Ah, Pravda is alive and well in our nation’s capital.

WJLA-TV has fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway for a verbal confrontation this summer with the station’s news director that came after McKelway broadcast a sharply worded live report about congressional Democrats and President Obama.

McKelway was placed on indefinite suspension in late July after his run-in with ABC7′s news director and general manager, Bill Lord. In a letter to McKelway this week, the station said it was terminating his contract immediately, citing insubordination and misconduct.

Amid the ongoing BP oil spill in July, McKelway covered a Capitol Hill demonstration by environmental groups protesting the influence of oil-industry contributions to members of Congress.

In his piece, McKelway said the sparsely attended event attracted protesters “largely representing far-left environmental groups.” He went on to say the protest “may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP.”

After a brief taped segment updating efforts to cap the BP well, McKelway added that the Senate was unlikely to pass “cap-and-trade” legislation this year, because “the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then.”

Lord took exception to McKelway’s reporting and asked to meet with him, according to several station sources who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive personnel matter. A shouting match between the two men ensued, leading to McKelway’s suspension, sources said.

Don’t look here folks.  Nothing to see.  The truth isn’t important.  Just the agenda of King Barack I.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Thanks to reader Firelight, I learn that Christine O’Donnell has a lesbian sister.  Apparently, some of the rather outlandish statements O’Donnell made about gay people are 15 years ago when the Delaware Republican Senate nominee was in her 20s.

From her sister’s Facebook page, there’s this:

Jennie O’Donnell to all my friends and family..thank you for your great wishes.. for the wisdom to see through the insane lies that were being tossed around, and still will be, i supose. i’m sure they will make up new ones; but thank you for your love, support prayers, good humor… and support of my sister,no matter what lies were made up about her…oh.. p.s. haave you heard the latest? she’s homophobic… gotta laugh

Don’t have much time today, but have already reached out to Jennie and hope to talk to her before the weekend is out.

If you listen to leaders of the various gay organizations spout off about the opponents of gay marriage, you’d believe they all inhabit some kind of fever swamp called the right where everybody’s busy hating everyone everyday, including themselves.  But, it seems that just as opponents of same-sex marriage are a diverse lot*, it seems the conservatives hold a multiplicity of views on gay marriage.

As Allahpundit observes, there is no official conservative position on gay marriage:

I was thinking this morning when I read that passage that, to my knowledge, there’s no clear “true conservative” position on, say, gay marriage at the moment. Opinions run the gamut from Palin, who still (I think) supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, to Rush Limbaugh, who supports civil unions but not marriage, to Glenn Beck, who takes the traditional libertarian pro-marriage stance of MYOB. It is indeed fiscal issues around which tea partiers coalesce, although there’s a little room for dissent even there — I think.

The energy on the right is in the Tea Party movement and they’re worked up about the burgeoning size of the federal government.  As the Tea Party gains in prominence, expect to see social issues fall by the wayside and to see more people adopt the Glenn Beck attitude.

Oh, and, one more thing, if gay marriage were such a litmus test on the right, how could Sarah Palin (supporter of the FMA) demean herself to stand beside Beck at the “Restoring Honor” rally last month?

* (more…)

With Christine O’Donnell’s victory in Delaware earlier this wake, most political prognosticators have moved that seat from likely Republican to likely Democratic, with some saying GOP hopes for capturing the Senate are lost.

Not so fast.  With Kelly Ayotte’s victory in New Hampshire and her opponent’s classy endorsement, she’s likely to get a bump in the polls and solidify her long-standing lead.  And with Potrman, Blunt and Rubio surging in Ohio, Missouri and Florida respectively, it looks like Republicans will hold all their seats.  So, that means, they start with 41.

If current trends continue, Democratic seats in Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota and Pennsylvania are certain to flip, bringing us up to 45.  So, if the Republicans run the tables on the six races now considered tossups, California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Washington and Wisconsin, they have a majority.  And recall the “rule” for Senate elections — all the close races tend to go to the same party.

