Or at least the pictures taken which Drudge's editor is (brilliantly) choosing to post.

We might see the MFM embargo this type of photo now so it never even makes it out into the world.

Thanks to rdbrewer for pointing this out.

Posted by: Ace at 01:20 PM | Comments (272)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Jesse Kelly

The Race-
2 term incumbent Democrat Gabrielle Giffords vs. conservative and Iraq war vet Jesse Kelly in ArizonaÂ’s 8th Congressional District.

ItÂ’s a moderately Republican district (used to be represented by Jim Kolbe) that went for Bush and McCain in the last two Presidential elections but has been represented by a Democrat for the last 4 years.

The Candidate (from his website)-

Jesse and his wife, Aubrey, live in Marana, a town just northwest of Tucson, Arizona. They are raising two sons, James and Luke. The family attends Alive Christian Church in Marana.

Jesse is a project manager of Don Kelly Construction, his familyÂ’s contracting business, where he oversees multi-million dollar infrastructure projects. As a project manager, Jesse has balanced budgets, made payroll and hired hundreds of people.

From 2000-2004, Jesse served in the United States Marine Corps. In 2003, he was deployed to Iraq, where he led a squad of infantry Marines in combat. Jesse was honorably discharged as a Sergeant. He was awarded a good conduct medal, and his unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.

Jesse made the decision to run for Congress the day President Obama signed the wasteful, $787 billion stimulus package. He will fight for solutions that work in order to create jobs and get the economy moving again. JesseÂ’s military leadership and business experience are exactly what we need in a Representative to Congress.

Why Kelly Can Win-

Kelly is riding the wave this year. HeÂ’s an outsider, small government conservative running in a district that is traditionally Republican but went for the Democrats in their big years of Â’06 and Â’08. If itÂ’s ever coming back to the GOP, this is the year and this is the guy.

On the issues, Giffords supports amnesty and opposes the Arizona immigration law. She voted for the so-called “stimulus”, health care reform and cap and tax.

Kelly? Not so much on those issues.

He also has a very good take on why talk of bi-partisanship is so dangerous.

"People want their representatives to work together in a bipartisan way to get things done," said Giffords, who touts her 2009 rating by the nonpartisan National Journal as the most centrist member of Arizona's congressional delegation. "My opponent has said some remarkably tough statements such as, 'Hopefully, there will be no Democrats left in Congress' after the election and that he wants to 'crush liberals.' That's not my approach. To be a community leader, you need to bring people together."

Kelly, an Iraq war veteran who grew up in Montana and has never held elective office, scoffs at the idea of bipartisanship.

"Bipartisanship in Washington means Republicans selling out their conservative principles in order to appear nice on MSNBC," he told a town-hall meeting at the Oro Valley Country Club.

Kelly blasts Giffords for voting for health-care reform. He also criticizes her votes on an energy bill that sought to reduce global warming but which critics said would increase energy costs. And he said the $787 billion stimulus bill that Giffords supported has not created jobs.

"Gabrielle Giffords has provided four years of failure - on the border, on unemployment, on the deficit," Kelly said.

Kelly is endorsed by Combat Veterans for Congress.

Real Clear Politics says the race is a toss up.

Be the Wave.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:10 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

I feel bad linking this, because I slightly know one of the parties (the guy), but this is going viral no matter what I do, so...

Hey, it was on CSPAN2. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (312)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Endorsing liberal Democrats over honest to God war heroes wasn't exactly a winning plan. After much outrage the National Commander of the VFW has decided to withdraw the appointments of the PAC Board of Directors.

It is now evident to most of the VFW leadership, both National and especially the departments, that the VFW has been subjected to extreme negative publicity throughout the nation, and the recent endorsement decisions have, in fact, harmed the VFWÂ’ s reputation and future ability to fulfill our mission.

I cannot let this erosion of public support for our great organization continue. The apparent lack of the committee to address these concerns will lead to a proposal by me, as Commander-in-Chief, to amend the by-laws at the 112th National Convention for the purpose of dissolving the PAC. Meanwhile, under the authority granted to me as Commander-in-Chief in section 619 of the VFW National By-Laws and under section 620 of the Manual of Procedure, I am withdrawing all PAC appointments effective October 15, 2010.

One vet that the VFW took a pass on endorsing and instead endorsed the non-vet Democrat is Iraq and USMC vet Nick Popaditch.

I'm not sure how close this race is (it's a Democratic district) but this year just about no Democrat is safe, so Be the Wave.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:09 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Democrats were in big trouble over policy and results. So they blitzed their opponents with negative ads -- but way too early. Desperate to get a toe-hold, they threw the sink at Republicans, gaining 5 or so points in the polls.

But too early.

