GOP boasts cheating to win works very well

[Photo: AP file/J. Scott Applewhite]

Guessing they won't be leading the nightly news with this story. Republicans feel so safe from being held accountable for their vandalism of our government process, they feel free to boast GOP voting district rigging protected their power to enforce their own agenda against the will of the people. In a published report titled "How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010 Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013″ they gleefully admit they cheated to win:

Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.

But, as we see today, that was not the case. Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans. The only analogous election in recent political history in which this aberration has taken place was immediately after reapportionment in 1972, when Democrats held a 50 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while losing the presidency and the popular congressional vote by 2.6 million votes.

To be clear, Obama won by 5 million votes, or 51.1% to Romney 47.2% of the total. Which puts President Obama in history as the only sitting President to win twice with over 50% of the vote since Eisenhower. Not that you would know that if you only listen to the GOP caterwauling about their rigged "mandate" in the House.

Best post-mortem on Election 2010

I've read a lot of post-mortems on the election and I have to agree this is one of the best. Gin and Tacos explains the "mandate" and the Democratic bloodbath The crappy economy aside, on the most basic level, Democrats lost because "the base" didn't show up at the ballot box. But I especially liked this analysis:

But for those who need the grand explanation, the sweeping conclusions drawn from limited data, the themes that allow us to boil elections down to slogans, I humbly submit the following.

1. Social Security reform that guarantees my current level of benefits, alters someone else's, and cuts everyone's Social Security taxes to boot.

2. A world-class national infrastructure that can be built and maintained without tax dollars.

3. A balanced budget that doesn't sacrifice any of the government programs – especially the sacred military-industrial complex and the various old age benefits – that we like.

Read the whole list at the link. It's biting because it's true. And the summation is brilliantly succinct.

It couldn't be any clearer: we want a government that will resolve every problem we currently face with solutions that require no effort, no sacrifices, and no money. And I have no doubt that we have elected a group of people brave enough to promise exactly that.

And, of course, who won't deliver on those promises at all. [Via matttbastard.]

Really too weird

Of all the strange outcomes of the 2010 election, if someone had told me two years ago that I would be sitting here today cheering for Lisa Murkowski to win in Alaska -- well -- you know...

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Pelosi perfect

Greg Sargent finds more support for keeping Pelosi in leadership. The next two years will almost surely be devoted to procedural warfare on The Hill. Pelosi has years of experience and a track record of success on that front. He even finds an AEI guy who agrees:

But he dismissed the idea that Dem losses last week are relevant, insisting that the new minority leader's chief role will be to "hold the line against repeal and keep the troops together and use the limited weapons available to the minority to put the Republicans on the defensive."

"She's in a stronger position to do that than others," Ornstein continued. "She showed in the last two years how strong she is as a strategist, and she may very well be able to use that strategic capacity to exacerbate some of the schisms that Republicans already have. She understands at least as well as anyone else how to use the process."

Even more interesting, Greg points out this isn't the first time the New York Times posted a hit piece on Pelosi disguised as an editorial. In 2002, they opposed her using the same bogus argument against her effectiveness. Maybe that's why they pretty much ignored her accomplishments since then and now pretend she has none.

We still need Pelosi

The New York Times posts an editorial today, slamming Nancy Pelosi, suggesting it's a really bad idea for her to hold onto her leadership position in the House. It says in part:

That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

Does the NYT think there will be no horse trading in the back halls on Capitol Hill now that Boehner has the gavel? We still need a skilled negotiator as the minority party. And as Steve Benen points out, she did hold this position before and did very well at it.

The editorial goes on to say:

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country...

Well maybe the NYT forgot that the false, anti-Pelosi caricatures were largely paid for by the influx of anonymous, corporate-based Citizens United spending. CNN tells me "more than $65 million was spent on 161,203 ads." Democrats simply didn't have the same cash advantage to push back. And how much ink did NYT give to her in the last four years? The media amplified every biizarre utterance of Boehner constantly, but I didn't see the same attention paid to Nancy. And why was she never on the TV, except when the reporters were giving free air time to anti-Pelosi ads? And how about the Sunday bobblehead shows? They were largely dominated by GOP over the last four years. They couldn't get enough of McCain and Lindsey Graham, but if Pelosi was invited and refused to appear, I never heard about it.

