The NRSC smear of Harold Ford, Jr. will not stand.  And this is one Democrat who's fighting back.

See Rep. Ford's personal post at tpmcafe.com.  Below is the key section:

Rep. Harold Ford is up on the air today with the first ad of the cycle critical of the Bush ports deal. With poll after poll showing Americans believe the deal is a blight on national security, the ad is timely and politically on target.  It is, to borrow a phrase, "built Ford tough."

Here it is: But there is more to say about ports security than even thirty well-placed seconds will permit.

Dick Cheney's hunting buddy has been flushed.

No, not that one, the self-adjudged luckiest man on the face of the earth.

This one, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the camo-clad pal who accompanied Cheney on another private Rio Grande Valley hunting trip while, at the same time, mulling whether Cheney had been too, well, private in his dealings with his energy task force (surprisingly, Scalia said no).

Now, Scalia isn't just toting buckshot for the Veep.  He's carrying water for him, too.

This is an op/ed piece I wrote Tuesday night that is running in today's Nashville Tennessean.   Full text below.  I wrote it for my daughter.  Think of your kids and do something similar.  There is no time to lose.

Harold Ford, the Democratic congressman from Memphis seeking to reclaim Bill Frist's Senate seat, is up on the air--yes, up on the air today in Tennessee--with a strong statement on national security and Iraq that Democrats should crib:

"Let's work hard to bring them home soon, with honor.  Make them as proud of us as we are of them."

If Democrats are going to take back Republican Senate seats, especially in the South, it's not too early to begin seeding the ground, particularly with a message like this.

Bill Frist is a member of National Presbyerian Church in Washington, D.C., at least according to the Frist bio on his Volpac web site (of course, the same bio proclaims Frist's lifelong interest in public affairs, but omits Frist's admission he was too busy to vote in a presidential election until six years before he became a senator...but I digress).

One wonders whether Frist's pastors and parishioners agree that only right-wing Republicans are "people of faith."  I mean, they might.  Condi Rice and Bob Dole are members, and Ronald Reagan occasionally darkened the door.  But don't you want to know?  And don't you want his church to know you want to know?

More after the break.......

If you claim to be the people's party, you'd better listen to the people.  To wit:
A lot of people are scared to death.  Scared of Osama, scared of losing their jobs, scared their kids are going to get shot when they go to school, just plain scared.  We can say they've been manipulated by lies and deceptions, but that's a cheap way out of taking responsibility for meeting voters where they are.

I'm not saying we have to play to prejudices.  We certainly shouldn't take advantage of them.  But when people are cowering in one corner of the room and we're standing in the other, saying, Come over here you moron, don't you see, we shouldn't expect solid electoral results.

It seems a very, very long time ago (it was five whole months, after all), but the D-M Register's words of endorsement for John Edwards are worth remembering again this morning:

Can someone post a link to the full John Kerry speech in which he utters the now-famous $87 billion voting line?  "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."  I don't even live in a swing state, and I'm hearing about it from friends.  I am heartsick:  the way the statement shows in the Bush ad is just devastating.

Thanks for the context.  Maybe that'll help.

Kos' endorsement of John Edwards and his likening of Kerry to Dole caused me to pull out something I was noodling on this weekend.  For your consideration:

An incumbent president elected with less than a majority of the votes.

Public confidence in the incumbent waning in the election run-up under the weight of public embarrassments and the persistent suggestion of personal scandal.

An opposition party wrapping up its nomination by March, proclaiming the virtues of party unity behind a time-tested nominee with a distinguished war record and decades of service in the United States Senate.

Sound familiar?

It should.  It happened just eight years ago.

Americans are famous for short memories, but Democrats, at least, would do well to heed the lesson of Bob Dole and 1996.  Because those who forget history are doomed not just to repeat it, but to get bitten in the backside by it.

