Video- Crossroads GPS: "Wake Up"

Video below:



Love the ending.

"There has got to be a way to take away President Obama's blank check."

Video- New District Specific Ads From American Crossroads Target Vulnerable Democrats

Video below:



Via CNN:

The latest wave of ads from Crossroads GPS, an independent Republican advocacy group, launched Monday urging 10 Democratic members of Congress to cut spending and the national debt.

The spots are the third installment from the group this summer and will air for two weeks backed by $1.4 million. Monday's release follows national and state ads that aired as part of the larger $20 million campaign.

The 30-second spots juxtapose the Democratic House members voicing their support for fiscal discipline with their votes on large spending bills like the stimulus package.

"Tired of Washington double talk on spending?," the ads say. "Tell Rep. ______ no more reckless spending and debt, no more blank checks."

Vulnerable Democratic targets for this group of ads are- Mike Ross of Arkansas, Jim Matheson of Utah, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Bill Owens and Tim Bishop of New York, Ben Chandler of Kentucky, Leonard Boswell of Iowa, Jerry Costello of Illinois and Lois Capps of California.

.

Following Union Money Right Into Democrats' Pockets

OpenSecrets.org provides a list of the top all-time donors 1989-2010 and no big surprise which groups donate to which political party, but seeing which groups donate over 90 percent to one specific party, is eye opening to say the least.

Democrats receive 90 percent or more from ActBlue, American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees, American Assn for Justice, Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, National Education Assn, Laborers Union, Teamsters Union, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America, United Auto Workers, Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, EMILY's List, AFL-CIO, Sheet Metal Workers Union, Plumbers & Pipefitters Union, United Steelworkers, Ironworkers Union, American Postal Workers Union, Human Rights Campaign, Saban Capital Group, Transport Workers Union, National Cmte for an Effective Congress, Amalgamated Transit Union

Republicans receive 90 percent or more from Club for Growth, Associated Builders & Contractors, Amway/Alticor Inc, National Fedn of Independent Business

Then turn your eyes to the headlines of the day which are still full of news about Wisconsin Runaway Democrats and Unions fighting against Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill which would force Union workers to start paying more for their benefits, bring them closer to what everyday workers have to pay for health insurance and pensions, but still leaving them paying less and overhauling their collective bargaining rights.

Just follow the money.

.

Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Spending........ For Democrats

With all the fuss Democrats and Barack Obama along with their puppets in the new media have made about outside groups spending in the 2010 election cycle for Republicans, the Wall Street Journal provides evidence to the contrary and finds that it is Democrats that are benefiting the most from groups spending in this election cycle.

Via WSJ:

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

Since Democrats, led by Barack Obama have claimed consistently that outside groups spending is responsible for "buying" an election to try to justify why they are behind in polls and expected to see massive losses in the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate, would they now claim that this constitutes their own supporter's attempt at purchasing the 2010 elections?

If money is the be-all-end-all in elections as many of them Democrats and left wing liberal progressives have been clamoring these past few weeks, then with this type of outspending the conservative groups, why aren't the Democrats ahead in the generic congressional polling? Why are handicappers not predicting massive Democratic gains?

Perhaps it is not money and not outside influences, perhaps, just maybe it is the public being unhappy and disappointed in what the Democrats have done in the last four years they have controlled the House and the Senate and in the last two years they have controlled the White House, Senate and the House.

Perhaps people really want "change" from the hyper partisan, over-the-top liberal agenda that has been shoved down their throats.

Just a thought.

.

DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund Targets Democratic Senators

[UPDATE] 10/26/10- DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund Spends $5.2 Million On Senate Republican Candidates ... full story, click here.

The Hill reports:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is planning to wage a television campaign against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic colleagues.

The Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee that DeMint helms, has produced an anti-Reid television ad and will raise money to launch it in Nevada.

As Republicans are doing across the board, the political ads targeting Democratic politicians are pointing to their records, their votes with the Democratic majority on spending, Obamacare, bailouts... while Democratic politicians are running from their votes, distancing themselves from the Democratic leadership and Barack Obama, Republicans are targeting them on their record.

Example is the Senate Conservatives Fund in Delaware against Senator Michael Bennet, video below:



There is nothing as effective for conservatives right now than making sure voters understand the connection between Democratic politicians and Democratic leadership in the Senate (Reid) and The House of Representatives (Pelosi) as well as the White House (Barack Obama) and that is the direction these ads should be going right up until election day.

More examples of Democrats running ads against distancing themselves over at TPM.

Related:

Wapo- "More House Democrats stressing independence from Pelosi, Obama"

.

The Myth Of Buying Elections

Senate Democrats failed to get the 60 votes need to bypass a filibuster on Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act aka The Disclose Act, the bill being rejected with a vote of 59 to 39.

Wapo explains:

The legislation, which passed the House in a different form earlier this year, was drafted as a response to the 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court found that corporations had the same rights as individuals to engage in political speech and could therefore spend as much as they wanted for or against specific candidates.

Obama pointedly criticized the ruling during his State of the Union address, prompting an unusual public objection weeks later by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The president and other White House aides have continued to focus on the decision as opening the door to abuses by corporations and had made passage of the Disclose Act a top legislative priority.

In his weekly radio address last Saturday, for example, Obama blasted Republicans for opposing the bill. "A partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents," Obama said. "It's a power grab, pure and simple."

Barack Obama and Democrats did not like the court ruling, therefore they wanted to pass a bill that would negate the ruling.

From the Citizen United ruling:

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

Does money "buy" elections?

Let's look at recent primaries and elections and see.

In the Delaware GOP primary Senate race, Rep. Mike Castle raised $3,243,202, spent $1,489,033 and had $2,616,912 cash on hand.

