DOWNLOADS: (491)

PLAYS: (4329)

Embed

Despite promising to uphold the original construct and intent of our Founding Fathers, Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell displays a breathtaking ignorance of the fundamentals of the Constitution. In a debate with Democratic candidate Chris Coons, O'Donnell reiterates her position that local school boards should be allowed to determine whether they wish to teach "Intelligent Design" (which she differentiates from creationism) over evolution. When Coons reminds her that the Constitution provides for a separation between Church and State, O'Donnell incredulously asks "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”

::face palm:: Are you kidding me? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you're so ignorant that you can't pass a 9th grade civics class, you have no business running for office. How can you swear to uphold a document that you are fundamentally ignorant of?

Sadly, it just keeps going:

Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark – likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub – saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.

“Yes,” Coons responded.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others – the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition – and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Get that sting in there, Christine. I'm not any happier that Coons was unable to respond, but O'Donnell's ignorance of such a core fundamental value of this country (as well as the misunderstanding of the scientific definiton of the word "theory", as in the "theory of evolution") has to give one pause.

I tells ya, we're dealing with a bunch of freakin' geniuses on the other side:

Pennsylvania voters can't afford cap and trade legislation, says Sarah Palin. And that's why they need to send Republican John Raese to the Senate.

Except that John Raese is the Republican nominee in West Virginia.

You know, it's an easy mistake when you remember that Raese's infamous "hicky" ad was produced and filmed in Pennsylvania; an ad for which the WV AFL-CIO has asked Raese to apologize.

Or maybe Palin should advise Florida voters, since that is where Raese's wife is registered to vote.

And the demonization of the "cap and trade" bill? Deader than a doornail. And even if it wasn't, Democratic rival Joe Manchin has promised to shoot it down. Literally.

By my count, that tweet from Palin (since removed and replaced) is 0 for 3. Yer out, Sarah.

Despite many protestations that they are WV residents and care about WV issues, the wife of tea party Republican Senate candidate John Raese cannot vote for husband as she was purged from WV voter rolls. Why? She's already a registered FL voter.

In an escalating residency controversy between West Virginia’s Senate contenders, the wife of Republican businessman John Raese is being purged from the state’s voter rolls because she is also registered to vote in Florida.

John Raese is running against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin to fill the seat of the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D).

Roll Call confirmed Friday that Elizabeth Raese is registered to vote in both states but has not voted in West Virginia since 1998. But in an interview this week with Time magazine, she indicated that she would be — and has been — voting in West Virginia.

“We are West Virginians,” Elizabeth Raese said, according to Time reporter Jay Newton-Small. “We live here, we vote here, people know that. We also have a home in Colorado, but we’re not residents there either.”

Raese campaign spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said Elizabeth Raese does not remember the conversation with the Time reporter, but he added that, “If she did say this, she obviously misspoke.”

Though John Raese’s campaign has repeatedly confirmed that he lives and pays taxes in West Virginia, an investigation by the nonpartisan PolitiFact.com showed that his wife has been registered to vote in Palm Beach County, Fla., since 2001 and voted there in 2008.

The "carpetbagger" charge is one that is apparently taken far more seriously in West Virginia than the "teabagger" charge. This could undermine Raese's campaign against Gov. Joe Manchin for the Senate seat. So Raese has been on the defensive:

Morgantown industrialist John Raese defended his residency, despite owning a mansion in Palm Beach, Fla., on which his wife, Liz, claims a homestead exemption as a Florida resident.

"I've never been a resident of Florida. I pay taxes and I live here in West Virginia," Raese said, adding, "My wife isn't running for U.S. Senate. I am."

This is the problem with the media lending so much credibility to the tea party and airing ad nauseam all the nutty things they say. It DEMANDS that any teabagger worth their bag has to ratchet up the craziness to get noticed. And David Harmer wants to be noticed. It wasn't enough to come out against bailouts (even when he's personally benefited from them), that's small potatoes. That's why David Harmer has done the Randians one better and advocated for the abolishment of public schools:

David Harmer, a tea party favorite who is running as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives in California's 11th district, is not just in favor of getting rid of the Department of Education. (Something the Maine GOP incorporated into their platform this year.)

No, Harmer wants to eliminate public schools entirely, and turn the clock back two hundred years, to a time when educational opportunities for the poor, African-Americans, women, the disabled, and other groups, were either limited or non-existent.