In 1996, the Republican Party had just come off one of the most stunning off-year election triumphs in American history, taking control of the House and Senate.  The revolution was not, however, sparked by longtime trench-fighters such as Dole, but a brigade of partisan, energetic Baby Boomers, led and personified by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Their "Contract with America" became the centerpiece for a partisan election sweep not seen since the post-Watergate election of 1974. If ever there was a party that was positioned to unseat an incumbent president, it was the Republicans in 1996.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House.  A collection of candidates laid  claim to the Contract mantle--Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, Lamar Alexander, Pat Buchanan.  For a time, it seemed as though one might prevail.  Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary.  Forbes won Delaware and Arizona.

Shaken, the GOP establishment reached back to its clothcoated past and rallied around the safer, more reliable Dole.  By mid-March, the challengers were swept aside.  Story after story followed proclaiming unprecedented party unity.
It sounded great, but for one thing:  Dole did not represent the visionary Republican future the country had just chosen two years prior.  Dole personified the grumpy, stodgy Republican past--more Richard Nixon than Newt Gingrich--that even Republicans had rejected.  Small wonder he didn't catch fire among Democrats and independents, either.  Seizing the generational opportunity, President Clinton proclaimed his re-election campaign a "bridge to the 21st century," and romped to an easy win.  For his service, Dole was relegated to late-night pundtiry and pitching for Pepsi and Viagra.

By 2000, the Republicans figured out it would be better to run as they actually are, in the moment, not in the past.  They rejected more moderate candidates in favor of a candidate who would embrace the Congressional majority base.  

And we got George Bush.

Fast forward to March 2004, and enter John Kerry.  Kerry is not Dole.  But neither is he Gingrich.  And that may be a significant problem for Democrats should he become the nominee.

Exit poll after exit poll shows Democrats are not voting for Kerry out of any particular conviction.  Rather, they see him as an old reliable to defeat an increasingly unpopular incumbent.  It is as if Democrats are saying, "Anyone should beat this guy.  Let's pick the safe one we know best."

But, like Dole, Kerry has his political roots in a party that is barely recognizable today.  One can no more imagine a Democratic politician in 2004 throwing military medals on the Capitol steps than a presidential nominee who voted against the weapons systems used successfully in numerous conflicts since, or a lieutenant governor who approved a prison furlough system that placed more faith in institutional rehabilitation than in individual histories.  

When Kerry did those things years ago, they did not seem so radical.  They may even have been right for their time.  A few decades on, however, they are shocking.

The nation today is uneasy.  Domestic and international events have shaken its long-held sense of economic and international security.  An increasingly bellicose administration (Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor, anyone?) appears to talk over the heads of all but its fund-raising base.  Americans, and not just Democrats, are looking for a vision that will change their country and their lives.

One doubts we will find that vision rooted in 1987.  The John Kerry of the 1970s and `80s is no more representative of the Democratic party today than the Bob Dole of the 1970s and `80s was representative of the Republican party in 1996.  Indeed, Senator Kerry will no doubt argue that the Democratic Party of the 1970s and `80s, does not define the John Kerry of today.  

If that argument worked, however, you wouldn't have to turn on a Super Bowl ad or Larry King Live to see Bob Dole.  You'd find him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where, after eight years in office, he would be polishing his administration's place in history.

History.  Funny thing, that.

Uh oh.  The LA Times is topping its web site with this bomb.

WASHINGTON -- Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry sent 28 letters on behalf of a San Diego defense contractor who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funneling campaign contributions to the Massachusetts senator and four other congressmen.

Members of Congress often write letters supporting constituent businesses and favored projects. But as the Democratic presidential front-runner, Kerry has promoted himself as a candidate who has never been beholden to campaign contributors and special interests.

From 1996 through 1998, the senator participated in a letter-writing campaign to free up federal funds for a missile system that defense contractor Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder was trying to build for U.S. warplanes.

Kerry's letters were sent to fellow members of Congress - and to the Pentagon - while Majumder and his employees at Science and Applied Technology Inc. were donating money to the senator, court records show.

During the three-year period, Kerry received about $25,000 from Majumder and his employees, according to Dwight L. Morris and Associates, which tracks campaign donations.

The contractor told his employees they needed to make political contributions in order for him to gain influence with members of Congress. He then reimbursed them with proceeds from government contracts.

Federal prosecutors say nearly all of those donations were illegally reimbursed, though they said that Kerry and other members of Congress would not have known that. Kerry donated $13,000 to charity last week, shortly before the guilty plea.

