Right Wing Nut House

The government of Prime Minister Siniora has approved the International Tribunal that will try the perpetrators of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri despite questions about the legality of their actions:

The Cabinet of Prime minister Fouad Siniora has defied its pro-Syrian opponents Saturday and gave its final approval to a U.N.-created international court to try suspects in the Hariri assassination.

Prime Minster Siniora has earlier offered to delay the meeting if the Hezbollah and Amal ministers agree to return to the government but they refused.

The legal morass created by this approval is confusing and without precedent in Lebanese history. Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri, who calls the action “unconstitutional,” outlines some of the legal quagmire:

Berri said the emergency meeting called by anti-Syrian Prime Minister Fouad Saniora breached the constitution.

“This meeting is not in conformity with the constitution and this government is de facto,” said Berri, whose pro-Syrian Amal party pulled its ministers out of the cabinet two weeks ago along with those of Hizbullah.

“Under Article 52 of the constitution, an emergency meeting of the cabinet must have the approval of the president of the republic,” he said, in reference to pro-Syrian head of state Emile Lahoud.

Berri had also dismissed as unconstitutional a previous meeting of the cabinet on November 13 which agreed to submit the court blueprint to the U.N. Security Council for the endorsement it gave on Tuesday.

He said then that the rump anti-Syrian cabinet left after the departure of the six pro-Syrian ministers breached Lebanon’s national pact, the unwritten arrangement providing for all of the country’s myriad religious and ethnic groups to be represented in government.

The need for ratification by Lebanon’s pro-Syrian head of state, President Emile Lahoud, is also the subject of heated debate between Damascus’s friends and foes.

Pro-government leaders argue that the constitution gives ministers the authority to override the president if he refuses to ratify a treaty agreed by both the cabinet and parliament twice in the space of a month.

But opponents — and some lawyers — argue that that would be a breach of the national pact and therefore unconstitutional. The unwritten national pact provides for all of the country’s myriad religious and ethnic groups to be represented in government.

Siniora at first refused to accept the resignations of the Shia ministers. This is how he was able to pass the initial enabling law that was then sent back to the UN for final approval. With that approval given on Thursday, it is now up to the government to send the measure along to Parliament where it awaits a very uncertain future.

Berri appears to have settled into the position that the Tribunal cannot be approved without the presence of the Shia ministers. This will probably mean that he will not even call Parliament into session. This will bring about a confrontation with the March 14th Forces. If the governing coalition attempts to convene the Parliament without Berri’s approval and then strong arm passage of the Tribunal, this would no doubt precipitate a crisis where wholesale resignations by Hizbullah, Amal, and Aoun’s FPM deputies would ensue and totally delegitimze Siniora’s government and March 14th.

For this reason, Siniora’s next move is uncertain. Blocked by Berri in Parliament, he could ask the President to call the legislature into session but that’s a non starter considering the fact that President Lahoud doesn’t want the Tribunal to convene any more than President Assad of Syria. For the moment, the Tribunal appears to be stillborn.

All eyes now turn to the streets where Hizbuallah will be next week. The outpouring of support for the government at the funeral of Pierre Gemayel not only didn’t impress Nasrallah but also barely affected his plans to bring down the government “within a month:”

Ghalib Abu Zaynab, a Hizbollah politburo member, speaking in the group’s southern Beirut stronghold, said: “As far as street protests are concerned, we have postponed these as we are waiting to see what will happen in the coming days. But the protests will go ahead, and we hope they will achieve our political aims within a month.”

He said tactics would include mass street demonstrations, strikes, and “other legal and peaceful means of achieving our goals. We gave blood for independence but we want true independence, not influenced by outside parties, and this government is a puppet of the United States, run by Jeffrey Feltman [the American ambassador to Lebanon].”

March 14th had called for a 2 day general strike following the funeral, asking all businesses to close up and cease activity. This tactic apparently is a flop:

Most businesses in Lebanon’s capital resumed regular operations on Friday, ignoring a joint call from major business groups for a two-day strike across all commercial sectors. Business leaders had hoped the move might break the political deadlock over Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s Cabinet and discourage rival parties from continuing to threaten street protests.

Though supportive of the strike in principle, most merchants, industrialists, and traders were not in the financial position to adhere to such a demand, the head of the Hotel, Cafe, and Restaurant Syndicate said.

“The decision was taken at a bad time,” Paul Ariss told The Daily Star. “It’s the end of the month and restaurants need the extra cash to pay salaries. We requested by SMS and telephone last night that everyone comply with decision, but let’s just say people were not enthusiastic about it, because they need to make some money.”

It’s hard to gauge whether this is an indication of a flagging of support for Siniora’s government or whether it is a reflection of practical realities as indicated in the article. It could also mean people are tired of the confrontation and wish a resolution.

Meanwhile, Hizbullah continues to plan - with the help of their friends in Tehran:

[T]he Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are using the Iranian embassies in Damascus and Beirut as command and control centers — an allegation that was also confirmed to TIME by Israeli military sources. Obaid says there appear to be direct communications links between the Iranians and Hizballah, via Hizballah officers working inside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, and Iranian officers in the field with Hizballah fighters; in the past, some Middle East analysts have rejected the popular notion that Hizballah takes direct orders from Iran.

It is apparent that Tehran and Hizbullah are moving in for the kill. The next few weeks will be painful to watch for the friends of Lebanese democracy.

Whatever small chance the Iraqi people had that the United States wouldn’t abandon them to the tender mercies of al-Qaeda and the sectarian thugs who are wandering the country drilling holes in their victim’s heads is disappearing as fast as you can say the word “bi-partisanship:”

The Bush administration and the new Democratic leadership in Congress are looking for the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to provide realistic recommendations and political protection against criticism if the U.S. military mission falls short of original expectations.

The commission’s discussions are said to be focused on an option presented by a panel of experts that the United States concede that the situation in Iraq cannot be stabilized and make plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I wrote this all the way back in September about the Iraq Study Group:

In other words, no “cut and run” but rather the slow, inexorable drawdown of US forces whose exit will not so much reflect the ability of the Iraqi government to defend itself from internal enemies but rather how the pull out will be perceived by the rest of the world – including how it will play domestically.

