Political Miscellania 5/25/10

A roundup of recent political news.

1.  Rule one of a sex scandal:  Do not have your mistress interview you on the topic of abstinence education as Congressman Mark Souder (R.Ind) did in the above video.  Souder had the common sense to resign , and the Republicans should be able to hold the seat.  As for Mr. Souder, when you preach social conservatism, the first person you must convince is yourself.

 2.  Republicans lose Pennsylvania 12 special election.  I always thought this one was a long shot.  The Democrats enjoy a 2-1 voter advantage, and the corrupt Jack Murtha who had held the seat since 74 won re-election in 2008 in spite of being under investigation and calling his voters racist.  Perhaps there is some truth in this old Saturday Night Live video from 2008.

3.  Republicans win Hawaii 1.  Charles Djou is going to Congress as the first Republican congressman from Hawaii in 20 years.  Djou got in because the Democrats fielded two candidates and neither one would bow out.  The Democrats are confident that they will take the seat back in November.  I am not so sure.  Djou is a formidable campaigner and the Democrat vote may still be fractured come November with all the bad blood that has been generated, with a fair amount of Democrats deciding to sit out the vote or crossing over to vote for Djou.

4.  Best political campaign ad thus far in this cycle:

5.  A new Rasmussen poll indicates how clueless and out of touch most of the political class is.

An overwhelming majority (88%) of the Political Class are confident in members of Congress to handle current economic problems. Nine-two percent (92%) of Mainstream voters don’t share that confidence.

6.  Bye bye  Snarlin’ Arlen.  You will most definitely not be missed.

7.  Joe Sestak, who defeated Snarlin’ Arlen for the Democrat nomination for Senator from Pennsylvania, has his own problems.  He claimed that the Obama administration offered him the job of Secretary of Navy if he would drop out of the primary.  The problem for Sestak is that this allegation, if true, is probably a criminal offense.  

18 U.S.C. 600

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

A criminal investigation by a special prosecutor on this issue is not the type of event that would endear him to Democrat voters in November.  Now Sestak is hemming and hawing.  It is a long way to November Joe.

17 Responses to Political Miscellania 5/25/10

  1. Mr. Smith says:

    The Pennsylvania Senate race may be one of the worst in recent history. Neither party’s candidate is that impressive – Sestak has a reputation of sticking his foot in his mouth and Toomey has been called “a conservative Rick Santorum”. This one may be worth watching just to see a train wreck.

  2. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Actually Mr. Smith Toomey is far less conservative than Rick Santorum, much to my regret. However, he is strongly pro-life in stark comparison to his adversary, and that of course is a deal maker for me.

  3. Paul Zummo says:

    Toomey has been called “a conservative Rick Santorum”.

    And the problem with that being what exactly?

  4. Jay Anderson says:

    “And the problem with that being what exactly?”

    Yeah, I have my issues with Santorum (cough … Specter endorsement … cough), but the U.S. Senate would be a lot more welcoming to the unborn and a lot more family friendly if it were filled with more people like Rick Santorum (as opposed to the fake “pro-lifer” Casey Jr., who seems to always find a way to subordinate his allegedly “pro-life values” to the will of the Democrat leadership).

    We could do a lot worse than to have someone elected, in Toomey, whose allegedly shortcoming is that he’s similar to one of the more pro-life members to have served in the Senate in the past 40 years.

  5. restrainedradical says:

    4. People like Michael Moore have been peddling the idea that Congressmen should be reading bills. They really don’t have the time. Some don’t even have the expertise to understand them. They get summaries. You’d do the same thing.

    5. Also from the poll: “Those who earn less than $20,000 per year express far more confidence in Congress’ economic wisdom than those in any other income bracket.”

    6. What does it say about Tea Parties when they boo facts?

  6. Blackadder says:

    Toomey is far less conservative than Rick Santorum, much to my regret.

    How is Toomey less conservative than Santorum?

  7. Donald R. McClarey says:

    “How is Toomey less conservative than Santorum?”

    The latest example last year was when he wrote an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer saying he would vote to confirm Sotomayor.


    Toomey started out as a pro-abort RINO when he was first elected to Congress. On abortion he had a heart felt conversion and I do not doubt his pro-life creds. He is usually conservative on most issues today, but he is not in Santorum’s category who has the rare distinction of being one of the very few members of Congress past or present, who I regard as more conservative than I am.

