South Dakota Inadvertantly Sets Back Anti-Abortion Movement

South Dakota's Republican Legislature has long been pushing the envelope in an attempt to undermine Roe vs. Wade with increasingly restrictive abortion laws. This past week, apparently sensing that the newly redecorated U.S. Supreme Court provided them a historic opening, they threw down the gauntlet and criminalized nearly all abortions in the state. Only women whose lives are directly threatened can undergo a legal abortion in South Dakota after the Governor signs this bill. Even the victims of rape and incest are forbidden from receiving the procedure.

I have never been a fan of abortion and have generally considered myself on the "pro-life" side of the issue, even though I recognize the political reality that criminalizing abortion would produce layer upon layer of disastrous consequences. Nonetheless, I doubt I'm alone in the ranks of marginal pro-lifers who have spent the last two days recoiling at the display of arrogance that South Dakotans have nationally embarrassed themselves with.

To be fair, the opinions of South Dakotans are not as unanimously wingnutty as the actions of their state government would seem to indicate. A recent Survey USA poll measured state-by-state attitudes on abortion, and South Dakotans were split right down the middle on "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" sentiment. And a poll this week indicated only 25% of the state's residents favor the complete abortion ban that appear inevitable to become state law. Those statistics alone indicate a possible backlash by South Dakota voters this fall. Otherwise safe incumbents could go the way of the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania school board if voters are sufficiently disgusted by the looming national spotlight.

That national spotlight will not only portray South Dakotans as a bunch of deranged hicks who view pregnant women as mere "baby containers" exempted from basic medical (and human)rights, but it will also come with a hefty price tag. The state of South Dakota, one of the nation's poorest and least populated, will be forced to divert millions of dollars of its scant public resources to finance the legal challenges certain to be triggered by abortion rights groups. So South Dakota voters can expect to continue driving on Third World-quality highways and sending their kids to some of the worst schools in the nation, all in support of an oppressive anti-abortion stunt that the vast majority of them oppose. Sounds like a winning political strategy to me.

Tempted as I am to thoroughly shred the artificial pro-life position of the Republican Party faithful, I'll limit my criticism to this particular act of unimaginable conservative hubris. In their attempt to radically raise the stakes of the abortion debate and tilt public policy, South Dakota's pro-life zealots have most likely sabotaged any momentum they had in swaying public opinion against legalized abortion. Only hard-core anti-abortion activisits (a minority within a minority) support forcing teenage rape victims to carry their rapists' spawn inside of them for nine months. Marginal anti-abortion voters are likely to be so frightened at the prospect of the South Dakota Legislature dehumanizing their daughters this way that they will permanently distance themselves from the pro-life movement.

Pro-lifers have probably blown the progress that they made in swaying public opinion through baby steps (such as the popular but disingenuous "partial-birth abortion" issue, and parental notification laws). The South Dakota state government has revealed the endgame of the pro-life movement, and the shock and awe it will provoke in mainstream circles will likely set back public opinion on the issue at least 15 years, when Al Gore was poking fun at Dan Quayle in the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate for not supporting "a woman's right to choose." Few Democratic politicians, particularly in national elections, would make such a mockery of pro-life opponents this day and age. But the disgust likely to be generated by the media circus of debating whether rape victims should be able to terminate their pregnancies could easily marginalize anti-abortion defenders as badly as they were in 1992, if not worse.

Getting Stupid Over Cigarette Taxes

Last year, my home state of Minnesota was the latest in a long line of states that took the easy way out and opted to raise taxes (er, fees) on tobacco products as a flimsy, short-term means of plugging budget holes. This year, my adopted home state of Iowa looks poised to travel down the same cowardly road. Like nearly everything about the over-the-top anti-smoking movement of the early 21st century, there are so many reasons for this lifelong non-smoker to heartily condemn tobacco tax hikes that it's hard to even know where to begin with the criticism. Indeed, a single blog entry wouldn't do justice to the multitude of societal ills that the forces of Big Anti-Tobacco are clubbing America and most of the Western world over the head with, so I'll focus my indignation in this particular blog entry on my three biggest problems with tobacco tax hikes.

