Senator John McCain’s future in the U.S. Senate may be a little less assured than previously thought.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely 2010 Republican Primary voters in Arizona finds the longtime incumbent in a virtual tie with potential challenger J.D. Hayworth. McCain earns 45% of the vote, while Hayworth picks up 43%.

Former Minuteman leader Chris Simcox gets four percent (4%) support, while two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Hayworth, a conservative former U.S. congressman who now is a popular radio talk show host in Phoenix, is reportedly interested in the race but has not formally declared for it.

John McCain ran a disastrous campaign last year. He could have won and been President McCain — I truly believe this — were it not for his own bungling. The stars did not align perfectly for Obama. There were plenty of mistakes made by the Obama campaign, plenty of cards McCain could have played. But his Democrat-Lite reputation pissed off a lot of people in his own party, and he made tons of mistakes. It no doubt left a sour taste in many voters’ mouths. And with amnesty about to rear its ugly head again, I’m not surprised that Arizona voters are considering kicking him to the curb.

Bill Kristol and AllahPundit are floating the possibility of Sarah Palin coming to bail him out. Allah goes over the reasons that this would be politically advantageous for Palin, but frankly, I hope she doesn’t. First, in my opinion, it’s high time we get rid of John McCain. He’s a giant squish who has made a career out of pissing off Republicans as much as possible. We need to be weeding out the RINOs right now, not doing everything we can to help them retain their seats. Second, Palin was treated abysmally by the McCain campaign staff. They handcuffed her, gagged her, and then once the campaign was over, abandoned her and then stabbed her in the back. McCain may himself have not said or done anything, but he looked the other way while it happened and certainly didn’t come to her defense. He is a brave, courageous man in many aspects, but in this one, he was a coward. Sarah Palin was a risky choice for him. He’s the maverick, the one who relishes being the media darling. I don’t think he enjoyed being hammered in the media, and she certainly didn’t lighten that load for him. He plucked her out of relative obscurity, and then left her to be fed to the wolves. Yet now, she’s supposed to come and bail him out? She’s a rising star; he’s an old has-been. He’ll probably need her help, and if I was Sarah Palin, I wouldn’t give it. The only downfall is it makes her look petty and vindictive. I would think the best move for her would be to endorse neither candidate and make some kind of non-committal statement about how McCain is a great person and not say much more.

Of course, Allah’s predicting that McCain will be too stubborn and prideful to go begging for her help. If he won’t, then it eliminates the burden off of her shoulders. Hopefully, that’s exactly what happens, and McCain fades into obscurity after this election cycle. His career’s frankly gone on way too long.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On November 11, I wrote of the statements that Charlie Crist made denying that he ever supported Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill in his role as Florida’s Governor. Unfortunately for his obfuscation, though, I noted that he and 17 other governors signed a letter in February of this year announcing support for the Stimulus. Apparently Crist had forgotten he signed this letter… conveniently. Yes, he was for the porkulus bill before he was against it.

Well now there is even more proof than that mere signature on a piece of paper showing Charlie’s support for the porkulus bill. From Ed Morrissey we find an interview that Rolling Stone hackster Tim Dickinson did with Crist back in the spring. In that piece Dickinson was celebratory that Crist was a stimulus supporter.

Dickinson then noted, “For his part, Crist is weighing a run for the Senate — where, he tells Rolling Stone, he would have given the president a fourth Republican vote on the stimulus bill.”

Due to the controversy of whether Crist did or didn’t support the Obama Administration’s bill, Dickinson recently posted a transcript of the actual exchange:

Rolling Stone: Just a final question: Had you been in the Senate, would you have voted with the other Republicans for the stimulus package?

Crist: Absolutely.

This all adds more to the story I reported on Nov. 5. As I said, Crist has lately been saying that he didn’t support the stimulus in particular, but that he did in spirit. Charlie Crist absolutely did, however, support Obama’s stimulus directly and in particular. His current spin to the contrary isn’t just a subtle re-reading of his actions. His new claim is an outright lie.

