chemtchrt examines what happens when a major media company also has a branch that is under investigation for defrauding the government in The Washington Post and its Kaplan Education Scams. (dopper0189)
What happened to climate change and clean energy legislation in the Senate? hold tight gives us the naked truth in Follow the Money. (Louisiana 1976)
I cannot fathom a better way to spend Labor Day than laboring over a hot laptop, working to give you both the numbers and the stories from the campaign trail that have drifted into my inbox over the three-day weekend.
Also, I would have felt a bit guilty taking the Monday off, since there will actually be a brief hiatus for the Wrap starting tomorrow. I head under the knife tomorrow for a relatively minor surgery. Expect the Wrap to resume on Thursday evening.
With that news, let's get after the Labor Day edition of the Wrap....
THE U.S. SENATE
CT-Sen: Former WWE star arrested on burglary and drug charges This is becoming the story that simply will not go away for GOP Senate hopeful Linda McMahon, who has been hounded repeatedly by issues with her "day job" as one of the owners of the professional wrestling icon known as the WWE. Former WWE superstar Jim "The Anvil" Neidhart was arrested this weekend in what appears to have been a burglary in which prescription drugs were stolen from a Hillsborough County home. Two former WWE stars with prescription drug issues have died within the last month, and the outfit run by McMahon has come under intensified scrutiny for issues with drug abuse associated with the workplace (particularly painkillers).
KY-Sen: SUSA has Paul up big, Conway campaign disputes There has been little doubt that SurveyUSA has been on a Democratic buzzkill tour for the entirety of 2010, and their newest numbers in Kentucky makes clear that the tour rolls unabated into September. The pollster, working on behalf of two media outlets, finds Rand Paul well over 50% in his bid against Democrat Jack Conway (55-40). Conway's campaign is disputing the poll, saying that the spread between Democrats and Republicans in ancestrally Democratic Kentucky is far too narrow. SUSA countered that there is a difference between actual voter registration (where Dems still dominate in Kentucky) and self-identification, where SUSA says the Republicans are much closer to parity.
LA-Sen: Vitter doesn't get endorsement from state's leading GOPer The GOP rank-and-file voters might have coalesced around scandal-tarred Republican Senator David Vitter (as evidenced by his huge win in the primaries last week), but the state's biggest GOP celebrity is not joining the bandwagon. Governor Bobby Jindal is declining to endorse his Republican colleague, arguing that "voters can make up their own minds" about who to vote for in November. Jindal claims that he doesn't make endorsements in federal races. If true, that is a recent conversion for the Governor, who backed both Congressional candidates Woody Jenkins and Bill Cassidy in 2008.
OH-Sen: Columbus Dispatch poll gives Portman a double-digit edge The Columbus Dispatch has long used a curious mail-in poll that defies most conventional parameters for public opinion polling but has on numerous occasions been respectable in its accuracy. It is safe to say that Democrats are hoping that the latest poll from the Dispatch is in error, because the poll has Democrats circling the drain against their Republican foes. On the Senate side, for example, the poll has Republican Rob Portman leading Democrat Lee Fisher by an eye-popping thirteen points (50-37), by far the widest gap seen in that race in recent months.
THE U.S. HOUSE
IN-02: The NRCC's first I-E target is sophomore Rep. Donnelly This one is kinda interesting: last week, we learned that the first target of the DCCC (the campaign wing for House Democrats) was the open-seat battle in Wisconsin's 7th district, where Republican Sean Duffy is trying to wrest the seat away long held by Democrat David Obey. The NRCC has also picked their first target, and it is a curious one. The NRCC is aiming an independent expenditure advertisement at Joe Donnelly, the second-term Democrat who was re-elected with ease in 2008. He is doubtlessly more vulnerable this time around, with Republican state legislator Jackie Walorski awaiting him. However, there would seem to be quite a few better targets out there. Is that an example of extreme overconfidence, or bad planning (or, perhaps, random chance, I suppose).