Cut and run – even if it’s done slowly – is still cut and run.

The immorality of this strategy is shocking in its implications. The foreign policy elites have apparently decided that the war is unwinnable but that it would harm American interests if we simply up and left. Therefore, they are going to ask young American men and women to risk their lives not for victory, but…for what? To save face? To keep politicians from looking bad? To fool the American people?

In fact, any exit from Iraq that doesn’t leave a stable government capable of maintaining a modicum of peace on the streets would be seen by the entire world as a crushing defeat for the United States. How we get there by “extricating” ourselves is a fairy tale I’m dying to hear.

Hinderaker at Powerline has it just about right:

Iraq “cannot be stabilized”? That strikes me as a ridiculous statement. One can legitimately ask whether Iraq can be stabilized at acceptable political, military or financial cost. But that would require some hard analysis of what the stakes are and what those costs may be. Notwithstanding the results of Tuesday’s election, I think the American people are adult enough for such a discussion.

The key to the “Baker Plan” will be to engage Iran and Syria and coax them into stopping their support for al-Qaeda and the insurgents. The mullahs are having a good laugh at that one. I’m sure they’ll be impressed by our entreaties to halt their nuclear program given our demonstrated resolve to keep our word to the Iraqi people. And Baby Assad is rubbing his hands together in anticipation at what goodies he can extract from the American dupes who show up on his doorstep, hat in hand, begging him to pull our chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq.

I have been in favor of engaging both Iran and Syria in diplomacy - but with Iraq as an ancillary issue. I would have thought that the fate of the Iraqi people and government was not a matter open to negotiation.

Welcome to the new world of “real” politik.

Negotiating with Syria especially opens up intriguing possibilities. Driving a wedge between Assad and the Iranians (if it were possible without sacrificing Israeli security) would isolate Iran and perhaps even improve the prospects for an Israeli-Syrian dialogue. Hinderaker correctly points out that pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights in some kind of scheme to entice Assad to halt his support for Iraqi insurgents would be stupid. But John fails to note that the Golan has lost some of its strategic value to Israel. Those rockets from Hezbollah flew over the Golan Heights during the war. Occupation of the Golan is no longer a guarantee against Israel being attacked from that quarter and if other security guarantees could be given to Israel regarding the Heights, it may be possible for the US to act as an honest broker in negotiations that would lead to their return to Syria.

In that context, both Syria and Israel would benefit and we would have Assad’s help in tamping down violence in Iraq. And there wouldn’t be a thing the mullahs in Iran could do about it.

As for Ahmadinejad and his nukes, direct negotiations are inevitable. Get used to the idea. The diplomatic dance - fruitless as it almost assuredly will be - is a rite of foreign policy elites the world over. The fact that nothing will be accomplished isn’t the point. It is the dance itself for its own sake that will engage the interest of the self deluded peacemakers who will talk and talk until there’s nothing left to talk about. And then we’ll find ourselves in exactly the same place we are today - will it be war with Iran or do we acquiesce and resign ourselves to them having nuclear weapons?

But to leave the nuclear issue to the side and beg the Iranians for help with Iraq will elicit a few giggles from the humorless fanatics in Tehran. They are bleeding their mortal enemy of blood and treasure. Why in God’s name should they stop? They have sworn to destroy us dozens of times since the revolution of 1979. Are we to suddenly believe that we can engage them in dialogue on Iraq toward the ends we desire when the whole ball of wax will probably fall into their lap anyway?

The Iranians don’t only want us defeated. They want the US humiliated. Any negotiations with the mullahs will be long, drawn out, and designed to show the world how powerless we are to affect events in the region. In the meantime, our soldiers will continue to die, the Iraqi government will continue to dither, and the body count of civilians will spiral upwards.

Phased withdrawal my ass. If we have decided to bug out, let’s leave as quickly as possible. If victory is not to be had at any price then it is immoral to keep our men and women in harms way simply to appease domestic sensibilities. Yes Iraq will devolve into madness and chaos. We can deal with that situation in the context of the War on Terror. Asking someone to put their life on the line for no reason save assuaging the consciences of politicians is stupid.

If we’re not going to stay until the situation is stabilized leave now. Leave as quickly as we went in. The Saudis, the Iranians and the Syrians all helped sow the wind. Now let them reap the whirlwind.

Tired of politics? Me too. Let’s take a break shall we?

Watching ordinary people on television has always been fascinating to the TV viewing public. Whether it’s watching people make fools of themselves as they frequently did on Monty Hall’s Let’s Make a Deal when they got dressed up in the most outrageously stupid costumes in order to get on the show or sharing the excitement of someone who has just been called to “Come on down” on The Price is Right, the “hook” of the game show has always been “that could be me up there” as the TV viewer lives vicariously through the contestants on the screen.

The genre has been hugely successful as well as being enormously popular with the networks in the early days of TV. That’s because it’s ridiculously cheap to produce a game show compared to an hour long drama or even a 30 minute sitcom. The profits can be enormous. When daytime programming on the big three networks was a major profit center, game shows ruled the tube.

These days, game shows are owned by private production companies and syndicated. Shows like Wheel of Fortune are worth a half billion dollars or more. But I prefer the traditional, network owned shows from the past. Watching many of them on The Game Show Network is not only fun, it’s like going on an antropological expidition into the past. The clothes, the pop culture references, even the way people talked was different back then.

At any rate, here are my choices for the top five TV game shows of all time.

5. The Match Game

Gene Rayburn was in his element, bantering with celebrities and generally being goofy. The questions - especially later in the series history - always seemed to encourage double entendres. Has the distinction of being broadcast on both CBS and NBC daytime.

4. Let’s Make A Deal

From prince to pauper in a moment as the contestant would trade the $10,000 car for what was behind the curtain - a milkcow. Nowhere was greed punished more satisfyingly than on this show. And Monty Hall was perfect as the huckstering host.

