0
   

News & discussion on house and senate races

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2006 05:55 am
Quote:
rode on his Daddy's coat-tails using name recognition to get to be governor


That has a familiar ring to it, no?

I suppose, in part, this is merely the abiding undercurrent of caste. That's been not entirely bad for me, personally. I was born acutely touchable.

Re house turnover, etc... these guys are very good and they have lots of mechanisms in place to produce electoral results in their favor (eg, voter ID legislation, etc). As many (like Jimmy Carter) have noted, commonly with dismay and even disgust, these folks, Cheney for example, hold that 51% equates to revolutionary-level mandate.

What they have "right" here is a Machiavellian and completely amoral grasp on the reality of power.

If something doesn't happen to move these people out of their position of power, then it's my considered opinion that the Republic is a goner. Their zest for power, of a completely authoritarian sort, will be validated and strenghtened and will continue to accrete more power to the structure. Modern technologies, electronic, marketing and statistical, will permit a level of fine-tuning of consensus, manipulation, and citizen-monitoring (of the dissidents) which won't work in favor of democracy as we've understood that term.

Perhaps we ought not to be surprised. Democracy is disordered and individual liberty commonly strives against the authoritarian tendencies of humans functioning communally. America is no longer a 'frontier' environment of the sort that created or forwarded values of individualism. It's probably now much more akin to a large corporate or military operation.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2006 06:30 am
Quote:
MSNBC, and NBC touted USA Today/Gallup poll with Bush approval rating at 44 percent, ignored earlier Pew poll placing his approval at 37 percent
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609210003
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 12:08 pm
Texas governor's race.......

Quote:
[Kinky] Friedman rips brouhaha over race-tinged remarks
Candidate says he was using satire to oppose racism

Gary L. Bledsoe, president of the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, asked Friedman to apologize in a Friday letter. Friedman said he would "absolutely never" apologize.

"The NAACP, I don't even want to talk about them. They're offended about just about everything," Friedman said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4208493.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 12:17 pm
Quote:
Earlier this month, Friedman referred to Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston, most of whom are black, as "crackheads and thugs." He later criticized ethnic politicking by saying, "I don't eat tamales in the barrio, I don't eat fried chicken in the ghetto and I don't eat bagels with the Jews."

Then a television interview from a year ago resurfaced in which Friedman was asked what to do about sexual predators. He said: "Throw them in prison and throw away the key and make them listen to a Negro talking to himself."

On Thursday, a left-leaning political Web site posted an audio clip of Friedman telling a joke at a nightclub in 1980 in which he used the n-word.

On Friday, the same Web site posted two more audio clips of Friedman telling race-related jokes, one of which included the n-word.


Source
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 12:19 pm
blatham wrote:
Re house turnover, etc... these guys are very good and they have lots of mechanisms in place to produce electoral results in their favor (eg, voter ID legislation, etc). As many (like Jimmy Carter) have noted, commonly with dismay and even disgust, these folks, Cheney for example, hold that 51% equates to revolutionary-level mandate.

... on the other hand, Jimmy Carter favors requiring IDs from voters, according to a recent CNN video I saw. Do you think he wants to disenfranchise people too?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 12:33 pm
Quote:
Earlier this month, Friedman referred to Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston, most of whom are black, as "crackheads and thugs." He later criticized ethnic politicking by saying, "I don't eat tamales in the barrio, I don't eat fried chicken in the ghetto and I don't eat bagels with the Jews."

Then a television interview from a year ago resurfaced in which Friedman was asked what to do about sexual predators. He said: "Throw them in prison and throw away the key and make them listen to a Negro talking to himself."

Well, thats a bit of everything isnt it?

- The "crackheads and thugs" remark is just boneheadedly insensitive, talking about people who have lost home and hearth. Its hateful and inexcusable, and frankly, someone who goes off like that either seriously lacks empathy, or is trying to appeal to the basest type of nativist envy & resentment.

- The 'I'm not going to eat tamales in the barrio, fried chicken in the ghetto and bagels with Jews in order to in their vote' remark seems like a welcome piece of no-nonsense outing of regular politicians' hypocrisy. Candidates making do like they're all black in the ghetto and messing up a handful of Spanish when speaking to Latinos. Shallow and opportunistic politicking of the worst sort. Good for Kinky to denounce it.

- The "make them listen to a Negro talking to himself" joke. Its a joke. Kind of a stupid joke, but Eddie Murphy coulda made it. So its one of those jokes only the group itself can make I guess. I dunno. I can see the point, but is it really worth anyone getting all worked up about? Seems like a distraction to me.