The editorial claims that she "seem[ed] to visibly shrink on camera when defending [her] policies," but I recall her triumphant march into the House, looking like an avenging angel, carrying that historic gavel during the health care reform war. Again, she just didn't get the attention she deserved for her accomplishments.

That raging independent backlash the editorial is concern trolling about is what elected the Tea Party types, but what beat the conservaDems was their failure to support their Speaker and the policy work the progressive voters mandated with the 08 sweep. Sure, the GOPers are running around crowing about how happy they are that she's running. But it sounds a bit like a B'rer Rabbit ploy to me. I suspect they're scared stiff of having to face her down and if she meekly bows out, they'll claim her scalp. If they want to win in 2012, the Democratic party would be fools to give it to them.

Banana Republic

Banana Republicans used to be a sort of internet joke, but it's no laughing matter. Nicholas Kristof notices the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

Worse yet, there are all these voters who just elected a bunch of real Banana Republicans who are hell bent on making us number one -- in income inequality. And they intend to make the poor suffer for being "too stupid" or "too lazy" to reach that top 1% of wealth holders by shrinking the government spending on social programs that alleviate the misery of poverty. The slogan voters don't care. They feel important when the 1%ers wine and dine them, even if they always leave just before it's time to pick up the tab.

All while the ranks of the impoverished grow daily. One person tweeted today, "My son spent the weekend helping the homeless in Boston. Middle class families a year ago, homeless now." Another tweep tells me 1000 people live under Las Vegas in tunnels. Nothing lazy about those people. Surviving on nothing is hard work.

Slogan voters are feeling good right now. "They" won. They can't hear the 1%ers snickering at them while they plot to rig the game and end up with all the money. They don't realize how fragile their own safety nets really are and they won't until they break and they find themselves in the tunnels too. By then it will be too late.

Team Pelosi

Expected but still laughable. The decimated remains of the Blue Dog caucus, led by the hapless Steny Hoyer, are challenging Nancy Pelosi for minority leader. The Hill version at the link is the shorter of the Politico/Reuters hit piece.

Well count me as a member of Team Pelosi. The media clearly intends to run with the Blue Dogs but she already announced she is running. Sign the petition to let her know you support her. I even left a personal thank you note. She deserves it for the work she did for liberal legislation. Can't remember if it was 206 or 406 bills she got passed that died in the Senate.

I'd like to see a challenge to Harry by someone with more guts for the game, but we need Nancy's leadership now, more than ever.

Hope for change

I've been catching up on my reading and processing Tuesday's results today. While I'm fairly certain in the short term, it's going to be a bloody mess and we're going to lose ground, I found some hope in the long term we may make some progress in reforming the Democratic party.

The NYT raises an important point on Dem losses, (via James Joyner):

The horrible economy, frustration over the bailouts (which were, at the end of the day, bipartisan with Bush having done two before Obama’s), and other factors set the stage for a Republicans to take substantially more seats than out parties typically do in a midterm cycle. So did the fact that Democrats held dozens of House seats they had no business holding (in terms of the ideological preferences of the constituency) after backlash elections in 2006 and 2008.

That was always the blessing and the curse of the 08 Dem majority. We accepted the necessity of those Blue Dogs in order to hound the GOP out of power. But they come from very red districts. Three who survived are from the part of western NC where I currently live. In my district, the voters returned Foxx with a crushing margin. It's not a wealthy district. Seriously. I saw the numbers and was struck cold to the bone with the realization that I am so out-numbered by such easily deluded slogan voters. Who own guns. And hate liberals.

But that aside, the nationwide view is brighter. Almost half of the Blue Dogs are gone now, including 21 of the 34 who voted against HCR and most of the Dems who voted against unemployment benefits. Despite the media hype about this new power in politics, only 32% of the Tea Party candidates won their races.

