Greg, Sen. Lieberman is going to caucus with the Democrats. He was always going to caucus with the Democrats. To the White House, his support of the administration on Iraq (and its inability to recruit a viable Republican Senate candidate in Connecticut) presented an opportunity to stick its tongue out at anti-Bush Democrats. To Lieberman, the tacit support he has gotten from the White House is just found money; he'll pocket it and not give the White House anything in return except to maintain his position on Iraq -- which he would have done anyway.

Posted by: Zathras at November 7, 2006 03:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

One theory I've heard about Leiberman is, if they Dems only win the Senate 51-49, then Bush drops Rumsfeld, nominates Leiberman, and the Republican Governor of Connecticut (Rell) appoints a Republican for Leiberman's seat.

The very plausability of that scenario scares me.

Posted by: LLeo at November 7, 2006 05:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

Considering Lieberman refused to say whether he thought the Dems winning the senate was a good thing or not, claiming without a doubt that he will definitely caucus with the Dems, and stay there, is a bit naive IMO.

In the end Joe will do as Joe has always done, whatever is best for Joe. Should the Dems take the senate and decide not to let him carry his seniority over to his new party, all bets are off. But note I'm not predicting the dems would do this.

Posted by: Davebo at November 7, 2006 05:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

I voted straight D today - first time in my life.

Posted by: Joel at November 7, 2006 05:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm trying to manage my expectations. I'd like the Democrats to win big, if only to wipe the ever-present smirk from Rove's face, but... I'm expecting only modest gains (ie, a few new seats, a few governorships). Like Greg, I'd like to see, at least, Santorum and Allen lose.

I'm not putting any money on it, though, esp. in the case of Allen. I've learned never to underestimate the stupidity of the voting public. Apparently, some Republicans would have to see photos of Republicans having sex with young children while worshiping Satan and giving the Nazi salute, and they would still say it's a plot by the Democrats or the MSM or Bill Clinton. To some Republican voters, Republicans can literally do no wrong and are accountable for nothing. There's nothing a Republican could do to make them unsupportable to these people. Bush could declare himself President for Life and these people would say, "It's about time!"

Posted by: LL at November 7, 2006 06:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

In the above comment, I meant to say: "... some Republican voters would have to see photos of Republican politicians having sex with young children..."

Sorry for being unclear.

Posted by: LL at November 7, 2006 06:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm really hoping Lieberman loses. If he wins, the GOP owns his butt.

Apparently he's in a very poor spot on the ballot (ie, low), which works to Lamont's advantage. How much so remains to be seen.

Posted by: Jon H at November 7, 2006 06:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

I voted this morning without any problem in my district. I hate hearing though of the multitude of problems elsewhere. I really worry about our democracy.

Posted by: Dan at November 7, 2006 06:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

I've been reading about all the people turned away and denied the right to vote. I've also been reading about the phone scams by Republicans -- I guess the indictments for doing it last time was no discouragement -- and why should it be?

I suspect that the GOP will continue to prevail -- bribery, corruption, hookers, drugs, and child molesting are all acceptable, as long as the slush funds under the table continue to flow -- this is the nature of humanity.

Posted by: john doe at November 7, 2006 07:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't get to whack the GOP with a two by four, as I live in a State with no senators up for reelection, and my rep will be reelected until he dies.

Nevertheless, I am going to vote Demo in the Gubernatorial election, but that is because the governor panders to those who dislike the multiethnic present. Four years ago, he sort of supported a return to the Confederate Flag. This time, he's breathing hot and heavy about immigration.

Guess I get to wait to 2008 before my vote means anything with respect to Iraq policy.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at November 7, 2006 07:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

As an Englishman I don't have a vote, but if I did it would, in most cases be pressed for the republican - exceptions made in certain cases where the Dem seems smarter than usual. I admit I'd be holding my nose to do so but I'm not convinced that the proposed cure (Dem wins) would not be worse than the disease. The problem is that while I agree the republicans have been less than perfect WRT Iraq etc. (you all know the reasons) the democrats are a bunch of whiney spoiled children - or at least they come across that way - and personally I'd prefer to vote for a grown up.

Posted by: Francis at November 7, 2006 07:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

The problem is that while I agree the republicans have been less than perfect WRT Iraq etc. (you all know the reasons) the democrats are a bunch of whiney spoiled children - or at least they come across that way - and personally I'd prefer to vote for a grown up.

