Isn't There A Commandment About This?

Over in New Jersey, a high school student accused his social studies teacher of preaching in class. The teacher denied it, and the department and principal were prepared to take his word for it. Except the boy had it all on tape.

Junior Matthew LaClair, 16, said history teacher David Paszkiewicz, who is also a Baptist preacher in town, spent the first week of class lecturing students more about heaven and hell than the colonies and the Constitution.

LaClair said Paszkiewicz told students that if they didn't accept Jesus, "you belong in hell." He also dismissed as unscientific the theories of evolution and the "Big Bang."

LaClair, who described his own religious views as "non-Christian," said he wanted to complain about Paszkiewicz to school administrators, but feared his teacher would deny the charges and that no one would take a student's word against a teacher's. So, he said, he started taping Paszkiewicz.

Nice. There are those who say that localities should control whether and to what degree religion should be inserted into the schools. It isn't coercive, they argue, and in any event schools should be taught in accordance to prevailing local norms (which in many cases are Christian). The problem is that in the places where such sentiment is likely to be most intense and thus acted upon (i.e., those places where teachers disregard the current law which says education and religious instruction should not mix), the evidence shows much the reverse: minority religious opinions are marginalized and dissenters are singled out. Consider how LaClair's fellow students reacted to his exposure of the teacher:

As LaClair spoke outside the Devon Street school, some students yelled taunts at him while others glared.

"Mr. Paszkiewicz is an outstanding man," said 16-year-old Stephanie Formoso, a member of the crew team coached by Paszkiewicz and one of his history students.

"Matt set him up," Formoso added. "Mr. Paszkiewicz would always say (when he spoke about religion) 'In my opinion.' He never pushed his beliefs on anyone."

Ah, the Marian Barry defense. This is sadly typical of these sorts of cases. When a member of minority religion comes forward and says that a certain action makes him or her feel like an outsider, a) the claim is mocked and dismissed and b) the marginalization is stepped up a notch. Taunts and glares are actually quite mundane here--threats and acts of violence are quite common in similar cases I've read about.

PZ Myers says that Paszkiewicz is about to become a "right-wing martyr" who will be invited by church groups all over the place to come and lecture about the evils of our secular school system. I suppose this is a test then: how many supposedly Christian groups will be tempted to do that? How many will bend over backwards to defend a man who openly lied about using his teaching position to degrade and marginalize members of religious minorities?

Originally via Steve Benen.

Take Your Mouth Off That Whistle

As anyone who has read my discussion on certain 4th Circuit precedents knows, retaliation cases are a major pet peeve of mine. While I've focused primarily on reprisals in cases of racial discrimination complaints, the principle against it holds true generally. Retaliation against parties who complain about something that would be, if substantiated, a bona fide wrong (e.g., racial discrimination, corruption, graft) is almost never justified. Retaliation chills workers from pursuing necessary reforms or correcting wrongs against them, virtually insures that bad policies will continue, and deprives the public of important information about practices by the government or corporation that they might not tolerate were they made public.

That's why I was so upset to read (thru Steve Benen) this article on the growing number of whistleblower and whistleblower retaliation claims being filed in our intelligence agencies--and how they're being dealt with. Whistleblowing complaints have risen by 43% since 9/11, and reprisal complaints have grown along with, jumping 21%. Whistleblowers often face harassment at best and career destruction at worst, and the law seems unable to help them. The Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply to intelligence officers (why?), and even if an internal investigation substantiates a retaliation charge, the investigators don't have the power to enforce any remedy (why?). Perhaps most amazingly, the federal circuit court that hears retaliation cases has ruled against intelligence whistleblowers 98.425% of the time (125/127).

It goes without saying that an agency whose members are afraid to call out mistakes is an ineffective agency, and when that agency is America's intelligence services (whose street cred at the moment is already a bit off), that makes our nation less safe. Giving these brave public servants the protections they deserve should immediately move to the top of the Democratic Party agenda. It's not just Congress that needs reform, and helping our intelligence agencies clean up house would be one of the fastest ways to make our nation stronger and safer at the same time.

Copycats Part II

Continuing the saga of the Georgetown students who tried to claim their house was a religious organization to evade zoning laws, the local zoning board has rejected their claim. Good for them. I suspect it's right as a matter of law, and I want to preserve Carleton's niche position in terms of college-founded religious bodies anyway.

Mmm...Turkey

Flying out to Rhode Island tommorrow, flying back to Maryland Friday, getting my computer fixed Saturday (hopefully!). Also bought Final Fantasy XII. So I'm going to be a busy beaver over the next few days. I doubt I'll have computer access while in Rhode Island, so if I don't post over the next few days, I wish every one a happy Turkey day, and an excellent weekend seeing college football, college basketball, and maybe the odd college student who in your family during the commercial break.

The Obama File

Obama apologizes to lovelorn reporter for "messing up your game." Read this, and then listen here (MP3). And yes, "messing up your game" is a direct quote.

Meanwhile, Rahm Emmanuel will "hide under [a] desk" if both Obama and Hillary Clinton run for President. Rahm-bo has close ties to both camps and does not relish choosing between them in a primary fight.

Finally, the conservative attack machine is started to take shots at Obama. They're not very good at it yet, but give them time. My friend Paul Mirengoff tries to downplay Obama's "first in his class" pedigree (what the rest of us would call "drop dead brilliant") by trying to argue that it is merely mimicry of experts (heaven forbid we start listening to them!). After all, who could possibly comprehend the following prescription for Iraq?

[Obama] envisioned a flexible timetable for withdrawal linked to conditions on the ground in Iraq and based on the advice of U.S. commanders. He also called for intensified efforts to train Iraqi security forces, U.S. aid packages tied to Iraqi progress in reducing sectarian violence and new diplomacy with Syria and Iran.

Mirengoff promises an "A" to anyone who can figure out what it would mean practically on the ground. I refuse to do work for a grade over Winter Break, but it strikes me as a fine IR final exam question...for Northfield Community College (or perhaps the academically advanced St. Olaf's student). Any Dartmouth graduate who can't parse that, however, should report back to Hanover and turn his diploma back in.

Kevin McCullough wonders why "Obama's evil" is on Rick Warren's pulpit, with the laundry list of conservative complaints: Obama is pro-choice. Obama is pro-gay equality. Obama wants to punish hate crimes as hate crimes. It was such a well-constructed rant that it was effectively plagerized by Marshall Will Kane (a word to the wise--when undertaking hatchet jobs, creativity is more important than repetition. How do you know what mud will stick when you're all flinging the same stuff?)!

Ben Shapiro says that he's a "radical masquerading as a moderate", but his examples of Obama's radicalism merely show how difficult it will be to make the tag stick. This is "hatred" of President Reagan:

[I was] disturbed ... by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 ... unconvinced ... by his John Wayne, 'Father Knows Best' pose, his policy by anecdote, and his gratuitous assaults on the poor.

Here's "sliming" Rush Limbaugh:

[I]f Rush Limbaugh's listeners enjoy hearing him call me 'Osama Obama,' my attitude is, let them have their fun.

Listen to him "insult" evangelicals:

Their fervor has gone mainstream. There are various explanations for this success, from the skill of evangelicals in marketing religion to the charisma of their leaders.

Zing! Or how about some classic "Marxist trash"?

I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success.

I can see him losing the middle already.

Keep trying, ladies and gentlemen.

Why Not North Korea?

Ann Applebaum has a column up asking why the existence of mass concentration camps in North Korea does not evoke the same outrage in the West as does the genocide in Darfur. Isaac Chotiner distills her argument down to this position:

Applebaum is right to argue that American and European activists are probably much more willing, because of their politics, to be moved by cases of genocide where putting an end to such violence does not directly benefit American security or economic interests.

I don't think that's right at all, and I think it displays a sort of paranoia about the American left that is more befitting of the far right than Applebaum and TNR.

First, obviously, there is the fact that what is going on Darfur is qualitatively worse than the activities in North Korea. This isn't to minimize them, only to say that while brutal concentration camps are bad, a systematic policy of ethnic extermination is worse. However, I think the big issue is one of perceived capabilities. When I was asked by some of my more liberal cohorts why I supported a war in Iraq but not North Korea (that's right, it was far more likely to be my liberal friends than my conservative ones who brought it up), I would invariably respond that "ought implies can," and while an intervention in Iraq (and Darfur) was very much plausible from a military perspective, an intervention in North Korea would be a full-scale war of the type we haven't fought since Vietnam. Now, it may well be that I underestimated the degree of "can" available in Iraq. But insofar as Darfur versus North Korea goes, I think the point still applies: liberal activists see a solution to Darfur that would not commit ourselves to the type of activity that the Iraq catastrophe has discredited, whereas in North Korea there seems to be precious little we can do to stop the concentration camps that would not imply unacceptable loss of life and treasure on our end.

