Do Republican Voters Really Believe That Blatant, Unabashed Lying Is OK For Their Crackpot Candidates?

Last week, the CNBC Republican debate in Boulder inspired us to try to figure out which of the candidates was the biggest liar. Friday the National Memo asserted that even some conservatives were dismayed by the non-stop barrage of lies by their pathetic deep bench of candidates. "They prevaricated about themselves, their policies, and their opponents, without blinking an eye-- and for the most part, they got away with it."

Sam Youngman, probably the most respected political reporter in Kentucky, looked at the same phenomena but for tomorrow's Kentucky gubernatorial election. Matt Bevin, he's discovered, is a congenital liar. He wondered aloud, what's a reporter to do?. Bevin, it turns out, is very much like fellow teabagger Marco Rubio.

For about the last two years, Matt Bevin, the Republican candidate for governor, has angrily lashed out at anyone who questioned whether he has had tax problems in the past.

When voters have asked him about it, Bevin has called the claims bogus and bunk. And if you own a television, you've probably seen the clip of him saying "I have no tax delinquency problem, nor have I ever."

So it was pretty remarkable earlier this week when Bevin admitted to the Associated Press in an interview that he had in fact been late in paying his taxes at least 30 times.


"Sometimes you do pay it late and you pay interest on having paid it late. But you pay the taxes," Bevin said. "That's a cost of capital. You do this all the time in business."

So that takes care of that, right? Mystery solved?

If only.

In my hometown of Owensboro on Thursday, I started to ask Bevin about these inconsistencies on the tax issue, citing the AP story and mentioning the 30 times he has been late on his taxes.

After initially ignoring me, Bevin responded by saying, "That's actually not true."

So I asked: "The Associated Press has that wrong?"

"They sure do," he said.

For Bevin, this confusing and contradictory kind of reply isn't the exception. It's a pattern that started when he was running for the U.S. Senate and has continued through this election.

It has given his opponents and their supporters-- from Mitch McConnell to Hal Heiner to Jack Conway-- ample material with which to question Bevin's honesty.

And it has created a nightmare for Kentucky's political reporters.

On his taxes, his positions on health care and early childhood education and his problems with his own party, just to name a few examples, Bevin consistently shoots from the hip with statements that just aren't true.

And when he is confronted, often with video evidence of him saying something different, he gets mad, putting those reporters on his enemies list and ignoring their questions or, as he did with me and a few others this week, calling them "an embarrassment to their profession."

That last statement, made to Kentucky Public Radio, came just days after Bevin refused to answer my questions following the debate at Eastern Kentucky University.

When Bevin wouldn't take my questions, other reporters asked why, to which Bevin responded that he had had a "private conversation" with me to explain why.

The problem with that? That conversation never happened.

Seriously. It never happened.


After he said that, I admit I was completely flummoxed, asking Bevin when that conversation supposedly happened.

He didn't answer.

I am under zero illusions about the current standing of the media in this state and this country, and I won't pretend for even a second that anybody is going to weep for political reporters.

Frankly, I think the media deserves some of the criticism that is coming its way.

But I'm not a moderator at a CNBC debate. I'm a Kentuckian. I was born and raised here. My family lives here. It's my home.

I also have two functioning eyes and ears. When somebody says something, then turns around and says they "never ever" said that very thing, I tend to regard that as a break from the truth and worthy of a news story.

I'm not out to get Bevin, and I'm not trying to elect Jack Conway.

I will not vote in this election, just as I have not voted in any election that I've covered for more than a decade now.

But I also won't be intimidated into ignoring obvious and consistent patterns of a candidate saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

I've covered more candidates and elections than I can remember. I've been doing this-- from school board elections to presidential campaigns-- about as long as Bevin has been a Kentuckian.

If he wants to attack me and other reporters for questioning the veracity of his statements, that's fine.

It's nothing new to me, though I will admit that he takes it to a level I've never experienced before.

And if this column seems self-serving or defensive, I apologize. Maybe it's both.

But Kentucky voters deserve the truth. And it's my job to do what I can to get it for them.

Kentucky hasn't been kind to Democrats in recent years. Both senators are right-wing Republicans and of the state's 6 congressional districts, only one is held by a Democrat (basically the city of Louisville). The only congressional candidate to get even 40% of the vote last year was Elisabeth Jensen, who was beaten by Andy Barr 147,404 (60%) to 98,429 (40%). And last cycle Alison Grimes-- who spent $18,829,908 on her high-profile race against the much-disliked Mitch McConnell-- only won 10 of Kentucky's 120 counties. Obama lost the state to Romney 61-38%. But tomorrow it looks likely that Democrat Jack Conway will beat Tea Party Republican Matt Bevin. The latest Bluegrass Poll shows Conway ahead 45-40% with Independent candidate Drew Curtis pulling 6%. The same poll shows that 38% of voters hold an unfavorable view of Bevin compared to 32% with a favorable view. Maybe all the lying is catching up with him. Maybe it will eventually catch up to Fiorina, Trump, Rubio and Carson as well... Maybe.

Bevin's opposition to the state's Medicaid expansion also appears to be hurting him with registered voters, a majority of whom favor maintaining the eligibility expansion that Gov. Steve Beshear implemented two years ago.

Fifty-four percent of voters said they wanted the state's next governor to maintain the expansion. Twenty-four percent said they would like to see the expansion repealed, which Bevin has promised to do if elected. Twenty-two percent were not sure.

Support for maintaining the expanded health insurance program, which serves mostly low-income residents, reaches across the state's different regions and extends to about a third-- 34 percent-- of Republicans.

Forty-two percent of Republicans said they would like to see the expansion reversed, compared to 13 percent of Democrats. More than two-thirds of Democrats-- 69 percent -- said the Medicaid expansion should be maintained.

A.P. reported that in last week's final debate, the 2 candidates pounded each other pretty well. According to reporter Adam Beam, "Republican Matt Bevin implied Democrat Jack Conway was not smart enough to lead the state. [Although I think most Kentuckians who aren't, like Bevin, banksters, agree that this sounds pretty damned smart!] Conway said Bevin was too angry to be Kentucky's next chief executive. The candidates spent an hour on Kentucky Educational Television talking over each other as they tried to reach voters... Conway accused Bevin of distorting his record, and after the debate told reporters Bevin does not have the temperament to lead. But near the end of the debate, Conway tried to take the edge off by complimenting Bevin for adopting four children and giving them a "wonderful home."

"These campaigns get heated, but Matt, when I look at you and your family, without a doubt you have provided some children that wouldn't otherwise have a wonderful home with a wonderful home and that is something to be respected," Conway said.

Moderator Bill Goodman asked Bevin if he had anything positive to say to Conway as the two enter the final week of the campaign.

"I look forward to you having the opportunity to join the private sector," Bevin said.

What a dick! He probably lost 2 points of Tuesday's vote with that bit of East Coast banker nastiness.

