Real Republican Majority

Principles of the Real Republican Majority




Principles of the Real Republican Majority
I BELIEVE that the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's liberty, dignity, freedom and privacy must be honored and respected.

I BELIEVE that the role of government is to practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE that strong national security and safety of Americans at home and abroad must be a top priority of our Party and our government.

I BELIEVE in the Constitutional protection of the separation of church and state-- that official policies of our Party and our country should not be dictated by personal religious beliefs.

I BELIEVE that medical and moral choices are individual and family decisions not government decisions.

I BELIEVE that we build a strong Party by consensus, not by forcing an agenda on issues that are divisive, personal and best left at home.

I BELIEVE that the Republican National Committee should focus on our traditional agenda of smaller government, lower taxes, and a pro-growth economy.

I BELIEVE that the Republican Party Platform should be welcoming and respectful of differing views on issues of disagreement and promote the 'Big Tent' philosophy.

Iraq is Dems' tar-baby

Iraq is Dems' tar-baby

THE HILL November 29, 2006

An old Democratic friend of mine stopped by the Monocle last week and while there ran into a Democratic senator of long acquaintance. The Senator was, of course, quite pleased with the outcome of the election and is looking forward to the perks and responsibilities that go with being in the majority.The two talked for a few minutes, but the Senator was more than a little taken aback when my friend asked him what he and his fellow Democrats intend to do with the war they managed to acquire with their new majority. "What do you mean?" he said. "Iraq is Bush's war and his problem.""Oh, no," my friend responded, "it was his war until Nov. 9, but your party ran condemning the war, Bush's management of it and promised to end it in one way or another. Now, you guys are going to have to come up with a plan because you are in the majority and with the majority comes responsibility . especially on problems voters believe you promised to solve."It was a sobering thought and the senator was momentarily speechless, but then got very, very cautious and assured my friend that most Democrats believe it would be dangerous to do anything precipitous. Fortunately, there was no one from MoveOn.Org at the next table.To be fair, my friend overstated the degree to which Democrats have to single-handedly solve the Iraq problem, but voters are not likely to long tolerate their pre-election act of attacking Bush at every turn while offering nothing, or less than nothing, in the way of a realistic alternative.After all, while there was more to the election than the war, most of the 20 percent or so of those who voted and said the war was their No. 1 concern voted this year for Democrats because they don't like the way things have turned out for us in Iraq and are hoping for better.It is true that many of the Democratic Party's ideological allies and financial supporters seem to actually believe that the problem is nutcases who would pervert their religion to justify terror, torture and genocide, all on account of the U.S. They would argue, one suspects, that since it is our presence in the region that "creates" terrorists, all we have to do is leave and the problem will vanish.This reasoning may be persuasive within the fever swamps of the left, but most elected Democrats tend to be more realistic and few of them share this view of a world that would be a better place but for us. Moreover, as politicians they have to worry about what might happen if they "get us out of Iraq" and the forces we are fighting there decide to take us and our friends on elsewhere, or the Iranians and others look at the debacle there as evidence of our lack of will to oppose whatever it is they decide to do with their nuclear weapons once they develop them.Some of them are hoping former Secretary of State Jim Baker's Iraq Commission will save their bacon as well as Bush's by coming up with a magical strategy and end game that will both work and satisfy their base. That, however, doesn't seem likely given the intractability of the problem and the vehement insistence on the left that the war has to be ended now or that we at least begin withdrawing or "redeploying" troops soon.Some Democrats in Congress are already responding by rejecting the idea that anything but getting out matters. They dismiss the importance of whatever might happen there after we leave and seem to buy into the notion that everyone will be so happy that we're out that no one will blame them for "losing Iraq" or for the acts of an emboldened terrorist movement.Others are trying to satisfy their base by suggesting that all we have to do is seek support from our allies or the U.N., as if the Bush administration hasn't tried. Still others suggest that we do more to "train" the Iraqis but blanch at the thought that this course could require committing more U.S. forces, at least in the short term.And then, finally, there are those who denounce the Bush administration's "imperialist empire-building" on the one hand, while suggesting that what "we" ought to do is sit down and redraw the map of the Middle East along more "rational" lines.The lack of any unified Democratic stance on a crucial national security and foreign policy issue - on which the party's candidates ran and won control of Congress - means that my friend is at least partially right.Iraq is many things, including a tar-baby that congressional Democrats are going to find as difficult to get away from as the Republicans they so gleefully beat up over the last few years.
David Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a Washington, D.C.-based governmental-affairs firm.

Map L. is it!, we shall see by next Monday's session

Posted Wednesday, November 29, 2006, The Senate Site

Map L
To get a real sense of what happened, you need to listen to this morning's meeting. Find the audio link here.In a nutshell:Responding to requests, opinions and information gathered at the public hearings, the Redistricting Committee has morphed the plan formerly known as J into a new Map L.The new map refines Map J in the following areas:
Changes the Second District boundary to encompass Snyderville Basin (just over 7000 people), so they can vote with their neighbors in Park City. Several people at the public hearing in Park City requested this.
Makes Morgan County (about 7000 people) part of the Third District.
Includes the City of Eureka in the Third District.
Puts North Salt Lake in the Second District but keeps Bountiful in the First.
Adjusts the lines in South Salt Lake County in such a way that the population of the four congressional districts are in exact balance. Each congressional district will have an equal population of 558,292, with the exception of District One, which will have a population of 558,293.The Redistricting Committee approved this map 10-1.Next steps: We anticipate being called into a Special Session on Monday, December 4. Then it’s up to Congress.
posted by The Senate Site at 10:46 AM 18 comments

Dads Against Drug Dealers

Everyone knows that ‘drugs kill’. Everyone knows that the dealers who sell drugs, actually sell death. You probably know someone who has overdosed. If not, based on current trends, you will, unless we all stand up and do something about it! Our children DO NOT HAVE TO DIE! There are more good people than bad around us. But many are scared to stand up and do something about this monster of addiction. So many people are afraid that by calling the police on their “local drug dealers”, or their children’s friends, the will face violent retaliation! DADDS gives everyone a risk free way of joining the fight. The youth and the users know who the dealers are. Please give us their names. No one will ever find out where the police get the information. You can make a difference!
FIGHT BACK! Help take back our families and our homes!

Please click on this link and read the entire story. This could be your kid....

http://dadsagainstdrugdealers.com/

Spyglass Switching to Commerical List Server

As I had mentioned in a previous post, I have been trying to use the New Google Groups Beta in handling my subscription database for the Spyglass. Even after several attempts to work out the bugs with Google support, I have decided to subscribe to a commercial service that can do exactly what I want without the hassles.

Later this week I will be sending out a formal announcement, including a simple check box to continue receiving The Spyglass email for the day. Un-subscription will be very easy and automatic.

Mark Towner,
The Spyglass

Fusion Arena?

I have an idea for a new name for the Jazz Arena.

Energy Solutions: Jazz Fusion Arena

What do you think?

