The Kentucky Dilemma: McConnell vs Lunsford-- Is One Worse Than The Other? Does It Matter Who's Worse?

If you know another blog that has been more unkind to Miss McConnell than DownWithTyranny, please let me know. I was delighted when I found out that he was outed to the GOP base this weekend and I'd like to see him get zero votes on Tuesday. That leaves me with a real problem. I'd also like to see his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, a nominal Democrat from deep, deep in the bowels of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, get zero votes. You don't always get what you want and in this case we won't be getting what we need either, not even in the unlikely event that Lunsford wins.

The Kentucky race has tightened in recent days-- McConnell 47.3% to Lunsford 44.2%-- and Pollster.com rates it a toss-up, all 21 public polls since May, other than 2 ties, show McConnell winning. McConnell is a singularly unattractive senator: corrupt, unsympathetic to the aspirations of working families, pro-war, a rubber stamp, and the Senate's premier obstructionist. The most recent Survey USA poll shows him running significantly behind John McCain. As of two weeks ago McCain was trouncing Obama 54-41% (Kentucky gave Bush 60% in 2004) but the same voters were evenly split between McConnell and Lunsford.

Lunsford is easily the most odious Senate candidate the Democrats have running anywhere-- and he is hardly the only reactionary the Democrats are running. But if I had to guess which Democrat would be most likely to pull a fence-jumping stunt ala Strom Thurmond/Ben Nighthorse Campbell/Richard Shelby, Lunsford would win hands down. He's already using McCain in his campaign ads, the way Gordon Smith used Obama in his.

And even if the circumstance never presents itself to make a party switch personally advantageous, I have no hesitation in publicly predicting he will give Ben Nelson (D-NE) a run for his money in future years when it comes to racking up the most reprehensible party unity scores. And looking at substantive partisan votes in the current session of Congress, Nelson voted just a bit over half the time with his own party. There's no reason to think Lunsford will do any better. There is ample reason, on the other hand, to see Lunsford, who most Kentuckians have long seen as a personally corrupt man, pushing the Democratic caucus further in the direction of Big Business interests and away from the interests or ordinary working families and the middle class. He made a deal with Big Labor to support them on one issue in return for their help. Their anti-strategic, typically shortsightedness will leave their overall program in jeopardy from a full-fledged proven reactionary who Labor has violently opposed in every race he has ever run previously. Similarly, according to Roll Call, African-American voters turning out in huge numbers for Obama, and understanding that McConnell has been a disaster for their interests, could well give Lunsford the margin he needs to squeak to victory. It reminds me of the special election in Louisiana a few months ago when African Americans put Don Cazayoux over the top and he immediately started proving himself as bad a choice for working families than any Republican and is currently one of the 5 most GOP-voting Democrats in the House, not exactly what the African-Americans who voted him into office expected. Lunsford will be far worse.

Tomorrow we'll have a look at the Senate race that presents Democrats with the polar opposite-- an inspiring, straight arrow progressive leader, and one who looks like he will win his race and go on to work with members like Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Ben Cardin and Patrick Leahy to bring integrity and progressive values to the forefront of at least the Democratic caucus if not the hopelessly corrupt and systemically reactionary Senate itself. Meanwhile Fox News took a fair and balanced look at the Kentucky race:

Ted Stevens, Mitch McConnell And Susan Collins-- Trio Of Despair

A real axis of evil

Unless the rumors about Larry Craig becoming a lobbyist for HRC are true, it could be very lonely for Lindsey Graham come January. Lonely like in "Gee, this closet is so empty these days... I hope David Dreier, Patrick McHenry, or Adrian Smith runs for the Senate soon." That's right, after Larry Craig's little tragedy in the Minneapolis-St Paul Airport toilet with officer Karsnia, and the increasingly likely forced departure of Kentucky gay groper Mitch McConnell, poor Lindsey will be left all by his lonesome-- the only closet queen in the whole Senate! How fair is that, Mr. Slave?

Anyway, I'm not cheering as loudly as everyone I know over Miss McConnell's impending political obliteration-- primarily because of the horror Chuck Schumer has replacing him, the corrupt and reactionary (don't those two words always get shmooshed together these days?) Bruce Lunsford. Lunsford is likely to be an improvement over McConnell-- the way a D- is better than an F, although, in this case, the F was at least not inside the Democratic caucus inexorably dragging it further and further in the direction of even more corporate-oriented corruption and further and further away from the interests of working families the Democrats always regret stabbing in the back-- though only when they are absolutely forced to by deplorable monsters like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh... and, of course, Bruce Lunsford.

Most Democrats would rather cut off a toe than vote for McConnell even if it does mean that a sleazy and treacherous slimebag like Lunsford winds up in the Senate. And i wouldn't urge anyone to cut off anything. On the other hand, McConnell, who is not just the single most corrupt member of the Senate, he is also spending millions of dollars of corruptly acquired corporate bribes to blanket the state with TV ads attacking Lunsford's own corruption! And just to be consistent, this morning McConnell called on the Senate's runner-up most corrupt member, Ted Stevens, to resign. Cozy, since the two of them have been blatantly money-laundering illicit campaign contributions to each other for years. Miss McConnell:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has joined the growing chorus of congressional Republicans calling for Sen. Ted Stevens to resign in the wake of his conviction earlier this week on seven corruption-related felonies.

McConnell, in Kentucky campaigning for his own re-election, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that Stevens should step aside, and that he should do it before Election Day, when the Alaska Republican is trying to win a seventh full term.

“I think he should resign immediately,” said McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator, who is locked in a competitive race against businessman Bruce Lunsford. “If he did not do that ... there is a 100 percent certainty that he would be expelled from the Senate.”

Not all Republicans who have taken thousands and thousands of dollars of Big Oil bribes via Stevens are abandoning him in his time of need though. Susan Collins, Maine's rubber stamp Republican hack has taken immense sums of "contributions" from some of the most corrupt companies in America, funneled her way courtesy of Steven's generous PAC. And even though most Republicans are distancing themselves from the convicted felon-- including McCain and Palin-- Susan Collins is standing by her man (just like she always has with Bush). Maine's other Republican senator, Olympia Snowe, who isn't as crooked and sleazy as Collins is calling for Stevens to resign immediately. It is expected that Collins will buckle under the pressure and be denouncing Stevens by Monday.

"If Susan Collins really believes that convicted felons have a place in the Senate, she clearly does not represent the kind of change that people in Maine are hungry for in Washington," said Rebecca Pollard, communications director for the Maine Democratic Party. "Whether or not Alaska voters re-elect him a week after a jury of his peers found him guilty should not determine whether Susan Collins thinks he should remain in the Senate."
 
"She can't take a pass on this. As a sitting Senator and candidate for re-election to the Senate chamber, Collins doesn't get a pass on telling Maine people whether she thinks Stevens remains worthy of his Senate seat when he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work on his house from a big oil company and was convicted on seven felony counts," Pollard said.

As odious as McConnell is, I'd rather see the end of Collins. With him you pretty much know what you're going to get. She's deceptive and sneaky and if he goes, we're stuck with Lunsford. If Collins goes, the Senate gets one of the finest members of the House, Congressman Tom Allen, moving across Capitol Hill.

Republicans Plotting An Agenda Of Obstruction-- With The Help Of Right Wing Democrats

Yesterday CongressDaily examined alternative means that Republicans are thinking of using to obstruct Obama's agenda of change. The GOP is hysterical at the idea of a filibuster-proof Senate and a strengthened Democratic House majority. As further polls come out showing more and more Republican incumbents needing to type up their resumes for K Street human resources officers, their party acknowledges that it needs to reach out to the far right of the Democratic Party to hold up the policies that have persuaded Americans to vote for Barack Obama. The latest Senate race veering towards the Democrats: despite Wicker's vicious and idiotic attempt to turn the contest into an anti-gay jihad, Mississippi is trending blue.

Their first targets are red state Democrats who tend to vote with the GOP on core substantive issues. That will especially include Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Tim Johnson (SD), Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Pryor (AR) and Blanche Lincoln (AR). They also have it in their minds that they can bamboozle red-state Democrats elected in 2006 like Jon Tester (MT), Bill Nelson (FL), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jim Webb (VA) and Sherrod Brown (OH). Although Brown has shown political cowardice in the past-- like when he voted for torture during the 2006 election-- and the others have been known to routinely drift right now and then, all of them are committed to most of Obama's agenda-- and Brown has apologized for the torture vote and acknowledged it was a mistake.