MA-04: September's fun primary--longtime Dem incumbent vs. heckler For those looking for more entertainment in the last big primary hurrah of the season next week, this is a potentially awesomely fun race to watch. You might recall (note: I did not) that Rep. Barney Frank eviscerated a critic of health care at a town hall last year. The woman, who referred to the reform package as a "Nazi policy", was upbraided by Frank. He likened debating with her on the issue as being "like arguing with a dining room table." The woman in question, twenty-something LaRouche devotee Rachel Brown, is now challenging Frank for the Democratic nomination. The two will debate tomorrow night in Newton, Massachusetts. C-Span...you know what to do.
THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES
CA-Gov: Brown uses Labor Day weekend to (re)launch campaign While Meg Whitman has flooded the zone here in California since February, the campaign of Democratic nominee Jerry Brown has largely been under the radar through the summer. To maintain some presence (and to keep a hand in the face of the Whitman campaign), surrogates and allies have helped carry the load. But Jerry Brown used the holiday weekend to launch his campaign. He began airing his first statewide ad of the campaign, and used the holiday to launch a four-stop blitz throughout the state. Recent polls have shown that Brown's parity with Whitman may well have finally given way, and that the Republican might have moved into a modest lead over the Democrat.
MI-Gov: Republican picks up labor endorsement This may well be unsurprising (Michigan Kossacks, chime in!), but this cannot be a welcome sign for Democrats in a year where they will desperately need a unified labor front in an uphill battle. The Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters and Millwrights, a union representing 18,000 construction workers, threw their support to GOP nominee Rick Snyder. Democrat Virg Bernero had cornered the market on most labor support in the state, however, including the exceptionally important support of the UAW and the Michigan Education Association.
OH-Gov: Dem incumbent down twelve, according to Dispatch poll That all-mail Columbus Dispatch poll also looked at the gubernatorial race, with results that were very nearly as pessimistic as the Senate numbers. The new poll gives Republican challenger John Kasich a lead of a dozen points (49-37) over Democratic Governor Ted Strickland. The poll also gave the Republicans the edge in every downballot office, with leads ranging from 2-9 points.
THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA
Given the holiday weekend, the House of Ras is predictably quiet today, giving us the critically important numbers from the Nebraska Governor's race (hey! we are making up ground there...) and the Idaho Senate race (where...well...we are not making up ground).
ID-Sen: Sen. Michael Crapo (R) 63%, Tom Sullivan (D) 24% NE-Gov: Gov. David Heineman (R) 61%, Mike Meister (D) 28%
When Sarah Palin endorsed Kelly Ayotte, she said that, in a parental notification case, Ayotte had fought Planned Parenthood "all the way to the Supreme Court and won." In fact, Ayotte had lost that case, as many in New Hampshire immediately noted.
But what we didn't know at the time was just how badly Ayotte lost, or how costly it was for New Hampshire.
[A]s attorney general in April 2009, Ayotte approved spending $300,000 in taxpayer money to settle the case and pay the legal costs of the opposing party, after a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge decided Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was the winner.
The state paid Planned Parenthood with two payments of $150,000 each in April and August 2009. These payments quietly passed through the state’s budget office and did not require the approval of the Legislature or Gov. John Lynch.
Good for Planned Parenthood getting back money they spent thumping Ayotte in court. But with Ayotte being found partially responsible for failing to investigate a massive Ponzi scheme, primary opponent Ovide Lamontagne getting an important endorsement, and a Republican poll showing Lamontagne gaining quickly on Ayotte, do you think this was the news she was hoping would break?
Here's an appropriate sentiment on Labor Day, from Ezra on Social Security:
The system . . . is not that generous, and it's becoming less so every year. The age at which you can begin collecting full Social Security benefits is moving from 65 to 67, as part of a deal struck in the 1980s to ensure the system's solvency. And all this at a time when employers are getting rid of defined-benefit pensions, which means that most workers will have no guaranteed retirement income except for Social Security.
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants). As Stephen C. Goss, the system's chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance "because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman." That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. "Importantly," Goss continues, "this shortfall is basically stable after 2035." In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once....
Start with the basic rationale for raising the retirement age. As Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has argued, when Social Security was signed into law, the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 63. "The numbers added up pretty well back then," he said on Fox News. But that's misleading. That figure was driven by high infant mortality. If you were a white male who'd made it to age 60 in 1935, you could expect 15 more years going forward. If you're a white male who lives to 60 today, you can expect 20 more years going forward.