Curt Weldon. Santorum. Allen in Virginia. Shelby in Alabama. Katherine Harris. Tom Tancredo. Tom DeLay! Worthy heirs to the legacy of Newt Gingrich, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Lee Atwater.

These are just the clowns I can recite from memory. A little digging would turn up twice as many ignorant yahoos. If this is your idea of "grown-ups", I'll happily stick with Romper Room.

Posted by: sglover at November 7, 2006 07:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm pretty sure Lieberman on the ballot helps the Republican candidates for the House. So that's why the White House and talk radio supported him.

The opportunity to stick its tongue out at anti-Bush Democrats was just gravy.

Posted by: BeYourGuest at November 7, 2006 07:52 PM | Permalink to this comment

Not directly responding to the above comments re: Lieberman, but it does amuse me how hard it is for the very liberal (i.e. DailyKos) to apply the same judgments to that race as they do to other races. For instance Kos openly expects Ford to loose in TN, but can't bring himself to write off Lamont, even though Ford seems closer in polling to the front runner than Lamont is. Excuses like 'cant figure out how to poll a three way race' or 'Lieberman is lower on the ballot which puts him at a disadvantage' seem mostly intended to buttress their own hopes, and doubtfully account for more than a very small advantage.

Posted by: Geof at November 7, 2006 09:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

RE Republicans as grownups: Obviously, people are entitled to their opinions, but as someone else already pointed out, I see precious few examples of Republican grown-ups. I see plenty of whining about the media and the Democrats (who are barely allowed to dissent, much less put up any roadblocks to the Republican agenda, whatever it is this week). If the Republicans are an example of grown-ups in charge, I say put the children back in.

As long as we're listing idiotic Republicans, let's not forget Ted Stevens (I don't know if he's up for reelection, but he's still worth mentioning), who defends spending hundreds of millions for what seem to be unnecessary bridges in Alaska and also thinks the govt. should regulate content on cable TV. And isn't he the one who babbled about the "tubes" that make up the Internet? Moron.

Baby-in-Chief Bush has never seen an excuse for shitty-ass decision-making he didn't like, and apparently he sets the tone for all of them. While I agree the Democrats are hardly looking like the gold standard of governance, I honestly don't see how they could do worse. They'd have to do something truly crazy, like declare war on China or make TV illegal, to do worse than the Republicans have. The best we can hope for is gridlock. With neither party "in charge," hopefully they can't eff up things too badly.

Posted by: LL at November 7, 2006 10:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

As of 12:30 AM PST Nov. 8, it looks like we have a 2x4 to Bush's head. He would be very unwise to keep Rumsfeld -- if he does, for now, chances are that likely GOP presidential candidates will be pressing him to drop the guy 12 months from now.

It seems to me everybody is so whiney about Lieberman - since when is party loyalty more important than sticking to your beliefs? Anyway, no chance he would either caucus with the GOP or accept the Defense job if it meant the GOP would retake control of the Senate. I don't know if it does, though, wouldn't the Governor chose a replacement?

Apart from the control change for the House, and maybe Senate, the biggest change is going to be a major influx of moderate Dems, replacing a range of Republicans. Having some serious, credible foreign policy weight on the Dem side, people like Webb, will be a hugely valuable check on this out of control President.

Posted by: Matt at November 8, 2006 08:40 AM | Permalink to this comment

As of right now, it looks good for a +6 gain for Democrats in the Senate. Tester is still ahead with votes mostly still to come in from Billings and Bozeman --- one city a toss-up and the other heavily Democratic. Virginia has Webb clearly ahead, though a recount seems likely.

I feel good. We're not out of the deep water yet, but it's a sign that we as a country are not entirely insane.

Posted by: Mitsu at November 8, 2006 09:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

Allen may well ask for a recount, but given that the FBI is already investigating claims of voter intimidation calls made on behalf of his campaign, it may prove embarrassing. What if a recount finds he did, in fact, win by some small sliver while the FBI determines that there was, in fact, substantial and effective voter suppression?

Posted by: RWB at November 8, 2006 12:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

Given the pathetic government in the UK--headed by Tony "Bushco's Lapdog" Blair, I would be hesitant to give much credence to any criticism of American Democrats by an Englishman.

Posted by: raj at November 8, 2006 01:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

Given that Allen is a sadist, a woman beater, and prone to lying, cheating, and corruption, why do you think he'd be embarassed to be found out doing more cheating? The whole point of his ethic is that he doesn't care what he has to do to win -- he is okay with anything if it keeps him in power. He is exactly in line with the ruling theocons running the Republican Party -- steal anything, torture anyone, tell any lie, bribe anyone, as long as it keeps them in power. Allen is a poster child for the modern Republican Party, and its complete amorality.