Obama, Missouri, today. Will McCaskill remember?

Some senators, including Ben Nelson, McCaskill and Webb, have established moderate voting records. But one Republican said even senators like Brown, who has a fairly consistent record of voting with Democrats, could be more susceptible to joining Republicans now that he is past the first two years of his term. "We will not see the same adherence to leadership positions they had in the 110th Congress," one aide said. Another GOP aide said that even if Democrats can get to 60 seats, some Democrats from swing states might become more vulnerable as the party's agenda swings to the left. "It's going to be hard for people like Claire McCaskill," the aide said.

Ben Nelson said he expects many pleas for help from the other side of the aisle. "I'm sure there'll be efforts of one sort or another to try and get me to support some things," Nelson said. For his part, Nelson agreed he was likely to find common cause with Republicans on some issues. "There probably will be," Nelson said. "I'll put partisanship aside. That's been my approach, and I wouldn't see that changing whatsoever." Nelson stressed, however, he was not interested in lending his vote to efforts to prevent legislation from moving. "If they're counting on me to stop legislation, they've got the wrong senator," he said.

We'll see about that. Over the course of his Senate career, Nelson has voted with the Republicans far more than any other Democrat-- and has voted with the Republicans almost as frequently as he has with the Democrats, much more so than even Joe Lieberman! Worse yet, several of the Democratic recruits this year are from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and can be expected to join forces with the GOP on key issues, the worst of all being Bruce Lunsford (KY). Another right-of-center Democrat who can't be counted on to support any kind of a progressive agenda is North Carolina's likely winner, Kay Hagan. Studied moderates who I expect to win and frequently veer right include Mark Udall (CO) and Mark Warner (VA). And we'll have to see about Jeanne Shaheen (NH) and Al Franken (MN) as well. Better than their Republican opponents? Goes without saying! But part of a progressive solution? Certainly not the treacherous arch-reactionary Lunsford. The others? We'll see. More certain to support a progressive approach to governance would be... well, proven progressives, of course. If you want to see progressives win, and not just Democrats, support candidates who walk the walk and talk the talk, like Jeff Merkley (OR), Tom Allen (ME), Andrew Rice (OK), and Rick Noriega (TX), the Senate candidates endorsed by Blue America.

Is Mitch McConnell The Worst Senator Up For Re-election?

In a Senate election year that includes efforts by James Inhofe (R-OK), Gordon Smith (R-OR), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Ted Stevens (R-AK), it's hard to say with any degree of precision who really most deserves the kind of political oblivion Americans dealt to similarly corrupted extremist Republicans in 2006-- Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO) and Mike DeWine (R-OH). But one person whose name would be on anyone's short list is surely George Bush's chief Senate obstructionist, Mitch "Miss" McConnell (R-KY). It's unfortunate that McConnell's opponent, reactionary corporate Democrat Bruce Lunsford is the worst Democrat running for the Senate this year and can pretty much go toe to toe with McConnell when it comes to corruption. There's nothing that would ever make me vote for either one of these characters. I hope they both lose.

That said, I come from a truly unbiased place when I offer DWT readers an editorial from last week's Lexington Herald-Leader on the energy crisis. First of all, if there is one senator more responsible than anyone else in Congress for the fact that over the last several sessions of Congress, Big Oil has had it's way-- and had billions of dollars worth of tax cuts and all the policies it wanted that would help bolster a burgeoning bottom line that, literally, transferred nearly a trillion dollars from American families' budgets into Big Oil profit reports-- it was Mitch McConnell. In return, McConnell received $649,011 in "donations" from Big Oil and he also got to help direct over $165,000,000 into GOP political campaigns from Big Oil and Gas.

The Herald-Leader says he "won: The Senate went home for five weeks without doing anything to lower energy prices or expand supply."

McConnell, who filibustered three energy bills, is holding out for a vote on off-shore drilling. He's hoping voters will blame Democrats and, even more improbably, his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, for prices at the pump.

As long as everyone understands that more drilling is no solution, Democrats might as well let Republicans have their vote. It seems to be the only way to break the Republican-created logjam and release legislation that would actually help free Americans from oil's high-priced grip.

If recent history is any indication, the oil companies won't be fouling the oceans and beaches because they won't be drilling new wells.

Of the 90 million offshore acres on which the industry already holds leases, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, more than 70 million are not producing oil, say estimates from Democrats and oil-industry sources.

The danger comes not from oil rigs or oil spills but from policies that keep U.S. consumers captive to oil.

Consider: A hybrid vehicle that you could plug into an electrical outlet in your garage would run on the equivalent of roughly 75 cents-a-gallon gasoline.

Both the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council are pushing plug-in electrical vehicles, which would charge up at night when demand for electricity is low, averting the need for new power plants.

Does the oil industry want that kind of competition?

And can McConnell and the Republicans afford that kind of threat to the oil industry?

Since 1996, more than three-fourths of oil- and gas-industry contributions have gone to Republicans.

The industry gave $2.4 million to Republican senators during the years McConnell was in charge of their fund-raising. His colleagues showed their gratitude by making him their leader.

Republican power and McConnell's power are built on oil money.

McConnell talks a good game. He advocates increased conservation and supports electric-powered vehicles and other energy alternatives. But actions speak louder than words.

For years, McConnell opposed higher fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. More recently, he's stood in the way of everything from expanded solar power to cracking down on oil speculators.

He's drumming home the message that more oil is the answer. He's doing it at a time when this country needs to unleash all its innovative powers on developing and marketing alternatives to oil.

The Center for American Progress makes a good case that more drilling could lock us into a future of expensive gasoline.

Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf would be hugely expensive. The industry could never justify that kind of investment without keeping prices high.

Open every square inch of land and sea to drilling, and the United States still has 3 percent of the world's reserves, while using almost 25 percent of the oil. We need to break from oil even without global warming's threat.

So what McConnell is doing is good for the oil industry and may even prove to be smart politics. But it's not responsible leadership.

Who even cares that he's a hypocritical closest queen who got tossed out of the Army for grabbing an enlisted man's wiener? This is much worse.

Senate Republicans Block Gas Price Reduction And Housing Crisis Measures-- Right-wing Ideology Trumps Common Sense (Again)

Lunsford & McConnell: different eating habits/similar energy policies

Only 13 Republican senators voted against the bill that would allow the federal government to keep hundreds of thousands of American families from being kicked out of their homes by foreclosures. The voted succeeded, 80-13. So who were these radical right extremists who would rather see millions of Americans made homeless than compromise on their discredited and dangerous ideology? Well, most of the Republican rubber stamps who are up for re-election in November were the first to jump ship and scurry across the aisle and vote with the Democrats. But not all did. Among the 13 are 4 die-hard nut cases who do have to face the voters in November but just do not care what their constituents think. As far as these guys are concerned Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will tell their constituents what to think and that's that. The four are:

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
John Sununu (R-NH)

The other extremists who voted with them are Kit Bond (R-MO), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Corker (R-TN), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John Thune (R-SD) and David Diapers Vitter (R-LA).

Earlier in the day, the Republican radicals were able to stop a bipartisan plan to keep excessive oil speculation from driving up gasoline prices by manipulating the futures markets. Every Democrat plus Lieberman and the one actual moderate Republican in the Senate, Olympia Snowe, voted to stop manipulative speculation while 43 Republicans voted, in effect, for higher gas prices at the pump, including fake moderates like Maine's other senator, Susan Collins, as well as Norm Coleman, and John Sununu. The DSCC targeted Republican closet queen/Bush chief Senate obstructionist Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who has taken $230,900 in "donations" from Big Oil and Gas this year alone.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against a bill today to lower gas prices by curbing excessive speculation in energy markets. Experts have noted that speculation is driving up the price of a barrel of oil, and a recent House committee report revealed that speculators-- institutional investors buying contracts with no intention of taking delivery of oil-- now account for 73% of all trading of crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000.

"Mitch McConnell had an opportunity to lower the price of gas today, but instead he voted with the speculators who are profiting from Kentuckians' pain at the pump," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "Mitch McConnell's constituents deserve better than a politician who sides with Wall Street speculators over Kentucky families."