Meanwhile, a full 94% of the rest of the Progressive Caucus won. We kept Michael Bennet, Kristen Gillibrand, Jared Polis, and Chellie Pingree who supported the public option. Raul Grijalva, whom you might recall received numerous death threats and that toxic substance in the mail that was barely mentioned in the liberal media, overcame huge odds to win. Boxer spared us from the horror of demon sheep.

In the end, a lot of old wood was pruned out of Congress. Progressives ended up with a more powerful presence in this branch of government. Thinking whether that grows into meaningful change will depend on whether our power activists feed them with narrative support, rather than lavishing the majority of their attention on tearing down the crazies.

Message to progressive non-voters

I don't want to engage in the circular firing squad, and Morford is a bit harsh in his message to whiny young Dems, but I liked the end grafs.

Look, I'm sorry. I know I'm being far too hard on you. Of course it's not just you. It's not completely your fault these dimwit Repubs were allowed to ooze back into a bit of power so soon. As many analysts have pointed out, this wasn't a vote for the Republicans, but against the limp-wristed Dems who didn't step up and lead with more authority and clarity of purpose. Truly, libs and independents of every age are frustrated Obama isn't governing with the same kind of magical, balls-out visionary zeal that fueled his campaign.

So here's what you need to know, right now: Barack Obama is, and will continue to be, a bit of goddamn miracle. He's simply as good as we're going get for an articulate, thoughtful, integrity-rich Democratic prez in your lifetime. Period. To hamstring his administration out of spite and laziness is childish and sad. Check the accomplishments. Understand the process. Deal with the messiness.

It will never be perfect. It will never be giddy liberal nirvana, because it doesn't work that way. Politics is corrosive and infuriating, de facto and by definition, even with someone as thoughtful as Obama in the Big Chair. Understand it. Deal with it. Get back in the game. If you don't, we all lose.

The point being, political change doesn't happen by engaging once every four years. All the "mad as hell and I'm sitting it out" progressives sent their message and now we lost Nancy Pelosi, who was the most ignored and under rated Speaker we've had in a very long time. I'd remind them that hundreds of good bills she got passed died in the Senate while progressives were busy bitching on the internets about Obama's failings instead of celebrating Democratic successes. We'll now be enjoying two years of Speaker Boehner. I'm pretty sure what we won't be seeing is any gains in advancing progressive policy.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

A wave, not a tsunami

While I'm not exactly cheery, both my progressive national candidates lost in my state, I was much more devasted on the day after in 2004. So there's that.

Spent the morning checking out the results. Outside of my personal disappointment is seeing Burr and Foxx win, losing Feingold was the worst outcome, but a quick scan tells me he's not just going home and sobbing into his crying towel. And overall, Dems left this battlefield with a fighting force. Now if only they can learn how to fight...

Anyway, there were a number of bright spots. Looks to me what basically happened is the country reverted from sort of purplish to rigidly red/blue again. Like I often say, the pendulum always swings. Hoping the silver lining here is that libs/progs will now find common cause on working on issues again and stop fighting with each other.

Meanwhile, I'm off to work again this afternoon. For the moment, my longer morning after post is at DetNews.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

ABC's own - personal - Breitbartpocalypse

I'm ashamed of myself for taking quite so much pleasure in this dust-up between Andy Brietbart and ABC News:

But now, in an utterly predictable twist, the brawling has become internal, as it were, with Breitbart battling ABC reps over what exactly his role will be and what he claims it was supposed to be. (He's published private emails to state his case.)

That's right, ABC is now publicly feuding with one of its soon-to-be guests, with Breitbart claiming ABC execs lied about what their plans were for him on Election Night, and ABC responding that it's Breitbart who's confused about what the emails said and what his participation was supposed to be. So yes, the obvious question arises: If ABC doesn't think Breitbart can read emails, why do they want him to comment on Tuesday night's election results?

If you missed the back story on this one, Breitbart made a big announcement on his BigEgo site that he would have a starring role in ABC's election night coverage and would appear on-air as an analyst. Apparently a lot of people contacted ABC to let them know what they thought about giving a microphone to a proven fabulist and irredeemable con man like Andy.

This led to a disclaimer by ABC:

The following is attributable to Andrew Morse, Executive Producer, ABC News Digital:

Since conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart announced on his website that he was going to be a participant in ABC’s Town Hall meeting at Arizona State University, there has been considerable consternation and misinformation regarding my decision to ask him to participate in an election night Town Hall event for ABC News Digital. I want to explain what Mr. Breitbart's role has always been as one of our guests at our digital town hall event:

Mr. Breitbart is not an ABC News analyst.

He is not an ABC News consultant.

He is not, in any way, affiliated with ABC News.

He is not being paid by ABC News.

He has not been asked to analyze the results of the election for ABC News.
Mr. Breitbart will not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage, anchored by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos. For the broadcast coverage, David Muir and Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg will contribute reaction and response gathered from the students and faculty of Arizona State University at an ABC News/Facebook town hall.

He has been invited as one of several guests, from a variety of different political persuasions, to engage with a live, studio audience that will be closely following the election results and participating in an online-only discussion and debate.

Breitbart was, of course, furious at being made to look like a fool and thus engaged ABC in a smear contest.

I have to say, I wouldn't be surprised if, this one time, Andy was telling the truth. I suspect he was going to be an on-air analyst and ABC reneged in the face of the huge public outcry against such a dunderheaded decision. But leaving him as even an on-line only guest is still too much for me. I'm still boycotting the ABC coverage in protest.

Meanwhile, I'm off to work and won't be home till after 6:00 tonight. So see my other election blogging at DetNews. [More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Breaking: Fox "News" journalistic integrity in doubt

The title of this post is, of course, a joke. No reality-based observer believes that Fox, acting as the official spokesmouth of the GOP, has any integrity. However, Fox's latest issue advocacy crosses over a new line of pure hubris.

The Fox Business Network focused on what it called “The War on Business” all last week, but on Tuesday its coverage was decidedly more focused — with a series of reports about a California ballot initiative that its parent company, the News Corporation, had spent $1.3 million to defeat.

To be fair, Fox is the only major media corporation that's contributed to the opposition to CA Prop 24 that "would repeal $1.7 billion in corporate tax breaks to help close the state’s budget gap."

Executives at media companies, which employ tens of thousands in the entertainment industry, say defeating the proposition is one of their biggest priorities in the midterm elections, and they question how they would continue to operate in the state if taxes go up. [...]

The News Corporation, the Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS and General Electric, the owner of NBC, make up six of the nine biggest donors to No on 24. The companies declined to comment about the proposition. The three other contributors of more than $1 million are Cisco, Genentech and Qualcomm.

It becomes more clear every day that media consolidation is at the root of our toxic political discourse. Information is power, and while Fox may be the greatest offender, all the major media companies are guilty of abusing it. It's well past time to break up the conglomerates before they destroy civil society completely.

Eleventy Chess Moves

What I really want on Tuesday is a massive defeat for the crazy GOP candidates, simply to prove the smug pundits and the incessant pollsters wrong. I want the conventional narrative and its inherent assumptions to be so discredited that it forces a wholesale change in the news cycle dynamic. Not holding my breath.

Frank Rich posts an op-ed today that looks at how the GOP played the Tea Party to set up the trajectory of this election. But he opens with a point that has been rankling in the back of my mind for a while. A Tea Party win/GOP takeover isn't the worst thing that could happen in terms of 2012 for Obama's prospects.

Frank's closer predicts the future:

But those Americans, like all the others on the short end of the 2008 crash, have reason to be mad as hell. And their numbers will surely grow once the Republican establishment’s panacea of tax cuts proves as ineffectual at creating jobs, saving homes and cutting deficits as the half-measures of the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress. The tempest, however, will not be contained within the tiny Tea Party but will instead overrun the Republican Party itself, where Palin, with Murdoch and Beck at her back, waits in the wings to “take back America” not just from Obama but from the G.O.P. country club elites now mocking her. By then — after another two years of political gridlock and economic sclerosis — the equally disillusioned right and left may have a showdown that makes this election year look as benign as Woodstock.

