Everyone knows He's Certifiably Insane-- But The Media Feels Uncomfortable Using The "C" Word

The new Emerson Poll of Wisconsin voters shows only three Democrats into double-digits in their primary:

• Bernie- 39%
• Biden- 24%
• Elizabeth Warren- 14%

But it also shows that any of that trio (as well as Beto) would beat Trump in a general election matchup. Kamala and Klobuchar would both tie him in a head to head if the election were held today. In other words, Wisconsin, a state he eon in 2016 looks bad for Trump going into 2020. A fully 40% of Trump voters in the state said they voted for him primarily because they didn't like Hillary. Hopefully, the Democrats won't nominate another Wall Street mushy centrist.

If Roy Blunt's experience in Missouri after he voted against Trump's phony state of emergency, Trump's party is cracking and splintering. McClatchy reported yesterday that Blunt was "disinvited from a local GOP gathering in Christian County, Missouri, next month amid a backlash over his vote... [which] angered ardent Trump supporters across Missouri, who saw it as a betrayal."

“I am so disappointed in you now that I can hardly speak,” wrote Wanda Martens, a member of the Christian County Republican Central Committee, in an email to Blunt’s office. “Why could you not support my president in the emergency declaration? President Trump tried every available means to work the Senate to resolve the border issue and build the much needed wall. He is well within his presidential powers to do this.”

Martens serves as the local party committee’s events chair. She told the senator in her email, which was obtained by The Kansas City Star, that she did not want to see him when the local party holds its Lincoln/Trump Day Dinner on April 6 in Ozark, Missouri, one of the most conservative areas in the state.

“Please don’t try to tell me that I don’t understand. I understand completely,” Martens wrote. “I hate it when someone calls you the establishment and that you are part of the swamp, but maybe they were right.”


...John Adams, a 74-year-old retiree who lives in south Kansas City, said he’s voted for Blunt in every election he has run for elected office. He’ll never vote for him again.

“I used to support Blunt. I just can’t do it anymore,” Adams said. “I’m sorry. He’s not supporting my president in the way that I anticipated.”

Adams said he’d support another Republican in the primary if Blunt runs again in 2022. And if Blunt wins the GOP nomination, Adams said he’d sit out Election Day rather than cast a ballot for Blunt again, even against a Democrat.

“I absolutely felt betrayed.”

The Republicans have cultivated these ignorant crackpots and allowed them to take over the party. They are reaping what they have sown-- all the garbage from Trump straight down to Wanda Martens. At least Trump can blame it on his bad brain. Early the morning, attorney George Conway, the highly respected and universally admired husband of one of Trump's top lieutenants, Kellyanne Conman, started tweeting out passages from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. No one could read them and claim they don't describe Trump to a "t." Here's one; what do you think?

Conway has been poking where the corporate media has pretty much just plain refused to go-- into Trump's obvious mental illnesses, which sometimes-- more and more frequently-- seem to spiral out of control. He's been asking if the country needs a "serious inquiry" into Trump's drastically deteriorating mental state. Everyone seems to agree... except some of the people on the Christian County, Missouri Republican Central Committee. And Kellyanne. Yesterday she told reporters that she doesn't share her husband's concerns.
 It's been more than apparent for quite a few years now that she certainly doesn't share the country's concerns either.

The DCCC Should Start Making Devin Nunes Fight For His Seat

Nunes: Masterminding the GOP PutinGate coverup

Devin Nunes' Central Valley House seat is pretty safely Republican-- but not nearly as safe as it was when he was first elected in 2002. The PVI is still rated a daunting R+10 but the demographics have shifted precipitously. Only 41.9% of Nunes' constituents are white now and one day-- who knows?-- the DCCC might decide to target him. They should. Nunes shouldn't be given any more free rides. Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, he seems to think his function is covering up the Trump Regime's malfeasance in their activities regarding Vladimir Putin. His comment yesterday about Michael Flynn being fired for Putin-related activities, likely to include accepting bribes and probably treason as well, was that "Washington, D.C. can be a rough town for honorable people, and Flynn-- who has always been a soldier, not a politician-- deserves America’s gratitude and respect for dedicating so much of his life to strengthening our national security. I thank him for his many years of distinguished service." When pressed, Nunes told reporters that he would not investigate Flynn's discussions with Trump about his calls with Putin's ambassador. He's following the Republican Party line, in a knee-jerk fashion, that the "real story" is how the Trumpist Regime is being undermined by leaks. Andre'll investigate that instead.

In 2012 Romney took Nunes' district with 56.6% of the vote. Trump's share in November was just 52.1%, even though he faced a far weaker candidate. Nunes' district, CA-22, is made up of large sections of Fresno and Tulare counties, although doesn't include any of the city of Fresno itself. Clovis, Visalia and Tulare are the biggest population centers.

The DCCC didn't contest the seat-- guaranteeing that Nunes will feel no obligation to worry about accountability in Congress-- and he beat an unknown, under-funded opponent, Louie Campos 143,333 (68.2%) to 66,802 (31.8%). Nunes raised $2,459,235 for the campaign this year while Campos didn't raise the $5,000 that would have triggered an FEC report.

Nunes knows that with the way the DCCC works currently-- no multi-cycle efforts ever-- he will never be forced to alter his behavior to appease the voters. Even ardent partisans in the Senate like John Cornyn (R-TX) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) have been calling for a thorough investigation of Flynn's and the Trump Regime's ties to Russia. Even if Nunes doesn't, these guys are saying they want Flynn to testify. Blunt on Missouri radio station KTRS yesterday:

I think everybody needs that investigation to happen. And the Senate Intelligence Committee, again that I serve on, has been given the principle responsibility to look into this, and I think that we should look into it exhaustively so that at the end of this process, nobody wonders whether there was a stone left unturned, and shouldn't reach conclusions before you have the information that you need to have to make those conclusions... I would think that we should talk to Gen. Flynn very soon and that should answer a lot of questions. What did he know? What did he do? And is there any reason to believe that anybody knew that and didn't take the kind of action they should have taken?

Jason Chaffetz, like Nunes, refuses to allow investigations of the Trump Regimes relationship with Putin. People follow Chaffetz around wherever he goes shouting "Do your job!" Nunes needs the same treatment-- plus a real effort by the idiot tasked with heading up the DCCC's West Coast operation, Kyle Layman, who would rather ignore Nunes and spend his time re-recruiting loser Brian Caforio which will do nothing but guarantee that Steve Knight keeps his seat-- a seat Hillary won 50.3-43.6%-- in 2018.

