick Harris (aka "Doogie Howser") says:

"(I) am quite proud to say that I am a very content gay man living my life to the fullest."

The difference, of course, between Haggard’s coming out, and Harris’s coming out, is that the former is engaging in self-loathing torment, and that latter is healthy and normal and doesn’t see his oreintation as a "problem".  I think it altogether fitting that Haggard is in his own private hell.

Anti-Rumsfeld Editorial

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

Newspaper editorials calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation are pretty common.  What makes this one unique?

It’s an editorial that is running jointly in the Army Times, the Air Force Times, and the Navy Times:

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion … it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it … and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Kos Kid Richard Carlucci blogs:

The war is OVER. Our military commanders are refusing to follow Bush over a cliff, and they have put their foot down in order to stop this train wreck.

Read their words closely – for we can all rest assured that each and every one was chosen very, VERY carefully.

Dude Is Clearly Tweaking

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

So Pastor Haggard says he bought meth once — and only once "out of curiosity" — from the gay prostitute named Mike Jones. [Interestingly, the audio tapes have Haggard saying that he "we" wanted "more" crystal meth].

And he admits he got a massages from the gay prostitute named Mike Jones.

But he claims he never used the meth that he bought "once" from the gay prostitute named Mike Jones.  He claims to have bought it and then threw it away. (Yup, say it all together now — he "didn’t inhale").

And he claims he never had sex with the gay prostitute named Mike Jones, who had been giving him massages for three years.

Raise your hand if you believe all that is true.

But before you do, keep in mind that only yesterday, Haggard said that none of the allegations were true, and that he never met Mike Jones at all.

Okay, now raise your hand if you believe him.  We’ll wait.

By the way, I love this quote from the religious press:

The president of the National Clergy Council in Washington, DC, points out that the Bible says no man is to be condemned on the testimony of a single accuser. That is why, says Rev. Rob Schenck, "we must prayerfully wait out the investigative process [in the Haggard matter] and continue to judge by the evidence." But should the allegations prove true, he adds, it will just be affirmation of man’s sinful nature.

The Bible says no man is to be condemned on the testimony of a single accuser?

I guess the Bible has a footnote which creates an exception if your last name is "Clinton".

No. What’s Your Plan?

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

The president was campaigning today in one of the few places where he’s still welcome, and he rolled out his final campaign pitch of the season.

Bush said Democrats calling for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq aren’t unpatriotic, just wrong. […]

"If they say they want to win the war on terror, but call for America to pull out of what al-Qaida says is the central front in this war, ask them this question: ‘What’s your plan?‘ " Bush said at a rally for Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, who is seeking re-election in one of the tightest races in the nation.

"The truth is the Democrats can’t answer that question," Bush said.

I wish I was a political cartoonist.  Because I would draw something like this:

Panel One:  An elephant that looks remarkably like Bush is walking purposefully through the jungle.  Tethered to him is a rather nervous donkey.  The donkey says "Um, I don’t think this is smart.  We’re going to get caught in quicksand."

Panel Two:  The elephant has now picked his pace.  The donkey is being dragged behind the elephant.  The donkey is now screaming: "Wait a second! Do you even know what you’re doing?  There’s quicksand ahaed!  Be smart!"

Panel Three:  There is a pool of quicksand (conveniently labeled with a sign next to it).  Sticking out of the quicksand is an elephant’s trunk, and the tip of a donkey’s nose.  The elephant is talking through his trunk saying, "Okay.  Since your so smart, what’s your great idea?"

The point is that for Bush to put the onus on Democrats to get out of the mess that Bush created strikes me as both absurd and sad.

So naturally, when Republicans ask what the Democrats’ plan for Iraq is, people are asking ""What’s the president’s plan?" The truth is Republicans can’t answer that question.

The Democrats, by the way, have answered that question, back in April.  It’s very detailed (123 pages, in PDF format).

So remember, when you see news clips of Bush asking Democrats, "Where’s your plan?", talk back to the TV and ask Bush: "Where’s yours?  And how can we be sure it’s better than the ‘plan’ that got us into this mess in the first place?"

Dem Senate Takeover Prospects

Ken AshfordElection 2006Leave a Comment

Here’s all you need to know.

The Democrats will take over the House.  Nobody doubts that anymore.

As for the Senate, the Democrats will make gains, but in order to take over and get a majority, they need to win in three of these four closely contested states: Montana, Missouri, Virginia, and Tennessee.

Now check out this chart (click to enlarge), showing the trend lines for Democrats, compiling all recent polling.  (The red line represents 50%, so being above that line means a Democratic win):

Tnrsenate1102large_1

As you can see, Tennessee looks bleak.  Which means that everything rests on Montana, Missouri, and Virginia.  Right now, Dems are slightly ahead, but there has been a bit of a downword trend in Montana.  (Maryland, once considered safe, is making me nervous too).