It all adds up to an outing of Charlie Crist on porkulus. Sorry Charlie, but you did support the $787 billion pork bill before you tried to claim you didn’t.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On November 5 on CNN, Florida Governor Charlie Crist told Wolf Blitzer that he didn’t back the $787 billion Obama stimulus bill. Crist has since said that it isn’t a flip flop when he says he supported the stimulus “in concept” but didn’t support the specific bill.

In essence he’s trying to have it both ways. Claiming he wasn’t a supporter of the actual bill, but hedging by saying he felt something was necessary. It seems to be Crist’s way of straddling the line.

Unfortunately, the facts seem to belie Crist’s delicately balanced tightrope act because in February of 2009 Crist was one of 18 U.S. governors (along with the governor of the Virgin Islands) that signed a letter informing President Obama that they supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). (See pdf of letter here)

Despite being a signatory of the letter Crist is now saying he didn’t support the specific stimulus bill. After speaking at the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Crist told the press, ““I think the question posed to me was, ‘Did you endorse this specific bill?’ And I said, ‘No, I didn’t,’ but the concept I thought, and still believe, was important, necessary and it helped Florida.”

The letter Crist signed, however, does not mention any ideas “in concept” but specifically supports the $787 billion stimulus bill itself. The letter begins quite clearly in support of the $787 billion stimulus bill saying, “We are writing to express our support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).” What could be clearer?

How Crist can possibly claim that he never supported this specific bill when his name appears on this letter is anyone’s guess.

Text of Letter:

February 3, 2009

Dear Mr. President

We are writing to express our support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which passed last week in the House and is under consideration currently in the Senate. As stewards of the economies of our respective states and regions, we urge the Congress to reach prompt resolution of all outstanding differences and you to sign the bill when it reaches your desk.

Families and businesses across the nation are hurting. Credit markets have seized up, which is affecting both business activity and consumer spending. Unemployment is rising sharply. While we all believe in the importance of free markets, we believe that the markets today need stimulating.

We support then objectives of the ARRA and welcome the partnership it offers us as governors. The support for a temporary increase in the federal commitment for public education, health care (including cost control through initiatives such as health records IT), and for rebuilding our public infrastructure will create and preserve jobs today, and represents a sound investment in our long-term economic interests as well. We look forward to working with Congress and your Administration to advance an economic recovery package that puts federal dollars to work in our states in the quickest and most efficient manner as possible.

Signed
Deval Patrick, Mass.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Calif.
Bill Ritter, Col.
M. Jodi Rell, Conn.
Jack Markell, Del.
Charlie Crist, Fla.
Pat Quinn, Ill.
Chester Culver, Iowa
Jennifer Granholm, Mich.
Jon Corzine, New Jersey
David Paterson, New York
Ted Strickland, Ohio
Brad Henry, Oklahoma
Ted Kulongoski, Oregon
Ed Rendell, Penn.
James Douglas, Vermont
Tim Kaine, Vir.
Jim Doyle, Wisc.
John deJongh, Virgin Islands

It is also telling that out of the 19 signers of the letter, only four are Republicans, all from very liberal states.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade.
In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.7 percent) and whites (9.5 percent) rose in October. The jobless rates for adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (27.6 percent), blacks (15.7 percent), and Hispanics (13.1 percent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed over the month at 5.6 million. In October, 35.6 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See table A-9.)
The civilian labor force participation rate was little changed over the month at 65.1 percent. The employment-population ratio continued to decline in October, falling to 58.5 percent. (See table A-1.)

Ed Morrissey:

The breaking of the psychological barrier of double-digit unemployment is a watershed moment for the Obama administration. It has continued to claim success in its Porkulus effort with shell-game “saved or created” metrics for jobs while unemployment rises unabated. Meanwhile, Obama pushed Congress to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have on efforts that have nothing to do with employment or revitalizing the economy. Even the latest CNN poll shows a 17-point swing to the worse for Obama on economics.
This is now Obama’s economy. He owns the double-digit unemployment level, having bought it with the $787 billion stimulus plan that he promised would keep unemployment no higher than 8%.