McConnell voted against legislation to guard against price manipulation just one day after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced its first case against a trading fund in the agency's probe of crude oil market manipulation. The bill will eliminate so-called "dark markets" to increase transparency and accountability in commodities trading, strengthen the CFTC's enforcement capacity, and close the "London Loophole" so all U.S.-based trading of American commodities is subject to American regulation.

Speculation is driving rising oil prices past where they should be, even with flat supply and rising demand. Economists and energy experts believe that speculation is helping drive the sudden spike in oil prices, which rose more than 50% between February and June.

Unfortunately for Kentucky Democrats, McConnell's opponent, conservative multimillionaire Bruce Lunsford is from the far right end of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and advocates many of the same tired and discredited policies advocated by McConnell and the GOP. He was the lizard-brained choice of Chuck Schumer and that choice was based on his millions, not on his policy positions. Today's Lexington Herald-Leader:

To lure voters weary of high gas prices, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford is embracing a GOP-led push for oil shale drilling, one policy goal Congress already achieved and one proposal that received mixed reviews from both parties.

...McConnell is running television ads highlighting the fact that Lunsford pushed for automatic state gas tax increases as an aide to Democratic Gov. John Y. Brown Jr. in the early 1980s.

One of Lunsford's key proposals is to create a federal gas tax holiday, which would remove the 18.5-cent levy from the cost of each gallon. Republican presidential candidate John McCain and former Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton support the idea.

But presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama and others have dismissed it as a political ploy, saying it would do little to ease prices while taking away needed federal money to repair and build roads.

”I see this as an immediate relief for people who have this noose around their necks,“ Lunsford said. ”If people were out there and could see this, they'd understand how tight it is for people right now.“

Lunsford also reiterated his support for lifting a moratorium on drilling for oil shale in Western states, something that McConnell and Republicans are pushing.

Schumer has successfully saddled the Kentucky Democratic Party with a candidate who is re-inforcing Mitch McConnell's and John McCain's reactionary perspective on energy. But what could you expect from the reptilian Schumer? He also saddled America with the current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, although he claims to be "disappointed" now.

There Are Democrats And Then There Are Democrats... Take Bruce Lunsford For Example

Not all Udalls are equal

Lately I've has a lot of calls from friends of Bruce Lunsford. Some are Democratic Party insiders and some are genuine Kentucky grassroots activists. Generally they go like this: "Yeah, yeah, Lunsford is a nightmare and will vote like a Republican half the time, but the idea of getting rid of Mitch McConnell overshadows any other consideration. And, after all, McConnell votes like a Republican 100% of the time; half the time Lunsford may be with us."

My heart goes out to Kentucky activists who can almost smell McConnell's defeat. I want to smell McConnell's rotting political corpse as well. But Lunsford? First off, "half the time" is very arbitrary. Maybe Lunsford will vote with the Democrats 40% of the time or 60% of the time or, like Tim Johnson (D-SD) 39.57% of the time when it really counts. But, let's assume that Lunsford votes just like arch-conservative Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, an overly generous supposition based on what Lunsford has been all about politically. That means he'll vote with Democrats on most housekeeping and non-controversial bills and with the Republicans on many of the really keys issues that matter most to working families and people concerned about civil liberties and the future of our nation. Better than Mitch McConnell? Unquestionably. But there's more to it than that.

McConnell doesn't subvert progressive values and principles from within the Democratic Party and move it inexorably rightward. Ben Nelson does. Zell Miller and Lieberman used to. Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, Ken Salazar, Max Baucus can usually be counted on to shill for Big Business interests and pull the Democratic caucus rightward away from positions that are family-friendly. That's exactly what Lunsford will do doing.

This morning's CongressDaily has a story by Darren Goode called "Centrists Might Be Moving Party Leaders." Goode buys into the Beltway definitions of "centrists" and fails to see that what the reactionaries he's writing about are actually just pulling Democrats further away from populist and progressive stands. Otherwise, it's a good story-- except that he stains to prove-- with no evidence whatsoever-- that Republican "moderates" (mainstream conservatives) are also moving GOP extremists towards the center. They're not.

House and Senate coalitions of centrists that were formed to work on compromise plans on gas prices were built on growing frustration among the rank and file-- and voters-- over political gamesmanship employed by party leaders.

This might be leading to more access for these members to party leaders in the debate. House Speaker Pelosi met Tuesday with a group of oil-patch Democrats who recently voted against her "use-it-or-lose-it" plan targeting a lack of production on existing federal areas open for oil and gas production.

She met later in the day with a partially overlapping batch of Blue Dog Coalition members on how they could support a revamped use-it-or-lose-it package heading to the floor Thursday.

"I've seen a shift in leadership," said Texas Rep. Gene Green, who heads an informal batch of oil-patch Democrats and was among those who met with Pelosi Tuesday. "And I'd like to see even more of a shift."

So what is Goode extolling? That a bunch of bought off Democrats whose careers are financed by Big Oil can force Pelosi to bend to the will of Republican grandees? The use-it-or-lose-it bill, sponsored by Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) was defeated when virtually all Republicans were joined by the treacherous, bribed Blue Dogs.

I can certainly understand local voters casting their ballots against the worst servants of the Military Industrial Complex and against the authors of so much of the economic misfortune that has befallen our country. But, remember, it isn't just Republicans who fall into those categories. The attack on Iraq was a bipartisan affair-- even if a majority of House Democrats-- voted against it (while a majority of Senate Democrats voted for it). Democrats control both houses of Congress and the war rages on. Why? Because there are enough Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the DLC and the Blue Dogs basically-- who consistently vote with the GOP on substantive matters. Bush's contemptible and neo-fascist FISA bill-- giving him the right to spy on American citizens-- read our e-mails, listen to our calls-- without any kind of supervision or court order, would never have been given any serious consideration, let alone passed into law, without the active connivance of Democratic leaders who have been paid off-- gigantically-- by the Telecom industry. Of course the main target of the telecoms giants' bribes was John McCain ($365,955) but, not counting presidential candidates, the biggest telecom bribe takers were Senator jay Rockefeller (D-WV- $51,500), who led the battle in the Senate for retroactive immunity, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel ($49,950), who was able to bully enough Democrats-- reminiscent of his actions during the NAFTA debate-- to vote with the Republicans to pass the single worst piece of legislation to come out of this disgraceful Congress. Do we want more of this kind of "bipartisanship?" Or do we want brave and courageous independent-minded leaders who will stand up for American values and ideals-- men and women like Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Carol Shea-Porter, Tom Udall, Tom Allen...?

If you have all the money in the world to donate to candidates, I guess it makes sense to donate to reactionaries like Lunsford with the rationale that he's better than McConnell. But that would be premised on having maxed out to real Democrats first-- and their are hundreds of them. Or let's put it another way. The Udall cousins are both in the House and each is running against an extreme right wing lunatic for the Senate, Tom Udall in New Mexico and Mark Udall in Colorado. I want to see both the crazy neo-fascist Republicans lose. But Tom voted against FISA and has taken up the cause of defending constitutional government. Mark voted with the Republicans and has taken up the cause of abandoning principles to get elected. Who you think deserves support more?

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM IS DESTROYING DEMOCRACY

No wild fans of Kansas Democratic Senate candidate Jim Slattery around here; don't look for him on the Blue America endorsement page, even if each of us hopes he beats craven and useless incumbent, Bush rubber stamp Pat Roberts. And speaking of craven... Roberts must be plenty worried about this race because he's already launched a costly negative ad campaign slamming Slattery as a lobbyist. And Slattery is a lobbyist, a shameful and repulsive profession, which in my opinion, makes someone unfit for public trust. But not as unfit as someone who already has public trust-- an elected official, like Pat Roberts-- who takes bribes (AKA- "contributions") from lobbyists and votes for special interests rather than for the interests of his constituents.