The Courier-Journal reported last week that "Conway leads among both men and women, but his lead is greater with females. He leads among voters under age 34 and over age 50, with Bevin leading among those in between. The two are essentially tied among white voters, while Conway has a substantial lead among African Americans. Some 8 percent of likely voters who say they are 'strong Republicans' say they’ll vote for Conway, while only 3 percent of “strong Democrats” say they’ll back Bevin. And, possibly still showing anger at Bevin’s challenge to Mitch McConnell in last year’s U.S. Senate race, 15 percent who say they are 'very conservative' and 21 percent of those who say they are 'conservative' say they’ll vote for Conway. Just 3 percent of those who are 'liberal' and 'very liberal' say they’ll cross over and back Bevin. Conway leads among all education levels and among those who earn less than $80,000 a year. Bevin leads among those who earn more."

Blue America Welcomes A New Blogger-- The Purple State Progressive... Let's Start With Kentucky's Upcoming U.S. Senate Race

The elections are over, but 2014 elections will begin soon. It never ends, does it? The battle to strengthen the Democratic majority in the Senate will hinge in no small part on a victory in Kentucky to defeat Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It’s time to Ditch Mitch! Democratic challengers are being discussed and we should hear more in January of 2013 as challengers file early to get a head start on this critical 2014 race.

Unless Susan Collins (R-ME) decides three terms is enough, after promising Maine voters when she campaigned for her first term in 1996 and again when running for re-election in 2002 (before abandoning her pledge in 2008) that two terms was all she wanted, McConnell's Kentucky will be viewed as the best pickup target for Democrats. This, despite McConnell's expertise as a campaign cash vacuum. His campaign already had $6,793,660 in the bank as of September 30 and his leadership PAC, the Bluegrass Committee, has another $297,405 on hand.

Kentucky has elected great leaders to the Senate including Wendell Ford, Alben Barkley, and Henry Clay, and Kentuckians tend to select Senators that have the potential for leadership and influence. Mitch McConnell survived a very difficult challenge in 2008 from a Democratic candidate who was exposed for unethical practices at his nursing homes. Rand Paul won in the 2010 tea party wave against a Democrat seen as a liberal elitist. In both of these elections, the right Democrat could have arguably won the race.

In 2014, Democrats should put the attention and resources into a serious challenge to Mitch and take advantage of Kentucky’s purple nature. Remember, this is a state that Bill Clinton won. Mitch is widely seen as out of touch with the modern Republican Party and with voters in general, and who will be 72 at the time of his election. While not as old as Strom Thurmond, Mitch McConnell-- expensive dye job or not-- is past his sell date and a Democrat has an excellent opportunity to win this seat if he or she presents both a new vision as well as the potential to make a positive difference as a leader in the Senate. Thankfully, many talented candidates are on deck.

Here are the potential challengers to Mitch McConnell. All are good alternatives to the tired conservatism of My Old Kenutcky Senator, and here are their pros and cons:

• Governor Steve Beshear

Steve Beshear is an adept campaigner with a mastery of state politics. Born in Western Kentucky, Steve has attracted votes from across the state, and not just the major cities of Louisville and Lexington. Steve was reelected in a landslide election in 2010 against David Williams, a McConnell ally and recent convert to the tea party. Steve’s reelection proved to have significant coat tails down ballot. Steve is a moderate Democrat who raised the ire of liberals when he granted tax benefits to a right-wing institution dubbed the “Ark Park” for its Creationist displays of humans riding dinosaurs. Overall, Steve has made significant reforms to education and has shown exceptional abilities to manage the budget in a recession. Steve is term-limited in 2014, and may seek the Senate seat to continue his career in politics.

Pros: Steve has the highest statewide name ID of any possible candidate having won election as Governor twice, even winning in traditionally Republican areas. Steve has a large statewide network of supporters and volunteers and has the work ethic to do the hard campaigning necessary to win. Steve is a moderate who can appeal to independents.

Cons: Steve is a moderate Democrat which may be appealing to independents, but may be a more difficult sell to liberal leaders which could potentially result in a primary challenge. Steve may be seen as more interested in extending his political career than serving the Commonwealth.

Overall: Steve Beshear is the strongest candidate to challenge Mitch McConnell, and would likely cruise to a statistically significant victory.

• Ashley Judd

Ashley Judd is Kentucky royalty who has earned success as an actress and activist. Ashley also can leverage her star-studded family. Her mother, Naomi, and Wynonna, her half-sister, are music stars and she is married to Dario Franchitti, who won the Indianapolis 500 three times. (Country music and Nascar? Who likes that?) While she lives in Tennessee now, Ashley could move back to Kentucky to establish residency.

Pros: Ashley brings a fresh face to voters tired of seeing a man who looks like a turtle. Ashley has deep roots in the Commonwealth having graduated from University of Kentucky and has been seen by many cheering on all-important Big Blue basketball. Her star power, name id, and ability to raise money make her a serious foe. Ashley has also worked with Governor Steve Beshear on commerce initiatives and has some policy experience.

Cons: Ashley’s biggest con could be similar to the candidacy of Nick Clooney (George Clooney’s father) who was characterized as too wealthy and liberal. Ashley has not held political office before and may have to overcome the “Good Old Boy” network, (emphasis on boy).

Overall: Ashley is regarded by many as the strongest recruit because of her strengths but would need to reestablish Kentucky credibility and prove she is not only attractive but substantive.

• Matthew Barzun

Matthew Barzun is a successful businessman and founder of CNet. He served as the National Finance Director for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and has been heavily involved in national and local liberal and Democratic politics. Matthew also married into the Brown family, one of Kentucky’s most powerful and wealthiest families best known for owning liquor brands including Woodford Reserve and Tennessee’s Jack Daniels. Matthew served as the Ambassador to Sweden and is widely regarded as a “big brain” with a positive attitude and thorough understanding of business and politics.

Pros: Matthew has an outsider background with business experience that could be compelling. He has experience abroad serving as an Ambassador and could debate national issues with Mitch. Matthew also has substantial personal financial resources and the ability to raise significant funds.

Cons: Matthew has not held elected office before and may be seen by some as too liberal. Matthew also has relatively low name ID.

Overall: With a strong well-funded early campaign and serious effort to introduce him to the general public beyond the Louisville urban base, Matthew could appeal to Kentucky as a substantive alternative to Mitch. He will have to work extremely hard to establish statewide name ID.

• Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes

Alison is an attorney in Lexington and is currently serving to elected statewide office as Secretary of State. Alison ran a strong campaign and has the appeal of Kentucky’s up-and-coming woman in politics. Alison is a talented campaigner and public speaker and most likely learned about politics from her active family. Alison’s father, Jerry Lundergan, has served as Chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party and was a top campaigner for President Bill Clinton. Alison’s mother, Charlotte Lundergan, serves as Kentucky’s representative to the Democratic National Committee. Alison brings knowledge of legal matters and state government to bear, as well as her recent statewide campaign.

