Listen to what John Ensign (R-NV) actually said about whether Larry Craig should resign:

"I wouldn't put myself hopefully in that kind of position, but if I was in a position like that, that's what I would do," Ensign told The Associated Press in his home state.

What?! So, John Ensign "hopefully" wouldn't solicit sex in an airport bathroom? Did I read that right? Have I taken leave of my senses?

After Libby turned on the day of the State of The Union, and after Webb upstaged Bush, and after Wesley Clark took Hannity to school, and after Pelosi orchestrates the brilliant 100 hours, what do I read?

Well, the 2004 Election was fixed. More exactly the Houston Chronicle reports that two election workers in Ohio cherry-picked the ballots to review in order to avoid a recount in Cuyahoga County, which is Ohio's most populous:

I've been buzzing today because of the incredible new Rasmussen poll and I just couldn't help but share! Their numbers definitely tend to run higher than other polls but today Bush hit 35% Approve, a new low. His Disapprove is 61%. What's more this poll was "completed before the President’s Wednesday night speech, but after details of his plan for a troop surge had been discussed."

While there are lower approval ratings out there for Bush (Zogby 30%, AP-Ipsos 32%, CBS News 30%) - many of which are setting new lows for approval - what's amazing here is the trend. Bush is swirling the drain, had a classic dead cat bounce in Rasmussen at the beginning of the month, but even they can't hold him up (after the fold I talk a bit about Rasmussen's methods).

I've been pondering the possibility of a Gore candidacy with increasing delight (and optimism). Diaries like today's Gore-Hating Republican Blogger LOVES Inconvenient Truth have only stoked the fire. So, here's my shot at explaining why Gore is our strongest candidate, likely to win in a landslide, and not only that, he's more than ready to be a truly great leader.

It's not hard to figure. Gore has successfully (and non-cynically) positioned himself as an outsider, yet he has the experience and clout of an insider. He can run an insurgent campaign, piss off the D.C. establishment, continue to scare them to the bones, and do so without losing their support because they'll know he can win and thus desperately want to stay on the right side of him. Why does McCain toady up to Bush after South Carolina? Because Bush won (or he didn't win, but . . .).

The Washington Post has reported that conservatives see Harriet Miers' nomination as "a betrayal of years of struggle to move the court to the right," noting that Bush "risks the biggest rupture with the Republican base of his presidency" (from the amazing Political Wire).

So, should the Democrats use their 45 Senate votes to corner the Republicans by forcing a vote on Miers? I think so. Here's why:

If Bush loses his base over Miers his approval numbers will go into freefall. A wildly unpopular Bush will be easier to investigate and easier to impeach. The goal: Reveal the depth of his corruption and inflict significant collateral damage on the Republican coalition in the process. This is a ready-mage, textbook wedge.

So, I read this amazing diary entry and thought to myself, "Yes, this captures how bad things are," and then I thought (hopefully), "Maybe this is what would cue my father into how the Republicans work." I'd describe my father as a thoughtful, very well-educated person, willing to debate, but who also will use cheap rhetorical outs when he's losing an argument (as in "we need more evidence," "differences in opinion are what makes the world go round," "both parties cheat," etc.).  

I still am not ready to conclude, though, that my father would support the Republicans like he does if he understood what they were. So, I wrote this e-mail (below) to my father after reading Chris Bowers' diary. Beyond my personal situation--which I know many folks on Kos can relate to--this discussion is obviously part of a bigger question: How do we show people how damaging this administration is? Is there a point at which it doesn't make sense to try to convince people?

(continued below fold)

Reading Kos's assessment of the debates (i.e., Bush has never lost a debate and is the favorite) I wondered why Kerry agreed to three debates. Then I read a quick summary on The Note of the concessions James Baker was able to get from the debate committee and asked "Why didn't Kerry demand some concessions?"

Here's how I see it: Of course Kerry can't refuse the debates, that would look like fear, but he (or Vernon Jordan, who was his negotiator with the debate commissions) can play hardball. He can demand concessions. That would show strength, possibly even rattle the Republicans.

If Kos is right and the debates are even close to a wash for Kerry, then Kerry could either make the debate format more favorable or simply get out of the debates. Either outcome is good.

I've diaried a few times about the way things are looking way up the Democrats, and now I find this AP article about how Bush didn't actually end up with a "Reagan Bounce"!

The reporter notes that Bush's polling improved immediately after the funeral, but then adds that "Some polling analysts attributed those changes to Americans getting a break from steady media coverage of bad news from Iraq." I almost couldn't believe it--this from the folks who cut Nedra Pickler's paycheck!

I've been following all the regional reports on Fahrenheit 911 avidly, more closely even than I watched the Dean "bat," and wondering why I'm so riveted. Why do I need to read 20 diaries on this movie? I thought maybe it was that "we" finally have a response to the Republican propaganda machine (Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.), but it's more than that.

