Feel the Santorumentum (then Wash Your Hands)

Wow.  Rick Santorum is thus far thrashing Mitt Romney in all three states being contested tonight -- the beauty contest in Missouri -- no delegates at stake, but an incredibly important state for Republicans in the general election -- and allready called for Santorum -- and the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado.  It's early going in the latter two and I don't yet have enough sense of where the vote is coming from, but it looks to me like Santorum could run the table. 

This is a pretty stunning setback for Romney and suggests as many of us have noted over the last few weeks just how weak a front runner he is.  Still, I don't see how anyone but Romney can prevail, due both to money and organization, but it doesn't say much for your organization -- or the product you are trying to sell if you get steamrolled in three different places by a guy as week as Santorum.

Stay tuned.

Update:  Santorum has indeed taken both Missouri and Minnesota.  It looks like Romney is going to finish third in Minnesota, with a mere 16% of the vote thus far, as opposed to the 41% he drew in 2008.  Amazingly, Gingrich has had an even worse night.  Not on the ballot in Missouri and a dismal fourth in Minnesota.  Suddenly instead of talk about Santorum getting out of the race, it is going to be Gingrich who looks like the conservative spoiler. 

I would imagine it would be a little chilling in the Romney camp to contemplate an evening in which he has sustained two 30 point losses to Rick Santorum. 

(I wish I could get some updates on Colorado -- no one seems to have them.)

Further Update:  Yes indeed, Santorum got the hat trick.  This is a sign of Romney's serious weakness among the conservative base.  Like poor infantry in warfare, Romney can only prevail by using the heavy artillery of television advertising.  There is little spontaneous affection for him -- indeed, one is struck by the degree to which support he enjoyed in 2008 in places like Colorado and Minnesota has seemingly evaporated.  I am very curious to see the reaction to this is among the Fox News set and within the right wing blogosphere.  Again, I don't think he can be stopped -- once the primaries resume in earnest, Romney's money -- and his opponents lack thereof -- can be brought to bear and he will likely begin winning again.  But I would be pretty unhappy if I were a Republican to be stuck with a candidate who cannot win among his own if he takes his foot off the gas for a minute. 

Comments

[corvus9]

Right now Santorum has 55% of the vote in Missouri. Even though that's the non-binding one, that's still huge. It's the first time someone has broken fifty. And he's close to doing it in Minnesota as well: 45% with half reporting. Also, 42% in Colorado with 26% reporting (I'm have CNN up in another tab). Those are all pretty punishing. Really punishing. I have no idea how this is happening, or where it came from. It's like the rolling frontrunner thing is still going on.

I am feeling this really does throw the race open again. I mean, Romney is just so obviously weak and hated by large portions of the public, and Gingrich seems caput, but still around.... I feel like Gingrich doesn't have a hardon of hate for Santorum that he has for Romney, so I wonder how that plays out here. Would Gingrich drop out if Santorum looked set to assume the mantle? Remember, at this point Gingrich probably wants to fuck over Romney more than anything else, and a strategic drop out that accomplishes that will probably be more satisfying that going to the convention and Mitt getting the nom. And I can definately see Gingrich wanting a position on the ticket, and can see Santorum picking him (not Romney though. No one will ever pick Romney as a VP).

[KN]

I have to smile a little when this kind of stuff happens.
Let us all hope that the republicans continue to self-destruct right into the elections.

I think the half-time meme has some deep cred. The fight has been defined. It is the 99% versus the 1%. Now let's bring it to a conclusion.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

The other thing I find interesting is the continued depressed vote totals in these contests. They do not look like the turnout totals of a party that is truly energized.

KN,

How are you doing? Are you going to continue to stay out in the jungle or are you making a move?

[low-tech cyclist]

In Colorado, with 70% of precincts reporting, it's

Rick Santorum 12,995 37.7%
Mitt Romney .. 12,426 36.0%

Mitt's gonna win in the end, but anything that draws it out, and keeps the base reminded that they really, deep down, don't like Romney, is good.

[low-tech cyclist]

Josh Marshall:

And really this isn't about Santorum. It's about Romney. Absent crushing spending and a week or so to focus on a single state, Romney seems to have a really rough time. That's bad, especially in the Midwest where a Republican candidate has to run strong. And especially when he's faltering in national polls versus President Obama.

And Santorum won Colorado, sweeping the night.

