The most corrupt Congress ever

Odd how the media's flaying of overblown scandals has helped create a Congress that has real crooks and their associates in powerful positions. It is "most corrupt Congress ever" in Don Surber's words.
 
Oh well, the Washington Post can now drop that Macaca Section of the paper, finally let its readers know that Cardin doesn't walk on water and Steele was a decent, capable guy, and I am certain that each fruit stand bombing in Iraq will no longer get front page  above—the—fold coverage.

The media came through for the Dems one more time and I predict they will now redirect their focus away from the war and Congressional scandals. Our work is just beginning.

With all the usual blatherers offering their analyses and some predicting a decades long Dem ascendency is coming, I'm standing with Mickey Kaus' assessment:

Just Asking: What does it tell you about a political party if in a year of epic disaster for their opponents the best they can hope for is a 51—49 majority in the Senate? ... Update: Matt Yglesias says it tells us the Senate is constitutionally malapportioned. I agree. But that's still a problem for the Dems! And many readers email to point out that only a third of the Senate was up for election. That's true too. But it's also true that the Democrats have had other elections, with other Senate seats, to build a stronger majority and they haven't. ... The 2004 election, with its famous "wrong track" numbers, should have been good for the Democrats, while it's hard to imagine a more favorable climate than the current one. My point is, if this is the high water mark for the Dems in the Senate, it's a low high water mark. ... The same can probably be said for the House, though it's too early to tell exactly how big Pelosi's margin will be. 

Clarice Feldman   11 9 06

Odd how the media's flaying of overblown scandals has helped create a Congress that has real crooks and their associates in powerful positions. It is "most corrupt Congress ever" in Don Surber's words.
 
Oh well, the Washington Post can now drop that Macaca Section of the paper, finally let its readers know that Cardin doesn't walk on water and Steele was a decent, capable guy, and I am certain that each fruit stand bombing in Iraq will no longer get front page  above—the—fold coverage.

The media came through for the Dems one more time and I predict they will now redirect their focus away from the war and Congressional scandals. Our work is just beginning.

With all the usual blatherers offering their analyses and some predicting a decades long Dem ascendency is coming, I'm standing with Mickey Kaus' assessment:

Just Asking: What does it tell you about a political party if in a year of epic disaster for their opponents the best they can hope for is a 51—49 majority in the Senate? ... Update: Matt Yglesias says it tells us the Senate is constitutionally malapportioned. I agree. But that's still a problem for the Dems! And many readers email to point out that only a third of the Senate was up for election. That's true too. But it's also true that the Democrats have had other elections, with other Senate seats, to build a stronger majority and they haven't. ... The 2004 election, with its famous "wrong track" numbers, should have been good for the Democrats, while it's hard to imagine a more favorable climate than the current one. My point is, if this is the high water mark for the Dems in the Senate, it's a low high water mark. ... The same can probably be said for the House, though it's too early to tell exactly how big Pelosi's margin will be. 

Clarice Feldman   11 9 06