Moreover, those averages conceal a lot of inequality. In 1972, a 60-year-old male worker who made less than the median income had a life expectancy of 78 years. By 2001, he had a life expectancy of 80 years. Meanwhile, workers in the top half of the income distribution shot to 85 years from 79. Insofar as the argument for raising the retirement age is that "Social Security beneficiaries live a lot longer today than they did in 1935," it should be restated as: "Social Security beneficiaries tend to live somewhat longer today than they did in 1935, and that's much more true of rich beneficiaries than poor beneficiaries."
And so what? Lurking beneath this conversation is an unquestioned assumption: We live longer, so we should work longer. That's pretty intuitive to members of Congress, who seem to like their jobs and don't seem to like the idea of retiring. It's also pretty intuitive to blogger/columnists, who spend their time in air-conditioned rooms opining about pension programs. But most people don't work in Congress or in the media. They work on their feet. They strain their backs. They're bored silly at the end of the day. By the time they're in their 60s, they want to retire....
Reforming Social Security will be politically difficult and result in worse policy. That's the good thing about putting everything on the table. It allows you to think more clearly about what should be taken off.
Many of the nation's workers simply can't physically do their jobs when they get into their 60s, an obvious fact most of the working world that seems to have escaped too policy-makers, in both parties. Hopefully, as they're out and about at Labor Day picnics and parades today, they're hearing that fact from their constituents.
In The Charlatan, Laurence Lewis advised readers to look beyond the antics of Glenn Beck's cartoonish political performance art and examine some of the darker, less public, forces at work behind the current right-wing movement.
In The Science Guy, DarkSyde conducted a one-on-one interview with famed Bill Nye, discussing climate change and the future of space exploration.
In Too easy, Kaili Joy Gray documented all the barriers to abortion access that have emerged in the past decade, debunking the myth that it's "too easy" these days to get an abortion.
The reasons you might want to be in a union are clear:
Better wages: Wages of union members are, on average, 27% higher than those of nonunion workers, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. In 2004, union workers were paid $781 a week, but nonunion workers only got paid $612 a week. While all unions workers are better off than nonunion workers, women and minorities are especially so:
Women in unions earn an extra $170 a week -- $9,000 more a year.
African Americans in unions earn an extra $150 a week -- $8,000 more a year.
Latinos in unions earn an extra $225 a week -- $11,650 more a year.
Better health care: 81% of union workers have job-related health coverage, while only 50% of non-union workers do. Union families pay 43% less for family coverage than nonunion families -- that's a savings of $1,000 a year.
Better pensions: 72% of union workers have a guaranteed, defined benefit pension, compared to only 15% of nonunion workers.
But what about all those accusations that unions are just out to help their own members, never mind anyone else? Not for nothing do unions refer to themselves as "the folks who brought you the weekend" -- for generations the advances unions fight for have benefited all workers, and it's no less true today:
Raise wages for all workers. Studies show that a large union presence in an industry or region can raise wages even for non-union workers.
Fight for all workers’ health and safety. In 2008 the AFL-CIO and the United Food and Commercial Workers sued to get employers to provide personal protective equipment. Now, workers in hazardous jobs which require safety gear—like hard hats or protective glasses—must be provided this equipment, instead of being asked to buy it themselves.
Advocate for increases in the minimum wage and push for living wage ordinances. Unions have been instrumental in efforts to increase the federal minimum wage, state minimum wages and in the successful living wage movement which has already resulted in over 150 local living wage laws nationwide.
Reduce wage inequality. Unions raise wages the most for low- and middle-wage workers and workers without college degrees.
Invest worker pension funds to rebuild communities In June 2006, the AFL-CIO launched the Gulf Coast Revitalization Program, a $1 billion housing and economic development program to create low- and moderate-income housing, a low-cost mortgage program, health facilities, job training services, and thousands of high-wage union jobs throughout the region. The Gulf Coast program builds on the success of similar AFL-CIO investment strategies to develop affordable housing in Chicago and to help New York City recover from the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11th. Union pension funds invested $750 million in post-9/11 New York.