::facepalm:: Lord save us all. I knew that the Republicans preferred a dumbed-down electorate, the better to voter against their interests, but this is ridiculous. In his 2000 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Harmer said this:

Six years ago, I wrote "School Choice," a book making the case for a voucher system. Vouchers give parents consumer power, the financial ability to choose from among competing providers of schooling. Back then, the only voucher system in operation was in Milwaukee, Wis., and the teachers' unions were trying to strangle it.

Since then, the Milwaukee program has been greatly expanded, and numerous voucher programs elsewhere -- both publicly and privately funded -- have proven wildly popular, with demand far exceeding supply. These programs are restricted to the lowest-income students or those trapped in the worst schools. Given the opportunity to put their children into better schools, even disadvantaged parents jump at the chance.

So long as the state Constitution mandates free public schools, a voucher system (or refundable tuition tax credit) is the best we can do. To attain quantum leaps in educational quality and opportunity, however, we need to separate school and state entirely. Government should exit the business of running and funding schools.

This is no utopian ideal; it's the way things worked through the first century of American nationhood, when literacy levels among all classes, at least outside the South, matched or exceeded those prevailing now, and when public discourse and even tabloid content was pitched at what today would be considered a college-level audience.

Of course, with his six-figure severance package, the notion of privatizing schools is but a piddly amount. For those Americans whose household income falls on the poor side of the bell curve? Well, suckers, you just didn't work hard enough and your kids aren't deserving of a decent education. Henry Rollins in Vanity Fair:

Continue reading »

In an election season that appears more like a three ring circus than an exercise in democracy, Republican tea party candidate Allen West of Florida has flown under the radar of most, overshadowed by his flashier teabagging compatriots, like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle and Marco Rubio. Even his nuttier statements (like having a higher security clearance than the President of the United States) seem more sadly self-deluded than loony. But Allen West may be one of the more dangerous candidates out there:

NBC News’ Lisa Myers reports that Allen West (FL-22) has ties to an infamous motorcycle gang, the Outlaws. [..]

The Justice Department has said that the Outlaws produce and distribute methamphetamine, and engage in other criminal activities including arson, homicide, and prostitution. [Justice Department, National Gang Threat Assessment 2009, Published January 2009, accessed 9/13/10]

This past Monday, Republican Leader John Boehner was raising money for Allen West in Florida. This past Tuesday, NRCC Executive Director Guy Harrison touted West’s candidacy. Republican leaders, including Eric Cantor and Sarah Palin, support Allen West.

Motorcycle gangs? Drug production and distribution? Arson? Homicide? Oy.

Strictly anecdotal, but friends I have in Florida's 22nd District have told me that West's signs are all over the country and Democratic rival Ron Klein's are few and far between. Of course the NRCC is putting their money and backing behind the campaign. Will they continue to support West with these kind of ties?

You can call the NRCC and ask them if they want to keep giving donations to Allen West at (202) 479-7000.

DOWNLOADS: (453)

PLAYS: (4712)

Embed

Well, no one should ever accuse Mark Kirk of a lack of confidence.

In fact, he was so confident of his success on this morning's Meet the Press that the NRSC sent out a press release crowing about his performance. Only problem? They sent it out before the show even began:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee--the GOP senate political operation--in an audacious move, declared Illinois Senate GOP candidate Mark Kirk the winner over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias in Sunday's "Meet the Press" debate before it happened.

On Saturday night, the NRSC was running a fund-raising appeal pegged to the Sunday debate, with the time travel headline and opening paragraph:

Giannoulias Fails In Debate

"It was plain to see on Meet the Press. Alexi Giannoulias is wrong for Illinois and should not be elected to the United States Senate. For too long America has been on a similar course of more spending, more debt, and a weakened economic recovery. We are on an unsustainable path and the American people don't like what they see."

It's hard to argue that Kirk doesn't have his GOP talking points down--wailing and gnashing over tax increases (note to reality-based voters: it is the expiration of tax cuts, not a tax increase, and one that the Republicans organized) to the top 2% of income earners. Just those top 2%. But watch how David Gregory--who famously rejected the notion of asking journalistic questions--points out that Kirk was very much talking out of the other side of his mouth not so long ago.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (347)

PLAYS: (3104)

Embed

Hee hee hee, I just love it when teabaggers turn on each other, don't you? The Mudflats blog -- covering Alaskan politics -- have buried at the end of an article on Palin's presidential aspirations an item showing that tea bagger Republican senatorial candidate Joe Miller may have invoked the wrath of Palin in his refusal to go quid pro quo for Palin's endorsement:

On September 19, [Joe Miller] appeared on Fox News Sunday with [Chris Wallace] who addressed the rumor of a Palin presidential run, and asked Miller if he thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be President.

