Realignment Ramifications

One of the major effects of this election will be, in all likelyhood, the end of a period of realignment that began, depending on how you date it, in the 1910s or the 1960s. Since the early 19th century, the parties have effectively switched sides, and since the early 1960s, the Democrats and Republicans have also switched geographical bases.

In 1908, Teddy Roosevelt, the immensely popular progressive Republican, handpicked a successor in William Howard Taft. Taft won handily, but turned out to be very conservative, especially on business matters. This did not play well with Roosevelt, who was perhaps best known for his solicitude of national parks and vigorous trust-busting.

This set up a three-way election in 1912. Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, won because Roosevelt, running on the Progressive or "Bull Moose" platform, split the Republican vote with Taft.

After Wilson's second term ended, he was replaced by a series of moderate and conservative Republicans - Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. This move to the right, especially fiscally, opened the left to Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt held cut deeply into the Republican base in New England and into the traditionally Republican black vote because of his support of social welfare programs.

Roosevelt's coalition shattered after his death, however. The new black constituency clashed with the traditional Democratic base in the deep South. Harry Truman, who ascended to the Presidency at Roosevelt's death, sided weakly with racial progressivism.

This sparked challenges from both the right and the left. South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, running on a pro-segregation platform, broke off the Deep South while former Roosevelt VP Henry Wallace took away the votes of the far left. (Wallace recieved effectively the same number of votes as Thurmond, but won no states.)

Over the next thirty years, the Republicans would focus heavily on winning the socially conservative south, and it would oscillate between Democrats and independent "Dixiecrats." By 1964, a Southern Democrat (Lyndon Johnson) won a landslide and still lost the Deep South. It became reliably Republican thereafter - only Jimmy Carter won a substantial portion of the Deep South as a Democrat thereafter.

This focus, however, invariably moved the moderate GOP under Eisenhower to the right. This alienated the Republican base in the Northeast - Kennedy began to capture it, and it became reliably Democratic in 1992 with Bill Clinton - from Maryland to Maine, only New Hampshire has gone to a Republican Presidential candidate since - and then only once, and barely.

This change on the Presidential level has been accompanied by changes on the Congressional level. The Republicans have captured most of the congressional seats in the Deep South through a combination of gerrymandering, the aging of Democratic incumbents, and the wave year of 1994.

Democrats appear to be poised to similarly sweep Republicans out of the Northeast, using a wave election to overcome long-term incumbency and complete the regional realignment. Some well-established incumbents will stay until they retire or goof up - Maine's two moderate Republican Senators, for instance. But by and large, several Northeastern states - Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut - are sizing up to be war zones for Republican incumbents.

Make no bones about it - the Republicans are likely to take back a fair number of seats next election. But the Democrats can very likely entrench themselves in the moderate and liberal districts that they can capture from the likes of Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson.

A Disturbing Trend

Yesterday, a third Republican Congressman came under fire for alleged violence against women leading to a 911 call.

Rep. Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania has been in hot water for allegedly choking his mistress, who was late for her liaison. She called 911, and he settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit with a confidentiality agreement. He's losing the race for his House seat bad enough that he tried to blame his opponent, who worked in the Pentagon, for the Iraq War.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, the Republican candidate for Governor of Nevada, allegedly groped, cornered and threatened a cocktail waitress who refused his propositions. This scandal has expanded because it appears that Gibbons' friends tried to cover up the incident. She claims to have been offered a substantial amount of money to recant, Gibbons' allies allegedly planted a false story in the news media that she recanted the next morning, Gibbons' top advisor has close connection to the company that owns the surveillance tapes, which told Gibbons' attorneys they existed even while they told the police and the public that the cameras were broken.

The company now claims the tapes don't show either person going to where the assault allegedly occurred, and Gibbons is suing to get access to the tapes. (He'll lose - police investigations don't have to show their hand until trial approaches.) There are, of course, three problems with this defense:

• While Gibbons claims the tape exonerates him, it actually contradicts his story. Gibbons admitted going to where the assault allegedly occurred, he claimed that he didn't assault her, he just helped the falling-down drunk woman get behind the wheel of her truck.

