The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is still sulking about Tom Daschle's defeat four years ago to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D); that's why the DSCC has dumped $2 million in Kentucky in a vain attempt to defeat Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, according to The Hill.
That looks downright stingy compared to the $ 18.5 million that the DSCC has spent on television advertising against Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) Bruce Lunsford should call his buddy Chuck Schumer and complain.
The Hill notes that Democrats
have been waiting to give Republicans a taste of their own medicine after then-Republican leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) broke an unwritten rule of Senate civility and targeted Daschle for defeat. Frist took it a step further by traveling to South Dakota to campaign against Daschle - a shock to some of his Senate colleagues.
Democrats were denied the opportunity to directly retaliate against Frist, who retired from the chamber in 2006, but now appear to be settling for McConnell, instead.
DSCC chairman Charles Schumer told reporters Wednesday that he had no qualms about targeting McConnell because of Daschle’s experience.
Schumer's lie of the day: "Schumer insisted, however, that he had not targeted McConnell because of his leadership position." Right, and tonight the Great Pumpkin will rise out of the pumpkin patch and bring toys to all the good children.
Showing posts with label Senate 'o8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate 'o8. Show all posts
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
See Bruce Get Trounced
Bruce Lunsford whined about Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not debating him, and even had a supporter dress as a chicken at McConnell events. The inconvenient truth, however, is that McConnell debated Lunsford three times.
The only dispute was whether McConnell should rearrange his schedule to do an extra debate for KET, which had failed to film the earlier debates. McConnell was otherwise occupied doing the job he was elected to do, including negotiating the financial rescue that Lunsford has yet to take a position on, to schedule a make-up debate for KET.
In any event, notwithstanding KET's curious editorial policy, C-SPAN-2 will televise last Thursday's debate tonight at 9:50. That's the debate in which Lunsford swiped the tape recorder. (If Lunsford was so keen to let the public judge the candidates' performances in the debates, why did he steal the tape recorder and erase the record of the debate?) All three debates can be viewed at any time on http://www.kysenatedebate.com/.
Watch Bruce argue that the U.S. constitution should apply to people who are not U.S. citizens, including terrorists. Watch Bruce say that he wants the U.S. to become energy independent, but then oppose the construction of nuclear power plants, which even France allows. This is the same guy who flies around the country to his seven homes in his private jet. Bruce's judgment on energy may be colored, just not the color green.
The only dispute was whether McConnell should rearrange his schedule to do an extra debate for KET, which had failed to film the earlier debates. McConnell was otherwise occupied doing the job he was elected to do, including negotiating the financial rescue that Lunsford has yet to take a position on, to schedule a make-up debate for KET.
In any event, notwithstanding KET's curious editorial policy, C-SPAN-2 will televise last Thursday's debate tonight at 9:50. That's the debate in which Lunsford swiped the tape recorder. (If Lunsford was so keen to let the public judge the candidates' performances in the debates, why did he steal the tape recorder and erase the record of the debate?) All three debates can be viewed at any time on http://www.kysenatedebate.com/.
Watch Bruce argue that the U.S. constitution should apply to people who are not U.S. citizens, including terrorists. Watch Bruce say that he wants the U.S. to become energy independent, but then oppose the construction of nuclear power plants, which even France allows. This is the same guy who flies around the country to his seven homes in his private jet. Bruce's judgment on energy may be colored, just not the color green.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Hide Your Daughters -- Bubba's Back
Former President Bill Clinton will come to Kentucky this Friday to campaign for U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford and Congressional candidate David Boswell. Clinton will campaign in Bowling Green and Paducah, according to Pol Watchers.
Boswell has tried to triangulate himself into a conservative in his bid to take Rep. Ron Lewis's seat, who is retiring.
Bruce Lunsford is the bon vivant bachelor who spends millions of dollars of his own money running for assorted political offices. I hope Hillary has micro chipped Slick Willie for his TGIF tour of the Bluegrass.
Boswell has tried to triangulate himself into a conservative in his bid to take Rep. Ron Lewis's seat, who is retiring.
Bruce Lunsford is the bon vivant bachelor who spends millions of dollars of his own money running for assorted political offices. I hope Hillary has micro chipped Slick Willie for his TGIF tour of the Bluegrass.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Weekly Standard on McConnell
Louisville's John David Dyche has written an overview on Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's career and race in the Weekly Standard.
My favorite line:
Always virulently anti-McConnell, the state's big newspapers in Louisville and Lexington are febrile and trembling with political bloodlust at the prospect of vanquishing their longtime nemesis.
Can't you just see David Hawpe and Betty Winston Baye "febrile and trembling with political bloodlust"? Scary stuff . . . would make a good Halloween costume.
And this:
Without a hint of irony, much less decency, the DSCC's debut ad in the race blasts McConnell for backing 1999 banking deregulation that Schumer himself called vital to America's future. But the content matters less than the fact that the DSCC now sees spending in Kentucky as a good investment. More outside money may soon follow.
Almost no one is actually for Lunsford. Labor, liberals, and "yellow dog" Democrats simply hate McConnell. This year that may be enough, but no one should make the mistake of counting out the man Kentuckians of both parties regard as the modern-day heir of Henry Clay.
My favorite line:
Always virulently anti-McConnell, the state's big newspapers in Louisville and Lexington are febrile and trembling with political bloodlust at the prospect of vanquishing their longtime nemesis.
Can't you just see David Hawpe and Betty Winston Baye "febrile and trembling with political bloodlust"? Scary stuff . . . would make a good Halloween costume.
And this:
Without a hint of irony, much less decency, the DSCC's debut ad in the race blasts McConnell for backing 1999 banking deregulation that Schumer himself called vital to America's future. But the content matters less than the fact that the DSCC now sees spending in Kentucky as a good investment. More outside money may soon follow.
Almost no one is actually for Lunsford. Labor, liberals, and "yellow dog" Democrats simply hate McConnell. This year that may be enough, but no one should make the mistake of counting out the man Kentuckians of both parties regard as the modern-day heir of Henry Clay.
