New Alaska Poll -- Democrat Scott McAdams Surges Past Embattled Joe Miller 28OKT10

I'M not counting chickens yet........but this is SWEET!!!!!!!!!!



A new poll conducted by Hays Research confirms what we already intuitively know. Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller's candidacy is in big trouble.
The percentage of Alaskans who feel either "somewhat negative" or "very negative" about Miller has skyrocketed in recent weeks to an astronomical 68 percent. Only 8 percent feel "somewhat negative" and the remainder, a jaw-dropping 60 percent, feel "very negative" about Miller as a candidate.
A series of gaffes, inconsistencies, and controversial statements to the press, in addition to the arrest of a journalist by Miller security guards have come one on top of another, causing a trend that can only be described as a campaign death spiral. Miller's hardcore supporters who view him "very favorably" have held in there, showing a decrease of only 3 percent since Oct. 6, but his "somewhat favorable" rating went from 20 percent to 9 percent in that time. Miller's "somewhat unfavorable" rating dipped from 13 percent to 8 percent, underscoring the voter stampede toward "very unfavorable" which skyrocketed from 38 percent to 60 percent in less than three weeks.


If there could be even worse news for the Miller camp it's that this devastating poll occurred before the headline "Miller's employee records reveal numerous lies" appeared on newsstands on the front page of today's Anchorage Daily News, which quotes a damning email in which Miller admits he repeatedly lied about his misuse of Borough computers for political purposes while he was a part-time lawyer for the Borough in 2008.
This all begs the question, if Miller is hemorrhaging voters, where are they going? The numbers seem to bear out the anti-incumbency sentiment, and voter frustration with the "establishment," because Miller's supporters seem to be jumping ship mostly for McAdams.
Hays asked the question (replicating the experience of the voter going in to the booth in which they will not see the name of write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski on the ballot), "If the election for U.S. Senate were held today, and the candidates were Joe Miller, Scott McAdams, Frederick Haase, Tim Carter, Ted Gianoutsos, or another candidate you have to write in, for whom would you vote, or are you undecided?
The result? Scott McAdams surging ahead of Joe Miller with 29 percent, Joe Miller with 23 percent, and the write-in candidate (most of which are presumably Lisa Murkowski) with a small gain bringing her to 34 percent, and undecided voters still at 13 percent. This is the first time that McAdams has polled better than Miller, and he did it by six points, comfortably outside the margin of error of 4.8 percent -- a watershed moment for the McAdams campaign.

Just for fun, I took the information from the Hays poll and added trend lines, projecting them out to Nov. 2, Election Day.

According to the basic trend lines, Joe Miller continues the plunge, and McAdams and Murkowski meet at the summit.
So what does this all mean?
First, for everyone who is terrified of Joe Miller, take heart. With a 68 percent disapproval rating, and his trend line looking like the flight of the Hindenberg even before the latest scandal hit the news, the chances of him actually pulling it off and winning this election are slim. And that's a good thing for anyone in Alaska who was holding their nose and voting for Murkowski based on fear of Miller and not based on their values. Alaskans who felt forced to vote for Murkowski because they believed it was the only way to save the state from Joe Miller, you're off the hook. You no longer have to vote for someone who has voted against the best interest of Alaska, and with party leadership more than 90 percent of the time. You no longer have to vote for someone who has been bankrolled by corporations and outside interests. You no longer have to vote for someone who will pretty much vote the same way as Miller anyway. In other words, you no longer have to vote for Miller Lite.
It also means that Lisa Murkowski's newest slogan, "A Vote for McAdams is a Vote for Miller," has just been neutered by the numbers.
More good news for McAdams "poll watchers" is that no poll can take into account the looming threat of legal challenges by both political parties to write-in votes, the inevitable voter error, or the unsuccessful history of write-in candidacies. But despite the fact that this type of race is notoriously difficult to poll, there is no doubt, considering the trend over time, that this race is looking more and more like McAdams' campaign slogan -- it IS "about Alaska."
So, if you are an Alaskan voter who has found it increasingly impossible to put your state in the hands of the Tea Party candidate, or leave your state in the hands of the corporate "party line" candidate, you're not the only one.
After several successful debates, a consistent positive message about what is best for Alaska, and a pledge to never accept one dollar from corporate PACs, Scott McAdams is in the middle of a grassroots surge, gaining an unbelievable 13 percent since Oct. 6, with no signs of stopping. If there's one thing that Joe Miller got right, it's his mantra, "If you want to change D.C., you've got to change the people that are there." Alaskans seem to agree with the sentiment, but they no longer believe that Joe Miller is the kind of change they want.
.pdf of Miller +/-
.pdf of Senate Head to Head

