In one of the closest–and possibly the most expensive-races this year, the North Carolina Senate race just got a little nasty with a political flier that warned if Sen. Kay Hagan is not re-elected come November, Barack Obama will be impeached. To convey this message, the text is superimposed over a graphic image of a lynch mob (via The Fayetteville Observer):
Dawn McNair said she was surprised Sunday when her daughter pointed out the background on a political flier urging people to get out and vote.
The front of the flier blares: "Kay Hagan doesn't win! Obama's impeachment will begin! Vote in 2014."
The words are superimposed over a grainy reproduction of a photograph of what appears to be a lynching.
Someone tucked the flier under McNair's windshield wiper while her car was parked at her church, Kingdom Impact Global Ministries on Murchison Road.
"My daughter said, 'Mom, look in the background. They're lynching somebody.' It's the lynching of an African-American man," McNair said.
At the bottom, the flier reads, "Not endorsed by any candidate. Paid for by Concerned Citizens of Cumberland County." No contact information for the group was on the flier.
Over at Hot Air, Noah Rothman added:
Fortunately, according to a local NAACP representative, likening the unlikely impeachment of the president to a time when African-Americans were systematically murdered by white mobs is not racist. “That’s what the community feels,” said Fayetteville NAACP branch president Jimmy Buxton.
This is the kind of cheap desperation that would set every MSNBC anchor’s hair on fire and dominate the nightly newscasts if it were embraced by a Republican candidate’s allies. At the very least, if Hagan were a Republican, the media would press her to denounce her supporter’s tactics until she buckled. But beyond being baseless provocation, both this message and Davis’s attempt to get you to believe Abbott will somehow overturn Loving v. Virginia are just insultingly dumb.
I couldn’t agree more, sir.
H/T Hot Air
Democrat Congressman Bruce Braley is running against Republican Iowa State Senator Joni Ernst for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Braley is a trial lawyer and has had his own mishaps with statements on the campaign trail since announcing his candidacy to replace retiring Democrat Senator Tom Harkin. After all, Braley said during a campaign fundraiser earlier this year that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is "just a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school." Now the White House, which is supporting Braley's campaign, is making things worse.
Two weeks ago First Lady Michelle Obama flew to Iowa to rally voters at a campaign event for Braley. When she took to the podium to give her speech, Mrs. Obama repeatedly called Braley "Bruce Bailey."
That gaffe prompted the Ernst campaign to purchase votebrucebailey.com, which leads directly to her campaign website.
To make matters worse, last night the White House sent out a transcript to the press showing support for Braley's candidacy for governor of Iowa. Braley is running for the U.S. Senate.
Second White House botch on Braley. WH press office releases transcript w/ subject referring to him as "Dem candidate for *governor*"— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) October 22, 2014
It is very obvious the Obama's support for Braley is completely genuine.The White House is supporting Braley, but has no idea what his real name is or what he's running for.
The war on women rhetoric that was used in 2012 to secure President Obama's second term in the White House isn't paying off for Democrats in the 2014 midterm election cycle.
Earlier this week, a story published by POLITICO showed Obama has lost key support from women in battle ground states.
With two weeks until Election Day, the president’s diminished standing with women is quickly becoming one of the biggest liabilities facing Democrats as they struggle to hang onto the Senate majority.
In battleground states across the country, Obama is underwater with female voters — especially women unaffiliated with a political party — and it’s making it harder for Democrats to take advantage of the gender gap, according to public polling and Democratic strategists.
And a new AP poll released late yesterday shows more women are interested in voting for Republicans, not Democrats.
Women have moved in the GOP's direction since September. In last month's AP-GfK poll, 47 percent of female likely voters said they favored a Democratic-controlled Congress while 40 percent wanted the Republicans to capture control. In the new poll, the two parties are about even among women, 44 percent prefer the Republicans, 42 percent the Democrats.
So why the shift? First, young liberal and single women tend to show up for Presidential elections while sitting out midterms. Second, I'm hopeful that women are tired of the bogus war on women narrative and sick of being defined by the pills they may or may not choose to take. Third, extreme pro-abortion stances by Democrat candidates like Mark Udall in Colorado could be backfiring as the country, and women, trend to the pro-life side of politics.