[I]n most districts, the negatives assumed a more personal and harsher character. Watching them, one felt not only that the Republican should not be elected, but that he should be imprisoned. The vitriolic negatives played fast and loose with the facts.

...

The attacks sent Republicans reeling. Democrats did not pace themselves and opened up with all they had, usually throwing the harshest negatives first. Throughout the country, Republicans slipped back and Democrats managed to reestablish leads. In the Senate races, Angle fell behind in Nevada, Rossi dropped in Washington, O'Donnell lost points in Delaware. And in dozens of House races, the Republicans fell back.

In the past two weeks, these races have stabilized and the Republican has come back. The negatives have worn off. Republicans have answered the charges and shown how ridiculous they are. And voters have reminded themselves that on the key issues of the day -- stimulus, Obamacare, cap-and-trade, and TARP -- they agree with the Republicans and not with the Democrats. These underlying Republican advantages have become more manifest.

As Mark Twain said, "A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on." It took all of two or three weeks for the Republicans to put on their boots to pursue the Democratic negatives. But, by late September, they were fully shod and were overcoming the negative attacks.

Now Republicans are opening up good-sized leads again, particularly in House races, and the Democratic attacks are being seen as shrill, inaccurate, and ineffective."

At Hot Air, it's noted that the Democrats claim they actually took it easy in September with television ads and now intend to blitz the Republicans. But the Democrats can't run on their record, and their negative attacks have largely been digested by the public and found to be not all that persuasive.

So what's this money going to be used for?

Well, for GOTV, I guess. So be the wave.

But this strategy seems to have backfired anyway-- because while Democrats were saving up for their October blitz, Republicans were... spending money in September, but also outraising them in September, so that they're ready to play in October too:

A long roster of House Democratic incumbents found themselves outraised by GOP challengers during the third quarter — the latest sign that cash is following Republican momentum just weeks from the midterms.

At least 40 Democrats took in less cash than their opponents — a list that ranges from vulnerable freshmen like Alabama’s Bobby Bright, Mississippi’s Travis Childers, and Nevada’s Dina Titus to more senior members like Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania.

House Speaker Nancy PelosiÂ’s Republican challenger outraised her by more than 3-to-1, taking in more than $1.1 million over the past three months. John Dennis, the Ron Paul-backed GOP nominee running against Pelosi in her liberal San Francisco-based district, raised roughly five times as much as he collected in the previous quarter, tapping into resentment against the leader of the Democratic majority in the House.

The development comes at a time when GOP outside groups are already far outspending Democratic-aligned organizations. This week, the Karl Rove-linked American Crossroads and a collection of affiliated Republican-friendly organizations announced they would spend more than $50 million on TV ads slamming House Democrats. The National Republican Congressional Committee, meanwhile, has announced that it plans to expand its TV ad campaign to $50 million as it attempts to expand the number of Democratic targets.

Rasmussen expanded its prediction to 55 seats; ABCNews notes that 63 Democrats are in "serious danger."

I don't think anyone believes these predictions, least of all the people making them. I think they're being cautious because to say what you really think would make you sound crazy.

I'm sticking with 72/11. And I don't believe that prediction at all.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (80)
Post contains 706 words, total size 5 kb.

For the remaining House projections, I have decided to mix things up a bit for you morons.
more...

Posted by: CAC at 09:26 AM | Comments (119)
Post contains 301 words, total size 6 kb.

They can't get enough of this basic idea, can they?

The public panned it. Republicans obstructed it. Many Democrats fled from it. Even so, the session of Congress now drawing to a close was the most productive in nearly half a century.

Not since the explosive years of the civil rights movement and the hard-fought debut of government-supported health care for the elderly and poor have so many big things — love them or hate them — been done so quickly.

Yeah, let's examine that second possibility -- "hate them" -- a bit further. Perhaps it will shed light on this mystery.

We're the ones supposedly pushing a "simplistic" message of "hate," and yet every time they're about to lose, they have one go-to idea: The American public is either crazy, stupid, or racist.

I'm sorry, are there nuances hidden in that idea that I'm missing? Is that a message of respect?

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the weekend, while fundraising in Sean Bielat's area...

President Barack Obama said Americans' "fear and frustration" is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country's scared.”

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” He faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”

“You can respond in a couple of ways to a trauma like this,” Obama said, referring to the economy. “One is to pull back, retrench and respond to your fears by pushing away challenges, looking backwards. Another is to say we can meet these challenges and we are going to move forward. And that’s what this election is about.”

Most Democrats believe this, or some variation of it; but 90% of office-holders do not say it. They do not give in to their angry id and impugn voters' judgments over the sin of deeming their failures to be actual failures.

Bill Clinton tended to avoid this almost always.

But Obama is different. He believes this deeply, and furthermore, he has such an ego that he feels he'd be demeaning himself to suppress his true beliefs.

