The 2012 Election is Reverse of Bush-Kerry in 2004

Finally someone wrote what a lot of us have been saying.  Romney reminded me in 2008 of John Kerry with all his flip flops but he is worse this time.  According to the Republican Establishment and those who have drank the Romney koolaid, Romney has evolved not flip flopped.  Give me a break, the man will say anything if he thinks it will get him votes just like John Kerry.  Must be the Massachusetts water because Romney is no conservative, never has been, and never will be.  That is not something you discover over night when in 2007 he was part of a group of liberals opposing Sam Alito for the Supreme Court.

Now he has people out scrubbing the net of some of his 'scorched earth' comments against conservatives along with his comments on women like that is going to make a difference as we all have memories of what he said plus a lot of us have the quotes on record.  What if a Democrat spokesman for Obama said they were going to scrub the net.  The Republicans would go through the roof especially some of the conservative Republican media.

The hypocrisy in this election by the Romney supporters knows no end.   Even their critique of Obama using AF One so much is hollow when you remember in 2004 that President Bush used AF One more than any other President to campaign.  It is okay for a Republican to use AF One to campaign but not a Democrat?  Is this what this election has gotten down to criticize your opponent for what you did in 2004?  Beginning to look just like that.

Guess when you have a candidate that is pretending to be something he is not this is what happens.  Happened with Kerry who flip flopped all over the place and now with Romney.  Sooner or later when you have no core values on issues, it comes out.  How can you be an independent, run as a liberal in MA not to mention govern as a liberal until you decide to run for President and then start morphing into a conservative yet expect people to believe you?

This weekend is the Libertarian Convention in Las Vegas.  Will the former Republican Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson receive their nomination?  The Libertarians are on the ballots in all 50 states this time so he could make the race interesting since he is a true economic conservative.  You know where he stands on issues and doesn't flip flop all over the place.  Reagan had a rule about agreeing with someone 80% of the time and he is your candidate.  If I apply that rule, then Johnson would be my candidate not Romney who I seldom agree with.

• 4/27/12 at 4:41 PM

The 2012 Election Is Bush-Kerry in Reverse

• By Jonathan Chait

The parallels between this year’s presidential election and the one we had eight years ago are striking. Incumbent president with middling approval ratings faces rich guy from Massachusetts with a reputation for flip-flopping. Hilarity ensues. By “hilarity” I mean, specifically, that people get extremely worked up about a series of procedural controversies, and then the two parties trade places on them the next time around. 

It is actually kind of eerie how closely the two elections have tracked each other. How many issues like this have the parties switched places over? Let us count them: 

Air Force One. At the moment, Republicans are raging at President Obama for having made a series of official speeches, at government expense, that also dovetail with his campaign themes. The Washington Free Beacon finds this so outrageous it actually quotes Solzhenitsyn — at length! — to denounce the “lies.” And certainly Obama has been engaging in some pretense here. Conservatives were distinctly less outraged in 2004, when USA Today reported that Bush was “using Air Force One for re-election travel more heavily than any predecessor.” 

Big donors. In 2004, Bush had put together a powerful fund-raising network, and Democrats were dependent on large donations from outside groups. Republicans attacked the Democratic donors. The donors felt it was outrageous they should be attacked. (Large donor George Soros: “I have been demonized by the Bush campaign.”) In response, Dinesh D’Souza wrote in National Review: 

Soros begins with a plea for personal sympathy. Such pleas are always dubious when they come from billionaires who are trying to pass themselves off as victims. But as the man who is the leading contributor to groups like moveon.org, groups that have launched some of the most vicious attacks against President Bush, shouldn't Soros expect to be "demonized" in return?
Now, of course, Republican billionaires are making huge donations, Democrats are attacking them, and the GOP billionaires and conservative pundits are waxing hysterical over the unfairness of the poor billionaires enduring public criticism. 

Flip-flopping. How important a character flaw is flip-flopping? Just about the most important thing in the world, said everybody in the Republican Party in 2004. It was so vital, Bush insisted in 2004, it was better to vote for a candidate you don’t agree with than to vote for one who has changed his mind on something. (“Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand.”) Even Mitt Romney gave a speech ridiculing John Kerry as a flip-flopper. Now, it’s not such a bad quality, after all, to have the ability to admit when you’re wrong. 

Negativity. The challenger thinks it’s a devastating admission of failure that the incumbent has to tear down his challenger rather than run a positive campaign. Amazingly, Karl Rove, who defined this tactic in 2004, now weeps bitter tears almost every week over Obama’s meanness. 

Politicizing foreign policy. In 2004, Democrats were furious that Bush used the 9/11 attacks as a political asset. Now, Republicans are indignant that Obama is running on having killed Osama bin Laden. (Of course, the difference is that 9/11 was at best something Bush had no responsibility for and at worst a colossal blunder, while killing bin Laden is an actual accomplishment.) 

Attacking the rich guy. Obama implicitly contrasts himself with Romney’s wealthy upbringing, and his allies have explicitly highlighted Romney’s vast fortune. Republicans consider this vicious class warfare. If you want to see some real attacks on a guy just for being rich, get a load of this: 

The Republican National Committee produced a game called Kerryopoly, in which a player earning $40,000 a year "can land on properties like Nantucket, worth $9.18 million, Beacon Hill, worth $6.9 million, or Idaho, worth $4.9 million." A television ad from a pro-GOP group mockingly lists his assets. "Designer shirt: $250. Forty-two-foot luxury yacht: $1 million. Four lavish mansions and a beachfront estate: over $30 million.” 

It does seem that, at least so far, the Republican Party has a greater capacity than the Democrats to generate outrage over something they find perfectly fair when their side is doing the same or worse. Still, Democrats are hardly immune. And it’s worth it for liberals to keep this in mind: Remember how outraged you felt eight years ago, when the president was exploiting his incumbency for reelection and tearing down his opponent? That’s how Republicans feel now. 

Source:  http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/2012-election-is-bush-kerry-in-reverse.html

These are facts which have been verified which shows the total hypocrisy of the National Republican Committee along with their pundits and elected Republicans who are shilling for Romney.  When Priebus said the other day that Romney was gaining with conservatives.  What conservatives what he talking about?  The wealthy?  The ones I know are more adamant then ever not to vote for Romney after the way they are attacked by Romney supporters when they say they won't vote for Romney on various sites.  They are particularly nasty on Twitter and continue to attack a good friend who refuses to back down.  Where in the Constitution does it say if you are a Republican you have to vote for the Republican candidate?

Establishment Republicans refused to vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964 but now that the shoe is on the other foot they call conservatives names and frankly want us out of the party the way it looks.  The Establishment GOP is now going after good conservative Senate candidates to support more moderate candidates so is this a purge of conservatives from the Republican Party?  If that is the case the rhetoric of 'smaller government' is just that out of some of the leadership in Congress and some of the men and women we elected.  That would explain why Government grew under President Bush and a Republican Congress instead of being cut.  No wonder they didn't want Dr. Coburn in the Senate to join a few others.