Posted by: howard dean at November 8, 2006 03:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

I look at the results, and see the resurgence of the Moderate Democrat. (The one true net-root guy was thrashed.) This isn't bad news. I hope the Democrats rethink Alcee Hastings, but otherwise look for oversight out of the house, and gridlock on pork, stupid tax cuts, and stupid spending programs.

Think the day of the Moderate Republican, though, is done for now. Maybe Giuliani can bring it back in '08

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at November 8, 2006 03:37 PM | Permalink to this comment

There's a lot to say about this election, but perhaps the most completely essential thing is this: Republican incumbents in the House and Senate lost because they didn't do a very good job.

That's what supposed to happen in elections. Frankly, it doesn't happen often enough. Plenty of incumbents this year, from both parties, skated through the election facing nominal opposition only, despite having little to show for their time in office. Among the ones who faced tough opposition and lost, though, most were unproductive legislators. For every Clay Shaw (R-FL) who couldn't overcome a Democratic trend in his district or Mike DeWine (R-OH), sunk by the toxic political atmosphere created by others in his state's party, there were several Conrad Burns's (R-MT) -- people who, all questions of ideology or opinions about issues aside, were embarrassments to the Congress and should have been embarrassments to their constituents.

Unhealthy as the current political climate might be, it would be a lot less healthy if no more than a third of the public thought that Congress was doing a good job and every incumbent still got reelected. Regular readers, or at least the obsessively regular ones, will be aware that I'm a Republican conservative enough to think one of President Bush's worst failings is his effort to make the GOP more like the Democratic Party. There's no hiding the fact that yesterday's election brought a lot of bad news for my party. There ought to be no question, though, that this bad news didn't fall from the sky. Republicans were given office by the voters and made poor use of it, so some of them lost their jobs. That's why we have elections.

Posted by: Zathras at November 8, 2006 04:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

Rumsfeld is gone. Great. Now, what?

His position was untenable with Dems in control of a House of Congress. There will still be testimony. There will still be review.

Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2006 05:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

"one of President Bush's worst failings is his effort to make the GOP more like the Democratic Party"

That statement must depend on a fairly ludicrous mischaracterization, a.k.a. straw man, view of the nature of the Democratic Party.

The Democrats are not a party that likes to rush into war on false premises.
The Democrats are not a party that likes to torture people.
The Democrats are not a party that wants to destroy habeas corpus.
The Democrats are not a party that likes to trample on the other branches of government.
The Democrats are not a party that insists on obsessive, Queeg-like secrecy.
The Democrats are not a party that wants to triple our national debt.
The Democrats are not a party that allows a major American city to drown.
The Democrats are not a party that appoints lap-dog presidential cronies with no legal experience to the Supreme Court.
The Democrats are not a party that wants to intervene in end of life decisions.
The Democrats are not a party that runs on blatantly racist campaign ads.

What in god's name are you talking about?

I mean, if you're an Andrew Sullivan-style, "where'd my party go?" Republican, then I have some sympathy for you.

But the way that your party lost its way was *not* by becoming more like the Democrats. That's just bizarre.

Posted by: kid bitzer at November 8, 2006 05:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

It is official: RUMSFELD HAS RESIGNED, HURRZZAHH!
Robert Gates, Bush SR.'s CIA Director has bitten the bullet &
will be the new Secretary of Defense!

Posted by: David All at November 8, 2006 06:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

See http://www.cbsnews.com for details.
Looks a bit stronger that the Dems will win in Montana & Virginia Senate races and will be the Majority Pary in both houses!
HURRZZAH SOME MORE!

Posted by: David All at November 8, 2006 06:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm happy to be wrong about Democratic gains (I predicted more modest gains), but I don't think the Democrats should be bragging about their mandate, like Bush unwisely did in 2004. At least they won't if any of their leadership has any brains at all. Investigation of any Bush people at this point? I don't think that's gonna happen. Dems aren't that far ahead in the House. I think Bush will go true to form and declare that he is still the Decider and veto the hell out of anything the Democrats want while his cronies in Congress do everything they can to make sure nothing gets done that they don't want. I was hoping for gridlock, hopefully we'll get it. Pretty bad when the best you can hope for is a do-nothing Congress and an ineffectual president. Way to go, George, you've united many of us in the belief that neither you nor Congress should be allowed to do anything. If only we could vote to shut them down entirely.

Anyone taking bets on how long it takes Santorum to find another job (probably with the RNC or AEI or similar outfit)? He'll probably make out better financially than he ever did as a senator. Plus, he won't be subject to oversight. I think he'll have another job lined up before the week is out.

Posted by: LL at November 8, 2006 06:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

Im pleased Lieberman won, and that any Dem majority will rely on him.

Im nervous about Webb, with his support from Koss, his backing from Zinni and Hoar, his protectionism, his tough guy rhetoric, the cartoon he used in the primary against Harris Miller. OTOH since his win, if he does win, required support from Bill Clinton, perhaps we will acknowledge that debt.

Since you are quoting folks with an agenda like Michael Lind's I dont suppose youd find Webb as troubling as I do.

Im very pleased that Hillary had a big win, that Bill was relied upon by Dems in many places, and that Hillary is set with good momentum. There is hope for free trade, internationalist, neo-Wilsonianism yet.

Posted by: liberalhawk at November 8, 2006 07:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras,

Leaving aside your declared conservative GOP allegiance (I'm a Scoop Jackson Democrat myself, if that means anything anymore), I agree with the thrust of your comment, but disagree on some of your assumptions. Yes, the GOP lost because incumbents didn't do a good job, but I see two mistakes: First, all this talk about a "toxic environment," "headwind," "bad landscape for Republicans," etcetera is a metaphoric attempt to evade responsibility. It wasn't the weather that led to a Republican defeat, it was an electorate rejecting their policies. It's ironic that the GOP, with it's long history of pretending the real environment doesn't exist or doesn't matter, is happy to leap to an imaginary political "environment" if it helps them evade responsibility for their predicament. May you all keep making this mistake, at least through the 2008 elections.

Second, I think you're wrong to focus on a unproductive, or "do nothing" incumbents. The GOP has done plenty over the last 6 years. Lot's of our national problems have to do with incompetence (viz., the way the Iraq war has been conducted) but more has to do with policy directions (vis., the fact that we chose to fight in Iraq instead of pursuing the war on terrorism differently.

Posted by: Matt at November 8, 2006 07:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

Interestingly enough, Comedy Central's blog broke the story on Rumsfeld:

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/

So, I guess that means we're doomed, right?

Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2006 09:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

Just for the pretentious title, I am going to toot my own horn:

The 18th Brumaire of George W. Bush

Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2006 09:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

To Matt's points upthread: first, my reference to a "toxic environment" in an earlier post was specific to Ohio, where scandals involving the Republican governor, the Republican candidate for governor, and several Republican Representatives helped sink GOP Senator DeWine, who in the course of a long career has beaten stereotypical interest group-driven Northeast Ohio liberals like Sherrod Brown before.

His other point, as I understand it, was that voters delivered a verdict on the policies pursued by a Republican administration, and secondarily by the Republican Congress, in rejecting so many GOP incumbents. I agree with this. However, officeholders who have no political profile beyond that of a loyal servant of their party's President are bound to be extremely vulnerable if that President becomes unpopular (this is even more true of Senators than Congressmen, since Senators can't choose their constituents through the redistricting process). Moreover Congress as an institution has gotten, deservedly, very bad press in recent years, and individual Congressmen and Senators may, also deservedly, be held to account for that, something I think is more likely to happen if a Congressman or Senator hasn't done very much, or at least hasn't done what his constituents recognize as being conspicuously good things. Again, this doesn't always happen, and probably doesn't happen often enough, but it did happen in a number of races this year.

Posted by: Zathras at November 8, 2006 10:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm happy to be wrong about Democratic gains (I predicted more modest gains), but I don't think the Democrats should be bragging about their mandate, like Bush unwisely did in 2004.

Dems aren't talking about a mandate, they're talking about a message

Investigation of any Bush people at this point? I don't think that's gonna happen. Dems aren't that far ahead in the House.

Dems aren't going to do "investigate"....they're calling it oversight, and they're gonna do it with a vengeance!

I think Bush will go true to form and declare that he is still the Decider and veto the hell out of anything the Democrats want while his cronies in Congress do everything they can to make sure nothing gets done that they don't want.

wow, I sure hope so. The Dems should do their best to get legislation passed that will be opposed by GOP congresscritters and vetoes by Bush --- nothing says "change the party in the White House in 2008" better...

