Ironman's blog

Has Newt Gingrich gone to the Dark Side?

Back in the 1990's there was a young political Jedi Knight, battling for conservative principles against the entrenched forces of the Washington establishment. Brimming with ideas, never a loss for energy, he toppled 40 years of Democrat dominance in 1994.

That man was Newt Gingrich. 

Fast forward 17 years. Newt is old. The welfare state is burgeoning and threatens something far worse than it did a generation ago--it threatens national insolvency.  And some young courageous Republicans challenge the conventional wisdom and suggest a new direction.

And this year's Gingrich decides to cut him off at the knees.  

 Gingrich also distanced himself from the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to turn Medicare into a voucher system: "I think that that is too big a jump." He called the plan "right-wing social engineering," which he considers not "any more desirable than left-wing social engineering."

I cannot count how many ways this is an utter unmitigated disaster for Gingrich.  For one thing, some might accuse him of inventing "right wing social engineering" as a result of the multitude of policy proposals he's advanced since the 1980's. (indeed, Gingrich himself once was a fierce advocate of turning bureaucratic programs into vouchers)  Running against yourself is rarely a very effective strategy. 

This is particularly true when after you take a hacksaw to a fellow Republican the press finds out you previously endorsed the same plan

“But would you have voted for Ryan’s plan?” I pressed.

“Sure,” Gingrich replied

Can we get John Kerry back from Pakistan to enter the GOP race? 

Now I'm not into the delegate and endorsement hunt but I hardly see how trashing a policy agenda item virtually the entire Republican House caucus  voted for is going to do Gingrich any good building a network in primary states.  But I'm sure Steve Israel and the DCCC went out for mimosas after hearing this sort of friendly fire against our tenuous House majority.  See the DKos reaction. 11th Commandment; much?  

It also appears that spending all his time on self-promotion has blinded Gingrich to the rather obvious fact that the 2012 GOP is far more libertarian and frugal than the 2008 version, and offers little traction for those running as a "big government conservative". Which appears to be Gingrich's strategy--after all he's also full bore for ethanol subsidies and fighting global warming.  Mike Huckabee was no fool and realized he was a nonstarter going down this path. Not Newt.

Gingrich fancies himself a historian. Back in the 1980's Gingrich was often  linked to Jack Kemp, another  visionary conservative. Kemp made a ill-fated run for the White House in 1988. Kemp, too, ran as the pro-entitlement candidate in the race.  He was a forgotten man in the Bush v. Dole battle royale, hardly making a ripple.  Why is running as the pro-spending candidate going to work better in an era of trillion dollar deficits than it did when a mere $200 Billion of red ink caused shock?

Once Newt Gingrich had ideas. And energy. And fought alongside economic conservatives. But now Newt wants to be President and he has polls and consultants.  Evidently bashing mosques polls well and trying to fix the entitlement state, not as well. Even if its a matter of national economic survival. If it's going to be a battle of who can offer controversial sound bites on calling the President vaguely foreign, well, let's just give the nomination to Donald Trump.  

The more I think about it, Paul Ryan is today's Jedi Knight of conservatism--a Luke Skywalker willing to challenge the Debt Star.  Once Gingrich was the same sort of Jedi Knight; but much like Anakin Skywalker, he has succumbed to the Dark Side in his lust for power.

Newt is supposedly greatly moved by the legacy of Winston Churchill  . A question then, for Mr. Gingrich.  Don't you think it was just as politically expedient for Neville Chamberlain to reject "right wing foreign policy" and try and manage the rise of the Nazis as it is to attack leaders trying to stop our appeasement of deficit spending?  Stop invoking Churchill's name and start applying his courage.


"Shared sacrifice" = pouring gasoline on the fire

I don't blog much about CT state politics. Frankly, I doubt the rest of the country cares much, and I also try and give the locals some slack as to trying to do their business.

The Wall Street Journal is a bit less reticent, especially as new Governor Dannel Malloy styles himself the "anti-Christie".  Malloy's idea was that CT should increase revenues in order to limit budget cuts. So, is "shared sacrifice" a political winner?

Hmmm, it may be running into a brick wall at the local gas pump.

HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) - Governor Malloy's state budget plan appears to be heading for a crash over the gas tax.

 With gas prices going up by the day, members of Malloy's own political party are balking at voting for a plan that includes a hike in the gas tax. Democratic leaders over at the State Capitol say they intend to vote on the Malloy budget plan by Tuesday, but this is holding things up. At one gas station across from the Capitol Complex regular was $4.36 a gallon today, and one of the reasons it's so high is because of state taxes. The reason the taxes are so high is because, unlike our neighboring states, Connecticut has no highway or bridge tolls of any kind. The entire transportation fund for road and bridges and public transit is generated through the taxes on gasoline. Governor Malloy's budget plan includes another three cent hike in the gas tax starting Jul. 1.

Let's just say it is... hmm. an inauspicious time to raise what are already among the highest gas taxes in the nation.  (Just a few miles into MA gas is 40 cents a gallon cheaper).  And this is not the only tax hike the Malloy budget aims at the working & middle class, as he now plans to tax clothing costing less than $50

Perhaps the most bizarre element of this difficult episode is that Malloy's hand-picked energy czar, former Yale academic Dan Esty, is a vociferous cheerleader for massive tax hikes on energy usage.  

According to Commissioner Esty, we need more pain at the pump.

The best way to drive energy innovation would be an emissions charge of $5 per ton of greenhouse gases beginning in 2012, rising to $100 per ton by 2032. The low initial charge, starting next year, would make the short-term burden on consumers and businesses almost negligible. .....

Our proposal would apply to all greenhouse gas emissions, so that everybody, and every fossil-fuel-dependent form of energy, would be included. Coal-burning power plants would pay based on the emissions measured at their smokestacks. Oil companies would pay for every gallon of gas or oil delivered. Yes, these costs would be passed on to consumers, but this is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments. (Emphasis added-IM)

You see, unless those benighted consumers in their SUV's and their warm homes get hammered even worse, there will be no positive changes in technology to improve energy efficiency, as per Professor Esty. And of course, notwtihstanding the worst job market since the early 1980's, "instituting a carbon charge would have only a minimal impact on American competitiveness".

Two words. Yeah. Right.

Of course, Dan Esty is part of CT's new "power couple"

---his wife Elizabeth is the new wannabe congressperson from Connecticut 5.  

She seeks to be the new Democrat in the district to replace job hopper Chris Murphy.

Esty's political approach was to run as a centrist soccer mom in a suburban district. Never mentioning her Yale Law degree. Or her prior legal work on a highly controversial assisted suicide case.   The 2008 Obama wave and her warm and fuzzy campaign propelled her to the legislature; once there, she promptly alienated her constituents    by demanding an end to capital punishment even though the most heinous murders in CT history occurred in her own district. 

 She was ousted even after she threw her own Democratic colleagues under the bus

So, if CT voters are eager to keep mass murderers coddled with 3 hots and a cot, and take out home equity loans to buy gasoline, well we can sacrifice even more than what Dan Malloy wants. We can turn the keys in DC over the the power couple of Dan and Elizabeth Esty.  ...  Blecch

A riposte to Nate Silver re: the Ryan budget

Nate Silver at the NYT's 538 blog is probably 50 IQ points brighter than I am, I being a dumb suburban mick lawyer. But I think he's wrong tonight

It isn’t surprising that the House Republicans approved Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which had been endorsed by their leadership. What was more remarkable, however, was the near-unanimity of the vote: just 4 Republicans dissented, while 2 others did not vote. (Democrats voted against the proposal 189-0).

Let me quote the great philosopher Wayne Gretzky. "The secret to my success wasn't skating to where the puck was, it was skating to where I thought the puck as going to go"

If one thinks political economics is a static field, then yes, voting for a massive restructure if Medicare so as to to bring the budget into balance is a big risk.   Certaintly anyone eager to benefit from Medicare now or in the foreseeable future will be made a bit uncomfortable with the GOP with this vote. (Let's omit the bald face fact Ryan's plan grandfathers in the 55 & over crowd; the DNC will still try to scare them).

 If 2012 is a "normal" election year Nate Silver is right: the GOP has taken a big policy risk for little obvious reward. ( Of course, one might argue keeping the country solvent is its own reward).  The problem is I don't think 2012 will be a "normal" year. Moreover, if it is a "normal year", Obama probably wins a relatively easy reelection and the GOP House is on their own, ala 1996.