How Cuts to State Taxes Could Hit Voters in the Wallet (Oklahoma)

The title of this article is right up there for understatement of the year.  One proposal submitted by a member of the Oklahoma legislature removed all deductions including dependents and lowered the tax rate by a whole 1% which is most likely the one this article talks about retirees and members of the military were up in arms.  If you earned $30,000 from any source and could take no deductions, you would be paying $1,200 a year while currently with two dependents, mortgage, etc., you are probably paying a small amount.  If you are on a fixed income, you have no way to make up that $1200.  Oklahoma right now gives the military and federal employees a break on taxes for retirement income because many of us did not earn that income in the State of Oklahoma.  This legislator wanted to remove all tax deductions for everyone including donations to charity.

Some of the bills that come out of the Oklahoma legislature leave you scratching your head of why they were submitted when you realize that OK legislators are paid almost $40,000 a year, get medical care like a full time state employee, and are only in session from early February to late May.  We hear about how they are studying issues the rest of the time.  They are also encouraged to submit eight bills a year. Note:   The state constitution limits the Legislature to meeting 160 legislative days during each biennium. In addition, the Legislature may not meet in regular session after the last Friday in May of each year

Let's compare Oklahoma Legislature to the Texas Legislature since they are our neighbor to the south.  First of all the Texas legislature meets every other year and does a two year budget while the Oklahoma legislature meets every year and has trouble doing a one year budget.  Both can be called back in session by the Governor.  Oklahoma with a population of 3,751,351 has 101 House/48 Senate members of the Legislature.  Texas with a population of 25.1 million has 150 House/31Senate members.  Sitting here scratching my head on what Oklahoma needs so many members of the Legislature versus Texas and why can't our legislature pass a two-year budget and meet every other year.  Most likely because the members of the Oklahoma legislature wouldn't be paid almost $40,000 plus per diem (cost of travel and housing) when in session.

Before anyone blames Republicans, the numbers of Representatives/Senators and their pay came at the hands of the Democrats who held full control of the House for all but a short time until 2004.  Now Republicans control both houses in Oklahoma in fairly big numbers like the Democrats used to before this state became Republican.  The healthcare is from Republicans and they have done nothing to make a small legislature or do a two-year budget.

What sounded like a good idea to cut our state income tax here in Oklahoma, doesn't sound so good when you look at the details.  How could we expect the legislature to cut government?  (sarcasm)

How Cuts to State Taxes Could Hit Voters in the Wallet
By Bruce Watson
Posted 2:15PM 04/27/12

Nobody likes to give money to the government, and with bank accounts across the country still smarting from tax season, it seems like a great time to take aim at the tax structure. At least, that appears to be the case in several states that are currently weighing plans to phase out state income tax.

Proponents claim that these proposals will help ease the tax burden on working families but won't translate into significant cuts in services. However, the aftermath of similar policies in other states suggests that the current push to slash taxes may carry a very high price for some of the country's poorest citizens.

Cutting One Revenue Stream ... And Opening Another

In Oklahoma, one state that is currently considering ways to cut its tax burden, the legislature has already passed four separate proposals that call for a total phaseout of the state income tax system. But while the state's politicians agree that taxes need to be abolished, they've had a much harder time deciding on ways to replace the revenue stream. The most popular route is cutting out loopholes in the state tax code, but heavy lobbying from special-interest groups -- particularly senior citizens, retirees and veterans -- have made it clear that closing many of the biggest tax breaks is a non-starter. Not surprisingly, these three groups are also among the strongest voting blocs. 

Oklahoma's legislators are gambling that cuts in the state income tax will lead to massive increases in economic growth, as companies would presumably choose to relocate to the state in order to take advantage of tax breaks. With that in mind, a few of the proposals outline plans to phase-in tax cuts slowly, contingent on their success in building up business. For example, House Bill 1571 calls for a 0.25% drop in the tax rate for every 5% of growth in state revenue.  

Cutting Taxes ... But Not Services

Tax-slashing proponents have justified their plans with a populist appeal: Most claim that the state's "core services" won't be cut, and that the proposals will give extra money to working families. But even some advocates admit that the tax plans will come with a cost. Sen. Clark Jolley, the author of one plan, notes that his bill is not "revenue neutral": "Let's be very clear. Oklahoma will have less money to operate if this goes into effect." The Republican lawmaker's opponents, in turn, have argued that the lowered revenue stream will translate into cuts in health, education and transportation spending -- programs that directly benefit many of the state's poorer citizens. 

But even if services aren't cut, there's a good chance that slashing the state income tax will push a larger share of Oklahoma's revenue burden onto the backs of its poorest workers. In a recent study, the Corporation for Enterprise Development compared the percentage of income that the poorest 20% and richest 1% pay in state income taxes. The nine states that don't impose income taxes -- Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming -- topped the list when it came to soaking the poor.  

Excerpt:  Read More at the Daily Finance

Romney Holds Big-Money Fundraiser at N.Y. Billionaire John Paulson's Townhouse

Since billionaires are financing his campaign, why have I one of the little people gotten five fundraising letters from the Mitt Romney campaign asking for donations?  At least he is keeping the post office afloat.  RNC was in addition to the five in the last two days.  They are both getting the same -- zero, zip, nada.  Both Obama and Romney are reaching out to Wall Street and K Street -- some day those billionaires are going to want payback.  Nice to have two candidates who have sold out to the people on Wall Street that caused all the problems but then Romney is one of them and Obama uses them.  Although when you look at the figures it seems Romney has raised about four times as much as Obama ($2.48M to $625K) since the hedge fund and other venture capitalist have flocked to Romney.  Are they looking for a sweetheart deal if he was elected?  You can bank on that one and this quote from the article nails what is happening IMO.

“It’s not surprising that the people who profited the most from the economic crisis want to elect Mitt Romney.”

Looks like the Romney money bomb is failing as he has not even reached half of his goal of $2.5M as of last night but only has a little over $800,000.  Mormon Church needs to get busy and tell their members to anti up for one of their own like they have been doing with their votes as now their hero needs contributions.  Robocalls for money is not going to work with conservatives no matter how much the RNC Chair Priebus says we are coming on board.  I am still looking for the ones who are going to Romney and swallowing the Romney koolaid.  On conservative websites non-Romney supporters are still being attacked by the same people who have been attacking for months and still not working.  In fact being bullies is backfiring in a lot of instances.

