Well Played, Epic Alabama Edition.

We had planned on reviewing campaign ads on days following elections but this upcoming Tuesday's Alabama primary has produced such classic ads that we decided to jump the gun.

First, Tim James a Republican candidate for Governor with a straight shooting ad about English:



Next, Les Phillips, who is challenging conservative-Democrat-turned-Republican Congressman Parker Griffith in the GOP Primary, is not afraid to touch on racial issues:



And finally, the now famous Alabama Ag. Commissioner ad from Dale Peterson:

The Media At Its Classiest.

Back in January, David Shuster (then with MSNBC) wrote the following on his twitter account, directed at famed ACORN filmmaker James O’Keefe who was detained at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office:

a) you are not a journalist b) the truth is you intended to tap her phones c) it's a felony d) you will go to prison.

oh, and did I mention that your tweet will help prosecutors prove intent? Keep at it, young man. I'm enjoying this a lot.

This week things look a little different.

a) Shuster is no longer a journalist b) O’Keefe ended his legal woes by pleading out to a minor offense that had nothing to do with taping phones c) it was not a felony d) O’Keefe will not go to prison but will make more movies.

A Fun One To Watch.

California holds its Republican Senate Primary on June 8^th. The winner will take on Senator Barbara Boxer in the fall for what some analyst see as a potential fifty-first, majority-making seat for Republicans. The primary race is also notable for another reason: Some of the strangest poll numbers this cycle, with double digit swings in both directions.

Poll	Date	Sample	Fiorina (R)	Campbell (R)	DeVore (R)	Spread
PPP (D)	5/21 - 5/23	417 LV	41	21	16	Fiorina +20
SurveyUSA	5/21 - 5/23	612 LV	46	23	14	Fiorina +23
R2000/Daily Kos (D)	5/17 - 5/19	400 LV	22	37	14	Campbell +15
PPIC	5/9 - 5/16	411 LV	25	23	16	Fiorina +2
M4 Strategies (R)	5/12 - 5/16	600 LV	28	33	15	Campbell +5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ca/california_senate_republican_primary-1120.html

On The Sestak Scandal.

The Joe Sestak-White House scandal is worth following because it is destined to end in one of two dramatic ways:

1. If Sestak was offered a position in exchange for dropping out of the primary race, this would constitute tampering with an election, bribery and a number of other federal and state crimes. In this case, some one at the White House is in deep trouble. It could go very high up. With a Republican AG in office in both Pennsylvania and in Virginia (Sestak's DC metro residence), this could become a story-of-the-decade type deal.

2. If Sestak was not offered a position, or it was not linked to dropping out of the primary race, then Sestak repeatedly lied about serious accusations against the White House on the primary campaign trail. How could the White House continue to publicly support him for the remainder of the 2010 cycle with a straight face? Answer: They probably couldn't.

World Cup Countdown!

This year's World Cup promises to produce some political-correctness fueled white lies by the media concerning the host nation of South Africa. Things are actually pretty bad there. You can bet that you will not read anything like this in American papers. (H/T: Citizen Renegade)

Politics Vs. Policy.

We have been watching the Rand Paul/Rachel Maddow/Civil Rights Act drama unfold over the past week. For those who have not been paying attention: Paul accepted an interview with Rachel Maddow last Wednesday following his primary victory and was subsequently baited into a conversation about the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the law which outlaws racial discrimination in public places). Paul said that he thought the Act went outside of Congress’s constitutional authority by forbidding discrimination even in privately owned businesses. Basically, Paul argued that stopping the government from discriminating was a legitimate power of Congress, but that stopping private entities from doing so was not. Paul went on to make a comparison to gun rights: He argued that the government should never restrict gun possession, but that if a private business wants to forbid weapons on their property, then they should be allowed to do so.

Our thoughts:

First, this was political amateur hour on Rand Paul’s part. He really messed up by both going on a national, liberal TV show and by playing it straight when he answered that question. Polls released right after the primary showed him with a huge lead over his Democratic opponent. He could probably have taken a Caribbean vacation for the next several months and rolled to victory. The one singular thing he can not afford to do is a have a series of foot-in-the-mouth, over intellectual gaffes like this. Even with a victory in November (which is still very likely), he will have marginalized himself among fellow Republicans. Politics is about more than just winning elections. You need friends to get things done once in office.

Second, from an intellectual and policy perspective everything that Paul said was absolutely correct. Paul, of course, was not at all supporting or condoning racism in any way. He was merely saying that the government should not dictate social conduct standards to private businesses. Or in simpler terms: “let jerks be jerks.” This hands-off approach to governing is exactly what more Republicans need to adopt.

Rand Paul has shown that he “gets” policy. Let us hope he gains a better understanding of politics very quickly.

Pac-Man 2010.

Google celebrates Pac-Man's 30th birthday with a playable Pac-Man game inside the Google logo on their homepage. It was a different world in 1980 when this game first came out and Ronald Reagan took the White House.

Well Played, A Series.

Today we launch a new series for the rest of 2010: Following each major primary election day we will analyze the results and examine the candidates' video ad campaigns. We will crown a winning ad and a runner-up based not only on quality but also how things turned out at the polls.

The runner-up for Tuesday, May 18 is "The Switch" from newly minted Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Nominee Joe Sestak:



And the win goes to..."Honor" from newly minted Kentucky Republican Senate Nominee Rand Paul.

But we need to give you some background on this ad. First, Paul's Republican primary opponent Trey Grayson launched a website called "RandPaulStrangeIdeas.Com." Then Grayson put out a series of poorly conceived web and TV ads, including the following, which seems to scoff at the mere thought of Paul being able to win:



Paul responded directly with our vote for the best of Tuesday's video ads. If we were an undecided Kentucky Republican, watching the juvenile and condescending video from Grayson combined with the following response (especially the last 10 seconds) would probably sway us into Paul's camp:

(Edit: The Paul "Honor" video was removed by his campaign following the election and does not seem to be available anywhere. In short, Paul spoke directly to Grayson and said that the previous ads were "a lie" and "dishonored" Grayson.)

More On "Anti-Incumbency."

Sean Trende over at Real Clear Politics published an article this morning entitled 2010: Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Liberal or Anti-Democrat? It goes along with our contention that 2010 is not simply an "anti-incumbent" year.

Trende accurately notes that "anti-incumbency" is the story line currently being pitched by the Democrats...just as Republicans did in 2006. He goes on:

Nevertheless, I don't think it is likely that this will be a generalized anti-incumbent election. The reason is pretty simple: We don't have "anti-incumbent" elections in this country. Stu Rothenberg noted in 2006 that the closest we've come in the past fifty years to a generalized anti-incumbent election was 1990, when six Democrats and nine Republicans lost in the general election, and in 1978, when 14 Democrats and five Republicans were defeated that November.

Finally, he concludes:

The historical record provides no support for 2010 being a generalized anti-incumbent year; the elections to date this cycle in major statewide races certainly don’t support this scenario either. The real question is whether moderate or conservative Democrats who oppose the Beltway Democratic agenda will be given cover from angry voters, or whether the electorate will thoroughly clean house this fall. That’s where the difference between a bad Democratic year and a debacle of historic proportions can be found.

An Interesting Mix.

There is a line of pop culture thought that says the Baby Boomers are a generation of narcissists and that Gen X is full of nihilist.

So what happens when you combine the two? What about those rare few born on the border, who embody aspects of both generations? Well, Bret Easton Ellis wrote a book on the topic.

Additionally, with a 1961 birth, the President falls into that transitional category. Which begs the question...Is Patrick Bateman that much different than Barack Obama?

Tuesday Preview.

Tuesday will be the biggest primary election day of the year thus far. Arkansas, Pennyslvania and Kentucky all have Senate primary contests:

In Arkansas, Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln will defend her seat against a leftist primary challenger, Bill Halter. Also in Arkansas, Republican Congressman John Boozman is set to finish off some light competition for his party’s Senate nomination. Lincoln's seat looks likes a likely turnover in favor of the Republicans in the fall, regardless of the results on Tuesday.

In Pennyslvania, Republican-turned-Democrat Senator Arlen Specter will defend his seat in a primary against Congressman Joe Sestak, who had planned to run for the seat before Specter’s party switch. Notably, Specter is the only Senator to have been endorsed by both President Bush and Obama (in different elections.) Former Congressman Pat Toomey is the lone Republican running for Specter's seat and he also had planned to challenge Specter (...in the Republican primary) before the party switch.

In Kentucky, doctor Rand Paul looks to finish off his upset of early establishment favorite Trey Grayson. Also in Kentucky, two Democrats are in a tight contest for the right to be in the Senate general election, which the Republicans seem certain to win.

But the most notable race on Tuesday is a "general-special-election" House race in Western Pennyslvania. There is a tight contest going to fill the seat vacated by the late John Murtha. Should the Democrats lose this deep-blue-union-country seat, it will be a sign of things to come this fall. If the Democrats can not hold Pennyslvania’s 12th District, very few places will be safe for them in November.

It Is Liberalism, Stupid.

In the past week, Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah and Democratic Representative Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, both of whom have served in Congress for decades, lost in their respective primaries. The prevailing media interpretation thus far has been that 2010 will be an "anti-incumbent" year. This is dead wrong.

Let us look at these two races.

In Utah:

What riled Utah Republicans against Bob Bennett? One complaint was that he sponsored a health-care bill with Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden to eliminate the tax preference for employer-provided health insurance and subsidize premiums... ...More important, apparently, was Mr. Bennett's vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in September 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240953424385446.html

In West Virginia:

It's unusual for Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) to face opposition from a fellow Democrat. And the rare primary Mollohan is facing this year in the northern 1st district is atypical in that state Sen. Mike Oliverio is challenging him from the right and not the left.

Oliverio is running on a platform that focuses heavily on the need to reduce the large federal debt -- not exactly a burning issue in Democratic primaries. He opposed increasing the federal debt limit, criticized the 2009 stimulus law that Mollohan and nearly every other Democrat supported, and also has some problems with the new health care law. Oliverio also opposes abortion, gun control and a "cap and trade" system to limit greenhouse gas emissions. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20100330/pl_cq_politics/politics3634654

Both of these men lost to their right: Bennett largely because of his support for specific left leaning legislation and Mollohan because of an overall challenge from the right.

When moderate or liberal challengers start beating conservative incumbents, then we can call this an anti-incumbent year. Until then, this is a conservative year.

Unmanned Systems For An Unsafe World, Part Two.

Back in March we spotlighted a series of ads for unmanned military drones in the Capitol South Metro station. We could not really pin point it (perhaps it was somehow related to the uncanny valley) but there was something off-putting about the thought of unmanned killer drones. It turns out that unmanned fighting drones are not only being used by the military, but by the CIA as well. And the CIA has been authorized to kill American citizens with them:

The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.

The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?hp

Legislative Update: Funny Does Not Always Equal Bad.

At first glance, the federal “Potty Parity Act” seems like the result of an out of control nanny-state at its worst. No doubt that is why Matt Drudge recently spotlighted it. The bill is designed to alleviate inequalities between the number of men’s and women’s restrooms. However, it only does so in federal buildings. For all of the ranting that this blog and fellow conservatives do about our over-reaching federal government, maintenance of their own buildings is perfectly within their purview.

This bill may have a funny name, but assuming it is based upon a true and existing problem, it is a proper and constitutional use of federal power. Given that many federal buildings were designed in time periods when only men worked, there is a good chance that this is a legitimate issue.

Surprise, Surprise.

Last summer, three American hikers with connections to the San Fransisco progressive movement were detained by Iranian guards after naively deciding to take a stroll along Iran's border with Iraqi-Kurdistan. The three are still currently being held in Iran.

While we do not support this seemingly baseless detention (even if the hikers are crunchy Mother Jones contributors), we could not help but laugh at the following line from a story about the three in this month's Outside Magazine:

"They were polite, no trouble; they didn't even ask to take a shower," said Muzafad Mohammed Zeli, the proprietor... http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/201005/iran-hikers-arrested-iraq-kurdistan-4.html

A Warning To Republicans.

We have written before about the need for Republicans to aggressively campaign, draw distinctions between themselves and Democrats, and show that they are a true alternative to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al.

Across the pond, the right-of-center Tories have ignored this advice and instead have taken a series of moderate, "third way" stances. It is now costing them. Despite strong anti-Labour sentiment in most polls, the Tories have possibly failed to secure their place in government:

After three days of hard bargaining with Nick Clegg, the obstacles in his path were being cleared one by one and negotiations with the Liberal Democrats appeared to be entering their final phase. But while Mr Cameron was looking the other way, Gordon Brown and Mr Clegg had made a secret agreement that could deny the Tory leader the ultimate prize. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/7707890/How-David-Cameron-was-outflanked-as-he-prepared-to-enter-No-10.html

What Is His Angle?

In 2008 then candidate Obama announced his running mate through a mass text message to supporters and bought ad space on virtual billboards in online video games.

Now he is saying this:

With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcoyG-Ck3-VwZB7fqpUFXbffoObg

Arizona Governor Vs. The President.

Our Hope For The U.K. Election

A Tory led coalition formed with the minor Scottish and Welsh regional parties. Labour and Lib Dems hungout to dry.

Prager On Tea Parties, Race And The Left.

Los Angeles based talk show host Dennis Prager recently wrote a good article on the Left's obsession with race and the tea parties. Notably, Prager correctly identified one of the defining problems with all of modern liberalism:

The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.

One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas...

...As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left--- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/02/why_left_talks_about_white_tea_parties_105317.html

A Devastating Use Of YouTube.

Watch the following video. Think of how much more effective this message is thanks to YouTube. In the dark days before 2005, this story line would have been relegated to mere anecdotes or traditional TV ads that would have only been broadcast a handful of times during commercial breaks.

Warning: It will become increasingly difficult to take Governor Crist seriously after watching.

A Quick Defense Of Federalism.

It is easy to downplay and ignore the unique nature of American federalism. So consider the following to be a quick lesson on its benefits.

In a recently published interview with The Independent, British Conservative leader David Cameron articulated his views on adding a new runway to London's Heathrow Airport:

Mr Cameron, acknowledging we are in an airport, guarantees that there will be no change in Tory plans to scrap the planned third runway at Heathrow. "It is so black and white. There will be no third runway," he says. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-view-of-a-hung-parliamentits-all-cleggified-balls-1960376.html

This man will very likely be the next head of government in the United Kingdom and he is being interviewed about growth managment at an airport. Imagine a presidential hopeful having to make campaign promises about plans for a new gate at Kennedy.

The Obama Zombies.

A New York Times profile of young White House staffers has been making the rounds this week and has provided us with more than our fair share of unintended entertainment.

First off, the article (and the staffers themselves) seem to view it as a good thing that well connected and influential up-and-comers would choose "gritty" hipster hangouts that ordinarily attract DC's greasiest and crunchiest over clean cut, politico-prepster havens:

Compare:
The young White House staff members have formed an unofficial enclave... with nightlife emanating out from the U Street corridor. The area, part of which was ravaged during the 1968 riots, is gentrifying but still has a gritty feel. Some of the staff members call it “campus.” Older journalists trying to impress their young sources sometimes suggest hip neighborhood places like Cork, the Gibson speak-easy and Marvin, a sleek bistro and bar that has a mural of the iconic Shepard Fairey “Hope” poster of Obama’s face painted in blue and red on its outside brick wall.

with:

Even so, Obama’s young aides offer a contrast to the ones who worked in George W. Bush’s administration only a few years ago...When they did go out, Johndroe says, they stuck to creaky haunts close to the White House like Old Ebbitt Grill or bars in the historically preppy enclave of Georgetown. “The Daily Grill was the place to go on Thursday nights, in Georgetown, and then people would go to Smith Point,” Johndroe said, referring to the basement bar known for sightings of the Bush twins and its unofficial uniform of popped collars, boat shoes (no socks) and salmon-colored khakis for the men, pearls and Lilly Pulitzer for the women. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02obamastaff-t.html?pagewanted=1

Mark this as a win for the Bushies. We can begrudgingly concede that the "gritty" hipster scene has its place, but making such establishments your primary haunts while working at the White House is kind of like wearing jeans to church.

The coup d'etat of the article, however, is the following line:

...young staff members are nervous about upholding the Obama creed of modesty and discretion.

Yes, you read that farce of a coherent throught correctly. Twenty-five year olds whose social lives are being profilled in an uber elitist paper are worried that the guy pictured below will not think of them as modest enough.