I had limited computer access yesteday so I didn’t get around to laughing at how boring John Boozman is in his new ad. However, I got on late last night and found the said ad removed. As it turns out, Boozman got in trouble for using the Razorback logo in the ad and had to pull it. Thing is, he apparently lied about pulling it and the ad is still running. And yeah, it’s running with the unedited Razorback footage.
Anyway, take a look at the edited version-
Snoozman is living up to that nickname…Seriously, if Lincoln hadn’t have such self inflicted damage, she’d be flooring this guy.
Reading TPM today about Blanche Lincoln’s election prospects was a little revealing about the disconnect between what’s really going on here on the ground and how people outside the state perceive us. First there was the article attempting to explain why she was fairing so poorly-
How did things get so bad for Blanche? She was first elected to the Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Fay Boozman (brother of her current opponent) by 55%-42% in then-President Bill Clinton’s home state, one of the last Southern states to still hold to the Democrats as their natural party for most offices. Lincoln won re-election again in 2004 with 56% of the vote. But this year appears like it could be very, very different. Indeed, the situation is so serious that the state’s favorite son, former President Bill Clinton, is headed to Arkansas this Wednesday to campaign for Lincoln.
Since Lincoln’s first election, the state has been trending more and more Republican at the federal level. While Democrats continue to dominate state and local office, the state has also voted Republican for president in the last three straight elections — including a whopping 59%-39% for John McCain in 2008. And distrust of the national Democratic Party might now be coming home, especially in a cycle that’s sure looking good for Republicans.
Lincoln was also significantly damaged by the spirited challenge she received in the primary from Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Lincoln won by only 52%-48% — and only after Halter had forced a June 8 runoff by taking 42% of the vote in the May 18 primary. That meant three extra weeks of Lincoln getting hammered from the left by Halter, who received strong support from labor unions. Lincoln’s opposition to a public option during the health care debate hurt her with progressives, and her final position — opposing a public option, and helping to pass the final bill that was signed by President Obama and did not include the option — may have served to alienate voters on both the left and the right.
I want to say this first and foremost. Lincoln wasn’t hurt by her challenge from Bill Halter, she was hurt by her own failure to respond appropriately to it. If she had used the primary challenge to retool her campaign and used the window between her primary victory and the fall campaign to reconnect with progressives she could have recovered, but she didn’t, and it’s due to her own failings rather than Halter’s primary challenge that she’s faring so poorly. There are bound to plenty of Arkansas establishment types that will try to pass Lincoln’s loss off on Halter and use it as an excuse to try and keep progressives in their place, when the reality is that we were trying to save the party from itself but they worked their asses off to elect someone who was DOA come November.
There’s something else missing in that analysis. No matter how far right Lincoln (or indeed any other Democrat) tries to run, it doesn’t seem to help them. Ask Chad Causey about that one…The Blue Dog playbook says that running to the right should help in the rural areas of the state, but that’s where Lincoln got her clock cleaned in the primary. In other words, the days where Democrats could run right in states like Arkansas to win are over. It’s time for a new playbook, and the near victory by Halter that came despite the party establishment’s successful effort to save Lincoln’s defeat for the fall, showed us that the future of the party is progressive populism.
Rep. John Boozman is a popular former Razorback who has maintained a lead all year.
That’s all the article says about Boozman. Did you know he was a former Razorback? Do you even care? I didn’t and I don’t, and I suspect most Arkansans don’t. The truth is that most Arkansans don’t know Boozman. Any other candidate would be beating him like a drum right now, but Lincoln is so distrusted that she’s way behind a candidate that no one should be losing to.
There’s a big lesson to be drawn from the looming Lincoln defeat. Running to the right and voting against their constituents economic interests won’t save Democrats anymore. The base can’t be taken for granted any longer, and Harry Truman’s old adage that a real Republican will beat a fake one every time is ringing truer and truer.
I’ve got to hand it to Senator Lincoln, she hit the ball out of the park on this one.
In the ad, Lincoln rightly hits Boozman for his “Fair Tax” proposal, the irony being that there’s nothing fair about the tax at all. The tax plan replaces not just the income tax but all federal taxes and replaces the whole code with a massive sales tax, which I might note will probably have to be a lot more than just 23 percent. The Republicans of course love this idea. Via Tolbert-
Her ad hits Rep. John Boozman for his support of the FairTax plan. She says that he supports a 23 percent national sales tax on everything you buy. Of course, anyone familar with the FairTax knows in reality this replaces all federal taxes included the income and payroll taxes, include a prebate, and is expected to greatly reduce the tax burden on everyone.