My first criticism is the ethical bankruptcy of the proverbial "other guy tax," particularly when "the other guy" happens to be the person least capable of affording the additional burden. There are a number of reasons why tobacco taxes are the most popular form of taxation, none of which are good, but the main reason is that more than 75% of the population doesn't have to pay them. They get to defer the cost of government onto the backs of a politically incorrect minority even though, despite the mythological talking points to the contrary, smokers represent the least expensive demographic of individuals regarding the extraction of government services over a lifetime. I've always been of the mind that taxation should be a shared burden that most affects those with the greatest ability to pay. Tobacco taxes undermine both of these principles, affecting only the 22% of men and women who smoke, and who are disproportionately working class and below the median income. Its a tax that is regressive, selective, immoral and a logistical contradiction....the worst of all worlds.

Secondly, the increasing dependency by every level of government on this single tax will ultimately yield diminishing returns. The cost of smoking cigarettes has exploded in the last 10 years, and shows no sign of letting up anytime soon. Make it too expensive for smokers to indulge their habit and millions of people will discontinue that habit. Meanwhile, state and federal governments are constantly dreaming up new programs that they intend to pay for using money from tobacco taxes and outlays from the tobacco companies as part of the 1998 settlement. How is this all gonna come together? Through their narrow-minded gluttony, they're shooting the goose that's laying them all the golden eggs.

What should scare the bejeezus non-smokers about the above scenario is that when the pinata of tobacco revenues bursts, political leaders will be looking for a new path of least resistance to replace all of that revenue loot. The "other guy tax" of yesterday will become "my problem" as soon as these weasels tar and feather consumers of every other non-puritanical product with a regressive and supersized "sin tax" of its own. Think of everything you had to eat today and how, to the jubilant applause of the out-of-control nanny-state special interest culture, revenue-hungry politicians would sign into law measures that would more than double your daily food and drink bill. A quarter sin tax for every cup of coffee, 50 cents on your pack of Oreos, $1 for your 12-pack of Mountain Dew....and pretty soon we're talking about real money. And it's all coming our way if we don't draw a line in the sand over state and federal governments' dysfunctional and counterproductive means of collecting revenue, with increasing dependence on the taxes incurred from a declining product (tobacco) at the top of that list.

And lastly, remember all of those TV ads after 9-11 telling us that the use of illegal drugs finance terrorism? It seemed like a far-fetched means of trying to talk teenagers out of using drugs, but technically it was very true. The underground global drug trade has long been a fundraising source of terrorist cells, but it's no longer the #1 form of funding terrorism as it was back in 2002. Four years later, cigarette smuggling in America and Europe has become terrorism's primary means of fundraising. Basically, if you're a terrorist who wants to raise $2 million in a weekend, you fill a semi full of $20 per carton Marlboros in North Carolina and truck them up to New York City where they sell for almost $80 per carton.....or a corresponding scenario in Europe where the price disparity is equally substantial. When the value of a good or service is artificially inflated through taxation, it basically amounts to a quasi-prohibition, opening the door for organized crime of some sort (like terrorism) to deliver that good or service to its consumers closer to market value. With tens of millions of smokers at home and more than a billion worldwide, that's a pretty significant market for "bad guys" to tap into if we insist on providing them the means to do so. And that's the irony here. New York City Michael Bloomberg really got the ball rolling with the supersized tobacco tax hikes as a response to diminished tax revenue in his city following the 9-11 attacks. Through his "solution" to that revenue loss, Bloomberg has very likely given terrorists the funding that they'll be using to wage their next attack against his city.

To paraphrase that deep thinker George Walker Bush, the increasingly overzealous crusade against tobacco consumption has become the central front on the war against personal freedoms in this country. As a nation, we're soon gonna have to decide if we're gonna allow insurance companies and revenue-hungry government to turn us into a health-and-wellness police state. Our willingness to either yawn or celebrate every time The Man decides to smack around smokers is a frightening indication of how we're likely to respond as the trend of personal freedom theft expands. As ethically hollow and financially counterproductive as tobacco taxes are, their continued popularity and the media's unwillingness to report its many blistering downsides tells me this is yet another losing battle. Chalk it up to one more reason why the America of tomorrow looks to be a place that spits in the face of everything I believe.