Telling us that he is not in the hip pocket of Wall Street is a bad joke as now it is out in public that he held a huge fundraiser with a bunch of white guys for a Wall Street Hedge-fund billionaire John Paulson.  Imagine that looking out your window and seeing a bunch of white guys.  With only around 35% of the Republican vote in the primaries until Santorum dropped out, the RNC is whistling Dixie if they think that 65% of conservatives are going to come on board for Romney.  That is not happening.

As I have told the fundraisers who call, ask Romney for the money to fund his campaign or his Wall Street/KStreet buddies.  I have a budget to meet and that does not include funding the campaign of a multi-millionaire who keeps part of his assets off shore.

Romney Holds Big-Money Fundraiser at N.Y. Billionaire’s Townhouse
by Ben JacobsApr 27, 2012 8:50 PM EDT 

The Republican candidate has accepted donations from controversial hedge-fund billionaire John Paulson, but Thursday night he made their association more explicit by allowing Paulson to host a fundraiser, Ben Jacobs reports.

Mitt Romney held a high-dollar fundraiser Thursday night at the home of John Paulson, the controversial hedge-fund billionaire who made a fortune shorting the housing market and subprime mortgages in 2007.

Controversial hedge-fund billionaire John Paulson (right) held a fundraiser for Republican candidate Mitt Romney (left) in his Manhattan townhouse, Getty Images

New York grocery billionaire John Catsimatidis told The Daily Beast the fundraiser, at Paulson’s posh townhouse at 9 East 86th Street on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, was a “big-dollar event” for wealthy donors like himself “fighting for the soul of America.” The Romney campaign did not return requests for information about the fundraiser—which was not listed on the candidate’s public schedule. Paulson’s publicist, Armel Leslie, also did not return calls seeking comment. 

A neighbor who witnessed the event from across the street described it to The Daily Beast as a large crowd of “older white people, mostly men,” who started showing up around 7:30 p.m. Thursday. Around 8 p.m., sirens started blaring as more and more people started to show. There was security at the door as well as a police car on the street. 

Then things became quiet until the sirens started up at 9:30 p.m. An SUV tried to block 86th Street, but New York drivers characteristically went around it. Then, as the security stood in the street, Romney emerged from the townhouse, “looking tall and neat.” He took off his suit jacket and climbed into the SUV. 

The event marks a rather controversial departure for the Romney campaign. Although both Romney and his super PAC have accepted donations from Paulson, this ratchets up the association between the presumptive GOP nominee and the controversial Wall Street billionaire. Lis Smith, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, did take advantage of the connection to take a whack at Romney, stating, “It’s not surprising that the people who profited the most from the economic crisis want to elect Mitt Romney. Then again, Paulson is a nice checkbook to get to know in gearing up for a fierce battle this fall. According to the latest numbers from The Center for Responsive Politics, Romney has out-raised President Obama by a four to one margin among donors in hedge funds and private equity. Romney's campaign has raised $2.48 million in this industry while Obama has collected just under $625,000. He would bring back the failed policies—tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and letting Wall Street write its own rules—that created it in the first place.” 

Until Election Day, Romney and Obama will each try to hang the unpopularity of Wall Street on the other—Obama, by attacking Romney as a “vulture capitalist,” just as Rick Perry and Romney will go after Obama on “bailouts.” It’s unclear whether this attack will stick to either one, but by holding a fundraiser at Paulson’s townhouse, Romney made it that much easier for Obama.

SEC starts probe of Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon well stakes

When I first heard about the SEC probe last night I figured I would get all the details in The Oklahoman this morning but I was wrong.   Since Chesapeake is headquartered in Oklahoma City, it seemed a logical conclusion.  Here is what I got back in search:

No results found. Please adjust your search and try again.

I tried SEC investigates Chesapeake, SEC investigates Aubrey McClendon, SEC investigates local oil and gas company and all searches to no avail.  It is sure to be on there later today.  Could it be because the Arena where the NBA OKC Thunder play is called the 'Chesapeake Arena' since Chesapeake bought naming rights?  McClendon is a partner in the Thunder which is owned by Clay Bennett, husband of one of the Gaylord sisters who recently sold The Oklahoman.  Draw your own conclusions.

One of the investors in Chesapeake Energy has a scathing commentary on the practices of Aubrey McClendon and the Board of Directors who serve as a rubber stamp.  Devon Shire, who is a hedge fund manager had this to say:

I thought this topic was a perfect for the daily headlines we are now seeing for a company that I own, that company being Chesapeake Energy (CHK). 

Of course you likely already know the details of the Reuters special report on Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon's Founders Well Participation program and how McClendon has financed this participation with a massive amount of debt borrowed from a company that Chesapeake also deals with. 

Over the past several years I have written several times about the mental tug of war I've had over whether or not to invest in Chesapeake. My interest in investing in Chesapeake related to the massive portfolio of unconventional resource acreage the company had compiled. My hesitation related solely to whether I wanted to entrust my investment dollars to the stewardship of CEO McClendon and Chesapeake's Board of Directors. 

(snip)   

It isn't a surprise because of the history of this company and its CEO. The map collection purchase, the margin calls and the ridiculous 2008 bonus. This billion dollars in debt that may or may not be a conflict of interest is just more of the same. 

And more of the same is a Board of Directors and CEO who either do not understand what it means to be stewards of shareholder interests or simply do not care. 

(snip) 

It doesn't take someone with the business ethics of Warren Buffett to figure out that Chesapeake has been spending a lot of time close to (maybe over, maybe not) that line that separates right and wrong. 

As a small shareholder of Chesapeake I'd like to send a message to the Board of Directors.
I admire the company that McClendon has built. I think the collection of assets that he has assembled is incredible and are worth multiples of the current share price. But you (Board of Directors and CEO) have lost my (as a shareholder) trust and I'm not sure I want you running this company for me anymore. No matter how great a job a CEO has done, a publicly traded company is owned by its shareholders. It is not wealth creation vehicle for its CEO even if that CEO founded the company. 

It seems pretty clear to me that in the minds of this Board of Directors the interests of the CEO are put well in front of the interests of the people who actually own the company. And those people are the shareholders like me. 

On behalf of myself and the shares I represent, I would like to request that we have a change in both the Board of Directors and CEO so that we can be certain shareholder interests become priority number one. 

Because that is what the job of the Board of Directors was supposed to be. 

Disclosure: I am long CHK.

Will Aubrey McClendon and his Board of Directors survive this probe?  Probably but bet the Board puts a lot of new rules in place.  This is not coming at a good time as people are looking at profits of oil and gas and wondering why all the tax breaks when an owner like McClendon just gets richer.

SEC starts probe of Chesapeake CEO's well stakes
Ernest Scheyder and Brian Grow Reuters7:15 p.m. CDT, April 26, 2012

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an informal inquiry into Chesapeake Energy Corp's controversial program that granted Chief Executive Aubrey McClendon a share in each of the natural gas producer's wells, a source familiar with the matter said on Thursday. 