While no delegates were up for grabs, the fact remains that Romney has only won 2 of the 7 states that have voted so far. He and his PAC can't carpet-bomb every state; they've got more money than everyone else combined, but it seems to take several times as much money as everyone else for Romney to win a state.

[Phil Perspective]

LTC:
And the only reason Mittens won Florida was his ability to carpet bomb the airwaves! I do wonder if people like Ezra Klein and Nate Silver will reconsider tomorrow that Mittens has this all locked up.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

*ahem*
No, even I don't think Santorum can last -- but with everybody out there, I think a brokered convention may be again a possibility. Watch the 'super-delegates.' They are already far to Romney's right -- if they support him it's because he's either more 'electable' or less absurd than the others, but they don't really like or agree with him.

Okay, then they see how hard Romney has to work even to get the wins he gets, and that he has a plurality of the delegates, but is a couple of hundred short of a majority. And you've seen the runout numbers continue to plummet, and polls are giving him 40% of the two-person vote.

Do you still nominate him, or do you deadlock the convention and roll the dice? Damned if i know which one they'll choose.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I am not responsible for 'pronoun delinquency' after 3:15 in the morning.

[low-tech cyclist]

And I'm not responsible for overlooking Nevada at nearly 2am! Mittens has won 3 of 8, not 2 of 7.

[Davis X. Machina]

There's always one of these guys. Jerry Brown in '92, for example. Won a lot of primaries once the actual nominee was clear -- but didn't get a sniff of the actual nomination.

Party actors still wield a lot of clout, and a man who lost his own state as an incumbent senator by 15% isn't going to ring their bells.

[Mandos]

It's kind of astonishing, do his voters really not know about the googlebomb?

[oddjob]

to be stuck with a candidate who cannot win among his own if he takes his foot off the gas for a minute

He can't win among them because they aren't his own. In another era he would be quite comfortable as a moderate Republican, but movement conservatism's biggest success has been the destruction of that brand.

[MR Bill]

My Republican brother in Florida (he's in Leesburg, near the Villages) was so disgusted by the overkill of attack ads and robocalls he voted for R. Paul, not because he supports Paul, but because Paul had made the fewest intrusions.
He thought it ugly, and is so disgusted "I might not even vote" in the general election.
Knowing the guy, he's likely to push to lever for whoever the R is (Romney), but he actually said some things good about Obama...
The Republicans seems to be tearing themselves apart, and I suspect, absent some unforeseen events, the sheer hatred for Obama/the Left that has fed the Conservative Movement among those it is hurting will not be enough.

[Paula B]

MR Bill, we can only hope. Is it just me, or is there more to Santorum than meets the eye? He looks like a good candidate to get totally run over by Obama.

[MR Bill]

Steve Benen at Maddowblog reports GOP turnouts continue depressed..
And their numbers are down, too.

And Washington Monthly's site seems to be hacked: you get a Google "Attack Site" page, and should you be foolish enough to click through, it will redirect you to some Brit appearing phishing site, and try to dump a lot of crap onto your computer. Grr.

Paula, I've always thought Santorum a mostly empty suit, an obsessive publick moralizer ("Let us beware of Publick moralists: they speak as angels, but live as mere men..."), and, if recent reports are right, a serial hypocrite on earmarks and budgetary greed..

[oddjob]

Oh, trust me, there's much, much less to Rick Santorum than meets the eye!

He's not a compelling speaker. Even if I shared his religious beliefs and convictions about how society must be I couldn't not notice that instead of being an inspiring public speaker he's an annoying one. The more you listen to him the more you notice how grating and whiny his speech patterns are.

When he was in the Senate he was deeply enmeshed in Tom DeLay's corrupt lobbyist extortion shakedown (aka the K Street Project).

How many other incumbent senators can you think of who in the prime of their careers lost a re-election campaign by 15%?

[janinsanfran]

Kos said something cogent about the clown show this morning: "They want a culture war, not a budget one..."

Since the general election electorate wants a fight over how to make the economy work for them -- and if things are trending upward even that will recede in salience -- Obama is at least momentarily looking good.

Now if he just wouldn't cave to the Catholic Bishops on contraception...

[low-tech cyclist]

I'd read somewhere, earlier this week, about Team Romney planning to take the "Selling of the President" route from here on out: only have him appear in controlled settings and circumstances, and let the ads do the heavy lifting.

