Stunning Discovery: Shadowy Corporate Donors Contribute to Political Campaigns

DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, Fla. — I was not shocked to learn that MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann had contributed to Democrats. What truly shocked me? Finding out that NBC has an “ethics policy”!

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election — a potential violation of NBC ethics policies.
Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

Keith Olbermann is obviously no rocket scientist. His boss, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt apparently prefers giving to Republicans (including John McCain and Rob Portman) even though Obama named Immelt to his economic advisory board. And Obama’s had a very GE-friendly energy policy.

Being strictly a neutral, objective journalist myself — “Ethics, shmethics!” — I don’t think Olbermann should be fired from NBC, which is as about as neutral and objective as Pravda or the Daily Worker. There is already a serious unemployment crisis looming among Democrats:

The Great Shellacking of 2010 will throw more than 2,000 Democratic congressional staffers out of their jobs.

Yeah. Sucks to be you, huh?

Well, they’ve already extended my checkout time here by two hours, and it’s time to hit the road again, so I can get back home to Mrs. Other McCain. She continues to worry about the finances of this trip. Thanks to everybody who’s already hit the tip jar. And if you haven’t hit the tip jar yet,l what the heck are you waiting for?

While I’m on the road, you should read Sissy Willis: “The inherent condescension at the heart of the anti-Palin campaign.”

Doug Hoffman’s Legacy in 2010 Victories

DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, Fla. — During the Allen West victory party Tuesday night, I stepped outside for a few moments and made a phone call to upstate New York to interview the man whose 2009 special-election campaign did so much to inspire grassroots conservatives nationwide. (See “Battle Cry in the North Country.”)

It was just after 8 p.m. when I called, and polls didn’t close in New York until 9 p.m. I had been angry in September when Matt Doheny won the NY-23 Republican primary (by just 700 votes) after airing dishonest attack ads accusing Hoffman of “lining his pockets.” And I was surprised when Hoffman subsequently endorsed Doheny.

On Election Night, I felt an urge to talk to Hoffman. I recorded the brief interview, but didn’t have time to transcribe it until last night:

RSM: After the primary a few weeks ago – totally broke my heart. How are you feeling about it now?

DOUG HOFFMAN: Well, I’m still disappointed, but life goes on, Stacy.

RSM: Your campaign last year was really the first total Tea Party campaign. It sent a message. We’ve just seen Marco Rubio declared the victor here in Florida. As Erick Erickson said, New York 23 last year, it was a trial run for Florida, we’re going to shake up the establishment. Do you think your campaign last year helped send a message?

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. I think my campaign, and the people who were supporting me, woke up America and said, “We’re fed up. We have to do something about it. We’re not going to take more spending, more taxes, and more government regulations.”

RSM: What are your plans going forward? I thought that was very big of you to endorse [GOP nominee Matt] Doheny after the kind of terrible crap he did to you.

HOFFMAN: Well, I had to look past Mr. Doheny and look at what was good for America, and that’s the conclusion that I came to. It’s better to get Pelosi and Reid and the Obama agenda off the table, and get more Republicans into the House. It was a very difficult decision, but that’s why I made the decision, [because] I think it’s good for America.

RSM: And that was what it was all about for you, from the get-go.

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. We have to get people down in Washington that are going to fight the Pelosi agenda, and that’s what it’s all about.

RSM: Somebody said that you lit the fuse up there in New York 23. It looks like it’s going to be a huge explosion tonight.

HOFFMAN: That’s the exciting part. I’m disappointed that I’m not going to be part of the excitement and going to Washington, but if the legacy of my race last year is the people who are going to Washington this year, then I’m very proud to watch what’s happening tonight, and anticipate the Republicans taking over the House.

He’s a class act. And establishment Republican Matt Doheny lost Tuesday by 3,800 votes. Even though Hoffman endorsed Doheny — who spent $1.7 million of his own money on the campaign — more than 9,500 people still voted for Hoffman on the Conservative Party line. Maybe next time.

DOUG HOFFMAN for U.S. CONGRESS

Urgent Deadline for the Final Wisdom; Memo From the National Affairs Desk

When I left the cheap motel in Port St. Lucie this morning, my plan had been to swing by and visit relatives near Orlando before heading north toward Atlanta on my way back home. As I drove up I-95, I put in a call to my editor at The American Spectator, to whom I had last spoken at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday when I finally filed my report of Allen West’s victory in Florida’s 22nd District.

“OK, so when’s the deadline for the print edition?” I asked. It’s a monthly magazine and usually the copy deadline for the December-January edition would have been in late October, but I knew they were extending it to include reactions to the Nov. 2 election. Continue reading Urgent Deadline for the Final Wisdom; Memo From the National Affairs Desk →

Checkout Time

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. — Heading north today, after a day of recovering from long-term sleep deprivation. My four most recent datelines at the American Spectator:

Calculating the mileage I drove in those days, including the distance from my home near Hagerstown, Maryland, it comes out to 1,550 miles.

