E!! The True Conservative Story™

So reports S.A. Miller, in the WaTi.

(It’s official:  I will now start using the “2010 Elections” category I created the day after the election.)

Also said (as much as it disgusts me to repeat it here):

Mr. Reid now has more than $5 million on hand after starting the year with $3.3 million, said a Democratic official familiar with the Reid campaign’s first-quarter contribution reports, which are due Monday.

The official did not want to be identified discussing campaign-finance figures not yet made public.

The cash infusion will push his total contributions to $7.6 million for the 2010 re-election race, compared with the $9 million total he raised for the 2004 campaign. Since his 2004 election victory, the Reid campaign committee has given about $1 million to other Democratic candidates and party entities.

Mr. Reid scheduled a meeting with supporters and volunteers in Las Vegas this week to discuss the campaign, which is “already in full swing,” according to the Nevada state Democratic Party.

He plans to rally volunteers Tuesday at the Democratic Party Organizing Convention, in Clark County, Nevada. There, party officials say, Mr. Reid intends to retool the Obama grass-roots organization in the state to boost his re-election campaign.

“I think starting early is just being smart, not being cautious,” said Sam Lieberman, chairman of the Nevada state Democratic Party. “As much as Republicans would like to target the race, I don’t see a credible candidate emerging…”

(I told someone the other day that at least $20 million would be spent on the race between Reid and his challenger.  The person looked at me in disbelief.  Well, do ya’ believe me now…?)

From the other side:

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), says the party is courting a strong challenger, but he’s not saying who that is.

We wait.  Oh My Stars !! do we wait, and hope, and pray, for Someone who can beat Harry Reid, who so deserves to lose his seat on The Hill.  Which is why:

Republicans say Mr. Reid will need an early start and deep pockets this time around.

“On a range of issues, he is to the left of the state,” NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said. Nevada voters “know Harry Reid. They are just saying they don’t support him.”

The four-term incumbent consistently scores less than a 50 percent job-approval rating in Nevada, which, though then-Sen. Barack Obama carried it in the 2008 presidential elections, is generally more conservative than the Democratic Party national agenda Mr. Reid champions on Capitol Hill.

“There are a lot of folks who are upset with all the spending and what’s going on in the federal government,” said John Ellison, a longtime member of the Elko County Board of Commissioners in northern Nevada.

If and when a viable conservative candidate is announced, I pledge my blood, sweat, and tears to his/her campaign.

Obama visits the White House while the echoes of McCain’s can’t-say-that (or That either) (and definitely not THAT!) protestulations and admonishments still ring in our heads. 

This makes it hard to understand why The Maverick has been so quiet on the snarkfest re: Palin.

Says a new blog pal:  Your silence, sir, is deafening!

Lisa Schiffren has a great post on The Corner.  She posits that McCain deliberately held back in the campaign.  Here’s part of it:

…some McCain aides had felt for a while that their candidate had had a deep reluctance to impede the election of the nation’s first African American president. That he had, perhaps, pulled punches and failed to strike as hard as necessary to win this thing, for that greater good. [This] was infuriating, since more depended on the election than changing the race dynamic — which, it must be said, has been changed for some time, and did not require this particular symbol to validate it. To be sure, McCain must have known that his campaign was losing — and did not want to swing blindly. And maybe he didn’t like being called “erratic,” “desperate”, and a “racist” every time the inconvenient facts of Barack Obama’s short past came up for discussion.

But all Republicans who watched their candidate these past few months, must have been struck, as I have been, by the sense that he was holding back. I wondered, too often, how it could be that no one at the campaign could frame and muster the arguments that were clear to all conservative writers here and at the other publications and blogs that share our view. When the arguments were made, they were too little, too late, and garbled enough to drain their force. The campaign had it’s (very serious) flaws, but it seems that the reluctance to aim and shoot cleanly, was due to the candidate’s internal conflict here.

I’m not sure what I think about this.  But I also often wondered why, with so many brilliant minds and writers at his disposal, McCain did not do a better job of articulating his message in speeches, interviews, debates and ads. 

How is it possible that McCain’s campaign could not manage to patch together a persuasive narrative?  Lisa’s post may explain at least some part of it.