Kerry's campaign said today that Kerry's letters had nothing to do with the campaign contributions - but with jobs.

One of the subcontractors working on the guided missile project, Millitech, was based in Massachusetts.

Campaign senior advisor Michael Meehan said Kerry was concerned that the military project was on hold and at risk of jeopardizing work for people in his home state.

"Kerry has made a career of going to bat for Massachusetts companies and bottlenecks they might have with the federal government. It's part of his job," Meehan said. "It was a small company. It wasn't a big military firm that had all kinds of influence at the Pentagon."

Kerry visited the San Diego facility in the mid 1990s. And some employees at Science and Applied Technology attended a fundraiser for Kerry.

From 1996 to 1999, Kerry wrote letters to the secretary of the Navy, the secretary of Defense, the Defense Department comptroller and to members of the House and the Senate committees that control and finance military contracts.

The court file shows copies of 21 letters he wrote. He had sent copies of some letters to seven other people.

"It obviously raises questions about whether the campaign contributions bought action from Kerry," said Steven Weiss, communications director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

"It also poses a situation that all elected officials face: Raising questions about what effect, if any, campaign contributions have on the actions of lawmakers."

Last week, Majumder, 52, pleaded guilty to two counts of illegal campaign contributions. He faces a possible six years in prison when sentenced. The government dropped another 38 counts.

Majumder admitted giving illegal contributions to Kerry and Republican congressmen Randall Cunningham (R-San Diego), Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), John Murtha (R-Pa.) and Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.), totaling more than $95,000. Scarborough retired in 2001. [Ed. note-HAHAHAHAHAHA]

To settle a civil suit filed by the federal government, Majumder has agreed to repay $3 million to the federal government.

What's the Kerry response to this question Sunday night, if asked by any of his opponents:

John, you and I know how hard it is to do the work of the American people in a Republican Congress. I think you would agree with me that we not only have to elect a Democratic president, we have to elect Democrats to the Congress this year to restore the One America our party stands for. I think you would also agree with me that members of Congress cast votes, take stands, and then tell people we're for this, or for that, based on our votes. In a Republican Congress, sometimes that's all we've got. But my question for you, John, is can you identify one aspect of an average American's life that is different today for your having been in the Senate for 19 years?"

Seriously.  What's the answer?

Anonymous spam e-mails from "Daniel, Your Wesley Clark supporter" and the e-mail address Vote4WesClark@aol.com arrived in Tennessee mailboxes Sunday night.  After extolling General Clark's virtues, the e-mail takes this turn:

Now, I realize that Clark has no political experience, and that may deter some people from voting for him. But the front-runner, Mass. Sen. John Kerry, has shown that experience doesn't matter, and he has 19-years of it.

-- Kerry voted for the resolution to go to war in Iraq; and then changed his mind.

-- Kerry voted for the No Child Left Behind Act; and then changed his mind.

-- Kerry voted for the US PATRIOT Act; and then changed his mind.

-- Kerry voted for giving the administration $87 billion for the war in Iraq; and then changed his mind.

-- Kerry also voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that homosexual marriage is against the law; and then changed his mind.

Kerry can't seem to keep his mind still, and is that really the type of person we would want in office? I don't think so. Kerry also said that he won't be protecting the special interests and lobbyists. But the fact is that over the last 15 years, he has taken more special interest/lobbyist money than any other politician.

Facts are facts (I'm not a Kerry supporter, either), but the "can't keep his mind still" clause echoes of something darker than political expediency.  Of course, you can't tell who Daniel is, who sent the spam, who paid for it, or why.  That said, the Clark campaign in Tennessee has been sunny on TV and radio, and nothing but negative elsewhere.

Anyone else seen this or know its origin?

You gotta check this out.  It's Pepsi's ad, airing tonight on the Super Bowl, sticking a sharp stick in the eye of the RIAA's downloading lawsuits by promoting its Apple iTunes giveaway.  It's posted now on Apple's website.

And why aren't you using an iMac today?