Civil War Begins

Three years ago, virtually all serious people of both political parties gave fair warning to the Bush administration of the hornet's nest they were flying into by invading Iraq.....and that was back when everybody thought the nation was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Here was a nation much like the former Yugoslavia. Iraq's cultural and political bond was limited to arbitrary lines drawn on a map decades ago, and holding it together was the iron fist of a madman who handled dissent with the kind of cold-blooded ferocity that would even make Joseph Stalin wince. Much like the patchwork of long-squabbling ethnic groups of the former Yugoslavia were so afraid of their Communist government that they managed to stop fighting amongst themselves for a few years in the 20th century, Saddam Hussein inspired the same kind of fear amongst the divided religious and ethnic groups of his secular dictatorship. Unfortunately, Yugoslavia's "liberation" after the fall of Communism brought about its tragic and bloody demise in the decade to come as freedom proved to be the trigger for ethnic slaughter. After the events of today, it became frighteningly clear that Iraq is on the cusp of its own civil war, the very thing the Bush administration was warned about by nearly everybody who understands the logistics of occupation in general and of ethnically diverse Iraq specifically.

It was actually surprising that it took this long for festering ethnic tensions to boil over in Iraq. Mosque bombings by Sunni insurgents provoked the bloodthirsty ire of the Shi'ite majority, who control a near-majority of the new Iraqi government and who are resented by most Sunnis for consolidating political power. The events of today confirmed what everybody from Colin Powell to Madeline Albright to James Baker predicted during Bush's naive and infantile rush to war back in 2002 and 2003....that if we break it, we own it. Whatever America's intentions were in removing Saddam Hussein from power, it will come with a human toll far gorier than anything Hussein brought about. That human toll now looks to inevitably be a civil war that will last for years and that will condemn hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and tens of thousands of Americans to violent deaths. You gotta wonder how many of the narrow-minded grunts who bulldozed Dixie Chicks CD's three years ago after their criticism of George Bush's war policy are watching headlines from Iraq tonight, 33 months after their leader's "Mission Accomplished" publicity stunt, still convinced we did the right thing waging a "pre-emptive" attack against a nation with no means to attack us.

Lastly, however, the bloodshed of this developing civil war finally puts to rest the typically mindless talking point that Bush uses to bait his critics.....the "do you think Iraq would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?" meme. As much of a monster as Saddam Hussein was (and still is), the alternative we're watching unfold before our eyes make the obvious answer to that question as resounding, "Yes!"

Statehouse Race Evaluations

Well I'm finally getting around to making my predictions for this fall's gubernatorial races. After my move to Iowa, my momentum and priorities kind of drifted for awhile. I'm close to where I can say I'm back on track now though. Recent developments in certain races should make my job a little easier than it would have been last month anyway. Without further adieu, here goes:

Alabama--Incumbent Republican Bob Riley is taking hits from both sides. His first obstacle is a primary challenge from right-wing judge Roy Moore, who will get the backing from the furthest reaches of the evangelical movement in the Republican Party. Whether that demographic constitutes a majority of Alabama's Republican voters remains to be seen. My guess is that Riley will prevail in the primary, and go on to face his Democratic opponent in the general election. Lieutenant Governor Lucy Baxley would seem to be the frontrunner on the Democratic side, for former Governor Don Siegelman is also putting up a concerted effort to return to the statehouse he very narrowly lost to Riley in 2002. Given the legal troubles Siegelman has faced since his defeat, his comeback seems unlikely, and the establishment seems to be putting its money on Baxley, who they expect might be able to win over enough women voters to swing the election. It seems like a longshot in the bright red state of Alabama. Riley got into trouble early in his term when he endorsed a package of tax increases that failed miserably when put to voters. Recent public opinion polls indicate voters are no longer very upset with him, however. Early polls for hypothetical matchups show Riley with a comfortable lead against all three potential opponents, and in Republican Alabama, I expect any sort of momentum the Democrats may be seeing nationally will probably provoke the opposite response by voters who don't want Dems in charge of government. I think Riley's re-election is a fairly safe bet.

Alaska--It's not even clear at this time whether unpopular incumbent Republican Frank Murkowski will seek a second term. If he does, he's in for a battle, especially if popular former Governor Tony Knowles runs for encore, as he is indicating he may. On the other hand, the conventional wisdom was that unqualified Lisa Murkowski would be penalized for the nepotism that landed her her father's Senate seat in 2004, but the (R) next to her name helped her cross the finish line in Alaska, even against Knowles. My guess is that if this ends up being a Knowles versus Murkowski grudge match, Knowles will win. If Murkowski decides against a second term, however, the GOP candidate will naturally take back the advantage simply because of Alaska's partisan advantage.


