As I mentioned yesterday during my vote for Ann Wofford in Ma-3 piece I haven’t talked much about the House and Senate but I would like to talk a bit about the Senate race in NH, specifically today about Senator Kelly Ayotte.

Kelly Ayotte who you might remember was elected during the big red wave of 2010 thanks to support from Sarah Palin has not been a conservative favorite, they are lukewarm at best on her and some of my friend hold her in disdain.

I don’t.  There are plenty of reasons why I’m happy to endorse Kelly Ayotte, here are six of them that my fellow conservatives should note:

 

First:  She’s a former Prosecutor.  I’m always partial toward former prosecutors in federal office. They are used to having to prove a case to win so they tend to be practical in terms of advancing legislation.  That’s the kind of thinking that’s good for DC and at a time when police are targeted for murder and the left excuses it a former prosecutor in the senate is a good idea.

Second:  She was one of the few national figures to speak out against swatting when conservatives were being targeted, not just when it became a celebrity issue latter on.

Third:  she was one of the conservatives who spoke out and voted against the budget act of 2011

The 19 Republicans who voted against read like a Who’s Who of the conservative movement in the Senate: Sessions & Shelby from Alabama, Rubio from Florida, Chambliss from Georgia, Coats of Indiana and Grassley of Iowa, from Kansas Moran & Roberts, Paul from Kentucky, Ayotte of New Hampshire, Coburn & Inhofe Of Oklahoma , Toomey of Pennsylvania, Demint & Graham of South Carolina , Hatch & Lee of Utah.

Fourth:  Ayotte has been excellent on defense issues and the war on terror like Benghazi

On Morning Joe, on CSPAN they highlighted Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain and the questions concerning Benghazi. During their segment with Angus King the senator elect from Maine they asked about Senator McCain and Graham.

There were however three senators at that press conference.

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) was also there and spoke to this issue, (as she had during the campaign). She gave a strong statement on the situation and answered questions as well.

You would think it’s kind of hard to ignore Kelly Ayotte at that event, She is tall (she towered over both Senators McCain & Graham) but she is a younger, photogenic woman who had a strong interest in this matter. I’d think that would be something to play up instead of just “two old white guys”.

I suggest that is exactly WHY she is left out.

She also spoke up during the Hagel hearings mentioning the Green Revolution in Iran:

Yesterday she raised an incredible point at the Hagel Hearings that nobody seems to have caught

Of course he also voted against a sense of the senate in designating the Islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization and he told us during the hearing that it was because of it was part of an elected legitimate Iranian government.

I don’t think that the people who rose up in 2009 in the green movement who were persecuted and shot at by the Iranian government would call that government a legitimately elected government. Nor would, at the time that he voted against designating the Islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization at the time they were assisting those in Iraq who were murdering our troops.

You might have missed both of those because the same MSM that tries to distort and destroy Trump buried both of those stories to play the “old white men” card vs the GOP and to keep Kelly out of the spotlight.

Fifth:  (and best) For my money the best reason to support Kelly Ayotte was her vote against Manchin Toomey.  She took a stand for the 2nd Amendment when it counted and the MSM tore her apart for it.

MSNBC went batshit crazy but Morning Joe really went overboard.  After months of calling opponents of Manchin-Toomey the survivalist wing of the NRA the day after the vote lost they were running images of the various senators with huge scare graphics saying VOTED NO as is each one of them were responsible for the Newtown shooting

I recall there was particular ire at Kelly Ayotte for not going along. They talked of the Millions Bloomberg would spend to defeat her, how the Northeast was turning blue and so was NH and how this vote was the beginning of the end for her. I commented at the time:

Morning Joe today is running the Pictures of the senators who voted No under big scary graphics

Now as I’ve already said it’s fair to say she is not as conservative as I’d like and she has occasionally disappointed, particularly on immigration and my friends at Granite Grok have held her feet to the fire over it through the years, to those people who are still upset let me give you one last reason to support Kelly Ayotte that you might have missed

Sixth:  Kelly Ayotte is without question the most conservative US Senator northeast of New Jersey and it isn’t even close, I’d gladly swap her for either of the people we have here in Massachusetts.

