CO-Sen: Is Udall the Favorite in Open Seat Contest?

Rep. Mark Udall, the Boulder Democrat and presumptive 2008 nominee for the open Colorado Senate seat reported raising $1.1 million during the second quarter - and has over $2.5 million in his campaign account. Udall's success as a rainmaker led to some reports that the Colorado state GOP had been considering of recruiting an alternate candidate (perhaps former Gov. Owens) if former Rep. Bob Schaffer filed disappointing Q2 fundraising totals. Schaffer raised $717,000 - a respectable sum, but his CoH ($682K) is far behind Udall.

The sad state of affairs for the Colorado GOP is summed up in this Denver Post article - they're plotting their comeback in 2010. The state's changing demographics have shifted the state from reliably Republican to one of the most competitive swing states in the nation.

In Colorado, the growing Hispanic community and significant migration from California seems to have reached a tipping point in recent years. Now, Democrats hold majorities in both state houses and the Congressional delegation, and in the past two cycles have gained a Senate seat and the governor's mansion. While the state narrowly went for President Bush in 2004, Democrats are so
enthusiastic about the possibility of picking up Colorado - and, indeed, the entire Mountain West region - that they will hold their convention in Denver next summer.

Udall has considered statewide runs previously, but had opted out fearing his "Boulder Liberal" label made him unattractive to the Colorado electorate. The state's recent shift toward the Democratic Party and Udall's efforts to move towards the middle appear to have changed this analysis.

Udall is reaching across the aisle on a variety of national and state issues. He's joined a bipartisan effort urging the administration to adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Udall's move to the middle includes reaching out to extreme conservative Marilyn Musgrave on farm policy and in opposing the US Army's Fort Carson's proposed expansion into Pinon Canyon. The Denver Post observes the partnership as follows:

Musgrave's need to move left to reach the political center dovetailed nicely with 2nd District Democrat Mark Udall's drift to the right in quest of that same middle ground in preparation for his upcoming run for the U.S. Senate. Udall backed off of a 2004 Senate bid and a 2006 gubernatorial race in part because his image as a "Boulder liberal" was ill-suited to a state that even today boasts about 994,000 registered Republicans to 852,000 Democrats, with 945,000 unaffiliated.

Mark and Marilyn's joint need to move to the center has now produced the most effective "M&M" combination since quarterback Craig Morton's throws to Haven Moses brought the Broncos to their first Superbowl. The Mark and Marilyn team has worked effectively on such issues as bipartisan legislation to designate 249,339 acres of wilderness area in Rocky Mountain National Park and curbing the Army's hopes of expanding the Piñon Canyon maneuver site.

It's easy to be cynical about either M's motives, but listening to the voters is what representative government is all about. As one longtime political observer who has watched Musgrave and Udall work together told me Friday, "Good government is also good politics."

I'm hesitant to embrace anything that makes MadCat Marilyn look good, but if Udall can pick up this Senate seat for the Dems, perhaps it's worth a few photo ops with everyone's favorite homophobe.


In addition to forest policy and the Pinon Canyon issue, Udall is leading the opposition to allowing further oil and gas drilling on the Roan Plateau. The growing importance of the contentious land-use and environmental issues across the Interior West has been identified by David Sirota as an important opportunity for Democrats.


Could anything deter Dems from picking up this seat, widely regarded as our top 2008 pick-up opportunity? There are concerns about a 'drag' or 'reverse coat-tails' affect in Colorado if the national party's presidential nominee is unpopular in the region. News reports quoted the Udall campaign as having an eye on the presidential race - concerned about the top of the ticket potentially hurting their chances. More on the electability issue as the campaign wears on.

Cross-posted at An Enduring Democratic Majority.

CO-04: Will Musgrave's Moderate Makeover Succeed?

Eastern Colorado's 4th District is home to right wing conservative Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R), who has made a national name for herself as the lead House sponsor of the homophobic federal marriage amendment in the past two Congresses. During the 2006 campaign, Musgrave told the Family Research Council, “As we face the issues that we are facing today, I don’t think there’s anything more important out there than the marriage issue.”

Her singular focus on this divisive issue - and lack of attention to her district - led to a very narrow 2006 victory margin (Musgrave got only 46% of the vote!) against Democratic nominee Angie Paccione. Paccione is back for another run in 2008 - and will face a primary discussed here.

Mad Marilyn seems to have been scared straight (well, maybe there's a better word choice) - and is in the midst of a "radical" moderate makeover. It's important for Democrats to expose this makeover for the PR-driven sham it is.