Anyway, a lot can happen in the next few days, but it’s going to be a nail-biter.

UPDATE:  Here’s another way of breaking down this information…

DEMOCRATS
GOP

TOTALS
49
48
TOSS-UP
3
LEANERS
5
0
TOTALS – WITHOUT LEANERS
44
48
NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION
27
40
FAVORED
17
8

ELECTION 2006: SEATS CURRENTLY HELD BY REPUBLICANS
DEMOCRAT
LEAN DEMOCRAT
TOSS-UP
LEAN GOP
GOP
Lugar – IN
Lott – MS
Hatch – UT

ELECTION 2006: SEATS CURRENTLY HELD BY DEMOCRATS
DEMOCRAT
LEAN DEMOCRAT
TOSS-UP
LEAN GOP
GOP
Carper – DE
Kennedy – MA
Conrad – ND

* – Denotes Independent Candidate

At The Request Of Rightwing Bloggers, Republicans Leak Nuclear Secrets Online

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

The Carpetbagger explains:

Several months ago, right-wing activists and blogs were convinced that all the talk (read: reality) about Iraq not have weapons of mass destruction had to be false. If only intelligence documents could be released online, Republicans could unleash the mighty power of far-right bloggers, who could review the documents and prove that those pesky facts about going to war under false pretenses were wrong.

GOP officials loved the idea and, sure enough, the Bush administration published previously classified materials on the Internet. How’d that work out? Take a wild guess.

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended "pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing."

As fiascos go, this one’s pretty spectacular. As Oliver Willis put it, "The Bush administration, in order to release propaganda and help its allies in the conservative media, has apparently damaged our national security."

There are a few key angles to consider in this incident that has to be humiliating for Republicans.

One, officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, urged U.S. officials to take the nuclear secrets off the web. (One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts "were shocked" at the public disclosures.) For reasons that defy comprehension, the Bush administration didn’t act for a full week, and only removed the classified materials after the New York Times started asking questions.

Two, make no mistake, Republican officials in the administration, acting on the behest of Republican lawmakers and bloggers, have seriously undermined national security. As the NYT put it, "The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs."

All because these clowns didn’t want to accept the fact that there were no WMDs. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said the project included "minimal risks," but chose to do it anyway. It’s exactly the kind of sound judgment we’ve come to expect from leading Republicans on national security matters.

Iraq As Art

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Huh?

A senior U.S. general compared Iraq on Thursday to a "work of art" in progress, saying it was too soon to judge the outcome and playing down violence and friction with Iraqi leaders as "speed bumps" on the road.

"A lump of clay can become a sculpture, blobs of paint become paintings which inspire," Major General William Caldwell, chief military spokesman, told his weekly Baghdad news briefing…

…"Every great work of art goes through messy phases while it is in transition," Caldwell said.

Hmmm.  I guess that’s true…

Hieronymusbosch

And here’s what we’re doing to make sure Iraq ends up like a Bosch painting:

A military dog handler convicted for his role in the prisoner abuse scandal has been ordered back to help train the country’s police.

As if the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal weren’t bad enough for America’s image in the Middle East, now it may appear to much of the world that one of the men implicated in the scandal is returning to the scene of the crime.

The U.S. military tells TIME that one of the soldiers convicted for his role in Abu Ghraib, having served his sentence, has just been sent back to serve in Iraq.

Sgt. Santos Cardona, 32, a military policeman from Fullerton, Calif., served in 2003 and 2004 at Abu Ghraib as a military dog handler.

So, that’s what happened to soldiers convicted of prisoners abuse at Abu Gharib — they get sent back to train Iraqis. [UPDATE: Hmmm.  Looks like the Army changed its mind.]

Compare that story to this tragic one about an American soldier who resisted commiting abuses against Iraqi prisoners:

Alyssa_peterson01A Flagstaff soldier who died in Iraq committed suicide after she refused to participate in interrogation techniques being practiced by her U.S. Army intelligence unit, according to a report about an Army investigation aired by a Flagstaff radio station.

U.S. Army Spc. Alyssa R. Peterson, 27, died Sept. 15, 2003, in Tel Afar, an Iraqi city of about 350,000 residents in the northern part of the country.

At the time, the U.S. Department of Defense listed her cause of death as a “noncombat weapons discharge.”

Spc. Peterson’s mother, Bobbi Peterson, reached at her home in northern Arizona, said she became aware of the KNAU report Wednesday. Neither she nor her husband Richard has received any official documents that contained information outlined in the KNAU report.

