April 14-17, 2010
Apr 14 01:53 Ben Nelson's Gaffe Apr 14 03:19 Projection vs. Reality Apr 14 18:00 The Nutroots Must Be Furious Apr 15 03:08 McCollum Joins the Chorus Apr 15 07:54 Crist Going Independent? Apr 16 01:17 Bachmann Posts "Big Number" Apr 16 00:43 Twins, Liriano Impressive In 8-0 Victory Apr 16 15:19 Bachmann, Paulsen MIA from Rothenberg Report's Hot List Apr 17 07:19 Conservative, Activist Justices?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Bachmann Posts "Big Number"
Last week, when I spoke with contacts familiar with Michele Bachmann's fundraising operation, they said that Michele would "post a big number" when the totals were finalized. Based on this Polinaut post , I'd say these contacts were right and then some. Here's the statement released by Team Bachmann:
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District today filed her 2010 first quarter report with the Federal Elections Commission showing over $810,000 raised the first quarter, with $1.53 million cash on hand.Besides the $810,000 raised, the numbers that should scare Tarryl are the 3,500 first time contributors, 7,100 contributions of $100 or less and 8,000 total contributors this quarter and the $1.53 million cash on hand.
"I am so grateful for the support of nearly 8,000 individuals who contributed to my campaign this quarter," Bachmann said. "We have worked hard to build a grassroots team of contributors that will give us the strategic edge to win in November, and it is with their support we will be able to fight back against the Democrats and their special interest allies who have made me a top target for defeat."
More than 7100 of the contributions in the first quarter were in amounts of $100 or less, and included over 3500 first time contributors. In addition to raising over $810,000 in the first quarter of 2010, Bachmann for Congress had a successful launch to the second quarter with a fundraiser featuring Governor Sarah Palin attended by over 900 people.
Tarryl Clark had a strong fundraising first quarter, raising $505,000. Thus far this cycle, Tarryl has raised $1,100,000. That's an impressive total. Still, that figure pales in comparison to Michele's having raised almost $2,300,000.
What's more stunning (some might say startling if you're in Tarryl's campaign) is the fact that Michele has more cash on hand than Tarryl has raised. In fact, Michele's total CoH differential is almost as big as Tarryl's Q1 fundraising total.
I wrote here that Tarryl faces an uphill fight for the general election because she first has to defeat a well-financed challenger in the DFL primary, then face Michele in the general election less than 3 months later. What's worse for Tarryl is that she has to do this in the strongest pro-conservative year in my lifetime.
The people that attended last Wednesday's rally are part of Michele's GOTV army. Let's remember that that crowd was estimated at close to 11,000 people. With that type of GOTV army deployed from now through that first Tuesday in November, I'm thinking that Michele's got a better than 50-50 shot at winning.
Posted Friday, April 16, 2010 1:17 AM
No comments.
Ben Nelson's Gaffe
Sen. Ben Nelson was exposed last night in his interview with Greta van Susteren. The best way to understand this is by viewing the interview in seperate parts. Here's the transcript from the opening portion of the interview:
GRETA: Take me back to the fall when the negotiations and discussions about the health care bill were going on in full force. And I understand that you were primarily concerned with one or two things. One was the abortion issue, the federal funding and the other was the cost to the state of Nebraska, having been a governor.The next important part of the interview is when Sen. Nelson received a letter from Gov. Heineman. Gov. Heineman's letter focuses squarely on the burden the Medicaid expansion would put on Nebraska:
SEN. NELSON: The thing that I was really trying to get was that there would be no public option, no government-run insurance operation as part of this health care plan. Yes, I was concerned about the cost to Nebraska. I was concerned about that before the governor raised the issue. But it was more than the cost to Nebraska. It was the cost to the states for continuing unfunded and underfunded mandates to pay for Medicaid costs to the states that were shared, not equally but shared, between the federal government and state governments.
GRETA: So that I understand the public option and the opt-in and opt-out, was that on a cost issue or was it more like a force being put on the states...cost was the issue mainly?