    A good overview of Toomey’s career is linked below:


  8. c matt says:

    On point No. 5, what, exactly is that supposed to prove? That those who have less success in economic matters trust Congress more on them?

    Doesn’t surprise me.

  9. Mr. Smith says:

    I’m just sharing what politically active Pennsylvania Republicans I know have said about Mr. Toomey, many of them conservative. They are less than thrilled with his candidacy.

    And Bob Casey is certainly a pro-life Democrat. He actively works with Democrats for Life and had inserted into the health care bill provisions of the Pregnant Women Support Act.

  10. Paul Zummo says:

    And Bob Casey is certainly a pro-life Democrat.

    If by pro-life you mean “mouths platitudes about the sanctity of life and supports toothless provisions to be inserted into bills that are otherwise anti-life and votes to confirm pro-Roe Justices,” then yes, he is most definitely pro-life by that definition.

  11. Donald R. McClarey says:

    4. Restrainedradical, the Arizona bill is ten pages in length. Obama officials have been pontificating that they think it might be unconstitutional. If I were arguing that a bill may be unconstitutional, rest assured that I would read the bloody thing first.

    5. People on the public dole apparently know who their paymasters are.

    6. I do not believe they were booing facts, rather they were booing a professional politician who did his best to bring about the current mess.

  12. Mr. Smith says:

    Paul, are you referring to Bob Casey or Rick Santorum, who supported publicly pro-choice politicians like Arlen Specter because of political expediency? Isn’t it better to support politicians who try and vote pro-life rather than tearing them down? I don’t think it’s really pro-life to question Bob Casey, especially when he has proven he is pro-life.

  13. Mr. Smith says:

    Actually I misspoke. I should have said it is not really productive to the pro-life movement to question Bob Casey…..

  14. Paul Zummo says:

    Paul, are you referring to Bob Casey or Rick Santorum, who supported publicly pro-choice politicians like Arlen Specter because of political expediency?

    This is basically a form of a tu quoque argument, and frankly it’s not worth my time. Next.

    Isn’t it better to support politicians who try and vote pro-life rather than tearing them down?

    So we should refuse to criticize people who pretend to be pro-life when they constantly vote in a manner that is decidedly not pro-life? Is it better to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the myriad ways a so-called pro-lifer votes against the interests of the pro-life movement? Or do we only ignore these mis-deeds when the politician has a (D) next to his name?

    it is not really productive to the pro-life movement to question Bob Casey

    This is truly a bizarre statement, even amended. So now Bob Casey has achieved near Pope-levels and is above criticism? And why? Because he claims to be pro-life and tries really super duper hard to vote the right way when it suits him or when it isn’t altogether inconvenient for him or when Harry and Barack tell him it’s okay because he’s been a good little boy and he gets to cast his one little token vote this time?

    Bob Casey is not his father, and he is not meaningfully pro-life in any sense of the term, unless we’re going by the Doug Kmiec school of political terminology.

  15. Jay Anderson says:

    By all means, don’t question the sacred name of Casey, Jr. Yet, it’s okay to call into question the REAL pro-life bona fides of Santorum? Why? Because he’s an evil rethuglican? Please.

    The real record of FAKE “pro-lifer” Bob Casey:

    Opposed reinstating the Mexico City Policy after Obama revoked the executive order implementing it

    Voted to rescind the Mexico City Policy while Bush was in office

    Fails to press pro-life differences with his party during speech to Democrat National Convention

    Praised by Planned Parenthood for his votes in favor of federally funded “family planning efforts

    (As our friend Paul Zummo asked at the time, if you were a pro-lifer and Planned Parenthood lauded you with praise, what would your reaction be? Do you think Planned Parenthood EVER had anything positive to say about Santorum?)

    I can come up with other instances, including the health care debate, in which Casey Jr. undermined Ben Nelson’s efforts to get Stupak-like language into the Senate version of the bill:

  16. Jay Anderson says:

    Sorry, that was Regular Guy Paul, not Paul Zummo.

    Getting my “Pauls” mixed up. But since they’re both usually right on the money, I don’t think either will object.


%d bloggers like this: