Help Todd defeat Baron Hill. Donate today!
Statement From NRA-PVF Chairman Chris W. Cox On The 2010 Nevada U.S. Senate Race
The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.
The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.
Another nail in the political coffin of Harry Reid. On another note, not like he’s ever been endorsed by the NRA but also remember RINO Richard Lugar also voted to confirm both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to SCOTUS.
Calling incumbent Congressman Brad Ellsworth a “symbol of [the Democratic] party’s struggles,” following passage a series of unpopular legislation, the Washington Post this morning published a pre-bituary of the Ellsworth campaign more than two months before polls open.
Here’s what some of the key portions mean:
Ellsworth “has now become the face of the Democrats’ reversal of fortunes across the Midwest.”
- That is, following their mis-read of their mandate after the 2008 elections, Democrats are poised to lose seats across the region.
“Ellsworth’s 2010 challenges are proving as formidable.”
- Rubberstamping the TARP Wall Street bailout, the jobless stimulus, a bloated budget and the massive health spending bill – not once, but twice – comes at a price.
Ellsworth is “battling low name recognition at a time when voters aren’t much interested in Democrats of any variety.”
- Ellsworth has always faced an uphill climb in this election, but his record of supporting the Obama-Pelosi agenda certainly doesn’t help the cause.
Ellsworth “has taken few legislative risks during his two House terms.”
- Instead he has stuck to voting with Nancy Pelosi 90 percent of the time.
“Ellsworth supported three pillars of the Democratic agenda – health care, the stimulus and the financial regulatory overhaul…”
- Legislation Hoosiers have been overwhelmingly opposed to.
His “policy record was a blank slate” prior to first running in 2006.
- Now it’s a slate of votes for extreme liberal legislation to increase taxes, sack businesses with more burdensome regulations and pile on deficits and debt.
Prior to running in 2006, the WP writes, Ellsworth had “never taken a position on a controversial national issue.”
- Turns out, not much has changed. After the release of ‘Judgment’ – Dan Coats’ first television ad of the general election campaign – on Friday, Congressman Ellsworth has yet to explain why he voted to allow for the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States where they could have the same rights as American citizens!
Congressman Ellsworth at the end of the piece explains that, in his mind, “Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of.” EXCEPT of course, perpetuating near double-digit unemployment, adding trillions to our debt, bailing out Wall Street and shoving a massive government intervention in our health care system down the throats of the American people. Yep, “nothing” to be ashamed of, Congressman.
Today in Fort Wayne
Dan Coats is headed to Fort Wayne this morning to discuss how Hoosiers have a choice in November between a candidate with a dangerously naïve record on national security issues in Congressman Ellsworth or a candidate committed to vigilance and a record of service such as Dan Coats.
Dan will stop at Do It Best’s headquarters to meet with the company’s leadership as well as enjoy lunch with employees, before holding a media availability.
Thomas Cook and I debated the merits of a potential Mitch Daniels candidacy for President in 2012 on Fox 59’s “Face Off” segment. We were put in a boxing ring (no, I’m not kidding) in the studio and told to “duke it out”. We ended up arguing this topic for close to 23 minutes before we were finally told to stop. If you want to see the entire unedited debate, you can check it out here.
One side note to the debate, I realized afterward that Mitch Daniels was actually born in Monongahela, Pennsylvania and not in Indiana as I had asserted. But that particular comment didn’t have anything to do with the overall debate.
Anyway, enjoy the video and make sure to check out my poll on whether Mitch Daniels should run for president over on joshgillespie.net.
I know. I know. ONE. ELECTION. AT. A. TIME. Here we are about 60 days out of the 2010 election and the tea leaves are already being read for 2012, and here in Indiana there’s still the statewide municipal elections that will be held in 2011. For what its worth if it was not for one vote in the Senate we may not even be having this converation. However one vote in the Senate to many Hoosiers seems to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The backbreaking vote is the confirmation of Elena Kagan to SCOTUS, and Senator Richard Lugar casting a yes vote in favor of confirmation. A poll ran on IndyStar.com asking the question “Should Sen. Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind, be elected to a seventh term?”
