Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March 18th, 2010

My friends, Lindsey Patsy Graham mentor John McCain now finds himself in a knock-down, drag-out fight in Arizona’s Republican Senate Primary race.  The man who’s never met a progressive Democrat to whom he hasn’t kowtowed leads conservative challenger J.D. Hayworth by just seven points, 48–41 percent.

“[T]he new numbers also show him dropping again below 50%, and incumbents who poll less than 50% at this stage of a campaign are considered potentially vulnerable.”

Rasmussen reports that 11 percent of Arizona’s Republicans approve of the job Brother O is doing, and 88 percent disapprove. If that’s the percentage of RINOs that make up Arizona’s Republican Party, why then isn’t Hayworth leading Mc-Sellout by double-digits? Obviously, too many conservative Arizonans have forgotten how many underhanded, dirty dealing tricks the media’s “Maverick” has played on conservative Republicans during his 22 years in the Senate. Read “The Real McCain Record” by Mark R. Levin to refresh your memory.

More good news!  Recently surveyed Senate races in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Florida, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin show a troubling political environment for Democrats, particularly incumbents.

America’s renewal begins when Arizonans stop McCain in the Republican primary August 24.

I.M. Kane


 

Election 2010: Arizona Republican Primary for Senate

From Rasmussen Reports

Longtime incumbent John McCain now leads conservative challenger J.D. Hayworth by just seven points in Arizona’s hotly contested Republican Senate Primary race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Arizona GOP Primary voters shows McCain ahead 48% to 41%. Three percent (3%) favor another candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.

Following the announcement that Sarah Palin would campaign for his reelection, McCain opened up a 53% to 31% lead over Hayworth in January. The two men were in a near tie in November.

But now Hayworth, a former congressman turned popular local talk radio host, is a formal candidate, and anti-immigration activist Chris Simcox has quit the race and endorsed him. For McCain, the new numbers also show him dropping again below 50%, and incumbents who poll less than 50% at this stage of a campaign are considered potentially vulnerable.

Hayworth leads by seven points among male primary voters but trails by 23 among women. He edges McCain by five points among party conservatives, but the incumbent holds substantial margins among Republicans who identify themselves as moderates or liberals.

Hayworth has been attacking McCain as not conservative enough, but the senator, who just two years ago was the Republican presidential nominee, has been countering with a number of heavyweight endorsements from the right. Palin will attend a McCain rally in Tucson later this month.

Polling last fall found that 61% of Arizona Republicans felt McCain was out of touch with the party base.

Arizona Republicans will choose their Senate nominee in an August 24 primary, and for now that’s the major battle of this Senate cycle since no major Democrat has announced yet as a candidate.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of GOP Primary voters have a very favorable opinion of McCain, who has represented Arizona in the Senate since 1987. Fifteen percent (15%) view him very unfavorably.

Hayworth is seen very favorably by 25% and very unfavorably by 15%.

While both candidates are well-known among likely primary voters, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers at this point in a campaign.

Just 11% of Republicans in the state approve of the job President Obama is doing, while 88% disapprove.

Forty-seven percent (47%) approve of the performance of the state’s GOP governor, Jan Brewer, who is in a tough reelection battle this year. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. These findings include six percent (6%) who strongly approve of how she’s doing her job and 17% who strongly disapprove.

In 2008, Rasmussen Reports projected nationally that Obama would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin. Obama won 53% to 46%. Four years earlier, Rasmussen Reports projected the national vote totals for both George W. Bush and John Kerry within half-a-percentage-point.

In Arizona during the 2008 campaign, Rasmussen Reports polling showed McCain winning the state by a 51% to 45% margin. McCain defeated Obama 54% to 45%. In the 2006 Arizona governor’s race, Rasmussen polling showed Janet Napolitano defeating Len Munsil 58% to 37%. Napolitano won 63% to 35%. In the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Rasmussen polling showed Jon Kyl leading Jim Pederson by nine, 51% to 42%. Kyl won by nine, 53% to 44%.

Rasmussen Reports also has recently surveyed Senate races in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Florida, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. Most show a troubling political environment for Democrats, particularly incumbents.

On the Republican side, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was hurt by the national political mood in her unsuccessful bid to defeat incumbent Governor Rick Perry for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Texas.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

If you’re still trying to discover what’s going on at Fox News, perhaps the story below and the following from the NY Times will shed some light:

“In the fall of 2008, Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, went to his boss, Rupert Murdoch, with two complaints: he had heard that Mr. Murdoch was considering endorsing Barack Obama for president in The New York Post, and he had read a book excerpt in Vanity Fair suggesting that Mr. Murdoch was sometimes embarrassed by the right-leaning Fox News.”

When Ailes threatened to quit, Murdoch increased his contract and The New York Post endorsed John McCain. However, Ailes’s conservative views have put him at loggerheads with Murdoch’s leftist children. Two of the kids, Elisabeth, a television producer in London, and James, an employee at News Corporation, are sympathetic to progressive Democrat causes.

