• 1st District:  Rob Wittman (R) vs. Krystal Ball (D) - Republican Hold
• 2nd District:  Glenn Nye (D) vs. Scott Rigell (R) - Toss Up
• 3rd District:  Bobby Scott (D) vs. Chuck Smith (R) - Democrat Hold
• 4th District:  Randy Forbes (R) vs. Wynne LeGrow (D) - Republican Hold
• 5th District:  Tom Periello (D) vs. Robert Hurt (R) - Republican Pick Up
• 6th District:  Bob Goodlatte (R) vs. No Democrat - Republican Hold
• 7th District:  Eric Cantor (R) vs. Rick Waugh - Republican Hold
• 8th District:  Jim Moran (D) vs. Patrick Murray - Likely Democrat Hold
• 9th District:  Rick Boucher (D) vs. Morgan Griffith - Leans Democrat Hold
• 10th District:  Frank Wolf (R) vs. Jeff Barnett (D) - Republican Hold
• 11th District:  Gerry Connolly (D) vs. Keith Fimian (R) - Toss Up

For me, the real show of strength of this GOP wave is if they can take both the 11th and the 2nd.  Gerry Connolly is a street fighter, but his punches aren't landing this year because before he got to run as the assumption that Democrats were right and that is gone this year.  The 11th is considered Democratic, but Bob McDonnell won it in 2009.  Connolly has never been personally popular, but generally rode the wave of Democrats being popular.  He's never had to stand on his own at this level before on his record in the face of a skeptical public.  Fimian is no longer a rookie candidate.  He's tangled with Connolly two years ago and learned from it, and gained confidence and momentum in coming from behind to beat Pat Herrity in the primary.  Connolly won last time by painting Fimian as an out-of-touch social conservative, hitting him with robocalls about abortion.  But voters aren't having that this year with a bad economy.  Fimian learned in his primary with Herrity the importance of striking first and staying on message.  Connolly has been sloppy - complaining about "spilling buckets of blood" for Obama, saying the Bush tax cuts are bad but saying he'll vote for them.  Connolly has been on the defensive so far.  But he's still never lost an election in Fairfax County, ever.  The question will be how hard can Fimian get Prince William out and how much can he penetrate in Fairfax?  He won the primary by firing up the Tea Party base in Prince William, he needs to replicate that and work Fairfax hard.  Its a complete toss-up.

The 2nd worries me as well, I think Glenn Nye is a stronger incumbent than other people think.  Rigell did not exactly get a resounding win coming out of his primary, not even breaking 40%.  It sounds like he's done a good job of winning over all the Republicans but Nye knocked off a pretty strong incumbent who did not have the verbal gaffes that others did in 2008 and it was not an open seat.  But again, Bob McDonnell made serious gains in the 2nd - his home district - including picking up some delegate seats that were lost in the Democrats ascendancy in the 2000s.  Rigell, like Fimian, has a lot of personal wealth and is preaching the Republican doctrine.  But Nye voted no on key Democrat initiatives that Periello and Connolly are currently dealing with.  I'm also worried Rigell is as 100& enthused by the grassroots, but I think sending a message to Obama is enough to wrap them around Rigell.  But as the 11th is perhaps generically Democratic, the 2nd is Republican and I think Rigell has a good chance of taking this.  But Nye is strong and I hear has a very good on the ground operation year round. 

I think Periello is TOAST.  His victory was always a fluke, and anyone who pretends to think otherwise is crazy.  Virgil Goode lost not only because he had a habit of saying the wrong thing and picking the wrong fights, but he lost track of his own district.  Periello was a perfect foil for him, a young happy warrior with roots in non-profit and humanitarian work that couldn't have been more attractive in comparison to the old, angry Goode.  The weakness of Republicans in the 5th is perhaps many of the perspective candidates were too conservative that could be painted with the Goode brush.  But in nominating state Sen. Robert Hurt, Republicans have found a local politician with deep roots in the district and a past of a bit of bipartisanship.  In essence, he is the perfect foil for Periello.  Periello was counting on another out-of-touch fire breathing conservative to fire up his liberal base around UVA and win over independents.  But with Hurt, he can't do that.

People are making noises about Morgan Griffith cutting deep in Rick Boucher's lead, and he is.  But this is seriously uncharted territory for Republicans.  Its hard to knock off an institution in Southwest Virginia.  The latest polls suggest that Boucher has over 30% Republican support and it still up by ten, even if that is a 10 and falling.  Griffith has a real chance here because the national agenda of the Democratic Congress is an attack on how Southwest makes it living in coal and gas.  Griffith is working like hell to tag Boucher with the national party agenda and the more tough votes Boucher is forced to eat by the party leadership, the further he might sink.  This is a winnable seat, no doubt about it but a lot of things will need to come together.

