DailyKos

• Today marks the 20th anniversary of World AIDS Day, and while progress has been made over the past 20 years, there remains much to be done, from research to  training, and of course, access and affordability.
• John Cole's take on the Republican goal of "union busting on a grand scale": It could not be clearer. I do not know what the best thing to do with the auto industry is, and I am sick and tired of all these bailouts. However, I do think it is important that people realize that when Republicans reject a bailout of the auto-industry, that they are not doing so out of principle. If anything should be clear, when it comes to spending, the GOP has no principles. Instead, their no vote will be about something else- protecting the big money backers, the captains of industry and the folks who, unlike everyone else, has done well in the past few years.
• Nancy Pelosi hopes to have an economic recovery bill ready for Barack Obama's signature on January 20th.
• It took 17 years for Gulf War syndrome to be officially recognized, but there is still no focus on treating the men and women who have been suffering for nearly two decades.
• While the Bush administration still claims victory in Iraq, the killing continues on a daily basis.
• Save your soul!
• All things considered, this award really needs to change its name : Warren will present President Bush with the first "International Medal of PEACE" from the Global PEACE Coalition in recognition of his unprecedented contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The "International Medal of PEACE" is given for outstanding contribution toward alleviating the five global giants recognized by the Coalition, including pandemic diseases, extreme poverty, illiteracy, self-centered leadership and spiritual emptiness.
• Condoleezza Rice is heading to India to show "solidarity" with the people of India following last week's terrorist attacks in Mombai.
• Former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's partner in crime and text-messaging has pleaded guilty to perjury and obstruction of justice and was sentenced to four months in jail, five years probation, and $100,000 in fines.
• Notice to the slobs and/or Republicans among us: A vigorous hand wash or shower could cause a person to be less judgmental. A new study, set for publication in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science, reveals that when a person feels physically clean, he or she cuts others more moral slack.

As you may have heard, a little over a week ago Mark Halperin accused the media of "extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage," claiming that reporters wanted "to see his face etched in stain glass and on Mt. Rushmore simultaneously." Since then, a wide range of commentators have challenged Halperin's tin-foil accusation -- for example: Greg Mitchell, John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, and Daily Kos contributing editor Greg Dworkin in the Politico Arena. Perhaps the biggest problem with Halperin's claim was that he failed to offer much in the way of specifics to substantiate it, citing only a pair of articles published by the New York Times, one on Cindy McCain, the other on Michelle Obama. Can you say cherry-picker? The truth is that despite Halperin's breathless attack, the NYT has not demonstrated a systematic pro-Obama bias. (Sorry, Rush.) To illustrate my point, I assembled a list of 92 articles published by the NYT in 2007 and 2008 (see below). As you can see, none of thes articles show any signs of "extreme bias" or  "extreme pro-Obama coverage." I'm not saying the articles prove any sort of systematic anti-Obama bias. But they do invalidate Halperin's claim about the NYT, in the process exposing his claim that coverage of the 2008 campaign represents "the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war" as totally unsubstantiated. Given Halperin's utter lack of specifics to support his claim, the real question is this: why did he choose to throw the media under Rush Limbaugh's bus? ::: ::: Here are the 92 NYT articles (in chronological order): 1/18/07: A long line of Democrats, Republicans and independents have gone before him, casting themselves as the sparkling candidate of the new politics only to find that their freshness withers well before the balloting begins. 2/2/07: He is hailed by his supporters as the hope of an increasingly multicultural nation, a political phenomenon who can wow white voters while carrying the aspirations of African-Americans all the way to the White House. So why are some black voters so uneasy about Senator Barack Obama? 2/12/07: On his first trip to Iowa as a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, found himself responding to an unexpected critic: John Howard, Australia's prime minister. 3/3/07: Genealogists have uncovered a new ingredient in the melting pot identity of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who hopes to become the first black president. His white maternal ancestors once owned slaves. 3/6/07: The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of the popular Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and spiritual mentor to Senator Barack Obama, thought he knew what he would be doing on Feb. 10, the day of Senator Obama's presidential announcement. After all, back in January, Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Wright if he would begin the event by delivering a public invocation. But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation. 3/7/07: Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease. 3/8/07: Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday that he did not believe it was a conflict of interest to seek investment advice and use the brokerage services recommended by a friend and political contributor. He said he had not been aware that his broker had invested up to $100,000 in two companies backed by some of his top donors. 5/26/07: The decision by two of the leading Democratic presidential candidates to vote against a bill providing more money for the war in Iraq because it did not set a timetable to withdraw the troops reverberated on the campaign trail yesterday, underscoring the deep divisions over the war between Democrats and Republicans. The two Democrats, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, quickly found their votes attacked by Republicans. 6/14/07: Back in the 1990s, Mr. Rezko's office was adorned with framed photos of candidates he viewed as up-and-comers. Among them was Barack Obama, a state legislator whose first campaign donations included $2,000 from Mr. Rezko's companies. As Mr. Obama built a career that carried him to the Senate in 2004, Mr. Rezko was there with him, holding fund-raisers and rallying support. 8/3/07: Senator Barack Obama found himself on the defensive again yesterday about his views on foreign policy, this time over a comment he made about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan. 8/17/07: The recalibration of the campaign is a marked departure from a laid-back tone Mr. Obama often had taken in the first six months of his candidacy. It comes as he is working to persuade voters of his judgment and erase perceptions among party leaders in states like this that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is establishing herself as the front-runner after a series of debates and what some Democrats have viewed as slip-ups by Mr. Obama.

As Scout Finch pointed out in yesterday's Midday Open Thread, the ultimate arbiter of the Minnesota Senate election (and indeed every Senate election) is... the Senate itself. So here's a little reminder of what looms in the background of the whole Minnesota Senate recount mess: The Minnesota U.S. Senate contest between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken is undergoing a recount, with the candidates separated by less than 300 votes out of 2.9 million cast. But a controversial decision by the state's Elections Canvassing Board could end up throwing the election into the lap of the Senate itself, a scholar told Minnesota Public Radio. "Ultimately, the Senate has complete authority to determine who was elected," Washington University political scientist Steven Smith told the broadcaster, citing the canvassing board's decision this week to disallow disputed absentee ballots that Franken had urged be counted. The board's move was "a cause for great concern," Reid said this week, and those comments may indicate his willingness to start a Senate investigation of the Minnesota recount, Smith said. And if so, it's possible that Franken's argument regarding rejected absentee ballots could be reconsidered by U.S. senators. It's certainly true that the Senate can settle the issue by simply choosing to swear in one or the other, but I wouldn't necessarily agree at this point that the Senate is likely to intervene, or that Reid's comments should lead us to anticipate that. "Cause for great concern," without more, is about as boilerplate as it gets. Whence cometh such authority? Article I, Sec. 5: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members Ding. That's it. That applies equally to determining who won elections and shall be seated, and to who is such a pain in the ass that they'll be expelled from the Senate once seated, though there's more about expulsions later, including the 2/3 vote requirement for kicking someone out. So, has it ever happened? Sure. In fact, according to a 2005 paper (PDF) by Prof. Jeffrey A. Jenkins of Northwestern University, there have been 132 contested Senate elections through the 107th Congress, i.e., from 1789 through 2002, or an average of more than one per Congress. But since the 17th Amendment, the number of cases has declined fairly dramatically, with just 35 cases, or 0.8 per Congress on average. The last such dispute -- not included, it appears, in the Jenkins paper -- was current Senator Mary Landrieu's first election to the Senate in 1996. Will it happen here? Dunno yet. But it's not as rare or arcane a procedure as you might think. I'll take this opportunity to mention that the new Daily Kos Congress-watching spin-off community that we're calling Congress Matters is up and running (with a few kinks left to work out before the 111th Congress convenes). It's the kind of place where we might actually spend a day or two looking at the election dispute procedure, some past cases, etc., while waiting for the action to heat up in January.

