Category: Minnesota

Santorum Surge Returns: Wins Missouri, Minnesota; UPDATE: Wins Colorado UPDATE: NY Times ‘Unexpectedly!’

Posted on Comments

They’re still counting votes in Colorado at this hour — 1 a.m. Eastern, 11 p.m. Mountain — and Rick Santorum is barely leading Mitt Romney with about half of the caucus vote counted there.

Santorum won both the Missouri primary and the Minnesota caucuses, and you have to wonder if Newt Gingrich’s angry rant Saturday after losing in Nevada hasn’t shifted the GOP battlefield.

UPDATE: Readers will excuse my long delay in blogging the results tonight, as I was working on my annual CPAC preview feature for The American Spectator. But as I was writing, I had the TV on Fox News, where the commentators kept repeating that (a) the Missouri primary is just a “beauty pageant”; and (b) the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado are “non-binding.” In other words, they were trying to suggest that the vote didn’t matter.

The Iowa GOP caucuses were also “non-binding,” but Fox News commentators didn’t say a word about that on caucus night, did they?

UPDATE II: With the Associated Press reporting just 67% of precincts in Colorado, and Santorum leading Romney 39%-35%, the chairman of the Colorado GOP just called into Fox News to say that he has results from 99% of precincts, and Santorum has definitely won there.

UPDATE III: The results from Missouri:

Rick Santorum ………..138,957 — 55.2%
Mitt Romney ………….. 63,826 — 25.3%
Ron Paul ………………… 30,641 — 12.2%

Newt Gingrich didn’t make the Missouri ballot. It is true that no delegates were bound by Tuesday’s vote. However, unlike Karl Rove, I’d say Santorum beating Romney by 30 points might be kinda important.

UPDATE IV: The results from Minnesota:

Rick Santorum ……….20,932 — 44.9%
Ron Paul ………………..12,627 — 27.1%
Mitt Romney …………..7,890 –16.9%
Newt Gingrich ………. 4,993 — 10.7%

Once more, Karl Rove is correct to say that the caucus vote in Minnesota is “non-binding.” But when Santorum got 45% while Romney and Gingrich got 27% combined? Might be kinda important.

UPDATE V: The results from Colorado:

Rick Santorum ……….. 26,580 — 40.2%
Mitt Romney …………. 23,097 — 34.9%
Newt Gingrich …………. 8,457 — 12.8%
Ron Paul …………………. 7,782 — 11.8%

Yeah, Karl Rove, I know: “non-binding.” But Rick Santorum just scored a hat trick — 3-for-3 — in three crucial swing states, and got more votes in one night than Romney got in Iowa and New Hampshire combined.

Might be kinda important.

UPDATE VI: Let me put some numbers on that last point. In Iowa, Romney got less than 30,000 votes. In New Hampshire, Romney got less than 100,00 votes. Tonight in Missouri alone, Rick Santorum got more votes than Romney got in Iowa and New Hampshire combined, and in all, Santorum got nearly 180,000 votes Tuesday.

Might be kinda important.

UPDATE VII: O, ye of little zero faith! Now with the benefit of hindsight, let’s re-read Allahpundit’s preview of Tuesday’s vote:

No delegates at stake tonight, but this is probably Santorum’s last chance to breeze past Newt as the race’s designated Not Romney. . . . If he wins both easily, then he gets a bunch of positive media coverage this week and maybe a few more big-name conservative endorsements, which in turn could mean enough movement in the polls to put him on at least an equal footing with Gingrich. Once that happens, the pressure will shift to Newt to explain why he should stay in and divide the conservative vote on the strength of having won one state while Santorum should drop out after having won three.

Excuse me, Allah: This surprising hat-trick — you kinda low-rated Santorum in Colorado, didn’t ya, buddy? — actually makes it four states in which Santorum has beaten Romney.

And as to the bizarre self-perpetuating media meme that “no delegates” were at stake Tuesday: This was legally true in Missouri, but given Santorum’s 2-to-1 margin in the “beauty pageant” vote, does anyone really think someone other than Santorum will get the lion’s share of the delegates at next month’s Missouri caucuses?