In 2006, Hoosiers overlooked the D- grade from the NRA, the conservative rating in the 60’s (compared to Mike Pence and Dan Burton who are almost 100%) and his concerns about activities in Morocco, Brazil, and Peru (the nations) as opposed to things happening in Morocco, Brazil, or Peru, Indiana re-electing the liberal Lugar to another term after Democrats decided to pass on challenging him. Why not – he’s on their side as much as he’s on ours. As you can see above, the natives are restless and wanting someone who more matches their ideology. Of course, its funny how Democrats and their liberal sympathizers are coming to the Senator’s rescue. Take for example this statement by the IndyStar’s Matt Tully found below the fold:
(click READ MORE)
Timothy Wesco is running to replace Jackie Walorski as state representative in District 21, and on Friday his campaign sent out the below press release. After the FSSA and the Insurance Commissioner released estimates earlier in the week saying that the ten year cost of ObamaCare to Indiana state government is between $3 billion and $3.7 billion, Wesco argues that legislators need to review ways for the state to opt-out of federal spending mandates that jeopardize the state’s fiscal health.
Mishawaka – On Wednesday, the Secretary of the Family & Social Services Administration and the acting state Insurance Commissioner publicly released a memo they had sent to Governor Daniels earlier in the week outlining the cost of federal health care reform in Indiana. Based on both independent and internal analysis, the memo stated that Indiana taxpayers must foot the bill for between $3 billion and $3.7 billion in federally mandated state-level health care spending over the next ten years.
Republican State Representative candidate Timothy Wesco, who is running in District 21, commented on these massive new costs by saying, “It is unacceptable that Hoosier taxpayers must pay for the federal health care bill twice, once with their federal taxes and then a second time through the $3.7 billion Indiana state government must now spend at Washington’s direction. Clearly, the majority in Congress does not understand the balance of power that should be in place between the federal government and state governments.”
Wesco noted that if the federal government continues to impose more spending requirements on Indiana, the state could face a budget crisis. “We’ve been fortunate to have a governor who has worked hard with the legislature to balance state budgets,” he said. “However, if the federal government is allowed to continue unchecked in making states pay for things they don’t want or need, Indiana’s fiscal situation could take a downward turn.” Wesco proposed that legislators use part of the upcoming 2011 session to look for ways to opt-out of expensive federal programs. “If I am elected, I will work with fellow legislators to find ways for Indiana to exercise its 10th Amendment prerogative and opt-out of costly and ill-planned federal spending mandates.”
See the memo to Gov. Daniels detailing the costs here (pdf warning).
John McCormack of the Weekly Standard this morning called ‘Judgment’ – Dan Coats’ first television commercial of the general election cycle – a “smart ad” and “one that other candidates might want to copy.”
The Associated Press added Dan is “playing up his experience abroad [as ambassador to Germany] and criticizing his Democratic opponent in his first general election television ad.” They continue, “Coats also says Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth voted to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and ‘move terrorists to the U.S. where they could have the same legal rights as Americans.’”
The ad his just one day after the Associated Press pointed out that Congressman Ellsworth’s campaign “has taken his two commercials off the air.”
Today’s release draws the stark contrast between incumbent Congressman Ellsworth’s dangerously naïve record on national security and Dan’s vigilance and record of service. By voting against efforts to bar federal funds from being used to close Guantanamo Bay and preventing detainees from being brought to the United States for prosecution and incarceration, Congressman Ellsworth helped pave the way for President Obama’s plan to bring terrorists to Indiana’s backyard – where they could have the same legal rights as American citizens!
ICYMI You can watch ‘Judgment’ by clicking here.
Click here for the two must-read pieces from the Weekly Standard and the Associated Press.
Tonight, the Indiana State Police will be conducting a “sobriety checkpoint” somewhere in Monroe County. According to an e-mail from the Indiana State Police, “vehicles that come through the checkpoint will be stopped. The driver will be asked to produce their driver’s license and registration for the vehicle.” Sober drivers who have not committed a violation can expect to be delayed for two or three minutes.
Is it just me, or does this sound very totalitarian?