Right now, Republicans look likely to take Colorado and Illinois.  And with Sherron Angle edging ahead in a poll which skews left, Nevada could follow suit.  And we haven’t seen a post-primary poll in Wisconsin.  Methinks, the Badger State’s going to go our way.*

Watch for the Democrats to fight hard to keep Illinois (the president’s home state) and Nevada (can’t be losing our Majority Leader, can we?).  And Democrats still have fighting chances in California (groan) and Washington State. (more…)

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds linked Steve Chapman’s insightful piece on his how he’s been learning to love the Tea Party. The Tea Party anger at establishment Republicans predates the arrival of the Obami, with erstwhile “Republican tightwads” justifying every dollar of government spending “as a vital necessity”:

The tea partiers were dismayed to see these penny-pinchers replaced by poll-driven insiders with an appetite for earmarks. That’s one big reason hard-right candidates have scored so many upsets in recent GOP Senate primaries—including Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Joe Miller in Alaska, and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.

They didn’t get nominated because they look and sound like the popular image of a savvy, experienced, well-informed, practical-minded U.S. senator. They got nominated because they don’t.

It’s not just Tea Partiers.  A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that “Fifty-five percent” of Americans think it’s time to replace their current Congressman and “give someone new a chance.”

Those numbers don’t bode well for 28-year Senate veterans Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer.  Methinks their nasty ads won’t be all that helpful in this environment.  Sure, Reid’s massive spending may have briefly given him an edge over his Republican rival.  But, recent polls show him faltering and her inching ahead.

Expect the same in the (once and future) Golden State.

In a release pointing out that “Sean Bielat believes that marriage is a state issue and opposes a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage”, GOProud announced today that it is endorsing the Republican candidate running against the unhappy Barney Frank.

Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of “the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies”, faulted the 15-term Democrat for supporting policies which destroy private-sector jobs.

If we really want to protect gay jobs we don’t need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA], we need to fire Barney Frank. . . . From his perch atop the Financial Services committee, Barney Frank was one of the architects of the financial meltdown that cost millions of Americans – including gay and lesbian workers – their jobs.  Sean Bielat is a common-sense conservative who supports policies that will grow our economy, create jobs, and improve the lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

Not just that.  LaSalvia noted that Bielat supports numerous reforms which help gay and lesbian Americans:

Sean Bielat supports free-market healthcare reforms that will make domestic partner benefits more available to gays and lesbians and will give individuals – not the government – more control over their healthcare. . . . Sean also supports reforms to Social Security, creating personal savings accounts allowing gays and lesbians couples to leave their Social Security to their partners or whoever else they choose – reform opposed by Barney Frank.

Join us in supporting Sean Bielat.

Well, maybe.

This morning, to test a theory that the votes were there (with the question remaining whether or not she could get them to the polls), I checked Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics. In her 2008 bid for the same Senate seat, O’Donnell won 140,595.  In the most recent off-year Senate race in 2006, Democrat Tom Carper won with 170,567 votes, Republican Jay Ting had 69.734.  Throw in the Libertarian candidate and you have a total turnout of 242,972.

If O’Donnell gets all her 2008 voters to the polls (and that’s a big if) and turnout is roughly same as 2006, she wins with 58% of the vote.  But, how many of those voters came to vote in the presidential election and voted for her as the Republican candidate?

If “O’Donnell spends the next seven weeks pounding away on ObamaCare and deficits while Democrats talk about masturbation and Bill Maher,” Timothy P. Carney ”wouldn’t be surprised to see a Senator O’Donnell.”  Hitting those issues and factoring in the relative enthusiasm levels of the two parties, he may well have reason for his absence of wonder.

While Rasmussen has Coons over 50%, that pollster’s numbers have also been fluctuating widely over the course of the contest, with O’Donnell currently only 11 points behind.  Not entirely insurmountable.

. . . how come Democratic candidates

. . . . are spending three times more advertising against the health reform law than they are in support of it[?]

Since the beginning of Congress’s August recess, Democratic candidates have poured $930,000 into ads deriding the health overhaul but just $300,000 in pro-reform spots, according to Evan Tracey at Kantar Media.

And it doesn’t seem that paltry expense on pro-reform spots mentions the actual legislation:

Even Democratic candidates’ pro-reform ads can offer tepid support for the law. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ran an ad last week that mentioned his support of health reform briefly, sandwiched between other legislative accomplishments.

