After conducting a search and straw poll, a national tea party group has settled on a Republican primary challenger to House Speaker John A. Boehner, picking high school teacher J.D. WintereggJ.D. Winteregg to carry the tea party banner in the intraparty battle.
The announcement, which the Tea Party Leadership Fund (TPLF) will make Wednesday, could help Mr. Winteregg gain attention in a field dominated by Mr. Boehner and his massive campaign bank account. Mr. Winteregg is one of several men running against Mr. Boehner in the GOP primary in the speaker’s western Ohio district.
Rusty Humphries with the TPLF, a political action committee, said Mr. Boehner has failed to follow through on conservative goals during his time as speaker.
“This is a guy that has allowed spending to increase. This is a guy that fought for benefits for congressmen while at the same time fighting to cut benefits for our veterans,” Mr. Humphries said.
Mr. Boehner has been under fire from tea party groups over last year’s budget deal, which boosted spending in 2014 and 2015, and for this month’s debt vote, when he allowed a 13-month debt increase to pass without conditions on the strength of Democratic votes.
Mr. Humphries said voters in the district itself are ready to dump Mr. Boehner, who is serving his 12th term in Congress – and second as speaker.
“The one thing I found a lot when I was in the district is how few people have seen him in the district in a long time,” Mr. Humphries said. “This is a guy who has not kept up with his people.”
But a campaign aide for Mr. Boehner said he’s still well-connected to Ohio’s 8th congressional district.
“John and his wife Debbie still live in Butler County and call it home. They made that choice – and stuck with it, even when he became speaker – because it was important to them to remain part of the community that has always been central to his service in the House,” the aide said.
As for the policy fights, the speaker had said he wouldn’t allow another government shutdown or default on federal obligations – either of which could have resulted from the failure to pass a budget or a debt increase. Mr. Boehner has argued that the 2014 election will be fought over President Obama’s agenda, including his health care law.
Mr. Humphries said the Tea Party Leadership Fund will post billboards and run radio commercials aiding Mr. Winteregg, and said the more money people donate to the leadership fund, the more will be targeted to ousting Mr. Boehner.
Unseating top party leaders is rare.
Mr. Humphries has been signed to write a column for The Washington Times, which has not yet debuted.
Two years ago Mr. Boehner easily saw off another tea party challenger, defeating pro-life activist David Lewis with 84 percent to Mr. Lewis’s 16 percent.
The No. 2 Republican in the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, is also facing a primary challenge. Dave Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College, is challenging the Virginia Republican, arguing his support for passing an immigration bill is kowtowing to big-business interests.
Mr. Winteregg’s positions on the issues:
The premise that seems to align people from all sides in America is a disdain for our representatives in Congress. This is our common ground. Instead of fighting each other–to the delight of those in power – we need to come together for one objective to replace those in power. Fortunately, the Constitution provides us with a way – through an amendment process–that allows us to enact real change in D.C. I’ve come up with a plan that, when implemented within our Constitutional framework, will change how Congress functions. It’s easy to understand, easy to articulate, and easy to support. These four elements will be my focus while in Congress.
Community- All representatives must live among their constituents. The number of days they spend in Washington, D.C. will be capped. With the technology that exists, and with the need to diminish the lobbyist influence, this mandate will ensure that the representatives do what they’re meant to do – represent the people.
Authenticity- Immediately prior to entering Congress, representatives must have held a non-political, non-lobbying position for a period of 4 years. This will break up the political ladder climbing and ensure that our representatives understand what working in the “real world” is like under the current rules and regulations.
Service- The opportunity to represent a district should be viewed as an honor and framed in a way that reflects that. As such, this amazing service opportunity will be capped at 12 years. No representative or Senator may spend more than 12 years representing a district or state in D.C.
Transparency- No former representative or Senator walks out of D.C. as a member of the middle-class. As members of Congress, they – and their spouses – will be required to publicly and prominently display where all of their earnings are derived. No ranges – specific amounts. This instills another measure of accountability on those in D.C.
Reforming Congress must happen first. Only then will representatives be able to effectively–and fairly – fight for the issues that are important to their respective constituents.
In addition to these ideas of reform, I am proud to say that I am a Christian conservative Republican who believes that relying on the Constitution will help to push our exceptional country back in the right direction.
Premise of governance
I believe that words have meaning, so by extension, the Constitution means today what it meant when it was written. The Preamble to this great document makes clear that the Constitution was written, among other reasons, to secure the blessings of liberty. An activist federal government undermines this key founding principle, so I will work to restore our process of governance to what the founders originally intended with the Constitution as my guide.
We need to secure our borders and enforce the laws that we have on the books. I am 100% opposed to amnesty.
I believe in the free market Capitalist system, and the only way for that to thrive is for the government to have a minimalist approach in intervening.
Without life, there is no liberty. I am pro-life, no exceptions.
I believe in our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. This right should be vigorously defended from attempts by the federal government to undermine it.
We need to reduce the government involvement with respect to our healthcare. Allowing the free market to run its course will help to make healthcare more affordable to all. I am in support of the movement to entirely defund Obamacare.
As a public school teacher, I understand the importance of this issue. As someone who feels the effects of federal mandates, and as someone who has witnessed the toll it has taken on my colleagues and students, I believe that education is best left to the local level. Parents and communities know what is best for their own children, and these decisions need to be left to them.
Representatives need to understand that the government is not the primary source of economic growth. The private sector is more efficient and productive than any government effort. Representatives should work with constituents to achieve private solutions to public problems, and they should avoid at all costs taxing the citizens. Federal spending should be done within the parameters of a balanced budget. Government fraud, waste, and abuse should be addressed before any taxes are raised on the American people.
It would be immensely satisfying to watch Abbott crush Davis.