That inquiry, being led by the SEC's office in Fort Worth, Texas, comes after Reuters reported about loans McClendon had obtained on those wells that raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest by the company's CEO. 

Chesapeake said it would end the program that gives McClendon a 2.5 percent stake in every one of the company's thousands of wells in 2015, when the shareholder approval of the program that started  in 2005 expires. 

The company said in a statement earlier on Thursday that its directors had never reviewed or approved McClendon's mortgages on stakes in those wells, reversing its prior assertions that its board of directors was "fully aware" of McClendon's financing transactions around the well ownership stakes. 

"The board of directors did not review, approve or have knowledge of the specific transactions engaged in by Mr. McClendon or the terms of those transactions," the company said.
Ratings agency Standard & Poor's said on Thursday the turmoil surrounding the well ownership program and McClendon's personal transactions could hamper the company's ability to meet "massive external funding requirements stemming from its currently weak operating cash flow." 

S&P lowered its credit rating for Chesapeake - which has been junk grade for some time - one notch to "BB" from "BB-plus" and said another cut could occur within a few months.
Chesapeake shares ended Thursday down 3.1 percent at $17.56 on the New York Stock Exchange, bringing the decline so far this year to about 20 percent. 

The company's recently issued 6.775 percent note due March 15, 2019, the most active issue on Thursday, was down 0.5 to 0.75 point following the S&P downgrade, according to traders. 

Reuters reported on April 18 that McClendon, who founded the company, had borrowed as much as $1.1 billion in the last three years against his ownership stakes in wells that he received under the company's "Founder Well Participation Program." 

The majority of the borrowing came from an investment management firm that is also a major financier of Chesapeake itself. 

On Thursday, McClendon disclosed that as of the end of 2011, he owed $846 million on loans taken out against his well stakes. But the company did not disclose the total amount McClendon has borrowed, or whether his outstanding debt has risen since the end of last year.
The loans had been previously undisclosed to shareholders, analysts and academics said, raising concerns that McClendon's personal financial deals could compromise his fiduciary duty to Chesapeake. 

An informal inquiry is the first step taken by the SEC before it launches any full investigation into potential wrongdoing by a company.   

(snip) 

McClendon founded Chesapeake in 1989 and quickly built the company into one of the nation's fastest-growing producers of natural gas. It is now the second-largest U.S. natural gas producer behind Exxon Mobil Corp.  

Excerpt:  Read More at the Chicago Tribune

Young Guns Support Elderly RINO Richard Lugar (IN)

Time for Eric Cantor to resign as part of Young Guns of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) because the Young Guns is for House Candidates not the Senate.  First he gives $25,000 from his own PAC to a group out to defeat incumbents including some Republican incumbents from Texas and now this.  If anyone doesn't think Cantor is behind this, think again.   Think we can safely put Cantor in the GOP establishment camp after this latest one.

This is wrong on so many levels.  First is the fact this is a Senate race not a House race with the Young Guns support.  Second when Young Guns was formed it was so first time members running for the House would have financial resources to run AFTER they demonstrated they could also raise money.  Then third and last is the fact that Lugar is an 80-year old incumbent, doesn't live in Indiana (cannot vote there according to the election board) and votes with the Democrats more than most.

No wonder Boehner made the comment that the Democrats have a 1 in 3 chance of taking back the House when you have a leader like Cantor throwing money around out of a fund that is there for new candidates they have recruited.  How do they expect to keep getting donations if they are going to waste them on a Senate race of someone who should be retired but is being pushed by McConnell and the establishment Republicans.

Young Guns Support Elderly RINO
6:05 PM, Apr 25, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Politico reports that the Young Guns Network, "a group affiliated with two former aides to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor," just spent $104,628.00 to support six-term incumbent senator Richard Lugar in his primary battle to hold his seat against state treasurer Richard Mourdock. The money, according to disclosures, went to "mailers" in favor of the 80-year-old Lugar, who now looks likely to lose to his more conservative challenger. 

"Young Guns ... was designed to help leaders like Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy chart a new course for the center-right movement and the House majority,” Young Guns Action Fund super PAC founder John Murray has said. It's not clear how this donation to Lugar furthers that cause. And it's not clear why Young Guns is meddling in a GOP Senate primary. Indeed, Mike Pence, another young gun-type House member who's now running for Indiana governor, has conspicuously failed to endorse Lugar for reelection. 

More important: $100,000 could go a long way to supporting a Republican against a Democrat this year in a competitive House race. Is helping a six-term Senate incumbent who's not so conservative try to beat back a conservative primary challenge by someone who would hold the Senate seat for the GOP really the best use of that money? Is it the use donors to Young Guns expected? And if Lugar loses (as many expect), won't this expenditure be particularly embarrassing?

Congressman Mike Pence is making the right decision not to endorse Lugar and be a hypocrite.  Shame some others couldn't have taken a page from his book during the Presidential primary.  Still wish Pence was running for President but now that everything has played out we can see why he didn't.  He is going to be a terrific Governor for Indiana.

Republicans in Indiana need to get rid of Lugar this time -- he should not be running but Mitch McConnell and the establishment types want a more moderate in the Senate and no more conservatives.

I am just astounded at Cantor to do this so openly.  What is to be gained?  Is he planning to run for Senator for Virginia and wants McConnell and the establishment backing in the future?  If he is, he is using money that doesn't belong to him but belongs to Young Guns to help new candidates not an old guy who should be retired.

Alerts

Hide

Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.

Send me alerts for:

Bill Kristol
Fred Barnes
Jay Cost

Your e-mail address:

Confirm e-mail address:

Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter.

The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

Please include me in third party offers.

U.S. Senate passes proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn to cap spending on federal conferences

Finally both sides agree that spending on federal conferences has gotten out of hand thanks to the lavish event by the GSA which wasn't their first foray into wasting taxpayer dollars.  Senator Coburn for years has been trying to cut the budgets of conferences hosted by the Government to no avail:

Coburn has tried unsuccessfully in the past to cut spending on agency conferences. He specifically targeted the U.S. Justice Department after an internal report in 2008 showed that the department spent $312 million over seven years on conferences, including training sessions in Hawaii. 

It is members of both parties and any self righteous pundit who says it is only Democrats hasn't been around the Government to observe first hand a conference, training, or demonstration that is hosted by the Government.  The only reason this amendment was able to pass is the fact that the GSA finally went way overboard instead of just a little overboard as they have in the past.  Having seen conferences hosted by the military and GSA up and close personal, this amendment is long past due.  In fact, I hope that next year they will get another cut.  The budgets for travel to conferences within DoD is a joke.  Even when hosted by contractors or associations, it costs the Federal Government a lot to travel to a conference for example at the Disneyland Hotel with the cost of the hotel and everything else.