3. Password

Classy Alan Ludden in a cerebral, staid, but nevertheless surprisingly challenging game. The old games featured more literate celebrities and harder words.

2. You Bet Your Life

Groucho Marx. ‘Nuff said.

1. Jeopardy

Alex Trebek and a legion of Mensas. I tried out for the show once. Got through two rounds before being eliminated. Great host. Great questions. Big money.

UPDATE 11/12

Thanks to Kim at Wizbang who linked this piece, the emails are coming hot and heavy. I bow to the superior wisdom of the group and present some honorable mentions:

THE $25,000 PYRAMID

Instant wealth on a game show that everyone can play. The look on people’s faces when they suddenly won the $25 grand is what game shows are all about. Some very smart celebrity contestants (and some dumb ones) also made the show exciting. Soupy Sales and Lily Tomlin were brilliant.

NAME THAT TUNE

This one goes all the way back to the 1950’s and was a victim of the “Quiz Show” scandals that rocked TV. All game shows back then became suspect and people stopped watching for a while. Bill Cullen hosted one of the original shows. Later, Tom Kennedy emceed.

CONCENTRATION

Next to Wheel of Fortune, the longest running game show in history. Brilliant “rebus” puzzles and the presence of Hugh Downs made this one a gem. One of the harder shows to be good at. Great prizes too.

WHAT”S MY LINE

In the beginning, when New York was still the center of the universe, the show featured a brilliant panel of literati and theater personalities. Random House publisher and humorist Bennet Cerf, columnist Dorothy Kilgallen, poet Louis Untermeyer, and comedy writer Hal Block were more or less permanent fixtures of the show in the 50’s.

The entertaining part of the show was the cross banter between some very witty people - almost like a televised Algonquin Round Table with Dorothy Parker and George S. Kaufmann trading barbs. Still on the Game Show network late, late night.

UPDATE II

I emailed my brother Jim who appeared on two different games shows in the 1970’s. I had forgotten the names of them and he was kind enough to reply:

The show was called Split Second, and the year was 1974. I also was also on Tic Tac Dough in 1978, both times winning a considerable amount of money in the much smaller stakes of game shows in those days.

Quiz-type shows all but disappeared from TV in the wake of the 1958 scandals dramatized in the movie “Quiz Show,” which was about the show 21. The $64,000 Question and the first incarnation of Jeopardy were caught up in the same net, though - feeding answers to contestants with high Q ratings, or audience reaction. The scandal broke when an unattractive bus driver (I think) resented the fact that glamor boy Charles Van Doren (asst prof at Columbia University and scion of one of America’s great literary families) had replaced him in populatity.

I mention this because 21 was hosted by Jack Barry, and the show was a Barry-Enright production. So was Split Second - and I met Jack Barry, immediately remembered who he was, and had a slightly uncomfortable interview with him because he knew that I knew. Split Second (similar in many ways to Jeopardy) was network TV’s first (or one of the first) attempts to get back into Q&A shows. It spawned the re-makes of both Name That Tune and Tic Tac Dough, both of which had had earlier pre-scandal incarnations.

All times central. Scroll down for latest posts.

5:45 PM - Richard Baehr of The American Thinker starts us off (via email):

First Senate exit polls.

Remember these are usually off by at least 5 points in most cases, more early in day.

This tells me Missouri is probably OK, and Montana, Rhode Island, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia will be close (virginia closest). Pa. and Ohio gone (no surprise). In 2004, first exit poll showed Kerry up 18% in Pennsylvania, and he won state by 2%. If these were actually accurate, then we need to win Missouri to get to 50-50.

Virginia (52-47)
Rhode Island (53-46)
Pennsylvania (57-42)
Ohio (57-43)
New Jersey (52-45)
Montana (53-46)
Missouri (50-48)
Maryland (53-46)

Republicans leading:

Tennessee (51-48)
Arizona (50-46)

Also: Exit polls do not include any absentee or early voting, in which GOP tends to lead. National review says add 7 in each case, not 5. No way of knowing. Dangers of exit polling.

6:00 PM - How about a splash of cold water to start off the night? Allah reports:

Fox is reporting that Hastert’s office has warned House Republicans to expect losses of up to 30 seats

EARLY RETURNS IN IN/KY:

Souder and Chocola (IN) ahead. Hostettler (IN) getting creamed. Nothup (KY) and Sodrel(IN) close.

6:30 PM - Polls close in Ohio except 16 polling places in Cayauga County (Cleveland) that will stay open 90 minutes due to problems voting earlier in the day. This is legitimate so no grumbling please.

Souder, Chocola, Sodrel in the lead. Nothup down a couple of hundred votes. Hostettler is heading for the big Hoosier Dome in the sky.

Allen (VA) ahead in early voting. That will tighten considerably.

The Corner reporting that Steele camp worried about low turnout in Prince Georges County - Washington suburb and a place where a lot of blacks were expected to crossover for him.

QUESTION: If the exit polls are off dramatically and the Dems still win, will they try and convince people that Republicans hacked the voting machines but didn’t steal enough votes to win?

6:45 - Here are the Exit Polls posted by CNN - for what its worth.

Pollster.Com is liveblogging the election. Lots of numbers. Good analysis. Too close to call everywhere.

With about 75% of precincts reporting, Anne Nothup is down about 2,00 votes.

Chocola (IN) down 59-41. Don’t panic. Donnelly’s huge surge had to be results coming in from South Bend and Mishawaka - heavily Dem strongholds. Chocola will come back when results from other Rep urban centers come in.

7:00 PM - Ellsworth called in Hostettler race. Dems need 14 for control.

Allen - Webb in virtual dead heat with 25% of precincts reporting. And there it will stay for the rest of the night.

Bass (NH) could be next Republican to be unseated. He’s down big with 25% of the vote counted.

7:15 PM - CNN has a neat page to follow results. I’m going to be using it more as the night goes on because the crawl on Fox News is so damn slow.

