April 16, 2016


Dudley Brown and his Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, not highly regarded by Three Sourcers, made news again last week, albeit under the radar of the "Great Rocky Mountain Delegate Heist for #NeverTrump." What went unmentioned in reports of Darryl Glenn's upset thumping of Tim Neville was that Neville was strongly promoted by Brown's RMGO group. Another Colorado lightning rod, former congressman Tom Tancredo, says the defeat marks the "end of an era" in Colorado politics.

But Brown has chosen to fight against the Convention of States. And in doing so, he has tipped his hand as to where he really stands on our rights. In fighting against the Convention of States Project, a campaign he wages in hysterical emails full of misinformation and straw men arguments, he has raked in millions in donations, especially to NAGR: $12.5 million in 2014 (the most recent information available), and $16.5 million in 2013.

Worse, Brown has threatened to primary any legislator who supports a resolution applying for a Convention for Proposing Amendments. But it is precisely this kind of arrogance, this deal-making, this pressuring in order to advance his own agenda for his organization – in other words, this cronyism – that the voters are overwhelmingly rejecting this cycle. He asked for this with his actions, and he got it.

Those legislators and candidates in Brown's camp would do well to note the toxicity that extended to Neville and how the voters made their distaste for Brown and RMGO plain by rejecting his candidate. If they wish to remain in office, they should consider distancing themselves from him and his insider politics.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:22 AM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2013

"Congressmen" Udall and Bennet Vote to Discontinue US Senate

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

NYT- "Democracy Returns to the Senate"

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.

Part of the Times' defense of this headlong rush to make the Senate indistinguishable from the House is that it only applies to Presidential appointment nominations, not including the Supreme Court.

But now that the Senate has begun to tear down undemocratic procedures, the precedent set on Thursday will increase the pressure to end those filibusters, too.

"A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

"Keep it? From what?"

"From becoming a democracy."

Yesterday, Colorado's two Democrat Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet joined 50 other Democrats to resolve that the United States Government shall henceforth have two majoritarian chambers with little difference between them. In the process they essentially "demoted" themselves from Senators to Congressmen, and I for one shall refer to them as such.

UPDATE: Investors Business Daily, on the other hand, says this is the furthest thing from democracy.

Appearing as himself in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," then-CBS radio commentator H.V. Kaltenborn called the filibuster "democracy's finest show: the right to talk your head off, the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form."

Of the excitement surrounding Stewart's fictional senator taking a stand against a majority deluded into believing the slanders spread against him, Kaltenborn said: "In the diplomatic gallery are the envoys of two dictator powers. They have come to see what they can't see at home: democracy in action."

Thanks to Reid and his power-hungry liberals, Americans can no longer see it either.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:13 PM | Comments (5)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Well, look on the bright side. There's no more basis for me to fret about the need to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment anymore. If they're going to be mere Congressmen, there's no point in having them elected as if they were actually Senators - REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF STATES.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 22, 2013 10:44 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I actually had something brighter in mind. This anti-constitutional power grab creates the necessity of not only reinstituting the filibuster, but provides a stonger basis for repealing the 17th Amendment.

Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2013 10:33 AM
But jk thinks:

Dark days, freedom lovers. But I'll run my Blog Optimist Award certificates through the shredder (I've already exercised the accompanying Starbucks gift cards). This will not be walked back and this will not lead to a revival of interest in repealing the 17th. This is a ratchet click toward the majoritarianism that Progressives have seeked for more than 100 years.

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Posted by: jk at November 23, 2013 2:12 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Hey, while we're at it, since the states really are no longer sovereign and have become nothing more that vassal fiefdoms of the Federal leviathan, let's do away with the Tenth as well...

I fear that JK is right, and with every day that passes, I become more persuaded that this will end with a whimper if it doesn't get ended by a bang. We're in Fourth Box territory.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 23, 2013 4:24 PM
But jk thinks:

I hope my blog brother never gets a job on the Suicide Hotline. "Yeah, that's terrible -- and let me tell you something else..."

Posted by: jk at November 24, 2013 11:43 AM

September 29, 2013

I will stop the motor of the redistributionist state

Three Sources favorite Yaron Brook tweeted a reason Why Senate Republicans Hate Ted Cruz that was missing from the list compiled by John Dickerson of CBS. Dickerson's reasons include things like "he's fooled the grassroots" and created "false distrust" between members and their constituents. They're also jealous, says Dickerson, that "in a matter of months, Cruz has built a base of support that allowed him to act as the de facto Republican leader of the Senate."

But Brook nailed it, in less than 140 characters:

Why Senate Republicans hate Ted Cruz? Because they are unprincipled power-lusters.

Precisely. While Senate Republicans as a rule are more interested in going along and getting along, Senator Cruz is more interested in doing what he believes is right - acting consistently with his principles. Whatever a senator's principles, Cruz explained during the filibuster, he should be loyal to them and not to the dictates of party leaders. Cruz seeks to dismantle the power structure in the US Senate, where a cabal of senators from both parties effectively decides how every vote will transpire. That's not the way representative government works, it's the way a dictatorship tries to make itself look like representative government.

America's "dictators" employ wealth redistribution through government to maintain political power for themselves and, so far, Ted Cruz has shown he's not going to play that game.

I replied to Yaron Brook's tweet with an observation of my own: "In a very real sense, Ted Cruz has acted as a political John Galt - stopping the motor of redistributionism."

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:00 AM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

The blog pragmatist is displeased. There is a fine and infinitely arguable line between purity and "People's Front of Judea."

My particular problems with this latest go 'round are:

-- It is tactics. To make a bold stand on principle is fine. I offer the example of Sen. Rand Paul's (HOSS - KY) filibuster against NSA snooping. Many in the muscular-defense wing of the party held that the intrusions were necessary; Rand stood boldly on principle. Sen. Cruz, conversely, splits the party into good guys and bad guys over tactics. This is not worth it.

-- The bad guys, the mean ol' establishment republicans (eeeew!) include Tom Colburn? Jim Geraghty:

Senator Tom Coburn (Alleged RINO, Oklahoma) said, "You do not take a hostage you are not going to for sure shoot. And we will not for sure shoot this hostage." But as I read the conservative blogosphere, I increasingly suspect that there are quite a few folks on the right who are perfectly willing to shoot the hostage.

This is not about weeding out the Lincoln Chaffees and Susan Collinses who are principle-deficient. This is more about rending the party in twain.

Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner are Satan and Beelzebub on my Twitter feed. Fair enough that leadership attracts controversy, but because they will not go full-Quixote, they are "unprincipled power lusters?"

They may be, but it helps not the Judean Peoples' Front to call them on it.

Posted by: jk at September 30, 2013 10:48 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Chaffee and Collins are not the only principle-deficient senators. That list numbers closer to 90.

How many times have the tactics favored by Coburn et al been tried? How many times have they worked?

Posted by: johngalt at September 30, 2013 3:56 PM
But jk thinks:

I don't think Senator Colburn's tactics have ever been tried. The last GOP majority was the Bush-DeLay-Hastert axis. I'll give each a kind word for their service, but not a one of them had a desire for small government or liberty qua liberty.

You're going to stop the world with

Posted by: jk at September 30, 2013 4:32 PM
But johngalt thinks:

... with a House majority that no longer signs the checks that pay the bills.