Concord, NH -- To say that Scott Brown was the underdog tonight would be an understatement. From the minute I arrived here that was patently clear: way more Shaheen supporters showed up to show their support for her; she drew much more enthusiastic and sustained applause lines throughout the night; and when she took the stage initially, Chuck Todd had to awkwardly pause and wait for the audience to quiet down.
The general consensus, therefore, is probably that Brown got creamed. I disagree. This wasn’t his first rodeo and perhaps that’s why he seemed relatively relaxed under fire. After all, the audience was openly ridiculing and laughing at his responses for no apparent reason. I watched both Arkansas Senate debates, for example, and the audiences weren’t nearly as partisan or disruptive. One exchange, however, and the one everyone will be talking about, was particularly brutal:
Brown sez Shaheen is anti-nuke energy. Shaheen: "No I'm not!" Brown sez she opposed Seabrook nuke plant. Shaheen: "I wasn't in office then!"— Alexandra Jaffe (@ajjaffe) October 22, 2014
I'll let fact checkers sort through who's telling the truth (although watch this clip if you have time); in the moment, however, Shaheen clearly got the better of Brown on that exchange. The audience ate it up. Nevertheless, Shaheen made some outrageous claims herself. She said she was (ahem) “absolutely” proud of voting for Obamacare and essentially admitted she voted with the president nearly 100 percent of the time:
It is an absolute fact that Shaheen is an Obama rubber stamp. But be that as it may, Shaheen had especially strong responses vis-à-vis women’s issues. Her best line of the night, however, was when she said, “I don’t think New Hampshire is a consolation prize,” digging Brown for weighing runs for political offices in numerous states. She was also relentless when accusing him of outsourcing jobs, subsidizing Big Oil, and supporting 44 filibusters as a United States Senator, thereby undercutting the narrative that Brown (as he likes to claim) was the most bipartisan lawmaker in Washington during his tenure.
Incidentally, I spoke with Team Brown’s campaign manager, Colin Reed, after the debate. He said internal polling shows the race is a “dead heat,” and that Senate races in New Hampshire “tend to break late” – that is, the last few days of the campaign. As a result, he’s feeling pretty good about his candidate’s chances.
This post has been updated
One can have legitimate disagreements about the Second Amendment, but what this Minnesota woman is doing is bound to make gun rights advocates more than just a little angry (via KAALtv)[emphasis mine]:
A sign posted in a front yard brings an interesting debate. At the center of it, your constitutional rights. In the past few weeks there’s been a number of stories involving guns on school property in Olmsted County. The issue Friday is a gun near school property and the way one woman is voicing her concern.
Matthew Halleck brings his two girls to and from the outskirts of Harriet Bishop Elementary in Rochester every day. "I'm going to protect my children anyway I can,” said Halleck.
For Matthew, that means carrying a concealed gun that he has a permit for, while adhering to all legal boundaries. "It's not crossing the street here, where the crosswalk is, it's making sure it's concealed so the kids can't see it,” he said.
But Matthew is no longer the only one who knows he's carrying a gun. Recently a sign went up in a front yard across the street from the school. It has Matthew’s picture on it and reads, "This man carries a loaded gun around your children every day."
"Since we don't have a way to stop him, we felt it was important to notify the neighborhood and the parents that there is an armed man in their presence,” said Kimberly Edson, a Rochester resident who put the sign up. "The first couple days of school he had it very visible, we saw it and were quite concerned,” she said.
Kimberly called the police the day the picture was taken, but they said Matthew has a legal right to carry off school property. Matthew also contacted authorities concerning the sign, and while they briefly took the sign down, it was eventually determined that Kimberly was also breaking no laws. "He has a 2nd Amendment right to carry the gun, I have my 1st Amendment right to say that I don't like it,” said Edson.
That’s all fine and dandy, but why on Earth does Edson think Halleck is a threat? The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens; Halleck is just doing what any father would do for his children: protect them. Ms. Edson’s antics have compromised that goal as he’s lost tactical surprise.
On the other hand, would-be criminals might think twice about messing around in Halleck’s neighborhood knowing that he is armed. One this is for sure: Mr. Halleck should consider open carry from now on thanks to Edson.
Halleck is also considering filing a libel lawsuit.