Pros: Alison, like Ashley Judd, could capitalize on the growing willingness to elect women leaders. Alison’s family ties make her a serious contender in Lexington and northern Kentucky. Alison won a difficult primary against an incumbent Democratic Secretary of State and demonstrated the bare knuckle talents of a woman on the rise. Alison has the campaign spirit, the good looks, and the substance to run a credible campaign. Alison is not seen as a liberal politician despite her deep blue Democratic ties and may be able to win rural votes.

Cons: Alison was elected in 2011 to statewide office, and has more work to do to introduce herself to voters, particularly in the liberal population center of Louisville. Alison may also be unable to raise the funds necessary to beat back a spirited primary challenge.

Overall: Alison Lundergan Grimes’s strengths make her a serious contender although not the frontrunner, and she should not be written off in a scrappy primary as she has the potential to outperform expectations, win debates, and win difficult races.

• Lt. Gov. Jerry Abramson

Jerry Abramson was known as “Mayor for Life” in the population center of Louisville and served for decades expanding and developing the city, including merging it and other areas into Metro Louisville. Jerry is known for his ability to attract commerce to the area and improve transportation, education, and race relations. Jerry was able to capitalize on Gov. Steve Beshear’s popularity and gained statewide exposure on the campaign trail during the Governor’s reelection.

Pros: Jerry brings good connections in Louisville and increasingly in Lexington and Frankfort, and nationally from his tenure as President of the United States Conference of Mayors. Jerry is a strong public speaker with deep knowledge of economic development issues. Jerry has high name ID from his tenure as Mayor and may be bridging rural distrust of the city with his tenure as Lt. Governor.

Cons: Jerry’s association with Louisville is risky in rural areas which resent the big city. Jerry’s political decisions as Mayor have not been seriously scrutinized and opposition research may find wasteful spending and other targets for Republican ads. Jerry is also Jewish which may be a problem with rural and independent voters in Kentucky. Jerry’s appeal to the Louisville base can be split by Ashley Judd or Matthew Barzun in a primary, and his ties to Louisville may make him vulnerable to a candidate like Alison Lundergan Grimes that coalesces the non-Louisville vote. [Ed- And Jerry is widely assumed to be as closeted as McConnell.]

Overall: Jerry Abramson is a very strong candidate who can give Mitch McConnell a run for his money provided he can avoid a Louisville-based challenge. Jerry may be able to use his experience as Lt. Governor to bolster his statewide credentials creating high name ID and significant opportunities for outreach beyond his urban base.

• Attorney General Jack Conway

Jack Conway was the challenger to Rand Paul in 2010 and in 2011 was reelected as Attorney General. Conway is seen as an effective Attorney General who has made progress in fraud cases and in shutting down child pornography. Conway’s family money as well as his support in Louisville is the foundation of his career, and he has struggled to reach past this base in statewide elections.

Pros: Jack is intelligent and has an accomplished record as Attorney General and was able to attract money from wealthy liberal donors in and out of the Commonwealth.

Cons: Wealthy donors to Jack are likely to support other candidates in this Senate race after the 2010 loss to Rand Paul. Conway was able to raise significant funds, but spent them questionably running an “Aqua Buddha” television ad that was widely seen as a belly flop. Conway also is seen as too wealthy and out of touch, and additionally, he is not known for his willingness to travel, stump and perform retail politics.

Overall: Despite his intelligence and strengths, Jack Conway would likely not survive a Democratic primary, and is very unlikely to be able to win a statewide election against Mitch McConnell.

• House Speaker Greg Stumbo

Greg Stumbo is Speaker of the State House of Representatives and a classic Dixiecrat politician with the ability to appeal to rural voters. As Attorney General, Greg was the lead attacker of Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher and his investigations helped bring the Republican down which led to the election of Steve Beshear. Greg has been an effective representative in the Capitol of Frankfort, and has run statewide campaigns and has solid name ID.

Pros: Greg is naturally appealing to rural voters and has deep ties throughout the Commonwealth from his experience in politics. Greg is a talented debater with a keen knack for tapping into Kentucky’s independent spirit.

Cons: Greg will struggle for funding in a primary against the other candidates mentioned and will face a struggle to attract the necessary votes against in a primary against someone who can appeal to the Louisville base.

Overall: Greg is a talented politician but will probably not enter the fray. It may be that Greg prefers to wait for the retirement or death of Hal Rogers, the Congressman from Kentucky’s Fifth District, and to instead serve as a Congressman.

Potential Candidates Who Have Declined To Run:

Former Auditor Crit Luallen

Auditor Adam Edelen

Overall, this is a strong crop of candidates and they will face a better environment than the tea party elections during 2010. We could see a female challenger with Ashley Judd or Alison Lundergan Grimes, a well-funded urban-based challenge with Lt. Governor Jerry Abramson or Matthew Barzun, or the potential for a moderate Democrat like Greg Stumbo or Governor Steve Beshear to win.

In January, Kentucky will be off to the races and let’s hope the results have Mitch McConnell crawling into the dark confines of a conservative think tank, and not the halls of our nation’s Senate!

Nothing Is Ever The Fault Of Robert Menendez, Worst DSCC Chairman In History

The good news for Jack Conway yesterday was that Trey Grayson announced he wouldn't be challenging him next year in the Attorney General race. (Conway is likely to face Garland Hale Barr IV, AKA- "Andy," the lobbyist who was defeated by Ben Chandler 3 weeks ago. Barr IV's biggest accomplishment is that he's the only member of Ernie Fletcher's inner circle who hasn't been indicted yet. Conway is likely to have a smooth ride to reelection.)

Less pleasant for Conway, I'm guessing, is the braying about his campaign from the worst DSCC head in history, greasy New Jersey ward boss, Robert Menendez. Menendez has been complaining to the press that the Aqua Buddha ad is what did Conway in and that if only he had had a chance to see it first...

Like Menendez's DSCC Executive Director, J.B. Poersch, I did get to see the ad first. Unlike Poersch, I didn't like the ad-- and let the campaign know. I never think Democrats should be questioning whether or not someone is a "good Christian." It's offensive, even if it is the language many voters in rural Kentucky speak. Rand Paul's a kook and there was nothing in the ad that wasn't true; I just felt it was the wrong message for Conway to be sending out. I never discussed it with him directly but I heard at the time he was unsure as well. His consultants, some of whom were "suggested" by the DSCC, were telling him they needed to cut through the television clutter, clutter caused by Rove and other perverters of democracy spending millions of dollars on non-stop television ads lying about his record and his motivations and his platform. Others advisors were unsure about the ad. Poersch wasn't unsure and he spoke for the DSCC. The ad itself was made by Mandy Grunwald, one of the DSCC-approved media consultants. It got over 451,000 YouTube hits, the most of any video relating to the Kentucky campaign, only the 412,000-plus views of Rand Paul thugs stomping on the head of a woman coming even close.