Posted by: johngalt at September 30, 2013 5:20 PM

September 27, 2013

Senator McCain's "Democratic Response" to Cruz's Filibuster

Did anyone else hear John McCain's weak-kneed floor speech after Ted Cruz finished his filibuster? I was dubstruck by the praise he gave to Obamacare and the Democrats, juxtaposed with his derision of Cruz et al and the principles and ideas of which they spoke for 21 hours. Investors' editorial page shared my disgust.

Cruz wasn't long off the floor before Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a war hero, raised a white flag in one of the most disgraceful Senate speeches ever delivered.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., aptly called it "the Democratic response" to Cruz. It can be summed up in two of McCain's own defeatist words: "We lost."

There's more on McCain's fecklessness but the editorial closes with a look at the GOPs future:

Aged elephants like McCain make a Tea Party-based third party likely. That would cinch long-term Democratic dominance in D.C. McCain's 2008 running mate, Sarah Palin, told Fox's Neil Cavuto there already are three parties: the liberal Democrats, the GOP establishment, and Republican "good guys" like Cruz.

But this week, Ted Cruz gave America a look at the GOP future, in all its boldness and common sense. We hear Arizona has many fine retirement homes, Sen. McCain. Time to pass the torch.

Don't let the door hit yer ass.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

Sen. McCain wants to hear from you! Your Opinion Matters!


I hope you will also forward it to your family and friends so I can get their input on the issues facing our nation as well. Upon completing your survey, please consider making a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even $250 to Country First. Your donation will ensure we have the funds necessary to fight back and have our voices heard.
Posted by: jk at September 27, 2013 5:07 PM
But jk thinks:

He's pretty bashful about it, but I am sure ThreeSourcers who wanted could give more than $250. The web page seems to allow it.

Posted by: jk at September 27, 2013 5:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Upon reflection, I was crass and disrespectful to the senior senator from Arizona. I'll rephrase:

Americans respect and appreciate your service to our nation, Senator McCain. Few in our country's history have given faithful service for so long and in so many ways. It is long past time for us to repay your dedication and so, with our most sincere blessings, we invite you to take the rest of your life off, in peace and solitude, far from the chattering and partisan bickering of our nation's capital. Happy retirement, American hero. Go now. Please.

Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2013 10:44 AM
But jk thinks:

To be continued in Review Corner tomorrow. I, the GOP, and ThreeSources need to come to terms with neoconservatism and national greatness conservatism.

C. Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook have a book, "Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea" that traces it to its Straussian roots and finds it philosophically dangerous. Brother Bryan recommend this book. I mistakenly purchased the CATO roundtable discussion where several CATO scholars respond to the book and Thompson responds/rebuts.

Very satisfying, but I need -- as a neocon in recovery as it were -- to go back and read the entire book. Those piqued can view a video discussion.

In a life-or-death struggle between modernity and radical Islam, which I am not convinced does not exist, Senator McCain is a good Republican. In a life-or-death struggle with Progressives and Luddites and collectivists at home: Not. So. Much.

Your updated phraseology is spot on.

Posted by: jk at September 28, 2013 12:31 PM

September 24, 2013

Political Heresy

Ted Cruz's "rule breaking" fillibuster begins.

"Each day I learn what a scoundrel I am," Cruz said of reading media reports that quote Republican lawmakers and aides critical of him. "Most Americans could not give a flying flip about politicians in Washington. Who cares? Most of us are in cheap suits with bad haircuts. Who cares?"
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:43 PM | Comments (0)

October 7, 2011

Going to Great Lengths...

...to avoid a vote on President Obama's jobs Son-Of-Stimulus bill.

Philip Klein in The Washington Examiner:

In a stunning turn of events this evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used an arcane legislative maneuver to effectively rewrite Senate rules to make it harder for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes on the majority.

The buildup to this point started on Tuesday, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to force a vote on President Obama's jobs bill as well as other Republican priorities by offering them as amendments to the China currency bill. Reid blocked the move.

Wait a minute. Hasn't the President been flying all over the country imploring Americans to call their Senators and tell them, "Pass this bill?" Other reports, notably Politico, downplayed this cause. Instead they pushed Reid's story-line that it was necessary to limit dilatory tactics.

Does anyone else get the sense that Senate Democrats are increasingly nervous about the looming election? The sweat on their collective brow is palpable.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:34 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Oops. I was supposed to strike through Son-of-Stimulus, wasn't I? Not "jobs." Mea culpa.

Posted by: johngalt at October 7, 2011 5:29 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I assumed this was in order to comply with some new Internet "Truth-In-Advertising" law or something.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 7, 2011 6:01 PM

October 1, 2010

Princess Lisa

Rather snarky, somewhat juvenile and pretty funny.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 10:51 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:


Posted by: jk at October 1, 2010 11:20 AM

August 19, 2010

Bart Simpson in Florida Primary?

Colorado's primary season may have seemed like a circus, but compared to Florida, it is pretty tame. Apparently, the allegations concerning Democrat Jeff Greene's bid for the Senate nomination has the press in a tizzy:

Florida media has been in an NC-17 feeding frenzy over Greene's personal life. Newspapers, airwaves and blogs are carrying purported first-hand accounts of sex and drug parties on Greene's yacht before his marriage in 2007.


"Look, did I have parties on the yacht? We had parties," he said. "Did we have parties like they are describing? Absolutely not. And there is no pictures. That is what I'm saying. There were never any pictures of anything."

"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything."

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 4:01 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

We're doing our best to keep up with the Sunshine State:

Maes refuses to leave Colorado gubernatorial race

Maybe if Rep Tancredo bought him a cookie, he'd forget that primary election thingy that he won.

Posted by: jk at August 19, 2010 4:17 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

When you've lost Harsanyi, you've lost the intellectual Right. http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_15832381

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 20, 2010 9:59 AM
But johngalt thinks:

From the 'Maes refuses...' link:

Tancredo said he wanted to make "one last effort" to edge Maes out so the Republicans could find a "better candidate."

On Tuesday I heard Tancredo tell [radio host] Peter Boyles that the "better candidate" he suggested to Wadhams was Ted Harvey. Yeah, makes sense Tom would like him. Independent voters however...?

Posted by: johngalt at August 20, 2010 2:55 PM

June 11, 2010

Norton vs. Buck

Today's Denver Post published the responses from the state's US Senate candidates regarding what should be done about traffic congestion on I-70 in the mountains. For those outside Colorado, Jane Norton and Ken Buck are in a primary for the Republican nomination.

Jane Norton responded, "We should seek more federal money but the final decision should be left up to state and local officials." Ken Buck said, "We should not seek more federal dollars. The state should solve its own transporation problems."

Interestingly, Norton's position is in line with the Democratic candidates, Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff. All three think we need to get more federal cheese.

'Nuff said. Mark The Refugee in the Buck camp.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 2:08 PM | Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:

For the record, BR and I did not collude on our back-to-back Norton/Buck posts. (I did a double take when I went to confirm my post was up - "Hey, that's not what I wrote!") Nice scoop BR, and good answer Ken!

Posted by: johngalt at June 11, 2010 3:24 PM
But jk thinks:

I prefer Buck's answer. And I thank you for the first differentiating position I have seen in months of campaigning.

