WI - Johnson vs Feingold part 2

After stumbling a bit in his first ever political debate last Friday, GOP Senate hopeful Ron Johnson put in an impressive performance tonight. It was a stunning improvement actually. He was energetic without seeming anxious, very well-prepared and deliberate in his speech — he looked like a politician ready to go to Washington. Sen. Feingold stuck to his guns and once again proved himself an experienced debater, even if most Wisconsin voters have long soured on the substance of his message. The debate had a more open format and this played to Johnson’s advantage. That is, he didn’t try to rush his answers and made his points clearly and concisely during the follow ups to the initial questions.

Perhaps the debate’s most compelling exchanges centered on freedom of expression. When Johnson asked Feingold why he did not vote to condemn MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” ad, Feingold cried “free speech,” arguing that the Senate has better things to do than pass meaningless resolutions. Several minutes later, Feingold — echoing a tactic that many embattled Democrats are using lately — accused Johnson of benefiting from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, what Feingold called “one of the worst decisions in the history” of the court. He called on Johnson to ask third party groups spending on his behalf to stop. Johnson, referencing Feingold’s earlier defense (and drawing laughter), claimed that these groups also “have a right to free speech.” This turned into a bit of a testy back-and-forth with neither candidate backing down. Johnson missed a golden opportunity, however, to point out the almost $600,000 that MoveOn.org has recently raised on Feingold’s behalf, and to ask him if they should stop their activity as well. Count on hearing about it in the next debate.

Johnson scored big on a counter to one of Feingold’s standard lamentations — ‘woe is me, the lonely independent voice in a Congress of partisans,’ etc. — by bringing up Feingold’s (decisive) votes on the stimulus package and health-care reform, two highly partisan efforts. Feingold responded that the stimulus wasn’t partisan because the two Maine Republicans voted for it, and this seemed to cause a bit of a commotion in the crowd and considerable laughter, as Johnson fittingly threw a look of disbelief in Feingold’s direction. This was an absolute low point for Feingold and exposed his biggest weak point. He looked more than ever like a vulnerable incumbent fighting a losing battle. - NRO Story

Obama Pushes for Funds for Infrastructure - Wasn't that what the Stimulus was for?

In a speech in the White House Rose Garden this morning, President Obama pushed for bipartisan support of increased funding for transportation initiatives, and emphasized that a "fundamental overhaul" of the country's "woefully inefficient" transit system was necessary to reduce unemployment and remain competitive on an international level.

The president, speaking alongside former Secretaries of Transportation Samuel Skinner and Norman Mineta and Secretary of Treasury Timonthy Geithner, said that the six-year initiative - which has been pegged at approximately $50 billion - would not only repair and modernize U.S. roads, rails, and air systems, but also provide much-needed work opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

"We can no longer afford to sit still," Mr. Obama said, pointing out that the average American pays twice as much annually on transportation as on food. - CBS News Story

Wasn't that what the Stimulus was to do? I thought that we were going to use a lot of those funds to get shovel ready projects going. It was suppose to help the economy and fix the infrastructure in one swoop. Guess that didn't work. Why not throw more money at something that's not working? That sounds like a great idea. Then we can put more money into it when that doesn't work.

Democrats & Liberals Attacking Businesses over Campaign Donations

f at first you don't succeed, get some friends in high places to shut your opponents up. That's the latest Washington power play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from participating in politics.

Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.

Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads.

Mr. Baucus was seconded last week by the ostensibly nonpartisan campaign reform groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, which asked the IRS to investigate whether Crossroads is spending too much money on campaigns. Those two outfits swallowed their referee whistle in the last two campaign cycles, but they're all worked up now that Republicans might win more seats. Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) affiliate of American Crossroads supported by Karl Rove, is a target because it has spent millions already in this election cycle.

Last Tuesday, the liberal blog ThinkProgress, run by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had collected some $300,000 in annual dues from foreign companies. Since the money went into the Chamber's general fund, the allegation is that it could have been used to pay for political ads, which would violate a ban on foreign companies participating in American elections. The Chamber says it uses no foreign money for its political activities and goes to great lengths to raise separate funds for political purposes.

That didn't stop President Obama from raising the issue in a Maryland speech last week, saying that "groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections." Within hours of the ThinkProgress report, the bully boys at MoveOn.org asked the Department of Justice to launch a criminal investigation of the Chamber. In a letter to the Federal Election Commission, Minnesota Senator Al Franken expressed his profound concern that "foreign corporations are indirectly spending significant sums to influence American elections through third-party groups." From the man who stole his Senate election in a dubious recount, this is rich. - WSJ Story

Tom Barrett Ad False and Misleading

Stem cells hold the potential to treat, and even cure, some of our most deadly and debilitating illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s and diabetes. To make the cells do their magic, research is needed — and the University of Wisconsin has been at the forefront of that work.

But for many people, there is a tension between conducting such research and protecting the sanctity of human life. The dilemma confronts not only scientists, but politicians, who are able to set government funding priorities and even place limits on the work scientists do.

As in 2006, stem cell research has become an issue in the race for governor.
Just as outgoing Gov, Jim Doyle did four years ago, Democratic nominee Tom Barrett is running a TV ad that paints his Republican opponent — Scott Walker — as extreme on the issue.