Not everyone on Nunes committee agrees with him, of course. Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat on the committee. His statement sounds very different from Nunes' evasion of his duty.

Ted Lieu, a decorated Air Force full colonel, as well as the congressman from the West Side of L.A. and the South Bay beach communities, is on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and on the Judiciary Committee. He's not letting Ryan and Nunes cover up PutinGate either. This was his statement Tuesday morning:

Let's be clear: Michael Flynn resigned because the press brought his egregious misconduct to the attention of the American people. Our Republic depends on the Freedom of the Press.

What is deeply disturbing is that the White House apparently knew for weeks from a Department of Justice report that Michael Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail, yet President Trump kept him on. Senior White House official Kellyanne Conway stated yesterday that President Trump had full confidence in Flynn. If nine US officials did not leak their concerns to the Washington Post, Michael Flynn may still be the US National Security Advisor.

There is more to this story. What did President Trump know and when did he know it? What did Vice President Pence know and when did he know it?

We can't have a situation where the Trump Administration takes corrective action only when the press catches them engaging in misconduct. The American people deserve answers from President Trump and Vice President Pence.

Hey, Devin! DO. YOUR. JOB. Stop covering up for Putin and Trump

A Quick Senate Scorecard

Chuck Schumer, your next Democratic Senate Minority Leader (source)

by Gaius Publius

I want to offer a quick Senate scorecard for the upcoming election, not just races to watch and their current status, but the effect of the races on the "final score" — control of the Senate until the wipeout in 2018 puts the Republicans firmly in control.

To do this, I want to organize the races the way basketball or football analysts look at your favorite college team's upcoming season — games grouped by Should Be Easy, Tough Call, On the Bubble, Would Take a Miracle. For this exercise, we'll ignore the baked-in results in places like California (Democratic and will stay that way), and list the races to watch by these categories:

• Washouts — four contests (IL, WI, OH, FL)
• No Change — one contest (CO)
• Possible Flips — three contests (NH, PA, IN)
• Toss Ups — three contests (NV, NC, MO)
• and one Wild Card race — Alaska

We will look briefly at these 12 races. Others may disagree, but it looks to me like these are the ones to watch.

For reference, the state of the Senate today is:

• Republicans: 54 seats
• Democrats: 44 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

No independent is up for reelection this cycle. Democrats need a net pickup of +4 to tie in the Senate (50-50) and +5 to take it outright (ignoring for now the "60 vote rule" that makes sure no progressive legislation gets passed). Here are races in each group, with the likeliest outcomes by group in parentheses.

Washouts (+2 D)

The "washout" states are those where one party has conceded the race by withdrawing money. All four seats are held by Republicans. Two of the Democrats have washed out, as have two of the Republicans. These are:

Illinois, currently Republican
Winner should be Tammy Duckworth (D)

Wisconsin, currently Republican
Winner should be Russ Feingold (D)

Ohio, currently Republican
Winner should be Rob Portman (R)

Florida, currently Republican
Winner should be Marco Rubio (R)

Net result: +2 Democrats.

From Electoral-Vote.com:

Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy in Florida, incumbent Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois, Democratic challenger Ted Strickland in Ohio, and incumbent Republican Ron Johnson in Wisconsin are doing badly enough that their parties either have already cut off the money (the two Republicans), or are close to doing so (the two Democrats).

I think most would call these races closed. (Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with progressive challengers in Florida and Ohio. The +2 Democrats could easily be +4 Democrats in this category, absent that interference.)

No Change

This category could be larger (I had the New Hampshire race here at first), but let's play it safe.

Colorado, currently Democratic
Winner should be Michael Bennet (D)

The Hill on Bennet:

Once viewed as one of the only ripe opportunities for Republicans, Bennet appears poised to sail to reelection. Republicans aren’t coming to the aid of Darryl Glenn, a county commissioner who trumpeted his conservative bona fides during the primary. But he’ll need to look beyond his base in a state that Obama carried twice and also has a large Latino population.

Michael Bennet is this guy, by the way, from 2014: "Shorter Republicans: "We forgive Michael Bennet for trying to win the Senate." Shorter Sen. Bennet: "Glad we're still friends.""

Possible Flips (+2 D, Maybe)

These are fairly close races where the Democrat could flip a Republican seat. I have three of these:

New Hampshire, currently Republican
Leader is Kelly Ayotte (R)

Pennsylvania, currently Republican
Leader is McGinty (D)

Indiana, was Republican, now open
Leader is Bayh (D)

If the current leader wins each seat: +2 Democrats, but this is iffy.

In New Hampshire, Ayotte is surging at the moment (+8 in the latest Marist poll), but she's coming from behind. Hassan could take it, but I'm not confident.

The Hill on the Pennsylvania race:

The presidential race appears to be trickling into Toomey’s reelection. Political observers in the state say he’s running a strong campaign, but his dip in the polls is largely thanks to the top of the ticket.

Toomey continues to withhold his support from Trump. But his opponent, Katie McGinty, a little-known former gubernatorial chief of staff, has been helped by Clinton’s consistent lead over Trump in the Keystone State. McGinty has maintained a lead since mid-July, though one survey has Toomey up 7 points.

RealClearPolitics has this race a wash, but I think Toomey has the edge. In Indiana, Bayh is only up by single digits, but has never trailed.

(Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with non-Democratic establishment Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary, who might easily have beaten Toomey. If Schumer-chosen candidate McGinty fails to win, it will be because of Schumer.)

Too Close To Call (A Wash)

There are three races here — Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri — and Republicans are defending two of the three seats. (Nevada is an open seat, but was Democratic.)

Nevada, was Democratic, now open
Joe Heck (R) has a slight lead over Catherine Cortez Masto (D)

North Carolina, currently Republican
Richard Burr (R) has a low single-digit lead over Deborah Ross (D)

Missouri, currently Republican
Roy Blunt leads Jason Kander (D), but not by much

Republicans flip one seat if all three leaders win. Most likely positive case for the Democrats is no change (two wins and one loss). If Democrats win out: +2 Democrats.

Subtotal (+2 D or +4 D)

If you're counting the total to this point, Democrats are up +2 among the Washout races, then it's a wash until the Too Close To Call races, where there's either no change (more likely) or they go up +2 (by winning them all).

