... whereas choosing a ScuttleButton puzzle winner each week is no mean feat. A thousand submissions. And I can only pick one. To make it even more difficult, they are chosen at random. Believe me, it's not easy.

One thing both have in common: in order to be selected, they need to know what they are doing.

Take ScuttleButton, for example. Just check out my button puzzle found on this blog each Friday. It's a rebus: Take one word or one concept per button, add 'em up, and arrive at a familiar saying or a name. (Seriously: a saying that people from Earth might be remotely familiar with.) Submit your answer and hope you're the person chosen at random. That's it!

Oh wait. You MUST include your name and city/state to be eligible.

Also, the answer does not necessarily have to be political. For instance, the answer to a puzzle awhile back was "Minnesota Twins" -- not political at all, unless you're thinking Mondale and Humphrey instead of Killebrew and Oliva.

Here are last week's buttons, in case you forgot:

Vote No Questions 1 & 2 -- From New York City's vote on the Civilian Review Board, in 1966, that would create an independent board monitoring police behavior. A "no" vote was to keep the board. Most people voted "yes."

IFS -- Stands for "I'm for Stoner," a/k/a Tom Stoner, who sought the GOP Senate nomination from Iowa in 1980 but lost in the primary 2-to-1 to then-Rep. Charles Grassley.

two buttons saying Re-elect Ms. Gov. (w/a photo of Texas Gov. Ann Richards) -- She lost to George W. Bush in 1994 after one term in office. (Remember: two buttons on the same horizontal line mean I'm looking for a plural answer.)

Bob Orr -- An Indiana Republican, he was elected governor in 1980.

Earl Butz for Governor -- Another Indiana Republican, he unsuccessfully sought his party's nomination in 1968.

So, when you add No + Ifs + Anns + Orr + Butz, you might end up with ...

No Ifs, Ands Or Buts. Here's the entry from the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms: "without excuses or doubts; 'If they catch you stealing, you're fired on the spot -- no ifs, ands, or buts about it.'"

This week's winner -- remember, chosen completely at random, unlike those Supreme Court folks, is (drum roll) ... Stephen Rockower of Bethesda, Md.

Stephen wanted to know if he could "get a sense of how many submissions you get, and how many are right? Am I 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100,000???"

The number of submissions are closer to 1,000 than 100,000. And this week, for the first time in history, there was not an incorrect submission to be found.

Wanna be alerted the moment a new ScuttleButton puzzle goes up on the site? (How can you NOT???) Sign up for our mailing list at politicaljunkie@npr.org.

UPDATE: Stephen, who is a doctor, wrote the following when he learned he won this week's contest: "This is better than the Medicare SGR fix!!!

The move comes after Stern and the SEIU, with its approximately 2 million members, played a pivotal role in congressional passage of health care legislation, which was President Obama's top priority.

There has been no official word why the 59-year old Stern is leaving, but there has been no shortage of speculation.

Much of it has been simply that it's been a stressful job, he's tired, and he's going out on top -- after not only health care but the election of a Democratic president he worked to put into office, as well as Obama's recess appointment of the union's lawyer, Craig Becker, to the National Labor Relations Board last month. Politico quoted an SEIU official acknowledging the above and saying, "Health care getting done is a good culmination."

Not everyone is convinced, and some of the theories are, well, a bit off the wall. The HotAir blog can't decide between whether "there's a scandal brewing and that he simply jumped before he was pushed," or whether he's in line for the Supreme Court opening. Regardless, there have been controversies.

Stern took over the SEIU in 1996 after his mentor, John Sweeney, left to head up the AFL-CIO (Sweeney has since been succeeded by Richard Trumka). But in 2005 he ruffled some feathers by taking the SEIU out of the AFL-CIO and created, along with the Teamsters, a rival federation called Change to Win. Still, CTW became a potent political force, spending some $60 million on behalf of Obama and the Democrats in 2008 and changing the image of organized labor from that of a dinosaur to new-found activism. Stern himself became a frequent visitor -- if not the most frequent -- to the White House in the past year, according to visitor logs.

As prominent as Stern has been, he has had his share of battles with others in the labor movement. He had a well-publicized and ugly battle with the National Union of Healthcare Workers in California last year, accusing them of trying to "sabotage" the SEIU, a turf war that others in the labor movement say was ill-advised and which he should have -- but did not -- back down from. According to the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, "While Stern ultimately emerged victorious, it was not without cost: $10 million in legal expenditures resulted in a settlement for roughly $750,000. There was, naturally, criticism of the use of member dues for this venture." It apparently took up much of his time in the past year and may have left him exhausted. In addition, he was accused of giving away too much during the health care negotiations. He publicly announced he would fund independent candidacies against Democrats who were elected with SEIU funds and still voted against health care. And, despite a Democratic Congress, there is still no timetable for a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act (known as "card check"), a labor priority.