Forbes, Scott, Cantor, and Wolf are all locks.  The only thing that keeps me from putting Moran as a lock is his propensity to shoot his mouth off and saying outrageous things and one of these days it'll catch up to him.  In an atmosphere like this, it could happen.  But we'll see. 

Here is my favorite picture - Ali with Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson.

It was always a long shot for O'Donnell to beat Castle, but the Joe Miller win has opened eyes.  But comparing Joe Miller - accomplished judge, lawyer, and soldier - to O'Donnell is like comparing Tom Brady to JaMarcus Russell.  But I was trying to find the words for this, then I saw Erick Erickson's post on RedState and it simply said everything I wanted too about this race.

But I’m moving on.

If Christine O’Donnell wins it’ll be inspite of the help she has gotten. What has ultimately set me off is the “Mike Castle is gay” stuff, which is nothing more than the Will Folks hour come to Delaware. The failure of the O’Donnell campaign to deal swiftly with this tells me all I need to know.

As I noted in my original post on Eric Odom, parts of his American Liberty Alliance website became a site for Christine O’Donnell advocacy.

Subsequently, a number of the affiliated individuals went and worked directly for Christine O’Donnell’s campaign. A few weeks ago they left. Around that time I began hearing rumors the O’Donnell campaign was imploding.

The gang that left resurfaced at Liberty.com. The launch day spectacular at Liberty.com was to announce that Mike Castle is having a gay affair on his wife with no proof whatsoever.

When it was pointed out that all the people behind the accusation were O’Donnell campaign staffers, the response was “not any more.”

After a year of direct and indirect advocacy for Christine O’Donnell, it is pretty doggone hard to now stand apart and say “Nope, not campaign related.”

Baloney.

Christine O’Donnell’s campaign did distance her from the video, but the damage is done. These were the people she hired for her campaign. That’s a judgment issue. Likewise, to my knowledge, neither Christine nor her campaign distanced herself until the next day when asked about it on a radio show. In doing so, the Hotline notes, “O’Donnell . . . call[ed] it an “insult” to both Castle and his wife. In the process, though, she repeats the rumor several times.” [Emphasis added]

In the meantime, we have another problem.

The tea party movement has largely been about fiscal issues and the state of the country going forward. While the press has done its best to drag the tea party movement into the culture wars, the movement has wisely stayed above the fray, focusing on a handful of issues.

Racism, homophobia, bigotry, etc. have all been leveled at the tea party movement. There’s been no evidence. It’s all been lies.

And now we have this. A website billing itself as a hub for the tea party movement using something called “Tea Party HD” to boldly make accusations that Mike Castle is gay and having an affair.

This is Will Folks all over again. I don’t care if Mike Castle is meeting up with Larry Craig at Stallknockers.com for some Union Station visitation — without proof it is meaningless and even with proof it is a distraction from the issues and not helpful to tea party activists or Christine O’Donnell.

It’s amateur hour.

And I DO want to win elections, and I understand that not every state can give us Marco Rubios or Joe Millers.  But for Christine O'Donnell's supporters to be calling a 72 year old man gay is completely out of bounds and, like Erickson pointed out, forces the Tea Party to defend itself from the accsattions of racism and homophobia. 

I can and will gladly go to battle for a conservative even in an uphill struggle.  But we need candidates with ideas, with brains, and with honor.  O'Donnell seems to have none of those, instead running a phantom smear campaign against Mike Castle - who though clealry a lib-to-moderate is an honorable man who has been serving Delaware in public office since the 1960s.  He deserves to be treated with more respect, and so does the Tea Party that O'Donnell claims to represent. 

The Democrats have nominated a good candidate in Chris Coons, a young county executive with smarts and energy.  If Delaware Republicans could find a legit conservative - Bill Lee or Patrick Ballentine   - then yes, all hands on deck lets knock Castle out.  For me this isn't an argument about who can win and who can't, though clearly Castle can win this seat and O'Donnell more than likely cannot.

Amazing race, hopefully Alaska 2010 will be a reminder to every new Republican entering Congress next year.  Lisa Murkowski represents the old way of politics - who you know, how far you can climb on the inside - that is being rejected across the country and remaking the Republican Party from the big spending, big government GOP of the 2000s into a conservative party for the 2010s. 