Has Senator Pat been doing that? Let's take a look. A member of the Agriculture Committee, Roberts has been the recipient of over a million dollars from the agricultural industry in their attempts-- usually successful-- to get him to represent their special interests over the interests of non-industrialized family farmers, not to mention consumers. You name the industry: Commercial Banks ($422,424)-- he's also a deregulation fanatic on the Senate Finance Committee-- Oil & Gas ($324,900), Securities & Investments ($251,862), Insurance ($230,192), Big Pharma ($165,477)... Roberts always has his hand out and is always, always, always voting to wreck the regulatory system that protects workers and consumers and investors from the corporate predators who hire the lobbyists who pay him off. Otherwise it's a lovely ad. (Oh, and in case you were wondering, the Big Telecom giants lavished Roberts with $14,250 this year alone and he dutifully voted to shred the U.S. Constitution for them this week-- permitting warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity for corporate criminals. Go lobbyists!)

Roberts is hardly the only member of Congress who accepts massive bribes from lobbyists and corporate donors and then votes for their special interests. That's the way the obscenely wealth have rigged the political system to work for them-- and against the great unwashed masses (the rest of us). And Congress writes its own rules, carefully defining its members' crude criminal practices as permissible. Bribery is only bribery if... a masked man give sit to you in small denominations in cash... and you hide it in your refrigerator.

Just today the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Mitch McConnell (R-Big Business) raised over $3 million dollars in the last 3 months for his campaign, for a total of $15 million so far. As of April 30. McConnell had scooped up over $27,000,000 in contributions, much of it from special interests with business before the Senate. The Finace/Insurance and Real Estate sector-- which has gotten, with McConnell's toxic leadership, the deregulation they've been so lusting after for since FDR reined them in after they caused the Great Depression-- has given him $4,147,334. And in return we have a severe Recession-- according to out of touch Republicans only in our minds-- heading straight towards a Depression, with runaway inflation, spiraling unemployment, a gutted out middle class, rampant outsourcing (a McConnell hallmark), a collapsing housing market impacting the rest of the economy, and a health care system that has gone from the envy of the planet to decidedly third rate... for non-millionaires and members of Congress. McConnell's contributors have certainly gotten their money's worth from him.

Of course, McConnell's bribers know full well that his corrupt and reactionary Democratic opponent would be no less of a willing servant to their whims and demands. Right now he doesn't need their money because he's already put $2.1 million of his own bread into the campaign. One of Lunsford's spokespersons pointed out that it's "easy to rake in special-interest cash when you've been doing their bidding for 24 years in the Senate. The big oil companies alone have given McConnell over $650,000 in campaign contributions over the years. Kentucky cannot afford another six years of McConnell's misplaced loyalties. He is not on our side. It's time for change."

Change meaning what? Going from a corrupt Republic taking corporate bribes to a corrupt Democrat taking corporate bribes. That isn't change. Change would be no corporate bribes... period. Anyone who wants to donate to a candidate should be allowed to donate... anonymously.

Would McConnell have been so eager to sell out the Constitution and allow the Telecoms to get away with their criminal activities if they hadn't paid him off with hefty donations totaling over $20,000 this year alone? Or would have Susan Collins if they didn't give her $35,850? Ted Stevens, who raked in $41,400? Gordon Smith, who sold us out for $27,750? Would Rahm Emanuel have joined the Republicans and dragged dozens of Democrats along with him for this disgraceful piece of infamy if the Telecoms hadn't bought him off with $49,950 this year?

And what about Norm Coleman? This Bush rubber stamp has scooped up nearly as much as McConnell from corporate interests. Since he began his miserable political career in the late 80s, he's taken in over $23,000,000 in "donations." Today's Star Tribune reports that Coleman and his Democratic opponent, Al Franken, are running neck-and-neck in the fundraising race, each having taken in over $2 million in the last quarter. The first comment on the story summed up the real issue, one left untouched by the Star Tribune:

Coleman gets his money from rich donors across the country at exclusive events. Al Franken gets the majority of his money from Minnesotans who contribute 10 dollars at a time. Sure, Franken does have some supporters that come from out of state, but not like the ones Norm Coleman has. Coleman works for big oil, the pharmaceutical companies, and special interest groups. Al works for the people.

Is it true? Of the over $13 million Coleman has hoovered up in the current cycle, he's taken the lion's share from special interests with business before the Senate: Real Estate ($610,137), Securities & Investments ($567,750), Insurance ($288,324), Commercial Banks ($226,400), Big Pharma ($203,717), Big Oil ($88,550). Is it just a coincidence that Coleman always votes for what these industries want, regardless of how detrimental it is to working families back in Minnesota? Do you think Minnesotans want the government wiretapping citizens at will without a court order? Coleman does-- or doesn't care-- but this year alone the Big Telecoms gave him $7,700.

When he was in the House, Bob Schaffer was known as someone who would accept money from anyone and sell his vote cheap for any corporate special interest. Now that he's trying to get into the Senate, Big Business is rallying to his banner. Big Oil has given him more money this year than any other candidate who is not currently in Congress, $114.15, more than almost all sitting members of the Senate. He's their boy. And Sam Stein's story at Huff Po today goes a long way towards explaining why:

At the same time that he was officially a candidate for the United States Senate, Colorado Republican Bob Schaffer was helping to arrange a major oil deal in the Kurdish region of Iraq that government officials said would damage U.S. interests in that country.

Schaffer has claimed that he was unaware that the company he was aiding, Aspect Energy, was undermining American policy by pursuing an oil contract in Kurdistan. But a review of press reports from that time period suggests that such an explanation is either highly unlikely or downright disingenuous.

..."Four years before Bob Schaffer went to Kurdistan, he voted to authorize the Iraq War where he had to have learned about the conflict between the Kurds and the Iraqi central government," said Tara Trujillo, spokeswoman for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall. "Two months before Bob Schaffer went to Kurdistan to negotiate an oil contract, the Kurds threatened to separate from Iraq because of oil... One month before Aspect Energy signed the deal, the U.S. State Department officials also told the press that these types of oil deals would counter our national security interests. How could Bob Schaffer not know? It's not that Bob Schaffer didn't know his actions would undermine the fragile situation in Iraq, it's that he didn't care."

I don't especially mean to single out corrupt politicians like Bob Schaffer (R-CO), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Bruce Lunsford (D-KY), Norm Coleman (R-MN)-- although I once ran against him for class secretary and although we tied and served as co-secretaries of our elementary school class in Brooklyn, he was a dirty little cheat even back then-- Pat Roberts (R-KS), or even Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). Instead I want to point out that the system is hopelessly corrupt-- by design-- and that democracy is impossible with the billions of corporate dollars being shoveled into political pockets on behalf of special interests.

These days members of Congress not only use the "donations" to buy ads and pay for lawn signs. They hire their wives and children and pay them large sums of money, in effect taking money from donors and putting it directly into their personal living conditions. They spend millions of campaign donations for defending themselves in court against corruption charges, as Ted Stevens (R-AK), Don Young (R-AK), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), John Doolittle (R-CA) and dozens of others have done. Congress has proven that it cannot regulate itself. A nonpartisan commission should have the job, not Nancy Pelosi, not Rahm Emanuel, not Steny Hoyer, not Tom DeLay, not John Boehner, not Roy Blunt... This is too important to be left to politicians.

WHO'S WORSE BRUCE LUNSFORD OR MITCH McCONNELL? IT MIGHT NOT MATTER

Kentucky Senate candidate Sonny Landham

It would be hard to imagine that anyone could be worse than McConnell. He has been Bush's worst lap-dog in the Congress and has managed to use parliamentary maneuvers to block almost every piece of progressive legislation that has come before the Senate. Even beyond his dismal corporate voting record and his unparalleled corruption, a case can be made, and often is, that McConnell is the single worst member of the U.S. Senate. Even right wingers are embarrassed by his behavior. As for Lunsford... there is some disagreement about whether he's a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary like his pal McConnell, or just a mainstream corporate conservative. If he were to be elected, it is likely that he would be among the worst Democrats in the Senate, not nearly as bad as McConnell but on key substantive issues voting the same way McConnell would and voting far worse than even Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu. Lunsford has a long and clear record of betraying Democrats, betraying progressive ideals and values and facilitating partisan GOP initiatives. Better than McConnell? Sure. But at least McConnell doesn't work to undermine the Democratic Party from within, the way Lunsford would do if he were ever elected.

But will he be? I didn't think so. McConnell's corporate cronies don't plan on seeing him defeated. He's already raised $13,000,000 for this contest... and he's just getting started. Nearly every deprecation against the US economy since Bush became president can be traced to unregulated industries which have showered McConnell with massive "donations." His biggest contributors have been in the securities and investment industry ($753,059), the fine folks who have brought us the mortgage meltdown-- along with the real estate industry, which chipped in another $514,085 for their boy Mitch. Can we blame high gas prices on McConnell? Well, look at it like this-- every single vote he made favored Big Oil over consumers and Big Oil rewarded him with $215,100 this cycle. Big Pharma ($220,400), insurance ($406,583), commercial banks ($262,050), lobbyists ($337,066)... every special interest loves Mitch McConnell. (Of course, none of these crooks would have the slightest bit of trouble loving a Senator Lunsford just as much.) But a curve ball got tossed into the Kentucky race today that is making me think McConnell may lose after all.

The reason why McConnell may lose is because there may be enough Republicans fed up with him to actually vote for the Libertarian candidate, tough guy character actor Sonny Landham (Billy from Predator and Billy Bear from 48 Hours). Although he's an anti-choice fanatic, he's campaigning against NAFTA and against political insiders, an appeal that has a certain resonance with McConnell detractors, even if it doesn't exactly work when mouthed by an equally insider goon like Lunsford.

Landham refers to McConnell, a four-term Republican, as "Boss Hogg" after the corrupt politician from "The Dukes of Hazzard" TV show. He bluntly called Democratic candidate and millionaire businessman Bruce Lunsford an "elitist."

Even President Bush is a target: "He took us into a war on lies," Landham said, claiming the actual intent was "to put 'Big Oil' back into Iraq."

Landham was a porn actor in the 70s and he served a couple years in prison-- although the conviction was later thrown out-- for making threatening and obscene phone calls to his ex-wife. He's on his fifth wife now and lives in Ashland, Kentucky.

Political scientist Michael Baranowski, of Northern Kentucky University, predicted minimal impact on the Senate race, though Landham could take some votes from McConnell.

"I'm not sure which is more of a hurdle for Landham, being a former porn actor or being a Libertarian Party candidate," he said. "But if the race between McConnell and Lunsford is tight enough, the votes Landham pulls from McConnell might be critical."

DWT doesn't expect to endorse any candidates in this race. We looked for a Landham porno scene but there are none on YouTube.

RUSS FEINGOLD'S PROGRESSIVE PATRIOT LIST INCLUDES SOME REACTIONARY PATRIOTS THIS TIME AROUND-- BE CAREFUL

Russ Feingold's third "Pick A Progressive Patriot" contest is underway. If you weren't notified by Russ's PAC or by one of the candidates yet, you can vote at that link above. But be careful. These are the Democratic candidates on the list:

Mark Begich - Alaska
Vivian Davis Figures - Alabama
Erik Fleming - Missisippi
Al Franken - Minnesota
Kay Hagan - North Carolina
Scott Kleeb - Nebraska
Larry LaRocco - Idaho
Bruce Lunsford - Kentucky
Jeff Merkley - Oregon

Before you vote for one, what do you know about them? Well, Blue America has vetted Jeff Merkley and Mark Begich and we can vouch for their strong, solid progressive credentials. We're felling good about Larry LaRocco, Al Franken and Scott Kleeb as well. As for Bruce Lunsford, he may be more progressive than Mitch McConnell but in the same way that Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are more progressive than... James Inhofe or Benito Mussolini. Lunsford has a long and disgraceful anti-progressive record and if he's elected it may be nice to bid adieu to McConnell but in his place we will be stuck with an arch-conservative, highly corrupt senator for 6 years, inside the already lily-livered Democratic caucus always pulling it to the right and always undermining progressive values and principles.

I'd like to see the end of Mitch McConnell's career too, but not this way, not with someone who is sure to be the worst Democrat in the Senate. And the idea of picking this flunky over hard fighting progressives like Merkley, Begich, Franken, LaRocco or Kleeb is just bizarre. The $5,000 Feingold has gotten from donors would be far better used to promote the issues important to one of the best senators in the country if it went to a candidate who supports those same issues-- not to Hagan and not to Lunsford.

If you'd like to make a contribution to the election of actual progressives, the Blue America ActBlue page only includes genuine progressives-- no reactionaries who are just a bit better than the Republican opponent (like Lunsford and Hagan). The Senate candidates endorsed by Blue America so far this year are:

Rick Noriega, Texas
Andrew Rice, Oklahoma
Mark Begich, Alaska
Tom Allen, Maine
Jeff Merkley, Oregon (next month)

KENTUCKY REPUBLICANS SPLIT OVER WHICH REACTIONARY CANDIDATE TO SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. SENATE SEAT

The news Rasmussen poll shows Bush's chief Senate obstructionist, Mitch McConnell, losing his Senate seat in November. That's the good news, The bad news is that the "Democrat" running against McConnell-- Bruce Lunsford-- isn't much better than McConnell-- and is a Democrat only in the sense that Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are Democrats. Time and again Democrats in Kentucky have rejected Lunsford-- just as Lunsford has rejected Democratic values and positions.

But the Rasmussen poll shows that Republicans think he's just fine and that that, combined with bipartisan disdain for McConnell, is enough to propel him into the Senate-- where he will be able to immediately challenge Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson for the position of Democrat most likely to vote with the GOP on key issues. The poll shows Lunsford with 49% against McConnell's 44%.

These results stand in stark contrast to the Presidential race in Kentucky—John McCain leads Barack Obama by twenty-five percentage points. However, just 67% of McCain voters currently plan to vote for McConnell. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of McCain voters say they will split the ticket and vote for Lunsford.

There are a dozen Republican Senate incumbents who will have to fight for their political survival-- and there are reasons to be hopeful that most of them will be looking for jobs on K Street after November. Americans are blaming them-- and rightfully so-- for rubber stamping a disastrous Bush agenda that has seen a catastrophic policy of endless war in the Middle East, the return of out of control inflation at home (highlighted by gigantic gas and energy prices) and a collapsing housing market. "Prices of U.S. single-family homes plunged a record 14.1 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, marking a pace five times faster than the last housing recession."

Although I'm putting my biggest bet on Andrew Rice taking out Republican kook James Inhofe, Rasmussen is predicting the political demise of Republican stooges Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Sununu (R-NH), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Norm Coleman (R-MN), and John Cornyn (R-TX), as well as Democratic takeovers of open GOP seats in Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico, with possible Democratic pick-ups in Maine and Kansas. As for Kentucky, nothing could be worse than Mitch McConnell... except Bruce Lunsford worming his way into the Democratic caucus and destroying progressive initiatives from within. Don't ever forget this:

KENTUCKY AND OREGON RESULTS-- PLUS CLAY COUNTY

When I woke up this morning CNN had a little feature of Clay County, Kentucky. I was only half-awake so I don't recall exactly how many people they interviewed but I'd guess that-- apart from the normal-looking mayor or Manchester, there wasn't a full set of teeth between at least half a dozen people. I'm usually sympathetic when I see a place mired in poverty and misfortune-- and, although Clay County is mired in both, sympathy isn't what the CNN report drew out of me. I'll explain in a minute but let me give you some of the facts first. Clay County is the poorest county in Kentucky and the 18th poorest in America, most of the poorer ones being desolate Indian reservations. The per capita income is $9,716.00. As of the last census the population was 24,556, of whom around 15,000 are registered to vote-- 13,092 Republicans and 2,013 Democrats. That's right. Clay County, dirt poor, rampant unemployment and it's overwhelming Republican.

The county is also 94% white and 40% are living below the poverty line. Early this morning CNN was making the point that there was scant interest in today's election in Clay County. Today 649 Democrats voted (32%) and 2,569 Republicans voted (19.6%). Hillary took 85% of the Democratic vote and McCain took 74% of the Republican vote. On the Senate side Lunsford got 48.5% of the Democratic vote and Greg Fischer got 26.2%.

The first and the last person they interviewed was a kind of elderly obese woman sitting in a cheap restaurant sharing her tales of woe. At the end the reporter asked her what she thought about Hillary Clinton. She started shouting about the Bible and how a woman's place is in the home.