The Spyglass

Congress unlikely to act on Utah/D.C. bill

By Bob Bernick Jr.Deseret Morning News
Next week, a special legislative committee will begin taking around the state three U.S. House redistricting plans. On Dec. 1, GOP Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. will call a special legislative session where one of these plans — or some variation drawn up by Republican legislators behind closed doors — will officially be approved. That plan will be given to Congress during its lame-duck session with the hope that House and Senate members will approve a bill that gives Utah one extra U.S. House seat and gives the District of Columbia a full-voting House seat. The U.S. House will go from 435 to 437 members, and the long-sought-after goal of giving full representation to residents of Washington, D.C., will be achieved. Or not. And the "or not" side seems to be winning, if you believe Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. Bennett, a member of the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate leadership, says that the Utah/D.C. bill has little chance of passage in the two-week lame-duck session of Congress. Huntsman says if the Utah/D.C. bill is not passed before the first of the year — when Democrats take over control in both the U.S. House and Senate — then Utah is "out of business." He sees little chance of Utah getting an extra seat, as Democrats try to just give D.C. a full-voting seat — something Republicans will no doubt oppose. If all the lame-ducks do line up for Utah, however, then officials say there could be new U.S. House elections in Utah next spring — as all four newly drawn seats must find representatives. Politics is always part of redistricting. But redrawing the seats in mid-decade throws another curve — who in the current Legislature may want to run for office in the newly drawn district? First to the plate may be Utah House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy. Ironically, Curtis barely survived re-election to his state House seat several weeks ago, a canvass this week showing he won by just 16 votes. There will be a recount, but in this age of electronic voting, recounts usually hold up. Curtis has around $200,000 in his personal campaign account, clearly more than he needs to run his own (if overly close) Utah House race. Leaders often donate to their party candidates so newly elected lawmakers will support them in leadership races. But Curtis had no challenger to his second, two-year term as speaker. So he's sitting on a lot of cash — and most likely will be in the new 4th Congressional District. Others who could be in the race on the GOP side include state Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, who just lost to U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson in the 2nd Congressional District. There's John Swallow, who lost to Matheson twice, and a slew of other would-be congressmen. All three redistricting plans being taken out for public comment have the southern part of Salt Lake County as the population base of the fourth seat. And two of the plans — Plans I and J if you are watching closely — make Matheson's 2nd District more Democratic. In heavily Republican Utah that may not be saying much — but Matheson won re-election three weeks ago with nearly 60 percent of the vote, his best-ever showing. So it is clear that — at least until the 2011 normal redistricting — Matheson would be better off politically under two of the plans. That doesn't satisfy Utah Democratic Party Executive Director Todd Taylor, who says the quick redistricting now is just another example of a "corrupt system" run by the majority Utah Republicans. Plan A — the third plan going out for comment — is the four-seat plan adopted by the lawmakers in 2001. Back then, legislators adopted a four-seat alternative because state lawyers were suing to get a fourth seat. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Utah, and so since then we've been electing three, not four, U.S. House members. And Plan A does not necessarily help Matheson. In fact, it could hurt him politically because he — as he did in the 2001 redistricting plan — will get a whole bunch of new constituents. If Utah gets a fourth seat in the lame-duck Congress, and there are new U.S. House elections in the spring, Matheson could face a bunch of GOP-leaning voters who have not had the chance of casting a ballot for him before. But there are a lot of "ifs" that have to become "facts" before that happens. Most likely, Congress will not act on the Utah/D.C. bill in December. And when Democrats take control in 2007, they could just decide to let things ride until the 2010 Census gives Utah another U.S. House seat.
Deseret Morning News political editor Bob Bernick Jr. may be reached by e-mail at bbjr@desnews.com

Official vote count rewards two Democrts

Originally posted on Friday, November 10, 2006:

I was present at The County Building on tuesday night as a ballot count observer. It was very interesting to watch the new process. PCMI cards came in in sealed bag's and workers organized and transferred these to a tray that was taken into the counting room where six cards at a time were read and downloaded on two machines. I assumed these were dibold workers, not clerk staff. The problem I had with the process, was there was no way to know what was happening. The only thing we as observers could see was the cards being placed into the machines, the button being pushed, and the screen line entry for each card would go from red to green. Only then could you see what polling location was being uploaded. The real problem was there was no actual way to verify counts by precinct in real time. This is a flaw that must be corrected in the future, because all we have to go on is the computer spitting out total numbers race wide. We were not able to tell what precincts were already counted, or not counted like in the past.Based on some calculations on the close races in Salt Lake County, several including the House Speaker’s is still up for grabs. There are nearly 10,000 absentee ballots to be counted, and this process will not even start until this weekend.The races that could still go either way are: In my opinion, based on the statistics and percentages, the following races I feel will change when the canvass is performed and all the paper ballots are counted. I sure hope the candidates have someone watching each ballot being counted….State Senate District 9State Representative’s 22, 29, 36, 45,County Council District 3County AuditorMark Towner, the Spyglass Moderator


Article Last Updated:11/21/2006 05:37:44 PM MST

Posted: 5:17 PM- Nearly 10,000 outstanding ballots counted during Tuesday's official canvas in Salt Lake County handed two Democrats victories and forced recounts in three other tight races. Magna Democratic Rep. Carl Duckworth will remain a state legislator after the provisional and absentee ballots counted Tuesday gave him a 33 vote victory over Republican challenger Deena Ely. On Election Day, Ely had 25 more votes than Duckworth. Duckworth's victory ensures Democrats a one-seat pickup in the Utah House, increasing their caucus membership to 20. And Democrat Salt Lake County Auditor candidate Jeff Hatch beat out Republican incumbent Sean Thomas by a 1,235 vote margin. Before Tuesday's canvas, Thomas had a 344 vote lead. House Speaker Greg Curtis from Sandy retained the victory, but his 46 vote advantage dwindled to just 19 votes, within the margin for a recount. Rep. Mark Walker, R-Sandy, also will face a recount, beating Democratic challenger Laura Black by just 18 votes, before the canvas Walker had 32 more votes than Black. A recount will also take place in the Jordan School Board race between Tracy Cowdell and Lynette Phillips. Cowdell's 27 vote margin dwindled to just 12 over Phillips.

California court expands immunity for bloggers

2 hours, 41 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Individuals who use the Internet to distribute information from another source may not be held to account if the material is considered defamatory, the California Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a reversal of a lower court decision.

The ruling supports federal law that clears individuals of liability if they transmit, but are not the source of, defamatory information. It expands protections the law gives to Internet service providers to include bloggers and activist Web sites.
"We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republication on the Internet has some troubling consequences," California's high court justices said in their opinion.

"Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area, however, plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement," the decision stated.

The opinion, written by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan, addressed a lawsuit by two doctors who claimed defendant Ilena Rosenthal and others distributed e-mails and Internet postings that republished statements the doctors said impugned their character and competence.
Rosenthal operates a San Diego-based Web site known as the Humantics Foundation (http://www.humanticsfoundation.com), which is critical of silicone breast implants.
Rosenthal had countered that her statements were protected speech and immune under the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It holds that: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

A California appeals court had ruled that Internet service providers and users could be held liable if they republish a statement if it is known to be defamatory.
California's high court took that decision up for review because the lawsuit against Rosenthal involved an individual instead of a service provider, and opted for a broad view of immunity under the Communications Decency Act.

"Requiring providers, users, and courts to account for the nuances of common law defamation, and all the various ways they might play out in the Internet environment, is a Herculean assignment that we are reluctant to impose," the court's justices held in their opinion.
"By declaring that no 'user' may be treated as a 'publisher' of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users," they added.
Mark Goldowitz, the defense counsel who represented Rosenthal, said in a statement that the ruling offers protection against those who would chill free speech on the Internet.