The ad features a mother talking to the camera about her son, who has juvenile diabetes. She describes how stem cell research "gives our family hope, hope for a cure," and she continues with a blunt declaration:

"Scott Walker says he would ban stem cell research in Wisconsin. That’s right, ban it."

It is the mother making the statement. But as the candidate, Barrett is responsible for the content of the ad. Indeed, as the mother speaks, the words "Scott Walker says he would ban stem cell research" appear on the screen. - PolitiFact Wisconsin

As Obama Meddles in Races across Country, Accuses Rove of Same

Trying to keep his former Senate seat out of Republican hands, President Barack Obama singled out former Bush administration advisor Karl Rove Thursday night for meddling in the race through special interest-funded attack ads.

“Right here in Illinois, in this Senate race, two groups funded and advised by Karl Rove have outspent the Democratic Party two-to-one in an attempt to beat [Democratic nominee] Alexi [Giannoulias] – two-to-one. Funded and advised by Karl Rove,” Obama said at a fundraiser for Giannoulias in Chicago.

Obama also continued his cloaked assault on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – “one of the largest groups paying for these ads” – citing a recent report that showed some of the group’s money has come from foreign companies.

The president is trying to use the issue to energize Democrats less than a month before the election. Calling it “a threat to our democracy,” Obama urged the Chicago crowd to turn out to vote in 2010 like they did in 2008 when he was elected. - Politico Story

Dems Cheating the System to Steal NJ Election

On a balmy evening last May, about three dozen members of the South Jersey Young Democrats convened at the Camden County Democratic Committee Headquarters in Cherry Hill.

Freeholder Jeffrey Nash warned the assembled crowd of party volunteers and legislative aides that the sour economy would make the coming election season difficult for the Democratic majority.

He told the young activists they had to get out the vote for Democrats in the fall.

Then Steve Ayscue -- a paid CCDC consultant -- took the floor with a bearded, flame-haired man few had seen before. The latter was Geoff Mackler, dispatched from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to lead freshman Rep. John Adler's re-election campaign.

Ayscue and Mackler had a plan to ensure Adler's victory. They just needed volunteers.

Internal numbers-crunching showed the difference between Adler and his Republican opponent -- then undetermined -- would hover around 5 percent. To give Adler an edge, Ayscue had recruited a then-unidentified man to run as a third-party candidate.

That candidate would act as a conservative spoiler to confuse voters and pull votes from Adler's eventual Republican challenger. But first he had to get on the ballot. With the filing deadline just weeks away, CCDC needed volunteers to hit the streets and collect signatures -- fast. - CourierPost Online

Obama Administration Accused of Inflating Terror Threat for Political Gain

Senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told The Guardian newspaper that President Obama's administration has deliberately exaggerated the current terror threat to European cities from militants in Pakistan for political reasons.

"I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming midterm elections," Pakistan's high commissioner to Britain, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, told CBS News in London, mirroring comments he made to The Guardian. "If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al Qaeda people, we should be provided with that and we could go after them ourselves."

Hasan, whose job is equivalent to that of ambassador, has a reputation for making controversial, sometimes incendiary comments, but he is a veteran diplomat with close ties to the Pakistani political leadership.

"This terror threat could be a mole hill that has been made into a mountain," Hasan told CBS in a telephone interview Friday morning.

He called the widely reported threat of "commando-style" sieges being planned for London and other major cities in France and Germany, "a mixture of frustrations, ineptitude and lack of appreciation of ground realities," on the part of U.S. officials seeking to justify a dramatic increase in drone missile strikes against militant targets on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan. - CBS News Story

More Fallout for Obama Administration on BP Spill

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission's staff describes "not an incidental public relations problem" by the White House in the wake of the April 20 accident.

Among other things, the report says, the administration made erroneous early estimates of the spill's size, and President Barack Obama's senior energy adviser went on national TV and mischaracterized a government analysis by saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." The analysis actually said it could still be there.

"By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the Gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem," the report says.

The administration disputed the commission findings, saying senior government officials "were clear with the public what the worst-case flow rate could be." - Newsradio 620

Investigative Panel Faults Obama Response to BP Oil Spill

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration's response to the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was affected by "a sense of over optimism" about the disaster that "may have affected the scale and speed with which national resources were brought to bear," the staff of a special commission investigating the disaster found.

In four papers issued Wednesday by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, commission investigators fault the administration for making inaccurate public statements about a report on the fate of oil spilled by a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.

The paper faults the administration for taking "an overly casual approach" in calculating, during the spill's second week, that between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels of oil were flowing in to the Gulf.

That estimate—which the government later revised to between between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day—was based on a one-page document prepared by a government scientist within six days of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, according to a commission staff paper. - WSJ Story

Sen. Murkowski Threatens Stations not to Air Tea Party AD

UNEAU, Alaska -- U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski's campaign is warning Alaska broadcasters not to air ads by a national tea party group that the campaign says are "littered with lies and intentional mischaracterizations" about her and her write-in campaign.

Attorney Timothy McKeever, in a letter to broadcasters Monday, said they are under a "legal and moral obligation" not to air the new ads from Tea Party Express, which is supporting Joe Miller, the political upstart who defeated Murkowski in the August GOP primary.

A Tea Party Express spokesman said his initial reaction is that the group stands behind the ads. - FOX News Story