That said, Kentucky Democrats gave a corrupt Zell Miller type quasi-Democrat, Bruce Lunsford, their nomination for the U.S. Senate, virtually guaranteeing another term for an even more reactionary and more corrupt Mitch McConnell. Statewide 459,093 (65.5%) voted for Hillary and 209,869 voted for Obama (30%). On the GOP side, McCain took 142,836 (72.5%) and the runner-up was Huckabee with 16,367 (8.3%). Obama, in losing to Hillary, took more votes than all the Republicans combined.

In Oregon we were following several races but let's get the presidential race out of the way. As expected, Obama won. With 50% of the returns counted, Hillary took a few remote counties but Obama won all the big ones for a 58%-42% win. He took 9 delegates to her 2. Tomorrow's NY Times: "Under the rules used by Democrats, Mr. Obama’s showing in Kentucky and his victory in Oregon appear to be enough to allow him to secure a majority of the delegates up for grabs in primaries and caucuses." And it looks like Senator Chuck Hagel will be the Republican foil for the treacherous Joe Lieberman expected to transform himself into Zell Miller at the GOP Hate Fest this summer. "The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level."

It looks like Jeff Merkley beat Steve Novick 45-41%. Blue America will have Jeff on at FED Thursday evening. But my favorite race of the night was for the useless right to represent the GOP in the congressional race in OR-05 (to fill the seat of retiring Democrat Darlene Hooley). Mike Erickson, after being exposed as a coke freak and pervert, beat the favorite, Kevin Mannix. Erickson is expected to lose to Kurt Schrader in November.

Watch Obama's speech tonight in Des Moines:




UPDATE: OREGON GOP CIVIL WAR

Loser Kevin Mannix has refused to endorse the coke sniffing abortion practioner Mike Erickson (backed by the Oregon anti-choice loons). "I cannot support a dishonest man," he said. No word on how he plans to handle McCain's candidacy.

WILL KENTUCKY DEMOCRATS TAKE THE FIRST STEP TO DEFEAT MITCH McCONNELL ON TUESDAY?

Only one of these three represents change

Greg Fischer has come a long way in his race to catch up with the well-known-- albeit well-known in the most negative of ways-- Bruce Lunsford. One of these two, the former a progressive Democrat, the latter some kind of reactionary freak who's a Democrat the way Zell Miller and Holy Joe Lieberman are Democrats, will go up against one of the most corrupt and deceitful men in the U.S. Senate, Bush's chief obstructionist, Mitch McConnell. We'll see on Tuesday whether Greg has come far enough fast enough. In yesterday's Congressional Daily Patrick Crowley handicapped the race:

Lunsford built his name ID among Democrats and seemed to curry allies among party leaders despite some un-Democratic tendencies. So that leaves Fischer the daunting challenge of not only getting to know Kentucky's voters but also overcoming a battle-savvy foe.

...Both Fischer and Lunsford have put their own money in the race. Fischer has loaned his campaign $530,000 and raised nearly $550,000 in the first quarter. Lunsford has loaned his campaign $500,000 and raised about $300,000.

By contrast, McConnell has raised more than $12 million. And therein lies the reason top Kentucky Democrats [not to mention the DSCC's Alien Lizard] are backing, either overtly or behind the scenes, Lunsford. Lunsford has shown a willingness-- some say recklessness-- to spend his own money running for office. He spent $14 million of it in the '03 and '07 Democratic primaries for governor.

Lunsford briefly abandoned the party-- infuriating many-- by backing Republican Ernie Fletcher after losing the 2003 primary to now-Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Ky. Chandler lost, but has since been elected to Congress.

Lunsford forced his way back to the fold in last year's primary. He lost to Steve Beshear, who went on to defeat Fletcher in November. But this time Lunsford stayed away from intraparty nastiness and has even picked up support from some of the same labor unions that spurned him in earlier races.

... With McConnell raising buckets of cash, the national party made it clear it did not have a lot of money to throw at the race. So [a lizard and] Democrats in Washington and Frankfort looked to the self-funding Lunsford to make the run against McConnell.

Beshear has admitted to "encouraging" Lunsford to run, even after Fischer had committed to the race. And four top Democrats last week called on Fischer in a letter to drop a campaign ad critical of Lunsford's failed nursing home company, Vencor.

"We urge you to remove your personal attack ad from the air immediately, take the high road and spend the final weeks of the primary running a campaign focused on why you are right for the job," wrote Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo, Attorney General Jack Conway and Auditor Crit Luallen.

Fischer not only refused, but he stood up to the pressure.

"To make an informed decision, voters have to be able to compare the past performance and the record of each of the candidates," Fischer said at a news conference he called to address the ad and its fallout.
Fischer's defiant rhetoric might not help him with party leaders-- they are already with Lunsford-- but he might help to fire up the rank and file.

Fischer has been knocked for his quiet demeanor and a perceived lack of passion, despite working hard and putting up a chunk of his own money. Back-talking the party hierarchy might help to draw attention from an electorate that has shown willingness to embrace change this election cycle.

"I'll continue to talk about bringing change to Washington," Fischer said. "I'll continue to talk about... my desire to go to Washington to represent the working men and women of this state."

There's a great clip emphasizing Lunsford's record made by the county campaign director in super-red Pulaski County, a 15 year old boy named Halyn. I don't think that's the one the party hacks are all pissed off about. I think they're pissed off about this one:

LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER ENDORSES GREG FISCHER, THE RIGHT DEMOCRAT TO TAKE ON MITCH McCONNELL

Although his lead literally shrinks by the day, reactionary Insider Dem, Bruce Lunsford, has the name recognition to have kept him out front in Kentucky senate polls. Even if his Republican-lite perspective and reputation as a corrupt and slimy hack gives him virtually no chance of beating Mitch McConnell in November, there is a very real danger to Kentucky that Lunsford will walk away with the Democratic nomination-- based solely on name recognition and massive self-funded media buys-- a week from tomorrow. That danger was ameliorated yesterday when Lexington's respected Herald-Leader endorsed Greg Fischer. It's the second biggest newspaper in the state and, by far, the most credible.

Blue America endorsed Fischer, with great enthusiasm, on April 5 and you can read our live session with him at Firedoglake. The Herald-Leader says anything would be better than another six years of McConnell but points out that "baggage accompanies Lunsford into any race he runs, baggage that has been thoroughly vetted in previous campaigns and will not be rehashed here." Instead they are urging Democrats to vote for Greg Fischer.

Fischer has a couple of things that speak in his favor.

One is the fact that, as a novice, he delivers the message of change with a fresher voice.

He makes that message resonate with more hope, more idealism, more commitment.

And if "change" is the message the Democrats think can inspire Kentucky voters in November, who better to deliver it than a fresh face with a fresh voice?

The second thing is the simple fact that Fischer lacks Lunsford's baggage.

Whomever the Democrats nominate, McConnell will loose the attack dogs on him, just as he has loosed them on all comers for 24 years. But as Fischer asks, why give McConnell "a target-rich environment"?

Last week Greg was also been endorsed by Larry Clark, Speaker Pro-Tem of the Kentucky House of Representatives, former Louisville Mayor David Armstrong and former Congressman Ron Mazzoli. He was also endorsed by former Kentucky Democratic U.S. Senator Dee Huddleston. Local bloggers make the case that as Kentucky Democrats get to know Fischer, they like him-- and like him much better than the detestable Lunsford.

This morning the Kentucky Standard, the newspaper in Democratic-leaning Bardstown south of Louisville, gave Greg's campaign another powerful endorsement.

U.S. Senatorial candidate Greg Fischer is the decided underdog-- a long shot, then-- in the upcoming Democratic Party primary. For the most part, that’s because he lacks the name recognition of front-runner Bruce Lunsford. Running for political office for the first time, he nonetheless is creating a ground-swirl of support statewide.

While new to the state spotlight, Kentuckians are learning fast that Fischer, 50, is not just a capable and astute business leader who earns his way and creates new jobs through innovation and know-how, not on the backs of others; is so much more than just a party ideologue; and is a man of integrity and sincerity who has tirelessly given of himself for civic improvement and public good.

This is the right office. This is the right time.