"The soapbox is not liable for what the speaker has said," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who filed a brief arguing free speech protections should cover individuals, not just Internet service providers.
(Additional reporting by Eric Auchard in San Francisco)

Chaos out of the gate for Democratic majority in Congress

by Charlotte Raab Sun Nov 19, 4:57 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Infighting among US Democrats after their victory in the November 7 elections has led some to wonder if the party is up to the task of controlling Congress.

The first week of legislative work since the elections brought a personal defeat to incoming speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, who will become the first woman to be number three in the constitutional line of succession -- behind the president and the vice president.
While trying unsuccessfully to impose a close ally as her right-hand man, she gave her followers reason to doubt her political skills.
"Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House," The New York Times commented in an editorial. "The new majority -- led by a presumably wiser speaker -- must realize by now that intramural vendetta is hardly a substitute for productive government."
In spite of the lack of clarity of their legislative agenda and the limited powers granted them the by the US Constitution, congressional Democrats have received a mandate from US voters.
An opinion poll published Thursday revealed that 51 percent of Americans are counting on Democrats to take the initiative in leading the country as opposed to 29 percent who expect it from
President George W. Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President George W. Bush.
With all eyes now on the upcoming 2008 presidential race, Democrats' ability to create a credible alternative to the Bush presidency will be crucial in convincing voters to allow them to take back the White House in two years.
For the moment, the Democrats, who will be sworn in in January, have two months to prepare for operating from the position of strength.
The problem, however, is that Democrats have campaigned throughout the country on the theme of change.
"They didn't have a detailed plan and they're now having to assemble one, and they have a small majority, so it's not like they can be very bold in what they propose," said Darrell West, professor at Brown University.
For the moment, new Democratic leaders confirmed only a handful of priorities they plan to pursue in the coming weeks: an increase in the minimum wage, a new energy policy that is less favorable to oil companies, and efforts to combat the greenhouse effect.
Bush has already indicated that he is open to raising the minimum wage as long as measures are taken to shield small businesses from the effects of the measure.
However, their more ambitious proposals risk bumping against a presidential veto or fall victim of internal divisions among the Democrats themselves who hold disparate political positions on various issues.
And their majority in the Senate will be particularly precarious: 51 Democrats versus 49 Republicans.
It also is counting on cooperation from people with a pronounced independent streak such as former Democrat Joseph Lieberman, who was re-elected with strong support from Republican voters, and a former Reagan administration official, Jim Webb.
Political scientist Larry Sabato from the University of Virginia has a simple piece of advice: "Narrow their focus, concentrate on just a few things and recognize that they're not going to be able to get much done until they have a Democratic president."

Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 19, 5:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded
Iraq' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.
In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.
At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I think to do so is hypocritical."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.
"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.
"If we're going to challenge
Iran' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iran and challenge
North Korea' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.
He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.
Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."
Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.
Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."
Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.
The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 — now about 16 million — from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.
Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
___
On the Net:
Selective Service System: http://www.sss.gov

Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law!

Why are Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law, why do you even need to ask?

From left, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Richard J. Durbin and Representative Nancy Pelosi, all Democrats, are proposing new ethics rules for Congress.



By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: November 19, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — After railing for months against Congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats on Capitol Hill are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.

Kate Phillips and The Times's politics staff are analyzing the midterm elections and looking ahead to 2008.
More Politics News

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.
Their initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or Congressional gymnasiums.

None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all.
Some Democrats say their election is a mandate for more sweeping changes, and many newly elected candidates — citing scandals involving several Republican lawmakers last year — made Congressional ethics a major issue during the campaign. After winning the House on election night, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, promised “the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”
Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat tapped by party leaders last year to spearhead ethics proposals, said he was pushing for changes with more teeth. “The dynamic is different now,” Mr. Obama said Friday. “We control both chambers now, so it is difficult for us to have an excuse for not doing anything.”
He is pushing to create an independent Congressional ethics commission and advocates broader campaign-finance changes as well. “We need to make sure that those of us who are elected are not dependent on a narrow spectrum of individuals to finance our campaigns,” he said.
Sweeping change, however, may be a tough sell within the party. Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was embarrassed by disclosures last week that he had dismissed the leadership proposals with a vulgarity at a private meeting. But Mr. Murtha is hardly the only Democrat who objects to broad changes.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will oversee any proposal as the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for example, said she was opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it,” she said in an interview. “As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not.”
Other Democratic lawmakers argued that the real ethical problem was the Republicans, not the current ethics rules, and that the election had alleviated the need for additional regulations. “There is an understanding on our side that the Republicans paid a price for a lot of the abuses that evolved,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, alluding to earmarks. Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said the scandals of the current Congress were “about the K Street Project for the Republicans,” referring to the party’s initiative to put more Republicans in influential lobbying posts and build closer ties to them.
“That was incestuous from the beginning. We never had anything like that,” Mr. Harkin said of Democrats. “That is what soured the whole thing.”
Democrats, of course, have also cultivated close ties to lobbyists, who play a major role in campaign fund-raising for members of both parties. Indeed, ethical violations and house-cleaning efforts have both been bipartisan activities over the years. Congress has seesawed between public calls for changes and a reluctance to cramp incumbents’ campaign fund-raising and political power.
The Republicans who took over the House in 1994 adopted some of the same policies the Democrats now propose, including a ban on gifts and travel, only to relax the rules later. In 2002, Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, pushed through a bipartisan law to restrict campaign donations and spending. The advocates of that bill are now pushing to close loopholes around so-called 527 groups.
And Republican leaders in the House and the Senate also vowed to pass what they called comprehensive ethics and earmark reform bills earlier this year. Critics complained that lawmakers had watered them down, and the two bills were never reconciled. (The Democratic proposals would also require a combination of internal House and Senate rules changes and legislation in both chambers.)
The current Congress, however, has set a high watermark for corruption scandals. One Republican, Representative Randy Cunningham of California, is in jail and another, Representative Bob Ney of Ohio, is on the way. The former House majority leader, Tom DeLay, resigned under indictment, and the payoff scandal surrounding the lobbyist Jack Abramoff may ensnare others as well. On the Democratic side, Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana faces bribery charges.
Advocates of an overhaul believe the reaction to the Congressional embarrassments make the Democratic takeover of Capitol Hill their best chance for significant change since the aftermath of Watergate, when Congress created the presidential campaign finance system. But they consider the Democratic proposals just the beginning of a cleanup.
“A ban on gifts, meals, corporate jet flights — a lot of that resonates with the public because people think there is just a lot of free giveaways in Congress,” said Chellie Pingree, president of the ethics advocacy group Common Cause. “A lot of this is sort of skirting the issue of how campaign funds are shaping the legislative process.”

Say it aint' so Joe!