I'll make no friends with this question, but it's the Prisoner's Senate Dilemma: knowing 99 other Senators are clawing for more Federal Jack, do you knowingly vote for the one Senator who will not? Reducing your tax liability by 1% and your State's revenue by 50%?

Candidate jk says "I'll fight to send less on transportation and devolve power to the States, but you can count on me to get every dime we deserve."

Posted by: jk at June 11, 2010 3:47 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

The Refugee would vote for Jeff Flake in a NY second.

Sorry, candidate JK, you're too moderate for me. I'll have to find someone else with better bona fides...

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 11, 2010 4:12 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

PS, I admire Texas Gov. Perry for turning down stimulus dollars and wish our governor had done so as well, even if it meant fewer government services.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 11, 2010 4:17 PM
But jk thinks:

Yes, I've always felt that moderation was the weakness of my political career...

Totally agree on Flake and Perry. I offer in my humble defense Rep. Ron Paul. Doctor Purity brings home Federal Jack to his district with the best of them and is no stranger to earmarking. Our hero, Jeff Flake, is a stranger to earmarking but I am not convinced that he does not spend time ensuring that his district gets a fair shake through the regular appropriations process.

Posted by: jk at June 12, 2010 11:45 AM

January 20, 2010


The late Senator Ted Kennedy was called the "Liberal Lion" of the senate. The man elected to fill his vacant seat today certainly came in like a lion himself. After giving gracious and non-partisan recognition to his opponent, interim Senator Paul Kirk, to Ted Kennedy and his wife, and to President Obama, Senator-elect Brown then criticized specific policies that have materialized in the past 12 months.

A "trillion-dollar healthcare bill" that is "not being debated openly and fairly."

"No more closed-door meetings, back-room deals with an out of touch party leadership. No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with the special interests and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay."

"I will work in the senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs and the millions of people who need jobs. And remember as John F. Kennedy stated that starts with across the board tax cuts for businesses and families to create jobs, put more money in people's pockets and stimulate the economy. It's that simple."

"And let me say this with respect to the people who wish to harm us. I believe and I know all of you believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. Let me make it very, very, very clear. They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. And the message we need to send in dealing with terrorists: Our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them."

"And across this country to all those folks who are listening - if they're covering me - we are united by basic convictions that only need to be clearly stated to win a majority."

An endless stream of adjectives has been used to describe today's unlikely outcome. And they are all deserved, for his election makes forty other senators in Washington relevant once again. If this is indicative of a new tone in Washington then I think I just might be proud of my country once again.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:53 AM | Comments (0)

August 28, 2009

Yukin' It Up on Chappaquiddick

Among one of the more touching tributes to Senator Kennedy has to be this clip where a friend recalls that Chappaquiddick was among the Good Senator's favorite topics of humor.

If we had a passenger die next to us while we were driving, who among us would not find it a topic of great laughter for years to come? According to his friend, Kennedy "could see the ridiculous side of anything." I'm sure Mary Jo would agree that it is ridiculous.

Rest in peace, Senator. You schmuck.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 9:36 PM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2009

What is the Constitutional Term Limit on Dictator of the United States?

Hot on the tail of my blog showing Twice as many now believe U.S. evolving into socialist state comes former Speaker of the House of the United States, Newt Gingrich, saying the country is heading to a dictatorship.

"My specific reference was to dictatorial powers, that I thought that Secretary of the Treasury Geithner was asking for, where he would decide what companies to take over, he would decide under what circumstances, and let me tell ya, the American system was not built for one bureaucrat to decide whether or not they're gonna take your property. (...) And then look at what they're trying to do on the budget, where they're trying to ram through a resolution, to break the rules of the Senate, to be able to get through both an energy tax increase and a massive change in our health system on 51 votes, which is clearly a power grab of unprecedented proportions. I think dictatorial is a strong word, but it may frighteningly be the right word."

Is anyone else beginning to wonder why Obama doesn't seem concerned about re-election?

Posted by JohnGalt at 9:57 AM | Comments (9)
But johngalt thinks:

The inference that Obama may not intend to step down was mine, based solely on the similarities between the Obama regime and the Hugo Chavez regime.

I'm not a big "drug war" guy but the laws should be enforced or changed - I generally lean toward the latter.

Let's talk about his current punditry in a more objective manner. Consider his latest incarnation of a contract proposal:

I find little to disagree with here. Probably some elements of item 12 are first on that list.

Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2009 1:25 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Oh, and on "dictatorial" I say it's time to call a spade a spade. Only in a politically correct forum can that be disparaged as "alarmist."

Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2009 1:27 PM
But T. Greer thinks:

But JG- hes not a dictator. Not yet anyway.

The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary gives three definitions for dictator:

a: a person granted absolute emergency power
b: one holding complete autocratic control
c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

Which of these labels does Obama fit into? Option A can be scratched off the list pretty quick, as Obama does not have emergency powers of any sort (yet). Option C can likewise be knocked down, as Obama does not have absolute control over the lives of the citizens of the Unites States. This leaves us with Option B- but here to we have problems. Obama is not the only autocrat in Washington; like most Presidents he must wrangle with Congress. Indeed, from what I have seen he had to pull all stops in order to do so.

Posted by: T. Greer at March 31, 2009 12:24 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Excuse me if it seems like I'm parsing words but I was careful to say "dictatorial" and not "dictator."

dictatorial –adjective
1. of or pertaining to a dictator or dictatorship.
2. appropriate to, or characteristic of, a dictator; absolute; unlimited: dictatorial powers in wartime.
3. inclined to dictate or command; imperious; overbearing: a dictatorial attitude.

Both 2 and 3 fit administration policies.

Posted by: johngalt at April 1, 2009 1:11 PM
But T. Greer thinks:

Hey, if I pull a dictionary out on you, feel free to parse words all you want!

BTW: I will cede the point.

Posted by: T. Greer at April 1, 2009 4:32 PM
But Jason Kennerly thinks:

Not at all - as long as Republicans keep pulling boners in public like this, one after another, he's a virtual shoe-in in 2012.

The total collapse of the crooked financial system has completely revealed the falsity of the so-called "social conservative" position that once made Republicans so popular. Whats left - it was the last Republican administration that increased spending and government regulation (albeit, perhaps not where regulation was *actually needed*) more than any other in history, so you can't exactly blame that on democrats any more.

Remember, kids, the net ROI on war and weapons is always either zero, or negative!

Posted by: Jason Kennerly at April 3, 2009 3:14 PM

February 9, 2009

Specter for Spendulus

Well, here we are.

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late.

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

In related news, the Washington Post graphs how immediate the stimulus really is.

Answer: 10% gets spent this year... in the year we cannot afford to delay (tm).

(Click to enbiggen)

Posted by AlexC at 3:29 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

"The" economic stimulus package, Senator Specter? Do you also purchase the first car you test drive, or the first house you look at? How about love - did you marry the first woman you dated?

Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2009 12:48 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

GWB's misguided decision to back Specter over Toomey in the primaries continues to haunt the party and the nation.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 10, 2009 6:01 PM

August 13, 2008

Energy Freedom Day

Sign the petition created by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) calling on Congress to let the drilling bans expire on October 1, 2008.

The related blog page can be accessed here.

Hat Tip: Human Events via Wayne at jeremiahfilms.com

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:14 PM | Comments (0)

July 17, 2008

Why are we in Iraq?

"Joe from Denver wants to know, 'Why are we in Iraq and how will we know when we've won the war?'"

Listen to Bob Schaffer, Colorado's Republican candidate for the US Senate, explain it.

In politics this is what's known as a direct hit.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:29 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

But Bush Lied!!! There were no WMDs!! My poor Congressman was duped -- it's Bush's fault!

Posted by: jk at July 18, 2008 10:50 AM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

It don't get any better'n that!

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 18, 2008 12:10 PM

July 1, 2008

Casey At Bat

Every few months some Democrat decides that oil companies are to blame for high prices.

Except they're not. It's Democrats who are at fault.

This time it's Senator Casey's turn.

The federal government is so poorly staffed to investigate oil speculation and price gouging that its agents might as well be “cops going after criminals with water pistols,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr.

In a meeting Monday with the newspaper's editorial board, the Pennsylvania Democrat called for a national effort to define price gouging and make it illegal.

... because frankly their semi-annual effort has failed.
Oil and gas woes dominated the discussion with the editorial board as Casey cast doubts on what he called shortsighted proposals to expand drilling along the U.S. coastline and in the Alaska wilderness.

“Republicans believe we can drill our way out of this problem,” Casey said. “But only a small percentage of the area available for drilling is now being used.

“It would take about 10 years [to drill in Alaska] and we'd only get about six months' worth of oil out of there,” he said, noting that “those would be a really nice six months.” But, he added, we would lose a chunk of pristine wilderness forever.

Six months worth of oil: Lie. If we got it all out immediately and refined it and sold it our current consumption rates that's "possibly" what it would take. But you cannot drain an oil reservoir that fast (nor would you want to, you need to replace the oil volume removed with water to maintain pressure).

Even the oil volume potentially produced in those six months is not true. You cannot (and the Senate damned sure cannot) forecast advances in oil production and drilling technologies. Oil that was out of reach even 10 years ago is being produced with new techniques. Who's to say what big oil companies or service companies like Halliburton or Schlumberger will develop in the coming years?

Don't bet against ingenuity.

The 10 years of drilling is also a lie. It does not take 10 years to drill a well.

It takes weeks to drill a well... and one rig can only drill one well at a a time. So it might take years to bring more and more wells to production.

But first you must do exploration... which usually amounts to dragging microphones over the surface looking for oil.

We can't even do that.

If we took Senator Casey's (and the Democrat) acreage complaint to heart, it would only lead to more dry holes being drilled. If you do non-invasive exploration and no oil is found, of what use would drilling into nothing be? Of no use.

Once a company determines there's potentially oil under a lease, then they do exploratory drilling.

If they establish there's financially producable amounts of oil beneath a lease, THEN they go into production mode.

In the Alaska oilfields (an area with I have personal experience), if there is a production facility nearby, it's generally a matter of plumbing at that point.

However, all of the existing leases have already been explored and re-explored. All the oil that can be found in those location has been identified.

So when you hear dishonest Democrats saying "they have 80 million acres of leases"... this is true. But not every acre has oil under it!

If oil is discovered, and the nearest processing facility is thirty or forty or fifty miles away, a production facility needs to be built... which means years of environmental permitting and lawsuits.

It's not 10 years, it's more like 5.

If five years is too far out for oil, why should we spending billions or trillions to tackle .4 degrees of global warming in fifty?

Posted by AlexC at 12:19 PM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

Again, do these people do laundry or maintain their property? He is part of the 110th Congress of a 220 year-old nation. I can't see that thinking a whole freakin' decade out is too much for these people.

Martin Feldstein has a great piece today on how future supply would lower today's prices. (HINT: it rhymes with Weevil Escalators...)

Posted by: jk at July 1, 2008 1:46 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Casey's "...area available for drilling" reminds me of the old joke:

What are you looking for under this street light?
I dropped a contact lens. Will you help me find it?
Sure! Where do you think it landed?
Well, I dropped it way over there but the light's better here.

Posted by: johngalt at July 1, 2008 3:41 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

I've heard 6 years thrown out as the time from drilling to refinement. That still begets the question, so why didn't the Democrats let us start drilling 6 years ago? Oh, they couldn't have predicted the future? Nor can they now.

Good examination of the microeconomics by Feldstein, but I didn't see that he boiled prices down to a simple concept: prices reflect supply versus demand, not just in the present time, but in the *future*. All it would take is for Congress to approve drilling in ANWR, and before a single rig is set up, oil prices would start falling immediately.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 1, 2008 4:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Exactly right, Perry.

And the fact that speculators keep pressing the price higher and higher is proof positive of their conviction that it [ANWR drilling] won't be happening anytime soon.

Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2008 7:41 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Exactly right, Perry.

And the fact that speculators keep pressing the price higher and higher is proof positive of their conviction that it [ANWR drilling] won't be happening anytime soon.

Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2008 7:41 PM

October 11, 2007

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran

John Morgan, liberal progressive blogger is bent out of shape that Bobby Casey voted to ... well let him explain...

Senator Robert P. Casey is trying to explain his vote on the Lieberman/Kyl Amendment granting George W. Bush the authority to begin military combat operations against Iran. He sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton meaning our most esteemed representatives in Washington are completely susceptible to brainwashing and are utterly incapable of reading an actual text before voting.

The overwhelming majority of blogospheric traffic about this is on the left, and it's generally dripping with hysterics.

Meaning it's likely a mountain out of a molehill.

Indeed, despite doing a good job of posting the scary text of the bill, he does so without a) providing a link b) providing a few more paragraphs of context... probably because it would blow the outrage right out the door.

The words he (along with the rest of the liberal bloggers) neglected to post: "It is the sense of the Senate".

Sense of the Senate (or House) aren't very "toothy" declarations of anything!

But don't believe me. Believe C-SPAN.

SENSE OF THE SENATE is legislative language which offers the opinion of the Senate, but does not make law.

Bed wetting is so tacky once you're older than two or three.

Posted by AlexC at 11:29 AM | Comments (2)
But John Morgan thinks:

The text of the entire Amendment and a link are contained in an earlier article about the vote which my regular readers are familiar with.

Posted by: John Morgan at October 11, 2007 12:02 PM
But AlexC thinks:

You linked, but did you read?

Surely you would have noticed the Sense of the Senate text?

Isn't that rather important to the imminence of the invasion?

Posted by: AlexC at October 11, 2007 12:35 PM

September 20, 2007

Game, Set, Mitch!

Surrender will not get 60 votes, no matter how well it is dressed and coiffed. NYTimes:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — A proposal that Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing the course of the Iraq war died on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly with President Bush.

It's a small, petty man who calls for I-told-you-sos, but I've never claimed better. I said last summer that Bush has found his Grant in General Petraeus, and that Petraeus might surprise to the upside. And that the world's most deliberative body would have to follow. If they can't get the Webb Amendment, it's over.

Yeah, I blew the GOP Immigration call in 2005, but I nailed this one. Thanks to the General and all who serve.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:44 AM

August 24, 2007


I wanted to say something about Senator Warner's attempt to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. But Scrappleface has done it sooner and better:

(2007-08-24) — Sen. John Warner, R-VA, yesterday called on President George Bush to start bringing troops home from Iraq “to show al Qaeda that the U.S. commitment to fighting Muslim terrorists overseas is not open-ended."

