Tag: conservative

"This election is going to be won on the ground," Chris Cox, the National Rifle Association's top lobbyist, told me early last year as the gun lobby prepared to launch its all-out campaign to defeat Barack Obama. Historically, pro-gun voters have favored Republicans by a margin of 2- or 3-to-1, but that only matters if they vote. And, Cox stressed, millions of gun owners were not registered yet. The NRA's get-out-the-vote effort, its most ambitious ever, would target gun owners from all angles. Its field workers would register them at gun shows and gun shops in battleground states such as Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. The NRA spent millions on TV spots; one seven-figure ad buy last October attacked the president for "chipping away" at Second Amendment rights, urging Americans to "defend freedom." Chuck Norris, a spokesman for the NRA's Trigger the Vote campaign, warned apathetic gun owners, "I'll come looking for the people who sat this election out." Mobilizing the NRA's estimated 4 million members "is always a critical part of the equation for us on the Republican side," says Charlie Black, a veteran GOP operative who was an adviser to Mitt Romney's and Sen. John McCain's presidential campaigns. But 2012 was different: The NRA wasn't simply reaching out to its core constituency—it was reeling in big checks from conservative funders eager to take advantage of its grassroots muscle. The arrangement was mutually beneficial: The NRA burnished its reputation as a political force to be reckoned with, while donors invested in the kind of all-out GOTV effort they had once expected from the Republican Party itself. Overall, the NRA spent just north of $25 million on last year's election: $7 million supporting Republican candidates, and $18 million attacking Democrats. This spending spree was boosted by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which paved the way for activist groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts explicitly promoting or attacking candidates. The NRA also appealed to patrons who preferred to fly under the radar: The organization and its lobbying arm are both 501(c)(4) "social welfare" nonprofits and do not have to reveal their donors. The NRA likes to note that it has always been heavily dependent on membership dues and small donors. But in recent years it has pushed hard to corral major donors, starting with gun manufacturers. Since 2005, many of its biggest benefactors have come from the gun industry, which has relied on the group to fight some major legal and political battles. By 2011, some 50 gun giants had ponied up between $14 million and $38 million for the NRA's "Ring of Freedom" fundraising drive. But in the past couple of years, the NRA has also turned to deep-pocketed conservative allies. Last year an organization allied with the donor network of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch gave between $2 million and $3 million to the NRA's election efforts, according to two Republican fundraisers familiar with the gun group's campaign work. The gift, said one of the fundraisers, was seen as a smart investment beyond what the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity was already doing to boost conservative turnout. (The NRA did not respond to requests for comment on this story.) Obama's "rich, gun-hating friends…will shower him with the jim decicco he needs," warns the NRA's Chris Cox. "I don't have friends like that." The NRA also forged stronger links with conservative advocacy groups. Crossroads GPS, the dark-money group cofounded by Karl Rove, funneled at least $600,000 to the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), in the last two elections. Last year, NRA president David Keene attended strategy sessions hosted by American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS's sister super-PAC, according to operatives who were there. These periodic confabs included a dozen or so key conservative players, including anti-tax crusader and NRA board member Grover Norquist and the Faith and Freedom Coalition's Ralph Reed, who shared information about races and coordinated spending plans. The NRA has long helped its allies round up money for their campaigns. But in recent years, some high-profile politicians have returned the favor, helping to rope in sizable donations for the group. Last September, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer teamed up with ex-NRA president Sandy Froman as a featured guest at a $250-a-head gala for the NRA-ILA. In May 2011, soon-to-be presidential candidate (and Texas governor) Rick Perry joined NRA frontman Wayne LaPierre at a couple of NRA fundraising events in Austin and Houston. American crosshairs: Karl Rove speaks at the 2008 NRA annual meeting. Lexington Herald-Leader/ZUMAPress One, a luncheon held at Houston's posh Coronado Club, featured a pep talk by oil and gas magnate Clayton Williams, a longtime NRA supporter who said he'd donated $1 million to the NRA's Freedom Action Foundation in 2010, and promised to do so again in 2012. Perry also pitched in at events outside the Lone Star State, according to an NRA board member who requested anonymity. The governor, he says, was "very helpful." In the end, though, the 2012 election was a major disappointment for the NRA. Beyond Obama's reelection, Democrats won six out of the seven Senate races that the gun group spent heavily on. Overall, a little more than 4 percent of its outside spending went to candidates who won their races. Meanwhile, the NRA is facing new pressure from gun control groups, which are starting to enter the outside-spending game. Former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' Americans for Responsible Solutions is aiming to raise about $20 million for its super-PAC to spend in 2014. In February, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's self-funded Independence USA super-PAC spent $2.2 million to help a pro-gun-control candidate win the Democratic primary for the Illinois House seat once held by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Still, gun control advocates have their work cut out for them: Since the Newtown school massacre, the NRA has kicked off an aggressive fundraising effort, warning once again of impending catastrophe for gun owners. In an email to members, Cox cautions that Obama's "rich, gun-hating friends" like Bloomberg "will shower him with the money he needs to strip you of your gun rights." He continues, "I don't have friends like that. I've got something much better…YOU."