Ironically, life in the minority has provided Musgrave the freedom to move toward the middle, as her 'signature issue' is a non-starter in the Democratic-controlled House. So, what has she been up to? She's pumping gas, canvassing her constituents, and publicly releasing her earmark requests, an effort at transparency that also helps illustrate how she's taking care of the 4th district voters.

Working with another Colorado politician courting the moderate vote in his run for Senate, progressive Rep. Mark Udall, Musgrave has turned her attention to locally important farm policy. She's also worked in bipartisan partnership with Dem Rep John Salazar to prevent the US Army's Fort Carson expansion into Pinon Canyon.

A formerly loyal GOP foot-soldier, Musgrave has jumped on the 'anti-Bush' bandwagon and made "nice-nice" with Mark Udall to the point the Denver Post is touting the bipartisan "New Musgrave"

Coming off a narrow election win in November and criticism that she wasn't accessible to her constituents, the third-term Colorado congresswoman is undergoing a political makeover.
"I feel like I've worked hard for the past five years, but when you're criticized for not being as in touch with your constituents as you should be, I need to respond with humility," she said. "People criticize me for not doing things, and then when I prove them wrong and do them, they say, 'She's doing it because she had a close race.' It's a no-win situation."
Perhaps, say political observers, but Musgrave's makeover is a smart move considering Republicans are struggling to say afloat nationally, and a number of Democrats are showing interest in trying to topple her in next year's election.
"It's a clearly calculated, born-again political image," said John Straayer, political-science professor at Colorado State University, which is in Musgrave's 4th Congressional District.
So far Musgrave's new image hasn't translated into votes. During the current Congress, she's voted with her party 96 percent of the time, according to a vote database on WashingtonPost.com. (emphasis added)

OK, so Marilyn may not be as clueless as the average Republican CongressCritter. She's listening to her constituents and she's cooperating with her colleagues across the aisle. Will this make her 2008 reelection easier?

The national parties are not ignoring this race.

The Republicans are worried. The NRCC recently added Musgrave to the ROMP (Regain Our Majority Program) list of most vulnerable incumbents.

The Democrats are hopeful. Not to be outdone, the DCCC also serving notice Musgrave is also on their radar screen by including her as one of the GOP incumbents targeted by ads over the Independence Day recess:




The battle for the High Plains has begun. But, the fact that Democrats are playing offense on this traditional Republican turf speaks volumes about how the political dynamic has changed.

Donate to help turn Colorado Blue.

Cross-posted at An Enduring Democratic Majority.

WY-Sen II - Does Freudenthal Plan to Take on Sen-Select Barrasso?

According to the AP, Wyoming Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal is expressing disappointment with the newest US Senator, Tom Barrasso (R-WY). The Billings Gazette ran the story with the headline "Gov: Barrasso "tepid" on Thomas issues."

The Governor, you may recall, selected Barrasso from a roster of three Republicans last month to fill the vacancy created by Sen. Craig Thomas' death in early June. Unlike in most states, Wyoming law requires the governor to fill a vacancy with a member of the same party as the deceased. The choice of Barrasso, a medical doctor, was viewed by many on both sides of the aisle as the candidate who could wage the strongest campaign in 2008, when he goes before the voters to fill the remaining four years of this term.

Does this AP report mean the governor holds a different view? Might he be considering a challenge to the man he selected less than a month ago?

When Freudenthal made his selection, some bloggers speculated on whether he would make a strategic selection. Could he select the weakest candidate, hoping a Wyoming Democrat could run a successful campaign to "steal" a Senate seat for the Dems in one of the most scarlet red states in the country?

While the governor acknowledges it's early in the new senator's tenure, he isn't hesitating to call him out on some key environmental legislation state voters closely identify with Sen. Thomas.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal says Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., has been tepid so far in his support of two landmark pieces of environmental legislation that Sen. Craig Thomas was pushing before his death last month.
But Freudenthal also said it's too early to start pressuring Barrasso, who has been in office less than a month. "I think in fairness, we should give the guy a break here," Freudenthal said. "But it ain't going to be a very long break, but we ought to give him a little one."

-- snip --

Shortly before his death, Thomas had introduced legislation to protect more than 400 miles of the Snake River and its headwaters under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Thomas had also said he intended to introduce legislation to prevent further energy development in the Wyoming Range.Since succeeding Thomas, however, Barrasso has been noncommittal on whether he will continue to carry Thomas' environmental measures in the Senate.

