Former Presidential press secretary, Tony Snow died early this morning of colon cancer. He had been fighting this illness for a prolonged period of time with many ups and downs.

Mr. Snow was the host of a popular program on Fox News Channel from 1996-2003 (Fox News Sunday). My memories of him were as a cheerful and soft-edged conservative.

He leaves behind a wife and three children.

Feel free to comment on his life or memories you have of the late Tony Snow.

Confederacy defender Webb embraces Sherman over Illinois Senator

Not born to fight for Obama by attacking McCain’s heroic service

By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report

The moderate junior senator from the Old Dominion, and author of “Born Fighting”, James Webb (D-VA), less than seven days after joining Wes Clark in Barack Obama’s scurrilous attack McCain’s military record chorus, today echoed War between the States, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman with the following statement ( h/t to Redstate’s Bill Dupray :

“Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country,” Webb said in an issued statement. “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.”

Are there any moderate white male Democrats with executive experience left that haven’t issued Shermanesque statements eschewing the thought of running for Vice-President against Republican John McCain with Barack Obama, the presumptive first black nominee for President on a major party ticket in U.S. history?

For the record, while we have seen the racism of the Democratic Party in the raw during their nomination battle this year, I have no doubt that Webb’s decision is not part of that pathology. Rather, I agree with Dupray when he cites part of Webb’s statement:

Then again, maybe Obama ain’t Webb’s kind of guy after all.

WEBB: “I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America’s national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability,” Webb also said. “I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the Senate.”

Obama has never heard of two out of three of those goals.

Why did Virginia’s combative first term Senator, Vietnam war hero, and former Republican chief executive officer for Ronald Reagan’s Cold War winning Navy, choose the Seventh of July to echo a man reviled in the South for burning the Peach and Palmetto States to the ground?

I think Webb’s epiphany came from an inability to further sully his honor like he did last week in assisting fellow Obama surrogate, former NATO General Wes Clark in a scurrilous attack on McCain’s heroic service in Vietnam, including his many years as a POW, most of which was served after refusing to accept release by the Communists as part of a propaganda ploy, unless all of his prison mates were also released.

Last week, I documented the latest vile Barack Obama/Democratic Party attack as follows:

Vietnam vet, junior Old Dominion Senator James Webb recently broke protocol as Obama’s limp-wristed security resume wafts:

WEBB: John McCain’s been a longtime friend. If that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it’s that. Don’t be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them, because they don’t, any more than when the Democrats had political issues during the Vietnam War. Let’s get politics out of the military, take care of the military people, and have our political arguments in other areas.

RUSH: Get politics out of the military? John McCain needs to calm down? This from a rookie Senator Jim Webb. Needs to calm down, don’t be standing up and offering your political views and implying that all people in the military support them. This is again more smoke and mirrors. None of this McCain is done. But Webb gets up and says it, the Drive-Bys report what he says, and that becomes the official record of what McCain says, i.e., what Webb says that McCain is doing. Who infused politics into this? Who infused the military into politics? It was Clark who claims, by the way — grab audio sound bite number four. Here’s Wesley Clark last night on MSNBC, asked for his response to being criticized for his remarks.

CLARK: I wasn’t representing the Obama campaign in anything I said yesterday about John McCain. I want to assure you, I would never, never diss someone’s service. When people choose to serve in uniform, I honor it. I came home from Vietnam on a stretcher. I was shot, I took a burst of AK, I got four rounds, so I think I know a little bit about what it’s like to honor men and women who serve in uniform. And I do, and I would never dismiss somebody.

RUSH: Twilight Zone time. This is after he did diss somebody. This is after he did diss somebody specifically on the basis of their military service. Claire McCaskill on MSNBC Live today, the infobabe asked her, “General Clark is not backing down from those comments that were critical of Senator McCain. What’s the campaign’s response to hearing that he’s not stepping away from those comments?”

RUSH: What does this remind you of? Here we have two Obama supporters, Claire McCaskill from Missouri, a senator, and Jim Webb, both recasting reality. Obama, (paraphrasing) “Our campaign never said anything, why, we would never do this. We’re not going to put up with this. We would never, ever do it.” Webb said, “McCain’s gotta calm down.” I wish McCain would act in a way just one day that somebody could legitimately say “calm down” and have it mean something. The Official Obama Criticizer nailed this in his critique in the first hour of this program. Barack Obama and his campaign, he is the first black Clinton. He will not be the first black president because that’s Clinton’s. But he is the first black Clinton. That is exactly what’s happening here. Living in an alternative reality, and knowing full well that the Drive-Bys are going to cover for you and make reality whatever it is you say in response to things. So Clark gets a total pass. Obama gets a total pass. Obama gets treated as though he has rebuked what Clark has said, when he hasn’t, and then Webb goes out and says that McCain’s the one that needs to calm down. Meanwhile, the only official response from some elected Republican has been Bob Dole’s.

An astute conservative Democrat [political observer] in Alabama advised gamecock that Obama spoke to Bill Clinton this week, just as flip-flop moves to the center multiplied and just before Webb came to [Wes] Clark’s defense for off the high-dive denigrations of McCain’s heroic service in Vietnam.

