0
   

News & discussion on house and senate races

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:50 pm
No, she won't take the bet, would be my bet.

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/risk_rating_house.html

There are currently 71 Republican seats 'in play.' An all-time high for the Democrats coming into an election.

I think situations like this is where events like the Foley event come into importance; if it keeps 1-2% of Rep. voters at home (on top of other complaints they might have), then it will swing quite a few races.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 03:17 pm
snood wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
The GOP will hold the House.
The GOP will hold the Senate.
Lieberman will win in CT.

and you base these statements on.....?

Our request to her to confirm her prediction, probably.

Sierra, braveness points for making that prediction - and I think the GOP will hold the Senate (and Lieberman his seat) as well - but eh, we'll talk again about that House result the day after the elections, 'k? ;-)
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Oct, 2006 05:21 pm
Just a couple of observations with 12 days to go:

Negative advertising is running rampant all over the country, with both parties engaging in it. In Tennessee over the weekend, in the Senate race between Ford (d) and Corker (r) there was an ad suggesting that Ford was into wild parties involving some, shall we say, loose women. The ad ends with a blonde lady chirping to the camera that she had been at parties with the black candidate. She closes the ad by making a a telephone out of her pinkie finger and thumb and murmuring "Call me."
The ad has been pulled.
In the Missouri race for Senate between Talent (r) and McGaskill (d), actor Michael J Fox did an ad for McGaskill involving stem cell research, which is actually a pretty big issue there. Mr Fox, a fairly young man, has Parkinson's disease which causes him to have uncontrollable twitching. He praised McGaskill for supporting the research but then criticised Talent and President Bush for not supporting it.
One conservative talk show host called it a pathetic attempt to use physical disability to pander for votes. He later backed off a bit.

Here in Virginia, where the big race is between Allen (r) and Webb (d) for Senate, the last poll I have seen has it as 49-47 Allen. Complicating things is a constituitional amendment re, for the sake of brevity, "gay marriage." It is pretty vague other than saying that the word marriage applies to a man and a woman. It talks about rights that may be afforded by "civil unions" but is pretty ambiguous about those rights. I don't know what, if anything, that will mean re voter turnout.

Voter turnout will probably be the deciding factor here in Virginia. There was an interesting survey done (albeit unscientific) amongst city and county registrars (the folks who run the elections). Some of them report a 100% increase in the request for absentee ballots over 2004. That tells me that, despite this being a non-presidential election year, there is a lot of interest. Turnout overall may hit something like 63% of eligible voters.
In my mind, that favors Webb. But I still see Virginia as going to Allen.
0 Replies
 
Madison32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Oct, 2006 11:38 pm
ONLY PROFESSIONALS REALLY CAN COMMENT INTELLIGENTLY



RCP SENATE RATINGS-REAL CLEAR POLITICS

Dems Need Six For Control

RCP Avgs Project: Dems + 4

---------------------------------

TOSS UPS
MO: Talent (R) | Chart
MT: Burns (R) | Chart
NJ: Menendez (D) | Chart
TN: Open (R) | Chart
VA: Allen (R) | Chart
LEANS DEMOCRAT
MD: Open (D) | Chart
MI: Stabenow (D) | Chart
OH: DeWine (R) | Chart
PA: Santorum (R) | Chart
RI: Chafee (R) | Chart
LEANS REPUBLICAN
AZ: Kyl (R) | Chart
LIKELY DEMOCRAT
MN: Open (D) | Chart
WA: Cantwell (D) | Chart
LIKELY LIEBERMAN
CT: Lieberman (I) | Chart
***********************