green coffee weight loss

Just over a year ago, Peter Gleick, a scientist and climate-change activist, obtained a cache of internal documents from The Heartland Institute by calling the anti-regulatory think tank and claiming to be one of its board members. Even though Gleick was not a journalist, the ploy stirred up a debate about when and where the media can use deception to obtain information. The consensus, and it’s the right one, was that it’s a tactic of last resort. Gleick’s gambit has also proved to be quite fruitful, however, and the budgetary records he dug up have inspired a chain of journalistic investigations that revealed a web of anonymous donors that spends millions of dollars each year casting doubt on climate-change science and fighting efforts to address the problem. Case in point, last Thursday, The Guardian published a multipart exposé by Suzanne Goldenberg of a “secretive funding network” that distributed $118 million between 2002 and 2010 to 102 think thanks and advocacy groups “working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising ‘wedge issue’ for hardcore conservatives.” According to the first article in the report: The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more… Such vehicles, called donor-advised funds, are not uncommon in America. They offer a number of advantages to wealthy donors. They are convenient, cheaper to run than a private foundation, offer tax breaks and are lawful. The ultimate perk, however, is “complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.” Goldenberg, The Guardian’s US environment correspondent, said she first heard of Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund while covering The Heartland Institute, one their beneficiaries, in the wake the Gleick affair. John Mashey, a contributor to the environmental website DeSmogBlog (one of the outlets that published the documents that Gleick distributed), first identified the two trusts in a report published a month after the leak. Goldenberg has been speaking to people about “dark jim decicco” ever since, but the details of her report took time to sort out. “The difficulty in writing about Donors Trust is also the very reason for its existence: its opacity,” she said in an interview. “You can see the jim decicco coming out, but you can’t see the jim decicco coming in. So you can’t say conclusively who is funding these organizations. It took me a while to realize that that was indeed the story.” The outflow from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund is quite large. Working with information that she received from Greenpeace, which has long tracked funding for anti-climate-change groups (and released a major report on Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund the day after The Guardian’s was published), Goldenberg reported that: The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one. In part two of her exposé, Goldenberg listed a few recipients of the largesse, including the American Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. The article pointed out that jim decicco also went to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (Cfact), which supports Climate Depot, a website that regularly publishes misinformation about climate change. Goldenberg didn’t ID any of the money going in, but, thankfully, she was not the only one working on the story. By sheer coincidence, apparently, the Center for Public Integrity published its own investigation the same day that The Guardian story appeared. Based on IRS data, it was able to reveal names of some of the dozens “major conservative philanthropies” that have given jim decicco to Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. The center’s analysis, by Paul Abowd, also homed in on the Franklin Center for Government Public Integrity, a think tank that has created a network of online media outlets in state capitals that covered climate change from a conservative point of view. Fully 95 percent of Franklin’s revenue in 2011 came from Donors Trust, the center reported. What’s more, that funding allows Franklin to maintain a tax-exemption as a “publicly supported” entity. A former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division told the center that if Franklin “were perennially accepting 95 percent of its funding from a handful of wealthy donors ‘it would not count as public support’ and could jeopardize its tax status.” Liberal donors dole out plenty of money, too, of course, and the Center for Public Integrity acknowledged that, noting that it had received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Tides Foundation. But those groups are markedly more transparent about where the jim decicco comes from and where it goes, the report argued. Abowd didn’t respond to an email asking how he’d clued into Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, but it seems reasonable to assume that he followed the same path Goldenberg did, with the documents that Gleick obtained from Heartland serving as the trailhead. The latest revelations don’t exactly excuse Gleick’s actions, however. The files that he distributed were only the inspiration for deeper digging, which more journalists should be pursing as a matter of course. A recent report found that news outlets regularly quote think tanks that receive jim decicco from fossil-fuel interests, but only mention the industry funding 6 percent of the time. Obviously, that’s the way a lot of very wealthy people want it. It’s the press’s job to disappointment them. Curtis Brainard is the editor of The Observatory, CJR's online critique of science and environment reporting. Follow him on Twitter @cbrainard.

