At the end of Coulter's column:

Connecticut voters wouldn't mind a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario.

Connecticut isn't Minnesota. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Connecticut knew WWE owner Linda McMahon never had a chance even against Dick Blumenthal, a Democrat so repulsive even The New York Times attacked him.

Republicans had the ideal Connecticut candidate in Rob Simmons, who lost the primary to McMahon. He had won in liberal districts before, was a graduate of Haverford College and Harvard University, was an Army colonel who served in Vietnam and teaches at Yale. He also never kicked a man in the groin for entertainment. But Simmons didn't have McMahon's money, so Republicans went with McMahon.

If, instead of listening to pundits guess how many jellybeans are in the jar, the conservative media had showcased Simmons, he would have won the primary, and today conservatives and liberals would be united in joy over the defeat of Dick Blumenthal.

Rob Simmons' campaign kept sending me emails throughout the primary, and I was strongly inclined to support him, but somewhere along the way I got the idea he was a RINO, and if I endorsed a RINO, I'd be some kind of traitor.

It was only after he had suspended his campaign (he suspended it, without formally withdrawing) that I read a column of Coulter's supporting him. Cover!, I thought. But it was also too late-- a guy with a suspended campaign isn't going to win, right?

I don't know if Coulter supported him previous to this. If she did, I missed it. (Which is very possible; I read about 1/3rd of her columns.)

I sure wish she had been more vocal about her support for Simmons. It seemed almost too perfect to me -- a real Vietnam vet against a guy who lied about being a Vietnam vet -- that I was just utterly puzzled about why no one was jumping on to this bandwagon.

Linda McMahon is probably a fine woman and was a fairly decent candidate. But that lowbrow WWE stuff isn't going to sell in one of the wealthiest, blue-bloodiest states in the nation.

I guess I should have just supported him myself, cover or not, but then, I am really sick of being called a RINO and I made it a practice to stay out of primaries, generally, unless the choice was obvious (Rubio, Miller, and, yes, Castle).

Hey, Laura! Put me some information -- you must know why this happened. Was Simmons a bad campaigner or something?

Answer to Ace's question from lauraw: Rob who?

McMahon's advertising and outreach from Day 1 was like a 500-lb. gorilla overshadowing all others on the field of play. It wasn't fair, but this isn't pinochle.

There was a spoof billboard in southern CT that looked like one of her campaign ads; a picture of her, her name across the banner, and then the slogan: "Because she's bought everything else."
Even though I supported her I had to laugh, because...it was a very apt criticism.

I still think Linda could have won if her campaign had figured out a way to showcase the fact that Blumenthal is a fucking sociopath.

The man is sick.

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Comments (417)
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.

I mentioned this in the Olbermann thread but it's worth highlighting...Pelosi is going to run for House Minority Leader.

Despite the dyspepsia among some moderate House Democrats, outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi has always had first dibs on the position of minority leader, even if the branding of her as the legislative handmaiden of President Obama contributed to the partyÂ’s losing control of the House.

House Democrats told National Journal all week that the job was PelosiÂ’s for the taking and that current House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer would never challenge her for the post.

Hoyer, Democrats said, would only seek a promotion if Pelosi was retiring. SheÂ’s not, so heÂ’s not. End of story. There may be a rump group of moderates who oppose Pelosi, but Democratic insiders say they will soon discover two unsettling realities: They donÂ’t have the votes to defeat Pelosi; and the longer they pursue this futile strategy, the more they will alienate Pelosi and the formidable fundraising prowess she still commands.

“It’s understandable that (Democratic) Caucus members would encourage her to run,” said Erik Smith, a Democratic strategist with close ties to the White House and a former top adviser to former House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt. “The daunting political and fundraising work that needs to occur over the next few years is overwhelming. I suspect many (Democrats) want as many of their top players in uniform as possible. “

It makes sense since now that the Blue Dogs are gone, the progressives are left behind so they'll want to stay left and not move anywhere. Electability is overrated or something.

On behalf of Republicans everywhere all I can say is, THANKS NANCY!

It'll be fun to see if Heath Schuler or another of the surviving Blue Dogs takes a symbolic run at the job.

With Nancy hanging around that means everyone else is going to have to take a step down.

Current House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer puts out statement he's thinking about running for House Minority Whip under Pelosi.

Of course the current holder of that job, Jim Clyburn of SC, isn't so thrilled with that notion.

