For months, Democrat Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford has bragged about his support from New York Senator Chuck Schumer and the DSCC. Now that the Democrat primary has ended the DSCC is acting as Bruce's mouthpiece, sending out press releases and purchasing web attack ads in order to help Bruce.

With that in mind, the blog Blue Grass Red State has dug up an interesting quote from the DSCC's own spokesman.

The DSCC is trying to convince everyone that Bruce Lunsford is a good challenger to Senator Mitch McConnell, however in a press release blasting a New Jersey GOP Senate challenger, the DSCC had an ironic statement (emphasis mine):

"Running a nightclub in New York would seem like an odd qualification for a U.S. Senate candidate from New Jersey, but we know Republicans are desperate. Andy Unanue is going to have to bring more than a checkbook and a history of failed business ventures to this race if he wants to convince New Jerseyans that he has any business serving as a United States Senator."

Does that remind you of Lunsford, or what?

Today, the Kentucky Democrat Party joined Senator Barack Obama in issuing shrill statements on the GI Bill that passed the Senate.  All Senators support our troops and support efforts to improve the educational benefits offered to our veterans.  It is shameful that the Kentucky Democrat Party and Senator Obama have no appreciation for serious, civilized debate on legitimate policy differences affecting military retention.  Senator McConnell shares the sentiments of Senator John McCain who issued this eloquent statement on the issue:

It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.

Bruce Lunsford supports the Obama and DSCC plan that would increase gas prices and punish consumers at the pump.
Gas Prices Increase 63% Under Washington Democrats

Today the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) issued a press release and launched web ads attacking Mitch McConnell for opposing tax increases that would lead to higher gas prices.

Since Washington Democrats took control of Congress last January the cost of a gallon of gas has risen from $2.33 to $3.79, an increase of 63% in just 17 months.  By comparison, the Georgetown Toyota facility manufactures hybrid cars which retail for $25,650.  If they experienced similar inflation that Kentucky product would today cost $41,809.

“What a nutty bunch they are,” commented Justin Brasell, Senator McConnell’s campaign manager.  “This attack would lead a person to believe that Chuck Schumer and the DSCC were strangers to oil money but the $625,000 they accepted says otherwise, so I assume that Bruce Lunsford won’t accept any of their money in Kentucky this cycle.”

Ten days ago Senator Schumer wrote the President critical of the fact that OPEC has refused to increase its oil production, yet the very next day Schumer voted against increasing U.S. production of oil.  (Vote 123 – May 13, 2008 – Rejected, 42-56) 

“I guess their policy amounts to raising taxes on U.S. consumers and begging Arab Sheiks for more $135 per barrel oil,” said Brasell.  “Kentuckians understand that gas has gone up 63% under the watch of Bruce’s buddies and empty criticism won’t fix that problem.”

Yesterday Bruce Lunsford announced his opposition to Senator McConnell’s amendment which provides a common sense action plan for addressing energy costs.  The McConnell Plan would:

-support a limited amount of environmentally responsible exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

-allow limited deep sea exploration off of the U.S. Coast to take advantage of available resources

-repeal bureaucratic barriers which block innovation -- innovation which can lead to less expensive sources of energy including oil from shale and new hybrid batteries

-promote development of coal-to-liquid fuels, turning America’s most abundant energy resource into alternative energy to replace Middle Eastern oil

-promote new conservation and “green” sources of fuels

Bruce Lunsford has refused to take a position on the largest budget proposal ever presented in Congress.  Now he is hiding behind his New York supporter Chuck Schumer and the DSCC to sucker punch Sen. McConnell with a half-baked false attack on gas prices.
           
Bruce, when will you give Kentuckians an answer on where you stand on the budget?

Lunsford refuses to tell Kentucky families how he would vote on one of the most important measures of the year.

On Tuesday evening Bruce Lunsford swelled with his trademark bravado as he declared victory in the Democratic primary.

In his victory speech Lunsford put it simply, “We've got a lot of work to do.  I'm ready for it.  Are you ready?”

Apparently, that was just a politician’s empty rhetoric.

When he woke the next day to questions about critical issues facing our country, he proved to be wholly unprepared to let Kentucky’s families know where he stands.
 
Today the U.S. Senate will consider and vote on the largest budget bill ever presented in the history of the country.  This measure lays out our nation’s spending priorities and is expected to pass or fail by a very narrow margin.  Yet, Lunsford refuses to say how he would vote. 

How convenient.

In the Senate, there are only two options – yea or nay.

“This isn’t a trick question, and in fact, Senator McConnell has already announced that he will oppose the budget.  I can’t understand why Mr. Lunsford refuses to say how he would vote,” said McConnell campaign manager Justin Brasell.  “I mean, if you are Bruce, this is like taking a test with the answers in front of you.”

So, we ask again, how would Bruce Lunsford vote on the Budget?