While the biggest news out of the Sunday morning talk shows was Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's admission that he's exploring a 2008 presidential run, much of the focus was still on 2006, and therefore Missouri.
Rep. Roy Blunt got a mention on Meet the Press, for a fiery press release he sent off about what the Democrats agenda would be if they took power.
TIM RUSSERT: Roy Blunt of Missouri, had this to say, "Pelosi's House," referring to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic congresswoman from San Francisco who becomes speaker. "This list of the bills most likely to be championed by committee chairmen in a Pelosi-led House of Representatives would be great fodder for the late-night talk show hosts if it weren't true. Instead, it's just plain scary. While Republicans fight the War on Terror, grow our robust economy, and crack down on illegal immigration, House Democrats plot to establish a Department of Peace, raise your taxes, and minimize penalties for crack dealers. The difference couldn't be starker."
MR. BRODER: I like Roy Blunt, but that rhetoric gives a measure of how hard up the Republicans really are. I mean, that is not the Democratic agenda. The Democratic agenda is raising the minimum wage, doing something about drug prices, and probably doing something about the war in Iraq.
Conservative Bob Novak then downplayed the midterm elections, noting that "everyone is already looking to 2008."
BOB NOVAK: I would make the argument, this is one of the least important elections I have seen because everybody is really looking ahead at 2008 as an important election. Because if the Democrats win the House, as is, as is probable, then it's they, they can pass a lot of legislation, get nowhere in the Senate. Senate is a very difficult thing to get through. And the president will suddenly discover his veto pen that he had that he had kept lost track of for six years. So I don't think much is going to happen, substantively. It is a nice, it's a, it's a thing for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House, but I don't think there's going to be much action out of it.
The three battleground U.S. Senate races continue to be Virginia, Tennessee and Missouri . . . all red states. In his analysis, Novak gives Sen. Jim Talent a slight edge in the Missouri race.
NOVAK: Those, those three, three states are, are extremely close and I would say right now, in all three of those, I would give the edge right now to the, to the Republicans. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it.
Charlie Cook of The Cook Political Report then had his turn . . . McCaskill . . . ahead, . . . by a little? . . . Maybe . . .
CHARLIE COOK : Missouri, gosh, it's, it's really close. Maybe McCaskill ahead a tiny bit more than behind, but it's close. Then as John said, those rural areas help how bad how far are they going to go for Republicans.
On Fox News Sunday, neoconservative Bill Kristol predicted Republicans will keep control of the U.S. Senate if the environment remains stable over the next two weeks.
BILL KRISTOL: We'll see. I mean, if current levels hold, probably. The Democrats would need to win two of the three seats: Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia. They're all Republican states. Virginia and Missouri have Republican incumbents. I think if we just have a stable environment for the next two weeks, Republicans maintain control of the Senate.
The question is, does the bottom fall out? And it could in this kind of year.
5 comments:
The media's new love affair with Barack Obama reminds me of Gov. Cumo a few years ago. On the strength of one speech at the demo convention they have crowned a new star. Although he has hardly any accomplishments other than lieing to John McCain, he is their new golden boy. Even though a senator hasn't been elected since Kennedy in 1960 they still dream. Maybe they secretly don't think Hillary can make it?
I agree with Novak, this election is probably only important to people like Blunt, who will have to move to a new office and have fewer perts. The repubs have proven that they are just as corruptable as the demons when given the opportunity. Divided government means fewer laws passed and gridlock is a good thing. The only vote they all will agree on is when they annually raise their own pay.
marcus,
Does this mean Dems *don't* use "talking points"? I'll roll my eyes if you say "no, only Republicans parrot their leaders". *chuckle*
boyd,
"The only vote they all will agree on is when they annually raise their own pay."
Not me. If elected, I'd donate any pay increase to a reputable charity.
As for Barack Obama... if he runs AGAINST The Hildabeast, expect her to be as ruthless and nasty as she would be to her Repub challenger. If I were Obama, I wouldn't do it, nor would I accept a VP slot on the Rodham ticket. I don't associate with Marxists; neither should he.
Well, at least you admit your side can be just as nasty and venomous as the R's can be (I lurk around DemocraticUnderground, though I can't bring myself to get an account there, and they'd likely only let me post one time before booting me off).
But I'm neither, and in a unique position... I can slap both sides whenever I want. And they deserve it. Besides, it's fun.
I've never dealt directly with Miller, but he tried to force his way in as my party's 7th Congressional candidate. Didn't even bother to ask, not that he bothered to ask the Dems or Repubs, who also turned him down.
As for freepers, I've read nastiness from them, but for my money, some of the DU posters are even worse.
Post a Comment