Chris Christie removes possible Republican advantage in Senate Race with election decision

Posted by Parker V on June 5, 2013 under Republican | Be the First to Comment

This is a blow for the GOP and here is why:

The term for Lautenberg’s vacant seat runs until November 2014. Christie had two options in how to fill it. Option one: Simply appoint someone to serve out the rest of the term and let voters elect a new senator on schedule next year. Assuming Christie appointed a Republican, that would give the national GOP an extra vote in the Senate for almost 18 months — granted, likely a moderate vote, but that’s still preferable to a liberal Democrat. Maybe the appointee would impress Jerseyans with his Senate record and would stand an incumbent’s fighting chance to hold the seat against Cory Booker next year. Or maybe he wouldn’t intend to run against Booker at all, which would free him up to vote as a conservative for the remainder of the term. Jersey Democrats threatened to sue Christie if he went this route, but as Ed Krayewski noted at Reason, he had cover from the state’s bipartisan Office of Legislative Services. Reportedly, they issued an opinion earlier today stating that the 18-month appointment would be just fine legally. Option two: Christie could throw all of that away by appointing a very short-term replacement for Lautenberg and scheduling a special election for sometime later this year. That would give Booker all kinds of advantages. Not only wouldn’t he have to face a GOP incumbent with more than a year’s experience in office, he also wouldn’t need to worry about his opponent having lots of time to fundraise. The risk to Christie in choosing this option was that it would bring all sorts of Democratic voters out to the polls on election day who might otherwise have stayed home. And that means Christie, who’s cruising to victory at the moment, could suddenly see his own gubernatorial reelection bid jeopardized by the big surge in Democratic turnout. All of which makes this a no-brainer, right? Appoint a Republican to finish Lautenberg’s term and trust that Christie’s big lead in the gubernatorial race won’t suffer too much for it. How angry could Jersey Democrats be if he appointed a Republican as squishy as he is? So which option did Christie choose? Option two, of course — except that, in order to protect his own ass electorally, he decided to schedule the Senate special election in October, not on election day in November. Now he gets the best of both worlds, all but handing the seat to Booker ASAP to burnish his “bipartisan” brand while ensuring that he himself doesn’t have to face the extra Democratic voters who’ll turn out to vote for Booker.

“I don’t know what the cost is and I quite frankly don’t care. I don’t think you can put a price tag on what it’s worth it have an elected person in the United States Senate and I will do whatever I need to do to make sure those costs are covered because all the people of the state of New Jersey will benefit from it. And we’re not going to be penny wise and pound foolish around here,” said Christie at a press conference.

Christie of course denys the politics of the play:

“There’s no political purpose. The political purpose is to give the people a voice,” Christie said in announcing his decision today.

But there is political impact.New Jersey will elect a new senator Oct. 16 — a mere 20 days before the state’s gubernatorial election, in which Christie is the undisputed frontrunner for a second term.

That means Christie’s race will top the ballot Nov. 5, instead of a Senate race that could well feature Newark Mayor Cory Booker. The intense interest in the Senate race — in solidly blue New Jersey, in a race that could feature an African-American Democratic rising star — would have almost certainly siphoned votes from Christie.

Democrats are attacking the decision as well:

Democrats teed off on Christie after his announcement at a news conference. The governor’s 2014 Democratic opponent, state Sen. Barbara Buono, called the governor’s move “cynical and arrogant” and said Christie “made it clear that he does not care about wasting taxpayer money.”…

Matt Canter, deputy executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, made that point when responding to the special election dates.

“Republicans have not won a Senate race in New Jersey in more than 40 years. Their only shot was an appointee who had a year-and -a-half to establish themselves before an election in 2014,” he said. “With this news I assume operatives at the NRSC are busy planning Christie’s defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire right now.”

Mia Love assures a conservative bounce-back in 2014, readies to run for Congress again

Posted by Parker V on March 18, 2013 under Republican | Be the First to Comment

Saratoga Springs Utah mayor Mia Love asked the crowd “are you tired yet?” when beginning her adress at CPAC. When cries of “NO” responded, she said, “I’m not either”. Little did the attendees know however, that further implications may have been present in the statement. Watch her speech which contained other alluding to comebacks and bouncebacks…

Via Roll Call:

In preparation for a bid, Love has hired former state GOP Chairman Dave Hansen, who was widely heralded last year for successfully managing the re-election campaign of Sen. Orrin Hatch.

Love and Hansen sat down with CQ Roll Call for an interview Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where she was scheduled to speak.

“We are looking at it very seriously,” Love said. “We are trying to get people engaged and going, and let them know that we have to start early so that we are not starting from behind.”

Love is reaching out to donors now, some 20 months before the election, and putting in place a campaign team far earlier than last cycle. Love didn’t formally enter the wide, 4th District Republican field until January 2012. She shocked Republicans by emerging from the April state party convention with the nomination in hand.

