As all of us know, President Obama picked a fight with the GOP this week over recess appointments. The question now is—what’s the smart way to respond?

At first blush, I’m in agreement with Ace, from Ace of Spades, posted the day Obama threw down the gauntlet:

Basically Obama is running for President and he wants his opponent to be “Congressional Republicans”. Sometimes the best strategy is to skip a fight you want to have and should have simply because simply engaging in it is a win for your opponent.

Think of it as ignoring a comment troll. It’s unsatisfying but effective.

Let the GOP candidates take this fight to Obama while the House actually focuses on things like the tax bill that’s coming up in 2 months.

Today the WaPo weighed in on Obama’s side:

Obama’s justifiable ‘power grab’ on recess appointments

“UNPRECEDENTED.” “A power grab.” “A flagrant contempt for the rules.” Such were the howls from many on the right after President Obama this week used recess appointments to install a new director at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to reconstitute the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with three new members.
…
Republicans may well be correct that Mr. Obama is playing politics with these appointments. He announced the Cordray appointment during a stump speech in swing-state Ohio, where he railed against Republican obstructionism. His supporters in organized labor will no doubt be pleased that he filled the slots on the NLRB.

But so what? Both the consumer bureau and the labor relations board are agencies of the U.S. government, created by Congress, and it is inexcusable that congressional obstructionism would leave them unable to function. If Republicans don’t like the structure or purpose of either agency, they should try to alter them through legislation. Meanwhile their filibustering against qualified nominees to make political points or extort concessions from the White House cripples government and discourages good people from serving. That is the real poisonous practice, in which both parties have engaged. Until there is a de-escalation, the country will continue to pay a high price.

(Emphasis added)

To be sure, there’s enough plague-on-both-of-your-houses language in the editorial for the Post to claim that it’s not being biased. But, when you read the whole piece, the tone is clearly pro-Obama and dismissive of the Republican position on this issue.

(I must give credit to the Post: they didn’t become active in the Obama re-election campaign on a Saturday, when everyone was watching the NFL playoffs. They did it in the middle of the week).

Nevertheless, this is a problem for the House GOP. President Obama wants a fight and undoubtedly is willing to play rough. He knows he can be loose with the facts, because the MSM badly wants him to win in November. (How else can you explain the overall tone, to include the headline, of the WaPo’s for-record position on the recess appointments?)

Recess appointments are an inside baseball issue, and most Americans are still following football…literally AND figuratively. Obama badly needs a GOP public relations/perception misstep and the MSM clearly wants to help.

What are your thoughts, Redstate readers, on how the GOP should play this?

It pains me to write this, because most of my professional wardrobe was purchased at Mens Wearhouse. However, after reading this, I’m willing to look for another clothing store:

Last night, a reporter for the Contra Costa Times and Oakland Tribune photographed a surprising sign in the window of the Men’s Wearhouse Oakland store.

The sign reads “We stand with the 99%. Closed Wednesday November 2.”

That’s the day the Occupy Wall Street movement in Oakland called for a general strike.

Men’s Wearhouse is a publicly traded corporation (MW on the New York Stock Exchange) that takes in over $2 billion a year selling suits, with a net profit of over $67 million last year. So a company that caters to capitalists and businessmen chose to strike against its customers in support of the socialist, communist, anarchist movement that has violently clashed with police in Oakland and has had scores of reports of degenerate behavior across the country, ranging from numerous rapes to defecating on a police car.

…

It’s highly doubtful that Occupy Oakland’s hippie protesters have caused Men’s Wearhouse’s business to boom. Yet, these are the people with whom Men’s Wearhouse has chosen to stand, in opposition to their customers. On the bright side, should riots break out, the store won’t have to fear looting from the hippies and hipsters.

Note that this is not the first time that Men’s Wearhouse has, as a corporation, supported left-leaning politics. In 2009, the company removed its ads from the Glenn Beck show on Fox News.

Perhaps Men’s Wearhouse would be more comfortable selling tie-dyed t-shirts and Nehru jackets, because those Occupiers throwing rocks and bottles at the Oakland police weren’t wearing their product.

UPDATE:

Men’s Wearhouse has now released a statement on their Facebook page. It reads in full:

We closed our store near Oakland City Hall today, for one day, to express the company’s concern for the issue of wealth disparity in our country. The issue affects our employees and customers across the political spectrum.

(Thanks to “The Prudence Paine Papers” for that content, and Instapundit for the hat-tip.)

I was a committed Mens Wearhouse customer. They offer a great service: if you buy an item of clothing from them, they’ll press it for you anytime, free of charge. On many a business trip, I have stuffed Mens Wearhouse clothing into my carryon, secure in the knowledge that the MW store at my destination would make sure my professional clothes were ready for whatever work assignment I faced.

But, when someone sticks a stick in your eye (“these are the people with whom Men’s Wearhouse has chosen to stand, in opposition to their customers”), it’s hard to ignore that.