Miller’s non-committal response that there were “a number of great candidates out there” for the job fell far short of a Palin endorsement, and seems to have roused the ire of Todd Palin who launched an angry email blasting Miller on behalf of his wife. Palin sent the email on the morning of the Cavuto interview to Tim Crawford, Joe Miller and the Palins’ personal attorney, Thomas Van Flein (who also serves as Miller’s attorney.) In the email, Todd Palin instructs SarahPAC treasurer Tim Crawford to “Hold off on any letter for Joe. Sarah put her ass on the line for Joe and yet he can’t answer a simple question “is Sarah Palin Qualified to be President”. I DON’T KNOW IF SHE IS.”

Palin had previously given her support to Miller’s fundraising efforts. The day after appearing with Miller at a Conservative Patriots Group rally in Wasilla on September 11, Palin had written a Facebook post urging her more than 2 million Facebook friends to financially support Miller’s “money bomb.” As Todd Palin indicated, Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Miller was politically risky, with failure meaning that her backing was no longer even enough to assure support for a Republican candidate in her home state. And if Miller, with her help, actually succeeded in toppling the incumbent, the way would be paved for Mayor Scott McAdams of Sitka, the moderate Democratic candidate who would appeal to the Independents necessary to win any Alaska seat. At that time, no one anticipated that incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski, after suffering a stinging defeat to Miller in the primary, would re-enter the race, launching a risky write-in campaign with little statistical chance of success.

In the email Todd Palin went on to ask, “Joe, please explain how this endorsement stuff works, is it to be completely one sided.” The specific use of the word “endorsement” and the Palins’ anger at the endorsement being “one-sided” appears to be strong evidence that the Palins were, in fact, not only expecting a quid pro quo endorsement from Miller for a yet-to-be-announced Palin presidential run, but were furious that they didn’t get it.

The email continues “Sarah spent all morning working on a Face book post for Joe, she won’t use it, not now. Put yourself in her shoe’s Joe for one day.” Though the exact contents of the Facebook post and the previously mentioned letter are not clear, it is obvious that the Palins did not, at the time of the email, intend to put any more political muscle behind Miller’s candidacy, and were specifically withholding support they had intended to give in retribution for Miller’s failure to support Palin’s presidential aspirations.

Is it petty of me to admit that the funniest thing about this story to me was the idea of Sarah Palin spending "all day" working on a Facebook post? All day, really? *snort*

Continue reading »

Holy cow. As much as the tea party candidates would like to disavow being Republicans, I suspect that the Republicans won't really mind some distancing from the current crop of "Young Guns" hoping to ride into office in that great mid-term tsunami. Of course, the House Republican leadership has plugged $115,000 into these campaigns.

News comes today that GOP candidate for the 13th District of Ohio, Tom Ganley, has been accused of sexually assaulting a supporter he met at a tea party rally (he's been sued over 400 times for ethics and business violations),

His accuser said she attended a Cleveland Tea Party rally where Ganley spoke on July 3, 2009, when he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, before he decided to run for Congress. Impressed by Ganley's anti-abortion platform, the lawsuit says, the woman approached him, introduced herself and her children and offered to volunteer on his campaign.

The woman then visited Ganley's Chevrolet dealership on Lorain Avenue in Cleveland three times during the following weeks, to discuss volunteer campaign duties and a reduction in the interest rate on a car loan she received from a Ganley dealership, the lawsuit says.[..]

On her last visit to Ganley's office, Aug. 1, the woman said she dropped off her van for repairs. While she waited in Ganley's office, the suit says, he made sexually suggestive comments and invited her to join him and his friends at a condominium he owns in Strongsville. Ganley gave her a $100 bill and told her to buy some lingerie and high-heeled shoes, according to the lawsuit.

Ganley told her he wanted her to dominate her, parade her on a leash and have sex with her in front of his "play friends," the suit says. It accuses him of grabbing her from behind, wrapping his arms around her, kissing her and, despite her resistance, reaching into her pants.

Brilliant move for someone contemplating a run for office. Frankly, it seems shortsighted and a shame that the House Republican leadership couldn't have taken a little of that cash and vetted the candidates better:

Continue reading »

I have a sneaking suspicion that Carl Paladino thinks that the Sopranos show was less a fictional depiction of the underbelly of organized crime as a guideline for how to comport oneself. In addition to exposing his racist and sexually deviant proclivities in emails, he apparently has an anger management problem and doesn't like to be confronted with his own questionable choices:

After (New York Post State Editor and radio personality Fred) Dicker asked Paladino what evidence he had to make accusations to Maghabe at Politico that Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Andrew Cuomo had cheated on his ex -wife, Blain reports, Paladino turned the tables, assailing Dicker over the Post's coverage of the daughter he fathered a decade ago with a woman other than his wife.