As announced earlier, Barack Obama rolled out his new national security team this morning in a press conference in Chicago. Via press release, here are his prepared remarks: Good morning. Last week, we announced our economic team, which is working as we speak to craft an Economic Recovery Program to create jobs and grow our struggling economy. Today, Vice President-elect Biden and I are pleased to announce our national security team. The national security challenges we face are just as grave – and just as urgent – as our economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. Old conflicts remain unresolved, and newly assertive powers have put strains on the international system. The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world’s deadliest technology could fall into dangerous hands. Our dependence on foreign oil empowers authoritarian governments and endangers our planet. America must also be strong at home to be strong abroad. We need to provide education and opportunity for our citizens, so every American can compete with anyone, anywhere. And our economic power must sustain our military strength, our diplomatic leverage, and our global leadership. The common thread linking these challenges is the fundamental reality that in the 21st century, our destiny is shared with the world’s. From our markets to our security; from our public health to our climate –we must act with the understanding that, now more than ever, we have a stake in what happens across the globe. And as we learned so painfully on 9/11, terror cannot be contained by borders, nor safety provided by oceans alone. Last week, we were reminded of this threat once again when terrorists took the lives of six American among nearly 200 victims in Mumbai. In the world we seek, there is no place for those who kill innocent civilians to advance hateful extremism. This weekend, I told Prime Minister Singh that Americans stand with the people of India in this dark time. And I am confident that India’s great democracy is more resilient than killers who would tear it down. And so, in this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning – a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges. We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends. We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships. We will show the world once more that America is relentless in defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests, and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world: democracy and justice; opportunity and unyielding hope – because American values are America’s greatest export to the world.   To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example. The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that. In their past service and plans for the future, these men and women represent all of those elements of American power, and the very best of the American example. They have served in uniform and as diplomats; they have worked as legislators, law enforcement officials, and executives. They share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America’s role as a leader in the world. I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel, and as a campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State. She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence; who knows many of the world’s leaders; who will command respect in every capitol; and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world. Hillary’s appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. There is much to do – from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea, to seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to strengthening international institutions. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department, and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda. At a time when we face an unprecedented transition amidst two wars, I have asked Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense, and I’m pleased that he’s accepted. Two years ago, he took over the Pentagon at a difficult time. He restored accountability. He won the confidence of military commanders, and the trust of our brave men and women in uniform, and their families. He earned the respect of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle for his pragmatism and competence. He knows that we need a sustainable national security strategy – and that includes a bipartisan consensus at home. As I said throughout the campaign, I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control. We will also ensure that we have the strategy – and resources – to succeed against al Qaeda and the Taliban. As Bob said not too long ago, Afghanistan is where the war on terror began, and it is where it must end. And going forward, we will continue to make the investments necessary to strengthen our military and increase our ground forces to defeat the threats of the 21st century. Eric Holder has the talent and commitment to succeed as Attorney General from his first day on the job, which is even more important in a transition that demands vigilance. He has distinguished himself as a prosecutor, a Judge, and a senior official, and he is deeply familiar with the law enforcement challenges we face– from terrorism to counter-intelligence; from white collar crime to public corruption. Eric also has the combination of toughness and independence that we need at the Justice Department. Let me be clear: the Attorney General serves the American people. And I have every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution. Janet Napolitano offers the experience and executive skill that we need in the next Secretary of Homeland Security. She has spent her career protecting people – as a US Attorney, an Attorney General, and as Governor of Arizona. She understands the need for a Department of Homeland Security that has the capacity to help prevent terrorist attacks and respond to catastrophe – be it manmade or natural. Janet assumes this critical role having learned the lessons – some of them painful – of the last several years, from 9/11 to Katrina. She insists on competence and accountability. She knows firsthand the need to have a partner in Washington that works well with state and local governments. She understands as well as anyone the danger of an unsecure border. And she will be a leader who can reform a sprawling Department while safeguarding our homeland. Susan Rice will take on the crucial task of serving as Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations. Susan has been a close and trusted advisor. As in previous Administrations, the UN Ambassador will serve as a member of my cabinet and integral member of my team. Her background as a scholar, on the National Security Council, and Assistant Secretary of State will serve our nation well at the United Nations. Susan knows that the global challenges we face demand global institutions that work. She shares my belief that the UN is an indispensable – and imperfect – forum. She will carry the message that our commitment to multilateral action must be coupled with a commitment to reform. We need the UN to be more effective as a venue for collective action – against terror and proliferation; climate change and genocide; poverty and disease. Finally, I am convinced that General James Jones is uniquely suited to be a strong and skilled National Security Advisor. Generations of Joneses have served heroically on the battlefield – from the beaches of Tarawa in World War II, to Foxtrot Ridge in Vietnam. Jim’s Silver Star is a proud part of that legacy. He will bring to the job the dual experience of serving in uniform and as a diplomat. He has commanded a platoon in battle, served as Supreme Allied Commander in a time of war, and worked on behalf of peace in the Middle East. Jim is focused on the threats of today and the future. He understands the connection between energy and national security, and has worked on the frontlines of global instability – from Kosovo to northern Iraq to Afghanistan. He will advise me and work effectively to integrate our efforts across the government, so that we are effectively using all elements of American power to defeat unconventional threats and promote our values. I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security. This morning, we met to discuss the situation in Mumbai and some of the challenges that we face in the months and years ahead.  In the coming weeks, I will be in close contact with these advisors, who will be working with their counterparts in the Bush Administration to make sure that we are ready to hit the ground running on January 20. Given the range of threats that we face – and the vulnerability that can be a part of every presidential transition – I hope that we can proceed swiftly for those national security officials who demand confirmation. We move forward with the humility that comes with knowing that there are brave men and women protecting us on the front lines. Troops serving their second, third, or fourth tours. Diplomats and intelligence officers in dangerous corners of the world. FBI agents in the field, cops on the beat, prosecutors in our courts, and cargo inspectors at our ports. These selfless Americans whose names are unknown to most of us will form the backbone of our effort. If we serve as well as they do, we will protect our country and promote our values. And we move forward with respect for America’s tradition of a bipartisan national security policy, and a commitment to national unity. When it comes to keeping our nation and our people safe, we are not Republicans and we are not Democrats: we are Americans. There is no monopoly of power or wisdom in either party. Together, as one nation, as one people, we can shape our times instead of being shaped by them. Together, we will meet the challenges of the 21st century not with fear, but with hope. In addition to the prepared remarks, the Obama transition team sent out bios of today's appointees, and it's interesting to note what's emphasized (and what's not) in these official life stories. Particularly intriguing is the fact that Napolitano's bio is longer than that of Gates -- and that it emphasizes quite a few domestic policies that at least on the face of it have little to do with Homeland Security as we know it. When the number of words are limited in introducing people to a national audience, it's interesting to choose such points as creating a new grade in public schools and shoring up kindergarten (worthy endeavors, mind you, but hard to see how they help bolster Homeland Security experience.) The full bios are beneath the fold for similar analysis.

Republicans just don't get it. Katon Dawson, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, the latest candidate to throw his hat into the ring to become the next head of the Republican National Committee, is disappointed that his party is out of power. He agrees that it needs new ideas and direction. His solution? Renew our commitment to our Party’s timeless principles...by reconfirming our commitment to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, individual freedom, strong national security, respect for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, the importance of family and the exceptionalism of America. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Pretend they are for smaller government, although they never seem to do anything about it when they're in power, lower taxes for big business and the weathy, and of course, red meat for the base: God, guns and gays. With this kind of change, 2010 is looking good...for the Democrats.