There is also the possibility that more unions that left the AFL with Stern may decide to return to the fold. Unite Here, in a battle with the SEIU over organizing in the hotel sector, rejoined the AFL. This in turn could give Trumka, the labor federation's president, even more clout, at Stern's expense.

Most mentioned as the likely successor is Anna Burger, the executive director of Change to Win, but SEIU Executive Vice President Mary Kay Henry is also a contender.

A question on Coats' effort from Steve Carr of St. John's, Newfoundland, in Canada:

The Republican primary in Indiana includes a former senator trying to recapture his old seat. Grover Cleveland is of course the only one to pull this off at the presidential level, but how many senators have had split tenures in office?

There's only one in the current Senate: Frank Lautenberg. The New Jersey Democrat retired in 2000 after three terms but came back in 2002 when Sen. Robert Torricelli (D) bowed out of his re-election race at the last minute because of ethics problems.

Here's a less-clear cut example: In 1986, Kent Conrad, a Democrat running in North Dakota, pledged that if the budget deficit did not significantly go down during his term, he wouldn't run again. In 1992, he kept his promise. But later in the year, the state's senior senator, Quentin Burdick (D), died, and Conrad ran in the special election to replace him. I'm not sure if Conrad qualifies for this because there was no gap in his Senate service.

I can think of a bunch of others in the past who did what Coats is attempting to do, but this is hardly a complete list. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) left the Senate in 1964 to run for president -- he could have sought both jobs -- and was trounced by President Lyndon Johnson. Four years later, when Carl Hayden (D) retired, Goldwater was successful in his Senate comeback.

In Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey's first Senate tenure ended in 1964 after he was elected vice president along with President Johnson. Defeated in his own bid for the presidency in 1968, Humphrey came back and won a Senate seat in 1970 when Democratic incumbent Eugene McCarthy retired.

In Kentucky, Alben Barkley (D) served more than 20 years until he was tapped to be President Harry Truman's running mate in 1948. Six years later, two years after his term as VP was over, Barkley returned to the Senate, defeating interim GOP incumbent John Sherman Cooper. Barkley died in office in 1956 ... and Cooper won the special election to replace him.

Cooper also had an even more complicated career in the Senate. In 1945, Sen. Happy Chandler (D) resigned to become baseball commissioner. Cooper won the special election to replace Chandler in 1946, only to be defeated two years later by Democrat Virgil Chapman. Chapman then died in 1951, and Thomas Underwood (D) was appointed to replace him ... only to be defeated by Cooper in '52 ... who lost to Barkley in '54 ... but came back in '56.

I'm getting exhausted just typing this.

In Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. resigned his Senate seat in 1944 to fight in World War II. In 1946, he returned to the Senate by defeating Democratic incumbent David Walsh.

Ohio's Howard Metzenbaum (D) was appointed to fill a vacant seat in 1974 but served only a short time as he was defeated in the Democratic primary that same year by John Glenn -- reversing the results of the 1970 primary. In 1976, Metzenbaum then challenged GOP Sen. Robert Taft Jr., who had defeated Metzenbaum in '70, and beat him in the rematch.

Slade Gorton, a Republican from Washington, won a Senate seat in 1980 and lost it six years later. Then, in 1988, he won the other Senate seat, was re-elected in '94, and lost it in 2000.

Chapman Revercomb, a Republican from West Virginia, won a Senate seat in 1942 and lost it six years later. Then, in 1956, he won a special election for the other Senate seat, running on Ike's coattails, but lost it in the regular election two years later.

Dizzy? I know I am.

It is simplistic, of course, to define the GOP as the Party of No. But opposing President Obama's agenda, often with few defections, seems to be boosting the Republicans as they seek to shrink -- if not eliminate altogether -- the Democrats' control of Congress.

Now comes another hot-button issue on the Senate's plate: confirming Obama's choice of a successor to retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. As I wrote last week, it's not that the ideological balance of the court is at stake here; Stevens is a leader of the liberal wing and is expected to be replaced by someone with similar views.

But the Republicans will have to decide whether they want to fight the nominee, going so far as to threaten a filibuster if necessary, or abide by the maxim that "elections matter" and give Obama his way. The latter course was taken by the GOP in 1993, when President Clinton nominated a liberal to the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the Senate vote to confirm was an overwhelming 96-3. (The following year, Clinton's choice of Stephen Breyer for another vacancy won confirmation by a 87-9 vote.)

But then came President Bush and his Supreme Court nominees. Twenty-two Democrats voted against John Roberts in 2005 and 46 Democrats voted against Samuel Alito the following year. Republicans charged that Democrats were applying an ideological litmus test; Democrats in turn said that Bush was naming unacceptable rightwingers.