Mark Tapscott:

It’s time for Obama and Democratic congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to step back from their radical plans to vastly expand federal power, spending, deficits and taxes, and instead reach out to conservatives in both parties who understand how to make the economy grow with tax cuts, reduced bureaucracy, and lower government spending. They also understand the urgency of achieving U.S. energy independence by quickly adopting the “all-of-the-above” policy of freeing America’s abundant conventional energy resources while encouraging alternative sources. In other words, stop playing ideological games and get serious about restoring economic growth before millions more jobs are lost.

Political Byline:

These unemployment numbers are just a ripple effect of all of this. Bush had a hand in it, as well as Obama. This is what happens when you elect faux Conservatives as Republicans and it is what happens when you elect Socialists.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The morning after Republicans lost an upstate New York House seat, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that conservative activists will bring destruction to the Republican Party if they drive out moderate candidates across the country.

“To those people who are pursuing purity, you’ll become a club not a party,” Graham told POLITICO in the Capitol Wednesday. “Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservatism is an asset. Blind ideology is not.”

The problem with people like Lindsay is that they really do not stand for Conservative principles, and warning about the Party moving too far to the Right is idiotic. As I wrote last night in an article about Michelle Bachmann

It’s high time that Republicans realize that being Democrat Lite, wanting to be liked by the media and Democrats, capitulating to Democrats, forgetting what they were elected for, spending too much, and a few more items, gets them nowhere. They need to move back to the middle, otherwise known as Classic Liberalism, ie, American Conservatism. And grow some cajones.

Folks like Lindsay are exactly what is wrong with the Party. Consider

Graham, who has sparred with his party’s right wing on issues ranging from climate change to Guantanamo Bay to Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, warned that those concerned about the state of the GOP should help find candidates who are electable — not ones who adhere to a particular type of ideology. And he said that both the GOP nominee, Dede Scozzafava and the conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman were both out of the mainstream of the upstate New York district – which lead to the victory of Democrat Bill Owens Tuesday night.

Graham is not quite in Olympia Snowe’s brand of RINOism, but, he is darn close. Folks like Lindsay are sitting on the far left of the Republican party, and, like Arlen Specter, were he to switch his Party affiliation, no one would really know the difference.

And, if someone like Doug Hoffman, not the most exiting of candidates, is outside the mainstream because he stands up for American Conservative principles and the 9-12 Principles, well, then so was Ronald Reagan. So were the Founders and Framers.

Instead of making these types of pronouncements, perhaps Lindsay should look inside himself and think about what his constituents stand for, and what his principles have become.

Graham took issue with conservatives taking aim at Rep. Mike Castle (D-Del.), a moderate seeking Joe Biden’s old Senate seat next year, as well as conservatives looking to take out former businesswoman Carly Fiorina, the choice of Washington Republicans to challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in next year’s election.

Perhaps Lindsay could bring Queen Nancy tea and biscuits each afternoon. As Michelle Malkin wrote: Here is one of the loudest messages of the 2009 off-off-year elections: Conservatives in America will no longer let their opponents define them as outside of the mainstream. Lindsay should start acting like a Conservative, rather than a liberal sycophant.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Newt Gingrich apologizes.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Republican Bob McDonnell has easily won the Virginia governor’s race just a year after the state went overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Unofficial results show the former attorney general defeating Creigh (kree) Deeds and returning a Republican to the governor’s office for the first time in eight years.

This race and the contest for governor of New Jersey are viewed as the first referendum on the president and the Democratic Congress before the 2010 mid-term elections.

A year ago, Obama became the first Democrat in 44 years to carry Virginia in a presidential race.

… With about 11 percent of precincts reporting, McDonnell had about two-thirds of the vote over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds.

Interviews with voters leaving polling stations in Virginia showed that independents broke heavily for McDonnell, fleeing Deeds. Independents are considered the crown jewel of elections because they often determine outcomes.

Unsurprising news so far.

In New York, The Hill is claiming a victory for Hoffman (albeit prematurely). We’ll have to stay tuned for the final results in both NJ and NY.