It had to be painful for the man that masterfully and proudly chronicled the fighting spirit of his Scots-Irish kinsman in Born Fighting to go to bat for a kook Bill Clinton had to fire before he started WWIII by bombing Russian troops in Bosnia. It had to turn the stomach of a man that ran for public office in large measure based on his own military experience to lie and say McCain suggested that all vets agreed with him because he served and to add insult to injury by using the term “calm down” in the process, against the man that was held for many years as a POW, but who has served for decades since in Congress. Shame on you Jim! Your penance will be to shut up for a few weeks. And while you are at it, call Bill Clinton and tell him to do so as well, as he seems to be down in that gutter as well.

Webb obviously cares about his proposed legislation to increase benefits for war veterans, obviously wants to strengthen America’s defenses overall and is much more conservative than Obama on a host of issues including second amendment rights.

I would suggest that Webb, like the unprecedented number of sitting Democrat Governors and other white male moderate Democrats with executive and/or national security credentials that Obama desperately needs to legitimize the ticket, can’t stomach the leftism of Obama.

For a defender of the Confederacy to echo this man, who served the former Illinois senator that defeated the CSA, he must really loathe the idea of running with a current Illinois senator that wishes to lead the USA :

“If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.” William Tecumseh Sherman refusing to run for President in 1884.

I don’t blame you Jim, and take some Mylanta for that stomach ache.

[Rumors of the imminent retirement of CockStradamus were greatly exaggerated. While technically wrong about the Dem’s VP nominee, we think we were right before Webb’s stomach ache, and we think we are right about a declaration of victory in Iraq before November.]

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

I don’t know much about Jesse Helms. I joined the Republican Party long after Jesse Helms had been a significant figure.

He died today. On the leftist blogs you see the typical dancing on his grave. Apparently he was an entirely evil individual who had no redeeming qualities or an excuse for living. It’s still a bit seedy to me when people take the occasion of a politician’s death to curse them.

Now that I think about it my only memory of Jesse Helms was that he had been doing charity work with Bono (from U-2) in the last few years. Looking a little, I noticed that Jesse Helms played a pivotal role in Reagan’s rise to power in the GOP.

I want to send out condolences to his family. Regardless of the man’s life he was their loved one.

Pay attention to his laugh around 1:02.  It just oozes the arrogance for which Obama has become known.  Now, let me be clear here; I have no problem with Obama genuinely changing his position, in the right direction, on Iraq.  He’s quite right that he wouldn’t a good commander in chief if he didn’t adjust to facts on the ground.  All of this (sans the arrogant laugh) would sound sober and relatively sane if Obama had, prior to this, given any sense that he cared about the facts on the ground.  For months he pledged to withdraw troops within 16 months.  We never heard anything about possibly adjusting to the facts on the ground then.  Has he just learned, after 47 years of life, that facts matter?  And there’s another problem; Obama is “shifting” here, while insisting that he’s not shifting.  If he genuinely said, “I was wrong, the surge worked, and I’m willing to give it the chance to further improve Iraq, and adjust my timetable accordingly” it would be both the “right” position, and a politically rsiky one.  Because, it tacitly concedes that his all-knowing judgment isn’t superior to McCain’s, and because it represents a genuine flip, that even the star-struck netroots would find hard to accept.  Instead, Obama has chosen to essentially adopt John McCain’s position (without acknowledging that it’s John McCain’s position of course), pretend that he’s held John McCain’s position all along, while assuring the netroots that his position is still quite anti-war, but he just intends to end the war, you know, sometime, if it’s convenient.  And he seems genuinely stunned that people are daring to question him.

This is becoming a worrying habit of Barack Obama’s.  He doesn’t seem to understand what sort of things strike other people as outrageous.  He didn’t understand that Wright was an outrageous figure, and defended him initially.  He continued to call Ayers’ a “mainstream” figure for weeks after the initial flare-up.  He claimed rural voters “cling to guns and religion”, with seemingly no sense that this was something taboo.   And now he’s egregiously changing positions daily, and is utterly miffed that even a normally pliant press corps finds it mildly upsetting.

To say this trait doesn’t bode well for an Obama presidency understates it.  Not only is he an objectively shameless figure, but he doesn’t seem to realize this about himself.  This is a Nixonian trait, if nothing else, and it’s something that, for all the talks of his “phonyness”, someone like Mitt Romney lacked.  Romney never seemed entirely comfortable preaching on social issues one day, and fiscal management the next.  There was a disconnect and voters saw it.  Similarly, John McCain is famous for his inability to persuasively make nice with those ideas, people, or movements that he finds objectionable.   When John McCain endorsed George Bush, he had to grit his teeth.  When he pledges to have “got the message” on immigration, he’s comically unpersuasive.  The conscience peaks through.  Even Hillary Clinton could never quite sell her machinations with a straight face; she didn’t buy it anymore then we did.  Obama seems entirely divorced from such concerns.  Whether it’s his arrogance, or something considerably more frightening-something that’s animated tin-pot dictators from Sulla to Lenin, it boils down to the same basic conclusion- Barack Obama seemingly has no moral compass.

