The 2010 Senate Landscape

It’s never too early. Looking to 2010, the Fix lays out the Senate landscape and what could be another tough election for Republicans. Overall, they must defend 19 seats including six (North Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio) in states that went blue for Barack Obama. On the Democratic side, they have only one incumbent ( Ken Salazar) who won with less than 55 percent of the vote in 2004. Looking to each particular race, here are the Fix’s top 10:

California (D): While Republicans acknowledge beating Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) is something close to an impossibility, they have long believed that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) is far more vulnerable. In her first re-election race in 1998, Boxer took 53 percent but improved on that margin six years later when she took 58 percent against former Secretary of State Bill Jones. The hottest name among Republicans to take on Boxer is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger although the Governator has offered no public comment on the contest. The only announced Republican to date is state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

Florida (R): This Sunshine State seat -- currently held by Sen. Mel Martinez (R) -- is at the top of nearly every Democratic strategist's list of potential pickups. Why? Obama's win in the state has bolstered Democrats' confidence and the $14,000 Martinez raised between July and September has Republicans worried. Rep. Ron Klein (D) is giving every indication that he will run; as of Oct. 15 he had $1.8 million in his House bank account. A number of other Democrats -- including Florida's Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and state House Minority Leader Dan Gelber -- are mulling the race. For Democrats to win, they must try to avoid the nasty primary fights that have foreclosed their chances in other recent statewide races.

Kansas (R): Sen. Sam Brownback (R) is planning to leave the Senate after two terms to make arun for the open governor's office in 2010. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), who will be term limited out of office in 2010, is seen as a leading candidate to run for Brownback's seat and may well be the only Democrat who can make it a legitimate takeover possibility. (If Sebelius -- a close ally of Obama -- takes a job in the new Administration, Democrats have next-to-no chance of winning this seat.) On the Republican side, Rep. Jerry Moran has already announced he is running to replace Brownback and Rep. Todd Tiahrt -- among others -- is considering the contest.

Kentucky (R): For those Republican strategists hoping that Sen. Jim Bunning (R) would retire rather than seek a third term, think again. Sources close to Bunning insist the Kentucky Senator has made up his mind to run and is beginning to put the pieces into place to do just that. Bunning is absolutely certain to be one of Democrats' highest priorities in 2010 since he has never won with more than 51 percent of the vote. Democrats' strongest candidate would be Rep. Ben Chandler but the smart money seems to believe he will stay in the House. If Chandler does stay out, Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo, who lost to Bunning by 23,000 votes in 2004, probably has the right of first refusal. State Auditor Crit Luallen and state Attorney General Jack Conway are also mentioned and would be serious and credible candidates.

Louisiana (R): Sen. David Vitter's admission (sort of) of his involvement in the "D.C. Madam" prostitution ring virtually ensures that he will have a serious race in 2010. Rumors are that Secretary of State Jay Dardenne could challenge Vitter in a primary and, while no serious Democrat has stepped forward so far, you can bet the national party will find someone soon enough.

Nevada (D): Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is as wily a politician as there is operating in national politics today. Knowing that national Republicans would be gunning for him in 2010, he worked to recruit and fund a serious challenge to Rep. Jon Porter this election in hopes of taking out his strongest potential Republican opponent before his re-election bid even started. It worked, as Porter fell to 2006 gubernatorial nominee Dina Titus. Reid still isn't out of the woods yet, however, as Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki (R) announced on Thursday that he is considering a race against the Democratic leader. No matter who runs, this race will be a priority for national Republicans, particularly Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

New Hampshire (R): Over the past four years, the Granite State has collapsed on Republicans. In 2006, both incumbent House members were defeated. Then this November not only did Obama carry the state by a whopping nine points but Sen. John Sununu (R) was defeated in his rematch against former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. That leaves Sen. Judd Gregg (R) as one of the last of his kind and makes him a potential target in 2010. Gregg is something of an institution in the state -- his father, Hugh, served as governor and he has been in the Senate since 1992 -- and so Democrats would have to find a top tier candidate to take him out. The strongest nominee would be popular Gov. John Lynch but even the most optimistic of Democratic strategists don't believe he will run. Rep. Paul Hodes is apparently interested, however, and could be credible enough to make this a top-tier race.

North Dakota (D): The math on this one is very simple. If Gov. John Hoeven (R) decides to challenge Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) then this is one of the top contests in the country and perhaps Republicans' best takeover opportunities. If he doesn't, Dorgan will be a heavy favorite to win a fourth term.

Ohio (R): The last two elections have been very good to Ohio Democrats. In 2006, they claimed the governor's mansion and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) defeated then Sen. Mike DeWine (R). Earlier this month, Obama carried the state -- the first Democrat since Bill Clinton to do so. All of that adds up to potential trouble for Sen. George Voinovich (R) who is up for a third term in 2010. The Democratic field remains a work in progress and party strategists acknowledge that their bench is not as deep as they would like. A number of Ohio House Democrats -- Tim Ryan, Zack Space, Betty Sutton -- are likely to look at the race as are some statewide elected officials including state Attorney General Richard Cordray and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher.

Pennsylvania (R): Every indication is that Sen. Arlen Specter (R) is running for a sixth term in 2010. And, from what we hear, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews is very serious about running as a Democrat against Specter. As we wrote earlier this week, if that race comes to pass it will be the biggest -- and most high profile -- contest of the 2010 midterms. Several other Democrats including Reps. Alyson Schwartz and Joe Sestak are also mentioned as potential challengers to Specter.

Confronting Our True Enemies

Yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement regarding the misplaced foreign policy priorities of Bush-McCain Republicans:

“Over the August recess, I had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan. During my trip, I met with some of our generals and troops who are fighting on the front lines every day. During those meetings, they reinforced for me their courage and determination to win the fight against the Taliban and the terrorists. I also learned more about the determination of the Afghan people. One part of the trip took me to a vocational school, where young Afghani men and women were receiving training in English, computers, car repair and other skills so that they could help pull their families – and their country – out of poverty and toward a brighter day.

“Despite years of chaos and bloodshed, despite many families torn apart by war, the young people I met were still brimming with hope. Seeing these young men and women study together, I was reminded of the difference the United States has made by aiding their fight against the Taliban. The courage of our troops and the Afghan people was inspiring. But there was another conclusion that I could not avoid: the progress I saw is being terribly undermined by deteriorating security. I returned to America more convinced than ever that the greatest threat to our national security lies in Afghanistan and Pakistan – and these places must be our central focus. Today, one day from the seventh anniversary of the most violent terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil, the mastermind of that attack – Osama Bin Laden – remains free.

“For all the tough rhetoric of chasing Bin Laden to the gates of hell, the Bush Administration has failed to put the necessary resources and manpower into the hunt for America’s No. 1 enemy. President Bush has rightly said that the war on terror is about more than just one man. Yet seven years after 9/11, the President has allowed that one man’s vast al Qaeda network regroup in its safe haven in Pakistan. And in Afghanistan, the sad fact is that the Taliban – the brutally oppressive regime that housed Bin Laden and al Qaeda – is on the rise, attacking our troops and innocent Afghan civilians.

“We must be clear-eyed in our realization that the very same people who attacked us then continue to regain strength and threaten us now. This dire situation could have been avoided. When President Bush took us into Afghanistan following September 11th, Democrats, our country and the world stood with him. We knew it was a fight we must wage and win. But after a series of military victories, the President lost focus and turned instead to an ill-conceived war in Iraq. With the job unfinished in Afghanistan, the President devoted our troops and treasure to another battlefield. Predictably, with focus shifted, Afghanistan began to backslide, with neighborhoods once reclaimed from the enemy becoming battlegrounds once again.

“The reason for these failures is no mystery. No matter how hard the Republican spin machine tries to rewrite history and obscure the truth, the fact is that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Yet George Bush, John McCain and their Republican allies chose to shift our resources away from where our enemy lives and into a place that had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

“Afghanistan is a far larger country than Iraq, with a much larger population, and far rougher terrain. Yet today, we have 34,000 American forces in Afghanistan and 146,000 in Iraq. Afghanistan is much poorer than Iraq – one of the poorest countries in the world – yet we have spent $170 billion in Afghanistan, and nearly $650 billion in Iraq. Afghanistan is the home of Al Qaeda, the home of the Taliban, and the central front of the War on Terror. Yet there are more than three times as many troops in Iraq and we have spent nearly four times as much money there.

“The result of this Republican failure is clear: after a drop in violence early in the Afghanistan war, the Taliban came back with a vengeance in mid-2006. By that time, we didn’t have enough troops on the ground to respond. The troops we needed were 1,500 miles away, in Iraq. The commander of American forces in the region, Admiral William Fallon, put it this way in January: ‘Back in 2001, early 2002, the Taliban were pretty much vanquished. But my sense looking back is that we moved focus to Iraq, which was the priority from 2003 on, and the attention and the resources focused on a different place.’

“With resources focused on a different place, as Admiral Fallon said, here is what we are now seeing: In July, nearly twice as many U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq; June was the second deadliest month in Afghanistan for coalition and U.S. forces since the start of the war; In Eastern Afghanistan, attacks on coalition troops increased by 40 percent over the first five months of this year; Roadside bombings have increased; and Opium production is up, with Afghanistan producing 93 percent of the world’s opium.

“And President Bush’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have had consequences beyond the borders of those two countries. This morning, the bipartisan American
Security Project issued a report noting that attacks by violent terrorist groups around the world are at an all time high – and this is without counting terrorist attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan. Their report also notes that ungoverned spaces continue to provide sanctuary for terrorist organizations, including Afghanistan, East and North Africa, and Somalia.

