Jon, We Hardly Knew Ye

My how the times have changed since the halcyon days of the Democrats in 2006. You may remember that as the year that the Democrats took over the Senate from Republican control, but locally as the year that Conrad Burns lost his re-election bid to some farmer from Big Sandy.
One of Jon Tester's points for electing him was that he was going to bring honesty to government, which was especially salient with regard to Jack Abramoff and his cronies.
Remember how Jon said that he was never going to take money from lobbyists?

“I’m all for strengthening rules, but it’s even more important to change the culture of corruption. We need to let Washington know now that the ‘For Sale’ sign has to come down, and Conrad Burns’ days of ‘pay-to-play’ are ending,” Tester said. “But judging by how some of the so-called reforms are already meeting resistance from Washington insiders-senators and lobbyists-I’m not going to hold my breath.”

I bet he hopes that you forgot. But back then, Jon said

But that’s not the people who have control- the cronies on K-Street that buy votes have more control than the folks that elect us. You need to have people back there in Washington who have experience balancing a checkbook and setting priorities. I have balanced a checkbook in the private sector and in the public sector. My opponent has not been able to do that.

So, the cronies on K Street have been denied by the righteous indignation that Senator Tester has brought to Washington? Apparently, it is all good now. Some of my favorites are JP Morgan who gave $57,000 (weren't they involved in that bail out somehow, the one that Tester says he voted against?) Visa, $47,400 (now you know where your interest payments are going), American Bankers Association $35,500. But then you get down in the weeds, and we have Mortgage Bankers Association only giving $27,000 and New York Life giving $26,500. Kind of makes you ashamed that our Senator can be bought so cheaply. He should have held out for the big bucks, instead, he sells his integrity for such a cheap amount. Although if I remember right, isn't Jon the lawmaker who has raked in the most in lobbyist contributions for this election cycle. The most. Sure for this cycle, but the most.
Let's see now. Outside of the obvious, how is that checkbook balancing going? Oh, that's right, we have added more debt faster than ever before, and we don't even have a war in Iraq to blame for this. And what is the plan for changing that? Nothing really. Not even a budget has been passed for half the time that Jon has been in the Senate.
It also sort of irks me when Jon and the DSCC are running ads lambasting Denny for voting for pay raises. First, the pay raise is automatic. Second, did Jon who also benefited from the raises introduce a bill to end the automatic raises? I sure can't find any instance that says he does, but he is still willing to hit Denny on the votes. Another cheap shot I suppose.
Let's face it, there are lot's of reasons to vote Jon out. He is Harry Reid's third vote for Nevada, a rubber stamp for Obama, and has accomplished very little. Those are all good reasons. But the main reason to vote Jon out has to be the fact that he never apologized to Conrad Burns. The man that Jon demonized, said that he was in the illegal clutches of Abramoff. The man who was subsequently exonerated.

He accused a man of wrongdoing that wasn't done. He ran his campaign on not taking earmarks or lobbyists funding like Conrad did supposedly then turns around and does just what he said was the reason for Conrad to not go back to Washington.

No apology. Not even a "I may have been mistaken."

Jon Tester. No integrity, and no return to Washington.

Rehberg over Tester

According to Rasmussun Reports, Denny leads Jon 47-43 in a sample of 500 likely voters conducted August 20th.

Could be an interesting few months to the election, but I have to think the DNC is going to be relooking spending any more money for Jon. Forty-Three percent for an incumbent is usually a loser.

Stick a Fork in Him. He's Done.

Interesting article by Michael Medved in the Daily Beast about how little chance Obama has of being re-elected. While Michael has many good points, here is one that I find particularly interesting:

From the dawn of the republic, no president has ever won consecutive terms while drawing less support (in both the electoral college and the popular vote) in his second bid for election than he did in the first successful campaign. In other words, presidents who win reelection manage to earn more backers, not more opponents, during their first four years in the White House. If, on the other hand, their critics multiply and the pool of admirers shrinks in response to their record of leadership, the embattled president always loses. When some significant portion of the voters who backed a president the first time now feel disillusioned and join the opposition (or stay home), and if the incumbent can’t replace these losses with comparable gains from people who rejected him four years before, it’s an indication of a failed presidency.