As for "two more audio clips of Friedman telling race-related jokes", well duh. Kinky's made a living out of telling jokes and pushing the envelope. I woulda been well surprised if he'd made jokes about everything but somehow never once a "race-related" one. And?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 03:02 pm
From: Unhappy voters imperil heartland Republicans

Quote:
[..] In a New York Times/CBS poll released on Thursday, 77 percent of respondents said most members of Congress did not deserve re-election. Fifty percent said they would support a Democrat in November, when control of Congress is at stake, compared with 35 percent who said they would vote Republican.

[..] Nathan Gonzales, political editor at the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington, said it's actually wrong to call this election an "anti-incumbent" race -- since only Republican incumbents are truly endangered.

Heartland districts held by Republicans are among the most at risk. Seven Republican seats now lean Democratic, including three in Indiana and one each in Iowa, Texas, Colorado and Arizona. Another 10 Republican seats nationwide are considered pure toss-ups, according to the Rothenberg Report.

No Democrat seat is considered at risk. [..]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 03:06 pm
Good strategic news for Casey in Pennsylvania; the Green third-party candidate, who had been actively supported by the Republican machine as spoiler to prevent a Casey victory, appears to be out of the race.

Quote:
Pa. candidate falls short of signatures

The Green Party's U.S. Senate candidate fell about 9,000 signatures short of the number he needs to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot as counting stopped Friday, according to his lawyers and those of state Democrats.

A review of the signatures Carl Romanelli gathered in his bid to compete against Republican Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) and Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey was suspended Friday under a state judge's order issued earlier in the week.

Romanelli, a railroad industry consultant, needed to gather 67,070 signatures to qualify for statewide office this year. His candidacy is expected to help Santorum's chances for re-election by drawing votes from Casey.

State Democrats are suing to have him thrown off the ballot. Casey's campaign and the state Democratic Party have accused Santorum of engineering Romanelli's candidacy.

Santorum has openly supported Romanelli's candidacy and Republicans helped bankroll his signature-gathering effort.

Lawrence M. Otter, a lawyer for Romanelli, said Friday he hopes to persuade Judge James R. Kelley to allow Romanelli to remain on the ballot when a hearing on his nominating petitions resumes Monday. [..]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 03:09 pm
And even with Romanelli still in the race, Casey still remains comfortably ahead:

Quote:
Pennsylvania Senate: Santorum Lags by 10

rasmussenreports.com
Fri Sep 22, 10:29 AM ET

In August, the Rasmussen Reports election poll showed Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. leading Republican Senator Rick Santorum by just 48% to 40%. It was the closest the candidates had been all year and many wondered if it marked the beginning of a surge that would enable Santorum to draw even closer.

So far the answer is no. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows very similar results; with Casey leading 49% to 39%.

Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli continues to attract 5% support [..].

The two major-party candidates recently debated for the first time, clashing over the war in Iraq, pay raises for politicians in Pennsylvania and DC, and abortion. Many independent observers say Casey, not exactly renowned as a speaker, surpassed low expectations and was at least on a par with the more fiery incumbent. Some argue that Casey won the debate. [..]

Voters here are more likely to trust the GOP on national security, more likely to trust the Democrats on the economy and taxes. On immigration, the split is 37% to 38%, with 25% unsure.

For a plurality of 28%, the top electoral issue is the economy. But national security (21%) and Iraq (18%) aren't far behind [..].
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 03:20 pm
Good and bad news from Arizona.

The good news is that the Republicans appear to be downright giving up on an embattled House district, now that anti-immigration conservative Graf has won the primary. And Graf's helpless-sounding braggodocio about it suggests some desperation:

Quote:
GOP cancels $1 mil in Graf ad support

The Republican Party canceled about $1 million in advertising support for Randy Graf, a blow to his chances of winning the congressional race in southern Arizona.

Graf, a conservative who has campaigned mainly on a platform of zero tolerance for illegal immigration, vowed through campaign manager R.T. Gregg to go it alone if necessary in the district once considered one of the most competitive in the nation. [..]

An independent political observer said yanking advertising support is "a very powerful signal."

"It can mean either they're pulling out because it's hopeless, or they think he's got it in the bag," said Gary Jacobson, professor of political science at the University of California-San Diego.

Every indication is that the party is in full retreat, Jacobson said.

Gregg said Thursday that he had no specifics on what the National Republican Congressional Committee was doing, "but I don't care."

"It doesn't matter. Our game plan is set, and we're well on our way to raising the $1 million we need to win this race," Gregg said. [..]

Republicans had reserved about $1.4 million worth of broadcast time to boost chances of keeping the seat in GOP hands.

The party spent $250,000 in the primary trying to derail a Graf victory and had booked most of the remainder for closer to the Nov. 7 general election.

Democrats had budgeted about $1.7 million for the race. Both parties will now be able to redirect most or all of the money to other races. [..]

Giffords also has shown more fund-raising prowess than Graf. The $1.2 million she raised before the primary was more than twice as much as Graf took in, and she entered the general election campaign with $300,000, about three times as much as Graf.

"She's in good shape, and if the Republicans are pulling out a million bucks, he's not," Jacobson said.


The bad news is that the Democrats are making a fool of themselves by trying to spin one of those PC outrage things - when their argument is just quite bogus.

Quote:
AZ Dems issued a release 9/20 pointing out that David Duke has a link to ex-state Rep. Randy Graf's (R) site. Graf manager R.T. Gregg "swiftly denounced" Duke, saying they "have no ties" to Duke "or any of his racist crazies." Gregg: "In this day and age anyone can put a link anywhere to anything." But Dems demanded that Graf contact Duke and ask him to remove the link. Gregg "said Graf has no plans to do so," noting that Duke "doesn't even live in the" CD. Gregg: "He's somewhere off in the deep South" (Scarpinato, Arizona Daily Star, 9/21).

And Now Rahm's Getting Involved

DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel, in a letter to NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds today: "While you and I may have differences of opinion when it comes to policy, certainly we can agree on the right thing to do. Supporting a candidate with ties to the white supremacist community is not the right thing to do...Tom, you should pull down your ads in support of Graf immediately. Candidates tied to white supremacists are not right for Arizona and they are certainly not right for America."

I mean, seriously. Graf has has "ties" with, and is "tied" to, white supremacists because Duke put a link to him on his site? Gregg is right of course - you cant seriously hold someone responsible for who adds a link to his site, thats really a stretch.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 03:23 pm
But the Republicans in Pennsylvania are resorting to an even greater stretch, in what must be one of the most ridiculously slandersome ads this season:

Quote:
Santorum aired a spot featuring actors supposedly portraying four big donors to Casey's campaign meeting in a smoke-filled jail cell. The senator's campaign later conceded that none of the men had given money to Casey's Senate campaign and that two had contributed to Santorum's campaign, which donated the money to nonprofit groups.

link
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Sep, 2006 06:22 pm
Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college
Three members of Sen. George Allen's college football team remember a man with racist attitudes at ease using racial slurs.

By Michael Scherer
http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 08:59 am
nimh

They are going ugly everywhere (some 90% spent on smear/slander ads). It will get worse.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 09:37 am
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:44 pm
On Senator Allen and his alleged past use of the word "nigger" - and asking where the local blacks lived after a hunting trip so he could stuff the severed head of a deer in a mailbox there.

My take: the flap around his alleged past use of the "n-word" in itself seems a bit of a dud - I mean - to go after someone over his use of bad language thirty years ago? Seems a bit much.

Not to mention that Salon tracked down 19 former teammates of Allen's, and only 3 of them remember him as saying/doing something racist. While another 7 explicitly maintained that Allen had not been racist. Thats not exactly convincing evidence.

The deer head story is disturbing though. You dont make **** like that up. And if Allen really did that, I mean - would you really want that kind of person representing the people?

And of course, the only reason that this story made it big is that it fits exactly with the picture that has emerged of Allen over time anyway. The man who refused to declare a Martin Luther King holiday; who paid a tribute of honour to the Confederate past without even mentioning slavery; who carried a Confederate flag on his lapel as a student and sported one in his office once he was elected; who had his picture taken at a political event with the honchos of a racist organisation; and who ridiculed a non-white Democratic operative as a "macaca" who had to be welcomed to America. The overall picture is pretty insalibrious.

Quote:
Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college

Three former college football teammates of Sen. George Allen say that the Virginia Republican repeatedly used an inflammatory racial epithet and demonstrated racist attitudes toward blacks during the early 1970s.

"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."

A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," the teammate said.

A third white teammate contacted separately, who also spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being attacked by the Virginia senator, said he too remembers Allen using the word "nigger," though he said he could not recall a specific conversation in which Allen used the term. "My impression of him was that he was a racist," the third teammate said. [..]