Jim Hoft reports turnout extremely high in Missouri. Fox News said earlier that turnout in Montana was “ridiculously” high.

Michael Barone has some very bad news. Chocola is running way, way behind his totals from St. Joseph County (South Bend) and also running worse in two other counties he carried 2 years ago. Prediction: Chocola is toast.

7:30 PM - CBS has called PA for Casey and Ohio for Brown. It’s going to be a long night.

Pollster.Com:

Ok, here’s another one. Extrapolate from the vote by gender tabulation now available on CNN and you get a 16 point lead for Democrat Bob Casey (58% to 42%). CBS has apparently called both Pennsylvania and Ohio for the Democrats, although the other networks I’ve been monitoring have not. This should tell us something important: The analysts are being very cautious about calling the result on exit polls alone. And these are states with candidates with double digit leads in the estimates applied to the CNN crosstabulations. For the states with closer margins, those exit polls aren’t telling us much.

Fox calls Menendez in NJ.

7:45 PM - How about a little good news? Mac Collins in GA 8 is in a dead heat with Dem incumbent Jim Marshall with about 20% counted.

Looks like an uphill battle for Anne Nothup in KY. She’s down about 3,000 votes with 88% reporting.

Hey! “Foley” (Joe Negron) is ahead in Florida with 25% of the vote counted.

8:00 PM - Here’s where we stand…

Senate - +2 Dems
House - +1 Dems

IN - Hostettler gone. Chocola coming back but still trailing by 4. Sodrel locked in tight race.

KY - Nothup almost out of votes and trailing by about 3,000.

NC - Charlie Taylor trailing slightly to Heath Schuler.

NH - Bass coming back but still behind

TN - Corker looks solid. Will be called in the next half hour.

CT- Lieberman ahead by 5

VA - Allen still slightly ahead

Taking a dinner break - back at 8:30.

FOX CALLS MD FOR CARDIN! WITH THREE FRICKING PERCENT OF THE VOTE IN? OH WELL, IT’S THEIR ASS…

And that sound you just heard? That was the collective thud of the netnuts as their heads hit the floor after hearing the news that Fox has called CT for Lieberman.

CHOCOLA OUT IN INDIANA. NOTHUP IN KY. DEMS NOW +3 IN THE HOUSE.

LINCOLN CHAFFEE WILL NOT HAVE TO PRETEND TO BE A REPUBLICAN ANYMORE. IT’S WHITEHOUSE IN RHODE ISLAND. DEMS +3 IN THE SENATE.

Not looking good for the House at this point. Charlie Taylor in NC appears to be going down to defeat. And The Corner is reporting that Rep Jeb Bradley in NH may be in trouble with an anti-war candidate. Bradley wasn’t even considered in danger.

8:45 pm - Pollster.Com:

Gary Kilbride has a very good catch in the comments. The Missouri exit poll is up on CNN. Those who decided in the last three days (who were 10% of all voters) went for McCaskill 57% to 38%. Earlier decideds split nearly evenly with 50% for McCaskill, 49% for Talent. The overall margin in the tabulation is far, far too close to tell us who will win, but given how close the pre-election poll looked, a late break if real would be decisive for McCaskill.

This is in line what these fellows had been saying for the last 48 hours - that there was a slight Dem surge in the last 48 hours and the Rep surge stopped on Sat-Sun.

INTERESTING AND POSSIBLY GREAT NEWS: THE TWO COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS IN GEORGIA WHERE THE GOP HAD A CHANCE TO UNSEAT DEMS ARE BOTH LOOKING VERY GOOD. MAX BURNS IS WINNING HANDILY, UP 12 WITH 40% REPORTING WHILE COLLINS AND MARSHALL ARE IN A DEAD HEAT IN GA 8.

Weldon in PA looks like he’s going down to defeat. Trailing by 12 with 45% of the vote counted.

9:00 PM - Allen maintaining 30,000 vote lead with 84% reporting. Talent maintaining slim lead with 12% reporting.

NANCY JOHNSON OF CT GOES DOWN. FIRST OF PERHAPS 3 CT GOP’ERS. DEMS +4.

Where we stand at 9:00 central:

IN - Sodrel hanging in there but running out of votes and still trailing.

OH - Pryce locked in death struggle is dead even. Ney’s revenge in OH 18 will be a Dem win. Padgett is way down.

NH - Bass is toast. Bradley still trails by 500 votes.

FL - “Foley” close. Buchanan wins. Clay Shaw in big trouble.

Weldon out. Sodrel out. Dems +6. Jesus. And New York isn’t even in yet.

9:15 PM - Sherwood bites the dust. Dems +7.

I want to get mad at all the Pollyannas who were telling me I was an idiot for talking about the Republicans losing the House. But I’ve come to realize that writing everyday and exposing yourself to criticism is part of the game. Instead, I’ll do the mature, adult, thing and just stick out my tongue and go NYAH, NYAH, NYAH.

Getting incredibly tired. Been up since 2:00 AM this morning.

It’s already a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will lose the House. And it looks like they’ll hang on to the Senate. The only question is the margin of victory for the Dems.

I think what we’re seeing is the reason the Karl Rove strategy is limited. The GOP is going to get slaughtered in blue states tonight because GOTV only takes you so far, especially when the other side has a stronger operation than you do. This happened in New York, CT, NH, PA, NJ, and probably OH. It works well in statewide races like Senator, Governor, or for the electoral college. But it spells trouble for House members.

When all is said and done, it looks like the Republicans will lose perhaps 22 seats - more if things go south out west. I’ll have more on this tommorrow but for now, must get sleep.

NOTE: Tune in to The Rick Moran Show live at noon central for a discussion of this post along with reports from other WAR radio hosts about what’s going on in their part of the country. Access the stream by clicking on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar.

**********************************************************

Almost every major political analyst, both Republican and Democratic, is predicting a Democratic takeover of the House as a result of the election today.

A sample (+15 Dem needed for Democratic control):

Stuart Rothenberg (D): +30-36 seats Dem
Larry Sabato (D): +29 seats Dem
Charlie Cook (D): +20-35 seats Dem
Evans-Novak (R): +19 seats Dem
Richard Baehr (R) - The American Thinker: +15-20 Dems
Blogging Ceasar (R): +25 seats Dem

My own projection is for a Democratic gain of at least 18 but not more than 23 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate. I base this estimate largely on the work of others but have added a few wrinkles of my own including weighting races according to the winning percentage of Bush in the district (more than 54% gives the Republican a 5 point edge), the incumbency factor (a candidate running for a third term or better garners 2 extra points in the polls), and another 2 points for a GOTV advantage (which is well in line with the numbers here).

In short, any GOP candidate within 9 or 10 points could pull out a victory given the right circumstances.

While the Iraq War has played a major role in this campaign, the fact is that the GOP started out this race basically 4 seats down. Scandals and malfeasance in dead red reliably Republican districts made this election and uphill climb from the beginning for the GOP. Couple that fact with numerous open seats where the GOP failed to recruit 1st tier candidates to run against superior Democratic challengers and you had a disaster in the making almost before the election had gotten underway.

Is all hope lost for GOP retention of the House? One fairly reliable barometer in the past, Tradesports.Com is trading GOP chances to retain control of the House below 20 this morning. And that contract has been dropping like a rock for the last week despite the polling news over the weekend about a narrowing of the generic ballot race.

Nevertheless, here a a couple of things to cling to if it is hope you are looking for:

1. House polls are usually incredibly inaccurate.
2, All of the analysts above point to some kind of a GOP surge over the last week.
3. The unknown impact of the Kerry “joke” on tight races (The Pew Poll suggests a larger than expected impact nationwide. How that plays out locally is a hard to gauge.)
4. Absentee and early voting suggesting some surprises today.

Not much to cheer about, I’m afraid. The only piece of good news I can give is that I think Democrats are nippin’ at the Kool Aid if they think that there’s some kind of “wave” that will bring them 30 or 40 seats. If there was such a wave it has dissipated as a result of both the Kerry joke and reluctant Republicans finally deciding over the last week to hold their noses, go the the polls, and vote for the GOP.

Notwithstanding all of this, I believe there is sliver of a chance for the GOP to maintain House control. Here are 13 House races to watch tonight. In order for the GOP to maintain control of the lower house, they will have to win all 13 of these seats (or pray for some major upsets elsewhere).

These are 13 races universally considered almost certain Dem pick-ups or toss-ups. If the Republicans can take all 13, they could limit their losses to 12-14 seats and thus, keep control of the House. If they lose more than 1 or 2, Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House next January.

I chose these 13 seats based on their winnability for the GOP (see methodology above). But I must tell you that this scenario has less than a 1 in 5 chance of playing out successfully. I believe it much more likely that the GOP wins 4-9 of these seats with an outside chance at 10.

1. OHIO 18

Joy Padgett is running a good race in the District Bob Ney disgraced with his guilty plea associated with the Abramoff scandal. Strong Dem challenger Zack Space has a huge lead in the polls but given this is a very red district (Bush 57% in 2004) and some late help from the RNC, local newspapers believe Padgett is closing.

2. New York 20

Incumbent John Sweeney had been locked in a tight race with Dem challenger Kirsten Giillibrand when late last week, a police report was released from December, 2005 that purported to show a domestic violence incident. Sweeney and his wife appeared together to say that the way the report was spun was untrue. They gave the State Police permission to release the entire report but the damage had already been done. Even in this red district (Bush 54%) Sweeney is a likely goner. Incumbency and GOTV efforts may save him but it is a longshot.

3. TX 22

Tom DeLay’s seat requires GOP voters to write in the name of Shelley Sekula-Gibbs - not once but twice. That’s because there are two races on the ballot; one to fill out the unexpired DeLay term and one for the next Congress.

The fact that Bush received 64% of the vote in this district means that a helluva lot more Republicans than Democrats are going to be showing up at the polls today. Whether most of them can write in her name is the big question mark. National party has sunk about $1.3 million into this race to educate people how to vote. They may just pull it off.

Expect this one to go on for weeks as Dems challenge ballots where Sekula-Gibbs name is misspelled, or reversed, or there’s no hyphen, or…(fill in the blank).

NOTE: Thanks to a commenter, I’m told that voters only have to write in Sekula-Gibbs name once. She is on the ballot to fill out the remainder of DeLay’s term.

4. Florida 16

Tom Foley’s old seat has also been the object of the national party’s largess. That’s because Foley is still on the ballot. Another million bucks spent here to educate voters that a vote for Foley is actually a vote for his GOP replacement Joe Negron. GOP helped here by lackluster Dem challenger Tim Mahoney and expected strong GOTV effort in a district Bush got 54% of the vote.

5. North Carolina 11

Eight termer Charlie Taylor is in the fight of his political life with former pro quarterback Heath Shuler. The 11th is sandy soil, scrub pine country and Shuler has run a good race in the largely rural areas. These are fiercely independent folks who regularly elect Democrats (despite the fact that Bush got 57% of the vote). Taylor has a history of closing strong and this could be one of the few GOP bright spots tonight.

6. Indiana 2

This is the first of 3 Indiana districts that are in play today. In this reddest of red states, why these three are in trouble shows not only how well the Democrats have done in recruiting candidates in marginally competitive races for them but also GOP vulnerabilities among their base supporters.

Republican Chris Chocola is going for a third term against a strong Dem challenger Joe Donnelly. After winning by a landslide in 2004, Chocola finds himself trailing going into the final weekend. Here I think incumbency and GOTV efforts (Bush 56%) could end up saving him. But Donnelly is no liberal and has run an outstanding campaign, tying himself to “Indiana values.”

7. Florida 13

This seat is open as a result of Katherine Harris leaving to run for the Senate. The fact that she will be slaughtered today by Senator Bill Nelson could help drag a couple of Floridian GOP’ers with her.

By local reports, Republican Vern Buchanan has run an uninspired campaign in a district where Bush received 56% of the vote. But Buchanan got a boost with a recent visit by Laura Bush and his Democratic challenger, Christine Jennings, while running a smart campaign, found herself nearly broke by the weekend. A last minute infusion of cash from the DNC helped and this race is almost certainly too close to call.

8. New Mexico 1

While Bush got less than 50% of the vote in this district, 3 termer Heather Wilson is a scrappy campaigner and has run an excellent race. Dem challenger, Attorney General Patricia Madrid is well funded but inexperienced; she allowed Wilson to tar her with failing to do her job in a corruption case involving a state official. This plus Wilson’s incumbency may make the difference in a district that has been trending Democratic for years.

9. Indiana 9

Vulnerable first termer Mike Sodrel is in a tough fight with former Representative Baron Hill. Both candidates have been slugging it out in one of the dirtier campaigns in the country.

Both candidates are well known, well funded, and have good ground games. But Bush got a whopping 59% of the vote in this district and it appears that later polls are showing Sodrel pulling ahead. This one is probably a Republican hold.

10. Illinois 6

This is an open seat in a race to fill the spot of retiring GOP icon Henry Hyde. The Dems have pulled out all the stops in this one, recruiting a very articulate, attractive double amputee Iraq War vet Tammie Duckworth. She is smart and well funded but her inexperience has shown on the stump.

GOP hopeful Peter Roskam is much more polished having served in the Illinois House and Senate for 14 years, worked on Capitol Hill for Hyde, and been a political fixture in the district that went for Bush with 53% of the vote. Roskam has tried to paint the moderate Duckworth as a liberal, tying her to Ted Kennedy. Duckworth has tried to pin the extremist label on the moderately conservative Roskam. Both have failed and this one is definitely in the toss up column. Give Roskam a slight edge due to his big lead in very red Dupage County.

11. Arizona 5

Six termer J.D. Hayworth is in a tight battle with former Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell. Another example of excellent recruiting by the Dems in a marginally competitive district as Hayworth coasted to victory in 2004 with 60% of the vote, outperforming Bush who got 57% in the district.

Mitchell is another moderate who is as strong as J.D. on immigration reform thus closing off an avenue of attack that Hayworth has used successfully in past campaigns. This race shows Mitchell surging the last two weeks and may tip to the Democrats.

12. California 11

This is a district the Dems targeted from the beginning despite the seven termer Richard Pombo’s record of racking up large margins of victory. The demographics of the district are changing rapidly (Bush 52%) with heavily Hispanic areas growing rapidly.

The Dem challenger Jerry McNerney is extremely well funded and has run a spirited campaign, scoring points against Pombo repeatedly for his votes on the war and veterans benefits. Pombo on the other hand has recently received a huge boost from a visit by Laura Bush and has an excellent ground game in place. Expect this one to be very tight and probably a real bellwether on how the night will go for both sides. A McNerney win will probably signal a big night for the Dems.

13. Kentucky 3

Six termer Anne Northup is showing strong in this Dem leaning district as she once again is enduring a tough challenge. She faces former newspaperman and columnist John Yarmouth who local papers say has underperformed in this race against the vulnerable incumbent.

Northup has run a good race, marred by tragedy. She lost her son last summer which placed the campaign on hold for both sides. That didn’t stop the classless folks at Moveon.Org from holding anti-Northup events which may have damaged Yarmouth’s chances. Also, Northup’s demise has been predicted in every election since she got to Washington. A good shot at a GOP hold here.

******************************************************

I expect that the GOP will hold 4 of these seats. But if it is, in fact, a Democratic night, even candidates like Taylor and Northrup could find themselves on the losing end of things.

One more note: If enough of these races are close, don’t expect Democrats to celebrate their takeover until tomorrow at the earliest. Many of these races could be in doubt for days as challenges, recounts, and other maneuvers play themselves out.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today, we’ll look at the NY Times revelations about nuclear secrets being published. We’ll also update the elections and talk about specific races.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

The votes are in for this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is yours truly for “A Liberal Manifesto and Other Halloween Frights.” Finishing second was newbie American Future for “Japan, North Korea and Nuclear Weapons.”

Coming in first in the non-Council category was Elder of Ziyon for “Archaeological Temple Artifacts Drive PalArabs Crazy.”

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers Vote, go here and follow instructions.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today we’ll look at amnesty in Iraq for killers of Americans. We’ll also discuss “get out the Vote” scenarios for the GOP. And Lebanon is in the news again.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

While the bloody, ongoing drama in Iraq continues to occupy the attention of most Americans, events in Pakistan threaten to upset the delicate balancing act that President Pervez Musharraf has been forced to perform with more conservative, anti-American factions in the government as well as pro-Taliban tribes ensconced along the border with Afghanistan.

The strike at a madrassa in the northern federally administered tribal area of Bajur that was aimed at killing al-Qaeda Number 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri may have missed its intended target. But original reports that it was the Pakistani military that carried out the attack seems to have been issued solely for Musharraf’s benefit; the facts on the ground as well as leaks from US military sources point to missiles being fired from a US Predator drone as the probable means by which several top level al-Qaeda leaders may have been killed along with dozens of Taliban and al-Qaeda recruits.

From Musharraf’s point of view, the revelation that the attack was probably carried out by Special Operations units designated as “Task Force 145″ could not have come at a worse time. Already, his enemies are calling for demonstrations to protest what they say was Musharraf’s acquiescence in a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. And, according to analyst Bill Roggio, the attack put a crimp in Musharraf’s latest effort to appease the Taliban by signing an agreement with local terrorist leaders in Bajur that would remove the Pakistani army from the region and effectively deny the military the ability to prevent access to Afghanistan by the militants:

The strike came just as the Bajur accords were supposed to take place (similar to the Waziristan accords that now prevent Pakistan’s military from operating in that region). Officials within the Pakistani government were supposedly worried when early reports surfaced that Faqir Mohammed may have been killed. Faqir Mohammed is a Taliban leader in the region who would have been a major signatory to the accords: if he were killed, the Pakistanis wouldn’t know who could enter into the accords with them (or, to put it cynically, with Faqir Mohammed dead they wouldn’t know who they were supposed to surrender to). However, Mohammed survived. He apparently felt so confident in his safety that he gave an interview to NBC News at the scene near the blasted school, and also attended — and spoke at — the funeral for the 80 who died in the strike.