Arizona--As is the case with an unusually high number of strongly partisan states, Republican Arizona has a popular Democratic Governor whose re-election in November is almost assured. Janet Napolitano dodged the only bullet she'll likely need to when Phoenix-area Congressman J.D. Hayworth decided against challenging her. Now Napolitano seems poised to face off against token GOP opposition, none of which have come within striking distance of her in early polls. The only question mark is whether Napolitano's pending landslide victory has any influence downballot, including the hotly-contested Senate race. My guess it's unlikely Napolitano helps Jim Pederson to a victory, but it's a possibility.

Arkansas--An intriguing matchup is shaping up in Democratic Arkansas. Popular Republican incumbent Mike Huckabee is retiring, and probably pursuing a Presidential run. Top-tier candidates from both parties are seeking to fill Huckabee's shoes. Democratic Attorney General Mike Beebe is likely to face former Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson. Beebe has a number of advantages at the starting line. The Democratic Party, while weaker than it was in previous generations, still has a double-digit affiliation advantage in Arkansas. Beebe has been elected statewide while Hutchinson has only been elected in northwest Arkansas' conservative 3rd Congressional district....the only part of Arkansas this is reliably Republican. And the personal indiscretions that led Hutchinson's brother Tim to a landslide defeat in the 2002 Senate race has the potential to drag down to Asa as well. On the other hand, Huckabee will be a useful ally for Hutchinson on the campaign trail. I'm inclined to lean towards Beebe in this race, but it should be one of the more exciting gubernatorial races with a potential photo-finish.

California--A couple of months ago, it looked like Arnold Schwarzenegger's political obituary had already been written. His November ballot initiatives failed miserably with voters and his poll numbers plummeted into the high 30's. Arnold has been racing back to the center ever since, and the decisions seem to have met with the approval of at least a few of his critics. Nonetheless, Schwarzenegger has to be viewed as the underdog in Democratic California as early polls indicate that he's trailing potential Democratic challengers with very low name recognition, such as state Treasurer Phil Angelides and State Controller Steve Westly. Schwarzenegger's celebrity (and the free publicity that will come with it) can't be underestimated here, but it's pretty clear that Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is gonna be California's biggest draw this November as opposed to Schwarzenegger. The partisan tide seems to favor either Angelides or Westly, but they're untested commodities who will need to run a solid campaign to topple the superstar. The odds are with the Dems here, but perhaps not as strongly as they appeared to be three months ago.

Colorado--With incumbent Republican Bill Owens retiring, the Colorado gubernatorial race is wide open. The frontrunners for their party's nomination are Democrat Bill Ritter and suburban Denver Congressman Bob Beauprez for the Republicans. On paper, Beauprez would seem to have an advantage here. Republicans have a comfortable affiliation advantage in Colorado, and Beauprez is twice victorious in a swing Congressional district in Denver's northern and western suburbs, which is likely to put some votes in Beauprez's column that would ordinarily go Democratic. Nonetheless, the only early poll released publicly showed Ritter with a modest lead. What gives? A rising Democratic tide in Colorado that started in 2004 and appears to be continuing, and a growing perception that Governor Owens' Taxpayer Bill of Rights was ineffective and ushered in some serious financial problems for the states over the last few years. A month ago, I would have given Beauprez the edge here, but the early poll lead for Ritter, despite a favorable demographic situation for Beauprez, has led me to lean this race ever-so-slightly to Ritter. It'll definitely be one to watch in the months ahead.

Connecticut--As of early 2006, it's likely that Connecticut Democrats are wishing they hadn't so aggressively pursued criminal charges against former Republican Governor John Rowland. While Rowland was taken down, his replacement, then-Lieutenant Governor Jodi Rell, has become the most popular Governor in America. Rell's re-election is virtually assured at this point, and her success this November could have downballot consequences for Democrats seeking to unseat Republican incumbents Rob Simmons and Chris Shays.

Florida--In another gubernatorial race likely to become competitive, the departure of Jeb Bush from the Tallahassee statehouse has left both parties another open seat to gun for. Frontrunners include Tampa-area Democratic Congressman Jim Davis and Republican Attorney General Charlie Crist. Davis has his work cut out for him in increasingly Republican Florida, but early polls show him within striking distance and in reasonably comfortable standing considering he's barely known outside Tampa while Crist has already won statewide. Nonetheless, I continue to lean towards Crist in this race as he will be a fitting successor for the conservative policies of Jeb Bush, who still enjoys high approval ratings even after his criticism for the Terri Schiavo incident.

