E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
In Florida's Senate race, Kendrick Meek (D) is trailing Charlie Crist (I) and Marco Rubio (R) in general-election polls. And according to a new Quinnipiac survey, he's leading wealthy primary challenger Jeff Greene (who's friends with Mike Tyson and Heidi Fleiss, and who made his money off subprime mortgages) by just two points.
But in a roundtable discussion with reporters today, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said that his committee is fully behind Meek.
Asked if the DSCC would object to Democrats or Democratic groups backing Crist -- who's now leading in hypothetical three-way match-ups, Menendez replied, "We are committed to Kendrick Meek. We believe that he can win the general election… I'm focused on having Democrats support Kendrick Meek."
He attributed Meek's standing in the polls to his low name ID.
Menendez's main argument during the discussion was that when Democrats engage Republicans in one-on-one contests -- and when they make the race a clear contrast -- they win. He cited the special congressional elections in PA-12 and NY-23. When a reporter reminded Menendez that Democrats lost the special Massachusetts Senate race, Menendez replied that the Democratic candidate failed to make a clear contrast against his Republican opponent.
He also noted that Republicans have either ended up with fringe candidates (Rand Paul, Sharron Angle) or establishment candidates (Rob Portman, Roy Blunt, Dan Coats).
In addition, Menendez took a shot at California GOP Senate nominee Carly Fiorina. "I think she's more concerned about Barbara Boxer's hair than growing California's economy."
He didn't expect any tension with organized labor in the aftermath of the Lincoln-Halter race. "I fully expect them to be engaged with us."
And when asked if the DSCC would intervene in South Carolina -- given the person who won the Democratic Senate nomination, Alvin Greene, had been charged with a felony and didn't even seem to campaign in the primary -- Menendez said that his committee was only engaged in places where it makes sense to be engaged. South Carolina, he suggested, isn't one of those places.
When a reporter followed up about the possibility of dirty tricks in getting Greene on the ballot, Menendez replied, "I will allow the South Carolina Democratic Party to continue to pursue that."
*** UPDATE *** National Republican Senatorial Committee spokeswoman Amber Marchand replies: “It’s no wonder the Democrats are trying to gloss over their own party’s contentious divisions and failed policies, but the facts speak for themselves. While the Democrats are still reeling from costly and divisive primaries in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, and Kentucky, Republicans are united behind our Senate nominees."
Leave a Comment:
Hey, Mark...a quick question, if you don't mind?
Bob Menendez also said that Blanche Lincoln "took on powerful special interests" in winning her Arkansas Senate primary fight...
Hmmm...are these the same "powerful special interests"...namely, the labor unions, that "anonymous" at the White House accused of flushing $10 mil down the drain?
Rahm, please leave Senator Menendez alone, willya...?
Ed Schultz is an Intellectual Clown who is so bitter about Lincoln winning that this bozo wants to blame the White House.... Get over it and stop with all the whining....
You are a man of no courage so stop putting on this act that you are there for the middle class. When you had an opportunity run to for office you coward out because it's harder to be held accountable and but much easier to throw cry baby tantrums when your canadidate couldn't pull it off... You could have had the Unions behind you if you actually thought they could help you win but you smart enough to be Senator but dumb enough to be a Radio and TV Clown.
Just like I had to tune you out during the Healthcare Debate because of your reckless commentary. ti's time to tune you out once more. You counted your Chickens before the hatched and now your bitter because you came up short changed. You wanted to show how much power the progressive had... Well Halter lost and not because he was a bad candidate, it was probably because of loud mouths like you who bullied up on Lincoln constantly and your stupidity combine to what women were watch take place in South Carolina to another female candidate women were just fed up with a bunch of men with oversize egos try to punish women out of HIGH POWER POSITIONS and Halter was just a victim of circumstance... Lincoln should have lost but loud mouths like yours made sure she didn't.... And now you want to blame the White House WOW...its hard job but somebody gotta do it right...
Take the time to excise some control you intellectual unsophisticated buffoon...
Any Thing Too Add-
I believe you are the first poster that I'm aware of that's used the word "intellectual" in a sentence describing Ed Schultz...
"Clown" I think I've seen before...
By all means, First Read regulars...
Feel free to correct me.
This above quote was made this morning from one of the leaders of the progressives. And when I read it, I could only shake my head in disgust. This election in Arkansas had nothing to do with electing a better Democrat. It had to do with hatred for President Obama. Nothing whatsoever to do with the citizens of Arkansas.
And I am guilty as well. I donated to Bill Halter, believing he had a better chance in November than Senator Lincoln. I was wrong to do that.
Don't underestimate the hatred for this president from the left. You can travel all over the internets and read the most disgusting comments about him. From the left.