And so, when Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor to fill a court vacancy last year, 31 Republicans voted no.

Now comes the battle to replace Stevens. By all accounts, the three favorites are Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland. Also on the list, assuming there's a list, are Homeland Security Secretary (and former Arizona governor) Janet Napolitano and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

For now, Republicans seem to be leaning against a filibuster. On the Sunday talk-show gabfests, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona called a filibuster "unlikely" on ABC's "This Week," and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander said on "Fox News Sunday" he believes a qualified nominee should get an up-or-down vote. But, as reported by the Washington Post's Matthew DeLong, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, "said that whether the GOP filibusters Obama's eventual nominee is up to the president. Echoing his Republican colleagues, Sessions warned that if the pick does not fall within the mainstream, 'every power should be utilized to protect the Constitution.'"

For the record, Obama, as a senator, voted to filibuster the Alito nomination.

The president also has a decision to make. Will he, in the wake of his health care victory, feel emboldened to name a strong liberal? He will have to decide whether this would ignite a GOP/Tea Party revolt, while at the same time calculating whether the right will fight him no matter whom he chooses. And if he decides that's the case, then all bets are off. The alternative, of course, is that with an election on the horizon, will he go the safe route? (Of the three top choices, Garland is considered the safest pick; Wood, who has a voluminous paper trail on abortion, would be one that could lead to a protracted battle.)

An interesting column in Saturday's Washington Post by Ruth Marcus, who makes the case that no matter who is chosen, Obama "could well end his first term with a more conservative Supreme Court than the one he inherited." Indeed, Stevens himself has said that "including myself, every judge who's been appointed to the court" since 1971 -- with the exception of Ginsburg -- "has been more conservative than his or her predecessor."

I probably agree with this, with the possible exception of when David Souter was nominated in 1990; in that case, I don't think there was an ideological change.

Here's the record:

1971: Lewis Powell, a centrist (nominated by Nixon) -- replaced Hugo Black, a liberal.
1972: William Rehnquist, a conservative (Nixon) -- replaced John Harlan, a centrist.
1975: John Paul Stevens, a liberal (Ford) -- replaced William O. Douglas, more liberal than Stevens.
1981: Sandra Day O'Connor, a centrist (Reagan) -- replaced Potter Stewart, probably more liberal than O'Connor.
1986: Rehnquist (for Chief Justice) (Reagan) -- replaced Warren Burger, less conservative than Rehnquist.
1986: Antonin Scalia, a conservative (Reagan) -- replaced Rehnquist, who had become Chief Justice, and who is less conservative than Scalia.
1988: Anthony Kennedy, a moderate-conservative (Reagan) -- replaced Powell, a centrist.
1990: David Souter, a liberal (Bush I) -- replaced William Brennan, a liberal.
1991: Clarence Thomas, a conservative (Bush I) -- replaced Thurgood Marshall, a liberal.
1993: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal (Clinton) -- replaced Byron White, a moderate-conservative.
1994: Stephen Breyer, a moderate-liberal (Clinton) -- replaced Harry Blackmun, maybe slightly more liberal than Breyer.
2005: John Roberts, a conservative (for Chief Justice) (Bush II) -- replaced Rehnquist, perhaps nominally less conservative than Roberts.
2006: Samuel Alito, a conservative (Bush II) -- replaced O'Connor, a centrist.
2009: Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal (Obama) -- replaced Souter, perhaps more liberal than Sotomayor.

Vice President Lyndon Johnson became president. The Kennedy Cabinet became the Johnson Cabinet. There would be no vice president until after the 1964 election -- that wouldn't be remedied until 25th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1967. Still, the government went on.

As horrific as the Kennedy assassination was, I can't imagine how the people of Poland are dealing with the devastating news of Saturday's plane crash, which claimed the lives of the country's top political and military leadership, including President Lech Kaczynski and his wife, the deputy foreign minister, a former president, dozens of members of Parliament (including the deputy speaker), the head of the National Security Bureau, the army & navy chiefs of staff, and the president of the national bank. Ninety-seven died in all, including Anna Walentynowicz, the former dock worker whose firing in 1980 led to the famous Solidarity strike that ultimately ended communism in Poliand.

Adding to the horror and sadness was the fact that the plane, which crashed in western Russia, was on its way to commemorate the massacre of 20,000 members of Poland's officer corps by the Soviet secret police at Katyn Woods in 1940, following the Red Army's invasion of Poland. For those Poles of a certain age, it has been an image that has lasted a lifetime.

Poland, a country with new-found democratic institutions, will survive. Nonetheless, an indescribable and unfathomable tragedy.

I know, I know. It's Friday and where, you ask, is ScuttleButton?

It's been a crazy day, with lots of news and lots of meetings. But then again, it IS Friday. And that means only one thing.

But first, as always, the tutorial on how to play.

Every Friday on this blog, there are buttons displayed vertically. Simply take one word (or concept) per button, add 'em up, and, hopefully, you will arrive at a famous name or a familiar expression. (And seriously, by familiar, I mean it's something that more than one person on Earth would recognize.)

And don't focus on a political answer. It doesn't necessarily have to be political, though it could be.

A correct answer chosen at random gets his or her name in this column. Personally, I can't imagine a greater honor.

You can't use the comments box at the bottom of the page for your answer. Send submission (plus your name and city/state -- you won't win without that) to politicaljunkie@npr.org.

Click here for the answer to last week's puzzle.

And, by adding your name to the Political Junkie mailing list, you will be the first on your block to receive notice when a new puzzle goes up on the blog. Sign up at politicaljunkie@npr.org. Or you can make sure to get an automatic RSS feed whenever a new Junkie post goes up by clicking here.

Good luck, and happy Friday!

P.S. I usually reveal the answer -- and announce the winner -- in this space on Tuesdays. So you should get your answer in by then.

The problem we face now is that everyone seems to think the successor to John Paul Stevens will be Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, or one of two federal judges, Merrick Garland or Diane Wood.

And so here's the deal with this contest. If President Obama selects anyone of the above three, the winner will be chosen at random. If he picks someone else, and you correctly name that person, the first to do so wins.

This time, the winner gets a Nixon campaign button.

Send your prediction to politicaljunkie@npr.org.

Good luck!

The party faithful are discussing President Obama's performance in office -- guess what, they don't like what they see -- as well as talking about 2012. And whenever there is talk about 2012, the conversation quickly turns to Sarah Palin, who gave a speech there this afternoon.

Also worth pointing out are the potential White House wannabes who are not there -- such as Mitt Romney (book tour), Tim Pawlenty (though he will appear via video) and Mike Huckabee (focusing on his show on the Fox News Channel).

But it's not that Palin has the spotlight to herself. Other possible candidates are there as well, such as Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, fresh off his strawpoll victory at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier in the year. Also there is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was unsparing in his criticism of Obama. Here's Don's first-hand report:

Yesterday may have been somewhat low key, but there was no absence of red meat, mostly supplied by Gingrich and Liz Cheney ... A lot of the rhetoric I heard sounded straight out of Tea Party rallies ... Much was directed at Obama, with Gingrich saying Obama is running a "secular, socialist machine". Health care bill is "grotesque" (Gingrich) and "one of the most arrogant power plays in recent U.S. history" (Cheney). Gingrich also called Obama "the most radical president in history" and the "worst since Herbert Hoover." He "coddles" terrorists (Gingrich), while wanting to give them lawyers (Cheney). ... The audience, while friendly, was not raucous. I never witnessed a big standing ovation. Obviously they are waiting for today's speech by Palin [being given as this is posted].

The doors opened 90 minutes before her speech and the crowd literally rushed in, scurrying to get the best seats. To me it seemed like general admission to a rock concert at a sports arena. Every chair had a piece of caribou jerkey (teriyaki flavor), from Alaska, courtesy of SarahPac.

Outside two potential candidates not here have a presence. A woman with a Mitt Romney hat is working the crowd trying to win support for him in the straw poll (results come Saturday night). There is a HuckPAC booth promoting Mike Huckabee. There are also SarahPAC volunteers handing out small leaflets telling people to vote Palin.

Gingrich last night was coy when an audience member asked if he is running in 2012. He'll decide in February, he said. He insists the only thing that matters is working now to make sure Republicans make big gains at all levels in this year's elections.

There has been some buzz here about Michael Steele. The predominant feeling among people I've talked to so far is that it'll blow over ... that he's made mistakes, but it's not hurting the party in what they think will be a big, big year for the GOP. But some worry the Steele stuff is a distraction. I've heard worries that the party could be on the verge of a really big year if it weren't for Steele and the possibility of the GOP shooting itself in the foot.

Some also voiced concerns about Obama getting his "mojo" back. They remain confident they can beat him on the issues. But they also say his health care win was a reminder of how politically formidable he is, and to underestimate him would be fatal.

I was about to say that, although I've only been here one day, I have yet to hear any mention of Katrina. But Sarah Palin just mentioned it now.

Plus, as long as I'm making excuses, there were major scheduling conflicts at NPR yesterday and we only had a short amount of time in the studio. Hence, the shortest podcast in quite awhile.

Still, we managed to cover President Obama's week, the Bob McDonnell proclamation and subsequent update, the comebacking former governors, and the Republicans gathering in New Orleans:

Credits (as it were) --
Nonstop talkers: Ron Elving and Ken Rudin
Producer: Evie Stone
Editor: Cathy Shaw

Wanna subscribe to the podcast? You can do it through iTunes.