In the end, Conway had the same problem Democrats across the country had. Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters didn't turn out in high enough numbers. Conway actually won among women 53-47% but this was the year of the angry white male and they turned out in droves-- and went for Paul 54-46%. Even Conway's wins in Louisville and Lexington couldn't turn the tide of lots of incoherent, pissed off, Obama-hating white men. Paul led with 755,061 (56%) to Conway's 598,885 (44%). Conway was swamped with third party ads from Rove, the Chamber of Commerce and other shady GOP front groups. Paul himself spent $6,068,547 to Conway's $4,270,349. But that's only a small part of the story. The DSCC only spent $1,586,482.38 in Kentucky, compared to $5,932,520.09 trying to beat Mark Kirk in Illinois, $2,349,325.00 trying to beat Roy Blunt in Missouri, $8,665,340.75 trying to beat Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania... or $3,947,487.12 electing the guy in West Virginia campaigning against the Democratic agenda-- you know, the one who shot up the energy bill in his ads. Meanwhile the NRSC spent $1,846,597.00 running ads against Conway. American Cross Roads ran $1,439,825.97 worth of smears, followed by Crossroads GPS (Rove's other sleazy outfit) which ran $867,443.28. The U.S. Chamber, knowing Conway is an ardent opponent of outsourcing, spent $1,254,010.00 against him.

Conway seems to be taking full responsibility for running the Aqua Buddha ad, of course. And he hasn't had anything to say about Menendez's finger-pointing. We'll come back to Menendez soon. I'm tying together the loose ends of the story on how Menendez-- who couldn't accomplish much-- did manage to torpedo Elaine Marshall's Senate campaign after she beat his handpicked white bread candidate in North Carolina.

Didn't Ronald Reagan used to say, "Mr. Gorbachev, put up those walls"?

Invisible Hand vs. Regulator
Can Invisible-Hand-of-the-Free-Market Man ever be stopped -- or lose popularity?
BY TOM TOMORROW

[Don't forget to click on the cartoon to enlarge it.]

by Ken

Just this morning Howie was writing once again about the craziness of this election season, and quoted this nugget from Digby, who's been chronicling the craziness perhaps more closely than any still-sane person might sensibly dare:

This is an ugly election-- one of the worst I've ever seen-- financed by billionaires who are very happy to let the GOP run completely wild as long as it takes care of the owners. But it isn't ugly because the Democrats have been hurling mud. It's ugly because this ugly political movement is fighting as dirty as candidates can fight.

The craziness is so extreme and so widespread and so widely accepted as, apparently, the New Normal that outside of the people we all read and watch, it's going virtually unremarked on. Oh yes, the infotainment newsterriers may occasionally yip good-naturedly over some little gaffe, but to step back and note the blanket ignorance, incompetence, and sheer craziness of this lot of wackos? Not so much.

So we have to turn to the alternative media -- to, for example, AlterNet's Adele Stan writing about the astonishing surge in the Colorado governor's race of the godfather of Major-Party Wackadoodlery, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (links onsite):

If the latest Rasmussen survey of likely voters is to be believed, in the Colorado governor’s race, anti-immigrant gadfly Tom Tancredo is polling within four points of the frontrunner, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat. The Rasmussen poll shows Hickenlooper at 42 percent, Tancredo at 38 percent and Republican Dan Maes at just 12 percent.

When Tancredo jumped into the Colorado gubernatorial race, most political analysts simply rolled their eyes. After all, this was the guy who, at the Tea Party Nation convention in Memphis earlier this year, advocated a return to literacy tests for voter registration, a practice that was used and abused for decades in the South to keep African-Americans from the voting booth. And this was the guy who called Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor “a racist” who should be “disqualified” from serving on the bench, and a member of “a Latino KKK.” The most Tancredo could hope for, the thinking went, was to be a spoiler by splitting the right-wing vote between himself and Maes, the Tea Party-backed candidate who won the G.O.P. nomination in an upset.

If you think his rhetoric is scary, consider this: To make his third-party bid, Tancredo signed on with the American Constitution Party, which despite its secular-sounding name, is a party based upon the principles of Christian Reconstructionism, whose adherents seek to have biblical law — including the execution of LGBT people and the stoning of adulterers — instituted as the law of the land. (Both Rand Paul and Sharron Angle have links to the Constitution Party, as we reported here.) . . .

Also on AlterNet, there's a post by Brad100 called "Christian Conservative Leaders Ignore Their Values in 2010 Election," pointing out that those reliably right-wing "religious leaders" such as Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Focus on Family, Moral Majority, and Family Research Council, who could always be counted on to go all fire-and-brimstone on any pol in whom they detected (or if necesssary imagined) any moral shortcoming, have lost their voice in the face of people like lech and perv Carl Paladino, the R candidate for governor of New York; WWF depravity entrepreneur Linda McMahon, the R candidate for U.S. senator from Connecticut; and the apparently former witch Christine O'Donnell, the R candidate for U.S. senator from Delaware.

Then there's Crazy Joe Miller, the official R candidate for U.S. senator from Alaska. Howie was writing just this morning about Joe:

Sunday night, during a town hall in Anchorage, crooked Tea Party thug Joe Miller -- who has already announced he will not be answering any questions about his shady background -- had members of his private militia attack and kidnap Tony Hopfinger, a journalist who asked him some embarrassing questions. Do you think any conservatives have come out and chastised Miller? Let me know if you find any. After all, Miller's professed love of the Constitution is just a talking point, nothing something he or his followers take seriously.

Unfortunately, we haven't heard the last of Crazy Joe. Today on Greg Sargent's Plum Line blog featured a post by The American Prospect staff reporter Adam Serwer, which began:

Joe Miller, tear down this wall

Yesterday, my colleague Tim Fernholz had this to say about the news that bodyguards of Alaska Senate Candidate Joe Miller had handcuffed a journalist:

What is it about the fear of big-government fascism that makes Tea Party candidates act like big-government fascists?

For Miller, this irony doesn't end with his private security handcuffing reporters he sees as hostile. As a way to stop illegal immigration, he suggested emulating Communist East Germany by simply building a wall:

"The first thing that has to be done is secure the border. ... East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could do it, we could do it."

This seems to be one of those moments where it's worth reflecting on what the reaction at Fox News would be if a liberal, sarcastically or otherwise, suggested replicating the "triumphs" of East German communism, or had his private security detain a journalist they thought was being hostile.

None of which is to suggest that in other years we are vouchsafe nothing but, or even large quantities of, candidates radiating wisdom and mental health. But really, are there limiits? Well no, apparently not.

My impulse is to leave it at that, but I think I had better finish the thought of Digby's which I quoted above.

Where I began quoting, she had just written:

When this new progressive movement started, one of its tenets was that if progressive candidates would take risks, would be aggressive against the Republicans, would shake up the establishment and stop being the milquetoast campaigners that had turned the Democratic party into an embarrassment -- we would get their backs. Some of them believed us and they went outside the normal cautious "don't make trouble" approach and came out swinging. It's risky, and sometimes it misses. But taking risks is what we asked them to do and that's what we signed up for.