Clyburn is the highest ranking black member of the Congressional leadership team. You think the Congressional Black Caucus is going to be thrilled to see him forced out by Stenny Hoyer?

And oh yeah, Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangle are still facing their ethics trials by the House.

Don't put away the popcorn yet.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:10 AM | Comments (211)
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

Schadenfreude overdose!

Statement from Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:

I became aware of KeithÂ’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.

He donated to 3 Democratic candidates, all of whom he had on his show.

Giffords had appeared on Olbermann’s program in May, as did Conway. During his more recent broadcasts, Olbermann also made frequent references to the “Aqua Buddha” controversy involving Conway’s Republican Senate rival, Rand Paul, who handily won election Tuesday.

Grijalva had seemed to be in a safe race until the month before the election, when he became targeted by outside groups. In mid-October, national Democratic interests began putting money into his district to compete with fundraising for McClung from outside conservative groups.

On Oct. 28, Grijalva went on OlbermannÂ’s show and fielded questions about a story linking profit motives of private prisons to Arizona's new immigration crackdown. It was the sixth time Grijalva had appeared on "Countdown" in a little more than the past six months.

Grijalva not only opposed the immigration law — known as S.B. 1070 — but inadvertently put himself in electoral jeopardy by calling for an economic boycott of his own home state in response, a move that didn't go over so well with cash-strapped Arizonans.

I obviously delight in this smarmy jackass getting any comeuppance available but this is what drove MSNBC to act? I mean, it's not like anyone was buying that Olby is a neutral observer and journalist. His night show is nothing but a campaign contribution to Democrats.

So yeah, I love it (a lot) but let's be honest, it says more about the pretense MSNBC is trying to get away with than it does Olby.

Oh btw- Pelosi is running for minority leader too.

What a great day!

Posted by: DrewM at 09:57 AM | Comments (390)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

One year ago today.

I tried to find some words, and today I'm just no good at it (not that I'm ever really good, call it worse than usual). The words wouldn't come.

The Ft. Hood - central Texas community is a close one. I'm part of it. We care about one another. This day, one year ago, the news spread quickly. It was a confusing and terrible day.

Slublog sent me this, about the victims. And I also read this story, about soldiers in the 467th Combat Stress Control Detachment who went through this, then went to Afghanistan to carry out their duty.

All we can do is remember the fallen, comfort those who lost loved ones, and secure the justice that this horrible crime demands.

Lt. Col. Juanita Warman, 55, Havre de Grace, Md.
Maj. Libardo Caraveo, 52, Woodbridge, Va.
Cpt. John P. Gaffaney, 54, San Diego, Calif.
Cpt. Russell Seager, 41, Racine, Wis.
Staff Sgt. Justin Decrow, 32, Plymouth, Ind.
Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, Kiel, Wis.
Spc. Jason Hunt, 22, Tillman, Okla.
Spc. Frederick Greene, 29, Mountain City, Tenn.
PFC Aaron Nemelka, 19, West Jordan, Utah
PFC Michael Pearson, 22, Bolingbrook, Ill.
PFC Kham Xiong, 23, St. Paul, Minn.
Michael G. Cahill, Cameron, Texas [civilian]
Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, Chicago, Ill.
Velez, unborn child

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:10 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

O'Donnell didn't cost us one seat; she cost us three. Chalk Rossi's and Buck's loss up to her as well.

But here's O'Donnell saying it wasn't her "standing up for principle" that cost her the election, but shady machinations against her.

I also agree it wasn't "principle" that cost her the election. I think it had more to do with the fact that 1, she wasn't bright (at all), 2, she had no accomplishments whatsoever (and yes, people do want to know someone's actually done something to earn the right to be one of 100 in the Senate), 3, she had a series of bizarre statements from her past ("mice with fully functioning human brains"), and 4, she couldn't articulate a conservative message in a way that sounded appealing or intelligent.

And 5 -- I want a strict accounting of how her campaign donations were spent. Know what I mean? I'd like to know if any money was squirreled away for "future campaigns."

Although, yeah, 6, her bright-red right positions of course were a drag in blue Delaware. I think a Joe Miller type or Sean Bielat would have had a chance to sell such a message even in blue state -- as either easily passes the hurdles of credibility and seriousness -- but even for a strong candidate, you can still lose when you're advocating positions the constituents just don't agree with. As Bielat lost, and as Miller will almost certainly lose.

Those were good candidates I endorse rolling the dice with.

But, on the other hand, a candidate who begins in a hole due to serious questions about credibility and qualifications and whose positions are in disagreement with the majority of people she would presume to represent? That right there is the difference between a race that could have been won and a blow-out.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:52 AM | Comments (1091)
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

Moderate content warning because, even though this is a dry recitation of a police report, the content of that report is pretty nasty.

You've been warned.

Oh, do me a solid and don't quote the report in the comments... allude to, sure. But don't quote it. Anyone who wants to read the vileness has the link.

Posted by: Ace at 08:09 AM | Comments (371)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

"Let's see...recipe calls for three cups of bullets, a quart of Hoppe's 9, one dead moose...oh, you betcha..."

And that was just to make cupcakes.

This is a fun thread just because we're happy.

We just had a totally awesome week and the future is looking a Hell of a lot brighter today than it did last FiAF.
This is an open social thread, not necessarily a political one.

Please dredge out your worst old jokes, funny stories about your Ex, good p-shops you want to share, and even...haikus.

If you want to do gloaty election ass-kicking haikus let me know and I will set up a separate thread.

Photo thanks to Gabriel Malor and Kat McKinley's Twitter feed.

Posted by: LauraW at 07:55 AM | Comments (253)
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not me, it's you.

“I think that’s a fair argument. I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation. That it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone,” Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

Poor Obama, so much greatness wasted on a country whose people are too stupid to understand the arguments he's been making. Sure you showed some promise by electing him in the first place but since then, you've really let him down.

Fortunately for you, Obama's awesomeness will now enable him to spend more time explaining why he's right and you're wrong. He's a giver, even to those not worthy of his gifts.

Apparently he was so busy legislating over the last two years he only had time to appear on about 75% of TV and radio show on the schedule over the last two years. He even popped up on broadcasts like the Super Bowl. But now he's not going to be so much of a communications slacker, he's really going to get out there and make sure you understand how wrong you were to reject his huge and ineffective spending programs. Those 54 speeches he gave on health care? Not nearly enough for you rubes to understand, so get ready for more!

You think America voted for policy changes on Tuesday? You poor deluded fool. Don't worry, Obama is going to spend the next two years making sure you understand why that's wrong. He'll lift you out of the mud of ignorance you are wallowing in....after all, that's what God-Kings do.

You're welcome.

Added: Bill Clinton emails....

Yeah, good luck with that plan champ. Now go get me some coffee...cream, 2 sugars.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:08 AM | Comments (262)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

So many things went so wrong.

Mayor Jason McCoy has obtained a video that was taken inside a polling place in Bridgeport and shows a poll watcher warning a poll worker not to mix unofficial ballots with official ballots. She ignores him and he is escorted away.

There are additional charges:

* Some voters were given more than one ballot
* Other voters were not checked off on the registration list
* Some voters were never asked for IDs

You know that feeling, where your ears get hot, a vein in your neck throbs, and you're unable to form words that are not expletives?

Yeah.

Gosh, I wonder how they ran out of ballots, eh? I guess that's what happens when YOU GIVE EACH VOTER TWO OR THREE OF THEM.

By accident, of course.

It is said that one should never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

I say, why choose? Democrats seem to enjoy serving up a little of both. One disguises the other handily.

ADDITIONAL NOODLING: It seems that nearly every election, it's always the same few urban precincts that take forever to release their counts. We know why they wait until everybody else's numbers are in. It's just generally understood and accepted that they will cheat, and we will barely try to catch them, if at all.

But this was such a monumental bungle that I'm wondering if they're having a hard time figuring out how to game the new voting system in the presence of oversight.

Baby steps. I'm sure they'll review their errors and get it down pat next time.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:01 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

The unemployment rate numbers were released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The U-3 unemployment rate was 9.6% - unchanged from the previous 2 months. There are some encouraging signs, like the addition of 151K nonfarm jobs, but the number of employed people has only increased by 800K in the past year. Based on typical growth in the labor pool, that number had to increase by ~1.8 million to just stay even.

The U-6 measure of unemployment actually dropped a tenth of a point to 17%, due to the 3% drop in the number of people unwillingly employed part-time (a category that saw large increases over the past couple of months). The fact that over 300K unhappy part-timers were absorbed into other categories without increasing the U-3 or U-6 rates makes this a stronger employment report than we've had for the past several months.

But not much stronger.

After the 5th month in a row of either 9.5% or 9.6% unemployment, I'm falling asleep when I update The Chart. So don't be surprised if you find drool marks among the data points. In any case, here you go:

Posted by: Geoff at 05:27 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.