Al Franken comes to Shaker for Fisher and other Democrats

In an e-mail to potential campaign volunteers, [Democratic Ohio Senate nominee Lee] Fisher’s field director, Beth Sebian, wrote

And since Senator Franken relied on a groundswell of grassroots support to get elected, he knows firsthand how important the ground game is. We are committed to developing the same grassroots support for Lee in Ohio, but we need your help.

Groundswell of grassroots support?  Where are you living, Beth?

Franken’s ground game consisted in raising $21 million dollars, $2 million more than his opponent, securing the votes of the formerly living as well as the formerly incarcerated, counting the rejected absentee ballots in Democratic counties (but not Republican ones) and clinging to Obama’s coattails in a presidential election year. Still, he ran 12 points between the Democratic presidential nominee in a Democratic year in a Democratic State, barely edging out his Republican opponent.

Just going by 2008 numbers, that means Fisher would get 40% in Ohio.  But Obama’s popularity in the Buckeye State has slipped since then.  And Fisher’s opponent Rob Portman has outraised the Democrat by 9-to-1.

(H/t:  National Review’s Battle ’10.)

Aaand I’m going to cheerily plug my own sell-able stuff. Recently added, Zombie Reagan! Buy a shirt and help send me to CPAC!

Considering House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s eagerness to investigate those opposing the “Ground Zero Mosque,” JammieWearingFools asks us to “Imagine the outcry from the left if a prominent Republican publicly declared his intention to investigate who was funding anti-war groups back during the Bush administration.”

Indeed.

Mr. Reid? Mrs. Pelosi?

Dem survey shows George W. Bush more popular than Obama in vulnerable congressional districts

Guess we could expect a comment like that from a woman who bounced 143 checks at the House bank.

But, coming from the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee?!?!?

When “asked about the ethics charges facing her good friend Maxine [Waters] whether they could hurt her re-election campaign, Senate Ethics Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer“ says some pretty strange things like ”No, because Republicans have so many ethics charges pending against their people.”

Come back on that?  When asked about her relationship to a possibly corrupt House Democrat, instead of defending her record, Mrs. Boxer blames Republicans.  Does seem to be par for the course with this career politician who has spent the better part of the last three decades in Washington, D.C.  Instead of responding to criticism, she goes on the warpath.

And now we’ve got Mrs. Boxer in a little ethics imbroglio of her own, but like most such situations for this Democrat and her fellow partisans, the media aren’t paying it much attention.  You see she promoted  a “political event via a press release issued by her official Senate office” where a union official bashed two Republican woman, including the one running against Mrs. Boxer.  You would think the chair of the Senate Ethics Committee would be familiar with pages 151 and 153 of Senate ethics manual’s prohibiting using taxpayer resources for political purposes.

If we had a media as interested in Democrats’ misdeeds as they are in the deeds of the former Alaska governor’s former son-in-law-to-be, maybe politicians like Barbarba Boxer would exercise a little more judgment before spending the people’s money for partisan purposes.

The unhappy Barney Frank tries to pretend he never advocated what he once did advocate. His hypocrisy is so obvious that a college student could expose it, albeit a very smart and resourceful college student:

And now this long-time apologist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wants to abolish the government-sponsored enterprises. Wonder if he’s seen some polls suggesting that he’s not a lock for reelection.

Does he really think he can get away with this?  Well, given that only bloggers and a few in the media dare question His Sagaciousness, Baney assumes he can get away with saying he never said what he once regularly said.  He’s just used to getting a free pass from the MSM.

Remember, back when people though Hope and Change was more than a gimmick, it was common wisdom that our problems in the Muslim world had nothing to do with the antipathy of Islamist extremists and everything to do with the supposedly bellicose anti-Muslim rhetoric of George W. Bush?

Well, looks like we didn’t need a new kind of politician to set things right with the Muslim world.  We didn’t need press any “reset” buttons.  You see, some liberal pundits are not admitting, that George W. Bush is the real go-to guy to get this mosque project off the ground.

Byron York reports:

There’s a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama’s waffling on the issue, they’re calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America’s relationship with Islam. It’s an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America’s image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States. Nevertheless, they are now seeing a different side of the former president.

Among those clamoring for W’s words are the New York Times‘ Maureen Dowd, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic.

Delighting in “one of the delicious ironies of this situation” Ed Morrissey observes that “Obama has done nothing but attack and demonize Bush for the last nineteen months, mainly to distract attention from Obama’s own failures on the economy.”