Granted, the anti-incumbent status is strong, and poses a challenge to McConnell. But Bruce Lunsford is no smooth-talking, hip Barack Obama. As much as Lunsford tries to copy his hero and party standard-bearer, we have been spared the spectre of Lunsford in a bathing suit with his Wayfarers on.
Obama, moreover, will have no coat tails in Kentucky. None. Not because all or most Kentuckians are racist, but rather because all or most Kentuckians prefer capitalism to socialism.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Order of Purple Heart Complains About Lunsford's Clinic
As discussed below, the Order of the Purple Heart in Arkansas asked for a Congressional investigation into veteran complaints that Bruce Lunsford's company, Valor Healthcare, gave them shoddy medical care.
Specifically, the Arkansas vets question how Valor was able to qualify for a contract that was supposed to be awarded to "small businesses," given that the "former CEO and majority stockholder of Valor Healthcare [Lunsford] was fined $ 104 million by the Department of Justice for defrauding healthcare programs in 2001."
Lunsford, a multi-millionaire with a stake in many companies and ventures, is not exactly the paradigm of a small businessman.
The resolution contends that the quality of health care deteriorated after Valor took over the clinic -- and resulted in the amputation of one vet's finger and and foot.
The Order of the Purple Heart passed the resolution on March 8, 2008 --before Kentucky Democrats selected Lunsford as their nominee.
Specifically, the Arkansas vets question how Valor was able to qualify for a contract that was supposed to be awarded to "small businesses," given that the "former CEO and majority stockholder of Valor Healthcare [Lunsford] was fined $ 104 million by the Department of Justice for defrauding healthcare programs in 2001."
Lunsford, a multi-millionaire with a stake in many companies and ventures, is not exactly the paradigm of a small businessman.
The resolution contends that the quality of health care deteriorated after Valor took over the clinic -- and resulted in the amputation of one vet's finger and and foot.
The Order of the Purple Heart passed the resolution on March 8, 2008 --before Kentucky Democrats selected Lunsford as their nominee.
C-J: 57,000 Vets Complain About Lunsford's Clinics; One in Ad Now Satisfied
U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford has persuaded one of the veterans who initially complained about receiving lousy health care at Lunsford's Valor V.A. clinics to now say that his complaints have been satisfied. The Veteran, Adolfo Pina of Texas, appears in a new Lunsford ad to clarify comments that he made in an ad for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
In out-takes, Mr. Pena acknowledged on camera when he was interviewed for the McConnell ad that he gave permission for McConnell to use his comments complaining about Valor in the campaign ads.
Buried towards the end of Joe Gerth's Courier-Journal article on the oddity of both candidates running ads with the same veteran, is this:
McConnell's ad contends that the company mistreats veterans and provides them with inadequate health care -- claims that have been made by some of the company's 57,000 clients. (Emphasis added.)
That's nearly the number of troops killed in Vietnam. This is the first indication that we've seen of the magnitude of veteran dissatisfaction with Lunsford's clinic.
In addition, Gerth reports -- also in the jump, at the end of the article -- that
The Hot Springs chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart has asked for a congressional investigation into Valor's services there.
Congratulations to Lunsford for rectifying Mr. Pena's concerns about the health care he received at Lunsford's clinic. That was the right thing to do. We hope that if he has not already, Lunsford will do the same for the other 57,000 veterans who -- like Pena -- also complained.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
In out-takes, Mr. Pena acknowledged on camera when he was interviewed for the McConnell ad that he gave permission for McConnell to use his comments complaining about Valor in the campaign ads.
Buried towards the end of Joe Gerth's Courier-Journal article on the oddity of both candidates running ads with the same veteran, is this:
McConnell's ad contends that the company mistreats veterans and provides them with inadequate health care -- claims that have been made by some of the company's 57,000 clients. (Emphasis added.)
That's nearly the number of troops killed in Vietnam. This is the first indication that we've seen of the magnitude of veteran dissatisfaction with Lunsford's clinic.
In addition, Gerth reports -- also in the jump, at the end of the article -- that
The Hot Springs chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart has asked for a congressional investigation into Valor's services there.
Congratulations to Lunsford for rectifying Mr. Pena's concerns about the health care he received at Lunsford's clinic. That was the right thing to do. We hope that if he has not already, Lunsford will do the same for the other 57,000 veterans who -- like Pena -- also complained.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
It's Patriots' Day
It does not seem possible that it has been seven years, almost to the hour, since Islamofascists attacked us on September 11, 2001. How to commemorate such a day? By flying our flag and praying for our country and its leaders.
I give thanks for those leaders who have kept us safe for seven long years.
President Bush has been reviled. We all understand how unpopular he is. History, however, will record that he did the most important thing any president can do: he kept us safe. It will be years before we know the details of the attacks that were averted. That's a good thing, because we could have not gone about our lives otherwise.
I give thanks for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and those others who understand, on issues like FISA, that foreign terrorists have no right to privacy to use our phone system to plot to kill us. And who understand that the best way to honor the sacrifice of our troops is to let them win the war. As a result of the surge, we are close to finishing the war -- yet another reason for gratitude. I give thanks for our troops and ask for comfort for those families who have lost loved ones, and for those soldiers who have returned injured.
I give thanks for McConnell, Sen. Joe Lieberman and those leaders who understand that there is a difference between right and wrong; they recognize that Islamofascists want to kill us and destroy our country. We cannot combat evil without first acknowledging its existence. It would be easy to succumb to moral relativism posing as tolerance, a path that McConnell and Lieberman have steadfastly resisted. Their courage, no doubt, is informed by faith. So, I give thanks for leaders who in the best tradition of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln pray for our country.
Finally, I give thanks for the lives of those who perished on September 11. Especially Barbara. Rest in peace.
I give thanks for those leaders who have kept us safe for seven long years.
President Bush has been reviled. We all understand how unpopular he is. History, however, will record that he did the most important thing any president can do: he kept us safe. It will be years before we know the details of the attacks that were averted. That's a good thing, because we could have not gone about our lives otherwise.
