Tag Archives: senator

George Stephanopoulos Zeroes-In on Meghan McCain’s Spat With Palins

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos interviewed media darling and nominal Republican Meghan McCain on Tuesday’s Good Morning America and devoted the bulk of the segment to her love-hate relationship with Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol. Stephanopoulos devoted so much time to the Palin issue that McCain interjected, “For the record, my book is not just about Sarah and Bristol.” The anchor gushingly endorsed the McCain daughter’s new book, “Dirty Sexy Politics,” at the beginning of the interview, which aired 42 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour: ” It is savvy, it is saucy, and it’s just what you’d expect from the first daughter of a presidential candidate ever fired by her father’s campaign .” He then labeled his guest a “fun writer” and first asked about her “firing,” in which she actually sent away from the main stops of her father’s presidential campaign and did a bus tour in the battleground state of Ohio. After four questions on her “firing,” Stephanopoulos raised the issue of Mrs. Palin with McCain. She put all of her answers in the context of herself and her experiences, while the ABC anchor pressed her on the former governor of Alaska, with two negative follow-up questions about Palin and two neutral: STEPHANOPOULOS: Since the campaign, you had said you didn’t want to talk about Sarah Palin. But you write about her quite a bit in the book. You say there were a lot of things you like about Sarah Palin, but you also point out that she snubbed your Mom’s efforts to reach out to the Palins, that she wasn’t much of a team player. You believe- you talk about doubts you had at the end where you thought she actually hurt the campaign. ” MCCAIN: Yes, but I do clearly state at the end that we did not lose because of her, and I’m speaking out now because I do have conflicting feelings about her. I mean, she brought so much momentum and enthusiasm to the campaign. I mean, you saw the crowds double, and you saw a lot more women coming to rallies- STEPHANOPOULOS: But you also write that she brought- quote, ‘drama, stress, complications, panic, and loads of uncertainty.’ MCCAIN: (laughs) It’s true. I mean, a lot of things happen, but I think that’s how campaigns are in general, no matter who comes, and- you know, I respect her, as a feminist or Republican feminist, and going out there and working for women, especially Republican women. It’s no secret that I’m more socially liberal than she is, but I’m here to say that two different kinds of Republican women can work together for the same cause. STEPHANOPOULOS: And you talked about this moment in the campaign where you’re being interviewed, and you almost got tongue-tied when you were asked about Sarah Palin. You said you had doubts about her. What are the doubts? MCCAIN: It was a reflection on me, because she was so celebrated in the Republican Party, and it’s- again, no secret that I’m so unlike her, and I thought, how am I ever going to fit in? How am I ever going to do this? And it’s still something that I struggle with today because people so see me as sort of this rebel and this new Republican, which I take pride in, but a lot of, sort of, older Republicans seem to have a problem placing me. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you say there’s room in the party for both of you, but you want a Republican to win in 2012- you say that as well. Could she be your candidate? MCCAIN: Anyone could be my candidate at this point. I really don’t like these hypothetical questions, but I think that so many candidates are doing or- you know, people that could be running right now, are making very smart moves. I think Mitt Romney is doing a lot of smart things right now. I think it’s going to be a very interesting election, no matter what happens (unintelligible)- STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you vote for her? MCCAIN: It depends [on] the situation. You know, I’d have to hear more on what happens in the primaries. As you’re well aware, anything can happen in the primaries, and I would have to see. It was when Stephanopoulos brought up McCain’s spat with Bristol Palin over teen abstinence and teen pregnancy that the liberal Republican replied with her “my book is not just about Sarah and Bristol” line and added, “a lot of fun stories.” The anchor replied, “I want to ask you about one of those stories in a second. But first, you say that at that point, the campaign seemed to be glamorizing teen pregnancy, that the campaign really wanted to suggest that a pro-life message was more important than the message of how to avoid teen pregnancy to begin with? ” McCain answered, in part, “I have a sister who is almost exactly- my little sister Bridget is almost exactly Bristol’s age, and I just know that I want teens in this country to be aware of what can happen when you have sex. You can die from sex in this era, and not necessarily- I just think that the pro-abstinence complete campaign isn’t necessarily the most effective one.” Stephanopoulos concluded the interview by asking his guest about another of her “fun stories” involving a visit to the White House where she was apparently “dis-invited” from a lunch at the White House with Laura Bush and her daughter Jenna. The anchor repeated his endorsement of McCain’s book at the very end of the interview: “Meghan McCain, it is a terrific book, it’s a fun book, it’s a revealing book about life in politics as well .” ABC has promoted Ms. McCain’s liberal flavor of Republicanism in the past with her appearance as a guest host on The View, where she slammed conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham , and profiled her support of same-sex “marriage” on World News .

