Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.- Otto von Bismarck

If you are an idealist, the world will eventually break your heart. Nowhere is this more certain than in the arena of politics. For those that thought a Democratic 110th Congress would end this Iraq War or instigate impeachment hearings against this administration, frustration is beginning to set in. But any journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. Different bloggers are showing their frustration in different ways: Matt Stoller reminds his readers, "keep in mind, the public hates George Bush, and the public hates this war". That is true. And it means very little at the moment. Chris Bowers laments, "The New York Times reports what I knew since Thursday evening: progressive opposition to the supplemental is fading badly, and the current form of the bill is going to be the best we can do for now." Bowers wonders if the Progressives might not be making the correct parliamentary move by caving (see: sausages, broken hearts).

Here is how Nanette put it.

There is a huge gulf between those that want a tweak... and those that feel that what is really needed is a change. Most of the kos and kos satellite blogs - bootrib, fdl, mydd, mlw to a lesser extent, etc - and participants are tweakers. They've convinced themselves (especially the mydd'ers... good god) that, yes, they really can be THE progressive movement, even if their ranks are made up of primarily comfortably well off white males. Tweakers. A mile wide and an inch deep... because, as I mentioned to Stoller, when whatever burr is in their hide (war in iraq, Bush in white house, etc) is removed, the slightly discomforted will be comfortable again and go on with their lives.

Ellen O. Tauscher (CA-10) decided to do a preemptive counterattack against the left-wing of the Democratic Party the week before the elections. Maybe she is trying to reassure Boeing, Wal-Mart, and Pfizer that the new wave of Democrats will be every bit the lap-dogs of their industries that Tom DeLay and the K Street project have been. Maybe she is just a stupid person. But we don't need this fight right now. Here Is what she said.

Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.

"I think there's tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love," Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something "we've got to fight."

That set Matt Stoller off here. And then Chris Bowers went off here and here.

They are not so much overreacting as they are stepping on this week's message. I am reminded of a Buddhist aphorism. A young monk and an old monk come to a stream where an attractive young lady is crying. Her leg has been badly injured and she cannot forge across the stream. The young monk says that they are prohibited from touching a woman and that he is sorry but they cannot help her. The old monk says, "Get on my back", and helps her across the stream. After the woman goes on her way, the young monk is outraged and asks the old monk how he could have done such a thing. The old monk turns to the young monk and says, "I have already put her down and you are still carrying her."

::

I am going to do something unusual here and ask someone else to do some research. But first I want to set up a scenario that I think is being ignored by the blogosphere.

A lot of people are suspicious that Joe Lieberman, if he wins re-election, will caucus with the GOP. I don't think that is very likely unless a very specific set of circumstances takes place. If Joe Lieberman is denied seniority by the Democratic caucus he will seriously consider caucusing with the Republican Party. But, knowing that, the Democrats will not deny Lieberman seniority unless they can afford to lose his vote and still maintain a majority. That means, the Dems would only consider stripping Lieberman of his seniority if they have a majority of 52. To get a majority of 52, the Dems would need to pick up seven seats. In order of likelihood, these are the seats we could pick up: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Arizona.

With news that the Feds have "conducted six raids this morning - including at the homes of [Curt Weldon's (PA-07)] daughter and a longtime friend", I thought I might remind people just how crazy Weldon is.

Here's a picture of Rep. Curt Weldon (R, PA-07) giving a plaque to Moammar Qaddafi.

Bumped from the diaries -- Jonathan... I don't necessarily see all of the committee assignments going similarly (I don't see two freshmen on Finance, for instance), but this is a very compelling study.

What would the Senate look like if the Democrats took it over? I have tried to figure it out. To do so, I analyzed the current committee positions of every Democrat, and the background of the most likely new Democrats that would be part of a takeover. For the purposes of my study I made the following optimistic assumptions:

1. That Robert Menendez will hold his seat in NJ.
2. That Bernie Sanders will replace Jim Jeffords in VT.
3. That Amy Klobuchar will replace Mark Dayton in Minnesota.
4. That Ben Cardin will win the Maryland primary and replace Paul Sarbanes.
5. That all incumbent Democrats will win.
6. That Ned Lamont will knock out Joe Lieberman.
7. That the following Democrats will knock out incumbent Republicans: Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee, Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island, Jon Tester in Montana, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Jim Webb in Virginia, and Bob Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania.

If all that happens, the Democrats will have a 51-48 advanatage with Bernie Sanders in our caucus. I still have hopes for Pederson in Arizona and Carter in Nevada, but I did not include them.

My methodology assumes that no Senator can be the head of two committees at the same time. This required some adjustments. Max Baucus is the ranking member on both Finance and Environment. I gave him Finance. That elevated Barbara Boxer to the chairperson position on Environment. Paul Sarbanes is the ranking member on Banking. He is retiring. That elevated Chris Dodd to the ranking member. He is also the ranking member on Rules. I gave him banking and elevated Diane Feinstein to the chairperson on Rules. Joe Lieberman is the ranking member on Homeland Security. The next is line is Carl Levin. He has Armed Services. I left him there. After him comes Daniel Akaka who is the ranking member on Veteran's Affairs. I left him with Veteran's Affairs and elevated the next in line, Tom Carper, to chair Homeland Security.

All other committees simply flipped from the current Republican to the current ranking Democrat.

For all the new Democratic chairpersons I list the Republican they will be replacing.

Taking a quick look at my work it seems obvious that the most glaring advantages and dramatic improvements will be made in the Judiciary, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committees. According to my projections, three Senators will acquire committees who are not even ranking members at the moment. Two of them are women. Check out my handywork below the fold and tell me what you think, and how it bodes for the country. All committees are listed in terms of seniority. And, in so far as possible (excepting committee chairs) I have aimed to have each Senator sit on at least 4 committees. Evan Bayh currently sits on six. He is the hardest working member of Congress.

True freshman are bolded.

WILLIAMS: Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president, who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys who worked for him are not happy with the direction of things.

BUSH: Oh no. My relationship is adoring son.

WILLIAMS: You talk shop?

BUSH: Sometimes, yeah, of course we do. But it's a really interesting question, it's kind of conspiracy theory at its most rampant. My dad means the world to me, as a loving dad. He gave me the greatest gift a father can give a child, which is unconditional love. And yeah, we go out and can float around there trying to catch some fish, and chat and talk, but he understands what it means to be president. He understands that often times I have information that he doesn't have. And he understands how difficult the world is today. And I explain my strategy to him, I explain exactly what I just explained to you back there how I view the current tensions, and he takes it on board, and leaves me with this thought, "I love you son."

Many, many fathers have had the misfortune to raise slow-witted sons. We can all picture the inner sadness they feel as they realize their child is never going to be able to make it in the world without assistance.

Sometimes, when they have just endured a particularly revealing example of their son's shallowness of thought, they must suppress a sigh, rest a reassuring hand on the shoulder, and say, "I love you son."

It even happens to Presidents and ex-Presidents. It is a bit strange to hear George W. Bush talk about it though. Evidently, he is unselfconscious about his ineptitude in the eyes of his father.

And what kind of worldview did George put to Poppy?