The real beauty of the film is two-pronged: First, Fahrenheit 911 lets Democrats know that the lies of the past four years can actually be beat. After Florida 2000, the Bush administration's partisan response to 9/11, and the 2002 mid-terms I felt defeated. The thought of people lining up for this movie, of packed movie theaters, of all these people cheering a movie makes me ecstatic.

It's spring, time for optimism, so I figured I'd go along. In a short column today Ryan Lizza argues that Kerry's campaign so far has been masterful. This morning I saw a fantastic campaign videotape bio on Kerry (click on "Watch Video" and then on "New Courage"). Kerry is doing better than any challenger since the Flintstones. Kerry raised nearly twice as much money as Bush last month. Kerry's positives in swing states increased significantly last month despite Bush's unprecedented media attack. Kerry has an impressive record as a closer in past elections (including this year's primaries). Bush keeps outdoing himself in the incompetence department, this time inviting an agent for the Axis of Evil to the State of the Union. And, to be fair and balanced I suppose I should include some bad news: It looks like South Dakota is out of reach.

I suspect, though, that the best is yet to come: Maybe Democrats will stop being doormats to the Republicans once and for all. The Republicans are throwing everything at Kerry and it's not working. I give Kerry credit for that. If he pulls it off, if all their old tricks stop working, if calling someone a "liberal" or "tax-and-spend Democrat" or pushing empty challenges to their patriotism don't work, maybe the Republicans will actually have to debate policies. And there we win. Like I said, I'm being optimistic, but it's nice when optimistic and realistic lead pretty much to the same conclusions. It's nice to have some good news after three-and-a-half long years. Kerry's looking damn good to me.

This AP story popped up on Yahoo today. It's about an organization called the Music Row Democrats. Their web page explains the purpose of the group:

The MUSIC ROW DEMOCRATS organization was formed in December 2003 by a group of Nashville music industry leaders who were fed up with feeling as if they had to apologize for being Democrats, particularly when they knew that Republican policies were negatively affecting the lives of the working class people who make up much of the audience for their music.

What struck me was a line in the AP article: "While country music traditionally has reflected bedrock American values, Titley said people in the industry are no more Republican than the overall population."

Kerry's substantial lead over Bush in the latest California Field Poll (53-41) got me thinking about the 2004 Electoral College. In 2000 Gore beat Bush by 1.3 million votes in California. Even with Schwarzenegger in the Governor's Mansion, I expect that the Democratic nominee will beat Bush in California by an even larger margin this year.

Given Bush's skill as a political strategist (or Rove's) would Bush mind losing votes in other populous states--say New York and Illinois--in exchange for the magic 270 Electoral Votes? Surely not. His "win" in 2000 was amazing from a strategic point of view (it was amazing he even came close to winning). His campaign worked the electoral system to a tee.

A few days ago I received a fundraising letter from the Nader campaign. I was frankly (and perhaps naively) stunned that he was considering a run after 2000. I'm not sure what the overall sentiment is at DKos, but I line up pretty strongly with Eric Alterman, who strongly opposes such a run.  

Anyhow, I've pasted a copy of the letter I wrote to the Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee (with the address) and encourage those of you who don't want a Nader run to write him at this address.

When I was looking at the returns this morning I was surprised to see that someone named Bill Wyatt got 10% of the vote versus Bush's 90% in the Oklahoma Republican Primary. Wyatt, a California businessman, actually campaigned in Oklahoma. While he's a not serious challenger (his website calls him "Unknown" Bill Wyatt) Wyatt's success has to make Bush nervous.  

An article on WorldNet suggests that this may encourage challengers to Bush (apparently Roy Moore the infamous former Alabama Supreme Court judge hasn't ruled out a run), but more immediately it's nice to see a break in the Republican ranks. Since Bush plainly does not core Republican values it's about time.  

For now, let's hope the media reports the story of Wyatt's success. Anything that shows the very real cracks in Bush's (quickly-disintegrating) aura of invulnerablility helps.  

Here's the WorldNet link:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36930

I'm posting my first Kos diary to suggest a way to help defeat Bush: If you've given money to a presidential candidate and he doesn't drop out once he's effectively out of the running, then (a) call his campaign office, (b) ask for your donation back, and (c) redirect your donation either to a candidate who still has a realistic shot of winning the nomination, to a Democrat in another race, or to a group like the DNC or MoveOn.org.

If you believe--like I do--that beating Bush is what really matters, what better way to send the candidates a positive (and persuasive) message?  Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, and Carol Moseley-Braun all deserve our thanks for dropping out when they did.  They took their shot but got out when it was time. The other candidates should follow suit.

(I've included phone numbers for each campaign on the next page.)