See more here:
George Stephanopoulos Zeroes-In on Meghan McCain’s Spat With Palins

David Brooks Discusses Iraq War’s Success Without Mentioning Bush

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an article Tuesday largely about the success America has had rebuilding Iraq without ever mentioning the name of former President George W. Bush. To be sure, ” Nation Building Works ” also addressed some of the failures: the absence of “social trust,” the lack of doctors and engineers, as well as rampant corruption to name a few. But in a column published the very day President Obama is to address the nation about Iraq, it seems particularly odd that the man at the helm when America invaded – and who against public sentiment as well as the will of the current White House resident orchestrated a surge of military forces in 2007 largely responsible for the success of this mission – is conspicuously absent: “Iraq has made substantial progress since 2003,” the International Monetary Fund reports. Inflation is reasonably stable. A budget surplus is expected by 2012. Unemployment, though still 15 percent, is down from stratospheric levels. Oil production is back around prewar levels, and there are some who say Iraq may be able to rival Saudi production. That’s probably unrealistic, but Iraq will have a healthy oil economy, for better and for worse. In the most recent Gallup poll, 69 percent of Iraqis rated their personal finances positively, up from 36 percent in March 2007. Baghdad residents say the markets are vibrant again, with new electronics, clothing and even liquor stores. About half the U.S. money has been spent building up Iraqi security forces, and here, too, the trends are positive. Violence is down 90 percent from pre-surge days. There are now more than 400,000 Iraqi police officers and 200,000 Iraqi soldiers, with operational performance improving gradually. According to an ABC News/BBC poll last year, nearly three-quarters of Iraqis had a positive view of the army and the police, including, for the first time, a majority of Sunnis. Sounds pretty darned good, right? Yet Bush’s name is not even mentioned nor is the fact that Obama as Senator voted against the surge and campaigned against the wisdom of it on his road to the White House. As such, who got the de facto credit for the current condition in Iraq as far as this piece was concerned? When President Obama speaks to the country on Iraq, he’ll be able to point to a large national project that has contributed to measurable, positive results. If he is honest, Obama will have to balance pride with caution. He’ll have to acknowledge that the gains the U.S. is enabling may vanish if the U.S. military withdraws entirely next year. He’ll have to acknowledge that bottom-up social change requires time and patience. He’ll have to heed the advice of serious Iraq hands like Crocker, Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings and Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, and shelve plans to withdraw completely. Yes, but nowhere did Brooks advise this President to congratulate or at least acknowledge the former one for going against Obama’s senatorial wishes by orchestrating a surge that made any of the success possible. I’m sure this was just an oversight on Brooks’s part.

Read this article:
David Brooks Discusses Iraq War’s Success Without Mentioning Bush