In 1993, or perhaps it was 1994, my grandfather used to take some time out of his otherwise uneventful day to drive me to and from high school. On the way home, he would often have the car radio tuned to Rush Limbaugh, with whom my grandfather didn’t always agree but with whom he had more in common culturally than the good folks at National Public Radio. In any case, I still remember his reaction to Rush when the pundit spent several days railing against the Clintons over Whitewater. In his typical fashion — not really caring if I was listening or not — my grandfather said aloud as Rush continued to rant, “So they made a little money. So what? Who cares?”

Over the course of his eight years in office, President Bill Clinton was caught in bed with everyone and everything under the sun, and yet he left the presidency to the sound of thunderous applause. Conservatives did everything they could to tarnish the man personally. They brought up his affairs, his business associates, and his wife. And yet no outrage could be found on the part of the average American.

Similarly, many Americans on the Left still can’t understand where the outrage is over President Bush and his decision to go to war in Iraq. Leftists just can’t understand why Americans aren’t demanding that Bush be tried for war crimes in The Hague. They can’t comprehend why demonstrations and riots and impeachment aren’t the order of the day. After all, this guy got the intel wrong and because of that American troops and Iraqi civilians are dead, say the leftists. Isn’t that worth just a tad of outrage?

This is an example of another one of those disconnects between ideologues and everybody else. Ideologues, by their very nature, have a heightened sense of morality. It just comes with the territory. Some ideologues believe it is simply immoral to confiscate another’s property via taxation. Other ideologues believe it is criminal for any American to go without completely subsidized health care. Still other ideologues believe that the taking of a human life for any reason, from the moment of conception, is an inexcusable act. And so on. You have ideologues that would melt down every gun in America and ideologues who would sacrifice thousands of lives if it meant global democracy. That’s what ideologues do. That defined sense of morality is what makes them ideologues.

But most people aren’t ideologues. Most people have a more complicated view of life and morality. Just turn on daytime TV for evidence of that. Most people think that a little skimming off the top here or an affair when no one’s looking there isn’t the most serious thing in the world. Most people think there is a moral difference between killing in self-defense, killing during war, killing in the womb, and killing someone in a dark alley. If most people didn’t feel that way, those four acts wouldn’t be treated so differently under the law. Most people don’t agree with the ideologues, because most people just don’t think that ideology works in the real world.

All of this is to demonstrate that a “where’s the outrage?!” campaign against Barack Obama will go nowhere fast. Barack Obama can’t be taken down via personal traits or associates. That’s been tried already. Neither Michelle Obama nor Rev. Wright nor anyone else is toxic enough to hurt Obama in the polls for more than a few days. He always bounces back, because Americans don’t elect saints. They elect presidents. Otherwise, Dan Quayle would’ve had a term in office and Jimmy Carter would’ve had two.

If Obama is defeated, it will be because of issues. Americans haven’t elected a leftist president since 1964. They got one in 1976, but only because the leftist Jimmy Carter ran as a centrist that year. And he still only won by a few thousand votes in a few states. Had Jimmy Carter been exposed as a leftist beforehand, Gerald Ford would almost certainly have gotten a full term as president.

Conservatives often lament that Americans don’t seem to be bothered by Obama’s leftism. I submit to you that the problem is one of education. Most Americans don’t start paying attention to position papers until the conventions and the debates. It’s time for Republicans to start making Americans aware of Obama’s leftist positions.

Republicans shouldn’t just attack Obama for being a liberal. It’s been a long time since Americans have had a liberal president. Many have never lived though a liberal Administration. Most Americans probably think Bill Clinton is a liberal. They probably think Breyer and Ginsberg are liberal Justices. They ain’t seen nothin’ yet. They don’t realize what true liberalism is. Republicans need to explain to Americans what Obama’s liberalism actually consists of and why it’s bad for America.

Team McCain needs to sever the connection between mainstream America and Barack Obama by exposing his leftism on the issues. In so doing, McCain will remind Americans why they liked him in 2000: because he’s not only of the mainstream, he is the mainstream. Like Gerald Ford in 1976, John McCain is a lot closer to the political center of gravity in this country than Barack Obama. And like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama has been able to hide this fact behind the novelty of his candidacy. McCain needs to expose Obama in a way that Ford couldn’t expose Carter before it was too late.

Here are some questions McCain can address to Obama in order to alert Americans to his true positions:

1) Most Americans want the government to spend less. Does Barack Obama?
2) Most Americans want abortion to be generally unavailable during the third trimester of pregnancy. Does Barack Obama?
3) Most Americans don’t want judges to be superlegislators. Does Barack Obama?
4) Most Americans don’t want taxes to go up. Does Barack Obama?
5) Most Americans want to drill for oil. Does Barack Obama?
6) Most Americans think individuals should be able to own guns. Does Barack Obama?
7) Most Americans want Osama bin Laden to be put to death. Does Barack Obama?

Whenever Obama answers any of these questions in a centrist manner, Team McCain needs to respond with Obama’s previous votes and quotes on these subjects, showing Obama to be a flip-flopper, a liar, a hypocrite, and, ultimately, a leftist. McCain should also use Obama’s Religious Left goopiness as an opportunity to highlight the McCain from 2000 who won New Hampshire running on a religion-and-politics-don’t-mix campaign. McCain needs to direct the same righteous indignation that he once reserved for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell towards Barack Obama, arguing that Obama is trying to politicize religion, something that will hurt both religion and politics. This won McCain millions of Northeastern votes in 2000 from people who historically, culturally, and traditionally despise the conflation of religion and politics.