I give thanks for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and those others who understand, on issues like FISA, that foreign terrorists have no right to privacy to use our phone system to plot to kill us. And who understand that the best way to honor the sacrifice of our troops is to let them win the war. As a result of the surge, we are close to finishing the war -- yet another reason for gratitude. I give thanks for our troops and ask for comfort for those families who have lost loved ones, and for those soldiers who have returned injured.
I give thanks for McConnell, Sen. Joe Lieberman and those leaders who understand that there is a difference between right and wrong; they recognize that Islamofascists want to kill us and destroy our country. We cannot combat evil without first acknowledging its existence. It would be easy to succumb to moral relativism posing as tolerance, a path that McConnell and Lieberman have steadfastly resisted. Their courage, no doubt, is informed by faith. So, I give thanks for leaders who in the best tradition of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln pray for our country.
Finally, I give thanks for the lives of those who perished on September 11. Especially Barbara. Rest in peace.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
So That's Why the Union Bosses Don't Like Private Ballots
Jake give us a peek at the Wild Left with this link to Open Left, a Demo-blog that purports to enlighten us on the state of the U.S. Senate races accross the nation. Not surprisingly, Open Left would like Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to lose but concedes that's unlikely: "you can't always get what you want."
In addition to stating the obvious, Open Left is refreshingly frank about the debate on whether workers should get a private vote in an election to determine whether a union represents them, or whether their votes should be a public "card check," allowing Union Bosses to intimidate the workers into voting for the union. That's the legislation with the Orwellian name of "Employee Free Choice Act" that has been subject to much advertising.
Open Left is at least honest about the legislative intent:
This is an extremely important instance of "positive feedback loop" legislation, as making it easier to join a union will shift the political infrastructure of America to the left.
But stacking the union elections is just part of a broader agenda:
By targeting one of the five major ideological institutions in this country (employment, media, education, family and religion) with fundamental, progressive, infrastructure change, we help build a long-term, progressive governing majority.
That sense that the Left really opposes church and family is no irrational fear; it's their agenda.
In addition to stating the obvious, Open Left is refreshingly frank about the debate on whether workers should get a private vote in an election to determine whether a union represents them, or whether their votes should be a public "card check," allowing Union Bosses to intimidate the workers into voting for the union. That's the legislation with the Orwellian name of "Employee Free Choice Act" that has been subject to much advertising.
Open Left is at least honest about the legislative intent:
This is an extremely important instance of "positive feedback loop" legislation, as making it easier to join a union will shift the political infrastructure of America to the left.
But stacking the union elections is just part of a broader agenda:
By targeting one of the five major ideological institutions in this country (employment, media, education, family and religion) with fundamental, progressive, infrastructure change, we help build a long-term, progressive governing majority.
That sense that the Left really opposes church and family is no irrational fear; it's their agenda.
Bruce in Wonderland, Part I: Taxes
The contrast from Minnesota -- where Gov. Sarah Palin soared through the glass ceiling -- could not be starker, as Bruce Lunsford crashes and burns through the looking glass. Lunsford's latest ad claims that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell favors high taxes. As Alice would say, down is up. Even more unreal, Lunsford, who ran twice for governor as a Democrat, implies that he, Lunsford will bring us lower taxes. Up is down.
Lunsford might as well take his ad to its hallucinagenic conclusion and claim that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a strict constructionist. Or that Barack Obama is a war hero.
How to explain Lunsford's abandonment of reality? It seems that Lunsford has rationalized his last two trouncings by deciding that Kentuckians are so stupid that they will believe that Mitch McConnell is a tax and spend liberal. This, from a candidate, who has complained all summer that McConnell is obstructing a progressive agenda (that is, preventing liberals from taxing and spending).
Take Lunsford's claim that McConnell promised not to raise taxes and then raised taxes. The Americans for Tax Reform gave McConnell a 100 pecent rating for the 110th Congress. Compare that to Sen. Barack Obama, who has a rating of five (5) and Sen. Joe Biden, who aptly rates a zero (0) (which looks alot like Obama's logo). McConnell has one of the best records in the Senate on tax relief. And no wonder.
McConnell opposed the 1990 tax increases (when Bush 41 broke his "read my lips, no new taxes pledge). McConnell voted against Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on gas and social security. McConnell supported the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. He supported the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (the cuts Barack Obama won't make permanent). And McConnell supported tax cuts in 2003 on investment income and the marriage penalty. In October 1990, McConnell joined the non-binding "sense of the Senate" to call for lower gas and capital gains taxes. When the final bill called for higher taxes, McConnell broke with President Bush and voted against this tax increase on, among other things, gas.
Lunsford wants to go to Washington to be a groupie for Biden-Obama, whose combined rating from the Americans for Tax Reform is a whopping 2.5: they flunked so badly, they almost fell off the scale. McConnell, in contrast, consistently scores as A to A+ on opposing tax increases and supporting tax cuts. Kentucky should not exchange an A+ Senator for an F wannabe.
Lunsford's ad makes other absurd claims about McConnell's record. The ad is so replete with distortions that the other lies (such as, that McConnell does not support veterans), will be addressed separately.
Lunsford might as well take his ad to its hallucinagenic conclusion and claim that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a strict constructionist. Or that Barack Obama is a war hero.
How to explain Lunsford's abandonment of reality? It seems that Lunsford has rationalized his last two trouncings by deciding that Kentuckians are so stupid that they will believe that Mitch McConnell is a tax and spend liberal. This, from a candidate, who has complained all summer that McConnell is obstructing a progressive agenda (that is, preventing liberals from taxing and spending).
Take Lunsford's claim that McConnell promised not to raise taxes and then raised taxes. The Americans for Tax Reform gave McConnell a 100 pecent rating for the 110th Congress. Compare that to Sen. Barack Obama, who has a rating of five (5) and Sen. Joe Biden, who aptly rates a zero (0) (which looks alot like Obama's logo). McConnell has one of the best records in the Senate on tax relief. And no wonder.
