Also known as pandering to the far-left. Via Ballot Box: Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was called a “whore” by a primary opponent during Thursday night’s debate for Connecticut’s open Senate seat. Lee Whitnum, who is mounting her second bid for the Senate in Connecticut, blasted Murphy over his support for Israel, the New Haven Register reported. “I’m
Follow this link:
Connecticut Democrat Call Primary Opponent A “Whore” For Israel…
What a miserable question to have to ask about Nebraska Attorney General and Republican Senate Candidate Jon Bruning — in effect is he, at best, a creepy pervert and at worst a monster. But before you pick up pitch forks and torches against me for asking the question, you need to understand that this is Jon Bruning’s own tortured logic in the Nebraska Senate Republican Primary. Jon Bruning, the Attorney General of Nebraska all but accused his primary opponent, Don Stenberg, of being a pedophile. Bruning did so in a Senate primary debate when the debate kept coming back to Jon Bruning still defending Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder. I wish I were making it up, but I am not. Even the Democrats in Nebraska had to jump in and point out that based on Jon Bruning’s “evidence” about Don Stenberg, Jon Bruning is guilty of the same. I warned each and every one of you that Jon Bruning had a reputation for being a hot head who would meltdown under the pressure of a campaign. As appalling as it is, he has done so. If he’s resorting to suggesting his primary opponent is a pedophile to distract from inconvenient facts about his support of Eric Holder, to what new depths will the man sink in a general election? To what extent will he embarrass the GOP? Two nights ago the Nebraska Republicans had a Senate primary debate. When Bruning was pressed on his support for Eric Holder, he deflected and lobbed a bombshell attack against State Treasurer Don Stenberg . He claimed that Stenberg inappropriately tried to follow his 14-year-old daughter on Twitter. I thought he was just going to say Stenberg was guilty of dragging his family into the race as a way to dig up dirt. But no. Bruning said it was “weird” and “creepy” for a “62-year-old man” to follow a “14-year-old girl” on Twitter. Of course Don Stenberg doesn’t manage his Twitter account and campaigns typically follow lots of people they don’t know and even follow their opponents’ families’ twitter accounts. But Bruning, who I bet does not manage his own twitter account, claimed Stenberg’s campaign tried to follow Bruning’s daughter as evidence that Stenberg is a pedophile. Yesterday, the Democrats highlighted that Bruning is following several teenage girls on Twitter. Oops. And there’s still no evidence that Stenberg’s campaign requested access to Bruning’s daughter’s locked account. When someone tries to follow a locked account on Twitter, the owner of the locked account receives an email request to do so. Bruning’s campaign has yet to come forward with that email. Even if it did, the campaign cannot show that Stenberg himself manages his own Twitter account. Conservatives should avoid Jon Bruning like the plague. He didn’t want to defend his outrageous support for Eric Holder so he made a wild, unsubstantiated attack against an honorable man. He’s used to doing whatever is necessary to win elections. That’s why he’s been on both sides of nearly every issue and it’s why he’s smearing Stenberg today. Oh, and by Jon Bruning’s own logic, I presume he is a supporter of same sex marriage and gay rights. As you can see from this screenshot , in addition to following several teenage girls on Twitter, Jon Bruning also follows the NOH8 campaign on Twitter — the gay rights group advocating against Proposition 8 in California.
Visit link:
By Jon Bruning’s Own Logic, Is He Into Gay Marriage and Inappropriate Relationships With Kids?