Joe Cannon resigns as state GOP chief
Greene to take party reins until a new chairman is selected

By Bob Bernick Jr.Deseret Morning News
Joe Cannon said Thursday that he's resigning as chairman of the Utah Republican Party immediately. Vice Chairwoman Enid Greene, a former U.S. House member from Utah, will take over the chairman's duties until the party's central committee can pick a new chairman, probably some time in February, Cannon said. That person will serve out his term until August, when state party delegates will pick new party leaders for two-year terms. Greene said as of now she has no plans to run for chairman next summer. "I want to finish the job Joe and I started" when she was first picked as vice chairman three years ago. "If there is a draft-Enid movement, we'll see. But when was the last time that's happened in our party?" she said, joking about some of the controversial GOP intra-party activities of recent years. Cannon, who is also a member of the board of directors of the Deseret Morning News, told a group of GOP leaders of his decision Thursday morning as they met to discuss party finances.

"I actually thought about this for several months," Cannon said. "I decided some months ago, in the summer, that it was time for me to step away from a public partisan profile. I didn't want to do it before the election — after all, I was elected (party chairman) to help the party during this election." Cannon said he believes Utah Republicans did "very good" in last week's election. If other state GOP parties had done as well, the U.S. Congress wouldn't be going to Democrats, he added. Cannon was elected chairman for three terms. He told delegates in August 2005 that he wouldn't be seeking re-election. Both Greene and GOP executive director Jeff Hartley are more than capable of directing the party's operation, Cannon said. "I wouldn't be stepping down if I did not have absolute confidence in Enid and Jeff," he said. The Thursday morning meeting of GOP leaders was called to get input on how to retire some $100,000 of party debt, left over from this year's campaigns. Cannon said it is not unusual to have some debt after a big election, and his leaving now has nothing to do with that. "Enid has her hand to the plow" and is ready to help fund-raise to get the party moving financially forward, said Cannon. An attorney and lobbyist, Cannon is often in Washington, D.C., and in other states advocating for his clients. But he's been doing that job for several years now, and he said work-related pressures is not the reason he's leaving early. Asked what his major accomplishment has been over the past 5 1/2 years at Utah's major party post, Cannon said when he first took over in 2001 "there were any number of tensions" among different GOP factions. He said he believes he's calmed some of those by trying to have a more open party decisionmaking process. On the political front, Cannon has overseen a large-candidate field for the 2004 governor's race and seen GOP incumbents and candidates win races up and down the ballot. And it was during Cannon's tenure that the party decided to close primary elections to only registered Republicans, even though Cannon was opposed to the move. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, believes Cannon "was an effective chairman for our party," the governor's spokesman, Mike Mower, said. "We're pleased here in Utah Republicans were able to hold their own in the last election. Part of that success needs to be attributed to our state party and our state party chairman, Joe Cannon." Utah's senior Sen. Orrin Hatch praised Cannon for "his strong leadership and reasonable voice. "Joe has been a terrific leader of the Utah Republican Party."
E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com

What Now America?

SPECIAL REPORT: What Now?
CongressDaily examines the impact that a Democratic majority would have on key committees and legislation for these issues:

-->The Democratic Party took advantage of ailing polling figures and Iraq war concerns to regain control of Congress. With the election now behind them, what will Democrats do with their majority? In this special report, CongressDaily examines the impact the shift will have on Capitol Hill committees and key legislation on the budget, trade, energy policy and more:

The Budget: A return to balanced budgets within the next decade?

Defense: A battle with Rumsfeld's legacy, but without cuts in funding?

Energy: A push for renewable energy and energy efficiency plans?

Environment & Transportation: Turning up the heat on global warming?

Finance: A different approach in leadership styles?

Health: An expansion of insured coverage, albeit slowly?

Homeland Security: A boost for rail and transit security funds?

The Judiciary: An end to the ongoing push for tort reform?

Labor & Education: A focus on the minimum wage and worker safety?

Congressional Reform: An overhaul of ethics and lobbying policies?

Taxes: Seeking out common ground for overhauling the tax code?

Telecommunications: Closer scrutiny for the FCC?

Trade: A fight over presidential trade negotiating authority?

Mark Twain on Government

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

“The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.”

“There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress.”

$36 MILLION?, and how much did Sen. Hatch spend?

November 15, 2006
$36 MILLION?....Hillary Clinton spent $36 million for a Senate race in which she had essentially no competition? Compared to $14 million for the next most expensive race? Wow.
Was this because she really, really wanted to win by a landslide and figured anything under 65% of the vote would be humiliating? Did she have a bet with Dianne Feinstein? (If so, she won. Feinstein won her race with an anemic 59% of the vote.) Was she trying to scare off her 2008 competition by showing that she has so much money she can literally afford to throw it away?—Kevin Drum 1:40 AM Permalink Trackbacks Comments (30)

Health-care panel fizzles after 2 years and $300K

Task force on Utah's insurance and HMOs agrees on nothing
By Linda Fantin The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:11/14/2006 01:33:08 AM MST

We met. We learned. We adjourned. That is the self-assessment of a health-care task force that spent two years and $300,000 dissecting Utah's health-care system. But don't expect to see it in print. The Privately Owned Health Care Organization Task Force concluded its business Monday without so much as a memo detailing what lawmakers did with their time and your money. Which is not to say they did nothing. Task force members logged more than 63 hours in 21 meetings, gathering information about the fairness and affordability of Utah's health care and insurance markets. They provided doctors, patients and advocates for the uninsured a public forum for voicing frustrations, including concerns about the dominance and business tactics of Intermountain Healthcare. In doing so, they nudged the health-care giant to soften its debt-collection tactics, open its networks to more physicians, and work more amicably with competitors. But mostly, task force members disagreed over the direction of the task force and lamented its lack of focus. Monday was no exception. Lawmakers spent more than an hour debating the wording of a few innocuous conclusions to a draft report that would have outlined the areas of study and stated the obvious: Health care in Utah is complicated, many issues remain unresolved, and the task force can't agree on any solutions. At one point, House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, agreed to vote for another lawmaker's substitute motion - or was it a substitute substitute motion? - if it would end the task force's existence. Sen. Michael Waddoups, a Taylorsville Republican who co-chaired the task force, said the failure to agree on a final analysis was indicative of the complexity of the problems at hand, in Utah and nationally.

"I make no apologies for this task force," Waddoups said. "We met frequently. We studied a lot of issues that were difficult to understand and get our arms around . . . and I'm the first to say we don't completely understand them even today. "It would have been wonderful to come out of this task force with a perfect system, but no one expected us to do that." The Legislature does, however, expect a progress report; the statute that created the task force requires a final written report to two interim committees. The group did draft a report, a seven-page memo summarizing the topics tackled by the task force:

* Competition in Utah health-care markets;

* Tax exemptions for charitable health-care organizations;

* A law that guarantees access to rural health care.

