There He Goes Again

"You said, 'I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation. I'm not satisfied either.' Compare that to maybe Howard Dean, 'The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong.'

"Is this a struggle literally between good and evil?"

Now I was going to suggest that Alan Colmes played no role in any of this, but that's not true. After the first commercial, he said: "We now continue with more of Sean's exclusive interview with the president of the United States."

A new WSJ / NBC poll has voters favoring Democrats for Congress, 52-37, despite a recent spate of good economic news: "A week before Election Day, a new poll shows President Bush getting better marks for his handling of the economy -- an issue Republicans are emphasizing in the run-up to Tuesday's vote -- but voters' anxieties about Iraq continue to dominate their concerns."

Salon has a big investigative piece on judges and money:

"At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show.

"A four-month investigation of Bush-appointed judges by the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that six appellate court judges and 18 district court judges contributed a total of more than $44,000 to politicians who were influential in their appointments. Some gave money directly to Bush after he officially nominated them. Other judges contributed to Republican campaign committees while they were under consideration for a judgeship.

"Republicans who received money from judges en route to the bench include Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sens. George Voinovich and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Gov. George Pataki of New York.

"There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship. But political giving by judicial candidates has been a rarely scrutinized activity amid the process that determines who will receive lifelong jobs on the federal bench. Some ethics experts and Bush-appointed judges say that political giving is inappropriate for those seeking judicial office -- it can appear unethical, they say, and could jeopardize the public's confidence in the impartiality of the nation's courts."

Okay, it's prediction time. Chris Bowers of MyDD sees the Dems picking up at least 21 House seats:

"Let me just first of all state that Karl Rove is on crack. For all his talk of a 72 hour program (the basis of advantage which seems to be leafletting super-church parking lots the Sunday previous [to] the election) and having THE polls, he's merely befuddling the reporters of the simple fact that remains the core of this election: The independents are aligned with Democrats."

Rich Lowry gives the GOP view: "In general, Republicans tend to think, as of this moment, the seats that they are going to lose are scandals seats; races where the Republican candidates are running lazy, mistake-prone campaigns; and seats that are just always tough for Republicans. They don't kid themselves about the national environment, but don't think it will be enough to defeat good candidates running good campaigns, limiting the damage and preventing a total wipe-out this year. If they lose, it will only be by a few seats."

Which would come out to about 20 House pickups by the Democrats as well.

I wrote yesterday about the coverage of Karl Rove. Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum has a piece coming out on the Rovemeister, and according to the release, Purdum asks about a couple of books by James Moore and Wayne Slater on the White House strategist.

"During a cocktail party at Purdum's home Rove, unbeknownst to his hosts until later, pulled the first book written about him by Moore and Slater off the bookshelf and inscribed in the flyleaf: 'Don't Believe A Single Word in This Piece of Trash. Karl Rove.'"

Speaking of Rove, National Review's Stephen Spruiell takes aim at what he calls a "preemptive strike on Karl Rove in the Washington Post" that "just seems bizarre to me" (' Midterm Vote May Define Rove's Legacy' ):

" 'I believe Karl Rove,' Bolten said in an interview in his West Wing office Friday. 'Karl Rove, somewhere inside that massive brain of his, has figured out the political landscape more clearly than the entire collection of conventional-wisdom pundits and pollsters in the entire city of Washington.'

"That was true for two elections in a row, in 2002 and 2004, and President Bush's senior adviser has insisted to West Wing colleagues and party faithful alike that it will be again. But Rove is just eight days from having his genius designation revoked -- or upgraded to platinum status.

"Maybe it's true that Karl Rove will get most of the credit if the Republicans manage to maintain their majorities. But if the GOP loses, he won't get the blame. There are just too many factors working against the Republicans that are beyond his control."

Here's Spruiell's analysis of the Post piece: "It's no secret that liberal Democrats hate Rove because he beats them. With this article, it looks suspiciously like the Washington Post is trying to weaken him by making the case that a Democratic takeover should revoke his 'genius designation.' It won't."

It's true that nothing can take away the fact that Rove helped his side win in 2000, 2002 and 2004. But didn't the Post piece say he might have his genius credentials revoked or upgraded to platinum status ?

Finally, a long list of corporate advertisers was boycotting Air America. A liberal media group has the memo .