According to several reports, Senator Clinton will be in Chicago today to be formally named as the nominee for Secretary of State. According to Beth Fouhy with the AP, the Obama team negotiated with Bill Clinton to set the following terms: To make it possible for his wife to become the top U.S. diplomat, the officials said, former President Clinton agreed: _to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward. _to refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference. _to cease holding CGI meetings overseas. _to volunteer to step away from day-to-day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state. _to submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel. _to submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review. In addition to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, it is expected Obama will name retired Marine General James M. Jones to serve as national security adviser and formally announce Robert Gates will stay on as Sec of Defense for at least a year.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE... Morning Eve Recommended diaries goddess nyceve graduated from Barnard College (Columbia University), where she majored in Economics. She spends some of her time learning about the healthcare crisis first-hand at a hospital in Manhattan, volunteering with an oncologist and his patients to help them obtain hard-won insurance company approvals for treatments and medications. With healthcare reform a top priority of the Obama administration, hers will be an important voice here for helping us make sense of it all. For now, though, she gets the dreaded interview treatment in our Pulitzer-snubbed series, Yes, We're All Staring At YOU! Cheers and Jeers: How long have you been blogging and what brought you to Daily Kos? Nyceve: A long time, my User ID is 21195. I don't know exactly where that places me---maybe 2003 or 2004, but I'm an old-timer. I remember how I found Daily Kos, and I didn't lurk for ages, like some do, then register. I just registered. I read about Daily Kos in an article on the New York Times, this was during the early days of the Bush regime. I thought to myself, this sounds like a place I might find some equally horrified kindred spirits. So I ran up to my computer, (it was such a transformative moment in my life,  that I remember I was at my mother's house in Los Angeles), I turned on my computer, typed in "www.dailykos.com." got here and registered. By the way, I made a fool of myself in some of those early diaries. This was in the days before we could save drafts.  And for those new people, in those early days, we could post two diaries a day. Where were you when the networks called the race for Barack Obama and how did you react? I'll never forget. I went to my dear friend's home for dinner on Election night. She lives on the East Side of Manhattan and I live on the West Side. She had taken me as her guest to the 1992 Convention when Bill Clinton was nominated and we wanted to spend this historic night together. A little before 11, we all got tired and she had an early appointment the next morning so I decided to go home.  I was on the 66th Street crosstown bus in NYC and my phone rang, it was my sister she screamed,"we won!"  The bus was about half filled, I yelled out, "Oh my God we won!"  The whole bus started applauding and screaming. I went over to the bus driver who happened to be African American, there were tears streaming down his face. He looked at me and said, "Praise the Lord." I said, "Amen". When did you first become focused on health care and why? This is an easy one. It was early November, 2005. I came home from my office and had a letter from my insurance company. I went to my apartment and opened it---the bastards had canceled my insurance! I didn't know what to do. I was scared. I called my Democratic New York State assemblyman, who I had never in my life bothered for anything (he also happens to be the Chairman of the New York State Assembly Health Committee), and his office was essentially worthless. They couldn't help me. So in desperation I wrote a diary called, "My Health Insurance was Cancelled." About a week later I wrote another diary called, "Finding Insurance has Become My Full Time Job." The rest, as they say, is history. The bastards picked the wrong person to f*ck with. Truthfully, I'm obsessed with this catastrophe. I'm a fairly logical person, and there is no nuance in this for me. Healthcare must be a right for every last one of us, not a privilege. Being able to afford to pay for health insurance has nothing in the world to do with the concept of delivering affordable and guaranteed cradle-to-grave healthcare to all Americans. No one should ever fear financial ruin due to an illness or accident. Period. No nuance. Let's just do it, and do it correctly. On a scale of one to ten, how hopeful are you that significant changes will be made to our health care system during the Obama administration? I'm very optimistic. I'm inclined to go with a 10, but I need a little wiggle room, so I'll say a 9.2. I've said many times, the U.S. political system was designed to respond to crisis. We have more than a crisis today, we have a catastrophe---it's now or never. But sadly, it won't be single payer healthcare on day one. I do believe we'll get to single payer, which is the gold standard for an advanced industrialized nation, such as ours, but it will take some time. The insurance industry is still too strong and throws too much money at politicians. I hope that President Obama really presses for a well funded public alternative which will compete with the for-profits. I also hope the playing field will be level---we can't put all the sick people in the public option. The for-profits must be required to take everyone. Let's see some real competition between the for-profits and a Medicare alternative. I think if President Obama establishes some inviolate ground rules, we will drain the life and the profits out of the for-profits. This would be ideal. On a scale of one to ten, how cool is it to be able to say, "The Obama administration?" It's a 20. We did our country proud. I think in a very profound sense, Mr. Bush gave us the courage as a nation to put aside any lingering racial issues and vote for Barack Obama. The corruption, incompetence, and catastrophic mismanagement of everything Bush and Co. touched, paved the way for President Obama. I'm able to sleep again. It's hard to articulate how unmoored I felt as an American citizen these last eight years. I lived through Reagan, Nixon, etc. Nothing approached  the horror of thinking this was no longer my country. Trying to pick a low point from 2000 to now, is almost impossible---there were so many.  But I will say the images of Katrina are haunting and etched on my brain. What kind of music makes you feel invincible to the GOP horde? I'm very patriotic so I'd say the National Anthem. I also love Woody Guthrie's This Land is My Land, Bob Dylan Blowin in the Wind, John Lennon singing Imagine, Eric Clapton's Tears in Heaven and Louis Armstrong, What a Wonderful World. Why hasn’t there been more of a push by private employers to turn the health insurance system over to the government? I think it's finally happening before our eyes. We're losing our competitiveness. Healthcare costs are unsustainable---employers are shifting healthcare costs onto the shoulders of already heavily cash-strapped workers. The only way employers are able to continue providing benefits is to increase deductibles, co-pays, etc. So we all have what amounts to junk insurance---insurance in name only. Americans are delaying medical treatment because they know that even if they have so-called "insurance", they could be left with huge bills, so they don't get care. And these are people with insurance! The effects of  policy makers ignoring the healthcare crisis for so long are finally coming home to roost in a big and ugly way. What's the one book every Kossack must read? I'd say anything by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. Finish this sentence: In the kitchen I make a mean... I'm going to give you a long list because I like to cook. Brisket, lasagna, grilled salmon, French Toast with Challah, an old Jewish recipe--egg noodles and cottage cheese, tuna salad, pesto sauce, chocolate Mousse (out of this world), lentils and brown rice, fettucine with ripe, raw tomatoes, basil, capers and calamata olives, with a little grated Pecorino Romano. I would say turkey but after seeing the Palin slaughter, I'll never eat or cook turkey again. Moving along, I'm a pasta addict and my best friend is Italian and he says for a Jewish girl I make one insanely delicious bowl of perfectly al dente spaghetti. I also love tofu and I've just done a new recipe with fresh chopped garlic, ginger, sesame oil,  scallions, low sodium soy sauce and a dash of seasoned Japanese vinegar. Tom Daschle has been nominated to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Good choice? Better than Mr. Leavitt. Truthfully, Daschle is committed to reform...now we have to be sure the Obama Administration delivers something big, bold and what's in the best interests of the American people, not the insurance industry. No waffling here: dogs or cats? Both. Love 'em all. Grew up in a not huge, but not tiny New York City apartment with three cats, a large collie, black lab mix, two parakeets and three turtles. This is true. I have one question left, but it's time for me to go over and massage Old Man McGillicutty's goiter. Please ask and answer the final question yourself... Will healthcare reform include dental care? It better. Last time I was at a dentist I was charged $650.00 for a filling. One filling! Then I had to pay extra for the sedation gas. If this isn't the definition of catastrophe, then I don't know what is. Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Monday... time to go back to work, pundits. Paul Krugman: The idea that tight fiscal policy when the economy is depressed actually reduces private investment isn’t just a hypothetical argument: it’s exactly what happened in two important episodes in history. The first took place in 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt mistakenly heeded the advice of his own era’s deficit worriers. He sharply reduced government spending, among other things cutting the Works Progress Administration in half, and also raised taxes. The result was a severe recession, and a steep fall in private investment. The second episode took place 60 years later, in Japan. In 1996-97 the Japanese government tried to balance its budget, cutting spending and raising taxes. And again the recession that followed led to a steep fall in private investment. Neal Gabler: Goldwater-Reagan-Bush? Nah. McCarthy-Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Palin. Republicans continue to push the idea that this is a center-right country and that Americans have swooned for GOP anti-government posturing all these years, but the real electoral bait has been anger, recrimination and scapegoating. That's why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama's relationship with onetime radical William Ayers. Roger Cohen: Bringing some tough love (make love, not war) to Israel would be a good thing for the new foreign policy team. Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, thinks so. William Kristol: Before he goes, Bush should pardon every fool patriot who thought torture was a good idea. And the public needs to pardon the biggest fool of all me for thinking Bush's legacy is capable of being polished. William Kristol: I know, I know. You can't get enough of me. But if I keep yapping about terrorism and scaring people, I can prove Gabler right. AP: "I think he's moving center-left, rather than left-center. It's fair to call him pragmatic," said Paul Light, a public policy professor and presidential historian at New York University. "I think labor is going to get a lot from him. I think his liberal supporters are going to get a lot from him. But they're going to be disappointed if they want all liberal all the time." David Yepsen: Huckabee and Jindal do Iowa. These prescriptions come none too soon for the GOP. A Gallup poll taken after the November election and released last week showed "the Republican Party's image has gone from bad to worse" since the election. Only 34 percent of Americans say they have a favorable view of the party, and 61 percent view it unfavorably - the worst image rating in a decade. By contrast, 55 percent view the Democratic Party with favor, and only 39 percent look upon that party unfavorably. Matthew Alexander (interrogator): Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives. Julian Selizer: Americans are watching the extraordinary sight of two presidents working at once. And it's not a bad thing. Andrew Malcom: What's a small donor? And only 32 months until the Ames [IA] straw poll. [original research here, h/t Scarce]

Tonight's rescue team is dadanation, grog, HansScholl, jlms qkw, sunspark says, and vcmvo2, with srkp23 editing.

• A Siegel writes in detail about the need for legislation to be passed like, H.R. 3021 the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, so that aggressive action can be taken in Greening the School House. (vcmvo2)
• Civil Writes Activist reports some new details in the case of the 8-year-old accused of murder in All I Want For Christmas is My Two Front Teeth and a Stay of Execution. (vcmvo2)
• Andrew Ekud reports on an innovation in electric car development, pay per mile, not per gallon, in The Generation That Never Bought Gasoline. (grog)
• JohnnyRook continues his analysis on climate change and highlights how a change in US leadership will significantly help in Climaticide Update: Take Action Now, Public Tells Governments and Business. (grog)
• Tom Joad and his Traveling Road Show analyzes the decline of Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Government in The Era of Weak Labor Department Must End! (vcmvo2)
• barflyer figures It Can't Be Happening Here. Unfortunately for one of his fellow church members, unemployment and homelessness can. (grog)
• KingOneEye finds a major case of potential bias in The Media Will Make BILLIONS On The Government Bailouts. (jlms qkw)
• RfrancisR 's examines yet another negative outcome brought about with the passage of Prop 8 in California in The Psychological Harm of Anti-Gay Initiatives. (dadanation)
• desiunion has fond memories of one of the hotels attacked in Mumbai, and explains its importance in Indian culture in My memories of The Taj. (HansScholl)
• The Republicans have raised propaganda to a fine art, exploiting the prestige of leading generals like Barry McCaffrey, as srkp23 shows in One Man's Military-Industrial-Media Complex, and exporting their tactics to fellow Kool Aid drinkers in Canada, as kanuk shows in Conservatives caught red handed passing word for word talking points! (HansScholl)
• Are you sick of Sarah Palin yet? If not, Celtic Diva has uncovered the Alaskan's apparent modus operandi: Gov. Diva's World: "I will model myself after those I once denounced as corrupt". (sunspark says)

jotter brings High Impact Diaries: November 29, 2008 and the Week's High Impact Diaries: November 22-28. sardonyx serves up Top Comments: Impending Elections Edition.

In the second installment of our look at coming 2010 races, we look at potentially hot races in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Kansas. Florida The Sunshine State ought to have one of the most exciting, highest-profile, and most expensive U.S. Senate races in the nation in 2010, when freshman Republican Mel Martinez is expected to seek reelection. Martinez is considered one of the most vulnerable Republicans on the 2010 slate. He won election just 51% to 49% in 2004 over Democrat Betty Castor, and his approvals and reelects are in the toilet: Public Policy Polling did three surveys over the summer looking at Mel Martinez's job approval rating and how some potential opponents would fare against him. In June his approval rating was 23%, in July it was 24%, and in September it was 23%. We found that in hypothetical 2010 matchups Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink would lead Martinez 37-31, Congressman Robert Wexler would be tied with him 31-31, former Senator Bill Graham would lead him 51-31, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would lead him 38-37, Congressman Allen Boyd would lead him 37-33, and Congressman Ron Klein would lead him 37-33. Martinez is probably the most endangered incumbent in the country for 2010 and given his lack of popularity even with Republicans is ripe for a strong primary challenge. "Bill Graham", I assume, refers to Bob Graham. He's not running, but it's very possible that any of the others - Reps. Wexler, Klein, Boyd and Debbie Wasserman Schultz - might give it a go, and so might Rep. Kathy Castor, Betty Castor's daughter and a rising star in the state party. Sink is the biggest name in current state Democratic politics and the best equipped for a statewide run. As the polling numbers indicate, she'd start the race in the best position against Martinez, but whether she runs will depend somewhat on whether she decides to run for Governor, either now or in the future. Martinez is the big target for 2010, but there's also a Governor's race to be held. Unfortunately, Republican Governor Charlie Crist enjoys exceptionally high approval ratings, and is likely not to draw a particularly strong opponent. Alex Sink and State Sen. Dan Gelber (who gets a free shot at the race, as his term expires in 2012) are the only ones rumored for the race, and it certainly seems that Sink would be best served either running against Martinez, or waiting until 2014 to run for Governor. In the House, there are three races which look especially promising for next cycle (because of Florida's ridiculous gerrymandering, there's always a race that can be won somewhere, if only because Democrats start from such a position of disadvantage. FL-10 is home to ancient Republican Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young. C.W. Bill has been around for several generations, having been first elected in 1970, and he'll turn 80 years old in 2010. He's bound to retire some day, and he holds a district which leans slightly Democratic at the presidential level (with a PVI of D+1.1). Democrats have a built-in candidate just waiting for Young to hang up his spikes - State Senator Charlie Justice (and if ever there was a great name for a politician, it is "Charlie Justice"). He'd have to resign his Senate seat to run for Congress, but that should be a fairly easy call given the opportunity. FL-16: Sex scandals have flipped this R+2 district twice in the past two cycles - once from Republican Mark Foley to Democrat Tim Mahoney, and once from Mahoney to Republican Tom Rooney. (Foley, Mahoney, Rooney...apparently being Irish is a prerequisite to holding this seat). Rooney should get a fairly strong challenge his first time out of the gate, before he gets too entrenched, and there's one especially strong Democrat to take him on. That would be State Senator Dave Aronberg of Greenacres. Aronberg lives just outside the district, in the 19th Congressional District, but his Senate district overlaps considerably with the 16th. Aronberg is young (37), considered fairly moderate, has a base of support in his Senate district, and is exceptionally intelligent. The DCCC would do well to try and recruit Aronberg into the race, although he is not, in fact, Irish. FL-25: Orange to Blue candidate Joe Garcia came exceptionally close to knocking off incumbent Republican Mario Diaz-Balart in 2008, losing just 53% to 47%. With a seemingly strong base of support in Miami-Dade County, Garcia seems fairly well positioned to take another crack at the race. Garcia is only 40, and has a bright future in electoral politics if he wants to stay in the game. It doesn't look as though redistricting will help much (the Republicans will control it), so 2010 seems as good a time as any. Georgia Democrats caught a nice break here when incumbent Sen. Johnny Isakson decided against a run for Governor in 2010, choosing instead to run for reelection. Had Isakson run, he would very likely have won, and certainly would have been favored. With redistricting around the corner, and the Republicans in control of the Georgia legislature, the Governorship is a big prize for Democrats, perhaps bigger than the Senate seat. And a Senate vacancy may not have been that appetizing even if Isakson did leave his seat, as term-limited Gov. Sonny Perdue would have been positioned to run for Isakson's seat. Instead, while the battle against Isakson in the Senate will be somewhat tough, the Governor's race is wide open. For the Republicans, the front-runners are Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, Secretary of State Karen Handel, and perhaps a Congressman or two like Lynn Westmoreland. On the Democratic side, Gen. David Poythress (the former Secretary of State, Labor Commissioner, and Adjutant General) is already running. Potentially in the mix are Attorney General Thurbert Baker (one of the most prominent potential candidates), Congressman Jim Marshall (who also might run for Senate), and Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. Any of these folks could run, as could a few more - it's a wide open field. The biggest name of all is former Governor Roy Barnes, who has been polled (and does fairly well) against Oxendine and Cagle. The Senate race (against Isakson) ought to have more or less the same cast of characters, with the addition of Jim Martin (should he lose his current race against Saxby Chambliss), and wealthy Atlanta attorney Jim Butler. It's likely the open-seat Gov race will draw better Democratic talent, although both Baker and Jim Marshall have been competitive in polling. Marshall is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House (though he's pretty decent on labor). His seat is perennially endangered, and should be the most hotly contested House seat in Georgia in 2010. Should Marshall run for Senate or for Governor, expect to lose the seat. His partner in conservative-Dem land, Rep. John Barrow, also may be hunted, though his district is a lot more Dem-friendly than Marshall's - Kerry won it. Hawai'i There are two big questions here:

1. Will venerated Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye retire, enabling Republican Gov. Linda Lingle to run for the Seat?

2. What Democrat will attempt to succeed the term-limited Lingle as Governor?

The hot Democratic names for the Gov race are those of Representatives Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono (the former Lieutenant Governor), Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, and State Senator Colleen Hanabusa. If Abercrombie or Hirono runs, you could see an interesting race for their Congressional seats (both of them safe for Democrats). For the Republicans, Lieutenant Governor James Aiona will presumably run, but the Democrat will be favored. If Inouye retires (indications are he won't, but you never know), expect the same cast of characters, plus former Rep. Ed Case (who is, suffice it to say, not exactly a progressive). Whoever is the nominee will have a crazy pitched battle against Lingle if she decides to run for Senate. She might run even if Inouye sticks around, but I suspect there's no beating the legendary Inouye in Hawaii. The Congressional races will depend on whether Hirono or Abercrombie runs for higher office. They're both all set if they stay put. Idaho Democratic freshman Rep.-elect Walt Minnick will be one of the most hunted Dems in the country after knocking off Bill Sali in an R+19 district this year. No Democrat holds a more Republican district than Minnick. Chances are good that senior Sen. Mike Crapo (it's pronounced "Cray-po", get your minds out of the gutter) will be perfectly safe, as will Governor Butch Otter. Idaho Democrats will likely focus exclusively on keeping Minnick in office, and for good reason. Illinois Ugh. No one knows what to expect here, because no one has any idea what Governor Rod Blagojevich will do to replace former Senator and now President-elect Barack Obama. The list of possible names is a mile long: Reps. Jesse Jackson, Jan Schakowsky, Danny Davis and Luis Gutierrez, VA Secretary Tammy Duckworth, Congressional candidate Dan Seals, Comptroller Dan Hynes, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, Senate President Emil Jones, and a partridge in a pear tree. Blagojevich being Blagojevich, he could also appoint a trained dolphin, and it would surprise no one. He also seems to think he has a shot at being reelected. Personally I don't think that's true, but he's going to try, anyway. Hynes, Madigan, and State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias are expected to take a crack at him in the primary. So who runs on the other side? Reps. Mark Kirk and Peter Roskam seem to be fairly well positioned for runs for Governor or Senate, Kirk especially. Uh, the rest of the Republican bench in Illinois is kind of thin. You never know when a previously little-known state senator proves to be a great candidate for statewide office - Kay Hagan was such a one in 2008 for the Democrats - but it sure looks like Kirk or bust for the Illinois GOP. At the House level, the GOP may take a crack at freshman Debbie Halvorson (IL-11) or third-termer Melissa Bean (IL-08). Meanwhile, the Democrats will jump all over the open seat in IL-10 (Mark Kirk) if Kirk does run for higher office. Indiana If Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh runs for a third term - and as yet, there's no indication he won't - he's a virtual lock to be reelected. Even if he didn't (suppose he got some appointment in the Obama administration), Dems would have a decent chance of keeping the seat with someone like Rep. Baron Hill. Speaking of Hill, the Republicans may just put up former Rep. Mike Sodrel again to run against him (for their fifth matchup). He doesn't seem to have much else to do. Republican Mark Souder has had two tough challenges in a row, putting up 54% in 2006 and 55% in 2008. He'd be out of a job if his district weren't so overwhelmingly Republican. All the other Republicans should be favored to win reelection. Barring a retirement, don't expect much action in Indiana at the House level. Iowa It's possible that incumbent Republican Sen. Charles Grassley could get his first serious opposition in years. He had been considered pretty safe, but following a big win in Iowa, Democrats smell blood. Former Governor Tom Vilsack could take him on, as could second-term Rep. Bruce Braley or Lt. Gov. Patty Judge. Alternatively, Grassley might retire, a scenario which could lead Republican Rep. Tom Latham - who holds a slightly Democratic-leaning district - to run for the seat. Democratic Governor Chet Culver appears well positioned for reelection, though that will depend largely on the quality of his opposition. Kansas Incumbent Republican Sen. Sam Brownback is retiring, and Rep. Jerry Moran is already running to replace him. He'll likely be joined by Rep. Todd Tiahrt. Term-limited Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, should she be available and inclined, would be the strongest Democrat in the field by far if she decided to run. There's a huge dropoff after that. Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson is likely to run to replace her as Governor, while former Rep. Nancy Boyda would be best served running for her old seat. Suffice it to say that we don't have a great bench in Kansas.