When in Doubt, They Beat Up Women 27OKT10

ONE time, a few years ago, a co-worker, who was actually a supervisor at the company I was working for, told me that some day, when people like him took power in this country they would be coming for people like me. I laughed in his face and told him he and his kind didn't scare me and I was not about to give up my political views and activities because he didn't like them. He moved to Texas years ago, am sure he has found a lot of pathetic, narrow minded people just like him to hang with there, and I can see him as a tea-bagger, spreading hate, lies, deception and right-wing propaganda, and probably coming very close to violence against people who oppose his political views. He is just the kind of person who is simple enough that the loud mouth right-wing fanatics like sarah palin, michele bachmann, glenn beck and all those other haters at fox "news", with all their rhetoric, could be pushed to acts of violence against anyone they label an threat to the corporate plutocracy they are trying to turn our Republic into. They encourage anger, hate and violence and then when it happens deny they had anything to do with it and aren't responsible. Students of history will remember how cowardly hitler was when he was starting his nazi party.....he would get his brown shirts and other supporters all fired up and then turn them loose on the opposition...but when they started to loose the street battles hitler would vanish, leaving his dead and wounded on the street, his supporters to be arrested. That is the poisonous atmosphere seeping into this election now, and my fear is it will only get worse....THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE FROM HUFFPOST DOCUMENTING THE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIOLENCE BY TEA-BAGGERS AND THEIR GOP SUPPORTERS AND POLICE BRUTALITY, ALL AT CAMPAIGN EVENTS. GOD HELP US ALL GET THROUGH THIS WITHOUT ANONE GETTING KILLED!
Anyone who's ever spent extended time with very young children will know what I'm talking about here. Whenever a particularly spazzy kid who's perhaps a little too hepped up on sugary snacks can't articulate what he or she wants, they tend to act out. Sometimes violently. Spitting, biting, screeching, hitting.
I think you know where I'm going with this.
Despite the fact that they're probably going to win a considerable number of congressional seats on Tuesday, the far right appears to be unsatisfied with a significant electoral victory and is supplementing its would-be success by physically accosting anyone who isn't sporting an array of teabags erotically dangled from the brim of a tri-cornered hat.
Last week, hired goons working for Sarah Palin's hand-selected action figure candidate Joe Miller (With Life-Like Hair and Beard!) manhandled, handcuffed and detained a reporter. No serious violence committed here, except perhaps a precursor to violence against the First Amendment should Joe Miller actually win. It's always a good sign when a potential U.S. Senator retains hired goons in order to arrest members of the press. But, then again, Miller thinks communist East Germany was simply the tops, so it seems to be all part of a larger set piece for him.

Of course, this was only a precursor to a supremely violent week in wingnuttia.
Outside the debate between Rand Paul and Paul Conway, a MoveOn.org activist, Lauren Valle, was attacked, shoved to the ground and stomped on. Rand Paul supporters, along with an actual Rand Paul campaign staffer, displayed their insecure masculinity and newly "restored honor" by beating up a woman in plain view of cameras and other citizens who appeared to do nothing to stop the assailants. By the way, no one's talking about the other redneck in the green hat and plaid shirt who wrestled Valle to the ground, or the black-tee-shirted person who appears to step on Valle's mid-section. We can only assume they won't turn themselves in despite the Tea Party's widely publicized commitment to personal responsibility.