Over the past week, Salon has interviewed 19 former teammates and college friends of Allen from the University of Virginia. In addition to the three who said Allen used the word "nigger," two others who were contacted said they remember being bothered by Allen's displaying the Confederate flag in college, but said they do not remember him acting in an overtly racist manner. Seven others said they did not know Allen well outside the football team, but do not remember Allen demonstrating any racist feelings. A separate seven teammates and friends said they knew Allen well and did not believe he held racist views. [..]

Shelton played football with Allen in the 1972 and 1973 seasons [..] Shelton said he also remembers a disturbing deer hunting trip with Allen on land that was owned by the family of Billy Lanahan, a wide receiver on the team. After they had killed a deer, Shelton said he remembers Allen asking Lanahan where the local black residents lived. Shelton said Allen then drove the three of them to that neighborhood with the severed head of the deer. "He proceeded to take the doe's head and stuff it into a mailbox," Shelton said.

Lanahan, a former resident of Richmond, Va., died this year at the age of 53, said his aunt Martha Belle Chisholm of Richmond. In an interview on Thursday, Chisholm said that she remembered Lanahan speaking highly of Allen. "Bill was very complimentary of George Allen," she said. "He said he was just one of the boys." Chisholm also confirmed that the Lanahan family owned hunting land near Bumpass, Va., about 50 miles east of the University of Virginia campus. [..]

For Shelton, the memories of Allen's behavior during his football days raise clear questions about the senator's fitness for office. "I just think that someone who attains that level of higher office needs to have higher standards," Shelton said. [..]


Meanwhile, a related observation - I also read this story about the revelation: Allen denies using racial slur in school . There's something weird going on with it.

Obviously, someone who talks of "niggers" is being offensive. But some news editors are apparently so spooked of possible accusations, that they avoid even mentioning the word in a news report about someone having said it.

The result is PC to the point of surrealism. You have a report here thats all about the breaking news of someone using a word - which never specifies what the word in question was. Thats surely taking it a bit far..

The implication is that somehow, it's not just the use of it as means of derogation that causes harm, no, the mere mention of the word, even in a completely neutral context, is considered taboo, as if its mere articulation would release evil genies from a bottle.

Down that path is the ridiculous story of how a teacher who did a project with her students to teach them why the word "nigger" is offensive, and gave them a chapter from the book, Nigger: the Strange Career of a Troublesome Word by the black Harvard professor Randall Kennedy as homework, was disciplined after an uproar of protest. You cant use that word! Not even, apparently, to explain why the word is bad in the first place.

I have serious trouble with that logic, as I explained, when I read about that episode, in the Shaq, Jao and Race thread, wrapping up my thoughts in this post
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:41 pm
Quote:
My take: the flap around his alleged past use of the "n-word" in itself seems a bit of a dud - I mean - to go after someone over his use of bad language thirty years ago? Seems a bit much.

Not to mention that Salon tracked down 19 former teammates of Allen's, and only 3 of them remember him as saying/doing something racist. While another 7 explicitly maintained that Allen had not.

Obviously, someone who talks of "niggers" is being offensive. But some news editors are apparently so spooked of possible accusations, that they avoid even mentioning the word in a news report about someone having said it.

The result is PC to the point of surrealism. You have a report here thats all about the breaking news of someone using a word - which never specifies what the word in question was. Thats surely taking it a bit far..

0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:45 pm
My apologies, Nimh, for butchering that. I am not very good on the computer and I am still learning how to deal with Quotes. I am cetainly not meaning to put words in your mouth or quote you out of context. But I do think I disagree with your premise here.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:40 pm
I pretty much agree with your first point about youthful indiscretions not precluding people from public service. We have pretty much gotten accepting of the notion that many of our politicos smoked pot. Many found the loopholes to avoid going to Vietnam. Racism, though, is a slightly higher hurdle to get over. It was, for the person in question, a belief. And for many folks there is the nagging thought: does he/she still have this prejudice stuck in there somewhere?

If I were a reporter or news editor, I would not use the word "nigger" in a story. It is such an inflamatory word. And with the contradictory remembrances of Mr Allen's teammates and classmates, I would definitely not use it unless I had it on tape from Mr Allen himself. Everyone knows what the phase "racial slur" refers to.