McConnell opposed the 1990 tax increases (when Bush 41 broke his "read my lips, no new taxes pledge). McConnell voted against Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on gas and social security. McConnell supported the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. He supported the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (the cuts Barack Obama won't make permanent). And McConnell supported tax cuts in 2003 on investment income and the marriage penalty. In October 1990, McConnell joined the non-binding "sense of the Senate" to call for lower gas and capital gains taxes. When the final bill called for higher taxes, McConnell broke with President Bush and voted against this tax increase on, among other things, gas.
Lunsford wants to go to Washington to be a groupie for Biden-Obama, whose combined rating from the Americans for Tax Reform is a whopping 2.5: they flunked so badly, they almost fell off the scale. McConnell, in contrast, consistently scores as A to A+ on opposing tax increases and supporting tax cuts. Kentucky should not exchange an A+ Senator for an F wannabe.
Lunsford's ad makes other absurd claims about McConnell's record. The ad is so replete with distortions that the other lies (such as, that McConnell does not support veterans), will be addressed separately.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Bruce Panders to Feminasties
Bruce Lunsford has become a cliche of Old School Liberalism. First he coddled the labor unions -- the only group that will give him any money to speak of. And now he is courting the feminists, in a manner that demeans women and the office of U.S. Senate he seeks.
From Page One, we learn that Bruce will "will unveil his plan for a Kentucky Women’s Bill of Rights on September 25 in Lexington. Carrick House, 312 N. Limestone, 7:00 P.M." This might be worth attending, just for the humor value.
After all, when else do we get to see a candidate with such a weak grasp of basic civics that he thinks that a U.S. Senator can dictate a "bill of rights" for a state? His failure to comprehend basic concepts of federalism would flunk the social studies portion of the CATS test for fifth graders.
But that's just the mechanics of Bruce's agenda. He is wrong on the merits, as well. The web site that is promoting Bruce's feminist outreach, Kentucky Women: Power, Passion and Politics, promises that Bruce's "unveiling" of his new "bill of rights" will be "absolutely breathtaking." Be still, my heart.
The so-called "Lunsford '08 KY Women's Outreach Program" expects Bruce to do their bidding on such issues as the "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE); a critical program which gives 10 percent of all federally financed contracts to women and minority-owned companies." The feminists are enraged that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell does not support the program.
The DBE is a fancy form of welfare that should be repealed. It rests upon that central fallacy of feminism that mischaracterizes women as victims. Then it seeks to reward and perpetuate their victimization by bestowing upon them a chunk of the taxpayers' money.
Any businesswoman worth her salt would be insulted to accept this handout, which assumes that she cannot make it without Big Government intervening on her behalf. And any woman-owned business that needs to be propped up by a government subsidy does not deserve to stay in business.
And then there is the all-defining issue for feminists: abortion. Bruce Lunsford told the Courier-Journal last May that he's for it -- says he'll do all he can to keep it legal. Given Lunsford's desire to expand the federal government's role in the health insurance industry, feminists undoubtedly hope that Lunsford would back using tax dollars to pay for abortions. Lunsford's pro-abortion position also means that he would vote to confirm activist judges of the sort who created the Roe v. Wade "right to privacy" out of whole cloth.
McConnell, in contrast, won the endorsement by Right to Life. He also voted to confirm Justice Samual Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Lunsford may not lean as far left as many in his party. Indeed, the Demo-blogs were outraged that he won the nomination, because he is not "progressive" enough. But make no mistake: he favors abortion and the activist judges who gave us that tragedy. McConnell has defended the sanctity of life and judicial restraint for years.
And McConnell understands that it demeans women -- a majority of the population -- to carve out special subsidies that do nothing more than discriminate against men. And unlike Lunsford, McConnell has read and understands the Constitution.
From Page One, we learn that Bruce will "will unveil his plan for a Kentucky Women’s Bill of Rights on September 25 in Lexington. Carrick House, 312 N. Limestone, 7:00 P.M." This might be worth attending, just for the humor value.
After all, when else do we get to see a candidate with such a weak grasp of basic civics that he thinks that a U.S. Senator can dictate a "bill of rights" for a state? His failure to comprehend basic concepts of federalism would flunk the social studies portion of the CATS test for fifth graders.
But that's just the mechanics of Bruce's agenda. He is wrong on the merits, as well. The web site that is promoting Bruce's feminist outreach, Kentucky Women: Power, Passion and Politics, promises that Bruce's "unveiling" of his new "bill of rights" will be "absolutely breathtaking." Be still, my heart.
The so-called "Lunsford '08 KY Women's Outreach Program" expects Bruce to do their bidding on such issues as the "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE); a critical program which gives 10 percent of all federally financed contracts to women and minority-owned companies." The feminists are enraged that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell does not support the program.
The DBE is a fancy form of welfare that should be repealed. It rests upon that central fallacy of feminism that mischaracterizes women as victims. Then it seeks to reward and perpetuate their victimization by bestowing upon them a chunk of the taxpayers' money.
Any businesswoman worth her salt would be insulted to accept this handout, which assumes that she cannot make it without Big Government intervening on her behalf. And any woman-owned business that needs to be propped up by a government subsidy does not deserve to stay in business.
And then there is the all-defining issue for feminists: abortion. Bruce Lunsford told the Courier-Journal last May that he's for it -- says he'll do all he can to keep it legal. Given Lunsford's desire to expand the federal government's role in the health insurance industry, feminists undoubtedly hope that Lunsford would back using tax dollars to pay for abortions. Lunsford's pro-abortion position also means that he would vote to confirm activist judges of the sort who created the Roe v. Wade "right to privacy" out of whole cloth.
McConnell, in contrast, won the endorsement by Right to Life. He also voted to confirm Justice Samual Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Lunsford may not lean as far left as many in his party. Indeed, the Demo-blogs were outraged that he won the nomination, because he is not "progressive" enough. But make no mistake: he favors abortion and the activist judges who gave us that tragedy. McConnell has defended the sanctity of life and judicial restraint for years.