Georgia--With each passing election cycle, it gets harder to imagine a scenario where the Democratic Party can become competitive again in Georgia. The substantial growth of upper-income Republicans in suburban Atlanta is adding an economic conservatism to the state's long-standing social conservatism. Likely to continue benefitting from this in 2006 is GOP Governor Sonny Purdue, who scored one of the biggest upset victories in the nation four years ago and has maintained high approval ratings ever since. Democratic Lieutenant Governor Cathy Cox is perhaps better positioned than anyone to beat Purdue, but early polls show her lagging way behind. Purdue should be a cinch for a second term.

Hawaii--The Democrats have an extensive bench in Hawaii, one of their strongest states, but nobody seemed to want take on Linda Lingle, the popular Republican incumbent, this November. Lingle was Hawaii's first Republican Governor, and has apparently impressed islanders given his strong approval ratings. I believe she has a Democratic opponent at this point, but he's gonna be hard-pressed to defeat Lingle despite the partisan advantage in Hawaii. Unlike 2002 when Lingle won by the skin of her teeth, she'll probably win by double digits this time.

Idaho--Perhaps the safest incumbent Governor in the nation is Republican Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, whose victory is as close to a sure thing as there is.

Illinois--Another race that should be exciting. Even in increasingly Democratic Illinois, incumbent Rod Blagojevich appears to be underwhelming his constituents as his approval ratings are firmly in the danger zone for an incumbent. A number of Republicans are challenging Blagojevich, but state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka is the challenger best poised to unseat Blago. Illinois Republicans are probably wise to this fact, which leads me to believe that the moderate Topinka is the frontrunner for the nomination despite being to the left of party activists. If Topinka is the nominee, I can't see Blagojevich winning. If any of the other Republicans running manage to win in the primary, Blago probably has a soft advantage, but I'd give Blagojevich similar odds to Schwarzenegger in California at pulling off a second term. In other words, not very good.

Iowa--Yet another race that looks to be fun. Incumbent Democrat Tom Vilsack is throwing in the towel after two terms, leaving a boatload of wannabes waiting to fill his shoes. The Democrats have a particularly long list of candidates seeking their party's nomination, but Secretary of State Chet Culver has to be considered the frontrunner early on. For the Republicans, 1st District Congressman Jim Nussle is the likely candidate to be on the ballot in November. Iowa is one of the swingiest states in the nation, and a closely-divided electorate is likely to surface once again in this race, but Nussle has a demographic advantage at the starting gate against any of the Democratic challengers. For more than a decade now, Nussle has been peeling off support from Democratic voters in his Dem-leaning Congressional district in northeast Iowa despite his unapologetically conservative voting record.....voters who are likely to follow him in a statewide election. And if Democrats are losing votes in working-class cities like Waterloo and Dubuque to Nussle, winning statewide becomes very difficult. With that said, Chet Culver's political base is in central Iowa (Des Moines, Ames) where he could conceivably make up ground lost to Nussle in eastern Iowa. Still, Culver has to pitch a near-perfect game to win with Nussle invading Democratic turf. My money's on Nussle.

Kansas--Despite being the poster-child for red-state America, Kansas has a Democratic Governor who is quite popular. Kathleen Sebelius looks poised to handily win a second term this November. Barring a huge misstep or a Republican challenger really inspiring the faithful, Sebelius will defy the odds once again.

Maine--This race wasn't even on my radar screen until about a month ago when I discovered just how vulnerable Democratic incumbent John Baldacci is. Early polls show him trailing his likely Republican rival, State Senator Chandler Woodcock. Working to Baldacci's advantage, however, is the close partisan divide in both houses of Maine's legislature. Democratic and center-left independent voters in this increasingly Democratic state may be scared into re-electing Baldacci if the prospect of Republicans controlling all three Houses of Maine's state government seems imminent. Ultimately, I'm giving Baldacci the edge by a whisker.

Maryland--Republican Bob Ehrlich pulled off an upset in the very Democratic state of Maryland four years ago and became their first Republican Governor in decades. He's governed from the right in this left-leaning state and while early polls are conflicted, most people consider Ehrlich a longshot for a second term, particularly up against his well-spoken likely Democratic rival, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley. Ehrlich has the advantage of incumbency this time around, but is likely to find O'Malley to be a much more capable opponent that 2002's Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. With the Democratic Party looking to have the momentum this election cycle, O'Malley definitely looks to have the advantage in this race.

Massachusetts--Even though it's the most Democratic state in the nation, Massachusetts has been electing Republican Governors for the last 16 years. The current occupier of the Massachusetts statehouse, Mitt Romney, happens to be the most conservative of the elected Republicans, and his approval ratings have suffered for it. Romney has Presidential ambitions, so officially opted not to run for a second term to pursue a White House run in '08, but truth be told, his prospects for four more years in Boston were pretty bleak. Further complicating matters is that Romney's poking fun at the liberalism of his home state on the early campaign trail, and likely sabotaging the ability of his Lieutenant Governor and 2006 GOP nominee Kerry Healey to win. Democratic Attorney General Tom Reilly is the favorite for the Dem nomination, and early polls show him with a commanding lead over Healey. Barring a serious meltdown in the Reilly campaign, it looks as though that the hourglass is about to run out of sand for the Massachusetts GOP.

Michigan--In spite of a rough state economy battered-bloody by the floundering Detroit auto industry, voters do not seem poised to take their frustration out on Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm. While she's falling short of the safety zone for an incumbent seeking re-election, her Republican opponent, Amway founder Dick DeVros, is a longshot at this point to overcome her. Of course, it's early, and if DeVros runs a solid campaign while the bad news keeps rolling in for Granholm, an upset is not out of the question.

Minnesota--A couple of months ago, I was of the mind that Republican incumbent Tim Pawlenty was marginally vulnerable to three of the four Democrats attempting to challenge him in November. A number of events in the last 60 days have made me reconsider that assessment. First of all, Minnesota's finances finally appear to be in the black, giving the Dems a weaker hand to go after Pawlenty on poor fiscal management. Secondly, the Democrats perceived frontrunner, Attorney General Mike Hatch, no longer has the appearance of a shoo-in for the nomination, and the potential boon his campaign could have received if he had been able to recruit Patty Wetterling to be his running mate fell flat when Wetterling turned him down in favor of pursuing a second run for the 6th Congressional district where she was narrowly defeated in 2004. And perhaps the worst news for Democrats in this race is the entrance of Independence Party candidate Peter Hutchinson into the fray. Hutchinson is articulate and left-of-center, and his presence in televised gubernatorial debates is certain to win over some converts to his side...mostly from would-be DFL voters. With Hutchinson in the race, I cannot imagine a scenario where Pawlenty is defeated. It's possible, but I suspect Pawlenty is sleeping much easier at night now than he was in November.

Nebraska--In this burgundy red state, it's only fitting that the real battle for the 2006 Governor's race is essentially between two Republicans. Current acting Governor Dave Heineman is being challenged in the primary by Congressman (and former Nebraska Cornhuskers Head Coach) Tom Osborne. Even though Nebraskans generally approve of Heineman's job performance, their sentimental attachment to local "rock star" Osborne is likely to prevail in the GOP primary. If Osborne gets past that, beating Democrat David Hahn in the generally election should be a cinch. Or if Heineman surprises everyone and hangs on in the primary, he'll easily beat Hahn in the general election as well.

Nevada--Candidates with similar names but different political philosophies and parties appear poised to face off in the open Nevada gubernatorial race. Republican Congressman Jim Gibbons hopes to hold the torch for his party currently in the hands of term-limited incumbent Kenny Guinn. Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson is the frontrunner for the Democratic side. If this matchup comes to fruition, it'll be interesting to see how voters respond to impossibly similar candidate names. Whatever the case, this race should prove to be a close one with Nevada's partisan allegiance becoming more evenly divided all the time. I'm still leaning towards Gibbons (as in the Republican) at this point because of slightly stronger name recognition, but this race is very much up-for-grabs.

New Hampshire--The once-Republican stronghold of New Hampshire is becoming less so, but it still has a solidly GOP legislature. Countering that influence is popular Democratic Governor John Lynch who should be a slam-dunk for re-election. Lynch is so popular in the Granite State that the Dems may be entertaining the notion of recruiting him to challenge John Sununu for the 2008 Senate race.

New Mexico--Democratic incumbent Bill Richardson should be a cinch for a second term, which should position him well for his bid for the Presidential nomination in 2008.

New York--Bulldog-ish Democratic Attorney General Elliot Spitzer decided in favor of a career upgrade, and his wild popularity in New York should make that feat easy. He has a commanding lead over every possible opponent pollsters could dream up as potential rivals. Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld could make a credible run for the Republican side, but will still probably fall far short of Spitzer in November.

Ohio--It's looking like the matchup for Ohio's open gubernatorial race will be Southern Ohio's Democratic Congressman Ted Strickland and African-American GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Strickland has the edge here for a variety of reasons. First of all, the Ohio Republican Party is in shambles, primarily because of corruption scandals that has left current GOP Governor Bob Taft with the lowest approval rating in the nation. Secondly, Strickland is very popular in a region of Ohio that has been trending Republican in recent elections. His ability to win votes in southern Ohio means Blackwell will have to outperform the Republican average in other regions of the state, which could be a tall order. And lastly, Blackwell is considered to be a much more polarizing and partisan figure than Strickland. If the matchup indeed turns out to be Strickland vs. Blackwell, I'm pretty confident Strickland will prevail.

Oklahoma--Incumbent Brad Henry is a conservative Democrat in a bright red state. He's fairly popular, but Republican challenger Ernest Istook, an Oklahoma City Congressman, is likely to wage a pretty strong challenge. One mistake and Henry is toast in right-wing Oklahoma. I'm still predicting we'll narrowly prevail, but with the lowest possible confidence.

Oregon--There are a number of Democrats and Republicans seeking to fill the Oregon statehouse, including the less-than-wildly-popular incumbent Democrat Ted Kulongoski. I must admit I don't know the specifics of this race or who the frontrunner likely is on the Republican side. Oregon is less of a Democratic stronghold than its "Left Coast" neighbors, so the undeniable weakness of Kulongoski leads me to expect a Republican pickoff in this race.

Pennsylvania--This race has heated up considerably in the last couple weeks, thanks to some good timing by former Pittsburgh Steelers icon and Super Bowl MVP Lynn Swann, who formally announced his challenge to Democratic incumbent Ed Rendell the week before the Pittsburgh Steelers headed to another Super Bowl. Rendell's 20-point lead from early polls disappeared almost overnight and it became clear that Rendell is gonna have to work for re-election. Whether Swann has staying power will be seen in the months ahead. He'll certainly take away Democratic votes in the Pittsburgh area, meaning there's zero margin for error for Rendell in southeastern Pennsylvania. My gut tells me Rendell will still pull this out, but it's likely to be much closer than originally anticipated.

Rhode Island--Uber-Democratic Rhode Island is another deep blue state with a Republican Governor. In this case, incumbent Donald Carcieri who is pursuing another term, with Lieutenant Governor Charles Fogarty as his likely Democratic opponent. Despite swimming against a substantial partisan tide, Carcieri is the favorite here as RI voters seem to like the balance he provides to the overwhelmingly Democratic State Legislature. I'd be surprised if Carcieri was unseated.

South Carolina--Popular Republican Governor Mark Sanford should have no problem getting a second term.

South Dakota--The Republican Party's decades-long streak of dominating the South Dakota statehouse will continue with the re-election of popular incumbent Governor Mike Rounds.

Tennessee--Conservative Democrat Phil Breseden's victory in the 2002 gubernatorial race proves that certain kinds of Democrats can still win in SOME Southern states if the stars are aligned right. While Breseden's voting record is hardly gonna win him much praise among the national Democratic Party, it will probably assure him of a second term as Governor of Tennessee.

Texas--A very complex multi-player race is unfolding in Texas, with incumbent Republican Rick Perry assured of at least three opponents. Democrat Chris Bell would seem to have even less chance in Texas than the usual Democratic given that the non-Republican vote is likely to be split with eccentric left-of-center Independent Kinky Friedman. Independent Carole Strayhorn is likely to pick off votes from both Perry and Bell, but I'd be surprised if she prevailed. Even in the crowded field, the knee-jerk Republicanism of Texas will almost assuredly keep Perry at the top of the pack.

Vermont--Even in liberal Vermont, Republican Governor Jim Douglas is very popular. An early poll showed him smashing his likely Democratic opponent. He should win re-election handily.