Make no mistake, Obama can be beaten. It is issues that will destroy Barack Obama.

Many here seem to think that McCain is a new believer in state wide gay marriage amendments. Sorry to disappoint you, McCain has always stood the line against gay marriage in his home state:

Today, Dr. James Dobson, a psychologist and founder of Focus on the Family, took Obama to task for comments he had made in a June 2006 speech.

Dr. Dobson focused on Obama’s comments describing America as no longer a “Christian nation”. Obama also equated psychologist James Dobson with Reverend Al Sharpton.

“And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?”

I agree with Obama that America is not a Christian nation and hasn’t been for many years.

However equating Dr. Dobson and Reverend Sharpton is just foolishly ignorant.

Al Sharpton led racist mobs to a fevered pitch. His racist haranguing led to the death of a Jewish student in Crown Heights, New York. Dr. Dobson leads an organization that mainly focuses on helping parents to raise their children and helps spouses with their marriages. A look at Focus on the Family shows politics is a tiny part of Dr. Dobson’s activities.

Obama also engages in rank hypocrisy in his speech (remember this speech was in June 2006):

“No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide. They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.”

So Obama decries pastors who deliver screeds and not sermons. It’s amazing he said that after decades of sitting under Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s racially tinged screeds.

VP picks are the big unknown left in the election. Until the debates we’ve not got any other things to wait for.

I think many Republicans focus on the VP pick for another reason. Different segments of the Republican Party view McCain with suspicion. His career in the Senate has been as a maverick, not as a typical politician of any segment of the party.

So we’re all treating McCain’s VP pick as a window into what McCain really believes and what his priorities really are.

So with that in mind which VP picks would make you press the panic button?

Try to think of more than just the also-rans from the primary. Which picks mentioned in the media would get you angry or scared?

SurveyUSA Iowa General Election Poll, conducted June 13th-16th, 2008

• Barack Obama 49%
• John McCain 45%

528 Likely Voters. Margin of Sampling Error: ± 4.3%

Only McCain/Bloomberg wins the red state of Iowa:

It’s about time for an update on how the state of the states compares to the results of the 2004 elections. To get this chart, I took the margin of victory or defeat for Bush in 2004 and added or subtracted the current margins in the poll averages for each state (for example, Bush won TN by 14 points in ‘04, McCain is currently leading there by 27, so TN is listed as a +13… or, on the flip side, Kerry won PA by 2 points in ‘04, Obama is currently leading there by 7, so PA is listed as -5).

As you can see, the shift dramatically favors Obama and the Democrats at this stage in the game. Just 8 states are redder than they were at this point than in 2004. Three states have the exact same voting margins, and the rest of the 39 states are trending bluer. Overall, the country is roughly 8 percentage points further left right now than they were in November 2004.

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracking (6/16)

Without Leaners

• Barack Obama 45%
• John McCain 40%

With Leaners

• Barack Obama 48%
• John McCain 44%

Favorable/Unfavorable

• John McCain 55%/44%
• Barack Obama 54%/43%

Very Favorable/Unfavorable

• Barack Obama 31%/27%
• John McCain 17%/19%

Go to www.redstate.com, but leave out the first period (ie, wwwredstate.com).

Given the history there, I find that brilliantly hilarious.

I made this point in the comments, but thought it worth reiterating here.

The spread for the Feb., Mar., Apr., and May iterations goes McCain +2, McCain +15, McCain +6, Obama +1.

McCain’s numbers go 42%, 53%, 47%, 42%.

Obama’s numbers go 40%, 38%, 41%, 43%.

Anyone else feel like they’ve seen numbers like this before?

A number of commentators, myself included, had predicted that when Obama finally secured the nomination he would get a bounce in the polls.

So far, two days in (and realistically, a full month in):

Of course, this doesn’t mean that as Bambi consolidates his base, that he won’t see slow improvement.  But the immediate bounce to a ten-point lead that some of us expected doesn’t appear to be materializing just yet.

Watch, now there will be a huge bounce tomorrow .  . .

Incidentally, we noticed in the primaries that in the Appalachian states (OH, PA, WV, etc.) Obama was the WYSIWYG candidate. In other words, he rarely performed better than his final polling.  I wonder if that will hold true for those states in the general election.  Maybe, maybe not.

I just read about 150 comments on the SD/MT primary thread, most of which run to the effect that we are doomed because McCain is a awful candidate and Obama can move the heavens with his speeches.

I’ll start out by saying that I’m under no delusions about the difficulties we face this year.  This is a year when Dennis Kucinich would get 45% of the vote against any Republican, and I don’t mean that as an exaggeration.  Given even money odds, I’d bet on Obama (the 35-60 odds on InTrade however are another thing altogether).

But you need to keep some perspective here.  If you are reading this site, much less posting on it, YOU ARE ONE OF OBAMA’S KEY DEMOGRAPHICS.  Just by virtue of posting on the internet, you are identifying yourself as probably a college-educated white.  And if you’re not, you spend a fair amount of time e-hanging-out with a bunch of college-educated whites.

