Wedding Vows
American Wedding

Judge:

I agree that the dems are not playing as nice as in year's past. I think Chuck Shumer has done an excellent job of recruiting for 1, and he's done an excellent job of helping the democratic nominee's raise money. The situation in Conn. puts him in a crosswinds, though. But other than that, he's done an excellent job. Even as I'm a native North Carolinian and supporter of Liddy Doyle, she hasn't done the best job raising money nor recruiting. She missed David Brandon in Michigan, Dino Rossi in Washington, Nixon's son-in-law Ed Cox in NY, Tommy Franks in Florida, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, gov. John Hoeven in North Dakota, ex-gov. Paul Celluci in Mass.and Tom Osborne in Nebraska. Republicans just flat out failed to recruit the best candidates for all of these states. We did get the best candidates possible in Maryland and New Jersey, that's pretty much the best we had. McGavick is a good candidate in Washington and Bouchard in Michigan, but Rossi and Brandon would have been better. Your also right about "Bush fatigue". This is part of the recruiting problem, where Republicans really lost the battle. However, those in liberal states can't rely on a conservative to win a race. States like Washington, Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey will be tough sells for the Republican's for this reason. I think Qickstudy shouldn't judge so fast. One thing to watch is that Santorum's poll numbers historically have never been great. He wins because he puts alot of money into one of the best voter turnouts in the nation. Polls don't always tell the story with Santorum, who has lots of money and very very loyal supporters that vote! Election day will be interesting in this one. Had Doyle been able to recruit better, those democratic seats would be in play...but that was not to be. Democrats are looking good right now to gain a few seats, but let's see what happens when the mud slinging starts.

reason: I agree that money makes a difference. We've been hearing this "wait'll the negative ad barrage really gets going" mantra for a while. I think the difference is that the Dems are not playing as nice this year as before. Certainly the ads I see on TV from both sides are much nastier than before (they also tell us absolutely nothing about the candidates themselves but that's another story). If the goal is to shift the attitudes of the not-very-smart uncommitted voter those with the most bucks to spend may well win. However, "Bush fatigue" provides a headwind for the average GOP candidate in a close race. The amount of money necessary to overcome that is unknown.

These "attack ads" won't help Santorum because thankfully smear campaigns and dirty tactics are finally turning intelligent voters off! Especially since some local news stations have investigated and reported that the "campaign contribution" TV ad is full of lies and half-truths. One of the so called "contributors" in that ad has been dead for years! Santorum has more than double the financial resources in his campaign coffer(Casey $10,863,353, Santorum $21,103,542 as of 9/27/06)so I'd be very interested to know WHO has contributed to his campaign. Oil Companies, maybe? They certainly want, even need, to keep those Republicans in power if they want to continue making BILLIONS instead of only millions.

As for Stevens and the impact on Washington. The rest of the world may not like Stevens very well, but he's very popular in Alaska and will be a US senator for as long as he wants to be. Whether it's Steven's directly campaigning for McGavick or whether it's millions from oil companies who partner with Stevens, he still has an impact in Washington however you'd like to view it. I don't think his impact will hurt McGavick in the end, it's going to hurt Cantwell giving McGavick millions to spend on defeating her. I'm not sure who's going to win in the end, but October is going to be very nasty for Cantwell. McGavick is also going to use his millions to try and compare/contrast himself/Cantwell and Green Party candidate and anti-war activist Aaron Dixon. Wait to see if it doesn't divide the Cantwell/Dixon vote a little bit. McGavick will no doubt have some democratic support as well. He stands now at about 42% in the polls. Just wait until the big money is spent and mud begins to fly in October, the dynmaics of this race will change and it will be very close in the end.

Sinwitch repairman: "Since when is whatever you consider "the liberal left" (an exercise in redundance, but surely that doesn't concern you; apparently there is a "liberal right" or "conservative left" out there somewhere) the same thing as the Democratic Party establishment?"

Liberal right: R.I. Senator Lincoln Chafee and Conn. governor Jodi Rell, they are RINO's. So yes, there is a liberal right.

Conservative left: Neb. Senator Ben Nelson represents the conservative left. In one respect Conn. senator Joe Lieberman is a member, at least on foreign policy, of the conservative left. Yes, there is a conservative left.

Conservative right: Okla. Senator Tom Coburn and SD. governor Mike Rounds. Certainly they are in the conservative right.

Finally the dreaded liberal left: Yes, Mass. senator Edward "Teddy" Kennedy and U.S. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of Cali.

Wow, Nancy Pelosi and Teddy aren't part of the Democratic Party establishment....okay? I thought the plan was to vote in Pelosi as the majority leader of the US House? It's a fact that both Kennedy and Pelosi are leaders of the Democratic establishment. The only reason Pelosi has minority leader in front of her name instead of speaker or majority leader is b/c the democrats are the minority party. So yes, the liberal left certainly represents the democratic party and vice versa. I consider the liberal left "tax and spending, abortion pushing, tree hugging, gay loving, God hating, gun taking, UN appeasing liberals." This is whom and what I consider the liberal left...it fits Kennedy and Pelosi perfectly. Which are both leaders of the Democratic Party Establishment.

"Something Washington needs more of, people that will vote on conscious!"

Presumably, 'reason,' you meant 'conscience.' And presumably you aren't aware of the high irony of using that word and the phrase "Ted Stevens" (aka the supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere) in the same blog entry. Senator Stevens has been clinically diagnosed with consciencitus absentis, a rare medical condition in which a complete absence of morality or scruples is the most obvious symptom. The Senator's condition, sadly, is terminal; more alarming is the fact that it seems to be spreading rapidly throughout members of his own party. I'm sure you'll write President Bush to plead that research on stem cells be allowed to attempt to cure this condition before it is too late!

Ok, I guess I'm not done after all. Sandwich is spelled as you see it here, not "sandwhich". And the Republican Party is not aggressively supporting Tarrant in VT for the simple pragmatic reason that he has no chance of winning the race. The RNC and NRSC, like all parties and campaign committees, prioritize their resources on races where their expenditure has the best chance of making a difference. Same reason why Democrats are not pouring millions of dollars into the Senate campaign of Dale Groutage in Wyoming.

reason: If only you were capable of employing any. Corzine doesn't need party support when he's no longer in a race. He got plenty in both his 2000 Senate bid and 2005 Gubernatorial bid.

Dayton got plenty of support when he ran for Senate in 2000. No one pushed him to retire; he chose to. Is every retirement an indication that someone's party isn't supporting them? Your opinion about Dayton not liking being in DC is totally unfounded; I guess that's why you can't provide any evidence or examples backing up your claim. An educated perspective might suggest that Dayton relied heavily on the mentoring of Paul Wellstone, was deeply hurt by his death, and has never fully recovered. I'm sure that's the DNC's fault--after all Wellstone was never a self-funder.

Cantwell ALSO got plenty of support from the Democratic Party when she ran for Senate in 2000. She did have one nominal primary challenger, Hong Tran (couldn't be bothered to look up the name, eh?), who posed no threat to her of any kind. Cantwell bought out another primary rival by putting him on her payroll. Parties do not usually help their candidates in primaries--only AFTER they have become the party's nominee for office. Thus you see Ned Lamont, another self-funder, getting plenty of party support. Cantwell's opponent is McGavick, not McGaverick. Again, wouldn't REASON require getting your facts straight first? Cantwell is 17 points ahead of McGavick in the polls, and Stevens is only campaigning for her rival because she pissed him off over ANWR and Stevens' efforts to allow oil exploration in Puget Sound. Not being an incumbent, or having held any elected office, McGavick has not similarly pissed off any incumbent Dems. And Stevens is profoundly unpopular in Washington state; his presence there probably helps Cantwell more than McGavick.

Since when is whatever you consider "the liberal left" (an exercise in redundance, but surely that doesn't concern you; apparently there is a "liberal right" or "conservative left" out there somewhere) the same thing as the Democratic Party establishment? Is Howard Dean protesting outside Sen. Kohl's office?

"have did"?? Please construct an English sentence I can respond to.

Sandwhich Repairman: "How do self funders not have party support behind them?? Corzine, Dayton and Cantwell in 2000? Herb Kohl in 1988? Please."

They really don't have a huge amount of party support there. Look at the situation in NJ with Corzine. Since he's became governor, he's made hard choices and the party has backed away since then. He spent his own money against Forrester in 05'. Dayton has turned out to be a 1 term senator. He get's no real support from his party...and frankly I don't think he likes being in DC too well with all of them. That's why he retired. What has the Dem. party done for Maria Cantwell lately? Jan Tram, or whoever she was, actually ran against Cantwell and got a portion of the vote there in the primary. How many high profiled democratic officials do we see in Washington campaigning for Cantwell? We see Ted Stevens doing everything he can for McGaverick. Even Patty Murray is reluctant to face off against Stevens, b/c of his power to secure funds for people and causes. Cantwell is in a fight now against McGaverick and Steven's lobbyists and money. I doubt if her party supports her but so much. Herb Kohl gets support from the Democrative establishment? Is that why the liberal left holds demonstrations against him and his support for the national security of this nation? Also, as I mentioned, name something the party establishments have did for Mike Bloomberg and Richard Tarrant?