When is the last time they campaigned publicly for Dean?  Have they been and/or are they going to NH?  If not, why not?  I haven't seen or heard a peep since before the Iowa vote.  Are they now more liability than help?  

Square Zogby's Iowa "final track" with the Iowa results (with the DM Register's last Iowa Poll in for good measure):

Kerry  38
Kerry Zogby 25 (-13)
Kerry Iowa Poll 26 (-12)

Edwards 32
Edwards Zogby 21  (-11)
Edwards Iowa Poll 23 (-9)

Dean 18
Dean Zogby 22  (+4)
Dean Iowa Poll (+2)

Gephardt  11
Gephardt Zogby 18 (+7)
Gephardt Iowa Poll 18 (+7)

While the Iowa Poll was closer, both polls got only one of the four major contenders within their margin of error.  

What is interesting is that Dean's vote proved the most predictable.  Why might that be?  The tracks cover three days, which is great for spotting trends, but lousy for telling you what's happening today.  This methoodology gets more vulnerable the closer you get to election time, because it gives more weight to one- and two-day-old preferences, and underweights last-minute movement.  In other words, a track can misread momentum in the late stages.  This clearly happened in Iowa.  

The one difference is when a candidate is going neither up nor down, but is merely stuck.  That guy turned out to be Dean, which would seem to contradict the stories about last-minute voters leaving him.  Instead, they left Gephardt and the others.  

The NH tracks have shown pronounced movement for Kerry & Edwards (up) and Dean and Clark (down).  Leiberman has stayed relatively flat.  If those trends continue, Kerry wins in a relative walk, with Edwards and Dean competitive for second and Clark in fourth.  There is no Joementum, except as it hurdles toward Bridgeport.

Thoughts?

Who said this (no fair peeking) in November 2002?  Is it:
(a) John Kerry
(b) Joe Lieberman
(c) Howard Dean
(d) John Edwards

On September 11, 2001, it was important that all of us - Democrat, Republican and Independent - stand with the President as America was under attack.  We may well end up in a war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess atomic weapons.

My point is not that the statement is wrong.  The President lied to us all.  And many in the fall of 2002, even before the infamous 2003 SOTU, were misled.

My point is that in the fall of 2002, the members of Congress were called upon to make judgments.  They made the best judgments they could, given (a) the lies spread by the administration and (b) the views of the people they had sworn to represent, Democrats as well as Republicans.  By early 2003, when it became increasingly apparent that much of what the President was saying may not be true and the administration was becoming ever more bellicose toward the international community despite prior pledges, it was much easier to oppose the war.  By early 2003, however, there was no changing those October 2002 votes.  

That's the hell of holding office and being accountable for making decisions.  You have to represent all the people.  And then you have to make other decisions.

The answer to the multiple choice question, by the way, is the only leading candidate in the race who's never had to make a vote on a national security issue.  And the speech is on his website.

It's not about Howard.  Turns out it's about Jimmy:

Former President Carter said Wednesday that he does not plan to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean when the two meet this weekend.

Carter issued a statement, described as a clarification of news reports about Dean's visit Sunday in Carter's hometown of Plains, Ga.

"This meeting is not an endorsement of his candidacy, but an opportunity for me to learn more about the candidate and his views," Carter said.

And it's not the first time Carter has met with a candidate in this race.  Turns out he's been "learning" about another:

Carter said he previously has met with Dean and with retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential hopeful.

"These meetings were arranged at the request of the candidates. As in the past, I welcome meetings with any Democratic presidential candidate."

I've said before, I love Jimmy Carter.  But the Jimmy I love is the man with a vision for peace and justice in the world.  The Jimmy I do not love is the political Carter where, all too often, it only is about him and his last defeat (see also Al Gore).  This latest development is classic political Carter.

And so, I repeat my earlier question:  Exactly what is the purpose of scheduling a meet-and-greet the day before the Iowa vote?

I think it's this:  I think Dean gets (a) a chance to be seen in a Southern church with a Hall of Fame-caliber Sunday School teacher; and (b) he says to the nation, perhaps on Canadian TV even, Iowa was so last week.

And that, I think, is very, very smart.  Sure beats what he's doing today.