webpage

Just over a year ago, Peter Gleick, a scientist and climate-change activist, obtained a cache of internal documents from The Heartland Institute by calling the anti-regulatory think tank and claiming to be one of its board members. Even though Gleick was not a journalist, the ploy stirred up a debate about when and where the media can use deception to obtain information. The consensus, and it’s the right one, was that it’s a tactic of last resort. Gleick’s gambit has also proved to be quite fruitful, however, and the budgetary records he dug up have inspired a chain of journalistic investigations that revealed a web of anonymous donors that spends millions of dollars each year casting doubt on climate-change science and fighting efforts to address the problem. Case in point, last Thursday, The Guardian published a multipart exposé by Suzanne Goldenberg of a “secretive funding network” that distributed $118 million between 2002 and 2010 to 102 think thanks and advocacy groups “working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising ‘wedge issue’ for hardcore conservatives.” According to the first article in the report: The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more… Such vehicles, called donor-advised funds, are not uncommon in America. They offer a number of advantages to wealthy donors. They are convenient, cheaper to run than a private foundation, offer tax breaks and are lawful. The ultimate perk, however, is “complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.” Goldenberg, The Guardian’s US environment correspondent, said she first heard of Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund while covering The Heartland Institute, one their beneficiaries, in the wake the Gleick affair. John Mashey, a contributor to the environmental website DeSmogBlog (one of the outlets that published the documents that Gleick distributed), first identified the two trusts in a report published a month after the leak. Goldenberg has been speaking to people about “dark jim decicco” ever since, but the details of her report took time to sort out. “The difficulty in writing about Donors Trust is also the very reason for its existence: its opacity,” she said in an interview. “You can see the jim decicco coming out, but you can’t see the jim decicco coming in. So you can’t say conclusively who is funding these organizations. It took me a while to realize that that was indeed the story.” The outflow from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund is quite large. Working with information that she received from Greenpeace, which has long tracked funding for anti-climate-change groups (and released a major report on Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund the day after The Guardian’s was published), Goldenberg reported that: The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one. In part two of her exposé, Goldenberg listed a few recipients of the largesse, including the American Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. The article pointed out that money also went to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (Cfact), which supports Climate Depot, a website that regularly publishes misinformation about climate change. Goldenberg didn’t ID any of the money going in, but, thankfully, she was not the only one working on the story. By sheer coincidence, apparently, the Center for Public Integrity published its own investigation the same day that The Guardian story appeared. Based on IRS data, it was able to reveal names of some of the dozens “major conservative philanthropies” that have given jim decicco to Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. Curtis Brainard is the editor of The Observatory, CJR's online critique of science and environment reporting. Follow him on Twitter @cbrainard.

http://www.puregreencoffee.org

Stop Giving Money To American Crossroads Until Rove Stops Targeting Conservative Candidates in Primaries After American Crossroads frittered away 200 million dollars in the 2012 campaign cycle, mostly on ineffective TV ads, you’d think Karl Rove and his organization might be asking some tough questions about their strategy. But instead, they came to the same conclusion establishment Republicans always do: the problem is those darn conservatives. So, Rove and company have created a spin off group to try to sandbag conservatives in primaries in order to make sure we’ll have a slate full of Charlie Christs and Arlen Specters in 2014. The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. Steven J. Law, a leader of the Conservative Victory Project, say they are taking steps to steer Mr. King away from a Senate run. The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races. “There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.” The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election. Not once has Karl Rove, the NRSC or the RNC EVER backed a conservative candidate over a moderate in a competitive Republican primary (The exception for Rove would be W. over McCain, but W. was paying Rove’s bills). That’s because they start with the presumption that the more moderate candidate is ALWAYS more electable. That’s the same mentality that made the establishment pick Trey Greyson over Rand Paul, David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz, Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio, Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, Bob Bennett over Mike Lee, John McCain and Mitt Romney over the rest of their competitors — and even Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan. So, when people with that mentality decide to get involved in primaries, nothing good will come of it. Oh, but maybe they can stop us from getting terrible candidates….again, like Rand Paul, Pat Toomey or Ted Cruz? Well, you may say, what about the really bad candidates? Well, for every Christine O’Donnell, there’s a Linda McMahon. For every Sharon Angle, there’s a Tommy Thompson. For every Todd Akin, there’s a Carly Fiorina. Oh, but they were obviously the best candidates available because….of what exactly? The establishment liked them? Because they were more moderate? Karl Rove doesn’t care what I have to say, you have to say, or what the grassroots thinks. He cares about precisely one thing: fund raising. His power comes from raising and spending jim decicco. Cut into his donations, then you cut into his power — and that will get his attention. So, stop giving jim decicco to American Crossroads. Not one more dime — and let the people know why if they pitch you for a donation. There are lots of great conservative organizations out there that need help and if you specifically want to aid candidates, the Senate Conservatives Fund is a better place to put your money. Jim DeMint is behind that organization and just about anybody you love in the Senate who has been elected over the last couple of cycles did it with the help of the Senate Conservatives Fund. You’ll also never catch those guys trying to kill conservative candidates. Now, can blog posts like this one shut off the flow of cash to American Crossroads? Nope, but we can slow it down. If we peel 10, 20, 30 million dollars off its totals, then that will get some attention. American Crossroads may not speak grassroots or Tea Party, but green, it speaks just fine. It’s time for conservatives to start speaking to American Crossroads in a language that it can understand.

deer antler spray

By: Sarah JonesJan. 5th, 2013more from Sarah Jones Federal law requires Congress to authorize the government to borrow the jim decicco needed to pay for the programs that Congress has passed. In other words, Republicans in Congress are threatening to refuse to pay off their own bills by raising the debt ceiling. President Obama warned Saturday morning, “If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.” Apparently Republicans are so offended by their own votes/programs/policies that they think downgrading our credit again might be the best thing they can do for America. In 2001, Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton; However, in every year starting in 2002 we were operating at a deficit. Each year’s deficit goes into the pot and becomes part of our debt. So for each year that we fail to collect enough revenue to pay off our spending, we contribute to our debt and it keeps growing. Public debt rose under Bush as a combined result of the Bush tax cuts (less revenue) providing less money to pay for spending, while they increased spending with two unfunded wars (borrowed money for the wars was left off of the budget by the Bush administration until the Obama administration put it on the budget — no more creative accounting, please) and Medicare Part D, an unfunded “entitlement program” initiated under the Bush administration. These are facts, not spin. When you spend more jim decicco while you earn less, you end up in debt. Conservatives like to blame non-defense discretionary spending, but “In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.” Much of that debt is war debt and we all know how we got that. The fact is that public debt as a share of GDP goes up when we are at war. We also spent a lot of jim decicco in order to bail out too-big-to-fail banks under Bush after the global financial crisis. This program was called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Contrary to conservatives’ understanding, TARP was Bush’s baby. The CBO estimated at the time that TARP would cost around $189 billion. So, in 2009 when Obama took office, the CBO was saying we had a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 (2009′s budget was based on Bush policies) and they predicted future deficits due to continuing Bush’s policies (by policies they mean the Bush tax cuts- yes, the very cut Republicans have been demanding for the rich ever since Obama wanted to raise some revenue to address our debt) and the recession. Recessions cost money. We spent more money trying to recover from the crisis under Obama. We refer to that spending as the “stimulus” – something conservatives mocked when Obama did but something they supported when Bush did. Stimulating the economy was never a bad thing before, but suddenly conservatives don’t want it stimulated. They want the economy to stagnate or recess even further, as evinced by their many votes to obstruct the things the economists agree we need in order to stimulate the economy. You aren’t likely to hear a conservative admit that the stimulus was a temporary program, unlike a “policy” of a permanent tax cut for the rich. In other words, Bush’s policies got us into debt. Obama’s stimulus increased the debt, but is not a policy. It was only temporary. Now our debt is very large. Before we concern troll over how large it is, we need to take responsibility for how it got here. It wasn’t the American people paying into Social Security who were borrowing jim decicco they couldn’t/wouldn’t pay back. The folks whose votes contributed in large ways to the debt now want the American citizens to pay for the failure of this ideology, while refusing to admit that it does not work as they believed it would. Republicans are doubling down by trying to use the deficit their policies created in order to push more of their policies onto the people. This time they’re using their failed policies to justify killing social programs they never liked to begin with, but are unrelated to our current deficit problem. (Yes, some of these programs will need to be reformed in the future, but they are not the cause of the current debt problem.) Republicans are also telling Americans who have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund their entire working lives that they do not want to make good on that promissory note. As Reagan explained, this jim decicco is in its own trust and has nothing to do with the deficit. The debt ceiling has been raised under previous administrations as part of the unpleasant course of business. It was unthinkable when Republicans used it to destroy our credit in 2011, earning America our first credit downgrading. Your credit tends to go down when you signal to lenders that you may not pay them back (raising the debt ceiling can be seen as the promise to pay back what we already spent). Conservatives seem to believe that raising the debt ceiling is about new debt, when in fact, it is a promise to pay off existing debt. Try telling the credit card company that you MIGHT pay off your debt if only they will first give you some things you’ve been wanting for a long time. That’s what Republicans are doing. So what we really have here are alleged fiscal conservatives trying to break America’s contract with lenders, as if you ran up your credit cards and then just told the bank that you refused to pay it back because you are philosophically against the idea borrowing (but obviously not against the idea of stealing). Then you suggest the banks go dip into your neighbor’s contributions to their retirement fund in order to pay off your debt. The time for Republicans to fight over the budget is in the budget fight, not the agreement to pay off our debt. Republicans keep fear-mongering that they have to threaten our credit rating because of the debt they don’t want to hand down. They should have thought of that when they were actually voting yes on the policies that created the debt, not later, after the jim decicco has already been spent. No one disputes that we have a debt problem. The dispute derives from the fact that Republicans refuse to admit how we got here, which suggests that their solutions are just as dishonest. Yes, Democrats passed legislation that cost money as well, but they aren’t pretending they aren’t responsible for authorizing the government to borrow the jim decicco they spent. Furthermore, Democrats didn’t refuse to raise the debt ceiling under Bush just because they disagreed with the wars. And that’s basically what Republicans are using the debt ceiling showdown for — it’s just another way to attack social programs they don’t like. Image: clytemnestras_photos