And I'm afraid the pundits are siding with these progressives. Including Ed and possibly a few others who I have always always respected. I am all for better Democrats. I am not for revenge or just settling for any 'ol candidate just to send a message. Especially in a state like Arkansas where I know nothing of their citizens or their concerns.
Senator Lincoln herself is going to have to reach out to progressives and listen to their concerns if she wants their vote. President Obama should have stood behind her. It's called loyalty. It's up to the voters in Arkansas to decide if they want her. It's not up to out of staters.
Something I'm just now realizing. You think the teabaggers are bad!? They're just more out in the open about their hatred.
I don't think Ed's an intellectual, a blowhard yes, a clown? A bit harsh, but he really is not an intellectual. He played college football, and then after a short stint playing Canadian football he became a sports broadcaster in Fargo. In 94 he considered running as a Republican against the incumbent Democratic congressman. He supported Bush in the 2000 election! Some time after the 2000 election Schultz left the GOP, and adopted liberal views, he has claimed to be a liberal socialist.
As a human I'm sure he's a nice guy, but really is a blow hard, whose show is insufferable!
Pat,
Obama fully supported Lincoln, but Ark is one of those states where a candidate does better if he does not go in and campaign for them. Obama lost to McCain by 20% in Ark but Democratic incumbent Mark Pryor easily won re-election, with just shy of 80% of the vote. Obama tried to get Labor to back off, and he publicly endorsed Lincoln, but in some states less is more (Kentucky is another example).
Pat, Boston, MA-
President Obama DID stand behind Blanche Lincoln...
In fact, she's the only WINNING candidate, among Creigh Deeds in Virginia, Jon Corzine in Virginia, and your own Martha Coakley, that Obama DID endorse...
He got this one right...in terms of winning and losing in a Democratic primary election.
And, in the general election in November...?
As Gibby would say in the White House press briefing room..."next question, please."
You ignore the fact that in both NJ and VA, since the early 1980's, the party that wins the White House loses the governorship. As for Coakley, she ran a bad campaign, she assumed that her huge poll lead when she announced would carry through to the election--that's not the President's fault. Specter lost because he suddenly became a democrat, democrats had been voting against him for decades and Joe Sestak ran a great campaign. You can spin anything to fit your own scenario--proof is what I wrote.
It's Gibbsy, not Gibby.
Jody, Jody, Jody...
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Point is, President Obama presumably had the same facts at his disposal about trends in NJ and VA voting patterns that you have...but he threw the full force and prestige of the White House behind Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine. He was all-in...and they were both out!
And you might want to consider what her association with the Obama agenda had to do with the collapse of Coakley's support in deep, deep, ultra-blue Massachusetts...Mark Critz in PA-12 was able to keep the seat Democratic by running screaming from the Obama agenda. His pro-gun, pro-life, anti-cap and trade, anti-Obamacare positions were just the ticket in his district with its 2-1 Democratic voter registration edge...what does that tell you, Jody? No signs of Obama for Critz in PA-12. He's the invisible man...Critz wins.
Regarding "spin", Jody..."spin" is what the Obama White House has been doing in its futile effort to reverse the public's negative perception of Obamacare.
That's "spin"!
And, I prefer Gibby...it has a sublimely dismissive, disrespectful ring to it that I find appealing.
What are the actual chances of Rubio winning? Are the Teabaggers actually going to vote for someone of Cuban decent when they are so upset about anyone of Latin heritage. Seems simple to me, Crist vs whoever has the best chance and Crist wins because he is somewhat of a moderate
Where are you getting the idea (besides a couple morons on MSNBC at night, ok... and the REST of the liberal media) that conservatives are "so upset about anyone with Latin heritage?" Being rightfully angry about millions of people and nations and American libs openly violating and/or ignoring our border laws is not the same as being hostile to Latin people. It's people like you that are a big part of the problem. You don't understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL. Look both words up.
Arizona ring a bell?
These are quotes taken from a NYT article earlier this week. Bill Halter was not going to win in November if this NYT article is correct. And yes, I know President Obama stuck by Senator Lincoln. My point was that I agreed that he should have. He did not lose this seat for Halter and it is ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
Bill Halter was a stranger to the people of Arkansas. And to most people around the country. I obviously don't know who's going to win in November. But I hope Senator Lincoln gives it all she has, including reaching out to the concerns of progressives. I don't agree with 100% of her stances, but I do want her seat saved.
Heck, I didn't agree with 100% of Ted Kennedy's stances. Or John Kerry's. Or Bill Clinton's. Or JFK's as I read about his Administration.
Personally, I think the mistake the outside pushers of Halter made was to assume he was a stronger democrat than Lincoln. One reality that should be considered is that any southern democrat running for a federal seat in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is going to be a conservadem; it's the only way to win.