PAC contributions $1,248,341 (38%)
Individual contributions $1,936,809 (60%)
Candidate self-financing $4,800 (0%)
Other $53,252 (2%)

Christine O'Donnell raised $376,093, spent $346,145, and had $20,374 cash on hand.

PAC contributions $8,250 (2%)
Individual contributions $351,090 (93%)
Candidate self-financing $3,026 (1%)
Other $13,727 (4%)

The Tea Party sponsored and produced ads to help Christine O'Donnell and Mike Castle had the National Republican Senatorial Committee behind him.

Yet, O'Donnell won the primary.

The same happened in Alaska, outside groups did not "buy" the elections, they leveled the playing field to allow lesser known candidates a chance to remove left of center moderates and offer voters a choice.

Those were GOP primaries, used as examples simply because they were the most recent in the news... what about general elections or the upcoming midterms where it is a Democrat vs a Republican?

TPM reports:

The Democratic National Committee out-raised its GOP counterpart, the Republican National Committee, by approximately $3 million in the month of August. The DNC raised $10.9 million last month, whereas Republicans raised $7.9 million. This gives the DNC around $13.4 million in cash on hand; the RNC has about $4.7 million cash on hand. It should be noted, however, that the DNC has $8.4 million in debt, versus the RNC's debt of $1.2 million.

As we reported yesterday, last month the DCCC out-raised the NRCC on the House side of the campaign, and the DSCC outdid the NRSC in fundraising for Senate races.

Using Nevada as an example to make the point of what I mean when I say leveling the playing field.

Nevada, Democratic incumbent Harry Reid, according to OpenSecrets.org has raised $19,198,455 and Republican challenger Sharron Angle has raised $3,548,644 (last updated on 09/24/2010)

Sharron Angle has taken a one point lead over Harry Reid when outside groups helped level the playing field with money spent, but still not totaling the overall expenditures on behalf of Harry Reid.

Fred Barnes at WSJ explains this better than I can:

Republican strategists Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove were appalled last winter as they searched out well-funded conservative groups that were preparing to support GOP congressional candidates in the 2010 midterm. They sensed there were too few of them and that a once-in-a-generation opportunity might be lost. Short of money and grass-roots activism, GOP candidates would be easy prey for lavishly funded Democratic opponents—not to mention liberal groups committed to spending hundreds of millions on attack ads.

This scenario has been averted. Conservatives and Republicans have organized an army of independent groups in a shrewd, collaborative and well-financed effort. While old standbys—the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—are involved, they now have reinforcements. They've come close to matching overall spending by Democratic groups, thus leveling the campaign playing field and enhancing Republican chances of capturing the House, Senate, and more governorships and state legislatures in 2010.

The influence of the new coalition is already being felt. American Crossroads, a brainchild of Messrs. Gillespie and Rove, has poured $3 million into the Nevada Senate race, keeping the underfunded Republican candidate, Sharron Angle, from falling behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the polls. (She led 46% to 45% in a Fox News poll last week.) In Ohio, when Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman was off the air in late July, American Crossroads stepped in with a wave of TV ads on his behalf. In August, the Chamber of Commerce took over with pro-Portman ads. A Quinnipiac poll last week pegged his lead over Democrat Lee Fisher at 55% to 35%.

Long-established conservative groups such as the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List are engaged in this midterm, but a more recent newcomer, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), is also playing a major role, perhaps a decisive one. It has targeted 60 Democratic incumbents and expects to spend $35 million to $45 million to defeat them.

"We're not some Washington, D.C. group," says AFP President Tim Phillips. With bus tours, rallies, TV spots, phone calls, door-to-door contacts and recruitment of volunteers, this group is building what he calls "an honest to goodness ground game" manned by thousands of conservative activists.

The Democratic lead in fund-raising is itself a relatively recent phenomenon. Republicans spent more in 2006, but Democrats surged ahead in 2008, spending $956 million to the Republicans' $792 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This includes spending by groups independent of the party or the candidate.

Democrats were simply quicker than Republicans to skirt, quite legally, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that took effect in 2003. That legislation barred high-dollar (or "soft money") donations to political parties. It prompted wealthy liberals, for example, to fund independent expenditures through groups such as MoveOn.org. Rich conservatives were less active until this year.

Campaign finance watchdogs and the media were never terribly concerned when liberal groups were drubbing conservatives in independent expenditures. Now they profess shock that millions are being spent to boost Republican candidates and the names of wealthy donors aren't disclosed.

In any event, four of the top five independent groups—the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, Services Employees Local 1999, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—support Democratic campaigns. The lone conservative group in the top five is the Susan B. Anthony List. Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission, however, the overall gap has narrowed: As of Sept. 18, money spent on behalf of Democratic candidates from all reported sources totaled $389,023,152, only slightly more than the $377,689,336 for Republicans.

Emphasis mine.

So, is assuring that the same amount spent on campaigns between opposing candidates "buying" an election?

In November when the expected tidal wave hits Democrats it will be because the American people choose one or the other, the person spending the most money won't be the deciding factor, the popularity of a candidate or unpopularity of a candidate in the eyes of those voting will decide.

Democrats do not want a level playing field and have been determined to make an end run around the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by trying to control what has been determined to be free speech.

They failed, as they should have. More information, whether it be positive ads or negative, is always preferable to less and voters, are smart enough to get on the computer and do searches to verify anything they want to make an informed decision.

Elections are not bought, they are won or they are lost by the individual candidates.

If corporation leaders want to spend their profits, they have just as much right to do so without being intimidated as unions and other groups... it is free speech and the court was right to judge it as such.

Side note- For the record, the more money spent by both parties and all Independent groups on either side, should be welcome... after all, doesn't spending and spending big help the economy?

Just a thought.

.