You’re supposed to be moved by Obama’s speeches.  You’re supposed to sit, jaws agape, with a tingle running down your leg as his mellifluous words lift your spirit.  You are the people most likely to become Obamacans.  Read that again, because it is important perspective: You pool from whence the Obamacans are drawn.  You’re supposed to be tempted by him.

But you’re a minority of the electorate.  Most of your similarly-situated brethren are Democrats, and THEY aren’t a majority of the Democratic party, much less the general electorate.  The question isn’t how Obama’s speeches make you feel.  It’s how they make a sixty-year-old white ethnic voter in Parma, Ohio feel.  You know, the people that Democrats need to win the nomination?  How do they feel about his high-flying promises of hope/change?  We got a pretty good sense in the Democratic primary how they feel, and it isn’t particularly good.  How do you think that’s going to go over as you start getting sections of that demographic who would vote Democratic?

And McCain?  Whatever he is, he is better than Bush.  I never “got” Bush, mainly because I’m in almost every way not his demographic.  In 2004, had Bush already gotten his two SCOTUS appointees and the Dems had nominated someone like Lieberman, Bayh, or Warner, I may well have pulled the lever for the Democrat.  But a LOT of Americans loved Bush, associated themselves with his speech patterns, and still pulled the trigger for him.  McCain is like Bush, only with more centrist policy proposals.

Look, the Democrats just nominated a black half-term Senator named Barack Obama, whose policies are somewhere to the left of Ted Kennedy’s.  I believe that this cycle the country would elect a black candidate, I believe they would elect a liberal, I believe they would elect someone named Barack Obama, and I believe they would elect someone with this little experience.

Taken together though, for a lot of people (not just Republicans) it is a bridge too far.  Moreover, these are people who are already skeptical of politicians, and pretty words.  Obama may try to transform himself into Obamoses, promising to keep a rising sea at bay, but while your “typical” college educated voters feels his heart aflutter at the prospect of a wise philosopher-king lifting America out of the much, the average working-class voters has a WTF? reaction.

Again, this isn’t a prediction of McCain victory.  This is just some perspective for when you get frightened by a soaring Obama speech.  I’m not sure a majority of your countrymen are going to have the same reaction.

I agree with Clarence below that it is highly unlikely that HRC will become Majority Leader anytime in the near future, much less Majority Leader with a filibuster-proof majority. Even setting aside the enmity she might be engendering with her quixotic bid for President, I just don’t see her leapfrogging past Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, and Byron Dorgan.

But a filibuster-proof majority is by no means outside of the realm of possibility. Below is my chart of how I currently see the races. The categorizations are simple. Safe means that I can’t envision the other side winning. “Likely” means that it is almost impossible for me to see the other side winning. For example, in VA it would require either Warner being named the Veep candidate or the absolute collapse of the Obama campaign. For NJ it would require a major gaffe by Lautenberg (not impossible, given his age), and probably also require the collapse of the Obama campaign (which I don’t view as impossible).

There are some “tweeners” in the safe category — ID, KS, and NE on the Republican side and SD, MA, and IA on the Dem side — races that could conceivably be competitive given the quality of the opposition, the nature of the state, and/or problems with the incubment (have you seen Kerry’s approval ratings lately). But I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that these races become competitive, even if it is possible.

Given that, Democrats basically start this cycle out with a floor of 51 seats. The problem for Republicans is that there is only one Democratic race in play. An additional 11 Republican seats are in various states of play.

Lean races mean that it is not difficult to imagine a victory by the other side, but that the playing field currently favors one candidate or the other. NH and NM are races that could be placed in the “Likely” category. But I think that Udall is awfully liberal for New Mexico (he’s a co-sponsor of Kucinich’s Department of Peace for crying out loud), and Sununu has a massive cash advantage over Shaheen (who, given her three terms as governor, is something of an incumbent herself, which is why her polling numbers don’t bother me as much). And McCain will likely perform well in these states. I expect the Dems to win these races, but it wouldn’t take an act of God for them to lose, as with the “likely” category.

On the Republican side, KY and TX are two races where polling has showed challengers within a few points of the incumbent (The balance of the KY polls show McConnell more around 50%). Neither incumbent has great approval ratings. That said, the incumbents have a massive cash-on-hand advantage over their challengers. I suspect they will pull through, if for no other reason than the partisan affiliation of their states and Obama’s likely poor performance there. These races strike me as kind of Kyl-Pederson in 2006.

An argument could be made for placing ME, MN, and/or OR in the Slight Lean category. But as I said, this is where I suspect that things will end up, not where I necessarily think things are now. ME is almost certainly placed correctly; I think that Collins is a good fit for her state; indeed a better fit than Allen. Remember, Maine ain’t exactly Rhode Island. MN and OR are closer calls, but given Franken’s troubles (which are just now beginning, I think) and Smith’s persona (his approvals are now back over 50%), I expect they’ll win.

Which brings me to the “Slight Lean” category. These are really tossups, but not calling a state is for wussies, as far as I’m concerned. I give Udall the slight edge in CO and Landrieu the slight edge in LA, although no one really knows how things will look in November. CO is trending blue, but I’m not sure it is trending liberal; remember, this the state voted to ban gay marriage, deny civil unions, and nearly voted against raising the minimum wage in 2004. The formula for CO Democrats has been to run moderate Democrats like Ritter and Salazar; 2008 will be a test to see if things can be pushed farther to the left. I could easily see either race flipping.