In other words, our best case gives the Democrats +4 seats, and our middle case gives them +2 seats. That's not enough to take the Senate.

(Note again, that Schumer's interference in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have reduced these totals. Instead of "+2 Democrats or +4 Democrats" so far, the call would have been " +4 or +6" — putting full control of the Senate within reach.)

Wild Card Race: Alaska

Alaska is a Republican seat at the moment, with Lisa Murkowski defending it. A pro-Sanders Democrat is in position to win the seat — and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants him to lose (!).

Howie has written about the Alaska race here:

[T]he populist Democratic Party in the state-- which gave Bernie a 81.6% to 18.4% landslide over Hillary and massive victories in every single electoral district (numbers that beat Trump too)-- also nominated Ray Metcalfe, a former Anchorage state Rep who was one of the state's original Bernie for President organizers. Although he won the party nomination, 15,198 to 10,074, Metcalfe is not a Schumer kind of candidate....

The DSCC (and Alaska's grotesquely corrupt Democratic Party establishment) are worried that-- with teabagger and Trumpist Joe Miller in the race as a Libertarian and tearing Murkowski apart from the right-- Metcalfe could actually win. ... That's how Schumer's reptilian mind works. So he's encouraging a proven corruptionist buddy of his, Mark Begich, to mount a last minute write-in campaign to draw votes away from Metcalfe and throw the election to Murkowski!

More from Electoral-vote.com (my emphasis)

Alaska looks like it's going to become a free-for-all. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is running for reelection, trying to keep a seat that she last won as a write-in candidate after being primaried by tea partier Joe Miller. She could end up facing four viable opponents: Ray Metcalfe (the Democratic nominee), Margaret Stock (an independent with a very impressive resume), Miller (who's back, as the recently-chosen nominee of the Libertarian Party), and possibly former Democratic senator Mark Begich (who may run—wait for it—as a write-in candidate). 30% of the vote could very well win this thing.

Schumer has succeeded in sabotaging every race he has tried to sabotage, so I'll give Murkowski and Schumer the win.

Alaska, currently Republican
Lisa Murkowski (R) has the edge in a five-person race

Net change (if Schumer succeeds): None.

Your Most Likely 2017 Senate

The most likely 2017 Senate, the high point of the bell-shaped curve, if all current likelihoods hold, appears to be this:

• Republican: 52 or 50 seats
• Democrats: 46 or 48 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

By sabotaging the Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and possibly Alaska races, Schumer (a) may well have handed Republicans control of the Senate, but (b) will have assured his own personal, hand-picked control of the Democratic minority that remains. In Schumer's world, that must count has a win-win. I can't imagine any other motivation for this ... what, debacle? betrayal?

Anyway, here's a scorecard to follow as these races evolve. For the Democrats to reach 50 seats, watch the Too Close To Call races, plus Alaska.

GP

Can North Carolina Democrats Replace Unpopular Obstructionist Richard Burr (R) With Deborah Ross (D)?

North Carolina Senator Richard Burr isn't all that popular back home and he'll have to face the voters in November in a race against former state Rep. and former North Carolina head of the ACLU, Deborah Ross. Last week, each won their respective primaries, Burr with 437,136 votes (61.9%) and Ross with 445,772 votes (63.3%). As of the February 24 FEC deadline Burr had spent $2,693,982 on his race and Ross had spent $635,999 on hers. He has a massive $5,312,89 war-chest and she has about $5 million less. (I might add that the industry that has been most generous to Burr this cycle is... the Securities and Investment folks (i.e., the banksters), which they look at as a good investment since he's on the Senate Finance Committee. #2 is Big Pharma. Anyway, what I meant my him not being popular was a reference to the polling on the topic. Survey USA asked the straight forward question of North Carolina voters and Burr was underwater-- 34% approve and 41% disapprove. Independents are especially not fond of him and only 28% approve, while 42% disapprove-- a bad signal.

A more recent poll-- PPP's this week-- found that his job approval hasn't improved: 32% approved and 40% disapproved. In a November match-up, he's polling ahead of Ross, who is still introducing herself to the voters. He beats her 40-35% with 7% going to the Libertarian and 17% undecided. Part of Ross' problem is that corrupt New York ward boss Chuck Schumer and the DSCC he controls didn't give up on their dream candidate, far right Blue Dog Heath Shuler until the very end. It sent a bad signal that Ross is just coming out from under.

PPP Director Tom Jansen's analysis warns that Trump could make life tough for Burr. He pointed out that "to put the current state of the race in perspective Elizabeth Dole led Kay Hagan by 5 points on our first poll after the primary in 2008 too, so Ross is starting her upset bid in a very similar place to where Hagan started hers."

Burr has indicated that he will support the Republican nominee for President regardless of who it is. We find that voters are less likely to vote for Burr by a 26 point spread if he supports Trump for President-- doing that would make 48% of voters in the state less inclined to vote for the incumbent compared to only 22% who would be more likely to vote for him. That's a good early indicator of the trouble Trump poses for his party. Another thing making life harder for Burr is the heavily damaged brand of Senate Republicans. Only 15% of voters in North Carolina approve of the job Mitch McConnell is doing, compared to 51% who disapprove. And one issue fueling that unpopularity is the intransigence on the Supreme Court seat-- 52% of North Carolinians want to see it filled this year, compared to just 41% who think it should be left empty.

“Richard Burr isn’t all that well known to voters in North Carolina even after two terms in the Senate,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “That leaves him susceptible to being defined by Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, and that could make his reelection fight a lot tougher than expected.”

...It looks like Republicans are going to nominate either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz though, and they both trail the Democratic candidates by small margins. Clinton leads Trump 44/42, and Sanders has a 48/41 advantage over him.

Issues aren't on Burr's side either. He opposes the EPA on Climate Change regulations which voters approve of it 66-28% and he opposes raising the minimum wage while 76% of North Carolina voters approve raising it, compared to 12% who think it should stay where it is and 9% who want to abolish it. Perhaps more germane is the fight over the Merrick Garland nomination to the Supreme Court. Burr was quick to agree with Mitch McConnell (who has a 15% job approval rating among North Carolina voters) that the Senate should ignore Obama's nominee and not even grant him a hearing. North Carolina voters do not like that-- not at all. 52% say the position should be filled and only 41% say it shouldn't be. Another finding NRA darling Burr may have to tap dance around has to do with gun safety. By an 83/8 spread, voters in the state support requiring background checks on all gun purchases, with support for that coming from 89% of Democrats, 80% of independents, and 78% of Republicans.