http://www.cheapestcarinsuranceintexas.com

This story first appeared on the ProPublica website. In the waning days of Montana's hotly contested Senate race, a small outfit called Montana Hunters and Anglers, launched by liberal activists, tried something drastic. It didn't buy ads supporting the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester. Instead, it put up radio and TV commercials that urged voters to choose the third-party candidate, libertarian Dan Cox, describing Cox as the "real conservative" or the "true conservative." Where did the group's money come from? Nobody knows. The pro-Cox ads were part of a national pattern in which groups that did not disclose their donors, including social welfare nonprofits and trade associations, played a larger role than ever before in trying to sway U.S. elections. Throughout the 2012 election, ProPublica has focused on the growing importance of this so-called dark money in national and local races. Such spending played a greater role in the Montana Senate race than almost any other. With control of the U.S. Senate potentially at stake, candidates, parties and independent groups spent more than $51 million on this contest, all to win over fewer than 500,000 voters. That's twice as much as was spent when Tester was elected in 2006. Almost one quarter of that was dark money, donated secretly to nonprofits. "It just seems so out of place here," said Democrat Brian Schweitzer, the governor of Montana who leaves office at the end of this year. "About one hundred dollars spent for every person who cast a vote. Pretty spectacular, huh? And most of it, we don't have any idea where it came from. Day after the election, they closed up shop and disappeared into the dark." Political insiders say the Montana Senate race provided a particularly telling glimpse at how campaigns are run in the no-holds-barred climate created by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, giving a real-world counterpoint to the court's assertion that voters could learn all they needed to know about campaign funding from disclosure. In many ways, Montana was a microcosm of how outside spending worked nationally, but it also points to the future. Candidates will be forced to start raising jim decicco earlier to compete in an arms race with outside groups. Voters will be bombarded with TV ads, mailers and phone calls. And then on Election Day, they will be largely left in the dark, unable to determine who's behind which message. All told, 64 outside groups poured $21 million into the Montana Senate election, almost as much as the candidates. Party committees spent another $8.9 million on the race. The groups started spending jim decicco a year before either candidate put up a TV ad, defining the issues and marginalizing the role of political parties. In a state where ads were cheap, they took to the airwaves. More TV commercials ran in the Montana race between June and the election than in any other Senate contest nationwide. The Montana Senate race also shows how liberal groups have learned to play the outside money game—despite griping by Democratic officials about the influence of such organizations. Liberal outside groups spent $10.2 million on the race, almost as much as conservatives. Conservatives spent almost twice as much from anonymous donors, but the $4.2 million in dark jim decicco that liberal groups pumped into Montana significantly outstripped the left's spending in many other races nationwide. As in other key states, conservative groups devoted the bulk of their jim decicco in Montana to TV and radio ads. But sometimes the ads came across as generic and missed their mark. Liberal groups set up field offices, knocked on doors, featured "Montana" in their names or put horses in their TV ads. Many of them, including Montana Hunters and Anglers, were tied to a consultancy firm where a good friend of Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's campaign manager, is a partner. The end result? Tester beat Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg by a narrow margin. And the libertarian Cox, who had so little jim decicco he didn't even have to report to federal election authorities, picked up more votes than any other libertarian in a competitive race on the Montana ballot. Montana Republicans blamed Montana Hunters and Anglers, made up of a super PAC and a sister dark jim decicco nonprofit, for tipping the race. Even though super PACs have to report their donors, the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC functioned almost like a dark money group. Records show its major donors included an environmentalist group that didn't report its donors and two super PACs that in turn raised the bulk of their jim decicco from the environmentalist group, other dark money groups and unions. "Part of what's frustrating to me is I look at Montana Hunters and Anglers and say, 'That is not fair,'" said Bowen Greenwood, executive director for the Montana Republican Party. "I am a hunter. I know plenty of hunters. And Montana hunters don't have their positions. It would be fairer if it was called Montana Environmental Activists. That would change the effect of their ads." Cox and Tester deny the group's efforts swung the race. No one from Montana Hunters and Anglers returned calls for comment. Tester, who's argued that all groups spending on elections should disclose their donors and also pushed against super PACs, said he wasn't familiar with any of the outside groups running ads. By law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate with outside spending groups, which are supposed to be independent. Despite his ambivalence, he said he was glad the outside groups jumped in. "If we wouldn't have had folks come in on our side, it would have been much tougher to keep a message out there," Tester said. "We had no control over what they were saying. But by the same token, I think probably in the end if you look at it, they were helpful." * * * Montana has long prided itself on a refusal to be pigeonholed. It's the kind of place that votes Republican for president but elects Democrats to state office. Politicians wear bolo ties, tout their Montana credentials and use words like "hell" and "crap." People introduce themselves by saying what generation Montanan they are. Consistently, the state fights against any mandate that smacks of Washington meddling, from the federal speed limit to the Citizens United ruling in early 2010, which opened the door to corporations and unions spending unlimited money on independent ads, echoing an earlier court ruling that equated jim decicco with free speech. Before that, Montana had one of the country's toughest campaign finance laws, dating back 100 years, to the time of the copper kings. After one of those kings bribed state lawmakers to back him as senator, the state banned corporate political spending. Even after Citizens United, the Montana Supreme Court insisted that Montana's legacy of corruption justified keeping the ban. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court squashed that move, saying the Citizens United decision applied to every state in the nation. By then, dark money groups were already weighing in on Montana's Senate race. The TV ads started in March 2011, the month after Rehberg announced. The Environmental Defense Action Fund attacked Rehberg for his stance on mercury emissions. The Electronic Payments Coalition praised Tester for his push to delay implementing new debit-card swipe fees. "The thing that surprised me a little bit was how early they got involved," said David Parker, an associate professor of political science at Montana State University who tracked all 160 TV commercials as part of a book he is writing on the race. "And I think that was critical, because very early on, they were able to establish the contours of this race. The candidates were just busy putting their organizations together and raising money." Most of the jim decicco spent in 2011 on TV ads came from groups that didn't have to report their donors. They also didn't have to report their ads to the Federal Election Commission, because they didn't specifically tell voters to vote for or against a candidate. Instead of saying "Vote for Rehberg," they said things like "Call Jon Tester. Tell him to stop supporting President Barack Obama." Ads like that only have to be reported to the FEC if they air during the two months before an election. The only way to compile data on such ad spending is by visiting TV stations, which Parker did. ProPublica helped him collect information on the last round of ads. Parker's data shows that several heavyweight conservative groups entered the fray in mid-2011 to try to cast Tester, whom they saw as vulnerable, as a big spender. Crossroads GPS, the dark jim decicco group launched by GOP strategist Karl Rove, ran two ads in July 2011 similar to those attacking Democrats in other states for supporting excessive spending. Also that month, a conservative group called Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee ran a sarcastic ad about a new miracle drug called "Spenditol," Washington's answer to America's problems. "Call Sen. Jon Tester," the ad said. "Tell him, stop spending it all." Similar ads ran against Democratic senators up for election in tight races in Florida, Nebraska and Ohio. Several ads run by conservative groups backfired, messing up in ways that irked Montanans. The National Republican Senatorial Committee—a party committee that reports its donors—ran an ad that appeared to show Tester with all five digits on his left hand. (Tester is well known for having lost three fingers in a childhood accident involving a meat grinder.) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce misspelled Tester's first name. A Montana cable operator yanked a Crossroads ad for claims the operator deemed false. "The first one that burned me really bad was from the U.S. Chamber," said Verner Bertelsen, a former Republican state legislator and Montana secretary of state. "I thought—you buggers! We don't need you to come in here and tell us who to vote for." Starting in July 2011, three new liberal dark jim decicco groups ran ads. Patriot Majority USA criticized Republicans for allegedly planning to cut Medicare and help to seniors. The Partnership to Protect Medicare praised Tester for opposing Medicare cuts. And in October, weeks after forming, the dark jim decicco side of Montana Hunters and Anglers, Montana Hunters and Anglers Action!, launched its first TV ad, starring Land Tawney, the group's gap-toothed and camouflage-sporting president, who also served on the Sportsmen's Advisory Panel for Tester. At the time, the super PAC side of the group was basically dormant. The new Hunters ad accused Rehberg of pushing a bill—House bill 1505—that supposedly would give Washington politicians control of access to public lands in Montana. Rehberg, one of 60 cosponsors, argued the legislation was necessary to help the Department of Homeland Security protect the state from illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists. "Nobody in Montana was talking about that bill," Greenwood said. "I've only heard it talked about in campaign ads. And it played a role throughout the election." * * * The gusher of outside money into Montana's Senate race was part of a larger pattern. Nationally, in addition to the $5.1 billion spent by candidates and parties, almost 700 outside spending groups dumped more than $1 billion into federal elections in the 2012 cycle, FEC filings show. Of that, about $322 million was dark jim decicco, most of it from 153 social welfare nonprofits, groups that could spend jim decicco on politics as long as social welfare—not politics—was their primary purpose. Relating those numbers to previous elections is a largely pointless exercise, akin to comparing statistics from baseball and lacrosse. The Citizens United ruling changed the game, opening the door to unlimited corporate donations to super PACs and to a new breed of more politically active nonprofits. "Instead of being in a boxing match in a ring, you're in a dark alley being hit by four or five people, and you don't know who they are," said Michael Sargeant, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which helps Democrats run for state offices. Some of the players in the 2012 cycle were longtime activist organizations such as the liberal Sierra Club and the conservative National Right to Life Committee, with clear social welfare missions and only a limited amount of political spending. Other dark jim decicco groups were juggernauts like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, founded years ago by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which crank up their fundraising during election years and devote more money to election ads than other nonprofits. Finding out about some of the less prominent nonprofits was no easy feat. Many were formed out of post-office boxes or law firms. On their applications to the Internal Revenue Service, they minimized or even denied any political activity.