Via Texas Tribune:
After what are shaping up to be easy primary wins in March for the leading gubernatorial candidates, Republican Greg Abbott starts the general election race for governor with an 11-point lead over Democrat Wendy Davis, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
Meanwhile, several statewide races on the Republican primary ballot – for lieutenant governor, attorney general and comptroller – appear headed for May runoffs. None of the leaders in those races looks close to the 50 percent support they would need to win next month’s primary outright.
In the governor’s race, Abbott would beat Davis 47 percent to 36 percent in a general election held today, with 17 percent of registered voters saying they have not made up their minds about which candidate to support, according to the poll.
“We’ve been talking since the beginning of this race about whether anything would be different, and we’re not seeing anything that’s different,” said Jim Henson, co-director of the poll and head of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. “There was some talk about how Davis had done better in our last poll, and that was partially an artifact of her rise in the fall, and we’re seeing something of a reassertion of the normal pattern.”
In the October survey, Davis’ announcement and sudden political celebrity cut the Republican’s lead over her to 6 percentage points. Now, the distance between the two has widened a bit.
Over seven in 10 Obama voters, and 55 percent of Democrats, regret voting for President Obama’s reelection in 2012, according to a new Economist/YouGov.com poll.
Conducted to test the media hype about a comeback by 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the new poll found voters still uninspired by Romney, but also deeply dissatisfied with Obama who has so far failed to capitalize on his victory over 15 months ago.
The poll asked those who voted for Obama’s reelection a simple question: “Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”
- Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.
- 80 percent of whites said yes, 61 percent of blacks said no and 100 percent of Hispanics said yes.
- 84 percent of women said yes, and just 61 percent of men agreed.
- 55 percent of Democrats said yes, as did 71 percent of independents.
Still, given the choice of Obama versus Romney, Obama supporters said they would stick with their guy, 79 percent to 10 percent for Romney.
But his voters seem to have moved on and are ready for the next election, giving Obama very early lame duck status before the midterm elections. The poll, for example, found that Hillary Clinton has a higher favorability rating than the president. While Obama is underwater in his ratings, Clinton is buoyed by a 50-percent favorable to 43-percent unfavorable rating, with a sizable 28 percent rating her “very favorable.”
As for Romney, his favorable ratings have dropped, but he would edge Obama by about three million votes, probably because Americans are not wowed by Obama’s second term performance, not because they like Romney more.
Said the poll: “In YouGov research conducted from February 6th-7th, we went about it in a slightly different way, asking people who voted for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama whether they would do it again. We found an ostensibly similar picture: 90 percent of people who voted for Romney would do it again, compared to only 79 percent of Obama voters who would.
“Clearly Romney fares better, although he had fewer voters to begin with. As a proportion of the voters each of them actually received in 2012 (66 million for Obama and 61 million for Romney), the GOP candidate ends up with 55 million votes retained to Obama’s 52 million. Not exactly a wipeout. It’s also unclear for any poll that hypothetically revisits 2012 how much it says about renewed hope for Mitt Romney – who has notably been liberated from the scrutiny of a presidential campaign – rather than about dissatisfaction with an incumbent president who has spent the last year defending his administration over leaks, scandals and Obamacare roll-outs.”
Obama endorsed the Democrat a mere few days ago and polls showed it’s a tight race but here is how it worked out:
San Diego voters opted for a return to Republican leadership on Tuesday as they elected a city councilman backed by the downtown establishment to succeed ex-Mayor Bob Filner, a Democrat who resigned amid a torrent of sexual misconduct allegations.
Republican Kevin Faulconer garnered nearly 55 percent of the vote to defeat his City Council colleague, Democrat David Alvarez, who was vying to become San Diego’s first Hispanic mayor but finished the night with just over 45 percent.
Faulconer, 47, declaring victory at a downtown hotel, is expected to take the oath of office in early March to serve out the nearly three years that remained in Filner’s term as mayor of California’s second-most populous city.
This morning, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a new video out showing Wendy Davis supporters and organizers mocking her opponent Greg Abbott’s wheelchair.
This isn’t the first problem Davis has had with Abbott’s paraplegia. She previously remarked that he had never walked a day in her shoes. She also tweeted that he didn’t understand “stories of struggle”.
The folks in the above video are core to her campaign, as outlined by Erick Erickson at Redstate.
Wendy Davis cannot run from Battleground Texas now. The Dallas office of Battleground Texas and Wendy Davis’s Dallas campaign office are common ground with each other. They share resources. Wendy Davis, last week, claimed she out raised Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott by including fundraising totals from Battleground Texas in her numbers.
She and Battleground Texas are the same. And that is according to Wendy Davis’s own campaign.
So first she embellishes her life story, now she and her supporters are diminishing his. Smooth.
Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud – or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.
But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.
The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as “a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed-style politics.” The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI’s investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state’s attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn’t think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York’s new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced “community organizing” group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.
Greg Soumas, president of New York’s BOE, offered a justification for calling in the prosecutors: “If something was done in an untoward fashion, it was only done by DOI. We [are] unaware of any color of authority on the part of [DOI] to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves – and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.” The Board is bipartisan, and all but two of its members voted with Soumas. The sole exceptions were Democrat Jose Araujo, who abstained because the DOI report implicated him in hiring his wife and sister-and-law for Board jobs, and Republican Simon Shamoun.
Good-government groups are gobsmacked at Soumas’s refusal to smell the stench of corruption in his patronage-riddled empire. “They should focus not on assigning blame to others, but on taking responsibility for solving the problems themselves,” Dick Dadey of the watchdog group Citizens Union told the Daily News. “It’s a case of the Board of Elections passing the buck.” DOI officials respond that the use of undercover agents is routine in anti-corruption probes and that people should carefully read the 70-page report they’ve filed before criticizing it. They are surprised how little media attention their report has received.