Until she and Richard have had an opportunity to read the documents, she said she is unable to comment.

Spc. Peterson had been assigned to C Company, 311th Military Intelligence Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), which is based in Fort Campbell, Ky. She was in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedon, functioning as an Arabic-speaking intelligence specialist.

On Tuesday, a KNAU Public Radio reporter, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the reports of the criminal investigation into Peterson’s death, aired a report that Peterson had committed suicide.

According to KNAU, an Army investigation found that Peterson had objected to interrogation techniques that were being used on prisoners.

“She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage,” stated the KNAU report.

She was subsequently assigned to monitoring Iraqi guards at the base gate and was sent to suicide prevention training, stated the KNAU report. And on Sept. 15, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle, according to KNAU.

The KNAU report also stated that Army spokespeople for Peterson’s unit refused to describe the interrogation techniques and that all records of the techniques have been destroyed.

TODAY’S NEWS:  Well, October saw the deaths of 105 U.S. soldiers.  Here we are barely into November’s tally, and there were seven new deaths yesterday.  That makes this month’s toll eleven.  [UPDATE: Make that eight deaths yesterday.]

AND MORE OUTRAGE:  Just a few days ago, I pointed to an undertold story about how we "lost" 14,000 weapons in Iraq in bureaucratic red tape.   The reason we know that is because Bush, under some political pressure, set up an Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, who specifically audits such things.

Guess what happens to people who do good work like that?  They get axed:

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.

Americablog comments:

The guy who was fired was only focused on one piece of the war in Iraq: how the reconstruction money was being spent. You’d think the GOP would be concerned about those billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers dollars, too. But you’d be wrong.

Haggard Shadenfreude

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

UPDATE:  By the way, many think this scandal will impact the election, as it is likely to lessen the evangelical vote.  Among those who think that is Stephen Bennett, a top spokesman of the religious right.  According to AmericaBlog, Bennett sent out an email:

Stephen ended, "Will this affect the elections next Tuesday? Are Republicans disenfranchised with the hypocrisy within their own party – especially the hypocrisy within the driving force – the Christian Conservative base? You better believe it.

"The more and more hypocrisy I see each day, the more I realize next Tuesday we are going to get EXACTLY what we deserve. Yet I must NEVER forget where I came from and always remember ‘But for the grace of God, there go I.’"

Josh Marshall agrees that this has a political fallout:

This is the conservative equivalent of Jesse Jackson getting caught wearing a hood at a Klan cross burning. The political implications are enormous.

While evangelical Christians have been a force in national politics for the last two decades, most evangelicals still harbor a deep disaffection with politics. It remains a predominately secular endeavour, in their view, and for many evangelicals there is a strongly held sense that politics, like other aspects of the pop culture, corrupts those who come in contact with it. That has always been the headwind facing Republicans seeking to rally evangelicals to political purpose.

Foley and Haggard are turning the headwind into a full-blown gale for the GOP.

Anyway, back to Haggard.  Here’s Pastor Ted Haggard — the recently outted gay evangelical leader who pays for sex with male prostitutes and/or buys crystal meth from them, as depicted in the recent documentary, Jesus Camp:

He consults with Bush and his advisors every Monday, the film says.

Well, probably not anymore, I’m guessing.

RELATED:  Haggard with another upstanding member of the evangelical community:

Gibsonhaggard

Here’s a good promo which shows where Haggard stands stood in the evangelical pecking order:

Marriagegraphic

ALSO:  A video clip of Haggard saying that Hell is a physical place, and Mahatma Gandhi is in it.  Nice.

And here’s the joke of the day:

"If you study hard, do your homework, lead a moral life, try to practice what you preach, you can do well. And if you don’t, you end up as the pastor of a mega-church in Colorado, the head of a major grassroots evangelical organization, a prominent adviser to the president, and, allegedly, a breathtaking hypocrite."

RELATED:  More bad Christians —

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple’s sentencing on Jan. 9.

GOP Message Not Sinking In

Ken AshfordElection 20061 Comment

Good news from today’s New York Times poll.  It looks like America isn’t the bastion of conservatism that Fox News likes to think it is…

On Bush’s handling of Iraq:

29 percent of Americans approve of the way President Bush is managing the war, matching the lowest mark of his presidency. Nearly 70 percent said Mr. Bush did not have a plan to end the war, and 80 percent said Mr. Bush’s latest effort to rally public support for the conflict amounted to a change in language but not policy.

On Congress:

Among registered voters, 33 percent said they planned to support Republicans, and 52 percent said they would vote for Democrats. 

That’s a 19 point advantage — one of the highest for either party in recent history.