Went to one that was joint venture between the San Antonio Air Logistics Center and one of the associations run by contractors that cater to the the military.  Couldn't believe the lavish spread for lunch.  Our son had a football game so no dinner but from the accounts of the people there, it was lavish as well.  Know the budget of the depot for the event was pretty large and asked my husband how can they spend our taxpayer dollars on something like this since he was one of the people in charge.  He tells me it is to further relations between the contractor and the depot.  Rolling eyes!

Dr. Coburn once again is showing why in 2004 we worked so hard as the grassroots to send him to the Senate and why the establishment worked so hard to defeat him starting in the primary.  We need more Senators like Dr. Coburn in the US Senate and more amendments like this one.

U.S. Senate passes proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn to cap spending on federal conferences

In the wake of the scandal over an agency's lavish Las Vegas conference, senators show some solidarity with U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn on his effort to cut taxpayer funding of federal gatherings. 

By Chris Casteel | Published: April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON— Spurred by the scandal over a federal agency spending $823,000 on a training conference in Las Vegas, the U.S. Senate approved an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn on Tuesday to cap spending on conferences and require all of the information to be posted on the Internet. 

Coburn's amendment passed without dissent to legislation reforming the U.S. Postal Service. 

Coburn, R-Muskogee, said his proposal could save up to $65 million a year and would allow Congress and the public “to get some visibility on what we're spending on conferences.”
Agencies would be required to post quarterly reports on the Internet, with numerous details about their conferences, including explanations of why they were needed. 

Coburn said Tuesday that the federal government spends a minimum of $500 million per year on conferences. 

Under his proposal, an agency's budget for conferences would be 80 percent of its 2010 budget for conferences. Spending could not top $500,000 for a single conference under most circumstances. No more than 50 people from an agency could be sent to an international conference. 

(snip)

The recent eruption on Capitol Hill over the General Services Administration's 2010 conference in Las Vegas has made lawmakers more sympathetic to Coburn's cause. His amendment was praised on the Senate floor on Tuesday by a Republican, a Democrat and an Independent. 

“Unfortunately, the excessive — really outrageous — spending by GSA on the conference in Las Vegas has brought the whole area of federal spending on conferences into the public klieg lights, and I've reached the conclusion that we're spending too much,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

Read more: http://newsok.com/u.s.-senate-passes-proposal-by-sen.-tom-coburn-to-cap-spending-on-federal-conferences/article/3669455#ixzz1t4IY4nh9

Blue Dog Democrats Headed for Extinction?

When I read last night that Almire and Holden had lost their Democrat primaries in PA, figured the days of the Blue Dogs were going away rapidly.  What this means is that the House becomes more polarizing and less about working together to get things done for the American people.

Living in Oklahoma, home of Congressman Dan Boren who is retiring at the end of this session, we observed up close what it is like to have a Blue Dog Democrat.  When it comes to Defense, he has always been there for our military and has represented our bases well.  He was a voice of reason on the Democrat side with his fellow Blue Dogs but Pelosi didn't see it that way so she set out to destroy the Blue Dog coalition and get more liberal Democrats in the House.  Now you have the Republican Establishment trying to get more moderate/liberal members of Congress instead of Conservatives.  That leaves both parties trying to kick out more conservative members.  Why?

It is getting more obvious that some establishment types don't want smaller government and prefer to have a government that does all.  In the process, we get a ruling class of politicians who only care about themselves and getting richer.  Is that where we are headed today?  Both parties need a reality check that a lot voters on both sides of the aisle are not happy with our choices for President and how Congress is performing.  Now we are also seeing Blue Dogs retiring or defeated in their own primaries.  It is shocking when you see the figures:

Only two short years ago, the Blue Dog Coalition numbered 54 as Democrats controlled the House. But they were decimated by the 2010 elections, as many of the GOP victories came at the expense of moderate Democrats who had previously held those swing districts. 

By the swearing-in of the 112th Congress, the Blue Dogs' numbers had been cut in half. Now, they are flirting with slipping into the teens.

The polling across America when it comes to Congress as a whole shows a very low opinion of how Congress is doing.  It is ridiculous how little really gets done.  All talk and no show which is probably a good thing as they are not spending more money.  There seem to be a lot of members who forget they work for the people and need to do what is best for their constitutions no matter the party which is lost on a lot of them.  Now with the Blue Dogs heading for extinction, the voice of common sense is going to be even less which is not a good thing.

Looks like the establishment of both sides are flexing their muscle using big donors on the GOP side and unions on the Democrat side to oust members they don't like and protect their fair haired members who when they say "jump," they jump.

What will the 113th Congress look like?  Too early to tell but on the Democrat side it is definitely going to become more liberal.

Blue Dogs Headed for ExtinctionBy Shane GoldmacherApril 25, 2012 | 10:28 AM 

The Blue Dogs' bark in Congress is sounding more and more like a whimper. 

The once-powerful coalition of conservative Democrats suffered two more casualties on Tuesday as Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lost to fellow Democratic Rep. Mark Critz, and Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa., was ousted by political newcomer Matt Cartwright. 

Congressional elections are just underway in 2012 but the Blue Dog losses are already starting to pile up, as several senior members have opted to retire, others face more challenging districts and those who've confronted the voters -- Altmire and Holden -- have been involuntarily sent packing. 

(snip)

The losses of Altmire and Holden highlight the electoral predicament Blue Dogs are in: They are vulnerable to challenges from both ends of the political spectrum. 

Holden, a ten-term congressman, had successfully fended off GOP challengers for years. But Pennsylvania mapmakers redrew his district to be more Democratic and he lost to a more liberal challenger. Similarly, labor unions propelled Critz past the more moderate Altmire, who voted against President Obama's health care law. 

"Redistricting and a broken, polarized Congress have made it tough to be a moderate in Congress," said Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a Blue Dog leader, in a statement after the Pennsylvania results. "The Blue Dogs are in the middle, and we're used to being attacked from both sides." 

The group's PAC has endorsed eight new candidates, but it is not just rank-and-file Blue Dogs that are departing this year - it's the group's leadership. Three of the four official leaders, Ross and Reps. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Dan Boren, D-Okla., have already opted to retire. And the fourth, Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., is a top target of congressional Republicans. During the Masters golf tournament, which is in Barrow's district, House Republicans ran ads trying to link Barrow and Obama, buying golf-themed ads and billboards. 

Republicans used redistricting to remap Blue Dogs across the country into less favorable terrain. In North Carolina, two Blue Dog congressmen, Larry Kissell and Mike McIntyre, are atop the GOP target list after being put into more GOP heavy seats. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already reserved more than $2 million in television time to hold those seats. In Utah, the state's lone Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson must campaign in new terrain to keep his job. 

