yeah....I didn't mean to hurt your feelings MEM.....I meant that you are so loyal to Hillary and the Dems sometimes that you fail to at the very least recognize their shortcomings.
Quote: PJP said: I'm basing that remark on your whole body of work here at the RKMBs......which is the furthest thing in the wrold away from Fair Play.
The Florida Democratic Party will stick with a Jan. 29 presidential primary even if it means losing all its nominating convention delegates, a party source said Saturday.
The Democratic National Committee gave the state party until Sept. 29 to come up with an alternative delegate selection plan to stay within party rules, such as caucuses or a vote-by-mail primary, but party leadership has rejected that idea.
State party Chairman Karen Thurman, members of the congressional delegation and state legislative leaders were scheduling a news conference Sunday to announce their position. State party staff has been polling executive committee members and determined at least 75 percent support for the early primary, the source said. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because executive committee members were still be notified.
Broward County state committeewoman Diane Glasser, who also serves as state party first chair, said that she is fine with the decision as long as the state selects delegates in the event that they can go to the convention in Denver next summer.
Well I was hoping the death of Jerry Falwell would amount to something more substantial than no longer having to hear idiotic reasoning's as to why children's cartoon characters were indoctrinating kids into gaydom.
This apparently is good for G-Man's Man, Rudy Giuliani but bad for the gOP in general. This really is starting to look like the end of an era in American politics. Not a very pleasant one either. Thank goodness.
AT THE CORE: Concern over security could lead Christian conservatives to overlook disagreements with Rudolph Giuliani, above, at a campaign stop in a Kirkland, Wash., cafe last month.
Conservative Christian leaders are increasingly reluctant to get political, leaving a key Republican voting bloc divided. The trend may help Giuliani but hurt the GOP in the long term.
By Stephanie Simon and Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers November 15, 2007
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. -- A fundamental shift is transforming the religious right, long a force in presidential politics, as aging evangelical leaders split on the 2008 race and a new generation of pastors turns away from politics altogether.
The result, in the short term, could be a boost for the centrist candidacy of former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose messy personal life and support for gay rights and legal abortion have not produced the unified opposition from Christian conservatives that many anticipated.
Over the longer term, the distancing of religious leaders from politics could prove even more consequential, denying the GOP one of the essential building blocks it has used to capture the White House in five of the last seven presidential races.
The shift is evident in this Rocky Mountain community at the heart of the evangelical movement.
"As far as me standing in the pulpit holding a voter guide, that's not going to happen," said the Rev. Brady Boyd, 40, who leads a congregation of 10,000 at New Life Church. He will use his position to teach the Bible to believers. "I won't use it to influence their vote," he said.
That suits many in his congregation just fine. "If he starts talking politics, that makes me very uneasy," said Wolfgang Griesinger, 56, a political independent.
"It's not his place to tell us who to vote for," said Marsha Thorson, 54, a Republican who is leaning toward Giuliani.
Black churches have a long tradition of political activism, mostly on the Democratic side. White evangelical churches did not assert themselves politically until Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, when first the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition began organizing on behalf of Republicans.
The term "evangelical" refers to Christians who claim a personal relationship with Christ and consider the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed. They are a huge group -- about one in four voters -- and far from monolithic; their ranks include Pentecostals, charismatics, Southern Baptists and many others. Some worship to rock music, others to hymns; some speak in tongues. Some believe God preordained those headed to heaven; others hold that anyone can achieve salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Former Presidents Carter and Clinton are evangelicals, as is President Bush.
Despite that diversity, evangelicals have become a reliable -- and increasingly crucial -- Republican voting bloc. Many were drawn to Bush in 2000 because of his conservative stance on social issues and his story of turning to Christ to overcome a drinking problem. He won the support of more than eight in 10 Christian conservatives in 2000 and nearly nine of 10 in 2004, according to Los Angeles Times exit polls.
But in the three years since, many Christian conservatives have expressed a growing unease about the entanglement of politics and pulpit. Among young evangelical adults, nearly half say involvement in politics is problematic, according to a new book, "unChristian," from the evangelical research firm the Barna Group.
Some of that disillusionment comes from disappointment with Bush's policies, including the war in Iraq. But there's also shame at the often-bombastic, sharply partisan rhetoric of the traditional standard-bearers for conservative Christian values, including televangelist Pat Robertson, 77; the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died this spring at age 73; and radio host James C. Dobson, 71.
One-third of evangelicals under 30 told Barna that they were embarrassed to call themselves believers.
"They're tired of the hard-edged politics that the Christian right has practiced in the last couple of generations," said John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. "They see all this division, all this anger, without a lot to show for it."