He won't lower himself to your level -- it's that simple. Clinton would, Obama won't.

Posted by: Ace at 07:55 AM | Comments (136)
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Or at least it can work. It only works if we punish our inferiors (that is, our employees) for violating the terms of their employment.

Take Betsy Markey of Colorado's 4th Congressional District, who in 2008 beat a Republican who seemed fixated on the same-sex marriage issue. Markey cast a late-in-the-roll-call no in November, then publicly switched to yes in the week before the March 21 roll call. She's currently trailing Republican Cory Gardiner by an average of 44 to 39 percent in three polls. Her Web site links to a video she cut the week after the vote saying she had "the honor" to vote for the bill. But otherwise it seems to be silent on the issue.

Or consider John Boccieri of Ohio's 16th District, who switched from no to yes in a TV press conference in which he said the bill would do great things for his constituents. Boccieri's district was represented by Republicans for 58 years until he was elected in 2008.

It looks like it will be again next year. In three polls Republican Jim Renacci leads Boccieri by an average of 46 to 36 percent. Boccieri's Web site links to a recent interview in which he defends Obamacare and challenges opponents to say which provisions they'd give up.

Then there is Suzanne Kosmas, a longtime real estate agent who beat a Republican with an ethics issue in 2008 for Florida's 24th District seat. She announced her switch from no to yes late in the week before the roll call. She's now running behind Republican Sandy Adams by an average of 47 to 40 percent in three recent polls.

To put these numbers in perspective, it's highly unusual for an incumbent House member to trail a challenger in any poll or to run significantly below 50 percent. But these three Democrats are running 5 to 10 points behind Republican challengers and none tops 40 percent.

As you may have heard, the Democrats' big strategy is to run not against Bush, but against... Nancy Pelosi.

As if embattled Congressional Democrats did not have enough on their hands, some are opening up a new front in their fight to save their seats — against Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and a leader of their own party.

Georgians at the debate on Thursday made their views known on Ms. Pelosi, and equated her with Mr. Marshall, who was first elected in 2002.

Representative Jim Marshall, a Democrat here in central Georgia, spent much of a debate on Thursday night renouncing Ms. Pelosi, whose liberal views and San Francisco district have always been anathema to this region.

“Pelosi was never my choice for speaker,” Mr. Marshall said, eliciting boos from a skeptical audience in an arena here at the Georgia National Fair. Mr. Marshall actually voted for Ms. Pelosi as speaker but said he had not wanted her for the job and would not vote for her again.

This is a double connivance. Not only did Marshall actually vote for Pelosi, but on top of that, Nancy Pelosi has expressly endorsed this strategy of running against her:

And they have Ms. PelosiÂ’s blessing.

“I just want them to win,” Ms. Pelosi said in a recent interview on “NewsHour” on PBS when asked about the defectors.

“They know their districts,” she added. “They are great communicators, very eloquent communicators to their own constituents.”

In other words, they're great at lying to their hick constituents. "I just want them to win," she says. Run with me, run against me; I don't care. Tell your constituents whatever you have to to keep me in power.

Another Democrat pursuing this strategy is Bobby Bright, who's about to get whooped up on by Marsha Roby in Alabama.

The Times also notes that Rep. Bobby Bright, D-Ala., also is trying to separate himself from Pelosi, airing an ad that says voters in his district “don’t want a liberal running the House.”

Bright also has stated that he won't vote for Pelosi as speaker if Democrats retain control of the House.

BrightÂ’s Republican opponent, Martha Roby, slammed BrightÂ’s new position.

Like Marshall, Bright had voted for Pelosi when she ran for Speaker.

In TV ads flooding his district, Bright even includes images of Republican minority leader John Boehner. The ad states that he votes with Republicans 85 percent of the time.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Democrat Bobby Bright’s first act as a newly elected congressman was to vote to empower San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the House, a vote he called a ‘no-brainer,’” Roby responded in a statement. “In the two years since that vote, Speaker Pelosi has used her power to ram through a government takeover of health care, the stimulus bill, cap-and-tax and billions of dollars of government spending and debt.”

There will be some, of course, who buy into this. We call such people "idiots." And it's therefore essential to balance the idiot vote with the non-idiot vote. Say, for example, by signing up for GOTV work with Be The Wave 2010.

Posted by: Ace at 07:24 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 871 words, total size 6 kb.

Happy Monday everybody. Get to work.

If you have a job I mean.

Oh that economy, that funny, funny economy.

Also. Gabe put this gem on Twitter this morning, the Democrats Super Duper Plan for the mid-terms, let the Republicans take the early initiative and then outspend them like crazy 2 weeks before the election.

Uh huh.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:58 AM | Comments (244)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.