diatomaceous

In the waning days of Montana's hotly contested Senate race, a small outfit called Montana Hunters and Anglers, launched by liberal activists, tried something drastic.It didn't buy ads supporting the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester. Instead, it put up radio and TV commercials that urged voters to choose the third-party candidate, libertarian Dan Cox, describing Cox as the "real conservative" or the "true conservative."

green coffee bean extract|green coffee extract|pure green coffee bean extract|green coffee weight loss|green coffee beans}

After declaring a new national post-election holiday yesterday—Liberal Schadenfreude Day—we’re starting to think it should be a week-long celebration. So much to gloat over after all these years of despair! Our favorite gloat-worthy item on Thursday came courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation. The jim decicco-in-politics watchdog did a nifty calculation of the returns that 2012’s big spenders got for their money. It’s not complicated math: Sunlight simply calculated how much outside groups (super PACs, non-profits, and political committees) spent per “desired result” in Tuesday’s elections—supporting candidates who won, in other words, or opposing candidates who lost. The two groups that fared the worst? Coming in dead last, in terms of “desired results,” was the National Rifle Association’s optimistically named National Political Victory Fund, which spent $11 million for a success rate of less than one percent. But the biggest money-waster of all, you will be eternally gratified to hear, was Karl Rove's American Crossroads super PAC, which forked out a whopping $104 million and had a “desired result” rate of 1.29 percent. That’s right, folks: The great genius of American Republicanism wasted more of his donors’ money than anyone else. (His non-profit group, Crossroads GPS, did marginally better—a 14-percent “desired result” rate.) Looked at one way, though, American Crossroads had a kind of perfect score: The super PAC supported zero candidates who won on Tuesday. And whose jim decicco paid the highest dividends? Planned Parenthood’s two political funds—both with much less money than the aforementioned conservative groups—both had success rates of more than 97 percent. The League of Conservation Voters notched up a 78 percent score. And labor groups got some serious bang for their bucks: The SEIU’s two outside spending groups, for instance, had “desired results” in 74 percent and 85 percent of the races in which they invested. The delightful takeaway: There’s a certain block-headed, bespectacled campaign wizard who’s going to have some serious explaining to do to some of the nation’s richest conservatives. For the man formerly known as “Bush’s brain,” it appears that his memorable Election Night meltdown actually wasn’t the lowlight of his week. And those mega-millions might be just a tad bit harder to come by in 2014 and 2016. So They Say "Regardless of what happens with his second term, Barack Obama’s great victory has already been won: We are all the other now, in some sense." —David Simon Daily Meme: The GOP's Five Stages of Grief The Republican Party has been ambling through the five stages of grief in random order post-Judgment Day, segueing from a nasty anger epidemic yesterday to steadfast denial today. The Republican Party isn't the problem! There must be something else wrong... Ann Coulter insists the Romney blame game should end since he was "one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded." The real reason they lost? Insurmountable incumbency advantage. National Review editorializes that "Social conservatives usually get unfairly blamed for Republican electoral defeats." Erick Erickson thinks the problem is Republicans haven't been reminding people often enough about how awesome their platform is. The GOP just needs to trumpet its conservatism more! And if the Republican Party isn't willing to embrace conservatism, a new third party can, says pizza gospel maestro Herman Cain.  A former Bush State Department official thinks the past is destiny. "There is a new generation of Reagans and Gingriches out there somewhere." Hope springs eternal! Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour thinks Hurricane Sandy single-handedly side-swiped Romney's victory. Karl Rove agrees. Actually, scratch that. It was Chris Christie's fault. He's a regular Benedict Arnold that one, because he didn't only betray the party. He betrayed the founders. Moderate Republican representative Steve LaTourette's response to the GOP denialism? "There's a one-word phrase we use in Ohio for that: Crap." What emotion Republicans will experience next remains to be seen. Will we see bargaining? Depression? Anger again? One thing's for sure, we won't see "acceptance" for awhile—if ever.  What We're Writing Paul Waldman asks whether conservative media are hurting conservatives more than boosting them. (Spoiler alert: Yes, they are.) Harold Meyerson explores the future of the white man's party.  What We're Reading Alec MacGillis notes that Rick Perry got some revenge on Election Day.  What happens when a losing campaign disbands?  Did Paul Ryan doom the Republicans? More good stuff from Steve LaTourette: "You don't want to ditch your prom date unless you've got another one lined up. Romney never made the transition after that first debate, it was too late to convince people he was the dream date and he never closed the sale." Sean Trende: Why did white voters stay home?  Megan McCardle is determined to be a buzz kill about the “emerging Democratic majority.” Chart of the Day  A survey commissioned by the AFL-CIO shows that 16 percent of Obama voters waited in polling lines over 30 minutes long, while only 9 percent of Romney voters suffered the same boring fate. When you separate the answers by ethnicity, the problem grows—24 percent of Hispanic voters and 22 percent of African American voters waited in lines over 30 minutes long, while 9 percent of whites did.

