Jonathan was kind enough to invite me to give y'all a heads up about my new URL.  Senate 2008 Guru has moved.  The new site is:

Senate Guru
http://www.senateguru.com/

C'mon by and share your thoughts on the Senate races! (bumped -- jonathan)

I know this is off the topic of the 2008 Senate races, but this has been sticking in my craw all week.  By now, you're probably aware of the fairly twisted jokes Faux News personality John Gibson made out of the death of Heath Ledger, as well as Gibson's piling on, and subsequent half-assed pseudo-apology (probably at the prodding of corporate sponsors).  And you're probably aware of the wingnut hate group who shall remain nameless here planning to protest Ledger's funeral ceremony because, as it clearly says in the Bible, it is an abomination not only to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, but it's also an abomination to play a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered character in a movie.

Why is it that more people (members of the media, bloggers, talk show hosts, people I overhear chatting on the subway) aren't talking about the plain fact that, in a conservative movement and a Republican Party in which anything other than Leave It to Beaver-style heterosexuality and family structures are frowned upon, to say the least, there is a very significant chunk of members who are gay?  Really gay.  Totally gay.  And doing everything they can to hide it.  And that the more vocally anti-gay one is, the more likely, it appears, that person is conflicted about their own sexual orientation?

Wikipedia's entry on "latent homosexuality" notes that:

A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that a number of "homophobic" males exhibit latent homosexuality.

This brings us to the ironic tale of former Congressman Ed Schrock.  Schrock was a conservative legislator for Virginia, and was especially conservative on the gays.  He co-sponsored an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage; and, this Navy veteran firmly, oh so firmly, believed that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy regarding "homosexual conduct" in the military should have been replaced by an outright ban on gay people from serving in the military.  This guy was very anti-gay.  Ipso facto, he must have been very heterosexual.  Heck, he must have been the heterosexualest!  Then why was it that Schrock, amid his second term in Congress in 2004, all of a sudden announced that he was dropping his effort to seek re-election to a third term?  It probably had a lot to do with Schrock's very explicit audio-profile on a gay sex personals website.  Schrock's veneer of, what George Costanza would call, an umblemished record of staunch heterosexuality was mortally compromised; so, after being yanked out of the conservative closet, he had to leave the conservative club.

(Much more after the flip.)

So the polls had Obama taking a significant bump from Iowa to a large New Hampshire victory over Clinton, and there was only supposed to be a hair of difference between McCain and Romney.

Were the polls crazy?

No.  I don't think so.  How?  Here's a pretty simple theory.

New Hampshire's independent voters ostensibly preferred Obama among the Democrats and McCain among the Republicans.  These independents were waiting until the day of the primary election to decide which candidate to turn out for.

Given that the polls looked so much stronger for Obama's victory, many of these independents (who were polling in support of Obama) decided that, with Obama's New Hampshire victory looking so secure, they might as well use their vote to make sure McCain bested Romney.  Only, so many of these independent voters thought the same thing that it shifted Obama's comfortable margin of victory to McCain.

So what should the pollsters and the media do?  Instead of analyzing how Clinton beat Obama, they should check in with McCain-voting independents who decided in the last couple days to vote in the Republican primary for McCain, and I'll bet you that a good chunk of them saw Obama comfortably winning so they gave their vote to McCain - and that the polls were accurate in terms of gauging their support - they just weren't accurate in gauging whether they'd vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries.

That's my theory anyway.

Both the Washington Post and the Clarion-Ledger are saying that Republican Governor Haley Barbour is expected to announce, any minute now, that he has tapped GOP Rep. Roger Wicker to replace Trent Lott in the Senate.

As the story develops, should Wicker in fact be the appointment, there is something in Wicker's closet that we ought to highlight.  He is a Republican Congressman so, of course, there is a matter of questionable ethics hanging around Wicker's neck:

Apparently, Wicker and aerospace company Aurora Flight Sciences have a questionably cozy relationship. In 2006, Aurora was Wicker's top campaign contributor; and, then in 2007, Wicker secures a juicy little earmark for Aurora. The relationship is furthered by the fact that Wicker's former Chief of Staff works for the lobbying outfit that lobbies for, you guessed it, Aurora. With Trent Lott and Chip Pickering expected to bolt to K Street, and with Republican corruption stories again flowing like water, this story has the potential to blow up should Wicker get appointed to the Senate or run for the seat opened up by Lott's resignation. Stay tuned! (HT: Cotton Mouth)

With the media more focused on horseraces than ethical issues, it is incumbent upon us to highlight what appears to be this latest section in The Republican Appearance of Impropriety Handbook's chapter on trading earmarks for campaign contributions.

During the 2006 election cycle, which resulted in Democrats winning back both the House and the Senate, one of the most effective initiatives to spur Democratic fundraising was the Use It or Lose It campaign.  The campaign urged "safe" House Democrats to contribute significant sums to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to put towards bolstering the efforts of Democrats in more competitive races.  The end result, as mentioned, was a solid, new Democratic House majority, to which the Use It or Lose It effort no doubt played a helpful role.  I'm sure it also played a very helpful role in encouraging Democratic donors to contribute all they could, seeing as many Democratic legislators were leading by example.

