this is just a one-liner, sorry, but no one is on the open thread.....

For everyone in the Rhinebeck area on Sunday afternoon, I'm co-hosting a meet-up for our own NY Bri, Brian Keeler, in support of his run for NYS Senate.  It's a great way to see Brian and to get to know other Dems in and around Rhinebeck. (You can also check his website, http://keeler2006.com/ for info.)

For everyone in the Rhinebeck area on Sunday, I'm co-hosting a meet-up for our own NY Bri, Brian Keeler.

Arlen Specter has caved (as we of course knew he would). In his Statement on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senator assures conservatives that

Dear Fellow Kossacks:

It's time to get off our tushies - strike that - stay on our tushies and do what we do best: WRITE!  Two issues have recently been discussed on these pages, which we CAN and SHOULD work to influence:  voting accountability and legislation intended to protect pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.  You can either post your progress right here, or start your own diary if you decide to "own" a state - which others can then hotlist and keep adding onto until you have your own page/link.  (Sorry - I'm a computer troglodyte, or I'd help with the logistics myself...)

Anyhow, here we go - and with great thanks to Meteor Blades for helping to mobilize yours truly --
 

OK you nice liberal, progressive Democrat sitting at your computer.  You're pondering our losses and plumbing the depths of the universe to figure out what happened.  And you're acting like every other nice progressive Democrat - namely, severely overthinking the problem.

Is there anything wrong with the Democrats' message?  Not really - nothing that some tweaking couldn't fix.
Is there anything unappealing with the Democrats' goals?  Again, not really - nothing that can't be resolved.
Is there anything wrong with Democratic candidates?  Not on the whole.

So what gives?

Occam's Razor, folks - the simplest answer is usually the right one, and it's staring you right in the face:  Too many people in this country simply don't believe us.  Period.

From our friends at IATPaction.org:

Here's the rest of the email I received, with all the details:

Today I received the book you sent me, Purple Hearts: Back from Iraq.  I wish I could say thank you for this gift, which I assume was in acknowledgement of the donation I sent you.  But I wish I had never seen it.

Not that it isn't a beautifully compiled book, what with those compelling pictures, stories and quotes from soldiers injured in Iraq.

OK. I was as struck by the power of Mosh as anyone.  But before we canonize Eminem (which I couldn't recommend anyway until he outgrows the crotch-grabbing) for single-handedly making the country want to get out and VOTE!, let's all take a moment to think about and THANK one demographic group that already does: our seniors.

As reported a couple of years ago on the website GothamGazette.com (a great resource for New Yorkers): "People over 65 is the highest voting group and the only group that has increased its turnout since the 1960s," said Curtis Gans, who studies voting trends at the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "They're the last generation imbued with a sense of social civic duty."

OK, all you Kossack whingers!  I don't even have to see our president's "final" 60-second ad buy --which promises the unvarnished (dare I say, "unplugged"?) W -- to know there are so many reasons to vote for him, which you all obviously haven't considered. So here's my list, kinda-Letterman style (thus the reverse order numbering).

I would try to write some pithy comments and insightful analysis, but I'm on the verge of hyperventilating.  So please forgive me and just read the endorsement!
Here's the link:http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped124102404oct24,0,6815713.story?coll=orl-home-he adlines

Let's share fellowship and add to the excitement and momentum.  What's working? What isn't?

When I worked on a local campaign in NYC a few years ago, the "senior advisors" insisted that mass media would win the election.  GOTV got short shrift, and there was real tension between the GOTV folks and the advisors.  My candidate lost - who knows what would have happened if we'd had a better ground game?

CO Sec of State Donetta Davidson is limiting poll watchers to just one person per party -- and no outside lawyers (and maybe no cell phones, either).  From this article, it looks like neither side is happy about this.  Does she actually have that authority?  Is there a court challenge here?

Of course, from an election perspective, regardless of any immediate legal issues, this move is just plain dumb.  Why set yourself up for a certain post-election challenge?  If voter suppression and intimidation are truly your game, I'm sure there are more subtle ways to go about it...  :)  Maybe this is one state where those international monitors should try to go, just to call even more attention to the issue; calling Jimmy Carter!

Here's the link: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~2483340,00.html; text below

First, apparently, if you add public health to civic engagement, you get political dirty tricks? How pathetic!

GOP Leaders Criticize S.C. Organization
By JIM DAVENPORT
The Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A federally funded group that promised flu shots on Election Day in six of South Carolina's poorest counties has drawn criticism from Republican leaders.

Carolina Medical Review sent a bulk mailing earlier this month that said, "flu shots will be given in your county on Election Day. ... You don't have to vote to get a vaccine, and you don't have to get a vaccine to vote."

Four days later, news broke that British regulators had shut down a major supplier of the vaccine, cutting the U.S. supply of flu shots in half. Now, the Columbia-based group can't deliver on its Election-Day program.

The mailing to 46,000 Medicare recipients "borderlines on despicable," state Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson said Tuesday.

"The insinuation is that 'Come on and vote, and we'll vaccinate you for the flu.' That, in the electoral process, to me, just reeks of irresponsibility and certainly seems politically motivated to me," Dawson said.

Carolina Medical Review said the mailing was not politically motivated and was sent to areas with low vaccination rates based on federal health data. Spokeswoman Diana Zona said the organization has no political leanings.

Lawmakers Ask CIA to Turn Over Internal 9/11 Report

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- The ranking members of the House Intelligence Committee have asked the CIA to turn over an internal report on whether agency employees should be held accountable for intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, congressional officials said Tuesday.

The CIA has not responded to the request, raising concerns among some Democrats in Congress that the report is being withheld to avoid embarrassment for the Bush administration in the final weeks before the presidential election.

Headline: 'Primetime Live' Poll: More Republicans Satisfied With Sex Lives Than Democrats

Because we ALL need some LEVITY right about now, here's my take: desperate GOP will lie about anything to bring voters to their party! (This story, coupled with Takin My Country Back, has finally made me smile...)What's YOUR punch line?

I haven't been able to find the actual opinion yet, but here's a news report.  Hopefully, this isn't just a pyrrhic victory, given the power of incumbency, since 2004 elections aren't affected...  (the opinion probably elucidates -- if anyone out there can track it down, w/ or w/o commentary)

I've been mulling over this question for several months, and my thinking has changed. At first, I thought it was just because he and the GOP appeal to people's selfishness -- and to their anger.  What the Repubs seem to offer is a Devil's Bargain:  on the one hand, we believe that you don't owe any responsibilities to your fellow Americans (citizens or not), other than what you volunteer to give through your own sense of "charity."  Thus, the tax cuts "return to the people their own money to spend as they please." (Of course, this presumes equal spending opportunities, including for traditionally government funded activities, but that's another post.)  This line of reasoning also plays into the concept that one group should not receive "special treatment" at the purported expense of another.  But the other side of the bargain is this:  In return for being allowed to be as selfish as one wants to be, that person also loses the right to criticize the government for anything else it does -including giving extreme advantages to corporate interests.