Washington Whispers: Ted Kennedy an Innocent Chappaquiddick Victim

This is one story that U.S. News & World Report’s Washington Whispers might want to keep to a low whisper or risk even more ridicule than what they are already receiving. Paul Bedard, writing in Washington Whispers, quotes Kennedy’s biographer and former girlfriend who claim that Ted was really an innocent victim of the Chappaquiddick accident. Here is Kennedy biographer Burton Hersh making the case for Kennedy as merely a lousy driver: Now, a year after Kennedy died, his lifelong biographer Burton Hersh, armed with fresh interviews with Kennedy’s mistress at the time, tells Whispers that the whole July 1969 episode  should have been handled as a simple crash, leaving the senator’s legacy untainted. “It was a car accident,” he says. “Ted was a terrible driver. He never paid much attention to where he was going.” “He took a tremendous blow on the head,” says Hersh. In interviews following the crash, Kennedy displayed confusion and amnesia, he says. Wasn’t Ted married to Joan Kennedy at the time of the accident? No matter. Perhaps his biographer figures it is better to show that Kennedy was unfaithful rather then culpable in Mary Jo Kopechne’s death. In any event, loyal lifelong biographer Hersh continues to play a sympathetic note on his violin: “If the thing had been handled properly, the first thing they would have done is put him in a hospital. Then they would have said he was a victim of an auto accident and didn’t know what he was doing and couldn’t be held responsible for anything that happened really after that, which would have been a fair explanation,” says author-journalist Hersh, who knew Kennedy since they were classmates at Harvard. “But instead, he felt terribly guilty about the whole thing … tried to take responsibility and … just confused the issue.” Darn that mighty Ted Kennedy moral compass. That is what got him into so much trouble. Oddly enough, despite his laughable defense of Kennedy, Hersh admits that his type of woman is a…bimbo: As for Kennedy being interested in the straight-laced Kopechne, Hersh says that was highly unlikely. “She wasn’t Ted’s kind of babe. She was a long way from being a bimbo.” Most of the Washington Whispers readers don’t seem to be buying this bizarre rewrite of history judging from their posted remarks : If I had done the same thing I would have gone to jail for 4 years for manslaughter. Trying to rewrite Teddy’s shameful acts won’t cut it.  Read “Senatorial Privilege” published shortly after the accident and inquest. Provides an hour by hour investigatorial record. ‘Nuff said. I wish every reader of this article had a personal army of lackeys like the Kennedy’s do to come up with trash like this to protect them. Yeah, so confused he swims back to his hotel, goes to his room and gets some sleep before reporting the accident. He knew what he had done and what he was doing. Anyone with honor would have admitted his transgressions.  In my neighborhood, and absent political connections, we call this tragic event failure to render aid, driving while intoxicated, leaving the scene of a felony accident, and he should have been charged with murder.  And now the bonus comedy punchline from the article to explain away Kennedy’s dissolute activies: He also brushes off tales that Kennedy was a playboy more than a lawmaker. “Kennedy’s central project was accomplishing as much as he could in public life. And all of the things, including the drinking, the women, and the rest, were sort of supportive activities. They were amusements.”  Burton Hersh: historical airbrusher with the special comedic touch.

Read more here:
Washington Whispers: Ted Kennedy an Innocent Chappaquiddick Victim

On Hardball: It’s the Year of the Woman But It’s Not the ‘Compassionate’ Woman We Like

The news that it could be a good year for women electorally did not cheer up the likes of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson and the Politico’s Jeanne Cummings, because it turns out it’s only going to be a good year for women on the Republican side like Nikki Haley, Meg Whitman, and Carly Fiorina or as Carlson put it: “It’s not a compassionate women year.” [ audio available here ] Matthews, on Monday’s Hardball, invited on Carlson and Cummings to take a look at “gender politics” and found that it could be a good year for women, just not the kind of women they like, in other words the more conservative momma grizzly types that Sarah Palin supports. Cummings even bemoaned that a loss of the House could result in “one giant blow to women” in that it “could take down the Speaker, Speaker Nancy Pelosi” who was “a real shining star for the achievements and the rise of women in government.” The following is the full segment as it was aired on the August 30 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wow, we’re talking gender politics. We’re back. High profile victories this summer by Nikki Haley in South Carolina and Sharron Angle winning that nomination in Nevada for the Senate. Meg Whitman spending zillions out there running for the governorship of California. This could be the Year of the Woman, maybe. But will women gain ground in Congress this November? On Sunday the Los Angeles Times had a sobering outlook piece. Quote: “After the November election, Congress could end up with as many as 10 fewer female members, prognosticators now say. The first backslide in the uninterrupted march of women coming to Washington since 1978.” Joining us now is Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson and Politco’s Jeanne Cummings. Now I know we have to decipher between right and left, the big executive positions and the somewhat lowlier U.S. Congress positions. But look at this now. In the Congress there are a total of 90 women now, Senator and House members: 69 Democrats, 21 Republicans. Margaret, it looks like liberals are in trouble this year, progressives, if you will. That includes a lot of women.  MARGARET CARLSON, BLOOMBERG: Well, there are more Democratic women than, than Republicans, liberals. So you’re gonna have, this is like a final piece of equality for women where they can lose with men- MATTHEWS: Right. CARLSON: -when incumbents are in trouble. So women have finally achieved some kind of parity, and boom, it’s time to boot them out. But there’s a certain kind of woman that’s gonna do okay. I mean you have the momma grizzlies but it’s the grizzly part of it, not the momma part that’s working. You have to be a bear- MATTHEWS: Give me names, give names. CARLSON: You have to be a bear who’s gonna knock down the tent. MATTHEWS: Who are the heavyweight women? CARLSON: Linda McMahon? Can you imagine more of a bear. I mean it’s softcore wrestling- MATTHEWS: Of world heavyweight wrestling. CARLSON: -porn. MATTHEWS: And, and Meg Whitman in California. CARLSON: Yeah and it’s the corporate titan bear. Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman as you say. So that is the kind of woman. It is n ot the kind of – it’s not a compassionate women year. MATTHEWS: Right, it’s tough for women. Let me got to that, Jeanne Cummings is this, is this the upgrade to the tougher executive positions? I’ve always said, and it’s a tough line but you gotta get on, the on deck circle to really have lots of shots at the presidency. If women start winning these big governorships across the country like California knocking off Jerry Brown, it’d be a giant killer, things like that really – people tell me Meg wants to be, Meg Whitman wants to be president. Is this what’s going on here on the Republican side. JEANNE CUMMINGS, POLITICO: Well absolutely. I mean women like any, all the different types of people before them are earning their way up the ladder, one rung at a time. And winning some of those big governor races is important. We certainly saw how Hillary Clinton was able to use her Senate position, and her prior role as First Lady, but largely her Senate position gave her- MATTHEWS: I agree. CUMMINGS: -the credentials to go out there and run on the campaign trail. And so I think this is clearly, that women have now gotten to the point where they are accepted by voters as competent executives, tough enough to run, smart enough to run governments, and those are great achievements for women. I would point out that if- MATTHEWS: These- CUMMINGS: Just one quick thought. MATTHEWS: Sure. CUMMINGS: That, that if the losses are as bad as they, as some believe they could be in the House, there could be one giant blow to women. And that is, it could take down the Speaker. Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Certainly she’s not gonna lose her House seat, but she could lose the Speakership itself. And that has been, for many women, particularly Democratic women, a real shining star for the achievements and the rise of women in government. MATTHEWS: We haven’t had a woman governor of New York, Pennsylvania, California, or probably Illinois. These are big, the big jobs. These are women coming out of industry with a proven executive record. CARLSON: And mixed, and mixed. MATTHEWS: You, you mentioned, Jeanne, you said they’re working their way one step at a time. Meg Whitman is not going one step at a time, she’s going right for governor. CARLSON: Yeah. MATTHEWS: Carly Fiorina is going right from HP for, for Senate. CARLSON: And by the way her reputation was mixed as a, as a corporate executive. MATTHEWS: So are things changing? Is the glass ceiling getting smashed at the top? CARLSON: Well no. I think there’s a certain kind of corporate woman that, that does look like she can run a big state because she’s run a big country, I mean, a big company. MATTHEWS: Could it be that men are blowing it? Just to be blunt, could it be that the quality of male candidates has declined. Women candidates have gone up and they’re passed them on the old vector there. CUMMINGS: Well I think that the women candidates can run in this year, the Year of the Outsider. They can run as genuine outsiders. And that is an asset when you have an anti-incumbent election. MATTHEWS: Wow! CUMMINGS: And the other thing, in terms of Fiorina and Meg Whitman, they, they both are shooting, going to, trying to go from the corporate boardroom right into the Governor’s office or the Senate office, it is true. However, their candidacies were made possible by the victories of women before them. MATTHEWS: Yeah that’s certainly true. Well what do you make of Momma Grizzly’s comment the other day? Sarah Palin’s, that her biggest accomplishment was that she produced a combat vet. It sounds like women are running what we used to call the Daddy Party, the right, you know the Macho Party? CARLSON: Yeah. MATTHEWS: Women are now openly saying, “I’m tougher than the men, I can produce as a mother a got vet, get out of my way.” Jeanne, this is strong, strong tea here, if you will? CUMMINGS: Absolutely. And I have to say, Sarah Palin, I think, has done something unprecedented when you look at gender politics. And that is, she is so influential. She is a king maker. MATTHEWS: That’s true. CUMMINGS: And we have not seen a female king maker in political history. She has really broken new ground. I mean, what does a Huckabee nomination get you? Page three on the local paper? But Palin’s nomination can be a complete game changer, as we have seen in these races. MATTHEWS: We’re looking at that picture as you’re speaking, Jeanne, of her endorsing Nikki Haley. Haley was at the back of the pack, she’s now probably gonna be the next governor of South Carolina. CARLSON: But wait Chris, she’s a king maker but she’s also a queen killer. She killed Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas in favor of the incumbent, Governor Perry. MATTHEWS: Yeah. CARLSON: And look what she did to Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. So let us, she is an equal opportunity maker and destroyer, and not always for the women. MATTHEWS: Yeah I also, I also think and I gotta be careful, she’s picking women candidates that men are ready to vote for too. CARLSON: Yes. MATTHEWS: This isn’t just women voting for women here. There’s a lot of, obviously a lot of those right-wing men love Sarah Palin. Let’s be honest here. Jeanne, thanks so much, Jeanne Cummings for joining us. Margaret Carlson, thank you.