The thing the Republican party needs to remember here, and especially in the NY-23 race, is that they can claim no credit for these victories. In fact, in the NY-23 race, Doug Hoffman will have won in spite of the GOP. It should be sending a pretty clear message to the Republicans like Meghan McCain who like to say that Americans want a “moderate”, Democrat-lite version of the GOP. Democrats haven’t won in NY-23 in over 110 years, and yet here they are, contenders to take the seat because the GOP decided to go for a Republican that would surely get the Meghan McCain stamp of approval. What does that tell you? Abandoning conservative principles to get liberals in the media to like you does not win you voters, and it’s a testament to Doug Hoffman, not the GOP, that he could walk away tonight victorious.

I’ll keep updating over the next 24 hours as the results come in. Stay tuned!

UPDATE: The AP confirms McDonnell’s win; says the NJ race is still too close to call. Notes that independents are heavily favoring Christie.

UPDATE: The AP is now reporting that Christie has gained an early lead, with Christie at 52%, Corzine at 41%, and Daggett at 6%.

If Corzine does lose, it should send shivers up Obama’s spine. He campaigned for Corzine. What does it say about Obama if his man loses? It would be a huge slap in the face and it shows that Obamamania is completely over.

UPDATE: Deeds has conceded in the VA race. So the GOP officially has one victory.

UPDATE: As of 9:40 pm, The Watertown Daily Times is listing the NY-23 results with Hoffman trailing Owens. Uh-oh…

UPDATE: Obama, is, shockingly enough, not watching the results. He’s too busy watching basketball:

President Obama is not planning to watch Tuesday nights election returns, Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod tell CNN.

Obama is more likely to watch Tuesday night’s Chicago Bulls game than any political coverage, according to Axelrod.

The president’s senior staff have also decided not to hold a watch party to keep an eye on election returns as they come in.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was spotted in workout clothes leaving the White House campus at 7 p.m. ET, just as polls were closing in Virginia. Axelrod told CNN he has a dinner outside the White House to attend.

Of course: thousands of voters are speaking up about how angry they are. They’re upset about taxes, the economy, and government corruption. And what does Obama do? He ignores them to watch a little basketball. Is it because it’s too heavy for his little empty suit brain to comprehend, or does he not want his delicate ego to get battered so early? He did, after all, campaign for both Democrats Deeds and Corzine in VA and NJ, respectively. Whatever the reason, this is your president, America. You’re speaking up, and he’s choosing not to listen.

Glad you voted for hope and change now??

UPDATE: Christie is leading by six with 58% of precincts reporting. In NY-23, it is looking like Hoffman is slowly closing the gap.

UPDATE: Christie wins NJ, according to the AP. It looks to me like we’re going to get two out of three. I’m thinking that NY-23 is going to go to Owens, although it’s still early. Owens has a good lead though, and thanks to the GOP’s bungling of the race, Hoffman had an uphill battle.

As I said above, if Hoffman does somehow win, it will be in spite of the GOP, not because of them.

And with that, my friends, I am going to bed. The NY-23 race won’t be decided for hours, and I have to work in the morning. I’ll see you all bright and early with hopefully a Republican sweep of the East Coast!

UPDATE: Hoffman has conceded. Expect Democrats and the Meghan McCain’s of the GOP to trumpet this as a sign that moderates are what the public really wants, because if they wanted conservatives, they would’ve voted for Doug Hoffman. No mention of the party’s bungling of this race, of course… it’ll just be about how the GOP needs to be less “extremist” and more moderate (meaning more Democrat-lite). Watch.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Pauline McAreavy voted for President Obama. From the moment she first saw him two years ago, she was smitten by his speeches and sold on his promise of change. She switched parties to support him in the Iowa caucuses, donated money and opened her home to a pair of young campaign workers.

But by the time she received a fund-raising letter last month from the Democratic National Committee, a sense of disappointment had set in. She returned the solicitation with a handwritten note, saying, “Until I see some progress and he lives up to his promises in Iowa, we will not give one penny.”

“I’m afraid I wasn’t realistic,” Ms. McAreavy, 76, a retired school nurse, said on a recent morning on the deck of her home here in east-central Iowa.

“I really thought there would be immediate change,” she said. “Sometimes the Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. But it’s politics as usual, and that’s what I voted against.”