But the memo contained no conclusions or recommendations, and that disappointed some members, especially Waddoups. So he offered a couple of amendments. One said that information presented to the task force was "general in nature and not conclusive as to any recommended changes needed to our health-care delivery system," noting individual lawmakers should pursue "any remedy they feel is necessary." It was rejected without a vote. The other, after numerous revisions, said: "Although some health-care systems have made efforts to change some of the perceived problems that precipitated the formation of the task force, issues related to patient choice, access to affordable care, and a level playing field for competition still persist in the view of some." It was voted down, as was the memo absent the amendments. Rep. Rebecca Lockhart, a nurse from Provo, said the panel had an obligation to come to some conclusion, "even if it says we can't agree." "The Legislature deserves to be told what we did," she added. As for recriminations from the rest of the Legislature, Rep. Jim Dunnigan, a task force member from Taylorsville, said he isn't worried, but added, "The ambiguity will hurt us." Divisiveness has plagued the panel from the get-go. Two years ago, the Legislature created the task force in a compromise with Intermountain, the target of two bills. The first, carried by conservative Sen. Chris Buttars of West Jordan, would have allowed patients to choose doctors and hospitals outside their insurance network without penalty, undercutting Intermountain's managed-care model. The other, sponsored by Waddoups, would have taxed the gross receipts of Intermountain to address complaints that the HMO exploits its tax-exempt status to undercut competitors. Both bills were dropped in favor of a 15-member task force that was promptly populated by lawmakers who were beset by conflicts of interest and, depending on their loyalties, appeared biased for or against Intermountain. At one point, 11 of the 15 legislators who sit on the panel had some affiliation with the health-care industry. That could explain the mixed response to a $297,000 independent study that, to the chagrin of Intermountain's critics, determined the company's ownership of insurance plans, hospitals and physicians helps - not hurts - competition. The consultant, David Argue of Economists Incorporated, also cautioned the Legislature against meddling in the marketplace. The report was met with skepticism by consumer advocates and some task force members. Many of its conclusions were refuted by a Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield consultant. Yet it remains the most defining record of the task force's work, and that is fine with Intermountain. "It was very fair and open and informative. It was an excellent opportunity to respond to questions and to tell our side of the story," said vice president and general counsel Douglas Hammer. On Monday, Hammer said hiring Argue was "the best decision" the task force made. As it turns out, it was the only one, too. lfantin@sltrib.com

By the numbers Privately owned health-care organization task force

* 15: Lawmakers on panel

* 59: Key speakers

* 84: Handouts

* 3,801: Minutes met

* 29,447: Words generated in meeting minutes

* 300,000: Dollars spent

* 0: Progress reports to the Legislature

Fast action by Utah could bring 4th House seat soon

By Suzanne StruglinskiDeseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Utah's timing in approving the boundaries of a new fourth congressional district may determine whether the District of Columbia will get a vote in Congress before the end of this session, voting rights advocates say. A pending bill ties voting rights for the district to a new fourth seat for Utah as a way to balance the likely political persuasion of each potential new seat. The district's House seat would likely go to a Democrat while Utah's would likely go to a Republican. The District of Columbia now has a delegate to the House that can only vote in committee and not on the House floor. The bill's supporters have been working with lawmakers to ensure it will go through before the end of this session of Congress, said Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, an advocacy group that supports voting rights for the district. "We are 100 percent focused on the lame-duck session," Zherka said. "All of this grinds to a halt if Utah doesn't redistrict in the next couple of weeks."

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., said last week he would be calling a special session soon. On Tuesday, he is expected to meet with state legislative leaders to decide "how we proceed," the governor's spokesman, Mike Mower, said. "This isn't something we're doing just in a vacuum. There are a lot of moving parts to the process," Mower said. "What we're hearing out of Washington is there's a lot of general agreement this plan has bipartisan support back there." Mower said the governor still expects to call a special session and believes there's "a high probability" Congress would act on the new seat before the session ends. And, Mower said, the governor still believes Congress won't deal with the issue until Utah finalizes a proposal. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., did not like the original version of the bill that proposed an at-large seat for Utah. Instead, he wanted the state to sign-off on new districts before the bill would go forward. Sensenbrenner has not shown any signs of backing off his position that Utah should draw district boundaries rather than have an at-large seat. But Sensenbrenner will no longer be the committee chairman in the next session of Congress. The House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, John Conyers of Michigan, supports a vote for the district and understands that Utah wants the fourth seat it feels it missed from the last census. He said at a hearing in September that the constitution allows Congress to allow Utah to have an at-large seat. Conyers is likely to take over the committee now that the Democrats are in control. The committee staff said the bill is not on schedule for this week and does not appear to be on next week's either, although that one has not been finalized. Congress is expected to recess just before Thanksgiving and then come back for a few days in December, although the exact details of that session have not been worked out yet. Zherka said there is a "real shot of getting up and out in December" as long as the required redistricting is done soon. "A bunch of things in the pipeline get pushed through in the end," he said, even major pieces of legislation like this one. "We are not talking about anything people are unfamiliar with." Zherka said pushing the bill to the next Congress would just put everything back at square one, and create additional hurdles. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the bill that has the at-large provision for Utah. She supports voting rights for the District of Columbia but needs to see what the final bill looks like. "Mrs. Pelosi would have to see any changes to the legislation before she could comment," said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. "On this issue the devil is very much in the details."
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com

Democrats want troops pulled out within months

Senator Harry Reid, left, the incoming Senate majority leader, and Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, bumped into each other in a backstage corridor before their television appearances Sunday.