If you are a conservative and want to either forestall a president Clinton or help out a president Trump you need to vote for Kelly Ayotte on Tuesday in New Hampshire


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



“The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington,” Treglia says — 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot — that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.” …

Instapundit Jan 26th 2016

Dr. Peter Blood: Nuttall, me lad, there’s just one other little thing. Do you think you could find me a good stout piece of timber? About so thick and so long?
Honesty Nuttall: Yes, I think so.
Dr. Peter Blood: Then do so and lash it to your spine – it needs stiffening. Courage!

Captain Blood 1935

Yesterday I talked about my fear that the only thing standing between us and the loss of the republic is the courage of the GOP senate.

It didn’t take long for my fears to begin to be realized.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, who said Saturday it “only makes sense” to let the next president pick the justice, wouldn’t rule out holding hearings for Obama’s eventual pick.

“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions,” Grassley told reporters in a conference call on Tuesday, according to Radio Iowa. “In other words, take it a step at a time.”

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, also sounded skeptical of simply rejecting any nominee at the outset. 

“I think we fall into the trap if we just simply say, sight unseen—we fall into the trap of being obstructionists,” Tillis said on The Tyler Cralle Show.

What’s most interesting the sudden cracks in the wall is the difference between the reality and the propaganda.

The reality is that the Senate Republicans have the absolute power to stop president Obama in his tracks.  No amount of editorializing, speech making or angst on the part of the President, Democrats and the NY & Washington Based media changes this fact.

The only thing these people can do is generate fear, and that’s the plan.

You will see editorial after editorial, story after story, advocate after advocate appearing on cable news channels, in newspaper editorials, on sunday shows, in tiny protests stage-managed for the eyes of the press,  on college campuses, on radio news at the top and bottom of the hour excoriating the GOP about how upset the public will be about them failing to confirm Barack Obama’s Supreme Court Pick and how that backlash is going to doom them.

This despite the fact that the same predictions concerning a government shutdown preceded the GOP taking of the Senate in 2014

and stuff like this (emphasis mine)

In July of last year, popular perceptions of the conservative jurist were evenly divided, with 29% seeing him favorably and 27% unfavorably. Scalia, whom one prominent legal scholar named “the most influential justice of the last quarter-century,” was nonetheless unknown to nearly a third of Americans (32%) and generated no opinion from another 12% in 2015, Scalia’s 29th year on the nation’s top court.

So let me ask the obvious question:

Assuming I’m right about the media meme that’s about to be sold to members of congress, how can said meme be accurate if 44% of the pubic doesn’t even know or care who Justice Scalia was?

and provide the answer:  IT ISN’T.

The left’s media meme and online blitzs that are coming are the equivalent of John Magruder or Nathan Bedford Forrest marching the same group of troops over and over again around a hill to make a small force seem like a mighty host, and like their modern democrat successors using the same tactic, their success in that endeavor was dependent on their foes falling for that ruse and losing their nerve.

Don’t fall for it, and if you want to be afraid of something ask yourself this:  Do you really think that the Tea Party and the NRA will forgive and forget if you give in to the Democrats on this?

I’ll give the last word to Jake Tapper

Antonin Scalia pray for us.

****************************************************************************

Given where the economy is rather than where the MSM pretends it is to those who have kicked in (particularly subscribers), thanks much.

If however you have not & are both able and inclined I’d really appreciate it if you’d help us either close January strong or start February stronger by hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

By Steve Eggleston

Fresh off the betrayal of the pro-life movement by their House counterparts by their refusal to harmonize abortion policy with Europe’s ban on abortion after 20 weeks (though they did pass a permanent extension of the Hyde Amendment, which generally forbids federal funds for abortions), a couple of key Senate Republicans are mulling a formal extension of Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid’s “nuking” of the filibustering of Presidential nominees to Supreme Court nominees (H/T – Jazz Shaw).

The “good” news is that Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Roy Blunt (R-MO, and the chair of the Senate Rules committee) will seek to do that through the regular order of having 2/3rds of the Senate vote to change the rule instead of Reid’s parlimentary trick of using a simple majority to change the interpretation of Senate rules. The bad news is a multitude: they are confidants of Senate Majority “Leader” Mitch McConnell (R-KY), they appear to have no intention of restoring the filibuster for other Presidential nominees though that is still on the books, and they somehow got Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on board.

The excuse that the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees has to go now in order for it to be gone for the next President is a bunch of hogwash. The next Senate will be sworn in before the next President. Rather, it has all the hallmarks of yet another betrayal by the more-or-less minority half of the bipartisan Party-In-Government, especially since two of the four Supreme Court Justices most likely to not make it to 2017 are not ultra-liberal and one of those is one of the three reliable conservatives.

