A Look Behind The Curtain

The Washington Post has an article explaining some of the moves and counter moves that are made in the background of political campaigns. They make it sound bad for the Republicans and better for the Democrats, but put that completely aside for a moment and read some of the details of the planning and calculation that goes on behind the curtain.

Lapp and Forti make dozens of decisions like these every day, and the outcomes will only grow in importance during this final full week of the 2006 campaign. Betting right could well decide who controls the House after the Nov. 7 midterm elections, and by how many seats, according to strategists in both parties.

Forti and Lapp run the independent expenditure arms of their parties' campaign committees, the place where many of the negative ads that voters are seeing are financed, produced and strategically placed on television stations across the country. In the final days of the campaign, they will easily outspend the candidates themselves in many of the most competitive House races. They will decide the final images that many voters see in this campaign. Warning for the fainthearted: Most of the ads will be dark and accusatory.

One bad call could make or break a House race, officials in both parties said. There is no precise formula for determining the smartest choices. There are only polls, historical trends, anecdotal evidence and instinct, all of which can be flawed. Operatives in both parties described the process by which these decisions are made, in most cases on the condition that they not be quoted by name.

At the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, where Lapp works, officials are more confident than ever that they will gain a minimum of 18 seats, three more than they need for a majority, and possibly more than 40 if they catch a bunch of breaks in the remaining nine days. Expectations have evolved from simply winning a majority to setting the stage for a blowout.

The committee recently commissioned polls in almost 20 "bubble districts" that once looked difficult to win but now appear within reach. These include the open seat in Nevada's 2nd District and the one held by Rep. Gil Gutkneckt (R-Minn.). Lapp's team has polls showing Democrats close in all the races.

Now, how much of the story can you take as factual when it comes to judging who is ahead in this game? Consider for a moment: the article tells you there are head games and bluffs going on all the time, almost on a hourly basis. Why would this article and the statements they got from anonymous sources be any different? You should read the whole thing to see some of the thought processes.

The Write-Off Candidacy

I'd call this a sure sign that the national Democratic party has written off the Lamont candidacy in Connecticut. Senator Joseph Biden has told reporters that yes, he backs Lamont. But he will not campaign for him against Lieberman. Now Biden says that his decision is based on personal honor because Lieberman is a personal friend. That sounds good, certainly better than saying he thinks Lamont is toast. But that is also wonderful cover for a write-off.

U.S. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat and a leading critic of President Bush and the war in Iraq, on Friday backed Vernon Democrat Joseph D. Courtney in his rematch with U.S. Rep. Robert R. Simmons, R-2nd District.

Biden, who could become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should the Republicans lose their majority in next week's election, criticized Simmons' prescription for the war, calling it outdated and a proven failure.

Biden also said that while he was supporting his party's candidate for the Senate in Connecticut, Ned Lamont, he would not campaign against Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who is running as an independent following his defeat in the August primary.

Biden said Lieberman is a "close personal friend," that his son and Lieberman's son attended Yale together, and that his daughter-in-law was the matron of honor at Lieberman's son's wedding.

"It's a matter of personal honor," he said. "It's not possible for me to campaign against Joe Lieberman."

Despite All The Cheerleading

Despite all the cheering from the media, despite all the pre-mortems, despite the obituaries and strident voices out there there are a few people still trying to put the breaks on premature celebration or premature gloom. Oddly, one of those voices actually comes from the Associated Press. They warn that there is one hard, hard fact out there that makes the polls exceedingly iffy to rely on: the way the districts have been drawn.

WASHINGTON - Michigan's economy is in bad shape, one reason why the governor faces a tougher than expected re-election campaign this year. But good luck finding competitive races among the state's congressional delegation, even in the eight House districts that rank among the worst in the country in terms of declining income, rising poverty and surging unemployment.

If people truly voted their pocketbook, the lawmakers who represent those districts — four Democrats and four Republicans — ought to be nervous heading into the Nov. 7 elections. But seven of those incumbents are virtually assured of another term. The other lost a Republican primary in a safe GOP district.

So why the lack of competitive House races in a politically balanced state that ranks at or near the bottom in so many economic categories?