This is simply wrong, folks. The police should not be stopping every driver who happens to be traveling a certain stretch of road and demanding that they show their papers. Law abiding citizens should not be stopped by law enforcement simply for driving down a perfectly legal road at the “wrong” time.
I cannot see how this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the text of which follows.
(Read more after the leap)
A press release from the Todd Young for Congress campaign caught my attention today. According to OpenSecrets.org, a transparency watchdog group with the best campaign finance database around, a recent investigation on their part revealed that Baron Hill drives two Chevy Impalas at taxpayer expense. Every member of Congress is allowed to lease a vehicle for official purposes, and each member and their office has quite a lot of latitude in determining what kind of vehicle, and apparently how many, they can lease.
For his part, Baron Hill must feel so important that he absolutely had to lease two vehicles for official use while spending more on the leases than almost any other member spends for their official vehicle. The quarterly cost for Hill’s two Impalas is $2,730. According to his chief of staff, he needs the two vehicles because his district is so big. Hmm, does he operate some kind of pony-express system where he changes vehicles every time he crosses half-way through the district?
Todd Young has managed to travel around the same district in a single jeep. No pony-express system, no cushy taxpayer-funded allowance. Then again, that’s part of the difference between a challenger candidate working to earn an election, and an incumbent who has been wise in the ways of Washington too long.
I am here in Mishawaka, Indiana sitting on a tour bus with the Spending Revolt folks. They are a coalition of a number of organizations, if you are interested in who they are involved with you can see that here.
They are doing an Indiana tour starting here in Mishawaka and then will be in Indianapolis Labor Day weekend, Terre Haute on September 7th and Evansville on September 8th. If you are interested in attending these or other events around the country (we are an Indiana blog, but we like to promote national events!) Then go to their website and check out the schedule page here.
I will update more on times when I get them. I will also be updating each event as we move across the state.
So what exactly is Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) doing when his campaign takes to the airwaves in two TV ads to bash his own party’s leadership? All the indicators point to Donnelly being in full-fledged save-my-hide mode, a rather unfortunate state for any elected official to be in. People naturally and rightfully have a mistrust of politicians. Frequently, that mistrust can be traced to a cynical belief that politicians care only about themselves, and very little about the people they serve. When a candidate feeds that mistrust by the way they behave, the electoral consequences can be severe.
In some respects, the Donnelly campaign is in a no-win situation right now. The $84,000 that Pelosi and other liberal Democrats have given to Donnelly over several cycles was contributed to keep Democrats in the majority. When you look at that figure, and consider how much money MoveOn.org and the DCCC has spent on independent expenditures to help Donnelly, it becomes very clear that Donnelly owes his seat to – he was bought and paid for by – liberals in Washington, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Attacking the very entities that put you in office is a desperate move by a candidate who senses that his congressional career is on the line, and that he needs to take a very big gamble to stay in office. It also reveals to voters that Joe Donnelly cares about only one person: himself. He is independent only so long as it serves to get him re-elected. He is opposed to Nancy Pelosi and President Obama only if such opposition polls well with voters. That kind of double-turn politics will not sit well with voters once they see the entire picture of his congressional service.
If he is to avoid seeming cheap, mean, and hyper-political in his campaigning, Donnelly needs to prove that his talk of late is genuine. There are three things he could do to prove to voters that he is really independent. Each step would be bold, and each step would prove that beyond the talk, and in the walk, Joe Donnelly really is an independent member of Congress.
1. He should announce he is running as an official independent candidate. Renouncing all ties with the party whose leadership he opposes would be mark of real independence.
2. Return all 2010 cycle contributions received from Democrat leaders. He may have taken money from Pelosi and Co. in the past, but 2010 is different, and he is going to run a campaign free from the help of liberal politicians.
3. Refuse DCCC assistance and oppose any independent expenditure efforts on their part aimed at helping him win re-election. He is an independent, and while he may welcome the help of non-party groups, he will not consider himself beholden to a party that he opposes.
By taking those three steps, Donnelly could (further) shock the political establishment and lay to rest any accusation that he is only another self-centered member of Congress desperate to win re-election at almost any cost.
Secured by