Michael Grunwald in his Time article discusses why this runoff election is important, writing:

Sixty seats would be better for the Democrats than 59, which would be better for the Democrats than 58. Six years is also a long time. In fact, Georgia is still an extremely conservative state, so if Chambliss can win at a time when the Republican Party is at its lowest ebb, he can probably hold his seat as long as he wants — which would be good news for Bush-style Republicans and bad news for Obama-style Democrats, no matter who is in power.

I’m not sure a “filibuster-proof 60-seat majority” for the Democrats is necessarily a good thing. I mean, too much power to one person, group, or organization rarely turns out well. However, with the state of the economy, the environment, and international affairs, it seems that a radical solution is necessary.

That will be unlikely with a business-as-usual Congress. In many ways, Georgians like business-as-usual in their politics, religion, environment, and social institutions. According to Grunwald’s assessment, Chambliss seems the most likely to give them what they want:

He has supported the administration on just about everything but its efforts to rein in outrageous farm subsidies. He is so tight with the sugar industry that he attacked a whistleblower who reported safety problems after an explosion at a Georgia mill killed 14 people. He has been an ardent supporter of sending American troops into harm’s way even though he avoided serving in Vietnam through student deferments, as well as an allegedly bum knee that hasn’t hampered his reputation as one of the best golfers in Congress. . . . Like many Republicans in Washington, Chambliss has trumpeted the idea that the GOP’s electoral difficulties are the result of insufficient conservatism, and can only be reversed by a stronger defense of traditional values and more consistent opposition to government spending. But it’s not as if Republicans in Washington have failed to defend traditional values; they got two conservative justices on the Supreme Court, passed all kinds of laws restricting abortion and stem-cell research, and practically shut down the government to try to save Terri Schiavo. And while it is true that Republicans spent taxpayer dollars like drunken sailors when they controlled all three branches of government – Chambliss was not a notable abstainer – there is little evidence that Americans soured on the GOP because of its profligacy. They don’t seem to be crying out for austerity and deregulation.

A Chambliss victory would just reemphasize Georgia’s commitment to Bush-Cheney conservativism and remind the country that we prefer business-as-usual. On the other hand, if Jim Martin were elected, it would prove that Georgia is aware of the precarious state of the union that the current adminstration has left us with, and that we need to change our attitudes and practices if the US — indeed, the world — is to survive.

Georgians, go vote. Prove me wrong.

During the early results, I was embarrassed by GA: McCain seemed to have a significant early lead. However, as the night went one, that gap slowly narrowed. Georgia did ultimately go to McCain, but there are a number of islands of blue in that sea of red — more than in 2004.

Also, a runoff between Chambliss and Martin is rumored. Like McCain’s early numbers, Chambliss appeared to have Martin on the run, but those numbers are now too tight to call. If Chambliss does not get 50%, then a runoff is required by law.

Finally, Jim Marshall was able to hold his seat in the House, no small feat for a Dem in Central Georgia. Way to go, Jim!

Keep working. We’re almost there. See more at Pollster.

I can’t keep up with everything that’s going on. I’m in the middle of a couple of projects, so I really haven’t had time to write, not that anyone reads my blog anyway.

Still, Palin is messing up again, and it has not escaped the media. Finally, the conservative, right-wing media is showing McCain’s running mate choice is not a good one. Her interview with Katie Couric could have gone better. I won’t say anymore; the video speaks for itself.

Oops, that was SNL, but you get the idea.

Does anyone else think John McCain treated Obama poorly during the first debate? He wouldn’t look at or listen to him. Obama is being criticized for agreeing with some of McCain’s points, while the latter sounded like a broken record: “What Obama obviously doesn’t understand…” Well, it seemed to me that Obama understood very well, and that you don’t know how to listen, McCain. You were an arrogant jerk, and I can’t imagine you as our president. Haven’t we had enough of that with Dubya? Do we really want our president to become hostile and defensive to folks who don’t agree with him? Haven’t we had enough of that with Dubya? Despite with the pundits in the elitist conservative media say: Obama was cool, gracious, smart, and victorious.

Now, they’re saying that Palin could actually win the VP debate if Biden talks down to her? Are you kidding me?

If we can’t, after all is said and done, make this election go the right way, at least we can save one man. I’m talking about young Master Levi Johnston. He’s the 18-year-old Alaskan hockey enthusiast who knocked up Sarah Palin’s daughter, and the National Enquirer describes him as “a boozing pot-smoker who doesn’t want to get married” — and John McCain thinks he found his soul mate!

We’ve all recently seen how evil henchman of the Republican party captured this poor innocent out of his natural habitat and forced him into a shotgun wedding, all so that their campaign narrative of fake family values could be upheld. When the 17-year-old daughter of the vice presidential candidate running on the Jesus ticket is “out to here,” it’s just better that Levi was introduced as the “fiancé.” Looks a little less white trashy.

Read more at Free Levi.

SNL is back, and they started strong. I knew Tina Fey would respond in some way.

One of my other Flickr buddies Jim sent me a recent Newsweek article, also about Palin and the GOP’s surprising support of her. Quindlen writes that the “conservatives have probably used the word ‘sexist’ more in the past week than they have in the past 50 years” in support of Palin. However, it’s a bunch of crap.

This would all have been entertaining if it were not such rank hypocrisy. These are people who have inveighed against affirmative action, a version of which undoubtedly played a part in this selection. These are people who inveighed against personal attacks on their new nominee when the wingnuts of their own party elevated such attacks to a fine art by accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of fictitious misdeeds ranging from treason to murder. To try to suggest Sarah Palin might garner the Hillary Clinton vote, that one woman is just the same as another, that biology trumps ideology, is the ultimate evidence of true sexism, and I hope Senator Clinton will travel the country and say so.

One might also suggest that the GOP still wishes to roll back the clock, but as Quinlen goes on to say “expediency is an astonishing thing.” Again, I state: the irony. Be sure you read the whole article; it’s worth it.

Thanks to Jon for bringing this one to my attention. Nicely done.