REPUBLICANS MIGHT GET A BREAK

Dick Morris has a new column out that might give some Republicans hope today. In it, he is predicting that the mid-term election is back to the toss-up stage and the GOP might actually have a chance. Morris was the one who was predicting George Bush would be re-elected in 2004 when everybody else called it for The Poodle, so people should listen.

It turns out the conservative base may have awakened from a nightmare where they see Nancy Pelosi pounding the Speaker's gavel. Not a pleasant thought. What is the evidence of this? Democrats have sputtered in several key states...particularly Senate races. It's now looking more and more like it will not be possible for Democrats to take control of the Senate from the GOP. If anything, they might be able to get it to 50-50, but even that is still a Republican edge with Cheney as the Senate president to do tie-breaker votes.

So could it happen? Could it be that the media has it all wrong.....the Democrats have it all wrong...and suddenly the Republican base will go vote in two weeks, just like they always have? Maybe. It's always been the case that no matter what the polls say, particularly national polls, it all comes down to 1.) who votes on Election Day and 2.) whether or not people take out the sins of Iraq on their local Congressman.

So Republicans might have an opening here. They'll probably screw it up somehow though. After all, there's still two weeks left. But if they hold on, Nancy Pelosi had better hope she saved her receipt from all those drapes she's been buying for the Speaker's office.

PAUL KRUGMAN: CONTRARY INDICATOR

By Michelle Malkin ·

Paul Greenberg has a hilarious syndicated column out today about Paul Krugman's ridiculous record of prognostication:

It started out as a gag here on the editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and soon became a superstition:

Every time the stock market took a little dip, we'd reprint one of Paul Krugman's dour columns from the New York Jaundiced Times about the imminent doom of the American economy.

Almost immediately the market would bounce back and then some. It worked every time.

But we may have overdone it of late. By now the Dow Jones has started to cross into 12,000 territory. A few more Krugman columns explaining how the economy has cooled off and the thing could overheat.

We reprinted one of his columns last Thursday morning and, sure enough, by the end of the day, the Dow ended the day over 12,000 for the first time. AN HISTORIC HIGH! and all that jazz.

Well, sure. The Krugman touch never fails.

The more Professor Eeyore says the economy is going to hell, the more heavenly it gets. Can it be just a coincidence? The Dow seems to surge whenever it sees "Paul Krugman" in a by-line. It must be a kind of Pavlovian reaction by now.

Can Krugman work his magic on the midterms? Greenberg wryly concludes:

If there's any hope at all for the once Grand Old Party in these midterm elections, and there may not be, it's that Paul Krugman can do for it what he's consistently done for the stock market.

Cross your fingers.

***

For what it's worth, Dick Morris at Vote.com says the election is back to a "toss-up:"

he latest polls show something very strange and quite encouraging is happening: The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

***

One last bit of news: Consumer confidence holds at '06 high...

Consumer confidence holds steady at its highest level of the year, staying well above its 2006 low reached less than two months ago.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post Consumer Comfort Index stands at -7 on its scale of +100 to -100, unchanged from last week to match its best of the year. The index is up eight points since mid-September, and 12 points since matching its worst level of the year on Aug. 27. Gas prices have dropped 64 cents in that time.

WORD ASSOCIATION: "I SAY 'DEMOCRAT.' YOU SAY...."

By Michelle Malkin

Here's a bit of a report by Candy Crowley at the Jihadist Sniper News Network putting people to a Democrat word association test (here's the link, but you don't need to click):

On the cusp of an election that could overturn the Republican majority on Capitol Hill, I jokingly asked a senior Democratic aide whether he had ordered new business cards to reflect majority status.

"Don't underestimate our ability to blow it," he said.

There is a reason Democrats are on edge. They have lost so many elections where it seemed they were running with the wind, the phenomenon is known in political circles as Democrats "embracing their inner-defeatest."

Herewith the proof: Democrats have been the minority on Capitol Hill for most of the past 12 years.

When George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, Democrats will have occupied the Oval Office just 12 of the previous 40 years.

In the past two election cycles, Al Gore and John Kerry lost the entire South and most of the Midwest and West.

As part of our election series "Broken Government," CNN asked self-identified Democrats around Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles how they view their party. It was word association, "I say Democrat, You say --." Not scientific, but instructive.

Here is some of what we heard:

• "Disorganized"
• "Afraid to take a stand"
• "Not giving us anything better to look at"
• "A little soft"

Wanna play? Feel free to chime in.

You already know what my word is.

BLEAK HOUSE

Republicans deserve to lose, but what happens if Democrats win?

BY PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Two weeks from tonight America is going to be different--first politically and then substantively--for Democrats will likely take control of the House, and move public policy in very liberal directions.

Major polling organizations--the Cook and Rothenberg Political Reports and Congressional Quarterly--have been estimating that the Democrats will make a 16- to 18-seat gain in the House, where they need just 15 to take control. But the number of projected Democratic victories may be climbing: Sunday's New York Times analysis--entitled "Hope on the Left"--projects a gain as large as 30 seats.

