In this week's Anchorage Press, "left-leaning independent" reporter David Holthouse interviews Lisa Murkowski, and she makes the (ultimately failing) pitch for why progressives should support her. Not surprisingly, it's mostly because Joe Miller is crazy, and because she'll be a newly independent voice within the GOP caucus, should she return.

Anchorage Press: What do you have to offer progressives in the way of reassurance that if we cross over and write in your name, you will keep us in mind once you’re back in D.C? In other words, beyond just making sure Joe Miller loses, what do we get if you win?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: When I win this race, as I intend to do, it will not be because my party put me there. The Alaska Republicans and The National Republican Senatorial Committee have gone out of their way to help Miller. When I return to D.C., I will be returned because Alaskans from across the political spectrum have sent me back, and I won’t forget that. Also, I will have a certain freedom in the sense that without the official Republican backing that has historically been there for me, I’ll have not just a desire but also a clear mandate to ensure that all Alaskans are fully represented....

But as a write-in candidate running against my party’s nominee, I’m no longer in a position where I have party leaders that can say to me, “Wait a minute, Lisa, if you go that way you’ll be going against the party position,” because I’m already going against the party position just by running. I’m not saying that on every occasion in the senate I’ve voted a certain way because of pressure from my party, but the reality is you do have that hanging over you. But I won’t. Not anymore.

And a little later on:

Anchorage Press: What sort of punishment do you expect to receive from Republican leaders if you beat Joe Miller?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: I imagine that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will welcome me back warmly.

Anchorage Press: Why?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: Because they need my vote. And let me tell you—when you win, it’s a whole different story out there. Because then you’re a player. Right now I’m a write-in candidate and I’m not my party’s nominee and [Republican leaders] are looking at the situation and saying, “We have to stick by the process,” so they’re doing about what I expected of them, which is they’re standing by the party nominee. They may not be doing it gladly but that’s what they’re doing.

Anchorage Press: You think they’re secretly hoping that you’ll win?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: Yes. Yes I do. Definitely.

That's Republicans she thinks are secretly hoping that she'll win, because "they need [her] vote." So she's trying to convince Democrats and progressives that they really have to send her back, and she's doing it by telling them she'll be welcomed back into the GOP fold with open arms? That's effective.

There's a real Dem in the race, Alaska. You
know who his is, and you know what to do: $10, $15 or whatever you can kick in.

Tom Perriello beat the Republican incumbent in Virginia's 5th Congressional district by the skin of his teeth in  2008. No surprise then that he's in a tough fight to keep his seat this year against state Sen. Robert Hurt. Indeed, even before the first polls showed Hurt with a double-digit lead, and before the Republicans targeted the district, conventional wisdom was that Perriello had a slim chance of reelection because he's too progressive for the district. But that hasn't stopped the SEIU from putting money into the campaign, nor the cautious DCCC, which is now running its second ad in the 5th.

It's still a long shot, but if straight talk about serving the needs of a district where the unemployment rate is a full point and a half above the state overall, then Perriello ought to win walking away. Especially so given Hurt's apparent disdain for those needs. The video snippet below illustrates Perriello's stand-up approach to campaigning, which happily coincides with his stand-up approach to governing:

Like other Democrats in conservative districts, Perriello could have chosen an easier path. But just as he did in 2008, snatching the heavily Republican district from the incumbent, Perriello has run a relentless progressive-populist campaign this year. He's shown courage and principle in the face of difficult odds, been specific when his foe has been vague, not distanced himself from his votes and never muddied the message trying to snag a few extra votes. Not that every stand he takes is where progressives would like him to be. But we could use plenty more like Perriello in Congress.

While Dems are keeping pace in early voting near everywhere around the country, there's one place where that's not the case -- Florida.

The enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats has for months been cited as a harbinger to major Republican Party victories in the Nov. 2 mid-term elections.

And if early voting is any indication, that barometer appears justified, both locally and across Florida.

Through the first three full days of early voting, ending Wednesday, Republicans were dominating Democrats in Sarasota County. That is sending a panic through local Democrats who fear that unless the trend is quickly reversed, they could be looking at wholesale defeats, including a loss for incumbent state Rep. Keith Fitzgerald, D-Sarasota.

Of the 8,600 votes cast early in Sarasota County, just 30 percent were by Democrats. Republicans comprised 53 percent of the voters. The remaining 17 percent were supporters of minor parties or held no party affiliation.

Statewide, Republicans are also leading Democrats in early voting. Of the 778,000 early voters so far, just 33 percent statewide have been Democrats compared with 53 percent Republicans.

