Republicans target 3 Senate races

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Circling the wagons in an attempt to preserve their loyalty base and cling to power - screw the country,
it's "All about us".

Get off your partisan horse. Both parties spend an enormous amount of money to "focus" on certain races in certain districts. This is hardly something new and the party you worship does the same exact thing.

Partisan Horse? I'm a REPUBLICAN you fool, I refuse to give in anymore to the shills that stole MY PARTY!
I want it back to what it used to be, but since I can't do that in one fell swoop, I'll throw all the son-of-a-bitches out and start over.

In Texas, I'll vote for Kinky Friedman - at least he's an Independant kook.

"Politics: 'Poli' means 'many', and ticks are bloodsucking parasites"


. . and then there a few random local ridiculous issues to sort out.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: broon
We're screwed in Missouri. Neither candidate is worth poo.

Anyone who personally knows John Ashcroft is well worth voting AGAINST.

I was actually referring to Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill.

So was I - Talent is a close and personal friend of Asscraft.

I still think the dead guy would have done a better job than Ashcroft.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, i hate to say this, but the left-wingers shouldn't even discuss political strategy. It is obvious they are terrible at it.

Ouch....

But very true... Gore was the VP with a good economy, a budget surplus and peace in the world and yet he LOST to Bush, who you all claim is an idiot.

And then in 2004 with what you claim is a horrible economy, an un-winnable war in Iraq, Osama still on the loose and everything else Bush had done wrong you still can't win.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, i hate to say this, but the left-wingers shouldn't even discuss political strategy. It is obvious they are terrible at it.

Ouch....

But very true... Gore was the VP with a good economy, a budget surplus and peace in the world and yet he LOST to Bush, who you all claim is an idiot.

And then in 2004 with what you claim is a horrible economy, an un-winnable war in Iraq, Osama still on the loose and everything else Bush had done wrong you still can't win.

Kerry's failure was definately worse than Gore's.

 

[senseamp]

It's sickening what the GOP has done to this country. Sickening.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: techs
In an unusual move, the Republican National Committee is investing heavily in television advertising in Senate races in Ohio, Tennessee and Missouri in what officials describe as a firewall strategy designed to limit Democratic gains in the Nov. 7 elections and maintain the GOP majority.

If the plan is to hold the majority how is what they are doing a bad thing? Isn't the whole Democratic plan to WIN the majority from the Republicans? So isn't the counter strategy to stop them from doing that?

I don't think it is like the Rep's are giving up on EVERY senate seat out there in order to focus on only winning three.

Also very soon the Democrats will have to look at the polls and seats up from grabs and decide where they want to focus, and they will do something similar. This always happens in elections, why is this one any different?

BTW: Why the hell is there a picture of Foley on the yahoo story posted in the OP??? He is GONE, why do they feel the need to put up his pic? Foley wasn't even in the senate... Do you see why we bitch about media bias?? How many stories about Bill Clinton have a picture of Monica in the corner? etc etc. Sad

Ps. from what I understand DeWine is a good senator who happens to be caught up in the states Republican Parties issues.

 

[senseamp]

DeWine looks like a sissy. I don't think he has the personality to defeat Brown.
Ditto for the no-name running against Ford.

 

[Caminetto]

In the past DeWine has been somewhat moderate as well as a senator who listened to the needs and wants of his constituents. However lately he has become another shill for this administration. I suspect they put the screws to him to stay onboard on each issue of this administration?s agenda.

I hope he goes down the tubes, but I?ll bet he won?t understand why.

But the race is far from over and I see from Reuters that the Republican strategy is "spending tens of millions to pummel Democratic candidates and try to make them an unpalatable alternative to Republicans."

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
In an unusual move, the Republican National Committee is investing heavily in television advertising in Senate races in Ohio, Tennessee and Missouri in what officials describe as a firewall strategy designed to limit Democratic gains in the Nov. 7 elections and maintain the GOP majority.

If the plan is to hold the majority how is what they are doing a bad thing? Isn't the whole Democratic plan to WIN the majority from the Republicans? So isn't the counter strategy to stop them from doing that?

I don't think it is like the Rep's are giving up on EVERY senate seat out there in order to focus on only winning three.

Also very soon the Democrats will have to look at the polls and seats up from grabs and decide where they want to focus, and they will do something similar. This always happens in elections, why is this one any different?