You’d think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the “voter” was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and “play dumb” in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.
Shooting the messenger has been a typical reaction in other states when people have demonstrated just how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Guerrilla videographer James O’Keefe had three of his assistants visit precincts during New Hampshire’s January 2012 presidential primary. They asked poll workers whether their books listed the names of several voters, all deceased individuals still listed on voter-registration rolls. Poll workers handed out ten ballots, never once asking for a photo ID. O’Keefe’s team immediately gave back the ballots, unmarked, to precinct workers. Debbie Lane, a ballot inspector at one of the Manchester polling sites, later said: “I wasn’t sure what I was allowed to do… I can’t tell someone not to vote, I suppose.” The only precinct in which O’Keefe or his crew did not obtain a ballot was one in which the local precinct officer had personally known the dead “voter.”
New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, John Lynch, sputtered when asked about O’Keefe’s video, and he condemned the effort to test the election system even though no actual votes were cast. “They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if in fact they’re found guilty of some criminal act,” he roared. But cooler heads eventually prevailed, and the GOP state legislature later approved a voter-ID bill, with enough votes to override the governor’s veto. Despite an exhaustive and intrusive investigation, no charges were ever filed against any of O’Keefe’s associates.
Later in 2012, in Washington, D.C., one of O’Keefe’s assistants was able to obtain Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot even though Holder is 62 years old and bears no resemblance to the 22-year-old white man who obtained it merely by asking if Eric Holder was on the rolls. But the Department of Justice, which is currently suing Texas to block that state’s photo-ID law, dismissed the Holder ballot incident as “manufactured.” The irony was lost on the DOJ that Holder, a staunch opponent of voter-ID laws, could have himself been disenfranchised by a white man because Washington, D.C., has no voter-ID law. Polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of Americans – including clear majorities of African Americans and Hispanics – support such laws.
Liberals who oppose ballot-security measures claim that there are few prosecutions for voter fraud, which they take to mean that fraud doesn’t happen. But as the New York DOI report demonstrates, it is comically easy, given the sloppy-voter registration records often kept in America, to commit voter fraud in person. (A 2012 study by the Pew Research Center found that nationwide, at least 1.8 million deceased voters are still registered to vote.) And unless someone confesses, in-person voter fraud is very difficult to detect – or stop. New York’s Gothamist news service reported last September that four poll workers in Brooklyn reported they believed people were trying to vote in the name of other registered voters. Police officers observed the problems but did nothing because voter fraud isn’t under the police department’s purview.
What the DOI investigators were able to do was eerily similar to actual fraud that has occurred in New York before. In 1984, Brooklyn’s Democratic district attorney, Elizabeth Holtzman, released a state grand-jury report on a successful 14-year conspiracy that cast thousands of fraudulent votes in local, state, and congressional elections. Just like the DOI undercover operatives, the conspirators cast votes at precincts in the names of dead, moved, and bogus voters. The grand jury recommended voter ID, a basic election-integrity measure that New York has steadfastly refused to implement.
In states where non-photo ID is required, it’s also all too easy to manufacture records that allow people to vote. In 2012, the son of Congressman Jim Moran, the Democrat who represents Virginia’s Washington suburbs, had to resign as field director for his father’s campaign after it became clear that he had encouraged voter fraud. Patrick Moran was caught advising an O’Keefe videographer on how to commit in-person voter fraud. The scheme involved using a personal computer to forge utility bills that would satisfy Virginia’s voter-ID law and then relying on the assistance of Democratic lawyers stationed at the polls to make sure the fraudulent votes were counted. Last year, Virginia tightened its voter-ID law and ruled that showing a utility bill was no longer sufficient to obtain a ballot.
Given that someone who is dead, is in jail, or has moved isn’t likely to complain if someone votes in his name, how do we know that voter fraud at the polls isn’t a problem? An ounce of prevention – in the form of voter ID and better training of poll workers – should be among the minimum precautions taken to prevent an electoral miscarriage or meltdown in a close race.
After all, even a small number of votes can have sweeping consequences. Al Franken’s 312-vote victory in 2008 over Minnesota senator Norm Coleman gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 votes, which allowed them to pass Obamacare. Months after the Obamacare vote, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority finished comparing criminal records with voting rolls and identified 1,099 felons – all ineligible to vote – who had voted in the Franken–Coleman race. Fox News random interviews with ten of those felons found that nine had voted for Franken, backing up national academic studies that show felons tend to vote strongly for Democrats.
Minnesota Majority took its findings to prosecutors across the state, but very few showed any interest in pursuing the issue. Some did, though, and 177 people have been convicted as of mid 2012 – not just “accused” but actually convicted – of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Probably the only reason the number of convictions isn’t higher is that the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that the person must have been both ineligible and must have “knowingly” voted unlawfully. Anyone accused of fraud is apt to get off by claiming he didn’t know he’d done anything wrong.
Given that we now know for certain how easy it is to commit undetectable voter fraud and how serious the consequences can be, it’s truly bizarre to have officials at the New York City Board of Elections and elsewhere savage those who shine a light on the fact that their modus operandi invites fraud. One might even think that they’re covering up their incompetence or that they don’t want to pay attention to what crimes could be occurring behind the curtains at their polling places. Or both.
MSNBS playing the Race Card? Predicting that Southern States will disenfranchise Black voters in 2014? NO, MSNBS would never make such idiotic predictions, would they? What do you think?