Can Democrats win on environmental and land-use issues in the Interior West? David Sirota believes the conflict over energy and the environment provides progressives an unprecedented opportunity in the region.

Is Gov. Freudenthal positioning himself to win a Wyoming senate seat if Barrasso fails to understand this new political reality?

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and An Enduring Democratic Majority.

Chrispy's Political Prattle for Friday the 13th

A "Baker's Dozen" quick hits list from around the West (and more!) on Jason Voorhees' favorite day:

• WA-08: Recent GOP-convert Rodney Tom announced he will be a Dem candidate in the suburban Seattle district of GOP Rep. Dave Reichert. 2006 Dem nominee is hard at work raising money and working the netroots (she'll be liveblogging at FireDogLake on Saturday morning -11AM PDT, 2PM EDT)
• OR-Sen: In the "Revised Comments" section, Sen. Gordon Smith - facing re-election in 08, told Fox News the other day that his December 2006 observation about the Iraq War as "criminal" was inaccurate. He now describes the war as "Insane" - will any of his GOP colleagues agree?
• Show Me the Money: How important are the Q2 fundraising numbers? Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg has an interesting article "Historical Review of Second Quarter Fundraising." Does money at this stage of the cycle predict who wins? Hint: Howard Dean.
• Iraq - the Endgame: Craig Crawford @ CQPolitics.com points out Thursday's House vote (223-201) represents a molasses-like pace movement away from the president's Iraq surge. Needing another 67 votes to override any presidential veto means the Dems won't get enough support until summer 2008 if the current pace continues.
• MT-Sen: From the "Majority Matters" file: Montana Sen. Max Baucus (and Finance Committee Chairman) reports his fundraising total for Q2 2007 has doubled over the same period back in 2001. His CoH amount ($4.3 million) is a considerable sum, particularly in a state the size of Montana. His broad based support across the state helps explain why the GOP has only put Loony Mike Lange as an opponent to the five-term senator.
• NM-01 & ID-01: The trend of Iraq War veterans jumping into politics continues - Democrat Byron Paez has tossed his hat in the ring in New Mexico. This comes a week after Republican Matt Salisbury announced his primary challenge to freshman GOP Rep. Bill Sali.
• AZ-03: The "gut-check" terror alarm: Arizona GOP Rep. John Shadegg apparently shares the same gastro-intestinal pyschic abilities as Homeland Secretary Chertoff. Since we know the administration doesn't need factual intelligence to go to war, does it surprise anyone that the person responsible for monitoring terror threats relies on his tummy?
• GOP House Outlook: NRCC Chairman Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) is already 'spinning' his party's 2008 House election prospects and you know they're worried when he says, "Nobody gets two 2006s in a row," Cole said. He pointed out that the 202 seats Republicans currently occupy are ten seats better than President Reagan held "on his best day."
• Rudy's Rough Ride: The Giuliani campaign's foundation seems to be crumbling with each passing news cycle. The people that know him best - the firefighters and the voters of New York City don't seem to like him. How long will it be until Rudy's front-running campaign follows McCain into the second tier of GOP contenders.
• NV-03: Swing State reports the DCCC may have finally suceeded in recruiting a top tier challenger to Vegas area GOP Rep. Jon Porter in Clark County prosecutor Robert Daskas.
• CA-44: What is it with California's GOP delegation? A grand jury ruled GOP Rep. Ken Calvert and two business partners bought and sold real estate in violation of state regulations. The Hill reports the decision will not affect Calvert's re-election plans, nor cause him to lose his seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
• WA-GOV: Christine Gregoire, the Democrat narrowly elected over Dino Rossi in 2004, is credited by Forbes Magazine with making Washington State one of the top five business-friendly states in US, undercutting the GOP argument that Democratic regulations hinder economic activity. It remains unclear whether Rossi will mount a challenge in 2008 (the state Dems argue he's declared and then undeclared already). The news this week that an investigation has been launched into whether his non-profit Forward Washington organization violates state law means a rematch would likely be a 'no-holds barred' contest between the two parties.
• From deep in the heart of BLUE TEXAS, one last picture, in memory of Lady Bird.
  
  

If the Lips are Moving, He Must be Lying...

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

Yesterday, the Budget Busting Buffoon delivered his mid-session budget review. It was twenty minutes of purely revolting revisionism and conservative propaganda. He wasted no time in shaping the budget debate as an ideological battle the conservatives are winning, proving yet again the White House's Alice in Wonderland reality.

If Congressional Democrats don't aggressively refute the President's propaganda, misinformation and lies, they're going to find themselves being blamed for a budget mess that is solely the responsibility of a bankrupt and failed conservative economic policy.

If we fail to expose this Administration's fiscal lies, we will needlessly forfeit the mantle of fiscal responsibility - and miss a political opportunity to cement a sustained Democratic majority.

Put on your boots (the BS gets pretty deep) and join me below the fold.

The full video can be found here. Transcript here.

The President uses his bully pulpit to outline the ideological underpinnings of the budget battle by stating:

The release of the mid-session review is a good opportunity to take stock of the debate over taxes and spending in Washington. At its core, the debate is between two very different economic philosophies and fiscal philosophies. One philosophy says that politicians in Washington know best; says taxes should be high and government should decide where to spend the money. And the other philosophy says that the American people know how to spend their own money better than the government does -- so government should spend less and the taxpayer should keep more. And that's the fundamental debate here in the nation's capital.

For the past six years, my administration and our allies in Congress have pursued the second philosophy.

Really? Is that what the Republicans were doing as they managed our way into an unprecedented budget deficit, played a shell game with annual Iraq "emergency" supplementals, scandalously abused the Appropriations process, and underfunded critical agencies? Is that he's talking about? If so, the philosophy is bankrupt and has FAILED, Mr. President.

He discusses the declining federal budget deficit, glossing over the fact when he and his congressional allies took full control of the federal government in 2001, there was a budget surplus. Conveniently overlooking this important detail, he craftily diverts blame for the deficit away from his tax cutting philosophy.

A shrinking deficit is good; no deficit is better. So earlier this year I proposed a balanced budget that will eliminate the federal deficit by 2012. The deficit is not caused by under-taxing; it's caused by over-spending. So the budget we proposed keeps us on the path to low taxes and spending restraint. And according to the mid-session review, that path will lead to a surplus of $33 billion in 2012. In other words, despite the unprecedented challenges we face, the United States is going to be back in the black.

The policies of low taxes and spending restraint have produced a clear and measurable record of success. You can't argue with what I'm telling you. These are the facts. Yet, in the face of all the evidence, Democrats in Congress still want to take us down a different path. We've shown what works. They must not believe us, because they passed a budget framework that calls for $205 billion in additional domestic spending over the next five years. The budget framework they passed calls for $205 billion additional of federal spending in a five-year period. That works out to nearly $680 per person. It's no surprise that their budget framework also includes the largest tax increase in American history.

Some of this might sound familiar to some of you older hands around here -- it's the same old tax-and-spend policy that the Democrats have tried before. It would have the same bad result. Tax-and-spend would add to the burden of families and businesses.
(emphasis MINE)

After setting the stage, Bush goes on clear attack - accusing the Democrats of inaction, fiscal abuse and mismanagment. This is where Democrats MUST respond, in my opinion.

The Democrats are also delaying the 12 basic spending bills that are needed to keep the federal government running. At their current pace, I am not likely to see a single one of these must-pass spending bills before Congress leaves Washington for a four-week recess. And by the time they return, they will have less than a month before the fiscal year ends on September 30th to pass the appropriations bills.

It's important that they honor the pledges they made when they took control of the Congress, and that is they pledged a policy of transparent government and fiscal responsibility. Well, now is the time to show that they're serious. And one way they can do so is they can pass spending bills on time, instead of creating a massive bill at the end of the process that will be so large that no one can possibly read it and anyone can hide wasteful spending in it. The Democrats should honor their commitment to fiscal discipline by passing these bills in a way that sustains our growing economy and balances the federal budget.

Does the president recall that last year, his Republican allies failed to enact ALL the appropriations bills EXCEPT Defense and Homeland Security for FY 2007? Even though they controlled both the legislative and executive branches, the Republicans FAILED to pass domestic spending bills, practically across the board. Now, which party is fiscally irresponsible?

Bush also neglects to point out that he's threatened to veto nine of the dozen appropriations bills working their way through the House. He's playing politics with the nation's finances - the reason he's threatened to veto the Foreign Service bill is because he's opposed to the omission of the "Mexico City" anti-abortion language).

The President next turns to a real vulnerability - earmark reform. This practice, viewed by many congress critters as critical to re-election efforts ingites anger in the electorate. Both parties have participated - although it was the Republicans who oversaw the broad expansion of this secretive practice (pdf).