On terrorism:

By a slight margin, more respondents said the threat of terrorism would increase under Republicans than said it would increase under Democrats.

And by a two-to-one margin, more people thought our involvement in Iraq made the threat of terrorism worse.

Other poll bites:

* Economy — By a 22% margin, Americans believe the economy is getting worse, not better.

* Same-sex marriage — A surprisingly-high majority now believe same-sex relationships should be made legal. According to the poll, 28% of Americans support gay marriage, while 29% support civil unions. Combined, that’s 57% of the country.

* Political independents — Unaffiliated voters are breaking the Dems’ way big time. 23% of independents said they plan to vote for Republicans on Tuesday, while 50% prefer Dems.  [This dovetails nicely with a Rasmusson Reports poll, which says that "the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has fallen to its lowest level since we began reporting this measure of partisan trends in January 2004."]

* Issues — Poll respondents said they thought a Democratic-led Congress would be more likely to increase the minimum wage, hold down rapidly rising health and prescription drug costs, and improve the economy.

There’s also more good poll news from Reuters:

Democrats must gain six seats in Tuesday’s election to win U.S. Senate control, and they lead in six of the seven most vulnerable Republican-held states, according to Reuters/Zogby polls released on Thursday.

Democrats lead Republican incumbents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Virginia and Rhode Island, but only the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania races are outside the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Zogby’s latest poll provides further confirmation that Missouri and Virginia have been trending in the right direction.

The Democrats taking the Senate was a pie-in-the-sky dream just four weeks ago.  Now, it is clearly within reach.  And Democrats taking over the House — well, that’s all but a done deal.

With these figures in mind, I think I might vote today.

UPDATE:  The Crystal Ball is a website operated by Prof. Larry Sabato of the U.Va Center for Politics.

He finds the following:

Just how Democratic a year is 2006?

Five days out, let’s rephrase the question this way: when’s the last time a major political party has failed to capture a single House seat, Senate seat, or governorship of the opposing party in a federal election year?

We bet it’s never happened before, and it certainly hasn’t happened in the post-World War II era. After all, even when a party suffers miserable net losses, it usually picks up at least several consolation prizes in the form of open seat pickups or an against-the-tide incumbent defeat.

Yet look at our 2006 predictions: at this moment, the Crystal Ball cannot identify a single election for Senate, House or Governor in which a Republican is likely to succeed a Democrat in office. Just imagine how devastating an absolute shutout would be in the eyes of history if this proves to be true!

Sure, we could easily be fooled by more than a few outcomes in this regard on Election Night, and we would probably place the odds of this historical unlikelihood’s occurrence at no better than 50/50. But the very notion such a scenario is within the realm of possibilities is a testament to the lopsidedness of this year’s theaters of battle.

If little changes between now and Tuesday, there remains little question that the GOP is headed towards devastating losses. And though candidates continue to stress various issues, only one has truly come to define our politics this year: war. Future historians may well look back on this wave election as "The Iraq Midterm," much we look back on the 1966 and 1974 elections as "The Vietnam Midterm" and "The Watergate Midterm" respectively.

…if history is any guide, a handful will have scored fluke victories with under-the-radar, last-minute momentum. Wave elections are volatile, and in our years of publishing, we have never gazed into a stormier Crystal Ball.

Coulter Comeupance?

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Anncoulter_ruleoflawAnn Coulter, the anorexic gibbon-pawed shrill conservative pundit, made fun of the Florida voters in 2000 for their inablity to cast a simple ballot.  That was among her lesser sins, but it is particularly ironic, now that she is under investigation for committing voter fraud — also in Florida.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has refused to cooperate in an investigation into whether she voted in the wrong precinct, so the case will probably be turned over to prosecutors, Palm Beach County’s elections chief said Wednesday.

Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson said his office has been looking into the matter for nearly nine months, and he would turn over the case to the state attorney’s office by Friday.

Coulter’s attorney did not immediately return a call Wednesday. Nor did her publicist at her publisher, Crown Publishing.

Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Anderson’s office received a complaint in February that Coulter voted in the wrong precinct during a February 7 Palm Beach town council election.

Anderson said a letter was sent to Coulter on March 27 requesting that she clarify her address for the voting records "or face the possibility of her voter registration being rescinded." Three more letters were sent to Coulter and her attorney, but she has yet to respond with the information requested, Anderson said.

In July, Anderson said, he received a letter from Coulter’s attorney, Marcos Daniel Jimenez D’Clouet. The letter said the attorney would only discuss the matter in person or by telephone because, he complained, Anderson had given details to the media. Anderson said the matter had to be discussed in writing.

The right-wing commentator also authored a book that said some September 11 widows were "enjoying their husbands’ deaths."

Full background here and here.