CD3

UPDATE: St. Louis Activist Hub has a good rundown of the "stuff" Martin tried to pull together to make his claims "plausible."

Apparently unable to document Friday's claim that "busloads of mentally handicapped service workers" hijacked Tuesday's election and unsuccessful in his attempts to "find enough stuff we can use to make [his fraud theories] plausible," Ed Martin has finally decided to concede his race against Rep. Russ Carnahan. 

Friendly reminded to the media:  Please remember not to treat Mr. Martin as a dishonest media-savvy egomaniac today, and construct all of your stories about Martin's concession in a way that makes his claims of "fraud" and "irregularities" seem legitimate. 

"We’re trying to find enough stuff we can use to make it plausible."

Ed Martin explains his strategy for manufacturing conspiracy theories about his Tuesday defeat to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, including today's sad attempt to convince folks that heretofore unknown "busloads of mentally handicapped service workers" may have stolen the election

KWMU: "Republican election commissioner [Carol Wilson] says private security guards did not touch any ballots or interfere with voting Tuesday at the St. Louis City Board of Elections....Martin wants an investigation of the firm's hiring...but Republican election commissioner Carol Wilson said only two security guards worked at the Board of Elections headquarters, where they guarded the front door."

While sore loser Ed Martin tries to raise money with his bogus claims of fraud in Tuesday's election, the Beacon picks up on Peter Kinder's interview with local radio personality and all-around silly person Dana Loesch, first noted here yesterday:

Martin, a Tea Party favorite, is currently behind by 4,400 votes, and has raised questions about possible irregularities in St. Louis. Martin formerly had been chairman of the city's Election Board.

Kinder, reflecting his role as party powerbroker, isn't going along with Martin's call. While praising Martin's performance, Kinder said, "Ed Martin clearly did not get it done in St. Louis County, and we're clearly taking note of that."

Kinder went even further in an appearance with radio talk show host (and Tea Party activist) Dana Loesch, saying on the air that he had talked with city GOP elections director Scott Leiendecker, and that it was clear that Martin had lost fair and square.

From the Post-Dispatch's endorsement of Russ Carnahan over Ed Martin in Missouri's  3rd Congressional District: 

Mr. Carnahan’s Republican opponent is St. Louis lawyer Ed Martin, 40, the former chief of staff for former Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt. After being forced out of that job in 2007 for embroiling the office in a scandal over missing e-mails — a controversy that eventually cost taxpayers more than $2 million in legal fees and settlements — Mr. Martin reinvented himself as an all-purpose conservative gadfly.

He is a shrewd and gregarious man with a knack for telling people what they want to hear, no matter how absurd (Barack Obama and Russ Carnahan want to deny you eternal salvation). But character counts, and Ed Martin flunks. For character and his stance on the issues, vote for Russ Carnahan.

"Carnahan faces a cagey, far right-wing Republican (and three more marginal candidates) on the Nov. 2 ballot. If the angry, divisive white right had a poster boy it would be Carnahan’s Republican opponent, Ed Martin. Martin’s campaign has been a prolonged distortion of the truth, starting with the fiction that he is an outsider."

The St. Louis American, in their endorsement of Russ Carnahan for Congress

This is actually from last week, but I lost it in the fray... 

The Cook Political Report and Rothenberg Political Report tipsheets have updated their house race analyses -- see here and here.  

Missouri's 4th District race is the only contest in the state that makes both lists, and both prognosticators list it as 'lean Democratic."   Missouri's 3rd District makes the Cook Report as a "likely Democratic" seat, but the Rothenberg Report doesn't see it as one of the 97 most competitive races in the country. 

h/t The Fix

In the South County Times, I see that Ed Martin has conveniently decided that he doesn't actually know anything about the the budget plan from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan that he strongly endorsed in public forums earlier this year.

"Starting in 2005, my first year in Congress, President Bush proposed privatizing Social Security," said Carnahan. "I was passionately opposed to that, and thought it put Social Security funds at risk. And now that we've had the recession, and even after what happened to the stock market, the Republican leaders and Mr. Martin have signed on to this Paul Ryan (Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.) plan, to propose privatizing Social Security and Medicare again."

Martin said if Ryan is calling for privatization, he would oppose his plan, which he said he hasn't yet read.

"If Ryan is calling for privatization?"  The details of of Ryan's plan are hardly a secret, and it's hard to find an article about his "Road Map for America's Future" that doesn't include a discussion of the Social Security proposal.  The goal of private Social Security accounts was outlined in Ryan's op-ed introducing the road map, it's easily found on his website describing the plan (though you di have to go to the trouble of clicking on the words "Social Security" to find out what he thinks!), etc. 

But now that it's October, Martin expects us to believe that he's completely unaware of one the central -- and most controversial -- provisions of the plan he says he would help support in Congress. Uh-huh. 

In Martin's preferred narrative, we're asked to instead believe that Martin endorsed an overhaul of federal spending on multiple occasions that he actually hasn't bothered to read or learn about.  That is such a better scenario! 

So let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment.  For Martin's edification --- and yours -- here's a summary of the proposed Medicare and Social Security changes ol' Eddie doesn't know anything about, as printed in the Washington Post:

To move us to surpluses, Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs. And beyond health care, Social Security gets guaranteed, private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present arrangement, further underscoring how ancillary the program is to our budget problem.

No wonder Martin can't remember these details!   They're dramatic and would completely change Medicare and Social Security as we know it.   But not so dramatic that they deterred Martin from openly expressing support for the proposal on multiple occasions in he campaign. 

In April, Martin tweeted that Ryan is "THE man with THE plan!" And at a a town hall in March, Martin expressed strong support for the overarching goals of Ryan's 'Road Map."  

Watching the video, it's obvious that Martin is familiar with Ryan and at least the general outline of the plan.  He does give caveats about not knowing all of the specifics in the plan, but makes is clear that he understands Ryan's general proposals for Medicare and Social Security -- the most discussed and most controversial aspects of the plan.

It's clear to me that Martin wants credit from conservative Republicans for supporting a plan that they like, but doesn't want to be held accountable for anything that's actually in the plan, except it's stated goals of balancing the budget.  Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. 

In summary: If you're a candidate for Congress and don't want to be held accountable for taking strong positions in favor of a legislative proposal, don't endorse that proposal again and again.

On KTRS' Jaco Report this morning, Ed Martin confirmed that he opposes abortion in all cases -- even in instances of rape and incest.  Listen:

Also note that Martin repeated the still-false claim that federal health care dollars in the new reform law are being sent to Pennsylvania for abortion.   PolitiFact.com looked at an identical claim made by the National Right to Life committee in July, and found it to be completely false.

"Hey Ed -- If you ignore all those things I said about how people like you are bad for America, I'll ignore everything I know about your political career."

Honestly: how does former Senator John Danforth reconcile (a) his stated belief that allegedly moderate Republicans should take on the extreme elements of their party with (b) his endorsement of Ed Martin, a man whose politics are everything that Danforth claims to loathe. 

First, let's recall how Danforth presents himself to the public as a moderate Republican.  From a 2006 profile in the Washington Post.

'ST. JACK' AND THE BULLIES IN THE PULPIT
John Danforth Says It's Time the GOP Center Took On The Christian Right

Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism...

"The Republican Party has been taken over by something that it's not," Danforth says over a suitably austere lunch of steamed vegetables in a well-appointed 40th-floor St. Louis club overlooking the Mississippi. "How do traditional Republicans put up with this? They put up with this because it's a winning combination, for now. It won't last."

That is the question, isn't it, Senator? "How do traditional Republicans put up with" an extreme, unethical, serial liar like Ed Martin?  Especially in a race that even Republican pollsters say Martin won't win.  It's not even a "winning combination" here.

Just this summer, Martin told local right-wing radio listeners that Barack Obama and Russ Carnahan are "taking away that freedom. The freedom -- the ultimate freedom, to find your salvation, to get your salvation."  He told supporters of his anti-stem cell campaign last year that SOS Robin Carnahan is "the devil" who "doesn't need to be honest, doesn't want to be honest." Martin "orchestrated a taxpayer-funded character assassination unlike anything ever seen before in Missouri government." Is this the kind of record a mainline Episcopal priest typically endorses?   

Martin has shamelessly told voters that Democrats want to kill old people with the new health care reform law, and has lied about how the law will impact abortion policy. Is Danforth down with candidates who lie like this? 

The Senator also says he doesn't like the way Republicans have used same-sex marriage as a wedge issue.  So then what does he say when Ed Martin dishonestly 'translates' an answer about federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy into a shot about gay marriage? 

I could go on, but I think the point is made.  If Danforth wants to be thought of as a moderate Republican, he should act like one.  But in sweeping Martin's garbage under the rug and endorsing him without comment on the lie and outrageous claims of Martin's campaign, he's made himself complicit in the extremism he claims to deplore.