RCP HOUSE RATINGS
Dems Need 15 For Control
-------GOP HELD SEATS-------

LEANS DEMOCRAT (9)
TX-22: Open (DeLay)
AZ-8: Open (Kolbe)
FL-16: Open (Foley)
IN-8: Hostettler
PA-10: Sherwood
CO-7: Open (Beauprez)
IA-1: (Open (Nussle)
OH-18: Open (Ney)
PA-7: Weldon
TOSS UPS (15)
NY-24: Open (Boehlert)
OH-15: Pryce
IN-2: Chocola
NY-26: Reynolds
NM-1: Wilson
IN-9: Sodrel
NC-11: Taylor
CT-4: Shays
PA-6: Gerlach
IL-6: Open (Hyde)
MN-6: Open (Kennedy)
FL-13: Open (Harris)
CT-2: Simmons
PA-8: Fitzpatrick
WA-8: Reichert
LEANS REPUBLICAN (21)
FL-22: Shaw
OH-2: Pryce
OH-1: Chabot
CO-4: Musgrave
KY-4: Davis
WI-8: Open (Green)
CT-5: Johnson
VA-2: Drake
NV-2: Open (Gibbons)
NY-20: Sweeney
CA-11: Pombo
NY-29: Kuhl
NJ-7: Ferguson
AZ-1: Renzi
CA-4: Doolittle
NH-2: Bass
PA-4: Hart
NV-3: Porter
AZ-5: Hayworth
MN-1: Gutknecht
KY-3: Northup
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 06:47 am
Madison32 wrote:
ONLY PROFESSIONALS REALLY CAN COMMENT INTELLIGENTLY



That statement kind of says it all when it comes to certain trolls......
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 04:58 pm
Quote:
BEST OCTOBER EVER:

TNR - The Plank
10.25.06

It looks like today's scandal belongs to Jim Gibbons, the Republican candidate for governor in Nevada. Gibbons, you may recall, already had to deal with accusations just over a week ago that he threatened a drunken waitress in Las Vegas.

KLAS-TV in Las Vegas is reporting that Gibbons, outspoken on immigration issues, employed an illegal immigrant as a babysitter and housekeeper for years, and that the family sometimes forced her to hide in the basement. The accusation is backed up with family photos, letters, and--major oops here--Gibbon's own mention of his housekeeper's family on the floor of the Nevada legislature.

Some are already rushing to the charge of hypocrite, but let's not jump the gun, guys. A careful look at a Gibbons' campaign ad shows that the candidate has remained solid on his git-tuff-on-illegal-immigration stance over the years. The ad's voiceover intones, "It is not right that those who have broken our laws and are in this country illegally should get the same benefits as the rest of us."

And she didn't. She never got "the same benefits as the rest of us"--Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other things Gibbons never paid into. So hold back the hypocrisy charge: This guy's a man of principle.

--Elspeth Reeve
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 05:00 pm
Quote:
Momentum in the Slate 13

Pollster.com
October 24, 2006

[..] I want to take a moment and review two things readers should know about the averages in the Slate Senate Scorecard.

[R]egular readers of the Slate feature should be familiar with the big blue "momentum shift" meter that sits atop the Senate scorecard. It has pointed in the Democratic direction since September 15, meaning that recent trends across all 13 of the competitive Senate have been shifting in a Democratic direction. These averages summarize the results of over 190 polls conducted in those states since the summer. Some readers have wondered about why the meter has been seemingly frozen in place for over a month. Can a momentum "shift" really continue for a full month?

The numbers say it can. As the table below shows, the average Democratic lead across the 13 states we track for Slate has nearly doubled, rising from 1.9% to 3.7% since early September. The net gain is greater if we remove the Connecticut (for which we calculate the average deficit of Democrat Ned Lamont to Sen. Joe Lieberman).

http://www.pollster.com/10-24%20slate%2013.jpg

And those gains have been spread out over a large number of races, with net gains in 10 of 13 races. The largest increases on the margin have been in New Jersey (+7.8), Ohio (+5.4) and Tennessee (+5.4).

http://www.pollster.com/10-24%20slate%2013%20trend.jpg

The current scoreboard indicates a 49 to 49 tie in the Senate if all trends continue (assuming that Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats), with Missouri and Tennessee still classified as "toss-up" races. When we started tracking for Slate on September 1, Republicans held a 50 to 46 lead. These numbers tell the story of what happened since.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 07:10 am
The latest from the Cook Political Report

Quote:
October 27, 2006

Swinging Along
By Charlie Cook
© NationalJournal.com
This column was originally featured on NationalJournal.com on October 24, 2006

Another week has gone by and little has changed. The Republican Party still seems to be headed toward a very tough election.

