Hollywood Lefty Ashley Judd Meets With Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as She Contemplates Senate Run In Kentucky Against Mitch McConnell

The celebrity Senate run of Ashley Judd … RUN ASHLEY, RUN!!!

Hollywood actress Ashley Judd met with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as she contemplates whether she will do a US Senate run against incumbent Republican and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell. Wow, just what the Senate needs, another out of touch, self absorbed, egomaniac. So what exactly is Judd’s qualification to be Senator, her role in ‘Simon Birch’ or ‘Double Jeopardy’? Seriously, other than her celebrity for being an actress, what does she bring to the table? Then again, Barack Obama has shown as that absolute failure gets one reelected. I realize that Democrats think that all the states in the South are the same, but by the way, doesn’t she live in Tennessee?

Actress Ashley Judd privately met with officials at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington earlier this week, as she continues to weigh whether to mount a Senate run against Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, according to two sources familiar with the session.

According to one person familiar with the matter, Tuesday’s meeting was Judd’s first formal one with officials at the DSCC, which coordinates strategy, recruits and fundraises on behalf of Democratic Senate candidates. DSCC officials refused to comment, saying they would not discuss candidate recruitment.

The meeting indicates that the Hollywood movie star and eighth-generation Kentuckian is still seriously weighing a political foray after spending the past several years as an outspoken environmental and liberal activist.

In my personal opinion, Ashley Judd is far too liberal for the politics of Kentucky. If anything, she would galvanize the GOP and Conservatives against her and the Democrats in a midterm election. So by all mean Ashley, run.

Obama Willing to Go Off “Fiscal Cliff” to Raise Tax Rates on Rich … Harry Reid Blocks Senate Vote on Obama’s Deficit Reduction Plan

What a joke and you are to blame America … You voted this snarky, vindictive, non-serious President back into office and now America will suffer for years to come.  What a mess …

President Barack Obama nor US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are not serious about  fixing the out of control government spending and the ever-growing $16 trillion national debt, all they care about is being vindictive and getting a liberal trophy for raising tax rates on the rich. Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Turbo Tax Timothy Geithner stated that the Obama administration “absolutely” willing to allow the United States to fall off the “fiscal” cliff unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher income tax rates on the wealthy. But what does this really do, nothing. The amount of revenue that would be gained as compared to the $16 trillion debt and continued +$1 trillion Obama deficit spending is like firing a pea at an elephant. The amount of revenue from raising tax rates on the rich would fund government for eight days. That’s it. So why is Obama so adamant about going off the fiscal cliff if tax rates are not raised? To of course get some kind of liberal trophy from the far Left of course. In the end it will accomplish nothing to help the problem we are in and will most likely cause us to go backwards into yet another recession.

President Obama’s lead negotiator in the “fiscal cliff” talks said the administration is “absolutely” willing to allow the package of deep automatic spending cuts and across-the-board tax hikes to take effect Jan. 1, unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher income tax rates on the wealthy.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in an interview with CNBC that both sides are “making a little bit of progress” toward a deal to avert the “cliff” but remain stuck on Obama’s desired rate increase for the top U.S. income-earners.

So how serious is Obama and Reid about helping America through these troubled times of over spending? Not at all. they are merely playing party politics with America’s future. Barack Obama had presented a deficit reduction plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered an amendment to force a vote on President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blocked it. Do you think that Obama or Reid are serious about what they are doing? Hardly. Reid knew Obama’s plan was a pathetic joke and not serious. Reid knows that no self-respecting member of the Senate, including Democrats would vote for this crap. As reported at the Weekly Standard, Reid calls Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s request to vote on the plan a “stunt.” Really, what would you call Obama’s deficit reduction plan then, that you are unwilling to put to a vote knowing it would fail and embarrass Obama?

It is obvious that Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff, thinks he does not to negotiate and believes he is a King not a President.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday offered an amendment to force a vote on President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was having none of it.

“Last week [Treasury] Secretary [Timothy] Geithner brought up a proposal that was so unserious,” McConnell said on the floor, “I would like to see if my Democratic friends would like to support it.”

Senate vote on what he called the president’s “ridiculous” plan as an amendment to the Russian trade bill that is being considered.

Reid, however, objected to McConnell’s suggestion, saying the Russian trade bill, H.R. 6156, is about job creation, not political stunts from Republicans.

Barack Obama cared little during the first years of his first term as president what the people thought and forced through Obamacare. What exactly did you think this vindictive president was going to do if reelected knowing he does not have to face another election and has no accountability to ‘We the People”.