“Getting that message out takes a lot of effort, a lot of funds, so we want to make sure that we are defining ourselves before the opposition does,” Love said.

As the nominee, Love quickly gained national attention – including a coveted speaking slot at the Republican National Convention – for her unique background and potential to become the first black Republican woman in Congress. That looked to be a strong possibility in Utah’s redrawn and Republican-leaning 4th district, much of which was new to Matheson.

While Love held Matheson to under 50 percent, she underperformed compared to Mitt Romney, who was wildly popular in Utah, by nearly 20 points on the ticket. Some Republican strategists criticized her ads and poorly run campaign, while Matheson credited his established brand and own strong campaign team.

With Hansen on board, Love believes she has now assembled the best possible team.

Michele Bachstein?

Posted by Wyatt on October 3, 2012 under Elections, Republican | Be the First to Comment

Michele Bachmann (hisses, boos, and screams from the crowd) decided to visit a Chicago synagogue for a Yom Kippur service last week.

For a fundraiser? No.

To give a speech? No.

To collect donations? No.

To quietly attend a Yom Kippur service?

HOW DARE SHE.

The mere appearance of this intimidating, middle-aged, 5’2” woman was unfathomable, “infuriating some congregants”.

She was so terrifying, in fact, that “some walked out of the service, and one man, Gary Sircus, launched a local campaign to support Bachmann’s opponent Jim Graves, who had a 400 percent uptick in donations from the Chicago area last week.”

Who is this man, and what did this monstrous mother of twenty-six do to him?

According to his Twitter, “Math Teacher and Northwestern Univ. Professor (School of Education) — reformed lawyer; husband and father of two; loves politics, killer sudoku and my family”. He also is apparently quite the Democrat activist, attending a Lawyers for Obama event in Chicago that the President attended.

And how does he characterize the arrival of this…this…”Conservative Evangelical Christian Congresswoman Michele Bachmann” (in one of the most redundant and overly-capitalized introductions of all-time)?

“Michele Bachman’s at Anshe Emet for Kol Nidre. In honor of this unholy person being in my synagogue, I’ve made a contribution to Jim Graves”

Ahh yes. A Democrat fundraiser/activist and Northwestern University professor (never mentioned in the article) on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, a day for forgiveness, says:

“The holiness of the room and the holiness of the evening was greatly diminished for me, if not completely destroyed…Our congregation values and embodies tolerance, compassion, respect for individual rights, intelligence, science — all of the things that I think Michele Bachmann stands against.”

Of course! No better way to celebrate a day for forgiveness than to get up, leave, and give spiteful interviews because of prejudice against a fellow worshipper.

After all, donating money to her opponent and then making a huge fuss about it is the “best way to honor [her] visit”.

How did they even know she was there, anyway? Did she go on stage, gladhand in the aisles, pose for photo ops?

“Rabbi Michael Siegel publicly greeted Bachmann, in accordance with a common synagogue practice of greeting public officials in the audience.

‘I am aware of the fact that our congregation’s policy in regards to public officials clearly caused pain to some members of our community on the most precious day of reconciliation on the Jewish calendar,’ Siegel told the Tribune. ‘That we regret deeply.’

Perhaps Professor/Obama fundraiser Gary “Barnum and Bailey” Sircus was just miffed that he didn’t get introduced.

Making the conservative anti-gay politician’s appearance even more awkward, the service ‘featured a fictional father and son dialogue about Israel, including a piece celebrating Israel’s openness to the gay and lesbian community.’

Which obviously caused clearly-intolerant Michele Bachmann to up and leave.

Or no, wait…she stayed through the service while Gary (and others not named) up and left, because that’s what tolerance and forgiveness are all about.

VIDEO: Night of the Living Pelosi

Posted by Parker V on October 1, 2012 under Elections, Republican, Video | Be the First to Comment

John Dennis is an American businessman and politician who ran for and lost the race for the 8th congressional district of California in 2010. This is a real commercial from his campaign:

ABC observes:

The creation of Chris Burgard, who also cut ads for Herman Cain during his failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination, the new ad casts the California congressswoman as a cult leader of the living-dead as they prepare to sacrifice a lamb.

“We must first gut the sacrifice so that you can find out what’s in the sacrifice,” the Pelosi impersonator says. The line is a parody of her now-infamous remark about the Affordable Healthcare Act where she said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Dennis, a pro-gay marriage, pro-marijuana Republican, is the hero of the skit, stepping in to save the lamb.

Paul Ryan: Our goal is to reverse this hostility toward shale, toward oil and gas and coal (AUDIO)

Posted by Parker V on September 27, 2012 under Elections, President, Republican | Be the First to Comment

The Ryan audio and transcript from the Hugh Hewitt Show: Paul Ryan interview, 9/26/12

HH:  Starting this hour with Congressman Paul Ryan, the next vice president of the United States. Congressman Ryan, welcome back.