In the House, Republicans are most likely to see a net loss of 20 to 35 seats, and with it their majority. In the Senate, the GOP could lose at least four, but a five- or six-seat loss is more likely. A six-seat change tips the chamber into Democratic hands.

Could the situation change? Could the trajectory of this election be altered if the spotlight shifts from Iraq, congressional scandals, budget deficits, Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schiavo, stem-cell research and immigration onto something else, like terrorism or national security? Of course it could. In the time it takes to read this article, something could happen. A confrontation at sea involving a freighter going into or coming out of North Korea, for example, could dominate the news and the public consciousness. But unless something of that magnitude happens, we have to go with the situation as it stands.

....

• HOUSE RATINGS CHANGE:

AZ-01 Renzi Likely Republican to Lean Republican
NE-01 Fortenberry Likely Republican to Solid Republican
NE-03 Open Solid Republican to Likely Republican
WY-AL Cubin Likely Republican to Lean Republican
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 07:13 am
Quote:
A confrontation at sea involving a freighter going into or coming out of North Korea, for example, could dominate the news and the public consciousness.


And you better believe those scumbags that call themselves the Bush Administration have something in the oven.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 07:41 am
BE EVER VILIGANT.

Over the next ten days there will be an altogether too familiar and sordid attempt to get out the vote. This will be done by inserting wedge issues like gay marriage, flag-burning or wars against Christmas to incite the base; push-polling, like asking voters if they would vote for John McCain for President if they knew he had fathered a black baby; intimating that a black politician, like say, Harold Ford, might know a "naked" white woman intimately or that House candidate Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, WHO LOST BOTH LEGS IN IRAQ, is a "cut and runner™." They might even being very scary letting the folks know that those Hate America™ Democrats want the terrorists to win™. Or even worse...Nancy Pelosi...BOO!

Part and parcel of that effort will be an effort to keep certain people from voting. Poll tax, voter IDs, Diebold, less voting machines in certain voting precincts, longer lines and scrubbed registration rolls. In Ohio it's called Ken Blackwell. On radio, it's Sean Hannity simply telling Democrats to stay home (Patriotic, dis New Media™, ain't it?).

What would really be fun this November 7th is that instead of sitting on our asses and allowing this gang of thugs from stealing the mid-term election, Americans use every one of these attempts to manipulate the voter, not as a deterrant to vote, but as an incentive to throw them out of office by voting. Perhaps that will send out a message strong and clear...THAT CRAP DON'T WORK 'ROUND HERE NO MORE!™


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/getting-the-right-people-_b_32617.html
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 10:01 am
A Fund Falls Short in Last-Ditch Bid to Help Democrats

By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 27, 2006

A new political group set up to help Democrats win control of Congress with a last-minute advertising blitz brought in $3 million as of last week, leaving the effort far short of its reported fund-raising goals.

The September Fund was created last month by a top Democratic operative, Harold Ickes, to combat an anticipated pre-election onslaught of advertising by Republican groups. The fund reportedly hoped to raise between $10 million and $25 million, but its filing yesterday with the Internal Revenue Service indicated the total received through October 18 was only $3 million.

By contrast, a single Republican donor, Robert Perry of Texas, has given at least $8 million this year to conservative "527" organizations working to help the GOP hang on to the House and Senate. The groups, which get the label from a section of the tax code, take multimillion-dollar gifts that traditional political action committees cannot accept.