So, what are the likely environmental conditions for 2012?

* Higher energy costs

* A deficit exceeding $1 trillion

* Fewer employed Americans than when Obama took office. (especially in Florida & the Rust Belt)

This is not a scenario for the Democratic Party to suggest President Obama should be rewarded with more supporters in Congress. It is a scenario where voters will want a new path out of the wilderness. 

Given that situation, is is a better gamble for the House GOP to run on what amounts to continuing the status quo, or to argue they are fighting for a materiallly different alternative that promises voters better results?

I would also posit that given that most senior citizen swing voters are blue collar whites, the President's yuppie persona gets in the way of rallying opposition to Republican proposals.   Damm all those bitter clingers.

As for the swing district Republicans, the lesson of 2006 was that no matter how hard the likes of Nancy Johnson and Linc Chaffee tried to extricate themselves from Iraq, deficits & Mark Foley, the Dems pulled them back in.   Why not stand together rather than lose through division. 

In addition, I've extrapolated this post based on what I think are conservative assumptions as to energy prices and the job market. A "black swan" event will in all likilihood, demolish what is left of Obama's credibility with swing voters. 

Sometimes the biggest gamble is to try and play it safe. We are in a time of extraordinary disaffection from government institutions and economic instability.  Running a traditional incumbents platform under these circumstances is probably the worst bet of all.

Barack and Me? (or why GOP Governors wont sign suicide pacts)

In today's Washington Post prominent economist Robert Samuelson penned this provocative columm

Is organized labor obsolete?

What we are witnessing in Wisconsin and elsewhere is the death knell of Big Labor

The President, of course, sees this differently.  He sees a future for the labor movement essentially maintaining the current status quo on into the 21st century economy.  Notwithstanding the increasing burden of pay, benefits and pensions, and the irrestistible pressure of global competition, we will "win the future" by making large infrastructure investments which will yield a high enough return to pay for our obligations.

Barack Obama, meet Roger Smith.

Smith and Obama seem an odd pair at first. But think this through. Both took over as CEO when their organizations were facing financial duress and existential threats to the enterprise. Both were, however,  "company men" (Is there a "company" more insular than the Chicago Democratic machine?). Both spent prodigious sums on big ticket infrastructure projects.  But neither was willing to do two absolutely essential things: a) restructure the enterprise to be smaller and more responsive and b)  address the long term labor cost obligations of the firm.


Smith instituted several initiatives that included forming strategic joint ventures with Japanese and Korean automakers, launching the Saturn division, investing heavily in technological automation and robotics, and attempting to rid the company of its risk-averse bureaucracy. However, Smith's far-reaching goals proved too overambitious and overwhelming to actually be implemented effectively, in the face of the company's resilient corporate culture and bureaucracy. Despite Smith's vision, he was unable to successfully integrate GM's major acquisitions, several of which also failed to tackle the root causes of GM's fundamental problems.

Smith's tenure is commonly viewed as a failure, as GM's share of the US market fell from 46% to 35%, and as it took on considerable debt causing it to lapse close to bankruptcy in the early 1990s. As a result, CNBC has called Smith one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time"

Smith's efforts were basically an effort to throw cash at GM's problems and hope the sheer weight of remedies would right the ship. But the technology fixes that buying EDS and Hughes were supposed to augur in fizzled. Saturn never achieved self-sufficiency and drained resources from the core brands. And new models arrived late and over budget.

The anti-Smith was Ross Perot, who came from a non-union background in Texas.  Perot was a major GM shareholder after the EDS deal and chafed at the waste and delay that exemplified GM, but was bought out and sent on his way before he could annoy the establishment further and cause the firm to mend its ways.

Perhaps Smith's greatest failure was his unwillingness to address GM's unsustainable labor and retirees costs.  Of course, Robert Stempel and John Smith, Roger Smith's successors, had no stomach for going toe- to toe with UAW. Instead, the same old UAW contracts were signed and the same jobs banks and retirement packages left in place as the firm slowly lost market share (propped up by low financing and fleet sales )

GM was left 15 years later hoping their retirees would expire fast enough to enable it to compete. It lost that race and filed bankruptcy under the auspices of the Obama administration.

