Perhaps, but you would certainly need to address that clause if you wanted to disband the Senate. And you would want to be thorough because I think it would be difficult to predict how the Supreme Court would resolve the conflict.
I don't see it happening but I think inviting Israel into NATO could be a good move. It might help them feel secure enough to make the necessary compromises that could bring about a resolution to their conflict.
Btw, Turkey is already in NATO, it's the European Union that they are having difficulty entering.
I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I would imagine that the demographic changes occuring in these growing Red states will make wipe out the cost of a reapportioned seats and electoral votes. A lot of the growth can in these Red states - Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah - is being fueled by Latinos immigrating and West Coast/Northeast residents relocating. These Democratic leaning groups could end up pushing Arizona, Nevada, and Florida into the steadily leans Democratic column.
I agree with Syntag that this is wishful thinking. The most important thing to GOP primary voters is the same important thing to Democratic primary voters in 2004: Who can win the White House.
I think its possilbe that conservative Republicans will hold their noses and support Sen. McCain because they'll think he'll win. And if not him, then they may go with Romney and fundraising ability. Either way, the Myth of McCain would be tough in a general to beat and the Romney money is enough to be weary.
Whatever happens in the primaries, I think we should prepare for the worse - McCain - and hope for the best.
I didn't find where anyone may have said it but comparing a mid-term election to a presidential election is not a fair way of analyzing a campaign's performance. A better way to evaluate how Ford ran his campaign would be to compare it to the last mid-term senate race in Tennessee in 2002.
Just to make a guess, I bet Ford performed well over that Democrat in 2002, even if you account for it being a Republican year.
While Senator Clinton probably could have spread the wealth more, I can't help but think that this post is more motivated by her not helping Ned Lamont more than anything she may or may not have done in New York.
I expect that Sen. Lieberman is going to keep his seniority regardless of how many seats Democrats pick up. The real question is whether the netroots will make it difficult politically.
As for his potential chairmanship of the Gov't. Reform committee, couldn't the caucus just move him to chairing another committee? I'm not that familiar with caucus or Senate rules but that might solve the problem.
I agree that progressives are "driving the bus" but a Democratic victory isn't from a national shift leftward as much as a national rejection of a do-nothing, Bush rubber-stamping congress. Being more assertive is great but it doesn't signal the rise of progressive movement to power. I think the RonK Seattle is right to charactize it has a leftward shift regarding congress not the nation.
If you want to see a lasting progressive majority, it's going to have to deliver on results and not overreach. The worse thing that Democrats can do - here and in congress - is overstep the mandate the people give us on November 7th. Going too far left too quickly could do just that.
Chris, I think you're giving the progressive movement a bit too much credit for the possible 2006 Democratic victory. No doubt the netroots and other progressive components have helped with Democratic infrastructure and will help return Democrats to power.
But moderate and conservative Democrats in the South and the West - hardly a liberal bastion - are still part of winning back the Congress and White House also. A big part of the victory is going to be from Republican corruption. I'm not sure that American's are necessarily rejecting conservatism and embracing liberalism with the 2006 mid-terms.