Further highlighting Tea Party honor and personal responsibility today, the chief woman-fighter at the scene, Tim Profitt, demanded that Valle apologize to him. I can only assume Profitt is suffering from the post-traumatic stress that resulted from Valle's head thwacking him on the sole of his defenseless shoe. Poor baby. (Appropriately posted on Twitter today: "BP to seek apology from Gulf of Mexico.")
Meanwhile, scores of far-right AM radio talkers, far-right bloggers and far-right blog commenters swung into action in a unified effort to blame the victim on this attack.
Erectile-dysfunction sufferer Rush Limbaugh, for example, implied that the attack was justified given the fact that Tea Party crazies are refusing to "grab the ankles" and "play nice." So if I'm correctly following Limbaugh's reasoning, one way to avoid (metaphorical?) anal rape is to wrestle a woman to the curb, American History X style, and step on her face. Nice. No wonder he's been married four times. He obviously has tremendous respect for women.
And yesterday in Virginia, a member of a rural Democratic committee, John Taylor, was ejected from an open-to-the-public Eric Cantor event in Louisa County. Reports indicate Taylor did absolutely nothing to precipitate his ejection from the coffee shop where the event was being held. After leaving, Taylor was violently accosted by police on the sidewalk in a ridiculously over-the-top display of excessive use of force.






This is evidently how the Republicans intend to handle dissent should they gain any sort of congressional majority. When they're not avoiding press scrutiny or party opposition, they're arresting dissenters. And when they're unable to rationally debate the issues, they lash out with violence.
It's a special brand of cowardice that's symptomatic of their utterly inexplicable and contradictory positions.
They insist the Democrats increased the deficit when, in fact, the Democrats and the Obama administration cut the deficit by $122 billion following the Bush-authorized 2009 budget. Allow me to repeat: President Obama cut the deficit by $122 billion. It's the largest one-year reduction in the federal budget deficit ever. Ever!
They're screeching about joblessness under the Obama administration even though the Democrats and the White House helped to create more private-sector jobs than the entire two terms of the Bush administration.
They've turned the stimulus into an obscenity even though it created at least 1.4 million new jobs.
They're pitching a fit about taxes while oblivious to the fact that, included in the stimulus, the Obama administration passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history.
And they're pissing in their big-boy pants over the bailouts, which were requested and signed by the Bush administration and have ultimately earned an eight-percent profit.
Hell, the word-salad chef herself -- the queen of the Tea Party -- Sarah Palin (along with her idiot sidekick Christine O'Donnell) still don't understand the purpose and intent of the First Amendment. Palin, for her part, believes the First Amendment allows Juan Williams to say whatever the hell he wants to say with impunity. Naturally, this is a doofish misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which was written to protect the people and the press from the government -- not to protect TV and radio personalities from their employers or from political activists.
Seriously, it has to be mind-bendingly frustrating to have to defend some of this nonsensical hooey. Couple all of it with the umbrella contradiction that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against a tax cut in favor of the British East India Company, allowing the corporation to import tea to the colonies tax-free and therefore undercut the prices charged by independent importers. I always hesitate to mention this because I don't want to be held responsible for the subsequent far-right noggin meltdowns. Yes, the original Tea Party was in opposition to a corporate tax cut. Chew on that one, Tea Partiers.
So in the absence of rational and factual arguments, what are they left with? Inchoate violence and flailing rage directed at anyone who chooses to observe the problems of nation through the prism of objective reality and facts. We live in a counter-factual era no matter what arguments are made, and no matter how many sources we have on hand to make the case for reality, the far-right is more content to throw fists and fits. It just so happens that Stephen Colbert is right: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Dems Pounce on Republicans' Minimum Wage Remarks from NATIONAL JOURNAL 4OKT10

MORE PROOF, FOR THOSE TOO STUPID TO HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT BY NOW, that the republicans and tea-baggers are out to represent and legislate for the benefit of the wealthy and NOT for the poor or working and middle classes. 

