Yesterday, Cook Political Report - RT Strategies released a new 2008 Presidential primary poll. While these polls, so far out, are usually pretty useless, I was amazed to find a couple of nuggets from the crosstabs. Maybe most amazingly, the Cook poll showed Hillary Clinton running strongest among southern Democrats. Hillary leads nationally with 32%, but she attracts the support of 38% of southern Democrats. Former VP Al Gore finishes second among southerners with 22%.

In stark contrast, the crosstabs show that southerner, and former NC Senator, John Edwards polling dismally among southern Dems. Edwards attracts just 9% of southerners, compared to 11% nationally, and as high as 17% among midwestern Democrats (clearly Edwards time in Iowa is paying off).

Given all of the national buzz about how Hillary can't win in the south in 2008, these polls provide an interesting snapshot of what southern Democrats think about Hillary right now.

Oh yeah, nothing says "values voter" like Ann friggin Coulter. According to a release from the Family Research Council:

"Conservative talk show host and FOX News co-anchor Sean Hannity has just confirmed as a headliner for our September 22-24 Washington Briefing. This Values Voters Summit will include such noted speakers as Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, Dr. James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Don Wildmon, Dr. Herbert Lusk II, Brent Bozell, Bishop Wellington Boone, Dr. Richard Land, Bishop Harry Jackson and many more."

That's right Ann Coulter will join this who's who of the American Taliban to celebrate "values voters." Here's hoping they stick her right beside Bill Casino Bennett - wouldn't that make a great photo?

There is a condition that afflicts politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle far too often. It's a condition known as Kerry-itis. Politicians afflicted with Kerry-itis find it impossible to take a clear position on a tough subject. They are unable to take a clear position because they don't want to foreclose having a different position in the future - or heck, having two contradictory positions at the same time.

Yesterday morning I watched "Meet the Press." I can tell you that from the comfort of my living room I was able to diagnose former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) with a critical case of Kerry-itis.

When Tim Russert asked Tom Daschle if he regretted his vote to authorize military force in Iraq, knowing what he knows now, Daschle's response was "I am not going to re-visit that vote."

What? He wants to talk, legitimately I might add, about how we were hood-winked into war by the Bush administration, but he won't tell us whether he regrets his vote or not? Come on. This is why Democrats are constantly getting their asses kicked. People want straight talk. People want answers not equivocating. Tom Daschle in under 5 minutes reminded me why the Senate is a better place without him.

http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/02/t om-daschle-diagnosis-kerry-itis.html

Heath Shuler's strong Q4 fundraising, raising $175,000 over the last three months, leaves him with a cash-on-hand advantage of $353,00 to $19,000 over morally bankrupt Republican incumbent Charles Taylor.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, tipping its weak hand, fired off a release criticizing Shuler for his Tennessee roots:

"Heath Shuler didn't only play football in Tennessee. He used his name to start a business in Tennessee. Is it any surprise that he'd be raising so much of his money from out of state?" NRCC spokesman Jonathan Collegio said. "Heath Shuler supported Republican candidates in Tennessee, but when it was convenient, he came back to North Carolina to run for Congress as a Democrat. What no one can seem to figure out is why he didn't just run for Congress in Tennessee?"

Hmmm... interesting. I wonder if anyone at the ole NRCC knows that NC's 11th is ON THE BORDER WITH TENNESSEE. It's not like he moved from DC back to his momma's house in NC to claim residency to run for office (sound familiar Liddy???). Nor is it like he lost a race in one Congressional district, then switched parties and ran in a Congressional district he didn't live in (sound familiar Walter Jones Jr?).

You folks at the NRCC not only have shown has terrified you are by a Shuler candidacy, but you have also shown how little you actually have to criticize Shuler about.

I have this image of a whole bunch of pin-headed 20-something Republican douche bags over at the NRCC writing this release, thinking "WOW! this will really hit him hard!" Maybe they were hoping it would have the same effect as that salsa commercial - "says it made in NY City. NEW YORK CITY?" The problem is these assholes have no clue.

http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/02/r epublicans-running-scared-in-nc-11.html

Yesterday, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) announced he supported a filibuster of Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Senator Kennedy (D-MA) later announced he too supported the filibuster. Press reports over night indicated that Senators Durbin (D-IL), Stabenow (D-MI), and Sarbanes (D-MD) also support the filibuster.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that the 41 votes can be mustered to sustain the filibuster. Senator Frist (R-TN) has already filed a petition for cloture, which will be voted on on Monday afternoon.

So, if it's highly unlikely the filibuster can succeed, why bother? Why not just give up and move on to something else? I will tell you why - because we will never win unless we fight. The far right constantly has us on our heels. The far right fights battles on dozens and dozens of fronts - everything from judicial battles on Capitol Hill to leading boycotts against gay friendly companies and everything in between. They learned a long time ago that they were going to lose a lot of battles before they started winning some.

And this is no average battle here. We are talking about the most radical nominee to the Supreme Court since Robert Bork. We are talking about a nominee who could change the balance of the Court for a generation. Decades of progress on women's rights, civil rights, civil liberties, environmental rights, workplace safety, and religious freedom are at stake.

John Kerry couldn't have been more right last night when he stated on Kos:

I said yesterday that President Bush had the opportunity to nominate someone who would unite the country in a time of extreme division. He chose not to do this, and that is his right.

But we have every right, in fact, we have a responsibility, to fight against a radical ideological shift on the Supreme Court.

http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/01/k erry-filibuster-what-it-means-and-why.ht ml

As Scott Shields points out - the centrist minded Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) issued a statement on the Alito nomination and impending confirmation vote. After reading the DLC statement, I had a different reaction than Scott did - the DLC statement, in all fairness, is a mixed bag at best.

The DLC does oppose the Alito nomination, though not in the most forceful of terms:

"Democrats in the Senate, and elsewhere, have no obligation to help Bush redeem this divisive campaign pledge. Given Judge Alito's long and consistent record of conservative activism on and off the bench, it is prudent to oppose this confirmation as a matter of principle, reflecting the gravity of a lifetime appointment to a closely divided Court."

"It is prudent to oppose this confirmation...." Prudent? Try, it is imperative that Senators oppose this nomination. It seems a little like, "you could oppose Alito, if you want to, but if not that's ok too." Believe it or not, that's the good part of the DLC statement!

The DLC goes on to gratuitously attack progressive groups opposing the Alito nomination -

"But we stress this last point: in the Senate debate on this confirmation, Democrats should focus on Alito's judicial philosophy, and discard the personal attacks that figure so prominently in some of the interest-group campaigning against his confirmation. Such attacks at best distract from the principled case against Alito; at worst, they undermine it."

My God, am I on the RNC's website? Who helped draft this statement, Ken Mehlman? Ed Gillespie? I mean come on. Oh, but the DLC isn't done (you know the more I think about this, the less I think its a mixed bag. More like a bag of shit).

The DLC also feels compelled to take a position on the filibuster -

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation. A filibuster is certain to fail; indeed, the Senate is certain to respond to a filibuster by outlawing them permanently in judicial confirmations. Using this weapon now would stake Democrats to the implausible argument that Alito's inevitable confirmation is the most egregious act of the Bush administration and the Republican Senate, going into a critical midterm election."

Wow, why not just encourage DLC Senators to head on down to the well and file the cloture motion themselves?!!?

So in sum, the DLC's message is: we kinda sorta oppose Alito, but we really oppose progressive interest groups, and we totally agree with Bill Frist. Thanks guys! With friends like this, who needs enemies?

http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/01/dlc-on-alito-mixed-bag-at-best.html

I got to tell you, I want Rick Santorum (R-PA) to lose. I want ole man on dog sex Santorum to lose more than any other candidate in this cycle. I want Rick Santorum to lose so much that I am willing to support a guy like Bobby Casey, Jr. - an anti-choice Democrat. I am not alone. Millions of progressives across the country are willing to hold their noses and support Casey's candidacy.

However, this morning's Philly Inquirer headline makes me wonder if Casey WANTS to lose?

Casey supports Alito confirmation

So far, ONE Democratic Senator - Nebraska's Ben Nelson - has come out for Alito's confirmation. Even red state Democrats like Montana's Max Baucus, have come out against Sam Alito. What the fuck is Bob Casey thinking?

The Philly Inquirer-
**
Casey, once again, drew a line between himself and the Democratic-leaning interest groups he must rely on as he seeks to unseat Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.), who will vote to confirm Alito. Those groups, such as MoveOn.org and the League of Conservation Voters, which endorsed Casey Monday, have been pressing hard in recent weeks to keep Democratic support for Alito to a minimum.

If he had opposed Alito, Casey could have invigorated the liberal base - a shaky constituency because of his antiabortion position - at a time when fund-raising is a top priority of the campaign.
***

The Inquirer is dead on. Coming out and opposing Alito, like almost every other Democratic Senator or Senate hopeful, would have absolutely invigorated the base and would have come with VERY little, if any, electoral down-side. Just in case Casey forgot, this is Pennsylvania. You know, a state Kerry, Gore and Clinton carried. This is one of them thar "blue states."

If you really do want to be the Senator from Pennsylvania, not Utah, it might be nice if you actually acted like a candidate for Senate from Pennsylvania.

http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/01/bob-casey-does-he-want-to-lose.html

In the wake of the release of the most recent Bin Laden tape, one thing is clear - right wing pundits like Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly and the right-wing blogosphere is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Osama Bin Laden is a lot of things. A mass murder, a terrorist, and a threat to Americans every where. Bin Laden is not, however, stupid. Osama Bin Laden has to realize that every time he opens his mouth, Bush's poll ratings go up. Bin Laden has to realize that every time he attacks Bush and the neo-cons, the GOP's electoral prospects improve.

Was it any surprise that Bin Laden released a tape days before the 2004 Presidential election? No. Is it any surprise that he has chosen to release a tape now as we enter the 2006 election season? No. The reason is simple - Bin Laden wants, no, Bin Laden needs the GOP to win. He needed Bush to win re-election. He needs the neo-cons to win in 06. He needs American troops in Iraq. He needs a bombastic, trigger happy administration, aided by a neo-con dominated Congress. The war in Iraq, indeed the entire Bush presidency, is a huge recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Does anyone really believe that Bin Laden believes that by attacking Bush and the GOP neo-cons that he would actually be helping Democrats? Give me a break. I wish Bin Laden would release a tape attacking Hillary Clinton and praising John McCain.

Given that it is clear that Bin Laden wants to influence our elections, why in God's name would the right wing pundits aid and abet his efforts? Why would folks like Joe Scarborough do the bidding of Bin Laden? Here is Joe Scarborough last night on Hardball (compliments of Think Progress):

MATTHEWS: Why is he doing it? Why is he trying to track what he picks up in the internet and from the media as the lingo of the left in America, like Moore? Why would he start to talk like Moore? People misunderstood what I said last night. I think he's getting some advice from people, he's getting some lingo, some wordage that he hears working in the United States about this thing for war profiteers and he's jumping on every opportunity. Is that what you are saying Joe?

SCARBOROUGH: Listen, if somebody can't look at the words that Bin Laden said last night and match them up with what Michael Moore said, with what John Kerry said on Face the Nation with he said Americans were terrorizing Iraqi women and children in their homes hat night, which is what Bin Laden in effect said. What Ted Kennedy has been saying. Remember he said after Abu Ghraib that Saddam's torture chambers were turned over to -- chambers were turned over to new management, U.S. troops, that's the same thing Bin Laden hit on.

Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich were also quick to jump in and help to do Bin Laden's bidding. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Bin Laden couldn't have paid for better spin than this (compliments of Media Matters):

GINGRICH: I think it's quite clear as you point out, Sean, that from this tape, that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be a free society and have open debate, but we should recognize, when some of our politicians use very extreme language or some of our celebrities -- like Michael Moore -- use very extreme language, that the enemy does, in fact, take great comfort from that.

HANNITY: It's more than that. I think it's also the leaders in the Democratic Party that, from the very beginning, have undermined this war. If I were to give you a quiz, Mr. Speaker, and if I would say to you, "You know, was it [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA], [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], [Rep.] John Murtha [D-PA] who said, 'George Bush gives continuous, deliberate misinformation. Polls reveal that we want to withdraw from Iraq.' " You would have guessed either of -- any of those. Well, it was bin Laden who said that.

Right wing pundits should stop doing the bidding of Osama Bin Laden. Right wing pundits should stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Who knew that Fox News was the new Al Jazeera?

Full posting at:

http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/01/bin-laden-tape-how-right-wing-talking.html