At the moment, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is one of the few who wants to keep the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. I somehow suspect he’ll change his tune once McConnell and company explain who gets shafted the most.

By Steve Eggleston

Thanks to the fracking boom (no thanks to President Obama and his eco-nuts on that) and the Saudis attempting to do to said boom what they did to the Soviets in the 1980s, the price of gasoline has plummeted. In fact, most of the stations in the Milwaukee area are charging less than $2 per gallon, a level I thought I would never see again.

However, the Political Class has deemed that gasoline is too low, and that government, in this case the federal government, needs more taxes, using the temporary situation of relatively-inexpensive gas as the pretext to push the gas and diesel taxes higher to “save” the United States Highway Trust Fund.

Notably, the push includes the three Republican Senators who have the chairs of the three committees that likely would have jurisdiction over such a move – Environment and Public Works Chair James Inhofe (R-OK), Finance Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair John Thune (R-SD). For their parts, Inhofe and Thune claim to not favor doing so, but that the option should be “on the table”. That is DC-speak for “let’s do it”.

Inhofe then destroyed his credibility on the issue by calling it a “user fee”. The fuel taxes haven’t been strictly a “user fee” since 1982, when a penny of the 5-cent increase to 9 cents per gallon was dedicated to mass transit, with another 0.1 cent dedicated to fuel tank clean-up. Mass transit’s share has since increased to 2.86 cents per gallon.

There already is a “bipartisan” proposal from Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) to jack up the taxes by 6 cents per year over the next 2 years, and then automatically raise them every year by indexing the taxes to inflation. The latter portion has been proven to be quite unpopular, with Massachusetts repealing by popular referendum its automatic indexing.

Simply removing mass transit and the tank from the fuel taxes won’t solve the Highway Fund’s problems, but it would be a start.

Marshall Isaac: America’s the land of second chances

Doctor Who:  A town called Mercy 2012

There are solid logical arguments for not changing back the Filibuster and some have been made this week at HotAir:

As Ed Whelan notes, in the course of U.S. history, presidential nominees have typically enjoyed confirmation by simple majority. Only in the last ten years has filibustering nominees become normalized. McCain’s hypocrisy point is fair enough, but so what? Hypocrisy is par for the course with the filibuster; liberals who spent six years screeching about obstructionism from the “party of no” in the Senate will rediscover the filibuster as a wise, tempering procedural move if Republicans control the government in 2017. McCain has an … interesting set of values if he’s prepared to tolerate a “different rules for the two parties” approach in perpetuity simply to avoid being called a hypocrite.

I disagree, I think that the old filibuster rule protected the rights of the minority and such rights are still important and I believe it to be true.  I thought it was harmful for the country when the rule was changed and I still think it is.

I propose giving the Democrats this chance, if at least a dozen Democrats in the senate will give their word publicly that they will if they regain control of the chamber oppose any attempt to return the nuclear option,

If they are wiling to make that commitment then I’d return the rule moreover I’d be nice and friendly about it and make a bid deal in the press about how important they believe Minority rights are, but keep your ears and eyes open.

Be Michael not Sonny.

I had to laugh when I saw this at Twitchy:

It produced some interesting exchanges such as this one:

Meanwhile at the same time that Landrieu is trying to run from her base by pretend she is something she is not Barack Obama is running toward his by being what he is:

Obama has pledged to use his executive powers to alter the immigration system before the end of the year, though it remains unclear exactly when he will act. He has asked senior aides and Cabinet secretaries to present him with options but has not formally huddled with them to make a final decision, according to administration officials.

This has produced a lot of shock of argument from the right and talk of a big fight, with many figures arguing that the president is making a huge mistake by ignoring the will of the electorate.  Why can’t they be more like Mary Landrieu & try to pivot toward the electorate.

They have it exactly backwards.

Not in terms of policy, the idea of a mass amnesty is a horrible policy that is going to hurt the country tremendously for years to come, and both the building of the Keystone pipeline and defending life iar the right things to do.

But politically the President has it exactly right and Mary Landrieu has it wrong

Absolutely nothing he may do is likely to expand his popularity among the people who just rejected his agenda and after six years of president Obama in office it’s highly unlikely he’s going to earn any new followers among the general public.