CORRECTION: From comments sent to me via email by Minnesota residents, the state does not issue "concealed carry" permits, but simply carry permits which allows for lawful concealed and open carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens. This post has been corrected to reflect the change.
George H.W. Bush is anything but elated over his recent appearance in an ad produced by Democrat and Georgia Senate candidate Michelle Nunn. Nunn’s goal was to seem more bipartisan by showcasing her time as CEO of Bush’s nonprofit Points of Light foundation, instead her disregard for the president’s wishes has more aptly showcased her disrespect.
"Throughout my career I've been able to work with Republican and Democrats," Nunn claimed after a slow zoom of a picture of her with Bush senior appeared across the screen.
Nunn’s background in the nonprofit sector led her to work for the Bush’s Points of Light foundation in 2007. When she announced her intentions to run for the U.S. Senate, the foundation granted her a leave of absence.
According to Bush’s spokesperson Jim McGrath, the former president explicitly stated he did not want to be involved in Nunn’s Democratic campaign:
Michelle and her team have been clearly, repeatedly and consistently told that President Bush did not want them to use his photo as part of this campaign. Apparently, the Nunn team feels they can repeatedly disregard the former president's wishes, which is very disappointing because it's so disrespectful.
Bush has, on the other hand, come out in support of Nunn’s challenger, Republican David Perdue, who is leading by only a slim margin in recent polls.
Barbara and I enjoyed meeting David Perdue, a good man with an impressive background. I am proud to endorse him in the US Senate race in GA.— George Bush (@GeorgeHWBush) September 15, 2014
A new study by the Pew Research Center has found that people who identify as "liberal" in their political beliefs are more likely than conservatives to have unfriended someone (either in the online or real-life sense) over a disagreement in political leanings.
According to the study, while self-described "consistent liberals" were more likely than conservatives to have friends who have differing political opinions, they were also more likely to block those person's posts from social media or to unfriend them altogether.
Consistent liberals were the most likely group to block or unfriend someone because they disagreed with their political postings, with 44 percent saying they had "hidden, blocked, defriended, or stopped following someone" on Facebook due to their political postings. Only roughly one-third (31 percent) of consistent conservatives had done the same -- although this might be attributable to lower levels of ideological diversity in their online ecosystem.
Liberals were also more likely to drop a friend in real life over politics. Nearly a quarter, or 24 percent, of consistent liberals told Pew that have stopped talking to or being friends with someone over politics, compared to 16 percent of consistent conservatives.
A possible explanation for this could be that conservatives are less likely to block someone over political postings if their friends are people with whom they mostly agree with.
Growing up in Maine, I had plenty of liberal classmates and friends, heck, it was always a surprise if a classmate wasn't a liberal. These people were some of my dearest friends growing up, and as we grew older it was quite upsetting to see that some of them purposefully shut me out of their lives when I got more heavily involved in politics. Underneath political views we're all still people before everything else. I wish more people—on both sides of the aisle—would realize that.
Concord, NH -- Well, my friends, I made it. I am currently sitting inside the media room at the Capitol Center for the Arts waiting for the debate to start. Outside, hundreds of Granite Staters have gathered and I had a few minutes to snap a few photos before picking up my media credentials.As the photo below shows, most of those gathered are Shaheen supporters.
As a reminder, the debate will start at 8:00 PM EST. Stay tuned.
Now mind you, as someone who grew up going to California Golden Bear football games, I view everything that Stanford students do on The Farm as per se morally reprehensible, but it does appear that thanks to the new Affirmative Consent focus, this year's FMOTQ was a lot less rowdy than years passed:
The event concluded without a single transport [link added for context], a rarity in recent FMOTQ history, and without any reports of sexual assault.
This year’s planning committee placed emphasis on Title IX issues because of the University’s new affirmative consent policy, which stems from the recently passed California Senate Bill 967. SB-967 threatens to withhold federal funding from California colleges and universities that do not have adequate sexual misconduct policies, including an affirmative consent standard.
Jordyn Irwin ’16, a Peer Health Educator (PHE) in Rinconada House, attended FMOTQ with one eye on how students, particularly freshmen, were handling affirmative consent. She said she did not hear of any problems regarding sexual misconduct that night, nor did she witness much conduct at all.