• The U.S. Senate could intervene in the Minnesota election. "Ultimately, the Senate has complete authority to determine who was elected," Washington University political scientist Steven Smith told the broadcaster, citing the canvassing board's decision this week to disallow disputed absentee ballots that Franken had urged be counted. The board's move was "a cause for great concern," Reid said this week, and those comments may indicate his willingness to start a Senate investigation of the Minnesota recount, Smith said. And if so, it's possible that Franken's argument regarding rejected absentee ballots could be reconsidered by U.S. senators. Under the constitution, the Senate is the final arbiter of its membership, MPR noted.
• A U.S. interrogator speaks out about interrogation methods used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The Department of Defense is increasingly concerned about cyber warfare after combat zone computer networks were recently hacked.
Reporting from Washington -- Senior military leaders took the exceptional step of briefing President Bush this week on a severe and widespread electronic attack on Defense Department computers that may have originated in Russia -- an incursion that posed unusual concern among commanders and raised potential implications for national security. Defense officials would not describe the extent of damage inflicted on military networks. But they said that the attack struck hard at networks within U.S. Central Command, the headquarters that oversees U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and affected computers in combat zones. The attack also penetrated at least one highly protected classified network. Military computers are regularly beset by outside hackers, computer viruses and worms. But defense officials said the most recent attack involved an intrusive piece of malicious software, or "malware," apparently designed specifically to target military networks.
• Arkansas has experienced five earthquakes this month and scientists are beginning to ask whether there might be a previously unknown fault line in the region.  Scientists caution the smaller quakes could be a precursor for a larger quake.

This is a good day to reflect and look back (there's a winter advisory here in CT), as we move into the holidays and look to January 20th and beyond (is Bush still here? Damn.) One of the hot topics of this election, and a perplexing one, was poll performance as a reflection of where the electorate's head was at. We know the polls did well, at least the final polls. From pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal: How did the polls do last week? Quite well. While we worried about the many challenges, the telephone survey again defied the odds and delivered mostly accurate results. We know that Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com and the algorithm at pollster.com, our go-to sites, performed well, as did our own R2K poll. For example, as of now the provisional popular vote is Obama 52.7 McCain 45.9, with more to count): For this post, however, I'm going to concentrate on the pollster.com graph, because an ongoing discussion thoughout the latter part of September through election day was "Why aren't the pollsters all saying the same thing?". It's a tough thing to accept some degree of uncertainty. If we have 95% confidence, that means that one out of every 20 polls might be a bit of an outlier. That's why we've gravitated to the polling aggregate sites (and learned to look at trends within a poll.) But at the same time, we can't hold snap elections in September and October to check our polling assumptions. So how does this compare to previous elections? What's the norm? In mid-October, pollster David Moore addressed this in a post entitled Different Polls, Different Trends, in which he pointed out an observation from 2004: All the results were well within the polls' margins of errors in comparison with the actual election results. However, the interesting point is that during the month of September, these very same polls showed dramatically different dynamics. As shown in the next graph, there were three basic stories: ABC, Gallup, Time and ABC all showed Bush gaining momentum in the weeks following the Republican National Convention, and then falling toward the end of the month. Furthermore, although these pollsters all agreed with the general pattern, at the end of the month Gallup showed Bush with an 8-point lead, CBS and Time had him at one point, and ABC at 6 points. The second story, reported by Fox, Zogby and TIPP, showed very little movement over the month of September, with the margin varying from a Kerry lead of one point to a Bush lead of three points. Finally, Pew had its own dynamic, not found by any of the other polls, showing a significant surge for Bush after the convention, followed by a dramatic decline, then another significant surge. Now we have data from AP to support the idea that in 2008 it wasn't so much the polls missing what the voters thought, it was that many of the voters couldn't decide. Inch by inch, voter by voter, Barack Obama and John McCain labored for more than a year to lock down supporters and woo defectors. It turns out, though, that the nation's voters were a lot more fickle than commonly expected, and far more prone to switch allegiances. An Associated Press-Yahoo News poll that tracked the same group of about 2,000 adults throughout the long campaign reveals a lively churning beneath the surface as people shifted their loyalties — some more than once. More about voter behavior: Those abandoning one candidate were often canceled out by others gravitating to him, resulting in little net change in the candidates' overall support. Yet the frenetic, beneath-the-radar movement helps explain why the two political parties spent hundreds of millions of dollars this year. They needed to constantly woo new supporters while keeping those they thought they already had from defecting. Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard University political scientist who has studied voting behavior, said such movement has been especially pronounced lately. He cited Republican defections because of unhappiness with President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq, uncertainty over which party could best address the economic meltdown and this year's influx of young and other first-time voters. Now, if you're a fan of labels, you can look here (from Pew) about who calls themselves what. Democrats, on balance, describe themselves as either liberal (34%) or moderate (37%) and the proportion labelling themselves as liberal has risen in recent years. Republicans, on the other hand, are not only largely conservative (68%) but, as their share of the electorate has declined somewhat, a higher proportion now say they are conservative than in the past. The ideological balance has been more stable among independents. But don't get carried away by labels. Many voters prefer the term "progressive" (Rasmussen) and, in any case, the label doesn't always reflect policy (Pew): Yet, even within ideological groups there are disagreements over major issues. Liberals are divided in their views of offshore drilling -- 49% favor and 48% oppose allowing more oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters as a way to address America's energy needs. Conservatives are about equally split when it comes to the U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens. Half of those who describe their political views as conservative favor government-backed insurance even if it means raising taxes, while 47% oppose it. All of that is important in the context of deciding whether or not this really was 1932 and a realignment, or merely 1980 and a late-deciding "throw the bums out". From the WaPo, a story entitled Pollsters Debate America's Political Realignment: Conservative analysts have insisted that although the Democrats achieved a sweeping victory, it does not indicate a fundamental change. "America is still a center-right country," as Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio, the House Republican leader, insisted soon after the votes were counted. Liberals call that argument nonsense. The election, wrote John B. Judis in the New Republic, heralds the arrival of "America the liberal," provided that the Democrats play their strong new hand effectively. This election was "the culmination of a Democratic realignment that began in the 1990s, was delayed by September 11, and resumed with the 2006 election." It's very likely the voters haven't decided, either. The potential is there, especially with younger voters who this year rejected Republicanism, giving Obama a historic 34 point advantage (usually the 18-29 year olds vote similarly or off by a few points relative to everyone else, but certainly gains were made across all age groups.) But deciding those things before Obama is even President yet still seems a bit premature. After all, fighting over the independent voter never goes out of style, and this year, that's the segment of the voter pool that really grew. But any way you slice it, this remains an across-the board Dem-leaning electorate right now, with the middle (whatever it is defined as) reasserting itself. First, the middle asserted itself. This was not a base election. Independents broke decisively for Obama, favoring him by a 52%-to-44% margin over John McCain. Obama also won an overwhelming 60% of self-identified moderates. By comparison, John Kerry carried 49% of independents and 54% of moderates four years ago. Second, the political landscape shifted, mirroring pre-election polls that have shown increased Democratic party-affiliation since early 2006. While in 2004 the electorate was equally split along partisan lines, this year it was dramatically more Democratic (39% Democratic vs. 32% Republican). Claims of this being a center-right country are nonsense. Policy-wise, we are a moderate-pragmatic nation. The trick is going to be to stay there, given that the middle is a moving target.