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by John Kranz at 10:59 AM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

Warner's laudable intent is to compel the Iraqi government, in the person of PM Maliki, to get its house in order and become a self-sufficent nation within 4 months. But even if Maliki had been elected "dictator for life," as Hugo Chavez apparently was, such an achievement would be nigh on impossible.

Internal pressures are one thing but Iraq's destablization is a part of the dominant global cold war between the US-EU-Australia-Japan allies and the Mideast-Sino-Russian axis (I include China reluctantly as JK has been effective in lauding their pro-freedom progress, yet they're still behind the Google Curtain.) NATO's cold war bases in Germany have effectively moved to "the land of the two rivers."

C'mon Senator Warner, you're smart enough to understand all this. Stop being a chicken hawk.

Posted by: johngalt at August 24, 2007 4:12 PM
But jk thinks:

I agree but take exception to your use of "laudable." This is the freely elected government of a sovereign nation. I don't find it laudable that a Republican Senator gives credence to the (let me be fair here: completely insane) talking points of the opposition party.

I don't think we need to "send them a message" that they should take over their country. I'd rather send al-Qaeda the message that we're playing to win.

If there is a body with less courage than the US Senate, I cannot think of it.

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2007 4:52 PM
But johngalt thinks:

You are right - I retract the word "laudable."

Posted by: johngalt at August 24, 2007 5:56 PM

August 22, 2007

The Least Intelligent Member of the Senate

It's a great party game and I'd be the first to concede that many of my beloved Republicans are in the running. But Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan has a special place in my heart. I once saw Larry Kudlow interview her and she had no idea where he was coming from, did not understand the questions -- I'm not sure she knew where she was.

Today, ThreeSources' big-time-blogger-friend, Extreme Mortman, gives us a quote from the junior Senator:

“The expectations when we took control in January were so high, and we all feel it,” Stabenow told the Lansing State Journal editorial board last week. “We kind of feel like everybody thought the Democrats are now in control of the House and Senate, the war is going to end, we are going to have universal health care, everybody’s going to be able to go to college, no more global warming.”

The disappointment is palpable, Senator. I still have MS and the pop music of the day is jejune and unmelodic.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:22 PM | Comments (3)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Dammit. The Dems lied to me! I was TRICKED! I thought they would legalize stem cell research and I would get MY MS cured too. THEY PLAYED ON MY FEARS!

Ohhh, I'm going to SO impeach their asses!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 23, 2007 12:13 AM
But Josh Hendrickson thinks:

I am embarrassed to even write this, but unfortunately, she is one of my Senators. If you think this is bad, you should see her campaign commercials. . .

Posted by: Josh Hendrickson at August 24, 2007 2:27 PM
But jk thinks:

Ah yes, Levin AND Stabenow. My condolances. But it's very pretty.

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2007 4:53 PM

June 28, 2007

Quote of the Day

Speaking about the Senate immigration “process”

You can’t tell the will of the American people simply by those who call or object.

US Senator Arlen Specter, proudly serving my home state of Pennsylvania, on the day the Senate phone system is overloaded with phone calls.

Posted by AlexC at 11:32 AM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

And your illustrious Senior Senator was the only Republican to vote for legalized union extortion.

Had I not given up the other day, I might point out that a majority of Americans, poised to profit from comprehensive immigration reform, are unlikely to call their Senator while a vocal minority is pulling out all the stops. I saw Tamar Jacoby speaking on the topic this morning and I think she is exactly right.

Posted by: jk at June 28, 2007 12:05 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Arlen Specter,..he'll do for Aricept what Bob Dole did for Viagra!

BTW - Someone call his office and ask him if he still believes the single bullet theory?

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 28, 2007 9:12 PM
But jk thinks:

Heh. Had to look up "Aricept." He's a great choice.

Posted by: jk at June 29, 2007 10:56 AM

June 26, 2007

Victory for Democracy

Those un-secret union ballots?


Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would allow labor unions to organize workplaces without a secret ballot election.

Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to force consideration of the Employee Free Choice Act, ending organized labor's chance to win its top legislative priority from Congress.

The final vote was 51-48.

The outcome was not a surprise, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying for months that he would stop the legislation in the Senate. The White House also made it clear that if the bill passed Congress it would be vetoed.

I have to wonder if everytime they fail to hit the supra-constitutional 60 vote threshold they kick themselves in the ass for being such jerks in the last Congress.

Posted by AlexC at 2:01 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

As disappointing as the GOP has been of late, one must admit that Leader McConnell has saved us from a lot of nonsense.

Posted by: jk at June 26, 2007 2:07 PM
But jk thinks:

Larry Kudlow's pretty happy:

This is a key victory. This was all about the Democratic Congress’s war on prosperity. They were trying to somehow resurrect a growing union movement by abolishing the secret ballot. It’s a loser. So we’re glad the GOP won this battle.

Posted by: jk at June 26, 2007 5:21 PM

January 25, 2007

Senatorial Surrender Monkeys

First the Democrats...

US Senate panel opposes plan to send more troops to Iraq
"The committee adopted the measure by 12-9 vote with one Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, breaking ranks to join the 11 Democrats on the panel in approving the resolution."

Then the Republicans...

Senate showdown looms for troop buildup in Iraq
"The Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution Wednesday on a vote of 12-9, with Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, joining 11 Democrats in supporting the measure."

Key GOP senator opposes Bush's Iraq plan
"Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, is one of four principal sponsors of a compromise that would express the Senate's opposition to the additional deployment, but avoid calling it an "escalation" of the four-year-old war."

Brownback could back rival resolution against troop increase

War stage set: Congress v Bush
"And, with several Republicans advancing their own resolution opposing the president's troop deployment, Democrats are negotiating for a common wording that could lead to a bipartisan vote against the war."

All of this about-facing and navel gazing is nauseating, and unseemly for a stately body such as the United States Senate. But it does remind me of the way I felt back in 2003 when another group of surrender monkeys was wringing its hands. Here's what I said then and here's

what I say now.

Posted by JohnGalt at 7:44 PM

January 18, 2007

Line Item Veto

I might have to recind the open and shut "You Suck" Award nomination from the Senate.

They voted to drop the damned Blogger registration thing AND we might get a line item veto out of them.

Yeah, i know!

Posted by AlexC at 9:09 PM

November 2, 2006

Bobby Casey - Answering the Tough Questions

Steven Morse of the Daily Pennsylvanian tries to get some answers from Bob Casey and his spokesman Larry Smar on the John Kerry situtation.

    While other journalists were inside the event watching Gov. Rendell get the crowd pumped, I chose to wait outside for Mr. Casey's arrival. As he entered, I tried to ask a couple of questions about the now-infamous John Kerry comments. Casey rebuffed me, saying he would address this issue later. Because Casey is a politician, I was skeptical. So I decided to ask a Casey aide about the matter. He said that the only person authorized to speak on the record was the Casey campaign's Communications Director, Larry Smar.

    Larry Smar is a man that I have left phone calls and e-mails for in the past. He has never returned my messages. Nor has he returned the repeated voice mails and e-mails of other Daily Pennsylvanian staff members. Since the beginning of this campaign, the Casey strategy has been to shy away from the media, as they are up significantly in the polls and have little to gain from speaking with us.

