Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* How can we tell Mitt Romney expects to do poorly tonight? His campaign released a memo this morning saying the results don't really mean anything.
* In a bit of a surprise, former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) announced this morning that he won't seek a comeback bid in Nebraska this year.
* How racist was Pete Hoekstra's (R) Senate ad in Michigan? Even a lot of Republicans feel comfortable criticizing it.
* Newt Gingrich has been fighting to get his name on Virginia's primary ballot next month, but yesterday, his campaign gave up and scrapped its legal appeals.
* Rick Santorum is not above references to "death panels" in attacking the health care policies of both President Obama and Mitt Romney.
* Speaking of Santorum, he's still struggling to get his name on the primary ballot in Indiana.
* In Ohio, Public Policy Polling shows incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) with a double-digit lead over his Republican challenger, Josh Mandel, 47% to 36%.
* In Arizona, former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D) will reportedly back Ron Barber as her preferred successor. Barber, a former Giffords aide, was injured during last year's assassination attempt in Tucson.
* And Michele Bachmann, reflecting on her failed presidential campaign yesterday, described herself as "the perfect candidate." She didn't appear to be kidding.
Leave a Comment:
*banging forehead on desk* Luckily for you, Mr. Santorum, there was this Supreme Court ruling called Griswold vs. Connecticut which later lead to another ruling called Roe vs. Wade- both of which established that not only do you have a constitutional right to privacy, but that your constitutional right to privacy extends to medical decisions. Thus you don't have to worry about death panels or any such nonsense.....unless, you know, you were to overturn those court rulings.
No, no...please allow Santorum to further inflict damage on the frontrunner. The Teabaggers will abandon Romney, and as Romney has to march further to the right to get to "the base" he will be stepping right into perfect attack ads aimed at that infamous "middle" to demonstrate, the bat@!$%# insanity of the right, and the utter hypocrisy Mitt emboldens in almost every word that escapes his lying maw.
Backing up and taking on how justice appointees interpret the Constitution, Republicans won't get very far with an argument against the right to privacy. By contrast, Democratic leaders have an extremely persuasive argument available to them against both corporate personhood and money equals speech. They should make it. And like Republicans, they shouldn't stop making it until we get the change we seek, even if it requires years or decades of fighting.
I don't think (some) Democrats have a good argument against corporate personhood. Citizens United, for example, doesn't even rely on corporate personhood.
Do you really want to give states the ability to outlaw any corporation, for example the ACLU or, as was attempted, the NAACP, or unions?
Do you want to severely restrict the freedom of association? Do you want to make it impossible for a corporation to directly enter a contract?
Instead of focusing on this useless idea (doesn't resolve the issue) that will never succeed, why don't people try to focus on ideas that actually work? There are even other ideas for amendments that are more likely to pass.
I wonder if "eliminate corporate personhood" isn't a deliberate misdirection or a poison pill for such an amendment. Even more important is that Congress and state legislatures still have the power to a lot more without any amendment (working transparency rules, public financing, mandates for ad access to TV). If they don't use these powers, how could an amendment pass these people?
In Ohio, Public Policy Polling shows incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) with a double-digit lead over his Republican challenger, Josh Mandel, 47% to 36%.
Sherrod Brown, running as a strong progressive, remains relatively popular in an important swing state. Other Democrats should look to Brown as an example rather than looking to the Democrat-lites or Blue Dogs who continually cling to their swing districts or swing states by the skin of their teeth.
Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are proof that progressive democrats running as progressive democrats can and will be popular and electable.
Unfortunately, it is the time honored tradition of the democrat leadership in the varying states to provide democrat candidates who run on the platforms of I'm more republican than my republican opponent and lose.
Even in swing states like Ohio, Brown is proof that a real progressive can & will win. When faced with a choice between a repuknican and a repuke-lite, even idiot voters, like here in the state of Indiana, will select the real repuke. Except when a DINO like Evan (I'm damn glad he is gone) Bayh had a zillion corporate $$$ to spend.
Michele Bachmann, reflecting on her failed presidential campaign yesterday, described herself as "the perfect candidate."
Unfortunately for Michele, the GOP voter suppression tactics have reduced the ability of her core constituency to vote. She will do better in the future if the voter id laws will exempt the insane.
Bachmann is so completely delusional, I am certain that the truly believes that she was the perfect candidate. She also believes the earth is 6000 years old, that the end times approacheth, and that dear hubby just has a certain flair and a good eye for details.
MsJoanne, you mislead... Everyone knows that the earth is 6500 years old. You need to take a vacation to the Creationist Museum in Kentucky where you can learn the truth and see people riding dinosaurs at the same time.
Not to mention John Quincy Adams was one of the Founding Fathers (at the age of 9).
If Michele was the perfect candidate, then how could so few people support her? I think she's trying to say that 98% of the country just isn't smart enough to see her wonderfulness. Randy Bachman (of BTO fame) would have been a better candidate. Just like Michael Palin would have been better than Sarah.
So long, Mrs. ZERO-term President!
Please. Michelle was great entertainment along the lines of Sarah Palin. Comedians have lost a lot of potential material now that Michelle is not in the race.
Rachel when will you and your team have former Bush administration officials Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on to discuss the situation with Iran? Flynt is also a former CIA middle east analyst who quit the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq because he diagreed with the invasion. Hillary has directly negotiated with Iran. Their website is RACE FOR IRAN. When will you and your MSNBC colleagues try to inform the American public about the facts on the ground in Iran and not allow unsubstantiated claims about Iran to be repeated on your programs? Please have Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on your program to discuss Iran. That is if you want an educated public.
in all honesty, i thought "the girl with the faraway eyes" (h/t to charlie pierce) would have been the perfect candidate for them to run, too.