Two races to watch out for by the end of September - Delaware and New Hampshire.  The Tea Party Express is in the First State going after Mike Castle on behalf of Chrsitine O'Donnell, while Ovide Lamontagne just got a boost from an endorsement by the Manchester Union-Leader. 

Right now these folks might be elected to the US Senate:  Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Pat Toomey, Sharron Angle, Mike Lee, and Ken Buck.  That, my friends, is quite a change.

First Read reminds us that what makes a good governor doesn't always make a good senator:

*** Why Manchin might not be a sure bet in November: The general election is now set in the race to fill the remainder of Robert Byrd’s (D) Senate seat in West Virginia, after Gov. Joe Manchin (D) and businessman John Raese (R) won their respective primaries on Saturday. Although Manchin is undoubtedly the front-runner in this contest -- due in large part to his high approval ratings -- here’s a word of caution for Democrats: Popular governors running for the Senate haven’t always enjoyed success. In 1994, Wyoming Gov. Mike Sullivan (D) lost to Craig Thomas (R); in 1996, Nebraska Gov. Ben Nelson (D), whose poll numbers were in the 60s, lost to Chuck Hagel (R); and also in ‘96, popular Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld (R) lost to Sen. John Kerry (D). What makes someone a well-liked and successful governor isn’t always what voters seem to want from their U.S. senator.

You see it all the time in states that are nationally Republican but elect Democrats locally and vice-versa because local issues don't always jive with national issues.  This year is a perfect example where there is such anger at what Obama and the hyper-liberal national agenda that it could overwhelm everything a popular governor like Manchin has done.  The issues that voters consider when electing a governor aren't always the issues they use to elect a senator. 

If John Raese can use his deep pockets to tie Manchin to all the things Obama is doing and how it hurts the state he could pull it off.

(h/t Political Wire)

"Please stand firm against this maneuver of the Obama Administration to increase states' dependency on the federal government.  This bailout will also raise our national debt which is owed to foreign dictators who reject our vision of inalienable rights and self-governance."

"It is wrong to indebt those who have no way of expressing their vote to pay for our reckless spending. In fact, it is 'taxation without representation' obligating future generations without their consent"

I agree whole-heartidly with Del. Marshall, mostly because of the dependence of federal money this creates.  Its like a drug, you know you shouldn't take it, you know its going to make you broke, but the fix is just too good.  The problem is that there are very few politicians can let this money go by because it solves so many problems short-term, but it causes more and more in the future.      

The problem is fixing the right now does more damage.  This kind of cash is usually pumped into existing projects or used to launch new ones.  But its only a one-time infusion, and these kinds of projects tend to snowball as they move down hill faster.  So that means that money has to be replaced, usually by federal earmarks, state tax increases, or passing the buck to local government who are forced to consider things like meals taxes.  In the end, it all ends more deficits and the greater need for states to go begging to the feds for more money and the cycle just repeats itself.

It amazes me that Bob Marshall has to make so many lonely stands on issues like this, and catches as much flack from Republicans as he does Democrats. 

Apparently when Pat Toomey wins it will be Toomsday

Palin's endorsements haven't always been given for the purposes of winning, but its the message she's sending with them.  Nobody thought Clint Didier would beat Dino Rossi, and I imagine she's even shocked that Joe Miller might beat Lisa Murkowski.  Her pattern has been that of someone building a national structure based on McCain voters, conservative women, and tea party candidates.  She has also made strong stands in important early primary states that balanced the wants of conservatives who love her and back a winner in a big state that will owe her.

Some have mocked her for not having a great endorsement record, but Palin is one of the very few talked about 2012 candidates who make endorsements when it matters.  I laugh every time I see Mitt Romney roll out endorsements in places like Michigan AFTER the primaries.  Its a joke.  The only other major GOP candidate that is making endorsements in tough races is Mike Huckabee.

The first four states in the presidential primary for the Republicans are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.  In Iowa, Palin picked the practical candidate who gives her the best chance to win in Terry Branstad.  The conservative standard-bearer in Iowa is Bob Vander Plaats, and he's a staunch Huckabee supporter and Palin made the smart play for picking Branstad who has been governor forever in the past.  Iowa lines up, to me, as a battle between Palin and Huckabee. 