That leaves Dole, Wicker, and Stevens. I don’t have to go into the problems for the three of them. Stevens seems the most likely to lose, although Begich has problems of his own, and Lisa Murkowski trailed in polls for most of 2004 before winning against Knowles. Wicker has time to right the ship, and Musgrove is a former Governor who arguably should be treated as more of an incumbent than Wicker for purposes of polling. But Musgrove will likely benefit from a huge black turnout from the Obama campaign. That leaves Dole in NC. I think she is in real trouble. Part of the polling problem is that Hagan just won a competitive primary, and is benefitting from good publicity from that. But Dole isn’t an especially gifted campaigner, and this state will likely have massive African American turnout as well in 2008. That’s trouble.

So in short, as of right now I expect Dems to come out with a 55-seat majority. But it wouldn’t take a great leap for them to get to 58. Beyond that, even 63 would be within the realm of possibility.

Combined with an Obama presidency, and what is likely coming in the House, that should make conservatives very, very uncomfortable, with or without a Hillary Clinton majority leadership.

Then I wholeheartedly recommend my wife’s book, Trespassers Will Be Baptized: The Unordained Memoir of a Preacher’s Daughter. As its title implies, it is a book about growing up a Southern Baptist’s daughter in the South. If you’re expecting a biting tell-all, this isn’t your book, but if you’re looking for an entertaining coming of age story about growing up in the South, it might be for you. And if enough people pre-order before June 4 (only takes about 2,000), this will go up on the NYT best-seller list in its first week, and I can quit my day job and blog full time (how’s that for incentive?!?).

link

The Amazon summary and Kirkus review are below:

Growing up Southern and Baptist in Eastern Kentucky, Elizabeth Hancock’s world revolved around Sunday School, foreign missions projects, revival meetings and of course, the Kentucky Wildcats, who “glorified God through their goal-shattering, soul-shattering play.” Hancock chronicles her childhood misadventures with sardonic wit, detailing her and her sister Meg’s mischievous - if harmless - abuses of power (stealing Guess jeans from the Africa donation box, or hawking backyard swimming pool baptisms during her neighborhood’s annual yard sale) and lovingly recalling the wisdom imparted by her long-suffering parents as they ministered to their unruly flock. TRESPASSERS WILL BE BAPTIZED marks the arrival of a talented new voice in a coming of age story that is by turns comical and affecting.

Humorously irreverent look at life as the eldest daughter of a Southern Baptist preacher whose philosophy, he once told her, “rests largely on the principle that all God’s glorious, perfect children are also dumb as dirt.” That pious but realistic comment framed Hancock’s childhood attempts to understand the church people around her as well as her own special role as the PK (preacher’s kid) in 1980s Kentucky. Her experiences will ring true for anyone long involved in a church, as she sardonically tells of busybodies and holier-than-thou congregants while keeping the main focus on the sincere believers who were her true beacon, none more so than her parents and sister. A large portion of the memoir pokes fun at the silly and often maddening people found in any congregation, prompting many a good laugh. But [the author] goes deeper, delving into her own spiritual journey. [Her] experiences are the true crucible of anyone’s faith, and they certainly shaped Hancock. The reader comes away hoping that this rueful autobiographer will tap more of her memories in the future. Expressive and thoroughly entertaining.

SUSA was in the field from 4/11-4/13 and from 5/16-5/18. Both polls were taken after the Ohio primary. During that time, we went from a 2-point McCain advantage to a 9-point Obama advantage.

I can believe that there were substantial shifts in the Ohio electorate before and after the Ohio primary. The campaigns were in full force, registering people, and the Democrats were especially excited.

I do not believe that much has shifted since then, at least not significantly. I’m not saying it is impossible, but I believe it is fair to say that the Ohio electorate today should look pretty much exactly how it did a week after the Democratic primary (if not less Democrats).

So to summarize, to believe that the new SUSA poll is accurate, you have to believe:

• The electorate became 1% more male since then, and 1% less female.
• 18-34 y.o. make up 3% more of the electorate, and 50+ make up 2% less.
• R registration is down 3%.  D registration is up 3%.
• Conservatives make up 5% less of the electorate.
• The electorate is 2% less pro-life.
• SE Ohio is down 1% in the electorate.  Cleveland and Columbus are up 2%.

This says nothing of changes within those segments (a month ago SE Ohio was 50-38 McCain and now it is 37-33 McCain??).

I can believe the Ohio electorate changed this much before and after the Dem primary.  I don’t believe it changed this much after the Dem primary.  And again, these are RV polls, so this has nothing to do with intensity or LV screens or anything like that.

The Wall Street Journal recently featured a piece that I think is well worth mentioning in this election season.  Economist Kurt Hauser has published updated economic models that seem to further establish his 15-year-old theory that government tax revenues in the United States remain virtually constant regardless of the top marginal income tax rate.

The article is here

Although Doug and Sean are probably far better equipped to discuss the numbers, they establish that over a 55-year period federal tax receipts remained almost absolutely constant at 19.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Over this same period of time, the top marginal income tax rate (and obviously all lower brackets) were cut repeatedly - from 91% in the 1950s, to 70% in the 1970s, to 50% and then 30% in the 1980s, to the current 35% top marginal rate.

The economist argues what every supply-sider already knows: tax receipts are not linked to marginal tax rates. They are linked to greater economic growth (higher GDP). In any case, this is more proof that fiscal conservatives have it right on economic policy.

Matt Stoller apparently got his a$$ beaten down.  I actually don’t have the beef against Stoller that many others in the right-o-sphere do; after all, he was kind enough to give me a front-page link at MyDD, something that the good folks at RedState never felt generous enough to do.. *cough* *cough* And he’s a former classmate of my wife.

But there are life lessons about the Leftist outlook here. Stoller writes:

So on Saturday, I got smacked in the face. I’ve been snacking on Advil for a few days, musing on violence and its somewhat surprising (to me, anyway) impact. A month and a half ago, a women across the hall from my apartment threw herself out the window, and a few days ago some very angry dude decided that my face needed a redesign.

And like I said, this post isn’t to celebrate this. But look at what Stoller’s takeaway is:

The psychological impact of violence was pretty unexpected. It makes me less trusting, more prone to withdraw, full of rage, and more suspicious. I do not understand why pacifism and/or the avoidance of war are sneered at.

Actually this incident (as Stoller describes it) is exactly why pacifism and (at least knee-jerk) avoidance of war are sneered at. Look at this. This was apparently an uninvited sucker punch. There’s really no explanation for it. This isn’t a situation that can be explained away by blowback or anything like that. Some SkekSis just decided he wanted to drain a pod person, and he did it.

I’m sympathetic to liberal goals — end poverty, hunger, war, etc. There’s no difference between me and the most left-leaning of lefties here. I suspect most conservatives are on the same page here.

The difference is that I also recognize that there are a lot of people out there like the guy that cold-cocked Stoller. I would even argue that Stoller is the exception, not the guy who sucker punched him. Quite frankly, we’re only about 5,000 years removed from being nothing more than nasty little monkeys living in the state of nature. Maybe after a million years or so we’ll have evolved enough that our hyper-individualist, survivalist instincts will be bred out of us. But we’re just not there yet. If you need any other proof look at what happened within 24 hours of the breakdown of civil authority in New Orleans (and no, I’m not calling black people “monkeys,” anymore than I’m calling the whites who engaged in looting a bunch of nasty monkeys).

Moreover, these people are drawn to power and violence. It’s not accidental that the USSR was eventually run by Stalin, that Germany was eventually run by Hitler, that Cambodia was run by Pol Pot, and that China was run by a pedophile like Mao. And its exactly this attraction to power of the worst possible people that makes me recoil at the thought of the concentrations of power that leftism proposes. People like Stoller like to envision what the world would look like if a benevolent philosopher-king ran a centralized authority. If history is any guide, you’re much more likely to get Pat Buchanan.

This should be an important life lesson for Stoller. Instead he’s left wailing “it wasn’t supposed to be this way!” I have a feeling this won’t be the last time in his life that he feels that way, unless he quickly develops some much-needed skepticism about human nature.

PS Yes, I have been randomly attacked, twice, so yes I feel a good deal of sympathy. And yes, I was beaten up in elementary school, until my father threatened to give me my own trouble if I came home without fighting back again. So the next time I got hit, I beat the living bejeezus out of the kid. Never got hit again. So yes, I too, like Stoller, think teh [sic] violence is not awesome. But I also recognize that sometimes violence is the only answer to violence.

Recent GOP losses in Illinois and Louisiana have sent the GOP reeling, convinced the end is near. The end may in fact be near, but not because of special election losses.

Charlie Cook, hardly a Republican hack, explains:

The truth is that there are often unique or local circumstances that play an important role in determining the outcome of the election. They don’t call these contests “special” for nothing.

There are plenty of unique circumstances behind the victory of Democratic Rep.-elect Don Cazayoux (Pronunciation hint: Think of a cashew but substitute zhew for shoe) in a district that President Bush carried with 55 and 59 percent in 2000 and 2004, respectively.

Republicans got saddled with a candidate who, to a certain extent, was the Pelican State’s answer to Florida’s former Rep. Katherine Harris.

Just as Harris couldn’t lose a statewide primary and couldn’t win a statewide general election, longtime conservative activist and former state legislator Woody Jenkins was very difficult to beat in a closed GOP primary but entered into a general election with a walk-in closet of political and personal baggage.

Jenkins came in on the short side of the 49-46 percent race, but a weekend in Baton Rouge last month convinced me that few thought Woody would win even then, though few thought he would lose badly either — the district is too Republican for that.

A generic Republican would have outperformed Woody.

Similarly, the GOP loss in March of Illinois’ 14th District — formerly held by Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and which President Bush won with 54 percent in 2000, 55 percent in 2004 — also featured another statewide loser of a Republican nominee, dairy magnate Jim Oberweis.

Oberweis brought his own complete set of Samsonite into the race, Democrats dubbed him “the Milk Dud,” and the voters went with now-Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill.