Mens Wearhouse has to know that they have many, many conservatives, Republicans and businessmen among their clients.

Yet their Oakland store did this. And, based on the Facebook posting mentioned above, their corporate office stands with them.

OK, then. As a conservative and Republican, I’ll now look for another place to shop.

Redstaters, where should an insulted Mens Wearhouse customer go?

Remember that great picture, “Ten Ways that Dick Cheney Can Kill You?” I do, and I’m dying to find a high-resolution copy of that picture.

I’ve Googled it, and I can find a few links—to low-resolution copies.

Anyone know where I can find a good one?

Moderators, if you want to put my request on hold until the next RS Open Thread, I’ll understand…but I decided to write a diary because I wanted my plea to get the widest visibility possible.

Fortunately for us, we now know just where to find the patient.

Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Al Megrahi will today mark the second anniversary of his release from prison in a safe house with his family.
Libya’s under-fire regime has called for any celebrations to remain ‘low key’.

Megrahi was filmed last month by Libyan state television appearing at a rally. Despite the fact he looked ill in a wheelchair, the 59-year-old’s surprise appearance was a huge propaganda coup.

This week the Scottish government insisted it has been ‘vindicated’ in it’s controversial decision to release Megrahi from jail on compassionate grounds.

“Vindicated?” That may be what the Scottish government thinks. But, here’s a chance for the British government, perhaps with a little US SOF help, to make up for a very big mistake it made two years ago.

Certainly al Megrahi will need world-class care for the rest of his life. And, with Libya falling apart, it’s doubtful he can get that care in Libya.

So, how about some SAS and SOF “humanitarians” go “rescue” the poor fellow and bring him back into the welcoming arms of Western medical care?

I’m noticing a “plague on both of their houses” attitude in some of the conservative blogosphere’s reaction to the “Battle in Madison” between Justices Bradley and Prosser. Specifically, I see commentary that implies that BOTH sides are at fault here.

Glenn Reynolds, in Instapundit:

UPDATE: More details arise in Wisconsin’s “Chokegate.” Justice Abrahamson isn’t coming off too well. But then, who is?

Really, if I had tried to come up with a plan to undermine the institutional authority of the judiciary I don’t think I could have done better than the Wisconsin Supreme Court has managed to do.

Ed Morrissey, in Hot Air

Sounds like Wisconsin needs to clean house in its Supreme Court. Rather than have the courts get involved, the state legislature should start probing this case to determine exactly what happened, and whether the Chief Justice has conducted a leak campaign against Prosser as payback. I’d say at least one resignation is due in this case — and maybe a few of them, whatever happened. It’s doubtful that Wisconsin’s citizens can put much confidence in a court that can’t behave itself in a mature and professional manner, and especially one where such poisonous partisan and personal politics are in play

(All boldface above added)

Ummm…Ed and Glenn…what did Prosser and the other conservatives do to warrant sanction?

I sense, in the comments I just linked above, a sorta-holier-than-thou attitude that, if the WI Supreme Court Justices can’t get along, then there’s some level of collective guilt, that at some level ALL of the WI SC justices share blame.

I don’t immediately buy that.

If two liberal jerk justices—Bradley and Abramson—-are acting like, well, jerks, then how is that the fault of the other justices? Why lump them together with the the two liberal freak sisters?

Here’s my concern: The liberals will start echoing Ed Morrissey’s call to “clean house” in the WI Supreme Court. Get rid of the excessive partisans! Drain the swamp! Lance the boil of rancorous partisanship that’s poisoned the Badger State’s highest court! Let’s make cheeseheads proud of their justices again!!! Do it for the children!!!

(OK…that last one just slipped out)

Of course, in order for the housecleaning to be fair, at least one conservative justice will have to go. I wonder who the left will pick…

Something tells me the liberals will gladly sacrifice Bradley, if they can get Prosser as a package deal. Prossser’s head is a trophy the left wants very, very badly.

I hope the Hakuna-Matata Pollyanas on our side won’t get played here, into sacrificing a man who—as far as we know, based on the evidence we have now—did nothing wrong, simply because everyone “wants to be able to get along with each other again.”

Looking for advice on tracking down someone who threatened me online. 

I write a conservative blog on my town’s online newspaper.  A commenter wrote that I should be shot. 

I have the IP address—is there any way I can track down who sent the message?  At the very least, if I can put some heat on the Internet provider, I can make the dude’s life uncomfortable., and perhaps dissuade him (?) from doing it again.  Any ideas?

Rest assured, I know this happens a lot online…but I don’t like the idea of just sitting here and taking it.  I’d like to punch back, as much as possible.

Apologies to moderators—I tried using the “Contact” link, but I got a “Not Found” error prompt.

Remember the 2008 CNN You Tube GOP Presidential candidate debate?  I do. 