There are of course a few facts that Tolbert leaves out. (Which is becoming a bit of a pattern.) The first of course is that the sales tax is a regressive tax. Poor, working, and middle-class Americans spend far more of their money at the grocery store than wealthy Americans, who will be able to accumulate wealth in stocks and bonds outside the scope of the tax. Besides, it should be pretty obvious that 23+ cents on every dollar is a lot different to someone making 30k a year than it is to someone making 1 million or more. The net result is, the rich get richer and the rest of us are screwed.
But the other thing that Jason fails to mention when he talks about the lowering tax burden on everyone is that the plan won’t do anything about state and local taxes. In other words, we’d have the Arkansas sales tax (and other taxes) plus the national one, which would make taxes unbearable on almost everyone in the state, save the wealthy. In other words, the state then finds itself with either a heavily regressive tax code that works to trap a large segment of the population in dire economic straints while exempting an increasingly wealthy and powerful few or it cuts its own throat and greatly reduced it’s tax burden which then cuts and eliminates government services essential for the state to function properly, which again, in the long run, hurts the state’s economy.
In short it’s a bad plan, and I’ve got to praise Senator Lincoln for hitting Boozman on it. I’ve been saying for a long time that Democrats need to take this idea on from a progressive frame work and Lincoln did everything I’ve said we needed to do. In short, I’m impressed. (Yeah, I never thought I’d say it either.) Lincoln missed a lot of opportunities over the course of the summer to reconnect with the base that fueled her challenge from Bill Halter. If she wants to make up what looks to be an enormous gap between herself and Boozman, her only option left is to remind us all why Senator Boozman is just plain unnacceptable.
By the way, did anyone else know that Max Brantley constitutes the “extreme left” these days? We keep moving that spectrum over and Mussolini’s going to be a centrist before we know it.
Apparently, it finally dawned on Senator Lincoln that the reason so many people are pissed at her is because of her long time neglect of the interest of her working and middle class constituents. Or maybe she’s just regaining touch with reality. Either way, she’s come out in favor of the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln on Tuesday said she may support ending Bush-era tax cuts for the very wealthy while extending them for the middle class. Lincoln, a Democrat who voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001, said there should be more “balance” in the federal tax code.
Lincoln is running against Republican Congressman John Boozman as she seeks a third term.”I think in these economic times, it’s critical to not upset the apple cart,” Lincoln told the Arkansas Economic Developers during a daylong candidate forum. “I’ve visited with several of my colleagues about how we don’t upset that apple cart, maybe continuing without a doubt the tax cuts that were there for middle income folks but looking obviously at the tax cuts that were received by the superwealthy.”
Lincoln did not say what incomes she would consider “superwealthy.”
“There are superwealthy in this country, superwealthy people who in this time of two wars and economic concerns we have probably are capable of doing more,” Lincoln said. “I think we have to create a balance and there are ways for us to look at that, particularly from those tax cuts.”
If Senator Lincoln had talked like that from the get go, she would have never faced a primary and never put herself in jeopardy in the general election. This is the correct stance to take. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire as planned will simply restore the Clinton tax rates that helped balance the budget and fund investments and efforts that revitalized the economy. And as we’ve shown, the Obama tax plan is actually slightly better for the middle class then the Bush tax cuts were:
So yeah, kudos to Senator Lincoln for (finally) coming around on this issue.
Hear that sound? That’s the sound of John Gray gaining more votes as Lincoln whacks unions and the public option…again. Oh, and speaking of that public option, the Blue Hog report noted that it was extremely popular in Arkansas. Lincoln had her choice. She could have fought for the people of her mostly poor, rural state or she could fight for the big insurance companies. She and the other conservative Democrats made their choice and now we’re faced with a populist revolt in November that Democrats are struggling to get a handle on. She herself has doomed her chances at reelection and is looking to take others down with her. It’s up to us to minimize the damage, and if Arkansas Democrats emphasize populist economics, I think they’ll out perform her significantly.
Goodness… John Boozman has opened up a 38 point lead on Blanche Lincoln according to Rasmussen. Rasmussen may have a Republican bias, but I doubt that alone can explain a 38 point margin.
I haven’t been blogging much since June, but I intend to do a little more as we get closer to the election. I had to get this one off my chest though, since I haven’t said much since the primary.
Lets face it. Centrist Democrats fell on a knife to prevent Bill Halter from having a chance at beating John Boozman. A Green Party candidate did about this good against Pryor in 2008. While my vote will be going to Senator Lincoln in November, it doesn’t look like it is going to help much. The problem is that this will effect every down ticket race negatively for the Democrats. A straight Democratic ticket is looking less likely for people who usually vote that way. Senator Lincoln and her campaign have abandoned her base and made everyone from the right, left, and middle angry. This is a Democratic state, but she has managed to alienate just about every group.