I just love Mark Steyn.  Here he is on a reference to Charlie Gibson’s query re: Obama’s questionable online donations:

Re: Charlie Gibson Hits Obama On His Donors   [Mark Steyn]

Oh, please, Greg. That’s not a “hit”, that’s a Swedish massage by Princess Fluffy Bunny. That’s Charlie Gibson appearing to cover himself while letting Obama get away with mush. A (Palin-style?) hit would have taken the conversation on a quite different tack:

OBAMA: What I would simply point to is that the way we have raised this money has been by expanding the pool of small donors in this country in an unprecedented way.

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: What’s unprecedented is that, unlike John McCain, your website disabled the standard credit-card security system used by almost all reputable online retailers. Why did you do that? And, given that of the record $150 million you raised in September two-thirds was raised under this systemically corrupted Internet operation, isn’t it likely that a significant proportion of your half-hour infomercial was paid for by fraudulent donors? And, as to “expanding the pool of small donors in this country”, what about the way you’ve expanded the pool of donors in other countries who’ve been able to make illegal contributions to your campaign because you switched off the AVS security checks?

OBAMA: I mean, you’re looking the people who are giving $5, 10, 25. Ordinary folks who have gotten impassioned about this campaign in a way that is unprecedented. And that, really, is…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: Also a lot of extraordinary folks have gotten impassioned about your campaign. You’ve received contributions from, among others, a Mr Saddam Hussein, Mr A Hitler and Mr K Marx? How do you propose to return those contributions given that all three “donors” are deceased?

OBAMA: Look, you know, 3.1 million donors would be a pretty hard thing for us to be able to process…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION:  Why? I mean, you’ve had no problem “processing” the money, have you? And, if you hadn’t monkeyed with the standard online retail data system, all you have to do is press a button and 3.1 million names and addresses pop right up. Ask Amazon. So why did you switch it off? And, if you yourself did not make that decision, who did?

The Senator terminates the interview to instruct an aide to have state and local officials look into this guy Gibson’s child-support payments, tax liens, etc. Later, it emerges that Charlie the Anchor is not even a state-licensed interviewer.

This morning I heard someone - I think it may be have been Megyn Kelly on Fox News – talking about people buying prepaid credit or debit cards (which have no name or address associated with them) and using those to donate as much as they wish, since Obama’s campaign turned off the credit card security measures on their website.

Who knows how many millions have been collected illegally and/or improperly?  The whole thing stinks, and even though Obama will not agree to release a list of his donors, or turn the online security stop gaps back on, not one mainstream/network media outlet (other than Fox) seems to give a damn. 

From Ken Timmerman at Newsmax:

As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.

By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.

A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws. For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit. Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more….

Hat Tip:  Andy McCarthy @ The Corner

To my amazement, my appearance on KNPR this week sparked a grassroots movement in support of a presidential run. See here. (Be patient: It takes a minute for the video to completely load.)

LOL

Mega thanks for the laughs go out to my good friend (and good conservative citizen) Shane Markuson.

This Newsmax story about ongoing investigations into Obama’s fundraising is disturbing.  It’s also long, so I’ll give you some highlights and excerpts (in italics) and encourage you to read the whole thing when you have time:

Over half of the $426.9 million Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.  (McCain has made his complete donor database available online, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)).

 Federal law does not require campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200, but it does require reported running totals for each donor once they go beyond the $200 mark.   

 The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. (Only $39.6 million comes from identified donors.)

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system…

And shennanigans have been discovered:  for example, donors with fake names giving small amounts that far exceed the $2,300 limit for single persons.  In one case, over 1,000 charges of $25 or less came from a donor named “Good Will.”  Total credit card charges:  over $17,000. 

Another donor (”Doodad Pro”) gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25.

AND

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

There are a lot of specifics and examples in the story, including instances where the Obama camp was caught in specific wrongdoing and had to agree to return money and discussions about some of the foreign donations.  (The campaign is still under investigation.)

I strongly encourage people to read the Newsmax story – and forward this link.

In re: to my Dodd comments and in the interest of fairness to the Ds and Rs (and with a hat tip to Jim Treacher who posted this a short while ago):

These bumper stickers are kind of fun.  Pick one up for just $2.99 plus mailing costs.

Had a good conversation with a conservative friend this weekend re: government spending and Republican Rep. Jon Porter’s apparent affinity for it (despite his claims to the contrary – especially, my friend noted, when he is looking for campaign contributions).

This convo occured before I read John Ralston’s column in the Las Vegas Sun yesterday, in which he noted that although Porter has a new ad slamming Democrat challenger and former state senator Dina Titus for voting for the largest tax hike in Nevada’s history back in 2003 - which she did – Porter likely would have voted for it, too.  

In light of Jon Porter’s record of voting for pork bills in Congress, including this year’s scandalous Farm Bill, Ralston’s assumption is fair.

Does Jon Porter really think he can sell himself as a fiscal conservative at this point?  And even if he tries, why on earth would we believe him? 

Well, with Nevada’s state senate head count sitting at 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that this campaign season is becoming increasingly unscrupulous.  The Dems want that majority so they can rule supreme in the next legislative session.  And apparently they are willing to lie, cheat, smear, and steal the victory if necessary.

Earlier this week we read about attempts to smear Senator Bob Beers via malicious and misleading bright yellow billboards.  Now the Las Vegas Sun reports that we have a flurry of expensive glossy mail pieces snowing down on District 5’s Republican state Senator Joe Heck.

The colorful mailers feature a series of vivid images of suffering cancer patients and say that Heck, a Nevada doctor, voted against requiring insurance companies to include cervical cancer screenings in their basic coverage, while simultaneously accepting campaign donations from those very insurance companies.

That claim is false.

Insurance companies have been required by the state of Nevada to cover screenings for cervical cancer since 1989.

The mailers don’t include any citations (of course!) but are reported to refer to legislation from 2007. 

Heck did vote against a 2007 bill that required some insurance companies to cover Gardasil, the vaccine for the human papilloma virus, which has been proven in clinical studies to be a precursor to cervical cancer…and was criticized by some for doing so, but Heck says he opposes new mandates on insurance companies because they increase the cost of coverage.

Interestingly, the multi-colored mailings don’t say a peep about Heck’s opponent, retired Clark County School District administrator Shirley Breeden, who had little to say about the mailers.  She told the Sun, “The tone, to me, is exactly how he voted. Times are tough and people want a change.”

The TONE [of the mailers]…is exactly how Heck voted?  What does that mean? 

Heck either voted Yes or No on this bill, and these mailers either Lie or do not Lie.  Talking about their “tone” is meaningless and has no bearing on the facts.  I am so tired of this kind of verbal sidestepping from some of these Dems as they speak loftily of the “tone,” “mood,” “feeling,” and “nuance” of issues.

These touchy-feely terms evade the stark truth and help candidates wiggle out of calling a spade a Spade:  these shiny, brightly colored mailers are lying about Heck’s voting record!! 

Shirley Breeden’s comment about how well their “tone” goes with the pitch, timbre, and tint of (this darkly dishonest campaign against) Heck should tell Nevada’s voters all they need to know about her. 

And let’s not overlook this little political tidbit:  Not only are the Dems champing at the bit to control the state Senate, they are also Quite concerned because (it is rumored that) Heck, a well respected doctor and colonel in the Army Reserve, may challenge Harry Reid in 2010.

AND Heck’s name has been thrown in the hat as a possible candidate for future governor. And in that case, he could wind up facing off against another Reid — Harry’s son Rory, current chairman of the Clark County Commission.

Is the shade, hue, and color of these Democratic paint-by-numbers smear projects starting to look like something to voters now…?

UPDATE:  A reader rightly points out that campaign seasons cannot be unscrupulous (see my first sentence).  Political seasons aren’t unprincipled, and the age is not corrupt.  It’s people who are dishonest, dodgy, and devious.

(How’s that for a headline?!)

This past Saturday I did a double take upon glimpsing a bright yellow billboard (on the corner of Ann and Durango) adorned with large radiation danger symbols and accusing Nevada State Senator Bob Beers of being “In Bed with the Southern Nevada Porn King,” a quote the billboard attributed to the LV Mercury.  I was so doubtful about the billboard’s credibility and so curious to find out the “real story,” I spent this morning doing some digging.

FACT #1:  The Bob Beers campaign team did accept a $10,000 contribution from one Raymond Pistol, owner of one of Las Vegas’ many topless bars, in Beers’ 2006 run for governor.  He returned half the contribution after losing in the primary.  According to Beers, “Suggesting that campaign contributions from a legal business (licensed by elected officials of both parties) come with “obligations” is an erroneous conclusion at best.”

FACT #2:  The Mercury, which is no longer in print, never linked Bob Beers and Raymond Pistol in any way, shape, or form.  So says Geoff Schumacher, publisher of the alternative newsweekly Las Vegas CityLife and former editor of the Las Vegas Mercury, in his LVRJ piece yesterday. 

Schumacher wrote (the following quotes are excerpts from his column), “I’m no fan of Beers’ conservative views, but as a journalist taught in the old school, I’m even less enamored of misleading and blatantly false campaign charges.

“I just so happen to have been the first and only editor of the Las Vegas Mercury during its existence from 2001 to 2005, and when I saw the billboard, I could not recall publishing an article describing Beers as being “in bed with the ‘Southern Nevada Porn King.’ “

FACT #3:  That billboard is shameful and ought to be taken down.

And now for a serious look at this year’s campaign season (turn speakers on; page load time is worth the wait).

After carrying herself in a fair, patient, and professional manner over the past eight months, it seems Sue Lowden must now bear up under the label “inept” by the RNC Committee on Contests.  This tag seems harsh and unfair in light of the extreme difficulty and complexity of Lowden’s position this election cycle.

The real story – which is not one of party ineptitude but instead of the combative and unreasonable demeanor of one Mr. Jeff Greenspan – began early this year.  Greenspan, an official Ron Paul campaign representative with whom Lowden was working after Paul received 14 percent of the vote in our presidential caucuses, agreed that the Nevada GOP would give Paul 14 percent of the state delegation (equating to four delegates).  Lowden invited Ron Paul to speak at our state convention, and Greenspan submitted the names of four Ron Paul supporters to the Nominating Committee for consideration.

But on the morning of the convention, April 26, for reasons I have yet to understand, Greenspan went back on the deal with the Nevada GOP.  Instead of moving to an up-or-down vote on the delegate candidates pre-screened from the dozens that had been submitted for consideration, Greenspan teamed up with a Paul supporter named Mike Weber, led a floor “revolt,” and threw the convention into chaos.  How did they accomplish this?  By insisting on opening up nominations from the floor.  This resulted in some 287 new nominations for 31 delegate slots and 31 alternates.

There was no way the convention and/or state party could hear and vet 287 last-minute nominations in one day.  In fact, in light of the time it takes to hear individual speeches/pitches for candidacy, eat meals, take bathroom breaks, allow for interruptions, and take care of other necessary convention business, it is doubtful whether full, fair and proper vetting of 287 new delegate candidates could have been done in two, three, or even four days.

And so it was that the well coordinated, pre-arranged delegate selection process put in place by the party and agreed to by Jeff Greenspan turned into an unholy mess.  The convention fell apart.  And to outsiders, the process meltdown probably did appear “inept.” 

After the convention fell apart, Greenspan, Weber, and other Paul supporters like Wayne Terhune continued their crusade, doing what they could to impede reconvening and even holding their own unsanctioned “convention” in June.  Due to the boycott by the Paul people, the GOP was unable to obtain enough RSVPs to obtain a quorum for the reconvening of the official state convention.

This week the RNC Committee on Contests reviewed the matter, ruled that the Paul “convention” in June was unauthorized, rejected the “delegates” that were “elected” at that meeting, and recommended a compromise by which the Nevada Republican Party will replace four of the current convention delegates (which the Nevada GOP’s Executive Committee appointed last month) with four Ron Paul delegates. 

Readers will note that four delegates is exactly the number of delegates the Nevada GOP had originally agreed to include before Greenspan reneged on the original deal.

Chairwoman Sue Lowden has agreed to the compromise.

“It was always my intention and hope to bring the Ron Paul people into our party,” she said yesterday.   “In fact, I was the only state Republican party chairman to invite Ron Paul to speak at our state GOP convention.  So I’m more than happy to accept the compromise proposal from the Contest Committee, especially since it’s exactly what we had already agreed to last April.”

The matter is scheduled to move to the national convention’s Credentials Committee next.  If the Paul camp also accepts the compromise proposal, this mess will be at an end.

Either way, Greenspan and his minions owe Sue Lowden an apology for their antics and the tremendous amount of time and energy that has been wasted trying to work with them and around them.  And Ron Paul should dismiss Greenspan from his campaign.

Pretty interesting insight on Obama “The One” ad from Virginia Postrel. 

[Hat Tip to Ramesh at the Corner]

This craigslist ad offers young swing state campaign workers paid training, guaranteed job placement, free housing with a “host family,” built-in community, parties, and acadamic credit. All they have to do to get this sweet deal is move to one of these cities until the election (and sell their fresh youthful souls to the Democratic party…)