Wanna hear previous episodes? Click here.

Wanna be on my weekly mailing list? Sign up at politicaljunkie@npr.org.

Wanna follow my rantings on Twitter? Go to http://twitter.com/kenrudin.

Wanna join the "It's All Politics" Facebook fan page? Click here.

Wanna solve this week's ScuttleButton puzzle? It will be up soon!

In the Democratic primary runoff for the Senate seat being vacated by GOP incumbent Phil Gramm, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, an African-American, easily defeats schoolteacher Victor Morales, who waged an energetic, albeit unsuccessful, race against Gramm six years earlier.

Kirk, the first black Senate nominee in Texas history, will face state Attorney General John Cornyn, the Republican nominee, in November.

Democrats hope to sell Kirk, along with gubernatorial nominee Tony Sanchez, as part of a "Dream Team" that would appeal to black and Latino voters. But Kirk will lose to Cornyn, and Sanchez will be beaten by Gov. Rick Perry.

Kirk is currently the United States Trade Representative.

Flashback Friday is a weekly feature on Political Junkie.

Sign up for our weekly mailing list at politicaljunkie@npr.org.

The announcement is not a surprise; Stevens has been hinting at this for months now, and his decision to hire just one law clerk this term -- instead of the usual four -- was seen as an indication of his intentions.

By all accounts, the short list of potential successors are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who is 49, and federal appellate judges Merrick Garland (57) and Diane Wood (59). Kagan and Wood were runners-up last year to Sonia Sotomayor, named by Obama to replace the retiring David Souter.

Wood is seen as more liberal than Garland; Kagan's political leanings have not been determined. Stevens is a leader of the court's liberal wing.

And, as NPR's Nina Totenberg reported Thursday on Morning Edition, Stevens is the last remaining Protestant on the court, now dominated by six Catholics. Both Kagan and Garland are Jewish; Wood is Protestant.

There are few people who follow politics in this country who don't recognize his name.

That was not always the case. First elected in 1992, the 58-year old Democrat has been quiet in Washington, though popular at home, winning at least 65 percent of the vote in his last four contests. His anti-abortion and pro-gun views fit in with the voters in his vast, mostly rural district.

But he has also incurred the wrath of the pro-choice movement, which was furious over his insistence of strong anti-abortion language in the health care bill. His "Stupak amendment," passed by the House last November, was supported by 64 Democrats, along with 176 of 177 Republicans. It is quite possible the measure would have gone down to defeat without it. Supporters of abortion rights decided that Stupak should be punished for jeopardizing the legislation, working to recruit a candidate to oppose him in the August primary. Some went even further; hate mail arrived at his house, along with threatening phone calls. Connie Saltonstall, a former teacher and ex-Charlevoix County commissioner, announced her candidacy for the Democratic primary and promptly won the backing of such groups as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

Fast forward to last month, when the Stupak amendment was stripped out of the final House/Senate bill and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused Stupak's demands that the language be reinserted. Nonetheless, Stupak voted for the bill -- citing President Obama's agreeing to sign an executive order ensuring that no federal money can be used for elective abortions under the new bill.

Then it was the pro-life community that went ballistic. They saw Stupak's vote as a betrayal ... or worse. Similar, or worse, hate mail and phone calls ensued, this time from the right. Some of the language I saw on Web sites are beyond the pale, not fit to be reprinted here. A politically unknown Republican, surgeon Dan Benishek, jumped in the race and won over many Tea Party supporters; other GOP candidates are also in the race. Here's a Tea Party ad urging Stupak's defeat:

The barrage was apparently too much for Stupak.

Today he will announce his decision not to run again. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic broke the story this morning. Politico's Mike Allen & Josh Kraushaar report that Obama, Pelosi and other Democrats have called, pleading with him to run again.

Republicans, on the other hand, were gloating. Ken Spain, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said, "After selling his soul to Nancy Pelosi, it appears that Bart Stupak finally found the courage to tell her no. ... The political fallout over the Democrats' government takeover of healthcare has put the political careers of many Democrats in jeopardy thanks in-part to Stupak's decision to abandon his alleged pro-life principles."

The Tea Party Express, which was planning a pair of "Defeat Bart Stupak" rallies today, announced it would transform them into "victory parties for our supporters."

There will be a fierce fight for the seat, last held by a Republican in 1992, when Bob Davis retired after seven terms once the news broke of his House bank overdrafts. Politico lists several Democrats as potential candidates, including state Sens. Jim Barcia (a former congressman), Mike Prusi & Gary McDowell, and state Reps. Joel Sheltrown & Jeff Mayes.

The current makeup of the House is 253 Democrats, 177 Republicans, and five vacancies. Here's a look at the five open seats and the efforts underway to fill them.