An interesting tweet this weekend from Nate Silver asks a pretty pertinent question:
Odd that Rasmussen has polled the SD and ND at-large House districts -- tough Democratic holds -- but not the tough GOP hold in DE.
It is odd, because when you are polling a Senate race in a state with only one Congressional district, it doesn't require any additional effort to poll the House race, as well. When Daily Kos opened up our new polling partnership with PPP, we did so in Delaware. And, as you can see (PDF file), we made sure to poll the House race.
Perhaps the outcome of that poll (we had Democrat John Carney up double digits on either Republican) explains why Rasmussen stayed away from it. It would seem that it would be an ethical morass for them to sit on data that wasn't amenable to Republicans. But they could certainly choose not to poll it. And that would appear to be what they have done, in this case.
Over at Balloon Juice, the writer there offers a pretty succinct answer to Nate's question, and it is hard not to think that it is the correct one:
Early polls of voters in R+9 and R+10 states is an easy way to drive a “wave” narrative, and Rasmussen got what he wanted when he polled South Dakota and North Dakota.
Another way to drive a "wave" narrative is to not get exposed. Notice how reluctant Rasmussen has been to poll primaries this cycle, or the one major statewide contest in 2010. Rasmussen did a rather strange exit poll of sorts in Nevada's high-profile Senate primary, but did not poll the actual primary (according to this polling compendium). Indeed, after practically living in Nevada in the earlier part of the year (five polls in the state from January to April), the pollster disappeared for the six weeks prior to the primaries, only returning the day after the primary.
In the case of the Massachusetts' special election, they polled more than a week out, and then never came back to the race, save for a bizarre national poll on the day of the election about who the country wanted to see win the race (as if that were relevant to anything other than narrative-setting). Therefore, they do not take a hit for their errant result, because it happened with quite a bit of time left on the clock of a very volatile race.
Cherry-picking races, to say nothing of avoiding polling immediately before elections, seems to be a rather strange way for a firm that gets heaps of praise as one of the most important pollsters in the business to behave.
According to Murkowski's friends and colleagues, she's received a "huge outpouring of support" following her defeat in the Alaska Senate primary August 24. That's leading to speculation that she could show up on the November ballot under the libertarian party line.
Murkowski has yet to endorse her Republican rival, leading to widespread speculation that she is evaluating options for a possible re-entry into the race. She has two options if she wants to re-enter: to be invited to run under the banner of the Alaska Libertarian Party or to mount a write-in campaign....
The deadline to make a switch is Sept. 15.
The state party’s leadership earlier voted to not take on Murkowski, but Alaska Libertarian Party Chairman Scott Kohlhaas told the Anchorage Daily News recently that discussions have occurred since then.
A new poll shows Alaskans might be interested in Sen. Lisa Murkowski staying in the race for U.S. Senate. Murkowski's friend, Andrew Halcro, commissioned a poll showing that in a three-way Senate race Murkowski comes out on top....
“Lisa Murkowski has a 64 percent positive and a 35 percent negative; Joe Miller had a 41 percent positive and a 50 percent negative,” Halcro said. “I have to say, in all my years of watching politics, I've never seen somebody so new to politics have such a high negative rating as Joe Miller.”
The Libertarian switch is the only one available to her under Alaska election law, as it's the only other party that has a candidate on the November ballot. This would mean that the current Libertarian candidate, David Haase, would have to cede his spot to her. He says that "he's willing to sit down with Murkowski and talk with her about switching parties to stay in the race," but wants he has conditions: "If Lisa Murkowski will take up the banner of the people's bailout, then she'll have my support," said Haase, 68. "But with sincerity and for real," he added, chuckling. "I'm not going to buy a pig in a poke here."
The poll Halcro commissioned basically mirrors the PPP poll finding about Miller's lack of popularity in the state, but PPP had Murkowski still narrowly losing in a three-way race. The acrimony and nastiness from the Miller campaign directed at Murkowski following the primary could have swayed some of those polled and bolstered Murkowski. Expect, at the very least, more speculation fueled by Murkowski associates on her third party run. But whether the Libertarians will agree to it remains very much in question.
One would hope this one would get tossed in the frivolous bin.