Politically The only thing he can do is to play to his base that has stuck with him, and since said base, and while some of his media base would like to play up to the candidates running in 2016 they are still afraid of the race or the sex cards being played on them.

The President may not have any gumption in dealing with Putin or Syria, but when it comes attacking his political foes he’s a tiger. This is exactly the type of thing that’s necessary for him to be relevant not only in terms of the remainder of his term but in terms of the next presidential election. Bill Clinton is right:

He also said Obama should maximize his pulpit and not give in to being a “lame duck,”

Mary Landrieu on the other hand is making a mistake.

Now in fairness to the senator from Louisiana she is in a horrible position. Her odds of winning a runoff in a red state where President Obama is highly unpopular are long to begin with and her opponents are smelling blood in the water.

If she had been given proper support from Harry Reid over the last 18 months she might have had time to separate herself from the White House and be in a better position, but with only a few weeks to go she doesn’t have that luxury. She has no good options, only a series of longshot options and her best longshot option is to completely energize the base, that is the black vote.

She needs to go whole hog for Obama, she has to remind every single person that she ever pulled a sting for, crooked or straight of every single favor she ever did for them and bluntly tell them their choice is simple, someone who will pay off and someone who won’t.

Running as pro-life isn’t going to win a single pro-life voter any more than Scott Brown running as pro-choice was going to win a single abortion friend while going after positions dear to her base is only likely to prompt them to stay home in a race they figure is lost anyway.

In the public service business you have to decide if you want to be a statesman or a politician. It’s kinda late for either Obama or Mary Landrieu to pretend to be a statesman so they might as well be a politician who plays to win.

Speaking of winning the only way I can end this year a winner is if you consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

As everyone knows I supported first Karen Testerman and then Bob Smith for the GOP Senate in NH furthermore I argued that nominating Scott Brown might cause 2A and pro-life people to stay home.

However not only did Scott Brown win the primary but he’s run an excellent campaign overall. Combine this with a poor campaign by Shaheen, and the record of president Obama on Ebola & ISIS and viola Senator Brown has a real chance to take that seat.

In one respect win or lose Brown has already done a huge service for the GOP. When the election season began nobody was picking NH as a state the GOP could flip. Thanks to a strong well-financed campaign by Brown the left has spent an inordinate amount of 3rd party/national money resources defending New Hampshire that they could have spent in Louisiana, or Alaska, or North Dakota, or Colorado, or Arkansas, or Iowa, or North Carolina or Montana or Virginia or in the Florida Governor Race etc etc etc.

Taking money from the left is good, but winning the Senate is better and now the Tea Party and Conservatives in New Hampshire have a chance to not only spike the ball providing a final service for conservatives running nationwide.

Until election day an election is like a marketing campaign, but on election day it’s like a battle where morale is critical. As New Hampshire is one of the eastern states it will be reporting earlier than many other states.

If the Democrats media allies can project a victory in New Hampshire fairly early it will keep up the morale of liberals farther west where pols are still open who will be working as hard as they can to hold senate and house seats. It will provide a narrative that will make it easier for Democrat talking heads to keep the troops fighting till the last poll closes.

But picture if by 9 or 10 PM New Hampshire is still in doubt, or better yet imagine if the networks find themselves calling the state for Brown.

Picture the analysts on MSNBC trying to spin a Brown victory as not a fatal disaster for Democrats, picture them trying to give hope to their party faithful farther west, that a loss in NH doesn’t mean the Senate is going GOP bigtime while wearing drawn faces. Even a race that can’t be called will have a depressing effect.

Such a blow could be critical, if the left decides there simply isn’t hope how many may choose to give up? How many will go home, stop working, vote for a green or 3rd party liberal or even to not bother to vote figuring they can’t make a difference. Picture what that will mean not just in Senate & House races but up and down the ticket for the GOP.

While Senator Brown is not the ideal candidate to many conservatives aiding a victory by him on Tuesday might in NH might make the difference between winning and losing for stronger House and Senate conservatives across the nation.

So I urge you , if you are a New Hampshire Tea Party voter, a second amendment defender or even like me, a strong pro-life voter and considered staying home or even voting 3rd party reconsider, because choosing to elect Scott Brown may do more for your cause than you can possibly imagine.

**************************************************************

There are less than 60 days to the year and to say things are tight financially around here is to say the Titanic had a bit of a leak.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

If you are a regular reader of this blog you know I think Senator Scott Brown NH Senate run is a mistake that has some potentially disastrous consequences for the GOP in NH. I think it would have been better if Senator Brown had choose to run in Massachusetts and I suspect Charlie Baker would have preferred the same., instead.

But with Brown’s candidacya fait accompli it’s time to look at the bright side, particularly for people like me who support other GOP candidates..

First of all lets acknowledge the biggest advantage of the Brown Candidacy the money.

Before Brown’s entry in the race where Shaheen had a huge advantage in both name recognition and cash.

Scott Brown is a money machine that is drawing national money to the NH GOP race,

Because of Senator Brown’s high name recognition and his strategy of totally ignoring his primary opponents practically all of his money and media can be spent attacking Shaheen. Brown’s high media profile combined with the media wanting him to be the candidate guarantees those attacks will get exposure other attacks would not.

Suddenly Jeanne Shaheen has to play defense against a well funded primary opponent attacking her.  It also means Jeanne Shaheen will be spending the vast majority of her money counter attacking Senator Brown to the exclusion of anyone else.

And the media, cheerleading for Shaheen will be doing the same, practically pretending the remainder of the GOP field:  Smith, Rubens & Martin are ignored.

Now in almost any other state such a situation would be the sound of doom for the rest of the GOP field, but in NH it’s a potentially spectacular development.

Imagine that you are Bob Smith or Jim Rubens till September 9th, the entire air war that you would need to launch against Senator Shaheen is going to be fought for you while at the same time Brown takes all the flak allowing you to take no damage in return.

Now if you live in Ohio, or Texas or even Wyoming you might think this is a real problem but New Hampshire is the perfect place to run a small budget ground game.

NH is a small state, its 10 counties consist of only 244 Cities and towns. Only 26 of them have a population over 10,000 and only Manchester has a population over 100,000.  It is also a small state in area, one can drive from on end to the other in just a few hours   A candidate who did three events a day from May through August could literally do an event in every town in the state, give two extra visits to the cities & towns with over 10,000 residents and STILL take one day a week off to unwind.

If you’re, Bob Smith Jim Rubens that’s very doable.

While Brown courts the big money Donors & the GOP establishment Smith & Rubens can concentrate on the base,.  Now that my candidate Karen Testerman has pulled out and endorsed Smith it’s even a bigger deal since Rubens draws from the same pool that Senator Brown does.

It is time for all of us to put aside pride and focus on our greater GOAL, that of fighting for Family, Faith and Freedom.  I will not force our principle-driven primary voters to make a self-defeating choice.  After much prayer and consultation, I will step aside to allow Senator Bob Smith to be the ONLY conservative name on the primary ballot.

Senator Smith has a well-earned reputation of standing firm for our conservative beliefs and values and for fighting Washington to stop their overreach. Bob Smith was TEA Party before it had a name.

While the rest of the MSM doesn’t get it Jazz Shaw does:

Smith was already nearly within the margins for going head to head against Shaheen – down by roughly six – and any significant bump from former Testerman voters could easily put him in the lead.

And if that’s the case Shaheen could pivot but she does’t DARE pivot, because Brown attacks aren’t about to stop and Shaheen’s record of support for the increasingly unpopular Obama becomes more dangerous by the day.  I’ll give Jazz again

… …All of this spells trouble not only for Shaheen, but for anyone perceived as being soft on conservative issues. So is Brown simply destined to steamroll to the nomination with a pile of out of state money, only to lose to Shaheen later? I still wouldn’t bet the farm on it. We may be seeing more of Bob Smith’s name as the summer wears on and we slowly make our way to the state’s very late, Sept. 9th primary.

If Bob Smith wins the GOP primary Jazz Shaw will look like a genius to the MSM only just shy of Nate Silver.

Today the NYT is reporting on the runoff race in Mississippi with the headline: Cochran Asking Blacks to Rescue Him in Republican Primary

Bishop Ronnie C. Crudup stood before roughly a dozen of his colleagues at a weekly Baptist fellowship meeting last week and asked for their help in a fight that, until now, would have been unthinkable for a black pastor in Mississippi: “Let’s send Senator Thad Cochran back to Washington,” he urged.