Read this article:
On Hardball: It’s the Year of the Woman But It’s Not the ‘Compassionate’ Woman We Like

MSM Acknowledges Lisa Murkowski Lost Primary Because She’s Pro-Abortion But Thinks We’re Crazy

Even though liberal MSM types like Ron Elving , senior Washington editor at NPR , have a hard time understanding what’s going on, they are giving credit for Joe Miller’s Alaska GOP Senate primary (apparent) victory to pro-life voters. But the title and opening paragraph of Elving’s August 26 piece not so subtly tell us he thinks Alaskans have gone crazy… Elving, among others, still can’t fathom that pro-lifers now comprise the majority. Even if so, he thinks people who believe preborn humans shouldn’t be slaughtered for convenience and profit, and/or parents who want to know before their daughters abort (which was the ballot initiative that helped get voters out), wear tin hats. Nevertheless, he gave us credit: Which kind of AK Republican was most motivated for this primary? The answer appears to be the populist, evangelical, anti-abortion Republicans who are likely to identify with the movement known as the Tea Party . Murkowski [pictured right] had a vulnerability within her own party because she was a supporter of abortion rights in some cases . While abortion views are divided in AK as elsewhere, opposition to abortion is more concentrated in the Republican Party. And this week’s ballot featured a voter measure on requiring parental notification prior to an abortion for a minor. Murkowski endorsed the measure, but the anti-abortion activists who came out to vote for it may well have preferred Miller’s anti-abortion credentials overall . It was also this issue that influenced former AK Gov. Sarah Palin to switch her support from Murkowski to Miller…. [W]hen Miller later emerged as an anti-abortion champion aligned with the Tea Party and other Palin causes, the state’s most mediagenic citizen made her move. It didn’t hurt that Mike Huckabee , the former minister, governor and presidential candidate who also appears on Fox News , came to the state to campaign for Miller….   Politics and World News also gave the nod for Wilson’s (apparent) win to those who believe preborn babies shouldn’t be suctioned and chopped, nor should 12-yr-olds almost certainly impregnated under shady circumstances be secreted away for abortions without their parents knowing… as did the Anchorage Daily News … Note in ADN’s story how enthusiastically Miller supported Ballot Measure 2, in contrast to Murkowski’s tepid support, clearly trying to straddle the fence… The abortion issue may have cost embattled… Murkowski an untold number of votes Tuesday to Republican primary challenger Joe Miller , say anti-abortion activists. The ballot also included a sharply contested voter initiative generally requiring parents to be notified before their teen receives an abortion. Miller [pictured below left, with voters] came out strongly for Ballot Measure 2. “He told voters over and over again: Flip your ballot over, vote ‘yes on 2.’ Before you vote for me, vote ‘yes on 2.’ Ballot Measure 2 is much more important than this Senate race,” said Bernadette Wilson, campaign manager for Alaskans for Parental Rights, the “yes on 2” group. Murkowski never did the same, Wilson said. All the other statewide Republican candidates gave money to the effort. Murkowski didn’t, Wilson said. Supporters of the parental notification requirement noticed, she said. Murkowski’s campaign said the senator supported Measure 2 and went to 2 fundraisers for it. But her campaign lawyer advised that she couldn’t let Alaskans for Parental Rights use her name in its materials, because that would amount to an illegal campaign contribution to her, under federal election law, according to an e-mailed copy of the analysis. The initiative, which marked the first time Alaskans confronted an abortion issue at the polls, passed with 55 percent of the vote. In addition… AK Family Council asked candidates detailed questions on abortion and other social issues. Murkowski’s answers showed her to be pro-choice, while Miller was the opposite… The political group sent the answers to thousands of its supporters, as well as pastors and the media…. Murkowski’s record on abortion is complex . She has long said abortion decisions are between a woman and her doctor, and in her first appointed Senate term, she voted for a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” that supported Roe v. Wade . But she’s voted against federal funding for abortion, and supported a ban on late-term abortions…. Alaskans for Parental Rights never told its backers to vote for Miller, and didn’t work on his campaign, Wilson said. But it didn’t have to. Weeks ago, when her group first waved their “yes on 2” signs along the Seward Highway in Midtown, Miller drove past, then made a U-turn to join them, Wilson said. On Election Day, Miller waved one of their signs along with one of his own. “People who voted ‘yes’ on Ballot Measure 2 and people who voted for Joe Miller are of like mind,” Wilson said. “People kind of linked arms and came to the polls for both.” “There’s no doubt that Lisa Murkowski’s pro-abortion views had an influence on this election,” [council president Jim ] Minnery said. Of note is I learned about this MSM articles via Robin Marty at the pro-abort site RH Reality Check , who seemed to have no wind in her sails when reporting the AK pro-life phenomenon…. no excuses, no rationalization, even appearing to defend Murkowski as a supporter of Measure 2 by reposting her excuse for lack of overt support. [Bottom photo via the AP ]