    Once again, Smar refused to answer my questions. Even as a member of the media, I never had a problem dealing with communications directors until yesterday.

The glare that Smar gives Mr Morse is priceless... then there's the "using a file folder to block the camera." Niiiiiiiiice.

Then he accuses the University of Pennsylvania student of working for Viriginia Davis, spokeswoman for Rick Santorum.

Stephen Morse asked the toughest question of all. "Who cancelled Kerry's appearance? Kerry or Casey."

Watch the video to find out.

Posted by AlexC at 10:46 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

He looks too young to have had the word "smarmy" coined after him, but he is keeping the dream alive.

Posted by: jk at November 2, 2006 12:30 PM

October 26, 2006

Wiretap Dancing

The Washington Times editorial board picks up on Bob Casey's "direct answer" to the Philadelphia Inquirer on wiretapping.

    The one thing Sen. Rick Santorum's backers and critics agree upon: Everyone knows where he stands on the issues. Then there's Democratic challenger Bob Casey Jr., who was for warrantless surveillance of terrorists before he was against it. Or something like that.

Calling his evasive answer Kerryesque, they continue...
    Mr. Casey's position is not clear -- not at all.

    We call on Mr. Casey to tell voters what he really thinks about surveillance. At present he is tiptoeing around the subject because commonsensical Pennsylvania voters want one answer while his liberal campaign funders at Moveon.org insist upon another. Whatever Mr. Casey says is bound to antagonize somebody. The fact that he can't answer at all should give everybody pause. If he can't make a hard decision like that now, imagine what kind of senator he would make.

We can call on Mr Casey to answer the tough questions, but he won't. In fact, the Santorum campaign and the blogosphere has been doing that on any number of issues. Even in the primaries, the left blogosphere was doing the same thing.

He has two weeks to keep his mouth shut. What makes anyone think he'd do otherwise? He managed to say very little during four debates. Being a stealth candidate is all about waiting the other guy out.

He's not going to start now (and definately blow it).

Posted by AlexC at 12:11 PM | Comments (3)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

You know, I have not heard a peep out of Specter. You would think that the RINO would make a nice gesture towards Santorum after all the support he got .... but then again ...

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 26, 2006 3:56 PM
But AlexC thinks:

I happened to drop by Santorum HQ today to pickup some signs. There was a mailer being assembled with Specter on it.

But Specter support is a mixed blessing.

1) Santorum's conservative base hates him. Especially the Santorum choosing Specter over Toomey.

2) Specter is popular with moderates, independants and some Democrats. See number 1.

Posted by: AlexC at October 26, 2006 4:00 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

While a Specter endorsement wouldn't send REAL Republicans over to Casey's side, his endorsment, plus $2.60 gets me two SEPTA tokens, OK?

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 26, 2006 10:47 PM

October 24, 2006

Endorsing Casey

The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Bob Casey despite exchanges like this one.

    Interviewer: Let me ask you to shift gears to the anti- terrorism initiatives. Last night in the debate, I think you said that you’d support warrant-less wiretapping. How does that square with your suspicion about this white house? Why would you be willing to let them do that without judicial oversight? And on the Military Commissions Act, would that have been something you would have supported? In general, your outlook on anti terrorism initiatives…

    Casey: Yeah, I think going backwards the, with regard to the detainees and interrogation, look, we’ve had people like John McCain, and you could give other examples as well, but people who have looked at this for a long time who have been very serious about making sure that we are very tough in our interrogation, that we get as much information as possible from those we detain and interrogate and also John McCain, showing the kind of independence that Rick Santorum never seems to show, took on the administration and I think they, based upon their experience, I think they got it right and I think I would have support that. Secondly, on the question of wiretaps, my position all along has been we’ve got to do everything possible and give every tool that government agencies need, intelligence, law enforcement, give them the tools they need to fight this war on terror. And I think we, in terms of wire tapping, whether its terrorists, known terrorists, or suspected terrorists, we’ve gotta give this government all the tools it can. And I think what we’ve seen in the past is the system that has been setup when its operated according to the law, and when the administration goes and puts a wiretap in place and then comes back later and gets a warrant after the fact, the system that has been setup is a pretty solid system, but they often don’t comply with it. You can support having a lot of tough wiretapping, but also support the kind of tough oversight of the administration, which I think has been lacking. And I think we can have the two in balance at right.

    Interviewer: Well, it might have been misreported this morning, but it certainly seemed to me as if you were endorsing the NSA program which is warrant less wiretapping without court oversight.

    Casey: Well, I think, look, my position all along has been you’ve got to have the ability to wiretap known or suspected terrorists, and I am going to make sure that everything I do in this area is focused on anti terrorism and making sure that were being as tough as possible to fair it out any kind of plot or and kind of terrorist activity.

    Interviewer: Bob, it’s real simple, and it seems to me you are dancing around it. Either you believe that the President or his designees need to go to the FISA court and provide some probable cause for the wiretapping, or you don’t. They say they don’t. They say they can do it on their own say so and there’s no oversight of whether the person they’re wiretapping is actually credibly a terrorist suspect or not. That’s the issue. Do they have to go through the FISA court or not? Nobody’s debating that we need to wiretap suspected terrorists.

    Casey: You know very well that Senator Specter has worked very hard on this to try to get this right and I think with bi-partisan cooperation, working with people like Senator Specter, as I know I can, that we can get this right. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t see what the…

    Interviewer: It’s a real simple question. Do they need to go through the FISA Court as the FISA law has said since 1973 or don’t they? They say they don’t. We say they do. What do you say?

    Casey: I think it’s worked well.

    Interviewer: What has worked well?

    Casey: I think it’s worked well when you use that system and you use it in the context of making sure that we are doing everything possible to, to…

    Interviewer: So, are you saying that the president has been breaking the law since 2002, or whenever the NSA program started?

    Casey: I’m saying that people like Senator Specter have a lot of questions about whether or not the law was broken. I don’t think anyone has made a determination about that. I think that’s pretty clear.

Clear like your answer?

In their endorsement piece, the Inquirer writes...

    Some in Casey's party find him too tepid on the Iraq war. But surely he'd push harder than Santorum would to hold accountable those who bungled the occupation.

I think that's a "hope." It certainly can't be because he demonstrated it.

The Inquirer posted audio from all of it's Philly area race interviews here.



    A friend directs our attention to the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board interview with Bob Casey, candidate for the United States Senate. She asks us to "read this and think about the fact that the newspaper endorsed Casey." She comments: "It would be funny if we weren't actually at war." Putting that disagreeable fact to one side, this is funnier than any Hollywood political satire since "Dr. Strangelove" or perhaps "Being There." Bob Casey apparently can't think, and he can't talk, but he likes to watch television

Kathryn Lopez:

    All that's pretty clear here is that it's a deeply depressing state of affairs when this man could be elected to the United States Senate at a time of war.

Bryan @ HotAir calls him unserious.

    Casey comes off as a very typical Democrat, on the one hand lobbing criticisms at the Bush administration for aggressively monitoring the communications of suspected terrorists, while on the other hand trying to appear tough on terrorists by agreeing in abstract terms that terrorists should be watched and listened to. He dances and bobs and weaves in and out of the question, which to the credit of the interviewer he had a hard time getting away with. Hopefully enough voters can see through Casey’s stumbling ramba and recognize him for what he is: unserious. It’s hard to imagine that he would get more serious if he actually wins the election.

Posted by AlexC at 1:56 PM | Comments (3)
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

The Inkwaster would endorse Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan and Ahmedinejad if they were listed as Democrats!

You expected something else?

Although, I am scoring the Inky's endorsements. It'll be interesting to see where the final score falls.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 24, 2006 5:16 PM
But johngalt thinks:

This is the first substantive look at Casey that I've had. I hope he loses because he would add to the Democrat caucus and, therefore, is anti-national defense.

The "Inkwaster's" (great name!) endorsement of him on the basis that "surely he'd push harder than Santorum would to hold accountable those who bungled the occupation" is evidence that they hope he wins for the same reason - to enlarge the Democrat (anti-national defense) caucus.

Casey is not unserious. For that to be the case he would actually have to think about SOMETHING. In reality, Casey is a stuffed shirt that the Democrat leadership hopes to prop up in a chair in the senate chamber where his hand will raise with a hearty "yay" upon DLC command.

Posted by: johngalt at October 26, 2006 3:58 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

The fact that Casey, by way of the Inkwaster, continues to call the Iraq theatre of the GWOT an "occupation" makes me all the more inclined to ignore most of their endorsements.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 26, 2006 10:49 PM

October 23, 2006

The Race


Connecticut: Ned Lamont
Maryland: Ben Cardin
Michigan: Debbie Stanbenow
Missouri: Claire McCaskill
Montana: Jon Tester
New Jersey: Bob Menendez
Tennessee: Harold Ford
Virginia: James Webb

Democrat Held Seats

(CO-03): John Salazar
(GA-03): Jim Marshall
(GA-12): John Barrow
(IA-03): Leonard Boswell
(IL-08): Melissa Bean
(IL-17): Phil Hare
(IN-07): Julia Carson
(NC-13): Brad Miller
(PA-12): John Murtha
(WV-01): Alan Mollohan

Republican Held Seats

(AZ-08): Gabrielle Giffords
(CT-04): Diane Farrell
(CT-05): Chris Murphy
(CO-07): Ed Perlmutter
(IA-01): Bruce Braley
(IL-06): Tammy Duckworth
(IN-02): Joe Donnelly
(IN-08): Brad Ellsworth
(IN-09): Baron Hill
(FL-13): Christine Jennings
(FL-16): Tim Mahoney
(FL-22): Ron Klein
(KY-03): John Yarmuth
(NC-01): Heath Shuler
(MN-06): Patty Wetterling
(NM-01): Patricia Madrid
(NY-20): Kirsten Gillibrand
(NY-24): Michael Arcuri
(NY-26): Jack Davis
(OH-15): Mary Jo Kilroy
(OH-18): Zack Space
(PA-06): Lois Murphy
(PA-08): Patrick Murphy
(PA-07): Joe Sestak
(PA-10): Chris Carney
(VA-02): Phil Kellam
(WI-08): Steve Kagen

What's this all about?

See here.

Posted by AlexC at 12:16 PM | Comments (1)
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Sestak got slapped around pretty good in the last Welson/Sestak debate.

The Inkwaster came out yesterday and endorsed Casey over Santorum.

But,..the same Inky endorsed Fitzpatrick over Murphy today.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 23, 2006 9:39 PM

October 17, 2006

MD-Sen: Nothing To See Here

MSNBC looks at Maryland Lt Gov Michael Steele's prospects against Congressman Ben Cardin.

    Black voters account for about one quarter of the state’s electorate; President Bush carried only about 10 percent of them in 2004, according to exit poll interviews.

    If Steele can win 25 percent of black voters, he could pull off an upset. But that Republican hope hangs on two slender threads: one, the possibility that Steele can equal or exceed Bush’s performance among white voters in Maryland (Bush won 55 percent of them, if exit poll estimates were correct), and two, that a chunk of anti-war and independent voters choose Zeese, instead of Cardin.

They also write about Ben Cardin.
    Cardin, a dry and detailed-oriented career legislator, was upstaged at his Upper Marlboro event Sunday by the irrepressible Rep. Steny Hoyer, who did a comedy routine about the event’s host, Cool Wave Water, and told the audience that Steele had had “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”

Nobody worry. Steny Hoyer's a Democrat.

While Democrats are not immune to getting Foot-in-mouth disease, the aftereffects are quite often negligable.

Update: Oct 18th, Hoyer apologizes.

Posted by AlexC at 6:37 PM

September 13, 2006

Rhode Island Post-Game

MyDD's Matt Stoller.

    I had hoped that Laffey would beat Chafee, but I can sympathize with Steve Clemons who is glad that the far-right candidate lost. The Club for Growth, which is one of the most pernicious forces on the far-right, took a huge hit in terms of prestige last night. Nothing does that to you like losing.

And these guys would know. If it weren't for Ned Lamont, what would their record be? 0-20?

I believe Club for Growth is 8 for 11, or 8 for 12.

No comment on the left blogosphere's prestige.

    Laffey wasn't a foreign policy lunatic so much, he was more in the extreme greedocrats wing of the GOP, so his spanking suggests that this era of antitax fervor is over. I still little of Chafee. He is a puddle of a man, who deserves to lose to Sheldon Whitehouse.

    But I can't help thinking that the Club for Growth's guns are just not as loaded as they once were.

Posted by AlexC at 4:32 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

If the RI GOP primary was not the most perfect example of the "vote your party/vote your principles" dilemma ever then I don't know what is. Some people believe 'tis better to vote your principles even if you have to go third party to do so. This was a case when you had the choice WITHIN your party.

Sorry JK but if I were an Ocean State voter, even if I KNEW that Laffey would lose to a - what would Matt Stoller call him ... a 'generousicrat?' - and I KNEW that Chafee would beat that same collectivist Democrat, I would still vote for Laffey. Then I could drive around with a "Don't Blame Me - I didn't vote for (the D guy) OR Chafee" bumper sticker.

By the way, did anyone else notice Matt's Freudian slip where he called "extreme" Republicans "greedocrats" instead of "greedicans?"

Posted by: johngalt at September 13, 2006 5:21 PM
But jk thinks:

I would have voted for Laffey as well, but I would probaly not have given him any money. Voting your conscience is swell, but Club for Growth could have better impacted its goals by spending that money in Maryland or Missouri.

Posted by: jk at September 13, 2006 6:27 PM

September 11, 2006

Rhode Island Preemption

NY Times

    In an extraordinary pre-emptive announcement, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has said it will concede Rhode Island to the Democrats should Stephen Laffey, the mayor of Cranston, defeat Mr. Chafee in the primary. Citing poll data, Republican leaders said they saw no way someone as conservative as Mr. Laffey could win in a state as Democratic as this; as it is, they are increasingly worried about Mr. Chafee’s hopes in a general election.

    The result has been the striking sight of the national Republican Party, dominated by conservatives, using resources to save the seat of a Republican who said he voted against Mr. Bush in 2004. He chose instead to write in the name of the first President Bush.

    Mr. Chafee has opposed many centerpiece Republican policies, from the war in Iraq to tax cuts to most restrictions on abortion. This week, he helped force a delay on the confirmation of John R. Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations.