SEN. NELSON: Cost was the issue with Medicaid, expanding the Medicaid program. The costs to the states wasn't immediate but in 2017 and thereafter, the states' share would increase, which then creates the underfunded mandate. The other issue about the government-run plan was altogether different. That was to make sure that we didn't wind up with this big government-run health insurance company that took over all health care private carriers. That's a seperate issue.
GRETA: So fast forward now to I think Dec. 16 when you received a letter from your governor in which he was distressed by the fact that there'd be this unfunded mandate as it related to Medicaid and it would've imposed a burden on Nebraska.It's apparent that, at that point, the unfunded mandate created by the Medicaid expansion was a major concern to Sen. Nelson. About a minute later in the interview, Sen. Nelson tells Greta that Gov. Heineman asked the Nebraska Dept. of Health and Human Services for an estimate on how much this underfunded mandate would cost. Gov. Heineman then tells Sen. Nelson that the underfunded mandate would cost "almost $2.5 billion", which Sen. Nelson agrees is a substantial burden on Nebraska.
SEN. NELSON: He wrote me a letter and said "In reviewing the current Senate bill, it appears that while the state cost for the initial 3 years...would be covered, the bill becomes a substantial unfunded Medicaid mandate. It goes onto say "The state of Nebraska cannot afford an unfunded mandate and spending of this magnitude." Well I agree with him so I wrote back, I think the same day, and I say "Look, I agree. That's why I continue to work to change it. I propose that the Senate bill be modified to include an opt-in provision...
The next important part starts with Greta:
GRETA: Sometime in mid- to late December, between the 16th and the 24th, you have this problem...the Senate Democrats want your vote. They need your vote and you say that it's the unfunded mandate and so they say, "Sen. Nelson, we're going to do a $100,000,000 investment and your expectation, according to what you're saying, was that every state was going to get it but they couldn't do every state by Dec. 24 because they hadn't scored it and we didn't know if it brought us over this threshold that the president had set. The problem I'm having so that the American people can understand it so they knew what was getting voted on and that you didn't get a special deal was that that Dec. 24th date was an artificial date.Think about what Sen. Nelson just said. He's saying that he would've voted for the Democrats' health care bill whether there was additional funding for Medicaid expansion or not. This isn't trivial, especially since the underfunded mandate amount would cost Nebraska $2,500,000,000 over a decade starting in 2017. That's $250,000,000 per year to a tiny state like Nebraska.
SEN. NELSON: Well, from my perspective, while the Medicaid provision was important, it wasn't near the top of the list of my priorities. Remember that one priority was to make certain that there was not going to be a government-run operation. And when I got that assurance on that, I was more inclined to vote for the final bill, whenever the deadline was. The second priority was adequate language to make sure there would be no federal funds would pay for elective abortions. Those were the two conditions for my support. The Medicaid was important but it wasn't a condition for my support .
Why wasn't this at the top of Sen. Nelson's priority list? It certainly should've been considering the financial impact it would've had on Nebraska's state budget.
We're left with two options: either Sen. Nelson didn't put a high enough priority on taking care of the massive unfunded mandate that Nebraska would get hit with or he isn't telling the truth. At this point, either is a possibility, though I don't know which is the truth.
It's irrelevant because, at this point, the most important thing to take from this interview is that, at minimum, Sen. Nelson didn't care enough about Nebraska and the other states to make his vote hinge on finding a better fix to our health care problems than Medicaid expansion.
Let's face facts. Medicaid isn't great health care. In fact, it's kinda disgusting. Had Sen. Nelson really cared to negotiate with the Senate powers-that-be, he could've forced them into making better decisions that wouldn't have cost us so much money but would've possibly led to better health care.
In the end, holding all the cards, Sen. Nelson made a lousy deal that hurts us all. Let's hope Nebraskans shuffle him off to Nebraska's corn fields in 2012 rather than return him to DC.
Posted Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:07 AM
No comments.