(snip)

Excerpt:  Read More at The National Journal 

Nebraska Senate race is between Conservative Ben Stenberg and the Establishment Republicans

This morning I received this email from the Senate Conservatives Fund about Ben Stenberg who is running for the US Senate in Nebraska.  It is getting more evident that the establishment does not want any more free-market conservatives in the Senate.  Why not?  What has happened to the Republican Party?  Thought we threw off the moderate/liberal influence in the Republican Party but I guess not.  Do establishment Republicans want conservatives out of the party because if they keep this up, they might get their wish, but for now we are staying and fighting.

If the establishment Republicans get their wish to evict us from the Party, then who is going to do the work as blue blood Republicans have never been known to get their hands dirty and actually work in a campaign.  Maybe they think all the money is going to make a difference.  Oklahomans showed with Dr. Coburn in 2004 when we sent him to the Senate that the grassroots counts in this part of the Country more than a well funded a candidate who is pushed by the establishment and the Chamber of Commerce.

What makes a difference is having candidates and their supporters dedicated and believing in the same values.  That is when you can get out the vote as big donors are still one vote from one person.  Better to have a lot of people in a campaign who believe in a candidate especially in Middle America's Heatland states here in Red Country America.  Interspersed with the large cities of Dallas/Fort Worth, Kansas City, and St. Louis are a lot of mid sized cities along your smaller cities and communities in the rural areas which tend to be conservative and believe in small government and free enterprise.  You can drive for miles out here and see only small towns.  That is something the Rockefeller Republicans have never understood that the people in Middle America are pretty independent minded and don't follow along like lemmings when the establishment tells us who we must support as a candidate.

President Reagan came from a small town in IL and grew up with the values of the Heartland of America and it showed as he became Governor of California and then President.  The Rockefeller Republicans tried their best with a dirty campaign to take him out in 1980 but it failed.  That same group is still at it in this election.

Don Stenberg is one of some really good candidates running for Senate being supported the Senate Conservatives Fund.  The establishment has a candidate in the race who didn't want to run but they didn't want another conservative in the Senate.  Time for conservatives across America to rise up and help Nebraskans send Don Stenberg to the US Senate to replace the Democrat Ben Nelson.  We can send a message that conservatives are not going away any time soon by sending more conservatives to the Senate.

Fellow Conservatives: 

With just three weeks to go until Nebraska Republicans head to the polls, the Washington establishment has officially hit the panic button.

Free-market conservative Don Stenberg is gaining momentum in the race for U.S. Senate and the corporate welfare lobby doesn't like it. 

Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed Stenberg's opponent in an effort to stop his surge. 

As you may know, the Chamber supported the failed stimulus program, the Wall Street bailout, the auto bailout, cash-for-clunkers, as well as many other corporate welfare schemes. The Chamber doesn't oppose government intervention in the marketplace. Instead, it often works to expand it to benefit one special interest over another.

The corporate welfare lobby in Washington wants to defeat Don Stenberg because he isn't afraid to stand up to them.

“Nebraskans don’t want a Wall Street Senator who makes backroom deals with big government special interests," Stenberg said. "They want a street fighter, someone who will work tirelessly to shrink the size of government.” 

He's right. Freedom-loving Americans in Nebraska and across the nation want a principled fighter in the Senate, and we can have one if we act now. 

If you have already contributed to Stenberg's campaign, please do so again. And if you haven't supported this man, now is the time to do it. Even if you can only give $25. Please give something. 

We have only three weeks to impact this race so it's now or never. Please don't let the establishment defeat this principled conservative and elect another posturing politician. We can win this race, but we must work together. 

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund 

P.S. Please watch Don Stenberg's new television commercial and help him surge to victory by making a secure, online donation today.

Romney Fundraising Not Going Well Where He Has Campaign Heavily

They are giving Romney too much credit because smaller donors this time Conservatives are keeping their checkbooks and credit cards closed to Romney.  Have heard time and time again people asking why they should give to a multimillionaire -- let him fund his own campaign.  No matter how hard the GOP tries to sell Romney, rank and file have a hard time with him as our nominee because all of the shenanigans to get him the nomination when only 34-36% of Republicans voted for him -- it was anyone but Romney for most of us as our candidates dropped out.

Federal campaign finance law requires candidates to name only those donors who have contributed a cumulative total of more than $200 to their campaign, meaning that Romney and Obama likely received more small-donor money from these states than reported. In addition, there are some early-primary states from which Romney did draw financial support long after his campaign moved elsewhere. 

The people running the Republican Party right now are not the brighest people in town as the keep touting donation totals not number of donors.  If you raise the same amount of money in a state but one candidate has 10,000 donors and the other candidate has 1,500 the candidate with the larger number of donors come out ahead because each of the donors is a voter.  Somewhere along the line the Romney campaign forgot that big donors only get one vote.

During the month of March, Romney received just 112 reported contributions for a total of approximately $17,000 from sources who listed Iowa as their home state, despite having spent months of time and millions in resources participating in that state's caucus. By contrast, President Barack Obama, who maintains staff in the state but has himself visited irregularly, raised $95,269 from 897 Iowa donors last month. 

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that Obama won that battle in Iowa.

Romney is weak in states where he's campaigned which shows the more people of see of Romney the less they like him from what I am hearing from around the Country.  His is arrogance is on display in visit after visit where he is only comfortable among fellow church members or the wealthy.   Republican establishment has really blown it this time.  Even Speaker Boehner is talking about a 1 in 3 chance they might not keep the House.  We have to keep on part of Government or we are in real trouble but we only have the establishment to blame for this debacle.  The first time Romney did 'scorched earth' just like a Democrat someone should have said if you want our support, then never again but no one had the nerve to say a word to someone with so much money supported by the Bush Family led by Bush 41 with his puppet Karl Rove.

Now we are stuck and have to work to keep the House by getting Republicans out to vote for Congress even if they don't vote for President.

The wealthy establishment of the Republican Party who is trying to take over could cost us the House and then they will blame it on us for not supporting Romney as they can do no wrong.  How do you support someone who you disagree with almost all of the time?  They pushed Romney at the base and the base is fighting back.  The Rockefeller Republican types have never learned when they push an unlikable candidate chances of that candidate losing are pretty high.

Mitt Romney Fundraising Weak In States Where He's Campaigned
Posted: 04/23/2012 4:20 pm Updated: 04/23/2012 4:27 pm                               

WASHINGTON -- In many of the states in which he waged a vigorous primary campaign, Mitt Romney has failed to convert that direct contact with voters into campaign gold.

The former Massachusetts governor has fueled his White House ambitions with support from deep-pocketed donors in the traditional wealthy-donor states. But the extent to which he lacks a grassroots fundraising base is underscored by an analysis of his most recent campaign finance report filing.