BTW: Why the hell is there a picture of Foley on the yahoo story posted in the OP??? He is GONE, why do they feel the need to put up his pic? Foley wasn't even in the senate... Do you see why we bitch about media bias?? How many stories about Bill Clinton have a picture of Monica in the corner? etc etc. Sad

Ps. from what I understand DeWine is a good senator who happens to be caught up in the states Republican Parties issues.

Because his antics & recent revelations have put the GOP in a position where they are now (apparently) fighting to retain control of the house. Foley is reason for the change of stratergery by the GOP.

 

[senseamp]

I hear Karl Rove is going to send out mail to evangelicals saying Harold Ford is black

 

[Pabster]

This just in:

Democrats and their accomplices (read: mainstream liberal media) are trying to convey the message that the races are over, Republicans have lost, and it isn't worth your time to even go to the polls.

This looks to be a repeat of 2004 when we had the great liberal media telling us early in the morning that Kerry had already won.

 

[Aisengard]

This just in:

The mainstream media, longtime ally of the US Government, is finally reporting the downfall of the Republican party (aka the US Government). After many months of debating, the wide public realization of the complete failure of this government for the past 6 years has forced the media to acknowledge that the Republican reign may just be over, and their majority may be threatened. That, plus the many, many, many (perhaps record-breaking amounts) scandals make for a very juicy story about the downfall of the GOP, which about 70% of the country wants to hear.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, i hate to say this, but the left-wingers shouldn't even discuss political strategy. It is obvious they are terrible at it.

Ouch....

But very true... Gore was the VP with a good economy, a budget surplus and peace in the world and yet he LOST to Bush, who you all claim is an idiot.

And then in 2004 with what you claim is a horrible economy, an un-winnable war in Iraq, Osama still on the loose and everything else Bush had done wrong you still can't win.

The Nazis, Japanese military and Mussolini convinced a lot of otherwise decent Germans, Japanese and Italians to do some truly horrible things. So it's not really that surprising that modern media and astute campaigning by Republicans can weave a tapestry sufficient to get 50 million people to vote against the best interests of the nation.

Having said that . . . Democrats sux. I hope they win. But more importantly, I hope they can govern, particularly if the White House goes blue in 2008. It shouldn't be that hard. All they have to do is realize they serve the public and not themselves.

 

[sandmanwake]

While I hope the Democrats gets the majority in Congress this November, I don't want them to control both Congress and the White House in '08. This country is better off if neither party controls every branch of the government. Only when they're too busy fighting among each other to get anything done can we as ordinary citizens be safe and prosperous.

 

[chowderhead]

are the Republicans giving up on Ohio?
Senior Republican leaders have concluded that Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, a pivotal state in this year?s fierce midterm election battles, is likely to be heading for defeat and are moving to reduce financial support for his race and divert party money to other embattled Republican senators, party officials said.

So the firewall in Ohio is going to be abandoned and DeWine is left to fend for himself? Even though DeWine is fairly popular, he may be swept under the Taft, Bush, Noe and Ney mess.
Ohio is going to be toxic for Republicans in November as they could easily lose 2 or 3 House seats as well.
Missouri is the key to the control with the two candidates trading the lead. TN would be GREAT as well as Ford is a great candidate. In Virginia, George Felix Allen is up by 2% in the lastest poll.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

I'll believe it once the votes are all tallied. Until then, I have very little faith in the electorate to do the right thing and throw the Republicans out of power.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
I'll believe it once the votes are all tallied. Until then, I have very little faith in the electorate to do the right thing and throw the Republicans out of power.

Who determines the right thing. The people or you?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

This time? Hopefully the 50+% I see eye to eye with and NOT Diebold.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So when the 49+% that agree with you are unable to swing the system, then another couple of years of complaining rather than providing a realistic solution will occur.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

A "realistic solution" to the problems brought upon us by the Republicans will certainly take time, especially when they keep worsening the problems through further incompetence. It will take generations to undo the harm Bush has done to our nation. As for your insistence the NeoCons will continue to hold sway over the country, I don't really doubt it myself. In any case, I've bookmarked this one.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So when the 49+% that agree with you are unable to swing the system, then another couple of years of complaining rather than providing a realistic solution will occur.

Part of the reason I no longer support the Republican party is that, with few exceptions, you guys don't have any "realistic solutions" either. What you DO have is a lot of bluster and an amazing ability to confuse acting like jackasses with being "strong on defense". But what you DON'T have is reasonable solutions to ANYTHING. Hell, look at the Iraq debate, it's full of Republicans complaining that the Dems have no plan. That's not true, the Dems DO have a plan...leave as soon as reasonably possible. It's the Republicans that have no plan, "stay the course" is a bumper sticker, not a strategy. You may not LIKE the Democrats' plan, but at least they have one.