In the Senate the Democrats have a tougher task--they need to win six Republican seats to take control. A look at the eight closely contested races suggest that incumbent Republican George Allen in Virginia and Democrat Bob Menendez in New Jersey are likely to be re-elected, so the Democrats would have to win all six of the remaining seats. The polls show four likely gains--defeating Republicans Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, Conrad Burns in Montana, and Mike DeWine in Ohio. In the last two races Republican incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri seems likely to win a very close race and the open seat in Tennessee is too close to call.

If the Democrats do take the House, what changes might be made in America's public policies?

First, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised that election of a Democratic House would insure "a rollback of the [Bush] tax cuts." Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who would be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would make sure no tax cut extension bill would ever get to the floor. He voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the bill that later extended the tax cuts until 2010 (as did all but seven of the 205 Democratic House members). In September Mr. Rangel said that he "cannot think of one" Bush tax cut he would agree to renew.

Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, "the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs." But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates. "Taxing the rich" will be the leading economic argument of a 2007 Democratic House, and a rollback tax bill of some kind will reach the floor.

Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for "preventing the privatization of social security" is in the Democratic National Committee's "6-Point Plan for 2006." Democrats don't trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds--better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together." And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren't needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won't allow to happen.

"Reducing dependence on foreign oil" is a good Democratic goal, and there are a number of ways to accomplish it. Building more nuclear power plants is one. Offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is another. Oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska could replace foreign oil imports for 25 years, and there is a known 19-year OCS supply of natural gas.

But liberal Democrats are opposed to all of these solutions. Hillary Clinton is opposed to the construction of nuclear plants and offshore drilling. Every Democratic senator on the Environment and Public Works Committee voted against allowing the building of new oil refineries on closed military bases. When the House voted 232-187 in June to allow and encourage OCS oil and natural-gas drilling, 155 of 195 Democrats voted to block it. The Democratic alternative is to eliminate the $18 billion the oil companies now get in various business tax deductions and thereby impose a higher income tax on them.

As for the war in Iraq, Mr. Rangel observed that "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" In other words, end it by simply defunding it. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania calls for "immediate redeployment of U.S. troops" and intends to run for majority leader if the Democrats take control of the House. Ninety percent of House Democrats opposed the terrorist surveillance program, and 80% voted against the recent terrorist interrogation legislation.

Finally, when we see what the new leaders of a Democratic House are likely to do, their views are--well--very different from most Americans. Rep Henry Waxman of California would become the Government Reform Committee chairman, and believes domestic terrorist surveillance is "illegal." He would use his subpoena power to launch investigations to try and limit the president's anti-terrorism powers.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has talked about subpoenaing "Bush administration officials to answer questions and face the consequences for their abuses of power." In other words, impeachment.

Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has indicated she would like to put Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida in charge of the House Intelligence Committee. As a federal judge, he was impeached in the House by a 413-3 vote, and removed from the bench by the Senate for bribery, corruption, and perjury. Rep. Hastings would lead the oversight of America's antiterrorism policies.

Most Americans have not yet thought much about this agenda, or the leaders who will set it. But they are tired of the Republican congressional performance. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows 16% of Americans approve of congressional performance while 75% disapprove.

No wonder: Republicans gave line-item veto power to the Democratic president in the 1990s, but refused to give it to the current Republican president. They haven't made the Bush tax cuts permanent. They wouldn't bring individual ownership of Social Security retirement accounts to a vote. They haven't done anything on health care. And they have raised federal spending by $750 billion since 2001 and for fiscal 2006 approved 10,000 earmarks costing $29 billion. Conservative principles seem to have faded away, and ethical principles have weakened--names like DeLay, Ney, and Foley make the point.

It is possible President Bush and Karl Rove can stem the anti-Republican political tide. But more likely on Nov. 7 American voters will send the Congress a strong disapproval message by voting out the current Republican majority. In politics as in other jobs, there is a price to pay for poor performance.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

ALL THAT EFFORT WASTED

That’s what I thought after seeing this 8-page Newsweek article on Harold Ford’s campaign for the U.S. Senate. After all the writing, after all the platitudes about Harold Ford being a new type of Democrat, he had a meltdown when he angrily confronted Bob Corker when Corker was about to hold a press conference on lobbying reform.

We’ve all seen the video by now. It isn’t pretty. I suspect that Corker will spend this week talking about what he’ll do when he’s elected as the next senator from Tennessee. I suspect that he’ll slip questions about what to make of Ford’s behavior. The longer he says nothing about Ford’s meltdown, the better off he’ll be. There’s no reason for him to say anything about it because that’ll only give Ford the opportunity to change the subject. That’s the last thing that Corker wants at this point. I’m betting that each day that meltdown image of Ford lingers in Tennessee voters’ minds, another point comes off of Ford’s already-shrinking popularity.

The article is mostly about how untraditional a Democrat Ford is, how he’s a man of faith, that he isn’t an extremist ideologue, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say anything about what a spoiled brat he is and how prone he is to temper tantrums. Thanks to the internet, though, we’ve seen his ’spoiled brat’ side, too.