Wisconsin--Democratic Governor Jim Doyle isn't exactly Mr. Popularity, but with Republicans firmly in control of both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature, voters probably will opt for a second Doyle term over the all-Republican government alternative. Green Bay-area GOP Congressman Mark Green should make this race interesting and could end up pulling off an upset, but my money's on Doyle hanging on by a modest if underwhelming margin.

Wyoming--Despite being one of the most Republican states in the union, Wyoming has a Democratic Governor in Dave Freudenthal who is very popular and poised to handily win a second term this fall, barring a major upset.

The Republicans' Ham-Handed Tribute to Richard Pryor

Ever since Ronald Reagan made "voodoo economics" a permanent (and ruinous) fixture of America's domestic policy, the Republican party has defended the indefensible supply-side orthodoxy with the same faith-based ferocity as a terrorist with explosives strapped to his chest. Despite a quarter century of evidence to the contrary, Republicans insist almost daily that "tax cuts pay for themselves" because pots of revenue gold await at the end of every tax cut rainbow. When you think about it, the Republicans are paying a helluva homage to the late Richard Pryor. A generation ago, Pryor cut it up on stage with the line, "Are you gonna believe me or your own lying eyes?" in reference to his wife walking in on him and his mistress in bed. But unlike the COMEDIAN Pryor, Republican supply-side ideologues are deadly serious every time they ask American voters to warp into their dimension of self-financing trillion-dollar tax cuts, and this election year, the party is betting the farm on voters holding their hands while they drive head-first into the canyon.

What makes this year different than 2002 and 2004? The GOP is making at least a partial effort to return to its roots as the party of Ebenizer Scrooge, recently cutting the budgets for popular domestic programs for middle and lower-income Americans....programs that the Republican Party's rural, low-income base has become dependent upon in the post-globalization economy where Wal-Mart is our #1 employer. This past week, more than $50 billion worth of cuts were enacted to numerous programs, including Medicare and student loans. Republicans' lust to slash such popular programs has taken the backseat to political expedience in the Bush era, but after five years of profligate deficit spending, the day of reckoning has arrive. The choice has to be made whether our national priority is to continue awarding hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to people who are so rich they won't even notice the extra $300,000 in their Swiss bank account at the end of 2006, or to partially subsidize the financial survival of the hundreds of millions of Americans who've come up short waiting for the trickle to trickle down to them. If I were a politician, I'd like the numerical advantage of the latter group.

The Republicans' arrogance may seem like kamikaze politics in an election year, but to them it makes perfect sense. Once again, in spite of poll after poll indicating the electorate's dissatisfaction with the condition of the economy and the general direction of the economy, Republicans are quick to serve up spreadsheet after spreadsheet measuring quarterly growth statistics that suggest a robust economy. From their gated communities and country clubs, economic conservatives can't imagine why the public isn't rewarding them for historically low unemployment rates and solid productivity gains, so they're increasingly changing their strategy from frustrated hand-wringing to calling the American public stupid for not sharing their adulation for the Bush economy. But why is it that the Republican Party can't understand the public's growing anxiety over job-vaporizing globalization, disappearing pensions, skyrocketing energy costs, and skyrocketing health care premiums (for those lucky enough to still be insured at all), among many other things? Simple. The only people Republicans talk to are the Republican faithful. The old-line big money Republicans are indeed satisfied with the Bush economy as they're looting the piggy banks of future generations with fists full of cash that sit idly--uselessly--in their personal savings "trickling down" to nobody. As for the less affluent evangelical community, they might not be getting rich from the Bush economy, but the Rapture is gonna send them to heaven any day now anyway, so why worry about the economy?

The remaining two-thirds of Americans who don't comprise the GOP base are screaming in anxiety as they watch their country turn back the clock to the Gilded Age, but the only response they're getting to the serious financial issues of their lives is the same old Richard Pryor treatment they've been giving us on the macroeconomic level for the past quarter century. Early indications suggest that American voters may finally be willing to call the GOP's bluff. While one can never underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to fold a sure thing, they sure can't blame the GOP dealers who insist on dealing them royal flush after royal flush.

"MacGyver" at the Super Bowl

Huge news for MacGyver fans. In the fourth quarter of Sunday's Super Bowl, a MasterCard ad will feature Richard Dean Anderson reprising the role of the character that made him famous. Hopefully, the ad does the series proud.