Samuelson is right. The public sector is going to go down the same road as unionized manufacturers like GM.  The states are about where GM was in the 1980's---the bump in the road has been hit and the time was come to think long and hard about where to go next. And maintaining a cost structure that accelerates faster than the economy that pays for it is a ticket to doom.

Republican Governors like Scott Walker and Chris Christie aren't going to be playing the Roger Smith game.

They are going to restructure their long term labor and benefit cost structure in a fashion that over the next couple of decades their states can afford.  Remember, both NJ and WI are old industrial states with slow growth.  They need policies that will recharge the private sector, but have to come to grips that even the best-case scenario now won't pay for what prior adminstrations have promised.  

If there is to be pain, better it be dealt with now while the public instrumentalities across the nation are still going concerns, rather than later when actual insolvency turns our state governments into little Irelands and Greece.

The Democratic Governors claim their approach is "more pragmatic"   In the short term it will be more popular to keep labor peace and give bond money away. The GM management would have been excoriated in the short term by Wall Street had they pressed hard enough to cause a strike by the UAW. But in the long run, one or two bad quarters would not have caused the firm to fail.  Kicking the can down the road did.

And even in the not so long run it can look pretty bad.

After all, when GM couldn't sell its cars and was stuck with lots of big plants and high priced employees, what was Roger Smith left to do? Oh, yeah....he shuttered the plants in Flint and laid off the workers.

Will some annoying filmmaker in 2015 or 2018 be chasing President Obama or a Governor like Dan Malloy around asking why the public sector was forced into massive layoffs? Or  is that just not done to Democrats?



Get well!

I've never met Christopher Fountain--curmudgeon, cynic, realtor and blogger from Greenwich--but admit I've cribbed off plenty of his stuff over the years, especially as to the dire shape of the real estate bubble.

Therefore, I was nonplussed to find he had taken a hiatus from blogging to go and have a heart attack. My prayers are with him for a full recovery.

Good material is hard to find. Almost as hard to find as a reliable CT Republican.

The new definition of a "serious" Democratic senate candidate

The DC Conventional wisdom has deemed CT Congressman Chris Murphy the one "serious candidate" the Democrats are fielding for an open U.S. Senate seat.

Well, this seems to be akin what what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy downward". Maybe the MSM is now defining "serious" on a curve when it comes to Congressman Murphy, the Eddie Haskell of the House.

After all, getting "Bieber Fever" is exactly what one associates with the attributes of statesmanship  

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has contracted, but quickly kicked, a case of Bieber fever. During a recent interview with Rolling Stone, singer Justin Bieber, a native of Ontario, came out in favor of health-care reform. "Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills," he told the magazine. On Thursday afternoon, Murphy read the quote online and tweeted his approval, posting a link to Bieber's comments. Moments later, Murphy recanted. "Oh wait . . . just heard what Biebs said about abortion," the congressman tweeted, referring to the immaculately coiffed 16-year-old's pro-life stance. "Ugh. #bieberfevercured."

I leave it to Congressman Murphy to justify why he was so quick to attack the child of a single mother for a pro-life attitude.  But maybe the problem here is that this is an example of someone who is simply too shallow and immature to be trusted with the responsibility of being a U.S. Senator. Obviously Congressman Murphy was greatly taken by Justin Bieber's tremendous expertise is the realm of health care finance.

Are we to assume perhaps Chris Murphy will next be taking advice on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation from Miley Cyrus?

The country is facing fiscal ruin, the Chinese are gaining on our economy, the Islamic world is a tinderbox. And a U.S. Senate candidate has "Bieber Fever". What is wrong with this picture?

Frankly, whatever your opinion of Joe Lieberman's record in the Senate you have to admit that Chris Murphy isn't in the same area code as Lieberman when it comes to his stature and abilities.  In 13 years of holding elective office Murphy can cite only one accomplishment, a state stem cell bill the Democratic legislature would have passed with or without him. 

Mind you this isn't the first time Murphy has made a shallow, immature statement on his Twitter feed. Last fall he cited a New York Times story about the number of people arrested wearing Yankee caps, and Murphy chimed in that he was "not surprised"; implying, of course, that Yankee fans were all street criminals.  Thoughtful and responsible. NOT

Murphy has pulled a big scam on the credulous CT media.  If one superimposes the template of Chris Murphy as being the spoiled child of a rich Hartford lawyer, --who legacied his son into his "Little Ivy" alma mater--hmmm..... suddenly this snide superficial attitude comes into clearer focus.