Last night was a big speed bump on the way to executing that plan. After you lose three primaries/caucuses in one night, you can't skip debates on the grounds that nobody's listening to those other chumps, so there's no need to share a stage with them.

Which is, of course, all for the good.

[oddjob]

TPM has noted that Romney didn't win even one single county in either Minnesota or Missouri.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oooooookay. This time I'm not going to be giving my own prediction -- mostly because I'm damned if I know what it is. To be precise, I'm still willing to put a bet down on 'brokered convention' it's just the odds I want keep shifting from even money to 'give me five to one and its a bet.' (And if anyone actually wants to make me an offer, my wish-list at Amazon is likely to be filled with a lot of very cheap books -- I almost always buy used books, and usually Amazon's prices for what I am looking for come to $3.50-$5.00 depending on shipping, The most common is 'price $0.01 + 3.99 s&h.')

Anyway, this time I want to ask a question. I keep hearing, here, and more from the blimp, that, whatever the voting, there are these 'powerful party insiders' who want to see Romney as the candidate and will do all they can to make it happen. Who are they?

I mean that perfectly seriously. In fact, my question really has five parts:

1) Who are these insiders. Names would be nice, but are they office-holders, money men, 'respected elder statesmen,' business leaders, 'communication specialists' (anyone from Luntz through Limbaugh through Murdoch to Farah and Bryan Fischer) or who?

2) What constituency do they come from?

3) What other constituencies do they represent or work with?

4) Why DID they want Rpmney as their candidate?

5) Why do they STILL want him as their candidate, or are they having second thoughts?

Let's answer these questions for one group, to show what I mean. Let's try the Heirarchy of the Mormon Church. Now 1 and 2 are obvious. 3 would include other religious groups -- but more Catholics and some old-line RR groups than with the new megachurch types and the NAR (still around, just not as noticeable or relevant right now). But it would also include a portion of the business community. Mormon leaders tend to be businessmen as well -- and the Church itself runs many businesses, religious and secular. But more, a lot of bsinessmen like to hire Mormons as high-level subordinates. The image is of people who are docile, well-dressed, take orders, may not show much initiative but also who don't ask a lot of questions. In this case it might be conceivable that the Mormon subordinates might help push their bosses.

4 is easy too, given the mythical Romney -- that blimp-types are stil insisting is the 'real Romney.' (echoes of the "Real McCain"?) He was the secret centrist who could draw Democrats and Independents, the one sane man against the clown car, the man who could get ordinary business money -- not Koch brothers type -- pouring in, the one guy who had so few enemies that everyone would eventually 'line up behind him.' But for this group there was the additional 'one of us' factor, the thought he'd be the "Mormon John Kennedy."

5 is -- and has always been for me -- the problem. The arguments keep getting weaker with every day, and sometimes they are turning arount to bite Mitt. He's looking more and more like the "Mormon Al Smith" whose candidacy -- at least temporarily -- is as likely to increase prejudice as decrease it.

More than that, something I predicted is already happening, according to Religion Dispatches -- can't find the link right now, but read it yesterday. Romney is bringing increased scrutiny on the Mormon Church. Articles are being written, books too, about the faith, and they are proving somewhat shocking to average Mormons who had received only a very sanitized version of Church History. There is at least a small exodis already starting.

And somebody is really going to take on the Book of Mormon itself. And -- with apologies to anyone here who is a Mormon, and I wasn't sure if one of you implied you were -- but that barrage is going to make it look like a cartoon soldier turned into a piece of swiss cheese. I mean, give them the magic stones, the golden plates, the explanation for the missing pages. Forget Smith's criminal record -- that is findable -- or the fact that he alone had newspaper stories written about him and is recent enough to be investigated. Even ignore the bit about him claiming to be translating "Ancient High Egyptian" at a time when no one knew how to read any form of heiroglyphics -- and then they found the Rosetta Stone. They'd challenged Smith to translate another bit of Egyptian, he did, and then they could check his work. The Mormons still list it as 'sacred scripture' anyone who can actually read Egyptian knows it is a purely secular and, I believe, bureaucratic document.

The book alone is devastating in at least three ways. The weakest is 'absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.' It's no surprise that Smith had no archaeologcal evidence to support him at the time. The science barely existed, and when it was religiously aimed, it looked at the Biblical lands rather than here. But it's approaching two centuries now, and not one single piece of evidence has turned up to support any of the story he tells.