Projection vs. Reality
Bill Prendergast's post is baffling from several perspectives. His opening is, to be kind, baffling:
"There is a future and there is a hope because it is our country. We own our country," (Congresswoman Michele Bachmann) said. "It doesn't belong to just a handful of radicals in Washington D.C."Considering the fact that President Obama and the Democratic leadership repeatedly ignored the loudly and passionately expressed will of the people with regards to health care and the Democrats' failed stimulus bill, I think it's easy to make a case that the Democrat-controlled congress and President Obama don't represent the people. In fact, I think a 10-year-old could make that case.
That's what Bachmann calls the White House and her colleagues in Congress these days, "a handful of radicals."
I'll bet that most people don't realize the extraordinary success that this particular kind of hatemongering has had. In the statement above and dozens of other statements like it: Bachmann's premise is that the government elected to represent the people does not represent the people .
The next part is the most troublesome:
As is true of any revolutionary premise, the consequences of this kind of talk can be bloody.The hyperbole contained in those paragraphs is stunning. In fact, there isn't any proof that TEA Party activists are violent. Capitol Police in DC have said that the TEA Party people were so orderly that they picked up after themselves after their rallies. Pretty destructive sounding, isn't it?
...I find it even odder to hear elected leaders from the Republican Party attack our republic. The irony is that as Americans we are all republicans who balance rights, responsibilities and sacrifices...
...Neither the tea party, the Republican Party, Palin nor Bachmann have asked for teamwork or sacrifice. Instead they use the rhetoric of rage to unite those who want to stop change.
But it cannot work because our republic is only as strong as our political institutions and civic trust...
These leaders are playing with political fire that can burn us all. The real problems that confront the republic are energy, environment and economy. These huge challenges can call out our American unity.
Building rage and flirting with violence cannot end well. Using less truth and more corporate cash will only add more Christian militias and less brotherly love to the 21st century.
Then there's real violence , the kind perpetrated by....liberals:
Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown, were savagely beaten Friday night in New Orleans after leaving a Republican party fundraising dinner by a group of thugs who reportedly targeted the couple because they were wearing Sarah Palin pins .It's interesting that conservatives who talk about the left's radicalism don't resort to violence but radical leftists break people's legs and give people concussions for the terrible offense of...wearing a Sarah Palin pin.
Bautch's leg was broken and Brown incurred a broken jaw and nose as well as a concussion.
The Hayride reports that a source who visited Bautsch at the hospital the day after the attack says they were told the couple was attacked for wearing Palin buttons:
Two people at the Brennan's event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say "Let's get them, they have Palin pins on", so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.
The story of a Republican and her boyfriend being viciously attacked for wearing Palin buttons has yet to make national headlines, unlike say, unfounded rumors of nasty words being said by Tea Party protesters.
With all due respect to Mr. Prendergast and the editorialist he quoted, I'm not willing to be lectured on civility and preventing violence until i see proof that liberals not only speak out against this type of violence but help apprehend this type of dirtbag. Anyone can speak out. It takes real integrity to give up 'one of your own' for committing violence.
Thus far, the left doesn't appear to be willing to help apprehend violent offenders.
Let's remember the union thugs beat up Kenneth Gladney for the outrageous offense of selling Don't Tread On Me miniature flags:
St. Louis County police say six people were arrested. Two of those were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances. Carnahan was gone when the ruckus started.The Democrats started using the racist card almost a month ago in their attempts to silence TEA Party activists. In so doing, they've alienated people of all political stripes. Juan Williams, the veteran NPR journalist and civil rights activist, is disgusted with the Left's smear campaign :
Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.
Democrats cannot win elections without capturing the votes of independent-minded swing voters. And that is where writing off the tea party as a bunch of racist kooks becomes self-destructive. The tea party outrage over health-care reform, deficit spending and entitlements run amok is no fringe concern. And it is insulting to all voters to suggest that criticism of President Obama, even by people who want to throw him out of office, is motivated by racism.The SEIU thugs that beat Kenneth Gladney to a pulp deserve ridicule and outright scorn. Committing an act of violence because a black man was selling Don't Tread On Me flags is beyond comprehensible.