As for the presidential preference votes at Tuesday’s precinct caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado, yes — those votes were “non-binding,” officially. But if a precinct caucus votes 45-27 for Santorum over Romney (i.e., the typical Minnesota precinct), do we suppose that this caucus will then send a slate of Romney delegates to the next phase of the state party nominating process who will vote for somebody else besides Santorum? Or should we, as I suggest we should, assume that the delegates chosen at the precinct level will eventually vote at the state level to send delegates to the national convention in roughly the same proportion as the preference expressed in the precinct votes?

Like I said, the Iowa caucus vote on Jan. 3 was also “non-binding” in the same sense as the Minnesota and Colorado precinct caucus votes, but almost nobody mentioned that at the time. However, it seems that somebody’s campaign — and I’m thinking it might be somebody whose name sounds like “Ritt Momney” — was very diligent in spreading the message about these “non-binding” votes that Rick Santorum won Tuesday.

UPDATE VIII: In politics, as in economics, the New York Times is always caught by surprise:

His candidacy all but dismissed just days ago, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and a nonbinding primary in Missouri on Tuesday, an unexpected trifecta that raised fresh questions about Mitt Romney’s ability to corral conservative support. . .
His performance added another twist to an unruly nominating contest that has seen Republican voters veering among candidates and refusing to coalesce behind anyone. It came after Mr. Romney scored back-to-back victories in Florida and Nevada that had led to predictions that he was finally on a straight march to the nomination.

By whom was Santorum’s candidacy “all but dismissed”? Why, by all the smart guys at the New York Times, that’s who!

Kind of interesting that Romney’s top surrogate in Minnesota was the state’s former governor, Tim Pawlenty, and yet Romney placed third in Minnesota, with 17 percent. Thanks, Tim!

Tuesday’s trifecta was not “unexpected” by a certain Colorado resident:

What did I tell ya? Santorum’s got game. . . . Nothing is inevitable in politics.

Attagirl, Michelle. And she makes an important point: This would be a good time to go give Rick Santorum some money: $20, $50, $100 — whatever you can afford, give it now. Super Tuesday’s coming soon, and the Romney attack machine is going to pour on millions of dollars in attack ads to try to destroy the Comeback Kid they thought they buried weeks ago.

UPDATE IX: Linked by Fire Andrea Mitchell — thanks! Guess Tuesday’s vote doesn’t bode well for “Sweet Meteor of Death,” eh?

One of my friends from Team Santorum pointed out on Twitter that a tropical storm just hit Vanuatu. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

UPDATE X: My libertarian friend in Missouri, Tom Knapp, seems to grasp the Fear and Loathing element in this campaign. And the truly bizarre thing is, I’ll be hanging out with Rick Santorum this weekend at CPAC. Because the going just got weird . . .

UPDATE XI: Evil Blogger Lady: “This reminds me of that moment of recognition by Michael Corleone in Godfather II that the rebels in Cuba could actually win…” Because no discussion of 21st-century politics is complete until somebody makes a Godfather reference.

It’s 3:30 a.m. Good-night, everybody.

Your Choices: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or ‘Sweet Meteor of Death’

Posted on Comments

This looks to be a big day for Rick Santorum, which probably explains why last night Erick Erickson began apocalyptic doomsaying:

Influential conservative blogger Erick Erickson said he would endorse the “sweet meteor of death” over any of the current GOP candidates, but would back the party’s eventual nominee in the general election against President Obama. . . .
Erickson has been highly critical of all the remaining candidates, saying the only reason Romney was seen as the eventual nominee was because “the other candidates, right now, are a pretty pathetic lot.”

Here’s a partial transcript from Erickson’s Monday WSB radio program:

It’s time for a moment of candor, I believe. I’m going to give my endorsement for President of the United States tonight. . . . Of the candidates running for President of the United States, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, on the Republican side — oh, I guess I’ll throw in Ron Paul there, as well — my choice for President of the United States is the Sweet Meteor of Death. Yes, that’s right, the Sweet Meteor of Death. Now, naturally, you could presume that, being a conservative, that of course I would choose something like a great fireball coming from the sky, annihilating us all, because women and minorities are hardest hit. . . . I’ve decided, a pox on all their houses. They’re all terrible. I doubt any of them can beat Barack Obama, unless the economy goes back down, which it may very well, in which case they don’t need my endorsement — they’ll have the economy.