US Senators Up for Reelection in 2014, More Democrats at Risk than Republicans

2014 US Senate …

It is not too early to take a look to see what US Senaotrs are up for reelection in 2014. The GOP has managed to royally screw up the take over of seats in 2012 as they literally gave away the Senate races in Indiana and Missouri. Let this be a valuable learning lesson for Republicans and their choices for solid candidates. The GOP does not need moderate, wishy-washy candidates; however, they also do not need walking nightmares the likes of Murdoch and Akin who snatched defeat from a sure win by not being able to explain their positions. A note to GOP candidates in the future, if you feel the need to say that God is for rape … shut your trap. All GOP candidates must realize the MSM is not on your side and will spin your words to make them sound even worse than they are. So if you cannot intelligently present your ideas and beliefs to the people, you need not run.

The mere numbers of states that need to be defended tell us that Democrats once again have to do the heavy lifting to defend their turf. Democrats have far more seats up for election than the GOP and most Republican seats appear to be safe. However, we have seen this story before. Republicans best get their act in gear and come up with far better candidates than 2012.

Democrat Senators up for reelection:

1. Warner, Mark R. – (D – VA) – Seems safe as VA has trended Democrat, but would it in an off year election?
2. Coons, Christopher A. – (D – DE) – Safe
3. Durbin, Richard J. – (D – IL) – Safe
4. Franken, Al – (D – MN) – Could be vulnerable, Franken won in a close, questionable election in the wave election of 2008.
5. Hagan, Kay R. – (D – NC) – North Carolina is one of the few battleground states that went to Romney in 2012, could be a vulnerable seat in 2014 for Democrats.
6. Harkin, Tom – (D – IA) – Safe
7. Johnson, Tim – (D – SD) – Safe unless he decides to retire.
8. Kerry, John F. – (D – MA) – It has been rumored that Kerry may be Obama’s next Secretary of State in his 2nd term. If this occurs there will be a special election for this seat prior to the full election.
9. Landrieu, Mary L. – (D – LA) – Louisiana is a red state; however, the Landrieu name is an institution in the Byou.
10. Lautenberg, Frank R. – (D – NJ) – It is hard to believe that Lautenberg will run for reelection as he will be 90 years old in 2014. If he does decide to run its just another case for the Senate having term limits.
11. Levin, Carl – (D – MI) – Safe
12. Merkley, Jeff – (D – OR) – Safe
13. Pryor, Mark L. – (D – AR) – Would the red state of Arkansas want to switch to a GOP Senator? It all depends on how good a candidate they run.
14. Reed, Jack – (D – RI) – Safe
15. Rockefeller, John D., IV – (D – WV) – Safe if he runs, he will be 77 but that seems to be a spring chicken these days in the Senate.
16. Shaheen, Jeanne – (D – NH) – one never knows in a swing state in an off-year election.
17. Udall, Mark – (D – CO) – Another swing state that has trended Democrat, but who knows in an off year election of a 2nd term president.
18. Udall, Tom – (D – NM) – The state has trended Democrat, most likely safe.
19. Baucus, Max – (D – MT) – hard to believe that such a red state has a Democrat Senator.
20. Begich, Mark – (D – AK) – could be a targeted seat as Begich was elected during the wave election of 2008. No reason why Alaska has a Democrat Senator.

Republican Senators up for reelection:

1. Johanns, Mike – (R – NE) – Safe
2. Chambliss, Saxby – (R – GA) – Safe
3. Cochran, Thad – (R – MS) – Safe
4. Collins, Susan M. – (R – ME) – Safe if she does not retire
5. Cornyn, John – (R – TX) – Safe
6. Enzi, Michael B. – (R – WY) – Safe
7. Graham, Lindsey – (R – SC) – Safe, unless the GOP pulls another 2012 Indiana Senate race debacle.
8. Inhofe, James M. – (R – OK) – Safe
9. Sessions, Jeff – (R – AL) – Safe
10. Roberts, Pat – (R – KS) – Safe
11. McConnell, Mitch – (R – KY) – Safe
12. Risch, James E. – (R – ID) – Safe
13. Alexander, Lamar – (R – TN) – Safe, however, would not be surprised if he is seriously challenged in the primaries.

Barack Obama Wants His Jobs Bill Back … Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV-D) Blocks Jobs Bill, Obama Blames Republicans

US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocks Barack Obama’s jobs bill from a vote, but Obama says its the GOP’s fault.