    For all that, Republicans said they expected to spend more than $1.2 million on advertisements attacking Mr. Laffey, saturating the television stations of this state, the nation’s smallest. One advertisement lifts a line Republicans have used in countless attacks against Democrats, mocking the mayor as “tax-and-spend Steve Laffey.”

Wonderful. Pre-emptive surrender.

Posted by AlexC at 10:52 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Lincoln, Lincoln, he's our man!
If he can't do it no one can!

I have done a "Hugh Hewitt" this cycle and given only to individual candidates. The party really does not represent me anymore (and I am the pragmatist around here)

And yet I will stand by my first statement when this topic came up on this blog (Dec 12, 2005) http://www.threesources.com/archives/002170.html
We have the satisfaction of sending Senator Chaffee home, but will replace him with a 9-11 denier who will vote for Harry Reid as leader.

In the meantime, we spent a lot of money and energy we could have used to help Michael Steele in Maryland. Worth it?

Posted by: jk at September 11, 2006 11:44 AM

August 23, 2006

Buyers' Regret

As many has predicted, Ned Lamont's narrow victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut is causing liberals and Democrats some heartburn.

Especially when Republican candidates take advantage of it.

From Rick Santorum's campaign...

    Bob Casey, Jr. has traveled across the Commonwealth claiming that he is independent and stands outside of Democrat party lines on important issues. He also continues to criticize Senator Santorum for working with President Bush on important issues -- issues like protecting Israel and efforts to stabilize the Middle East.

    Recently, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, a well-known supporter of Israel and the Jewish community, lost a narrow Democratic primary election in Connecticut against challenger Ned Lamont. As you may know, Lieberman has decided to run as an Independent in the upcoming general election. You may not be shocked to find out that Bobby Casey, Jr. DOES NOT SUPPORT Senator Lieberman in the upcoming election.

LamontBlog responds....
    This is just part of Newhouse's likely expansive efforts to use Lieberman in races throughout the country to try to keep Republicans in control of Congress. Newhouse is also working for Gov. Rell (R) and Rep. Simmons (R) in Connecticut. Anything he does for Lieberman will be to help out his other clients.

    Democrats, wake up.

Neil Newhouse is the Republican pollster now shared by both Senators Santorum and Lieberman.

Posted by AlexC at 1:31 PM

April 10, 2006

Boston Globe on Pa Senate Blogging

Sometimes you have to wonder if reporters do prep work on their articles.

An example would be the Boston Globe on the impact of negative blogging on Senate races.

    The new Menendez site seeks to establish the Democratic senator -- appointed to the job by his Democratic predecessor, Jon Corzine, governor of New Jersey -- as being too cozy with the political establishment and moneyed interests, while sites aimed at Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr. call him too liberal for his home state of Pennsylvania.

Does the story mention the names of those "sites" (plural) that call Casey too liberal?

Of course not.

How many are there? Well, I try to follow the PA Senate blogosphere closely, and I can only think of one obvious one. CaseyIsaLiberal.com, which hasn't been updated with a post since November. It's actually closed. Full disclosure, one of the contributors has joined SantorumBlog, but does not regularly post. (Still alive Jim?)

Another "anti-Casey" blog is TheRealBobCasey.com (sponsored by the Republican Federal Committee of Pa) seems lately to be highlighting his performance as a Treasurer more than anything else. Yes, I know about WheresCasey.com, but that's not a blog. It's an advertisement.

Ok, they don't link to all of those anti-Casey sites into the main article, but in a side bar, and it's only one. They have a gallery of "mudslinging sites" with screenshots.

Here's CaseyIsALiberal.com's.

And here's the funniest part. It's plain as day it's a stale site!! A blog on politics, especially this senate race, that hasn't blogged in months might as well be dead.

Just today MSNBC's Chris Matthews was bashing blogs for not having editors. "Writing must be fact-driven." That's all well and good. If only we had a positive example.

Can someone point to me the other anti-Casey "he's a liberal" blogs? You could make an argument about us, maybe, but generally I link to things with little commentary (being anti-Casey isn't our focus). If anything, the anti-Casey blogs and blog postings are from the left side!

    'That's part of American politics," Casey said in an interview, shrugging off the sites. ''People have a First Amendment right to express their point of view."

It goes on.

    Santorum, whom the Democrats consider the most vulnerable sitting GOP senator up for reelection this year, is the target of numerous websites dedicated to disparaging him.

    Mike Panetta, who operates one of the sites, said he launched it in 2000 as a gateway to register voters and provide information about the campaign. But this year, he said, the site has taken on a more interactive quality, with contributors posting remarks. The site now commands 700 to 1,000 hits a week, he said.

In fairness, they didn't link to the site (or the numerous other ones), so it's a mystery. Googling for it, I think it's DumpSantorum.com. Kim Hefling's similar article from a few months back also points to DumpSantorum.com. Although it only seems to be getting 3 to 500 hits / week.

What's the 1,000 hits per week site?

By comparison, for the seven days ending today, we've got over 1,000 visits and 1,500 page views.

    Howard Heater, who runs another anti-Santorum site, said he bought several domain names in the hopes of selling them to "rich Republicans" who would want them to promote the senator. He sold none, but developed electsantorum.com as a way to criticize the senator.

That's all the negative side of the blogosphere. There are positive pro-candidate sites. But they seem to all be from the campaigns themselves.
    Santorum has a campaign website that is unusually rich in information and multimedia features. Surfers can watch Santorum's campaign ads, read his statements, view his schedule, and even read his personal blog as he campaigns for his third term. The website is meant to reach out particularly to younger people who spend more time on the Internet, spokeswoman Virginia Davis said.

    The campaign monitors opposing websites but can't do much about critical postings, she said.

    ''People recognize that blogs are subjective," she said. ''And other bloggers will chime in with their side of an issue."

Other bloggers like SantorumBlog.

Overall, no plugs for SantorumBlog (doesn't really bother me, we don't try to be a negative site), but man, I hate identifying some pretty fundamental problems. Like Caseyisaliberal.com, and maybe the DumpSantorum hits... so much for editors.

(crossposted at santorumblog.com)

Posted by AlexC at 2:00 PM

March 14, 2006

Testiticular Fortitude

How many years over due is GOP Senate Leadership?

It's good to see it's return.

    After facing down Senator Russ Feingold's censure bill on Monday and seeing Democrats of all ranks fold, Frist thinks it's time to call Democrats on their antics, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

    "He pushed them to the mat today, and they blinked," said one Frist associate. "He dared them to vote, and Democrat Leader Harry Reid looked like he was going to be sick as he said 'No.'''

    Frist is going to continue to dare Democrats to vote on censuring the President.

    "When it comes to intercepting phone calls from Tora Bora to Topeka, Frist thinks Senate Democrats have made a huge blunder, and he will lead the charge to make Democrats put up or shut up on censure," the top insider claimed.

Leadership... along with fiscal responsibility, we have missed you.

Posted by AlexC at 11:54 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

I listened to Moonbat Radio for a short time last night and heard the host (unidentified male) refer to Senator Frist as "Freyest" (like 'Christ' I presume.) I figured it was only a matter of time before I heard him say, "Neener neener."

Posted by: johngalt at March 14, 2006 3:21 PM