(Hat-tip: Hot Air.) I had written a very long rebuttal to Erickson, but then thought better of it. Why bother? Dan Riehl calls Erickson’s rant “basically a concession to Romney and simply another incidence of his being one of the first to quit the battle.” And permit me to quote from Erickson’s Wikipedia biography:

The analysis from one of Erickson’s “Morning Briefing” emails, just after the November 2009 election, was posted on the website of Human Events, referred to on the website of The American Spectator, and by Rush Limbaugh, and “fueled discussion later that morning at two influential weekly meetings of [Washington,] D.C. conservatives”, according to an article in the Washington Post. The Post added, “The ability of a single e-mail to shape a message illustrates the power of the conservative network.” The article described Erickson as one of the American conservative movement’s “key national players”.

Hmmm. Erickson’s analysis was “referred to on the website of the American Spectator,” and thence became an example of “the power of the conservative network.” How do such things happen?

The value of Neutral Objective Journalism is sometimes overlooked, and I would assert that Doug Hoffman’s victory in New York was the irreversible turning point in the Florida Senate campaign. But there were hundreds, even thousands of people who deserved credit for those victories, and it was Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Hoffman that crushed the spine of Dede Scozzafava’s campaign.

Don’t know how that happened, either.

When was the last time Erick said anything nice about Sarah Palin?

Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning

Posted on Comments

“[Obama] made the claim that his policies of taxing the rich is authorized by the Bible. That he is doing what is biblically called for by taxing the rich, by having the government tax the rich. Now, I’ve read the Bible, and I must have missed that passage. . . . This is an administration that attacks religion, and then tries to cloak itself in religion in order to take your money.”
— Rick Santorum, Thursday in Fallon, Nevada

“Sincerity is the important thing on TV. A presidential candidate should at least seem to believe what he’s saying — even if it’s all stone crazy.”
— Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

If you’ve been watching Fox News lately, you are perhaps aware that the “fair and balanced” network has jumped onto the same bandwagon as most of the rest of the major media: The GOP presidential campaign is now a two-man race between the frontrunners, Mitt and Newt.

This was evidently the narrative the media wanted back in December, before Rick Santorum shocked the world with his astonishing surge to victory in Iowa — a result that was immediately dismissed as a fluke by the media, so that they could get back to telling you about the two-man frontrunner race they had decided on weeks earlier.

That Fox is part of this media bandwagon is a fact I note in passing, while pointing out what was obvious to me long ago: Newt can’t beat Mitt.

It can’t happen and won’t happen, and those conservatives who believe they can make it happen are engaged in a type of behavior that Ace of Spades has called “wishcasting” — the idea that you can do anything you want to do, if only you wish and hope and believe in it enough.

There are many reasons why the seemingly possible dream of a Newt nomination is actually less practically feasible than the admittedly long-shot chance of an unexpected comeback by Rick Santorum. Most of these reasons have to do with Newt’s biography and character: His personal flaws and failings, which are well known even to his supporters, but which he (and they) suppose will be ignored by undecided voters who are less ideological than themselves because, doggone it, he has such great ideas!

You see a bit of this admiration for Newt’s ideas in Karl Rove’s campaign critique, where he faults Romney for relying too heavily on the “successful businesman” biographical narrative. But the problem for Newt is that, beyond his career as a leader of conservative Republicans, his biographical narrative is a major net negative. Even if Republican primary voters could overlook everything else, Gingrich’s two divorces are the kind of “baggage” that he can’t possibly carry to the White House.

Now, maybe you’ve got a divorce or two under your own belt and wish to believe that the American people would be willing to overlook this element of Gingrich’s biographical narrative — but this belief is only possible if you assume that most people share your own vehement opposition to Obama and would be willing to ignore the messy details of Newt’s narrative.

Please see R. Emmett Tyrrell’s column last week on that subject. Furthermore, let’s quote Tyrrell’s column this week:

Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I predicted he would do. He hurled wild charges at Mitt Romney that suggested Newt was losing his grip. He charged Romney with lying and falling into the hands of George Soros and Goldman Sachs, and he did this while seeking the Republican presidential nomination!
Newt quoted Soros as saying, “We think either Obama or Romney’s fine, but Gingrich, he would change things.” Citing Goldman Sachs’ profiting from the bailout, he linked the Wall Street firm to anti-Gingrich ads, filling in the dots: “Those ads,” he averred, “are your money recycled to attack me.” On Sunday, he suggested that Rick Santorum drop out of the race and support him. Santorum had left the campaign trail to be with his desperately ill daughter. That is the kind of grace we have come to expect from Gingrich, who, by the way, supplied no evidence of Goldman Sachs’ or of Soros’s aiding Romney.

The astute reader will perhaps perceive that the esteemed editor of The American Spectator relied on his shoe-leather man’s reporting from Newt’s Fort Myers “Fear and Loathing” rally, a service I was more than happy to provide, and which in turn involves a debt to the good readers who hit the tip jar for the Florida trip. Continue reading Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning →

Like an Earthquake in Vanuatu: Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum!

Posted on Comments

NAPLES, Fla.
Woke up about 10:30 this morning expecting to put together a quick aggregation of the morning news. Then I saw Michelle Malkin’s endorsement of Rick Santorum.

All bets are off. Forget everything else — this is freaking HUGE!

UPDATE: I’m about to go get breakfast, but before that, a few more bits of news:

Oh, and one more thing: My American Spectator column today.

UPDATE II: Another endorsement for Rick Santorum at American Thinker. Remember: Every time a blogger endorses Rick Santorum, an angel gets his wings.

UPDATE III: Santorum’s schedule for Monday-Tuesday:

Monday, January 30:

  • 2:30pm CT: Senator Santorum will make a major address focusing on jobs, the economy, and American competitiveness in Cottleville, MO.

Location: St. Charles Community College Daniel J. Conoyer Social Sciences Building Auditorium 4601 Mid Rivers Mall Drive Cottleville, MO

  • 7:30pm CT: Senator Santorum will host a town hall meeting in Luverne, MN.

Location: Pizza Ranch 110 East Main Street Luverne, MN

Tuesday, January 31:

  • 10:00am MT: Senator Santorum will hold a campaign rally in Lone Tree, CO.

Location: The Lone Tree Golf Club Lounge 9808 Sunningdale Boulevard Lone Tree, CO

  • 7:30pm PT: Senator Santorum will hold a primary night watch party in Las Vegas, NV

Location: Rick Santorum for President Nevada Headquarters 8550 West Charleston Las Vegas, NV

Minnesota Republican ‘Made Some Mistakes and Errors in Judgment’

Posted on Comments

The words “sin” and “adultery” evidently did not occur to former state Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch:

Amy Koch apologized [Wednesday] for “engaging in a relationship with a Senate staffer,” though she did not name the individual.

(We are left to wonder if “engaging in a relationship” can be roughly translated as “making the beast with two backs,” or “getting to second base,” or perhaps “kinda like Lewinsky, IYKWIMAITYD.”)

Koch declared in an official statement that she’s “made some mistakes and errors in judgment” and has “deep regret.” She apologized to constituents, the Republican party, fellow legislators, and her family.

(“Deep regret” = “Damn it, I got caught.”)

“The events of recent days have been very difficult for me and those close to me,” Koch said.

(It wasn’t “events of recent days,” but more likely “events of certain previous nights,” that caused the difficulty.)

Koch did not address the public speculation about the identity of the staffer with whom she was having the affair, widely rumored to be communications chief Michael Brodkorb, who was ousted from his positions with the GOP in the wake of Koch’s resignation.
Instead, she emphasized that what she did with her staffer was not a crime. Although she had an “inappropriate relationship” with a subordinate, Koch denied she had “violated any laws or Senate rules” or “misused any state funds or property.”

(“Love is not a crime!”)

Koch ended her statement by writing that she needs to focus on the “challenging days ahead” while she works through “some very personal issues.”

“Personal issues”? Lady, you were shagging the help, OK?

Your aide was hired at taxpayer expense, and “civil servant” cannot plausibly be translated as “love slave.” Whatever “inappropriate” acts transpired between you — c’mon, spare us the tidy euphemisms and start spilling the sweaty details — these carnal indulgences weren’t just a matter of two lonely souls who met by random chance. You were the Boss, he was your subordinate, and both of you were supposed to be selflessly pursuing the public interest, rather than gettin’ some action.

Scoring. Heavy petting. Frottage. Knocking boots. Whatever universe of imaginable erotic possibilities may be encompassed in that annoyingly vague phrase “inappropriate relationship.”