PR: Hey, what’s going on, Hugh? How are you doing?

HH: I’m great. I know you were in Colorado today. You were in Ohio yesterday, though, not in Warren.

PR: Yeah.

HH: I hope you get back to Warren and to the original Hot Dog Shoppe, and all the other great places.

PR: Great place.

HH: Well, I wanted to focus on Ohio with you, and Colorado and Virginia to a lesser extent, and their energy policies, Congressman, particularly the Marcellus and the Utica shale formations.

PR: Right.

HH: These are the future of Ohio. And the President is going to put out new regs, his senior environmental assistant, Heather Zichal said so in December. Those are almost certainly going to kill fracking. What’s Romney/Ryan going to do about fracking, and about the energy production issue?

PR: So the Obama administration has ten governing agencies, four executive offices involved in regulating fracking. We are going to streamline this, because we want to open up fracking. We want to open up these resources so we can create jobs and get this energy. We have a lot of energy in this country. We’re going to use this energy. In particular, with regulation for fracking, we want to get the states to do it. We think that the states are better suited to do this. That’s part of our very comprehensive plan that Mitt Romney and I put out on how to get America energy independent, North America energy independent by 2020. And a key part of that is use our resources. That’s not just shale, but also coal. And there’s a lot of coal in Ohio as well, especially in Virginia and West Virginia and Pennsylvania. We lost 1,200 coal jobs in coal country just a week ago, in due part because the Obama administration’s hostility toward this. So it doesn’t take a big stretch of the mind, Hugh, to know that the President wants this kind of energy to be really expensive. I mean, that’s the whole goal of his national energy tax of cap and trade in the first place. And so he couldn’t get cap and trade passed through the front door of Congress, so now he’s doing it through the back door of regulations. And this is just another chapter in that story of his hostility toward American energy, toward oil and gas and coal.

HH: So when you got through…

PR: We believe in an all…what’s that?

HH: When you go through a place like Ohio, and you’re talking to people on the street, when I was just back there in August, and I go fairly frequently, they’re very excited about it. It’s transforming Trumbull and Mahoning Counties and Central Ohio. They’ve got the first steel manufacturing new plant to open in 50 years opened last year. And it’s revolutionary. But this fracking stuff can shut it down. Are people aware that the President is, you know, when he talks about energy independence, it’s just blowing smoke given his record?

PR: Yeah, I mean, he even uses our word, our phrase, all of the above. Actually, it’s not all of the above. And so you know what’s interesting is we can see a window into this incredible jobs explosion, because when you look at private land, like in North Dakota, they’ve got the lowest unemployment rate in the country. It is a boon. Incomes are going up, wages are going up, jobs are being created. It’s giving them revenues to fix their infrastructure. It’s a boom. And the problem is, the President wants to regulate these things in such a way that it becomes virtually impossible. He’s shutting off access to federal lands, to the Outer Continental Shelf. And so we have before us this new kind of technology we didn’t even have a decade ago that is right under our feet. It’s our energy, in our country, that makes us less dependent on foreign oil. And it will be a boon to manufacturing, lots of jobs, lower prices, more revenues, helps us close the deficit. It’s a great, it’s a great asset that’s right before us. But if you believe in the hostility towards carbon-based energy, if you believe in raising the price of carbon-based energy, which is the goal of cap and trade, then you’re going to regulate this thing the way he is.

HH: Now Congressman Ryan, if they put these regs out in the interim, they say they’re coming in December, do you expect a Romney/Ryan administration would revoke them?

PR: Yeah, so we see this, there’s a long list of things that we’re going to revoke and do differently. And those are published rules, so you remember those rules aren’t finalized until…

HH: Right.

PR: …you know, months later. Our goal is to reverse this hostility toward shale, toward oil and gas and coal, and get this stuff turned back on, to get these jobs created, and to turn the Keystone Pipeline back on. We’re really worried that the Canadians might throw in the towel on America, and then just ship it to China. And so we’ve got, first things first, right on day one, we’ve got a lot of work to do to open up these natural resources, so that we can use them to bring that oil from Canada into our country, to build that pipeline, to build refineries. We need to streamline regulations. Go to our website. Mitt has put up a very comprehensive policy on there about specifically how we’ll deal with this, how we’re invoke states’ rights so Ohio can regulate the shale exploration in Ohio.

HH: Now this is key to the Buckeye State, so I’m curious. There are polls out today from Quinnipiac, and the other one’s from Marist. They are saying that you, Romney and Ryan, are way behind in Ohio. I think they’re nonsense, given their turnout model. What do you think of those polls?