"I want to know why you sent your goons after my daughter, Fred," Paladino demanded. "You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take you out, buddy!"

(Update: Paladino also raised the issue of Cuomo's former marriage in a Newsday report this morning, saying he wanted the media to "go after Cuomo and his paramours" but, again, offering no evidence of what he was talking about.)

Paladino's campaign manager, Michael Caputo, separated the two men and sent his candidate into the men's room to calm down. Then, Caputo accused Dicker of working for Cuomo and doing his dirty work, so to speak.

At one point, Blain says, Paladino cursed Dicker, saying, "F--- him!"

Asked again if he had evidence of Cuomo's alleged infidelity, Paladino replied, "Of course I do. You'll get it at the appropriate time."Read moreAfter Dicker asked Paladino what evidence he had to make accusations to Maghabe at Politico that Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Andrew Cuomo had cheated on his ex -wife, Blain reports, Paladino turned the tables, assailing Dicker over the Post's coverage of the daughter he fathered a decade ago with a woman other than his wife.

"I want to know why you sent your goons after my daughter, Fred," Paladino demanded. "You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take you out, buddy!"

(Update: Paladino also raised the issue of Cuomo's former marriage in a Newsday report this morning, saying he wanted the media to "go after Cuomo and his paramours" but, again, offering no evidence of what he was talking about.)

Paladino's campaign manager, Michael Caputo, separated the two men and sent his candidate into the men's room to calm down. Then, Caputo accused Dicker of working for Cuomo and doing his dirty work, so to speak.

At one point, Blain says, Paladino cursed Dicker, saying, "F--- him!"

Asked again if he had evidence of Cuomo's alleged infidelity, Paladino replied, "Of course I do. You'll get it at the appropriate time."

Read more

Seriously, need any more proof of how unhinged Paladino is?

DOWNLOADS: (680)

PLAYS: (2091)

Embed

How many times have we featured some Republican politician or pundit saying that extending the Bush tax cuts is the answer to all our economic woes? Turns out, the American people really aren't buying the biggest gun in the Republican armory:

A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers.

These results are based on an Aug. 27-30 USA Today/Gallup poll. The fate of the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax cuts that were a centerpiece of Bush administration policy could be a significant campaign issue this fall. The tax cuts are set to expire after this year unless Congress votes to extend them. Congress plans to take up the issue next week when it returns to session.[..]

With about one in three Americans, including a minority of independents and Democrats, in favor of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, Democrats may not be putting themselves at great political risk by allowing the tax cuts to expire for wealthy Americans. In fact, the middle ground of extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans but allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans -- the Democrats' most likely proposal -- is the specific option the public prefers most.

Gallup has typically found Americans unsympathetic to the argument that upper-income Americans are overtaxed

. They generally believe upper-income Americans pay too little in taxes and favor higher taxes on wealthy Americans as a means to fund government programs, such as Social Security.

I find much to be optimistic about this poll. And it's not the only one with these result, in fact, Greg Sargent lists five polls, all with similar results. In tough economic times, I think it's human nature to wish to hold on to every penny, and the Republicans have certainly been effective at obfuscating that this expiration applies only to the very wealthy among us and not to 95% of the American people. In fact, there's a credible argument to be made that the Republicans are so out of touch with what's happening with Americans right now that they think people who make $250,000/year are the middle class:

At a public forum hosted by the Chamber of Commerce in Crowley, Louisiana yesterday, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) attacked his Democratic opponent Charlie Melancon for saying people in the top income bracket should pay higher taxes. But in doing so he implied that "virtually everybody" in attendance would see their taxes raised.

"I hate to tell you, by Washington's definitions that [Melancon]'s using, virtually everybody in this audience is the wealthy."

That's a sentiment also echoed by John McCain, Dino Rossi in Washington and even Fox News mouthpieces.

The fact that few are falling in with the Republican be-all-end-all solution of tax cuts makes me wonder truly what kind of traction they have going into the mid-terms. And whether the Democratic Party realizes they have an issue that they are winning:

Amid a sea of bad polling news, here is an issue where the public is clearly on Dems' side. And the above polling suggests that the public already has a pretty firm grasp on the "nuance" of this debate. This, of all things, is not an issue where Dems should conclude in advance -- as they often do -- that once Republicans go on the attack, it's game over and Dems can't possibly win the argument.