Democratic donors who gave tens of millions to 527s in 2004, such as George Soros, are being less generous this time. Mr. Soros has not donated to the September Fund, but he did pledge $3 million to a Democratic get-out-the-vote effort, America Votes.

A consultant working on the September Fund campaign, Erik Smith, disputed that his group ever expected to raise up to $25 million, a figure reported by the New YorkTimes. "That wasn't our number. I don't know where that came from," Mr. Smith said yesterday.

The Washington Post reported last week that Mr. Ickes said the new group had raised between $5 million and $10 million. The longtime adviser to Senator Clinton and deputy chief of staff to President Clinton did not return a call seeking comment for this article.

"It has been more difficult raising money than I expected," the political operative told the Post. He also said Democrats were probably being too optimistic about their electoral chances.

Mr. Smith said the September Fund is running ads in five states: Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia. He said ads will pop up in three more, but he declined to identify them.

Of the September Fund's $3 million, $825,000 came from labor-affiliated political action committees. Under federal law, only the $2.2 million the group took in from individuals can be spent on broadcast and cable ads mentioning federal candidates.

One September Fund ad dodges that legal restriction by referring only to President Bush, who is not a candidate for any office this year. The ad depicts people standing in a park, asking a bush questions about the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, and health care costs.

http://www.nysun.com/article/42393
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 11:23 am
SierraSong wrote:
A Fund Falls Short in Last-Ditch Bid to Help Democrats

By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 27, 2006

A new political group set up to help Democrats win control of Congress with a last-minute advertising blitz brought in $3 million as of last week, leaving the effort far short of its reported fund-raising goals.

The September Fund was created last month by a top Democratic operative, Harold Ickes, to combat an anticipated pre-election onslaught of advertising by Republican groups. The fund reportedly hoped to raise between $10 million and $25 million, but its filing yesterday with the Internal Revenue Service indicated the total received through October 18 was only $3 million.

By contrast, a single Republican donor, Robert Perry of Texas, has given at least $8 million this year to conservative "527" organizations working to help the GOP hang on to the House and Senate. The groups, which get the label from a section of the tax code, take multimillion-dollar gifts that traditional political action committees cannot accept.

Democratic donors who gave tens of millions to 527s in 2004, such as George Soros, are being less generous this time. Mr. Soros has not donated to the September Fund, but he did pledge $3 million to a Democratic get-out-the-vote effort, America Votes.

A consultant working on the September Fund campaign, Erik Smith, disputed that his group ever expected to raise up to $25 million, a figure reported by the New YorkTimes. "That wasn't our number. I don't know where that came from," Mr. Smith said yesterday.

The Washington Post reported last week that Mr. Ickes said the new group had raised between $5 million and $10 million. The longtime adviser to Senator Clinton and deputy chief of staff to President Clinton did not return a call seeking comment for this article.

"It has been more difficult raising money than I expected," the political operative told the Post. He also said Democrats were probably being too optimistic about their electoral chances.

Mr. Smith said the September Fund is running ads in five states: Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia. He said ads will pop up in three more, but he declined to identify them.

Of the September Fund's $3 million, $825,000 came from labor-affiliated political action committees. Under federal law, only the $2.2 million the group took in from individuals can be spent on broadcast and cable ads mentioning federal candidates.

One September Fund ad dodges that legal restriction by referring only to President Bush, who is not a candidate for any office this year. The ad depicts people standing in a park, asking a bush questions about the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, and health care costs.

http://www.nysun.com/article/42393


she loves her Dear Leader
she will not despair
admit he's a loser
a dunce with good hair
a political version
of the blonde Hilton heir
she loves her Dear Leader
and will not despair

Quote:
As campaigns enter the final weeks, and prospects of a change of leadership in the House, and perhaps the Senate, increase, businesses have slightly, and quietly, increased their contributions to Democrats, report the WSJ and LAT. "All of the Democratic ranking members have seen an increase in attentiveness to their fundraising," a House Democratic aide tells the Times.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152326/?nav=fix
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 03:40 pm
Muggers.org
The Lowell Sun

Give us your money or else. That's the threat from MoveOn.org, the ultra-liberal political blog, to U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan.