Until liberals demand justice for Kenneth Gladney, Allee Bautsch and Joe Brown, I'll ignore their calls for civility. The problem isn't that conservatives are prone to violence. It's that liberals, especially their union thugs, are prone to extreme violence. In fact, the Democrat powers-that-be in St. Louis refused to take Kenneth Gladney's beating seriously :
At the same event a woman was smashed in the face by an SEIU member.I'm disgusted with Mr. Prendergast's tunnel-vision:
Five people were arrested including several SEIU members. Now, more than 85 days after the attack no charges have been filed against the SEIU thugs .
But, the media is painting victim Ken Gladney as an idiot shlub for trying to make a few bucks selling flags in the parking lot.
This is the America we are living in now: an attack on American political institutions and civic trust, is now an election strategy. One accepted, encouraged, legitimized by the Republican Party and its leadership.With all due respect to Mr. Prendergast, breaking Republican fundraisers' legs, kicking a black conservative for selling flags and giving people concussions, all of which have been documented and investigated by the police and found to be credible, is the type of behavior that doesn't have a place in society.
That there isn't a scintilla of proof to Mr. Prendergast's accusations and innuendo doesn't prevent him from peddling this disgusting crap. He should be ashamed of himself for blindly reprinting the Democrats' talking points without even questioning the information's voracity.
That Mr. Prendergast is silent towards that speaks volumes. That he rails agaisnt unsubstantiated allegations that are more Democratic talking points speaks even louder as to the Democrats' integrity and fairmindedness.
Shame on Mr. Prendergast and other uber-biased lefties for criticizing conservatives for speaking allegedly violent words but then staying silent when SEIU union thugs and other lefties commit real acts of violence.
It's time that the left started cleaning up its thugs. Enough conservatives have gotten injured by them already.
Posted Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:31 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-Apr-10 08:57 AM
What's even more disgusting is his presumption that we should "trust" our Congressional misleaders, that "unity" is a one-way street and that all "change" is necessarily virtuous and desirable. It's just another way to attack those who disagree with the radical leftist agenda, brand them as hatemongers, and avoid any discussion of real solutions to real problems that their own blindness prevents them from seeing. "cast out first the beam out of thine own eye..." Luke 6:42
The Nutroots Must Be Furious
During this afternoon's visit to Memeorandum, this post positively leaped off the page at me:
Obama/Bush Nearly Evenly DividedIt's worth digging into the short post:
Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama while 46% say they would rather have the old President back.What's interesting is the Nutroots' reaction to this polling. Here's FireDogLake's take on the polling:
Bush had atrocious approval ratings for his final few years in office, particularly because he lost a lot of support from Republicans and conservative leaning independents. Those folks may not have liked him but they now say they would rather have him back than Obama. 87% of GOP voters now say they would prefer Bush, a number a good deal higher than Bush's approval rating within his party toward the tail end of his Presidency. Democrats predictably go for Obama by an 86/10 margin, and independents lean toward him as well by a 49/37 spread.
I'm sorry, I don't think this can just be chalked up to the lingering high unemployment. This has to be the result of Obama not consistently and forcefully distancing himself from Bush, both rhetorically and through policy. I just don't see how else you read those results.This is typical nutroots thinking. It's totally predictable. FDL is implying that the Democrats' health care law isn't sufficiently different enough. This is proof that they don't have a clue what Americans want. If the ultrapartisans of the Nutroots' left think that they aren't ignoring the American people enough and that they need to do what Rahm Emanuel, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama tell them to do, then Democrats should start preparations for an historic election defeat because that's what they're heading towards.
If you campaign on CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN, and you're replacing the most unpopular President in modern times, you'd damn well better deliver sufficiently believable change, while making it clear on a regular basis exactly how you're doing so.