First legislative priority -- a tax bill which extends the "middle class tax cuts" but eliminates all the "fat cat" tax cuts effective immediately. Hopefully, LOTS of GOPers will vote against such a bill, and the Democrats can win in 2008 on that issue alone..... (I can see the ads now .... "Republican X voted AGAINST keeping middle class taxes low to preserve big tax breaks for Paris Hilton" )

Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 8, 2006 10:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

RE p.lukasiak at November 8, 2006 10:56 PM: We'll see.

I'm just sayin', in November 2004, Bush was all, "How ya like me now, bitches?" with his 51% (or 52%, can't remember) "mandate." I'd hate to see the Democrats pull the same crap with similar results, making promises they can't keep. I'm not saying they should wimp out, I just think they should get serious about things they can actually accomplish. Oversight of the executive branch would be a nice change from the constant kissing of Bush's ass of the last 6 years. That'd be a good start.

I'd like to see the Democrats: put people in charge of Congressional committees and govt agencies who actually know what they're doing, instead of faith-based political cronies; come right out and say that our effort in Iraq is a clusterfuck as a result of shitty planning and then come up with a feasible plan to deal with it rather than pretending all is well and that anything bad about the war is the liberal media at work; make it clear that the govt has better things to do than micromanage people's personal lives and TV viewing habits. In other words, major things Republicans have failed utterly to do despite being in charge for 12 years. Tax policy is way down on my list.

The Democrats should feel good about their successes, but it's not like the entire country has gone from "red" to "blue" overnight. It's not like there was much of a choice for a lot of people, their choice was between someone they knew was an idiot vs. someone whose idiocy is not yet established. The Democrats don't have free reign now. They're sort of on probation. A little humility (which Bush was not smart enough to display) would be a good move on their part. Just because the Republicans have been flaming assholes from the get-go doesn't mean the Democrats have to follow suit now that they have the majority.

Posted by: LL at November 9, 2006 12:50 AM | Permalink to this comment

Grownups will be back in charge - of Congress, anyway - and it's a fine sight to see.

We've had nothing but idiocy and bombasterie masquerading as deep conviction and strength for the past 4 years. Even a modest agenda with modest accomplishments will look like a whole new and wonderful world in comparison.

Posted by: CaseyL at November 9, 2006 03:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

Democrats, hrumph!
Is Dean and Rangle going to bring back the draft like they wanted?
I'd like to see bunches of libs doing a couple of tours and show all those toothless, trailer home rednecks how to make kissy-kissy hearts and minds, kumbya peace.
How about Alcee Hastings, impeached federal judge, now leading a commettee?
Leahy, the only censored Senator since before WWII. Ted Kennedy, Jon Kerry, the netroots nuts, all getting more and more prime time. Ought to be fun. Plus all the blue dog Democrats, from southern, rural districts will just lock step with San Fran Pelosi.
Iraq? Democrats don't have the balls to pick it up and run.
I'm sure Iran, North Korea, the Islamonazis will all do 180 degrees.

Democrats in Congress can't hide or pass off. As far as most publik edjamakated Amerikans know, the Democrats 'control' Congress.

Seriously, good luck.

Posted by: Paul at November 9, 2006 04:48 AM | Permalink to this comment

The radicalization of the Republican Party has been a strengthening phenomenon of the last 25 years. Looking back on Reagan, it's almost quaint how moderate he seems by comparison to the implacable ideologues of today. Could anyone imagine Bush nominating a SCOTUS justice like Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor?

The GOP struck a devil's bargain when it decided to cater to the scarcely-disguised racists and Rapturists of the heartland. There is no undoing of this alliance. It's pretty much a permanent reality of the political landscape. If you vote Republican, you necessarily vote for people like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, George Allen and Michelle Malkin. The party invited this riff-raff into their home, gave them squatting rights and the keys to the family van. It was much easier dealing with these crazy populists through various buffers. The GOP in the person of George Bush removed all buffers. He not merely symbolizes their power, he embodies it.

Posted by: walt at November 9, 2006 05:01 AM | Permalink to this comment

LL wrote: "In the above comment, I meant to say: "... some Republican voters would have to see photos of Republican politicians having sex with young children...""

I suspect some of the hardest hard-core dead-ender Republican partisans would probably not mind too much if the children had Democrat parents.