Then there's botany, the foods the Lamanites and the others are supposed to have eaten simply didn't exist in the Americas until Europeans brought them over a millenia and a half later. And style is the final coup de grace. I'm sorry, but I'l grant you magic translating stones, but if they exist, why isn't there a touch of 'magic' (or elegance, or beauty) in the translation they produced? Why did it read like a semi-literate's attempt to imitate "Biblical English" with its endless repetitions of "And it came to pass" merely the ugliest example.

Okay, too much time on that, but worth saying, I hope. Go back up to the other arguments. Because they don't work for Mormons, or for anyone else.

In fact, given the sidetrack. let's make that a new post.

[Paula B]

It's time for the people of Massachusetts to start telling the world what kind of governor Romney was. Depending on the issue, I would rank him 0-50 out of 100. I think the Post has a piece today about his ho-hum ability to create jobs in a state swimming in colleges, one that has perhaps the most highly educated population in the nation, a deep water port, three major interstates, two Amtrak lines, a world-class high-tech center, a strong tourism industry and decent agriculture (including fishing)base. Romney never needed to be a rocket scientist to accomplish this feat, only leadership skills. Once elected, he never made one single trip to any of the four western counties (in fact, he was out of state more than he was in it), so I have my doubts about the sincerity of his professed interest in doing a good job as governor, along with his ability to lead anything but a Boy Scout hike. What states do you think he would ignore, as president? Who exactly would he lead, when he can't even muster a decent following in his own party?

[Paula B]

Today's story in WaPo---shoulda, coulda, woulda
http://wapo.st/Ah70Ci

“There was this tremendous sense of a lost opportunity. Nobody questioned this was an incredibly capable man,” said Stephen Crosby, who was secretary of administration and finance for the two Republican administrations before Romney’s. “If he put his skills to work, in a really dedicated and thoughtful and appropriate way, there was a sense that he could’ve had a much greater positive impact.”

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The other arguments: Is Romney really a 'secret moderate who will govern as only a mildly conservative Republican? By now the question is almost meaning-free. He's had to run as an 'ultra' just to keep what little trust remains in the base. He's been so extreme it takes an Act of Faith for even a moderately conservative Republican to argue that he is even 'saner than Gingrich, Paul and Santorum.' (And sanity isn't just 'having a grasp on reality.' Compulsive, unnecessary lying is a form of insanity as well.)

And if he gets the nomination, can he run a 'two-tiered' campaign, telling the base what it wants to hear and at the same time getting the message across to those 'disaffected Democrats and Independents' that he doesn't 'really mean it'? Nope! That's what the base will be looking for and examining his statements for. Any hint of 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' and far more of the base will stay home than can be made up -- even if the 'dD&I' believe him, which is becoming more and more unlikely.

As for business money, well, it was possible, until Romney started opening his mouth. But after the gaffes, the bet, the taxes, the 'I'm unemployed' joke, and the rest, Romney is running into the Palin/Fey problem. He has become such a total cariacture that you can't actually satirize him. All you can do is imitate him and hope the audience takes it as satire. (Think about Joan Rivers being hired as the spokesman for a chain of cosmetic surgeons -- when she has become the image of excess in that field. Would you hire her or pay her money to represent you if you owned the company?)

He may not 'have many enemies' since he invites scorn and laughter rather than hatred. But he has no friends at all, no basic group of supporters who back him out of their love, belief, or trust in him, nobody who sees him as the 'ideal spokesman for their views,' nobody who would see him as their first choice rather than just as 'electable' or the 'sanest banana in the bunch.'

Oh, and lets take a quick look at KN's oligarchs, with the wealth, influence and power to nominate anyone they want, with the power to even force a reluctant candidate into running -- pr forfeiting forever their support. These 'fabulous monsters' needed a front man to put a face on their agenda, a pliant, attractive puppet to help them bamboozle the Americn people. They had three years to look between Obama's election and the beginning of the next campaign. They looked long and hard, examined all sorts of possibilities, interviewed (secretly, uv cawse) many people, gathered in their lairs, teleconferenced with those giganic colorful screens they always have -- in comic books at least -- and chose ... Mitt Romney.

Yeah, and if you give a chef in the Hamptons an unlimited budget for food, he'll use much of it on Franco-American Spaghetti.

And yet, Romney still may win, most of you would say 'probably will win.' I'll have to believe it, but damned if I can understand it.