Michael Barone thinks that Democrats are in terrible shape heading into these elections:
Recent polls tell me that the Democratic Party is in the worst shape I have seen during my 50 years of following politics closely. So I thought it would be interesting to look back at the biggest Republican victory of the last 80 years, the off-year election of 1946. Republicans in that election gained 13 seats in the Senate and emerged with a 51; 45 majority there, the largest majority that they enjoyed between 1930 and 1980. And they gained 55 seats in the House, giving them a 246; 188 majority in that body, the largest majority they have held since 1930. The popular vote for the House was 53% Republican and 44% Democratic, a bigger margin than Republicans have won ever since. And that's even more impressive when you consider that in 1946 Republicans did not seriously contest most seats in the South. In the 11 states that had been part of the Confederacy, Democrats won 103 of 105 seats and Republicans won only 2 seats in east Tennessee. In the 37 non-Confederate states, in contrast, Republicans won 246 of 330 seats, compared to only 85 for Democrats.There's a reason why President Obama is in a virtual tie with President Bush and it doesn't have anything to do with what the Nutroots are saying. The reason is actually the exact opposite. Democrats have been so radical and inept that they've squandered the goodwill they'd built up prior to the inauguration.
Let's understand what's driving President Obama's dropping poll rating. It's the reckless spending he's signed: Obamacare, stimulus and the budgets that have been passed. Yes, people are upset with the debt but that's being driven by the reckless spending. If Democrats hadn't kept pushing health care and if they'd announce that Cap and Trade is off the table, jobs would get created almost instantly.
If there's a job creation explosion driven by spending cuts, we'll see the deficits drop dramatically.
More than just the headline, Democrats should be worried about something much deeper: that Democrats are seen as the Party of Reckless Spending when they aren't seen as the Party That Ignores The American People. That's a tough spot to sell your agenda from. If Scott Rasmussen's polling on who's more trusted on the issues tells us anything, it's that Democrats can't sell their positions:
Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports, but the gap between the two parties has grown narrower on several of them.Put in simplest terms, people don't trust Democrats on the biggest issues facing them. Put differently, there's alot of former Obama supporters who've rejected him because he hasn't governed like a moderate.
Following the passage of the health care bill, 53% now say they trust Republicans on the issue of health care . Thirty-seven percent (37%) place their trust in Democrats . A month earlier, the two parties were essentially even on the health care issue.
On the economy, Republicans are trusted more by 49% while Democrats are preferred by 37% . That's a big improvement for the GOP following a five-point advantage last month. More voters who make under $20,000 annually trust Democrats on this issue, but voters who earn more than that favor Republicans.
At tomorrow's TEA Parties, organizers will be telling activists how they can change the political landscape this November. Activists will respond positively to that message. What's worse for Democrats is that the buzz generated from the events will keep the Democrats' policies front and center.
My not-so-bold prediction? by the time Election Day rolls around, President Obama will be less popular than President Bush.
Posted Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:09 PM
No comments.
McCollum Joins the Chorus
Betty McCollum hasn't heard proof that TEA Partiers spat at Emanuel Cleaver or shouted the N-word at Rep. John Lewis but she insisted on jumping into the fray nonetheless:
"When Members of Congress compare health care legislation to 'government tyranny,' 'socialism,' or 'totalitarianism' in hopes of scoring political points it's like pouring gas on the fire of extremism," she said. "I implore my colleagues to temper their rhetoric and not allow the words of a member of Congress to ever be used by any violent militia or hate-filled phony patriots to cause violence."Rep. McCollum might have a bit of credibility if she'd spoken out against the SEIU thugs that beat up a black conservative vendor for selling Don't Tread On Me flags outside a Russ Carnahan townhall meeting. Either because she wasn't aware of the incident or because she doesn't want to upset her SEIU GOTV team, Rep. McCollum didn't speak out about that REAL VIOLENCE.
It looks like Rep. McCollum didn't speak out about the long-haired thugs that attacked Bobby Jindal's chief fundraiser and her boyfriend just because they wore Sarah Palin pins:
Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown, were savagely beaten Friday night in New Orleans after leaving a Republican party fundraising dinner by a group of thugs who reportedly targeted the couple because they were wearing Sarah Palin pins.Rep. McCollum's selective outrage isn't credible. If her outrage was specific and extensive, Rep. McCollum would be more credible.
Bautch's leg was broken and Brown incurred a broken jaw and nose as well as a concussion.
The Hayride reports that a source who visited Bautsch at the hospital the day after the attack says they were told the couple was attacked for wearing Palin buttons:
Two people at the Brennan's event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say "Let's get them, they have Palin pins on", so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.