In New Hampshire, I'm thinking this might be kind of a downer because of Mitt Romney's big presence in the state, not only politically, but also personally with a home that he owns there.  Palin went with Kelly Ayotte, a fellow female "mama grizzly" who is not the most conservative candidate in the race, but not the most liberal either.  Ayotte should get the nomination the same way Carly Fiorina did . . . having someone both on the left (Binnie) and the right (Ovide) running around her. 

The comes Nevada, where Sarah Palin has made a big splash at tea party rallies there, as well as backing Sharron Angle, who's profile mirrors hers -  a regular women with a strong conservative streak.  If Angle is able to beat Reid, she would be a hero to conservatives and its likely she would be Palin's shoehorn into the Silver State.

Then comes South Carolina, where Palin helped push Nikki Haley across the finish line, is fertile Palin ground.  If she comes here with two out of three wins, she can close the deal here.  Its a conservative state with a populist streak and a knack for doing what they want.  In 2000 they ended John McCain's bid to defeat George W. Bush, but in 2008 gave McCain a crucial conservative state win that I think sealed the deal over a conservative evangelical in Huckabee.  Though Romney endorsed Haley as well, its clear to anyone who knows anything that it was Palin's endorsement that mattered most. 

Now there is a ton to do to get to this point.  Palin still has to campaign, talk to the press, and better articulate her views on all the issues and be able to communicate it.  Whether she can do the heavy lifting remains to be seen, but her endorsements show there is serious calculation in what she's doing and its working.

McCain campaign team : The political organization put together by the Arizona Senator, a group that included many veterans of the 2008 presidential campaign, ran one of the most ruthless (in a good way) races that we have witnessed. The McCain campaign understood from earlier this year that former Rep. J.D. Hayworth posed a serious challenge to the incumbent. Armed with that knowledge -- and a little bit of fear -- they executed a plan to simultaneously shore up McCain among conservatives while discrediting Hayworth among that same group. (It didn't hurt that McCain raised and spent better than $21 million on the race.) The strategy worked perfectly -- putting the race out of reach months ago and ensuring a fifth term for McCain.

That plan could have won McCain the presidency, instead of pussyfooting around Obama and letting Sarah Palin do all the heavy lifting, and then chiding her for it.  They found embarassing footage of Hayworth and attacked relentlessly.  Meanwhile, in 2008 there was Jeremiah Wright and Obama telling Joe the Plumber he wanted to redistribute wealth, but he did nothing about it.  As much as I'm glad McCain won over a political hack like Hayworth, its sad that McCain only showed campaign strength and guts when it came to saving his own ass instead of working to defeat Obama and avoiding all the mess of the last two years.

The race is not over, there is still enough uncounted votes out there for Murkowski to win, but lets just say for a moment Joe Miller does in fact win.  Where does that put him on the all-time upset list for statewide candidates?  So far in the 2000s, I think the biggest upsets are Begich over Stevens in Alaska and Webb over Allen in Virginia.  Thoughts?

P.S. - whatever you think of Sarah Palin, its clear she still has some real juice in Alaska and a grassroots organization and apparatus in the state that Murkowski has just bothered to create.  I think Sarah Palin could run for any office she wanted too in Alaska and win.

Crist's popularity is plummeting as governor and as we spill into the fall, I think you will see Democrats deciding to go with the candidate who has been one of them his whole life, who's mother as a Democratic representative as well.  His primary win has put some juice in his campaign.

On the Republican side, Marco Rubio got 1.1 million votes in a primary where he wasn't challenged.  I think after the buzz around the audacity of Crist's move, its starting to settle in that he's done this not out of any principled but out of personal political gain.  Both Rubio and Meek had an authenticity with their base and their parties that right now Crist doesn't have.  Top that with the Jim Greer scandal, and the fact that Rubio and Meek also represent strong minority communities in the state?  I see Meek and Rubio both getting big bumps and slowly Crist will fade.  Both Rubio and Meek have room to grow, and it will be at Crist's expense. 

What's interesting is how quiet President Obama has been, while its been Clinton that went all out to basically tell Democrats that Meek is the party's man, and he's your man too.

Florida will be interesting this year.  As usual.

Alaska Sen:  Joe Miller for Senate!   He's a long shot against the worst Republican senator in the country, Lisa Murkowski.  The best thing Sarah Palin ever did for the Republican party happened four years ago when she rid the party of Frank Murkowski.  The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, Murkowski is pro-choice, pro-bailout, and anti-repeal.  I also believe she was in deep the developers that got sent to prison and brought down her father.  She as as insider as it gets.  And why is she the worst?  Because in a state like Alaska, we can do better.  And better, for me, is Joe Miller.  But I would be shocked if Lisa went down, I just want to see if a message can be sent to her.

