Haven't started looking at the 2004 races yet but figured Graham was safe without a strong GOP opponent (can't think of anyone but Jeb). If correct, and assuming Hastings heard some rumble about Graham retiring (did he make it up?), not a good sign for Dems if safe incumbents are retiring in states that are not safe for Dems

Mr. Judd;



Much as it pains me to side with the Democratic Party, the problems seems to be more with a community that supports losers like CMB or Hastings. Is your point that the Democratic Party made a fundamental mistake in coming to depend on a lock on black votes?

AWW:



Bush should have offered him the Homeland Security job.

AOG:



I'm merely suggesting that there are more events on the horizon that will adversely affect black/Democrat relations. A big one to watch is head of the DNC if they can push McAuliffe out. Maynard Jackson still wants the job. Are Democrats prepared to enter 2004 with the main spokesmen for their party being the already rebuked Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, and Maynard Jackson?

Oj -

Perhaps Bush should have tabbed Graham for Homeland but Bush was probably loyal to Ridge. Or maybe Bush discussed it but Graham wanted to stay in Senate.

If Terrell wins on 12/7, pushing Republicans to 52 senators, may begin to see more Democrat senators retire/switch/take administration jobs.

Orrin - At last! A good job for a Democrat -- Homeland Security -- the no-win portfolio.

pj:



One can't help being amused at the idea that you can't organize that department but that you can run the entire government.

Not to beat a dead horse but 2 more points on Graham as Homeland head. First, GOP and Bush tarred the Dems as weak on defense to great success in the 2002 elections - turning around and naming a Democrat head of the big homeland defense dept would have undercut the arguement. Second, as noted before governors tend to make better presidents than senators do because of the managerial experience. Same can be true of cabinet departments

AWW--Bob Graham was governor of Florida before becoming a senator. And he's been very popular in both capacities.



Besides, it wasn't so much the Republicans tar and feathering as it was Democrats flailing around for some kind of position on the war. They did it to themselves.



Personally, I'd like to think Jeb will go the full term and then challenge Bill Nelson for the senate seat Connie Mack held.

I want to know how Hastings, being an impeached federal judge, is a Congressman in the first place. Doesn't an impeachment conviction disqualify you for any office of public trust according to the Constitution?

AWW - Even if 99% of Democrats are lousy on national security, the remaining 1% is still a sizable pool of competent candidates. I don't think finding one good Dem undercuts the argument that the rest can't be trusted with power. And a Cabinet Secretary reports to the President and implements his strategy, so if he does well it reflects on the President.



My point about "no-win portfolio" is that if you block terrorist attacks, people will assume it was because the threat was never great, e.g. al Quaeda couldn't recruit anyone to attack us; but if you fail to stop attacks, then people think you're incompetent. If Saddam launches a smallpox attack against us, I guarantee 98% of the country says we should have been vaccinated ten months ago. The job is a heads-you-break-even-tails-you-lose proposition.

Benjamin:



Nope. It just requires removal from office.

Buttercup:



Tim Russert had Nelson on a couple months ago and I was stunned by what a dolt he is. He didn't even understand some of the questions.

OJ-- Nelson's best talent was having McCullum(sp?) for an opponent, who ran an awful campaign. Nelson at least got his name and face out to the public so people knew who he was. Other than that, Nelson seems to be a featherweight.