Might as well mention this as well.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm
/tin foil hat on
Yes! Do it Karl! Do it! 
Anyone know if that story is even true? A cite from a left-wing soruce is hardly convincing, especially since it’s unclear that the committee will even be voting on anything.
Has Insight changed owners recently? Is it not still a right-wing rag owned by the “Rev” Sun-Myung Moon?
My understanding was that Insight was right leaning. A quick look at their Google ads has changed my mind though. 
I just looked at their “sites we’re watching” section, and every cite listed was a right-leaning organization. I assumed “sites we’re watching” meant sites they were debunking, not sites that were sources for material. Am I wrong…?
I think you’re wrong, John. From Insight’s “About Us” webpage:
I don’t think they’d be bragging about being the WT’s “sister publication” if they were actually running a feature for debunking it.
Plus I just looked at their commentator Pruden’s lates column, which was essentially a complaint that the recent Congressional National Prayer Breakfast didn’t have enough references to Jesus in it.
Well, John, are you willing to believe the Rove story now that you know it’s from a right-wing source? 
I read Insight through most of the 80s, and it was definitely right-wing. I found it interesting, but they were clearly biased. I believe they were the first magazine to run the “How They Voted” section for Congress.
No. We libertarians are just as suspicious of right wing sources as we are of left wing sources.
It’s just so vague… and it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Does Bush really want to help increase the number of Democrats in the Senate? What “White House financial support” and how much is it? What is this “vote” of which the article speaks? It sounds very fishy.
Just my opinion, Rove/Bush don’t want the Dems to win. They expect all the Pub senators to fall in line, because they still think their coattails will actually help.
Paranoia for everybody!
Could be the support refers to primary elections; that if the GOP congresscritters don’t toe the line they’ll find White House backed opponents trying to take their Republican slot on the primary ballot.
Actually, a little bit of paranoia can be a good thing, Given the primary assumption that all politicians are 99 percent bullshit, and assuming they will do anything to get re-elected (or at least to barely avoid jail), it becomes less painful when one of them actually fails to meet our already low expectations. One of them. Yeah. Heh heh heh.
It’s like in a driving class, when the instructor tells you to expect people to do stupid things at the worst possible time.
I’m waiting on the results of the chair meeting. I’d like to see if she’s still saying the same things afterwards.