More Fake Republicans For Orman

In Kansas, Larry Lessig’s Mayday PAC is running an ad on behalf of Independent Democrat Greg Orman featuring, according to Women For Kansas, “lifelong Republican” Nancy Moffitt:

It is striking how Democrats love to find “lifelong Republicans” who have suddenly seen the light. It generally turns out, however, that their devotion to the GOP is less than advertised. A reader looked up Ms. Moffitt’s Kansas voter registration:

Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 4.47.39 PM

Sure enough, she’s a registered Democrat. Our correspondent adds:

Nancy Moffitt re-located to Kansas sometime in 2010. Before then, she lived in Arkansas. An initial voter records search shows that Moffitt requested a Democratic ballot in 2008.

Given that Ms. Moffitt is in her 70s, it is possible that she was a Republican for most of her life (as opposed to being a “lifelong Republican”), as she puts it in the video. That would allow for her having been a Democrat since, say, the Carter administration.

If the Democrats want to attack Pat Roberts, or any other Republican, they are free to do so. But it seems they can’t resist the extra bit of credibility that comes from using a Democrat who claims to have once been a Republican. Maybe Republicans should start putting me in ads, and identify me as a former Democrat; that would be equally honest.

Happer on the Hapless Climatistas

The Puffington Host is up this afternoon with the headline “Another Month, Another Heat Record Broken.”  Get ready for whoops of celebration from the 97 percent: we’re back in business!  The “pause” is over!  Hand over your car keys!

While we await the familiar refrain, you might want to take in the presentation below from Will Happer, given last week at the George Marshall Institute in Washington.  Who is Happer? He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, where he specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. From 1991-93, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.  Sounds like a guy who might know a thing or two about this subject.  Happer goes through the basics of the controversy once again, with special scorn for the favorite talking point that carbon dioxide should be regarded as pollution. (By far the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor: funny that the climatistas don’t refer to H2O as “water vapor pollution.”  That would be too obviously embarrassing.)  The video is over an hour long, but his presentation is about 40 minutes; the rest consists of questions and answers, some of them quite good if you have the time.

Shake It Off, Obama Edition

I’ve been waiting for Remy Munasifi to deliver the right beat down on Obama’s comically misnamed press secretary Josh Earnest, and he doesn’t disappoint! (more…)

Republican Tsunami Building?

I leave the precise parsing of the poll data to Sean Trende, Nate Silver, Henry Olsen, and other numerologist/astrologists, and go by my gut feel, which is usually though not always right. As the 2012 election approached I had a nagging feeling that Obama was going to pull it out, or that if Romney did indeed win it would be by the narrowest of margins, and not the landslide some (including me at one early point) thought he might.

So I think Republicans are going to take the Senate going away, and will not only win all or nearly all of the currently close races, but will sneak up and take one or two unexpected ones, such as New Mexico (another dull Udall on the ballot), or even Minnesota or Illinois.

I’ll just go with macro data here: back in 1986, when the economy was booming, with incomes for all groups rising, with the “right track” poll numbers strongly positive, and Reagan’s personal approval rating around 65 percent (the Iran-Contra scandal didn’t break until just after the 1986 mid-term), and Republicans got crushed in the Senate, losing eight seats—seven of them incumbents. To be sure, some of those were weak first term GOP senators, but certainly some of the Democrat incumbents today (Begich? Hagan?) fit that bill.

But another factor is that the Democrats skillfully made the 1986 election about local and not national issues. It was out of that election that Tip O’Neill made his famous pronouncement that “all politics is local.” This year Democrats are having a hard time executing that maneuver, and while the GOP campaign could be stronger than it is, it is fairly good at attaching a national profile to the races.

It’s not just that Republican voters are more motivated this year. There’s a decent amount of data that they simply pay more attention to things. Pew’s most recent survey of “What Do Americans Know?” finds a decidedly partisan tilt: Republicans are simply better informed. Here’s the table from the survey, which Pew calls “modest,” but there’s a clear pattern here, and do you think the media would call this difference “modest” if it swung the other way?

Pew Table copy

Want another indication that Republican and Republican-leaning independents are more high information people? Check out this story from the Washington Post: Republicans Advertise on ‘The Big Bang Theory.’ Democrats Buy Ads on ‘Big Brother.” ‘Nuf said.

But then there’s this from Jim Geraghty’s Morning Briefing on NRO about the ignorance of Oregon’s liberal electorate:

Note this depressing statistic:

[A] poll found that voters in general aren’t paying much attention to this election.

66 percent of respondents couldn’t name the Republican candidate for Governor, Dennis Richardson. And 59 percent couldn’t name the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Monica Wehby.