"The Republicans did a whale of a good gerrymandering job," says John R. Chamberlin, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The races in Michigan exemplify the power of political and racial gerrymandering, which can make some incumbents feel safe even in a campaign year soured by the Iraq war, corruption scandals and pockets of economic misery. The contests show how drawing congressional district lines to protect incumbents makes it even harder for Democrats to pick up the 15 seats they need to capture control of the House.

"It is in doubt because state and national polls assume that Democrats are spread evenly among congressional districts instead of being packed into a few districts," said pollster Ed Sarpolus of EPIC-MRA in Lansing, Mich.

Republicans controlled the process of drawing new congressional lines in most states following the 2000 census, and they did a good packing Democrats into as few districts as possible, Sarpolus said. The GOP refers to it as their "firewall" against losing the majority.

Now there has always been gerrymandering, so I am not really surprised. But this fact alone makes polling darn near impossible for the national polling companies, so those much ballyhooed poll results are likely even less reliable than they have been in past years. One other odd thing this year. Normally both parties set about trying to lower expectations. I suspect that is at least part of the reason some media outlets are reporting that Republicans are saying they fear losing X number of seats. But you are not hearing that from the Democrats this year. They are not trying to lower expectations and instead give every indication that they are measuring the windows for new drapes. I actually think that may be a mistake, in and of itself.

Paris Is Burning, Part Two

The World Tribune reports that so far this year more than 2,500 French police have been injured by Islamist and or drug business driven violence. This is a full fledged intifada at this point. So much for the appeasement of the French. Instead of buying them peace, it has bought them a world of trouble.

This might have dropped below the radar, but Al Qaida and its allies are literally battling the Crusaders every day in Europe. And so far, Europe isn't doing so well.

"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," said Michel Thoomis, secretary general of the Action Police trade union. "This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifada, with stones and firebombs."

The French Interior Ministry has acknowledged the Muslim uprising. The ministry said more than 2,500 police officers have been injured in 2006. This amounts to at least 14 officers each day.

The battles have been under-reported but alarming to French authorities. Muslim street commanders, who run lucrative drug networks, have organized youngsters in housing projects to ambush police and confront security forces. The response time allows hundreds of Muslims to storm police cars and patrols within minutes.

"You no longer see two or three youths confronting police," Thoomis said. "You see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their comrades free when they are arrested."

The French are rapidly losing their own country. It is literally being stolen out from under them.

Black Cats And Halloween

It seems that an animal shelter in Boise, Idaho is banning the adoption of black cats (and white bunnies) from now through November 2nd. Just in case, they say.

BOISE, Idaho - No black cat will cross your path this Halloween, not if a northern Idaho animal shelter can help it. Like many shelters around the country, the Kootenai Humane Society in Coeur d'Alene is prohibiting black cat adoptions from now to Nov. 2, fearing the animals could be mistreated in Halloween pranks — or worse, sacrificed in some satanic ritual.

The risk may be remote, said the shelter's executive director, Phil Morgan.

"It's kind of an urban legend. But in the humane industry it's pretty typical that shelters don't do adoptions of black cats or white bunnies because of the whole satanic sacrificial thing," Morgan said. "If we prevent one animal from getting hurt, then it serves its purpose."

Out of 97 cats at the shelter, 28 are black, Morgan said.

However, some animal experts say the practice does more to hurt animals than protect them.

"Black cats already suffer a stigma because of their color," said Gail Buchwald, vice president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shelter in New York City. "Why penalize them any more by limiting the times when they can be adopted?"

I had no idea that Idaho was such a hotbed of satanic activity. The covens must get frisky at this time of year. Frankly, I'd be more worried about goats in Connecticut. And don't forget the coconuts. Those should be banned at once.

So Just What IS The Plan?

This is one of those moments when you'd just like to grab the politicians by the lapels and shake them. Virginia Senate candidate gave the Democratic radio address today and promised that the Democrats would provide a remedy to the Iraq war when they are put in power. What exactly the wonderful, magical remedy will be, that he didn't say. Just the usual empty, non-positions that continue to show the Democrats do not have any ideas, only criticism.

The former Republican, who was President Reagan's Navy secretary, said in the Democrats' weekly radio address that Bush's "incompetence" in Iraq had undercut the fight against terrorism.

