Excuses

In which the pity party for Christine O'Donnell begins - sort of.



Yeah, because a Republican could NEVER win in Delaware.

Wait, wasn't Castle a..................ah, nevermind. If you don't have the words "Socialism", "Liberty", "Terrorism", and "Radical" in your prepared remarks then you really aren't a Republican are you?

But What Will They Do?

I voted around 930 this morning.

My polling place was a local Baptist Church - something I found rather odd - and I immediately noticed that there were more people there than the Presidential election. Taking a quick glance around the room, it was populated largely with white males who's median age was easily over 60. And upon returning to the parking lot, I started to count the Rand Paul bumper stickers. Needless to say there were a great deal of them.

I didn't get exit polled - I never have, actually - but I did decide to drive around town to check and see if the Tea Baggers were out on street corners shouting as cars passed by.

Not a soul.

Were they all posted up on couches having their premature victory talking points spoon fed to them by Fox? Were they at work talking about how great America will be since the Republicans are "taking their country back"? Who's to know.

But here's one thing I do know - the Republicans who do win tonight should really start to consider what they are going to do once they move into those cozy offices on Capital Hill.

I'm not so naive to think that there won't be a majority of Republicans in the House, but they won't control the Senate. Sadly, though, that's enough for them to be even more of the obstructionists than they already have been. And that is precisely what they are going to do. And they are already framing this as "it's all Obama's fault":



And if they are to create spending bills that "cut funding", what exactly will they cut?

Recently on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed some "leaders" within the "leaderless" Tea Bagger movement about what they think should be cut and how "Socialism" plays into these decisions - a constant cry from Republicans. Turns out that they had some, shall I say, interesting views.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As I watched this Sunday night, I realized that this is exactly how the candidates that the Tea Baggers vote for - the ones that actually win that is - are going to approach their legislative tasks, like a freshman fumbling at his first girlfriend's bra strap.

No clear goals. No battle plan. No forward movement.

And it's not just the Tea Bagger backed candidates that aren't taking their potential assignments as representatives of the people seriously. Their media masters are more in favor of pushing the narrative that Democrats and all other media outlets are going to completely lose it come Wednesday morning:



If anything, the next two years will be legislative gridlock - not that the last two years were as evenly paced as most would have liked. And we will surely see pointless investigations, attempts to repeal virtually every aspect of the Democrats agenda, and possibly articles of impeachment. But don't think for one moment that Republicans are going to work for America - it will be an all out push "against" Democrats.

Will conservatives wake up Wednesday and claim that their "freedom has been restored" - that their "liberties have returned"? I doubt that, even though the opposite is what happened the day after Obama was elected. My guess is that their will be a full blown push to blame Obama for everything that they will fail at.

Pre-Game Briefing

I'm not too terribly excited about voting tomorrow.

This is due to a variety of reasons, not the least of which is because I live in Kentucky. And not just any district in Kentucky, but what I feel is one of the "reddest" districts.

At times, I often ask myself why I still live here. The reasons are enough to keep me in my home, which I own; keep me at my job; which pays quite well for the work done ( yes, I'm in a union ) and has a great health insurance plan that isn't going to increase because of healthcare legislation - they are actually going to give us money to put into our "health savings accounts" as of January 1st; and keep me fighting for the voices in my community that are far too often drowned out by the modern conservative establishment.

The question is - do I expect Rand Paul to win?

If you are to take recent polling numbers as gospel, Jack Conway has a 9 point deficit to conquer if he wants to take the Senate seat away from the clutches of Rand Paul.

And while polls do show voters emotive responses prior to an election rather than how they will actually vote come tomorrow, this isn't the standard type of election we are facing. Now, more than ever, we are facing the fact that misinformation, foreign interests, and a homegrown noise machine so bent on defeating Obama and Democrats not because of policy decisions, but because they didn't have to guts to take the strides needed to better this nation.

Make no mistake about it, Republicans were in favor of many - if not most - of the nuances of healthcare reform just a few years ago. But since Democrats took the initiative and won - albeit on a seriously muted scale from what the majority of Americans wanted - those same Republicans are wanting to repeal the bulk of healthcare reform not because it needs to be done, but because they may have the opportunity to do so. That's not looking out for the better interests of those you are tasked to represent; that's politicizing and issue in order to make your career shine a little more to the few.

And that's just one, if not the best, example of what Republicans are running on.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have both stated that the primary goal of Republicans is defeating the Obama administration. What reason do they give? What alternative plan do they offer? Because he is who he is. And as far as an alternative plan, we are offered nothing more than platitudes, generic, hyperbolic, blatherings, and fear-mongering.

I do recall how the Tea Baggers were engaged in jubilant praise when Scott Brown was elected. That praise and energy disappeared quite quickly after it was revealed that Brown wasn't the Tea Bagger Messiah that many claimed he was. Will the same be true for people like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, or even Marco Rudio?

I'm looking for the Tea Party to get a few wins in tomorrow night. But I'm also looking for a serious case of buyers remorse once the new legislative year begins.

In terms of Kentucky, I know that there are more than a handful of people that want exactly what Rand Paul does - even though he is claiming he either never made these statements or has begun to back away from them. I know that there is racism in the hearts of many people in my district, as I have seen it and had to work within proximity to it for nearly 5 years. I know that Rand will carry my county, and all those that vote for him will have to live with that decision, but there is a small glimmer of hope that Conway will be close enough to contest the results, for there to be a recount or perhaps a run-off.

The Tea Baggers are already celebrating a win that they have no idea what their champions are going to do with. Do they honestly think that if all their candidates make it into office that the remainder of Republicans are going to simply fall into lock-step with them? Do they really think that without concrete ideas, solutions, and even a rudimentary knowledge of how the bulk of America feels they are more entitled to create legislation? Can you imagine Rand Paul sponsoring documentation that would allow all privately owned business to begin open discrimination? Who would honestly back that?

Make no mistake, tomorrow is going to be ugly. If the Tea Baggers make even a few wins, they will shout from the metaphorical mountaintops that they have "taken back" America. But if they don't make the gains they feel they are entitled to, look for the conservative noise machine to amp up allegations of voter fraud.

Brace yourselves.

Thug Politics : Alaska Style

Caught this over at The Political Carnival and it reminded me of people like Michelle Malkin and her faithful droogies at HotAir screaming and crying about "thug politics" that the Democrats allegedly employ.

Here's the background to the players involved:

The wife of the campaign manager for U.S. Senate Candidate, Joe Miller, threatening people at our table at an official campaign event.
She knew that she was on video, she approached our table without solicitation. The guy with the camera also knew that he was on video. The guy with the camera is a pr person for Joe Miller. The guy with the camera attempted to fight members of our party when they went outside to make a phone call.
I have zero, I repeat zero involvement with the Murkowski campaign. I was not asked to take or post this video by any group or individual.

I'm not entirely sure if this woman just can't handle her drink or if she is so unglued naturally that this is the common way in which she handles her's and her husband's political lives. Seems like she's in the wrong business.

One would think, considering the speed with which these stories get around in the modern socio-political landscape, but why have the major media outlets been silent on this? I'm not even including Fox"News" in that query, as this is precisely the type of footage they DON'T want seeing the light of day.

Naturally, Paul Bauer had to respond in way that made it look like David Stieren was blackmailing him. In a press release from Bauer's offices, his side of the story attempts to paint the confrontation as being NOT about any facet of the campaign and that recording the confrontation was, I'm not kidding here, a violation of election rules.

I am appalled that FCC licensed talk show hosts can literally conspire to change the course of a federal election by using the airways in the way they did, and blackmail a federal candidate’s campaign, Bauer said. There was definite collusion between Morris Communications radio talk show hosts David Stieren and Dan Fagan, with UAA College Republicans conspiring to air the video and force the Joe Miller campaign staff into a compromising position with the intent to disrupt and influence a federal election campaign, Bauer said. Furthermore, the conversation between the campaign managers wife which was disclosed several times by her in the video that this conversation was between two people, had nothing to
do with the Miller campaign; was video graphed by non-participants, the UAA College Republicans, then aired the video to the public without permission with the intent to degrade and intimidate persons, and used against Joe Miller Bauer said. Bauer believes this is a violation of privacy rights and federal elections campaign rules, and is calling for a state and federal investigation into the matter. Bauer also said that he has concerns on how UAA club funds may be used to enhance political agendas without the full disclosure and approval from its members.

I'm unsure of the circumstances under which Bauer left the Miller campaign, but it's safe to say that if this video hadn't make it to the internet that he would have been tossed out on his ear anyway. You can't have and unhinged spouse and her lapdog camera-man threatening people in front of dozens of witnesses without word getting back to you that your campaign might not be able to wiggle out of this situation easily.

I really do wish the audio was a little clearer, because most of what the man with Mrs. Bauer said was either too muffled or simply inaudible. Not only that, but what did Mrs. Bauer say to the woman on the other side of the table? And what happened outside the bar? It's alleged by Stieren was confronted by the cameraman, but it's also alleged by Bauer that the confrontation happened the other way. But without proper validation - like say footage of the so called altercation - it's best not to get into rank speculation.

The end result is that the Miller campaign has a lot to answer for. And as for myself, I think the media at large should seriously be kicking themselves for missing this one.

Palinisms From The Midwest

Here's self-proclaimed "media-watchdog" ( or would it be "watch-grizzly?) Sarah Palin doing her usual schtick in Iowa.



Because we all know that when someone at CNN, MSNBC, or The HuffingtonPost, or even DailyKos holds people like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin accountable for their clearly recorded actions and words, what they are really doing to spitting on the members of our Armed Services.

I think it's being kind to say that Palin jumped more than the shark on that one.

And you'll notice that not once did she give an example of a lie, a distortion, an untruth by people in the media - and keep in mind that Fox"News" is somehow outside the mainstream unless they are discussing their ratings.

More glittering generalities and faux-patriotic flourishes for a crowd that desires to have their socio-political talking points spoon fed to them by a woman that is essentially a doll with a pull-string.

The Narrative Has Been Flipped

Michelle Malkin once again proves the longstanding point that conservatives are more than willing to be unblushing hypocrites when the time is right.

Case in point, the recently released video footage of would-be Tea Bagger Senator Christine O'Donnell's admission that she dabbled in witchcraft.

Narcissism. Blackmail. Distortion. All wrapped in his trademark smirk of pallor. Yes, it’s tired old liberal “comedian” Bill Maher trying to get Senate GOP primary candidate Christine O’Donnell to come on his show by baiting her with a brief video clip in which she mentions having “dabbled” in “witchcraft” and hung around people who practiced it.

The left-wing blogs (and a few short-sighted rightie ones) are having a field day. What they all seem to have missed is the context for the discussion. The AP says the “context of what led to the comment is not clear.”

But after chiding Maher for doing exactly what Andrew Breitbart makes a living doing ( actually Maher was much more honest and forthcoming about the footage he has than the blubbery rage we expect from the man behind the website "BigJournalism" ) and in typical purse-lipped outrage, Malkin takes to O'Donnell's defense. But why is Malkin defending a clear and unchallenged admission? Could it be that she has to defend the Tea Baggers at all costs, prior standpoints regarding Democrats be damned?

So, she tried it. She rejected it. And she learned from it.

Somehow, this Maher-edited clip (which was never aired on TV, by the way) warrants a declaration from my friend John Hinderaker at Power Line that O’Donnell’s career is “RIP.”

Nonsense. She has nothing to be ashamed of — except, perhaps, for going on Maher’s show so many times. He promises to release 22 more clips until she sits down with him in front of the cameras and brags, in typical TV chauvinist fashion, that he “created her” and that she “owe[s]” him.

Does anyone recall how the blood-thirsty conservative masses - Malkin included - were literally wetting themselves over rank speculation at what Barack Obama may or may not have done in previous years? It was an all out brawl to see who could be the first and loudest with regards to literally every aspect of Obama's fabricated past.

But it isn't just Malkin that is upset at the vetting process when it comes to conservatives. They simply can't stand to have their own words read back to them, for them to be challenged on their statements and actions. I'm just counting down the moments until Malkin finally goes all in with her whining and forgetfulness of even recent history and starts shouting "sexism".

Extreme Infighting : Part I

I awoke this morning to find that Christine O'Donnell had won the Republican primary in Delaware. And as I made my standard 45 minute commute to work, I started to wonder how the modern conservative movement and their media masters at Fox"News" would react.

When I got home, this is what I found - a political party divided.

As Morning Edition on NPR began at 5am, I could have swore I heard that the GOP wouldn't fund O'Donnell's campaign. Sure enough, I was correct, and Fox"News" morning princess Gretchen Carlson was completely confused on how this could be possible.



But it wasn't until I saw video and heard audio from Limbaugh's daily blubber-fest that I started to put the pieces together.



For starters, Limbaugh must have a very short memory, as Karl Rove has been speaking out against Democrats far more forcefully than he did of O'Donnell last evening. Secondly, I thought the Tea Baggers and the Republicans were two different entities?

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air fell directly into lock-step with Limbaugh ( you're shocked, I'm sure ) and reiterated the point that all Republicans shouldn't blindly follow O'Donnell to the polls in November and vote for her simply because she is - well - a Tea Bagger.

This morning, O'Donnell was a guest on Fox and Friends and she didn't mince words when speaking about political acumen that all conservatives once praised nor his past as "The Architect" of Bush's presidency which all conservatives continue to pine for like a lost lover.



When you bite the hand that feeds you, the result you are hoping for usually doesn't tend to happen. Are Kilmeade, Carlson, and Doocy setting themselves up for a verbal lashing from Rove when they have him on next? Only time will tell.

And the fine folks at Fox"Nation" - that corner of the internet where Fox and their followers can remove the "fair and balanced, non-racist, we are diverse" mask and let their true light shine have taken up contextual arms against Rove as well. From the comments section, you get the sense that conservatives there are about to demand that from now on, Glenn Beck refer to Rove as a "traitor" who now stands with the "progressives".

Here's one of the videos they link, in which Rove stands by his statements against O'Donnell.



When one looks at why Rove is questioning O'Donnell as a person that can "lead" as a conservative Republican, it's precisely the way that Rove and virtually all conservatives have viewed and continue to view Obama. The double standard here is not only revealing but louder than just about anything I have heard from the conservative movement in quite a long time.

And if O'Donnell is hoping to win based on "principle" over who retains power in both houses on Congress, she's probably the most naive candidate in modern Republican history. People fell for the Scott Brown narrative based on this exact same line of thinking - are they going to actually fall for it again?

Sure, one could present the argument that she won last night, but we have to look who she won against. I would actually be surprised if Republicans - and that's who is going to be voting against the Democrats in November, not the Tea Baggers - come out in strong enough numbers for O'Donnell. In that respect, I happen to agree with Karl Rove.

----------------------------------

Here's an aside that I think bares mentioning: if the Tea Baggers were allegedly formed to be separate from the Republican party, it appears that they are finally showing some signs of being honest to that initially laughable meme. And in that respect, they are giving the Democrats a greater chance come election day in November.