PR: Well, yeah, you can analyze these things those ways. I’ve heard the turnout model issue as well. The poll that matters is November 6th, and what President Obama is doing, he’s been outspending us I think something like two to one or three to one in Ohio. He’s just trying to trash Mitt Romney. I mean, look, President Obama cannot run on his record, so he’s just going to try and trash Mitt Romney and win this thing by default. He’s going to distort, he’s going to divide this country, he’s going to distort his record, Mitt Romney’s record, to try and win this thing on default. We are not going to fall for that. We are not going to fall for the President’s straw men arguments. We’re not going to fall for a president, you know, who I’ve never seen such a politician so skilled at striking heroic poses against imaginary adversaries. That’s what he’s basically doing with all these make believe straw men arguments. Mitt Romney and I are going to give the country a very clear choice. And that very clear choice is if you want a real recovery, by getting back to economic growth, individual freedom, free enterprise, we are going to do that.

HH: Now it seems to me, Congressman, they have given up on the senior scare to a certain extent, that you’ve gotten the message across…

PR: Yeah.

HH: …that if you’re 55 or older, nothing is changing. Is that your perception, that they stopped trying to win that argument, in fact, they don’t want to have that argument with you?

PR: They don’t want to have the argument, because they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare. They have a new board of bureaucrats that will begin cutting benefits to seniors, which leads to rationed care. So they know if they go back into this debate, they’re culpable, and seniors begin to pay attention to what Medicare, how it’s damaged by Obamacare. So I think on that exchange, we’ve got the public educated. We’re going through and educating the public on these other things. And so what Mitt and I are going to do is offer the country very clear solutions how to get this country back on track by reapplying our founding principles, what are our ideas on jobs, on energy, on education, on trade, on cutting the budget, balancing the budget, reforming entitlements, reforming the tax code, getting the regulatory system cleaned up to get economic growth. We’re going to be offering them that choice so they can choose the opportunity society that America has been, the upward mobility society of economic growth and limited government and prosperity, strong national defense, peace through strength, or we can do four more years of what Obama has offered, which is going to end up with a welfare state and a debt crisis.

HH: Now Congressman, yesterday the President went to the United Nations, and this is part of what he said. It’s in context, and I want to play 17 seconds of his speech.

BO: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

HH: Now Congressman, when he said specifically this…

BO: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

HH: …I thought to myself immediately that’s what’s going to be excerpted on Al Jazeera, and played on jihadist websites.

PR: Right.

HH: What does that mean, because slander in some circles means rebuking or disagreeing, or in any way doubting the creed? And so what was the President trying to say?

PR: Well, you know, I look at the broader context of his speech, and he basically said the challenge that we have are Iran, Syria and the Middle East peace process. And in every one of these cases, everything’s gotten worse since he became president. So I think he’s trying to speak to everybody in every way. But if you look at the result of his foreign policy, Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon, you’ve got 20,000 Syrians who have been slaughtered by the hands of this dictator, peace in the region’s further out of reach. By his own measure, you know, he is doing far worse. He’s been an abject failure. And so perhaps these are going to be distractions from the fact that these things that he measures himself by, he has failed. What I get out of this is America needs to be strong and resolute in discussing and projecting our values. We should not be equivocal on this thing.

HH: Is the President being honest with us on Benghazi?

PR: Well, he needs to talk to his own people. I mean, his own counterterrorism director, his own State Department, his own press secretary have said this was a premeditated terrorist attack, and he’s not even said that. So I think the President has more of a challenge just talking to his own people about this.

HH: Okay, last question, Congressman.

PR: We’ll dig to the bottom of this, and that’s what Congressional hearings and all these things are all about.

HH: You’re going back to Ohio, Virginia and Colorado? Is that, plus Florida, the four places you’re going to spend the most time?

PR: Absolutely. I’m going to hang up the phone and go to Colorado Springs right now.

HH: All right.

PR: And then I’m going to swing over to the places. We’re going to spend a lot of time there.

HH: Paul Ryan, great to talk to you again, Congressman. We’ll catch back up with you on the road.

End of interview.

VIDEOS: Romney releases 15 new ads for 8 swing states

Posted by Parker V on September 8, 2012 under President, Republican | Be the First to Comment

These fifteen new TV ads will run in eight states:

VIDEO: Romney in 60 Minutes interview notes that Obama cut Medicare to pay for Obamacare

Posted by Parker V on August 13, 2012 under President, Republican | Be the First to Comment

“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney said in his 60 Minutes interview alongside his running mate Paul Ryan.

This Republican group on Facebook was less gentle in making the same point when they posted this image:

Speeches 2 Possible VPs: Senators Portman and Rubio

Posted by Parker V on June 20, 2012 under President, Republican | Be the First to Comment

Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) gave keynote speeches at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference. Other speakers included Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Faith and Freedom Coalition founder and chair Ralph Reed. Among the topics they addressed were religious liberty, government regulation, and the Obama administration record.