Remember the penultimate questioner of the night?  A retired military flag officer who questioned the GOP candidates about the subject of gay marraige—definately an uncomforatble subject for GOP candidates.  I do.

Remember how, even before the program was over!, conservatives had researched this retiree online, found out he was associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign, notified Bill Bennett so he could point out the, ahem, lack of objectivity in this featured questioner to Anderson Cooper ON THE AIR?  I do.

And now, the GOP contenders are rewarding CNN by giving them what they want—an exclusive night with them, in what is arguably the first real GOP Presidential debate of 2012? 

Do you think that, deep in CNN’s headquarters, they are laughing their heads off at the GOP?  I sure do.

Who here thinks that tomorrow night’s GOP contenders will forget to mention CNN’s partisanship in the 2008 You Tube debate?  (And, in so doing…or NOT doing, as the case may be….reward CNN by helping people to forget what the network did almost four years ago).  I do.

Who here is tired of GOP candidates that insist on being sycophants to the MSM?  I am.

Who here expects anything to change.  (Insert sounds of crickets here).

We all know it’s risky to be a conservative fillmmaker or actor in Hollywood. We all want to see more conservative-friendly (or, at the very least, not-conservative-insulting) movies and TV shows. Well, one way to make that happen is to financially reward those conservative folks in Hollywood in front of the camera, behind it and paying for it.

If “Atlas Shrugged” has a good opening weekend, it will help send the message that it’s worth the risk to act in and finance conservative film and TV.

Up until now, we conservatives haven’t exactly sent that message.

(Apologies in advance—my opportunity to look up references for this diary is limited. I’m on Little Smagar duty this Saturday AM, while CINCHouse sleeps. I’m having to cite my evidence from memory).

David Zucker says he’s done with making conservative comedies. Remember David Zucker? Yes, we all shout in unison, “he did the Airplane movies!” (Phooey on Gone With The Wind—THAT was great cinema!) Zucker also did An American Carol. He also made commercials that mocked Democrats.

Did you know David Zucker actually went to his accountant beforehand, and asked whether he could survive a “shunning” (Zucker’s words, not mine) by the rest of Hollywood?

Imagine that. Here’s someone who’s willing to risk a huge financial beating, in order to make conservative-friendly media.

How did that work out for Zucker? From the Wikipedia entry for An American Carol. (Emphasis added).

As of October 2009, An American Carol has grossed $7 million after having a production budget of $20 million.
…
Zucker, in an interview with National Review Online, had suggested a sequel as his next possible project, but now says he is done making conservative comedies.[24][25] Zucker laments that the audience for this type of film is the type that waits for it to be available on DVD.[24]

To be fair, An American Carol debuted right in the middle of the 2008 financial meltdown. Of course, no one was in a movie-watching mood then. Neverthless, notice that a year later (October 2009), the movie was a huge money loser. I’ll bet media financiers noticed.

And, how about those commercials? They were funny and very effective—but the RNC and the McCain campaign SNUBBED them, and Zucker. (“Thank you very little, Mr. Zucker. We are trying to set a high tone in this campaign—while Barack Obama modifies his online donation software so he can accept bazillions in illict contributions online! Aren’t we Republicans NOBLE, as we go down to electoral defeat!”)

Remember The Half Hour News Hour? It was doing OK in its time slot, but Roger Ailes cancelled it anyway. There were lots of young, unestablished actors who appeared in that. (I recognized lots of faces I’d seen in commercials and bit parts on TV.) I’ll bet few of those actors had the financial means to withstand a shunning by Hollywood. Come to think of it—I haven’t seen many of those actors recently…

If you were a conservative actor in Hollywood, would YOU stick your neck out for the conservative movement?

Yesterday, Graham Beckel was interviewed at length on Hugh Hewitt’s show. Beckel plays Ellis Wyatt, the oil tycoon in the new Atlas Shrugged movie. Here’s a few things that stick in my mind from that interview:

First, Beckel said that, once he came out in Hollywood as a conservative, his work dropped way off. Also, people who’d been his friends for 20 years stopped talking to him.

Beckel talked about today’s Hollywood conservatives “meeting in the catacombs” of Tinseltown. What really struck me—he said that very few actors came to these meetings. Producers, directors and writers, yes. Actors, though, felt they couldn’t risk being labeled as conservatives in Hollywood.

Lastly, Beckel said that is was important for Atlas Shrugged to do well this weekend. If it does, more theaters might show the film. Beckel especially said that it was important that the movie’s fianciers not take a bath at the box office.

I’ve seen some reviews that say that Atlas Shrugges is dreary, and perhaps it’s not the best-made of movies. Well, OK.

But, if you want to see more conservative-friendly cinema and TV, we have to reward the people who make the stuff we DO have. Especially since Hollywood is so outwardly hostile to conservatives. Even the successful ones—ask Joel Surnow.