“Yesterday, President Bush had one last chance to meaningfully change his strategy and begin to reverse all these backsliding trends. He chose not to. He chose to stick with the status quo and not make significant changes. And unfortunately, we have seen no reason to believe that a John McCain presidency would offer any break from the failed Bush foreign policy.

“For all his talk about listening to the commanders on the ground, George Bush is dangerously deaf to the calls of our commanders in Afghanistan. In the words of Admiral Mullen, ‘I’ve made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so.’

“We know today that no more than a token shift of troop levels will take place until we have a new President committed to winning the war on terror by fighting the actual terrorists. That will require a new approach to Iraq, Afghanistan, and also Pakistan.

“We have seen in Pakistan a dangerous approach by President Bush of placing all our bets on one man – General Musharraf. That was a fatal and avoidable blunder. Musharraf did not implement democracy, did not uphold human rights and did not stop the terrorists operating inside Pakistan’s borders. American dollars meant to fight terrorism were wasted. The Pakistani people suffered, and the United States lost credibility with them for supporting a dictator who did not uphold their basic rights. Because of President Bush’s failed approach to Pakistan, we have now seen al Qaeda regroup within its borders.

“According to the declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate of July 2007 titled ‘The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland,’ al Qaeda has ‘protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in the Pakistani Federal Administered Tribal Areas.’ The intelligence agencies reiterated this a few weeks ago, saying that al Qaeda ‘has maintained or strengthened key elements of its capability to attack the United States in the past year.’

“During our time in Afghanistan, from our meetings with President Karzai to our meetings with American generals, one message was clear: we cannot solve the problem in Afghanistan without solving the problem in Pakistan.

“Those concerned with the writing of our history books will have ample opportunity to delve into the Bush failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in far greater detail than I have done in my remarks. The historians will note that on George Bush’s watch, the Taliban grew stronger, running their operations from terrorist bases inside Pakistan. They will note that under George Bush’s watch, al Qaeda regrouped, ready to carry out other attacks against the United States. And they will note that on George Bush’s watch, our national security was jeopardized and the threats that led to the attacks in 2001 are as grave if not graver in 2008.

“Our job in Congress is not to do the job of the historians, but to answer one question: Where do we go from here? President Bush gave his answer to that question yesterday. His answer was: we don’t go anywhere. We stay exactly where we are.

“John McCain has made it clear that he stands in place with George Bush. With due respect due to the President and Senator McCain, the status quo has failed. They are out of touch with the realities and ramifications of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I saw in Afghanistan a people eager, desperate and ready to lift their country to democracy, equality and economic opportunity, but held down by the weight of an enemy we failed to destroy. I hope that in the coming months, our courageous, overworked, overstretched, overstressed troops can continue to hold off the enemy without the full resources and manpower necessary to complete the mission. And I hope that the American people will have the wisdom to choose a leader who will take the war on terror back to the terrorists and look the Afghan people in the eye and say that help is on the way.”

Bush-McCain Politics as Usual

The President’s sudden interest in the Middle East peace process last year was clearly nothing more than a desperate political ploy to allow him to say, like many Presidents before him, that he tried. It was naïve, it was contrary to his previous seven years of indifference to the issue, and it was obviously far too little, far too late. But before the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, surely the President would use the opportunity to speak of healing old wounds and bringing opposing sides together in the name of peace. Far from it.

Instead, he chose to engage in fear-mongering, to create divisions back home, and to discredit an American presidential candidate in the eyes of a foreign government. In doing so, he inexcusably took a political shot at Barack Obama by not only insinuating that he was naïve and weak but by also calling him as an appeaser, not unlike those who allowed the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany. That's right, he engaged in partisan domestic politics while addressing a foreign government, and, in criticizing his political opponent, made a Hitler analogy in the heart of Israel. So much for “politics stops at the water’s edge!”

Washington Post: It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.

Despite the absurdity and inappropriateness of the President’s comments, it may actually benefit Barack Obama. After all, the Democrats should take every opportunity they can to talk about the failed Bush-McCain foreign policy of the last 7 years because it’s an important distinction in this election. It’s the Bush policy that has emboldened Iran and it is the Bush approach to foreign policy and other issues that has polarized the country. McCain offers more of the same while Obama, agree or disagree with his policy, offers a new approach that is sorely needed.

On this issue, Obama's approach and mindset are reflective of Presidential foreign policy luminaries such as Kennedy (“We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate”), Nixon (see China), and Regan (see Soviet Union), and are supported by most foreign policy experts and many in the President’s own administration, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. The President's rhetoric highlights the past flaws and current missteps of Bush-McCain Republicans and highlights the vastly different way they approach the issues of our time. Americans are ready to move on.

