I had been planning to do this diary tonight and just saw that demandcaring was having the same thought here and that will cut out a good bit of what I've been wanting to put up so this will be an add-on to provide a few more details.  Go read the diary, I'll wait.

Ok, so now that we know the terms and have a general outline of what the offices look like we can talk about ways to have the most effect with your Reps.  

I've been a Legislative Assistant on the House side and now work for a Senate committee; just in case you're wondering what my particular perspective is.

A little background:

Kos posted a bit about Reid's first battle which is about how funding for staffing of Senate committees will be allocated.  Frist's position is that it should be allocated 66-33 R to D.  Dems believe it should be either 50-50 or at least 55-45, to reflect the electoral split.  Several commenters (including me) argued this was a big deal (because it determines how much of "bench" we have in DC, among other reasons), others argued Reid should trade away the allocations in exchage for a guarantee that Frist would not exercise the "Nuclear Option" on Judicial Filibusters (see below for explanation).  We were then led off on a tangent by one commenter who said the Republicans were just doing the same thing that Democrats did in 1975 citing this article.

Ah.  The Washington Times ...

I'm all for rubbing their noses in it a little bit but let's not get stuck in a feedback loop on who "won" the debate.  Everyone seems to acknowledge Kerry won the debate, now the Repubs will try to spin the conversation in a different direction.  Let's keep it on our own turf.  Remember, it was universally recognized that Gore "won" the first debate too, but a week later all we heard about were "troubling" aspects of his personality.  I have two reactions that I bet most here share and I think they represent the next phase of this conversation about the debates.

1. Only one guy on the stage last night seemed like a Commander-in-Chief, and it wasn't the guy currently in the post.  It was a shockingly unPresidential performance by Bush (seriously, I wonder if Bush is entirely okay).

2. Bush was frighteningly out-of-touch.  He seemed to have no idea what was going on in Iraq and had no idea what to do about bin Laden or protecting us from the nightmare nuclear scenario.  I doubt I'll get a wink of sleep over the next 4 years if Bush is elected.

You may have other thoughts but let's make sure we are talking about why Kerry won so that Bush's people have to defend their candidate's weaknesses rather than turn this into a process debate.

My dad, a strong Democrat, lives in some pretty heavily Red State territory and is always getting emails from his friends full of the latest BC2004 propoganda.  He often looks to me to rebut the lies in these things.  I'll do it but I wonder if I need to do all the research independently.  I've seen the Center for American Progress database, which is good, but I was wondering if anyone had taken on the project of being a kind of Snopes for Republican propoganda (I know the Dean Defense Forces did something like this).  Anyone know of something like this?  

If there isn't something right now, it would be great to get it going.  See extended entry for the text of the latest crap making the email rounds.

A funny thing happened as I passed through Union Station (DC, on the Hill) this morning.  I walked by a newstand on the bottom floor and a guy was giving away offering free copies of the NYT.  I hadn't read it yet today so I took a copy.  As I walked away, I glanced at the front page, which features a large picture of John Edwards after his speech at the convention last night, and a sticker advertising "The Manchurian Candidate" had been stuck on the picture so that Mr. Edwards's head was visible just above the picture.

It is not particularly weird to advertise a movie this way.  I've seen it before, usually with the WP, which is a lot cheaper, but it is a bit odd when you consider the content of the movie being advertised and the specific placement of the sticker.  

For those who don't know, "The Manchurian Candidate" is about a VP candidate who has been brainwashed as a "sleeper" for shadowy bad guys (in the original it was for Chinese communists, apparently in this version it is powerful corporations) who then conspire to kill the President and install their man as President.

It could be entirely innocent; after all, the movie opens tomorrow, but I don't see any versions of the NYT with I, Robot stickers on the cover.  

Lastly, whomever is doing this, it is an outrageously expensive way to advertise.  NYTs cost $1.00 each.  Frankly, I hope Scaife is behind it. It's an amazing waste of money.  

Just thought Kossites might find this story funny.