Here, then, is the full paragraph that follows:

We have two weeks to go and some of these races are very, very tight. They may all lose, some might win, we just don't know. This is an ugly election --- one of the worst I've ever seen --- financed by billionaires who are very happy to let the GOP run completely wild as long as it takes care of the owners. But it isn't ugly because the Democrats have been hurling mud. It's ugly because this ugly political movement is fighting as dirty as candidates can fight. Some Democrats aren't rolling over and playing dead. The least we can do is have their backs as we promised we would.

Digby went on to provide a link for donating to the campaign of Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway, the target of the savage campaign being waged on behalf of quasi-libertarian Rand Paul, whose libertarianism disappears whenever it becomes inconvenient to his financial backers and Teabagger fans.

The link is for the Blue America "Senate Candidates Worth Fighting For," including Scott McAdams, the Alaska Democrat running against Crazy Joe Miller (and, as a write-in candidate, incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, current representative of the state's famous family of political kleptomaniacs) -- and also including Roxanne Conlin (IA), Paul Hodes (NH), Elaine Marshall (NC), and Joe Sestak (PA). Imagine what a different place the Senate might be if they all won.

#

What If Rand Paul Had Been In Charge In Chile?

Last week Ken tackled humanity's fascination with the rescue of the Chilean mine workers. Americans were far more engrossed-- joyfully so-- in this than they were in the 1973 Kissinger/CIA-directed overthrow and murder of Chilean President Salvador Allende and the installation of brutal fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet, who systematically murdered thousands... while pleasing his American backers by, among other things, privatizing Social Security! Last week, though, we were all Chleans, all rooting for "our team."

Lucky for the miners Don Blankenship wasn't in charge. And lucky for the miners, neither was Kentucky self-certified eye doctor Rand Paul, currently running for the open Kentucky Senate seat, after making it clear to Kentucky miners and their families that all he knows about the lives of miners is what he's gathered from right-wing ideological screeds. He loves repeating them but were they in play in Chile over the last 68 days, there would, no doubt, have been a far less happy ending to the story there.

Yesterday we looked at author Thom Hartmann's explanation of the commons-- something radical right Republicans like the spoiled elitist Rand Paul define as socialism. In his book Threshold-- The Crisis of Western Culture, Hartmann uses the example of how he started his first business. Is it socialistic? Capitalistic? If rightists like Paul manage to seize power in their country, whatever it is, it's over:

The electricity that was delivered to us passed through public streets maintained by the City of East Lansing. My customers drove to us on public streets. Most were students attending a largely publicly financed "land grant" university. My employees were literate because they'd attended public schools that were operated by the government. I could accept and cash checks and know that the bank wouldn't run off with my money because of federal and state banking regulators. My contracts with suppliers were enforced with a government-operated court system, making it possible for me to safely predict that people would keep their word to deliver goods after I'd paid for them. If they failed to do so, there as a government-operated police and jail system that could be used to induce them to behave honestly.

My employees would reliably show up for work because their food supply was safe because of government stands and inspections, and because the air and water were clean enough to breathe without causing asthma attacks or disabling diseases. They didn't demand a pension plan from me because we were all-- they and I-- paying into Social Security. We were able to offer an inexpensive health insurance policy-- as I recall, it cost us around thirty dollars a month per employee-- because at that time Blue Cross/Blue Shield was required by the State of Michigan to be a not-for-profit corporation whose sole purpose was to provide health insurance, and at that time our hospitals were all similarly nonprofits that delivered high-quality, inexpensive care.

Paul's nihilism is mistrusted by sensible Kentucky voters and, in a state where McCain bested Obama 58-41% in 2008 and where Obama is highly unpopular today, progressive Democrat Jack Conway is on the verge on turning a deep red seat blue. Blue America's partners at the Americans For America PAC have come up with a novel way of communicating the danger of a Rand Paul victory to mining communities in Kentucky. Please consider helping them keep this ad on radio stations in eastern Kentucky counties from McCreary to Greenup and Pike to Laurel. We're getting reports that Ashland and Middlesboro voters have taken note and are discussing the ad and, more important, what's behind it:



Blue America has endorsed Attorney General Jack Conway as the best candidate for the Kentucky Senate seat-- and we hope you'll avail yourself of the opportunity to contribute to his campaign at the link that starts this sentence. Today the Herald Leader, which had endorsed Rand Paul over Trey Grayson in the Republican primary, came out for Jack Conway as the better choice for Kentucky.

Since riding the Tea Party wave to victory in the Republican primary as a relatively unvetted candidate, Paul has spent the summer and early fall revealing himself to be quite the ideologue who's long on simplistic slogans but short on understanding the drastic consequences of adhering to those slogans.

What came across as refreshingly candid in the spring proved to be distressingly extremist when Paul was pressed on issues ranging from civil rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

As a senator, his mission would be a chain-saw massacre of federal government that lays waste to farm subsidies, education spending, mine-safety regulations, federal aid in fighting the scourge of drugs and numerous other programs of significant benefit to Kentuckians.

Which brings us to another disappointing post-primary revelation about Paul. As far as Kentucky is concerned, he is a drive-by candidate-- a transplant who, despite living here for the better part of two decades, never stopped to smell the bluegrass and learn about his adopted state's history, culture, problems or needs.

The sole focus of his campaign involves his antipathy for federal government. If he mentions Kentucky at all, it is almost as an afterthought.

So, the stark choice for Kentucky voters is this: a moderate Democrat who understands Kentucky's problems and needs and has a plan for creating jobs versus an ideologue Republican/Tea Partier with no record, no understanding of the state and a chain saw for a plan.

By far, Jack Conway stands as the better prepared candidate to serve the best interests of Kentucky in the U.S. Senate.

Steny Hoyer Leads House Democrats Down The Toilet-- Blocks Bid To Vote On Middle Class Tax Cuts

With polls showing overwhelming support for extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class, while ending them for the wealthy, progressive Members of the House were eager to go into the election with a vote on the issue. Ironically, so were Republicans, who wanted to once again show their fealty to the rich in the Class War they are waging against ordinary American families. The Senate's vote on Tuesday showing which senators support outsourcing and off-shoring American jobs and which senators oppose it was helpful. That conservatives filibustered that bill to death will prove helpful to Democratic incumbents as well as Democratic challengers. Both Kentucky GOP senators, retiring Jim Bunning and Miss McConnell (who was just pushed aside by Jim DeMint as de facto leader of the Republican caucus), voted to continue the filibuster, which is also strongly supported by the Republican extremist running for Bunning's open seat, Rand Paul. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, the Democrat running for that seat, has made ending off-shoring U.S. jobs a major part of his election platform, immediately came out swinging on behalf of the thousands of Kentucky workers who have lost good jobs to outsourcing schemes. "Rand Paul," he told us right after the vote, "wants tax breaks for companies that ship jobs from Kentucky overseas. I believe that's wrong, and I'll work to create jobs in Kentucky, not overseas."

North Carolina's Secretary of State, Elaine Marshall, a candidate for the seat currently occupied by reactionary corporate shill Richard Burr, had the same reaction as Conway. "Richard Burr is still confused," she told us an hour after he voted in favor of outsourcing. "The jobs bill he supports creates jobs in China. He consistently opposes efforts to put Americans back to work."