During last year’s presidential campaign, the whiny twits complained to daddy about Fox News’s coverage of Brother O. And their desires to censure conservative views from Fox News have only grown. Again from the same NY Times’ story:

“I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’s horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to,” said Matthew Freud, who is married to Elisabeth Murdoch and whom PR Week magazine says is the most influential public relations executive in London.

Freud is an adviser to James who shares his contempt for Fox News and Ailes; James is also a business partner with Saudi Prince Alwaleed and committed to help the U.S. better understand the Arab world. The ideological struggle has been ongoing at News Corp for some time, but the balance of power will shift dramatically once the old man steps down and cedes control of the company to James? What then will happen to Roger Ailes and the conservative slant and punditry at Fox News?

Be wary!

I.M. Kane


 

The Future of Fox News

From William Katz/Urgent Agenda

Those on our side have come to depend on Fox News as one of the few outlets where our views get a fair hearing.  But will that always be the case?

There have been some disturbing signs in recent days.  Fox, of course, is under the control of Rupert Murdoch, pro-American stalwart and something of a media genius.  But Murdoch is aging, and it’s widely reported that his son, James, who’s becoming increasingly powerful in the parent News Corporation, which owns Fox, has views rather different from those of his father.  In particular, James has an affinity for the Arab world, despite the fact that freedom of the press doesn’t exactly thrive in that culture. 

Fox News has received an infusion of Saudi money, primarily from a Saudi prince who spreads money around the United States to buy influence.  Fox announced a few weeks ago that its Mideast headquarters would be in Abu Dhabi.

The obvious question is whether these changes will affect Fox’s reporting.  Several commentators have already noticed, as have I, a subtle change to a more pro-Arab line in some Fox news reports.  A report by Amy Kellogg about the Golan Heights last night was particularly disturbing, coming from a reporter who’s been reliable in the past.  Left out completely, and shockingly, was the fact that the Golan had been used as an artillery platform by Syria to pound villages in Israel proper before Israel seized the Heights in the 1967 Six-Day War.  Some of the reporting from Jerusalem has also been leaving out the context that Fox has normally supplied in the past. 

How far will this go?  Hard to say.  But I’m afraid the signs aren’t good.  Rupert Murdoch will fade away.  Money talks.  It is frightening to think of the influences that may come into play in the Murdoch empire in the future, an empire that includes Twentieth Century Fox studios, the Times of London, and the The Wall Street Journal.  We may find Fox taking the side of the very people who would deny it the freedom to report freely.

So far I haven’t seen any anti-American slant creeping into Fox’s reporting, but one can legitimately have concerns.  James Murdoch is British, but educated in the United States at Harvard, from which he dropped out.  His wife works for a Bill Clinton-sponsored organization, the Clinton Climate Initiative.

Read Full Post »

Every aspect of the Obama administration’s approach to energy is subordinated to radical environmental concerns.

“[I]n the energy wars, the message is the same. Russia is projecting power into the Western Hemisphere while the United States retreats.”


 

Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow

Editorial from the Washington Times

The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America’s vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.

Drilling is also wildly popular with the public. A Pew Research Center poll from February showed 63 percent support for offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Americans understand the fundamental points: The oil is there, and we need it. If we don’t drill it out, we have to buy it from other countries. Last year, the U.S. government even helped Brazil underwrite offshore drilling in the Tupi oil field near Rio de Janeiro. The current price of oil makes drilling economically feasible, so why not let the private sector go ahead and get our oil?

The Obama administration, however, views energy policy through green eyeshades. Every aspect of its approach to energy is subordinated to radical environmental concerns. This unprecedented lack of balance is placing offshore oil resources off-limits. The O Force would prefer the country shift its energy production to alternative sources, such as nuclear, solar and wind power. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with that, in the long run, assuming technology can catch up to demand. But we have not yet reached the green utopia, we won’t get there anytime soon, and America needs more oil now.

Russia more sensibly views energy primarily as a strategic resource. Energy is critical to Russia’s economy, as fuel and as a source of profit through export. Russia also has used energy as a coercive diplomatic tool, shutting off natural gas piped to Eastern Europe in the middle of winter to make a point about how dependent the countries are that do business with the Russians.

Now Russia is using oil exploration to establish a new presence in the Western Hemisphere. It recently concluded four contracts securing oil-exploration rights in Cuba’s economic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. A Russian-Cuban joint partnership will exploit oil found in the deep waters of the Gulf.

Cuba has rights to the area in which drilling will be conducted under an agreement the Carter administration recognized. From Russia’s perspective, this is another way to gain leverage inside what traditionally has been America’s sphere of influence. It may not be as dramatic as the Soviet Union attempting to use Cuba as a missile platform, but in the energy wars, the message is the same. Russia is projecting power into the Western Hemisphere while the United States retreats. The world will not tolerate a superpower that acts like a sidekick much longer.

Read Full Post »