(snip)

The same dynamic held true in New Hampshire, where Romney has a vacation home. In March, the likely Republican presidential nominee received just 118 reported donations for a total of approximately $35,000 from sources inside the Granite State, despite having campaigned heavily to win the first-in-the-nation primary there. Obama raised $124,313 from 735 donors in New Hampshire during the same month. 

South Carolina, which follows New Hampshire on the primary calendar, was only slightly more lucrative for the Romney campaign last month. A total of 188 reported donations were made to Romney from that state for a total of $61,000. Obama, by contrast, raised $92,836 from 900 donors inside the state. 

(snip)

During the month of March, he received 1,236 reported donations from sources in Florida for a total of $781,000 and 415 reported donations from sources in Michigan for a total of $158,000. Florida is a traditional target for politicians looking to raise cash, however, and Romney has personal ties to Michigan -- two alternative explanations for his healthy hauls in those locales.

A look at all the state-by-state data shows that Romney's fundraising team has largely turned its attention away from places where the former governor spent time campaigning and on to states with established bases of wealthy campaign funders. 

In California, Romney picked up $2.3 million from 2,959 reported donations during March. 

The president did slightly better with respect to the amount raised -- $2.9 million -- and demonstrably better with the number of donations -- 20,646 

In New York, Romney raised $1.05 million from 1,038 reported donations during March. Once again, Obama did better in terms of money raised -- $1.8 million -- and much better with the number of contributions -- 12,287. 

In Texas, Romney raised $1.32 million from 1,431 reported donations. He bested Obama in terms of money raised but not in number of contributors: Obama brought in $1.05 million from 7,082 donors. 

During the entire campaign, Romney has raised $9.74 million from California donors, $9.2 million from New York donors and $4.9 million from Texas donors. Those three states account for more than one out of every four dollars of individual contributions to his campaign.
That Romney is leaning on rich-donor states to propel his campaign is hardly shocking. "It's the Willie Sutton rule of campaign finance," explained Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics. "You go where the money is." 

But to the extent that campaign donations indicate voter commitment, the numbers are noteworthy. Take, for example, Wisconsin. Despite having campaigned there in the lead-up to its April 3 primary, Romney received a mere 136 reported contributions from that state for a total of $36,934. In Ohio, Romney received 325 reported donations during March for a total of $119,000. He campaign extensively in that state as well. 

The one state where Romney does have a solid grassroots fundraising apparatus is Utah. Last month, his campaign received 1,182 reported contributions totaling just over $190,000 -- for an average donation of $161. That was slightly more than the $152 average donation from Iowa. But it was less than the $296 average from New Hampshire, the $325 average from South Carolina, the $366 average from Ohio, the $783 average from California, the $1,008 average from New York and the $1,122 average from Connecticut.

The state with the largest average donation to the Romney campaign during March was, unexpectedly, Louisiana, where 236 reported contributions were made for a total of $306,868 -- an average of $1,300 per contribution. 

Source:  Huffington Post

Major League Baseball in Los Angeles has Problems with Fans

The Angels and Dodgers stadiums used to be fun places to go.  Looking at the picture of the seat cushion at Angels stadium and then learning some concrete on the steps is breaking makes you think that the Angels stadium has been neglected for years.  I am with the fan who asks why pay so much for Pojuls, a free agent from the St. Louis Cardinals, but not fix the seats in the stadium.  How are the Angeles not a Los Angeles team is a great question.

When we lived there it was great because in the summer baseball was always on cable as we got both the Dodgers and the Angeles games.  Makes you wonder if all those people moving out of Southern California were the fans of baseball who went to games.  Certainly hope the new Dodgers franchise owners which includes Magic Johnson can bring some of that Magic back to Dodger games.  Was amazed how you could leave the freeways and pull into the parking lot at Chavez Ravine and feel like you were out in the Country not in a major city.  It was a great experience to go to games especially when they played the Cincinnati Reds who was their main rival.  Everything about Dodger Stadium in those days of the 80's was first class.  Same with the Angels when Gene Autry owned them.

Time for fans of baseball to be treated special once again by the Angels and Dodgers.  We were at a baseball game in Dodger Stadium one time in May when they flashed up on the screen that the Angles, Lakers, and Dodgers had all sold out that day.  Those were the days when the Rams were on top in the area as well before they were moved due to a lack of a new stadium and fans to land in St. Louis.  It has turned out closer for Sooner fans to go see their favorite quarterback Sam Bradford play for the Rams but after all these years, sometimes it still seems like they should be in Los Angeles not St. Louis.

There seems like a general malaise has settled over California thanks to the politicians in Sacramento who cannot seem to get a handle on much of anything.   Really want to see both franchises turn it around and make the Los Angeles area a hotbed for baseball again and some place you can afford to take your family for an outing.  Believe that Magic will bring his Magic to the Dodgers.  Can the Angels owner do the same is the question.

Fans come out swinging at Angels and Dodgers

Tattered seat cushions at Angel Stadium and lousy shuttle service to Dodger Stadium are among their complaints. 

One of many tattered seat cushions at Angel Stadium -- this one in a photo emailed by reader John Costa, along with the comment, 'Unbelievable.' (John Costa)

By T.J. SimersApril 21, 2012, 7:30 p.m. 

I get pictures. 

John Costa sends a photo of his tattered seat cushion on the club level in Angel Stadium, Section 306, Row B, Seat 5. 

"Unbelievable," as he puts it. 

I walk down the left field line Saturday and there are a number of tattered seats in more than a dozen sections. The worst are in Section 303, Row E. Although I must say, if you're returning a night later, the ripped cushions would be a great place to store uneaten food. 

What's up with this? Arte Moreno spends millions on Albert Pujols, but as Costa notes, "Arte can't even afford duct tape?" 

I check with Angels' PR guy Tim Mead knowing how fan-friendly Arte wants everyone to think he is. I wonder whether he is giving a tattered seat discount to fans who might feel ripped off. 

"That's part of the process for upgrade in 2013," says Mead, which is probably when the bullpen will be upgraded as well. 

I get email. 

Herb Ortiz asks, "Can you find out why I'm watching poker and the Dan Patrick Show on FSN when the Angel game is supposed to be on?" 

Ira Rosenberg takes it a step further. "My son … called to find out why, a recording informing him there is a contract dispute and for L.A. County area codes the Angels are an out-of-market team. I'm sure that Arte Moreno will be glad to know this — so much for his 'Los Angeles' marketing plan and name change." 

Next time we chat, I'll mention it. 

It might be a cable dispute, but it's up to the Angels to do a better job of advising/warning their fans. 

I get a bunch of emails after the Dodgers' opening day, prompted by the Dodger Express from Union Station. 

"There is nothing express about it," Gerald Trudeau says. "Left Union Station at 11:45, at about 12:49 just before Innes Avenue we decided to get off and walk into the stadium. We had just passed the parking lot booths when the two jets flew over … this is two consecutive years we have taken this so-called express and it is horrible. Could someone at The Times look into this?" 

