Can you say Sen. Palin?

Convicted felon Ted Stevens appears to be on his way to re-election as Alaska’s senior dinosaur senator.

I had halfway wondered if this might happen. Basically, a way for Alaskans to say “eff you” to Washington.

Per Alaskan law, it requires a special election to fill a Senate vacancy. So, that rules out the scenario of Sarah Palin resigning as governor, with Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell then appointing Palin to the Stevens seat.

Here’s another Anchorage Daily News story, which both explains the relevant law and says, contrary to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Stevens isn’t likely to get the boot while on appeal.

Meanwhile, Newsweek delivers more of the goods on the horribleness of Campaign Barbie, from the Secret Service seeing her incitements raise the threat level against Obama to just what a clothes horse she really is.

Meanwhile, Newsweek delivers more of the goods on the horribleness of Campaign Barbie, from the Secret Service seeing her incitements raise the threat level against Obama to just what a clothes horse she really is.

Somehow, I don’t think her and First Dumbass Todd being seen as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast” helps her image unless Alaskans are even more down with political corruption and cynicism than say, Louisiana voters.

Back to Stevens.

Even if he thought about it Reid can’t, or can’t only, give Stevens the boot in the lame-duck session — at last, I don’t think so.

January, the new Senate will be governed by his new election; he currently would be governed by his 2002 election.

So, if Reid boots him this year, I think he’ll have to boot him again in January. Most senators might accept the one boot in their butts, but Stevens won’t, I’m sure.

But, because of that, he won’t be booted in November. That said, let’s hope that Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell do the Senatorial equivalent of an amicus brief for a speedy hearing of his appeal.

Should Stevens lose his appeals, there’s nothing stopping Palin from running for the position herself that I’m aware of. I’m sure, given the nature of Alaskan politics, there’s no requirement for her to resign as governor if she should run.

Other national election tidbits

Updated 1:35 a.m. – Alaska Senate race

It looks like Senate Democrats may be in danger of counting a chicken before it hatched. Stevens is ahead of Begich with 45 percent of precincts reporting.

Updated 12:05 a.m. Nov. 5 – More on Prop. 8

Down 56-44 with 18 percent of precincts reporting, but there's plenty of hope.

A. L.A. County is coming in very slowly. Contra Costa and Alameda are even slower.

B. At the same time, 25 percent of SF is "yes" in reports so far?? And almost a third of Santa Cruz?

1. Marilyn Musgrave getting smoked in Colorado in her House re-election bid.

2. Arizona's House delegation looks to be 5-3 Democrat. Lord can't quite make it 6-2.

3. New Mexico Dems win all three House races plus Udall's Senate bid. The Land of Enchantment may be the second-largest state after Massachusetts where one party controls the governor's mansion, both houses of the state legislature, and all Senate and House seats.

4. No word yet on Prop. 8; this, unlike Obama for president in California, probably won't be called for some time. Early voting, with 18 percent of precincts in, showed it winning 54-46. Let's hope late-reporting urban precincts change that.

5. No call yet on Franken in Minnesota, who could be the last Democratic Senate pickup, not counting Begich in Alaska. (Saxby Chambliss looks to avoid a runoff in Georgia.)

6. Chris Shays loses in Connecticut. No more GOP from New England in the House.

7. In other state ballot issues, Arkansas banned same-sex parental adoptions, Arizona banned same-sex marriage, and Washington state approved a right-to-die issue.

Election Day whazzup news 1 - freebies included

Free goodies, long lines, voting machine problems

First, do you need to numb out from Election Day? Here's a list of all the freebies you can get.

If donuts and ice cream don't give you a free sugar high, hit Starbucks. In Baltimore, there's even free beer.

And, if you get up to SoHo, it's a free vibrator or penis sleeve.

On the serious side, we do have voting problems. The L.A. Times notes some Florida optiical-scan machines are jamming.

Virginia has had machine problems, long lines, and reports of people being turned away.

The Virginia Board of Elections rejected an NAACP appeal to extend voting hours and provide more machines, then won the case when the NAACP sued.

And, this one isn't a case of vote caging or disbarring. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is a Democrat, and the head of the Board of Elections, Nancy Rodrigues, is a Kaine appointee.

That said, what does this say about Kaine's congressional or senatorial future? He is surely interested in something beyond the governor's mansion in the future.

The Brad Blog has a full roundup of voting problems.

In Ohio, Toledo police have riot gear at the ready.

In suburban Indy, two GOP election workers were bounced from an election site for illegally challenging voter ID.

Election watching tips

Yes, this one would definitely be a good one. Indiana’s polls close at 6 Eastern. If the race is tightly fought, it’s good for Obama. If the state is being called for Obama, election over! Next, if Virginia is called early for Obama, election over.

Salon has more tips — are undecideds breaking for Obama? How strong the youth vote?

And the gray-haired lady has its own checklist, done to the theme of a seven-course meal.

Finally, the Dallas Morning News has a time-scheduled watch list for both state and national elections.

Overstuffed by election news? Salon has movie recommendations.

Your state-by-state election prediction rundown

Over at MSNBC, Chuck Todd has all the tips on what to look aut for in each state.

And, its troubles started before the May employment raid.

Well, maybe its because he’s too much of a political wuss and Paulson is too corrupt to have bought voting stakes in those banks in the first place.

Dems need to eyeball offshore drilling as campaign issue

Why?

Well, if 51 percent of Californians favor offshore drilling, this is an issue that’s gaining traction. Even 35 percent of California Dems in the poll favor it, up 6 percentage points from a year ago.

Democrats have shot in West

Environmentalism could trump oil and gas drilling, especially if Dems remind voters that oil, gas and hard-rock mining really don’t contribute that much to the area’s economy.

Chalmers Johnson agrees Repugs and Dems alike

Because of that, a new column he has in Good magazine is titled, “It’s Time to Flee the Country.” You Clintonistas talking about experience and Obamiacs touting The Politics of Change™, get over it. Chalmers, the author of “Blowback” and “Nemesis,” among other books, is blunt:

I see very little hope for America regardless of who is elected in November. All the candidates remaining in the race have said they will not “cut and run” in Iraq and Afghanistan. One may speculate that once in office, one or another candidate may be more flexible, but this is actually unlikely. The Republicans have swallowed both wars hook, line, and sinker, and the Democrats know that if they propose any sort of pullout they will be labeled “defeatists” and blamed for the miserable outcome.

He notes that in addition to the quasi-bipartisan moral bankruptcy on Iraq, there’s also our fiscal bankruptcy. That, too, he says, has a fair share of bipartisanship:

The Bush government talks about the burst housing bubble but says nothing about the obscene military budgets that are driving our entire economy deeper into debt. It will probably take a major financial crisis on par with the Great Depression to reorient our economy in a more productive direction. Unfortunately, I don’t hear any viable candidate talking like FDR.

Yes, Obama and Clinton, he’s talking about you, too, not McCain.

In another essay, he notes that, with the war in Iraq ongoing, we spend more than $1 trillion a year on alleged “defense spending.” And, yes, too many Democrats, even if they oppose, or quasi-oppose, the war in Iraq, will still support too much of that spending.

Now, that said, Johnson’s not saying that “unviable” candidates don’t have real ideas. But, Americans in general are too easy to get themselves suckered by vacuous promises, so “unviable” candidates don’t have a shot at becoming viable.

He then gets back to the title in his conclusion:

In short, I think our ship of state is heading for a mammoth iceberg. Just as many people in 1930s Germany were, I’m too old to leave and will probably go down with the ship. But if I were younger, I would be thinking of bailing out. Vote, if you must, in November, but don’t expect that things will change much, let alone get better.

I don’t “must,” except, possibly, for the Green candidate. I hear you, Chalmers.

And, I’ve applied for jobs in Canada. No luck so far.

Kevorkian really wants you to pull the lever

That is, if you want to vote for “Dr. Death” to be your next Congressman in suburban Detroit.

Hell, I bet he has no problem meeting the requirement of getting 3,000 signatures by July 17. That would get him on the November ballot as an independent. Per the local suburban paper, the Oakland Press:

He lives in the 9th Congressional District. The seat is held by eight-term incumbent U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Hills. Democrats currently filed to run include former Michigan Lottery Commissioner Gary Peters.

Kevorkian is still on parole, until June 1, 2009, for his second-degree murder conviction April 13, 1999 for his participation in the assisted suicide of Thomas Youk. Michigan law does not bar him from running for office.

Here’s the take on Jack’s run from the prosecutor in that case:

“I would place Jack Kevorkian’s candidacy in the same ranking with (Texas U.S. Rep.) Ron Paul’s (presidential run),” Dave Gorcyca said.

“It’s probably more of a publicity stunt. To call attention to himself is standard protocol for Jack when he doesn’t have the limelight focused on him. I would not consider his candidacy to be a legitimate one.”

First, while Jack can flock to the limelight, I think this limelight NEEDS his presence.

Second, Gorcyca shows himself to be a stuffed-shirt suburban Republican, with the dismissal of Ron Paul as well. (Not that Ron Paul isn’t a huge nutbar, but, that’s not why Gorcyca is dissing him and you know that.)

Third, Knollenberg was re-elected in 2006 with just 51.6 percent of the vote. And, the economy in Michigan has deteriorated further since then, making him vulnerable.

Could Kevorkian bring out a number of libertarian types who might not otherwise vote? Could he poach senior citizens from both parties? You betcha.

Personally, I would not only pull the lever, I would endorse him, if I could and edited a newspaper there, I would personally endorse him on my blog, and…

I am personally endorsing him on my blog.

Go, Jack, go. Even with one lonely voice, someone challenging right-to-die and assisted suicide legal bans might open other Members of Congress to speak against the War on Drugs and related bullshit.

Note: I taught a class in death and dying issues at Baker College in Michigan in the mid-1990s, during Kevorkian’s first trial.

That said, do I consider him the ideal PR person for assisted suicide? No. At one time, he may have been, but, he crossed the line in the Youk case by administering the injection himself. Even if Youk were that seriously incapacitated, surely an cyberwhiz friend or acquaintance of Kevorkian could have rigged up a way for Youk to self-inject by batting his eyelids a certain number of times.

Richardson criticizes Congressional Democrats

And the New Mexico governor and Democratic presidential candidate has a laundry list, items often also noted by folks like progressive bloggers and activists:

Richardson did not go easy on the party, assailing the Democratic-controlled Congress for its failure to accomplish more and calling on the party to win back people’s confidence.

“That begins with proving that we're listening to them,” he said.

“Look at the last twelve months. Not only are we still in Iraq, we still have the failure called No Child Left Behind. We still have 9 million children with no health insurance. We’re still allowing this president to thumb his nose at the Bill of Rights. We’re slipping into a recession," Richardson said. “And we can't even reject an attorney general who refuses to condemn torture.”

You know, it’s pretty hard to argue with any of that.

Richardson also chose the forum with the Democratic National Committee to attack Obama and Clinton for not committing to a full withdrawal from Iraq.

And, he said other candidates aren’t talking about jobs enough. Between that and the recession comments, you can’t argue with him for commenting on economic issues.

Obama repeated his claim to be the Democratic candidate who will rise above partisanship. He either still doesn’t have enough better policy planks, or else Republicans in Congress haven’t beat him about the head enough with 2x4 planks.

Edwards claimed Democrats in Congress have isolated themselves from the people.

Big political money gets even bigger as Wall Street swings Dem

Wall Street is throwing ever more money into campaign contributions, including now having a 57-43 tilt toward Democrats.

In both presidential and congressional contests, Democrats are benefiting more than Republicans from the surge in business donations, with 57 percent of giving from typical big donors going to Democrats versus 43 percent in 2006 and 2004.

More money is coming in from lawyers than from any other sector, as usual. But the biggest increase in giving since 2004 is coming from financiers, whose donations are up 91 percent.

Steep increases are also coming from the real estate industry, Hollywood, healthcare professionals and insurers. …
Wall Street's favorite presidential candidate, based on the latest FEC disclosures from October 29, was Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Close behind her in donations from financiers were Republican former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Next were Republican former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Republican Sen. John McCain from Arizona, Democratic former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

The biggest donors in the securities and investment sector, as of October 29, were the brokerage firms Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Credit Suisse.

Also among the sector's top contributors were hedge funds and private equity firms Bain Capital, SAC Capital Advisers, Fortress Investment Group and Blackstone Group.

Chuck Schumer is probably saying, “Bring ’em on” even as we speak. Do you really expect a lot of change out of the next presidential administration? Or the next Democratic Congress?

Will too many liberal bloggers will wind up as “Democratic enablers”?

Expect to see some, if not many, liberal bloggers draw lines in the sand that the Democratic Congress, and the eventual presidential nominee next year, either are supposed to not cross, or to cross, depending on the direction and the issue, to prove themselves progressive enough.

Expect many of the do not cross lines to be crossed, or the “please cross” starting point lines to not be crossed.

Expect to see many of these liberal bloggers shake their fingers and say, “One more time,” or, “I’m giving you one more chance.”

Expect nothing to change.

Expect said bloggers to continue this.

Expect at least some of said bloggers to accuse other progressive bloggers, those who mention Greens or other third-party options, of being backstabbers, of having the blood of Iraq on their hands, etc.

Lather, rinse and repeat every two years for the next decade.

“Support the troops” a no-win proposition

Over at Washington Monthly, there’s a package of stories from recent war veterans on how Democratic presidential candidates might get their vote.

There’s also an in-depth analysis by Spencer Ackerman as to why those candidates shouldn’t be looking to the troops to guide their decisions, ultimately.

Spencer Ackerman's article is more important than any of the soldiers' stories in the package. He explains why “support the troops” short of “bring ’em home” is a no-win, for one thing:

Democrats have made the decision — rightly, I think — that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn’t kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them. For soldiers like Lieutenant Wellman, this will be hard to accept. As he told me of war doubters back home, “I don’t want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission.”

Ackerman indicates from enlisteds through noncoms into the corps of officers, a clear majority of boots on the ground still feel this way.

He touches on some of the reasons, which I’ll go into more.

First, too many soldiers have, to put it bluntly, some degree of ADDICTION to fighting after multiple tours in Iraq. (Note Ackerman quoting a soldier about having a “hard-on” about the possibility of killing alleged terrorists.

And yes, I do believe it’s a psychological addiction. In many cases, there’s at least the beginnings of post-traumatic stress disorder behind the development.

Plus, as Ackerman also notes, and as I agree, the “boots on the ground” have a narrow, sector-localized understanding of what is “successful.” Throw in the bar of “success” continually being lowered, and to take the addiction metaphor further, Democrats risk becoming “enablers.”

The idea of “support the troops” in any way short of supporting getting them home ASAP, because “the troops” still want to fight, is a losing proposition.

Democrats, already labeled as “out of touch with the military,” may be uncomfortable with what would appear to be a patronizing position, that “the troops don’t always know best.” But, that’s the bottom line. The key, though, as Ackerman notes, is to support the troops psychologically when they get back to America. Beyond adequate funding of Veterans Administration psychological treatment, this includes stressing that they never failed in their mission, but that the mission itself was a failure of design.

Novak: This “surrender” is it for Congressional Dems on Iraq

And, forget about next year, he says:

President Bush has won a rare showdown victory over Congress simply because Democrats felt they could not afford the risk of letting a war in progress run out of money. The Democrats' problem is that this demonstrates conclusively that they are all talk on the Iraq War — a fact that their base will quickly realize. There is no way for Congress to end the war short of cutting off funds, and to cut off funds without the consent of the President is to invite a repeat of exactly the same showdown the Democrats have now already lost.

Agreed that the bottom line is another showdown. So, fine, let’s have it. More than once, if necessary.

Novak goes on to say that if Democrats won’t do more this year, they certainly won’t next year:

The bottom line is that Democrats have passed on their best chance to end the Iraq War. If they are not willing to take a risk here in a non-election year in order to force Bush to end the war, then they certainly do not have what it takes to cut off war funds in the coming presidential election year.

I totally agree. We need real action, not noise-making and posturing. However, I’m not optimistic about what we will actually get, versus what we need.

Mitt Romney: He was for gays before he was against them

The Massachusetts governor, already angling for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, reportedly said in a 1994 interview with a gay-oriented newspaper that he would do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

He also wrote a letter to the gay-rights supporting Log Cabin Republicans stating that President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on allowing gays in the military to stay in as along as they were “quietly passing,” rather than actively hunting them out for dishonorable discharges, was

the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military.

Well, now he’s getting it from both sides. Conservative groups such as the Family Research Council are calling on him to repudiate all his 1994 statements, while gay rights groups are saying he can’t be trusted.

I think I just heard the sound of some Republican presidential timber falling in the forest.

Who’s next, Giuliani? I can’t wait for his “reverse vasectomy” of Al Gore and Dick Gephardt’s dance on the choice issue, to see Rudy try to suddenly become a pro-life candidate.