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: November 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.
The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.
“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”
The White House signaled a willingness to listen to the Democrats’ proposals, with Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, saying in two television appearances that the president was open to “fresh ideas” and a “fresh look.” But Mr. Bolten said he could not envision the White House signing on to a plan setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.
“You know, we’re willing to talk about anything,” he said on “This Week.” “I don’t think we’re going to be receptive to the notion there’s a fixed timetable at which we automatically pull out, because that could be a true disaster for the Iraqi people. But what we’ve always been prepared to do, and remain prepared to do, is indeed what Senators Levin and Biden were talking about, is put pressure on the Iraqi government to take over themselves.”
The spirited exchanges on the Sunday morning talk shows — a staple of weekend life for the political elite here, especially on the Sunday after an election that blew through Washington like a tornado — came at a delicate moment for the White House on Iraq. The bipartisan panel on strategy, led by James A. Baker III, the secretary of state under the first President Bush, and Lee Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman, will be at the White House on Monday to begin its final round of interviews.
The panel will meet separately with Mr. Bush and members of his foreign policy team, including the secretaries of state and defense, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of national intelligence, and will then interview Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain by videoconference. On Tuesday, the group plans to meet with Democratic foreign policy leaders.
The panel is expected to make its recommendations by the end of the year, and Democrats said they did not intend to push a resolution for troop withdrawal until after the report was issued. But after Tuesday’s election, in which Republicans took what Mr. Bush has called “a thumping,” Democrats used their Sunday appearances to signal that they believed they had a mandate about Iraq and would seize on it.
“The people have spoken in a very, very strong way that they don’t buy the administration policy,” Mr. Levin said on ABC. Mr. Reid, in an appearance on CBS, said troop redeployment “should start within the next few months.”
In June, the Republican-controlled Senate rejected two amendments on troop reductions backed by Democrats. One called for all United States combat troops to be withdrawn within a year. The other, whose sponsors included Mr. Levin, called for troop reductions to start by the end of the year without setting a deadline for complete withdrawal.
In the interview after his television appearance, Mr. Levin said that any resolution about troop reductions in the next session of Congress would not contain detailed benchmarks mandating how many troops should be withdrawn by specific dates.
As Democrats outlined their proposal to reduce the American presence in Iraq, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a likely presidential contender for 2008, reiterated his stance that there were not enough American troops there.
Appearing on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Mr. McCain said that “the present situation is unacceptable” but added that any withdrawal from Iraq would create chaos throughout the Middle East.
Mr. McCain, emphasizing the importance of breaking the back of the Mahdi Army, the militia allied with the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, said that the Iraqi prime minister “has to understand that we need to put down Sadr, and we need to take care of the Mahdi Army, and we need to stop the sectarian violence that is on the increase in a nonacceptable level, and I think that the best way to assure that is for him to know that we will do what’s necessary to bolster the — train and equip the Iraqi army, et cetera.”
Mr. McCain added, “If we send the signal that we are leaving, of course, he’s going to try to make accommodations with others, because he knows what is going to be the inevitable result.”
After a week in which both parties used the fallout from Tuesday’s midterm elections to promise a new era of bipartisanship, the Sunday television interviews suggested that profound differences remained over Iraq, the issue that proved central in the elections.
But there was one area on which Democrats hinted they might find common ground with the White House: the confirmation of Robert M. Gates, the former C.I.A. director, to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had become a magnet for criticism about the war and whose departure was announced by Mr. Bush the day after voters handed Democrats majorities in both houses of Congress.
“I’m inclined to vote for him now,” said Mr. Biden, who voted against Mr. Gates for the job of C.I.A. chief 15 years ago, adding, “To put it very, very bluntly, as long as he’s not there, Rumsfeld is there.”
The White House is clearly looking to the Baker-Hamilton group to provide a path toward progress in Iraq. Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton have already told committee staff members to begin drafting parts of the report. But other commissioners did not see any of those drafts before the election, two members of the commission said in interviews last week.
“I guess the thinking was that anything that gets circulated before the election would get leaked, and one side or the other might use that for electoral purposes,” said one member, who was granted anonymity because the commission is supposed to operate in secrecy.
Other members of the commission speculated that Mr. Baker, in particular, had been waiting to see the outcome of the elections, perhaps calculating that a major victory for the Democrats would put the White House in less of a position to challenge the recommendations.
The commission will meet again the week after Thanksgiving, when many of the most critical debates about options are expected to take place among commission members.
Mr. Baker has already made some of his views known. In television interviews, some timed to promote a book he has just published, he has expressed skepticism that a rapid withdrawal can be accomplished without setting off chaos or civil war, and has been doubtful that partitioning the country will work.
The message from White House officials on Sunday was that the president was indeed open to new ideas on Iraq, as long as they did not involve a plan with a specific date for beginning the drawing down of troops.
Dan Bartlett, counselor to Mr. Bush, said on Fox News that the president had directed the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Peter Pace, to assess strategy in Iraq and would be open to listening to “good suggestions,” regardless of where they came from.
But Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, said in an interview that Mr. Bush remained adamant that decisions about how to deploy troops would be made by military commanders in Iraq.
“That didn’t change overnight on November 7,” Ms. Perino said.

From the Senate Site

The Senate Site
Friday, November 10, 2006
Leadership Team
The Utah Senate Majority met tonight and selected a leadership team for the next two years.

President of the Utah Senate: John Valentine

Majority Leader: Curt Bramble

Majority Whip: Dan Eastman

Assistant Majority Whip: Sheldon Killpack

posted by The Senate Site at 6:19 PM 6 comments

Chris in DC on Halloween?

Does the Congress have a Holloween costume contest?

Let's see, White suit, White cowboy hat, and a cigar.

Just having a little fun at your expense Chris

The Spyglass.....

MYTH BUSTERS

MYTH BUSTING....You're probably all a little tired of exit poll wonkery by now, but I want to follow up on my earlier post showing that the Democratic win was a broad-based victory, not one based on appealing to any particular demographic group. Several demographic myths have turned out to be pretty hardy, however, so I want to take a minute to bust a few of them.
First, though, a technical note. I have a feeling that some the myths making the rounds might be based on comparing the 2006 House exit polls to the 2004 presidential exit polls. This is fine if you're specifically trying to compare, say, Sherrod Brown's performance to John Kerry's in Pickaway County, but in general you should be comparing nationwide House results to nationwide House results. Here they are:

2004 nationwide House exit polls
2006 nationwide House exit polls

Now, on with the myths. And remember, the key question for each of these groups is whether they swung in favor of the Democrats by more than the overall national swing of 5 percentage points. If all they did was follow the national trend, there's no story.

Myth #1: It was the youth vote that pushed Democrats over the top.
Nope. In 2004 Dems won 55% of the youth vote. This year they won 60%. That's a swing of 5 points, exactly the same as the overall nationwide swing in favor of Democrats.
In fact, it's actually worse than that: the number of young voters (age 18-29) decreased from 16% of the electorate in 2004 to 12% of the electorate in 2006. This means that in 2004 they amounted to 8.8% of the total Dem vote, compared to 7.2% in 2006. The youth vote was a fizzle.

Myth #2: Democrats won a third of the white evangelical vote.
I have no idea where this one came from. In 2004 Dems won 25% of the white evangelical vote. This year Dems won 28%. That's a swing of 3 points, which is actually a bit less than the overall Democratic swing. Turnout was about the same both years.
Bottom line: Nothing happened here.

Myth #3: Democrats won by running conservative candidates.
A few high-profile Democratic candidates had conservative views on certain issues (Casey on abortion, Tester on guns), but overall the newly-elected Dems look a lot like the current Democratic caucus. And the exit polls back this up. In 2004, Democrats got 17% of the vote from self-described conservatives. This year it was 20%. As with evangelicals, this is less than the overall nationwide swing. Conservatives are still solidly supporting the Republican Party.

The Election is not over in Salt Lake County

I was present at The County Building on tuesday night as a ballot count observer. It was very interesting to watch the new process. PCMI cards came in in sealed bag's and workers organized and transferred these to a tray that was taken into the counting room where six cards at a time were read and downloaded on two machines. I assumed these were dibold workers, not clerk staff. The problem I had with the process, was there was no way to know what was happening. The only thing we as observers could see was the cards being placed into the machines, the button being pushed, and the screen line entry for each card would go from red to green. Only then could you see what polling location was being uploaded. The real problem was there was no actual way to verify counts by precinct in real time. This is a flaw that must be corrected in the future, because all we have to go on is the computer spitting out total numbers race wide. We were not able to tell what precincts were already counted, or not counted like in the past.

Based on some calculations on the close races in Salt Lake County, several including the House Speaker’s is still up for grabs. There are nearly 10,000 absentee ballots to be counted, and this process will not even start until this weekend.

The races that could still go either way are:

STATE SENATOR DIST #9

TRISHA S. BECK
DEM
10337
47.48%
WAYNE NIEDERHAUSER
REP
11415
52.43%

STATE SENATOR DIST #12

BRENT H. GOODFELLOW
DEM
6989
50.06%
CHRISTY ACHZIGER
REP
6286
45.03%
GRANT (RAY) PEARSON
CON
681
4.88%

STATE REPRESENTATIVE #22

CARL WILLIAM DUCKWOR
DEM
2472
46.41%
DEENA DETTON ELY
REP
2497
46.87%
MARILEE ROOSE
CON
184
3.45%
SARGE FROEHLE
PER
169
3.17%


STATE REPRESENTATIVE #29

JANICE FISHER
DEM
2190
46.83%
PHILLIP M. CONDER
REP
2115
45.23%
SUSAN KAYE SORENSEN
CON
241
5.15%
ANNELIESE HINKLE
PER
129
2.76%


STATE REPRESENTATIVE #36

PHIL RIESEN
DEM
5790
50.41%
SUSAN LAWRENCE
REP
5687
49.51%

STATE REPRESENTATIVE #45

LAURA BLACK
DEM
3655
49.76%
MARK WALKER
REP
3687
50.20%

STATE REPRESENTATIVE #49


F. JAY SEEGMILLER
DEM
4414
49.70%
GREG J. CURTIS
REP
4460
50.21%

COUNTY COUNCIL DIST #3


DIANE TURNER
DEM
12877
48.12%
DAVID A. WILDE
REP
13868
51.82%

COUNTY AUDITOR


JEFF HATCH
DEM
102179
49.89%
SEAN THOMAS
REP
102523
50.06%


In my opinion, based on the statistics and percentages, the following races I feel will change when the canvass is performed and all the paper ballots are counted. I sure hope the candidates have someone watching each ballot being counted….