[This might be a good time to remind anyone interested that Blue America has a special page for the best Senate challengers this year and, needless to say, both Jack Conway and Elaine Marshall are on that page. If you'd like to contribute to either of their campaigns, you can do so right here.]

It was smart of Reid to schedule the vote that helps Americans understand the difference between conservatives and progressives, between senators who are working for Big Business and senators who are working for the well-being of ordinary families, workers and consumers. Steny Hoyer, is no one's dummy, but he's very conflicted because his rise to power was underwritten by the same Special Interests who have helped corrupt Republicans like Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and Pence. And that explains why the House did not vote on the legislation to give tax breaks to the middle class, a vote that was sure to help most Democrats, though could hurt a handful of Blue Dog incumbents who take their cues from Boehner and would have voted against middle class tax cuts.

The White House wants Congress to make the tax cuts permanent for individuals earning less than $200,000 annually and married couples with incomes below $250,000. But Republicans and many centrist Democrats want to extend the cuts for all income groups at least for a year or two.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, said Wednesday, “I believe there’s a bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate, who want to extend all of the current tax rates. If the Democrat leaders leave town, without stopping these tax increases, they are turning their backs on the American people.”

Boehner brushed aside questions about why Republicans don’t try to force a floor vote through a discharge petition, saying that rarely used procedure would take too long. “As you know, a discharge petition has to sit around for 30 legislative days. And I don’t think the American people want to wait that long. The reason they are not bringing this up is because we have the votes in the House and Senate to extend all of the current tax rates,” Boehner said.

He added, “It’s irresponsible for them to leave town without giving us a fair up or down vote... This is no way to run the people’s House.”

Hoyer and his faction managed to play right into Republican hands, taking away the Democrats' best issue for the midterms while somehow making the Republicans look vaguely plausible. Sometimes I wonder if Hoyer isn't doing this more than design and not just because of incompetence. It's a shame Rahm can't take his former junior partner with him to Chicago when he oozes his way out of Washington.

Kentucky Voters Are Getting To Know The Self-Certified Eye Doctor From Texas-- And A Large Polling Decline Reflects What They Think

Well... better than a white powdered wig

I was on the phone with a Kentucky-based AP reporter the other day-- at least I think he was based in Kentucky-- clearing up some false claims about Blue America's very public support for Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway after some insane press release from Karl Rove's shady political action committee, American Crossroads, sent out some false information about us. That done, I decided to take a look at what American Crossroads is up to in Kentucky. The first thing I found was sickening-- a couple of September 22 expenditures against Jack-- $13,805 for media production work and $235,246 for ad placement. That's on top of Independent Expenditures the week before from the NRSC ($414,007.00 + $12,000.00 + $70,171.00), as well as a flood of smaller expenditures from the insidious Club For Growth, DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund and from the anti-Choice fanatics, National Right to Life. In all, these Republican Party front groups have already spent $745,229.00 smearing Jack on TV and radio from one end of Kentucky to the other.

Not many outside groups have spent anything in Kentucky in favor of Jack's campaign-- nothing from Menendez's all-failure-all-the-time DSCC, which is probably trying to figure out a way to insert Cal Cunningham into the race-- and the only I.E. I could find was $43,941.00 spent by MoveOn in opposition to Rand Paul.

Nonetheless, yesterday's Louisville Courier-Journal bannered the brand new SUSA Bluegrass Poll showing that Conway has made up whatever deficit he's had in the minds of Kentucky voters. "Democrat Jack Conway," they reported, "has cut sharply into Republican Rand Paul's once-commanding lead in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, moving into a statistical tie with a little more than five weeks before Election Day... The previous Bluegrass poll, released the first week of September, showed Paul leading Conway 55 percent to 40 percent."

The poll shows that Conway, the state's attorney general, is now appealing to voters who say they are neutral on the tea party-- Paul's base of support.

And Conway is building a significant lead among women, who earlier were almost evenly split between the two candidates.

The widening of a gender gap goes a lot further than women being turned off by Rand Paul's bizarre wig. Women are often primarily motivated by concerns for their families and, especially, their children. Paul's crackpot pronouncements about how the government has no role in protecting society from the Eastern Kentucky drug epidemic that no one has told him about and about how Kentucky doesn't want federal financial help, have caused many women, particularly independents to do a double-take on the Tea Party-oriented ideologue. For every tax dollar Kentuckians send to the federal government, they get back $1.51, a great deal-- subsidized entirely by states like New Jersey, California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut and the other states that pay far more than they get back. "Paul is in effect saying that if he is Kentucky's next Senator, he will work to reduce his state's share of federal spending, thus hurting his own constituents." He sounds almost as crazy as... Joe Miller, the Alaska fringe kook who doesn't recognize the great deal Alaskans get ($1.84 for ever dollar) and, like Paul, promises to be an advocate for making his own constituents' lives much poorer.

And if that weren't bad enough, Rand Paul, who abhors campaigning among the "common people," is advocating policies that instead send American jobs-- and wealth-- overseas. The tax code has a loophole that lets companies deduct their foreign interest and income from their U.S. taxes. This provision essentially encourages companies to invest in foreign companies and ship jobs overseas. Experts estimate shutting this loophole would save $100 billion over ten years. And it would be more effective if combined with an effort to shut down offshore tax shelters, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could save an additional $30 billion. Conway vigorously supports closing this loophole. Falling inline behind the Party of Big Business, Rand Paul just as vigorously opposes it.

If it sounded above that I was insinuating only women cared about their families and their children and about Paul's bizarre claims about the drug problem (or lack of it), that's not what I meant. In fact, this powerful Conway ad is aimed directly at fathers. Please tale a look at it and consider helping him keep it on the air by contributing to his campaign.

Blue America Welcomes Back Jack Conway (D-KY)

Today Blue America is helping Kentucky Attorney General and Senate candidate Jack Conway kick Rand Paul's ass from Ashland to Hickman, Covington to Harlan. Today? Yes, today is Jack's money-bomb and we want to make sure he beats the $246,000 the uncertified Texas eye doctor so... here's the place. Yesterday he told us about his plans to help Congressman Mike Capuano get his Shareholder Protection Act through the Senate next year. Capuano's bill, H.R. 4790, requires a shareholder vote on a corporation’s proposed political budget, giving shareholders the opportunity to weigh in on the use of these funds. January’s Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. FEC established that corporations cannot be prohibited from spending general treasury funds on political campaigns because it would violate their free speech rights. Capuano's legislation gives shareholders the ability to exercise their free speech rights by voting to approve or reject these expenditures. The Supreme Court decision effectively increases the influence of money in politics and diminishes the voice of the voter. Conway, like Capuano, thinks we should be working to limit outside influence on elections, not giving corporations a louder voice. The legislation is a simple and direct way to ensure that corporate political expenditures reflect the will of the shareholders, since the money in question belongs to the shareholders.