And so it’s mighty damned convenient, Senator, when after flagrantly abusing the office with which you were entrusted by voters (and for which you were paid with taxes collected from the citizenry) you deny that these misdeeds were illegal or unethical, refuse to name the government employee whom you made your amorous plaything, minimalize this sordid scandal as “errors in judgment” and appeal for sympathy as the wounded victim while you deal with “very personal issues.”

Sigh.

No need to guess what the Left is doing with this ugly mess:

The gay and lesbian community of Minnesota has issued a letter of apology to recently resigned Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch for ruining the institution of marriage and causing her to stray from her husband and engage in an “inappropriate relationship.”
“On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community’s successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage,” reads the letter from John Medeiros. “We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry.”

What Amy Koch and (allegedly) Michael Brodkorb have done is not merely “mistakes” or “errors in judgment,” but is in fact a shameful disgrace of the Republican Party. Yet when I look at the Memeorandum thread about this story, I don’t see a single conservative blogger denouncing these two adulterous hypocrites.

Where’s the judgmentalism? Where’s the accountability, huh?

Senator Koch is married, as is her rumored stud muffin boy toy backdoor man paramour, and surely both of them as human beings need support and healing more than they need public scolding, but what about the needs of the Republican Party, the conservative movement and the citizens of Minnesota whom the Senator and her sweetheart were honor-bound to represent?

More than a week has passed since this scandal became public — I first blogged about it Sunday — and while Senator Koch resigned her post as Majority Leader and said she would not seek re-election next year, she evidently believes she can serve out her term.

Really? Are Minnesota Republicans going to permit their disgraced former leader to continue collecting her salary, as if nothing were amiss?

Hell’s bells, state Senate GOP leaders kept this scandal under wraps for nearly three months after a conscientious Senate staffer blew the whistle on Senator Koch’s workplace affair!

They’re not even sure whether to pursue ethics charges against her!

If this is not an ethics violation — if humping the office help isn’t against the Senate rules — hadn’t they better make some changes to the rules PDQ? Shouldn’t Minnesota Republicans be united in demanding Senator Koch’s immediate resignation? And shouldn’t conservative bloggers stop pretending that this sin-soaked public stain on their movement never happened?

Oh — and what’s this business of Minnesota officials refusing to name Senator Koch’s lover? Like he’s a victim or something? Like they’re afraid that he might sue them for libel or “inflicting emotional distress”? Has Michael Brodkorb denied being Senator Koch’s secret sweetheart? At some point, doesn’t an absence of denial become a sort of confession?

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

Go ahead and sue me, Brodkorb. I’ll plead insanity.

Minnesota Republican Resigns Post Over Allegation of ‘Inappropriate’ Relationship

Posted on Comments

This news was a shock to me, involving allegations — and we must stress that these are only allegations at this point — against a female politician whom I have actually met:

Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch resigned from her leadership post the day after fellow Republicans confronted her about allegations that she had an “inappropriate relationship” with a staff member.
“We’re here today with a lot of humility and some sadness and even shock,” interim Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michel said Friday at a hastily called Capitol news conference. . . .
Koch could not be reached for comment Friday. Michel and the others refused to identify the staffer by name.
Michel and other senators said they had heard from several staffers over the past two weeks that Koch was having a relationship with one of her direct subordinates. They said that when they confronted Koch on Wednesday night, she didn’t admit to the relationship or deny it.
“Her response to the conversation was …’I think I need to consider resigning,’ “ said Assistant Senate Majority Leader David Hann, R-Eden Prairie. . . .
Not long after the news conference, Michel announced that Michael Brodkorb, who was Koch’s powerful communications chief, was no longer employed as a Senate staffer, effective Friday.

(Via TPM and Memorandum.) Gays are celebrating Koch’s downfall because she was an opponent of same-sex marriage. And enemies of Michele Bachmann are celebrating because Koch endorsed Bachmann’s presidential campaign in October. 

As I say, I actually met Amy Koch while I was in Iowa in August. It was at a reception at the Iowa Governor’s Mansion, and I got a photo of Sen. Koch posing with Caffeinated Thoughts blogger Shane Vander Hart:

Of course, this was perfectly innocent, although I’m sure when I get to Iowa next week Shane will kill me for posting this. But how were we to know, in August, that Sen. Koch would subsequently be embroiled in a scandal? And I think this illustrates another unfortunate aspect of such a situation: Once a person is accused of an “inappropriate” relationship, this creates a shadow of suspicion about all of their other relationships.