Florida Gov:  Bill McCollum is an honest, good, conservative Republican.  So why am I so lacking in thinking he's anything but a B-level politician and there are reasons why he has failed in two previous major statewide races for the Senate (2000 and 2004).  Rick Scott, a health care executive who has spent years fighting government nationalization of our system, has entered the race and too me is one of those fresh new faces needed to help rebuild our brand as a party.  So I'm hoping Scott pulls this off.

For many reasons I find Haley Barbour fascinating.  You just don't see someone these days who I think is as popular with everyone as he is.  But if you would have told me a fat, white, southern-drawled governor of Mississippi could be the best candidate to run against the country's first black president, with all of his supposed erudition, brilliance, and sophistication; I would have said your crazy.  But Obama is a charlatan president, who's flowing rhetoric has masked his complete lack of actual ability and actual accomplishment.  Barbour is the exact opposite.  Barbour has spent a lifetime organizing conservatives and Republican for Ronald Regan in the 1980s and Newt Gingrich in the 1990s.  If anyone can marshal the strange diaspora of forces out there among conservatives and Republicans that are currently operating in their own orbits, its someone like Haley Barbour.

While the Politico article focuses on the money aspect of his chairmanship of the RGA, they miss the greater point of the potential gains the GOP could expect in state house races in 2010.  There are 39 state house races this year, with the current breakdown is 25 D, 24 R, 1 I.  Right now the GOP could be on track to flip 16 of those (KS, WY, MI, OK, TN, FL, IL, IO, MA, NM, OH, PA, WI, ME, MD, and OR) while possibly only losing only four to a reverse flip (MN, HI, RI, and CA), leading to a net gain of 12!  But what is important is the states - if Barbour can deliver wins for Branstad (IO), Kasich (OH), Corbett (PA), Martinez (NM), and Walker/Neumann (WI) that is a tremendous foothold in very important swing states.  Barbour could have an army of local governors who owe him.  You can go ahead and included Christie and McDonnell in that as well. 

Barbour isn't without his flaws - no doubt the lobbying work, particularly for tobacco interests, will be a huge weight on him.  But fundamentally he doesn't have the inherent weakness of "The Big Four."  Romney has the money but his record is unimpressive.  Palin has the star power, but I think even her most ardent supporters can't possibly think she's ready to be president.  Huckabee is an evangelical conservative but worries too many fiscal conservatives.  Gingirch is a theorist and professor, but utterly failed in the practice of holding political power.  Even others like Pawlenty (who I also like) and Santorum can't match Barbour's combined record of party leadership, organization, and executive prowess.  Barbour is flawed like any other candidate, but not fatally flawed.  No matter how bad Obama is hemorrhaging now, I have a very hard time envisioning how any of The Big Four can really beat him.  Of them, I think Huckabee has the best chance, but Barbour blows him out of the water.

Thoughts on Haley Barbour?

Surely this is the work of the terrorists!

Let me expand more past the snark.  It is a stupid move on Sen. Warner's part, but he's never been the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Much annoys me more than anything is this going to be another issue or controversy that exists on the margins where professional Republicans fight professional Democrats without actually changing anything.  Its a classic example of what is wrong right now, where Republicans look to fight without having to commit to changing the whole system because most professional Republicans are looking to just take over the exact same power as the Democrats have.  Not limiting or eliminating it, just replacing them.  So we find issues like this we as Republicans can attack Democrats on, win power, and then do the exact things they are doing in our own way.

Senator Warner should just postpone this and let it be done.  But equally annoying is how Republicans get more fired up about things like this instead of the real abuses of power going on everyday in Washington.  And when candidates like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, or Ken Buck runs they get mocked, laughed, and attacked by just as many professional Republicans as Democrats because they are a threat to real power, institutional power in Washington that corrupts both parties.

Former Sen. George Allen will publicly discuss his mother's Jewish heritage before a Jewish group this week for the first time.

Readying for an expected rematch against Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, Allen is scheduled to discuss his mother's and grandfather's lineage Thursday at the National Jewish Retreat in Reston.

In his failed 2006 reelection bid, Allen bristled during a debate with Webb when asked about reports that his mother, Etty, is Jewish.

I'm pretty sure to win in 2012, we can't be fighting 2006's battles all over again. 