Lee Senese concurs: "We left at 12 straight up and did not get dropped off at Dodger Stadium until 1:40. Total distance: 1.76 miles. You would think after 50 opening days they could do something about the traffic. Can you see if you might help?"
Sure. Don't take the Dodger Express. 

"Tell me it's not true," Jack Bock writes. "The Dodger telecast is waiting for a Clippers game to conclude?" 

What do I look like, Dear Abby? 

What about me? Who can I email?  

Source:  LA Times

Is Crossroads the new RNC?

It is hard to fathom that a donor can make a $10M contribution to Crossroads yet they don't have to be revealed.  Rove and the rest of his group attack Democrats but what is the difference?  They have taken fundraising, attack politics, and dishonesty to a new low level in the opinion of a lot of the grassroots Republicans and Democrats.  Looks like we are joined by at least one State Chair from PA but then he saw what these people along with the Romney Super PAC did to former Senator Santorum.

Gillespie has supposedly gone to work for Romney but they want us naive suckers to believe that there is no coordination.  Rove and company set out to make Romney the nominee for the establishment and he got the job done with 'scorched earth' all over the place.  He may be one of the most unethical consultants in either party today yet he is front and center on Fox News which doesn't say a lot about the integrity of Fox News and Roger Ailes.

Now we have two parties that are virtually identical controlled by big money who when they snap their fingers these office holders better jump.  How did this happen?  How did our political system get sold to the highest bidder so they continue to make their money because they control many members of the Congress and now want complete control of the White House with one of their own -- Mitt Romney.  Beginning to think this could be worse then with Obama and I cannot believe I just said that.  We knew Obama was a liberal but we also know that deep down so his Romney no matter how they try to dress him up as conservative.  He is underhanded and devious so who knows what he would be like in the White House.

When you read this, it makes you sick if you have been involved in honest politics over the years but then Rove from the time he was a College Republican has been about dirty tricks and underhanded tactics to get candidates elected or defeat those his handlers didn't like.

Is this what we have to look forward in year's to come because if it is, why do any of us bother to vote or help any candidates except at the local level.  If the members of Congress won't stand up to Rove, Soros and the ilk in Congress to fix this mess, then why bother to have elections?  Just have both parties pick the nominee and tell us who to vote for which is what we are seeing today.

Shame on the establishment of the Republican Party for allowing this to happen because they are so greedy for money and power -- they are no different then the establishment of the Democrats.  Maybe it is time for the grassroots of both parties to join together and get behind candidates who are honest and let the two national parties and their Super PACs try and find votes or are they going to do voter fraud like this primary when the votes are not there?  If anyone thinks I am thoroughly disgusted, then they would be correct.

This is wrong on so many levels.  How do we fix it?  That is the $64,000 question but where there is a will there is a way.   The grassroots of both parties are not going to sit down and shut up while the establishment of both parties attempt to run over us and tell us what to think.  It is not happening.

Outside groups cast outsized shadow over RNC

By MAGGIE HABERMAN |
4/20/12 6:19 PM EDT 

I reported last night that American Crossroads and Crossrads GPS have raised a combined $100 million so far this cycle, a third of the way toward their overall goal, and Ken Vogel and James Hohmann add a bit more context:

Here at the Scottsdale Fairmont Princess Resort, the Republican National Committee is mired in the minutiae of the nominating calendar and convention rules.  

Meanwhile, back at 1401 New York Ave., NW, in a nondescript office suite in downtown Washington, the decisions that could make or break Republicans in 2012 are being made. It’s the headquarters of the Karl Rove-linked Crossroads groups, the center of a network of unlimited-money outsiders.  

Crossroads alone announced Friday it had raised $100 million through the end of last month for its 2012 efforts. And while it’s debatable whether the haul puts Crossroads on pace to raise the jaw-dropping $300 million it hopes to spend during campaign 2012, it definitely puts them on the same plane as the RNC, which had raised $122 million for its 2012 efforts through March. Crossroads has even raised more money this year, pulling in $49 million to the RNC’s $44 million.  

But it’s not just Crossroads’ money that poses a threat to the RNC. While the official GOP navigates bureaucracy and internal tensions, outside groups led by just a handful of seasoned operatives are quickly and quietly coordinating their strategies and ad buys in regular meetings held in Crossroads’ conference room. 

The fundraising ability, influence and efficiency of these groups is raising questions about whether this year isn’t just a fluke, but the new normal — where outsiders are the real power center of conservative politics.  

Some party operatives say they hope not — questioning the outside groups’ secretive style and their commitment to get-out-the-vote activities and other organizing grunt work that’s critical to party politics.   

“The money’s misguided going to these super PACs,” said Pennsylvania Republican Chairman Rob Gleason, who is attending the RNC meeting here. 

“The state parties and the presidential candidates need the money in order to develop voter-turnout models and get the people out,” he said. While he welcomed “these big checks from these big fellas” giving to Crossroads and other outside groups, Gleason added “I don’t know where the hell all that money goes.” 

While Democrats are also trying to outsource some of their political work to unlimited-money outside groups, their donors have been reluctant to support their own version of the Crossroads network.  

On the Republican side, it’s easy to see the advantages. The RNC model is a plodding bureaucracy governed by 168 sometimes-feuding elected members and limited to $30,800-maximum contributions – all of which have to be disclosed. 

The Crossroads model is a low-overhead attack machine helmed by Rove, Carl Forti, Ed Gillespie and a handful of other battle-hardened GOP operatives who are answerable only to the few dozen super-rich donors underwriting the operation with seven- and eight-figure checks – the biggest of which are not disclosed.  

On the one hand, the shift sounds like something the Heritage Foundation would recommend for the federal government – a pure manifestation of the efficiencies that Republicans hold dear. On the other hand, though, it raises red flags for some Republicans, who worry that Crossroads has spawned an extra-party infrastructure that lacks accountability, could siphon off resources from party committees and candidates, and shift the GOP’s focus away from grassroots organizing to an attack-ad-centric strategy.    

At best, Party loyalists say, the RNC, which is legally barred from coordinating with Crossroads and other outside groups,could benefit by ceding the ad wars to them.

Put another way - folks like Rove, Gillespie and Forti have as great and, in some ways, greater sway with a core group of Republicans than the RNC does. Crossroads GPS does not have to disclose its donors, and got a donation of $10 million that went undisclosed - a point its critics highlight as a measure of a lack of transparency. 

The missions are different - the RNC is tasked with working in concert with state parties to coordinate staffing, phones, volunteers and offices in key states. The RNC can also hire people and coordinate with Boston, which the outside groups cannot do. But as the debate rages over how much of a role paid media will play in moving the dial, it's hard to overlook the financial edge of groups that will flood the airwaves.
* This post has been updated
Source:  Politico