State Senate District 9

State Representative’s 22, 29, 36, 45,

County Council District 3

County Auditor


Mark Towner, the Spyglass Moderator

US SENATE: NEW COMMITTEE CHAIRS?

IN THE SENATE: NEW COMMITTEE CHAIRS? These Democrats are positioned to become committee chairmen if the party should win Senate control:
Aging: Kohl
Agriculture: Harkin
Appropriations: Byrd
Armed Services: Levin
Banking: Dodd
Commerce: Inouye
Energy & Natural Resources: Bingaman
Environment & Public Works: Lieberman
Ethics: Johnson
Finance: Baucus
Foreign Relations: Biden
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions: Kennedy
Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs: Lieberman or Akaka
Indian Affairs: Dorgan
Intelligence: Rockefeller
Judiciary: Leahy
Rules & Administration: Feinstein
Small Business: Kerry
Veterans Affairs: Akaka or Murray

The Republican Meltdown.....

November 8, 2006
THE REPUBLICAN MELTDOWN.... It looks like a Democratic gain of 30 or more seats in the House and either 5 or 6 seats in the Senate. That's huge, despite the predictable spin from Republicans that this is just garden variety sixth-year blues. So what caused the Republican meltdown? This is just off the top of my head, but here are my guesses:
Iraq, of course. There's not much to add to the conventional wisdom here. As Kenneth Adelman said, George Bush's national security crew "turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era." The voters pretty clearly agree.
Terri Schiavo and Katrina. This is sort of a gut feeling on my part, but I think it was the combination of these two things within a couple of months of each other that really hurt Republicans last year, not either one alone. The contrast was deadly: the Republican Party (and George Bush) showed that they were capable of generating a tremendous amount of action very quickly when the issue was something important to the most extreme elements of the Christian right, but were palpably bored and indifferent when the issue was the destruction of an American city. It's hard to think of any two successive issues painting a clearer and less flattering picture of just what's wrong with the Republican Party leadership these days.
The economy. The media is so focused on GDP and gasoline prices as economic bellwethers that I think they've badly missed the real story of the past six years: the deteriorating fortunes of the working and middle classes. This is more than just Democratic spin, and in this dismal atmosphere Democrats won a lot of support by holding the line against Social Security privatization, supporting increases in the minimum wage, and fighting for lower prescription drug prices. These aren't explicitly economic issues as much as they are values issues, and Republicans were on the wrong side.
Sleazy campaigning. This might be wishful thinking on my part, but I wonder if this year's campaign finally got a little too negative? Is it possible that the Lee Atwater-ization of the Republican Party has reached its limit, turning off more voters than it attracts?
Extremism. Did Republicans lose because they weren't conservative enough? With all due respect to folks like Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bartlett, I doubt it. The American public has shown over and over that it's operationally moderate, and I suspect that George Bush has actually pushed conservatism about as far as it can go. If you take a look at the exit polls, Republicans lost because they lost the center, not because they lost their base.
On a similar note, this idea that the Democratic Party is getting "more conservative" because it backed several center-rightish candidates in red states is just weird. Both parties compromise where they have to, and Dems have run plenty of moderates before. They just haven't won. This year some of them did, but their actual numbers were pretty small and I doubt they're going to have much of a concrete effect on anything. (On the other hand, the Republican Party did lose a bunch of its moderates, and it didn't have many to lose. It looks even more extreme today than it did yesterday, which doesn't bode well for its future.)

Voters choose who will control Congress

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Voters put the Republican congressional majority and a multitude of new voting equipment to the test Tuesday in an election that defined the balance of power for the rest of George W. Bush's presidency.

Both parties hustled to get their supporters out in high-stakes contests across the country, Republicans conceding nothing as their vaunted get-out-the-vote machine swung into motion, Democrats appearing confident and appealing one more time for change.
Democratic Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York seconded her party's mantra, with one qualification.
"I voted for change, except for me," she said, casting her ballot with her husband Bill, the former president, in Chappaqua, N.Y.
Voting at sunrise, Bush switched from partisan campaigner to democracy's cheerleader as he implored Americans of all political leanings to cast ballots.
"We live in a free society and our government is only as good as the willingness of our people to participate," Bush said, his wife, Laura, at his side and an "I voted" sticker on the lapel of his brown suede jacket. "Therefore, no matter what your party affiliation or if you don't have a party affiliation, do your duty, cast your ballot and let your voice be heard."
The
Iraq' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iraq war, as predicted, was prominently on people's minds.
Separated by age, party of choice and their position on the war, Melanie Tate, 22, in Louisville, Ky., and Mario Georgalas, 41, in Miami Beach both spoke of the energizing experience of voting.
"I was more excited the first time I got to vote than the first time I got to drive," Tate, 22, a political science student and head of the University of Louisville Democrats, said after casting her ballot.
"We're seeing our friends going to the war. A lot of us are voting for Democratic candidates who will work to end the war," Tate said.
Georgalas cast his ballot on the way to work. "I was in the Navy for six years, that's why I vote," he said. He voted for the GOP ticket because he didn't believe the U.S. should leave Iraq.
"What you start," he said, "you should finish."
About a third of voters were using new equipment, and problems in several states were reported right out of the gate. The government deployed a record number of poll watchers to the many competitive races across the country.
Glitches delayed balloting in dozens of Indiana and Ohio precincts, and Illinois officials were swamped with calls from voters complaining that poll workers did not know how to operate new electronic equipment. In Delaware County, Ind., officials planned to seek a court order to extend voting after an apparent computer error prevented voters from casting ballots in 75 precincts.
Florida officials, working to avoid a repeat of the vote-counting debacle of 2000, fielded extra voting machines, paper ballots and poll workers. In the Jacksonville suburb of Orange Park, Fla., voters were forced to use paper ballots after an electronic machine broke.
The uncertainty of it all made many jittery, candidates included.
In Tennessee, where Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Harold Ford Jr. were in a pitched battle for a Senate seat, even a spotty rain made Corker edgy.
"Any candidate doesn't like to see rain," Corker said, greeting supporters on a damp Tuesday morning in Kingsport. "You don't know what kind of variables that brings into it."
His opponent, bidding to become the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction, declared the election to be in "God's hands" as he stood a respectful distance from the Lindenwood Christian Church, doubling as a polling station.
But Ford wasn't leaving everything to divine fate. When he spotted voters standing in the church doorway, he shouted: "I would come up there but I don't want to get in trouble. I'd appreciate it if you'd vote for me."
At stake in the midterm election were all 435 House seats, 33 in the Senate, 36 races for governor, ballot measures on gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, the minimum wage and more — plus the overarching fate of Bush's agenda in the last two years of his presidency.
Democrats hoped finally to answer the rout that drove them from legislative power in 1994. Despite brave words for public consumption, Republicans worried that control of the House would slip from their hands.
Even Senate control was up in the air, but a tougher climb for Democrats.
Democrats needed to gain 15 House seats or six in the Senate to form a majority, a development that would give them a stronger voice against a war that has cost more than 2,800 U.S. lives and has come to be seen by most Americans as misbegotten.
Sharply critical of Bush's prosecution of the war throughout the campaign, Democrats nevertheless lack a common position on how to get the U.S. out.
Republicans have been the acknowledged champions at getting supporters out to polling stations, a critical skill in midterm elections when turnout is typically low, around 40 percent, and one that heightened suspense over which party would hold the levers of power at the end of the counting.
Evangelical conservatives are the foundation of that mobilization and motivation drive, but their own enthusiasm was in question as they faced the prospect of a president too politically weak to take forward their agenda and looked back on a campaign tainted by the congressional page sex scandal and more.
Even so, some final opinion polls indicated a tightening race; others suggested the Democrats were still far in front in national sentiment.
At least two dozen Republican House seats were at risk. Among GOP-held open seats, those in Arizona, Colorado, New York, Ohio and Iowa seemed most vulnerable. Republican Reps. John Hostettler, Chris Chocola and Mike Sodrel of Indiana; Charles Taylor of North Carolina; Curt Weldon, Don Sherwood and Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania; and Charles Bass of New Hampshire were in particularly difficult re-election struggles.
In Senate races, Republican incumbents Mike DeWine in Ohio and Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania appeared in deepest trouble; Sens. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and Conrad Burns in Montana somewhat less so.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California, in line to become the first woman speaker in history if Democrats win, was in Washington after a weekend of campaigning for candidates in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