If you if you look at the web site for new Horizon church international Bishop Crudup seems quite a man and is a pretty good get for Cochran.:

 

Ronnie C. Crudup, Sr., is the Administrative Bishop for the Fellowship of International Churches. He is also Senior Pastor of New Horizon Church International, an exciting and rapidly growing church in Jackson, Mississippi, which he founded in 1987. He is highly regarded as a compassionate pastor, prolific Bible teacher, dynamic preacher, and visionary leader who proclaims a message of consecration and empowerment to the masses and gives practical steps on how to fulfill one’s divine calling and destiny in Christ.

 

and he’s a very busy man too:

Bishop Crudup is known to be a man of great faith who is on the move for the Lord. He is a frequent speaker in schools, churches and prisons across the country. He is host of “New Horizon Presents” and “The Issues” – a television broadcast ministry and is passionately involved in international missions in Malawi, South Africa, and Zambia. Countless thousands know him by his signature statement, “To Count It All Joy.

Getting Bishop Crudup to take time out of his busy schedule to publicly support Republican Thad Cochran in order to stop the tea party candidate State Senator Chris McDaniel is pretty big news and Ashley Parker & Jonathan Martin’s piece on the whole does a pretty good job covering it.

But they have managed to miss the lede in their own story.

Go and give it a read. Can you spot the story screaming to be covered? No? Well don’t feel bad I suspect the reason you missed it is due to the use, or lack thereof, of a specific an honorific adjective and it’s replacement with a different one.

Here is the key paragraph with the key word bolded.

The Cochran outreach campaign is taking many forms. The “super PAC” supporting the senator, Mississippi Conservatives, is paying African-American leaders, including Mr. Crudup, to help lift black turnout on Tuesday, said Pete Perry, a Republican strategist here who is working for the group.

Mr. Crudup? Not Bishop Crudup?

Now looking at some past NYT pieces I see “reverend” converted to “Mr” after the first iteration but not “Bishop” or “Archbishop” while some papers simply drop any title and just use the last name after the 1st iteration.

So why does that “Mr.” matter so much? Because of what that paragraph says.

One might, if one is a conservative giving to a pac called “Mississippi Conservatives” see a story in paying off black leaders in order to stop a conservative candidate.

One might if a liberal, see a story in black leaders being paid by a conservative pac to produce support for a Republican senator, after all if “conservatives” can buy black leaders and possibly the votes they influence once they can do it again (insert Harry Reid Koch speech here).

One might if interesting in clean elections in general find the whole concept that you can apparently “buy” black leaders. If you look how this is mentioned so casually as if it’s the most normal thing in the world in the piece you might find it VERY troubling.

All these things come to mind but consider what happens if you read that paragraph again with “Mr.” replaced by “Bishop”

The Cochran outreach campaign is taking many forms. The “super PAC” supporting the senator, Mississippi Conservatives, is paying African-American leaders, including Bishop Crudup, to help lift black turnout on Tuesday, said Pete Perry, a Republican strategist here who is working for the group.

Suddenly the story is obvious, The “Paper of Record” in the United States states that Pete Perry, a Republican strategist claiming his pac is paying an influential and well-respected black Bishop to increase black turnout for his candidate.

Can you see the headline: Respected Bishop takes cash payment to produce votes

Nah, who a I kidding, such a headline would not only help elect a tea party candidate in Mississippi but might draw scrutiny on just how the Black vote is obtained in elections nationwide.

And what member of the MSM wants to talk about that?

Update: I should point out that I called the MS GOP to get contact info for Pete Perry & e-mailed him asking if this story was accurate, I also called the Bishop’s church with my inquiry but was told he would not be available till monday so I sent a request by e-mail asked it be forwarded as I was going to post within 18 hours & mention this on my radio show.

I further e-mailed both times reporters asking if they had Mr. Perry’s statement on tape & the context that it was given in. All of these requests were made by 2 PM EST on Friday, 14 hours before this post went up, as of this writing 6:58 AM EST Saturday, I’ve not heard back from any of them.

Update 2: I heard back from Bishop Curdup this weekend he was able to say the Times quoted him accurately. As to Mr. Perry’s statement while he could not speak for others he would not confirm the statement of Mr. Perry concerning monies paid, but has said he (Bishop Curdup) is raising money for a pac. He referred to it as “our” PAC to fund their efforts. Post on the subject to come.

******************************************************************

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

For a full month I ask a fixed amount $1465.

Thanks to a solicitation we’ve been able to make the goal this month but we’ve been shy from Feb through May

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 58 1/2  more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?