If we sit here and wait for the “perfect” conservative movie, we may be waiting for a very, very long time.

To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, help Hollywood conservatives help you. Go see Atlas Shrugged this weekend.

Is it possible that the the two most prominent Cabinet officials in the Executive Branch decided to blow off Fox News today.

Is the White House playing favorites again with media outlets?

There has been a back-and-forth between Fox News and the White House ever since President Barack Obama took his oath in 2009. And the latest episode appears to have occurred on Sunday after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk show circuit to discuss Libya, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” but not “Fox News Sunday.”

That drew a response from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, following his interview with potential 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich.

“Of course we wanted to get the White House view on Libya,” Wallace said. “However, they chose to offer Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates to ABC, CBS and NBC, but not to Fox. Despite the fact that we routinely have more viewers than two of those Sunday shows, the Obama team felt no need to explain to the millions of you who watch this program and Fox News why they have sent U.S. servicemen and women into combat. We thought you’d like to know.”

First, some questions:

- How common is it for the SECDEF and SECSTATE to NOT go on all of the major Sunday talk shows? It seems to me that, if you go on one, you go on all of them.
- I didn’t see the Sunday shows today—full disclosure; I never watch them—but I don’t see CNN’s Late Edition in the Daily Caller’s list above. Did Gates and Clinton go on CNN? If they didn’t go on CNN, what’s the chance they did it to establish plausible deniability. (Stop whining, Fox—we didn’t go on CNN either. We disrespected ALL the cable channels)
- How big a deal is this, really?
- How can FOX retaliate? Does FOX have the ability to exact any meaningful revenge on the Obama White House over this? I’m thinking that O’Reilley can have a field day with this.
- Is Chris Wallace now an apostate in the eyes of the MSM?

Now, some thoughts:
- Assuming the worst, that this was a deliberate snub, then it’s a troubling sign that the Obama administration is Shooting The Big Nuke, when it comes to civility. If they’re throwing insults like this NOW, almost two years before the election—imagine what it will be like by Labor Day 2012.
- Also assuming the worst—Robert Gates was party to this. I have to admit—that’s the one thing that’s making me think this wasn’t a deliberate snub. I can see Hillary going along with a snub…but Robert Gates?

Today should be a glorious day for personal responsibility and public sanity in Wisconsin. Yes, the Tea Party cavalry will ride into Madison.

I doubt there will be many union counter-protesters…they’re not getting paid to protest today, like they were this week by being “sick.” So, the Tea Partiers should have the streets largely to themselves.

If I were Machiavelli, and I were a Tea Partier in Madison today, I’d look for ways to make the Wisconsin teachers union as uncomfortable as possible. I’d ask myself, “What could I do to embarass them? How could I emphasize the selfishness of what they did? How could I make them say or do stupid things in public, while Tea Party cameras are rolling (and the MSM is frantically looking the other way)?”

In so doing, I’d maximize the political power of the Tea Party event, as well as my own schadenfreude!

Here are some of my ideas:
- Make a point of cleaning up any mess the union protesters left.
- Announce that you have facial-recognition software, and LOTS of pictures of those union protesters. Remember…officially, many of those protesters were “sick”…so what were they doing in the streets when they should have been home getting better? Don’t most public schools have websites, with LOTS of pictures of their teachers and faculty? Don’t teachers get their pictures taken every year for the school yearbook? Hmmm…
- There is a problem with the facial-recognition software idea—it will take a lot of time, So, what can you do with those pictures NOW? Well, you can create a website with still photos/video stills of protesting teachers, and title that website: “Do You See Your Kid’s “SICK” Teacher Here?” Publicize the website’s URL ad nauseum at the rally today. Then, let the parents who had to skip work/pay for day care/see their kids miss their school lunches take the ball and run with it.
- Carry signs that, while polite and dignified, goad the union protesters (there will be a few out there today) to say really dumb things. (I wonder what some of those signs might say…). Then, carry those signs through those crowds of union protesters, or (for safety sake) right along the edge of their crowds. (Be sure to take several cameras with you, plus any spare Packer or Badger linemen that happen to be standing around).
- Get some Tea Partiers with ArcGIS, or other GIS software, to plot the percentages of teachers who called in sick by school district. Then, compare that to the district boundaries of Republican versus Democratic state legislators. I’ve heard tell that there was a much higher level of teacher sickness in R districts than D. WOW…what a coinky-dink!
- If legislators have been harassed at home, make a point of mentioning that at the rally today. You don’t have to mention the legislator’s names…but tell as much as you can about what they and their families have had to endure. I’m betting that most Badger State residents wouldn’t take kindly to the thought of ANYONE’s home life being invaded.
- Run a contest for the worst-spelled teachers’ union protest sign.
- Last but not least, CLEAN UP! Leave the place looking nice. Then, take lots of pictures of the cleaned-up Tea Party protest site and post them on the web…right next to pictures of all the trash the union protesters left.

Those are my ideas…what are yours?

If Fox News is a propaganda machine, then it misleads its viewers.
Fox News is a propaganda machine.
Therefore, Fox News misleads its viewers.

If you are a student in Pima Community College this year (southern Arizona, whose major city is Tucson), you’ll see this argument listed as an example of a hypothetical syllogism. (A syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises.)

You’ll see it in A Concise Introduction to Logic: Tenth Edition by Patrick J. Hurley of the University of San Diego. More to the point:

You’ll see it in a textbook used by a state community college system in a class that’s not supposed to have any ideological flavor to it. “Introduction to Logic” at Pima Community College shouldn’t have any hidden partisan slaps—-for anyone, liberal, conservative or Druid*. But this class does.

I wonder if Keith Olbermann has been writing on the side, under pseudonyms?

Sounds like a good subject for Arizona legislative hearings to me…

* Yes, we do have trees out here.

Okay, here we go: Follow this link to “The Data Port”, written by Art Jacobson, a TucsonCitizen.com blogger. Art is a thoughtful guy, but very liberal.

Unfortunately, he has posted a link to and an excerpt from Joan Walsh’s Salon column, a column that implies that Tea Party rhetoric led to Giffords’ shooting. Art made no rebuttal to what Walsh said. I’m presuming that Art not only agrees with Walsh, but he’s trying to further the meme that the Tea Party is culpable for what happened yesterday.

For the record, the Tucson police commended the Tucson Tea Party during the 2010 campaign for its civility. Also, at least one person, presumably a union supporter, struck a Tea Party supporter at a Tea Party campaign event.

I’m sad to see Art doing this. Perhaps y’all might want to visit his site and comment?

FYI, national media is following TucsonCitizen.com and referencing its reporting. That’s unfortunate, because many of the TC.com bloggers write opinion. And, many are not above muckraking. MSM, please take note. You might want to think twice about what TC.com “reporters” you use as sources.

This is an unsurprising development in the southern Arizona congressional races—CD7 (McClung V Grijalva) and CD8 (Giffords V Kelly).

I realize this may not qualify as original research, but I wanted to make sure people knew about this.

The Yuma Sun is reporting that two organizations — Mi Familia Vota and One Vote Arizona — submitted more than 3000 voter registrations in Yuma County, and more than 20,000 voters statewide. Even more, they have signed up 43,000 people statewide for the permanent early voter list.

What they didn’t tell you is that voter fraud on a massive scale could be taking place, ostensibly to help Raul Grijalva keep the congressional seat he holds by stealing the election.

Here’s what the article doesn’t tell you, by a source in the Yuma County Recorder’s Office:

» These 3000 voter registration forms were all dropped off at once by the one group on the deadline to turn in voter registration forms.
» Almost all of the registrations were for the Democratic Party, a statistical improbability at best.
» Today, these same 3000 newly registered voters — as a group — had papers dropped off at the Yuma Recorder’s office requesting to be signed up for the permanent early voters list… which means the ballots will be mailed early, with no accountability.
» The Yuma Recorder’s office is checking the voter registration forms and have found that already more than 65% of them are invalid due to the registrant not being a citizen, wrong/invalid address, false signature, etc.

Now, the question is: is voter fraud taking place in Yuma County… and is it taking place on an even bigger scale in Pima County?

Yuma County is entirely within Grijalva’s district; Pima County covers both Grijalva and Giffords’ districts.

There’s been little reporting on this in the Tucson media. (A very Democrat-friendly media, btw). But, it did just break over the weekend.

A rumor I’m hearing is that reporters at the Tucson CBS affiliate, KGUN9, want to follow this story…but their editors are resisting. Coinky-dink? I doubt it.

“Three Sonorans,” a progressive blogger at TucsonCitizen.com has responded by claiming that Arizona Hispanics are so mad at SB1070 and its supporters that they’re voting monolithically Democrat this year. THAT explains why virtually ALL of 3000+ voter registration applications, collected by a “non-partisan” voter outreach group, are for the Democrats. Not Republicans, not Independents…Democrats. Yet another coinky-dink.

I’m hoping that someone can follow this story as it breaks. The concern among southern Arizona conservatives is that the local media will starve this story of oxygen…at least until Wednesday 3 November.

“Tucson Progressive” is one of the newest citizen bloggers that’s been added to TucsonCitizen.com. She’s only been on the “air” less than two weeks, and already she’s picked out a prime target—Ruth McClung.

What a coinky-dink. Ruth McClung starts making serious inroads against Raul Grijalva, in a district designed to favor a Democrat—and a new blogger pops up and starts unloading on her.

In the age of new media…there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. TucsonCitizen.com hosts citizen blogs on virtually any subject. For the most part, the TC.com editors let you write what you want.

So, in a sense, I give the Dems credit. They see an opportunity to generate some buzz—or, in this case, help squash Ruth McClung’s momentum—-and they jump on it.

Is anyone out there seeing Congressional races that are being influenced by local bloggers? Especially, bloggers who just popped up on line during this election cycle? I’m curious to hear what y’all are seeing.

Meanwhile, if you want to help Ruth with your blog comments, you’re not only welcome—you’re encouraged—to go to TucsonCitizen.com, register as a commenter and weigh in. If you can make the leftys look bad, the independent and disaffected Democrats who read TC.com will see that.

What I think is happening here is this: The Tucson liberals are using the liberal-friendly bloggers to generate story ideas and talking points for the local media to pick up on. In the case of Ruth McClung, who needs to build momentum fast, the Dems would LOVE to see Ruth spending precious media time rebutting charges, instead of making her case. Ruth can’t be on offense if she has to be on defense.

Enter the liberal bloggers. They get the “buzz” going on a particular topic, the local media reports on the “buzz” (not the topic), the GOP candidate has to respond to the “buzz”—and the Democratic candidate uses the “buzz” and the distraction it creates as a smokescreen, behind which he squeaks through to reelection.

Sound familar?

If you want to know how you can help, send Ruth money, to pay for TV ads. If you can’t do that, come register on TC.com and comment. We have commenters from all over the world.

Calling aesthete!

Greetings, Redstaters—smagar here.

Some of y’all are aware that I run the “Fort Buckley” blog on TucsonCitizen.com. I think of it as a conservative outpost in liberal country. (Tucson is a pocket of blue in an otherwise very red state).

TucsonCitizen.com (or TC.com) is an online reincarnation of the old Tucson Citizen newspaper, which folded nearly two years ago. The new online version offers a platform for anyone to speak their mind. I started “Fort Buckley” because I wanted to use this platform to advance conservative ideals in the Tucson blogosphere.

I’m focusing on election-related topics in between now and November 2nd. TC.com has a lively comments section, populated mostly by leftys. Basically, anytime I or another conservative blogger post on a political topics, the Usual Suspect of lefty commenters swarm in on us. For the most part, we hold our own…but we could use some help.

Tucson is home to CD8, a swing district in this year’s election. IMO, the more voice we can give to conservative ideas in the Tucson area, the better it is for southern Arizona GOP candidates.

How can you help? Comment!

When you have some spare time, come over to TucsonCitizen.com. Sign up as a commenter, and weigh in to the chatter. Here’s a great opportunity to reach voters who are open to the conservative message, but don’t normally read Redstate or other conservative blogs.

Thanks to mbecker908, aesthete, ColdWarrior and others who have already pitched in. They survived the TC.com online experience—so can you!

Thanks
smagar

Looks as if the Land of Enchantment might elect a—GASP—Hispanic Republican governor!

Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez’s lead over Democrat Diane Denish has grown to 10 points, and Martinez has also reached the all-important 50 percent threshold, according to a new poll conducted for her campaign. The poll, conducted Sept. 11-13, had Martinez leading 50 percent to 40 percent. The survey of 600 likely voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The poll was conducted by the GOP firm Public Opinion Strategies.

Dolores Huerta, BTW, is a liberal Hispanic activist. She became (in)famous by choosing to say, in a public forum in a Tucson high school, that “Republicans hate Latinos.” School and city officials later apologized.

Let’s see…Martinez in NM, Rubio in FL…not a good year for Democratic stereotypes, is it?

This article is crossposted at “Fort Buckley”, one of the few Republican-friendly blogs on TucsonCitizen.com.

Redstaters—especially Arizonans—who are looking for other places to comment online during election season should check out TucsonCitizen.com. The site has some regular lefty commenters who are begging to have their ears pinned back!

Tucson is home to a very deserving GOP Congressional candidate, Jesse Kelly, in CD 8 against Gabrielle Giffords. Kelly needs attention, in order to take back a Republican-leaning district from a well-funded and local-media-supported Democratic incumbent. Kelly can win the seat, IF he gets help and IF the Republican and independent bases in CD 8 get out and vote. The sooner the better—early voting in AZ starts in early October.

The more Republican buzz we can generate in the Old Pueblo, the better it is for Jesse…

…and for Ruth McClung, the GOP candidate in CD 7 against Raul Grijalva. Ruth is doing surprisingly well in a supposedly-safe D district. Grijalva, BTW, is leader of the House Progressive Caucus. I’m just sayin…

You can find “Fort Buckley” on Facebook too. So, tell your friends, come register at TucsonCitizen.com and comment. Help generate some buzz that might help flip one (or two?) Congressional seats into the R column come November.

I can’t imagine Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and the Tea Party Express are indifferent to the Senate. More to the point, I’m presuming that they, like most of the rest of us, recognize the need to have a filibuster-proof Senate at some point in the near-future, in order to REPEAL Obamacare.

So, if Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint and the Tea Party Express are willing to toss away a Senate seat in Delaware…then it stands to reason they have other plans for getting to 60 votes before 2014, when Obamacare really kicks in.

Here’s a look at 2012—do you see a sure-fire path to 60 votes here?

(As a side note, I also presume the Tea Party Express’ members understand there’s power in the majority in the Senate. You control committees, the flow (or stoppage) of legislation, the calendar, etc… If nothing else, a Senate Judiciary Committee with Jeff Sessions in charge instead of Patrick Leahy will most likely NOT give thumbs-up to a young version of Ruth Bader Ginzburg, assuming the older version retires in the last two years of—what we all hope will be—the last opportunity for a liberal President to nominate a SCOTUS justice in a long time. But that’s a discussion we’ve already had in length on these boards…)

Of course, we’re not going to get to 60 votes this year. Instead, we can build as many seats as we can this year, and look to 2012 to get us to 60.

Jay Cost, over at the Weekly Standard’s blog, lists these seats where Democrats will be on defense in 2012:

California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

I count 18 seats.

Now, assuming the worst-case scenario of Jim Geraghty comes to pass, and Senator-elect Coons gives the Dems the 50th seat they need to maintain control of the Senate in the next Congress…then we need 10 seats in 2012 to get to the magic 60. That means we need 10 of those 18; that also assumes we won’t lose any of the ones we currently hold—such as John Ensign’s seat in Nevada.

Here are some likely R pickups, assuming the electorate is still mad at the Obama administration and the Dems in 2012:

- Nebraska (Ben Nelson)
- Florida (Bill Nelson)
- Missouri (Claire McCaskill)
- Virginia (Jim Webb)
- Montana (Jon Tester)

That’s five. The others—I’m not so sure about.

- New Mexico (Jeff Binghaman)—NM is a purple state at best. But, for the sake of discussion, let’s put that in the R column. That gets us to 56 seats.
- Minnesota (Amy Klobuchar)—perhaps the Minnesota electorate unseats her, out of guilt for having “elected” Al Franken? OK; now we’re up to 57
- North Dakota (Kent Conrad). I could see Conrad going down in a GOP wave, which I’m presuming that the Tea Party Express thinks we’ll be riding in 2012. OK…that’s 58.
- Ohio (Sherrod Brown). If Ohio’s still mad in 2012 at the Dems, and the GOP recruits a good candidate (Ken Blackwell?), perhaps this means we’ll have TWO GOP Senators (Portman plus Insert Name Here) in 2013. OK—that’s 59.

That leaves one more seat to get, which could plausibly come from any of the following places:
- Wisconsin. (Herb Kohl retiring?).
- Michigan. (Debbie Stabenow has never been strong and Michigan’s economy will still probably stink by then)
- New York (Kirsten Gillebrand will have to run again in 2012)
- West Virginia (Ditto for Joe Manchin)

For me, there are way too many ifs in that scenario. The key one—many of the pickups we need would have to come from purple states. I don’t expect the Dems to roll over and die; we didn’t in December of 2008, after absorbing a cataclysmic electoral shellacking. I don’t expect the unions, Hollywood and George Soros to go broke either, so the Dems will have plenty of money.

Plus, if the Rs appear to be rolling to a Presidential victory and expanded Senate majorities in 2012, expect a wide call for “maintaining balance,” by preserving enough of a Democratic minority in the Senate to execute a filibuster.

To kill Obamacare, we have to be able to stop a filibuster. Expect the remaining Dems in the Senate to hold onto Obamacare like a life preserver. We’ll have to tear it from their hands.

In that case, can we really afford to toss aside a Senate seat, in order to make a statement to “The Establishment?”

If you answer “yes” to that last question, get ready to live with Obamacare. Or, find another path to 60 votes.

Jay Cost, who came to my attention when he started blogging at Real Clear Politics, is IMO one of the clearest and deepest thinkers on the nuts-and-bolts of politics on the street today. Check out his “Horse Race” blog, and you’ll see what I mean.

Jay now blogs at Weekly Standard; from there he weighed in on the Castle/O’Donnell race in DE. He sides with Castle. In so doing, Jay’s not thinking so much of 2010…but 2012.

Republicans can peel back much of Obamacare through de-funding, but a full-blown repeal is probably going to require not only a new president, but a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

That is a possibility, though it won’t be easy. The GOP is currently 19 seats short of a filibuster-proof majority, but this year polling averages suggest that the party is currently set to pick up 8 seats.

Then in 2012, scores of Democrats are up for reelection: in California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The GOP just cannot win some of these seats, e.g. Hawaii, but if the Republicans are strong enough to take the White House in 2012, they will probably be on the attack in many of these states. I count 12 seats in states that either went for Bush in 2004 or for which Bush was campaigning heavily. An R+5 year could tip many of these seats to the GOP. So, it’s possible.