For a week now, MoveOn.org's political extortionists have mounted an Internet campaign against Meehan because he refuses to accede to their wishes. They want Meehan to open his $4.9 million campaign war chest to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is trying to win back the House from Republicans.

Meehan has resisted, and rightly so.

But what began as playful politics has escalated into a nasty MoveOn.org shakedown.

First, the bloggers sought a $1.2 million contribution from Meehan. They called him "cheap" when he didn't budge. Next, they ratcheted up the pressure, urging Democrats across the nation to e-mail Meehan. On Tuesday, they trotted out a Meehan supporter who has a son serving in the U.S. military in Iraq and fed the father to the press. The Lowell man implied that if Meehan didn't help the Democratic cause, his son might not come home on schedule. Yesterday, MoveOn.org's coordinator Adam Green sent an e-mail to Meehan's Lowell district manager, saying if Meehan forks over $250,000 "there is still time to make this a net positive instead of a net negative for Meehan."

Just think, like a political Mafia, MoveOn.org is willing to settle its score with Meehan for $250,000. But it's an offer Meehan can -- and should -- refuse.

Do 5th District constituents want a congressman in office who kow-tows to irresponsible bully bloggers? What's their next strong-arm campaign -- U.S. citizenship for Guantanamo detainees?

The attack on Meehan has exposed MoveOn.org for the cheap-shot blog artists they truly are. Most of what they spew on the Internet isn't even credible. In Meehan's case, the facts show he's done his fair share for the DCCC and party candidates.

First, the DCCC assessed Meehan $125,000 in party dues for the 2005-2006 election cycle, and the congressman paid up in full.

Second, Meehan also raised another $240,000 for the DCCC. On the local level, Meehan has raised $25,000 for gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick and has two more fundraisers scheduled.

Third, Meehan was the first Democrat in Congress to write a comprehensive Iraq war exit strategy for U.S troops. He doesn't have to pay up-front money to MoveOn.org to prove his point.

Meehan is a convenient MoveOn.org target because he has amassed the largest campaign war chest in the House and doesn't face a November challenger. But the bloggers overlook a crucial point: Donors contributed to Meehan because they support his political beliefs. Why should their donations go to a far-flung candidate who can't be expected to put the interests of Meehan's donors above his own?

If anything, MoveOn.org would be better served to go after Democrat deadbeats. Sixty-eight House Democrats have failed to pay their DCCC assessments, totaling an astonishing $8.6 million.

Meehan supporters should be outraged by MoveOn.org's heavy-handed tactics.

To think that these Beltway fakers, who call themselves Democratic activists, would reach into the pockets of 5th District Democrats by attempting to embarrass a sitting congressman into submission shows just how rotten these political scoundrels have become on the campaign scene.

http://www.lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_4554107
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Oct, 2006 07:03 am
she loves her Dear Leader
"I won't... I WON'T CRY!!"
No tears will o'erflow
that log in her eye
that poor dubya's been nailed on
by his marketing guy
she loves her Sad Doofus
and she ain't gonna cry



Quote:
Could it be the canary in the mine for the GOP? The NYT analyzed corporate political contributions for the first half of October, and found a clear uptick in giving to Democrats. Overall, Republicans have received bigger contributions than Democrats from top corporations, but Democrats enjoyed a "sudden change of fortune" in October. Pfizer, Lockheed Martin, United Parcel Service, Sprint, Hewlett-Packard and others decided that giving last-minute checks to Democratic candidates might be good for business after the election. Some corporate lobbyists are making reservations for an annual January ski getaway in Vail where they can cozy up (and write checks) to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, possibly the next Speaker of the House.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152444/?nav=fix
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Oct, 2006 07:12 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
In the Missouri race for Senate between Talent (r) and McGaskill (d), actor Michael J Fox did an ad for McGaskill involving stem cell research, which is actually a pretty big issue there. Mr Fox, a fairly young man, has Parkinson's disease which causes him to have uncontrollable twitching. He praised McGaskill for supporting the research but then criticised Talent and President Bush for not supporting it.
One conservative talk show host called it a pathetic attempt to use physical disability to pander for votes. He later backed off a bit.