APRIL 13: Florida 19 -- Robert Wexler (D) resigned 1/3/10 to join the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, a DC think tank.

Wexler had seven blow-out victories in his congressional career, and it's hard to imagine that state Sen. Ted Deutch (D) will not enjoy the same result on Tuesday. The district is heavily Democratic and went 65 percent for Barack Obama in 2008. That year the Republican candidate for the seat, Ed Lynch, got just 27 percent of the vote against Wexler. Lynch is running again and calling for repeal of the recently-enacted health-care legislation, in a district that includes many elderly voters who live in the condos lining up places like Boca Raton. But, as George Bennett of the Palm Beach Post reports, seniors "are the strongest opponents of the new health care bill, perhaps distrusting its promise to preserve Medicare benefits while squeezing $500 billion in savings from the senior health program." The story also says that Lynch is arguing that the district's large Jewish population "should be concerned by the Obama administration's stance toward Israel and its recent criticism of Israel for planning to build homes in a disputed area of Jerusalem."

It's hard to see that tactic working in this district, where most voters know that Deutch, who like Wexler is Jewish, has long been active in pro-Israel causes. Besides, Deutch argues the issue is not the Mideast but quality health care, and he says the new legislation will help the district's seniors.

Neither the NRCC nor the various Tea Party activists from the district have gotten involved in the campaign. Also on the ballot is another conservative, Jim McCormick, running on a "no party" line.

The Examiner's Daniel Tilson writes, correctly in my view, that Deutch is the "runaway favorite" in the race. But there's a "but":

The challenge for Deutch .. is not so much to win -- as that seems a foregone conclusion -- but instead to Win Big, to get folks to turn out in large numbers, to give him a landslide victory and send a strong message to the Florida Republican Party that the Democratic base is energized and ready to do battle come November.

Rating: Safe Democratic.

MAY 11: Georgia 09 -- Nathan Deal (R) resigned 3/21/10 to run for governor.

Deal's resignation was not as smooth as he would have liked; even though he's no longer in Congress, the Office of Congressional Ethics still admonished him for improperly using his office to help his family's auto salvage company. Deal denies any wrongdoing. In any event, all eight candidates seeking to replace him -- six Republicans, one Democrat and one independent -- run on the same ballot. If no one gets a majority of the vote, a runoff will be held June 8. The leading Republicans in this GOP-heavy district -- John McCain won 75 percent of the vote here in 2008 -- are state Sen. Lee Hawkins and state Rep. Tom Graves. The Democrat is Mike Freeman, a retired pastor.

Rating: Safe Republican.

MAY 18: Pennsylvania 12 -- John Murtha (D) died 2/8/10.

Following Murtha's death, a slew of famous Democratic politicians -- notably former state Treasurer & Auditor General Barbara Hafer and former Lt. Gov. Mark Singel -- announced they were in the race to succeed him. But all dropped out, leaving Mark Critz, a top Murtha aide, as the party's nominee. Tim Burns, a businessman, is the Republican candidate. Both candidates are already on the air, with Critz talking about the economy and Murtha, and Burns talking about his conservative views on abortion, faith and guns. The district leans Democratic but is certainly culturally conservative; if memory serves, Murtha called people here "racists" and "rednecks." With big Democratic primaries for the Senate and governor on the same day -- the GOP statewide slate is already set -- some think there could be a larger Dem turnout on the 18th.

Rating: Tossup.

MAY 22: Hawaii 01 -- Neil Abercrombie (D) resigned 2/28/10 to run for governor.

Republicans think they can pull off a Scott Brown-like surprise here. All candidates in the special election run on the same ballot, so the GOP is hoping that the two major Democrats in the race -- ex-Rep. Ed Case and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa -- will split the vote and allow the Republican candidate, Honolulu City Councilmember Charles Djou, to win. Previous efforts to get either Case, who gave up his 2nd CD House seat in 2006 to challenge Sen. Dan Akaka in the primary, or Hanabusa to drop out went nowhere, so the DCCC instead decided to just go after Djou with negative ads.

The only Republican to ever capture this seat was Pat Saiki, who won the first of her two terms in 1986 because the Democrats beat each other up.

Politico's Ben Smith is reporting that the DCCC is working behind the scenes on behalf of Case, figuring him to be the stronger candidate than Hanabusa, who is seen by some as too liberal. That has left Asian-American Democrats furious, and many resent the involvement in the primary by the DCCC. Meanwhile, there seems to be lingering resentment directed at Case for having challenged Akaka for his Senate seat, and aides to veteran Sen. Dan Inouye (D) are working on Hanabusa's behalf.

Rating: Leans Democratic.

NO DATE SET: New York 29 -- Eric Massa (D) resigned 3/8/10 following the revelation of a sex scandal.

Democrats did very well in upstate New York special elections in 2009, retaining the Republican-leaning seat vacated by Kirsten Gillibrand (D) and picking up the historically GOP seat of now-Army Secretary John McHugh (R). Early predictions in both specials had the Republicans ahead. And so while one might think it risky to even speculate on who would be favored in the race to succeed Massa, who resigned following reports he had sexually harassed a male staffer, nearly everyone seems to feel that this is Republican territory ... that if they can't win here, they can't win anywhere.

But now, lo and behold, there seems to be signals being sent from Gov. David Paterson's (D) office that there won't be a special election for Massa's seat because the state is already hurting for cash, and a special would cost some $750,000 or so.

Republicans are not buying that argument, saying that Paterson and the Dems just don't want to give the GOP the opportunity to brag about what appears to be a solid chance of a pickup. The Republican candidate, former Corning Mayor Tom Reed, is hopeful that Paterson will change his mind, but for now it looks like the seat won't be filled until November -- when Democrats are likely to retain the governorship and both Senate seats.

An editorial in the Monroe Messenger Post -- a paper I often cite -- says there is "no excuse" for the seat to go without a special election "right now." Failure to call for a special election would be "politically expedient" for the Dems" but also "unfair" to the residents of the district. to the 650,000 or so residents of the district, who are not currently represented in the House":

Schedule the election. As soon as possible. And may the best candidate win. Democrats may not be satisfied with the outcome. Perhaps it's Republicans who won't be satisfied. But all voters -- Democratic and Republican -- deserve the satisfaction of having their say at the ballot box.

An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle agrees:

Despite the unbudgeted costs and logistical issues, political representation during this tumultuous time in Congress is needed. Job creation, finance reform, immigration issues, agricultural subsidies and the distribution of federal stimulus monies are just a few of the agenda items.

With Massa's resignation just two weeks before the health care reform vote, the district missed out on important representation.

By delaying a decision, the Democratic governor adds fuel to the charges that politics are at play. Voter enrollment in the district is 42 percent Republican and 31 percent Democrat.

Paterson shouldn't wait another day. Given New York's sputtering economy, it's important for citizens in the 29th district to have a voice.

The Democratic candidate, whenever the race is held, will be Matthew Zeller, who served with the Army in Afghanistan.

Rating: Republican favored.

I think of myself as a "Congress watcher" but I keep coming across members of Congress from Louisiana and I have no idea who they are. Was there a statewide special election and I was asleep? Who are these guys?

Well, a lot depends on how long you were sleeping. Here's a quick look at the seven members of the Louisiana House delegation and how they got there:

1st CD -- Steve Scalise (R). Seat was long held by Bob Livingston (R), who resigned in 1999 and was succeeded in a special election by David Vitter (R). Vitter left the seat to run for the Senate in 2004 and was succeeded by Bobby Jindal (R). When Jindal was elected governor, on his second try, in 2007, Scalise won the special election to replace him.

2nd CD -- Anh "Joseph" Cao (R). Cao defeated longtime Rep. Bill Jefferson (D), who was mired in scandal, in 2008.

3rd CD -- Charlie Melancon (D). When Billy Tauzin (R) decided to retire in 2004, Melancon beat his son, Billy III, by 569 votes, in the closest House election of the year. Melancon is vacating the seat this year to challenge Vitter for his Senate seat.

4th CD -- John Fleming (R). Fleming won the seat vacated in 2008 by Republican Jim McCrery by just 350 votes.

5th CD -- Rodney Alexander (R). Back in 1992, a new district, then the 4th, was created, and it was won by Cleo Fields (D), an African-American. In January 1996, the state's congressional lines were redrawn after a federal three-judge panel ruled that this district was unconstitutionally configured to elect a black candidate. Fields, who unsuccessfully ran for governor the year before, decided not to compete in the new CD and retired. John Cooksey (R) won the seat in the '96 election but gave it up six years later in a losing bid for the Senate. Alexander, then a Democrat, succeeded him that year, but his margin of victory was just 974 votes. Immediately prior to the filing deadline in 2004, Alexander switched to the GOP and has won re-election handily ever since.

6th CD -- Bill Cassidy (R). After Richard Baker (R) resigned in February 2008 to become a lobbyist, Democrat Don Cazayoux defeated Republican Woody Jenkins in a widely-followed special May election to succeed him. But Cazayoux's career in the House was brief, losing in November of that year to Cassidy.

7th CD -- Charles Boustany (R). Boustany won the seat in 2004 when the incumbent, Democrat Chris John, made an unsuccessful bid for the Senate.

But I'm not sure I understand why Gov. Bob McDonnell decided, after an eight-year absence in the Old Dominion, to declare April as Confederate History Month.

