funny ringtones

Hey, speaking of having Cheney as a fundraiser - didn't he promise to campaign for Darcy Burner in WA-8 (the Dem) at two press conferences?

Well? I hear she took him up on it, so when's he gonna be in Redmond/Kirkland/Mercer Island?

One month ago, Bush's approval rating in Ohio was 34% (Survey USA). Considering Cheney is even less popular than Bush (30% job approval - Harris poll, March 3-7, 2006) and his favorability rating is even worse (18% - CBS News poll, February 2006), I think anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out that Cheney is extremely unpopular in a Democratic district like Ohio's 13th. You don't need a poll - it's called common sense.

I'm not surprised Cheney is popular with the republican base - he is a liar, a bigot, a criminal, in the pocket of Big Oil, and a draft-dodger who sends other peoples' kids to die for his lies - everything 'the base' stands for.

Too bad Ohio's 13th District is not comprised of the 'the base' that Cheney is popular with - it is mostly democrats, so Cheney coming there to do a fundraiser for Foltin will do a lot more harm than good for Foltin. The more money Cheney or W raises for him, the easier it will be for Sutton to tie him to Bush, Cheney and Taft. Foltin has no chance whatsoever if he has Cheney and W fundraise for him.

While I would love nothing more than to see the Dems take the House and Senate - you anti-cheney voices seem to fail to understand Cheney could shoot Jesus in the face and the diehard Repubs would still vote for him - they are voting their hate for Dems and not for Cheney.

In fairness the diehard Dems are no better - unless something dramatic happens between now and November I will be shocked if the Dems do as well as the Beltway voices are predicting - they are failing to take into effect the "I HATE THE OTHER GUY MORE" factor

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

I'm so glad you DIMS are soooo confident that you are going to win big this November.

Sunday and today the NYT had articles relating to Ohio and November and states that Tuesday primary results shouldn't make DIMs overconfident.

What matters most about the VP being here is the message that the GOP is prepared to do whatever it takes to win this seat.

Equally important is the amount of $$ that will be generated by this visit. Don't be surprised if "W" himself comes out here to raise money for Foltin and or campaign for him. Myself, I'd take the $$ and ask the prez to skip the other part.

Cheney is extremely popular with the base and the high rollers who can aford to hear him. Do you have any poll numbers for Cheney in Ohio or the 13th Dist that show he is unpopular here? Don't confuse Cheney/Bush with Taft, someone who's numbers are certifiable here. You won't see any GOP with Taft.

Foltin already has some differences with the Prez such as opposing NAFTA and other trade agreements. He's not beholden to the Special interests like Sutton.

Actually your taxes are already paying for his flight...

OH NO!!!

Dick Cheney is coming to a Cleveland luncheon benefitting Mayor Foltin?!?!

You mean Mr. 18%-Approval-Rating!?

You mean the only person in the country who is even MORE hated then George Bush?

The same guy who shot a dude in the face?

Woe is me! Betty Sutton is doomed! Doomed I say!

Seriously though, anybody who thinks a visit from Dick Cheney is a good thing for any candidate has been living under a rock for the past five years. Any time Dick Cheney wants to come to Ohio to raise money for another wannabe-Busk-lackey-republican, I will pay for his plane ticket.

"EMILY's List" is so far to the left that they are really on the margins of society. They support abortion on demand, with no restrictions, no parental consent, 100% financed by taxpayers - even in the ninth month of pregnancy. It is hard to find a more revolting political agenda in the country today. They even opposed people like Rahm Emanuel for supposedly being too conservative and also simply that he is not a woman. I don't know how the person profiled in this article can sleep at night - devoting your career to the extremination of unborn children all in the name of so-called "reproductive freedom?" What a sick agenda.

As for Granholm, she is going down. Her campaign is wracked by turmoil and indecision. There is a civil war in the state Democratic party. The economy is in the toilet. She can't make up her mind on anything. She has accomplished nothing.

Re: abortion terminology. The term should not be "pro-life" it should be "anti-choice." Everyone is pro life. Including pro-choicers.

To Duh!

I agree with you about the anti-abortion position, but I think you miss the issue regarding the pro-abortion rights position. It is not as much about the abortion as it is control. Government did not allow the women the right to vote for a long time. Women still in many cases are subject to second-class treatment in the workplace in many instances, and so women want to have the CHOICE of what they want to do with the baby they are carrying--not the Government. They may decide to have an abortion or not to have an abortion, but they want to maintain their right to make the decision about it. What's wrong with that?

Odd how this article seems so vague on all of Emily Lists misses. They have sided with some real whackos. Maybe we should call it Emily's Loser List.

A quick follow-up: "Special Interest" groups should also be referred to by the press as what they really are: Pressure groups and Single-issue groups.

"Special Interest" just sounds nicer, and even though they are pushing their "thing" to the exclusion of everybody else's "thing", we don't want to offend them, do we?

In the interest of political and journalistic honesty, "Pressure group" and "Single-Issue group" should be brought back into everyday usage by the press.

It may not be politically correct, but I prefer the honesty of pro-abortion and anti-abortion, because that's what it's all about.

When was the last time you heard a pro-choicer talk about a choice other than abortion? Similarly, how many of the pro-lifers hold to that only until the baby is born; then war and the death penalty become okay?

Pro-abortion/anti-abortion puts the discussion right where it really is.

Those other terms are simply meant to obfuscate.

I will add EMILY's List to the one issue political activists groups that are tearing up this country. Instead of statesmen, who I will define as someone who is willing to forego the interests of a single cause for the well-being of the country, we have a group of politicians who are slaves to interest groups.

I have to wonder if having Dick Cheney at a fundraiser is a good idea for a GOPer who is trying to win in a Democratic district? Many independents don't like Dick Cheney and Sutton and the folks from Emily's List will use that to show that Foltin would be just another Bush lackey. The VP may raise alot of money but he ain't winning any votes these days.

Chris, I get the feeling you don't read the comments, but here goes anyway.

You need to replace the phrase "pro-abortion rights" with "pro-choice". It's how the groups identify themselves. This is something you've been doing over and over. Similarly, the term "pro-life" is to be preferred over "anti-abortion rights". It's such a simple thing to fix.

That situation in Kansas is true pretty much everywhere: whenever Republicans nominate a strident, gay-bashing, chauvinistic, "ugly" conservative candidate, large segments of the GOP populace are open to a moderate, appealing Democrat.

The converse is true, too: goofball liberal Democratic nominees invariably send votes to moderate Republican candidates.

Chris Esposito is dreamy!

To jhupp and rkb - thanks for the info on Kansas - that makes sense -

"I have truly become dependent on the kindness of strangers" here in this blogosphere -

These type exchanges help to fill the void created by the Beltway press.

Once again, thanks

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Viva

Good luck with that but the tone of RCCC was decidely different in post-primary interviews about OH 6 and OH 13.

jhupp, thanks for clarifying on Kansas politics!

RMill,

I agree with you that Granholm has a tight race on her hands, but I see three things working in her favor:

1) People generally like her.
2) No one is really blaming her for GM and Ford's economic woes.
3) I don't hear anyone getting enthusiastic about DeVos. He's a typical cut taxes/cut social programs economic conservative, and
considering how far in the toilet Michigan's economy is, I don't think people think that's a creative enough solution.

We'll see, but I put my money on Granholm holding on. I'd just be curious about how important EMILY's List will be in the election.

Bobby W-C, for an interesting theory on how Kathleen Sebelius was elected in Kansas (and the chances of Dems there in 2006/08), you might be interested in reading Thomas Frank's book called "What's the Matter with Kansas." I don't know much about Kansas politics, so he could be way off, but the basic argument is that there's a major schism in the republican camp between the social conservatives and econonomic conservatives, and at times the more socially moderate economic conservatives throw their support behind the democrats.

Anyone out there from Kansas to back this up?

Cheers!

Bobby, Kansas' governor has the same last name as a very popular former Congressman, which was a dramatic help. Moreover, it is said that the Kansas Republican Party is so big that the state really has three political parties, conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, and Democrats.

This is pretty evident at the state level, where the two Republican groups battle each other for dominance. This battle often results in expensive primaries and bitter infighting. As a result, four of the last seven governors (including Sebelius) have been Democrats.

However, in a Presidential election, the "two Republican Parties" don't have any infighting; by the time primary season reaches Kansas, they've already coalesced around one person. IOW, I don't think Kansas is in play in 2008.

Sebelius' name was whispered in VP conversations in 2004. Unless Clinton is the nominee, her name will likely come up again, as it should. Sebelius is a smart, effective governor and she's personable. But unless something truly bizarre happens, Kansas won't be in play in 2008. I'm pretty sure the state hasn't gone for a Democrat since 1964.

RMill:
I would not worry about GOP resources.

While the Dems have the candidate they wanted in the 13th, so too do the Republicans.

VP Dick Cheney will be in Cleveland next Monday for a luncheon on behalf of Lorain MAyor Foltin. HAven't quite decided whether or not I will make it. May send someone in my place.

I'd say it is fairly obvious that the GOP is going after OH13 despite Sutton's win. For what it's worth she won't be getting any support from Cafaro while Sawyer has charged her and EMILY's List with campaign ethics violations which appear rather egregious to me. Sawyer filed the complaint with the FEC and if true, really strikes a blow at a candidate who is using "corruption" as an issue.

THey will have their hands full in Michigan. That race is going to stay tight as the economy in Michigan will not turn around in time to help Granholm.

Sutton provides the best chance to hold onto OH13th and will push the GOP to a decision over the summer as to whether they maintain their focus and resources there.

Interestingly, reports out of Wyoming is showing the incumbant republican Barbara Cubin since 1994 is in danger of losing her seat to Democrat Gary Trauner.

A Mason Dixon poll on Feb 1 showed Cubin with a 54%-32% lead. Rasmussen, over the weekend, released a poll showing it had tightened substantially to 47% - 43%. This now becomes "one to watch" for the next Friday House Line and is the strongest indication that the GOP may be headed for a poor mid-term showing.

If the GOP is spending resources defending Wyoming house seats, how can they expect to win Democratic seats in Ohio?

While I am not really into puff pieces- I got two interesting facts out of this story - Kansas has a pro-choice Democratic Governor - "were not in kansas anymore toto" What does this say about Kansas in 2008 if the Dems have the right candidate?

The second fact is, "Capri Cafaro, who spent more than $1 million" of her own money lost to someone who spent only half that amount. Money by itself cannot buy an election -

Kudos to the people of Ohio, and my birth place on a chicken farm some 48 long years ago - Medina County, Ohio -

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com