Just ginning up outrage where none should exist, that is what MSNBS does so well
All I can say is “Wow!” Just when we’re all thinking this Obama administration is corrosively corrupt and consummately incompetent, they go and do something that just has to make us all pause and rethink our strongly held beliefs that the federal government is too massive and immovable to be either responsive to the needs of the citizenry or efficient. Here we are out here in flyover country, remote from all those coastal centers of incestuous intellectualism, pounding on our keyboards about all the predicted and daily unveiling failings of ObamaCare, and damn all if this Obama administration doesn’t go and show all us religious, gun-clingin’ fools that, by gosh, they can move with amazing alacrity when it
is important to America suits their agenda.
What I’m referring to, if you haven’t heard, is the absolutely amazing rapid response to a request by several Democrat senators, to do something, for Pete’s sake, about this horrendous, looming mandate (federal noncompliance fine) that’s going to really piss off some voters back in their home states if it isn’t delayed. What’s ever so surprising is that some of these solicitous senatorial signatories, Begich, Pryor, Landrieu, and Hagan, all of whom voted for this lame legislation, are up for re-election in November. My own senator, Mark Pryor, has suddenly rediscovered the importance of the bible in this campaign year and another senator to my south, little Mary Half-Moon Landrieu, who’s support for ObamaCare came at a hefty price, has discovered that maybe she shouldn’t have sold out, too cheaply or otherwise. Little Contrary Mary peddled her political posterior and now wants it back when her past is coming back to bite her.
But enough about senatorial weasels, let’s look at those improbably industrious administration ants who, unable to build their humongous health-care system and its online enrollment website in three-plus years, have managed to respond to the demands of those senators in less than a day. All I can say, once again, is “Wow!” That’s right, in just one day, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, under tremendous pressures to correct all the many problems with her legislative Frankenstein, amazingly found the time to sit down and compose this extensive missive to the concerned senators. This executive edict grants them their every wish, by exempting failed applicants to Obamacare who have lost their insurance due to the poorly thought through provisions of the original, recklessly passed legislation,so that they now will be considered as hardship cases and therefore exempt from the fines mandated for those who fail to obtain coverage.
But just put it out of your damned old suspicious, conservative minds that such an executive fiat is clearly illegal and unconstitutional and that those issues were probably not considered by these incompetent clowns in their haste to serve their needy allies:
Democrat senators… up for re-election.
I know, I know, you’re thinking it’s just another cynical set-up by an arrogant administration led by the most self-centered and inept president in our nation’s history.All you skeptics reading here who see this event as just another pre-planned, butt-covering move by this Keystone Kops administration, should lighten up just a bit and give some credit where credit’s due; such as for these corruptocrats who are clearly and cleverly competent at covering up their incomparable incompetence. Hey, when this hapless turkey can respond to a senatorial request and effect the requested policy change in less than a day, you have to put aside your suspicions of a political fix and give credit where credit is due.
Who do these bungling fools think they’re fooling?
I’ve been a Republican all my life – a loyal Republican. The problem is, our party has not been loyal to its own principles. That is why I am running for the United States Senate.
The Republican Party faces an identity crisis. What do we really stand for? Conservatives within the party, like myself, believe we should re-embrace the Constitution and stand unapologetically for the divinely-inspired American Idea of individual liberty, limited government, and free-market values.
The GOP establishment, on the other hand, believes we should stand simply for the letter “R.” They claim that America’s problems will be solved if we just elect more people with Rs behind their names, but their own history shows otherwise.
Since the Reagan Revolution gave way to the “kinder, gentler” GOP (translation: surrender Republicans), conservative victories have been few and fleeting. Even the 1994 Contract with America is no exception. Within six years, the cumulative budget of the 95 major government programs slated for elimination had increased by thirteen percent. And that’s when spending really took off.
The harsh realities of the 2000s give lie to the current GOP establishment claims. Voters gave Republicans the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and even the Supreme Court, and what did we get in return? The largest expansion of spending, borrowing, regulations, and debt our nation had ever seen. These Republicans – who call themselves conservatives – delivered the largest expansion of government in the history of America until Barack Obama came along.
The GOP establishment claimed in the 2000s that we were on the verge of a permanent Republican majority if we would just coopt the Democrats’ issues (translation: surrender to Democrats). And so, it was the GOP establishment that gave us the largest expansion of Medicare in the history of the program. It was the GOP establishment that gave us “No Bureaucrat Left Behind” for our schools. It was the GOP establishment that gave us the bank bailouts. And it was the GOP establishment that opened the White House doors for Barack Obama.
The letter “R” did not save America.
Today, America is in serious trouble because the establishment members of the GOP have, at best, proven themselves ineffective at stopping the Democrats’ unbridled expansion of government. In reality, these Republicans have been complicit with tax hikes, earmark spending, endless borrowing, and debt ceiling increases.
I am running for the United States Senate with the courage of conviction that the Constitution and the American Idea are not only the last best hope for America but also our path to return to greatness. I’m challenging Sen. Pat Roberts, who has been in Washington for 46 years. He calls himself a conservative but has voted for tax hikes, earmark spending, debt ceiling increases—eleven times! – and even voted to put Kathleen Sebelius in charge of ObamaCare. Sen. Roberts has been in Washington so long that earlier this year when he voted for Barack Obama’s $600 billion tax hike, he actually tried to sell it as “tax relief.”
This senate race in Kansas exemplifies the larger choice that the Republican Party faces. Is it enough to call yourself a Republican or even call yourself a conservative but still vote with and give aid and comfort to the Democrats whose singular mission is to expand government?
America’s fate hangs in the balance, and so does yours. As government expands, liberty contracts. And as liberty slips away little by little, prosperity contracts as well. We are witnessing this in America today. As the government reaches deeper into your doctor’s visit, into your gas tank, into your mortgage, into your children’s school, and into the rest of your life, it also reaches deeper into your paycheck and deeper still into your prospects for a better future.
Freedom itself is the most powerful engine of prosperity in human history. That’s the American story. Those poor souls throughout the ages who have been denied freedom have suffered immeasurably, and it does not matter if it was taken from them by force or voluntarily surrendered upon the altar of false utopian promises. History remains unmistakable: Freedom works. And yet, the GOP establishment cannot summon the courage or demonstrate the ability to effectively fight for it.
President Ronald Reagan understood our enduring struggle for freedom and fearlessly fought for it. Of the Republicans in the Congress, he famously wrote in his diary: “We had rabbits when we needed tigers.”
Indeed, we still do.
It’s been debated for five years, and the conventional wisdom has generally concluded that Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, hurt Sen. John McCain’s chances to beat then-Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency with her outsized and controversial personality.
But now a comprehensive new analysis of the so-called “Palin Effect” finds that in the final analysis, the former Alaska governor helped McCain by attracting more voters to the ticket, crushing a mainstream media view.
What’s more, while she attracted wider press attention than most prior veep candidates, her actual impact for a No. 2 was about average.
“Palin had a positive effect on McCain,” according to the new Palin analysis in the authoritative Political Research Quarterly.
Digesting mountains of data, two political science professors from Bradley University in Peoria, Ill., said their findings showed that the conventional wisdom that independent voters ran from the McCain-Palin ticket was wrong. They found that independent voters had the same reaction to Palin as Republicans, who largely liked her.
Both findings could provide a basis for a 2016 run for the presidency by the Tea Party favorite.
“Palin did not have a negative effect on McCain’s voter share overall, nor did she result in eroded support for McCain among critical swing voters such as independents and moderates,” the duo wrote.
Their analysis picked apart a recent report that Palin drove off voters and was uniquely divisive, claiming it was flawed.
Instead, it found that Palin “did not have a unique or unprecedented influence on the race; at best, she had precisely the same small effect on vote choice in 2008 that we would expect of any running mate.”
In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply – raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline – from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September – might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee – that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.
The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.
Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.
Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews – meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.
Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.
Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.
“It was a phone conversation – I forget the exact words – but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.
Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.
Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.
Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.
By making up survey results – and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs – Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.
Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.
But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.
But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.
Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.
“Yes, absolutely they should have told us,” said a Labor spokesman. “It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.”
Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.
In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, “Why was the suspected… possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?”
On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey – the official name for the unemployment report.
With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.
I’ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.
During the 2010 Census report – an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year – I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.
I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs – commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)
Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor’s inspector general.
I’m waiting to hear back from Labor.
I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.
To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.
So falsifying this would, in essence, have dire consequences for the country.
The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.
“Unbelievable jobs numbers… these Chicago guys will do anything… can’t debate so change numbers,” tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500).
Welch did not respond to a request for further comment. In an interview later in the day on MSNBC, he admitted that he had no evidence that the jobs numbers were manipulated, but said they “defy logic.”
The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1% a month earlier. The drop was due to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ survey of households showing that 873,000 more people had jobs than in the previous month. That was the biggest one-month gain in more than nine years.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis criticized the conspiracy theories Friday.
“This is a methodology that’s been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we’re manipulating numbers,” Solis told CNN’s Richard Quest.
Welch wasn’t alone in raising questions about the jobs numbers.
Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group that has been a steady critic of the Obama administration, issued a statement that said the numbers the BLS “used to calculate the unemployment rate are wrong, or worse manipulated. Given that these numbers conveniently meet Obama’s campaign promises one month before the election, the conclusions are obvious. Anyone who takes this unemployment report serious is either naive or a paid Obama campaign adviser.”
iReport: Are you reluctantly taking a part-time job?
Conn Carroll, a senior writer at the conservative Washington Examiner suggested a slightly less nefarious form of manipulation of the data.
“I don’t think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect,” he tweeted. “Would love to see the partisan breakdown of the 873,000 Americans who say they got new jobs.”
BLS denied there was any manipulation of the data or anything out of the ordinary about the unemployment rate calculation.
“No political appointee is involved in the collecting, processing and analyzing of the data,” said Thomas Nardone, the associate commissioner for employment and unemployment statistics.
Nardone said the Council of Economic Advisers doesn’t get the numbers until Thursday afternoon, and that the Secretary of Labor he rself doesn’t see them until Friday morning.
Even some conservative economists defended the BLS’s integrity and legitimacy of the numbers.
“The jobs #’s may look fishy to some, but if you step back, it’s just a plow horse economy lumbering along,” tweeted Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust.
Bernard Goldberg joined Bill O’Reilly Monday night to address what he believes is a “potentially fatal split” in the Republican party’s immediate future. He said that if the tea party keeps rejecting anyone who isn’t basically Ted Cruz for the 2016 presidential nomination, the party’s going to be in some big trouble and invite in a strong Democratic victory.
O’Reilly framed the fight as a “classic moderate Republican versus hard-right Republican” feud, and Goldberg rejected the “ideological rigidity” of people who will sit on their hands and refuse to vote for a Republican presidential nominee if they aren’t sufficiently conservative enough. And this is what led Goldberg to accuse these tea partiers of being the real RINOs in the GOP.
“As far as the tea partiers are concerned, anybody to the left of Ted Cruz is a RINO… but you know what? The real RINOs are the real people in the tea party and on the hard right, because they have made it clear over and over again that their allegiance is not to the Republican party, but to their particular brand of conservatism, so they’re the RINOs.”
O’Reilly suggested Cruz, if he ran, could rally the nation behind him if Obamacare continues to be a disaster, but Goldberg said anything short of “horrendously bad” will not be enough to help them. He also warned that if someone like Cruz gets the nomination, “every registered Democrat will vote, and that’s a recipe for a Democratic victory?”
Watch the video below, via Fox News:
The first Texas elections under a contentious new photo ID law drew interesting conclusions for an off-year election that normally draws a low amount of voters.
There were nine proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution, and the number of votes tallied was nearly double what it was in 2011. Democrats and civil rights groups have long argued that voter ID requirements suppress turnout, particularly in poor and minority communities.
All nine measures were approved during this election, and dealt primarily with taxes and state budgets, according to Ballot Pedia.
Taxes and state budgets were also the most popular ballot measures for 2011, but the voter ID law had not been passed during that election.
Statewide, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on those 10 constitutional amendments in 2011. In 2013, the number of votes cast in Texas reached 1,099,670.
In Hidalgo County, which is 90 percent Hispanic, just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election in 2011. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted according to the Texas secretary of state’s office.
Greg Abbott, the Republican attorney general and likely governor nominee, stated that critics of the voter ID law had “run out of claims” about those struggling to vote without an ID.
That hasn’t stopped opponents of the voter ID law from continuing their mission to get the law thrown out. The Houston Chronicle reports that the Justice Department, civil rights groups and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey have filed a federal lawsuit to get the law overturned.
Abbott has asked for the case to be thrown out, calling the whole situation “overhyped.”
Reagan conservative Ken Cuccinelli lost his bid for the Virginia governorship because the patrician, turf-protecting Republican Party establishment in his state wanted him to lose.
It’s really that simple.
Cuccinelli campaign strategist Chris La Civita suggested on election night Tuesday that the federal government’s partial shutdown last month may have hurt his candidate in parts of Virginia where many federal employees and contractors live.
He also suggested that Cuccinelli could have won if he had received more money from national GOP sources, which he said dried up as of Oct. 1.
“There are a lot of questions people are going to be asking and that is, was leaving Cuccinelli alone in the first week of October, a smart move?” La Civita said. “We were on our own. Just look at the volume [of ads].”
Cuccinelli lost by a mere 2.5 percentage points in a state that until somewhat recently had been solidly Republican. Even with Cuccinelli’s various tactical mistakes (and there were many), it is still very difficult to believe that the GOP machine couldn’t have gotten another fifty-odd thousand voters to the polls to support him if it really wanted to.
Predictably, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who won re-election comfortably on Tuesday, refused to lift a finger to help his vulnerable fellow Republican in Virginia. Even with mountains of cash, Christie had no electoral coattails, which is not exactly a resume-builder for a presidential candidate.
This is, of course, the same politician who betrayed GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney on at least two occasions. Christie spent his high-profile speech at the Republican National Convention last year talking about himself instead of Romney. He also won President Obama lots of votes by cozying up to him during the Tropical Storm Sandy saga. But his personal popularity didn’t do a thing for the rest of the New Jersey GOP slate this week.
What happened to Cuccinelli wasn’t some back-room conspiracy shrouded in smoke and euphemisms; it was a conscious, overt effort to do serious damage to a Tea Party standard-bearer.
Virginia Republicans tend to value hierarchy and tradition. Cuccinelli the upstart was punished for his impertinence. Instead of waiting his turn, as the aristocratic gatekeepers of the Virginia GOP demand, Cuccinelli asked his party elders to value merit and good policy proposals over seniority and rank. The powers that be within the Virginia Republican establishment responded by smearing the archetypal conservative as an extremist and trying to squash him.
Remember that the establishment came out hard four years ago for the now-tainted RINOish governor Bob McDonnell, but this year largely left the cash-strapped Cuccinelli to his own devices against the fabulously wealthy Terry McAuliffe, the Democrats’ Daddy Warbucks.
According to the Virginia Public Access Project, key GOP fundraising organs lavished funds in the 2009 election cycle on the ethically slippery McDonnell. The Republican Party of Virginia and the Republican National Committee gave McDonnell $2,704,348 and $2,253,500, respectively.
In the 2013 election cycle, the two big political committees were stingy, according to available data. As of Oct. 23, the Republican Party of Virginia had given Cuccinelli $843,085, and the RNC had coughed up a paltry $85,098 for the gubernatorial candidate. (The Republican Governors’ Association was not stingy. RGA gave $1,994,312 to McDonnell, who leaves office in disgrace in January, and a healthy $8,066,772 to Cuccinelli.)
But the Republican National Committee is putting the word out that it did everything it could to help Cuccinelli.
The RNC claims that it spent $3 million on the so-called ground game to help Cuccinelli and the rest of the Republican ticket “while building the party’s presence in Virginia.” The non-Cuccinelli-specific effort included testing a “new precinct-based voter contact model.” The RNC gushed that its “Virginia-based staff included four dedicated to Asian-Pacific American engagement, two for African American engagement, and one for Hispanic engagement.”
Radio talk show host Mark Levin says the RNC is trying to “punk” conservatives by trying to “to persuade you that the RNC has been vigorously fighting for Cuccinelli’s campaign in Virginia. They think you’re so stupid that you’ll buy this self-serving BS.”
Even if we generously give the RNC the benefit of the doubt and assume it did everything it could to boost Cuccinelli’s chances, there is no question that there was heavy institutional resistance among GOP apparatchiks to the mainstream conservative contender’s bid.
Cuccinelli’s worst enemies were just as likely to be found among Republicans as Democrats. There was no shortage of prominent, important Republicans crossing the aisle to endorse Democrat McAuliffe.
Boyd Marcus, former chief of staff for House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), joined the McAuliffe campaign after the gubernatorial candidacy of his pick, sore loser Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, flamed out. Bolling himself petulantly refused to endorse Cuccinelli and worked hard against him, demoralizing the grassroots and depressing turnout by badmouthing the nominee on conservative talk radio every chance he got.