Webb is locked in a close race in Virginia against Republican Sen. George Allen that could determine whether the Senate remains in GOP control.

"Since 2003, President Bush has laid out nine different plans for victory in Iraq, none of them serious and none of them workable. And most seriously, this incompetence has hindered our ability to fight international terror," Webb said.

It marked the second time since July 1 that Webb, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has given the Democrats' address. Both times, his focus has been Iraq.

Webb warned in a newspaper column in 2002, the year before Bush ordered the Iraq invasion, that a war there would destabilize the oil-rich Middle East and mire U.S. forces in a bloody and protracted conflict. As of Friday, 2,810 American troops had died in Iraq.

"It gives me no great pleasure today to be saying `I told you so,'" said Webb, whose son, Jimmy, is a Marine on active duty in Iraq. "It pains me as an American that our casualties are again escalating while this president and his followers are still incapable of bringing forward an intelligent, commonsense approach to ending our involvement there."

Webb cited Iraq and other Bush-backed policies among his reasons for leaving the GOP. Now, other Republicans are reaching the same conclusions he did about the war.

"Over the past several weeks a few realists in the Republican Party, such as (Virginia) Sen. John Warner and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, have begun to make their voices heard. They are moving away from the fantasy world of this administration, toward real solutions," Webb said.

What solutions? Empty words are not a program. The capper here is that Webb as good as admits they have no plan whatsoever.

"A Democratic Congress will demand from day one that the president find a real way forward in Iraq. We'll work with the administration and other Republicans to develop a concrete plan, but none of us are ready to settle for empty rhetoric, or the same old unacceptable results," Webb said.

He'll demand Bush find a way forward. He won't actually help find that path. This is why the Democrats are not credible on defense.

More Bad Meat

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australian Mufti, Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly (spellings vary), is still defiant but made a half-baked hint that he might step down. But only if a meeting of Muslim clerics determines that he intended to cause offense. That's a pretty ridiculous standard and he knows it. The words pretty well speak for themselves.

The sheik said yesterday that if a meeting of leading Muslim clerics, due to take place in Sydney today or tomorrow, could prove that his sermon intended to degrade women, he would step down as mufti, or a spiritual leader, of Australia's 300,000 Muslims.

The sheik said it was too late for him to learn English and thought it was unnecessary because most of his constituents spoke Arabic.

He said that many sermons were delivered in foreign languages such as Arabic, Greek and Italian in churches across the country. But nobody criticised these ministers. "Why don't they [the Government] demand they speak English," he said.

He also told The Sun-Herald. "I will stand down and leave all work related to the Muslim community if they can prove what I said was meant to be offensive. I won't be saying anything to them [the clerics] but will listen to what they have to say."

The sheik said that he was confident he would have their support.

Meanwhile Australian officials are becoming even more vociferous in demanding the Mufti step down. If the Muslim community wants to avoid long term complications with Australians, it would be a good idea to make this happen sooner rather than later.

How To Deal With Conspiracy Theorists

I read this in the hard copy of the Smithsonian Magazine when it came out, but it was not available online at that time. Since it is accessible now, I thought I would direct people to it. Melody von Smith came up with the perfect argument to silence conspiracy theorists. when they spout their "truths". In this case the conspiracy theory in question was that the US had never sent a man to the moon.

I went to a party a while ago. In the course of otherwise reasonable conversation, one of the guests said, "Oh, everybody knows the moon landings were faked."

I started laughing at what I assumed was sarcasm—maybe a riff on NASA's recent announcement that it had lost some high-quality videotape of the first one. Then I saw from the expression on his face that he was serious. And a number of other guests were nodding in agreement.

Both my parents are scientists—analytical chemistry and molecular biology. I have a physicist uncle, and I am a chemist. The notion of faked moon landings was an affront to the family crest.

"Excuse me?" I said.

"The pictures are all perfect," he said.

"Because there is no air," I replied. "Which means no dust, so that distant objects on the moon still appear crisp."

"But they're perfectly focused."

"The published ones are perfectly focused, sure. Nobody wants to see the astronaut's thumb."

His eyes narrowed. "The flag is flapping. How is that possible when there's no wind?"

"It's not flapping," I said. "It's unfurling. Well, not unfurling, but that's the point—it was folded during the flight, and it didn't unfold fully even after they hung from the flagpole."

….

I started spewing mathematical formulas, not because it was crucial to my argument but to intimidate. "Do you understand?" I finally demanded.

He shrugged. "I'm a biologist."

Finally, my coup de grâce: "The Russians."

He knit his brow.

"They had the first satellite, the first man in space, the first spacewalk," I said. "Then America gets the first man on the moon? That's like getting tripped by the other team's mascot. But have the Russians ever said the moon landing was a hoax?"

Read the whole thing. It involves models of the solar system constructed entirely out of food. Always the high point of a dinner party!

A Penny Saved

Is worth $500 if you find it. A Delaware coin dealer purposely spent a rare 1914-D Lincoln penny as a publicity stunt. Whoever finds the coin can choose to keep it or can redeem it at the shop for $500 cash.

Dover, DE — MidAtlanticCoins owner Steve A. Bryan says the finder can keep the wheat penny or redeem it at his shop for $500.

The coin? Check your change for a 1914-D Lincoln cent.

"All we ask," he said, "is that they bring the coin in so that we can identify the coin and declare that it has been found."

Beyond raising interest in his shop, Bryan says his penny ploy is a follow-up to what's been called the "Case of the Delaware Hundreds."

In early summer, $100 bills with no serial numbers were spent at Midway Slots in Harrington and Delaware Park in Stanton. The discovery excited collectors, and Professional Numismatists Guild spokesman Donn Pearlman said misprints, at odds of less than 1 in a million, would be worth thousands.

But Bryan knew the $100 bills' uneven edges might hint of a thief's scissors. He gave federal agents three of the bills he bought from customers for $400 apiece. A U.S. Treasury worker pleaded guilty last month to stealing sheets of the partly printed $100s.

For Bryan, the international publicity was worth far more than the $1,200 he spent.

Bryan came up with the idea of spending a $500 penny to raise the spirits of folks who were disappointed to miss a shot at finding valuable $100 bills. Plus, Bryan, who doesn't deny he's a publicity hound, said he knows a good idea when he sees one.

So check your change. You could get more than a penny.

The Meat Mufti

Australian Mufti, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the one who compared women, unfavorably, to meat has made a lot of noise since his "sermon" came to light. Mostly he has accused the media of distorting his words. When he isn't turning the whole mess into an anti-American diatribe, of course. The Australian has responded by translating his entire speech for everyone to judge for themselves.

But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65years.

But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.

Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?

If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

Yup, must be a misunderstanding all right. He's actually worse than everyone thought.

Bolivia’s President Feeling The Heat?

Bolivian leftist president Evo Morales, (T)Hugo Chavez's self-avowed underling, appears to be in a bit of a bind over the nationalization of Bolivia's natural gas. Since he strong armed the international businesses that had been investing heavily in Bolivia, that money has dried up. His nationalization plan appears to be in difficulty as well and domestic unrest is growing.

At two minutes past midnight on Friday – 180 days since Bolivia’s government decreed the state was to take back control of its natural gas reserves – President Evo Morales hopes to announce the nationalisation has been completed.

It is far from clear that the deadline will be met. Things have not gone smoothly since May 1, when Mr Morales donned a hard hat and entered the San Alberto gas field in south-eastern Bolivia operated by Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned energy company, to declare that he was honouring a campaign pledge to renationalise the sector.

The nationalisation – the reserves are the second biggest in Latin America – provoked the wrath of governments in Brazil and Spain, and led to a drying up of international investment. It briefly boosted Mr Morales’s popularity at home, but since then his approval ratings have fallen steadily.

With foreign relations still fragile and his domestic agenda gridlocked in political infighting, Mr Morales desperately needs to be able to announce some good news on Friday.

One difficulty those in the industry frequently complain about was that in spite of the fanfare that accompanied the announcement, the administration did not initiate negotiations with most foreign investors until September. This was some seven weeks before the six-month ultimatum the companies were given to renegotiate operating contracts or pack their bags.

“The talks began 4½ months after they should have done,” says Ronald Fessy, a lawyer for the Bolivian Hydrocarbons Chamber, which represents foreign investors such as Repsol of Spain, France’s Total, British Gas and Royal Dutch Shell.