Moreover, I think the descriptive argument about how Sudan is not a country we have "interests" in and is not tagged with any of the buzzwords (communism, radical Islam) that provoke controversy in the modern political sphere is wrong as well. We do have interests in Sudan, both in terms of oil wealth and because we have an interest in checking China's influence in the region. The existence of these interests may not be as widely known as comparable ones in Iran or North Korea, but it is just wrong to say that a Darfur intervention would not objectively aid the US or step on the toes of another great power. Furthermore, it is unclear why these issues would not be presented more frequently in the public eye as Darfur rose in prominence. A similar claim can be made as to the "buzzwords" argument: Sudan, after all, is a Muslim state, and has tried very hard to link Western or international intervention in Darfur with charges of anti-Islamic bias and neo-colonialism. Why haven't these allegations had more of an impact, given the left's continued ambivalence towards charges of imperialism and anti-Islamic sentiment?

I think, then, that the focus on Darfur is not a manifestation of relief that it does nothing for the West, but is rather rooted in an honest and genuine recognition of how uniquely appalling the activities there are, and a firm belief that the US and the world could be doing much more to stop them. Now, history will judge us based on whether we act on those beliefs, or simply lay them aside as we have so many times before.

Comeback Kids

So Roy Blunt (R-MO) is elected House Minority Whip over reformer John Shadegg (R-AZ). Ditto with establishment candidate John Boehner (R-OH) over grassroots darling Mike Pence (R-IN). And Adam Putnam (R-FL) is the conference chair. What message to we get?

Well, Blunt is one of the 13 most corrupt members of congress.

Putnam was furious that "rednecks" didn't come out to vote for the GOP.

We've still got Trent "segregation forever" Lott returning from exile.

Pence got annhilated in his race, 168-27, showing perhaps the relative weakness of the GOP base (compared to the K Street Crew).

Redstate is sad. "So, the GOP gets blown out of the water and everyone gets promoted!" Apparently. There's also something highly indicative of the fact that the Democrats rejected Murtha's promotion, while the GOP is keeping Roy Blunt in the leadership. Anyone want to guess what it is?

Dead and Buried

Texas law guru Sanford Levinson raises a controversial but compelling point: Where does George W. Bush get off even pretending to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., given that Dr. King undoubtedly would feel nothing but massive contempt for the current state of the GOP generally and for many of Bush's policies (Iraq, economic justice, torture) specifically? We as a society collectively get off on this paeon to racial justice and Dr. King's legacy while utterly ignoring the actual policy prescriptions and social values that Dr. King fought his entire life to uphold.

For my part, I'm just curious if Dr. King would be the beloved figure he is had he not been shot. Everyone loves a martyr, but it has turned Dr. King into a symbol rather than a person. That's not in itself a bad thing, except that as a society we don't seem interested in linking the pursuit of Dr. King's actual beliefs to honoring the symbolic Dr. King. If we had a real live Dr. King still urging us to fight racism and resist torture and oppose the Iraq war, I have to think a significant portion of the country would view him the same way they view Jesse Jackson: a race-baiting liberal rabble rouser.

Being dead, though, Dr. King cannot demand accountability from the American people who profess to believe in his dream. Which makes it far easier for us to pay homage to him while utterly ignoring the fact that we are far, far away from his promised land--and don't seem particularly interested in getting there anymore.

Finals Round-Up

It's final exam season here at Carleton, so instead of a substantive post, you get a round-up.

"Politically incorrect" has become a mantra of pride in today's culture. But even still, being "politically incorrect" should not be a defense when one suggests the first Muslim Congressman of being a traitor because he opposes your preferred Iraq policy (because he's a Muslim, no less).

How IP law encourages annoying, fleeting, and wasteful fashion trends.

Neal Katyal's Harvard Law Review article explains how theory assisted practice in the Hamdan case. As a budding legal theorist who would like to pretend like my life's ambition has practical value, it was a nice validation.

Hoyer beat Murtha soundly in the leadership race...thank God.

The New Republic admits it made a mistake in supporting the Iraq war. Maybe we can finally let die the ugly vendetta being waged against it by certain elements on the left end of the Democratic Party. We're all in this together, after all. On the other hand, maybe not. To be clear, I don't think these particular people are necessarily part of that "ugly vendetta." But I do think that--even if you think TNR still hasn't "got it" on Foreign Policy--they are in line with the liberal consensus on such a large array of issues that its friendly fire to try and push them into the grave. And as a broader response, even if TNR has to do more soul-searching than it has thus far, I don't think it has to come in the form of "most of our deep-seated ideological commitments about America's obligations to the world are utterly wrong. We repent." I feel like that's the message many critics want out of the magazine, and I don't think the Iraq war mandates that particula response.

Anonymous Liberal says that Deval Patrick's crushing victory in the Massachusetts' gubernatorial election offers a template for a Barack Obama Presidential run. Do I owe Jules Crittenden an apology? (No, because how a campaign will play out is different from how an administration will, and because I still believe that Massachusetts politics and American politics are sufficiently different to make direct comparisons inapt).

Scott Johnson of the arch-conservative Powerline blog is sad because 90,000 poor children in Minnesota will receive health insurance. *Tear*

Nancy Pelosi laments that "White rednecks" don't vote Democrat, sparking off a furious round of criticism for demonstrating liberal elitist disrespect of middle America. Haha, just kidding. It was Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), leading candidate for Republican Conference Chairman. I was kidding about the "furious round of criticism" too.

Al Gore's '08 advantages.

Gail Hines subjects the new Borat movie to a feminist critique. I haven't seen the movie, so I won't comment, except to say that a) the fact that violence against Jews isn't a major "public health" problem doesn't mean that it isn't a problem, or that it isn't a threat, or that anti-Semitism does not remain rampant, or that violence against Jews isn't legitimized in many quarters; and b) I'm curious whether there is any room for satire when the satirized are perfectly willing to accept even the parody as legitimate behavior on their part?

Victor Davis Hanson says history will vindicate W, in part because he "won" two wars after 9/11. "Won"? Won. Patrick Porter gently disagrees.

Dumb-Off

Oy gevolt. So in addition to the outburst of pro-Jeff Sessions sentiment, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), once banished for proclaiming that "we wouldn't have all these problems" had we maintained a segregationist agenda, is now the Number 2 Republican in the Senate (As Robert George says: There is something painfully ironic with Trent Lott gaining the title of "minority whip"). This from the party trying to engage in "outreach" towards African-Americans? It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But don't think the Democrats aren't holding their own on the idiocy front. Pelosi has managed to royally piss me off on both the Hoyer/Murtha race for Majority Leader, and the Harman/Hastings decision for chair of the Intelligence Committee. If the Democrats have a mandate to do anything, it's to fight corruption in the halls of Washington. Murtha has consistently been on the watchlist of corruption observers, and just recently called the Democrats' reform bill "total crap". He's effectively beholden to defense contractors, and loves earmarks to death. Oh, and aside from Iraq, he's as conservative as you can get in the Democratic caucus and largely incoherent as a speaker. Hoyer is not my favorite Democrat in the world, but he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected this cycle, his positions--though not exactly liberal--are more in line with the general views of the caucus, and he knows how to play ball in Washington. Plus, given the fact that I'm starting to really dislike Pelosi, I'm not sure I want to set her up as a DeLay-style tyrant of the House. As for Harman/Hastings, it's no question: you don't take off one of our party's top experts on Intelligence and replace him with a former judge impeached for taking bribes! This should be a no-brainer. And the kicker is that in both these cases, Pelosi's decisions seem less about what's good for the country or the party, and more about waging personal vendettas against two people she detests (her feuds with Hoyer and Harman are long-runnng). This is not an auspicious start.

So, like John Cole, I have to agree with Dean Barnett: Republicans and Democrats are [apparently] determined to engage in a two year dumb-off. Ugh.

Therapy Sessions

Apparently, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is being floated as the char of the Republican Policy Committee. RedState lauds his "intellectual fire power." K-Lo supports him because Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) is too "mod". A-Bama blog jumps even further ahead, pitching him for a Supreme Court seat (recall that Sessions already was rejected for one nomination to the federal judiciary--a U.S. District Court seat).

So, who is Jeff Sessions? Well, as noted above, he fell upwards to his U.S. Senate seat after being rejected for a federal District Court nomination. He was one of nine Senators to boldly vote for torture. He has distinguished himself in Washington by being a complete and utter intellectual lightweight, so much so that even little ol' elitist me, with my disdain for Washington politicians generally, have him particularly associated in my mind as a dunce. Indeed, as Ezra Klein noted, "Every time I've noticed Sessions, it's been for a dazzling display of dimness." By and large, he's been a loyal party hack with no propensity for innovation or public capacity for independent thought.

But most importantly, he has a long and unambigious record of hostility towards Black people. I'm not talking little things; I'm talking stuff that would make Trent Lott (banished to the lowly position of committee chair!) blush. Sessions launched clearly politically motivated investigations of Black civil rights workers because majority Black counties actually started voting for Black candidates. He red-baited the NAACP. And he said the Klan wasn't all that bad...until he realized they were "pot-smokers." (But remember: Robert Byrd was in the Klan in the Roosevelt administration. So both parties are equally to blame.)

Sessions is an idiot and a racist who loves torture. If that's the image the GOP wants to present, all power to them. But it is rather startling to watch the outpouring of support he's receiving, given that I thought it was rather universally acknowledged on both sides of the aisle that Sessions isn't the brightest bulb in the ceiling.

UPDATE: Hey Immigrant Voice visitors! Glad to have you. Please peruse the rest of my lovely site (just click the masthead to get to the main page). And while you're here, wouldn't you vote for this site for a blogging award?



Thanks, and hope you'll continue to visit The Debate Link.

A Query

So the prevailing meme on the right is that the Democratic party doesn't have a mandate to do anything. People didn't vote for the Dems, but against the GOP--and moreover, that vote was not a repudiation of conservative governing philosophy, but an expression of revulsion at (take your pick) corruption/Iraq/deficit spending. Democrats, they say, have no plan or proposals on any issue, so we can't interpret the public as supporting a liberal policy agenda. I think that it's kind of ridiculous, but whatever. What I want to know is this: Republicans spent most of the election cycle telling voters that Democrats would "cut and run" from Iraq. If there was one thing the GOP was quite clear that the Democrats were proposing, it was that. And apparently two-thirds of Democratic voters and 55% of all voters in this cycle support some form of troop withdrawal in the near future.

So my question is--does the Democratic party have a mandate to begin withdrawing from Iraq? It was an a) publicly taken position that b) Republicans themselves said was key to the Democratic party agenda that c) most voters support on d) one of the most important issues in this cycle.

I take no personal position on whether it is wise to withdraw, but it seems that the GOP has to concede that there is a mandate to begin the policy.

From Beirut to West Europe

I previously noted the spike in British anti-Semitism in the wake of the Israel/Lebanon war. Now, new data suggests that the same trend occured throughout Western Europe. The report also says that Greece and Turkey experienced an uptick, while most of Eastern Europe (as well as Denmark) were relatively unaffected. Turkey is specficially noteworthy, not because it is Muslim, but because the Jewish population there has been notably free from anti-Semitism for a significant period of time.

Very unfortunate.

Copycats

A couple of Georgetown students have tried to form their own religious organization in order to get around local zoning laws (being a religious group would allow them to have more people living in their house). Feh. Carleton students created their own religion well before these Georgetown imposters. And better yet, The Reformed Druids of North America actually has outlasted its original purpose (evading religion requirements our school had in the 60s), still going strong over 40 years later.

As to the legal issues, my understanding is that the law sidesteps questions of "what is a religion" by merely querying whether or not the beliefs are "sincerely held" (United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)). This isn't a particularly satisfying answer, as it doesn't distinguish between a sincerely held religious belief and a sincerely held secular one. Presumably, the Court analyzes whether the religious belief is sincerely held to be a religious one, rather than a secular belief masquerading as a religious one to gain some benefit. In contrast to the Reformed Druids, which, as mentioned before, have outlasted the tangible benefit they were claiming by a good 40 years, the Washington Post article gives no indication that these Georgetown students have any sincere belief in their "religion" outside of the extra privileges it grants them under zoning law.

Carleton 1, Georgetown, 0!

Via VC

1960-68

I'm kind of agnostic towards the issue of divided government (I can see it's advantages, but I don't it's always the best policy). However, I was struck by this statement by David Post extolling the virtues of split-party government:

It's more common than one might suppose; in 34 of the 54 years since Eisenhower was elected for his first term ('52), at least one branch of Congress was in hands different than the executive branch, and for my money the years in which that has not been the case (60-68, 76-80, 93-94, and 2001-06) have not been distinguished by great statesmanship or great policy-making.

I can't speak for the whole era, but encompassed in 1960-68 are both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, both of which rank well towards the top of my list of "distinguished...great statsmanship [and] policy-making." Maybe those are outliers, but I suspect that neither bill would have made it through a divided government, given the depths of Southern opposition and the propensity of a divided government to favor the status quo and disapprove of bold, sweeping changes.

Just a thought.

"City of Christ"?

Whatever sympathy I might have had for Christianist opposition to a gay pride parade in Jerusalem (and admittedly, it was pretty small to begin with), evaporated when the FRC characterized it as an "abomination in the city of Christ."

Oh, please. Israel is the Jewish state, and while completely respect the rights of the Christian minority there to worship as they please, don't pretend like Israel as an obligation to accede to Christian dogma. Ironically, virtually all the "pressure" the FRC cites against the march comes from external sources--the Vatican and foreign ministries. The local Jewish population, by and large, is okay with it--and the Israeli Attorney General ruled the parade can go through. So really, this is just Christians demanding that Jews subsume their own beliefs on what constitutes acceptable practice in our holiest city under their intolerance. Oh, and if Christians seriously do want to persuade us to act in their interests, don't refer to our holiest city as "the city of Christ."

Whither GOP?

After what can only be described as a devastating GOP loss in the 2006 midterms, the question is where the party goes from here. There's a good case to be made that the GOP needs to move to the middle, and I know that some of the main-street Republicans are thinking of that direction. On the flip side, there are those who say the GOP lost because it became "Democratic-lite". So, will the party shift to the center or tack right?

But I don't really think that's the right question. Paradoxically, I think the GOP needs to do both, and that's going to be a big problem. I've been blogging for quite some time on the schism forthcoming in the Republican Party. The problem isn't that the party is too conservative or too moderate. The problem is the coalition it built over the past few years (decades, perhaps) is falling apart at the seams. If they turn to the middle, the GOP will lose some of its base and will not meaningfully be able to distinguish themselves from Democrats. If they run hard to their base, they'll drive any remaining centrists out of their camp and become a purely regional (and, let's face it, sectarian) party. The set of ideological commitments the GOP currently holds cannot support a majority coalition anymore.

That notwithstanding, the party is going to pick the "turn right" option, for no other reason than that the number of elected GOP moderates left to present a case is virtually non-existant (the tally I've heard is that there are 8 remaining bona fide moderate Republicans in the House, out of caucus numbering close to 200). Most of the last of them were swept out in this Democratic wave, and I don't think the GOP is optimistic about regaining seats in Connecticut or suburban Pennsylvania. The biggest GOP names still in office are conservative die-hards, so of course they're going to push the party in that direction.

Over the long term, this is more dangerous for the GOP, because it again will relegate them to a predominantly regional party status. It also will prove ill-suited to stop the emerging Democratic machine in the Mountain West, which is starting to reassert its long dormant libertarian streak (beating back the abortion ban in South Dakota, gay marriage ban winning by only 4 points in the same). There is a feedback loop--it is the marginal Republicans who will get defeated, concentrating power in the conservative strongholds, who will continue to push the party to the right. This will make it very hard for the GOP to regain power, because it won't have a presence or credibility in the states it needs to get back.

Two Party Government?

Not in Maryland! Check out the lede of this Washington Post article:

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and Republican Senate candidate Michael S. Steele conceded defeat in quick succession yesterday, putting an end, at least for now, to the state's four-year experiment with two-party government.

Moreover, in the close in Washington suburbs (Montgomery and Prince George's Counties), there is not a single elected Republican at any level of government--federal, state, or local.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is back!

Committee Shift

Publius shows the shift in Committee Chairmanships:

Ag Cmte: Tom Harkin (IA). Outgoing Chair: Saxby Chambliss (GA).

Approps Cmte: Robert Byrd (WV). Outgoing Chair: Thad Cochran (MS).

Armed Services Cmte: Carl Levin (MI). Outgoing Chair: John Warner (VA).

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Cmte: Chris Dodd (CT). Outgoing Chair: Richard Shelby (AL).

Budget Cmte: Kent Conrad (D). Outgoing Chair: Judd Gregg (NH).

Commerce, Science, and Transpo Cmte: Co-Chair Daniel Inouye (HI). Outgoing Co-Chair: Ted Stevens (AK).

Energy and Natural Resources Cmte: Jeff Bingaman (NM). Outgoing Chair: Pete Domenici (NM).

Enviro and Public Works Cmte: Barbara Boxer (CA). Outgoing Chair: James Inhofe (OK).

Finance Cmte: Max Baucus. Outgoing Chair: Charles Grassley (IA).

Foreign Relations Cmte: Joe Biden (D). Outgoing Chair: Richard Lugar (IN).

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Cmte: Ted Kennedy. Outgoing Chair: Mike Enzi (WY).

Homeland Security and Govt'l Affairs Cmte: Joe Lieberman (CT). Outgoing Chair: Susan Collins (ME).

Jud Cmte: Patrick Leahy (VT). Outgoing Chair: Arlen Specter (PA).

Rules and Admin Cmte: Chris Dodd (CT). Outgoing Chair: Trent Lott (MS).

Small Business Cmte: John Kerry (MA). Outgoing Chair: Olympia Snowe (ME).

Veterans Affairs Cmte: Daniel Akaka (D). Outgoing Chair: Larry Craig (ID).

Switching Barbara Boxer for James "Global Warming = Nazi Propoganda" Inhofe on the key environmental committee is huge. The other really important ones are Judiciary (Leahy for Specter), Armed Services (Levin for Warner), and Foreign Relations (Biden for Lugar). Putting Byrd in charge of the appropriations committee is a sick joke, and while I like Joe Lieberman on Homeland Security generally, it remains to be seen how he'll perform (he lost alot of credibility with me this cycle).

Election '06 Superlatives

Now that the election is over, it's time to give some awards! Without further ado, the Decision '06 candidate superlatives.

Best campaign by a losing Republican Senate candidate: Michael Steele in Maryland. Actually, he got trounced by a surprisingly large (10 point margin). But it's hard to imagine him doing better in Maryland in this climate without actually being a Democrat (and he tried hard to call himself that too!). Certainly, his "puppies" ad was one of the most effective of the cycle.

Best campaign by a losing Democratic Senate candidate: Harold Ford, Tennessee. Let's be clear: A three point loss by a Black Democrat in a Southern red state is nothing short of amazing. That Ford was considered a threat the entire cycle is testament to his incredible political skill. He also seemed to negate the Bradley effect, as he actually out performed late polling in his race.

Best campaign by a losing Republican House candidate: Joe Negron, FL-16. Not only was Negron running for Mark Foley's seat, but to win it he had to convince voters to mark their ballot for Foley to have it counted for him. With the spectacular slogan "Punch Foley to vote Negron," the Republican came within one point of pulling it off, too.

Best campaign by a losing Democratic House candidate: Assuming that the Gary Trauner/Barbara Cubin race in the Wyoming at-large is still too close to call, the award goes to Scott Kleeb in the rural Nebraska 3rd. His ten point loss to Adrien Smith doesn't look that impressive until you realize that's a 20 point cut in the GOP candidate's support compared to 2004.

Best campaign by a losing Democratic gubernatorial candidate: Tony Knowles, Alaska. Knowles ran the best race he could, but he was doomed the moment "Murkowski" wasn't on the ballot.

Best campaign by a losing Republican gubernatorial candidate: Robert Ehrlich, Maryland. What do you do when you're an incumbent liked by a majority of voters who still can't get them to vote for you? I'm stumped too.

Best campaign by a winning Republican Senate candidate: Bob Corker, Tennessee. His campaign was flailing for awhile after the primary, and was under constant pressure from a smooth as silk Harold Ford. Corker righted his ship to move this race even below Arizona in some pundits eyes as a Democratic pickup opportunity. He also scores points for condemning the vile and racist NSCC ads that ran in his district.

Best campaign by a winning Democratic Senate candidate: James Webb's upset victory was great, but caused more by Allen's missteps than any strengths as a candidate. And Amy Klobuchar gets major points for obliterating Mark Kennedy in a race many Republicans thought (at the start of the cycle) they would win. But Jon Tester turning Montana deep blue while not shying away from his progressive background is nothing short of amazing. Democrats now have both Senate seats and the governor's mansion in Montana, and Tester is a rising Democratic star.

Best campaign by a winning Republican House candidate: Heather Wilson, NM-1. This race might still be too close to call, but it looks like Wilson will escape with another squeaker in her Democratic leaning district. Since it doesn't stop us from hearing Speaker Pelosi, I'm okay with that. Congress deserves more members with Oxford Philosophy doctorates.

Best campaign by a winning Democratic House candidate: Jim Marshall, GA-08. Republicans tried to pull a Texas on Marshall and mid-decade redistrict him to get his seat. Marshall was game and beat back a tough opponent in former Representative Mac Collins to keep his red-leaning seat.

Best campaign by a winning Republican gubernatorial candidate: Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota. Pawlenty dodges the Democratic wave and wins a tight race against Attorney General Mike Hatch, who was no cream-puff candidate.

Best campaign by a winning Democratic gubernatorial candidate: Bill Ritter, Colorado. This race was supposed to be close. Bob Beauprez was supposed to be a tough candidate. Neither turned out to be true, and that's kudos to Ritter.

Worst campaign by a losing Republican House candidate: John Hostettler, IN-08. Did he even try? The 6-term incumbent couldn't even break 40% in getting annihilated by Brad Ellsworth.

Worst campaign by a losing Democratic House candidate: Coleen Rowley, MN-02. Democrats were really excited when they recruited the 9/11 whistleblower to run against John Kline. Whoops. Rowley barely mustered 40% and underperformed compared to the 2004 candidate.

Worst campaign by a losing Republican Senate candidate: Mark Kennedy, Minnesota. Good lord, this was supposed to be a GOP rising star? He lost by 20 points Amy Klobuchar and never even made the Democrats sweat. (Katherine Harris is ineligible for this award, to make it fair for the other nominees).

Worst campaign by a losing Democratic Senate candidate: Jim Pederson, Arizona. The fact that Pederson actually finished tighter than expected only reinforces that he could have made this a race had done more than an air-wave attack prior to the last few weeks of the campaign. Moral of the story: retail politics still counts.

Worst campaign by a losing Republican gubernatorial candidate: Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas. I know that Arkansas has two Democratic senators and an 80% Democratic house delegation. But there is no way this race should have been the blow-out it is. No excuse. None.

Worst campaign by a losing Democratic gubernatorial candidate: Phil Angelides, California. The Terminator has approval ratings down in the 20s, and he still comes back to win? Had Angelides been able to focus half of the energy in the general election as he did in his uncommonly vicious primary fight, this blue state might actually have a Democratic governor again.

Worst campaign by a winning Democratic Senate candidate: Bob Menendez, New Jersey. He actually ended up winning comfortably in the end, but for giving me a slow heart attack throughout November and actually posing a credible threat to the Democrats taking back the Senate, he takes it.

Worst campaign by a winning Republican Senate candidate: Jon Kyl, Arizona. He's lucky his opponent ran such a lackluster campaign, because he wasn't much better. Incumbency carried Kyl through in a race he didn't take anywhere near as serious as he should have.

Worst campaign by a winning Republican House candidate: Bill Sali, ID-01. Your district is one of the reddest in the nation. But because you managed to piss off your entire party, you only win by 3 points over Larry Grant in Idaho. Idaho!

Worst campaign by a winning Democratic House candidate: No Democratic House member ran a particularly bad campaign in the general, so the award goes to Albert Wynn (MD-04) for nearly blowing his primary election to Donna Edwards, a total unknown who started campaigning late, in a district he is essentially a machine boss of. Personally, I hope Edwards takes him out in 2008. She'd be far more effective in Congress than a glorified local kingmaker.

Worst campaign by a winning Republican gubernatorial candidate: Jim Gibbons, Nevada. Assaulting cocktail waitresses that you were flirting with (when you're married) is not a good way to win votes, even in Las Vegas. A race he was dominating became a four-point dogfight as a result.

Worst campaign by a winning Democratic gubernatorial candidate: Elliot Spitzer can't crack 70% of the vote? What's up with that?

Biggest upset in the House: Three-way tie. Carol Shea-Porter in the NH-01 and Dave Loebsack in the IA-02 weren't on anyone's radar screen when they knocked off Republican incumbents (a 30 year veteran, in Loebsack's case). Nancy Boyda in the KS-02 did get some attention when the DNCC gave her a late ad buy, but most folks thought it was a headfake. Guess they were wrong, and now all three are going to congress.

Biggest upset in the Senate: Obviously, Jim Webb in Virginia. George Allen goes from lead '08 contender to '06 Senate pretender. Webb overcomes some of the nastiest campaigning seen this cycle to eke out a victory and avenge Chuck Robb.

What's the holdup?: Washington 8th, whose tight race between Darcy Burner (D) and Dave Reichert is still up in the air because less than half of the votes have been counted. Right now, it's 51-49 for Reichert.

Won't be missed in the Senate!: Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum, Pennsylvania. Good riddance. And take your 2008 ambitions with you.

Won't be missed in the House!: Curt Weldon, PA-07. He's got plenty of time to look for WMDs and support oppressive regimes now that he's no longer in office.

The one that got away: I really, really wanted to take out the virulently anti-gay Marilyn Musgrave in the CO-04. But she escaped with a 3 point victory (and only 46% of the vote).

Most likely to succeed: A Democratic congress in 2007, baby! Also, my Congressman, Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-08). He was in charge of House candidate recruitment this year. Talk about a spectacular job! Chris is without a doubt the front-runner for the next open Maryland Senate seat (which may be only a few years out if Barbara Mikulski retires at the end of this term).