Realjohnboy, more details about that story here - it certainly was enough to get the reasonable people at The Plank fuming, and I can well imagine:

Quote:
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS STILL A BIG, FAT...:

10.23.06
TNR The Plank

Every day, journalists face a great dilemma: Do we even bother trying to argue with the likes of Rush Limbaugh? Or do we ignore him, figuring his dishonesty and ignorance are self-evident?

Normally I opt for the latter approach, but today I'm going to make an exception.

Some of you may have heard about an advertisement running in Missouri, on behalf of Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. The ad stars the actor Michael J. Fox. In it, Fox asks voters to support McCaskill because, unlike her Republican opponent, McCaskill supports stem cell research -- which might eventually lead to a cure for Parkinson's. The ad is particularly effective because Fox is swaying back and forth during the entire ad, apparently because of the Parkinson's.

Enter Limbaugh. On today's show, while responding to some listener e-mail, Limbaugh said "when I saw the ad, I was commenting ... that he was either off his medications or he is acting. He is an actor, you know." Limbaugh then mentioned receiving e-mails arguing that Fox had admitted to going off medications during public appearances, in order to demonstrate the severity of the disease. Limbaugh went on to insist "I'm not even being critical of that," but that he still found the ad to be "exploitative."

You can listen to the segment (and see the original ad) via CrooksandLiars.com, which is where I found it.

Since I didn't hear the rest of the broadcast, I suppose it's possible I'm missing some context. But assuming I'm not, it seemed worth checking out this little tidbit, just to set the record straight: Could a patient on Parkinson's show such symptoms even while he was on his medication?

Fortunately, I have access to this thing called the Internet and this nifty search engine called Google. A few clicks led me to William J. Weiner M.D., professor and chairman of the department of neurology at the University of Maryland Medical Center. He's also director of the Parkinson's clinic there.

Even better, it turns out Dr. Weiner has a phone. When I reached him, he said he'd seen the ad earlier in the day and was fairly surprised to hear about Limbaugh's reaction. Here's why:

    What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ... He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff, and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk. And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of this movement, like what you see in the ad.
Weiner was careful to disclose that a researcher in his center recently received a grant from the Fox Foundation. But he assured me that he was on solid medical ground. I take him at his word, but I'll try to get some further confirmation later.

In the meantime, Weiner also pointed out something else I hadn't considered: Fox was actually being commendably nuanced in the ad. The actor could have said stem cells will lead to a Parkinson's cure, but he said merely that it gives patients hope -- which is accurate. There's no way to know for sure what stem cells will do for Parkinson's, or other diseases, but they have the potential to do so. The only way to find out for sure is to do the research that Limbaugh and his allies are bent on blocking.

--Jonathan Cohn


(The follow-up below is also a worrying meta-comment on the hold that Fox and folks like Limbaugh hold over the mainstream media)

Quote:
THE FOX "CONTROVERSY":

The furor on the right over Michael J. Fox has made for one of the more stomach-churning political episodes in recent times. Michelle Cottle recounts the story in TNR Online today, but the short version goes like this: Fox cut a painful-to-watch ad in which he, shaking and quite obviously suffering from Parkinson's disease, pleads with Missouri voters to pass a stem cell initiative. Rush Limbaugh then accused Fox of faking his symptoms for the ad.