Maybe Shane and I can hold a joint press conference in Iowa:

Bloggers Claim ‘We Did Not Have Inappropriate
Relations With That Woman, Senator Koch’

 

VIDEO: Breitbart Talks WeinerGate

Posted on Comments

MINNEAPOLIS
Everybody I saw downstairs this morning at the Right Online conference kept telling me, “You look rough.” As well I should.

My flight out of Dulles yesterday was delayed more than an hour on departure. By the time I arrived, checked into the Hilton and had dinner — bangers and mash at a British-style pub downtown — I was running desperately late on deadline for my column at The American Spectator:

Three weeks ago, Anthony Weiner was a rising star in the Democratic Party, an influential spokesman for the progressive movement and, quite possibly, the next mayor of New York City.
Today, Weiner is a despised figure so thoroughly disgraced, even in the eyes of the most partisan Democrats, that he is unlikely to have any future in politics. In the process of stringing out his bizarre scandal for nearly three weeks — the first 10 days of which were spent telling one implausible lie after another — Weiner damaged himself and his party in a way that would not have happened had he resigned much sooner. By the time Weiner gave his resignation speech Thursday in New York, he was such a pariah that even his political mentor, Sen. Charles Schumer, would not even speak publicly in his defense, instead issuing a brief statement wishing Weiner well. . . .

Please read the whole thing. After I hit deadline, I managed to grab Andrew Breitbart in the hotel lobby for this 4-minute interview about his role in breaking the WeinerGate scandal:

You’ll notice Breitbart had a bottle of red wine handy, and kept waving the cork when he was gesturing. This interview took place at about 2 a.m., after the lobby bar had closed.

Left-Wing Groups Getting Psyched Up for ‘Netroots Nation’ Event in Minneapolis

Posted on Comments

Between 1999 and 2005, George Soros donated $535,000 to Alliance for Justice (AFJ), which has also received major donations from liberals like Ted Turner and Barbra Streisand. One of AFJ’s main activities is to help Democrats block the appointment of conservative judges (they supported filibusters of President Bush’s nominees) and to push for the creation of “new rights” as a strategy to advance the progressive agenda.

Because left-wing groups routinely pool their online resources, AFJ’s fundraising e-mails are distributed to millions of people who have signed up to receive updates from groups like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America. That explains why I received the following e-mail today:

Dear Robert,
We’re heading to Minneapolis for Netroots Nation this week! Here’s what we have in store for you at the Netroots Nation 2011 conference, an annual gathering of some of the most influential voices in the progressive online community.
The Roberts Court’s extreme pro-business agenda has been gaining more and more attention this term with cases like Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. This Saturday, Alliance for Justice and a panel of experts will tackle the Court’s hard right turn in “The Corporate Court: Your Rights vs. Corporate Interests.”
Our panelists — Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Dahlia Lithwick (Slate), Eva Paterson (Equal Justice Society), and Carl Pope (Sierra Club) — will address the growing influence of corporations within the American judicial system, particularly in the Supreme Court on Saturday, June 18 at 10:30 a.m. in room L100 H.
We’ll also be screening excerpts from our award-winning film, Crude Justice, and a Q&A with AFJ Communications Director Kevin Fry as a part of the conference screening series. Join us in room M100 J during the General Showcase I on Thursday, June 16 at 4:30 p.m.
Alliance for Justice president Nan Aron will lead an informal discussion on judges, corporate influence, and the fight for a fair America on Friday, June 17th, at 4:30pm in the exhibit hall’s caucus area.
Don’t forget to stop by our booth (#922) to meet our staff, learn more about AFJ, and talk with our expert about developing hard-hitting social media campaigns without violating the restrictions imposed on nonprofits.

Talk to you soon,
Alliance for Justice
P.S. Tell us what you’re up to at Netroots by tweeting us @afjustice!

Notice I’ve highlighted the fact that this legal advocacy group — which employs dozens of leftist lawyers — is offering expert advice to progressives on “developing hard-hitting social media campaigns without violating the restrictions imposed on nonprofits.” This is what Soros & Co. are paying them to do: Teaching the Left to stretch the limits of the law to push their agenda.

What can you do to help fight back against AFJ and their progressive allies at Netroots Nation? Continue reading Left-Wing Groups Getting Psyched Up for ‘Netroots Nation’ Event in Minneapolis →