In both of these cases, again, there were unique circumstances: tough GOP primaries produced weak, ideological candidates.

I agree with this. Most people won’t remember or have read about this, but the GOP had some pretty good luck in special elections in 1978, including picking up a district on Manhatten of all places, only to have a mediocre showing in the midterm elections. Similarly, the GOP won a heavily Democratic district in California in early 1996. The fall was not so generous to the GOP.

On the other hand, Democratic years like 1932 and 1974, as well as Republican years like 1994 were all presaged by special election losses.

But for some recent history, consider the following: SD-AL, KY-06, LA-03, LA-05, TN-04. These are all heavily Bush districts that have gone Democrat in special elections or open house seats in 2002-04: The GOP heyday. There is also AL-03, a heavily Bush district which narrowly avoided the same fate in 2002, a mini-tsunami year for Republicans.

And finally, let us not forget a near-GOP upset in a heavily Kerry district (MA-05), and a double-digit GOP win in a heavily-contested GOP race in Northern Ohio last fall.

In other words, one should not over-interpret special election results. These tend to be localized events. To further illustrate the point, many have noted that MS-01 should not be a problematic race for the GOP, given the Republican pull of the state. This ignores the fact that this district, though heavily pro-Bush and anti-Kerry, is still substantially more Democratic at the local level (see also, LA-03, LA-05).

Look at the following maps. The first map is the map of Mississippi State Senate seats. The First Congressional District is superimposed as a thin black line encompassing the district. Senate Districts held by Republicans are highlighted in red, those by Dems in blue. As you can see, there are still more local legislators who are Democrats than there are Republicans. This area has not fully re-aligned yet.

The second map does the same for the state house. We see the same basic trend there.

You will also notice that the red districts tend to be concentrated in the Northwest portion of the district. These are Memphis suburbs. Dems do well in the Eastern portion of the state. And what the Democrat’s strategy in this race has been is to present himself as a pro-life, pro-gun, rural Democrat from Tupelo, running against the suburban Republican from the Memphis suburbs. His strategy has been to localize the election, not to run against Bush. The Republicans are furiously trying to nationalize this election. We’ll see who wins. Regardless, there are strong local forces at work in this election. We should not read too much of national importance into this election as a result. If you find yourself despairing tonight, ask yourself again how MA-05, and OH-05 this year, GOP losses in 2004 in SD and KY special elections, and in open seat general elections in TN-04, LA-5, and LA-03 in 2002 and 2004 fit into the narrative.

I’m pretty much done with the liveblog — NC should get closer, and she’ll probably hang on in IN, since he just complemented her on winning IN.  My NC prediction of 55-45 is looking pretty good, but the IN prediction is all shot to heck.

The million dollar question though is: Does the Superdelegate dam break tomorrow?  Obama has a week to rack up some delegates before a pair of 30+ point losses in KY and WV.  She should be glad there isn’t another two- or six- week gap between primaries.

9:08 — NC is narrowing. A 20-point Obama lead with 27% in. But his best counties are in . . . IN is staying at a 53-47 Hillary lead with 68% in.

8:55 — IN: Marion is 67% in, St. Joseph (South Bend) just came in and pushed Clinton’s margin’s down to 53-47.

NC: 21% in, Obama is up by 26 points. This could get ugly.

8:47 — Not too much has changed with 17% in, he’s up 26. 57% in, and he’s narrowed Indiana to 8. CNN is still not calling it, and there are still no results in from Gary. Indianapolis is mostly in, but Hamilton (which will have about half as many votes as Indy) is almost entirely out. The rural precincts are largely in.

8:31 — 50% in, and Hillary is holding on at 55-45 in Indiana. 14% in NC, and he’s still up 30%. But Orange, Durham, and Wake — his strongest, most populous counties — are pretty much all in.

8:23 — Obama might pull Indiana off. Elkhart county is a Northern tier county that demographically should have gone strongly for Clinton, but it went 59-41 for Obama. CBS is calling it for Clinton, but if its a 2-3 point win, Obama has effectively pulled it off.

8:20 — NC. Durham county is 2/3 in. As expected, he’s winning about 3 of every 4 votes cast. 10% in, it is 64-34.

8:10 — Turning to NC, 4% are in. He’s up 64-34. The precincts that are in are in counties where he’s largely expected to do well, so expect this to close.

8 — With 34% in, Hillary 57-43. 1/4 of Marion is in, and Obama/Clinton are holding steady at 60/40. But a lot of the rural counties are in, and the South Bend/Gary counties haven’t come in yet. I’m predicting this is her high water mark.

NC is currently a blowout for Obama, but that will probably narrow.

7:52 — Hmmmm…With 31% in, Hillary is still up 57-43. Hamilton and Lake are still out, and Marion is 15% in.

7:44 — This could be interesting. With 25% of the precincts counted, Hillary still has a 14-point lead. 82% of Allen county is in, and Obama’s lead there has been whittled to 54-46. Will Hillary hold on to a large lead after all? By the way, what is up with the “no preference” option in NC? How weird.

7:41 — 24% in, and it is still a 14-point Hillary lead. 11% of Marion county is in. Obama’s lead there is up to 60-40.

7:37 — 20% in, and Hillary is holding on at 58-42. 4% are in from Marion county though.