Jim Klobuchar's softball-news-coverage benefit package continues into his retirement (from the Star Tribune) and covers the children as well, to age 50. It’s a hell of a contract. I don’t think you can get that benefit package anymore. Cost cutting and all....

We don't have to worry about Republican fundraising being "depressed". The last figures I heard had them at a 4 to 1 advantage over the Loyal Opposition.

Mitch said.

"mirabile dictu"

Oh yeah baby... There is is...

Give us some more of that hot Latin pompousity...

Anyway...

It will be interesting to see if the exit polls once again confirm the Minnesota poll results.

"once again".

OK, Doug - when did they *ever* "confirm" the MNPoll's results?

Recall Senator Wynia, Governor Humphrey, Senator Mondale, Governor Moe and President Kerry (by a vastly greater margin than actually occurred).

Oh, and Doug? "Exit polls" really don't matter. It's the *official polls* that count - and that have pretty thoroughly rebuked the MNPoll...

"Oh yeah baby... There is is...

Give us some more of that hot Latin pompousity..."

And this doufus accused ME of intoxication. They have a run on Maddog at Sam's club, Doug? That employee discount sure does help...

Kermit said,

"That employee discount sure does help..."

I'm sure it does Kermit. What do you get...? 5... 10%?

Personally, we don't shop at Sam's Club. We prefer Costco.

Oh, and Mitch, You're right, It is the official polls that count - except in the Ukrain where the exit polls were used as sufficient evidence to invalidate their elections.

For the last 6 years Mitch, we liberals have been arguing for voting machines that can't be rigged or at least provide a verifiable hardcopy for accurate recounts. You guys have complained for 6 years that it's too expensive and can't get done.

You guys went as far as writing legislation in Florida, that actually makes it illegal to count paper ballots by hand after they've already been tallied by machine.

I've said it before Mitch... I am a firm believer that for there to be real change, you have to hit rock bottom. We're not quite there yet but keep it up.

I may be a liberal but I also luv's my guns and wouldn't hesitate for a moment to use the 2nd ammendment for the purpose it was intended.

I'll avoid the lefty-skewed-polls debate. My two questions through all of this have been:

Where are the right-skewed polls? I've only seen one, which was from Kennedy campaign.

Where are the neutral polls? I'm waiting for Ron Carey to show me these, but he only complains about the Minnesota and Humphrey polls.

Assuming that this is the pinch for fundraising, wouldn't Kennedy have other "polls" ready to counter these "left-leaning" polls? I would expect so, but all I hear from his camp is how biased the existing polls are. (I guess that's three questions.)

Minntelect, the point is Kennedy has not lead in a single poll for a long time, if ever. They want to complain about the Star Trib & MN Polls since they are skewed higher, but every poll taken shows Klobuchar with a lead, and a lead that has been widening since earlier this year. Apparently they claim they want to talk about the issues, but the issues are losing him the race thus far.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/mn/minnesota_senate_race-15.html

Doug said:

"I may be a liberal but I also luv's my guns and wouldn't hesitate for a moment to use the 2nd ammendment for the purpose it was intended."

Is that a threat, Doug? There are far more conservatives that know how to 'use the 2nd ammendment for the purpose it was intended' than gun-hating liberals.

Paul Said,

"Is that a threat, Doug?"

I don't know Paul. D0es it need to be?

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... ...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

When conservatives and orthodox libertarians talked that kind of talk back during the Clinton years, people regarded it as insane.

As did I.

Just saying.

Doug said:

"I don't know Paul. D0es it need to be?"

If you aren't man enough to back it up, Doug, I suggest you not make provocative statements.

Fulcrum,

Not to deflate your Real Clear politic buzz there , bucko, but the RCP running average you are looking at is with the Objectionable Star Trib and Humphrey Institute included in there. And even the blurb on RCP notes that the strib poll skews left.

Is Kennedy behind ? Probably
Double digits ? Unlikely.
If the republican bounce continues , it could be a dogfight soon again. Especially if the whole Adgate thing gains traction.
Will it ? Probably not , as it's being spun as inside baseball arcana

Mitch said,

"When conservatives and orthodox libertarians talked that kind of talk back during the Clinton years, people regarded it as insane."

No they didn't Mitch. They echoed it. That kind of talk back during the Clinton years made Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity famous and Americans ate it up.

Remember Mitch, we had eight long years of conservatives and orthodox libertarians doing everything they could to shift the focus to crap like Whitewater and Paula Jones.

When Clinton did attempt to deal with the growing threat of terrorism, it was YOU guys that accused him of hyping the threat.

So - Bush gets into office and does absolutely nothing about bin Laden - nothing about terrorism. Why is that guys? It's because you spent the previous 8 years mocking and discrediting everything the Clinton administration did.

The argument that Clinton didn't do anything about terrorism is crap. He did a lot. And from the way the mouth breathers who dominated the media were screaming, he did more than you wanted him to do.

Paul said,

"If you aren't man enough to back it up, Doug, I suggest you not make provocative statements."

