• One of the big new sayings this year is “too big to fail.” But perhaps considering Obama’s lack of real world experience for the job of POTUS, the operative phrase now should be “too small to succeed.”
• On Tuesday, voters in Virginia and New Jersey went to the polls to cast their votes. Twenty-two candidates in Virginia and twenty-two candidates in New Jersey who signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge won in their respective offices. Hello, Nevada Republican candidates. Are you paying attention?
• New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg barely won re-election Monday despite spending a whopping $100 million on his campaign. Political Diary’s John Fund reports that “One New Yorker told me that Bloomberg TV ads were so omnipresent he felt like he was constantly hearing from Big Brother.” In other words, Harry Reid could possibly raise so much money to run so many ads in Nevada next year that he actually could overdo it and advertise himself right out of a job. Another positive development for Nevada Republicans.
• But the most important development out of Tuesday’s GOP victories was the lower turnout of young voters and black voters who carried Barack Obama to victory last year, as well as the fact that independents swung back toward the Republicans. If such results manifest themselves next year in Nevada, Harry Reid and Dina Titus have LOT to be worried about despite that big voter registration advantage the D’s currently enjoy. It’s turnout, turnout, turnout.
• On Monday, Republican Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio had this to say about a possible special session of the Legislature to deal with continuing revenue shortfalls: “Nobody is going to want to come out and talk about raising taxes.” Of course, this is the same Bill Raggio who famously said in his 2008 primary race: “This is not the time to start talking about raising taxes. It is something that we can’t even consider.” That was just a couple months before Sen. Raggio began laying the groundwork for over a billion dollars worth of higher taxes earlier this year. So, um, grab your wallets!
• Rob Lauer, Republican congressional candidate in the 3rd district, is touting online survey results from the conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute website as proof that he is in a “dead heat” with incumbent Democrat Rep. Dina Titus. A Lauer press release says the poll shows he’s “within striking distance of Titus with 30% of the vote; while she carries only 33%” and that this means “Lauer’s message is resonating with voters.” Oh, puh-lease. It’s an unscientific online survey of NPRI readers, not voters in the Third Congressional District. Lauer’s campaign should be embarrassed for putting out this flapdoodle.
• Yes, indeed, birds of a feather do flock together. Robert “Hollow Head” Holloway and Nathan “Li’l Nate” Taylor are now joined at the e-hip, a dufus duo rivaled only by Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels in “Dumb and Dumber.” Holloway wrote a whiny screed yesterday maintaining that neither he nor his son were trying to become GOP convention delegates in ’08, and Li’l Nate actually published it on his blog that no one reads. An moron-marriage made in heaven.
The Strange Case of Chuck Muth, by Robert Holloway
By Nathan Taylor | November 4, 2009
I know it may be hard for you to believe, but Chuckie “The Goofball” Moot (formally known as) Chuck Muth is in the news again. This time, it’s because he is attacking last years Ron Paul supporters. However, he did use his last paragraph today to attack me (since he has a thing for me), and as he always does LIE. Poor Chuckie couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. Ok, enough of that—below is a great e-mail Robert Holloway wrote to explain to the world and Chuckie “The Goofball” Moot the TRUTH—what a concept!
To: Nevada Journalists and Chuck Muth:
Politics seems to always attract some, shall we say, unusual characters. One of the most unusual, and some might say, unsavory, is a fellow named Chuck Muth. He seems to disregard even the most elementary standards of civility if he disagrees with someone about politics. And if he cannot report the facts, he will make things up. Today, he reported in his blog that the reason I have opposed Sue Lowden over the sabotaged delegate election process was that I am upset because my son lost in a bid to be elected to a delegate position at the convention. Chuck, I don’t know where you got your information but it is false. Neither my son nor I were candidates for a delegate position. We didn’t want to go to the national convention. But I would be willing to bet that you won’t make a correction in your blog.
I have been trying to figure out for some months what makes Chuck Muth tick. Maybe it is a desire for attention. Maybe he has seen how Ann Coulter, in all her foolishness, has become something of a notorious media attraction. Maybe he is trying to be the Ann Coulter of Nevada. But there may be another explanation. Unfortunately, there are some in the Republican Party who can be classified as Conservatives without a Conscience. This is the term that John Dean used in a recent book and it is a book well worth reading. These conservatives without conscience are the G. Gordon Liddy types. They will do anything to gain their goals often without regard to any ethical standards. Here is a link to an interview and video with John Dean that explains his views:
http://crooksandliars.com/2006/07/11/john-dean-on-countdown-conservatives-without-conscience/
Fortunately, Chuck Muth is a minor player in Nevada politics. But he does seem to be close to Sue Lowden, possibly having some influence in her campaign.The most disturbing thing that could happen if Sue Lowden wins is that she might take Chuck Muth to Washington with her as an aide. This would be like giving a position of influence to G. Gordon Liddy or Chuck Colson. I think there is a great deal to be said about the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately Chuck Muth is more in the mold of Chuck Colson or that fruit loop, G.Gordon Liddy. I told my son that Chuck Muth reminds me of Gordon Liddy. He said he has more respect for Gordon Liddy!
Chuck, I am going to give the reason below why I don’t like Sue Lowden.I am sure you will not be able to understand this explanation but maybe some of the journalists who get this email will understand it.
I oppose Sue Lowden not because she unfairly prevented some Ron Paul delegates from going to the National Republican Convention,although she certainly did that. I oppose her because she disrupted an election and failed to abide by the rules for electing delegates that were in place at the convention. For more than 200 years our system of government has been known and respected around the world as being fair and representative. Our government has a considerable of amount of stability compared to other governments. A major reason for this stability is that there is general agreement among the population that the results of an election must be respected whether we like the results or not. In other words, our citizens have agreed to abide by the rule of law. Sue Lowden discarded the rule of law, by both violating state law and breaking an agreement that the party had with the National Republican Committee on the selection of delegates. Sue Lowden and afew others decided to put their own interests ahead of anything else and select the delegates themselves rather than abide by the rules that were in place. It should be obvious that such a person should not be elected to the U.S. Senate.
Chuck Muth is willing to overlook cheating if it helps to gain his objectives. That is why he would be a danger to our form of government if he were somehow able to get into a position of influence.
Robert Holloway