Other Republicans who endorsed McAuliffe include Dwight Schar, former RNC finance chairman; Judy Ford Wason, a GOP strategist who worked for McDonnell; former state senate president pro tempore John Chichester; state senator Russ Potts; and former House of Delegates members Vince Callahan, Katherine Waddell, and Jim Dillard.
Karl Rove, the corporatist Wile E. Coyote of the political consulting world who nearly lost George W. Bush the presidency not once, but twice, did nothing to help Cuccinelli. That’s because the generally useless strategerist and other establishment figures have declared war on the Tea Party.
And virtually no one defended GOP lieutenant governor candidate E.W. Jackson when his Democratic opponent, Ralph Northam, viciously slimed him for his mainstream Christian beliefs. It is a core tenet of Christianity that original sin is responsible for a host of maladies in the world and, unsurprisingly, Jackson, head pastor of a Christian church in Chesapeake, believes in that doctrine.
But Northam ran a disgusting TV ad that amounted to an attack on the very precepts of Christianity itself. Building on Jackson’s otherwise unremarkable belief in original sin, Sarelle Holiday, mother of a disabled child, absurdly accused Jackson of considering her son “a punishment.” Northam, who is white, is such a class act that he even refused to shake the hand of Jackson, who is black, during a joint public appearance in Hampton Roads.
Even before the polls had closed Tuesday, GOP operatives were already armed with excuses to explain away Cuccinelli’s approaching loss. The D.C. echo chamber reverberated with accusations that Cuccinelli was a woman-hating religious kook and an irresponsible loudmouth.
One said a “fire-breathing conservative turned populist unable to defend his positions on birth control” and women’s issues was doomed to lose. The RNC, in his view, was right to save its money for “races they can actually win.” Of course, a race decided by a mere 2.5 percentage points is pretty well winnable by definition.
With Cuccinelli’s totally avoidable loss, Terry McAuliffe, whose lifelong profession is Clinton operative, will be in position to secure Virginia for his puppet-mistress, Alinskyite neo-Marxist Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential election.
McAuliffe is now a safe bet to take over the Democratic Governors Association and the National Governors Association. Both perches will give him even more access to high-dollar donors than he has now.
Cuccinelli’s humiliation at the polls gives plenty of ammo to left-wingers. The media is already saying Tuesday’s election results show that voters have repudiated the Tea Party.
This is abject nonsense. Cuccinelli was able to almost close a huge gap in the polls with McAuliffe only by campaigning hard in the final days on the monstrosity that is ObamaCare and linking the hated wealth- and health-redistribution program to his opponent.
Also on Tuesday in Mobile, Alabama, a relative nobody, a Tea Party guy named Dean Young, with no money and no big fancy political machine behind him, scored an impressive 47 percent of the vote in a GOP primary runoff against Bradley Byrne, the well-funded choice of big business, who will almost certainly win the general election in the ultra-safe Republican congressional seat.
Of course, the fact that a Tea Party activist came out of nowhere to almost score an upset against a pillar of the Republican Party establishment is nowhere to be found in the New York Times article about the election.
The narrative is always more important than the truth.
The media, and of course Democrats will point to the defeat of Ken Cuccinelli in the Virginia governors election and say that this is a huge, massive, epic, and crippling defeat for the Tea Party, and Conservatism. And when they say that, they will be either lying or engaging in a bit of propaganda. If any entity failed in that race, it was the GOP leadership, which allowed Democrats to outspend them 10-1, and a finger of blame might also point at Chris Christie. Christie, with his reelection assured was asked, repeatedly, to come campaign for Kuccinelli. He declined, how is that for team work? Thanks Governor, really
By the way, it seems that Kuccinelli won among the middle class voters in Virginia, while McAuliffe won among the poor, and wealthy. I guess the duel Democratic strategies of make the rich feel guilty, and promise the poor you will give them everything worked. Odd, because those who will be hardest hit by McAuliffe’s Left wing policies will be those poor that were so busy voting with their hands out that they could not understand that the promises of leftism NEVER materialize.
It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book: backing a third candidate in order to beat the main competition. This time, this tactic is being used in the Virginia gubernatorial race by Democrats who are heavily backing “Libertarian” candidate Robert Sarvis in an effort to pull votes away from Republican Ken Cuccinelli. Meredith Jessup at The Blaze has all of the dirty details.
A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert C. Sarvis on the ballot – a move that could split conservative votes in a tight race.
Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to Sarvis’ campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis’ name on Tuesday’s statewide ballot.
Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor. He’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler for Republican Ken Cuccinelli.
Naturally, Sarvis’ campaign won’t explain the backing and refused to discuss whether he was recruited by Democrats to upset the race in Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s favor.
Last week, NRO’s Charles C.W. Cooke destroyed Sarvis’ “Liberatarian” credentials, pointing out his big government positions on climate change, taxes and supporting GPS tracking devices in Virginia cars.
In a recent Reason interview, Sarvis explained that he was “not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics,” preferring “more mainstream economics” instead. The candidate expanded on this during an oddly defensive interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, in which he seemed put off not so much by “strongly libertarian economics” as by libertarian economics per se. As governor, Sarvis told Todd, he would be hesitant to cut taxes, unsure as to how he might “reduce spending,” and open to indulging the largest piece of federal social policy since 1965 by expanding Virginia’s Medicaid program.
Worse yet was Sarvis’s rambling interview with the Virginia Prosperity Project, in which the candidate expressed his enthusiasm for increasing gas levies, and for establishing a “vehicle-miles-driven tax.” It strikes me that it is almost impossible to square such a measure with any remotely coherent “libertarian” position on that most sacred of rights: privacy. Virginia’s mooted VMT plan requires the installation of government GPS systems in private cars – an astonishingly invasive proposal.
So, is the split the vote tactic working? We’ll have to see what happens tonight as the polls close, but up to this point the answer is yes.