Not sure about the showdown, but while a GOP takeover will be a disaster for marginally solvent Americans, for our well off polictical class, it could be a big win in the long run for the Dems. It would disarm one of the Republican's most powerful rhetorical weapons -- that the party "in power" takes the blame for the mess. If you're playing eleventy chess, it's probably a brilliant move to let the other guy win this one game in the series.

White Kid's Woodstock in DC

I was offline all day so I missed the live coverage of the Stewart/Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. By all indications it was a great success. CBS hired an aerial estimator who put attendance at 215,000 people, far surpassing the estimated 87,000 at Glenn Beck's earlier fan club gathering. And there could have been more but, "TBD reported that because of the high turnout many would-be rally attendees retreated to bars to watch the event." I also read that a lot of people were stuck outside of DC on buses.

I browsed the establishment media coverage last night. The Caucus live blog was good and had a nice photo gallery. The photo gallery at WaPo was also surprisingly good.

As with all rallies of this sort, the messaging was rather nebulous, but Jon Stewart's closing speech put the event in focus. Read it all, but I especially liked this bit:

Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together.

Steve Benen has the video of Stewart's speech.

Looking at the photos, a couple of things stood out. This rally was no more diverse than any Tea Party event. It was sea of white faces. The biggest difference was obviously that the attendees were young, slim, apparently healthy and packed jaw to jaw on the Mall. No room for lawn chairs and medical equipment at this one. It looked very much to me like Woodstock, only the kids were better dressed and there was no mud, literally or figuratively.

The lack of mud-slinging against the GOPers was apparently causing some discontent among the tragically cynical youth in the crowd. Hearing this morning that twitter was full of young liberals complaining that the rally wasn't political enough. Maybe they forgot these guys are on the teevee but not on Fox. They can't be overtly partisan. I mean they still essentially work for Republicans.

But though they may not realize it, the rally made a point that won't be missed by many observers. Even though there was little politicking, by their numbers they showed the world that the Tea Party isn't the only voice worth listening to in our political discourse and the dearth of progressive enthusiasm is just another media myth. One can only hope that the energy translates to the ballot box on Tuesday. (Photo Credit: AirPhotosLive.Com via CBS)

I voted and I feel fine

Didn't post yesterday because I had a long shift in the afternoon/evening and had to spend the better part of the morning figuring out the down ticket races so I could sneak in for the last hour of early voting since I'm on the work schedule right through the election.
It was pretty good early turnout for this little town. I was voter 8234. During the run-off primary I was 300 something. Everyone was eyeballing each other, counting up the Dems and GOPers. I might as well have been wearing a neon sign saying I'm a Democrat. But the obvious Republicans were still very polite to me. And my intuitive count tells me at least a third of the line was Dem as well.

Needless to say I voted a straight Dem ticket where I had a choice. Sadly, Dems pretty much write off my county. State offices didn't have a Dem choice, neither did my district judge roster, nor the county commissioners. Well, actually the commissioners did have that one hapless sad sack running that I met at the Dem county convention. He's a bit disconnected from reality, but I cast a token vote for him anyway. He'll never win, but I didn't want him to get NO votes besides his own.

The biggest list of choices was for judges at all levels. That's what took so long to figure out. Finally managed to find a list of endorsements and match them up to my ballot for the higer court positions, so I was glad I didn't have to skip that section. Only office I passed over was water commissioners.

Sadly, I didn't get as involved in the local scene as I had planned to since my life got so complicated in last few months. Won't have any time to help out with GOTV either. But I'm feeling good about Billy Kennedy and Elaine Marshall. Sending out positive visualizations non-stop. Can't hurt.

The difference between the left and the "right"

I wouldn't normally link to Hot Air, but it's worth noting that Allahpundit is surprised lefties are defending Christine O'Donnell in the wake of Gawker's disgusting hit-whoring in publishing a smear piece about O'Donnell's wild night with some anonymous boor in Philly.

Allapundit marvels, "but this is worth blogging anyway for the unusual degree of bipartisan contempt directed at the “scoop” in question."

