The U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin is getting more national attention.
This morning the Wall Street Journal takes a look at what's happening in Wisconsin.
Democrats for the first time are acknowledging that Republicans could retake the Senate this November if everything falls into place for the GOP, less than two years after Democrats held a daunting 60-seat majority.
Leaders of both parties have believed for months that Republicans could win the House, where every lawmaker faces re-election. But a change of party control in the Senate, where only a third of the members are running and Republicans must capture 10 seats, seemed out of the question.
That's no longer the case. The emergence of competitive Republican candidates in Wisconsin, Washington and California—Democratic-leaning states where polls now show tight races—bring the number of seats that Republicans could seize from the Democrats to 11.
...Democrats say that GOP primary voters boosted Democratic chances by selecting several tea party-inspired candidates who are proving to be too conservative or anti-government for the general electorate.
Wisconsin has emerged as a test of that claim. In the weeks before the Republican convention in late May, Ron Johnson, who hasn't held political office, began appearing at tea party rallies. Tall and silver-haired, he proved a commanding speaker.
Mr. Johnson provided copies of his speeches to local talk radio hosts, and conservative host Charlie Sykes read excerpts over the air. Mr. Johnson jumped into the race six days before the convention, pledging to spend millions on the campaign. "He literally came out of nowhere," said Brian Westrate, chairman of the Eau Claire County GOP.
Mr. Johnson built his successful company, which makes a specialty plastic for packaging, from the ground up, and it exports to various countries including China. But he also has made comments Democrats have seized on, such as asking in a March speech, "How is Social Security different from a giant Ponzi scheme?" Democrats are using that quote to suggest Mr. Johnson is radically anti-government. Mr. Johnson rejects the idea. "The problem is that Social Security funds have been spent," he said in an interview. "They're gone. I'm just describing the problem."
Wisconsin's Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, meanwhile, says he's not taking the threat lightly. His campaign held 132 events the week of July 4 alone, and he has hosted town hall meetings in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties.
"I'm sure it will be close, but I'm used to that," Mr. Feingold said. "I will personally fight for every vote."
On many on high-profile, issues, Mr. Feingold has been able to separate himself from the Washington establishment that is now so unpopular. Last week, he was the sole Democratic senator to oppose the new bank regulation law, saying it was too weak.
Sure, Feingold played the maverick on the financial reform vote but his opposition placed him further to the Left. In effect, Feingold was voting to out-Obama the radical Leftist Obama.
Who is the radical in the race? It's certainly not Johnson.
Recall Feingold's horrific extremism on partial-birth abortion in this exchange he had with Senator Rick Santorum.
On September 26, 1996, during debate on partial-birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how radically pro-abortion he is.
Transcript
Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?
Sen. Feingold: I will.
Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?
Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.
Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?
Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.
That exchange is absolutely chilling, so chilling that Feingold had the Congressional Record altered.
Feingold actually refused to say that the life of a baby who survived a late-term abortion should be protected.
That's not just being pro-abortion. That's pro-infanticide. Apparently, standing up against infanticide is above Feingold's pay grade.
The reality is Feingold does not represent the views of most Wisconsinites. HE DOESN'T LISTEN.
Again, who is the extremist in this race?
It's not Ron Johnson.
No comments:
Post a Comment