“When the economy collapsed, Sen. Feingold helped pass tax cuts for 95 percent of Wisconsin family,” the script reads. “Russ also fought for tax credits for small businesses and relief from rising health care costs.

Guess voters’ views on the legislation haven’t been softening after all.

(H/t Reader Carly Beason.)

I will not rehash the case I made against Christine O’Donnell here, suffice it to say that while I don’t think she’s the best candidate Delaware Republicans could have nominated for Senate seat once held by Joe Biden, I do think she is the better of the two candidates currently vying to serve out the Vice President’s term.

She didn’t run a stellar campaign (but her opponent ran an inept one).  She isn’t a charismatic figure like Scott Brown, nor an insightful conservative thinker like Pat Toomey, but she was in the right place, at the right time, with the right message.

She wasn’t just running on the “Tea Party” themes of small government and individual freedom, she was also running against the Republican establishment that doesn’t get the popular mood.  (One could argue that those themes and that opposition are one and the same.) “O’Donnell’s victory was,” James Taranto contends, “a rebuke to an out-of-touch Republican establishment in both Delaware and the District of Columbia“.

Voters, Mattie Fein, Republican nominee in California’s 36th Congressional District (you can support her campaign here), writes

. . . in 2010 are not being swayed by the anointment of the Good Ol’ Boys in the GOP’s picks to run for office. They are rejecting the career politicians and the system; the O’Donnell win is representative of this. And, while I do not agree with many of O’Donnell’s social issues or statements, her win is indicative of the rejection of politics as usual in the GOP.

Exactly.  A rejection of politics as usual. (Mattie, by the way, is a heckuva nice gal (I met her).  She opposed Prop 8 and supports repeal of DADT.)

Mattie’s not alone.  And this anger, as Mark Tapscot notes, is rooted in principle:

First, the anger among Republican voters is not limited to the far right reaches of its “base.” Castle was one of the most popular political figures in the state, yet his support in Congress for TARP bailouts, the radical House version of Cap-and-Trade, and the DISCLOSE Act marked him back home among his fellow Republicans as more a representative of the Washington Establishment to Delaware than Delaware’s representative to Washington. (more…)

There are classy ways to accept defeat and classless ways.  Ovide Lamontagne, as Moe Lane informs us, though losing the nod for the Republican nomination for a United States Senate seat for New Hampshire by a whisker (fewer than 2,000 votes), showed us the classy way:

He conceded the primary, will not seek a recount, and has endorsed Kelly Ayotte (video here).  Ayotte has accepted the concession with equal grace and politeness, calling Lamontagne a gentleman and a principled conservative (H/T: Hot Air). From now on, it’s all about defeating [Democratic nominee] Paul Hodes in the general election.

That’s how it’s done in politics.

While I supported Castle and have concerns about Christine O’Donnell, she won the Delaware GOP primary fair and square.  She has an uphill battle to beat Harry Reid’s “pet“, former Marxist, Chris Coons.  Her fellow Republicans shouldn’t make that climb any steeper. (more…)

Over at the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott reports that on the uncovering of some new evidence showing

. . . that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-MA, and committee Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, intervened to help OneUnited, a very sick bank, get $12 million TARP-funded bailout.

What’s wrong with that? Well, for one thing, the TARP funds in question were only supposed to go to healthy banks in an effort to get them to restart their lending programs that had been hobbled by the Great Recession of 2008.

According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton whose organization obtained potentially incriminating e-mails through a Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) request:

These emails suggest that without the corrupt intervention of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters OneUnited would not have gotten a $12 million taxpayer bailout. . . .  And these documents show that this so-called community bank wasn’t actually lending much to the ‘community’ that Frank and Waters were purporting to help.

I do expect the MSM to be on top of this issue, especially giving Mrs. Waters’ ethics woes.  Seems the Ethics Committee also needs to look into the unhappy Massachusetts Democrats’ actions as well.  And not for the first time.

If the Ethics Committee doesn’t take up the matter, the people of Massachusetts 4th District can.  Join me in supporting Sean Bielat running to replace ethically-challenged incumbent.

Fred Barnes thinks the president is making a big mistake in going after House Minority Leader John Boehner:

President Obama has fallen into the John Boehner trap. By attacking Boehner last week—emphatically, repeatedly, and by name—the president made himself look desperate. And by treating Boehner as practically an equal, Obama elevated him. Boehner was delighted. Obama had helped him fill the leadership void among Republicans. For the president, that’s a negative twofer.

I agree.  And it shows that this president would rather demonize the political opposition than hold to his campaign promise to be a postpartisan politician who transcended political divisions.

Barnes believes Obama’s attacks are “unpresidential.”  He’s also believes the tactic smells funny, with the whole thing seeming “contrived” and looking “like it was seized upon solely because the campaign is going so poorly for Democrats and nothing else has worked.”  I mean, one big time Democrat is telling the other Roger Simon that “2010 is gone for Democrats.”

It’s not just the desperate nature of the ploy that strikes us nor the use of one of the mainstays from the Democratic bag of tricks (the politics of personal destruction), we also note the choice of demon.  The president and his allies in the media aren’t going after his predecessor like they once did.  ”What the demonization of Boehner indicates,” Barnes quips, “is that blaming President George W. Bush has lost whatever potency it had. Boehner is the new nemesis.”

Indeed.

I couldn’t express it any better than Kevin Williamson did at The Corner on NRO.

About Christine O’Donnell: No strong opinion about the candidate, though I understand the reservations about her. I do not much weep for RINOs and rather enjoy the sight of them going down in flames.

What this really should communicate, I think, is that the Right needs a lot more Club for Growth–style candidate-recruiting efforts. If conservatives do not like O’Donnell, then they should be out identifying better candidates to run against vulnerable RINOs — because somebody is going to run. These incumbent takedowns are going to inspire a lot of new people to get into electoral politics, many of them without the sort of experience or backgrounds that Establishment types are comfortable with. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

David Harsanyi has a great piece today in the Denver Post, both taking issue with Dinesh D’Souza “tortured contention” about the Kenyan roots of Obama’s politics (which Newt Gingrich strangely embraced) and reminding Republicans not to personalize their opposition to the president.

He concludes that “Obama’s political behavior might be alien to common sense and good government, but not alien to the United States.” Indeed. The Democrat is not the first to propose sweeping statist schemes.

He warns that “if Republicans begin incorporating the festering obsession with President Barack Obama’s
birthplace, loyalties, origins or religion into their official argument, they will have blown it.” I don’t think there’s much risk of mainstream Republicans doing that, but this warning bears repetition.

Conservatives should instead

. . . make an uncluttered argument — using the empirical data of a collapsing economy — that less spending, less regulation and less government is the way to create more prosperity. Dragging Third World colonialism into it — and I can say this with near certitude — is a bad idea on a number of levels.

Read the whole thing.

*Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Buy a shirt and help send me to CPAC! Questions, comments requests can be sent to sarjex (at) gmail dot com

One thing about Congres which annoys many people who follow politics is how our elected officials (and not just Democrats) add amendments to bills unrelated to the original legislation.  They try and tack their pet projects — or controversial items which could not pass as stand-alone legislation — onto bills which would normally sail through Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing just that by adding “the DREAM Act, a controversial immigration measure, to a defense policy bill the Senate will take up next week.”

Senate Republican Leaders Mitch McConnell dubbed the maneuver, “needlessly controversial.”

This isn’t the only provision tacked onto the defense bill.  Democrats have already included legislation repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).  But, at least this repeal is related to a defense bill.

Reid’s ploy to win a few votes in his home state will only make it that much more difficult to push through DADT repeal.

When I was an undergraduate and Ronald Reagan was winning the hearts and minds of my generation, a number of left-of-center pundits were befuddled.  They had come of age in the 1960s — or had observed that era with enthusiasm.  They couldn’t understand how a man so old could find such favor with a crowd so young.

A lot of it had to do with the Gipper’s energy.  He just didn’t seem old.  He spoke with passion and conviction.  He could spin a yarn as if he were talking to his neighbors at a backyard barbecue.  When he talked about one man’s difficulties or another’s accomplishments, we believed he was relating the story of a person he knew.

He never lost the common touch.  Not just that.  He was always looking forward, rarely reminiscing about the good ol’ days.  With his face turned toward the horizon, he knew tomorrow would be a better day.

But, Mike Castle in no Ronald Reagan.

And that’s one reason, I believe, he Castle lost last night.  He might be just two years older than the Gipper was when that latter won the White House, but he seems a much older man.  When he speaks, he sounds not like your friend, but like an elected official, a conscientious one, to be sure, but one more versed the arcana of legislation and the legislative process than the concerns of his fellow citizens.

He just looked old.  A nice old man, to be sure, but an old man.  As Ann Althouse asked, “why was a 70-year-old man running for a first term in the Senate?”  (Via Glenn.)

On Monday, I recall clicking on an article about the Delaware Senate race.  Seeing his picture, I first thought the web-site’s editors had substituted an image of more genial Harry Reid.  He had a delightful hint of a smile on a his face, like a grandfather delighting in his grandson’s first steps.  A pleasant smile perhaps, but not the often puckish grin of the Gipper.

And this got me wondering.  Did Mike Castle’s age (he just turned 71) contribute to his defeat last night? (more…)

Republican voters in Massachusetts’ Fourth Congressional District picked businessman Sean Bielat to replace the unhappy Barney Frank in Congress next fall, but the mean-spirited Democrat seems averse to facing his Republican challenger in a head-to-head debate:

He said he is ready and willing to debate any candidate, mentioning that he debated Rachel Brown regardless of the fact that no one expected it to be a close race.

“There are two independents, so I assume all four of us will debate and I think debating is an obligation any candidate for office has,” Frank said.

All four of us, Barney?  Don’t you have the guts to go man0-a-mano with a charismatic Republican?

You can donate to Sean’s campaign here.

While I believe Miss O’Donnell’s victory means certain defeat for the GOP in the First State, I also believe the Delaware GOP must, as a matter of principle, support the candidate chosen by the voters in their party’s primary.

Mike Castle lost this race far more than Christine O’Donnell won it.  Given the results across the country this year, he should have been better prepared to respond to some of the unfair attacks against him, including allegations he voted for Obamacare and supported impeachment of then-President Bush.

But, the guy also looks a lot like Harry Reid.

This time around, people just don’t like career politicians, particularly those who represent the establishment.  The energy is once again on the side of those who want to change Washington.  And while Delaware Senate seat may look a lot better for the Democrats tonight, the rest of the nation looks much worse. This 2010 energy doesn’t bode well for their party in other contests across the country, particularly in states which tend to swing more with the national mood.

UPDATE:  I pretty much share Jim Geraghty’s read on her victory.

UP-UPDATE:  Glenn Reynolds has a great roundup on the meaning of the election, particularly this piece, How O’Donnell Pulled It Off. Read this one too.

Charlie Crist’s gambit is not paying off.

The latest FoxNews poll shows Republican Marco Rubio opening up a “16-point lead over” the outgoing Florida governor.  Democrat Kendrick Meek trails Crist by a much smaller margin, only 6 points.

This continues a pattern begun in August, with Rubio surging, Crist tumbling and Meek languishing:

Via Pollster.

Last month, the Washington Examiner’s John McCormack charted Crist’s “Crist’s most plausible path to victory“:

The weekend before the the November 2 election, Crist is trailing Rubio by single digits, while Meek is trailing by double digits–say it’s Rubio 39 percent, Crist 34 percent, and Meek 25 percent. At that point, some Meek supporters logically start moving to Crist as the only one who can beat Rubio…

With Crist now trailing by double digits, that path seems less plausible.  Let me offer an alternative.  With some signs Florida Democrats are coming home to Meek, that Democrat should increase his share of the vote as Crist fades.  Crist, seeing his fortunes diminish, could (perhaps with a wink and a nod from national Democrats) drop out at the last minute and endorse Meek, hoping to secure a cabinet (or ambassadorial) appointment from the president.

Still, that may not be enough to propel Meek to victory as the former Republican’s name would still be on the ballot.

If Crist continues his current trajectory, this race will no longer be a contest between Rubio and Crist, but between Rubio and Meek.  And that does give the Democrats a slim chance of flipping the seat, but with a real Democrat and not an opportunistic ex-Republican.