Well that's the difference between the left and the "right." Lefties will call out misogyny, no matter where it comes from. Conservatives could take a lesson from that in light of the recent events in Kentucky. The left didn't launch into "the bitch deserved it defense" even when the target of the abuse is a political opponent. And Gawker was just stomping on O'Donnell's reputation, not literally on her head.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Goon squad

Great editorial on the Kentucky head stomping in the local newspaper.

We keep hearing this is the year of the angry voter. But what motivates people to physically assault a woman who's carrying a political sign they don't like?

Certainly not respect for the Constitution, which enshrines the right of all citizens to express their opinions without fear. Not a belief in the rule of law. Not common decency.

Some members of Paul's Tea Party issue paranoid warnings that President Barack Obama and Democrats are totalitarians out to impose Marxist control over our country.

But look which side produced the goon squad.

Also makes a great point about the false equivalency of the weaselly "both sides do it" justifications.

I'm really tired of hearing that one myself. And the biggest difference the cons always ignore is "both sides" aren't stockpiling guns and ammo and calling for an armed revolution if they lose at the ballot box.

There's a reason law enforcement uses the phrase, "armed and dangerous." Of course, in today's world, sadly, that can all too often apply to the cops as well the criminals.

Rand Paul's head stomper wants apology from his victim

I know I'm spending too much time on this story but this is priceless. Of course, we all knew it was only a matter of time before the usual conservative "I'm the victim here" defense would arise. In a video interview with a local news station, Rand Paul's head stomper Tim Profitt wants Ms. Vallee to apologize to him. Apparently for making him stomp on her after she allegedly started the altercation.

You have to have to wonder if he's even watched the video, which the station kindly put on a loop while he was demanding said apology. Maybe he hasn't noticed that Vallee is lying perfectly still on the ground, in a fetal position, both prior to and during his attack on her.

The most appalling aspect of this for me, as a former victim of domestic violence myself, is to see how many men are making excuses for beating up this woman. The abuser always says she deserved it.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Rand Paul's head stomping thugs identified

The man who stomped on the head of Lauren Valle outside the Conway/Paul debate came forward shortly after being ID'ed by a local blogger. Now Rand's county campaign co-ordinater Tim Profitt claims his beating up Ms. Valle was misunderstood. He claims he acted out of fear for Rand Paul's safety.

Rahter a weak argument since it's clear Ms. Valle was recognized as a lefty activist before the attack and she has no history of violence. Furthermore, the five burly guys that surrounded her and warned her that they "might have to take somebody out" in the name of "crowd control" makes the attack on her look pretty much premeditated.

In any event, Profitt is now a former campaign volunteer. Rand Paul has severed their relationship and scrubbed all references to Profitt from his websites. However, it was too late to pull the full page Rand Paul ad in the local paper featuring Profitt's endorsement.

The other guy who assisted in the attack on Ms. Vallee has also been ID'ed:

Profitt’s accomplice, who held Valle down while he stepped on her head, has been identified as tea party activist Mike Pezzano. Gawker reports Pezzano “belongs to Lexington’s Rand Paul Meetup group and is an “assistant organizer” for Kentucky Open Carry, a group that wants to make it legal to carry firearms openly and in public.”

Anyone who is still thinking of sitting out the vote this round should consider that these are the people who will win if you do. [Photo via Think Progress.]

Rand Paul reacts to head stomping - Updated

Or maybe a more accurate title would be Rand Paul excuses head stomping by his supporters. When asked for his reaction in an appearance on the always friendly Fox News, Rand claims it was a simple matter of passionate people on both sides of the fence "jockeying back and forth." The video is worth watching if only for Rand's bland demeanor.



Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that the woman was hospitalized with a concussion and neck and shoulder injuries. And the excuses from the usual thugs of Wingnuttia just keep getting uglier. They're already moving to, "the b*tch deserved it" phase. Figure it's only a matter of time before they declare her assaulters their heroes of the day.

Update: Apparently, the Paul campaign figured out the bland comments were not playing well, so they issued a slightly stronger condemnation this afternoon that suggested they knew the perp. Which as it turns out, they did, but that's another post.