John McCain pieced together just 173 electoral votes this year. That's the 8th-worst showing by a Republican since 1916. (Interestingly, all seven weaker GOP showings came at the hands of just three men: FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton.) To win in 2012, the GOP needs to get to 270, of course, so they've got to scrape together another 97 EVs. How likely is this? (Sidebar: Why 1916? In 1912, the electoral college expanded to 531 votes, which is close enough to today's 538 to make pure EV comparisons meaningful. In 1908, by contrast, there were just 483 EVs. Also around and shortly after 1916, you had the realignment of the two major parties, the extension of the franchise to women, and the direct election of senators. In short, it's a decent benchmark to mark the start of the "modern" political era. Finally, the election of 1912 was a serious oddball, with the GOP coming in third.) Let's take a look at how often large jumps have happened in the past. The GOP has posted EV gains in excess of 97 six times since 1916: YearGOPEVsPriorElectionGain19524421892531968301522491980489240249197252030121919204042541502000271159112 Most of these big gains took place at moments of serious change. 1920: Harding's "return to normalcy." Had 3,000 votes in California gone the other way in 1916, Woodrow Wilson would have lost to Charles Hughes. A war-weary public and a damaging recession let Harding run against the unpopular Wilson (much like Obama "ran against Bush") and rack up the biggest popular-vote margin since 1820. 1952: Twenty years of Dem control of the White House ended. The incumbent president, Truman, was unpopular due to a seemingly intractable war in Korea and chose not to seek re-election as a result. The GOP candidate was the venerated Allied commander in WWII, Gen. Eisenhower. 1968: Another incumbent Dem mired in an even less popular war in Asia (LBJ) decided against running for another term. A badly fractured Democratic Party put forth a wounded, underfunded candidate (Humphrey) against the conniving Nixon, who knew how to exploit the fears and resentments brewing during a time of social upheaval. And hard not to improve on Goldwater's performance. 1972: A continuation of 1968 in many ways - the Democrats even more badly fractured, their candidate woefully unready and unappealing to many. Nixon, evil though he was, deserved credit for appearing on this list twice. 1980: Stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a Democratic president swept narrowly into office in the wake of Watergate (Carter) versus Nixon's heir. Carter's outsider status, a virtue on the campaign trail, also turned into a major liability once in DC, as few people owed him anything. 2000: The outlier on this list. Pundits and Ralph Nader succeeded in turning this into the "Seinfeld election" (ie, the "election about nothing"). Gore struggled to cast himself as the natural inheritor and steward of the Clinton legacy and Rove (again abetted by the media) cast Gore as a serial liar. And a much quieter conclusion to demographic realignment took place in states like TN and KY. However, Without those unearned Florida electoral votes, the gain would have only been 87 EVs - not enough for this list. Now, the 97-plus Democratic gains: YearDemEVsPriorElectionGain19324728738519762971728019923701112591960303732301964486303183200836525111419881111398 These elections are a bit more of a mix between the epochal and the prosaic. Also, in the prior elections, Dems took 111 or fewer EVs five times, something that only happened once for the GOP. 1932: The Great Depression. 'Nuff said. 1960: Perhaps the trickiest race on this list. At the very least, Adlai Stevenson's abysmal 1956 haul meant the odds favored a better performance by Kennedy. 1964: A wildly conservative, non-mainstream Republican candidate versus a pre-backlash LBJ, running in the wake of JFK's assassination. Despite the size of the victory, this election famously did not offer the Dems lasting gains but actually presaged a long period of decline. 1976: Watergate, the accidental presidency of Gerry Ford, and McGovern's unthinkably pitiful showing gave Carter lots of room for improvement. 1988: How sad is it that Michael Dukakis is on this list? It's only possible because Walter Mondale was ten times sadder. Dukakis is the only person on both lists to post a big gain but still lose - a classic dead-cat bounce. 1992: A bit tough to classify. Dukakis not only did poorly in 1988, he underperformed expectations badly. The dark recession of 1990-91 played a major role here, though. 2008: The most unpopular president in US history and the second-worst financial crisis in US history, not to mention an unpopular war and an alienating conservative GOP ticket. So a few pretty clear trends emerge. Most of these elections took place during or in the wake of unpopular wars or economic downturns, or both: 1920, 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2008. Two back-to-back races saw a political collapse on the part of each party: 1972, for complex reasons, and 1976, for much simpler ones. Some just involved improvements over craptacular prior performances, like 1960 or 1988 (but also including 1932, 1968 & 1976). One time, 1964, saw one party put forth a completely unacceptable candidate, at least for that particular moment in time. And as for the election of 2000... well, as Al Gore himself would say, sometimes, there's that little-known third category. As impressive as Nixon's consecutive gains were, in a way, George W. Bush's surge from Bob Dole's sucky performance might be the most remarkable of all. After eight years of peace and prosperity, he had to invent an amazing mythology in order to give voters a reason to change horses. It didn't really work, of course - Gore still won more votes. But thanks to an assist from the Supreme Court, he pulled it off. Anyhow, drilling down to the 2012 election, I don't think this past history offers the GOP a whole lot of hope. The war in Iraq darn well better be over by then, and we probably won't engage in another large-scale conflict. The Dems aren't about to implode or nominate someone unelectable. And McCain's haul wasn't so awful, ala McGovern or Mondale, that you simply have to expect a bounce. They already tried the 2000/2004 smear strategy this year, and that failed. I think it'll be a lot harder to try that on an incumbent. So that leaves the possibility of a major economic downturn. It's sadly possible that we won't be out of this mess in three years, but that seems hard to imagine. What I think is more likely (but hopefully not very likely) is that we recover and then relapse (think 1938). The pure odds would seem to favor the GOP - after all, 97-plus gains have happened 13 times in just 24 elections. But the background facts are very unfavorable, and that's without even looking at demographic nitty-gritty of the blue states which might be winnable in 2012 for Republicans. That, however, can wait for another day. UPDATE: Several commenters make a good point that, thanks to reapportionment after the 2010 census, the number of electoral votes in states won by Obama is slated to decrease, while the converse is true in states won by McCain. According to one analysis by Polidata (PDF) the 2008 blue states will shed 7 EVs and the red states will gain 7 EVs. So if we use 2008 as the baseline, the Republican hurdle is actually more like 83 EVs instead of 97 EVs. As I recall, this only winds up capturing one more election, Truman vs. Dewey in 1948, where it's easy to understand why Dewey, after four consecutive Dem wins, was able to improve over 1944.

Ten months ago, we wrote this piece because we were concerned about what might be coming down the road. Like hurricanes and pandemics, recessions are inevitable, and preparing for them makes more sense than ignoring them. But how to prepare? Well, knowledge is always relevant. In an attempt to get a better feel for what might happen, we asked What's The Effect Of Recession On The Health Care Safety Net?: That's a question worth mulling over. We know the safety net, though poorly understood, appears stable. Yet we know that even before the recession hits (or hit, as we might be there already) the net is threatened, and we know everyone, including the voters, are talking about the economy. But is there anything out there that helps us get a better feel for what's likely to happen? We can guess that recessions trigger unemployment, which makes it hard to keep health insurance, but do we go back to the way it was afterwards? How long does it take? And what happens to the safety net in the meantime? In other words, is there any data or are we just guessing? Here's what else we wrote: The most vulnerable remain the most vulnerable. And, here's where SCHIP can help (.pdf) by mitigating the effects on children of lost health insurance. SCHIP also served as a safety net for low-income children during the 2000 recession and beyond, when many families lost employer-sponsored coverage. Although children and nonelderly adults experienced similar losses of private coverage between 2000 and 2003, earlier gains in children’s coverage were sustained through continued growth in public coverage, largely attributable to SCHIP. We could have passed SCHIP improvements, but they were vetoed by Bush and overridden in the Senate but not the House. More of what we wrote: So, loss of employment begats loss of insurance which begats loss of health care, in an environment which makes the states less able to pay for the safety net. Those state funds that help fund local safety nets become ever more threatened by recession. Local clinics, local hospitals and local public health services are all at risk when state funds dry up.There's nothing about the data review that suggests good news; if anything, the recession effects appear likely to be felt for years after the Bush recession is over. In addition, for-profit safety net additions like walk-in clinics are untested and uncertain to survive recession. Not just walk-in clinics, but hospitals and ERs are threatened as well. Well, that was then and this is now. So where are we in all of this? Unsurprisingly, just where we thought we'd be. As families slide into poverty, Medicaid and SCHIP pick up the slack... for now Using U.S. Census Bureau data reflecting the three-year period 2005-2007, [FamiliesUSA] the non-partisan organization representing healthcare consumers has revealed that about half a million children gained health insurance between 2006 and 2007. At the same time, the number of children living in poverty increased by 500,000 to 13.3 million. This safety net is being stretched and might well break, however, because states do not have unlimited funds and cannot (most of them) run a deficit. The non-partisan FamiliesUSA sums it up with this November 2008 study: 8.6 Million Children Are Uninsured

• One in nine American children (11.1 percent) is uninsured.
• The five states with the largest number of uninsured children are Texas, California, Florida, New York, and Georgia. Together, the uninsured children in these five states account for nearly half of all uninsured children in the country (48.3 percent).
• The five states with the highest rates of uninsured children are Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. More than 15 percent of children in each of these states are uninsured, compared to a national median of 9.2 percent.

Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Are Picking up the Slack

• Between 2006 and 2007, the number of uninsured children declined by 521,000.
• The number of children covered by private health coverage declined by 65,000.
• The number of children covered in Medicaid and CHIP increased by 954,000.

FamiliesUSA also found the majority of uninsured children come from working families with two-parent households, so another myth goes out the window. This isn't class warfare, this is everyone. Remember, this is just the beginning. Covering kids through Medicaid and SCHIP will temporarily help kids (but not adults), and mask what's really happening as people lose insurance and can't get it back (that takes at least two years after a recession). When states start to hurt, eligibility will be cut back and/or new enrollment will be limited at the state level. Even were it not for a recession, reforms in health care are badly needed. From TIME: By too many measures, America is a lot less healthy than a developed nation has any business being. This Trust For America's Health report from October, 2008 focuses on better ways to spend health dollars: Even though the United States spends more than $2 trillion annually on health care, tens of millions of Americans suffer from preventable diseases and major vulnerabilities exist in the nation's preparedness to respond to health emergencies. If there's any doubt as to why health reform is at the top of the new Obama Administration's agenda, these numbers should put that to rest. A health disaster is staring us in the face, and "status quo" is far more tenuous than it appears. Covering the kids, important as it is, is only a piece of the puzzle. The safety net is doing its job, but it can't do everything for everyone and can't do more with less. A weakened traditional health system (that's where we start, and recession will weaken it further), and an ignored public health system is a recipe for disaster. Let's hope a year from now, we're not writing the same thing again.

President Elect Obama wasn't alone in seeing the economic collapse as a final judgment on the effectiveness of conservative fiscal policies. The idea that the personal greed of executives, the profit motive of corporations, and the overall health of society are directly correlated, has been so discredited that the few market fundamentalists still humming this mantra should worry less about being shouted down, and more about being hauled off to a rubber room. The utter failure of the unrestrained free market and it's trickle-down cousin is so evident that even such high priests as Alan Greenspan have been forced to admit that they were mistaken about very basic aspects of their religion. But even with the core ideas of conservative economics in tatters, there's a shadow that lingers over the discussion of where the nation goes from here. After decades of indoctrination into the cult of selfishness, it's become so deeply ingrained that even in the midst of definitive failure, we still treat the tenets of conservatism as if they're givens. We're still so thoroughly in the conservative mindset, that we constantly posit (with a straight face) propositions like "well, now that the economy is bad, we may not be able to make all the environmental improvements we wanted." Conservatives, from the moment the economy started to skid, started mouthing this as a bedrock Fact. In fact, they looked to this idea with some obvious relief. Sure, our stock options may be worthless, but hell, at least nobody will try and rescue those polar bears. We can thank God for that. There's no dark cloud from which Republicans can't produce a still darker, sootier lining. But conservatives weren't alone in these statements.  Sure, you had Texas Governor Rick Perry arguing that regulating greenhouse gases as pollutants would wreck the Texas economy by blocking the scores of new coal burning power plants slated for the Lone Star State. But you also had John Kerry talking about how the economy would constrain the Obama administration from improving emission rules, and a broad cross-section of the world's nations – the same nations who signed off on Kyoto -- retreating from environmental rules in the face of the economic difficulty. The headline on reporter Alister Doyle's article for Reuters says it succinctly: Economy offers excuse to avoid climate fight To some extent, this retreat from change comes from the simple momentum. Without the incentive of high fossil fuel prices, the easiest thing to do is... nothing. With all the dollar signs (and Euro signs, and Yen, Yuan, and Tugrik signs for that matter) all pointed down, every government's primary thought on the environment Is simply not now. Gas prices are the one good thing about smashing the economy, so not now. Not now, when we already have so much to deal with. Please, will not someone rid me of these bothersome environmentalists? The answer to that question is "no." Or at least, let's hope not. Because at the heart of the "now the economy is wrecked, with need to go slow on environmental regulation" argument are two simple ideas. First, that the economy should be our primary concern, and second that protecting the environment is expensive. Which is quite possibly the most idiotic construction since the float/sink test for witches. Here, let's do a quick mental experiment. Suppose you live in a giant floating ship. Not just you, but everyone you know or have ever known lives in this pearl-white ship with its sails of glowing gossamer and its railings of gleaming crystal. All your life this ship has been racing across a barren landscape, heading toward some vaguely defined, but surely glorious destination. And as you breeze past craggy peaks and scorched deserts you, along with everyone else on board, practices their wrestling. This isn't just wrestling, you understand. It's wrestling refined into an art as subtle as a noh play, as vigorous as mountain climbing. It's both the entertainment and the religion of those on board the floating ship. The champions of this sport are idolized. The many matches that take place each day are scrutinized to the last drop of sweat, the schedules for the next day are examined and weighed. The rules are not just written in the ancient pages of the Holy Rule Book, they're engraved on the souls of every passenger. Then one day, someone – to tell the truth, a low-ranking woman child, a laughably scrawny yellow-robe who shows no flair for fingerwork nor skill in foot placement – notices that there is a problem with the great ship. The crystal rails are riddled with cracks. The polished decks are wearing thin. Even the great flying kilu birds who drag the ship through the sky show signs of illness.  A few people show concern when she spreads this news, but then we are nearing the season of the Grand Tournament, and there's so much to do.   Yellow-robe just won't let it go. The ship has sailed the skies on its endless quest for centuries, for millennia, for generations uncounted. Why has no one noticed these problems before, she asks? The stick-thin girl keeps examining the damage, keeps looking for answers. Then one day, when everyone is gathered to watch one of the most anticipated matches of the year, she stands up and shouts her conclusions. Wrestling, she says, is destroying the ship. As the crowd looks at her in astonishment, she explains that though wrestling itself is certainly almost as ancient as the ship, in recent years people have tended toward more violent forms of struggle. In hurling each other against the railings, the crystal rails have been damaged. In scuffling over the boards, the decks of the ship have been warped. The actions of the wrestlers have been so boisterous  that they have even set the ship to rocking, injuring the kilu in the process. Unless the wrestlers calm down, there is every chance the great ship could be seriously harmed. Though there's a great reluctance to believe yellow-robe, gradually she is able to win converts by showing them the same evidence she has followed. There are still many who believe that the ship has merely been damaged by the passage of time, or by strong winds, or even that the damage has always been there and yellow-robe is completely mistaken. There are still more who believe her, but who can't imagine any change to the sport they love. Even so, there are proposals put forward  that would constrain the actions of the wrestlers. All of which sets up a howl of protest from the purists. Yes, they say, our wrestlers are more active than those in the past, but that is because they have studied more, worked harder, and practiced long hours. The very things yellow-robe is pointing to are simply signs of growth. In the midst of this difficult discussion, another crisis erupts. One of the greatest heroes of the sport, a cyan robe of the finest quality, has been found guilty of cheating. Soon it becomes clear that corruption has spread among many of the top competitors and among their judges. People turn away in disgust. The stands that once thronged with spectators are all but empty. The whole sport, the very definition of their culture, is on the brink of failure. Yellow-robe comes to the captain and his officers. "The ship is in great danger," she says. "We need to make changes now, while we can." The captain looks on the young woman with kindness, but slowly shakes his head. "We can not risk it," he says. "We must first restore the reputation of the sport before we can entertain changing the rules. Wait until the tournament is restored to its glory, then we will talk." Yellow-robe leaves the captain's quarters sadly, the worn decks groaning under her slight weight. The people of the flying ship are making two clear errors. They are valuing the game they play above the very vessel on which their life depends, and they are assuming that the same rules and system that led them into a crisis are the only ones that can lead them out. Sound familiar? More than thirty years ago, when the first iteration of the Clean Air Act was under consideration, the industries involved predicted disaster. The cost of electricity would soar to such levels that the average family would "freeze in the dark." Utilities would be forced out of business. Unemployment and economic collapse would follow. What actually happened? The cost of electricity actually fell as the rules went into effect. We met the new obligations for a tiny fraction of the predicted costs while improving health, aiding the environment, and advancing technology. The "costs" of tackling environmental protection are being generated from the same industries that have the most to gain by holding onto the status quo and by the economists who assured us that the credit default swap was a brilliant idea. For decades, conservatives have been pushing the idea that the environment and the economy are at opposite ends of the line. You can't help one without hurting the other. Says who? We couldn't sign Kyoto, because it would hurt the economy. Well here's news, we didn't sign, and the economy failed.  We couldn't place tough requirements on our cars to protect the auto industry. We didn't, and the industry has been dragged to the brink of collapse. We couldn't restrict mountaintop removal mining, because it would cost us jobs.  We expanded this form of mining at a record pace, and mining jobs evaporated. We had to open up the national parks to being drilled, chopped, and mined, because the economy needed it. We did all that, we did everything the purists asked, so where are our super duper trillion dollar economic boom times? We've just experienced the most environmentally abusive administration since the word "ecology" was coined, aided for most of those years by a Republican-dominated congress all too eager to set fire to every environmental rule ever concocted. Even as they head for the door, the Bush administration is still intent on gutting the Clean Air Act, expanding mountaintop removal, breaking the Endangered Species Act, and opening more public lands to destruction. None of which has done a damn thing to help the economy. Republican tactics have both wrecked the ship and ruined the game, and we're still buying into it. The economic crisis is not a reason to back off from daring changes in environmental regulations. This is the time to demand a fundamentally new game. In the United States, some business groups are calling on President-elect Barack Obama to move cautiously in tackling global warming, saying that a too aggressive response could prolong the economic downturn and cost jobs. But a growing chorus of other businesses, environmentalists, and politicians are calling for a green-based economic recovery. ... Such a Green New Deal, woven into the economic stimulus package being crafted for early next year, could create millions of government-subsidized jobs and build a new energy infrastructure. Those who brought on the economic collapse now want to use it as an excuse to perpetuate the same policies that got us to this point. To this end they present numbers suggesting enormous costs for making changes and dire threats of storms ahead. However, they're writing these warnings on the back of a sheaf of failed predictions. We can keep listening to them, or we can toss this last bastion of conservative economics onto the same toxic scrapheap with the rest of their disastrous ideas.