I haven't heard Rep. McCollum or any other Democrats speak out about the Alinsky tactics being contemplated by Jason Levin :
Jason Levin, creator of http://www.crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15, tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.When Rep. McCollum and the Democratic leadership start highlighting the left's Alinskyite tactics and denouncing them, then I'll believe that their calls for civility aren't just a cheap political stunt.
"Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn't an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, 'That's right, he's an alien from outer space!'" Levin said,
Levin says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.
"Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not," Levin said. "Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely."
Until then, I'll just consider Rep. McCollum's speech a PR stunt.
Posted Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:08 AM
No comments.
Crist Going Independent?
It certainly could break that way according to Jim Geraghty's post about the Quinnipiac University Poll . First, here's what Mr. Geraghty said:
I had been expecting Crist to withdraw, but as time goes by, I wonder if he'll pull the full Specter or full Lieberman. I know Crist has said he won't do this, but Specter was insisting he would remain a Republican weeks before flipping parties.Comparing anyone to Snarlin' Arlen Specter isn't fair because he's totally unprincipled. Crist has been straightforward. Wrong but straightforward. Still, there aren't many politicians seeking higher office that wouldn't jump at the chance to further their political careers.
Here's the information that has Geraghty thinking Crist might run as an independent:
Marco Rubio has opened up an elephant-sized 56-33 percent lead over Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida's U.S. Senate Republican primary, but in a three-way general election with Rubio on the GOP line, Crist as an independent and Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, Crist has a razor-thin edge, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.Those numbers seemed way too close so I checked the polling method. Just as I suspected, they polled registered voters. Meek couldn't come within 10 points of any Republican in this race unless that Republican was Kathleen Harris.
Gov. Crist leads Meek 48-34 percent in a general election matchup, while Rubio's margin over the Democrat is just 42-38 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds.
If Crist were to file as an independent for the general election, he would get 32 percent of the vote, compared to Rubio's 30 percent and Meek's 24 percent.
While Quinnipiac reports that Gov. Crist is holding a 2-point lead in a 3-man race, that figure is a mirage. Though I haven't polled it, I suspect that Rubio would jump out to a lead of almost double digits the minute you changed it to likely voters.
The moral of the story for Gov. Crist is that he's better off waiting to run against Bill Nelson and not burn bridges this time because he'd lose AND burn some important bridges.
Whether he decides to listen to the voice of reason or not remains to be seen. After all, career politicians aren't good at saying no.
Posted Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:57 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Apr-10 09:25 PM
Even Strib has something on that possibility.
It looks interesting. Line NY 23?
But that's not the same, because of time frame.
This Florida thing has more time to play out.
It might be more like Joe Lieberman, except Crist and Rubio might undercut each other to such an extent that the Dems take it.
Could Emmer and Siefert have a strange encounter of the splintered kind? I doubt that.
Gary, you are closer. Don't you think that whatever sore feeling might arise that the GOP will unite behind one or the other?
Twins, Liriano Impressive In 8-0 Victory
This afternoon, the Twins took another step towards proving that they'll be a force to be reckoned with in the AL this October. While it's true that the Twins pitching staff still has to prove that they can put win streaks together with well-pitched games, 2006 phenom Francisco Liriano's performance today has Twins pitching coach Rick Anderson smiling.
After a bumpy start, Liriano settled into a grove, striking out eight Red Sox hitters in an efficient 7 innings of work. After throwing 37 pitches the first two innings, Liriano used a mere 97 pitches total for his 7 innings. That's an impressive average for a ground ball pitcher. It's just short of fantastic for a pitcher with 8 strikeouts.
Once Liriano got command of his fastball, the Red Sox hitters started taking more defensive swings. They weren't getting around on Liriano's fastball, which was routinely timed at 93-95 mph. That made them all the more susceptable to Liriano's slider, considered by some to be among the best in the game.
What the Twins have lacked in pitching consistency has been more than made up for by the Twins' hitters. Today, the Twins' backups combined with Jason Kubel, Justin Morneau and Michael Cuddyer for a 15 hit attack. included in this year's Twins' reserves is Jim Thome. Today's batting order was Span, followed by Orlando Hudson, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Michael Cuddyer, Jim Thome, Jason Kubel, J.J. Hardy & Nick Punto.