Just last week President Barack Obama stated in his Weekly Address that he wanted his jobs bill back and blamed Republicans for the fact that it has not passed. However, like most of what Obama says is just not true. Yesterday Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to have a vote on the Presidents jobs bill, forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to block the vote.  Maybe some one may want to tell President Obama who is actually blocking his so-called jobs bill.

Senate Republicans tried to make Democrats hold a quick vote on President Obama’s jobs-stimulus bill Tuesday, but were blocked by Senate Majority Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is sponsoring Mr. Obama’s bill but who said other matters take priority.

Mr. Obama has traveled the country calling for Congress to pass his plan immediately — including most recently Tuesday afternoon in Texas — but the tax increases included in his bill are opposed by Republicans and even many Democrats.

With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, tried to force a vote, which presumably would have resulted in a humiliating defeat for the White House.

“I’d like to give him that vote,” Mr. McConnell said.

As reported at The Hill, McConnell was just trying to fulfill the request of Barack Obama by asking for a vote on the jobs bill and “to honor the request of the president of the United States that we vote on it now.” Reid blocked it an called it a political stunt. Really Senator Reid, a political stunt? Then what would you call what Obama is doing by asking for his jobs bill to be passed now, blaming the GOP to the American people and then having Democrats not support and block the vote? So who is blocking the passage of the bill?

“What I am trying to do here today by requesting this vote on the president’s jobs bill … is to honor the request of the president of the United States that we vote on it now,” McConnell said. “He has been asking us repeatedly over the last few weeks that we vote on it now.”

“I think the president of the United States, whose polices I generally do not support … is entitled to know where the Senate stands on his proposal that he has been out talking about … and suggesting that we are unwilling to vote on it,” he said.

However, that did not stop Obama from his divisive rhetoric in blaming the GOP for not passing the jobs bill. The fact of the matter is that there are many Democrats do not support the President’s bill. Let’s face it, Democrats are extremely hesitant to support anything that is purely Obama, they do not want to have to defend something else like the $787 stimulus and Obamacare in the 2012 elections.

US Senator Mitch McConnell (KY-R) Raises Concern Over Civilian Terror Trials in Light of Casey Anthony Acquittal

Imagine if the Casey Anthony jury was put in charge of judging a terror suspect?

Who would ever have thought that we would be using the words Casey Anthony and terrorism in the same sentences? However, after the debacle that occurred in Orlando, FL following the head scratching verdict of the jury of “not guilty” on all major charges in the murder trial of Casey Anthony, that is exactly what has transpired. US Senator Mitch McConnell (KY-R) said on Fox News Sunday that the acquittal in the Casey Anthony murder trial is exactly the reason why terror suspects cannot be tried in civilian court.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed to the acquittal of Casey Anthony as an example of why the U.S. civilian court system should not be trusted to try terror suspects.

Anthony, the Florida mother charged with killing her 2-year-old daughter Caylee in 2008, was found not guilty Tuesday on all charges except lying to investigators. Becoming perhaps the first lawmaker to do so, McConnell drew a lesson Sunday from that case in connection with the debate in Washington over whether to try suspected terrorists in federal courts.

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had previously stopped the military tribunals of KSM and other terror suspects to instead try these cases in NYC. Of course we know how that ended as a hue and cry went up through the United States and New York City that no such trial should ever take place in the shadows of Ground Zero and a civilian court. Eventually, Obama/Holder pulled the plug on it.

However, McConnell and other Republicans were outraged this past week after the Obama administration moved to charge a Somali terror suspect in civilian court in New York. We just learned by the verdict in the Casey Anthony case that juries are as much of a crap shoot as the reliability of a terrorist underwear bomb.  What would happen if a terrorist’s attorney played the same games as Casey Anthony’s defense team and the jurors ignored prosecutors evidence and decided to more accept defense theories of a crime instead?

The question is no longer just whether terrorist should be provided the benefits of the US Constitution by being tried in civilian court, what also must be looked at is whether a jury could actually be capable of judging such a case. What will happen when defense council in opening statements says that the terrorist committed the act and killed American because he was molested by George Anthony and that the individual killed by a road side bomb or detonated bomb vest actually died from drowning in a pool? Will the jury find the terrorist not guilty of murder and only find them guilty of lesser charges of littering or destruction of property? After all, it was not the terrorist who did the computer searches of how to make a bomb … it was really done by Cindy Anthony.

Does America really want to take their chances with terror suspects and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? A note to Eric Holder, you might want to scratch Pinellas County off the list of jurisdictions to hold any civilian trial.