Today's editorial in the New York Times explains why the paper is not endorsing a single Republican for the House of Representatives this year. It's a damning and well-deserved indictment of Bush and Republican congresspersons.

First, the premise:

Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

Now, the indictment:

Rep. John Dingell's investigation agenda as chair of the Commerce Committee if Democrats take the House:

Among the areas Dingell says he will investigate: "Privacy. Social Security number protection. Outsourcing protection. Unfair trade practices. Currency manipulation. Air quality.

"We'll look at the implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We'll take a look at climate change. We'll take a look at the nuclear waste programme, where literally billions of dollars are being dissipated. We'll look at port security and nuclear smuggling, where there's literally nothing being done. On health, we'll take a look at Medicaid. The Food and Drug Administration. Generic drug approval. Medical safety. We'll also take a look at food supplements, where people are being killed. We will look at the overall question of Katrina recovery efforts."

In a word: oversight.

The New York Times says only two senate races remain a tossup: Missouri and Virginia.

The map is now on a razor’s edge with 49 seats leaning or safe for both the Democrats and for the Republicans.

The Democrats have a tougher battle because they need to reach 51 seats to take control as Vice President Dick Cheney will break a 50-50 tie.

Query: If Joe Lieberman wins, what column does it fall in since he's not running as a Democrat or a Republican? The Republicans will try to woo him into changing parties. I think he'll continue to call himself a Democrat while supporting Republican platforms.

Say hello to My Polling Site.

Our database of online poll locators has been slowly growing. We now can get 72% of the US population the exact location of their polling site in 4 clicks or less. For the other 28% we provide a local phone number where they can call to get the information they need. This service is free to the public,

Chalabi speaks:

"The real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz," Chalabi says, referring to his erstwhile backer, the former deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz. "They chickened out. The Pentagon guys chickened out." Chalabi still considers Wolfowitz a friend, so he proceeds carefully. America's big mistake, Chalabi maintains, was in failing to step out of the way after Hussein's downfall and let the Iraqis take charge. The Iraqis, not the Americans, should have been allowed to take over immediately - the people who knew the country, who spoke the language and, most important, who could take responsibility for the chaos that was unfolding in the streets. An Iraqi government could have acted harshly, even brutally, to regain control of the place, and the Iraqis would have been without a foreigner to blame. They would have appreciated the firm hand.

In order to declare seat losses as a victory, the extreme Right Wing Republican web site Red State is already playing an expectations game:

Now - and just so that we're all clear - the consensus of the media, the polls and Tradesports is that the GOP is definitely going to lose the House of Representatives and probably the Senate, yes*? They're all saying that it's a done deal, yes? Everybody who's anybody on the Democratic side is endorsing that conclusion, yes? And it's all supposedly inevitable at this point, yes? What? (shrug) No reason: I just want to make sure that I've clearly understood the Other Side's position on this, 72 hours out.

Note to Republicans, ignorant predictions of an election result is NOT a political position.

The Iraq Debacle is a political issue. Minimum wage is a political issue. The Paris Hilton tax cut is a political issue. Stem cell research is a political issue. GOP corruption is a political issue.

Predictions for the election is not.

Borderism is bad enough on the opinion page. It is unacceptable on the news page. But WaPo's Shaleigh Murray does a Broderist opinion piece disguised as a news story on the upcoming election:

Moderate Republican House members such as Bass, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and Jim Gerlach and Michael G. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania often side with Democrats on environmental, social and budget issues. On the rare occasion when a vote fails in the House, they are usually the culprits. Ditto for internal dissent. After then-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was indicted on campaign finance charges in Texas, Bass helped launch a petition drive to replace the powerful House majority leader. DeLay gave up his post a few days afterward and later resigned from Congress.

But what of Bass' votes for leadership? Or Iraq? Charlie Bass is not a moderate based on those votes, the most important he casts. You know who else will side with Democrats on environmental, social and budget issues? Democratic congresspersons. Charlie Bass enabled the Rubberstamp Republican leadership and President Bush. He is part of the problem. He must go.

We think of elections as accountability moments for our elected officials. And it should be that. But this election is just as much, it seems to me, an accountability moment for the American electorate. For it the Republicans are maintained in power, after the last six years, then we have the government we deserve.

In an editorial today, the New York Times said:

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

So yes this is indeed an moment of accountability for the Rubberstamp Republican Congress. But it is just as much a moment of accountability for the American People.

The church investigation has concluded. Pastor Ted Haggard has been fired for "sexually immoral conduct."

The board that made the decision, called the "Overseer Board of New Life Church," said in a prepared statement Saturday afternoon: "Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."

A letter of explanation and apology by Haggard as well as a word of encouragement from his wife will be read during services at New Life Church Sunday morning, the statement said.

Here's the full text (pdf) of the announcement:

President Bush spent an hour today in Greeley, Colorado trying to sell Marilyn Musgrave, and to a lesser extent, gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez to those in attendance.

"She has worked to prevent the family institution of marriage from being redefined by activist judges. She understand your values, and that’s another reason to send her back to the United States Congress."

We'll see about that. One young woman in attendance who voted for Bush the first time around but wouldn't again, and who although an independent has already voted for Angie Paccione, Musgrave's Democratic challenger, had this to say about the war:

"I think all it’s resulting in is a generation that will hate America even more."

How true.

From esteemed appellate lawyer Peter G. in the comments:

In Pennsylvania, where I live, the Republican committees are working as hard as they can, not so much to get out their vote as to suppress and discourage ours. They are flooding Democratic households, particularly those with regular voters, with telephone robocalls which begin: "I'm calling with important information about {name of Democratic candidate}." Identical calls are placed repeatedly to the same household, often at inconvenient or even disruptive hours (late at night). The calls violate election law by failing to identify up front who sponsored them. Many people think the calls are in support of the named candidate, but in fact the message is deceptive and false. Thus, if the caller hangs up right away in frustration, s/he is likely to think the Dem is to blame; this is the goal, to make people mad and reluctant to vote for the candidate. Or if they listen, they are being bombarded with a negative message.

I do not predict election results in a global way, +16 to +43 seems a silly exercise to me. But a lot of folks have fun with it. So here's your chance, tell us how it is going to come out Tuesday night.

Oh, and here are two Senate races I do give you for free like you needed me for thiese two) - Santorum has been toast for a year. Dewine is also toast. As for the rest, anything COULD happen (though, to be honest, I think Ford is gone, but hope I am wrong.)

Your predictions please. House and Senate.