In what he dubbed the crowning achievement of his life's work, Nevada Independent American Party attorney general candidate Joel Hansen filed last week what he said is the most comprehensive lawsuit against the health care law signed by President Barack Obama earlier this year.... Hansen's suit alleges the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates a plethora of amendments: the First, the Third through Fifth, the Ninth, 10th and 13th.
For those keeping track at home, those are the amendments that, respectively: regulate freedom of religion, the press assembly and petition; ban the forced quartering of soldiers; prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures; guarantee due process, ban double jeopardy and set rules for eminent domain; ensures fundamental rights; limit the power of the federal government; and abolish slavery.
His Third and 13th arguments are particularly creative. He says the law creates involuntary servitude: "Peonage - the coercing an individual to work off a debt by threat of legal sanction," and uses Bible passages in his suit "as if they are legal statutes." Orly Taitz, you've got competition.
The endless, destructive War on Terror depends -- like most wars do -- on a cartoonish demonization of the Enemy as something utterly foreign, inhuman, and subject to entirely different drives than Us. Moulitsas' book, at its best, destroys that rotted premise by highlighting the many similarities between Them and Us. Because that similarity is a great taboo -- perhaps the greatest taboo -- it has triggered all sorts of outrage: outrage that is actually a testament to the value of the argument he makes.
An in-depth look at the frat house for Jesus -- a.k.a. the Republican's infamous C Street House.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal won't endorse Sen. David Vitter:
Gov. Bobby Jindal said he's staying out of the upcoming Senate race between Republican incumbent David Vitter and his Democratic challenger, Rep. Charlie Melancon. [...]
The Republican governor said he does not get involved in federal races.
However, Jindal was a special guest at a 2008 fundraiser for Baton Rouge Rep. Bill Cassidy's campaign.
The governor also endorsed Woody Jenkins in his failed bid for Congress.
The United States has been invaded! Until November anyway:
In a Washington Times article about recently erected signs warning citizens to be cautious of border crossers and smuggling activity in Arizona (which has Republicans like Gov. Jan Brewer up in arms) Babeu delivers the news:
"Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona," Babeu told the Times. "They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has." [...]
Sheriff Babeu's office did not return calls for comment from TPM, but the sheriffs of Santa Cruz and Pima counties (which both border Mexico, unlike Babeu's Pinal) told TPM the cartels do not control any territory. Neither disputed the seriousness of the problem posed by the cartels, or the fact that drug smugglers operate in Arizona. But they did reassure TPM that the cartels are not on an annexing spree.
"They do not have control of any territory," Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada told TPM. "That would be like saying we are useless and we're not here and we're out of the way." [...]
Regarding Babeu's claims, Estrada couldn't "say that he's lying," but he did say that "there are a lot of things that are happening this election year." Neither Babeu nor Estrada is currently running for re-election, but Estrada suggested that he thinks "a lot of the fear is going to die after November."
"I've seen just about everything," Estrada said. "But what I've not seen is a beheading. and I've not seen the cartels controlling American territory."
The Washington Times' contributor Ted Nugent boasts about offering "final solutions."
Remember the bigot/preacher in Florida who's planning to burn the Quran on September 11th? People are upset:
Afghanistan – Hundreds of Afghans railed against the United States and called for President Barack Obama's death at a rally in the capital Monday to denounce an American church's plans to burn the Islamic holy book on Sept. 11.
The GOP is getting a little nervous about putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum:
Nearly two weeks removed from Murkowski's stunning defeat by little-known attorney Joe Miller in the Republican Senate primary in Alaska, establishment GOPers are nervous of a repeat in Delaware, where Castle faces 2008 Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell in the Sept. 14 primary.
Rare color footage of the London blitz has been found.
Former ELO member Mike Edwards was killed in a freak accident:
Police in southwestern England say a former member of the Electric Light Orchestra was killed in a freak collision with a huge hay bale that rolled down a steep hill.
Excellent news from Milwaukee, where President Obama is celebrating Labor Day.
Seeking to bolster the sluggish economy, President Barack Obama is using a Labor Day appearance in Milwaukee to announce he will ask Congress for $50 billion to kick off a new infrastructure plan designed to expand and renew the nation’s roads, railways and runways.
