Moe Lane

Not that, if they did, they intended to do that, mind you: they were probably just intending to scare their donors into giving them money (link via @MattCover) by screaming about how us awful, awful Republicans are so insistent that you should show have to show a picture ID when you vote. Well, they’re Democrats. Screaming about Republicans is what they do – besides, these days they don’t precisely have a plethora of other options that are what you’d call viable when it comes to winning elections.

But that’s not what interests me. No, what interests me is this sentence:

More than 5 million voters could be affected in states including Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia and California…

Hmm. Let’s look at those states. Assessments of each one is based on the latest Cook ratings for the Electoral College and the Senate. (more…)

These things usually come in threes.

• First and foremost is the highly embarrassing – and possibly expensive – Kinde Durkee affair.  For those not following along with that story: Durkee was a Californian accountant used by numerous Democratic campaigns on the federal, state, and local level.  Said campaigns are all now freaking out, because Durkee was just recently arrested on multiple accounts of mail fraud involving various politicians’ campaign funds*.  Sen. Feinstein was one of the politicians who used Durkee; and aside from an at-the-time comment made to Politico about her being ‘wiped out,’ Feinstein is keeping mum about how much of her 5.2 million dollar war chest is still accessible to the campaign.
• Next up: this Field Poll about Senator Feinstein (via Andrew Malcolm**) give some pretty bad numbers, here.  41/39 approval/disapproval (a severe drop from her normal approval ratings) and she’s underwater (41/44) on her re-election numbers (also a severe drop).  If you’re wondering whether this is a big deal, well, Reuters primly notes “A spokesman for Feinstein, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992 after a long career as San Francisco’s mayor, could not be reached for comment.” Also: Feinstein’s polling has been steadily getting worse since 2006.
• Finally, here’s an interesting rumor: former talk radio host and hard-line conservative Michael Reagan (adopted son of Ronald Reagan is apparently contemplating a 2012 Senate run.  While the Feinstein campaign might argue that this is good news – Michael Reagan has never held public office, and the California of 2012 is not the California of 1966 – it remains true that Sen. Feinstein has not yet committed to running for re-election in 2012.  The woman is 78 years old, has been in the Senate for almost two decades***, and it is considered unlikely that she will be the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee after next year’s elections.

(more…)

Slapdash, or scaredy-cat?  Does it matter?

The lack of self-respect in the Obama administration astounds me, sometimes.  From the (probably-now abortive) pushback on the call to shut down repatriating AQ terrorists to Yemen:

“I am aware of a lot of people pointing back at the way the transfers were handled under the Bush administration that apparently they have some concerns about that,” said the official, who had not seen the senators’ letter. “I didn’t hear many of those concerns at the time, but there were obviously hundreds and hundreds of detainees that were transferred under the old regime.”

The official hadn’t also seen Sen. Feinstein’s (D) own shared concern about said repatriation, which as Ed Morrissey notes is a serious problem for the drive to close Gitmo.  But never mind that, right now: what gives with all the unforced errors?  I mean, if this was an unintentional attempt to give offense, it’s pretty sloppy thinking; and if it was intentional, well, way to go with putting words in the administration’s mouth there, Sparky.  A true progressive would have had the elementary courage to put his or her Bush Derangement Syndrome on the record.

Well, either way I can’t say that I’m surprised.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

…as he answers questions about Senator Feinstein’s concerns.

Miss the days of the Bush administration yet? After all, back then you didn’t walk away with the impression that the press flack you were talking to was even more subject to the mushroom treatment than you were.

Crossposted at RedState.

Admittedly, it’s because she loves taxes.

Something for our mild amusement while we wait for the Democrats to flout the will of the American people with this pork bill:

WASHINGTON — Convinced tax cuts will not stimulate the nation’s economy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein spoke out Friday against President Barack Obama’s economic recovery package.

“I’m going increasingly concerned about the bill as to whether it is really going to be a stimulus,” she told fellow Senators during a debate of the bill.

[snip]

Feinstein said her issue with the bill is the tax cuts included.

“What in my view a stimulus is, is not candidly speaking a tax package,” she said. “I do not believe in this economy tax cuts are simulative… I worry about this economy. The point of this package is to get jobs out to the people. So I reserve the right at the end of the day to vote against a package that does put those jobs out there.”

(more…)