It is a widely held belief that the process has been mismanaged. That became clear in August, when the government said it was “temporarily suspending” the nationalisation due to lack of funds and expertise.

The Financial Times article is a couple of days old now and Yahoo has a story up say Bolivia announced they had reached a deal. But there are no details and nothing to go on other than the government's statement. Another socialist worker's paradise slowly swirling down the bowl of history. (This is also why Bolivia will not be accepted as a substitute for Venezeula for the UNSC seat. Brazil got stiffed badly by Morales and they will not be at all happy to give them that seat.)

(H/T) The Influence Peddler

The Shady Science Of Shades

Benjamin Radford has an article up over at LiveScience that looks at the "science" behind ghost hunting. It really is something that any would-be ghost hunter should read. I'd recommend it to 9/11 truthers as well to see how non-evidence is used as evidence. It's quite instructive.

The most famous ghost hunters are two plumbers who moonlight as paranormal investigators, seen in the popular Sci-Fi Channel reality show/soap opera series "Ghost Hunters." They go to haunted places and find "evidence" of ghosts such as cold spots, photographic anomalies called orbs, and other such spookiness.

The two featured investigators, Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, are proudly blue-collar workers, not egghead Ph.D. scientists, which adds to their strong "regular guy" appeal.

Where are the ghosts?

While one doesn't need to be a scientist to search for ghosts, the pair (like most ghost hunters) could benefit greatly from a little critical thinking. They claim to be skeptics but are very credulous and seem to have no real understanding of scientific methods or real investigation. (Audiences don't seem to wonder why these "expert" ghost hunters always fail: Even after two seasons and over ten years of research, they still have yet to prove that ghosts exist!)

….

The uncomfortable reality that ghost hunters carefully avoid—the elephant in the tiny, haunted room—is of course that no one has ever shown that any of this equipment actually detects ghosts.

The supposed links between ghosts and electromagnetic fields, low temperatures, radiation, odd photographic images, and so on are based on nothing more than guesses, unproven theories, and wild conjecture. If a device could reliably determine the presence or absence of ghosts, then by definition, ghosts would be proven to exist. I own an EMF meter, but since it's useless for ghost investigations—it finds not spirits but red herrings—I use it in my lectures and seminars as an example of pseudoscience. The most important tools in this or any investigation are a questioning mind and a solid understanding of scientific principles.

The ghost hunters' anti-scientific illogic is clear: if one area of a home is colder than another, that may indicate a ghost; if an EMF meter detects a field, that too may be a ghost; if dowsing rods cross, that might be a ghost. Just about any "anomaly," anything that anyone considers odd for any reason, from an undetermined sound to a "bad feeling" to a blurry photo, can be (and has been) considered evidence of ghosts.

I was even at one investigation where a ghost supposedly caused a person's mild headache. Because the standard of evidence is so low, it's little wonder that ghost hunters often find "evidence" (but never proof) of ghosts. 

"Evidence" without proof. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? Read the whole thing, it really is quite entertaining.

A Look At The Future By Looking At The Past

Investor's Business Daily has an editorial today that points out the fact that we have been here before. The political situation is quite similar to the situation not in 1994 but in 1974. That's an important point.

Democrats are hoping a nation weary of a tough war in Iraq and a campaign against an alleged "culture of corruption" will result in an electoral tsunami similar to what returned the GOP to power in Congress in 1994.

But this election is more like the one in 1974, when a "third-rate burglary" led to a president's resignation and his party's defeat, plus disastrous political and economic consequences.

Not long thereafter, we saw the slaughter of nearly 4 million people in the killing fields of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, the incarceration and torture of former allies in "re-education camps" and the tragedy of the "boat people."

Two years later, in 1976, Jimmy Carter took office. By 1979, he had run our economy into the ground, with 12% inflation and 11% unemployment. Our armed forces were reduced to a shell, with — as Ronald Reagan would note in 1980 — ships that couldn't sail and planes that couldn't fly for lack of spare parts.

We saw the withdrawal of support from a steadfast ally, the Shah of Iran, and the turning of that country over to mullahs who now threaten us with nuclear weapons and aid terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. We saw our embassy officials held hostage for 444 days. We saw an emboldened USSR invade Afghanistan.