Jack told us he's been sickened by the way the Citizens United decision "opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to spend millions of dollars attacking candidates in pursuit of their own agendas."

However, this bill requires a shareholder vote on a corporation’s proposed political budget and would give shareholders a say in how the funds are spent. It also makes the corporation report how it spent its political dollars, after the fact, so the real owners of the company-- the shareholders-- know where their money went.

Last week, a corporate-funded group led by George W. Bush’s chief strategist Karl Rove launched a second attack ad against me in as many weeks. Rove's special interest attack group, American Crossroads, has pledged to spend 49 million corporate dollars attacking Democrats this fall and boosting people like Rand Paul.

I need your help fighting back against Rove and Rand Paul. Paul said he opposes provisions of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and federal student financial aid, such as college loans. I disagree. These laws and initiatives reflect core American values like equal rights and opportunity. We should be standing up for these values, not tearing them down.

Jack's going to be joining us over at Crooks and Liars at 11am (PT) for a free-ranging question and answer session. We'll do our best to hold the Paultards at bay but please surf over and join in-- and please consider donating to Jack's effort at our Blue America Senate page.

John Sherman Cooper vs Miss McConnell... Let Alone The Nut With The Crazywig

I grew up in a Democratic household in Brooklyn but back then it wasn't hard to say that there were inspiring political leaders of the Republican persuasion-- as well as really terrible Democrats. There are still some really terrible Democrats, plenty of them, but I can't think of a single inspiring Republican in office anywhere. When I was a kid, Kentucky Republican John Sherman Cooper, for example, was someone any American could look up to. Aside from an exemplary personal life, he always believed his job was to fight for the interests of ordinary American families rather than for Big Business and he was one of the first Republicans with the guts to denounce Joseph McCarthy, to lead the battle against the Vietnam War, and to vote for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and, before that, the very Civil Rights Act of 1964 that current Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul says he would have opposed.

Ironically, the current Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, a leader of the GOP's campaign of obstructionism against President Obama, was as inspired by Cooper as I had been. And he worked for him as an intern. "I had an opportunity to witness the first great man I ever knew as a young man and he became someone I looked up to and hope to maybe follow into the Senate someday. And, interestingly enough, 20 years later, I was elected to the same seat that he held,” McConnell said. Could you imagine McConnell ever saying something like "I just didn’t want to attack someone in the other party because they happened to be a Democrat or an Independent. I meet the issues the best I could,” which Cooper did say?

[I don't want to go off on a tangent about how it was Cooper who saved McConnell's ass when McConnell was tossed out of the military after being caught groping an enlisted man during his 10 day career in the U.S. Army. McConnell's dark, lonely life in the closet, living a lie every single day, has had far more of an influence on him than his early association with John Sherman Cooper.]

OK, back to business... In their brilliant new book, Over The Cliff, John Amato and Dave Neiwert take on the Republican lie that their party isn't really a validator of racism. Take a look at how Rachel Maddow dealt with it, specifically regarding Republican racist icon Haley Barbour and his alternative worldview, on her show last week:



Amato and Neiwert delve into the Republican Party's conscious decision to take the racism route. It's worth reading for its own sake, although notice that I've bolded out an interesting quote from Kentucky Republican Senator John Sherman Cooper:

After Richard Nixon’s narrow loss to John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign, Republicans embarked on a conscious effort to recast their image in the South. Following the lead of Goldwater and his allies, the Republican National Committee began “Operation Dixie,” a course of action that attempted to win over southern voters based on conservative states’-rights and segregationist policies and entailed recruiting candidates with that agenda to run as Republicans.

This was called the “Southern Strategy,” and in the 1964 presidential campaign Goldwater pursued it avidly. The key to the strategy was the Democrats’ open embrace of civil-rights legislation in Congress that year, which meant that they were finally shedding their old southern segregationist image. Conservative southern voters were thus effectively disenfranchised-- and in politics, nature abhors a vacuum. So in the 1964 campaign, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who were defending and promoting segregationist policies, both in the presidential campaign and, even more strikingly, in southern congressional races.

Joseph Aistrup, in his book The Southern Strategy Revisited:
Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South, described how it worked:

The major goal of the Southern Strategy was to transform the Republicans’ reputation as the party of Lincoln, Yankees, and carpetbaggers into the party that protects white interests. Thus, subtle segregationist threads are sewn in to the tapestry of the Southern Strategy. As a response in part to the GOP’s new image and the liberalizing changes in the national Democrats’ party positions, the Southern Democrats evolved from a party that depended on race-baiting, white supremacists to a party that needs and depends on black support to win elections.

In tandem with the Southern Strategy issue orientation, a number of Republicans attempted to use subtle segregationist suggestions to win elections. Southern Republicans developed a set of policy positions that reinforced their racially conservative policy orientations. Republicans opposed forced busing, employment quotas, affirmative action and welfare programs; at the same time, they favored local control and tax exemptions for segregated private schools.

Goldwater’s success in the South, and the strong showings made in 1964 by even more segregationist Republicans in the South, provided movement conservatives with evidence that this approach would reap rewards. However, within the Republican Party-- historically the defenders of civil rights for minorities, and still the “Party of Lincoln”-- the conservatives’ strategy raised serious concerns. There was strong dissent within the Republican National Committee from such GOP heavyweights as former committee chairman Meade Alcorn and New York senator Jacob Javits, who argued strenuously that the party should not abandon its historic commitment to civil rights in return for the votes of southern segregationists. Kentucky senator John Sherman Cooper agreed, emphasizing that the strategy was fundamentally amoral: “But in the long run, such a position will destroy the Republican party, and worse, it will do a great wrong because it will be supporting the denial of the constitutional and human rights of our citizens.”

Nonetheless, it became the official strategy of the Republican Party in the 1968 campaign under Richard Nixon, who deliberately used phrases that echoed many southerners’ complaints about desegregation and adopted many of the themes of George Wallace: attacking the busing issue, pounding at “law and order,” and decrying welfare.

It's hard to imagine John Sherman Cooper could win a Republican Party primary in Kentucky these days. In fact, it would be hard to imagine that Cooper wouldn't have been tempted to leave the GOP and run as a Democrat were he in politics today. But he died in 1991 and, if he's in Heaven watching over us, is probably worried that his prediction about destruction of the Republican Party is coming true, heralded, at least in his own state, by the ascension of Rand Paul. And it's funny because if there is one political figure in Kentucky politics who is fit to wear Cooper's mantle, it is certainly Paul's Democratic opponent, Attorney General Jack Conway.

Tuesday Blue America is joining with friends and allies at Daily Kos and DFA and with several Democratic senators like John Kerry and Dick Durbin to urge Democrats, Independents and progressives to help Conway's intense battle against the darkest forces of political evil loose in America today. You can donate here at our Blue America Senate page. Jack's money bomb totals will be announced on Tuesday. Please do what you can to help keep this race competitive-- and give Kentuckians a chance to elect someone the whole country can be proud of.