Nor is Burr the only Republican senator previously considered "safe," who is now in trouble with voters back home. Roy Blunt represents Missouri, a purple state leaning towards the GOP. He was first elected to the Senate in a solid Republican year (2010) with 54% of the vote against a weak opponent. This time he'll face a more formidable opponent in Secretary of State Jason Kander. The most recent poll (November 1) showed Blunt leading Kander 43-33%. Yesterday, the Kansas City Star released a poll specifically about the Merrick Garland nomination, which found that 86% of respondents would like to see Garland get an up-or-down vote by the Senate. 82% said they agreed with that strongly. Blunt, of course, has backed McConnell's strategy of no meetings, no hearings, no vote, no, no, no, no... This is the question and the response that should have Blunt as concerned as he looks:

Republican Senate Incumbents Facing Angry Voters Over Knee-Jerk Obstructionism

We've mentioned that Republican obstructionism over the Supreme Court vacancy could hurt some of the Republican Senate incumbents, particularly Chuck Grassley in Iowa, who the DSCC had originally declared invulnerable. No one thinks he's invulnerable any longer and support is building for progressives Tom Fiegen and Rob Hogg, while the DSCC found themselves a Monsanto-backed corprate shill to get behind. PPP Senate results of surveys in four states bolsters the possibility that the GOP's bitter obstructionism against Obama is something they could pay for very dearly in November.

Tom Jensen from PPP suggests that all four states-- Arizona, Iowa, Missouri and North Carolina, none of which were looked at as possible wins by the vision-free DSCC-- ate becoming competitive because of "voter anger over their Republican senators’ unwillingness to consider a replacement for Antonin Scalia." That McCain, Blunt and Burr already had mediocre approval numbers exacerbates the problem these Republicans are now facing.

Strong majorities of voters in each of these states want the Supreme Court vacancy to be filled this year. It’s a 56/40 spread in favor of filling the seat in Iowa, 56/41 in Arizona and Missouri, and 55/41 in North Carolina. What’s particularly important in the numbers is the strong support for filling the seat among independents-- it’s 60/38 in Missouri, 59/37 in Arizona, 58/38 in Iowa, and 55/38 in North Carolina. Independent voters will be key to determining whether these incumbents sink or swim this fall, and they want the vacancy filled.

What voters especially have a problem with is Senate Republicans saying they’re going to reject President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court no matter who it is. Super-majorities of voters in all four of these states-- 69/25 in Arizona, 66/24 in Missouri, 66/25 in North Carolina, and 66/26 in Iowa say that the Senate should at least wait and see who’s put forward before deciding whether to confirm or deny that person. Even Republican voters-- 56/35 in Arizona, 54/38 in North Carolina, 52/37 in Missouri, and 50/39 in Iowa think their Senators are taking far too extreme of a position by saying they won’t approve President Obama’s choice without even knowing who that choice is.

The Supreme Court issue really could make a difference at the ballot box this fall. Voters by a 34 point margin in Arizona and Missouri, a 21 point margin in North Carolina, and a 14 point margin in Iowa say that they’re less likely to vote for their Republican Senators this fall if they refuse to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court no matter who it is. This is again something where we find the Republican Senators could particularly pay a price with independent voters. Independents in Arizona say 61/18 they’re less likely to vote for John McCain because of this issue, and it’s 55/16 for Richard Burr with them in North Carolina, 55/20 for Roy Blunt with them in Missouri, and 48/24 for Chuck Grassley with them in Iowa.

First Arizona, where McCain is lucky enough to just have to deal with a weak challenge from an especially odious New Dem backbencher, Ann Kirkpatrick:

Second-- Iowa, where Grassley is far more vulnerable than Chuck Schumer and Jon Tester had decided. Hogg or Fiegen could beat him.

Third is Missouri, another state Schumer and Tester were ready to write off:

And last, here are the results from North Carolina, another state with a very weak Republican incumbent, Richard Burr, that Schumer and Tester were perfectly satisfied with ignoring, at least once they failed to persuade their favorite Blue Dog, Heath Shuler, to jump in.

DSCC Recruits Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander To Run For Blunt's Senate Seat

By Missouri standards, Kander is a progressive. The NRA gave him a "D" and the Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition has ranked him between 86 and 100% since 2009. At 33, he's the youngest statewide-elected official in the whole country-- and he's very popular in Missouri and was expected to skate to reelection next year. He won't be as favored to beat Blunt in 2016-- even if Hillary at the top of the ticket is expected to make Missouri competitive-- but the entire state party has quickly united behind him, and the DSCC sees him as their best chance to win the seat. Gov. Jay Nixon quickly endorsed him and so did senior Senator Claire McCaskill: "There is no stronger candidate in Missouri to take on Senator Blunt than Jason Kander. And no one better to fight on behalf of Missouri’s working families."

A former member of the state Assembly, he successfully ran for Secretary of State in 2012 against Speaker Pro Tem of that body, State Representative Shane Schoeller in a terrible year for Missouri Democrats, which saw Mitt Romney beat Obama 1,482,440 (54%) to 1,223,796 (44%). On that same day, Kander beat Scholler 1,298,022 (48.9%) to 1,258,937 (47.4%).

Kander's career of public service as an Afghan War vet contrasts sharply with Blunt, a political hack, wheeler-dealer, and career politician. This morning the Kansas City Star perceptively asked the question-- why would Kander run now. "Why would Jason Kander, the 33-year-old Missouri secretary of state, bail out of a re-election race next year in which he was heavily favored to instead take on a sitting U.S. senator, Roy Blunt, who will be heavily favored to kick Kander’s backside all over the Show-Me State next year? Why would Kander take such a risk?" No doubt he thinks he can pull off a win but even if he loses-- and, let's face it, that's likely-- he'll be a likely appointee for a career-building federal position.

And now a slight caveat: last night, Chris Hayes began running a 3-part interview he did with former CIA-agent (which we embedded here) John Kiriakou. Kander was never in the CIA or NSA agent. He was an Army Intelligence Officer before volunteering to go to fight in Afghanistan. But Chris asked Kiriakou an important question though that I want to bring up here in light of the fear many people have that the American intelligence networks are infiltrating their own agents into Congress to take control of oversight of the agencies. Chris: "Before we go further, I've got to ask you this: I've had some experience talking to spooks in my reporting career and two things have struck me. One is a lot of them seem a little crazy. And the other thing is you guys are trained, paid liars..."