[oddjob]

damned if I can understand it

When little people cast long shadows that means the sun is setting.

[kathy a.]

oddjob wins.

[jeanne marie]

Wow! Watching conservative Ted Olson argue for same sex marriage rights is so heartening. And he thinks yesterday's ruling has broad implications. Watch the whole thing.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

agreed!! about oddjob.

And Olson has been a supporter of SSM for years -- and was the driving force behind the Olson-Boies teaming up to defeat Prop 8. Yes it's great, but it is nothing new -- and it isn't even just 'coming to light' he was saying the same things -- and getting as much news coverage -- right along.

[jeanne marie]

Prup, I hadn't heard him speak before (maybe I'm the only one, sorry). But I thought his argument against the ruling having narrow implications for California alone was a pretty big deal.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I wasn't jumping up and down on jeanne marie in that last comment, just reminding everyone yet again that just because you know something, don't assume it is common knowledge -- by serving as a good example of the reverse.

(Okay, the hobby horse needs a little exercise, bu just a trot around the yard, I won't even open the gates.)

It's a simple, two-part rule. "Don't assume that everyone knows what you knows (or understands it the way you do) and don't assume you can insist people take the identities you think they 'should.'" But it keeps you grounded, effective, and spares you the need to grow a crop of explanations that Occam's razor will only turn into a salad.

But I'm still not sure if they can explain why the Republican front-runner travels with a podiatrist who is an expert in bullet wounds.

[oddjob]

When little people cast long shadows that means the sun is setting.

This is the first election cycle I can recall where not one of the Republican candidates even remotely strikes me as "presidential material". Furthermore none of the names I've seen as possible viable alternates strikes me as "presidential material" either (with - maybe, maybe, - the possible exception of Jeb Bush, but even then I have to overlook some pretty insane shit [such as his behavior regarding Terri Schiavo for starters]). I mean - come on! - Haley Barbour??, Bobby Jindal??, Mitch Daniels???. LOL!

In any of the cycles from the late 1970's through the mid-90's all of this lot (Tim Pawlenty included) would have been no better than part of the mid-tier crowd in Iowa & New Hampshire - the sort of candidate like Governor (at the time) Lamar Alexander that you knew full well wasn't going to be nominated and whose decision to run made you wonder why he'd so decided.

All of these jokers are thus "little people". That they're now all that the GOP has to offer shows you how old and fading their political paradigm and brand are.

[kathy a.]

prup -- olson has been on the prop 8 case all along. this case has a dream team, and a supporting cast of many. but it is still pretty impressive stuff, to have someone of his pedigree lining up for the cause, and still going out to bat for it in public.

and i really love olson's analysis. the actual decision was narrowed to california -- but the underlying reasoning is very broad, as he said, and solid. and he is personally fired up about marriage -- and about how loving these particular marriages are, how unfair it is to stigmatize these marriages. but, he thinks the day will come when everyone understands this is the right thing. wow!

oddjob -- yep. the GOP field is pretty much a mess.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Someone I think both 'looks big' and 'is big' is my choice for 2016 -- Kathleen Sebelius -- who was my choice for VP in 2008. (And if Biden were to decide he'd had enough...) Every time I see or hear her I am more impressed.

And, back to Little Ricky's sweep, the Colorado results are the really serious ones. Romney was figured to win easily, but more importantly, the state is filled with three groups he had to win, religious conservatives -- Dobson and the Colorado Springs crew -- Western Hispanics -- different background and concerns from Floridians -- and relatively rich independents and Democrats -- supposedly the reason he's running.

And remember he won 60% in 2008 -- this year half that (Against Nasty Newt and the Altar Boy and Michelle's Mad Uncle). 35% -- and his high for the night. (Has he passed that anywhere?)

[low-tech cyclist]

TPM has noted that Romney didn't win even one single county in either Minnesota or Missouri.

Hope that no santorum got smeared on the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota!

[oddjob]

Apparently last night was particularly unfortunate for Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty campaigned for Romney and endorsed him, and yet despite these efforts by the former MN governor Romeny came in a distant third.

[kathy a.]

oh, we definitely need some more weird al commentary on this race, LTC!