By Jeremy P. Jacobs

Updated, 1:32 p.m.
Democrats believe a handful of GOP Senate contenders in pivotal races have opened themselves up to a lethal line of attack on the minimum wage.
As of Monday, 4 Republicans running for the Senate in Alaska, Connecticut, West Virginia and Washington have made controversial statements opposing the minimum wage. To be sure, some have gone farther than others, but Democrats believe that the statements are political death wishes as unemployment holds steady around 10%.
Democrats view the issue as a base energizer, particularly among union members. They also plan to use the statements to show that Republicans are out of touch and out of the mainstream for their states - a line of attack they have already been using in most of these states. Don't be surprised to see these statements in campaign ads soon.
Of course, it remains to be seen how effective this tack will be. In 2 cases - West Virginia and Alaska - the Republicans unequivocally stated their opposition to a federal minimum wage. In the other 2 - Connecticut and Washington - the candidate delivered a more nuanced view.
On Monday, Alaska Senate contender and attorney Joe Miller (R) was the latest to comment on the minimum wage. Miller told ABC News that "there should not be" a federal minimum wage. "That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government," he said.
Miller's remarks came just days after former WWW CEO and Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon (R) made some rather obscure remarks about re-evaluating the minimum wage. "The minimum wage now in our country, I think we've set that and a lot of people have benefited from it in our country, but I think we ought to review how much it ought to be, and whether or not we ought to have increases in the minimum wage," McMahon said.
Businessman John Raese, who is running for the Senate in West Virginia, has been most adamant in opposing the minimum wage -- even though West Virginia has a large blue-collar population. Raese has also flat out called for eliminating the minimum wage, and Gov. Joe Manchin (D) attacked Raese for the statement in a recent campaign ad.
In Washington, Republican Dino Rossi has a checkered history on the minimum wage. When he ran for governor in '08, he said he would support a lower training wage for teenagers and Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) accused him of wanting to lower the minimum wage in attack ads (a charge that Rossi denied). Rossi has, however, espoused positions from the Washington Policy Center which included blocking increasing the minimum wage.

Joe Miller: No Social Security For Future Generations 2SEP10

JOE MILLER, teabagger gop candidate for the Senate in Alaska, wants to do away with Social Security. It would seem that anyone supporting him feels the same way, if they don't how cold they continue to support him with such a radical view on one of the nations most vital programs? How's that tea-bagger thingy working for you now Alaska?

Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller repeated his view Wednesday that the United States needs to fundamentally rethink Social Security.
"Longer term, there has got to be a move outside of that system," Miller told CNN's John King. "Ultimately we want to transfer the power back to the states so that states can take up the mantle of those programs if they so desire."
Miller previously said that the U.S. should "transition out of the Social Security arrangement."
King, noting that Miller's position is something Democrats have pounced on, asked Miller to make himself perfectly clear -- that he wouldn't take away Social Security checks from the people who currently count on them, but that he'd like to do away with the program for future generations. King asked: "Would [a person born the day Miller was sworn in] perhaps grow up in an America where there is not a federal Social Security program if you got your way?"
"Absolutely," Miller said.
Miller, who upset incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's Republican primary this week, previously suggested that unemployment insurance, part of the Social Security Act of 1935, is unconstitutional. "The Supreme Court has already ruled on the Social Security Act. There was a case in 1937," said Nancy Altman, author of a book on Social Security. "Joe Miller's in a time machine."
When it comes to old-age insurance Miller focuses on Social Security's solvency: "I think most Americans recognize that that system is broken and they understand that there has got to be a change longer term to bring back some fiscal sanity and to ensure that you can actually have something when you do retire rather than depend on these IOUs that when we go insolvent aren't going to be worth much."

Social Security's actuaries estimate that the program is fully solvent until 2037, at which point it would begin paying a 25 percent reduced benefit if nothing is done.
The progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated in August that Social Security keeps some 20 million people out of poverty. Prior to the creation of Social Security, old folks who couldn't afford to take care of themselves sometimes spent their final days as "inmates" in squalid poor houses.