Kiriakou: Yes

Chris: Why should I believe anything you are saying to me now? You literally, professionally lied for decades...

Kiriakou: Yeah... you're trained to lie. You lie all the time; you cheat, you steal, you swindle, you trick people people... That is the nature of the job; yes. The problem at the Agency, often-times, is those guys don't know when to turn it off.

Last cycle, the spy agencies beat a pathetic Blue Dog with one of their own agents, William Hurd (R-TX) but, despite the best efforts of Steve Israel, failed to insert 3 of their own Democrats into House seats: Bobby McKenzie (MI), Kevin Strouse (PA) and Jerry Cannon (MI). We need to find out more about what Kander thinks about the spy agencies and the Seante's role in protecting American civilians from them.

A Case For Natural Disaster Vengeance?

Republican Congressman Peter King was correct when he said New York and New Jersey donors would be crazy to contribute campaign money to Republican candidates. "Anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee should have their head examined," he raved to CNN. "It was absolutely disgraceful. People in my party, they wonder why they're becoming a minority party... They're going to have a hard time getting my vote, I can tell you that. Turning your back on people who are starving and freezing is not a Republican value."

In the video above, MSNBC populist host Ed Schultz suggests that northerners may make it tough on states like Missouri, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama when, inevitably, their states next come to the federal government to help them with disaster relief. Wrong states. Yes, hypocrites Roy Blunt (R-MO), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Jeff Sessions (KKK-AL) voted against aid for Sandy survivors. But Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) wisely voted for aid.

Were there any states with both senators who voted against aid? Of course there were... and their constituents are going to-- at the very least-- be forced to wait a little longer for disaster relief reimbursement. Or maybe Democrats will ask that aid be offset with an increase in taxes on millionaires or be offset by closing loopholes on Big Oil. Which states better hope they don't need federal help soon?

• Wyoming- John Barraso (R)- NO and Mike Enzi (R)- NO... and Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R), Wyoming's only Congressmember- NO
• Texas- John Cornyn (R)- NO and Ted Cruz (R)- NO... as did 23 of Texas' 24 Republican congressmembers
• Georgia- Saxby Chambliss (R)- NO and Johnny Isakson (R)- NO... as did all the Republican House Members
• Oklahoma- Tom Coburn (R)- NO and Jim Inhofe (R)- NO
• Idaho- Mike Crapo (R)- NO and Jim Risch (R)- NO... as did the state's 2 Congressmen, Raul Labrador and Mike Simpson
• Nebraska- Deb Fischer (R)- NO and Mike Johanns (R)- NO... as did the state's 3 congressmen
• Arizona- John McCain (R) and Jeff Flake (R)- NO... as did all 4 GOP congressmen
• South Carolina- Lindsey Graham (R)- NO and Tim Scott (R)- NO... as did all 6 of the state's 6 GOP congressmen
• Utah- Orrin Hatch (R)- NO and Mike Lee (R)- NO... as did all 3 of the state's GOP congressmen
• Kentucky- Miss McConnell (R)- NO and Rand Paul (R)- NO
• Kansas- Jerry Moran (R)- NO and Pat Roberts (R)- NO... as did all 4 of Kansas' congressmen

So... best-- purest-- targets are Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas... 100% states against aid. And then there's Georgia... Adairsville, Georgia, birthplace of Pretty Boy Floyd, sits exactly on the boundary between the 14th and 11th congressional districts in northwest Georgia. The 11th, which holds most of the town of 4,648, is represented by GOP Rape Caucus loon Phil Gingrey. The 14th is represented by equally crazy and extremist Tom Graves. Today God raised His hand against the poor folks in Adairsville and smote it-- probably to send a clear message to Gingrey, Graves and the two right-wing Georgia senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, all 4 of whom voted against aid to Sandy victims. The storm also hit Nashville, Tennessee, where Jim Cooper distinguished his Blue Dog self as the only Democrat to vote against aid for the natural disaster in New York and New Jersey.

At least two people are dead after a series of powerful storms and tornadoes pummeled much of the South Wednesday.

Whole swaths of Georgia and Tennessee spent the day under siege, already battered by high winds as the storm front began its deadly march last night.

Outside of Nashville residents heard a deafening roar and had only seconds to react.

Storms rip through south

Who's Got Georgia On Their Mind?

How about that for a nice Hobson's choice?

Yesterday even quintessential corporate whore and reactionary dinosaur Roy Blunt (R-MO) admits he may have no choice but to vote to increase taxes on the very rich (the GOP's financial base). Yeah, Blunt told a KTRS Missouri radio audience he's considering raising the marginal tax rates on the rich as part of the Obama-Boehner Grand Bargain-- as long as it's "balanced" with lots of pain and suffering for working families. John Thune (R-SD), a non-Mormon version of Romney with presidential ambitions, is on the same page.



Blunt isn't up for reelection in 2014. Neither is Thune. I'm more impressed when I hear right-wing Senate incumbents who are up for reelection say they're open to making the rich pay a fairer share of the tax burden. ("Fairer"... but never fair, of course; fair would be going back to the Eisenhower era rates. And Republicans don't quite word it that way anyway.) So that's why I'm more interested when Tea Party primary targets like Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) make noises in that direction. There's is some degree of political courage-- not much, but some-- when they take a position that even hints at increasing rates on the rich (and on tossing the Grover Norquist pledge that more and more Republicans have come to regret).

Let's talk about the Republican senator who, aside from high profile notorious closet case Lindsey Graham, has put himself in the gravest jeopardy in terms of losing a primary contest to a teabagger: Saxby Chambliss. As I pointed out a few days ago, Chambliss is a rock bottom right-wing loon with a putrid voting record by any rational standards.

Chambliss, whose career-long ProgressivePunch score is a shocking 2.04-- even more far right than secessionist freak shows Jim DeMint (R-SC), Roger Wicker (R-MS) or Jeff Sessions (KKK-AL) or Tea Party darlings Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT)-- says he knows Norquist and the teabaggers will come after him in 2014 with a primary challenge from an outright John Bircher like Paul Broun but is confident he made the right decision.