Fine. Limbaugh is human sewage. Knock me over with a feather, really. What was even more disturbing, though, was this ensuing exchange, discussing the incident, on NBC's Today between Matt Lauer and Susan Estrich. I can't think of a better illustration of the chokehold the right wing has on major media outlets--not to mention the basic lack of human decency possessed by many a television "pundit"--than this:

    LAUER: And you brought up Michael J. Fox. Let me just ask you: You know, Rush Limbaugh started a lot of controversy when he said perhaps Michael J. Fox was exaggerating or faking these effects of Parkinson's disease in that ad promoting stem cell research. Didn't Rush Limbaugh just say what a lot of people were privately thinking? ... LAUER: But also, Susan, last word. If Michael Fox goes out there politically and puts himself in the fray, he has to expect to be, you know, taken to account, correct? ESTRICH: Correct. And he is being taken to account.
Fox should be "taken to account"? For suffering from Parkinson's? For putting himself out there--at great risk, no doubt, to his personal pride and dignity--and campaigning for a cause he believes is a matter of life and death? What is wrong with these people? Lauer knows "a lot of" folks who are "privately thinking" the same thing as Rush? Really? Anyone besides his golfing buddies? Last night, his former co-anchor Katie Couric jumped into the fray and badgered Fox in person on the question of whether he was being dishonest about taking his medication (because, of course, she had heard it on good authority from Limbaugh that that was the case). Fox responded: "At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak." Tough luck, Michael, get ready to be "taken to account" for that too.

The kicker came when CNN ran this headline yesterday: "Michael J. Fox ads for Democrats spark backlash." If you actually read the article, you'll note that the so-called "backlash" consists entirely of Limbaugh and his fanboys at the networks, who are no doubt as adept at medical diagnosis from afar as Bill Frist. That's enough for CNN to make it a "controversy." Good lord.

--Bradford Plumer
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Oct, 2006 08:48 pm
This would be another run-of-the-mill opinion poll story if it weren't for the salient fact that normally, it is the Republican Party that always does better among the (narrower) likely voter samples than among registered voter samples. This year, it appears, not - which is a hopeful sign. Whether it is because the Dem base is more fired up than usual or the Rep base less so, it suggests that for once, it's the Dem-leaning voters who are more likely to turn out.

Democrats trump Republicans among likely voters
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Oct, 2006 08:49 pm
Quote:
In Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum, a conservative supporter of Bush trailing in the polls, has sponsored a television advertisement depicting his moderate opponent, a pro-life Catholic, next to a mushroom cloud.


The London Times: Low blows put Bush back in contention
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 02:13 pm
Good afternoon.

Here is a statistic (which I can cite if challenged) about US elections. By the time Tuesday morning rolls around on Nov 7th, 25% of the votes will have already been cast. It used to be that, if you were not going to be able to get to the poll on election day, you could get an "absentee" ballot. But it could be cumbersome.
Now, though, voting early is becoming commonplace. In Oregon, for example, all voting is done by mail. I have heard (but probably can't cite) that as many as 40% of the votes in Tennessee will be cast before Nov 7th.
This is changing the entire campaigning process and also has some folks worried.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 02:24 pm
The worry has to do with the security of all of those votes. Could they be tampered with.
A black lady in TN said she came in early so that, if someone questioned her right to vote, she would have plenty of time to get it straightened out.

More of interest in my mind is the effect on the campaign strategies. Will the "November Surprises" become less prevelant or even more so as the parties go after the (presumably) smaller pool of voters who are undecided on election day?
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 07:26 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
The worry has to do with the security of all of those votes. Could they be tampered with.
A black lady in TN said she came in early so that, if someone questioned her right to vote, she would have plenty of time to get it straightened out.

More of interest in my mind is the effect on the campaign strategies. Will the "November Surprises" become less prevelant or even more so as the parties go after the (presumably) smaller pool of voters who are undecided on election day?


So what's the worry? If I recall correctly (I do), you said (the House, at least) would be a "Dem rout".

Things not looking so rosy for your side, all of a sudden?
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 07:58:36