Now the Democrats want power again, exploiting a third-rate sex scandal while mocking a presidential commitment to "stay the course" in a war that, for the moment, is not going very well.

In war, stuff happens. Did Eisenhower anticipate the Battle of the Bulge? Did Nimitz plan for kamikaze attacks against our fleet? Our death toll in Iraq isn't close to the carnage of a single battle in World War II, Iwo Jima, or one in our own Civil War, Antietam.

Speaking Tuesday in South Carolina, Sen. John McCain, who knows a little about war and the consequences of weakness, said of Iraq: "Yes, we made mistakes . . . (but) we've made mistakes in other wars. There's been no war that we haven't made mistakes."

The biggest mistake in war, as we found out after Vietnam, is to give up and go home. GOP fortunes look bleak at the moment, as do prospects in Iraq. But the consequences of cutting and running, as the party of John Murtha would have us do, are far bleaker.

I have, of course, pointed this out repeatedly. If there is a precipitous pullout of American troops there will be a bloodbath of unimaginable extent. The blood will be on the hands of those forcing the withdrawal. Not on someone else's hands. Their hands. We have been here before. We must not make the same mistakes again.

Jost Van Dyke

The New York Times has an article up today about Jost Van Dyke, one of the islands in the British Virgin Islands. Now the reason this caught my eye is that my family and I went there on a day trip when we were down in the US Virgin Islands for a week. It brought back memories. The article talks about several places we visited while we were there including the Soggy Dollar Bar and Foxy's. The Soggy Dollar swears they invented the Painkiller, a cocktail you find at just about every bar down there. Just about everybody swears they invented it, too. But the Soggy Dollar is a fun place and it is right on one of the prettiest beaches in the world.

Foxy's was closed when the writer of this piece was there, so he missed a real treat. The food there is fabulous as I recall and Foxy is worth making the trip for all by himself. We stopped there for lunch and Foxy provided the floor show. He dragged out a battered old guitar and entertained everyone with songs he made up on the spot. Or maybe the songs were well honed and he simply inserted the commentary on the people listening. Whatever, he was a great host.

Just a bit of a departure from the usual. I don't do much travel blogging after all.

The Hidden Agenda

The Opinion Journal has a roundup of the things the Democrats are not talking about about their agenda should they win control of at least one chamber of Congress. They note that for all the comparisons being made to 1994, chanted like a magic mantra by the media, the Democrats have been very nebulous about what they will do. They do not have a "Contract with America"-like agenda. But, oh, they do have plans.

Tax increases. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, and any chance that they'll be made permanent will vanish with a Democratic Congress. The question is whether Democrats will try to raise taxes even sooner. Most Democrats voted against the Bush tax cuts, but this week Ms. Pelosi said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." that "Democrats like tax cuts. We support middle-class tax cuts."

….

Health-care regulation. Big Pharma and private insurers, watch out. Michigan's John Dingell, who would run the Energy and Commerce Committee, has co-sponsored the "Patients Before Profits Act" that would gut funding for the new Medicare Advantage plans that are proving so popular with seniors. Instead, he and the other Democrats who run health-care panels want to direct all seniors into a single government-run Medicare drug plan. Another proposal from top Democrats, the Medicare for All Act, would make all Americans, of any age, eligible for Medicare and pay for it with a new 1.7% payroll tax on workers and 7% on employers.

….

The union label. AFL-CIO headquarters would be rocking with hope once again. A job-killing hike in the minimum wage, to $7.25 from $5.15, would whisk through Congress, and we'd expect that Mr. Bush would sign it.

But another top priority for Democrats is the Employee Free Choice Act, which has at least 215 co-sponsors in the House and 44 in the Senate. This would allow labor to turn workplaces into union shops without an election or secret ballot. Unions would merely have to gather signatures from a majority of workers at a work site, which means labor organizers could strong-arm employees who opposed such a petition. This would almost surely pass the House.

In addition, the Democrats will almost certainly block offshore exploration for oil which will actually increase the nation's reliance on foreign oil. There is quite a lot more, I just excerpted the highlights - or should that be lowlights?