Horrid. Catastrophic. So what's going on?

Sarasota Democratic Party chairwoman Rita Ferrandino admits there was an initial panic that set it when she saw only 30 percent Democrats in the early-voting numbers. But the more she has investigated what is going on, the more she is convinced that the U.S. Senate race is causing the voter turnout disparity for Democrats.

Ferrandino said many of the county's best Democratic voters — those who never miss an election — report to her that they are holding off in case Democrat Kendrick Meek or independent Charlie Crist drop out of the Senate race against Republican Marco Rubio.

Unfortunately, neither Meek nor Rubio will drop out, thus handing the seat to Rubio on a silver platter. The low early-voter numbers are just collateral damage in that lose-lose situation of a Senate race.

The special interests poured millions into a lobbying campaign to prevent us from reforming the system – a system that worked a lot better for them than for middle class families. Some in the financial industry were eager to protect a status quo that basically allowed them to play by their own rules. And these interests held common cause with Republican leaders in Washington who were looking to score a political victory in an election year.

President Obama in this morning's weekly address warned of the repeal of the Wall Street feform laws should Republicans get their way in the next Congress. He reminded listeners of the tough fight to get new rules enacted, and he touted the creation of the consumer watchdog bureau in the legislation, which "will have the authority to guard against unfair practices in mortgage transactions and foreclosures."

And those Republicans, they seem to mean it, he pointed out:

Recently, one of the Republican leaders in the Senate said that if Republicans take charge of Congress, repeal would be one of the first orders of business. And he joins the top Republican in the House who actually called for the law to be repealed even before it passed.

In closing, he argued for his vision of what protections and oversight mean, not just for consumers, but to the whole of the economy:

Our economy depends on a financial system in which everyone competes on a level playing field, and everyone is held to the same rules – whether you’re a big bank, a small business owner, or a family looking to buy a house or open a credit card.  And as we saw, without sound oversight and common-sense protections for consumers, the whole economy is put in jeopardy. That doesn’t serve Main Street. That doesn’t serve Wall Street. That doesn’t serve anyone. And that’s why I think it’s so important that we not take this country backward – that we don’t go back to the broken system we had before. We’ve got to keep moving forward.

Well, it certainly serves someone, Mr. President. That "broken system" served the Wall Street welfare queens quite well, in fact. And they're going to throw all the money they can into this election to get even the most minor of consumer protections and regulation removed. We hear you there, loud and clear.

The full transcript can be found at the White House website and beneath the fold.

Like they say, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt:

On his radio show today, Beck wondered how many people in the country believe in evolution, and said he doesn't: "I don't think we came from monkeys. I think that's ridiculous. I haven't seen a half-monkey, half-person yet." "If I get to the other side and God's like, 'You know what, yep, you were a monkey once,' I'll be shocked, but I'll be cool with it," he said.

Maybe if Beck bothered to know the difference between an ape and a monkey he would find his mythical transitional hominid. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the uber wealthy moguls -- which Beck and Co so love -- are using the fruits of science to build new fortunes based on space travel and alternative energy.

• Jet Propulsion Laboratories has put up a live cam where you can watch engineers assemble the new Mars Rover christened Curiosity.
• Media technology marches on: Amazon will allow Kindle users to lend one another books for two week periods.
• It's science Boobies!
• Via the Bad Astronomer, elect the willfully ignorant, must see video (Which destroyed this post for a few minutes, better work on your embed code fellas).

Saturday opinion.

Cholera in Haiti:

Hospitals in Haiti are reporting 1,500 cases of cholera, and the Pan-American Health Organization expects the number of cases to rise.

• Amount of money spent by Linda McMahon to get herself elected Senator in CT: 41.5 million (CT has 2 million registered voters.)
• Worth of this actual billboard on I-95: priceless

_{Connecticut Post photo\Christian Abraham (with permission)}

Added: The Day (New London) endorsement of Blumenthal:

The Connecticut Republican Party should forever be embarrassed it selected Ms. McMahon for this race over Rob Simmons, a former congressman, decorated veteran and party loyalist, and for one reason only - she had money.

EJ Dionne:

I "get" the Tea Party. I just disagree with much of what it's saying and would insist that it's neither as novel nor as large as its supporters and some press accounts would suggest. And I'd urge thoughtful conservatives such as [Peter] Berkowitz to apply the example of their distinguished forebears, notably William F. Buckley Jr., by challenging the sometimes exotic extremism that is now taking hold on parts of the right, including parts of the Tea Party.