And McConnell understands that it demeans women -- a majority of the population -- to carve out special subsidies that do nothing more than discriminate against men. And unlike Lunsford, McConnell has read and understands the Constitution.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Dems Give Two Thumbs Up to C-J
The "progressives" at the Courier-Journal must be proud of all the accolades they've earned from Democrats this week -- a good omen for invitations to all the celebrity-studded parties at the Democratic National Convention.
First, the C-J won an implicit compliment from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, when the DSCC quoted a C-J editorial. This is at least the second time that the DSCC has highlighted the C-J in connection with Kentucky's 2008 U.S. Senate campaign. That's no surprise, because the DSCC communications director, Matt Miller, has helped the C-J with previous attempts to smear Mitch McConnell.
The C-J's reach exceeds its grasp, as the DSCC relies upon the C-J as "documentation" for its TV ad against Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS). That's right, the same agitprop that Louisvillians endure is now being used to justify negative ads against Republicans in Mississippi.
Taking a cue from his handlers at the DSCC, Bruce Lunsford once again quoted a C-J editorial in his latest ad attacking Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. If only the C-J would just go ahead and endorse Lunsford once and for all; its supposedly impartial reportage is like a leaky faucet that keeps dripping Lunsford talking points. Make no mistake, however, the C-J is writing for Lunsford, not vice verse.
First, the C-J won an implicit compliment from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, when the DSCC quoted a C-J editorial. This is at least the second time that the DSCC has highlighted the C-J in connection with Kentucky's 2008 U.S. Senate campaign. That's no surprise, because the DSCC communications director, Matt Miller, has helped the C-J with previous attempts to smear Mitch McConnell.
The C-J's reach exceeds its grasp, as the DSCC relies upon the C-J as "documentation" for its TV ad against Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS). That's right, the same agitprop that Louisvillians endure is now being used to justify negative ads against Republicans in Mississippi.
Taking a cue from his handlers at the DSCC, Bruce Lunsford once again quoted a C-J editorial in his latest ad attacking Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. If only the C-J would just go ahead and endorse Lunsford once and for all; its supposedly impartial reportage is like a leaky faucet that keeps dripping Lunsford talking points. Make no mistake, however, the C-J is writing for Lunsford, not vice verse.
CQ: McConnell is "heavy favorite"
Congressional Quarterly is unimpressed by Bruce Lunsford's attempts to topple Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell:
Democratic strategists are trying to gin up serious longshot challenges to Republican senators who currently are heavy favorites, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole and Texas incumbent John Cornyn. (Emphasis added.)
CQ does not rate Kentucky's Senate race as one of the top five most competitive. Instead, Kentucky falls within the Democrats' dream of winning a "filibuster-proof" majority of 60 seats that would allow a President Obama to tax us until we scream "Messiah."
Democratic strategists are trying to gin up serious longshot challenges to Republican senators who currently are heavy favorites, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole and Texas incumbent John Cornyn. (Emphasis added.)
CQ does not rate Kentucky's Senate race as one of the top five most competitive. Instead, Kentucky falls within the Democrats' dream of winning a "filibuster-proof" majority of 60 seats that would allow a President Obama to tax us until we scream "Messiah."
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Lex. H-L, C-J Push Back on McConnell Ad
The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader have published editorials that purport to show the fallacy of the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's current ad. Predictably, both are illogical and biased.
The C-J editorial isn't even consistent with its previous own analysis of the ad. Just this week, the C-J confirmed the truth of the ad's main point:
Lunsford, as Brown's chief legislative liaison, did push for a change in the gas tax formula.
A few days later, the C-J reiterated the point:
The ad makes two claims: Lunsford was behind legislation in 1980 to index the state's gasoline tax to the price of gas and that he will raise taxes if elected to the Senate. In 1980 Lunsford was Gov. John Y. Brown Jr.'s chief legislative liaison on the issue and helped push the new gas tax formula through the General Assembly.
The Herald-Leader's editorial relies on a straw man argument. (Oh, wait, the H-L only uses straw-persons.) It compares the price of gas to the date of Bush's inauguration. How about comparing it to the date of FDR's inauguration? That would be just as relevant.
Voters understand that the price of gas has shot up in a matter of months. That's why Barack Obama said he preferred a more "gradual" increase in gas prices. And in those months, the Democrats have "led" Congress, most notably by the Pelosi-Reid plan to oppose any new drilling anywhere.
Unlike the C-J, the H-L pretends that Bruce Lunsford was somehow not the cause of the automatic Kentucky gas tax:
Furthermore, McConnell accuses his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, of being responsible because he was part of the John Y. Brown administration 28 years ago when the legislature approved the gas tax formula.
Most disturbing about both editorials is that they whine that the country needs a solution, and a coherent energy policy and yet ignore the bill that McConnell authored that would give consumers relief at the pump, with more drilling, while we develop long term solutions of conservation and alternative fuels.
The McConnell bill has 42 Republican sponsors; roughly a dozen Democrats have come round on domestic drilling. Even the New York Times noticed (see previous posts). And yet neither the C-J nor the H-L says a word about the bill.
That's downright dishonest, and a disservice to the (declining) readership of both papers.
The C-J editorial isn't even consistent with its previous own analysis of the ad. Just this week, the C-J confirmed the truth of the ad's main point:
Lunsford, as Brown's chief legislative liaison, did push for a change in the gas tax formula.
A few days later, the C-J reiterated the point:
The ad makes two claims: Lunsford was behind legislation in 1980 to index the state's gasoline tax to the price of gas and that he will raise taxes if elected to the Senate. In 1980 Lunsford was Gov. John Y. Brown Jr.'s chief legislative liaison on the issue and helped push the new gas tax formula through the General Assembly.
The Herald-Leader's editorial relies on a straw man argument. (Oh, wait, the H-L only uses straw-persons.) It compares the price of gas to the date of Bush's inauguration. How about comparing it to the date of FDR's inauguration? That would be just as relevant.