It's worth asking these questions: When was the last timt the Twins had a 7th hitter as dangerous as Jason Kubel? Or an eighth hitter as dangerous as J.J. Hardy?
Beyond the potent lineup & Liriano's dominant pitching, one thing hasn't gotten the recognition that it deserves: the Twins' defense. This is another stunning fact. Thus far this season, the Twins have played 10 games & committed just 1 error. The Twins are the only AL team that still hasn't allowed an unearned run this season.
The final mind-blowing stat that Twins fans should smile about is that they've won their first 3 series this year against the Angels, White Sox & Red Sox. Last year, those teams had a combined winning percentage of .558. The Twins lost their season opener to the Angels, then reeled off 5 straight wins before losing in Chicago. Now they've won the series against the Red Sox in impressive fashion.
People are noticing. Now it's a matter of sustaining a high level of play for the rest of the season. With this lineup and with the Twins' defense & pitching, this should be a fun season to be a Twins fan.
Posted Friday, April 16, 2010 12:43 AM
No comments.
Bachmann, Paulsen MIA from Rothenberg Report's Hot List
According to Stuart Rothenberg's hotlist , Michele Bachmann and Erik Paulsen were dropped from the list:
Total seats in play: 79This isn't surprising considering Michele's monstrous Q1 fundraising total and Erik Paulsen's strong Q1 fundraising total . Both incumbents have well in excess of $1,000,000 CoH at this point.
Republican seats: 11
Democratic seats: 68
Dropped from the list:
MN-3 (Paulsen, R), MN-6 (Bachmann, R), OH-2 (Schmidt, R), CA-44 (Calvert, R), CA-47 (Sanchez, D), GA-8 (Marshall, D)
This isn't looking like a decent year for Republicans. Based on everything that I'm hearing, it's more likely that it'll be an historic year for Republicans. Consider some facts from Doug Schoen's and Patrick Caddell's op-ed :
Recent polling shows that despite lofty predictions that a broad-based Democratic constituency would be activated by the bill's passage, the bill has been an incontrovertible disaster. The most recent Rasmussen Reports poll, released on April 12, shows that 58 percent of the electorate supports a repeal of the health-care reform bill, up from 54 percent two weeks earlier. Fueling this backlash is concern that health-care reform will drive up health costs and expand the role of government, and the belief that passage was achieved by fundamentally anti-democratic means. Already we are seeing the implications play out with the retirement of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who had effectively become the face of the last-minute, closed-door negotiations that resulted in passage.Democrats put themselves in a mess by voting for health care. Everyone knows that the Democrats' bill won't lower health care costs and it won't shrink the deficits. If Democrats thought that it would shrink the deficit, they wouldn't need to talk about adding a VAT onto the tax increases in the bill on top of the huge tax increase that will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Put simply, there has been no bounce, for the president or his party, from passing health care.
In fact, Monday's Gallup report showed the president's weekly job approval rating at a low of 47 percent. And as the Democratic Party's favorability has dropped to 41 percent, the lowest in Gallup's 18-year history of measuring it, this week's Rasmussen Reports survey shows the Republican Party with a nine-point lead in the generic congressional vote. Moreover, independents, who are more energized than Democrats, are leaning Republican by a 2-to-1 margin.
Michele's message of repealing Obamacare is resonating with people. Others preaching that gospel are getting traction, too. The fact that almost 60 percent of likely voters want repeal of the Democrats' health care law says that, in addition to not liking the bill, people don't appreciate the Democrats' unwillingness to listen to We The People.
One reason people hate Obamacare that isn't discussed often is the huge listof new tax increases that were signed into law. That total, according to the Republicans' House Ways and Means Committee website , reaches $670,000,000,000. If people read the Republicans' detailed list of new taxes , they'll be furious long before they finish the list.