At this point, the Bajur Accords are on hold. While we will probably see some payback from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, my source noted that there’s not a whole lot more they can do: these groups tried to kill Musharraf less than a month ago, and are already carrying out terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

The agreement reached with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in North Waziristan, while hailed at the time by the US State Department and Musharraf as a victory against terrorism has actually proved to be an unmitigated disaster for NATO forces in Afghanistan. Taliban fighters poured across the undefended Pakistani border into Afghanistan by the hundreds. Recent battles between NATO and the terrorists have taken place at the battalion level with the Taliban attacking with small arms as well as rocket propelled grenades and mortars. While several hundred Taliban fighters were killed in these battles, both the numbers of attackers and the quality of their weaponry underscores the fact that Musharraf’s efforts to rein in al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan have been an utter and complete failure.

Musharraf probably realized this from the outset of his negotiations with the Taliban in Waziristan (now referred to as “Talibanistan” by locals). And he couldn’t have been deaf to the repeated calls by NATO commanders in Afghanistan that he do more to seal the border areas where Islamic militants infiltrate and carry out attacks against NATO and Afghan civilians. Why then the “terrorist outreach” program with the pro-Taliban tribes in Bajur?

As was the case in North Waziristan, Musharraf has simply accepted the reality that he cannot do as Washington wishes and fight the growing extremist elements that threaten his hold on power with any kind of consistency or fervor. Anti-western feelings have become a powerful political force in Pakistan and any move by Musharraf that could be seen as getting closer to Washington or doing America’s bidding places his rule in jeopardy. His alliance with the religious parties in Parliament as well as his relationship with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has made any bold military moves against al-Qaeda or the Taliban nearly impossible.

Hence, his negotiations in Bajur should be as one more indication that Musharraf sees the temporary appeasement of the Taliban as his only “out.” There are indications that he did not follow through entirely with conditions he negotiated with the terrorists in North Waziristan - specifically, he refused to release about 200 al-Qaeda operatives named in the treaty. This led to an attempt on the President’s life earlier this month. While it is unlikely that the strike against the madrassa in Bajur is connected directly to the assassination attempt, the strike nevertheless sent a message to the Taliban that Musharraf was not entirely a free agent; that he must also deal with Washington and their allies in Afghanistan.

And Musharraf’s relationship with Washington is becoming more and more problematic for both sides as time goes on. The resurgence of the Taliban, buoyed by funds from Afghanistan’s record opium crop last year, has meant that large swaths of Pakistani territory have been co-opted by the terrorists. Wherever the Taliban gains control, Pakistani sovereignty disappears. Musher initially tried using the military to clamp down in the tribal areas but found to his dismay that the Taliban fighters were both too elusive and supported by too many tribal leaders for his soldiers to make a real dent in the terrorist’s control of the region. Recognizing this, Musharraf has signed these agreements in North and South Waziristan as well as negotiated in Bajur as a means to survive. Washington may not like it. But it is, for all practical purposes, Musharraf’s only play.

Despite Musharraf’s attempt to play both ends against the middle in his efforts to appease his enemies as well as his benefactors in Washington, there really is nothing that can be done to change the strategic situation in favor of the west. Too many hands are raised against against him for any kind of dramatic reversal of policy to be in the offing. This analysis gives a pretty good summary of Musharraf’s perilous situation:

He is a difficult subject to interpret. He has at various times been a declared supporter of the Taliban, a committed enthusiast for the war on terror, a militarist, a peacemaker, a defender of liberty and a dictator. If that sounds an incoherent career, just look at the chaotic situation in which he operates and much of it becomes self-explanatory.

Like all military rulers, Musharraf has, first and foremost, to placate the armed forces on which his power depends. He has also had to make (unkept) promises to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, a coalition of Muslim, pro-Taliban parties. Then, in the broader perspective, he needs to keep the United States and its allies happy, playing the role of a zealous warrior against terror and jihad. It is a challenge at which an Italian Renaissance prince of the Machiavelli school might have balked.

The Predator strike may have been a way for the US to go over Musharraf’s head while giving the Pakistani President “plausible deniability” so that a popular uprising against his rule could be avoided. At the same time, it is would be a huge mistake to try and undermine Musharraf’s rule. Simply put, there is no one else in Pakistan who could cooperate with the US the way that Musharraf can. Anyone on the horizon who would take control in a coup that ousted the President would almost certainly be anti-western in their outlook and perhaps even ally themselves with the Taliban. And in a country that sports 60 nuclear weapons, it would be hard to come up with a more catastrophic scenario than that.

Instead, we must work to strengthen Musharraf’s hand where we can and pay lip service to his efforts to appease the Taliban in the tribal areas. An unsatisfying policy to be sure. But the alternatives are just too horrible to contemplate.

With Democrats and their allies in the media in full throated howl, agitating for a withdrawal from Iraq while gravely informing the American people that the war is already “lost,” George Bush had the temerity to stand up at a press conference yesterday and tell us not only the war can still be won but that we are, in fact, winning:

President Bush declared yesterday that the United States is winning the war in Iraq despite the deadliest month for U.S. troops in a year, but he added that he is not satisfied with the situation and vowed to press Iraqi leaders to do more to stabilize their country on their own.

Trying to walk a careful line between optimism and pessimism less than two weeks before midterm elections, Bush lamented the “unspeakable violence” raging in Iraq while trying to reassure American voters that he is adapting his approach to address it. He vowed to “carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory” as long as it does not involve withdrawing troops prematurely.

“Absolutely, we’re winning,” Bush said when pressed at an East Room news conference. At the same time, he said, “I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I’m not satisfied either. And that is why we’re taking new steps to help secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country to meet the changing threat.” He said that he is pushing Iraqi leaders “to take bold measures to save their country” and emphasized that his patience “is not unlimited.”