Unfortunately, the CT press gets a fever over any breathing Democrat whether they are a pop star or not.   

 Justin Bieber's views on health care won praise.

Separated at birth?



After calling Yankee fans criminals, Chris Murphy's campaign is running web ads on the Yankee fan site, River Ave. Blues.  I mean--- this is a new dimension of shameless!

MoveOn & Chris Murphy: Fact Free Advocacy

I give this much. When it comes to their friends they never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

This weeks's meme is the man who will humble corporate control of government is Connecticut Senate candidate and Nancy Pelosi lackey Chris Murphy

One year ago today, the Supreme Court gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as you and me, in the Citizens United decision. And in the last election, we saw what this corporate takeover of our democracy looks like, with a record-setting $4 billion spent on the elections.1

Connecticut Rep. Chris Murphy has been a leader in the fight to rein in corporate control of our democracy. He was one of the first signers of our Fight Washington Corruption pledge, which included a call to overturn Citizens United, and he organized other congressional candidates to join him and "take back our democracy from the big corporate special interests who have so dominated our political decision making in the last decade."2

A corporate front group targeted Rep. Murphy with over a million dollars in attack ads in retaliation for his bold stand3, but Rep. Murphy fought hard, and with help from local MoveOn members, won in November.

Yesterday, Rep. Murphy announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Joe Lieberman. It's exciting that as a champion in fighting corporate influence in Washington, Chris Murphy can make this a real issue in the race for Senate.

Will you call Rep. Murphy to thank him for his leadership on this issue? Then, ask him to make sure the issue of corporate influence remains front and center in the Senate race over the next two years by encouraging all the candidates to speak out forcefully on the need to rid our political system of corporate influence.

Now, the rest of the story about Chris Murphy and the corporate buyout of the federal treasury.

MoveOn doesn't tell folks Chris Murphy received well over $2 million from special interest PACs  

MoveOn doesn;t tell people Chris Murphy has raised over $1 million from the financial services industry. Which comes as little surprise as Murphy served on the House Banking Committee when it approved the 2008 TARP bailout.   Indeed, Murphy voted for the $700 Billion TARP bailout withing hours of receiving a large contribution from the American Bankers Association.

So, when did Murphy decide it was time to start fighting corporate influence in Washington? Oh. maybe it was during the health care reform since the Pharma lobby ran a blitz of issue ads praising Murphy.   Did those ads explain Murphy's flip-flop on allowing drug reimportation? Hey, decide for yourself.

No, Chris Murphy suddenly decided corporate money in politics was a bad thing when the corporations that didn't like health care reform paid for ads against him. The contributions from special interests to stuff his 7 figure warchest and the slick issue ads promoting his agenda, well, then it was good government. 

Incumbent politicians don't like Citizens United for the same reason Microsoft doesn't like Macs. When you have a monopoly you want to stifle the means of competition. You want the people whose industries are at risk to come to you on bended knee, checkbook in hand. How dare these people complain directly to the public!  

You see, it's all about protecting your investment. And MoveOn has invested a lot in Chris Murphy.  He was their Number one recipient of campaign cash in 2006. So when a group like AAF  opposed to big government runs the same type of ad MoveOn ran, take MoveOn's umbrage with a grain of salt. And also understand why MoveOn looks the other way when their boy Murphy ladels out trillions to bankers and drug companies. They are going to stand by their man.  Getting him into the Senate will pay a return on their investment.

And this investment may suddenly go sour if the new darling of the hard left, Keith Olbermann  is persuaded to run for the open Connecticut Senate seat.  How could the unctuous Murphy and his corporate liberalism compete with the 200 decibel leftism of Olby? 

The problem with investing millions of dollars in a product is after awhile, a newer brand goes on the market. MoveOn and Murphy may find their base of support has moved on to a guy who only took millions from Corporate America to call conservatives the worst people in the world. Heh   


January 20, 2013

Is two years away.

Someone is going to take the oath of office as our President that date.

What are you doing to make sure it is isn't going to be Barack Obama? 


Joe Lieberman's long goodbye

Tomorrow, a man true to himself calls it a day in elective politics. Joe Lieberman will announce his retirement at the end of this term.