President Bush: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Barack Obama: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Senator Joe Biden’s informal statement: “This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”

Senator Joe Biden’s formal statement: “There is an emerging, ugly pattern in this campaign that is deeply disturbing and also terribly damaging to our national security. Three weeks ago, the presumptive Republican nominee for President said: “I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others… If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

In recent days, his surrogates have repeated that outrageous statement. And now, today, the President of the United States, speaking in the Israeli Knesset, had this to say: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along… We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

White House aides told reporters on background that the President’s remarks are a reference to calls by Senator Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to engage countries like Iran. This kind of political attack rhetoric masquerading as policy is exactly why we’re in such trouble around the world, why we’re less secure and our adversaries are stronger. Instead of trying to fool the American people and demonize Democrats, the President should be spending his time trying to get us out of the hole he’s dug.

I try to refrain from criticizing a President when he’s traveling. But for the President to leave the country and unleash a political attack on Barack Obama and Democrats cannot go unanswered. We are not going to tolerate long distance swift boating. The President said that a willingness to talk to adversaries like Iran is a ‘foolish delusion’ and alleged that those who advocate engagement offer ‘the false comfort of appeasement.’ If the President really believes that, I assume that the first thing he will do when he gets home is to fire his cabinet. His own Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State favor negotiations with Iran.

For example, Secretary Gates said just yesterday: “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage… and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling they need anything from us.”

Secretary Rice last year repeatedly called for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program:

February 25, 2007: “We’re leaving open the track of negotiations because the best way to resolve this would be for Iran to come to the table.”

October 12, 2007: “The whole purpose… is to convince Iran that the best way to achieve its stated goal of civil nuclear power is to engage in negotiations… the United States has made it clear that [if Iran suspends enrichment] we would reverse 28 years of American policy and engage fully in discussions with Iran… about anything Iran wants to put on the table. I would close by saying I think the question is not, as I’ve been asked sometimes, ‘why will the United States not talk to Iran?’ The question really is: ‘why will Iran not talk to the United States?”

And of course, this is a President who made a deal with Libya’s leader Qadafi and writes polite letters to Kim Jong Il in North Korea. Under George Bush’s watch, it’s Iran, not freedom that has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb now than it was seven years ago; Iran’s influence in Iraq has gone from zero to sixty because this President’s misguided war gave Shi’ite religious parties inspired and nurtured by Iran a path to power and opened the door to Tehran. When Iran’s President goes to Iraq, our ally there, Prime Minister Maliki, embraces him on both cheeks. Whose policy produced that?; Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant.

And beyond Iran, the world has become a much more dangerous place for America because of the failures of this administration’s foreign policy. According to our own intelligence services, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 09-11 – is stronger now than at any time since 9-11 and planning new attacks. Around the world, terrorist recruitment is on the rise and there were more attacks in 2007 than in 2006, and more attacks in 2006 than in 2005.Hamas – which came to power in elections the administration insisted take place -- controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Lebanon is on the verge of civil war.

And of course, 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight. In short, under George Bush, the entire Middle East has become more dangerous and the United States and our allies, including Israel, less secure. His policy has been an abject failure. So for him to call those who rightly see the need for change ‘appeasers’ is truly delusional. For him to do it abroad is disgraceful. I believe that as we rally our allies and Russia and China to increase pressure on Iran to end its dangerous nuclear program, we also have to do much more to reach out to Iran – including through direct talks. That’s the best way to exploit cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran’s rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.

The Iranian people need to know that their government, not the United States, is choosing confrontation over cooperation. The President’s saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders and spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right into Tehran’s pockets. The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on isolation and tension is an America ready, willing and able to engage. And by the way, since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary? It’s amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America’s ideas and ideals.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "We have a protocol . . . around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil. I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.

“President Bush’s own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations – at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders – can both show strength and produce results. He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror. And by conducting discussions with Russia, China, Libya, North Korea and Iran in recent years, President Bush has demonstrated his belief that negotiations can be a tool to advance America and Israel’s national security interests. I call on the President to explain the inconsistency between his Administration’s actions and his words today.”

"The belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."

John McCain in 2008: "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past. The president is absolutely right." Asked whether he thought Obama was one of them, he said he didn't know. He didn't know!

John McCain in 2006: When asked "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?" McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States. Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA): "The president swallows the microphone every time he opens his mouth."

As the Times reports:

Thursday was not the first time the term “appeasement” has cropped up in the Bush administration lexicon. In 2006, in advance of the midterm elections, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld invoked the analogy as a line of attack against critics of the war in Iraq. Then, as now, it was controversial.

"Reflecting on a Rough Year"

With the second session of the 110th Congress around the corner, the Las Vegas Sun reflects on the success and failures of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It's worth the read.