A Democrat state senator has her office firebombed, and implies that it was done because of Republican rhetoric:

On Wednesday, Davis used the incident to call for civility: We should “be careful about the type of rhetoric bandied about.”

We need “to stop demonizing (political opponents) … in a way that might incite these kinds of responses.”

. . . .

Davis was at her law office in downtown Fort Worth at the time.

She said that when she heard of the attack she thought of the January 2011 shootings in Arizona in which six people were killed and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others were wounded.

“It’s a sad but true fact of public service that we have to feel concerned sometimes for our personal safety,” Davis said. “But we can’t let that stop us.”

Damn Republicans!

By the way, let me introduce you to the arsonist: a 40-year-old homeless dude who likes to rant about aliens:

A 40-year-old homeless man who spoke of aliens and twice visited state Sen. Wendy Davis’ offices demanding to see her returned Tuesday and tossed a paper bag filled with six Molotov cocktails against the outer door, sparking a small fire, police said Wednesday.

. . . .

Steele had visited Davis’ office Friday and again Monday, requesting to speak with the senator about a tazing incident that occurred in Michigan, according to an arrest warrant affidavit.

He left behind part of a dead animal, “stating it was a new species and wanted the senator to see it,” the affidavit said.

. . . .

Before his arrest, Steele “spoke of an alien species” to officers and said he “had another piece of the alien in the rafter” of the vacant residence on Donnelly, the affidavit says.

It could not be more obvious that this fragile man was wound up by excessive Republican rhetoric about alien parts. I, for one, demand that Republicans stop making incendiary speeches about new species of animals and alien pieces in rafters — lest we have another tragedy like this one.

For shame, Republicans.

For shame.

UPDATE: Thanks to Ag80, who noted this earlier this week.

Poking around PACER, one finds the most interesting things. Things that journalists like Tommy Christopher might want to look into, if they found themselves writing about Nadia Naffe. The following is from an order made by the court overseeing that lawsuit, after taking testimony from Naffe regarding a laptop that she had been lent by the Florida Republican Party during her employment. The court found that she had been asked to return it, and intentionally did not:

The relevance of the laptop is described in her deposition, which I found on PACER as well, in three parts: one, two, and three. Interesting reading. Apparently she believed she had been given an inferior laptop, presumably because she was black, given the lawsuit’s allegations.

But I guess it was good enough to keep after she was terminated, even though she had been instructed to return it.

By the way, I should note that Naffe has threatened to report me to my State Bar and my place of employment for writing posts critical of her:

The theory is that, by pointing out holes in her story, on a public blog, concerning a matter of public interest, I am giving James O’Keefe “legal advice” in a civil suit.

The claim is absurd. If a non-lawyer criticizes O’Keefe, in a way that gives her a legal argument in court, is that practicing law without a license? No self-respecting employer or bar investigator would buy this logic, so she moved on to another false claim: that I updated my blog on company time. You can add that to a large set of other falsehoods she has told in recent days and weeks.

The motive is to silence me. The likely result is that her tactics will draw greater attention to my criticism of her claims, and her tactics of trying to silence her critics.

UPDATE: Interesting points in comments about the medications she was taking, and how those medications don’t mix well with alcohol. One of the medications, Seroquil, is commonly prescribed for schizophrenia, mania, or bipolar disorder — all afflictions that may well not be temporary. If she was still taking the medications in late 2011, it could explain why she allegedly had such a strong reaction to alcohol. Details here.

There is another point about Seroquil that, together with the above information, might make for an interesting post. Will have to think about this one . . .

[Posted by Karl]

The Pelican State votes today, but the polls do not close until 9 ET, which may limit the media impact (which is the main impact they would have).  Here’s your Google Map.  According to the rules, only 20 of 46 GOP delegates are selected tonight, proportionately with a 25% threshold (unlike many of the March contests, this is an overall contest, not by Congressional district).  If the polls are accurate (a not-insignificant if),  Santorum should win most delegates, but Romney will win a share as well.  Nate Silver suggests it could be a 12-8 split, which would not be bad for Romney.  Silver also contrasts this primary with the upcoming Wisconsin contest, which — taking place in April — has more aggressive, closer to winner-take-all delegate rules.  A Romney win there would boost Romney’s odds of winning the nomination outright.  Based on the contests to date, Romney can get by with only 25% of the South… so long as he does 33%+ in the Midwest.

–Karl

[Posted by Karl]

As noted by the WSJ (and others):

The term “Obamacare” started out as a derogatory name that opponents of the 2010 health overhaul used when they criticized the law. But on Friday, President Barack Obama signaled he’s trying to reclaim the moniker for those who like the law.

“Happy birthday to Obamacare: two years in, the Affordable Care Act is making millions of Americans’ lives better every day,” read a message from the president’s Twitter feed on Friday, the two-year anniversary of his signing of the insurance-expansion law. Then he tweeted: “If you’re proud of Obamacare and tired of the other side using it as a dirty word, complete this sentence: #ILikeObamacare because…”

To lefty chagrin, the hashtag was quickly taken over by conservative mockery; most of the supportive tweets were Astroturf from elected Democrats (though not — afaik — Dems facing tough races this year).  But notice the internal contradiction in the WSJ lede — if Obamacare “started out” as a derogatory name, can it be reclaimed?  In reality, there was a school of thought on the left that embraced the term “Obamacare” at first, thinking it was great to use a president with approval ratings in the sixties as the face of the legislation.  It was only after the politically toxic initiative began to sink Obama — and many other Dems with him — that even the better White House reporters like Jake Tapper would cave to progressive complaints about the label.

Obamacare remains unpopular, so why the effort by Dems to reclaim the term now?  Obama originally planned to avoid marking the two-year anniversary of the law as they would have done if it was popular.  However, Democrats likely realized they could not abandon the field as the Supreme Court prepared to hear argument against Obamacare next week.  And if they persist past next week, the rebranding effort may give a clue about how Team Obama plans to campaign against most-likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

–Karl