Lieberman is an interesting case for many reasons. In 2006, when the Democratic Party adopted advocacy of military defeat as a campaign platform, Lieberman stood athwart history and said NO.  After his rejection by his party's voters Lieberman took his case to the entire electorate, and won a fairly convincing victory.

We don;t know what the corruptive effect on the Democratic Senate caucus the election of Ned Lamont would have caused. I do know that at a point when the George W. Bush adminstration seemed to have the communication skills of a stump and the fighting skills of Punch Out's Glass Joe. Lieberman carried the cause of seeing Iraq through loudly and proudly.

Now the ride is over. Supposedly Lieberman wanted to run again but found no path. The problem here is the voters may reward a candidate for breaking with one party for one reason, but will not reward zig zagging across the political landscape.   Lieberman's position on health care reform and "climate change" made him unsalable to a Republican primary electorate.

Now the successors are on the way. The persistant and fumbling Susan Bysiewicz has already announced, and the Eddie Haskell of the House, Chris Murphy, is almost sure to follow.  On the Republican side Linda McMahon may have never stopped running. Whether she can run a more focused campaign than one that veered into Vietnam during an economic crisis, and used Hermes clad muffies as spokespeople--well, remain to be seen. Tom Foley, who emerged well liked from the gubernatorial run, and old reliable Rob Simmons are giving the race some thought it is said.

Connecticut 2012 may be a wild ride. But when we're done we will probably miss the adult in the room leaving the stage tomorrow.



Be pragmatic tomorrow- Remove a radical from CT 5

Ultra liberal Chris Murphy is trying the Big Con for CT voters. We can call him on it. And we need to do it now.

Chris Murphy's closing argument in his flagging bid for re-election is that he represents the "pragmatic center" of American politics. This is a place he visits only after Labor Day on even numbered years.

I call B.S. on this. Let's count the ways Murphy is far to the Left in American politics--even beyond the usual Nancy Pelosi foot soldier.


Chris Murphy thinks our efforts to keep Americans safe should be micromanaged by lawyers and run in a fashion so as to not to offend foreign press.

Murphy is one of the most vocal opponents of the use of warrantless wiretaps to obtain information to thwart terrorist threats. We do not know the precise manner this past week effort to blow up Jewish houses of worship with mail bombs was foiled, but do we want to hamstring the people who keep us safe? Murphy evidently does.

Worse still, he favored letting the telecom firms that assisted the War on Terror face ruinous lawsuits from lefty lawyers 

Erick Erickson at Red State has more on this point.

Murphy is also one of the firmest opponents of keeping the detention facility at Gitmo open. What he suggests we do with the jihadists we do not know.

Health Care

Chris Murphy has a problem with the health care bill. He doesn;t think it went far enough. He is a strong supporter of the public option. And why?  Because last year he told the Meriden Record Journal  "I'm haven't given up on private insurance" while claiming the public sector could provide the same service better.  

There are tens of thousands of private insurance jobs in CT. What a joy to know our Congressman isn't ready "yet" to have the federal government put them all out of business.   Murphy went to some tony college in the UK for awhile; perhaps he became enamored of the NHS and socialized medicine while over there.


If you are an ally of Kos, you are not a Blue Dog, a New Democrat, or a fiscal conservative. You have decided to ally yourself with folks who think the Democratic Party has not yet moved far enough to the Left. 

Chris Murphy was a lead speaker at Kos' Netroots Nation convention. He wants to be the "tip of the spear" advancing the liberal agenda through Congress.

He told MSMBC that after he and his colleagues got past the voters in November they would return with "steel in their spine" ready to cast more tough votes against the wishes of their constituents.

So Murphy is following the playbook. talking left outside the district, talking right inside the district, and planning to do whatever he pleases if he is returned to office.

That, by the way, will be to abandon his work as a House member and start his 2012 senate campaign against Joe Lieberman.  Of course, CT observers have noticed that if Murphy loses tomorrow, he's probably all done for 2012.


There are plenty of Democrats who are going to lose. Many are well meaning and misguided. But as for a toxic cocktail of ambition, ideology and insincerity there are none more deserving of defeat than Connecticut's Chris Murphy. 

If you agree go to 


Syndicate content