The goals, according to the White House: “Rebuild 150,000 miles of roads — renewing our commitment to the backbone of our transportation system ... . Construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail — enough to go coast to coast. ... Rehabilitate or reconstruct 150 miles of runway — while putting in place a NextGen system that will reduce travel time and delays.”
The measures include the “establishment of an Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on investments of national and regional significance that often fall through the cracks in the current siloed transportation programs" and “the integration of high-speed rail on an equal footing into the surface transportation program.”
Form the fact sheet provided by the White House:
Some of the main provisions of the President’s plan over the next six years include:
• ROADS: Rebuild 150,000 miles of roads — renewing our commitment to the backbone of our transportation system;
• RAILWAYS: Construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail — enough to go coast-to-coast;
• RUNWAYS: Rehabilitate or reconstruct 150 miles of runway — while putting in place a NextGen system that will reduce travel time and delays.
The President’s plan would accomplish this through:
• An up-front investment. The President will work with Congress to enact a new up-front investment in our nation’s infrastructure — an investment that would help jump-start additional job creation, while also laying the foundation for future growth. This initial investment would fund improvements in the nation’s surface transportation, as well as our airports and air traffic control system.
• A vision for the future. The President proposes to pair this with a long-term framework to reform and expand our nation’s investment in transportation infrastructure. Since the end of last year, when the last long-term surface transportation legislation expired, these investments have been continued on a temporary basis, even as the trust fund to finance them has fallen into insolvency. If we are to enjoy the benefits that come from a world-class transportation system, Congress must enact a long-term reauthorization that expands and reforms our infrastructure investments and returns the transportation trust fund to solvency. To jumpstart job creation, this long-run policy front-loads – through a $50 billion up-front investment — a significant share of the new infrastructure resources. As with other long-run policies, the Administration is committed to working with Congress to fully pay for the plan.
It's a solid, job-creating policy idea to take into the fall campaign season, a) because it's absolutely necessary, and b) it's jobs, jobs, jobs. It's going to be hard for Republicans to honestly argue that the nation's transportation infrastructure doesn't need this critical investment before it falls entirely apart (not that they need honest arguments) and harder for them to fight a good job plan.
On Thursday evening, Senator Barbara Boxer had her first debate with failed CEO Carly Fiorina. Much of the debate put Fiorina on defense about her record at HP. Boxer delivered the hardest haymaker of the night with her response about clean energy and AB32--which Boxer supports and Fiorina opposes. Take a look at around the 3:10 mark of the video:
If we overturn California's clean energy policies, that's going to mean that China takes away the lead from us with solar, that Germany takes the lead away from us with wind--but I guess my opponent is kind of used to creating jobs in China and other places.
This Labor Day weekend, it's quite a clear choice between a Senator who wants to see success for American workers, and a CEO candidate who has a proven record of shipping jobs elsewhere.
A prominent New Hampshire Clinton supporter and a prominent New Hampshire Obama supporter write a joint letter on why Ann McLane Kuster is the better candidate in the Democratic primary for House in the second district. They touch on many of the things that led us to add her to the Orange to Blue list, writing:
Annie has built an unparalleled grassroots campaign, held over 100 house parties across the district, set records for her in-state fundraising support, and she promises to put people over politics-as-usual. In contrast, Katrina Swett lost to Charlie Bass by 16 points the last time she took him on, has demonstrated relatively little grassroots support, and has relied almost entirely on out-of-state financial support to fund her campaign.
There are big policy differences between these two candidates - Iraq, Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, a woman's right to choose, and more. Both of us support Annie because of her positions on the issues and her personal character. But as campaign veterans, we also know that there is no way Democrats can afford to lose this seat, and we believe Annie gives us our best chance to win it.
-snip-
Finally, Annie refuses to be typecast or pigeonholed. She has endorsements from beer and wine drinkers alike, from the League of Conservation Voters to New Hampshire's Firefighters and Carpenters. She is a strong voice in support of the public insurance option, and one of the reasons is because she is a frugal Yankee who knows the importance of reducing the deficit. And she doesn't shy away from the fact that her parents were Republicans - or the fact that her mom had the independence to be a "Republican for Clinton" back in the 1990s.