A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday showed Republican Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II trimming Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s lead in the Virginia governor’s race to 4 percentage points, suggesting the contest is much closer than some analysis has indicated.
The survey gave Mr. McAuliffe a lead of 45 percent to 41 percent, with 9 percent of likely voters opting for Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. That advantage is down from 46 percent to 39 percent for Mr. McAuliffe in a Quinnipiac poll last week, when Mr. Sarvis had 10 percent.
Former presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul, notorious for his Libertarian views and dedication to principle, campaigned for Cuccinelli in Virginia last night. When Ron Paul is campaigning for the Republican in the race, you know the Libertarian is fake.
On Monday, former Congressman and staunch libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX) campaigned for Virginia Republican Governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli and said Virginias would be giving up on liberty if they voted for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in Tuesday’s election and would be “insane” if they voted for so-called libertarian Robert Sarvis, the third-party candidate who may siphon enough votes from Cuccinelli to spoil the election.
Specifically referring to the mileage taxes that Sarvis indicated he may support and which may require GPS systems to be installed in everyone’s cars, Paul said “anybody who would conceivably vote for someone who would endorse a mileage tax” is “insane” because a mileage tax would be an “invasion of privacy” and would just give the government more money it could waste. In an interview on MSNBC, Sarvis indicated that he could support “vehicle-miles-driven taxes.”
Appearing with Cuccinelli, Paul also noted that Cuccinelli would cut taxes and would not support any new taxes. He said though Cuccinelli may not be in the Libertarian Party, he’s a “Constitutionalist, so he’s an ally.”
Paul also ripped Democrats for thinking that individuals are not smart to take care of themselves.
“Why should we grant this authority to a few thugs who want to take over the government to make all our decisions for us?” Paul said.
Paul said Cuccinelli is a “defender” of liberty and asked Virginians not to “give up on liberty.”
“If you elect the other guy, you are [giving up on liberty],” Paul said of McAuliffe.
Paul also said Cuccinelli has already proven that he is able to take on the federal government and called Obamacare a “monster” that Cuccinelli has fought from the beginning.
Earlier, Cuccinelli mentioned how much of an infringement Obamacare was on the liberty of Virginians and detailed his strong defense of property rights. Cuccinelli said that McAuliffe sleeps in Virginia but is of Washington and asked Virginians to say “‘No’ to Obamacare and ‘Yes’ to Liberty” by voting for Cuccinelli.
It would be like accusing Obama of opposing Obamacare.
Democrats are apparently telling voters in Virgina that gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli supports Obamacare, even though the Republican was the first attorney general in the country to file a lawsuit against the health-care law.
Why would Democrats make such an accusation?
To keep conservative voters from going to the polls Tuesday, according to state Republicans.
Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe is already mired in scandals and his once double-digit lead in the Virginia gubernatorial race is virtually gone, down to just two points in a poll released over the weekend.
So now, he is resorting to dirty tricks, according to a Virginia lawmaker.
Scott Lingamfelter, a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates, said he received a robo-call on Sunday claiming that Cuccinelli supports Obamacare.
He also said the call claimed vehemently pro-life Cuccinelli supported taxpayer financing for abortions.
“They are shameless in their lies,” he wrote on his Facebook page.
“I guess they are trying to suppress GOP voters,” Lingamfelter concluded.
Lingamfelter said the recording announced it was paid for by the Democratic Party of Virginia.
He pleaded with Virginians to “understand that the party that wants Terry McAuliffe to be your governor will flat lie about anything!”
Lifenews reports, “[T]he calls may have been going on for a while, as Virginia resident Shirley Widlacki wrote on Twitter in early October that she received a similar robo-call with false claims about Cuccinelli.’
WND called the Democratic Party of Virginia for comment. Press Secretary Ashley Bauman said she’d been “on the road” for a while. She directed the inquiry to another staff member and gave WND an email address. WND has not received a response.
When WND contacted the Cuccinelli campaign for reaction, a representative provided a press release from the Republican Party of Virginia, which read, “It’s a despicable attempt at voter suppression. It’s shameless, it’s dishonest, and it’s utterly unsurprising.”
Referendum on Obamacare
Obamacare has become the top issue for Cuccinelli in the Virginia gubernatorial race as it heads for a neck-and-neck finish.
In an op-ed column published in Politico on Monday, Cuccinelli portrayed the election as a referendum on Obamacare.
“Virginia can send Washington a message that we oppose Obamacare with our votes on Tuesday.
“Virginians who oppose Obamacare can vote for me, and Virginians who want to see Obamacare grow further can vote for McAuliffe,” he wrote.
“This is the first chance for people to speak clearly at the ballot box about the impact this law is having on their lives and on our economy,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Monday while campaigning for Cuccinelli.
“That health care law will only get worse,” he added. “The website is just the tip of the iceberg.”
President Obama seems to be running away from his own health-care law, not even mentioning Obamacare once during his entire 21-minute speech while campaigning for McAuliffe on Sunday.
Democrats seem to be hoping Republicans will get more blame for the government shutdown than Democrats will get for the Obamcare disaster.
Referring to the shutdown, McAuliffe said, “He (Cuccinelli) stood with the tea party and not with Virginia families.”
“Can you even imagine if Ted Cruz, Ken Cuccinelli and the tea party ran the Virginia government?” he wondered.
The president literally tried to scare up votes for his candidate, telling supporters, “Nothing makes me more nervous than when my supporters start feeling too confident, so I want to put the fear of God in all of you,” Obama said.
And campaigning for McAuliffe Monday, Vice President Joe Biden tried to paint Cuccinelli’s traditional values as old fashioned, warning that tea-party views are “out of the ’30s and ’40s and ’50s.”