These people don't have to follow the party lines and do things as the party commands, b/c they are real life successes and can fund themselves. Something Washington needs more of, people that will vote on conscious!

Posted by: | September 27, 2006 03:33 PM
Posted by: | September 27, 2006 05:56 PM
Posted by: | September 27, 2006 06:07 PM

Put your damn name on your posts!

Santorum a porno fan?? Come on, he's far more mercenary than that:
"I'm not Rick the Dick, but I play him on many select adult videos" -Sen. Santorum

Remember that a huge proportion of hotel/motel profits come from porn movies. There's a major connection and industry there that most people don't seem to know about.

How do self funders not have party support behind them?? Corzine, Dayton and Cantwell in 2000? Herb Kohl in 1988? Please.

KOZ: If you hate it here so much, why don't you go away?

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Progressively worse, alternate names for "Softer Voices:"
Hearing Voices - but only the ones in your head
Auditory Hallucinations - the technical term for hearing voices which seems more accurate in characterizing Bush policy
Voices in My Head - this would also explain a lot
Voices of Reason - nope, completely incompatible
Voices Carry - "you want me, when you can keep me in line"

"fact-challenged blithering drunk bozo"
"with a thesaurus and a keyboard"

"If you want to know what a candidate stands for, don't listen to what they say" - classic
the moonbats are at it again. the black helos are approaching. I have to go now and fix some gas prices, update my election booth pirating software and torture some puppies into talking.

all the above posters represent the absolute wacked out uber-lefties that want to ruin this country. thier world is a very scary place. they never contribute anything of value to this debate and instead live on insults and lies. For once, try to come up with something reasonable for us to consider. classic Bush Derangement Syndrome.

"Rick Santorum was the largest single recipient of money from the adult film industry..."
"... these are the people who are going to be getting paid back after the election."

Surely you aren't suggesting these noted philanthropists and would have hidden motives for their generous political contributions!?!

Hey, you guys, your River Trip spawned some serious dialogue, on and off-screen, maybe try and do it one day a week, pick a major event and head out with your gear.

As for the long-trip barnstorming, maybe save it for coming political seasons., just my humble opinion that you should keep it simple for now, there's lots of river-valleys you can barnstorm between now and 08' stay .

I love the reporting Chris, keep up the good work. If you view a candidate's voting record and those people behind the candidate's fundraising, you can see the resemblence. That, to me, is why self funders get much respect from me. People that put big money into their own campaigns. Like Mike Bloomberg (NYC mayor), Jon Corizine (NJ governor) and Richard Tarrant (US senate candidate for Vt). These guys don't really have the national party support behind them, either. Does anyone wonder why?

Yeah, funny how those who are really into something are usually the ones who are so publicly against it.. look at republicans and gays...

'Methinks thou doth protest too much'.. whole lotta that among the self-righteous right.

..and don't let people forget that, other than George Bush, Rick Santorum was the largest single recipient of money from the adult film industry...and their biggest supporter (and, likely, fan too)!

Softer voices for a corrosive and polarizing figure who embodies radicalism. Santorum is both extreme and corrupt.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Chris - Thanks for getting back to normal, off the river.

I always value the reporting from the field where real people have real opinions; but it can be overdone.

That is assuming that Santorum thinks.

On Monday, Leslie Stahl asked Rick Santorum what we could have done differently in Iraq that may have made the situation better and she proposed that one option would have been to send in more troops. Rick responded that at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, just as many "field commanders" wanted fewer troops as wanted more troops.

Rick, of course, won't name any of those commanders. But as you can see from the opening paragraph of this Washington Monthly article, Generals Eric Shinseki and Tommy Franks wanted more troops, while Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz believed fewer troops should be used. Do you think Santorum thinks Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are field commanders?

Thanks for the info, Chris. This is more of the meat that I'm actually interested in. Not how much money a candiate has on hand, but where they got it. Because these are the people who are going to be getting paid back after the election.

If you want to know what a candidate stands for, don't listen to what they say, but look for who's behind them.

If it's hedge fund managers, I say the agenda is cutting the capital gains tax even more deeply... and Santorum's record would bear that out.

I don't really see how you could make Santorum the lesser of any evil. He's quite awful.

No amount of money can save Santorum. Voters have made up their minds about him. They don't like him.

The only thing that would make sense are negative ads about Bob Casey. It might be possible to transform Santorum into the lesser of two evils.

Sounds like a mob cover by the way you describe it.
I am always curious how a PO Box can raise so much money. If I tried that I would be arrested for fraud.