I just hope Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama realize that by endorsing Lincoln in the primary, they have doomed themselves out of a Senate seat for at least six years. While it may be common practice for a president to endorse the incumbent, it wasn’t in CO where Bill Clinton endorsed the challenger. I also find it interesting that certain low ranking members of the Democratic Party are often restricted or discouraged from endorsing people in the primary, but people at the top of the party are free to endorse. I find this to both be contradictory to the principles of the Democratic Party (bottom up) and to the goal of ensuring we run the best candidate in each race. In the future, Presidents may want to withhold endorsements in contested primaries where the incumbent is both likely to lose and where the challenger is a viable candidate. I suggest they do, especially in election years where being the incumbent is a disadvantage.
John Boozman continues his campaign against the deficit with this web ad:
Despite being an obnoxious ad with that grating song repeating the same lyrics over and over (and seriously, could Boozman sound any less enthusiastic at the end?), the ad conveniently ignores Boozman’s role in creating the deficit. Remember, Boozman voted for the Bush tax cuts and is still advocating making them permanent. Total fiscal responsibility, right? Yeah, we’ve been over that.
The Bush tax cuts created the deficit from the surplus Bill Clinton left us and are still the biggest contributors to the problem. Boozman has always supported them. As such, he has no credibility on the issue he wants to run on the most. The sad thing is, neither does Blanche Lincoln. She’s supported making the Bush tax cuts permanent as well and voted for the first round in 2001. The sad thing is that Bill Halter would have dominated Boozman on this issue. He could have pointed out Boozman’s hypocrisy easily and reminded people that he was part of Bill Clinton’s team that helped balance the budget. Lincoln can’t do that. That’s the problem with running Republican-lite, a Democrat that does that can’t attack their opponents flaws because nine times out of ten they share them. If she could do that, Lincoln could win. As it stands though she’s become her own worst enemy.
Lincoln went first and jumped straight on Boozman’s case for having said over the years that we should look at letting people keep a little of their Social Security deductions for personal investment. This would ruin Social Security two ways, by taking away some of its income and leaving the rest to the vagaries of private investment, which sometimes, as we know, can go poorly.
Boozman was left to vow in his most earnest voice that they would take away people’s Social Security only over his dead body.
During his initial run for Congress in 2001, Boozman “said he would be a strong supporter of privatizing Social Security. The future of Social Security is dependent on creating a vehicle for private investment, Boozman said in a prepared statement. An accountant will tell you that saving Social Security is as simple as lowering the benefits or raising taxes. Neither of these will meet the future needs of Americans working today. I believe we must implement President Bush’s proposal to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.”
In 2005, Gannett News Service reported that Congressman Boozman “calls personal accounts an ‘excellent’ plan.”
Earlier this year, Congressman Boozman refused to provide his position on Congressman Ryan’s budget plan, which includes provisions to partially privatize Social Security. Boozman said, “Congressman Ryan is working to cut the deficit spending and I appreciate his commitment to putting our country on the road to fiscal responsibility. His proposal may not be perfect, but I think he is making a thoughtful and serious effort to prevent Congress from driving our country into financial ruin.”
So, which is it Boozman? The thing you’ve advocated for your entire career or your dead body?
Senator Lincoln and John Boozman got together in Hot Springs for a little “debate”. Though don’t call it that in front of the organizers from the Association of Arkansas Counties. They went out of their way to label it a “forum” and focused it on predetermined questions from county officials, mostly on local issues. Still, according to Brummett, there were some interesting exchanges:
Lincoln, uncommonly insecure in these settings, relied conspicuously on her extensive notes. Her opponent, U.S. Rep. John Boozman, appeared to aim for greater extemporaneousness in his rambling answers, which probably was not such a good idea considering that he is not as articulate as he is competent.
He punctuated time and again with this phrase, “like I said,” even if he hadn’t actually previously said what he was just then preparing to say.
Still, through it all, a relevant debate emerged. It was on the margins, in the opening and closing statements.
Lincoln went first and jumped straight on Boozman’s case for having said over the years that we should look at letting people keep a little of their Social Security deductions for personal investment. This would ruin Social Security two ways, by taking away some of its income and leaving the rest to the vagaries of private investment, which sometimes, as we know, can go poorly.
Boozman was left to vow in his most earnest voice that they would take away people’s Social Security only over his dead body.