Lunsford is the ultimate DLC shill and, of course, he is 110% in the anti-Obama camp. At one point he was touted to be Hillary's finance chair for the border states region. Many progressives in Kentucky feel that Hillary's Rovian-style campaign and dog whistle appeal to old fashioned racism has her way ahead of Obama in the primary. The last SUSA polls in Kentucky show Clinton ahead with 62% and Lunsford ahead with 41%. As Kentucky voters get serious and start focusing on the primary can the desire for real change bite into this immense margins for the two status quo DLC candidates? If you'd like to help Greg Fischer make sure the Mitch McConnell does not continue as the venal, obstructionist Minority Leader next year, please consider a donation through our Blue America ActBlue page today.
Fischer and Obama stand for real change. Lunsford and to an unfortunate extent, Hillary have come to symbolize... the opposite.

MITCH McCONNELL MUST BE REPLACED-- FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA

Mitch McConnell, more than any other Republican senator, has been responsible for the prolongation of the war and for obstructing every attempt the Senate has made to move forward a progressive platform. He has consistently filibustered every move-- including bipartisan initiatives, like the Webb-Hagel GI bill-- to enact solutions to the problems that Americans are most concerned about. Most Americans have no say in who represents Kentucky in the U.S. Senate. It is up to voters in Kentucky to decide if they want America to move forward with health care reform, with fairness for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with solutions to the mortgage crisis that helps American families instead of just huge corporate contributors and predatory lenders. When Hillary Clinton proposed making McCain's phony gas tax summer holiday nearly tenable by making up for revenues with an excess profits tax on the oil and gas industry, it is to McConnell, whose ass they own (to the tune of $142,100 in legalized bribes) they turned to guarantee the proposal would never even be voted on. It is McConnell who is preventing a bipartisan quorum of the FEC so it can function to guarantee fair elections in 2008. From the occupation of Iraq to Americans losing their occupations to ill-conceived trade policies that ship American jobs overseas, it is Mitch McConnell who serves as a last bastion of reactionary politics in Congress.

In 2006 American voters dealt the GOP and their hard right agenda a devastating blow when they failed to re-elect half a dozen Republican senators (while defeating nearly 3 dozen wingnuts in the House). Not a single Democrat was defeated in either house and not a single blue seat went red. More interesting-- in light of McConnell's 46% job approval rating-- might be this statistic: all the Republicans up for re-election who job approval ratings were under 55% in April, 2006 lost their bids and were replaced by Democrats. Take a look at last April's approval ratings of the Republican senators defeated the following November:

Conrad Burns (MT): 39
Rick Santorum (PA): 39
Mike DeWine (OH): 48
Lincoln Chafee (RI): 52
Jim Talent (MO): 48
George Allen (VA): 49

McConnell has been spending his massive bribery-stuffed corporate warchest buying up every minute of airtime he can get, bragging to Kentucky voters about all the earmarked pork he brings home (like the repulsive $14.2 million shrine to his "wife," Elaine Chao and her partisan cronies in Louisville. But his poll numbers have taken a dive again. Kentucky blogger Joe Sonka thinks his numbers creep up when the Senate isn't in session but once he's in the public eye again-- lisping his lies and swishing his obstructionism-- his approval ratings go right down [Larry Craig's] toilet.

McConnell has one hope now-- the Democratic primary. One of the candidates in that primary is Bruce Lunsford, perhaps the only political figure in the state of Kentucky (other than his good friend Ernie Fletcher) who is more disliked than McConnell, could save his old pal McConnell by winning that primary. Lunsford has proven without doubt that he cannot win an election in Kentucky. Progressives recognize he's one of them, not one of us. And many Democrats won't vote for him any more than they'd vote for McConnell. Lunsford has big name recognition-- much of it negative-- and he's ahead in the polls for the primary. But based on Lunsford's polling numbers from '07 at this point in time he should have been Kentucky's governor-- or at least the defeated Democratic nominee. The floor fell out from under him and there was a 26 point swing with Beshear winning by 20 points on election day. Democratic voters think about Lunsford's record and they just can't pull the lever for him.

Chuck Schumer, the power-mad Brooklyn senator from NY who heads the DSCC, saw Lunsford's fat wallet and-- not caring how much corruption went into accruing all that loot-- insisted that he get the Democratic nomination. Schumer has put tremendous pressure on Democratic-leaning organizations, particularly labor unions which have fought Lunsford in the past, to give him a free ride this year. It is not likely that even if Lunsford puts the $15 million of his own fortune into the race-- which is doubtful-- that he will be able to beat McConnell. Instead he will depress Democratic turnout, hurting the rest of the ticket and further tarnishing the Democratic "brand."

There is an alternative: Greg Fischer, a real Democrat, who respects the grassroots and who embraces the progressive values that McConnell and Lunsford have always disdained. If you've been following DWT over the years, you already know why Bruce Lunsford is bad for Kentucky and bad for America. If you are new here-- or want to look at all the baggage that weighs Lunsford down all in one place, here's the best one. And if you'd like to consider Greg Fischer, please take a look at his live blog session over at Firedoglake April 5. Yesterday the Hillbilly Report asked Greg and Lunsford if they'll stand up and fight for regular Americans.

And yesterday the Washington Post caught McConnell trying to blame the increase in gas prices on... Democrats. The words just oozed out of the mouth of Washington's master of Insider deception: "It's clear that, on the production side of the equation, this new majority is not interested in doing anything." The NY Times covered a cynical GOP propaganda session presided over by McConnell.

At another news conference, Senate Republicans blamed Congressional Democrats for blocking efforts to increase oil production in the United States, both off the shores of states like Virginia and in Alaska. The minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, noted that gasoline prices were $1.20 a gallon higher than when Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.

Yes, largely due to McConnell's serial obstructionism (see art by Adam up top), Congress has been unable to move legislation forward. He has led filibusters against everything productive. But let's examine the price of gas at the pump on some important dates:

On December 11, 2000, the day 5 right-wing radical judges decided Bush would be president without counting Florida's votes, the price of gas was $1.43/gallon.

On January 20, 2001, the day Bush was inaugurated, the price had barely crept up at all-- $1.46/gallon. Those were the days!

That spring Cheney got busy meeting with Republican campaign contributors from the energy sector. In March and April, 2001 he met with representatives from Cabot Energy, Exxon, Berry Petroleum Company, California Independent Petroleum Association, American Petroleum Institute, BP, Nucor Oil & Gas, Tidelands Oil Production Company, Vintage Petroleum Inc., CONOCO, Sinclair Oil, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Marathon Oil, Amerada, Small Refiners Group, Shell Oil, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and National Propane Gas Association. The price of gas started climbing. It is now nearly triple the price it was when Bush became president. The Republican campaign donors are happy campers; no one else in America is.

CAN KENTUCKY'S REACTIONARY OBSTRUCTIONIST MITCH McCONNELL BE BEATEN IN NOVEMBER?

In Kentucky Bush's approval ratings have followed the economy into the tank. And with Mitch McConnell being such a high profile sycophant and the ultimate rubber stamp, his powerful position in the Senate has brought him plenty of misery back home. McConnell's current approval rating-- as of April 14 (so before his latest obstructionist jihad of blocking equal pay for equal work and aid for veterans)-- is 46%, coupled with a 46% disapproval. In 2006, no Republican Senate incumbent survived who had such a low approval rating. The only thing that could possibly save McConnell at this point is if an even worse "Democrat," Bruce Lunsford, gets foisted onto the Democratic ticket by New York party boss Chuck Schumer.

The way Kentucky voters can keep that from happening is by supporting Greg Fischer, the progressive alternative to the execrable Lunsford. Greg has been traveling back and forth all over Kentucky introducing himself to voters. Many Democrats already know what a lowlife Lunsford is and wouldn't vote for him even if he was running against Beelzebub. But there are also plenty of voters who care barely find the time to make ends meet, let alone pay attention to politicians who never seem to do them any good anyway. Last January Yellow Dog at Blue in the Bluegrass laid out the case against Lunsford.

Bruce Lunsford is by all accounts a personable guy. I met him once, and the Mark of the Beast is barely visible.

But here's why all true Democrats curse his name.

Lunsford made his millions with a Louisville health care company called Vencor. He touted it as the next Humana, and drew thousands of small investors from all over Kentucky eager to invest in a local boy done well. But Vencor was less Humana than Enron.

When expectations outgrew revenues, Lunsford starting throwing old, sick, poor people out of his nursing homes to make room for rich old people who could pay more. When that didn't work, he pulled out the remaining cash and left the empty shell for creditors to fight over. Thousands of middle-class Kentucky investors lost millions.

