Kansas Ready to Elect First Socially Conservative Governor
Yes, you read that headline right. Despite all the “What’s the Matter with Kansas” and evolution no evolution knocks Kansans have had to endure we have never, ever elected a Governor who was socially conservative. Moderates have reigned supreme (sometimes thanks to a split in the Republican party) but that party is coming to an end. With the death of Dr. George Tiller and all of his political money, coupled with a Kansas Democratic party who failed to talk the current sitting Democratic Governor into running and couldn’t recruit anyone else worth anything to run, Senator Sam Brownback is poised to take over the Governorship. And with Brownback’s election comes the harsh winds of social change that have been held at bay for the past 20 years (if not since we joined the Union on January 29, 1861).
Mark Parkinson, Kathleen Sebelius, Bill Graves, Joan “Crazy” Finney who replaced Republican Governor Mike Hayden after he raised property taxes, John Carlin…. Not a one in the bunch of previous governors comes as close to being as socially conservative as Sam Brownback and not a one would fit in with the Tea Party. Parkinson, Sebelius, Graves, Hayden, Carlin were all pro-choice. Finney, a democrat, happened to be pro-life but was not socially conservative on a number of other issues. Not that abortion is the be all end all of social issues but it is a good bellwether for predicting where someone stands on social issues.
Brownback is pro-life. Hard core. Of course, he did call a colleague prior to his first campaign for Senate and inquire “which side of the issue” he should come down on. (This is based on my own personal knowledge of the situation) When informed it was “kind of a personal choice” Brownback decided that he was vehemently pro-life and had always been. He went so far, to back up this claim, as to adopt children and convert to Catholicism.
I don’t think Kansans know what’s coming. I think they see Brownback as harmless and he is, contained in the Senate. However, at the helm of a crazy legislature that has proposed all kinds of crazy things only to be stopped by a gubernatorial veto, he is dangerous. He will sign what they put in front of him. You won’t find any moral stands from this guy protecting women, children or minorities. He’ll be in position to appoint Supreme Court judges, and all the other members of a myriad of state boards that stand between Kansans and their rights.
This state was founded by crazies, but we were, and are, a bunch of socially progressive, moderate crazies. At least most of us. Those of us who aren’t moderate, middle of the road types run for state office and make up the majority of state legislators. (See Brenda Landwehr). And now they’ve got their ringleader elected Governor. Forget “What’s the Matter with Kansas.” When Brownback gets elected it will be “Kiss Your Civil Rights Ass Goodbye, Kansas.”
O’Donnell Doesn’t Like Any Part of First Amendment
After having discovered that the separation of church and state is contained in the First Amendment, Christine O’Donnell has now set out to squash another part of the First Amendment, free speech. While she’s not yet a member of Congress (nor apparently will she be) that hasn’t stopped her campaign from threatening to sue a radio station if they posted video of her doing an interview with them.
O’Donnell’s campaign had threatened to sue WDEL-AM to stop release of the Wilmington station’s video of a live radio interview Tuesday on “The Rick Jensen Show.”
In part of the video, O’Donnell signals to a spokesman while she’s being pressed about how she would have handled a county budget differently than her Democratic opponent Chris Coons.
The station says campaign manager Matt Moran called later and threatened to “crush” WDEL-AM with a lawsuit if it didn’t destroy the video.
Memo to O’Donnell: the way to keep a video out of the national spotlight is not to threaten the station but to ignore it completely. Now, everyone and their dog will see the video because you raised such a fuss. In fact, here it is:
Fairly worthless piece of video and not really sure what she’s upset about other than the fact that she snapped her fingers for an aide to come stand by her side when she was getting pissed. I’m assuming she was about to walk off the show but then decided against it. After the fact, O’Donnell’s campaign tried to claim that the radio station didn’t have permission to film her “live” interview and then air the video. The radio station states it did have permission as it was obviously setting up the camera prior to the start of the interview.
This whole Palin/O’Donnell thing of chastising the press and refusing to grant them access or interviews while threatening them and then turning around and claiming their own first amendment rights have been violated because people criticized what they had to say is ridiculous. The fact that the criticism is an exercise of free speech, the fact that the press asking questions is a part of free speech seems to be lost on them. In fact, they don’t understand the First Amendment at all.
Video: Stewart Interviews President Obama
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Barack Obama Pt. 1 | ||||
|
||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Barack Obama Pt. 2 | ||||
|
||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Barack Obama Pt. 3 | ||||
|
||||
Taiwanese Animated Video Mercilessly Mocks Jon Stewart
Someone with NMA.tv was kind enough to e-mail me this video. It shows Stewart as a Obama-crazed, liberal who thinks he can walk on water. They have him riding in a Huffington Post bus to the Rally to Restore Sanity at which a total of three people show up. Here’s the release that came with the video:
Comedian Jon Stewart plans to hold a rally for viewers and fans in Washington on October 30. Dubbed the “Rally to Restore Sanity,” the event is seen as a response to a similar rally held by Glenn Beck over the summer.
Lending their support to the rally are high-profile liberals such as Arianna Huffington and Oprah Winfrey. Conservative critics allege Stewart is attempting to mobilize young viewers and influence the November 2 elections.