As for elections, I think it's pretty conclusively proven that, while a reasonable way to pick our leaders, democracy does not extend to the realm of deciding what good reason and logic is. Republicans do not suddenly become better leaders just because 51% of the country thinks they are. Democracy is great, no doubt about that, but not everything in the universe is (or should be) subject to democratic decision making.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, i hate to say this, but the left-wingers shouldn't even discuss political strategy. It is obvious they are terrible at it.

Ouch....

But very true... Gore was the VP with a good economy, a budget surplus and peace in the world and yet he LOST to Bush, who you all claim is an idiot.

And then in 2004 with what you claim is a horrible economy, an un-winnable war in Iraq, Osama still on the loose and everything else Bush had done wrong you still can't win.

It is true, unfortunately, Democrats do not seem as good at the political strategy as the Republicans...which is one of the reasons I like them. The Republicans have guys like Karl Rove, who run absolutely vicious campaigns and are very good at turning issues on their head...and the Dems don't really have anyone like that. Part of the reason is that I think, at their core, liberals don't like the kind of hugely negative campaigning that works so well for the Republicans. Maybe it's just me, but while the attack on Kerry's Vietnam service is text-book Republican strategy, I can't see the Dems doing a similar thing. Which bites them in the ass, the debate over service in Vietnam ended up with the draft-dodging rich kid looking like the hero and the guy who ACTUALLY went and fought in Vietnam (and won a number of medals for his heroic service) looking like the cowardly loser. The Bush campaign did a very similar thing to John McCain in the 2000 primaries, and while righties seem to have some revisionist history objections to Kerry's service, I've never heard anyone on the right complain about McCain's...except of course the Bush administration, whom you all voted for...twice.

Republicans are just more willing to fight dirty when they have to...which is great for political campaigns, but it leaves us with some pretty crummy leaders. Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in the fantasy world that running a nice campaign can win the day. Don't get me wrong, they are certainly negative to, but it seems less like a fundamental part of their strategy. And that's a mistake. I don't think they need to be so vicious about it, but you can be negative without being a lying sack of crap. While Kerry's campaign was very poorly run in this regard, his debate performance was EXCELLENT. His attack on Bush suggesting that Saddam attacked us on 9/11 was superb. And you know what, it worked, Kerry had a HUGE bounce after the debate. His campaign was apparently just too stupid to recognize that fact.

Like I said, there clearly IS a problem with the Democrats and campaigning, you'll get no argument from me on that point. It's too easy an out to say Bush is an idiot, but he does have some pretty idiot policies...and for some reason the Dems didn't really want to go after that. Don't ask me why.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So when the 49+% that agree with you are unable to swing the system, then another couple of years of complaining rather than providing a realistic solution will occur.

Part of the reason I no longer support the Republican party is that, with few exceptions, you guys don't have any "realistic solutions" either. What you DO have is a lot of bluster and an amazing ability to confuse acting like jackasses with being "strong on defense". But what you DON'T have is reasonable solutions to ANYTHING. Hell, look at the Iraq debate, it's full of Republicans complaining that the Dems have no plan. That's not true, the Dems DO have a plan...leave as soon as reasonably possible. It's the Republicans that have no plan, "stay the course" is a bumper sticker, not a strategy. You may not LIKE the Democrats' plan, but at least they have one.

As for elections, I think it's pretty conclusively proven that, while a reasonable way to pick our leaders, democracy does not extend to the realm of deciding what good reason and logic is. Republicans do not suddenly become better leaders just because 51% of the country thinks they are. Democracy is great, no doubt about that, but not everything in the universe is (or should be) subject to democratic decision making.

I will take offense to being potentially being lumped in to the neo-cons. I would like to consider myself an conserative independent.

Iraq is just one issue.

In '00, the Dems apparently could not come up with a clear cut message for the future - the Repubs were able to present one. with the Dems being the incumbents; they completely failed in that regard.

In '02, Iraq had not started. The economy had nose-dived, yet the Dems did not seem to present a method/vision that allowed them to make gains in Congress.

In '04, Iraq had started, Afganistan was maturing, the economy was not really picking up.
Yet again, the Dems failed to deliver; Deibold or any other voting excuses aside.

Now coming to '06, them Dems may have a chance to deliver; but is it a positive vision or just "We can not be worse than those guys"? Many times, a person will choose the devil they know rather than the devil they do not.