And it's not just Broun, who is actually so far right of either Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock that even "a liberal" like Chambliss could whoop his ass. Right-wing blogger and clownish crackpot Erick Erickson has backed away from primarying Chambliss but that leaves two very serious right-wing contenders who could beat him: former Secretary of State Karen Handel (an anti-Choice icon) and corrupt right-wing ideologue Rep. Tom Price. Aaron Blake at the Washington Post lists the reasons Chambliss could be even more vulnerable than Lindsey Graham in 2014:

1. While it’s not clear who might have the wherewithal to challenge Graham, there are plenty of candidates ready to challenge Chambliss. Price and Broun both have very conservative records, and Handel, of course, has a statewide resume.

2. Chambliss had a weak showing in 2008. Despite being an incumbent, he ran a few points behind Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the top of the ticket and actually needed to go to a runoff to keep his seat against Democrat Jim Martin, who wasn’t seen as a top-tier opponent. (Chambliss did beat Martin by double-digits in the runoff, for what it’s worth.)

3. He’s from South Georgia. Chambliss is from Moultrie, which is very far from Atlanta and from most of the state’s population centers. Thus, it seems logical that a candidate from the Atlanta area could beat him by regionalizing the race.

4. He’s got a tone problem. While Chambliss has got a largely conservative record, he’s hardly a conservative favorite. In fact, when it comes to the National Journal vote ratings, Chambliss has scored more conservative than Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) the last two years, and he was tied for the most conservative senator in 2010.

Chambliss’s problem is he doesn’t talk the conservative talk. He likes to instead talk about compromise, and he has flirted with middle ground on issues like immigration and now the “fiscal cliff.” He was a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Six” during 2011 debt ceiling negotiations and is on the current bipartisan “Gang of Eight” for the “fiscal cliff” talks.

The fact that he was the first big-name Republicans to break with Norquist over the holiday weekend is exactly the kind of thing that makes some Georgia conservatives wary of him.

“He does not know how to talk to Georgia Republicans,” said one neutral Georgia GOP strategist, granted anonymity to discuss the race candidly. “This whole thing with Norquist-- why bother? You’re just kicking sand at people who already hate you.”

Teabaggers see him as the next mainstream conservative they can beat, the way they used Richard Mourdock to beat Richard Lugar in a primary this year. But they're comparing him to a victory they had which had more fortuitous results, ousting Senator Robert Bennett in 2010 and replacing him with lunatic fringe Mike Lee. But that was Utah, a right-wing bastion where no Democrats are going to win a Senate seat no matter who the GOP pukes up as their candidate. Georgia isn't Utah. Obama lost Utah with 24.9% of the vote, easily his worst showing anywhere. Georgia, on the other hand, gave Obama his best showing (45.5%) in any Confederate state other than the two he won--Florida (50.0%) and Virginia (51.1%)-- and the other one he contested, North Carolina (48.3%). He actually won 3 dozen counties outright, while next door, Alabama gave Obama a dismal 38.4% and Tennessee coughed up a grudging 39.1%.

It may be inconceivable that any Democratic politician in the state could beat Chambliss but one finds himself in an almost identical position today that now-Senator-elect Joe Donnelly (D-IN) found himself last year. The Republican-controlled Indiana legislature tweaked Donnelly's district in such a way to make it impossible for him to win reelection. Jackie Walorsky had nearly beat him under the old lines in 2010-- 91,341 (48%) to 88,803 (47%)-- and by swapping out a few Democratic areas for a few Republican areas, IN-02 became a pretty red bastion. With Kosciusko and Miami Counties added to the district, not even a hard core right-wing Blue Dog like Donnelly (or, as it turned out, Brendan Mullen) was going to have a shot there. If Steve Israel was too stupid to see that (and poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Mullen's impossible race), Donnelly at least read the handwriting on the wall. He declared he would run-- a Hail Mary pass that he figured would precede a lucrative career on K Street-- against Richard Lugar. Polling showed he'd have no chance whatsoever to beat Lugar. But then along came the teabaggers and Mourdock. Donnelly won the seat 1,268,407 (50%) to 1,126,832 (44%)-- at the same time Romney was creaming Obama 1,412,620 (54%) to 1,140,425 (44%). Yes, you're reading those numbers right-- not only did Romney voters cross over and vote for Donnelly, plenty of Donnelly voters crossed over and voted for Romney... or against the Kenyan.

Back to Georgia. The Republican-controlled legislature there sliced Savannah out of the 12th CD. (Barrow lived in Savannah, just as he had once lived in Athens when the GOP sliced that out of his district; now he's moved to Augusta.) It made the district a lot whiter (so more safe for Blue Dog John Barrow in the primary-- and remember he lost Savannah to Regina Thomas in the last primary-- but much less likely for a Democrat to hold, even one with as far right a voting record as Barrow, who votes with Boehner and Cantor far more frequently than he does with Pelosi and Hoyer). Barrow actually managed to win against a weak, primary-scarred Republican, Lee Anderson, 138,965 (54%) to 119,857 (46%). Next year the GOP won't give Barrow such a weak opponent... and he knows it. They will probably run Senate President Pro Tem Tommie Williams-- unless Barrow flips and becomes a Republican, a distinct possibility. The other possibility is for him to run for the Senate seat in the hope that the teabaggers knock off Chambliss and give him a real fringe loon like Broun or Handel to run against.

As a postscript, let me just say that Donnelly and Barrow have almost identical ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores for the 112th Congress. Barrow is Congress' 193rd "most progressive" member (24.31) and Donnelly is the 194th "most progressive" (23.54), two truly abysmal scores when it comes to working families' interests. Five Republicans have voted more frequently with progressives than either Barrow or Donnelly. And Donnelly's first news as a Senator-elect was to make himself a problem in terms of filibuster reform, already arguing for a more Republican-friendly resolution. Yeah, Dems!

Some Blunt Words

The Conservative War Against Women

For organizations which argue that if we just had more gays... or women... or African-Americans (you pick the group) everything would be so much better (at least for that group), I say, look at the Senate vote on the Blunt Amendment yesterday. Blunt's Amendment was meant to deny women access to contraceptives. There are 10 Democratic women and 5 Republican women in the Senate. All the Democratic women (plus one Republican, Maine's Olympia Snowe, who just announced she's retiring) voted against it. But all the other Republican women-- Kelly Ayotte (NH), Susan Collins (ME) Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) and Lisa Murkowski (AK)-- voted with the right-wing boys-- including shameful Democrats Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin and Bob Casey.