I have no idea as to the purpose of that last sentence, but, yes, Pauline, you and the rest weren’t realistic. And, not to tell you we told you so, however, we told you so. I don’t mean to pick on you Pauline, you are just standing in for all the others who were blinded by Jim Jones, er, Barack Obama, and bought a pig in a poke. At least the pig is useful.

Certainly, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a candidate has to actually have a clue, but, the Founders figured that someone who reached the advanced age of 35, middle aged in the 1700’s, would have some experience in actually being in charge of ……something. Anything.

One year after winning the election, Mr. Obama has seen his pledge to transcend partisanship in Washington give way to the hardened realities of office. A campaign for the history books, filled with a sky-high sense of possibility for Mr. Obama not just among legions of loyal Democrats but also among converts from outside the party, has descended to an unfamiliar plateau for a president whose political rise was as rapid as it was charmed.

In fact, we all said that he was full of mule fritters, that the campaign promises about things such as bipartisanship were not worth the time it took to put them on the teleprompter.

A social studies teacher who saw Mr. Obama on his maiden visit here wonders whether momentum from the election is gone forever. A retired electrical engineer who became a Democrat to support Mr. Obama believes that the president too often blames others for his troubles. And a teacher who voted for Mr. Obama because she was fed up with President George W. Bush does not trust this administration any more than the previous one.

I had trouble finding Dubya on the ballot.

“It’s overdue for him to actually take charge here,” said Ms. Johnson, 57, a social worker in the town of Nevada.

One thing that would sour them on Mr. Obama, they said, would be a steep escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

That’s what he promised to do during the first part of the Never-ending Campaign, Ms. J. Were you listening, or, just enthralled?

As Mr. Obama approaches the anniversary of his election, the sense of possibility and the dash of romance that moved many voters are no longer apparent. The challenges of governing have eaten away at the optimism. The pace of government intervention has also jarred many voters.

Don’t worry, he’ll have all sorts of new promises come 2012. Things like bringing the unemployment rate down below 15%, a GDP above 1.3, stopping the rolling brownouts/blackouts, meat for dinner on Friday’s, and a new bike so you can get to work because gas is $8 a gallon.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

After Newt Gingrich declared that DeDe Scozzafava’s exit left and out of the NY-23 special election was the “statesmanlike thing to do,” DeDe be-itch slapped the brilliant Newt with her endorsement of Democrat David Owens.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In today’s breaking news, Dede Scozzafava has endorsed Democrat Bill Owens in the NY-23 race.

After bowing out of the 23rd Congressional race Saturday, Republican Scozzafava released the following statement at 2 :06 p.m.:

I want to thank you for your support and friendship. Over the past 24 hours, I have had encouraging words sent to my family and me. Many of you have asked me whom you should support on Tuesday.

Since announcing the suspension of my campaign, I have thought long and hard about what is best for the people of this District, and how to answer your questions. This is not a decision that I have made lightly.

You know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when it cost me personally and politically. Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it’s about the people of this District.

It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.

It’s not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh’s lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress. John and I worked together on the expansion of Fort Drum and I know how important that base is to the economy of this region. I am confident that Bill will be able to provide the leadership and continuity of support to Drum Country just as John did during his tenure in Congress.

In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.

Please join me in voting for Bill Owens on Tuesday. To address the tough challenges ahead, we must rise above partisanship and politics and work together. There’s too much at stake in this election to do otherwise.

Dede

Whenever someone releases a statement saying that something isn’t about them, they never mean it. It’s always about them. Endorsing Bill Owens is a slap in the face to Doug Hoffman, to Sarah Palin, and to all of the right wing bloggers who didn’t want her. I personally think she endorsed Bill Owens primarily out of spite. She isn’t very big on Republican principles anyway. Endorsing Owens lets her keep her name in the spotlight a little bit longer and it makes her a Democrat media darling. I can’t say that I’m all that surprised.

What will be interesting will be Newt Gingrich’s response to this. He got himself into a big mess by endorsing her, and after she dropped out of the race it put him in a sticky situation. It’s now even worse for him. How will he handle it? How can he save face now?

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on !

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post