My comments are directed at a government that would falsify elections and those that would aid and abet them.

It's interesting that you feel personally threatened by my comments Paul. Why would that be Paul? Got big plans for November Paul?

And buddy, the whole, "If you aren't man enough to back it up" taunt?

Please. This isn't 7th grade.

"Remember Mitch, we had eight long years of conservatives and orthodox libertarians doing everything they could to shift the focus to crap like Whitewater and Paula Jones."

Yeah! Who cares about Governors raping women and lawyers swindling old people out of their retirements?
You're such a tool, Doug.

I'm not the one who made the veiled threat, Doug.

Yeah! Who cares about Governors covering for their buddies who dump corpses in the woods and swindle old people out of their retirements?

That certainly doesn't seem to bother you.

...and speaking of tools...? Paula Jones raped?

It was a sexual harrassment charge filed 2 days before the 3 year statute of limitations ran out.

She was a freaking groupie who was used by Clintons opponents and she went along with it because they promised her a huge chunk of money in the lawsuit.

If you're raped or even sexually harrased, you don't wait 3 years to file charges.

Being an opportunist doesn't make you a victim.

"My comments are directed at a government that would falsify elections and those that would aid and abet them."

You seem to have intimate knowledge of such techniques, Doug. Perhaps it is because your side that has engaged in such shenanigans that you would think this way.

I'm not the one who made the veiled threat, Doug.

It wasn't a veiled threat, Paul. It was a direct promise that, should the time ever come, I wouldn't hesitate for one minute to follow the direction of Thomas Jefferson.

That you would immediately jump to defensive mode and interpret my comment as a threat to you is very telling.

Ever heard of Juanita Broadrick, Doug?

Thanks, Colleen. It was Juanita that got physically raped. Paula accused the Harrasser in Chief of wagging his (reportedly) very small weenie at Paula and then suffered the Wrath of Clinton. You know, misuse of official departments, more harrassment, ridicule by intellectual giants like Bill Maher and Gary Trudeau.
How quickly we forget.

Oh boohoo, Mitch! All of a sudden some poll claims your 18-point-deficit candidate is down 20 points and you turn on the waterworks. Somebody give him a hankerchief before his mascara runs!

Ever hear of Margie Schoedinger Kermit and Colleen?

And if I remember correctly, Ms. Broaddrick, who was married and having an affair with another man when this alleged "rape" took place, denied the Clinton rape allegegations when she was put on the stand during the Paula Jones trial.

So either she lied about the rape in the first place or she perjured herself on the stand.

Take your pick.

Paul said,

"You seem to have intimate knowledge of such techniques, Doug."

Really Paul? What exactly did I say or even suggest that I have intimate knowledge of specific techniques?

I've gone back and see exactly one mention of a voting or tallying procedure. That is electronic voting with a verifiable paper audit.

Paul, all of the electronic voting machine companies have ties to Republicans including Republican lawmakers. You are aware of that right?

While you're busy documenting where I suggested I had intimate knowledge of election stealing techniques, maybe you could also explain why your side is so adamantly opposed to paper verifiably audits?

It would seem to me that with all of us election stealing Democrats running around, you would be the one driving the paper trail demands.

And Kermit comes through with the Clinton pen1s obsession comment of the night.

"Paul, all of the electronic voting machine companies have ties to Republicans including Republican lawmakers. You are aware of that right?"

And you are aware that, like most companies, they also have ties to Democrat lawmakers. Because that's just plain good business.

You are aware of THAT, right?

"While you're busy documenting where I suggested I had intimate knowledge of election stealing techniques, maybe you could also explain why your side is so adamantly opposed to paper verifiably audits?"

We're not.

All squared away?

I wonder which polling place Doug will be "observing" this time around.

I haven't heard any CEO's of the companies that manufacture these machines promise to deliver the electoral votes to a democratic candidate.

I'm not aware of any Democratic Senators who were former CEO's for these companies.

I'm not aware of any board members for any of these companies who are former aides to a Democratic Vice President candidate.

To suggest that the ties to democrats is in any way on the same level as Republicans is absurd.

If you're not opposed Mitch, kindly explain why attempts to get a bill passed keeps getting stalled in committee in both the Republican controlled House and Senate.

Kermit said,

"I wonder which polling place Doug will be "observing" this time around."

Hopefully it will be yours sweetie pie. Care to share what precinct you're in so I can request a specific venue?

Kermit gets voting machines and peep-show booths confused, Doug. He wonders why Ron Jeremy never seems to win.

H.O. Sonnynsen Elementary in New Hope Doug. I'll be one of the few pulling the lever for Derek Brigham and Alan Fine.
And I would vote for Nina Hartley over Ron Jeremy in a heartbeat.
We aren't all gender confused, AC. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"H.O. Sonnynsen Elementary in New Hope Doug."

Hey, Me too!

City of Crystal, District 1, Ward 1A iirc.

Oops, never mind. I'm at Neill elementary, not Sonnysen.