An exercise in empty rhetoric? A man out of touch with reality? Wishful thinking being substituted for cold, hard facts?

This was the instant judgement of the President’s political opponents, as dismissive of the President’s pronouncements yesterday as they have been for at least 2 years. Because of that, their credibility as war critics is about as high as the Administration’s credibility on what progress has been made in winning the war. Describing the ebb and flow of events on the ground in Iraq does not lend itself to the kind of reflexive, hate filled, wildly skewed analysis coming from the left or the Pollyanish statements of progress by the Administration (”Last throes,” anyone?).

And for those of us who are examining both the military’s efforts on the ground and the rhetoric of the Administration for signs that someone, somewhere in Washington has a clue of what constitutes “victory” in Iraq, the announcement that “benchmarks” have been agreed to between Washington and Baghdad for the withdrawal of American troops could be seen as either more window dressing hyped by an Administration in political trouble or a real sign that the government has hit upon a formula to declare victory and bring the troops home.

These “benchmarks” are really nothing new. The Pentagon itself tried its hand at developing its own set of indicators for withdrawal as far back as March, 2005. Those fell by the wayside as the situation on the ground in Iraq began to worsen early this year following the bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra. At that point, the sectarian violence radically escalated and any hope for an early troop withdrawal went out the window.

Instead of clear cut goals that would have given the Iraqi and American people a definition for “victory,” the Administration settled for sloganeering. “As the Iraqi army stands up, we will stand down” sounds wonderful as a sound bite but means precious little when placed in the context of training an army from absolute scratch with no infrastructure, no modern weapons, untested officers, and sectarian divisions. And political progress, while impressive in some respects, still depended largely on the American army enforcing the will of a government that appeared at times to be paralyzed by its own political divisions.

Speaking with conservative columnists in the Oval Office, the President had this to say about benchmarks:

The latest plan to retake the offensive on defining victory is the so-called benchmark. “The idea is to develop with the Iraqi government a series of benchmarks — oil, federalism, constitutional reform, there’s like 20 different things — and have that developed in a way that they’re comfortable with and we’re comfortable with,” Bush said. Progress toward those goals would give the administration new ways to point toward overall progress in Iraq.

Beyond that, the president seemed to be considering a plan to refine the country’s governmental structure in a way that would accommodate the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd populations without dividing the country. “We’ve had a lot of people out there saying, split up the country,” Bush said. “That’s not going to work. But there are ways to achieve a more balanced federalism from what some people think is going to happen to them. There could be more — like Texas, we always want less federal, more state. And that’s the way — this balance can be achieved through negotiations. That’s what they’re trying to do.”

Are these indicators specific enough to allow the government to celebrate a “victory” in Iraq at some point in the next few years?

The answer is no. The fact of the matter is that the President is absolutely correct when he said in the Oval Office briefing yesterday that “victory” is being defined by our enemies:

“This is the significant disadvantage we have in this war because the enemy gets to define victory by killing people,” Bush answered. In World War II, Bush said, progress, while hard to gain, was easier to describe. One could point to ships sunk, and battles won. “We don’t get to say that — a thousand of the enemy killed, or whatever the number was,” Bush said. “It’s happening. You just don’t know it.”

So if the U.S. chooses not to reveal how many of the enemy it has killed — and if, in any event, that death toll is not stopping the sectarian violence — then how does one assess what is going on? “I’ve thought long and hard about this, because it is precisely what is frustrating most people,” Bush said. “A lot of people are just saying, ‘You’re not doing enough to win. We’re not winning, you’re not doing enough to win, and I’m frustrated, I want it over with, with victory.’ And I’m trying to figure out a matrix that says things are getting better. I think that one way to measure is less violence than before, I guess…”

What the President didn’t say is that our “defeat” in Iraq has already been defined by the press and his political opponents. William Arkin is convinced:

America will be humbled when we leave Iraq. Let’s recognize this is the bitter pill we must swallow now. It ironically will improve our standing in much of the world as we admit that we need the world’s help. It will force us to make a reality of our empty pledge to pursue non-military solutions to the challenge of terrorism.

And what of the enemy? Muslim extremists and terrorists will celebrate our defeat, emboldened even more into believing that they can “win” their war, just as they once defeated the Soviet empire in Afghanistan. It is our punishment and the conundrum: They will celebrate, and they may even be momentarily strengthened. But by stepping off the treadmill, we will also remove so much of the inspiration and certainty that fuels our enemies.

When we exit Iraq, it will not be a peaceful, democratic island in the troubled seas of a despotic Middle East. It may not even have an elected government if things continue the way they have in recent months as the insurgents and terrorists have ratcheted up the violence to unbearable levels in order to give the Democrats ammunition in the upcoming November elections. Nor will it necessarily be a willing partner in our war against Islamism.

But it will not be a threat. It will not have WMD’s. And it will not have Saddam Hussein running the country. This is why, despite all the gleeful rhetoric emanating from the left and from the media about an Iraq “defeat,” there are already benchmarks in place that we can point to that constitute a “victory” for the United States in Iraq. The fact that our enemies, the Democratic party, the western press, and even some conservatives will lament our “defeat” in Iraq doesn’t mean that they are correct or that the judgement of history will bear out their analysis.

One need only look at World War I for a comparison. Did we lose The Great War? Despite vanquishing the German Army and throwing them out of France, they came back 20 years later with a vengeance to conquer most of the continent. In this respect - and using some of the yardsticks Iraq defeatists use - World War I was a disastrous defeat of epic proportions. With 80 million dead in World War II (not to mention the occupation by the Soviets of Eastern Europe) our military efforts in World War I should be seen as a gigantic failure. It solved nothing and left Europe worse off than before the war.

Clearly, different “benchmarks” are in play for different wars. But my own feeling is that Iraq will desperately be played up as a defeat no matter what condition it is in when we leave. And for that, the “Iraq defeat” crowd should be ashamed of themselves.