Help get me back home to annoy my wife again. Hit the tip jar.

My Apologies to the Optimists

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. — When I left Boca Raton at 3 a.m., I’d hoped to make it to the vicinity of Orlando before finding a cheap motel to crash in. But I was so tired and brain-fogged, I only made it a few dozen miles up I-95 before I began to get that nodding-off feeling, so I’m here. Woke up after four hours, got some breakfast, and now I’m about to go back to bed.

Before I crash again, however, I’d like to acknowledge that my pre-election gloom — fearing that polls had encouraged conservatives to over-estimate the size of the GOP “wave” — was unjustified. I was wrong, and the optimists were right. Jim Geraghty reports that Republicans have scored a net gain of at least 60 House seats, and possibly as many as 71.  (Better make that 70, Jim. It appears that Raul Grijalva managed to steal enough votes to defeat Ruth “Rocket Girl” McClung.)

Also, I owe beers to Joe Marier and John Fund for a couple of election wagers.

While I’ve been traveling, I’ve missed out on lots of important news: Demi Lovato became the latest Disney princess to enter rehab, and Miley Cyrus’s mom got busy with Bret Michaels.

Oh, yeah: And the president held a press conference today.

So there will be lots of catching up to do when I wake up. Please hit the tip jar, so I can afford to get back home.

UPDATE: Duh! Did I say “brain fogged”? Yeah, I forgot to link my American Spectator column about Allen West’s big win last night.

UPDATE II: More news I missed last night: Michelle Bachmann asked Chris Matthews, “Hey, how’s that leg-tingling thing workin’ for ya?”

UPDATE III: Sorry to keep updating like this — I swear, I’m going back to bed in a few minutes — but Bill Kristol has some interesting thoughts on the “What Does It Mean?” question. He suggests the possibility that Russ Feingold will mount an anti-war primary challenge to Obama in 2012.

Probably wishful thinking there, but something else in Kristol’s column shows how being on the scene of a big victory like last night’s Allen West party can obstruct one’s view of the larger picture. Kristol mentions the significance of Pat Toomey’s victory in Pennsylvania.

Hell, the last time I saw the results on the big-screen TV in the ballroom of the Boca Raton Marriott, Toomey was losing, and I figured it was over. Also, I lost track of results in several House races I’d previously covered. In New York, for example, it looks like Ann Marie Buerkle lost narrowly in the 25th District, and Maurice Hinchey beat George Phillips by about 5 points in the 22nd District. On the bright side, Richard Hanna won in the 22nd District and Nan Hayworth won in the 20th District (where my buddy Chris Cassone lives).

In Pennsylvania, Tom Marino won in the 10th District, but Tim Burns lost narrowly in the 12th. There was good news for my friends in Illinois, where Phil Hare got beat by Bobby Schilling in the 17th District, Adam Kinzinger won in the 11th District  and it looks like Joe Walsh has squeaked out a win over Melissa Bean in the 8th District. In Missouri, Vicky Hartzler defeated Ike Skelton in the 4th District.

Lots of Democrat “Blue Dogs” got beat in the South and, in general, a look at the map now shows a lot of Republican red, even in the Northeastern and Midwest states where the GOP was supposed to be dead. It was the biggest Republican congressional pickup in decades — even bigger than the historic 1994 “Contract With America” victory.

And you were the wave. Congratulations.

Final Warning: Polls Are Not Elections

PANAMA CITY, Fla. — We now have the final Cook Political Report forecast (“The midterm maelstrom pulling House Democrats under shows no signs of abating”) predicting a pickup of 50-60 House seats for Republicans. That would be a truly historic result, but it’s actually a note of sober caution compared to Jay Cost’s “Hulk smash” forecast:

A [Gallup final poll predicting GOP] victory of 15 points suggests Republican gains well in excess of my previous estimate of 61 seats. The Abramowitz model suggests a pickup of about 76 seats . . .

With all due respect to Jay Cost: Fuck you and the Abramowitz model you rode in on.

Polls don’t win elections, and regression analysis sure as hell doesn’t win elections. Politics is not a science, and trying to reduce elections to trends, polls and mathematical formulae is one of those situations where when the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

If you’re a thousand miles away from a district and don’t actually know anything about what the candidates and their campaigns are doing, it is tempting to look at poll numbers, examine past voting trends, and start making assumptions about what the result will be. But when we yield to that temptation, we ignore the Hayekian insight: Information is diffused throughout society in such a way that no one — not even the best-informed “expert” — can know everything.

So Jay Cost doesn’t know everything, Charlie Cook doesn’t know everything and Michael Barone doesn’t know everything, either. Yet their status as political experts requires them to make predictions and we mere mortals . . . well, we don’t know nothing about winning no elections.

Anyway . . .  Allahpundit is optimistic, which is so abnormal it should worry us all. Jim Geraghty sees a net gain of 70 seats for the GOP (76 pickups minus six losses, including Ben Quayle going down in AZ-3). Nate Silver errs on the side of caution:

Our forecasting model, which is based on a consensus of indicators including generic ballot polling, polling of local districts, expert forecasts, and fund-raising data, now predicts an average Republican gain of 54 seats . . .
Of the projected Republican gains, many are tenuous. If we allocate all 435 seats to the leader projected by our model — no matter how slim the margin — Republicans would net a gain of 59 seats. In 15 of these 59 seats, however, the Republican is projected to win by fewer than 2 points. It is likely that Republicans will lose at least some of these — which is why the model forecasts an average gain of 54-55 seats, rather than 59, when looking at the seats on a probabilistic basis. If they lost all of them, however, their gains would be merely 44 seats, which would put the Democrats within striking distance of retaining the House.

See what I mean? Because there has been little polling in many House races, Silver is forced to use such inputs as fund-raising totals and “expert forecasts” — which is to say, he’s relying on second-hand data. And as if Republicans need a reason to be scared to death, Silver notes a very realistic possibility: Despite everything, Democrat manage to hold on t0 the majority.

To quote one expert: Don’t get cocky!

While I’m optimistic that Republicans will take the House majority, I’m trying to temper GOP overconfidence in my latest American Spectator column:

Parked beside the Steve Southerland campaign headquarters on Baldwin Road is a big RV with an orange sign on the side designating it the “I’ve Had Enough Express.” And indeed, if polls can be trusted, voters in Florida’s 2nd District have finally had enough seven-term Democrat Rep. Allen Boyd.
“We’re feeling very good about how things are going,” said Southerland campaign communications director Matt McCullough, as he sat in an office inside the yellow brick house that was once the home of the GOP candidate’s grandfather. Polls showing Southerland with a double-digit lead over Boyd, but the campaign is “not taking anything for granted,” McCullough said. “We’re still out there working as hard as we did from Day One.”
Despite such necessary cautions against overconfidence, Republicans here clearly expect to be celebrating a Southerland victory Tuesday night at the Boardwalk Beach Resort. If they want to learn whether their party wins a majority in the House of Representatives, however, they’d better be prepared to stay up past midnight. . . .

Please read the whole thing. I don’t know everything, but what I know, I know. And I know I’m going to take a nap today, because I expect this thing to go to the wee hours of the morning.

I’m leaving for Miami in about an hour. Please hit the tip jar.

Update (Smitty): Welcome InstaPundit readers! Allow me to direct your attention to a post supporting my local candidate.

Old School in the New Media: Crime, Scandal & Alyssa Milano Lesbian Kiss

“When I was a kid reporter at the LA Times in the 1960s, some of the veteran photographers and reporters regaled me with tales of how they used to sit in their cars with motors running, radios tuned to the police band, so they could be first on the scene of a gangland slaying or a spouse-stabbing, the bloodier the better. . . .
“There was serious stuff in the papers, too, like Korea and the Cold War and polio vaccine, but much of that was available to everyone and left to the wires to report. The premium, then as now, was on speed.”

— Paul Steiger, Ralph McGill Lecture, Henry Grady School of Journalism, University of Georgia

Thanks to Jack Lail for that useful lecture in a post titled, “Free enterprise just hasn’t been good for journalism.” And I’m afraid the comment by Professor Glenn Reynolds — “Maybe this explains their attitude toward capitalism” — gets the causation exactly backwards.

It is the anti-capitalist attitude that causes the failure of journalism, and not the other way around.

How many journalists have I worked with since 1986 who are no longer working as journalists? Short answer: Lots. Probably even most of them.

Some of them just found other lines of work where they could make more money. Some of them were laid off, victims of mismanaged news organizations. But a lot of them drifted out of an increasingly competitive news environment because they never really had that fire-in-the-belly appetite for competition.

Despite my natural-born laziness, I always understood that news is a business. The newsroom staff is an expense. The revenue comes from advertisers who want the attention of readers. Therefore:

  • The journalist’s value to his employer is directly connected to his contribution to the business of attracting readers.
  • The story is more important than the writer, because the writer is less important than the reader.
  • Advertising will follow the reader.
  • Attracting and satisfying the reader — as the ultimate consumer of the product — is the whole business of journalism.

The stuck-up snobbery of those who don’t appreciate these basic facts of the news business, who feel entitled to a living as a professional journalist because they imagine themselves to be pursuing a calling more noble than the pursuit of profit — well, to hell with all that.

Let ’em join the Peace Corps, if they think journalism is some kind of philanthropic endeavor.

Did you know that this video clip of Alyssa Milano in a lesbian kissing scene has had 1.6 million views? Continue reading Old School in the New Media: Crime, Scandal & Alyssa Milano Lesbian Kiss →