“It seemed like not as many people were kissing as I remembered it being like my freshman year, and I was thinking about how that very well could be a product of all of the talk about affirmative consent,” she said. “I think mostly because when it becomes on people’s radars, they start to realize how awkward it seems to kiss a total stranger.”
Freshmen, with only secondhand accounts of past events to compare this year to, still noticed fewer people kissing than was hyped. Harry Elliott ’18 attended his first Full Moon this year and was surprised by the relatively low level of kissing, a tradition that goes hand in hand with the annual event.
“I was expecting a glorified makeout session, essentially just people wildly kissing each other,” he said. “No more than half of the people there were seriously engaged in making out.”
In year’s past, a countdown to midnight more or less commenced the kissing, while this year’s event, running only from 10:45 p.m. to 12:15 a.m., omitted the countdown and began and ended earlier, limiting the window for kissing but also, as Irwin noticed, for pre-gaming.
“The fact that nobody got transported this year is just sheer luck,” Kannappan said. “There’s not much we can do in terms of planning the event to stop people from pre-gaming. I do think something that helped this year was making the event time run shorter than it has in the past.”
So, to recap, the Affirmative Consent policy, coupled with a shorter run time for the event, led to less drinking, fewer drunken hook ups, and, for the first time in years, no one going to the hospital.
What is so bad about this policy again?
Concord, NH – Greetings from the Granite State! Happily, I arrived in chilly New England late Monday night, and by the time you read this, I will be well on my way to the NECN/Concord Monitor/UNH New Hampshire Senate debate at the Capitol Center for the Arts. Tonight, Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown will verbally cross swords with incumbent Sen. Jean Shaheen (D-NH).
Since we last wrote about this race, there have been two headline-driving developments: First, Scott Brown finds himself in a bit of hot water after saying in a radio interview last week that the federal government's worry-inducing response to the Ebola threat would not have happened under President Romney. Democrats, of course, haven’t taken too kindly to this suggestion. Second, and more importantly, a new Suffolk/Boston Herald poll shows the race still firmly within the margin of error: Jeanne Shaheen: 49; Scott Brown: 46.
Four points of interest:
(1) Obamacare is still—and will continue to be—unpopular through Election Day. A whopping 55 percent of respondents said the president’s signature domestic achievement is “generally bad” for the state of New Hampshire. And since Sen. Shaheen voted for the law, I expect this issue to come up in a big way during tonight’s debate. Brown has been an outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act since 2009, and indeed, it was one of several reasons why he was able to rise to prominence.
(2) President Obama is not popular in New Hampshire. This is one theme that has been consistent in every poll conducted recently in the Granite State. Fifty-six percent of respondents disapprove of the way President Obama has run the country, although only 11 percent regret voting for him. On the other hand, Sen. Shaheen's disapproval rating is only 46 percent (as is her approval rating).
(3) The ‘war on women’ charge isn’t sticking. For example, when asked if respondents “trust Brown on women’s issues,” 45 percent responded “yes” whereas only 44 percent said “no.” Which is to say he’s above water on issues that sunk two promising GOP Senate candidates in 2012. If Scott Brown loses, therefore, it won’t necessarily be because voters think he’s trying to ban contraception or outlaw abortions. It will be for other reasons.
(4) For what it’s worth, 29 percent (!) of respondents used to live in Massachusetts whereas 37 percent moved to New Hampshire “from somewhere else.” So most likely voters, we can infer, are from out of state. This suggests that the "carpet bagger" charge (bound to come up in tonight’s debate) won’t be nearly as politically damaging in New Hampshire as maybe other states, where most voters are lifelong residents.
This is a seat that early on most political observers dismissed as safely Democratic. Poll after poll, however, shows the contours of the race have shifted, and although Shaheen is technically ahead, her lead is tenuous. It is therefore difficult to overemphasize the importance of tonight's debate; if a clear winner emerges, momentum could shift. Issues I expect to be discussed tonight are the following: immigration, Obamacare, jobs and the economy, the rise of ISIS, the Ebola threat, and women’s issues.
Finally, stay tuned for my recap after the lights dim and the curtains close. The debate begins at 8:00 PM (EST) sharp, and Meet the Press anchor Chuck Todd will moderate.
Obama Appointee Who Told WH A Financially Doomed Solar Panels Firm "Looks...OK To Me" IS U.S. Ebola Czar | Donald Lambro