Lunsford skated away from the disaster he'd created, and turned his attention to politics.

As I wrote back in April, when Lunsford was running in the Democratic gubernatorial primary: (Just substitute "McConnell" for "Fletcher.")

It's a close call as to which is more important: defeating Fletcher, or defeating Lunsford.

Lunsford’s a multi-millionaire (he sank $8 million into his 2003 primary run before quitting), supposedly willing to put his personal fortune into the general election. That’s why some seriously deluded/desperate Democrats are claiming he has the best chance to beat Fletcher.

Bruce Lunsford made his millions off the backs of two groups: the poor, sick old people he threw out of his nursing homes to make room for richer patients, and the poor, trusting Kentucky families who lost their life savings investing in Lunsford’s company before he bankrupted it.

His vicious ads attacking State Attorney General Ben Chandler in the 2003 gubernatorial primary fatally wounded Chandler in the general election, especially after Lunsford dropped out of the primary and endorsed Ernie Fletcher.

Read that again, slowly: A Democratic primary candidate endorsed the Republican primary winner. After promising to support the Democratic primary winner.

Ernie won, and gave Lunsford a nice job. Since 1995, Lunsford has given more than $40,000 to Republican candidates, and less than $12,000 to Democratic candidates.

Now he wants to be the Democratic nominee.

Ernie Fletcher has been one of the worst governors in Kentucky history. Cleaning up the mess he’s created will take years if not decades and billions of dollars Kentucky doesn’t have. We can’t afford another four months, never mind another four years of Ernie Fletcher.

But a lot of Democrats will be voting for Fletcher – if Bruce Lunsford gets the nomination.

Not all Kentucky voters read blogs and Lunsford and Schumer are doing their worst to make it seem like the only "choice" Kentucky voters will have in November will be between two sides of the same rotten coin. Plenty of grassroots Kentucky groups are trying to help combat the Lunsford menace. Below is an answer to his latest misleading ad. Greg's got to run ads like this on television; so far he hasn't. If you'd like to see Mitch McConnell defeated in November, please help Greg Fischer now. You can do it at the Blue America ActBlue site.



This one says it even better and here's an oldie but goodie from Ben Chandler that will probably get a reprise from Lunsford's dear friend Miss McConnell .

CHUCK SCHUMER POWER PLAY IN NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY?

Not unlike last cycle, I've been hearing from quite a few grassroots candidates that the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic committees are surreptitiously working against them in primaries or, where there are no primaries, ignoring or even being hostile to their campaigns. Earlier today we talked about the progressive Democrat, Roger Waun, running against rubber stamp loon Mac Thornberry in northern Texas and why he is so angry at the DCCC. The DSCC likes to brag to candidates that they're not like the DCCC and that they don't play favorites. This has never been true and it certainly isn't true this year.

Jim Neal is a Blue America-endorsed candidate who wants to take on Senator Dole in North Carolina. Although DSCC head Chuck Schumer claims, rather ingenuously, that he stays neutral in hotly contested primaries, there are at least two big ones this year where he is backing Insider Establishment candidates who give every indication that they will not support core Democratic initiatives. Kentucky's Bruce Lunsford has been a consistent supporter of Republican candidates and has been judged by Kentucky Democrats in the past to have proven himself unworthy of their votes. Still, Schumer has muscled aside other candidates and brow-beaten Democratic support groups and some unions into backing the same Lunsford they have loathed and campaigned against in the past. Ironically, Kentucky has a real progressive, grassroots Democrat, Greg Fischer, in this race-- running on a platform that clearly and authentically contrasts with incumbent Mitch McConnell's.

There is a similar situation in North Carolina, where Schumer seems to feel that voters aren't sophisticated enough to elect a progressive candidate, Jim Neal, who, among other things, is openly gay. Schumer twisted the arm of a mediocre insider, Kay Hagan, to get into the race after she had bowed out. And now, he has the DSCC, which is officially "neutral," signaling Democratic donors to support her and not Jim. This is standard operating procedure for the DSCC and DCCC. Schumer got slapped down when he tried the same tactic against populist Jon Tester in the 2006 Montana primary that pitted Jon Tester against an establishment shill Schumer was backing. Schumer's shill was slaughtered in the primary and Tester, of course, went on to defeat the Republican incumbent. Rahm Emanuel tried the same tricks in the House where he attempted to ax John Hall and Jerry McNerney with establishment insiders who would never have been able to inspire the kind of grassroots support to beat the incumbents the way Hall and McNerney did.

But insiders like Schumer never learn. You can't beat a Republican with a Democrat who acts like a Republican. On issue after issue Jim Neal's positions clearly contrast to those of Elizabeth Dole's, while Kay Hagan's are pretty much... more of the same, just not as terrible. Schumer has promised to stay neutral in this race, which would be an excellent idea because polls show the two candidates in a dead heat. But this morning I got a copy of a letter from James Spencer, president of the Campaign Network which works for the Jim Neal campaign, to the executive director the DSCC. Spencer, who told me he's run up against some rough campaigns in the past 35 years of electoral work, but never as bad as this, gave me permission to reprint it.

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director,
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

April 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Poersch:

I am writing to follow up on a phone call I placed to you regarding the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Jim Neal, Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in the North Carolina primary.

Mr. Neal is running a strong grassroots campaign and is tied in the polls with State Senator Kay Hagan.

However, you wouldn’t know it by reading the DSCC web site.

The DSCC site includes numerous newspaper articles about Senator Hagan, but none about Mr. Neal. The Race Profile for North Carolina features a positive summary of Senator Hagan’s campaign, but Mr. Neal is mentioned only in passing, lumped together with three minor candidates who have not mounted serious campaigns.

This is not an insignificant oversight and will have a serious impact on the Jim Neal campaign. As you know, would-be donors to Mr. Neal are likely to check the DSCC web site for an evaluation of the race. The inaccurate description and the fact that Mr. Neal is all but missing from the official DSCC synopsis of the Senate race serves to discourage donors from writing a check.

My staff has provided the DSCC staff with press coverage of the Neal campaign and other material to facilitate updating the DSCC site. Betsy Lin on the Regional Desk, responding to repeated phone calls by my staff member Curtis Ellis, told him that web site issues were "an internal matter" and that she had no say over what was posted. Consequently, Mr. Ellis then spoke with DSCC Political Director Martha McKenna, who told him the Neal campaign had "more important things to worry about" than what appears on the DSCC web site.

My understanding and concern is that Ms. McKenna was dismissive of the request, and repeatedly and pointedly refused to say that the DSCC site would be updated to give Mr. Neal fair and equal treatment.

This is particularly troubling in light of assurances the DSCC made to both myself and Mr. Neal.

As you recall, in our November 1, 2007 meeting at DSCC headquarters in Washington D.C., attended by Mr. Neal, myself, Ms. McKenna, and Chuck Wolfe of the Victory Fund, you assured us that Mr. Neal would receive equal access to services from the DSCC. And on February 13, Senator Schumer reassured Daily Kos readers the DSCC hasn’t endorsed in the primary.

These assurances notwithstanding, I understand the DSCC has the prerogative to endorse any candidate it chooses, at any time and for any reason. If that is the case, please say so openly.

Millions of voters across the country are looking to our Democratic Party and its leaders to set an example and encourage participatory, grassroots democracy in our nation.

I would hope that the DSCC would allow the people of North Carolina to choose their Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate without interference and favoritism from Washington.

With fewer than 30 days remaining before North Carolina’s primary, I look forward to your timely response. I am posting a copy of this letter which you should receive tomorrow.

There are many ways to donate to candidates these days without going through the DSCC or the DCCC. ActBlue has collected over $43,000,000 from grassroots donors for Democratic candidates. It's a much better way to donate and it cuts out the sleazy would be king makers like Schumer and Emanuel and puts the money directly into the hands of the candidates' campaigns. On the Blue America ActBlue page, for example, you can donate to Jim Neal or to Greg Fischer or, better yet, to both of them. If you do it today, add one cent as a message to Chuck Schumer to allow Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky to pick their own nominees. They know better than he does how to defeat Elizabeth Dole and Mitch McConnell.