I was surprised, by the way, that Larry Sabato, who was mentioned in the story link, weighed in as a classmate of Mr Allen saying that Allen did indeed display racist attitudes. Sabato is an oft-quoted political analyst.

And just as a total aside, nimh, on how words can twist around on you in strange ways. You said something like editors are spooked by the n-word, or something like that. Did you know that "spook" is/was an old slang word for a black person? -rjb-
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:55 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
If I were a reporter or news editor, I would not use the word "nigger" in a story. It is such an inflamatory word. [..] Everyone knows what the phase "racial slur" refers to.

How can you educate people about how bad something is if you're not actually going to say what it is? Then you just end up playing hide-and-seek, instead of confronting the issue head-on.

When I report here that there is a flap about George Allen perhaps having said "nigger", I certainly dont feel that saying so in turns amounts to offence; in fact, avoiding it even when talking about it, IMO, just comes down to obfuscating the issue.

But I already argued my perspective on this (more articulately and at length) in the Shaq and race thread, here and before that, here, probably better not repeat myself.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:59 pm
I posted the below in the Clinton thread, should definitely rather be here.

By ways of context: the Democrats need a net +6 seats to take over the Senate, and a net +15 seats to take over the House.

<snip>

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2475/assessingthe2006uscongrfy3.gif


The Congressional Quarterly election forecast map has 4 currently Republican-held Senate seats as toss-ups or even Democratic-leaning. It only has 2 Democratic-held Senate seats as toss-ups.

Regarding the House, the CQ identifies 12 toss-up races. 11 of them are now Republican-held; just 1 of them is the Democrats' to lose.

Rasmussen Reports currently has 4 Republican-held Senate seats leaning Democrat, and another 2 being a toss-up. Conversely, there's just 1 Democrat-held seat in the Toss-up category, and none leaning Republican.

The Rothenberg Political Report currently has 2 Republican-held Senate seats leaning to the Democrats, 3 a total toss-up, and an additional one with the Republican incumbent having only a narrow advantage. Making 6 Senate seats the Reps stand to lose. Conversely, it only has 1 Democrat-held seat as a toss-up, and 1 with the Dems in a narrow advantage. Makes just 2.

For the House races, Rothenberg identifies 24 races as being in play, rated either a complete toss-up (10) or with a slight tilt to the Republicans (8) or to the Democrats (6). Every single one of these races is currently Republican-held. There is no Democratic-held seat identified as being in play.

On Real Clear Politics, 6 Republican-held Senate seats are marked toss-up, and an additional 1 as leaning Democratic. Only 2 Democratic-held Senate seats are rated toss-up, and none leaning Republican.

In the RealClearPolitics list of House seats most likely to switch party control, every single one of the first 20 are seats now held by a Republican that the Reps stand to lose to the Democrats.

The Cook Political Report has 6 Republican-held Senate seats as a toss-up. Conversely, it has just 1 Democratic-held seat rated tossup.

For the House, Cook has 2 Republican-held seats leaning Democrat outright, and another 18 rated toss-up. On the other hand, it has not a single Democratic-held seat rated toss-up or worse.

On Washington Post's The Fix, Chris Cillizza identifies "The Line" of Senate and House seats most at risk for a take-over by the other party.

Currently, of the 10 Senate seats most at risk for a take-over, 7 are Republican seats veering to a Democratic challenger. Only 3 are Democratic seats veering to a Republican.

As for the House, of the 20 seats he identifies as most vulnerable, a whopping 18 represent Republicans risking losing their seat. There's just two Democratic-held seats at play.

The NY Times election forecast map has 3 Republican-held Senate seats rated toss-up and another 2 leaning Democrat. Conversely, it has just 1 Democratic-held Senate seat as a toss-up.

As for the House, it has 15 Republican-held seats at play as a complete toss-up, and another 5 Republican-held seats leaning or safe Democratic. It has not a single Democratic-held seat at play.

Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin maintain the Election Scorecard at Slate. Currently they have 6 Republican-held Senate seats as toss-ups or leaning Democrat; and just 1 Democrat-held seat as toss-up.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oz fest 2004 - Question by Love2is0evol
Human Events Names Man of the Year, 2004 - Discussion by gungasnake
Your 2004 mix tape - Discussion by boomerang
BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE... - Discussion by Frank Apisa
Weeping and gnashing of teeth - Discussion by FreeDuck
WOW! Why Andrew Sullivan is supporting John Kerry - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Margarate Hassan - hostage in Iraq - Discussion by msolga
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 11:08:29