First, there's the matter of earmarks. Earmarks are spending provisions that are slipped into bills by individual members of Congress for projects in their own district or state; they're just slipped in the bill. Often, the earmarks occur at the last hour and without debate. This violates the trust of the public and often leads to unnecessary spending. The problem is growing, and over the last decade, the number of earmarks has more than tripled.

So earlier this year, I proposed reforms that would make the earmark process more transparent, end the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language, would eliminate wasteful earmarks and cut the overall number and cost by at least half. Democrats and Republicans have taken a good step by agreeing to list all earmarks before bills are passed so the public can see them and lawmakers have a chance to strike them down, get rid of them. Now Congress needs to uphold the commitment and the Senate needs to make this transparency part of its formal rules. The American people deserve to know what they're getting for the money they're sending to the nation's capital. There ought to be full disclosure and full transparency in the appropriations process.

Bush fails to acknowledge the fiscal irresponsibility of the Congressional Republicans and disingenuously claims the 'reformer' and clean government mantle that the Democrats MUST have as their own. Failing to work toward more transparency WILL have unhappy political consequences for Democrats. They cannot allow Bush (and the GOP minority) to win this rhetorical battle. Real reform needs to happen - and Democrats need to be the ones who claim (and deserve) the credit.

Not once during his remarks did he acknowledge that the escalating costs for the Iraq Invasion are "off the books," as all operations have been funded through "emergency" supplementals.

Will the Democrats allow the President and the Republicans to escape the responsibility for the federal fiscal mess? Or will they stand up to the propaganda? Conservatism has failed.

The task is simple - just keep reminding Americans of what they already know: If his lips are moving, he's probably lying.

Conservatism is a bankrupt and failed ideology. It has failed in Iraq. And it has failed in America.

The House Horse Race - the Q2 Fundraising Filings (UPDATE Thursday 7:30PM EDT)

Cross-posted at An Enduring Majority.

Previously, we reported that Democrat Darcy Burner was on a record-setting fundraising pace for a Washington State congressional challenger this early in the race.

With Q2 filings due this Sunday, the fundraising numbers for challengers and incumbents are beginning to trickle in. For the most part, the Senate numbers will become public at a slower pace - and the first to report from the Western races is Colorado contest for the open seat.

Colorado Senate - Rep. Mark Udall has reportedly raised $1.1 million in his effort to win the seat for the Democrats, and has more than $2.5m in the bank. GOP opponent Bob Schaffer has yet to release his Q2 numbers.

In the House, an up-to-the-minute listing is available via CQPolitics' Moneyline. A review of the house candidates from around the West who have raised over $50,000 in the quarter reveal where the races are already heating up - first number is Q2 take, second is the Cash on Hand (CoH).

Thursday, July 12, 8:30 AM EDT:

The Democratic Challengers showing early dedication:

CA-26: Russ Warner - working to unseat gazillion-term Rep. David Dreier raised $100K - with $150K CoH (cash on hand). For more on the Warner candidacy see here. Warner, along with Darcy - have not yet officially filed with the FEC - so we'll keep an eye out for exact numbers and update with actual totals.

CA-26: Hoyt Hilsman, another Dem looking to take on Dreier also raised an impressive amount ($106K, with $105K CoH), REVISION: a commenter noted that $100K of the Q2 income reported by Hilsman was a personal loan.

NM-02: Bill McCamley - a 29-year old County Commissioner looking to unseat Rep. Steve Pearce has pulled in an impressive $140K with $133 CoH.

GOP Incumbents Raising Cold, Hard Cash
(listed in order of Q2 money raised)
AZ-06: Rep. Jeff Flake - $217K in Q2, $581K CoH
WA-05: Rep. Cathy McMorris - $147K, $165K CoH
OR-02: Rep. Greg Walden - $137K, $503K CoH. A cursory review of Eastern Oregon conservative Walden's website reveals another powerful indication of the GOP's tarnished brand - can't find his party affiliation anywhere on the site, but Walden does publicize his membership in the Small Brewers Caucus. He wants you to know he's a micro-brewer, but not a Republican?
ID-02: Rep. Mike Simpson - $87K, $75K CoH - Simpson is rumored to be thinking about running for GOP Sen. Larry Craig's Senate seat.
CA-24: Rep. Elton Gallegly - $77K, $832K CoH

Democratic Incumbents With the Tip Jar Out
(listed in order of Q2 money raised)
HI-01:Rep. Neil Abercrombie $47oK, 1.o87M CoH
UT-02: Rep. Jim Matheson $205K, $588K CoH
CA-27: Rep. Sherman $163K, $1.517M CoH
AZ-07: Rep. Raul Grivalja $90K, $85K CoH

Thus far, only 233 registered candidates have filed with the FEC (and that includes a slew of inactive campaigns of retired congress critters). I'll check back in with updates over the next few days to see who's got the serious money MoJo and who might be thinking about retirements.