It's not as if he was having trouble with his conservative base; I haven't heard a single supporter imply he was a faux conservative or, even more improbable, a RINO. It's not as if he needed to make this move to help his bid for re-election in 2013, because Virginia bars its governors from seeking a second consecutive term. I just don't understand why he decided to do it, and why now.

The mostly symbolic proclamation was initiated by Republican Gov. George Allen in 1997. But since 2001 -- since the elections of Democratic Govs. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- Confederate History Month was no longer observed in Virginia. McDonnell decided to reverse course, insisting that the observation would help promote tourism in the state, which marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the war next year.

But here's where the controversy becomes even more controversial. Gov. Jim Gilmore, a Republican who succeeded Allen, added anti-slavery language to the resolution. As reported today by the Washington Post's Anita Kumar & Rosalind Helderman, the move "failed to satisfy either defenders of Confederate heritage or civil rights leaders. He later changed the proclamation by dropping references to Confederate History Month and instead designated April as 'Virginia's Month for Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians Who Served in the Civil War.'"

But, as the Post article notes, McDonnell decided to leave out the Gilmore language because, in the governor's words, "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

Supporters, such as ex-state GOP chair Patrick McSweeney, were pleased. "I applaud McDonnell for doing it," McSweeney said. "I think it takes a certain amount of courage."

Civil rights organizations and black politicians reacted with fury. Former Gov. Douglas Wilder, whose victory in 1989 made him the nation's first African-American governor elected by the voters -- and whose official neutrality during last year's gubernatorial campaign helped McDonnell's cause -- called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that the anti-slavery language was dropped. More Wilder:

Confederate history is full of many things that unfortunately are not put forth in a proclamation of this kind nor are they things that anyone wants to celebrate. It's one thing to sound a cause of rallying a base. But it's quite another to distort history.

Sheila Johnson, the co-founder of Black Entertainment Television and a Democrat whose endorsement of McDonnell last year was seen as a major event, was furious with the governor's proclamation:

I must condemn Governor McDonnell's Proclamation honoring "Confederate History Month," and its insensitive disregard of Virginia's complicated and painful history, the remnants of which many Virginians still wrestle with today.

The complete omission of slavery from an official government document, which purports to be a call for Virginians to "understand" and "study"' their history, is both academically flawed and personally offensive. If Virginians are to celebrate their "shared history," as this proclamation suggests, then the whole truth of this history must be recognized and not evaded.

Indeed, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, another McDonnell backer in '09, had this to say:

Although his proclamation quite properly recognizes the sacrifices of those who fought on behalf of the Confederacy, a hole lies in the statement's heart.

McDonnell speaks of shared history, yet does not cite slaves. Southern heritage includes not only those who supported the Confederacy but those who welcomed the Union armies as liberators.

McDonnell recognizes that the past must be interpreted within the context not only of its times but of ours. The inexcusable omission reduces the slaves and their descendants to invisibility once again.

David Weigel, blogging at the Washington Post's Right Now, reminds us that back in 2002, then-state Del. McDonnell decided to use a pledge written by the United Daughters of the Confederacy to open sessions of the House of Delegates. As per Weigel, here's how the Post covered the news back in '02:

McDonnell ... said he regards it as a "wholesome and healthy and patriotic" message. He said the intent was not to be divisive, and urged members to take the salute's words at face value.

"We don't inquire about the values and the feelings and the backgrounds of a patron of a bill," he said. "We look at what the legislation says. Where does that stop? Will we have to distance ourselves from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence because they were written by slave-owners?"

Weigel adds, as a postscript: "As much of a no-brainer as it looks to conservatives, you couple it with the Confederate History Month declaration and it makes it just a little tougher to see McDonnell as a national candidate in 2012 or 2016."

Politico's Ben Smith says McDonnell's decision is "just about the last thing the Republican Party wants to talk about right now," and he's right. Forget about the circus involving Michael Steele and the RNC. The McDonnell decree comes not only in the wake of the election of the nation's first black president -- a decision Virginia agreed with -- but, in more recent terms, after the spectacle of racial epithets being hurled at some members of Congress during last month's vote on health care.

As I said when I began this post, I understand the pull of the Civil War on Virginians. I just don't understand why McDonnell felt now was the time to bring back the proclamation. If at all.

UPDATE: Talking Points Memo is reporting that McDonnell has apologized for not including any mention of slavery in his proclamation and added an extra clause to it. Here's the governor's statement, as released by his office:

The proclamation issued by this Office designating April as Confederate History Month contained a major omission. The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed. The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War. Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation. In 2007, the Virginia General Assembly approved a formal statement of "profound regret" for the Commonwealth's history of slavery, which was the right thing to do.

And here's the added language to the proclamation:

WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history.....