• Gibbons' allies controlled the tape for two weeks and lied to the police and the media about it while showing it to Gibbons. They could be lying about its contents or could have altered the tape. This is especially true since the tape would apparently contradict both stories.

• Finally, and perhaps most likely, surveillance specialists point out that tapes aren't strong evidence they weren't there. First, the recorder generally doesn't record every camera but rather takes thirty second clips from each camera in a rotation. Since there were apparently at least 10 cameras on the circuit, it could take as long as five minutes before they showed up. Second, cameras are often improperly maintained and the image can be "burned" into them - must like how you can see the outline of the first map in Pac Man on an old machine no matter what.

Yesterday, Rep. John Sweeney added his hat to the ring. His wife called police in December alleging that he grabbed her by the throat and knocked her around the house (or pushed her around the house, depending on which paragraph of the report you use). When police arrived her face was scratched up. On the plus side, at least he wasn't cheating on her. . . . well, lets be accurate, he isn't necessarily cheating on her.

Another disturbing trend, if you're a Republican, is the building instability of a lot of Republican House and Senate seats.

Jim "Nurse Goodbody" Webb (D) seems to have grabbed a small lead from George "Moosehead" Allen (R) in Virginia, leading by 3 - 5 in 4 recently released polls. Polls in Missouri show a shift in favor of Democrat Claire McCaskill since she ran the Michael J. Fox ad. That race is now in a total dead heat, with a very small edge for McCaskill if anyone. There is still a small edge for Bob Corker (R) in Tennessee - one poll gives him a large lead, but most show him with a one to two point lead.

In the House, RT Strategies - run by a top Democrat and a top Republican pollster - released a slew of polls showing Democratic surges in second and third tier races. Most dangerous for the Republican incumbent is the high rate of unsure votes. Undecided voters tend to break hard for the challenger in most elections - if you really liked the incumbent, you'd know so by now. This election, because of its wave nature, may see an even harder break against incumbents.

The second and third tier races with the Democrat leading or close with a large margin of undecided voters includes AZ-1 (Renzi), CA-4 (Doolittle), CA-11 (Pombo), CO-4 (Musgrave), FL-13 (open), KY-4 (Davis), NC-8 (Kissell), NH-2 (Hodes), NY-19 (Hall), NY-25 (Walsh), NY-29 (Kuhl), OH-1 (Chabot). Other polls put, for instance, a Democrat within 4 points for Wyoming's only Congressional Districtm and within 2 for Idaho's more conservative district. If Democrats win half those races, they'll take 30-35 seats in the House. If they take 3/4s, which is very possible in a wave election, they could take 40 seats, which would have seemed ridiculous even in the aftermath of Foley.

Stem Cell Research In Missouri

Claire McCaskill (D) has run an extremely powerful ad featuring Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinsons, supporting stem cell research.



The conservative response has been twofold - attacking Fox and airing ads featuring Missouri sports figures who oppose stem cell research.

The response has been misguided and unsuccessful, unlike the ad, which studies show knocks 10% of Independents to McCaskill and 10% of Republicans into being undecided.

The attacks on Fox have seriously backfired.

Rush Limbaugh certainly hasn't won any friends among Missouri swing voters by attacking a seriously ill man, arguing Fox was off his meds to exaggerate his symptoms and abusing his disease for political gain. True, the "it takes one to know one" principle suggests Limbaugh can tell when people are on prescription drugs. But not only does Limbaugh have no evidence, his claim is somewhat backwards - long term use of some Parkinson's drugs can exacerbate the tremors. While Fox obviously doesn't publish his treatment regimen, was diagnosed fifteen years ago.

Second, most people have been bright enough to realize that Fox standing up for something that has the potential to help him and millions of Americans is not abusing the political process, but is the political process. Its going to the government and saying "Look, I've got a grievance with you. Fix it."