Voters understand that the price of gas has shot up in a matter of months. That's why Barack Obama said he preferred a more "gradual" increase in gas prices. And in those months, the Democrats have "led" Congress, most notably by the Pelosi-Reid plan to oppose any new drilling anywhere.
Unlike the C-J, the H-L pretends that Bruce Lunsford was somehow not the cause of the automatic Kentucky gas tax:
Furthermore, McConnell accuses his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, of being responsible because he was part of the John Y. Brown administration 28 years ago when the legislature approved the gas tax formula.
Most disturbing about both editorials is that they whine that the country needs a solution, and a coherent energy policy and yet ignore the bill that McConnell authored that would give consumers relief at the pump, with more drilling, while we develop long term solutions of conservation and alternative fuels.
The McConnell bill has 42 Republican sponsors; roughly a dozen Democrats have come round on domestic drilling. Even the New York Times noticed (see previous posts). And yet neither the C-J nor the H-L says a word about the bill.
That's downright dishonest, and a disservice to the (declining) readership of both papers.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Bruce's Tax Increase
Admittedly, I was riding on fumes, but that still didn't make me feel any better about the $100 it took to fill my car today. Then I found out that the Kentucky gas tax had gone up July 1. And I found out why -- when Bruce Lunsford lobbied for John Y. Brown, he engineered a state gas tax that is indexed to the price of gas. As gas goes up, the tax goes up as well. And it does so automatically, so politicians don't have to vote for a tax increase.
This is an absolute outrage, in and of itself. The man responsible for it, Bruce Lunsford, wants to go to Washington where he can raise taxes on an even grander scale.
Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, is getting all sorts of national press (like today's piece in the Wall Street Journal) for actually trying to help lower the price of gas by drafting legislation that will let America drill here, drill now, pay less.
The difference between these two candidates could not be clearer. Every time Kentuckians fill up their cars, they have yet another reason to reject the perennial candidate, Bruce Lunsford, for a third time.
This is an absolute outrage, in and of itself. The man responsible for it, Bruce Lunsford, wants to go to Washington where he can raise taxes on an even grander scale.
Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, is getting all sorts of national press (like today's piece in the Wall Street Journal) for actually trying to help lower the price of gas by drafting legislation that will let America drill here, drill now, pay less.
The difference between these two candidates could not be clearer. Every time Kentuckians fill up their cars, they have yet another reason to reject the perennial candidate, Bruce Lunsford, for a third time.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Realclearpolitics Weighs in on McConnell Poll
Realclearpolitics analyzes the dueling polls on Kentucky's U.S. Senate race and concludes that McConnell looks safe:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been advertising since late last year in advance of this November's vote, and he is determined not to find himself in dire straits come the Fall. While former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle fell victim to the rival party a few years ago, McConnell looks like he's in much better position than his erstwhile colleague, a new poll for the incumbent's campaign shows.
The Voter/Consumer Research poll, conducted for McConnell, surveyed 600 likely voters between 5/21-22 for a margin of error of +/- 4%. McConnell and two-time gubernatorial candidate and businessman Bruce Lunsford, the Democratic nominee, were tested.
General Election MatchupMcConnell....50 (-2 from last, 1/9)Lunsford......39 (+2)
While it is a partisan poll, VCR is a well-respected firm, and McConnell's lead shouldn't be surprising. A robo-poll company released a survey last week showing the two virtually tied, and to be fair, an 11-point lead is not a huge one for the top Senate Republican to have. But McConnell is well-liked; 55% of state voters have a favorable opinion of him, compared with just 32% who see him unfavorably, and 57% approve of his job performance.
Both the favorable rating and job performance rating are down slightly since January, but one would expect that given Democrats' slamming him throughout the primary season. Lunsford has shown some growth, as 34% of the state has a favorable image of him, up eleven points since January. Just 20% have an unfavorable view.
With 46% of voters undecided about Lunsford, McConnell has a big opening through which to define his new rival. While Lunsford will have plenty of money to spend given his own deep pockets and willingness to use them, McConnell could further dip into the $7.7 million war chest he had on hand at the end of April to run Lunsford's negatives through the roof.
National Democrats could use some of their financial advantage to cut McConnell's money advantage, and Lunsford will likely be well-funded himself. But causing the incumbent serious heartburn may take a lot more work.
I don't see national Democrats pouring money into a state that has rejected Barack Obama as decisively as Kentucky. The whole reason DSCC chair Chuck Schumer recruited Bruce Lunsford, after all, is because national Dems did not want to spend money in Kentucky and therefore needed a self-funder like millionaire Lunsford.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been advertising since late last year in advance of this November's vote, and he is determined not to find himself in dire straits come the Fall. While former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle fell victim to the rival party a few years ago, McConnell looks like he's in much better position than his erstwhile colleague, a new poll for the incumbent's campaign shows.
The Voter/Consumer Research poll, conducted for McConnell, surveyed 600 likely voters between 5/21-22 for a margin of error of +/- 4%. McConnell and two-time gubernatorial candidate and businessman Bruce Lunsford, the Democratic nominee, were tested.
General Election MatchupMcConnell....50 (-2 from last, 1/9)Lunsford......39 (+2)
While it is a partisan poll, VCR is a well-respected firm, and McConnell's lead shouldn't be surprising. A robo-poll company released a survey last week showing the two virtually tied, and to be fair, an 11-point lead is not a huge one for the top Senate Republican to have. But McConnell is well-liked; 55% of state voters have a favorable opinion of him, compared with just 32% who see him unfavorably, and 57% approve of his job performance.
Both the favorable rating and job performance rating are down slightly since January, but one would expect that given Democrats' slamming him throughout the primary season. Lunsford has shown some growth, as 34% of the state has a favorable image of him, up eleven points since January. Just 20% have an unfavorable view.
With 46% of voters undecided about Lunsford, McConnell has a big opening through which to define his new rival. While Lunsford will have plenty of money to spend given his own deep pockets and willingness to use them, McConnell could further dip into the $7.7 million war chest he had on hand at the end of April to run Lunsford's negatives through the roof.
National Democrats could use some of their financial advantage to cut McConnell's money advantage, and Lunsford will likely be well-funded himself. But causing the incumbent serious heartburn may take a lot more work.
I don't see national Democrats pouring money into a state that has rejected Barack Obama as decisively as Kentucky. The whole reason DSCC chair Chuck Schumer recruited Bruce Lunsford, after all, is because national Dems did not want to spend money in Kentucky and therefore needed a self-funder like millionaire Lunsford.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Quick Reaction to Dem Debate
I caught the last half of the KET debate of the Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate. My initial impression was visual: I haven't seen so many ill-fitting suits and bad hair-cuts since my Junior Prom. I was embarrassed for most of these guys. (Greg Fischer, and W. Bruce Lunsford, in contrast, looked like zillionaires.)
Poor David L. Williams. I had never heard him before. There is probably a sad story about why he had a tracheotomy, and I don't intend to pile on to whatever illness he endured. But his amplification system was unintelligible; I could not understand a single word he said. KET should have done an audio check and either fixed the problem or provided closed captioning. To let the man go on like everything was fine was simply unfair to him and to the audience.
As I tuned in, Dr. Michael Cassaro, Esq., emphasized his experience "handling life and death situations," and promised he could react quickly under stress as a U.S. Senator. I kept envisioning him trying to defibrillate the Social Security Trust Fund -- "stat!"
My favorite Lunsford line came as he attempted to explain why he had stabbed Ben Chandler in the back and endorsed Ernie Fletcher. According to Lunsford, "a real Democrat is someone who is there most of the time."(Emphasis added.).
Lunsford indicated that he is prepared to attack opponents: "I don't plan to unilaterally de-arm myself" in the primary or the general election. His themes for the general election will be to emphasize the jobs he created in the private and public sector and his knowledge of the health care industry. In addition, Lunsford made overly much for his military service in the reserves as a basis for why he should be allowed to run the U.S. retreat from Iraq.
Fischer scored a point,when he emphasized his endorsements, which include former Congressman Ron Mazzoli -- the smartest, most honorable Democrat in Kentucky. However, Fischer's biggest problem -- made manifest in his TV ads -- is his delivery. He just struggles with public speaking; he has a soft lilting voice that drops off at the end of every sentence. That was unfortunate, because his theme of being the candidate of "trust," "character" and "consistency," along with a "clean record," might have resonated had he been able to make the pitch more dynamically.
This was really a two-man debate between the front runners, Lunsford and Fischer. They should have looked more senatorial in comparison to the weak field, but in fact, standing shoulder to shoulder with their colleagues had the opposite effect. It was like eavesdropping on a conversation on the Island of Misfit Toys. All these poor candidates just hoping this will be the year that Santa shows up and rescues them, so that they can be loved.
Poor David L. Williams. I had never heard him before. There is probably a sad story about why he had a tracheotomy, and I don't intend to pile on to whatever illness he endured. But his amplification system was unintelligible; I could not understand a single word he said. KET should have done an audio check and either fixed the problem or provided closed captioning. To let the man go on like everything was fine was simply unfair to him and to the audience.
As I tuned in, Dr. Michael Cassaro, Esq., emphasized his experience "handling life and death situations," and promised he could react quickly under stress as a U.S. Senator. I kept envisioning him trying to defibrillate the Social Security Trust Fund -- "stat!"
My favorite Lunsford line came as he attempted to explain why he had stabbed Ben Chandler in the back and endorsed Ernie Fletcher. According to Lunsford, "a real Democrat is someone who is there most of the time."(Emphasis added.).
Lunsford indicated that he is prepared to attack opponents: "I don't plan to unilaterally de-arm myself" in the primary or the general election. His themes for the general election will be to emphasize the jobs he created in the private and public sector and his knowledge of the health care industry. In addition, Lunsford made overly much for his military service in the reserves as a basis for why he should be allowed to run the U.S. retreat from Iraq.
Fischer scored a point,when he emphasized his endorsements, which include former Congressman Ron Mazzoli -- the smartest, most honorable Democrat in Kentucky. However, Fischer's biggest problem -- made manifest in his TV ads -- is his delivery. He just struggles with public speaking; he has a soft lilting voice that drops off at the end of every sentence. That was unfortunate, because his theme of being the candidate of "trust," "character" and "consistency," along with a "clean record," might have resonated had he been able to make the pitch more dynamically.
This was really a two-man debate between the front runners, Lunsford and Fischer. They should have looked more senatorial in comparison to the weak field, but in fact, standing shoulder to shoulder with their colleagues had the opposite effect. It was like eavesdropping on a conversation on the Island of Misfit Toys. All these poor candidates just hoping this will be the year that Santa shows up and rescues them, so that they can be loved.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Fischer Responds (Heaven Help the Man)
This is what is known as the pot calling the kettle black. Greg Fischer -- who failed to file his financial disclosure form on time -- complains that Bruce Lunsford hasn't filed his form. In fact, Lunsford filed early (see post below).
So Team Fischer responds by shooting off an email criticizing Lunsford. I can't improve on Jake's take from Page One:
What does the Fischer campaign do hours after a story about Bruce’s disclosure being made public? They send out an email blast claiming that his report is missing. For real.
“Lunsford—in his third attempt at a political post, with an office staffed with Washington handlers—should know how to complete financial reports and where to send them,” said Fischer political director Kim Geveden. We’re just curious what has happened,” he said.
Seriously. Something stupid like this comes out of that campaign EVERY DAY. It never ends.
We're left wondering if Fischer actually pays his campaign staff to sabotage him, or whether Lunsford picks up the tab for all this hilarity.
So Team Fischer responds by shooting off an email criticizing Lunsford. I can't improve on Jake's take from Page One:
What does the Fischer campaign do hours after a story about Bruce’s disclosure being made public? They send out an email blast claiming that his report is missing. For real.