Then Lincoln popped Boozman for being against earmarks for special local projects. She charged that he was turning them down this year only for political reasons while telling needy applicants in his 3rd Congressional District office to call Lincoln’s office instead because she was still doing them.
Boozman let that slide until his closing statement, when he said that Republicans had agreed to a one-year moratorium on these projects to provide time to try to figure out how to do earmarks, if at all, more fairly and efficiently and with a clearer definition.
We all know that neither of these candidates shines in a debate or on the stump. Lincoln’s getting in some shots but it’s maddening that she’s not going for Boozman’s biggest weaknesses, like his vote in favor of chaining students to a desk. No one should be losing to such a low caliber candidate as John Boozman, period. Oh, but Boozman did have something interesting to say about Lincoln:
He didn’t address Lincoln’s assertion that his staff was telling people to call her office because she was still spending the money he was eschewing. So I asked Boozman about that afterward.
He gave me an answer that began with his saying he couldn’t imagine that his staff was doing that and concluded with his explaining that maybe they were doing something like that. After all, he ended up saying, that’s kind of what a congressional office is supposed to do — meaning, when he can’t help, refer constituents to some other place where someone might.
So…Boozman grudgingly admits that he’s been running to Lincoln for help with his job. Heh. Who’s he going to run to if he wins this thing? President Obama? Seriously, could this man find his way to the podium if his staff wasn’t there to push him in its general direction?
Personally though, I think what needs more coverage was what went on outside the “debate”, where Green Party candidate John Gray and Independent Trevor Drown staged a protest over their exclusion. Here’s the video:
Now, I’m not a Green or an Independent. I’m a Democrat (although I’m a progressive first and foremost). Still, if your name is on the ballot you should be in the debates, even this “debate”. Granted I’m very cynical about the Green Party and I don’t care for Drown’s teabagger brand of politics. But no democracy can function unless there is a free flow of ideas and open debate. Besides, both Lincoln and Boozman, pitiful candidates that they are, could use a challenge. I’m not talking about an electoral challenge either-I’m talking about a challenge to their thinking. Neither Lincoln or Boozman are going to put too much thought into the issues beyond the talking points they’re handed. Having Gray and Drown in the debates would at least keep the two of them on their toes and force them to address issues they wouldn’t otherwise. Again, it’s a simple concept-if your name is on the ballot then you should be in the debates.
Senator Lincoln is still up to her old tricks, proving that she’s learned nothing from her primary challenge from Bill Halter. Just yesterday, Senator Lincoln voted just as John Boozman would have done and threw her support behind PERMANENTLY extending the Bush tax cuts to the rich and exploding the deficit. Senator Lincoln was one of only two “Democrats” to do so. Thankfully, the measure failed.
We’ve been over this-extending the Bush tax cuts amounts to a 3.1 trillion increase in spending over the next ten years. They are the single largest contributors to the deficit. But Senator Lincoln is sooooooo concerned about the deficit that she fought to kill the public option, which would have paid for itself through premiums. Remember that shit? It’s pretty clear where Senator Lincoln’s loyalties lie. So many of her constituents are dirt poor, but she’s happy to hobknob it up in her 2 million dollar home in Virginia witht he Walton family and other beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts she helped to pass. She’ll bend over backwards for them but she won’t even pretend that she’s concerned about the rest of us. Senator Lincoln claims she cares about reducing the deficit, but only when it comes to fighting programs that would benefit people in need. The real causes of the exploding deficit she won’t touch because that hurts her base-the Waltons, the CEOs at the big insurance companies that don’t want competition, etc. In other words, her concern for the deficit is nothing but another one of her goddamn lies that she’s willing to tell.
Senator Lincoln will not loose this year because of any Republican wave. I’m convinced that that wave is a figment of their imaginations. She won’t lose because Arkansas is trending red or because everyone loves what John Boozman has to offer, especially when you consider how unknown Boozman is outside his district. She’s going to lose because she’s one of the worst senators in the whole damn country because she votes against the interests of the majority of her constituents in favor of the few and the wealthy. She’s going to lose because she doesn’t deserve reelection. If she wanted to try and fix that problem, she would have voted against extending the tax cuts. There’s no sense wasting time on someone who won’t fix their own problems, so Democrats should quit worrying about helping Lincoln and focus on the rest of the ticket.
And yeah, I am being tough on Lincoln, but it’s nothing compared to the kick in the teeth she gives to her poor and working constituents every time they turn around. Simply being the Democratic nominee shouldn’t shield anyone from accountability.
On the Senate race, we see more evidence that Blanche Lincoln is dead weight:
John Boozman (R) 57%
Blanche Lincoln (D) 32%
Trevor Drown (I) 3%
John Gray (G) 2%
Undecided 6%
There’s nothing in those numbers that suggests anything other than what every other poll has told us, even when you throw out Rasmussen and the Dailykos/R2K polls. The poll fits the trend of Boozman dominating and Lincoln being a lost cause, though Roby does stress that the race is fluid and the final numbers will probably be much different.
What gets me is the Gov race:
Mike Beebe (D) 49.5%
Jim Keet (R) 40.5%
Undecided 10%
Those numbers fly in the face of every other bit of polling we’ve seen on this race. Roby thinks it comes down to the state car issue, or a potential Republican wave. I don’t think that’s the case. Rather, I think this is an outlier. That’s not a shot at Roby or Talk Business’s polling operations mind you. Those polls were proven to be very accurate in the past. However, I’m a political scientist by training, and the fact of the matter is that no matter how good a polling operation is you will always have outliers turn up in your surveys. That’s just the nature of the beast. So, until we have a polling trend that confirms this, I don’t think we should put too much stock in the results on the Guv’s race.
I am glad to see that Talk Business is doing more polling though, and hopefully we’ll see some others released down the road.
Disgusting. Dick Morris, he of the toe sucking with prostitutes, hit the campaign trail for Republicans today, and just couldn’t resist saying that Blanche Lincoln and Joyce Elliott are “girls who can’t say no.” Gee…what do you think the joke is?
And as far as women saying no, Dick Morris has plenty of reasons to keep his mouth shut about this one. After all, let’s not forget that this sexist ass had to pay someone to not say no.
John Boozman is probably the Republican Senate candidate with the second or third best pickup opportunity in the country. He’s been ahead of Lincoln in all the polls, though there haven’t been any recent ones to my knowledge. So, he should have a ton of cash right?
Yesterday, the Lincoln Campaign reported raising $2,651,524 in the second quarter with $1,886,132 cash on hand. This afternoon, the Boozman Campaign reported raising $622,912 for the same period with $483,923 cash on hand.
That’s chump change for a high profile U.S. Senate candidate. And how is his campaign spokesperson/Huckabee offspring spinning it?
“Senator Lincoln thinks Washington’s on the right track, and Washington insiders have rewarded her loyalty with millions in campaign contributions,” said Sarah Huckabee, Campaign Manager for Boozman for Senate. “John Boozman has been in Arkansas, understands Arkansas, raised 70% of his donations in Arkansas, and votes with Arkansas. No amount of money or negative campaign ads will change that sharp contrast come November.”
So we have a gaffe prone candidate with poor fundraising and a campaign that sucks at messaging. Oh, and the candidate himself is as exciting as watching paint dry. The fact that Lincoln is the underdog against this goon (who also happens to be the best candidate the Republicans could have run mind you) shows just how much trouble she’s created for herself.
The elimination of the estate tax will balloon the deficit and only benefit the rich. The whole point of its existence is to keep an American aristocracy of inherited wealth from forming. With this act, Lincoln has signaled that she’s not going to make any effort to meet progressive Democratic activists in the middle and so there’s no point trying to meet her half way and help her out. She’s on her own.
Boozman is bad, no doubt. But Lincoln is just going to pull this crap again and again and again. At one point, I thought we should be good Democrats and extend our hand to her now that she’s the nominee, but policy is more important than party. So the hell with it. She’s on her own, and whatever chance she had of getting any help from progressive activists goes out the window with this. So yeah, vote your conscience. Lincoln doesn’t want to earn your support, so act accordingly.
This appointment undermines the concerns American citizens have with Obamacare and the access our seniors have to quality and affordable health care. Dr. Berwick’s support for rationing is no secret and to put him in charge of an agency that has to deal with the deep cuts to the Medicare program under the new health care law is unreasonable. Our senior citizens who rely on this program deserve to know what type of leader will oversee the agency. Bypassing Senate confirmation for this controversial nominee proves exactly how unpopular Dr. Berwick’s policies and ideas truly are with the American people.
Let the time machine take us back to December 2006 when President Bush was jamming Republican hatchetman Tim Griffin into the U.S. attorney’s office in Little Rock — through interim appointment. In newspaper accounts at the time, Boozman’s spokesman said, “It’s not unprecedented to make acting appointments, for whatever reason.” Boozman argued the interim appointment was necessary because Griffin “would not have faced a fair hearing” in the Senate.
This should tell you everything you need to know about John Boozman-Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong, and if he said one thing to support his party he’ll gladly say another when the shoe is on the other foot. And the fact that he would stand up for Tim Griffin and his party during the worst corruption scandal since Watergate says a lot about his character.