Posted by: Jon H at November 9, 2006 05:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras,

On the first issue, "toxic environment" in Ohio: it's just a semantic point, but people normally use environment to me a set of givens that the actors have no choice but to work with. Ohio didn't have a toxic environment in that sense; what you mean is that the widespread corruption in the Ohio Republican party lead many voters to distrust or dislike Republican politicians, even those who weren't accused of corruption, like DeWine. That isn't a toxic environment in my book, it's making your bed and lying in it.

As I understand it, your second point was that do nothings in Congress are particularly vulnerable there is some kind of momentum against their party, and that that represents a good periodic clenseing of the institution. That sounds right, though I haven't studied the results enough to know. However, there's lots of stuff you can do in Congress apart from sponsoring legislation, that's significant even if low profile. John Kerry was not an active legislator, but he was, and is, an active senator. Lots of Representatives do see their role as mainly representative - taking care of constituent problems, brining home pork, etcetera. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Paul,

Congratulations. I think you get an A- for use of GOP hot button vocabulary. Here are some tips for improvement: it's not "San Fran" Pelosi, it's Comrade Pelosi. You should always throw in "tax and spend" when talking about the "Democrat Party," and a couple of comments about gay marriage and partial birth abortion would also help. Good effort, though.

Posted by: Matt at November 10, 2006 12:08 AM | Permalink to this comment

RE Matt at November 10, 2006 12:08 AM:

Heh... you'd think they'd have that down by now, after years of being indoctrinated by Limbaugh and the RNC.

Maybe somebody needs to put up an Internet posting template with pull-down menus of the proscribed vernacular to make it truly idiot-proof. If they haven't already, that is.

Posted by: LL at November 10, 2006 01:29 AM | Permalink to this comment

at least there's something to look forward to...

John Conyers And The Muslim Caucus

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 11/9/2006

Congress: The likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says he's just fighting bigotry in leading a Democrat jihad to deny law enforcement key terror-fighting tools. But he is in the pocket of Islamists.

John Conyers, son of a leftist Detroit union activist, represents the largest Arab population in the country. His district includes Dearborn, Mich., nicknamed "Dearbornistan" by locals fed up with cultural encroachment and terror fears from a steady influx of Mideast immigrants.

Conyers, who runs an Arabic version of his official Web site, does the bidding of these new constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them. They want to kill the Patriot Act and prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings.

And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.

"The policies of the Bush administration have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors," he growls.

He'll soon be in a position to act on his promises. And he has the full backing of the expected speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants to criminalize FBI and Customs Service profiling of Muslim terror suspects.

"Since Sept. 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin," she said. "We must make it illegal."

Conyers, a lawyer by trade, last decade pushed through a bill to help stop what he called "DWB," driving while black. He dubs post-9/11 profiling "flying while Muslim."

Pelosi has also promised Muslims she'll "correct the Patriot Act," one of the most valuable tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.

Conyers is one of the top recipients of donations from the Arab-American Leadership PAC. And not surprisingly, he has a long history of pandering to Arab and Muslim voters.

During the first Gulf War, for instance, Conyers fought FBI outreach efforts in the Arab and Muslim community in Detroit that were designed to gather intelligence on potential cells and protect the home front. Conyers and other Detroit-area Democrats at the time, David Bonior and John Dingell, threatened to hold hearings unless the FBI stopped counterterrorism interviews.

The FBI met with them privately to explain the national security benefits of outreach, but could not allay their concerns. In the end, the FBI backed off. Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and the al-Qaida-tied Muslim Brotherhood are all active in the area.

Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups. They will have unfettered access, even though many of their leaders have been tied to terrorism (some CAIR officials have landed in the big house).

In 2003, Conyers hosted the first dinner on the Hill that celebrated the end of Ramadan for such Muslim leaders. It's now a tradition. Incoming Democrat freshman Keith Ellison, a Louis Farrakhan disciple and first Muslim member of Congress, will no doubt expand the invitation list.

Conyers has also sponsored one of the Islamists' favorite bills in Congress. HR 635, which has 40 co-signers, would create a select committee to investigate President Bush for allegedly manipulating prewar intelligence and torturing al-Qaida detainees. The goal of his bill is to build grounds for impeachment.

Posted by: neill at November 11, 2006 07:41 AM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, why are you against democracy?

If the racist article you quote is correct, Conyers is trying to represent his district. He's doing what he's supposed to.

You don't like democracy and you don't understand it. But then, you're a Republican.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 11, 2006 09:58 AM | Permalink to this comment