One more post about Sunday night's debate between Ed Martin, Russ Carnahan and Nick Ivanovich.  The candidates were asked to share their stances on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policies."  As you can see in this video from Hotflash at Show Me Progress, Carnahan lays out a clear response to why he supports repealing DADT. 

And then, as you'll see, Martin stands up and reveals his true character:

Picking up at the 0:48 mark in the clip:

MARTIN: I'm here for you.  Translation: Congressman Carnahan supports gay marriage.  He doesn't care what Missourians think, or what their positions are.  That's what he thinks.  So, let me ... [audience grumbles]

MODERATOR: [Inaudible] What's your position on what's [inaudible]?

MARTIN: I'm getting there, I'm getting there. So, I'm sure you're going to stop the time right, so we can answer?  The fact is, this is social engineering by Nancy Pelosi and the far left who wanna do something that hasn't been done in our military. That is, allow the social engineers to go in an decide how people are supposed to function....

Classy stuff!  And not true. Most Americans support allowing gay men and women to serve openly.  Repealing DADT is not "social engineering by Nancy Pelosi and the far left" 

Show Me No Hate posted on Martin's cynical switcheroo on Wednesday. 

I actually think Ed gets off easy in this ad.

Show Me Progress' Hotflash has a great new post highlighting some of the back and forth from Sunday's debate between Russ Carnahan and Ed Martin. It's really worth watching her clips to see what a class act Martin can be when he puts his mind to it.  In one of the clips, Martin twists Carnahan's support for repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy into support for same-sex marriage.

In another, embedded here, Martin states that "Obamacare basically says you will give up control of your health care and government bureaucrats will figure it out of it for you." (See here for Martin's previous declaration that "Democrat Health Plan = Abortion and Euthanasia.")   "And not only that, there will be 16,000 new IRS agents that will come and find you and tell you if you haven't got the right kind of care and coverage." Watch it:

You may be surprised to learn that Ed Martin is lying. (I know I was!) FactCheck.org took a look at this claim a few months ago, and wrote that the 16,000 new IRS agent claim "stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation."

This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.

The IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies — in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.

The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.

h/t @DaveCatanese

NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro have updated their "Field of 64" -- the "64 House seats we consider most likely to switch parties in the fall" -- and there are no Missouri races on the list.

Crazy Ed Martin blasted out a press release yesterday calling on Russ Carnahan to return "$36,500 received from a corrupt lobbyist."  Such a demand may be difficult to meet, because Carnahan hasn't actually taken any money from the dude.

I don't have a lot to add to this interview conducted by KMOX' Charlie Brennan now-Congressional candidate Scott Eckersley regarding Ed Martin's unethical behavior as Matt Blunt's Chief of Staff. You should just listen to it.

But to refresh your memory -- of for those unfamiliar with Martin's record-- this summary of the relationship between Martin and Eckersley from November 2007 in the News-Leader may be helpful:

Lest we forget, Eckersley is a 30-year-old attorney who Martin thought was expendable. He wasn't shown the door with a pat on the back. Nobody called him a "good friend" who did a "great job." No, Martin tossed Eckersley and his reputation on the trash heap. And then, with the full knowledge of the governor, he orchestrated a taxpayer-funded character assassination unlike anything ever seen before in Missouri government.

Via Show Me Progress, I see that our beloved Crazy Ed Martin has been highlighted by the The New Republic as one of the "the truly special specimens" in this "Year of the Nutjob."

How does the class of 2010 stack up against its lunatic predecessor, of 1994? There are the well-known data points--Rand Paul's alleged kidnapping of a college classmate; Sharron Angle's assertion that there are "domestic enemies" in Congress--that suggest we've reached a new zenith of crazy, making Newt Gingrich's bunch look like sensible establishmentarians by comparison. But Paul and Angle only begin to capture the strangeness of candidates out there who may soon be occupying your Capitol and governor's mansion. Herewith, a guide to the truly special specimens...

God's Operative: Ed Martin, House candidate, Missouri

Martin has a rep for fighting dirty: He was forced to resign from his job as chief of staff to former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt after trying to cover up the fact that his office had illegally used state government e-mail accounts for campaign activities. (Martin tried to discredit the government whistleblower who alerted authorities by inquiring whether he was dating anyone in the office.) Now, he's trying to convince Missourians that Obama's domestic agenda is a stealth assault on religious freedom. He told a right-wing radio host that Obama wants to "take away [the choice] to find the Lord." When challenged about these remarks, he insisted that government bailouts made the demise of religious freedom "a growing concern."

Congratulations, Ed!

Not caring about the world we live in is a conservative value.