Limbaugh might have a point if Fox was using his disease to advance something unrelated to stem cells. But he hasn't. He's been out there for candidates of both parties. He's been out there more for Democrats because Democratic officeholders almost unanimously support stem cell research and a majority of their Republican counterparts oppose it. This year, all three truly competitive Senate races involve a pro-research Democrat and an anti-research Republican.

Conservatives have also responded with conservative Missouri sports stars - Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, former Rams QB Kirt Warner and Royals Baseman Mike Sweeney. Now, beside the point that you're likely to catch a case of "lose badly" by getting too close to the Royals, the ads are either desparate or misapprehend why Michael J. Fox's ads were powerful.

Fox's ads (he also ran one in Maryland against Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who compared stem cell research to Nazi medical experiments on Jews) weren't just powerful because he was a celebrity. They were powerful because it made the debate less hypothetical and less abstract.

Until now, stem cell debates have focused on hypothetical people versus hypothetical embryos. Here, people were reintroduced to someone they remembered, who is now extremely ill. While it doesn't have the same impact that a relative or friend getting ill does, there is a strong emotional link. You can imagine what its done to him since you last saw him acting. And that draws people in.

Fox also makes the debate less abstract. Fox's disease is visually startling and sympathetic. You can immediately see the problem and vividly understand what it does to his life.

It wasn't a hypothetical sick person versus a hypothetical embryo anymore. It was a real flesh and blood sick person, having undergone a distinct change, that versus

Further, Fox has some authority on the subject. Politicos often imagine the American public is stupid and will follow their stars blindly, but they aren't and they won't. Fox has gravitas on the issue - he has a reason to have educated himself and has lots more knowledge than the vast majority of people, both on its practical impact and its chances of success.

Suppan, Warner and Sweeney don't have gravitas, especially on the issue. Very few athletes become so popular that we trust them on things they aren't qualified on. They might be able to sway sales by telling us their favorite shoes, which baseball video game is most like being on the field and which amusement park is the coolest because as pro-athletes, they know about shoes, baseball and are cool. But if they have no gravitas on an issue, the fact that they're famous won't mean anything to 99% of people.

Mike Sweeney isn't going to make someone "the cool doctor" or drive sales of a new toy for toddlers. He might make someone the guy to go to for sports injuries or training. He's an athlete, not an ethicist or a priest with some special realization of why stem cell research is wrong, and voters realize that.

The Only Thing We Have is Fear Itself

There's nothing that saddens or disturbs me more than the fact that those in power have decided to win by scaring the American public. By adopting the positions that two-bit dictators use to keep their populace in line, the Republicans are doing us a national disservice.

Just compare how the world and country looked after 9/11, when Bush was an inspirational leader, and how it looked after Iraq, when he burned the credibility he'd built on the war and tax cuts disproportionately headed to the wealthy.

People were lining up all over the country at the Red Cross to donate blood, emergency services professionals drove to New York City to help, and countries lined up and contributed troops to the war in Afghanistan.

Now, of course, we don't have any diplomatic capital, a nation united has become bitterly divided, and the middle class looks at their dropping real wages and wonders how the President can tell them the economy is booming. ("Its doing excellently for the investor class" doesn't play all that well with, you know, the non-investor class.)

The GOP's new ad is the lowest I've seen them go since Max Cleland's face was morphed into Bin Laden's. Just compare the President's party's rhetoric with FDR in the face of one of the greatest crises we've ever faced.

"This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

FDR's inaugural address, 1933, during the peak of the Great Depression

The GOP's newest ad: The Only Thing We Have Is Fear Itself

A Partial Recovery, And Two More Setbacks For Republicans

Reynolds' Situation Improving

Tom Reynolds, the Republican in charge of House Campaign strategy, seems to have righted his ship and now has a narrow lead over Democrat Jack Davis. Reynolds fell from a substantial lead to trailing by double digits after it was revealed that he knew of some of Foley's less explicit but overly friendly emails.

It appears to have two major causes - Republicans directing substantial funds to Reynolds and Davis being unwilling to get out and campaign. Reynolds will likely hold onto his seat, but the Democrats have effectively won by paying nothing to put a safe district in pay, distracting the campaign leader and forcing the Republicans to waste resources.

What Happens In Las Vegas Comes Out Just In Time To Ruin Your Certain Election

Jim Gibbons, the Republican candidate for Governor of Nevada, has managed to implode in a Katherine Harris-esque series of scandals the past two weeks. It is never good for a politician to be out drinking heavily with a cocktail waitress he randomly picked up, especially without his wife. The kicker was when the cocktail waitress calls 911 and then claims he cornered her, copped some feels and threatened her after she refused him. Gibbons' story seems to be that she was too drunk to stand, and he just helped her up and behind the wheel. Umm . . . .

Now KLAS TV reports that an illegal immigrant is claiming she worked for Gibbons, an archconservative on immigration, as his live-in nanny for several years. She claims its obvious Gibbons knew she was illegal because he repeatedly asked her to hide from particular people.

Gibbons had a consistent medium range lead coming into this, and the only way it doesn't knock him off is if, as Wonkette reports, the major newspaper for the conservative base in northwestern Nevada continues to not report the scandals. (They took a week to mention the whole cocktail waitress thing). Even then, its doubtful that news won't get there eventually.

Updates: Ohio Republicans Falling Faster

OH-15: Kilroy (D) now favored to win

I'm now going to call OH-15 for Mary Jo Kilroy (D). I didn't want to do this based just on one isolated poll showing her shooting to a twelve point lead from a small deficit, but we have independent confirmation that incumbent Republican Deborah Pryce (R)'s internal polling shows her way down.

Pryce pulled "the stunt."

"The Stunt" is usually pulled by people who are either angry or down in the polls and desperate. Its something with an enormous capability to backfire and some imaginary chance of completely rewriting the race by making your opponent look foolish.

I thought the stunt of the week would Harold Ford Jr. (D) crashing Bob Corker's (R) press conference to confront him for attacking Ford's family in an ad. (When I watched the video, I couldn't help but wonder where Ford's entry music was, and whether Earl Hebner would be the referee.)

Instead, the stunt of the week goes to the increasingly desperate #4 House Republican, Deborah Pryce. In a move eerily similar to a pro wrestling plot, Pryce showed up at Kilroy's campaign headquarters unannounced with cameras demanding a no-holds barred cage match . . . erm, a "sidewalk debate" on Medicare. Unless Kilroy was chicken.

Kilroy didn't come out and Pryce then put out an ad, showing the footage and declaring that Kilroy was too cowardly to debate her. There's just one teensy problem.

The Pryce Campaign had called ahead to demand the sidewalk debate, and were told that Kilroy wasn't in the office that day.

So now, instead of the imaginary benefits of winning the "sidewalk debate," Pryce, a once respected figure, looks like a fool.

Ohio 18 - Space's Victory Solidified
The conservative Newark Advocate has bucked its normal leanings and endorsed Democrat Zack Space over Republican Joy Padgett. And notably, it did not rest its endorsement on Bob Ney, but on Padgett's faults that she had so far kept fairly well under wraps.

Most people in the district know about Padgett's bankruptcy problems - its tough for a fiscal conservative to ignore their $1.1 million bankruptcy.

But the paper focused on Padgett's character - especially her past viciousness. The Advocate "remain[s] outraged by [Padgett's] 2004 advertising." In a race for a State Senate slot against reporter Terry Anderson, Padgett ran ads calling him soft on terror and showed him shaking hands with a Hezbollah member.

That doesn't sounds too too outrageous at first. Except that Terry Anderson had been held hostage by Hezbollah for almost seven years during the Lebanese Civil War in an attempt to drive the Americans out. And the picture was from several years later, when Anderson hunted down and confronted one of his kidnappers with a CNN crew in Lebanon.

Its not just that a conservative paper, that repeatedly endorsed Bob Ney, Padgett's political mentor, said "We can't fathom why voters elected her after such a shameful display. We're hoping they won't make the same mistake twice."

Its that they brought back up the bad character issues that are really harming Ohio Republicans. Bringing up Padgett's disgusting ghosts will drive even more people to Space.

God and Politics

Two politicians have gone out of their way to say that God called on them to run for office this year. Katherine Harris (R) relied on the Big Guy Upstairs in making her decision to run for Senate, and Minneosta Congresswoman-wannabe Michelle Bachmann (R) painted herself as unwilling to run until God intervened.

Both candidates are Republicans running in red districts, and both candidates are losing at least in part because of their extremist rhetoric.

This little assist to Democratic Campaign Coordinators Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer leads me to wonder - is God a Democrat?

Steele's Style Over Substance Campaign

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) learned the lesson of Gov. Bob Ehrlich's (R) election well. Ehrlich portrayed himself as the likeable candidate in an election where Democrat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend came off as unlikeable, stiff, and having a sense of entitlement.

So unlike many Republican candidates this cycle (see Schmidt, "Mean Jean" and Weldon, Curt), Steele realized you can win in enemy territory by positioning yourself as a likeable guy. Two key factors are holding him back, however.

First, Ben Cardin isn't unlikeable. He comes off as a little bookish, but moderate Demcorats don't dislike him as they did KKT. Charm offensives have to be coupled with an unlikeable opponent when you're in enemy territory, and Steele got a late start to using negative ads against Cardin. Even those backfired when it came out that Steele tried to use weasely language to attack Cardin for things Steele was also doing. (Steele used technical jargon that made it sound like Cardin was taking junkets to Scotland, when it actually meant he was getting donations from special interests. Not only was Steele taking money from special interests, he was taking money from the same special interests he was criticizing - Big Pharmaceuticals.)

Ehrlich, on the other hand, has been heavy on the negative ads, as he largely has to be. But he has the advantage of incumbency, which widens his tightrope. Steele must walk a thin one - if he goes too negative, he's not a likeable guy anymore, but if he doesn't go negative enough, he loses on party identification.

Second, Steele has been too open about his charm offensive. Political manuevers almost invariably backfire when the public at large realizes what you're doing, because people take offense to candidates who are anything other than themselves in public. He's openly flaunted policy questions he doesn't want to answer, and responded with arguments like "[the campaign is] not about the issues as much as about the style of leadership that we need[.]"

Its refreshing, in a way, to hear a candidate admit he's about style over substance.

But in refusing to discuss the issues he doesn't like, while discussing other ones (he made a big stink about his opposition to the death penalty), he comes off as disingenuous. Since we know he's not stupid, the only reason he won't say what he stands for has to be that he doesn't want Marylanders to know his positions. After all, his first major gaffe was letting his arch-conservative position on stem-cell research out, when he compared it to slavery and the holocaust.*

Not to mention, he dodges like an old man with a broken hip.

When asked whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, he responded that Senators can't control that, so he wouldn't answer. Last I checked, the Senate votes on Supreme Court nominees and on Constitutional Amendments, both of which could overturn Roe v. Wade.

He derided a reporter for asking him whether he thought Rumsfeld should stay in office. Steele argued that his own opinion wouldn't make a difference, so answering would be demagoguing.

Umm . . . . Mike, if your opinion doesn't make a difference, why should we vote for you?

In any event, Cardin is leading by a potentially surmoutnable lead, but Steele hasn't shown the kind of strength needed to surmount it. Both he and Ehrlich will likely be knocked out.

* In our sidelight:

While he apologized, Steele denies he meant to compare stem cell research to German medical experience on Jews during the Holocaust. Decide for yourself.

Steele said to the Baltimore Jewish Council: (I highlight it because the audience is important).

"Look, you of all folks know what happens when people decide they want to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool."

Cracking under the Stress?

Its amazing the extent of the inappropriate attacks coming out of the Republican party. I don't mean inappropriate in the illegal or unethical senses - like Tan Nguyen's letter to legal immigrants telling them they could be arrested for voting. I mean attacks that backfire because of their insensitivity or because they hit targets most people view as out of bounds.

It makes me wonder if the party has been so isolated that it doesn't realize the gut wrongness of the attack, or if they've simply been this hamfisted and gotten away with it because of well-gerrymandered districts or lax reporting when the district wasn't in play.

I'll examine a couple here - Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) attacks on Adm. Joe Sestak (D) for not spending enough time in the district, Chris Shays' (R-CT) attempts to move the spotlight away from Foley and Iraq, and two outside ads - Tennesseans for Truth's not-so-subtle appeal to racism against Senate Candidate Harold Ford Jr. (D) and the National Black Republican Association's Coulter-esque ads run in several districts, notably in Maryland, accusing Democrats of starting the KKK, stymying Civil Rights legislation, and claiming Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

Weldon

Curt Weldon (R-PA) bungled his way out of being favored for re-election by attacking his opponent, Adm. Joe Sestak, for not living in the district enough to know what the people really wanted. A fair enough argument, but Weldon's attacks were completely hamfisted and ranged from the merely bizarre to the offensive.

The attacks began weakly and innocuously enough with Weldon complaining that while he commuted to DC from Pennsylvania on workdays, Sestak didn't commute to the Pentagon (in Northern Virginia) from the Keystone State. (Sestak maintained residences in both Virginia and Pennsylvania.)

He then went on to attack Sestak for not residing in the district - while Sestak was in the navy.

The kicker was when Weldon attacked Sestak's choice of hospital for his cancer-stricken daughter. Sestak took his daughter to a DC hospital, Weldon argued she should have been taken to a Pennsylvania or Delaware hospital to be closer to the district.

In each case, its clear what Weldon is trying to get at. He's trying to say "look, Joe Sestak doesn't really know the district. I've been here, I know your issues, your wants and your needs. Joe Sestak hasn't been here all that long - he wasn't learning about your problems while he was in the Navy. I love this place so much I drive to DC instead of keeping a home there like Joe Sestak - I have deeper roots here. And usually you pick a hospital close to home, and Joe taking his daughter to a DC hospital suggests his real home is Northern Virginia."

He apparently doesn't see the inappropriateness of attacking Sestak for being in the Navy or for choosing what hospital to bring his daughter to.

Shays

Its been widely suggested that Chris Shays is folding under pressure now that he has a strong challenger. Twice in the last few weeks he's attempted to move the spotlight away from major Republican problems - Iraq and Mark Foley, and embarassed himself in the process.

Going with Iraq first, one of the administration's greatest liabilities in the war has been the disturbing photos that came out of the Abu Ghraib prison. Shays recently attempted to minimize the event, saying it wasn't "torture," it was a just a "sex ring" among the troops. He later backed off his remarks, but only half-heartedly. It was torture, but only because sexual abuse is inherently torture. He eventually conceded that he was wrong at a debate, which has certainly helped his cause.

Shays was doing something normally attributed to Democrats, particularly John Kerry and Al Gore. He was splitting hairs trying to make his point. There's certainly a valid distinction between being put on the rack and being hooded and made to believe that things that violate your religion are being done to you. But both things are wrong, and people don't normally take well to downplaying moral ills.

Its the rough equivalent of a defense attorney asking for leniency because "It wasn't real rape. It was date rape. Sure he'd spiked her drink, but he didn't put a gun to her head."

Shays made the same mistake a second time with regards to Mark Foley. Shays' response to the scandal was, in effect, "at least Mark Foley didn't kill someone like Ted Kennedy did." This caused two problems - first, he's downplaying an ill, as I mentioned earlier.

Second, the Democrats were arguing that top Republicans were more worried about protecting Foley to keep a scandal at bay than about the pages. Shays' most high profile move, then, is to downplay the wrongness of what Foley did. And that doesn't sit well with mothers who worry that everyone online is really a 50 year old pervert.

The Republican Affiliates
Tennesseans For Truth & The National Black Republican Association

Two recent ad buys by outside groups have been condemned by the Republicans they seek to support. This could be outside groups gone wild or "bulldogging" - using an ostensibly unaffiliated group to make dangerous arguments. If the arguments work, you get the upside, if they fail, it wasn't you, it was the nutcases.

A new political group, Tennesseans for Truth, with funders so far unknown, released the following attack on Democratic Senate Candidate Harold Ford Jr. Ford's opponent, Bob Corker (R), denies any involvement and denounced the ad, which obviously attempts to incite racial animosity against Ford, who is light-skinned and black. It repeatedly points out Ford's race, saying in effect, "he's black, he's black, he's black, and he's only working for blacks, not us."

The most egregious part of the ad follows:

"[Ford's] daddy handed him his seat in Congress and his seat in the Congressional Black Caucus, an all-black group of congressmen who represent the interests of black people above all others . . . Ford's Congressional Black Caucus secretly prepares and presents their own alternative budget to Congress each year to fund aid to black Americans."

Corker has, as noted earlier, distanced himself from the ad, and the stations pulled it after several runs. Its struck quite a chord in a state that is trying to distance itself from a racist past.

The National Black Republicans Association has partly splintered over aggressive ads blaming Democrats for the KKK and racial violence and claiming King was a Republican. Several top level members of the organization have apparently left in a furor, and Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), a black Republican, has denounced the ads. The problem is that it assumes that its target audience is stupid, and the audience isn't stupid.

Factual problems aside for a moment, the ad backfires because its patronizing. It claims Democrats are using and abusing blacks, and then makes arguments that only work if you assume the audience is stupid or ignorant of history.

The thrust of the ad was "Democrats used to be bad on race, so you should vote Republican now." It deliberately ignores the past 50 years or so, which makes its rational uses minimal. It assumes people are stupid enough to paint modern liberal Democrats with the sins of ancient conservative Democrats they almost universally have no connection to.

In the period they ignore, a Democratic Presidential Candidate got MLK Jr. out of jail, a Democratic Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Democratic Congresses passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and Republicans recruited the racists away from the Democratic party as a part of their "Southern Strategy."

On the main assertion - that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, the group provides no real evidence. King Jr. deliberately eschewed political parties, at least publically. While I wouldn't be surprised if King Jr. was a Republican at the start of the Civil Rights movement, it is very unlikely that he was during the height of the movement, when the ad suggests he was.

The only support the group gives for the claim is a bald assertion that all blacks were Republicans in the 1960s. This isn't true - a substantial portion of blacks became Democrats during the FDR years, and FDR and Truman took the first baby steps towards equality since 1876, like desegregating the military.

As noted earlier, King Jr. deliberately avoided political entanglements, so its difficult to pinpoint his party, if he even had one. Since Southern Democrats were noxious at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if King Jr. was a Republican at the start of the Civil Rights movement, but both King Jr. and his father were working closely enough with the National Democrats by 1960 that any claim that King Jr. was a Republican is misleading if not totally inaccurate.

We know this much:

Most of the oppression in the South came from Democrats.

Most of the force for the Civil Rights Act came from Northern Democrats and LBJ.

Presidential Candidate John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, got MLK Jr. out of prison after he was arrested during a sit-in in 1960.

King Sr. responded by endorsing Kennedy and helping to mobilize votes for him, and later went on to work on Jimmy Carter's campaign.

King Jr. worked closely with Kennedy several times, attempting to delay the 1965 March from Selma to Montgomery at Kennedy's request and toning down the rhetoric in the March on Washington after Kennedy suggested adicalism would hurt the Civil Rights Act's chances of passage.

King Jr. argued that capitalism had failed blacks and called for a substantial redistribution of wealth to help them out of poverty. This decidedly liberal proposition is completely out of line in the Republican party, but quite similar to parts of Johnson's Great Society programs and policy proposals from Democrat Huey Long .

The major figures who emerged from King's wake, like Rev. Jesse Jackson, were almost unanimously Democrats.

In the end, judge for yourself, but it seems unlikely King had ties to the Republican Party strong enough to merit changing your vote about especially after 1960.