But this also means that every seat counts. Mike Castle voted against ObamaCare, and he has co-sponsored the bill to repeal it. Is he really worth going after? A pickup of 19 seats in two years is a monumentally difficult task. It seems to me that at a time when the party needs every seat it can get, Castle can get one.

Yes, Castle’s a RINO. He’s guilty as charged there.

But…how many of us realized that we need nineteen Senate seats in order to repeal Obamacare? Yikes!

If you want to just neuter it, through legislation—OK; you don’t need 19. You can take a risk on someone like Christine O’Donnell.

But, if you really want to repeal Obamacare, you’ll need 60 votes in the Senate. And, just how many of the remaining Democrats will be likely to come over to our side? Only the most hardcore partisans, from the most blue states, will be left behind. They will be virtually immune to persuasion. In fact, they’ll probably think they’re on a sacred mission to preserve a prized liberal legislative accomplishment.

If we’ll want to invoke cloture, we’ll need the ability to do it ourselves.

Imagine the money the GOP will have to spend in the Delaware TV market to shore up O’Donnell. Don’t you think that, if the Dems see a suddenly-very-winnable seat Senate seat open up in very blue territory, they’ll flood that place with resources? Can the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin cover O’Donnell’s bills?

If O’Donnell wins, and then posts some pretty sour poll numbers in late September, expect the NRSC to triage her candidacy, write her off and move elsewhere. To a seat that’s more winnable—Dino Rossi, for instance. And, frankly, it would be hard to blame them.

Do I wish Delaware had the same electorate Alaska does, or Utah? You bet. Does it? No. Can we Hannitize it by the time early balloting starts for the general election? Doubtful.

If you’re trying to rationalize supporting Mike Castle in 2010, think of how many Ds are sitting in Senate seats from states that should have elected an R in the past two election cycles—Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Mark Pryor, Claire McCaskill, Kay Hymans. All from states where an R should have won, but didn’t. Five votes we should have in the Senate, but don’t, and won’t until at least January 2013.

Think of it this way: we let those get away, so we should be ready to compromise here, and take advantage of a once-in-a-generation opportunity, to steal back a seat in a blue state and thus mitigate our losses. At least a little bit.

Just to be clear, when the primary is over, I’m 100% for the GOP nominee. No appeals to the Delaware Libertarian Party (is there one?) or calls for write-in campaigns from me.

Neverthless, this is the time for cold, clear practical thinking and choice-making. It’s not the time to be Pollyanish.

In the summer of 2006, I was surprised to see the Democrats running TV ads…in the GOP primary. The ads targeted a candidate (whose name escapes me and Google can’t find) who was the GOP’s preferred successor for the retiring Jim Kolbe.

Perhaps those Democratic ads in a GOP primary helped: the targeted candidate lost the primary. The primary winner, Randy Graf, turned off enough voters in CD8, a purple district, to allow Gabrielle Giffords to win the seat.

Fast forward to 2010. Giffords is vulnerable, and there’s a tight GOP primary in CD8 between Jonathan Paton and Jesse Kelly.

This weekend, I noticed that Paton signs were starting to sprout…well, an awning of sorts.

Very narrow signs were springing up directly behind Paton signs. The signs were just tall enough—what a coinky-dink!—to sit right on top of the Paton sign. They also were strategically placed so they didn’t touch Paton’s original signs. (IIRC, it’s against the law in AZ to physically attach something to another candidate’s sign).

The signs say “PayDayPayton.” They list a website (http://www.paydaypayton.com) that criticizes “lobbyist Jonathan Paton” for “lin[ing] his pockets lobbying for payday lenders.”

Scroll to the bottom of the website, and what do we see?

PAID FOR BY THE ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, 2910 N. CENTRAL AVE., PHOENIX, AZ 85012.
WWW.AZDEM.ORG. HQ 602-298-4200. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE COMMITTEE.

I’ll start checking the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson’s daily newspaper, to see if the intrepid reporters there are covering this story. IMO, the fact that one party is OVERTLY playing in the other party’s primary should be a newsworthy story.

I suspect, though, that the Arizona Democratic Party is counting on the Arizona media’s silence to cover up what they’re doing. Something tells me the local media will find they just don’t have the time to cover this story. Or, what’s more likely, they’ll cover it in detail—AFTER the election is over. Much in the same way that Howard Kurtz, lead apologist for the MSM runs exposes after every election, decrying the bias the MSM showed in its reportage and calling on them to NEVER do it again. (Until the next election, that is).

If so could someone please tell Andrew Alexander, the WaPo’s ombundsman?

If someone takes the major step of giving up their job, so that they can speak out on an issue, I’d think that gives that person at least some measure of credibility, don’t you think?

So, shouldn’t you mention that when you’re raising questions about someone’s credibility. To the whole online world?

Read More →