UPDATE (Thursday, 7:30 PM EDT)


Dem Incumbents:
(listed in order of Q2 money raised)
NV-01: Rep. Shelley Berkley, $406K, $1.212M CoH
CO-07: Rep. Ed Perlmutter, $206K, $338K CoH
OR-03: Rep. Earl Blumenauer, $150K, $461 CoH


GOP Incumbents:
(listed in order of Q2 money raised)
NM-02: Rep. Steve Pearce, $246K, $383K CoH
CA-40: Rep. Ed Royce, $184K, $2.014M CoH
CA-50: Rep. Brian Bilbray, $154K, $224K CoH (Correction: previously erroneously listed as a challenger)
CA-25: Rep. Buck McKeon, $88K, $205K CoH
CA-26: Rep. David Dreier, $56K, $1.997M CoH

No additional Dem challengers filing with more than $50K raised Q2 GOP

Of note, no GOP $50K+ challengers have thus far filed in any Western House race.

Top Chef - Back "Four" More

Since I missed last week's episode, I've got two fresh hours (to me) of my favorite reality series, Bravo's Top Chef. This week, we're looking at the top dozen. Who will be asked to pack their knives tonight?

Top Chef - Episode Four

It seems no one is missing Micah...was she less popular than Hung?

Quickfire Challenge: There's lost of cocktails on the table. Jamie Walker from Bombay Sapphire Gin has prepared a 'plethora' of cocktails (Walker's words, not mine). The Chfes will be pairing an appetizer for their drinks. Full access to the pantry. They're off!

Hung doesn't like this challenge. Hard alcohol doesn't mix well with his elegant, high-end food, he tells us. And the judge agrees...NICE! As he goes around, many of the chefs appear to have impressed.

Least favorite - Joey, Hung (Hung, "I'm thinking he was a little confused - that's why I called him out." - with

Who did well - Casey, Tre & Dale - Casey is the winner - and receives immunity.

Elimination Round: The chefs divide themselves into teams of three - and each of them will be making a dish, using the same ingredients. Brian decides to do it by random lottery.

That sytem doesnn't last long, as the teams start breaking down - Casey gets stuck on a team with Howie and Joey. It's getting strategic. There's lots of conflict on this team. Money seems to be a huge issue for this challenge, as most of the teams have to leave ingredients behind.

Casey, "In my mind, I keep telling myself, sometimes in the kitchen you're going to be forced to work with people you don't like."
The menu & teams:
First course - Shrimp - Lia, Hung & Brian: Padma - this is good! Tom - overall, very successful
Second Course - Tuna - Howie, Joey & Casey: Howie isn't convinced this is going to go over well. The dinner guests think it's way overboard, tastewise
Third Course - Filet Mignon - Tre, CJ and Sara - Padma- the presentation is beautiful. The table seems impressed.
Fourth Course - Pineapple - Sara, Dale & Camille - Dale says it would be better if the dinner guest were blind. Why did they choose to do a dessert? The semi-freddo is awful. The desserts are dreadful.

Judge's Table: The more impressive courses - shrimp - but people didn't really like Hung's foam. The judges seem to be coalescing around Brian. But, in a surprise winner is Lia - who will be a guest chef this summer in the Hamptons.

The lower end is comprised of two groups of chefs - Tuna Course & Pineapple Course - half the chefs are put on the chopping block. The desserts were difficult - as most of them have no pastry experience. It was a HUGE risk, according to the judges. They seem to want to punish these guys for rolling the dice. Now, let's target the tuna team - Tom says that Casey's dish was REALLY weak. Casey admits her dish was underseasoned. Casey breaks out into tears over the fact that either Howie or Joey could be sent home because her dish was what put her team at the bottom.

Who is going home? Joey, Howie? Dale, Camille, Sara? The desserts were unsuccessful, all around.

Tom lectures the dessert team. Padma- "Camille, please pack your knives and go."