One example of a Republican candidate tying Pelosi (and Hillary and Dean) to his opponent is here in North Carolina, where 11th District Rep. Charles Taylor is defending his seat against former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler. This particular ad has the look of desperation, however. Shuler has led polls for a while now and most pundits have the race at least "leaning" Democrat.
The Spectacle Blog
According to exit polls, President Bush received 84 percent of the conservative vote in 2004. A new NY Times/CBS News poll finds that just 59 percent of self-described conservatives plan to vote for the Republican House candidate in Tuesday's elections, with 25 percent saying they would be voting Democratic and 16 percent undecided. It's hard to know how seriously to take these results. For instance, perhaps some conservatives simply say they'll vote Democrat in a poll just because they're frustrated, even though when push comes to shove, they'll vote Republican. But this could also be a sign that the much-publicized disenchantment among conservatives will indeed hurt the GOP.
When I was with Georgia Family Council in the first years of the millennium, we spent a lot of time trying to show people the value of marriage and the intact family as social institutions. In other words, marriage is better than divorce. Marriage is better than living together. Having children with both parents present is superior to the alternatives. There is a strong statistical case to be made for all of the above.
I'm happy to report that more influential persons seem to be picking up the case in Georgia. Check out this excerpt from a Washington Post column by Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears:
Paul, I think the strategy of running against Nancy Pelosi, and by extension,
Regarding the panel I mentioned below, it's also worth noting some of the comments made by John Fortier, author of Absentee and Early Voting: Trends, Promises, and Perils, who discussed the evolution of the trend of so-called "convenience voting." Up until the late 1970s/early 1980s, a voter had to either be in the military or give an otherwise compelling reason to vote by absentee ballot. In addition, absentee voters had to have a notary public watch them fill out the ballot and sign on to it. But those restrictions went away and in the 1980s absentee voting became more about convenience. The convenience voting trend grew in the 1990s with the expansion of early voting. In 1980, 5 percent of the public voted before Election Day, but in 2004, about 25 percent did. In Oregon, everybody votes by mail because the state did away with polling places altogether. Some voters send their ballots in as early as September, meaning that they miss out on a significant amount of election news, including candidate debates. Also, according to Fortier, there's no evidence that convenience voting boosts turnout.
Two interesting things in Howard Kurtz today. He agrees with Power Line's John Hinderaker's "fault[ing] The Washington Post for not front-paging" the Kerry stuck-in-Iraq story. (Not that Kurtz's clout at the Washington Post could compel it to run the bias-testing "Halp Us Jon Carry" photo in today's edition.)
In the late seventies, Rep. Al Gore Jr. was the leader in pushing for the elimination of any kind of buy/sell market in the United States for human body parts. While there are obviously two sides to this ethical question, it is also obvious that many people have died in the last 40 years who would have lived with a purchased kidney, etc.
Now - in 2006 - Tennessee has an embrionic stem cell measure that will empower women to sell their eggs for research. Who - other than the economically least fortunate - will participate in this?
So - does Al Gore support the embrionic stem cell initiative in his home state?
Robert Kagan has a thoughtful piece in today's Washington Post arguing that whether or not Democrats win, the U.S. probably won't withdraw from Iraq or back off from international entanglements in general. Among the points he makes:
Indeed, the preferred European scenario -- "Bush hobbled" -- is less likely than the alternative: "Bush unbound." Neither the president nor his vice president is running for office in 2008. That is what usually prevents high-stakes foreign policy moves in the last two years of a president's term.
I have always taken that into account when considering whether or not the U.S. would take military action against Iran. Under the circumstances that Kagan lays out, it's possible that with nothing to lose in 2008, President Bush would authorize air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.