Sundays are a great day to abbreviate. Tom Friedman: If Iraq can keep improving — still uncertain — and become a place where Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites can write their own social contract and live together with a modicum of stability, it could one day become a strategic asset for the United States in the post-9/11 effort to promote different politics in the Arab-Muslim world. But even if it does, I was still wrong enough about Iraq that it would be despite what I've said, and not because of it. Maureen Dowd: Maybe I, too, can be outsourced. It's just a matter of time. Hugh Bailey: "The people have spoken," read a recent letter to the editor. "It's too bad we in Connecticut never had that same opportunity to protect our families." The writer was talking about California's Election Day passage of Proposition 8, which changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Connecticut is now one of two states where same-sex couples can legally marry. What the writer leaves unsaid is what we're supposed to be protecting our families from. Being gay? People either are or they aren't, and I can't imagine anyone thinks passing a law is going to change that. Richard Reeves: I'm sure there are legions of Obama supporters and voters gritting their teeth at his decision to offer Hillary Clinton appointment as secretary of state. A short memory and inclination toward compromise may not be weakness but a sign of security and strength, something badly needed in Washington these days. Amity Schlaes: Since I'm the hot topic in New Deal revisionism, let me take on Krugman. He's wrong, I'm right. Why does all this matter today? Because lawmakers are considering new labor legislation containing "card check," which would strengthen organized labor and so its wage demands. Because employees continue to pressure firms to spend on health care, without considering they may be making the company unable to hire an unemployed friend. Piling on public-sector jobs or raising wages may take away jobs in the private sector, directly or indirectly. And anyone who says otherwise is contributing to the next Depression. Peggy Noonan: Mr. Obama's cabinet picks and other nominations suggest moderation, also maturity, and his treatment of Joe Lieberman shows forbearance and shrewdness. Politics is a game of addition, take the long view, don't throw anyone out as you try to hit 60. Most of all, leave Mr. Lieberman having to prove every day to the Democratic caucus that he really is a Democrat. Gov. Mark Sanford: People usually think more about what went right and what went wrong after a loss than after a victory. Accordingly, Republicans will have a lot of thinking time over the holidays.

I'd like to begin this edition of Sunday Talk by giving thanks to the hosts who came before me — Al Rodgers, Newsie8200, and Sam Loomis. Thanks. Now that that's taken care of, I want to say one word to you... just one word* — Plastics. *There are actually several more words (and some audio/visuals) below the fold.

This evening's Rescue Rangers are jlms qkw, grog, dadanation, srkp23, and sunspark says, with watercarrier4diogenes at the editor's desk Tonight's diaries cover a variety of interesting issues not covered by the 'traditional media' (tm Kos) with the kind of research, perspective and analysis we see here every day.

• In a beautiful and provocative diary, patrickz ponders the future of humanity and postulates A Lonely Universe Without Us. (sunspark says)
• JohnnyRook keeps us informed in Climaticide Update: A Message from Africa. (jlms qkw)
• DancinMan makes use of psychologist Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" to analyze the angry response to the bailout in Primary vs. Secondary Economic Activities. (srkp23)
• Candidate's wife Ellinorianne gives us some diary therapy this holiday weekend in Blogger's Block - Diary Idea Exchange with POLL. (jlms qkw)
• mole333 gives us a fascinating history lesson via a thorough Book Review: Japanese/American Conservative Corruption. (srkp23)
• Veterans, PTSD, shame, and some possible solutions make up the subject matter of goldkeyrealty's "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet!" (dadanation)
• Tom J reports on a heartbreaking injustice and wonders how the Obama administration might modify U.S. policies toward Israel in Evicted from home of 52 years, newly homeless man dies. (srkp23)
• In a very long, well argued, and personal diary, SERMCAP argues that the so-called "war on drugs" is actually A War Against the Planet's Inhabitants. (sunspark says)
• NYT Op-Ed: Charles Blow blames it on the "Down Low" provides Deoliver47 an opportunity to disentangle fact from fiction regarding one of the most unhelpful and inaccurate pieces of conventional wisdom regarding the passage of Prop 8 in California. (dadanation)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - November 28, 2008 and brillig has Top Comments- 11/29/08 Saturday Special Edition. Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

Michael Calderone: In Michael Wolff’s forthcoming biography of Rupert Murdoch, "The Man Who Owns The News," the author writes that the media mogul has seemed to turn away lately from his cable news network, and isn’t fond its top-rated personality, Bill O’Reilly. "It is not just Murdoch (and everybody else at News Corp.’s highest levels) who absolutely despises Bill O’Reilly, the bullying, mean-spirited, and hugely successful evening commentator," Wolff wrote, "but [Fox News chief executive] Roger Ailes himself who loathes him. Success, however, has cemented everyone to each other." "The embarrassment can no longer be missed," Wolff wrote, in another section of the book. "He mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it. He barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly. And while it is not that he would give Fox up—because the money is the money; success trumps all—in the larger sense of who he is, he seems to want to hedge his bets." Of course, if Wolff's account is true, then Murdoch (and Ailes) are missing the point. FOX's problem is not O'Reily's boorish behavior...it's not even the drama of his off-set lifestyle. FOX's problem is that it has defined itself as the delivery vehicle for GOP talking points and propaganda. That's why the network has no credibility, and the men responsible for that are Murdoch and Ailes, no matter how hard they may try throw Bill O'Reilly under the bus their failures.

A blue collar man came home from a long day’s work to find his idealistic daughter had dropped in while doing some local community organizing. Like so many others in his income bracket, he considered himself to be a God fearing conservative, and along with most conservatives, was very, very much against income and capital gains taxes, especially on the rich. But today he was deeply worried about the economic future of his naive, liberal daughter and his two grandchildren. Based on stories his parents told him about the Great Depression, his own shallow prejudice, and selected morsels of misinformation fed to him by right-wing talk radio, he decided to confront her right there and then for her own good. He started by calmly and politely pointing out that Barack Obama was a Muslim, not a US citizen, and the President-elect was going to raise taxes on millionaires and force government funded abortions on everyone -- even the men. Before the girl had a chance to respond to her father's breathtaking ignorance, he muttered something about unions being responsible and trailed off. The girl, sensing something more was going on, asked him instead about his own job. A bit taken aback, the man admitted it was lousy.  Truth be told, he was slowly falling behind on his bills. And yet he knew was relatively fortunate: Half the plant had already been laid off when their jobs were outsourced to cheaper overseas labor. The managers had run the company into the ground even as they awarded themselves lavish bonuses, while the remaining unskilled workforce was slowly let go one by one for what sounded like trumped up reasons, merely to save the company from paying any unemployment in the man's Right to Work state. The man rarely missed a day of work in ten years, he had excellent employee reviews, and sometimes he even clocked out and worked for hours with no pay. But as a senior employee making more than newer ones, he was worried his job might be next. And if he lost his income and healthcare at the same time, years before Medicare or Social Security kicked in, his diabetic wife could go blind and the family might lose their home. The girl said "Wow, that is awful. Well, too bad you’d turn down a million dollar raise.. " The man shot back in surprise, "Why that’s crazy! I wouldn’t turn it down, I’d love it!" The daughter replied coyly, "but to be fair you’d end up with less than $ 700,000 a year after taxes." The man laughed and said with more than a trace of patronizing contempt, "That's almost twenty times what I make now! I wouldn't complain a bit!" Then the daughter slowly smiled, winked, and softly said, "Welcome to the Democratic Party, dad."