GOP control of Congress hangs in balance

GOP control of Congress hangs in balance
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer 50 minutes ago
Republican control of Congress was on the line Tuesday in an election colored by voters' dismay over the Iraq war and misbehavior in Washington.
At stake in the midterm election were all 435 House seats, 33 in the Senate, 36 races for governor, ballot measures on gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, the minimum wage and more — plus the overarching fate of President Bush's agenda in the last two years of his presidency.
In a climate inhospitable if not toxic for incumbents, Democrats hoped finally to answer the rout that drove them from legislative power in 1994. Even their opponents conceded Democrats were certain to make gains and, despite brave words for public consumption, Republicans worried that control of the House would slip from their hands.
Even Senate control was up in the air, but a tougher climb for Democrats.
Unsurprisingly, the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties talked optimistically as voters went to the polls Tuesday.
"I believe we're going to defy the experts and maintain our majority in the House and the Senate," GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman said on CBS's "The Early Show." Countered Howard Dean, his Democratic opposite number: "If you want change, we can give you change."
That's just what 60-year-old Ron Bowman, a Democrat from Windsor, Conn., had on his mind when he went out to vote first thing Tuesday. "It was a chance for a change," he said, after casting his ballot for Democratic senatorial candidate Ned Lamont over incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, running as an independent.
Another voter who echoed Bowman's sentiment, Shirley Swanson of Windsor, said that she, too, voted for Lamont. "He's not Lieberman. Joe isn't listening to us," she said.
Bush flew to his home state of Texas to vote, finishing a restrained five-day round of campaigning mostly in GOP strongholds. His presence on the stump was a mixed blessing for candidates attracted to the attention and fundraising prowess generated by a president but nervous about being associated too closely — or even seen with — an unpopular leader.
Charlie Crist, a Republican running to succeed Bush's brother Jeb as Florida governor, bailed from a planned appearance with Bush in a safely Republican section of the Panhandle, an embarrassing snub on the eve of voting.
Bush gamely pressed on with lacerating attacks on Democrats at that Pensacola rally of 7,000 loud supporters. "The Democrat philosophy is this: If it breathes, tax it, and if it stops breathing, find its children and tax them," Bush shouted.
Former President Clinton responded sharply in kind: "They can't run anything right," he said, taunting Republicans about Iraq, Hurricane Katrina recovery and scandal in Washington.
Democrat Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary, author and less than smooth campaigner, invited Clinton to his side to close out a Virginia Senate campaign he was given little chance of winning at the outset.
His tight race with Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) became emblematic of unexpected Democratic opportunities in state after state. "I have a strong feeling that on Wednesday morning the White House is going to wake up and look across at the Capitol dome and say, 'We got a problem,'" Webb told a crowd pressed into a Roanoke firehouse.
White House press secretary Tony Snow, appearing Tuesday on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, argued that the Democrats' only stance is "literally running around and heckling the president rather than trying to think seriously about how to deal with Osama bin Laden or a global war on terror."
"You gotta wonder if they're a serious political party," Snow said. He also criticized a Democratic proposal for dealing with the Iraq war by saying, "We do, quote, phased redeployment, what we do is we invite a whole lot more September 11ths."
Democrats needed to gain 15 House seats or six in the Senate to form a majority, a development that would give them a stronger voice against a war that has cost more than 2,800 U.S. lives and has come to be seen by most Americans as misbegotten.
Sharply critical of Bush's prosecution of the war throughout the campaign, Democrats nevertheless lack a common position on how to get the U.S. out.
Both parties sent thousands of volunteers to competitive districts to mobilize voters and assembled legal teams to watch for irregularities in balloting systems that continue to be error-prone six years after the hanging-chad debacle of 2000.
The Justice Department sent a record 850 poll watchers to 69 cities and counties to safeguard against fraud, discrimination or system malfunctions in tight races.
Republicans have been the acknowledged champions at getting supporters out to polling stations, a critical skill in midterm elections when turnout is typically low, around 40 percent, and one that heightened suspense over which party would hold the levers of power at the end of the counting.
Evangelical conservatives are the foundation of that mobilization and motivation drive, but their own enthusiasm was in question as they faced the prospect of a president too politically weak to take forward their agenda and looked back on a campaign tainted by the congressional page sex scandal and more.
Even so, some final opinion polls indicated a tightening race; others suggested the Democrats were still far in front in national sentiment.
At least two dozen Republican House seats were at risk. Among GOP-held open seats, those in Arizona, Colorado, New York, Ohio and Iowa seemed most vulnerable. Republican Reps. John Hostettler, Chris Chocola and Mike Sodrel of Indiana; Charles Taylor of North Carolina; Curt Weldon, Don Sherwood and Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania; and Charles Bass of New Hampshire were in particularly difficult re-election struggles.
In Senate races, Republican incumbents Mike DeWine in Ohio and Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania appeared in deepest trouble; Sens. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and Conrad Burns in Montana somewhat less so.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California, in line to become the first woman speaker in history if Democrats win, was in Washington after a weekend of campaigning for candidates in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
The campaign's final hours brought fresh evidence of the enormous cost.
Spending by the two national parties surged in the final week as Democrats and Republicans invested in television commercials designed to sway the outcome in more than 60 House races and 10 Senate contests. In all, the two parties have spent about $225 million thus far in campaign activities independent of the candidates themselves.