Why did GOP candidate Tan Nguyen, running for Congress in Orange County, California against Rep. Loretta Sanchez, pony up money for a list of Democratic voters? One possibility: to discourage foreign-born Democrats from voting by advising them in a letter that it's illegal for immigrants to vote. That bit of advice is a lie, of course -- immigrants who are citizens have the same voting rights as Americans who are citizens by birth -- but Nguyen refuses to take responsibility for the letter. He blames his office manager while disavowing any knowledge of the use to which the mailing list was put.

Finger pointing and playing the blame game is a Republican way of life, but in this instance, not a very effective one.

In an interview today, Orange County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh said representatives of the Huntington Beach mail house that produced the letter told him that Nguyen was directly involved with the letter, calling and asking that it be sent out as soon as possible.

A new Wall St. Journal/ NBC Poll finds support for Republicans in Congress has dropped to 16%, its lowest level in the 12 years they've been in power.

Public support for Republicans' control of the U.S. Congress has eroded to its lowest point since the party took over 12 years ago. And with just 19 days until the midterm elections, both President George W. Bush and his party are in worse shape with voters than Democrats were in the October before they lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994.

A big factor is scandals, both corruption and sex.

By 52% to 37%, voters say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress after the Nov. 7 election. That wide 15-point Democratic advantage is another record in the history of the Journal/NBC poll.

What does it mean? I'd say watch for Republicans to pull all the dirty tricks they can in the next two weeks.

"I think I'd just commit suicide." -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), quote by Radio Iowa, on what he would do if Democrats take control of the U.S. Senate.

Bipartisanship McCain/Lieberman style, Republicans tell Dems what to do.

H/T Political Wire.

As Jeralyn writes, our current Congress is the worst in a long time. A bad combination with the worst President and worst Media. This, it is quite strange that Kevin Drum would pooh pooh the importance of a Democratic Congress:

So what happens if Democrats win control of Congress in November? Conservative Bruce Bartlett says, nothing much. At the Washington Post, liberal Harold Meyerson mostly agrees. He says the Democratic agenda will be pretty much what you'd expect:

It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

That ain't chopped liver. Moreover, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of this:

Democrats will have considerably more oversight power, even if Republicans did gut the oversight staff when they took over a decade ago. And not a moment too soon.

This is by far the most important result of a Democratic Congress and for Kevin to note it in passing as "nothing much" is, well, not sharp.

Matt Taibi writes on The Worst Congress Ever in Rolling Stone. The tag line says it all:

How our national legislature has become a stable of thieves and perverts -- in five easy steps.

Here's RS's list of the 10 worst Congressmen.

Seems pretty clear to us this cynical tactic [discussing Schlesinger's debate performance] is part of a coordinated strategy -- and that it will fall as flat as the rest of Ned's general election campaign.   The next logical step will be for Ned and his more wealthy friends to start funneling money to Schlesinger to try to get him on television.

Whoa! Does Lieberman really want to talk about who is funding campaigns? The fact is that Schlesinger was the surprise star of that debate, and to be frank, I was as surprised as Lieberman was. But that is just a lucky break for Lamont. There is nothing Lamont can do to help Schlesinger. As before, Lamont must make Lieberman pay a political price with Democrats for his Bush and GOP support. If Schlesinger can make Lieberman pay on the Right, so much the better for Lamont, but that is out of Lamont's control. Joe's careful Republican dance became more difficult yesterday. Tomorrow, another debate in Connecticut will make watching Joe dance even more entertaining.

Lieberman has said he will not endorse Democratic candidates because he understands that his candidacy has put Democratic candidates in an awkward position, and has said he would stay out of their races.

Excuse me? Lieberman's candidacy has hurt Democratic candidates in Connecticut but his endorsement could mitigate that damage.

The harm he wishes to avoid is to his Lieberman for Lieberman candidacy. The Lie in Lieberman - everyday. Have any doubt that Lieberman is now fighting for Republicans? This flip flop should put them to rest:

"I see no reason not to be for [John] Bolton [as UN Ambassador]," Lieberman told a meeting of the Daily News Editorial Board.

Lieberman, when fishing for Dem votes earlier this year, voted to filibuster Bolton's nomination.

A new poll commissioned by NPR, and conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows Democrats are in position to take back the House of Representatives.

Asked whom they'd vote for in their congressional district, 51 percent said they would pick the Democratic candidate and 40 percent would vote for the Republican. The remaining 9 percent were undecided or declined to answer. And a majority of moderates -- 59 percent -- said they plan to vote for Democrats running for Congress.

The results are almost identical to one taken last week for Democracy Corps.

Strategists and electoral observers, Democrats especially, may now start claiming that the very fact that Republicans are having to defend seats in these [Red] states -- two of them southern states, no less -- confirms the genius of the idea of running everywhere with equal vigor . . . But this is crap. Looking at the two southern races, Tennessee is an open seat with a strong, smart, dynamic Democratic candidate running in a clear, Democratic tailwind cycle, and yet Harold Ford's lead is still within the margin of error. . . . . Virginia's race has featured one of the most disaster-prone, self-destructive Republican candidacies in modern electoral history in a clear, Democratic tailwind cycle, and yet Jim Webb still trails.

But Schaller is wrong on his own terms, which, in any event, completely misunderstands the 50 state strategy. I'll explain on the flip.

(By Big Tent Democrat)

Today at 1 p.m. EST is the first of three Connecticut Senate Debstes with Ned Lamont, the Democrat candidate, Joe Lieberman, the de facto Republican candidate and Alan Schlesinger, the forlorn and abandoned Republican candidate.

If you are as interested in this race as I am, you'll want to tune in here and you can via the Internet if you are not in Connecticut.

From Big Tent Democrat

Arianna writes what a lot of people have been thinking, including me:

It is bitterly ironic that instead of building on that momentum by continuing to make his case against Lieberman, Lamont has let himself become enmeshed in the same consultant-driven culture of caution and blandness that has produced a steady stream of modern candidates more worried about stepping on the land mines laid out by their opponents' campaign teams than stepping forward to lead.

(From Big Tent Democrat)

This is hardly surprising:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives. . . . "Uh, I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer," Lieberman said, as though Democrats' strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn't been the fall's top political story.

. . . On the campaign trail, Lieberman's message has changed since the primary, when he stressed his party credentials as a vice presidential nominee and presidential candidate who opposed Bush. His target then was Democratic voters antagonistic to the war and disdainful of Bush. . . . Lieberman relies on talking points more often sounded by the Bush White House than Democratic congressional candidates, invoking patriotism and America's need to be vigilant in a dangerous world.

The question is why in the world any Democrat would support this Bush enabling de facto Republican?