“Lunsford—in his third attempt at a political post, with an office staffed with Washington handlers—should know how to complete financial reports and where to send them,” said Fischer political director Kim Geveden. We’re just curious what has happened,” he said.
Seriously. Something stupid like this comes out of that campaign EVERY DAY. It never ends.
We're left wondering if Fischer actually pays his campaign staff to sabotage him, or whether Lunsford picks up the tab for all this hilarity.
Monday, April 21, 2008
McConnell Responds to Hawpe
For non-Louisville readers, here's Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's response to David Hawpe's bizarre C-J column, in which Hawpe blamed McConnell for tution increases passed by the state General Assembly.
The C-J doesn't keep it's online edition up very long, so I'll play archivist and excerpt my favorite McConnell line:
Anybody with a basic understanding of civics knows that as Kentucky's senior senator in Washington, D.C., I have nothing to do with a state budget that is negotiated between the governor and the legislature in Frankfort. And the idea that one comment from me could escalate tuition rates across the state is even more ludicrous.
McConnell did a better job than I putting into concrete terms the vast good that comes from the millions of federal dollars that he directs to Kentucky:
U of L is at the forefront of medical research to fight heart disease and cancer. UK is expanding access to dental care in many rural parts of the state. WKU scientists help small communities provide safe drinking water and prevent wastewater from damaging our streams and rivers. And teaching programs at Northern Kentucky University help improve math and science instruction for Kentucky students.
The many Kentuckians whose lives have been improved by these efforts probably don't scoff at my efforts the way David Hawpe does, and would be happy to see me continue to bring home university funding to benefit our state. So I will.
It is beyond dispute that Bruce Lunford, as Freshman senator, could not bring this kind of money back to Kentucky (in the unlikely event that he were elected). Lunsford's TV ads not only acknowledge but underscore McConnell's seniority.
So the question for Lunsford becomes, is he willing to dip into his vast personal fortune to pay for those millions of dollars in earmarks that Kentucky would lose if it elects Lunsford?
The C-J doesn't keep it's online edition up very long, so I'll play archivist and excerpt my favorite McConnell line:
Anybody with a basic understanding of civics knows that as Kentucky's senior senator in Washington, D.C., I have nothing to do with a state budget that is negotiated between the governor and the legislature in Frankfort. And the idea that one comment from me could escalate tuition rates across the state is even more ludicrous.
McConnell did a better job than I putting into concrete terms the vast good that comes from the millions of federal dollars that he directs to Kentucky:
U of L is at the forefront of medical research to fight heart disease and cancer. UK is expanding access to dental care in many rural parts of the state. WKU scientists help small communities provide safe drinking water and prevent wastewater from damaging our streams and rivers. And teaching programs at Northern Kentucky University help improve math and science instruction for Kentucky students.
The many Kentuckians whose lives have been improved by these efforts probably don't scoff at my efforts the way David Hawpe does, and would be happy to see me continue to bring home university funding to benefit our state. So I will.
It is beyond dispute that Bruce Lunford, as Freshman senator, could not bring this kind of money back to Kentucky (in the unlikely event that he were elected). Lunsford's TV ads not only acknowledge but underscore McConnell's seniority.
So the question for Lunsford becomes, is he willing to dip into his vast personal fortune to pay for those millions of dollars in earmarks that Kentucky would lose if it elects Lunsford?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Greg Fischer Violates FEC Law (Again)
Greg Fischer appears to have violated Federal Election law yet again. Fischer, who wants to run as the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, has released a television ad that appears to clearly violate FEC rules.
Federal candidates are required to state in their TV ads that the candidate approved the ad's message. Fischer's tag line, at the end of his ad, does not follow the FEC rules.
The FEC gives the candidate two options to indicate he approved the TV ad, but Fischer still failed to comply with either alternative.
Fischer could have met the FEC requirements by simply appearing on camera and stating that he approved the ad. But he did not. Or he could have said the words as a voice over, that is Fischer takes responsibility for the ad on the audio track while the camera shows a shot of Fischer kissing babies or whatever. He didn't bother to follow that prong of the rule, either.
Likewise, Fischer's ad violates the requirement that the disclaimer appear in writing at the ad, with enough color contrast that voters can notice it, for at least four seconds. Fischer does include a written disclaimer, but it flashes by almost as quickly as the subliminal messages in the Beatles's music he plays in the background.
Fischer's campaign has a history of sloppy compliance with campaign law. He conducted campaign business using a corporate email account -- essentially an illegal corporate contribution. He used corporate underlings to register domain sites for his campaign. And he exceeded the $5000 spending limit without declaring his candidacy.
Given that Fischer enjoys a paltry six percent approval rating in the polls, maybe it makes no difference.
Update: Fischer's approval rating has inched up to nine percent. Perhaps he's waiting to obey the election laws until he breaks into double digits.
Federal candidates are required to state in their TV ads that the candidate approved the ad's message. Fischer's tag line, at the end of his ad, does not follow the FEC rules.
The FEC gives the candidate two options to indicate he approved the TV ad, but Fischer still failed to comply with either alternative.
Fischer could have met the FEC requirements by simply appearing on camera and stating that he approved the ad. But he did not. Or he could have said the words as a voice over, that is Fischer takes responsibility for the ad on the audio track while the camera shows a shot of Fischer kissing babies or whatever. He didn't bother to follow that prong of the rule, either.
Likewise, Fischer's ad violates the requirement that the disclaimer appear in writing at the ad, with enough color contrast that voters can notice it, for at least four seconds. Fischer does include a written disclaimer, but it flashes by almost as quickly as the subliminal messages in the Beatles's music he plays in the background.
Fischer's campaign has a history of sloppy compliance with campaign law. He conducted campaign business using a corporate email account -- essentially an illegal corporate contribution. He used corporate underlings to register domain sites for his campaign. And he exceeded the $5000 spending limit without declaring his candidacy.
Given that Fischer enjoys a paltry six percent approval rating in the polls, maybe it makes no difference.
Update: Fischer's approval rating has inched up to nine percent. Perhaps he's waiting to obey the election laws until he breaks into double digits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)