[Paula B]

Three recent tweets you might have missed:

ktumulty (Karen Tumulty)
Rasmussen: 43% of Americans believe group picked randomly from the phone book would do a better job than Congress. bit.ly/y15xoz

pourmecoffee
Santorum would restrict contraception for women, but he has unlimited access to his primary method, those sweater vests.

pourmecoffee
On this day in 1952, Elizabeth became Queen of UK, I think mainly from strong performance in the debates and negative ads.

[KN]

And without reading any other comments, it pleases me no end to think that Romney will have to expend tens of millions to fight off his challengers that he could otherwise use in the general. At some point the spigots will get turned off just because there are some things money can't buy. That is not to say that the rethuglicans will give up, oh no, they are all in othis, their brand is tethered to making Obama a one term president. So next what we can expect and should be looking out for is more dirty tricks, election fraud, voter caging, and every other thing thing that they can pull that will give them an advantage.

It is becoming abundantly clear that this is not so much an election as a auction. The one thing in our favor, as the polity, is that we are used to things we actually need being expensive. The 1% are penurious by nature and easily cowed when it appears they can't get what they want at the price they want.

We need to look hard down ballot as well, that is the real crux of what things will be like the next four years. Without a strong congressional basis, there is not really much the executive can do, so we need to make sure that the wave of 2012 is a democratic one and that the tea-party and other nut jobs are overthrown and even more importantly that the senate is swung to a firm majority of actually progressive democrats. I know, it is blue sky wishful thinking, unless you set the goal and then work like hell to make it happen.

Now maybe I will give a look at the comments.

BTW I could be outta here in the next week, or still here for another 3-6 months depending. There was a time when a few months seemed like a long time.

[KN]

I have read through most of the comments and so this one is a little informed at least. I think the problem all the rethuglicans have is their religious devotions. Every one of them claims to be devout. The problem that arises is that all the other factions who also claim to be devout, know that they themselves are lieing, and conclude quite reasonably that the all the other cults are also lieing.

They all know that their agenda is to say anything to get elected and then try to do what they want. Then also realized that is also the motivation of every single one of their candidates, hence deep and unavailing distrust.
Saddly, I think that far too many people who participate in our government are unaware of these fundamental contradictions. I guess we will see won't we?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Some mornings you wake up ready to challenge the world. Then some days you run into this. Then you check the story out and discover that Steve had missed referring to an even worse CPAC sponsor, Youth for Western Civilization.

Then you page down and discover that Kansas (the Kansas of Brownback and Phelps -- there is another one somewhere) has come up with a new way to attack both abortion and medical ethics -- and that there is at least one honest Republican left. (I gave her e-mail so, if you click through -- and you should -- she can receive a word of encouragement from you. If there's any follow-up, her office phone is also available, and I'm about to call it and thank her.

But you wonder -- okay, I wonder if my time wouldn;t be better spent putting on Pink Floyd's "Sisyphus," picking up my current book, and taking a time-out of a coupe of hours, days, or week, just to rebuild my hope.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I usually figure maybe 20% of readers click through, but this time I hope the proportions are higher. And Rep. Bollier's office sounds exactly like the tone you'd expect from a Kansas State Legislator -- you can smell the apple pies and fresh steak in the voice -- but she appreciated the support, or her aide did.

I won't post her office number -- you can use a non-Google search engine (I usually like the big names for programs -- but Google is sponsoring CPAC this year) and look up Barbara Bollier, MD and State Representative from Kansas -- and if you check Project Vote Smart, this isn't the only similar position she's taken, even though she clains to be 'pro-life.'
Give her a call or an e-mail and show your appreciation.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

A quick update on Bollier. She doesn't make public statements or answer 'your position on issues' questionaires, but she's a Kansas Republican with a 73% rating from the AFL and a 22% from Americans for Prosperity. Sometimes, very rarely, there are Republicans who deserve our support. She seems to be one, especially if she runs for higher office -- someting I have seen nothing about, but I can hope.

[KN]

Prup appears to have responded indirectly to my down ballot allusion and in the strange way of pointing out a republican who might actually still be sane enough to be considered reasonable. But I am skeptical. Kansas has virtually no topography, unless you draw contours with a 1' interval. I think a better approach is to go after DINOS who deserve to pay a high price for their waffling on major issues and letting them - thereby - atrophy.

It is clear that on many levels, local, state and national, the rethugs are willing to do anything to consolidate more power and influence and will be very well funded to do so. Donate time, money and passion until it hurts? Well that might not be enough, but it is a good start.