Looks like Charlie is cooking up a lot of gumbo for the Tea Baggers. Will Charlie add the gulf oil shrimps a Louisiana politician wouldn't eat? I wonder.

Maybe Rahm Emanuel should take a leave of absence to work on Foster's campaign. If he forgets to come back, I for one wouldn't miss him.

At least the Cook Report is more promising than 2 other democratic and frequent pollsters of FOX NATION, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen. I suppose Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen formulate their polls from Fox Noise's Frank Luntz's "government take over".

Caught the end of a discussion on MSNBC on some poll. 46% people identify with democrats and only 39% with republicans. Except that republicans have a substantial lead on protecting us from terrorists. I find that odd because there is nothing to support it except it has been sold by the GOP successfully to the fearful and gullible the same as tax cuts. If you make lots of noise about dollars for defense, that means you can keep us safe. If you start unnecessary wars, that means you keep us safe. The GOP didn't stop 9/11. If they were so much better at keeping us safe--why didn't they stop 9/11? Neither party is better at keeping us safe. It is like the misconception that republicans support the troops yet it was democrats who finally passed (Bush threatened veto) the Veteran's benefits package last year--the biggest investment since the initial G.I. bill. Just another in the line of false assumptions which are disconnected from reality.

And Richard Nixon ran in 1968 on the promise that he could end the Vietnam war. Well, why didn't he?

Too easy, Jody. Stopping September 11, or at least stopping SOME terrorist attack, was NOT the agenda of Halliburton or the rest of the military industrial complex. Their agenda was, as it ever is, "bring it on." And sadly, they call the shots ... at least during republican administrations.

As for which party is best at keeping us safe, how many soldiers have died in conflict during democratic administrations since 1970, as opposed to republican? I'd say that factors into the answer.

Oops. This was meant to be a reply to Jody's post, above.

Slow news day?

John McCain, in a recent interview conducted by a FOX News rep, very aggressively faulted the Obama admin for not placing 12,000 troops on the border by Aug. 1^st. What the interview totally ignored was: Aug. 1^st was only suppose to be the start with a 90 day implementation period; over the past several years McCain has failed to do anything himself in regard to the illegal immigration problem, including not even supporting enforcement of current laws and instead supported policy favoring those employing the illegals; his current position is advocating steps that will be very costly with questionable results as they are just more for show than effect; and his present demonstrative concern is strictly correlated to this election year. Now that is exactly the type of politics that not only stink but actually offer nothing real or lasting but instead just depend on irresponsible deception to manipulate public opinion. It is a perfect example of putting political ambitions above all else, at any cost and without conscience.

In November and in 2012 the Democrats should actually win by a landslide. Recognize I said ‘should’, and not because they are more organized or aggressive, they are not, and not because they are perfect, they surely are not, and not because they have better overt and covert support, they do not, but rather because they are really the only entity focused on the interests of the majority, as the Republicans are literally totally focused on the interests of the very few, their strong supporters, and on their political ambitions above all else and on just conning the majority. If the majority simply avoid being conned, then the Democrats ‘should’ win. If not, then we likely will return to more of the same that got us the problems.