Governor John Kitzhaber did a little better; 62 percent could name him as the Democratic candidate for Governor, but 38 percent couldn’t. Senator Merkley was recognized by 46 percent as his party’s candidate.

As I mentioned Friday, this is an example of “Set It and Forget It Leftism.” Dear Oregonians, I get it. Your state is gorgeous. If I had one of the world’s biggest bookstores, huge farmers’ markets, endless chefs experimenting with all kinds of local produce and seafood, an exploding menagerie of breweries, wineries, distilleries, and seemingly limitless mountains and rivers to explore, I might not be that interested in politics, either. But come on. Check in every once in a while.

Actually, Oregon, don’t check in until the morning after the election. I’ll bet some mellows at Voodoo Donuts will be harshed.

Who’s afraid of “Rocky Mountain Heist”?

Michelle Malkin hosted the documentary “Rocky Mountain Heist” (trailer above) telling the story of the Democratic takeover of Colorado via a quartet of liberal millionaires and billionaires — known as the “Gang of Four” — in the course of a decade. Something there is that doesn’t love the documentary. Something there is that would love to erect a wall blocking the documentary before the upcoming elections. Michelle writes in her column:

Democrats here in my adopted state of Colorado did not want the new political documentary I hosted to see the light of day. They lost. This week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency injunction declaring that our movie deserved the same free-speech rights as a “traditional” (translation: old-guard liberal) news organization.

One sees in this episode the totalitarian heart beating inside so-called campaign finance reform and so much of the rest of the “mainstream” agenda of the Democratic left.

As always, Michelle delivers the news with a full load of links (whole thing here). Please check it out. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper responds to the documentary, sort of, here.

I don’t think it would take much more than another “liberal” Supreme Court justice to change the result in the case freeing Michelle’s documentary up for broadcast unconditionally before the midterm elections. Our freedom, such as it is, hangs by a few threads.

UPDATE: Here is more on the Tenth Circuit order and the underlying litigation.

The surrender will not be ratified

Facing a November 24 deadline, the Obama administration is rushing to reach a final agreement surrendering to Iran in the P5+1 talks. Jennifer Rubin takes a look at recent reports and finds that the Obama administration is “Chasing a bad deal with Iran.” This shouldn’t be news; it’s implicit in the terms of the interim deal that we proclaimed as a famous victory late last year. But the desperation reflected in our current offer to the mullahs is worth noting.

Will the need to submit a final agreement for ratification by the United States Senate act as a damper on the concessions Obama is willing to make to the mullahs? There is a reason why this eventuality is never accounted for in reports on the ongoing negotiations. I believe the answer is negatory. The Wall Street Journal recently noted, for example:

Under the Constitution, the Senate is obliged to ratify formal treaties with other nations by a two-thirds majority vote. But the Iran deal would be a multiparty agreement, rather than a treaty, and thus doesn’t require Senate ratification. Most sanctions on Iran can also be lifted by executive order.

As for the sanctions relief that would accompany the surrender, see also “Obama sees an Iran deal that could avoid Congress” by David Sanger in the New York Times and also “On Iran: Congress, please step aside” by Navid Hassibi in The National Interest.

Although Sanger is focused on sanctions relief, consistent with the Journal editorial he observes in passing that an “agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.” I don’t know if the revolution will not be televised, but the surrender will not be ratified. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, because Obama is working harder to obviate the need for congressional approval than to resist Iran so that he can play with with something like a free hand.

Good news from Kobani

I’ve offered mostly criticism, and only very occasional praise, for President Obama’s campaign against ISIS. I just haven’t been able to see how the president’s campaign is likely to destroy or seriously degrade the Islamist barbarians.

I’m happy to report, however, that the campaign may have prevented the fall of beleaguered Kobani, at least for now. Local officials say that ISIS has been forced to withdraw from several neighborhoods, due in part to intensified bombing by “coalition forces.”

According to John Brennan at NRO, the Pentagon attributes the increased bombing to improved ability to coordinate with Kurdish fighters on the ground and to the massing of ISIS troops in or near Kobani where they can be targeted. I suspect that a greater sense of urgency (perhaps resulting in part from political considerations) may also have played a part. In any event, the stepped up campaign is welcome news.

Brennan also reports that U.S. aircraft have dropped weapons, ammunition, and medical supplies to help the Kurdish forces in Kobani. These materials were supplied by the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq.

This development is welcome too. In the past, we have been unwilling to arm Turkish Kurds despite the fact that they are, as Brennan says, some of the most pro-Western, secular, and effective forces in Syria.

It’s way too early to declare victory over ISIS in Kobani. But an imminent defeat, the prospect of which appears finally sparked the Obama administration into serious action, just might have been avoided.