Those who doubt the relevance of this rule to the present race should address a revealing question: what’s more common in today’s public discourse—people who say they voted for Barack Obama but now feel disappointed and betrayed, or voices declaring that they backed John McCain four years ago but now support the president because they’re inspired by the magnificent job he’s done?

The energy from Democrats in 2008 is not being replicated in 2012. Obama cannot run on his record since almost everyone of his policies are underwater in the polls. My wife (The Good Democrat) is still pro-Obama, and as a solid Democrat will always be. She is one of the votes that the Democrats can always rely on. But her zeal is not there. She is only voting for Obama because she feels she has to. No more inspirational speeches, or re-reading fictionalized autobiographies. She is just plodding along trying to soldier on in spite of the situation.
Sort of like me in 2008. I didn't like McCain, was enthused by Palin before her drubbing, but glad to see George W. go. In fact, you could trace the lack of Republican enthusiasm back to 2006 when the Abramoff scandal was all the rage. Unfairly or not, the accusations by the current Obama press secretary coterie weighed heavily. Of course, it was also weighed down by No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and other social engineering programs that have nothing to do with the Republican tenets of limited government.
I was thinking about this yesterday when I came to the realization that the Republicans/conservatives are the ones who actually do decide the election. Like I said, there was a disillusionment with the Republicans in 2006 and malaise by the time 2008 came around. But now, there is a significant amount of energy that is directed against the current resident of the White House and the Democratic senators who are his enablers. This is not taking place in the form of demonstrations. In fact, since the Tea Party has been so viciously libeled and slandered for wanting effective but limited government, the only times that you see them anymore is at the ballot box. And they are just as fired up as before.
As the article notes, you don't find many people who are saying that they voted for McCain but now are going to vote for Obama. But you do see a lot of listlessness in Democrats and energy in Republicans.
The net result may be the largest electoral win by a Republican since 1980. And we owe it all to the incompetence, outright lies, corruption and crony capitalism of the current administration.

Thanks Obama.

A Sense of Deja Vu

After the malignant lies from Harry Reid about Romney not paying any taxes, the accusation that Romney is responsible for a woman's death from cancer, the President of the United States claiming that Republican's want "dirty air and water" I finally reached the tipping point when the Vice President of the United States charged that Republicans want to put black people in slavery. This has become the most despicable and desperate campaign for the Presidency since 1980.
In 1980, I was a young lieutenant in the Army and just becoming aware of the disaster that had been the Carter Presidency. Desert 1, the Iranian hostage situation, the "malaise" speech (in which he never said the word) all were the nadir of my experience of being American up to that time. Before that, I had cheered while watching the Watergate hearings, and will never forget the exact moment that I was told Nixon resigned and how happy it made me. But after four years of Carter, I knew that I could never vote for him again. The man was a buffoon. A well meaning one, but a buffoon nonetheless.
But in 1980, the Republican candidate was that crazy lunatic Ronald Reagan. His hyper patriotism turned me off based on my experiences from the previous four years. On top of that, the Democrats did an excellent job of convincing me that if Reagan was elected, we would be at war in a very short time. What to do? Stay with the status quo or go with the wild eyed lunatic Reagan? Luckily at the time, there was an Independent candidate John Anderson.
While Anderson only took 6% of the national vote, he did something with an even more lasting impact. He changed me and a lot of others into Republicans. He did it by exposing the false narrative that had been pedaled by the Democrats when under Reagan, the country did begin to turn around at least in attitude and later in economic power. Oh, and we didn't have a war with the Soviets either.
There is no viable third party candidate this year like Anderson, so the attacks on Romney and Ryan will not drive the 6% of potential voters away from Obama, but that same six percent may not vote at all.
And if Romney and Ryan are successful at reinvigorating the economy and doing something about the fiscal peril that we are facing, Barak Obama and "Chains" Biden may have just put the final nail in the coffin of the Left of center Democrats. Leaving the only viable candidate from the Democrat party being another Bill Clinton, the only successful Democrat in more than fifty years.
And they may just make a few more Republicans.