Link:
MSM Acknowledges Lisa Murkowski Lost Primary Because She’s Pro-Abortion But Thinks We’re Crazy

Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

Ed Schultz may have finally lost it. He has reportedly been neglected by MSNBC brass. The last straw came yesterday when Schultz found out he would not appear on MSNBC’s election night promo. He went absolutely berserk, according to people on the scene. “I’m going to torch this f***ing place!” he screamed during a meeting in the MSNBC newsroom according to the New York Post . “F***ers!” he added for good measure. According to an unnamed source, Schutlz was dragged into a meeting with MSNBC president Phil Griffin, where Schultz was told that he would be fired if he did it again. He broke down in tears. The Post has the full scoop (h/t Treach ): A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” Fuming Schultz was immediately dragged in for a meeting with NBC News President Steve Capus and MSNBC President Phil Griffin following his Aug. 12 meltdown. Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.” Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. A second MSNBC source said, “Ed never gets any attention and love, and he finally snapped.” Poor Ed. If it’s any consolation, we hope MSNBC includes Schultz in its election night coverage. With blowups like this, it’s hard to top the entertainment value.

See the original post:
Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

The New York Times editorial board on Thursday called successful Tea Party candidates insurgents. For those not intimately familiar with the term, despite having several meanings, it has in the years since 9/11 become largely synonymous with terrorists. With that in mind, the imagery in ” The Wrong Kind of Enthusiasm ” was unmistakable:  Republican insurgents from the far right did well in Tuesday’s primaries. What their campaigns lack in logic, compassion and sensible policy seems to be counterbalanced by a fiercely committed voter base that is nowhere to be seen on the Democratic side. In fairness, there are two meanings to insurgent: 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel. 2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.   On cross-examination, the authors might make the case that their intent was to depict these illogical, compassionless and senseless conservatives as the latter. But the imagery and implication throughout was clearly to brand these “insurgents” as something far worse:   In Alaska, Joe Miller, a little-known lawyer from Fairbanks, has a lead for the G.O.P. Senate nomination over Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent. The race is too close to call, but Mr. Miller’s possible victory shows the power of his mentor, Sarah Palin, and the misguided popularity of his anti-immigrant, pro-gun message. Among other dubious positions, he has questioned the constitutionality of unemployment benefits. Then, the Times predictably took sides: The good news is that the anti-immigrant message may not play as well in Florida in the general election. Good news? Good news for whom? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of Americans that support Arizona’s new immigration law. But the Times wasn’t done displaying its deplorable biases, for even a victory by a moderate mainstream candidate left a sour taste: Insurgents did not triumph everywhere. In Arizona, Senator John McCain easily fended off a challenge by a former congressman, J. D. Hayworth. But he did so by throwing his principles overboard. Gone was the stalwart voice for campaign finance reform and a humane, bipartisan overhaul of immigration laws. In his place was a man calling himself “Arizona’s last line of defense,” strutting along the Mexican border in a campaign ad, telling a county sheriff that all we had to do to fix immigration was “complete the danged fence.” Yes, McCain is the Times’ darling when he tacks far-left to help pass legislation that makes conservatives sick. But defending Arizona’s border is “throwing his principles overboard.” Not surprisingly, a good Republican to these shills is really one with no principles at all.  Disgracefully, this editorial ended with more terrorist imagery: Much of the G.O.P’s fervid populist energy has been churned up by playing on some people’s fears of Hispanics and Muslims, by painting the president as a dangerous radical, by distorting the truth about the causes of the recession. Far too many Republican leaders have eagerly fed that destructive anger. Yes, the desire of the majority of Americans to defend the borders from illegal immigrants while doing everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack is “destructive anger.” Makes you wonder if former President Jimmy Carter is heading up the Times editorial board. But the larger point is that the Obama-loving liberal media are in a full state of panic about Democrat prospects in the upcoming elections. As such, the goal now is to paint every GOP candidate as too scary to hold political office.  That even the formerly lovable McCain, who has been in Congress since 1983 and is currently one of the most moderate Republicans up for re-election, is being depicted as equally frightening should clue readers in to just how far the Times is willing to go to help Democrats this cycle. Ironically, as this editorial board clearly is way on the wrong side of public opinion concerning the issues herein addressed, aren’t they behaving like insurgents rather than the objects of their disaffection? The only question is whether their actions fall under definition one or two. We’ll let you decide that.

Go here to see the original:
NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

A Day After ABC Highlighted Sarah Palin’s Political ‘Losing Streak,’ Her Candidate Closes in on Stunning Win

A day after highlighting Sarah Palin’s political “losing streak,” Good Morning America’s Jon Karl on Wednesday  acknowledged the stunning turn in Alaska’s Senatorial primary race: “But Joe Miller is a Tea Party candidate who had Sarah Palin’s support. He, now, is ahead.” Karl on Wednedsay didn’t mention anything about the former governor’s “losing streak” ending. Instead, co-host Robin Roberts spun the results as a “GOP family feud.” She also questioned the effectiveness of the grass roots organization, wondering, ” So, is the Tea Party getting stronger?Weaker? ” (Roberts’ evidence was John McCain’s victory in Arizona. However, he, too, was supported by Palin.) On Tuesday, Karl highlighted: “But, lately, Palin’s been on a losing streak. Over the last five weeks, Palin-endorsed candidates have lost in Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas, Colorado and Washington State. Palin’s candidate in Alaska is a hard-line Tea Party conservative.” He also made sure to point out, “Miller has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies.” On Wednesday, Karl acknowledged, “And look at what Sarah Palin tweeted just a little while ago. Clearly giddy about the results so far, she said, ‘Keeping fingers crossed, powder dry, prayers upward.'” A transcript of the August 25 segment, which aired at 7:02am EDT, follows: DAVID MUIR: And this morning, primary shakeup. Sarah Palin and the tea party rally in Alaska. Threatening a long-time senator. But the establishment prevails in Arizona as John McCain cinches another nomination. We have overnight results coming in. 7:01 MUIR: Just coming in, these results from overnight. And a real split decision for the voters. ROBIN ROBERTS: Yeah. And we’re also seeing that it’s being described as a GOP family feud , looking at the results. As Republicans fight over Sarah Palin’s Tea Party candidates. And nothing highlights the internal battle more than Tuesday’s primary in Alaska where the Tea Party support led to a stunningly tight race. But, in Arizona, you see, anti-Tea Party sentiment led to a sweeping loss. So, is the Tea Party getting stronger? Weaker? We’re going to take a closer look. 7:02 ROBERTS: But, we begin with results in Tuesday’s key primaries. In Alaska, Lisa Murkowski struggled to keep her job in a tight race with Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. Backed by Sarah Palin, he was. In Arizona, Senator John McCain easily won renomination against another tea party candidate, J.D. Hayworth. And in a Democratic race in Florida, Representative Kendrick Meek beat newcomer Jeff Greene. So, what does it all mean? Well, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl joins us now with more from Washington. And, Jon, a lot of eyes still on that race in Alaska this morning. Very tight. KARL: Robin, this is the story of the day. It’s still way too close to call. But we may be witnessing a colossal upset in the making. Lisa Murkowski is a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate. She was supported by virtually the entire Republican establishment. Had way more money. But Joe Miller is a Tea Party candidate who had Sarah Palin’s support. He, now, is ahead. But this may take weeks to actually count. And look at what Sarah Palin tweeted just a little while ago. Clearly giddy about the results so far, she said, “Keeping fingers crossed, powder dry, prayers upward. But Joe Miller just tweeted, ‘What’s moose hunting like inside the beltway?'” ROBERTS: Stay tuned. All right. That’s the situation right now in Alaska. In Arizona, no real surprise that John McCain was renominated. Though he had to spend $21 million in this campaign, which is more than all of his previous Senate races combined, going back to 1986. But the real surprise here is Ben Quayle, the son of Dan Quayle, going for a congressional seat. And he was very aggressive in his ad campaign. Take a look, Jon. BEN QUAYLE: Barack Obama is the worst president in history. ROBERTS: Very strong tactics that seemed to work, Jon. KARL: It sure did. He was really behind going into this. And he was attacked for allegedly contributing to a pornographic website. But the other thing in that race, Robin, is that his parents, Dan and Marilyn Quayle, in the home stretch, came to his aid. Sending out letters to supporters. Defending his honor. Defending his integrity. ROBERTS: Yeah. They were hot under the collar about that. All right. One more race to talk about. Down in Florida, surprises there, too, Jon. KARL: Yeah. And the big thing there is you had Kendrick Meek, Democratic congressman, decisively win the nomination to run for Senate, beating back a multimillionaire named Jeff Greene, who had vastly outspent him. But, now, you’re going to see one of the marquee, most important, toughest, expensive Senate races in the country, in Florida, that will pit Meek, against Republican Marco Rubio, and former Republican, now independent, Governor Charlie Crist. That’s going to be a big race.

See the original post here:
A Day After ABC Highlighted Sarah Palin’s Political ‘Losing Streak,’ Her Candidate Closes in on Stunning Win

Interview with Nevada Gubernatorial Candidate David Curtis

David Curtis's website: http://www.Curtis4Governor.com Video by The Punk Patriot: http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com added by: asherp

Shot fired at Al Franken’s condo – Andy Barr – POLITICO.com

Minneapolis and Capitol Hill police are investigating a shot that was fired at the condo of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). Nobody was home at the time of the incident, which was not reported until after the senator and his wife returned home to Minneapolis after a two-day trip out of town on Tuesday and discovered the damage to their window facing the street. Franken’s wife reported the incident to police. “Right now it’s under investigation by the Minneapolis Police and the Capitol Hill Police,” Franken spokesman Marc Kimball told POLITICO. Kimball said that “there was some damage to one of the window panes” in a double-paned window. Kimball added that “nothing like this” has ever happened to the senator’s residence. Minneapolis police have not said whether they have a suspect or if they believe Sen. Franken was specifically being targeted. added by: toyotabedzrock