Indeed, the rally is seen as benefiting Obama and the Democrats, who are likely to the polls next week. Obama in turn plans to appear on Stewart’s show.
Whether Stewart’s fan base can stay energized and show up at the polls remains to be seen. November 2, after all, marks the return of the McRib sandwich at McDonald’s.
Not so kind. Kind of funny. Interesting to say the least.
Cash for Candidates: Bailout Money Going Into Campaigns
So my tax dollars can’t be used to help a destitute woman get a federally funded abortion because there are people out there who find that morally reprehensible, but my tax dollars can be used to fund the re-election campaigns of Republican Reps John Boehner and Eric Cantor, two men I find morally reprehensible? According to the Washington Post:
The two top recipients of money from companies receiving TARP funds are the top two House Republicans, Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) with $200,000 and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) with $187,000. They are followed by the ranking members of two key House committees, Spencer Bachus (Ala.) on Financial Services and Dave Camp (Mich.) on the tax-writing committee.
The Republican Party itself is getting some of the bank contributions. Seven financial firms have given the maximum $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in each of the past two years, including American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs – a total of $210,000.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are apparently forcing these companies (with the exception of Capital One) to pay back their TARP money before accepting their contributions. So once again we have the Republicans railing against tax payer bailouts in theory but ultimately loving the windfall profit it provides their former companies, their states, and now, their campaigns.
Mitch McConnell, who voted against the federal bailout of General Motors, is now taking a $5,000 donation from them. Is there no end to the hypocrisy?
The Goons Behind the Loons
Remember Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall? What a long time ago it was that political machines controlled party nominations and patronage. Ah, the days of yesteryear when machines could put whomever they wanted on the ticket or get any crazy law passed they wanted. For instance, getting a pseudo-doctor or a witch the nomination for Senate. Or, passing a law that allows industries to pollute as much as they want. Wait, what’s that? That’s happening now?
So who are the present day William Tweeds? Let’s start with David and Charles Koch. They’ve got billions and they’re pouring it into the Tea Party, they poured millions into getting Prop 23 passed in California which would repeal the state’s key climate and clean energy laws, they’ve got Supreme Court Justices in their back pockets.
Then you’ve got Joe Ricketts, founder of Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs, whose poured $600,000 into the Nevada Senate race to defeat Harry Reid.
Then there’s Rupert Murdoch, who ONLY became an American citizen (birthers, where are you?) so he could own American TV stations, who controls the largest, most watched news organization in America, who is pouring money into Republican campaigns because “It is in the best interest of the company“!
And these are the people we know about. According to Democracy 21:
this year, there is a massive infusion of special-interest money into U.S. politics that is secret, not reported. Corporations and other interests will spend more than $250 million of undisclosed funds to affect the outcome of the Nov. 2 national elections.
That’s incredible. I actually don’t oppose corporate spending in elections, but I think there should be total transparency. I think you should know that the owner of the Cubs wants Harry Reid out of office and that he’s willing spend more than half a million dollars to get it done. The only reason we know that fact is because he admitted it. He didn’t hide behind the 501(c)(4) organizations that so many others are hiding behind.
They should have to run at the end of a campaign ad all the disclosures that they require of anti-depressant ads. “This ad was brought to you by David and Charles Koch. They operate under the name Tea Party. Their annual income is in the billions. Listening to what they have to say may cause dizziness, lightheadedness and the inability to vote for the most qualified candidate. You may find out the next morning that you put someone in the Senate who just got their college degree this year. There is no legalized morning after election pill so you’re SOL on that one. Good luck.”
Dumb as Rocks Momma Grizzlies
When did all the bright, intelligent, women running for office get replaced with these dumb as rocks Momma Grizzlies? This “chick” Christine O’Donnell who is running for Senate in Delaware debated her opponent at a law school. When she says, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” you literally hear gasps and laughter from the educated audience. Her opponent, Chris Coons, who is a lawyer, tried to explain the First Amendment to her. She then later had no idea what the 14th Amendment was or why it might be an issue.
I’ll let Anderson Cooper take it from here:
O’Donnell apparently never graduated college until finishing up coursework in the summer of 2010 at Fairleigh Dickinson University. She also claims to have studied the Constitution extensively and received a “graduate fellowship” from the “Claremont Institute.” As Anderson Cooper points out the Claremont Institute is a conservative think tank and the “graduate fellowship” lasted a whole of 7 days. Apparently they didn’t have time to get to the Bill of Rights or any of the other Amendments.
Throw in O’Donnell’s bizarre education with Palin’s tortured college experience and you’ve got a real trend in female candidates towards idiocy that just keeps growing. I can not recall any other women ever touting that they weren’t educated. Perhaps it’s because women are usually discriminated against and we would rather appear bright and on top of our game than dumb and trigger happy. Meanwhile, you have a President who is an actual constitutional scholar and yet the loons would rather have the grizzlies who belong to strange, fringe churches and practice witchcraft in office. Is literally no one paying any attention to who these people really are when they run for office?
**UPDATE**
If you’d like a copy of O’Donnell’s Constitutional Fellowship course syllabus, TPM has it HERE. In her defense, they did not go over the First Amendment. They did spend a lot of time on Roosevelt’s writings because that has a lot to do with what’s in the Constitution.
