So, by now we've all heard the news that Alberto Gonzales is going to be Dubya's nominee to replace Ashcroft. If you ask me, it's great news, if only because he couldn't possibly be any worse than Ashcroft, and he'll give us the chance to rake him over the coals on Enron and his torture memos.

It's about his ties to Enron that I'd like some input. Clearly, he couldn't be expected to investigate or prosecute an entity that he represented as a private lawyer. Since Enron is, after all, the subject of some ongoing federal investigations and prosecutions, wouldn't making him AG make the appointment of a special prosecutor necessary? And by necessary, I mean politically feasible for the Democrats.

Well, I suspect there might be just a WEE bit of statistical noise or something at work here, but good old electoral-vote.com has, at this moment, a projection of a unanimous Kerry landslide, winning not only every electoral vote, but pulling in 98-99% of the popular vote too. Damn Nader voters, stealing our popular vote sweep! We'll fix their wagon in 2008!

This may well be fixed by the time anyone sees it, but on the theory that you can never have too much good polling news, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Think of this as the total antidote to any Gallup or Faux poll shenanigans for the rest of the election cycle, so we can put them completely out of our beautiful minds and focus on fundraising, voter registration, GOTV drives, and so on.

Besides, when you think about it, it's not really that much of a stretch. Twenty states will already go for Kerry no matter what, because he's the Democrat; all we'd need to do to win the other 30 is have them wake up and realize that Bush et al aren't EVEN Republicans, in any respectable sense of the word. After all, they're supposed to be the party of small government, fiscal restraint, personal liberties, and national security, and Bush is...what again?

By now everyone here has heard about the Cleveland Plain-Dealer's reprinting of the federal Election Assistance Agency's generic voter registration form. When both Atrios and a disenfranchisement-happy Republican Secretary of State agree that the federal form is bulletproof, regardless of the paper stock it's printed on, it seems to me that we've got a valuable voter registration tool at our fingertips. (They used the word "avalanche" to describe the people registered in Cuyahoga County as a result of the Plain-Dealer registration form.) So to replicate that success, all we need is the cooperation of the newspapers. Why not ask for it? (More after the jump. --> -->)

This is ripped straight from my own blog, in the hopes that the dKos community might be able to shed some light.

So, according to the NYT, back in 1996 some private citizens made an illegal recording of a cell phone call between Newt Gingrich and sitting Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). They handed it off to sitting Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), who made it public. Eight years later, a judge has ruled McDermott is civilly liable to Boehner for damages as a result.

Now, I'm not clear on whether McDermott was being a true American hero or a first-class punk by releasing this tape; it all depends on what's on it. And the judge's ruling seems to fly in the face of established case law (someone in the article says this would have prevented the Pentagon Papers from being released, among other things). But let's assume that for the moment, this interpretation prevails. Here's my question:

Can Democrats now sue Manuel Miranda (remember him?), Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, and every other Republican member or staffer of the Senate Judiciary Committee for committing what amounts to precisely the same tort--i.e., illegally obtaining confidential data and then releasing it to the press? Obviously I know nothing about the law, but the only difference at this point seems to be a technical one--the laws that govern wiretapping may not be the same ones that govern theft of computer data.

Anyone have a clue?

Just a quick cry for help: does anyone know where I can find a copy of Bush's schedule, insofar as it's publicly knowable, for the next week? There doesn't seem to be anything on the White House site or his campaign page, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

I'm trying to see what "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from going to the NAACP convention. Fundraisers, maybe? The swearing in of an assistant undersecretary for Transportation?

Just a quick plea for anyone with information either on the status of Professor Pollkatz, or on the whereabouts of a similar chart-of-polls, to let us know about it in a comment to this entry. I've gotten no response to an e-mail asking when and if his sabbatical will end. With all the delicious new polls since his last update (12/29), it's like not having the last chapter of a mystery novel!

Dick Cheney said today he'd support a gay marriage ban, which surprises exactly no one, including his gay daughter--although it is a little surprising he'd put her in the position of having to react to an actual announcement, since she works on his campaign. She took it in stride, whatever her actual feelings.

It made me wonder what other Republicans might make announcements that would dismay their relatives. Please suggest others I might have overlooked! (What follows is plagiarized from my own blog, FWIW.)

I'm sure you've all seen the news about the $87.5b appropriation vote for Iraq being done by voice vote, and with only 6 Senators in the chamber to boot. I realize this means that there won't be any official record of who voted for what, but won't someone--some news organization or special interest group or enterprising blogger--simply call up 100 Senators' offices and demand to know their positions on the bill in yes/no terms?

I'm all for entertaining political shenanigans, but I fail to see how this really helps any Senator duck the issue. Can anyone shed some light on this?

As most of you know, there's been lots of loose talk from the right wing about a Clinton run at the presidency. We know better, but how to explain what's going on at the Iowa Electronic Markets? See the body of this message to give me free investment advice. (No, not really. But I am curious.)

Does anyone know a reasonably direct way of contacting Becky Miller, the now-infamous conservative Oregonian who wrote a positive review of Franken's book? There seems to be no easy way even to contact the editors of the paper in which it was published, so I was wondering if anyone out here in blogland knew of a website or e-mail address that was more on point.

I ask because I'd like to send her a fan letter--not so much because of anything she said about the book, which I haven't read, but because the political discourse these days is so poisonous that any conservative who can use the phrase "work with those decent, honest, hard-working, patriotic, true-blue liberal Americans" unironically deserves all the support she can get. (And yeah, this is not entirely conservatives' fault, but that's another post.)

So, if you've stumbled across any contact information, please respond to this post or e-mail me (mblavine at wisc dot edu). Thanks!

The problem with campaign contributions, from the Democratic standpoint, is that they're regarded as voluntary by Democrats. Consider: one way or another, Bush will find a way to get his hands on about half a billion dollars to finance his reinstallment campaign. Never mind about whether that money comes from Halliburton or Eric Rudolph; just assume it's there. Further figure that the perks of the presidency--Air Force One, free security, the Rose Garden, and so forth--plus not having to campaign in the primaries will give him the equivalent of a $750 million bankroll against whoever the Democrats nominate. Okay, that's scary.

But it's actually not very much money when you think about it. If everyone who voted for Gore gave $15, that would even things up right there. Of course, it's not quite that simple: in the plus column, there are a few soft-money corporate cows that Democrats can still milk; in the minus column, not everyone will give $15, or would even want to. But all in all an average contribution per vote of $15 is a reasonable target, especially if you put it this way: would you give $15 now for a Gore victory in 2000? I bet that 40 million of those 50 million Gore voters would open their wallets before you could finish the sentence.

But, of course, the only way this works is as a legitimate grass-roots effort. No central plan from the DNC, no fancy thermometer graphics on websites--just pure harassment. And that I know how to do. So my mission from this point on is to shake down every last Democrat, liberal, Green, progressive, and left-winger I know for that $15, unless I think they can afford more. I'll also shake down the two conservatives I know. What say you, blogosphere? Is it just that simple? It wouldn't have worked with Mondale/Reagan, and it wasn't necessary in Clinton/Dole, but aren't we all pretty much convinced there's something different against Bush/Democrat X?

P.S. Primary contributions, most of which are used to serve a purpose other than winning the general election, don't count.