What I don't like to see are comments like you quoted, after a loss, from a progressive organization which supported Halter and urged people nationwide to do so now back tracking to blame the candidate as not being what they said he/she was--they lose credibility and hurt their movement in the process.
I rarely donate to any candidate who isn't running in the State of Iowa. I don't have a problem with progressive organizations endorsing candidates, sending e-mails, raising money and helping a candidate but I would hate to see it become like the Tea Party which moves into states to overwhelm candidates they don't like which, although a gift for Harry Reid, gives voters a nutcase like Sharon Angle.
Jody,
Did you see Grassley on the Jon Stewart last night? It was great! Someone with computer skills (maybe one of my sons?) should make a montage of Grassley gaffes and make sure Iowans see that he isn't just Chuck the embarrassing hay seed hick that further cements others incorrect view of our state, but an actual moron!
I feel bad if conference re-alignments leave ISU without a conference, despite bleeding black and gold. However on a positive note it looks like Baylor will be the only Texas school in the Big 12 to be left out!
Just watched Alvin Greene's appearance on the Keith Olbermann show. I think Keith was as nice as he possibly could be, given the circumstances and I actually ended up feeling sort of sorry for this guy, but it's very evident that all he did was file the fee with no intention of actually running for anything. He wasn't evasive. He just had no way to answer any of these questions.
I am not sure if Clyburn is right about Greene being a plant, but I could not see this guy scraping together $10,400 unless it was some sort of lump sum perhaps from a discharge from the military, but if he managed to do so, I could not see him spending $10,400 on something like a senate filing fee for a campaign he never intended to mount.
One thing, though, that does give Clyburn's accusation a bit of credence, though. South Carolina has open primaries, meaning that Republicans can vote in the Democratic primary and vice versa. Greene's opponent was a 4 term South Carolina state legislator from Charleston. He had no real chance to win, so that's a point in opposition to the idea.
However, think of this... if something completely unexpected were to happen that destroys DeMint between now and the election, Alvin Greene would become the Senator from South Carolina.
Definitely something for those who believe in strict term limits and a constantly revolving door of legislators picked at random from the population at large to consider.
I don't see how he could have come up with the money to pay the filing fee. Did he pay with cash as opposed to a check? His bank records probably would be a good place to look. Also he has a court appointed attorney in his felony charge, in most states someone with 10,000+ available wouldn't be eligible for a court appointed attorney. Even if you were eligible who would spend money to get on a ballot, as opposed to use those limited funds to hire a private attorney to fight the charge. A felony charge for showing pornography on your lap top to a co-ed sitting next to you at a college library seems a bit like over charging.
I am not at all surprised about that. South Carolina's laws are very draconian in a lot of areas. If, for example, you fail to pay a speeding ticket in another state and that state suspends a license, (that you don't actually have in that state), a South Carolina state trooper will charge you with Felony driving under a suspended license if you get pulled there.
A lot of it is up to the discretion of the officer and, as in most states regarding traffic court, there are a variety of pleas and ways to get charges reduced and so forth. When I read the specifics of the situation regarding Mr. Greene's offense, it seemed to me that this was the type of offense that would probably get reduced. In essence, he did something pretty gross and made a hugely inappropriate comment, (he did not, as some news outlets are saying, force his way into her room), along the lines of, "Now we can go up to your room."
Is that felony worthy? Probably in the strictest sense, but I doubt too many DA's or judges would want the clutter of that case and his PD can probably get it pleaded down to either a fine or to time served, assuming he actually spent any time in jail over it when arrested.
However, all of that being said, someone doing something this idiotic and, (borderline), criminal is not really someone we want in a political office, I would say.
I'm not defending a 30 something your old sitting next to a young co-ed and asking her to look on his computer screen which contains porn, and then tries to invite himself to her dorm. I'm just pointing out it wouldn't be a felony in most places. Of course no party would want the guy on their ticket in any capacity. But I can't imagine anyone who is facing a felony criminal charge who has 10,000+ at his disposal would not use that to try and get out of the charge (with a noted defense attorney), instead of using it to put his name on the ballot and then do absolutely nothing to try and won the primary. Neither Greene or the former legislator/judge could beat DeMint, it is after all SC, but I do think it should be investigated, because if fraud was committed (the guy's fee was paid by someone else, and he was paid as well? this would be fraud, and shouldn't be allowed even in SC.
New Format makes it difficult to read. Don't be stubborn or too proud; simplify soon, or you've lost a reader.
For more on the ground coverage of Kendrick Meek's campaign, please visit saintpetersblog.com and battlegroundtampabay.com.