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.
"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."
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.
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."
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.
"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?"
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.