When EMILY's List dredged up and endorsed a woman, Nikki Tinker, against a male congressman in Memphis, Steve Cohen, they screwed up totally. Cohen is so much better on every issue important to women and to working class families than Tinker that it was scandalous. And when Tinker ran an anti-Semitic campaign against Cohen, EMILY's List-- fearing their Jewish donors would get pissed off-- withdrew the endorsement... on election day, after the damage was done. Similarly they just picked a rich, pro-business flake, Stacey Lawsen, over potentially the best congressman in our lifetimes-- Norman Solomon. They never learn.


We need more women in Congress and throughout our political system-- but more progressive women, not unqualified idiots that EMILY's List digs up because they happen to be women. David Dreier is 100% gay but what does he do for the LGBT community? Spits in its face every opportunity he gets. His voting record on gay issues is a zero. He voted against the LGBT community every single time a rollcall on one of their issues came up. And it isn't even like he's trying to fool someone into thinking he's not gay the way fearful closet cases like Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Aaron Schock (R-IL), Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Adrian Smith (R-NE) do. Everyone in DC already knows Dreier is gay. He doesn't talk about it publicly, but he doesn't deny it either and when Hastert tried making him Minority Leader, the far right of his party-- particularly Blunt from yesterday's Blunt Amendment-- started screaming they're not being lead by some (you can imagine)! But as for the gay community, they're much better off with a straight ally-- take José Serrano from the Bronx-- who is operating out of progressive principles and values not because of identity group politics. And back to Memphis... do you think that city's overwhelmingly African-American population was better off with a corrupt, conservative corporate hack like Harold Ford, Jr. than they are with a stalwart progressive white guy, Steve Cohen? Nope; Ford was looking out for the banksters and for whomever would give him a schmeer; Ford is diligently super-serving his constituents.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent out a press release on Blunt's Amendment that probably would have been similar to one sent out by a male secretary. It's about the right policy, not the gender. Half the Cabinet should be women and half the Congress should be women and half the Supreme Court should be women-- give or take-- and the next president should be a woman but I'll take a progressive man over a conservative woman any day. Sebelius' statement, while we're on the topic:

Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that over 20 million American women in private health insurance plans have already gained access to at least one free preventive service because of the health care law. Without financial barriers like co-pays and deductibles, women are better able to access potentially life-saving services, and cancers are caught earlier, chronic diseases are managed and hospitalizations are prevented.

A proposal being considered in the Senate this week would allow employers that have no religious affiliation to exclude coverage of any health service, no matter how important, in the health plan they offer to their workers. This proposal isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong.

The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss. We encourage the Senate to reject this cynical attempt to roll back decades of progress in women’s health.

Now a woman (or a man) who thinks the way Darcy Burner thinks... that's the kind of candidate, regardless of gender (but I'm glad she's a woman) deserves to be supported-- and you can do that right here. Here, in part, is what she wrote after the Senate beat back Blunt's amendment yesterday:

Thankfully the amendment didn't pass, but it reflects a disturbing Republican worldview that women's control over their own pregnancy is a luxury. That is, to be blunt, outrageously obnoxious.

The fact is, thousands of women's lives are saved every year by treatment to prevent or end pregnancy, and many millions more have dramatically improved quality of life because they can decide whether and when to get pregnant. I understand how important that is, because I am one of those women.

My husband Mike and I tried very early in our marriage to have children. But while I was pregnant with our daughter Deirdre, I developed a life-threatening infection; only prompt medical care and nearly a week of hospitalization saved me. Our daughter was born prematurely and died while we held her.

When nearly a decade later I became pregnant again with our son Henry, that pregnancy too was life-threatening. I was on strict bed rest for twenty weeks. We finished the pregnancy in January 2003 with fluid filling my liver and lungs, my life in clear danger-– and Henry was early, but we were eventually able to bring him home from the hospital healthy and thriving. I lost count of how many things went wrong during that pregnancy. It seemed like every two weeks I was having another conversation with my doctor about how much I was willing to risk. I’m glad the story has a happy ending, but the idea that some politician thinks they have more standing to make such decisions than I do is patently absurd.

For me, pregnancy is life-threatening. And it isn’t just me: the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is 8.8 deaths for every 100,000 pregnancies. Every year people lose wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers to pregnancies gone wrong. The costs of childrearing are high, as well. Women are entitled to decide for themselves whether they want to take such risks, whether to bear such costs, and it’s offensive that Republican politicians have the gall to claim that women have no standing to make decisions about their own bodies and health if their bosses or random politicians disagree.

No politician is entitled to make those decisions for any women. No employer is entitled to make those decisions for any woman. And it’s long past time that women’s healthcare stopped being a political football.

Now you know a little more about why Blue America supports her with such enthusiasm. It's not her gender per se; it's her mind.

Is There A Difference Between Democrats And Republicans? If You Live In Missouri And Think So, Please Let Robin Carnahan Know

ummm...

When I started writing yesterday's post about the Missouri Senate race, I was almost elated over how really skillfully the Democratic nominee, Secretary of State Robin Carnihan, had gone after one of the most corrupt members of Congress, her opponent Roy Blunt. The 30 second ad is just spectacular. Here, watch it again (since it doesn't only refer to Blunt, but to the other Wall Street darlings who took boatloads of bribes from Wall Street and then helped engineer Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout, the biggest heist of taxpayer dollars in history (not counting war). So watch Blunt squirm but, remember, the ad could as easily be about almost any of the GOP congressional leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, Mark Kirk (being financed today by Wall Street in a bid for the Illinois Senate seat), Mike Castle (being financed today by Wall Street in a bid for the Delaware Senate seat), Mary Fallin (being financed today by Wall Street in a bid for the Oklahoma governor's mansion), or nearly the entire California Republican congressional delegation, including crooks like Jerry Lewis, Ken Calvert, John Campbell, David Dreier, Mary Bono Mack, Dan Lungren, Buck McKeon, Gary Miller and Wally Herger.