For the record, I too am against this Mosque being built because a) its clear that the local people are against this, and b) it is mightily insensitive to the families and victims that causes old dire wounds to be re-opened.  Its pure ignorance for the people who are behind this - or its it hubris or defiance? - to think that people aren't going to be upset by this.  It isn't about religious freedom, its about understanding the feelings of true victims.

It opens a broader question.  Have we learned anything about the relationship between Islam and the modern West in the last 10 years?  Are we at the point that we are still unable to have a real honest debate about the place of Islsam in America?  Because its here and its here to stay.  The other day I rented a car to a family who live in Ashburn and the wife was wearing a burqua while their son had a McNabb Skins jersey on.

This Mosque issue is unfortunate because a) its hurting victims, and b) just shows how far the West and Islam are to reconciling how we are going deal with each other. 

As energized as I am about our candidates this year across the country, I'm very worried that our momentum will be killed by a pro-mandate health care governor in Romney, an evangelical tax-hiker in Huckabee, an intelletucal who fails at politics in Gingrich, or a celebrity in Palin.

WINS:

• Colorado: Ken Buck
• Kentucky:  Rand Paul
• Florida:  Marco Rubio
• Pennsylvania:  Pat Toomey
• Nevada:  Sharron Angle
• Utah:  Mike Lee

LOSES:

• California:  Chuck DeVore
• Indiana:  Marlin Stutzman

What is important is that DeMint made most of these endorsements before it became clear these folks could win, and generally early on (except for Lee and Paul).  In the cases of Rubio, Toomey, Angle, Buck, and Stutzman it was DeMint's endorsement that was the catalyst towards their rise.  All won but Stutzamn, who parlayed his Senate race into a nomination for the House of Representatives.

"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK. Do I need to say more?"

Oh really?  Cause one is about steamroll your son to become governor of Nevada.

So yes, I don't blame any Republican governor for taking state bailout money, because its the least the feds can do for busting our budgets for the last forty years.  Its bad for everyone for course.  Bad for the states to once again use the federal needle to inject bailouts into our bloodstream, its bad for the taxpayers to see such awful boardwalk shell games being played with their money, and its bad for our very system of government where one side can so dominate the other in direct violation of the Constitution. 

In Georgia, I'm pulling for Karen Handel - and not because Sarah Palin is endorsing her.  I like Handel's background in local government, I like that similar to Nikki Haley she in many ways breaks the mold of what we think of the conservative South.  Nathan Deal is just too much like the old school, the old kind of Republicanism that failed us the last four years.  Ethical issues pester Deal, and I think Republicans need to continue using 2010 as a makeover year by bringing in new and exciting faces to rebrand the party.  Karen Handel does that.

In Connecticut, the thought of Linda McMahon being a US senator is - as a pro wrestling fan for years - is too much not to support.  But in all honest, if I had a vote in Connecticut it would be for Peter Schiff.

And then we have Colorado.  On the Dem side, Obama endorsed Michael Bennet looks like he just might lose to Clinton-backed Andrew Romanoff.  Its weird.  On the surface Bennet is cast as the insider establishment pick -which he is, while Romanoff is the outsider.  But in reality, before his elevation Bennet was nothing more than a lawyer and policy aid before taking over the state schools.  Its been Romanoff who has been in the nity-gritty of Colorado politics for years.  Its also a below the surface proxy war for the old Clinton/Obama primary. 

On the GOP side, its chaos upon chaos - brought to us by Virginia Republican's old friend, Chairman Dick Wadhams.  For the Senate race, there is no better candidate than Ken Buck.  Another great new conservative to help rebrand the party, I was also taken aback by Jane Norton's work against the TBOR.  Buck is a conservative and a prosecutor, and I get the feeling we will see a Senate version of Chris Christie with him.  As for the govenror's side, Scott McInnis so far has proven to be a disaster since last month we found out he has habitually plagiarized articles he wrote in a paid fellowship.  His opponent Dan Maes offers nothing of substance.  There there is former Rep. Tom Tancredo, who is a strange oddity in Colorado.  While and arch conservative, he was supportive of state Sen. Josh Penry's bid for governor before he dropped out to run the Senate campaign of moderate Jane Norton.  Weird.  To be honest, Democrat nominee John Hickenlooper is pretty strong and if the Colorado GOP were smart they would just junk McInnis and Maes after today and run Tancredo.  But the rumor circling around now is that Norton might find herself as the GOP governor's nominee if she loses to Buck.  A Dick Wadhams . . . and we in Virginia though he could do no worse then Allen 2006.  Welcome to Colorado 2010.

Should be fun to see what happens tonight.