Newsweek:

Despite doom-saying about Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK poll (full results) shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared to 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK poll since February 2010. However, his approval rating, which is notably higher than many recent polls of the president’s popularity, may be evidence of a closing "enthusiasm gap" more than a sea change in voter attitudes, and may not substantially affect Democrats’ fortunes come Election Day. In 1994, NEWSWEEK polls showed a similar steep climb in President Clinton’s approval between late September and late October, but Democrats still suffered a rout in the midterms.

There's a lot of close races that'll be decided by who comes out to vote. Newsweek is, of course, a very D "leaning" poll. But I do like this:

Pollster Larry Hugick says that while Republicans are still likely to come out on top on Nov. 2, the results of the new poll show it might not be the runaway domination some commenters have suggested. "The idea that the Democrats are just going to sit this one out doesn’t seem very likely," he says. "While there’s no question that Republicans are going to pick up seats, the question is how many."

Robert Shrum: Okay, this one's creative. Dems scrape by in the House, keep the Senate, there's civil war  in the GOP, and Jeb Bush is the peacemaker.

Following a disappointing midterm, he's likely to be both the most viable nominee and the most electable Republican for 2012.  He has potentially the strongest financial base among traditional big money givers; he's also acceptable to most of the shrunken minority that kidnapped the party's primaries this year. He stood with them — rallying to their favorite Marco Rubio in the Florida Senate race--without joining them explicitly or mouthing their off-the-wall rhetoric.

It's a fun piece of fiction.

Mark Blumenthal on Gallup criticism and Frank Newport response:

While I agree that a "micro" focus on small subgroup inconsistencies is often inconclusive, simply brushing aside criticism as griping from partisans about results they "dislike" misses the larger issue. The results of Gallup's traditional likely voter model, using their traditional assumptions about turnout, have been very different as compared to other pollsters this year. Given Gallup's outsized influence on the campaign narrative, we need to understand all we can about why their results look the way they do. Critical analysis from all corners is warranted, whether we dislike the results or not.

Carl Bialik:

Political scientists tend to rely on one of three types of prediction methods. Veteran forecasters, notably Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg, combine data with impressionistic analysis, drawing on decades of experience calling races as well as interviews with hundreds of candidates. In the purely statistical camp is Nate Silver, who gained attention for his computer model that accurately predicted the 2008 presidential election and has developed a similar tool for House races. And a number of political scientists have produced mathematical models that, for the most part, treat the election as a single race.

Most political fortune tellers have Republicans taking control of the House, but a few see the Democrats emerging with a narrow edge...

Though there is major potential for error with these forecasts, Prof. Bafumi says, "no one wants to know about that too much."

Yeah, forecasters. Just tell me what's gonna happen, not what might happen. And woe unto you if you are wrong.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its Arctic Report Card for 2010 [101-page pdf]. It's so simple and straightforward that even Sen. Jim Inhofe could get it. But then he would have to admit that his long-standing claims of climate change being a hoax are themselves a hoax, one perpetrated with the inherited money of billionaires and self-interested corporations who have spread lies and smeared scientists during a two-decade-long propaganda campaign.

Although Inhofe gets much of the press because of his aggressive stance in this matter, he's not alone in the informal caucus of climate-change deniers in Congress who have done all in their power to throw up obstacles against even the mildest ameliorative action, much less the tough legislation actually needed to make a difference.

Like the climate zombies they hope to join, plenty of candidates for Congress this year parrot the lies. Speaking Wednesday before a fund-raiser that Inhofe attended in Loveland, Colo., Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck said:

“Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated,” Buck said according to several reports. “The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on.”

Supporting their view if you ignore reports such as NOAA's:  

^{See DWG's diary for a discussion and many more details from the report.}

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2002:

This evening's Rescue Rangers are jlms qkw, watercarrier4diogenes, dadanation, and mem from somerville with shayera editing.