When Corker described Ford’s stunt as the actions of a desparate man, Ford’s reply that “every poll in the nation shows me leading” rang hollow. If he wasn’t trailing, why pull such a stunt. There’s only two explanations: Either he’s just that much of a spoiled brat who can’t take the heat or he knows that his chance is slipping away and he had to do something. Neither presents a flattering image of Ford.

Barring Corker being caught in a major scandal, this race is essentially over.

DEM LEAK SUSPECT IDENTIFIED AND HARMAN'S IN HOT WATER

By Michelle Malkin

Fox News and the Los Angeles Times report on the identity of the Democrat leak suspect--a staffer in the office of House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). LA Times:

The aide was identified by other congressional officials as Larry Hanauer. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a pending investigation into the leak, said Hanauer had held positions with the departments of Defense and Homeland Security before joining the professional staff of Democrats on the House intelligence panel about two years ago.

A spokesman for Harman said Hanauer was not available to comment. His attorney, Jonathan Turley, expressed anger that Hanauer was named in news reports Friday and said there was no evidence the aide leaked the intelligence report.

Turley wrote to committee leaders, "When a staffer can become fodder for politics in this way, it discourages qualified people from seeking to join public service."

Other Democratic aides said Hanauer was familiar with rules surrounding classified materials and said they were skeptical he would leak information.

The document he requested — on behalf of committee member John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), according to Turley — was a National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism trends that suggested the Iraq war had exacerbated terrorism. Disclosure of the analysis last month was a political embarrassment to the Bush administration.

Clarice Feldman's gathering info on Hanauer.

Wondering what the New York Times has to say? Here:

Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in an interview that he requested a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate last month after The Times had called his office. When a committee security officer could not immediately locate it, Mr. Hanauer requested the document from the office of the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, and a copy was delivered.

“I didn’t talk to The New York Times, and I don’t think he did either,” Mr. Tierney said of Mr. Hanauer. “I want the committee to clear his name as soon as possible.”

Mr. Hanauer’s lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said his client had nothing to do with any leak of the intelligence estimate and would offer a sworn statement to that effect. Mr. Turley said Mr. Hanauer was collateral damage in a pre-election squabble.

“He simply got the document and gave it to a member,” the lawyer said.

Mr. Hanauer, who joined the committee staff last year after working for the Defense Department and the Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, remains on the panel payroll and retains his security clearance.

The estimate on terrorism had a relatively low-level classification, “secret,” and was made available in May to hundreds of people in multiple agencies and Congressional committees. The Times has previously reported that its article about the estimate was based on interviews with more than 10 officials and outside experts.

As I wrote yesterday:

The Dem staffer's suspension doesn't preclude the possibility that the Times received the NIE summary findings from more than one source or the possibility that CIA insiders constituted some of those sources.

***

Looks like Harman may be in a lot of hot water. Via Dan Riehl and Bryan Preston, Time magazine exclusively reports that the Department of Justice is investigating whether she and AIPAC worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The reported probe is looking into whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf:

A spokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization with more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI declined to comment. The case is a spin-off of a probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AIPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for former Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. Franklin. Franklin pleaded guilty a year ago to three felony counts involving improper disclosure and handling of classified information about the Middle East and terrorism to the two lobbyists, who in turn are accused of passing it on to a journalist and a foreign government, widely believed to be Israel. The two lobbyists, who have denied any wrongdoing but were dismissed by AIPAC in April of 2005, were indicted on felony counts of conspiring with government officials to receive classified information they were not authorized to have access to and providing national defense information to people not entitled to receive it.

Around mid-2005, the investigation expanded to cover aspects of Harman's quiet but aggressive campaign to persuade House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint her to the prestigious position on the House intel panel. The alleged campaign to support Harman for the leadership post came amid media reports that Pelosi had soured on her California colleague and might name Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, himself a major supporter of Israel, to succeed Harman.

The sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context of the situation. But the sources caution that there has been no decision to charge anyone and that it is unclear whether Harman and AIPAC acted on the idea.

As longtime readers of this blog now, I have wondered repeatedly why so many in Washington on both sides of the aisle kept quiet about the AIPAC illegal leak case. (See The National Security Scandal No One's Talking About, for example. More background below.)

Time's report helps shed some light on Democrat reticence.

Stay tuned.

***

Tom Maguire says "right now, this is not scoring that high on my Wilson-Fitzgerald Meter."

The Squiggler has a massive round-up of info.

***
Previous on NIE leak:

Democrat leak freak-out
Bombshell: Democratic staff dripper?
9/25/06 About that National Intelligence Estimate
9/26/06 The NIE
9/27/07 Who is Paul Pillar?

Previous on AIPAC/Franklin case:

1/20/06 Larry Franklin sentenced
10/6/06 Larry Franklin: guilty
8/5/05 Two former AIPAC officials indicted
5/24/05 Larry Franklin update
5/19/05 AIPAC update
5/18/05 A partial defense of the MSM's Larry Franklin coverage
5/14/05 FBI questions journalists about Franklin
5/11/05 Report: Former AIPAC official expects to be indicted
5/5/05 The National Security Scandal No One's Talking About
5/5/05 The Larry Franklin scandal continued
5/4/05 Charged: Larry Franklin
4/21/05 AIPAC fires two