Shaheen claimed she never opposed nuclear. She protested the Seabrook station.
— Drew Cline (@DrewHampshire) October 22, 2014
Really and truly, she did claim that.
Because there’s this thing called YouTube now, you know:
RT @BDayspring: Video of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. Jeanne ShaheenSenate Democrat AverageSee Full Scorecard6% opposing Nuclear power in 1987. She directly lied during debate. http://t.co/PZSmbusv4M #NHpolitics
— Ryan Williams (@RyanGOP) October 22, 2014
Your ads will be inserted here by
Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.
And this is not out of context. From the same debate:
Look, it’s one thing to change your mind and now support nuclear power: it’s another to pretend that you always did. The first is merely a demonstration that you no longer take seriously the theocratic ravings of a bunch of profoundly anti-scientific progressive Greenie yahoos. The second suggests a certain inherent cowardice, manifesting as a fundamental unwillingness to admit that, yeah, really, you were one of those yahoos yourself. Guess we now know what Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. Jeanne ShaheenSenate Democrat AverageSee Full Scorecard6% sees when she looks in the mirror, huh?
(Image via Shutterstock)
Moe Lane (crosspost)
The post Jeanne Shaheen caught lying about her opposition to nuclear power. appeared first on RedState.
Since I last looked at the Senate races 11 days ago, the picture of the home stretch has started to come a little more clearly into focus, albeit with a frustratingly large number of undecided voters still showing up in the polls even in states that have already begun early voting. The high number of undecideds is one of several reasons to question the reliability of this year’s polls, although the most likely reason for a surplus of undecideds is that some of those folks are just going to end up staying home – a result that would be good news for GOP candidates who have pulled out to a polling lead (as in Colorado, Iowa and Kentucky) but not so good for candidates in North Carolina and New Hampshire who are crouched in striking distance but still need to be persuading people. However, if you look at the broader trends in the presidential approval and generic ballot polling, you can see that things are again looking up for Republicans – if they can only capitalize on those opportunities.
I’ll return to the Governors’ races separately soon.
I’ve italicized West Virginia, Mississippi and Oregon because there’s no new polling since my last post. I’m also now including Sean Haugh, the Libertarian Party candidate in North Carolina, since RCP now carries a 3-way average and he’s consistently polling around 5% (although history suggests he will likely end up below that).
You’ve probably seen a lot of hue and cry about South Dakota, and the average here – as with Georgia – is a little misleading because the two most recent polls show a tighter race. But unless (as has happened before in this part of the country) the polls are really off, it’s hard to see Rick Weiland having a realistic path to victory, especially because the opportunity to catch Mike Rounds napping has already been lost, and resources are pouring in to shore him up. That said, we probably need another couple of polls to get a fix on whether things are really shifting in South Dakota.
In Kansas, I stand by the view that, if Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. Pat RobertsSenate Republican AverageSee Full Scorecard93% pulls ahead of Orman, he’ll be ahead to …read more
The Arkansas Senate election is now over*.
Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. Mark PryorSenate Democrat AverageSee Full Scorecard9% argued that the federal government’s desegregation of Arkansas’s largest public school in 1957 was an “unwilling invasion” that took “a local problem out of the local authorities’ hands” and led to deep suspicions of democracy in the state, according to a copy of his college thesis obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Written in 1985, the 30-page paper—which also suggested that the state’s Democratic Party was hindering economic progress, and attributed policies such as welfare and the Equal Rights Amendment to “wild-eyed liberals”—could add to Pryor’s difficulties as he fights to protect his seat from Republican challenger Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR)Heritage ActionScorecardRep. Tom CottonHouse Republican AverageSee Full Scorecard82%.
Gee, you think? Pryor went on to declare that desegregation was the reason why the Democratic party went on dominate Arkansas politics for the next generation or so; in point of fact, he compared the Little Rock school desegregation to the American Civil War. Whether or not this moves the needle among white Arkansas Democrats or not is one question (one hopes that it does not in fact appeal to them); but nationally… seriously, folks? The DSCC is actually going to keep supporting financially a candidate who thought that the US government made a tragic mistake in making sure that the Little Rock Nine were able to go to a whites-only high school?
And let’s not even bring up the fact that this thesis of Pryor’s argues mightily that the Democratic party’s single most favorite piece of political mythology – the so-called ‘Southern Strategy’ – was and is a lie told to the credulous, given that in Arkansas the Democratic party continued to dominate the state for decades. Oh, wait, I just did bring that up. My bad. Guess we’ll see just how poorly the Democratic party thinks of its own base…
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: OK, I’ll admit it. I will enjoy mightily watching Democratic apologists try to explain why Mark Pryor could casually urinate all over the Democrats’ narrative like this and expect to get away with it, mostly because his daddy was a Senator, too. …read more