Republicans, particularly in the Senate, were much stingier when it came to contributing to their campaign committees.  One of my favorite factoids from the '06 cycle was the case of then-Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Dick Shelby:

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gave $15,000 to the NRSC, leaving $11.5 million in his account even though he will not face reelection until 2010.

Dick Shelby's actions should be regarded as a cautionary tale.  Back in 2004, Shelby won 68% of the vote against token opposition, spending all of $2.6 million.  Keep in mind that he raised $9.3 million during the cycle, hence his current hefty warchest.  Though Shelby will be 76 on Election Day 2010, we can assume that, due to his stinginess, he is at least planning on keeping his options open for a re-election bid, if he is not already committed to one.  So he will need money.  But, given his ability to raise funds and the relative safety of his red-state seat, he most certainly could have afforded to cough up more than $15,000, which is the absolute minimum amount Senators are traditionally expected to contribute to their respective Party's campaign committees.

Would Shelby chipping in, say, a cool $1 million instead of the mere $15,000 have made a difference in 2006?  Given that the Senate race in Virginia, in which Democrat Jim Webb bested Republican incumbent George Allen, was decided by only 7,231 votes out of over 2.3 million votes cast, and given that the Senate race in Montana, in which Democrat Jon Tester beat Republian incumbent Conrad Burns, was decided by an even closer 2,847 votes out of over 400,000 votes cast, an extra million dollars to spend by the National Republican Senatorial Committee between Virginia and Montana could have definitely made the difference.  It is perfectly rational to suggest that, had Shelby contributed $1 million (that he wouldn't miss anyway) to the NRSC instead of just $15,000, Republicans may have very well held on to both the Virginia and Montana Senate seats and, however slimly, maintained the Senate majority.  And Dick Shelby would still be a Committee Chairman, with a hefty campaign bankroll of $10.5 instead of $11.5 million.

(Much more below the fold.)

(By the end of this post, you'll want to contribute heavily to Congressman Tom Allen's Senate campaign.  Keep the link handy.)

Susan Collins is approaching the conclusion of her second term as Maine's junior Senator, the seat she first won in 1996.  Her employment history prior to serving as a U.S. Senator includes twelve years on the staff of U.S. Senator William Cohen (R-ME), so she is no stranger to the machinations of representing the state of Maine in the U.S. Senate.

While Collins has presented herself as a moderate or centrist in order to maximize the breadth of her appeal to Maine voters, when one looks at the entirety of her record, what is evidenced is overwhelming double-talk and an undue allegiance to the far-right wing of the Republican Party and the current Bush administration.  It has become clear that Susan Collins is out of step with mainstream Maine voters and is far too comfortable being patently dishonest when it suits her political ends.

(Much, much, much more below the fold.)

A couple months back, Markos found it very curious that there wasn't more news coming out of a troublingly quiet Senate Ethics Committee, given the myriad cases that should be on their plate.  He noted, "the Senate fails to promote confidence in its integrity by attempting to bury any and all information into the ethics committee's activities."

The fact is, given a whirlwind of ethically questionable activity by Republican Senators, the Senate Ethics Committee should be one of the busiest committees in the Legislative branch.  Even if initial deliberations by the Senate Ethics Committee are confidential, surely the results of Senate Ethics inquiries should be public information.  And, by now, the Senate Ethics Committee should have achieved results on a number of fronts.  Unfortunately, we've heard virtually nothing of substance from them all year.

So let me take this opportunity to run through the year in investigation-worthy ethics imbroglios among Senate Republicans.  Perhaps a lowly staffer on the Senate Ethics Committee might see it and wonder why the Committee hasn't been more productive this year.

(Much more below the fold.)

There is much debate over whether primaries help or hurt the eventual nominee toward winning the general election.  I'm typically of the opinion that, for the purposes of practical political benefit (small-d democratic ideals aside), primaries are only helpful in two cases: first, when the primary opponents need to raise their name identification; and, second, when the primary combatants are completely civil and avoid character attacks on each other, instead jointly turning their offensive aim toward the opposing Party.  That's why the MN-Sen Dem primary is good for Democrats, the NM-Sen GOP primary is bad for Republicans, and the TX-Sen Dem primary could have been good for Democrats.

That said, when there is an incumbent running for re-election or a clear presumptive nominee running for an open seat, an upstart primary opponent can hurt the favorite by forcing the the favorite to deplete financial resources and by testing lines of attack against the expected nominee.  In the 2008 cycle, we see a number of Senate races with such upstart primary opponents, or "ankle biters," challenging Republican incumbents or presumptive nominees.  While it is less than likely that any of these candidates will win their respective primaries in an upset, some of these candidates should be closely followed as they may offer insight into the Achilles' heels of the eventual Republican nominees.  Also, in the case that any of them gain noticeable traction, these upstart "ankle biters" may force the eventual Republican nominees to spend some significant cash.

Much more below the fold.