It's a good strategy. As a NC resident, I can tell you that Dole's clout in the Senate is the main reason I intend to vote for her, even as I support Democrats elsewhere on the ballot.

Arlington Voter:
Left you a response on the Sebelius thread, reposted here since it is already in the weeds.

Sorry, I thought Arlington was in VA-8. There was a story I linked to that mentioned the extremely low turnout for the VA primaries. If you're interested, the results of the primaries are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/elections/2008/general_va.html

I'm in PA, so no voting until November for me.

I posted this earlier today but it really belongs here:

Wondering what the fall campaign will look like? From today's Washington Post:

""Repub;ican James S. Gilmore III launched his general election campaign for the US Senate on Tuesday by casting himself as a friend of "working men and women" and calling his Democratic opponent, Mark R. Warner, a liberal elitist who wants to raise taxes and weaken national security.""

Now, how creative is that?!

'Actually, Bush has governed fiscally much like a Dem: big spending, passing entitlements (especially Med Part D).'

Actually Med Part D is classically modern Republican: a trough of pork for pharma companies, which has achieved the objective of driving drug costs the way pharma companies want them to go--UP AND UP.

Don't call me Shirley :-)

Actually, Bush has governed fiscally much like a Dem: big spending, passing entitlements (especially Med Part D).

At least his management agenda has focused on competition and privatization (including A-76, for those of you who know what I'm talking about).

JD asks
"Wow, when did the Republicans turn into Democrats? What ever happened to doing things for the good of the country, not just bringing home pork?"

Surely, you jest.

But there's a pattern emerging here: The Iowa ABC reporter was wrong in presuming Obama had forgotten his flag pin. Voters were at first wrong to think Obama had seen Wright's controversial sermons, and then they wrongly and unfairly judged Wright. Then even if they were proven correct in their assessment of Wright, the press was wrong in "caricaturing" the tone of services at Trinity United. Stephanopoulos was wrong to presume that Obama's relationship with Ayers was of concern to the voters. Vieira was wrong to accuse Obama of mischaracterizing McCain's remarks.

No candidate enjoys admitting when he or she is wrong. But one of the ways Obama stood out as more than just a freshman senator when he came to Washington was his warm humanity, his humility, his willingness to express that "pang of shame."

The pang, it seems, is long gone.

The first was in the final debate of the Democratic primary, when George Stephanopoulos asked him about his relationship with William Ayers. The reaction was a mix of mild exasperation and befuddlement -- as if Stephanopoulos had asked him to defend his position on the Infield Fly rule. Obama argued that the notion that his past associations with Ayers "somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense."

But Obama's answer that Ayers was just a professor who lives in his neighborhood downplayed his long relationship with the man. Beyond the donations, early fundraiser, and service on boards together, blogger Tom Maguire notes Ayers was "instrumental in setting up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a project dedicated to public school reform which was launched in January 1995; Barack Obama was the first chairman of the group, and they worked together on it for years. Let's add that the fundraiser hosted by Ayers was in 1995, at the same time Ayers and Obama were buddying up on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge; they were hardly casual acquaintances." Noting that Obama's campaign failed to disclose this connection, Maguire suggests the rule, "where there's smoke and a guy with a fire extinguisher, there's fire."

When a reporter for the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, asked Obama where his flag pin was, Obama's answer inadvertently triggered a recurring issue on the campaign trail.

Had Obama said, "Yes, I forgot," or "it's still pinned to yesterday's suit," the issue never would have taken root. He could also have avoided the problem by saying he demonstrates his patriotism by his actions. Instead, he had to insist that the pin's absence was a deliberate choice, and offer a justification. He said he felt the flag pin had become "a substitute for I think true patriotism," perhaps unintentionally but clearly questioning the patriotism of those who still regularly wore flag pins.

It's not just reporters who question Obama unfairly -- the public does it, too. When the Jeremiah Wright videos emerged, voters thought the sermons reflected poorly on the candidate, who had chosen the church and stayed for two decades. Obama's initial response was to post a statement on The Huffington Post, stating, "the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn." Skeptics were wrong to hold Wright's comments against him, the candidate asserted, because he had never heard them, or anything like it.

Then, in his major race speech in Philadelphia, Obama shifted his position somewhat, saying, "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." Obama has never said which ones, but it's hard to see how those controversial remarks came from sermons that "always related to our obligation to love God and one another."

One of the speech's overall themes was that America had misjudged Jeremiah Wright and was jumping to conclusions on "snippets." He explicitly warned against dismissing Wright as a demagogue and a crank. Discussing the matter further on The View, he (gently) rebuked Elizabeth Hasselbeck for judging Wright on "the five stupidest things [he] had said in his life."

Then Wright went to the National Press Club, and his hour-long, bombastic, controversy-embracing performance suggested that those five things were not, in fact, out of the ordinary. The following day, Obama cut his ties to Wright -- strangely not withdrawing his finger-wagging at the nation for thinking Wright was a demagogue and a crank. He criticized commentators who had "characterized" his church. After another longtime friend and mentor, Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, offered similarly outrageous remarks from Trinity's pulpit, Obama announced Saturday that he is leaving the church. Could Obama admit that the "caricature" was in fact an accurate portrait?

mybe these guys should run ads instead about well thing are going in Iraq:

'BAGHDAD, June 10 -- High-level negotiations over the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate, with Iraqi politicians denouncing what they say are U.S. demands to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely.

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them.