Wouldn't it have been nice to have been able to just end it there? But, alas, I couldn't. I couldn't because right after putting out a picture perfect populist message like that, the clueless Carnahan-- who must be getting advice from Claire McCaskill-- then announced she's on the same page as Blunt and other shameless Wall Street shills in trying to give multimillionaires another huge and unfair tax break. Not even Wall Street's reps in the White House, Rahm Emanuel, Tiny Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers, and the president's loudest anti-populist advisor, Robert Rubin, could talk Obama into that untenable position, regardless of how shrill the demands by the ruling elite. A new CNN poll just out shows that ordinary voters DO NOT WANT MORE TAX BREAKS FOR MILLIONAIRES. The poll didn't ask about favorability of mounting millionaires' heads on pikes in town squares but if it did, I think Carnahan might be in for quite the surprise.

The poll shows that 51% support Democrats’ plans-- real Democrats, not the Carnahan version-- to end the Bush giveaways to the rich, while keeping in place tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. A mere 31% support expanding the budget-busting tax giveaways for the rich, while 18% believe all of the Bush tax cuts should come to an end. So 69% want tax breaks for the rich to end. Even most Republican voters think the wealthy have had their tax breaks long enough! Carnahan made a really bad political blunder. That's why I wasn't surprised to read TomP's diary at Kos yesterday, Bye, bye Carnahan. No More $$$ From Me. Of course, he'll vote for her-- she's infinitely better than the crooked Blunt-- but no more campaign contributions.

This is a step too far. By supporting tax cuts for the rich, ones her mother voted for in the Senate, Robin turned her back on working people.

I only have so much money and I need to put it where it will do the most good. Robin's fighting for a Republican seat, and she'll be an upgrade, but Alexi will be a progressive voice who will not only support the President's agenda, but push him to the left. Robin clearly has decided to take a blue dog path.

You can't be an economic populist and support tax cuts for the rich.
 
...She took the blue dog road and I'm getting off here.

At a time when Democrats, Independents and most Americans are craving a strong, coherent populist message, why do we have Democrats presenting themselves as shills for the two or three hundred richest families in America? Isn't that why we have a Republican Party? And isn't that why the Republican Party was voted out of power?

Roy Blunt Would Like To Change The Subject From Economics To Mosques

My day started yesterday with a look at a really excellent new TV ad. Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, who's been lagging the polls lately, hit the nail on the head with her fantastic reminder to her state's voters that Roy Blunt didn't just vote for the 2008 Bush no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout, he was one of the architects of the massive giveaway to the very people who caused the financial chaos because of their reckless, imperious, if not criminal, behavior. Please watch the video above.

It hits all the points we've been urging campaigns of other Democrats running against Republicans who fought hard for the $700 billion bailout-- John Boehner (R-OH), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Richard Burr (R-NC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and virtually all the crooked California Republicans from Ken Calvert, Mary Bono Mack, Gary Miller, Jerry Lewis, and John Campbell in the Southland to Dan Lungren and Wally Herger way in the northern part of the state-- to pound on.

Calling Blunt "the very worst of Washington," the ad states that Blunt in 1999 eliminated some financial system safeguards put in place during the Great Depression and then took a leading role in 2008 to work out the financial bailout legislation. It also says he has accepted more than $1.6 million in campaign donations from the banking and financial industry during his tenure in Congress.

The ad is running in markets across Missouri, Carnahan campaign spokesman Linden Zakula said Thursday. He said the spot is designed to hold Blunt accountable for wasting tax dollars, defending corporate special interests and hurting the middle class.

Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer criticized the ad and said Carnahan was shying away from talking about jobs and economic development issues.

"This phony ad is the worst in political deception and hypocrisy," Chrismer said.

...The Sedalia Democrat reported in July that Carnahan, Missouri's Secretary of State, said the bailout money may have been needed to stabilize the economy but that Blunt and others failed to attach strict controls on how it was spent. Two weeks later, the newspaper reported that Carnahan said she was not convinced banks were in a crisis and would not have voted for the legislation and does not currently support it.

Blunt has no answer to the charges except some mumbo-jumbo about being for it and against it and a bunch of incomprehensible claptrap that emphasizes his beady eyes and focuses voters on the fact that he has taken more in bribes from Wall Street than any other Missouri congressman in history-- and almost more than any other Member of the House ($3,636,377 as of June 30 with more Wall Street money gushing into his coffers at an unprecedented rate. "A top official from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is accompanying the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, U.S Rep. Roy Blunt, around the state today to emphasize the chamber's commitment to help the congressman from southwest Missouri as he seeks to succeed another of their favorites-- retiring U.S. Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond. Bond also voted for the Wall Street bailout, of course, although he hasn't been as blatantly in the pocket of Big Business and the banksters as Blunt.

If you're rushing off to the Blue America Senate Candidates Worth Fighting For page to donate to Carnahan's campaign, slow down. She's not there. We love the ad and she's infinitely better than Blunt and everyone involved with Blue America would vote for her over Blunt in an instant. But that doesn't mean we're going to donate money to her. I haven't spoken with her but from what I've been reading, she'd be another middle-of-the-road Democrat confusing issues and playing games in Washington. She may not be Blunt, but she's not Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold either. Yesterday, for example, she flip-flopped on tax cuts for the wealthy and basically adopted the same odious position as Blunt. Echoing the GOP talking points that Miss McConnell sent out to his cronies, she told pig eaters at the Missouri State Fair's annual ham breakfast that "Now is not the time to be doing anything to raise taxes. We're still in the midst of a downturn in the economy, so we need to keep those tax cuts in place-- all of them."

In a February radio interview, Carnahan had said she favored extending tax cuts for the middle-class but not for the wealthiest Americans. She said then that the nation couldn't afford it.

Carnahan said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press that her position has evolved because of an additional six months of difficult economic times, which she blamed on policies backed by Blunt. Carnahan said she supports making permanent the tax cuts affecting lower and middle-income people and extending tax cuts for wealthier people until the economy improves enough to consider ways of balancing the budget. She declined to specify how long that extension should last.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated Thursday that renewing all the tax reductions would cost government at least $3.3 trillion over the coming decade.

At least Carnahan is making effort, albeit lamely, to talk about the bread and butter issues Americans care about. Blunt is trying to take the focus off his abysmal record in Congress and screech shrilly and hysterically about a supposed mosque in New York City. This time it didn't work and media reacted in horror at the grotesque nature of Blunt's latest attempt to throw everything at Carnahan to see if something sticks. He pulled down the ad. Although maybe he pulled it down because Carnahan sounded rational in it and his position is nihilistic and essentially anti-American. Take a look: