Why special elections are not much better

You know, I'm starting to have a geriatric crush on Ed Rendell. The Governor of Pennsylvania just knows politics like the back of his hand and is able to tell it like it is.

In the wake of the human circuses that have been the appointments of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's Senate seats, Sen. Russ Feingold (another personal fav) has proposed legislation that would mandate special elections to fill replacement Senate seats, not gubernatorial appointments. Seems like SUCH a great idea right? Let the PEOPLE decide!

Wrong, says Gov. Rendell. He explained on MSNBC that, in actuality, the political parties would be choosing the replacement. There would not be time for open primaries in these cases, so the state GOP would choose one candidate, and the state Democratic party would choose one candidate. In a state like New York, that is all but assuring the Democratic party is choosing your next Senator. And does that sound much better to you?

More on the "Bush kept us safe" meme.

I just needed to share this blurb from The Brad Blog, commenting on the current assertion that "Bush kept us safe". I was doing the math in my head the other day, and I couldn't figure out how someone who was responsible for so much war death could be seen as "keeping us safe".

Counting only the dead (and only the American dead, in this case, since estimates of violent Iraqi civilian fatalities during the war are currently estimated to be anywhere from a conservative 150,000 to more than 1,000,000) that totals 4,245 Americans killed by terrorists, or in optional conflicts with terrorists, since 9/11.

"Bush kept us safe"?

You can read the full text here. Brad has some other figures that put the whole argument into stark perspective.