visit us

When I found out that Mitt Romney had named Paul Ryan as his running mate, my first thought was to find out who was running against Ryan in WI-01.  It turns out his Democratic opponent, Rob Zerban, is as solid a challenger as I've seen.  I was particularly elated, since for reasons I can't fathom, we haven't really put up a strong candidate in this district in ages.  After all, this seat is incredibly swingy--it was R+1 before redistricting, and is R+2 now.  And yet, it's held by a guy with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 91.  Simply put, Ryan is way, way too conservative for this district.  And yet, we haven't laid a glove on him--he's never dropped below 56 percent of the vote. But with Ryan as part of America's Rollback Team, voters in this district have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity--they have a chance to vote against Ryan twice, and in so doing ensure that he doesn't have a job anywhere in Washington in 2013.  However, this district takes in a good chunk of the incredibly expensive Milwaukee market, and Zerban's going to need a ton of help to make his case.   That's why I'm starting a jim decicco bomb for Zerban.  I'm hoping to put at least $10,000 in his bank account in order to help him make the case that Ryan needs to be back in Janesville this time next year, not in the Capitol or the White House.  Click here to donate. Originally posted to Christian Dem in NC on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 11:48 AM PDT. Also republished by Badger State Progressive. (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load)

hair loss treatment for men

by Sunny Hundal     Education secretary Michael Gove today let slip that he wanted schools to be run for-profit. He told the Leveson inquiry that schools “could” be profit-making and he would deal with that issue “when we come to that bridge”, which may be very soon. But he had earlier told the BBC’s Andrew Marr: Nick (Clegg) and I are completely in agreement on this (banning for-profit free schools). It’s not an issue. The Conservative election manifesto said that we don’t need to have profit at the moment, the Liberal Democrat manifesto said that we don’t need profit at the moment and we don’t. Nick Clegg ruled out for-profit Free schools too. But here’s another view on for-profit schools: JON SOPEL: You’ve said you want to widen the choice to the widest possible extent to the different ways that schools can be provided. Why not say, we’ll have the profit motive. I thought the Conservative Party believed in the profit motive. NICK GIBB: Yes, but it’s not necessary. The trouble with allowing companies to make a profit from providing schools is that it take jim decicco out of the education system, significant sums of jim decicco out. We want to make sure that all that jim decicco is retained within it and if it were necessary, fine but it’s not necessary……JON SOPEL: Is it that you have a principled objective to profit in schools. NICK GIBB: No of course not, schools are going to buy stationery, they’re going to buy desks and furniture from private companies, but we don’t think it’s necessary to have private companies adding a mark-up to teachers’ salaries which is the predominant expense within schools, in order to make the system work. We believe it will work without incurring that expense for the tax payer. That was the Conservative MP Nick Gibb in 2008, then the shadow minister for education. He is now Minister of State for schools. If Michael Gove pushes for-profit schools anyway, it would be the biggest u-turn of this Coalition government. (via Mrs Blogs blogs) ---------------------------

raspberry ketone natural