If we ever desire to win a conservative majority even within the Republican conference, we must elect unvarnished conservatives in solid red states like Nebraska. That’s why we are supporting Don Stenberg, a man who has held consistent conservative views, for Senate. Unfortunately, Jon Bruning is spending a lot of money convincing people that he is something that he never was before he decided to run for Senate. As Erick pointed out, not only did Bruning lobby for the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General and Tom Perez as Assistant Attorney General and head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, he refuses to admit it was a mistake, even after Holder has proven himself to be the worst man to ever hold that office. Yesterday, Bruning doubled down on his support for Holder during an interview with a local radio station in Omaha . What was even more appalling was his attempt to rationalize that support by suggesting that Holder was going to be confirmed anyway so he felt that it was prudent to be “reasonable” and “supportive” of guy who they’d have to work with. Towards the end of the clip, he went on to assert that he definitely opposes some of the things Holder and Tom Perez have done in the Justice Department. Folks, this statement exemplifies to the nth degree what is wrong with the current crop of GOP leaders in the Senate. That is exactly what they believe; when you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. A true statesman leads from the front and stands on principle even against the odds. In this instance, he was urging sitting senators, not just state attorneys general, to support Holder. It is simply astounding that somebody would so brazenly stand by their support for Eric Holder after his calamitous three years in office. It is unconscionable that we would nominate this guy from a state like Nebraska. I’ll say it again, and will keep repeating it throughout the campaign season: if we can’t elect reasonably consistent conservatives from states like this, then we should pack up our bags and forget about winning in politics. We don’t have to settle for a ‘when you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ Republican. Let’s help elect Don Stenberg , a man who will vote and advocate against radical nominees, irrespective of how likely they are to succeed. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
See more here:
Jon Bruning Would Still Vote for Holder
[Posted by Karl] The WaPo reports on fat cats with short arms: President Obama is struggling to draw in big-dollar donations, with half as many people writing large checks to his campaign than at this point four years ago. Obama is outpacing his Republican rivals in fundraising overall, and his advisers have concentrated on amassing small-dollar backers, part of a strategy to get more people invested in the reelection effort. At the end of January, 1.4 million people had donated to the Obama campaign, responding to appeals for contributions as small as $2. But Obama lags behind Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in finding donors willing to give $2,000 or more — a surprising development for a sitting president, and one that could signal more worrisome financial problems heading into the general election. As the WaPo also notes, Obama has been encouraging limousine liberals to dump cash into superPACs. But many Obama mega-donors are turned off by the effort. Moreover, earlier this month, Karl Rove pointed out the problem with the small donor narrative being pushed by Team Obama: The Obama campaign itself reported that fewer than 7% of 2008 donors renewed their support in the first quarter of his re-election campaign. That’s about one-quarter to one-third of a typical renewal rate: In the first quarter of the Bush re-election campaign, for example, about 20% of the donors renewed their support. There are other troubling signs. Team Obama’s email appeals don’t ask for $10, $15, $25 or $50 donations as they did in 2008, but generally for $3. Nor are the appeals mostly about issues; many are lotteries. Give three bucks and your name will be put in a drawing for a private dinner with the president and first lady. This is clever marketing, but it suggests the campaign has found that only a low price point with a big benefit can overcome donor resistance among people who contributed via mail or the Internet in 2008. It also points to higher-than-expected solicitation costs and lower-than-expected fund-raising returns. It is tempting to attribute this all to the lack of a primary challenge to Obama or the perceived weakness of the GOP field. But both the WaPo and Rove note the degree to which Obama falls short in comparison to the Bush ’04 reelect campaign. Moreover, the primary turnout for Obama has lagged the Clinton ’96 reelect effort in states where comparable data is available. Once the GOP has a nominee, Obama may be able to squeeze more cash out of the recalcitrant progs. At that point, he will really be able to turn up the fear and loathing on the campaign trail (likely with liberal lacings of guilt). The 20 most politically active commercial banks, hedge funds, securities firms and “private equity and investment” firms may be avoiding the president now, but will likely hedge their exposure in a close race. Nevertheless, the balance sheets are another reminder that the lefty chatter may think fantasy Obama has this election in the bag, the real Obama knows better . –Karl
Read more here:
Obama coming up short of Big Money
Via JPost: Iranian Foreign Minister Salehi says Iran “fully” backs Palestinians in meeting with Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, says he is “confident the Palestinians will win the struggle.” Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar was in Iran Thursday, meeting with leaders to gather support following a weekend of military exchanges with Israel, Iranian state-run news agency IRNA
Read the rest here:
Iran Pledges Full Support For Hamas Against The “Dastardly” Joooos…