Erik Paulsen and Michele Bachmann fiercely opposed the Democrats' health care bill. Now that it's law, they fiercely oppose the taxes included in the law. As a result of that, they're moving into a stronger position going into campaign season.
What I'll be looking for from Rothenberg, Charlie Cook and others in the months ahead is how the tax issue and the health care issue are playing. Last night, Fred Thompson said something that's worth repeating: that they didn't think a tidal wave was coming until mid-September. This year, pollsters and political analysts are already sounding the alarms that this might be an historic year for Republicans.
Rep. Bachmann and Rep. Paulsen are benefitting from being on the right side of this wave.
Posted Friday, April 16, 2010 3:44 PM
No comments.
Conservative, Activist Justices?
After the Judiciary Committee's confirmation on Goodwin Liu, Sen. Leahy made some assinine comments that are worth highlighting:
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. D-Vt., on Friday accused Republicans of applying a double standard in Liu's case. He said that in the past he had supported GOP-selected conservative, activist court nominees after they pledged they would be impartial on the bench.I'd love hearing Sen. Leahy's definition of what a conservative activist justice is. I'm betting he's refering to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. In his warped mind, I suspect that he thinks undoing the damage done by true activist judges is activism in its own right. He's wrong if that's what he thinks.
"I hope they will give the same credence to professor Liu's assurances that he understands the proper role of a judge," Leahy said. "I hope they will keep the same open mind kept by Democratic senators...I hope they will not apply a double-standard to this extraordinary nominee," he added.
The reason he's wrong if that's what he's thinking is because Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito literally apply the Constitution in making their rulings. That isn't judicial activism. It's what justices routinely did before progressives packed the courts with justices who thought of the Constitution as an impediment to their progressive agenda.
During Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation hearing, Sen. Durbin asked him what assurances he could have that Chief Justice would "side with the little guy." Chief Justice Roberts replied that "Every time the law is on the little guy's side, I'll rule in his favor." I wish I would've seen a picture of the Democrats' faces after hearing that answer.
What's made the United States great was adhering to the belief that we're "a nation of laws, not men." Anytime that we don't adhere to that principle, everyone suffers longterm. Either our rights protect everyone or they don't protect anyone.
As for Sen. Leahy's saying he hopes Republicans "will keep the same open mind kept by Democratic senators",I hope for something just a little different. I hope that Republicans will remember the brass-knuckled tactics that the Democrats used in filibustering President Bush's district court nominees.
Let's remember that the Democrats argued that Chief Justice Roberts wasn't qualified for the role of Chief Justice because he wasn't experienced enough. Let's remember that the reason his experience was shortened was because Democrats filibustered the confirmation of John Roberts. Isn't that like kids that kill their parents, then beg the mercy of the court because they're orphans?
To be fair, I understand how Sen. Leahy thinks that strict constructionist judges like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are activist jurists. Sen. Leahy thinks it's a revolutionary thing to actually adhere to the Constitution. In a way, he's right. Found in that document are the principles that our Founding Fathers fought a revolutionary war over.
Think of it this way: Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas all point to the genius of the Founding Fathers. That's a good thing in the eyes of most people. To corrupt politicians like Sens. Leahy, Durbin, Specter and Schumer, that's something to abolish.
The good news is that We The People have the final vote on Sens. Leahy, Durbin, Specter and Schumer this November. We won't vote them all out of office but we will take away their authority by winning, winning and more winning.
We can't afford senators that confirm make-the-rules-as-we-go-along judges. We can't afford more of that type of activism.
Posted Saturday, April 17, 2010 7:23 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Apr-10 09:21 PM
There are the five idiots that handed down the Citizens United decision.
Persons are humans. Corporations are creations of statute, pooled risk entities.
The notion that constitutional rights of humans should go to a fiction, is a fiction.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-10 11:41 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.You'll forgive me if I don't notice anywhere in the First Amendment's text that it only protects people's right to free speech.
While it's true that corporations & unions can't contribute to a candidate, that isn't the same as forbidding constitutional protections of free speech to corporations. That's like saying that consumer groups could attack corporations & they wouldn't have the constitutional right to defend themselves.
That boat won't float in this Constitutionalist's harbor.