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

By Jim Geraghty

As Barack Obama's campaign becomes defined by a series of embarrassments -- his assessment of what small-town residents cling to, a mentor who believes the government created HIV, a friend of 20 years who takes to the pulpit and demands whites give up 401(k) accounts to atone for their ancestor's racist sins, a wife who pledges to take away some people's pie and give it to others, an associate who expresses no regret over planting a bomb in a Pentagon women's bathroom, etc. -- it seems mind-boggling that this candidate was once promoted as a healer, a unifier, and a groundbreaking, post-partisan leader

I must take exception to those snickering at Republicans' last-ditch efforts at keeping their jobs by bragging about how much federal money they have wasted enlarging government.

The numbers must be placed into their proper perspective. The way the GOP has mismanaged the economy, the billion dollars McConnell brags about spending on Kentucky parks was only $10,000,000.00 in 1999 dollars.

Wow.

Never mind the question "When did the Republicans turn into the democrats?"

Try:

"When did the Republicans turn into the French?"

Even sadder is the fact that it's increasingly false advertising, now that the Republicans are in the minority. How much of all that money was brought in since the Dems took the majority?

Wow, when did the Republicans turn into Democrats? What ever happened to doing things for the good of the country, not just bringing home pork?

We need to elect someone like Jeff Flake, someone who doesn't play those earmark games.

I guess McCain is closer to that than Obama.

snObama = queenofpuke, I mean kingofzouk

HEH the election of "what's in it for me" is upon us. Problem is not everybody can get everything they want. Will politician commit suicide by explaining the facts of life to the country. Huge deficits, a sluggish economy. high consumer debt levels and more tax cuts for upper income....I dont think so. McCain will have a interesting time trying to convince most of us otherwise

Clearly, the RNC thinks this line of ads will be a winner, so I'd be surprised if any of the embattled R incumbents do NOT produce a similar commercial. What will be interesting to see is how McC campaigns in those states -- if he avoids his call for a moratorium on earmarks, so as not to undercut the message these ads are trying to make. If enough R incumbents choose this route, then McC may have to scrap that promise altogether.

tulsaschoolboard:
Thanks for the link to Inhofe's ad.

And one more thing, I umm, you know, like, if you ever, so, if you can, consider that, like you know, I just wanted to say that, the townhall thing will not work for me, because, you know, like, I always take a really , like, long time to say things, because, you know, mostly, I just have never thought about it or you know encountered so many questions. you know, like, I have not done much, so you will, you know, have to, like trust me. Please ignore all my associates and workers, I mean not workers, volunteers. Besides, I went to Harvard and am really smart. Everyone in all 57 states knows this. so sweetie, just get me another latte and bring back some arugula if you can afford it.

I will not make any moves without checking first with:
1. Joe Lieberman
2. Any lobbyist who will buy me lunch
3. The League of Nations
4. Any lobbyist who will spot me a fiver
5. Bob Dole's cabinet

so far today I have not made any movements in my pants.

The transactional argument is an easier one, though, for Mary Landrieu, who as a member of the majority with some seniority, would have much more clout than a freshman member of the minority caucus.

And I agree with the other posters that Dole's and McConnell's arguments undercut the fiscally responsible message that the Republicans want to send. But then, in all fairness, McConnell has never advocated or practiced fiscal responsibility.

It's not an ad, but have you seen the footage of John and Cindy McCain unveiling his health care proposal in Hollywood last week?

It's unbelievable!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgMeuGPt80c

I will not make any moves without checking first with:
1. France
2. black churches who preach hate
3. Michelle
4. Unions
5. Jimmy Carter's cabinet

so far I have not made any moves in my career so it has not been a problem.

"Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry?"

I was wondering if this post wasn't some sort of goof, but judging by some of the opinions here ... Do you think that if Obama were to make the statement today that as a matter of fact, the sun will set in the west tonight, that would be dictatorial, in the same manner that something as obvious as the unsustainability of stuffing our faces with food and SUVs with gas are?

Oy.

When it comes to opening up their wallets, Democrats would appear to be more excited than Republicans about this November's presidential election. Or are they?

The Federal Election Commission says thus far in the 2008 election cycle contributions to the Democratic Party have increased significantly: $247 million, a jump of 45 percent compared with the 2004 cycle. Republican receipts, on the other hand, declined 19 percent when compared to 2004.

Nevertheless, Republicans somehow have still managed to raise more money than Democrats during this 2008 election cycle, or just over $260 million as of April 30.

The FEC's figures also reveal that individuals are by far the largest source of federal funds for each party: 86 percent for Republicans, 77 percent for Democrats.

Republicans, the party of the little guy. Democrats, the party of the snobby elite who know it all and are happy to tell you.

Want to know who is going to win?

http://www.campaigncola.com/

A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of a recent statement Obama made:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry? Yes, it is true that Obama was saying explicitly that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries (saying) OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostats)?

Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man? Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?

(that is, the public is lowly liberalizing...)

It makes sense as a strategy. The national Republican brand is tarnished by bad foreign policy and slowly liberalizing positions on social issues. The natural move would be to focus on state-specific plans. However, McConnell and Dole both have leadership positions in the Senate that inevitably ties them to the national party. It remains to be seen whether or not the strategy works

Inhofe's ad is a great example of this Chris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsT8IzLfw00&feature=user

Translated, these adds say "Vote for me, because I am better at bleeding the federal government dry than my Democratic opponent can ever hope to be. And when my constituents get a piece of this bacon, it is an unintended consequence of the rashers of pork I am serving up hot and crispy to my corporate donors - if a few crumbs fall to the electorate, that's just gravy, baby."

The Republican Party - proudly buying your votes, on credit, since 2002.