• MaikeH explains why, how, where, & when, with details in "Sending a Message": I Voted Today. (jlms qkw)
• Seneca Doane eulogizes an excellent legislator in R.I.P.: CA State Senator Jenny Oropeza dies at 53. (shayera)
• Augurgirl delivers the tale of an inspirational day in Six more years (10/21 Murray event at UW). (mem from somerville)
• DemUnity takes a look and wonders Are Automated Polls Underreporting Democratic Support In Key Senate Races? (shayera)
• eOz evaluates some strategies for resolving the conflicts we face in Countdown To Karmageddon: T - 10. (mem from somerville)
• When it come to prosecuting anything Blackwater has done, Magnifico relates the infuriating fact that things are going All according to plan... (watercarrier4diogenes)
• DrSteveB diagnoses some data from a new survey in MA doctors support Single Payer over other health reform. (mem from somerville)
• DWG takes a look at The grim Arctic Report Card. (shayera)
• JSCram3254 espies underlying barriers keeping people off the streets in The Right (But Not the Ability) to Protest. (mem from somerville)
• You may be one of the many lucky Kossacks who met MsSpentyouth at NN10. Losing your voice can be a tough problem at any time, but especially now, which has prompted her to ask, Well, it ain't brain surgery. Will you phone bank for me? (watercarrier4diogenes)
• Vikingkingq compellingly adapts British sociologist T.H. Marshall's "three stages of citizenship" to look at the real, experienced state of the poor in this country in A Social Minimum for the 21st Century. A must-read. (dadanation)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: October 21, 2010.

boran2 has Top Comments: Travel Tribulations Edition.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

   This Rescue Diary covers the period from 6 PM, Thursday, 10/21 to 6:00 PM EDT, Friday, 10/22

Today's Menu Includes :
69 Diaries Overall

- 15 On House races

- Covering 11 individual Districts in 9 states

- 17 On Senate races

- Representing 9 different states

- 18 On Various election races and ballot issues

- Encompassing Governor, Secretary of State, Local, and more

- 19 General election-related diaries

And be sure to follow the Election Diary Rescue on Twitter

The war in Afghanistan? Not going all that well.

The war on drugs? Um, move along please.

The war on poverty? Are we still even fighting that one?

But don't despair. There is a battlefront where there's been significant progress -- the war on reality.

In case you think that the general Tea Party lunatic positions on taxes, health care, and Aqua Buddha have distracted them from the battle lines of this engagement, Southern Fried Science has compiled a series of Tea Party statements where candidates and supporters reaffirm their allegiance to non-science. Whether it's O'Donnell's fury over mice with human brains, Sharron Angle's angle on the "hoax" of global warming, or the near universal disdain on the right for evolution, the Tea Party has not surrendered one inch to research and reason.

The editors of the journal Nature have declared that

The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge. ... The [Tea Party] movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government.

Science-based regulation? Bah! Bring on the fear-based regulation. Insubstantial suspicions, deep-seated racism, voodoo-based economics, and pretty slogans with no connection to reality, those are the only means of regulation that the right endorses.

After all, when you're trying to lead America out of the 20th century by going back to the 19th, no reasonable statement (or reasonable person) can be left unassailed. Limbaugh has declared that science is one of the "four corners of deceit," so don't expect to find much endorsement for solving issues by means of study and reason.

In fact, your best move may be to take your kids out of that regrettably pro-science program at the local magnet school and line them up for certification as a haruspex. The way the right is going, there's sure to be a big call for reading entrails.

Donate to the cause of reality -- chip in $5 or $10 to one (or more) of our outstanding O2B candidates today.

Yesterday, after being fired by NPR, Juan Williams said:

I better bite my tongue at this point.

That didn't last long. Today, settling in nicely at his new, permanent home at Fox News, Williams writes of his firing:

This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

And to escape the horror of enforced ideology, speech and writing, Williams signs with Fox News? Comedy. Talk about being a political prisoner!

Dear Sarah, Jim, and GOPers everywhere: thank you so much for rejecting Mike Castle and giving us someone as crazy as Christine O'Donnell. We really do appreciate it.

After watching this ad (it's Coons' latest), the question I'm still trying to answer is this: who's crazier, Christine O'Donnell -- or the party that nominated her?

Please help elect Chris Coons and his fellow O2B candidates by chipping in $5 or $10 today.

What's coming up on Sunday Kos ….

• Steve Singiser has been forecasting elections since he was a teenage college student. On Sunday, he’ll tell you why, for the first time, he has no freaking clue what is going to happen on November 2.
• In "For a very important date," Mark Sumner will look at how a religion founded on a revolutionary admiration for nonviolence became the promulgator of violent revenge fantasies that shape national policy and world events.
• Dante Atkins will offer  his thoughts on Friday's rally at with President Obama at the University of Southern California.
• Laurence Lewis will take a look at the false equivalency too often made between the anger on the left and the anger on the right.
• brooklynbadboy will discuss the modern political "book deal," which he believes is a symptom of the moral bankruptcy of our political elite.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Late Night Snark Plumps When Ya Cook It!

"Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are President Obama's 10th cousins. Which means they're secret Muslims!!"
---Jimmy Kimmel
-
"Jackass 3D" just opened. It’s the life story of New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino."
---David Letterman
-
"The main purpose of the North Korean demonstration was to introduce Kim Jong Il's new heir-apparent---his youngest son, Kim Jong Un.  But don’t be deceived...his cheeks are, in fact, not chubby. He's storing up evil for the winter."
---Jon Stewart
-
"Delaware Republican senate candidate Christine O'Donnell blamed her campaign's recent troubles on unfair coverage in the "liberal media."  Yup, the liberal media used two of its favorite tricks on her:  'Record' and 'Play.'"
---Seth Meyers
-
"We are in the thick of the baseball playoffs, which means the pace of the game has gone from stultifying to glacial."
---Stephen Colbert

And this sums up election season pretty well, I think:

"There is a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy. Of course the Democrats are disappointing. That's what makes them Democrats. If they were any more frustrating they'd be your relatives. But in this country they are all that stands between you and darkest night. You know why their symbol is the letter 'D'? Because it's a grade that means good enough, but just barely. You know why the Republican symbol is 'R'? Because it's the noise a pirate makes when he robs you and feeds you to a shark."
---Bill Maher

Oh, and for best results, stir your Dracula's Kiss cocktail with a wooden stake. (But, uh...you can probably skip the garlic.)

Your west coast-friendly edition of  Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Earlier today, Louisiana's Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate Charlie Melancon released an internal poll showing him within 3 points of incumbent Senator David Vitter and received the endorsement of New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.

So how did Vitter respond to the news from Melancon's campaign? By claiming to have been endorsed by the oldest Democratic organization in the state of Louisiana.

Vitter was also endorsed Regular Democratic Order (RDO), the oldest Democratic organization in Louisiana.

The only problem? The Regular Democratic Order doesn't exist. He may have meant the Regular Democratic Organization, but that's a conservative organization with no ties to the modern Democratic Party. In fact, it was founded during reconstruction to establish Jim Crow laws. But hey, if David Vitter wants to claim the mantle of segregation, I guess at least he's being honest.

Vitter also claimed the endorsement of Democratic elected officials in Louisiana, including Mayor Dan Hollingsworth of Ruston. The problem there? As KNOE tv reports, Hollingsworth isn't a Democrat and did not agree to make an endorsement of Vitter as a public official.

I will grant Vitter this: in a state like Louisiana, he's probably better off inventing and misrepresenting endorsements than explaining why as a married man and as a U.S. Senator he used the services of the D.C. madam.

Attention, voters of Wisconsin! However pissed you might be about the state of the economy, or the state of the nation, I have a new reason for you to not vote for Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson.

It's not his abhorrent issue positions (which he has kept purposefully mum for the past several months). Nor is it the amenable qualities of Johnson's Democratic opponent, Senator Russ Feingold (though he certainly has them).

It is the simple fact that his campaign is the biggest insult to the intelligence of the American voter in my memory. Ron Johnson wants you to elect him on spec, without giving you any indication of how he will use the office to which he wants you to entrust him.

And, despite being pressed about it, he refuses to stop hiding his true agenda (emphasis mine):

Johnson told reporters that he viewed his campaign as a job interview with voters.

“I don’t have access to all of the information. Certainly, I don’t have the time to dig into these issues and come up with, ‘Here’s the solution.’ All I can honestly do is convey who I am. This is my background. An accountant. A business owner. That’s the level of experience I would take, the background I would take to those problems and start addressing them. That would be after I get elected. Then I would start doing the job.

Pathetic.

I can't speak for the rest of you, of course, but every single job interview I have ever sat in on demanded the interviewee to explain what they were going to do in the job that they were seeking.

When I interviewed thirteen years ago for my current "day job", I was asked what lessons I would employ in the classroom, what effective lessons I had taught in the past, what my strategy of classroom management would be, and a host of other questions centering around my plan for the job I was asking them to entrust me with. Indeed, the "job interview" focused on little else.

But RoJo is convinced that voters desperately in need of solutions don't care about the details when it comes to the economy, or jobs, or the scourge of homeless veterans (his indifference to the latter issue providing Senator Feingold with an ideal opening for a campaign ad).

All he has to do is talk about being a businessman, mutter some platitudes about fixing the economy and creating jobs. And wait for the votes to come in. Then...and only then...will he deign to let us know what he will do with the power that the voters are granting him.

Honestly, I almost have more respect for Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. While their views might be abhorrent and several miles from the mainstream, at least they are willing to share them with the voters, and allow them to judge accordingly. This is the worst kind of politics. One can only pray that the voters of Wisconsin, out of anger or disenchantment, reward him for it.