Another Slap Down For Rand Paul As House Unanimously Honors Americans With Disabilities Act 20th Anniversary

I just couldn't resist taking note of the fact that this evening the House voted 377-0 to recognize and honor the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The rules were suspended and it had to be agreed to by 2/3 of the House. This happened at 6:42pm. No one voted against it. That was odd. Did pathetic little Rand Paul even get abandoned by his father? Ron Paul was one of 55 members who didn't vote.

Many of the ones who didn't vote are back home running for office, like Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), whose primary is tomorrow; Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Zach Wamp (R-TN), busy losing gubernatorial primaries in Michigan and Tennessee; Adam Putnam (R-FL), running for State Agriculture Commissioner of Florida; and Meek (D-FL), Moran (R-KS), Hodes (D-NH) and Tiahart (R-KS), all running for Senate. Others, like John Shadegg (R-AZ), Gresham Barrett (R-SC), Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Parker Griffith (R-AL), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Bart Stupak (D-MI), either are retiring or have lost primaries and are being retired and no longer care enough to bother coming in to work. Several are prowling K Street lining up new jobs as lobbyists.

But Ron Paul (R-TX), of course, fits none of those categories. I had a hunch. I looked to see what the next vote was. And sure enough, a few minutes later Ed Markey's H.R. 3101, the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, came up for a vote. It was opposed by a gaggle of far right-wing loons-- cranks like Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Steve King (R-IA), Tom Price (R-GA), John Campbell (R-CA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Tom McClinton (R-CA) and... Ron Paul. I knew it!

It must have been humiliating for Ron with his crackpot son having denounced a piece of legislation that has made the lives of millions of Americans much richer and fuller and given them the freedom and liberty he's always squawking about but seems to think only belongs to wealthy white "normal" males. Earlier in the day Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway was hailing the anniversary and the legislation at a nonpartisan rally on Lexington. "Twenty years ago today, " he told the crowd, "when President George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act and 'let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down,' we made our country stronger and our people more equal and free. Today, working together, we can continue to improve the lives of those with disabilities." His campaign released a press release blasting Rand Paul's position against the bill:

Jack Conway understands the importance of this landmark civil rights legislation, which, since its enactment on July 26, 1990, has served as a bill of rights, helping over 50,000,000 Americans with disabilities to more actively engage their communities and seek out the American Dream.

Further, Jack Conway recognizes the ADA's importance to Kentucky. Kentucky is the state with the third largest percentage of non-institutionalized, working aged people with disabilities. These individuals depend on the ADA to help safeguard their rights, including the right to seek employment, to utilize public accommodations, and to access basic public services.

By contrast, Jack Conway's opponent Rand Paul has repeatedly expressed his disgraceful opposition to key provisions in the ADA, putting the rights of businesses over the rights of disabled American citizens. He even suggested that businesses employing disabled persons confined to a wheelchair should not be required to comply with federal standards and maintain an elevator, suggesting instead that the employer simply "get them a job on the first floor."

Jack Conway will stand up for Americans with disabilities-- our friends, neighbors and fellow citizens.

This must have been terribly embarrassing for Jeb Bush, who found himself stuck hosting a fundraiser today for the son of another politician, a non-certified eye doctor in Kentucky.

McConnell & Cheney Aren't Right About Much, But They Were Correct When They Warned KY Republicans That Rand Paul Is WAY Outside the Mainstream

Wednesday Rand Paul captured the imaginations of conservatives far and wide when he-- feeling a little giddy over his smashing victory over Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party Establishment that had sought so hard to marginalize and demonize him-- made the mistake of going on Rachel Maddow's show and proclaiming, in effect, that property rights trumps human rights. Basically, what he said is that he wouldn't support legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans With Disabilities Act because they interfere with private property. Paul says he isn't a racist-- akin to Mark Foley saying he isn't gay or Mark Souder claiming to be a paragon of the ideal one man/one woman marriage at whose alter conservatives supposedly worship. In other words, he's lying his ass off. He and his father are both steeped in racism (and John Bircherism).

The arguments that ensued-- it turns out that Twitter is more a hotbed of mindless libertarian gibberish than I had ever imagined-- reminded me of a point that Thom Hartmann made in his book, Threshold about the conservative/libertarian fetishism over property.

In the conservative/libertarian dystopia, private property is the ultimate and highest value-- it is sacrosanct. As the Ayn Rand Institute's president, Yaron Brook, told me in a June 26, 2008 interview on my radio program, when "the majority" votes to limit how he can use his property, "that is a form of theft, and it is done with violence [the enforcement power of the police]." It's the ultimate expression of the tyranny of the majority that makes democracy a flawed system, in Brook's worldview. Government-- the combined will of the people in a democratic republic-- should have no power whatsoever to regulate or control the use of private property or land, as the ownership rights asserted over that land should be absolute. [In the 1850s and '60s it was ownership over another kind of private property that led this country into the most appalling war it had ever fought, one that you can't possibly be in any doubt as to which side Brook-- or Rand Paul-- would have taken.]

The obvious problem with this worldview, is that one person's "land use" may be another person's disaster. Should a farmer have the right to convert his five hundred acres into two thousand home lots if it means that the water table serving then thousand acres will be deleted or contaminated? Or to use a less clear and more aesthetic perspective, should a person be able to build a multi-story office building-- or a waste disposal plant-- on his property if it means that your property will now forever be in shade, unable to grow food plants or flowers, or lacking a view?

This morning, Rand Paul's extremism on this property über alles theme, made it into the media when he accused Obama of being "really un-American" and having "his boot heel on the throat of BP" in regard to the oil spill in the Gulf. At this point the Republican Party should be looking for a way to replace BabyPaul on their ticket but we'll let them work that out on their own. His supporters who somehow imagined that he was going to be some kind of a champion for ordinary families against powerful corporations and incipient fascism have to take a closer look at how unconvincing his faux populism really is. There always has been a difference between constructive all-American populism and the Know Nothing brand embraced by conservative careerists.



The real winner of Tuesday's primary in Tuesday was Democrat Jack Conway, who garnered 226,773 votes (followed by 221,269 for his Democratic opponent and 206,159 votes for Rand Paul. But Conway also won because even Kentucky Republicans have become convinced that Rand Paul is not a plausible candidate for federal office. 43% of Trey Grayson supporters say they will not vote for Paul in November-- and this was even before Paul made a jackass out of himself on national TV by extolling racism and defending BP-- both based on his bizarre ideological fetishism about property rights trumping humanity. This morning Jack told Kentuckians that "Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability. He even goes so far as to say that that criticizing corporations when they hurt taxpayers and working families-- as in the case of the massive BP oil disaster-- is 'un-American.'

"As Attorney General, I've seen how corporations can take advantage of consumers-- whether it's oil companies that gouge Kentucky customers after a series of storms or pharmaceutical companies that commit Medicaid fraud. I have a deeply held conviction that we need a senator who will hold companies accountable. We have enough senators in Washington who are looking out for what's best for corporations. My sole focus will be looking out for Kentucky's taxpayers and families."