Mega-church pastors have capitalized on that frustration by offering a different brand of Christianity. With sunny, affirming services, they cast a broad welcome net -- and fill arena-size sanctuaries each Sunday.
They may promote a cause, such as AIDS relief in Africa. But endorse a candidate? Push a partisan agenda? That could empty half their pews. Few up-and-coming pastors want to risk such a backlash.
"There's nothing in it for them," said Timothy Morgan, deputy managing editor of the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. "It just gets people stirred up."
Florida pastor Troy Gramling, 40, recently preached a series he called "My Naked Pastor," which involved airing his every thought to webcams that followed him around the clock. Make that almost every thought: Gramling said he would never announce to his congregation of 14,000 how he planned to vote.
"That would be putting pressure on them to agree with me, and I don't feel I have a right to do that," Gramling said. "God doesn't call me and tell me who's his favorite."
Mega-church pastors often argue that Christians don't need big names to tell them whom to vote for; they need solid biblical teaching, which they can use to screen each candidate for proper values. But that leaves it up to the voters to determine which values should be the litmus test.
In previous years, the test was obvious: A godly leader must oppose abortion and gay rights and possess a strong Christian faith. This year, the evangelical establishment has sent voters a strong signal that they can feel free to branch away from that trinity.
Robertson, for instance, overlooked Giuliani's three marriages, his brief cohabitation with a gay couple, and his support for abortion rights to endorse him as the best candidate to fight terrorism.
Fundamentalist Bob Jones III, 68, made it clear that he believed that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, follows a false religion. Yet Jones, chancellor of the university that bears his name, backed Romney on the grounds that he could win the White House.
Dobson has declined to endorse anyone -- despite repeated pleas from supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist preacher who holds textbook religious right positions on social issues. Instead, Dobson has hinted that he may support a third-party candidate.
The disarray on the Christian right -- coupled with the striking silence of mega-church pastors -- means that Republicans can't count on the mass voter turnout drives that helped so much in years past.
"The days when Ralph Reed [and his Christian Coalition] could mobilize tens of thousands of followers are gone," said Rich Galen, an advisor to GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee. "In terms of suddenly turning on a spigot of funds and volunteers and direct mail, that just doesn't happen anymore."
Marvin Olasky, editor in chief of the Christian newsmagazine World, offers this perspective: "Anyone who talks about delivering the evangelical vote might as well apply for a job as a herder of cats."
The upheaval has also left an opening for Democrats, who are aggressively wooing evangelical voters by framing issues such as global warming, healthcare reform and the war in Iraq as moral priorities. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, the party's two presidential front-runners, discuss their faith openly and often, a notable contrast with past Democratic hopefuls.
The Democrats don't expect to swing the entire bloc of conservative religious voters their way next November. "But it's going to be such a close election that even 2 percentage points would make a huge difference," said D. Michael Lindsay, author of a new book on evangelical influence, "Faith in the Halls of Power."
Here at New Life Church, the congregation includes Democrats as well as independents and Republicans, and Boyd says he figures they all come to hear his take on the Gospel, not the latest Gallup poll.
"I don't think that as believers, as Christians, we should back away from the political scene. . . . But there's a correction happening now in the local church," he said.
New Life's founder, Ted Haggard, never hesitated to remind his congregation of his close ties to the Bush administration. Haggard resigned last year after encounters with a male prostitute, but the church's reputation as a political force remains; Boyd said he had been courted by several elected officials since arriving in Colorado Springs.
He meets with the politicians -- but only to see if he can offer them spiritual guidance.
"I'm a pastor," he said. "That's what I'm called to do."
stephanie.simon@latimes.com
mark.barabak@latimes.com
Simon reported from Colorado Springs and Barabak from San Francisco.
Mark Halperin, editor at large and senior political analyst for Time magazine, seems to admit that the national political reporters spend too much time on campaign tactics and not enough on issues:
MORE than any other book, Richard Ben Cramer’s “What It Takes,” about the 1988 battle for the White House, influenced the way I cover campaigns.
I’m not alone. The book’s thesis — that prospective presidents are best evaluated by their ability to survive the grueling quadrennial coast-to-coast test of endurance required to win the office — has shaped the universe of political coverage.
Voters are bombarded with information about which contender has “what it takes” to be the best candidate. Who can deliver the most stirring rhetoric? Who can build the most attractive facade? Who can mount the wiliest counterattack? Whose life makes for the neatest story? Our political and media culture reflects and drives an obsession with who is going to win, rather than who should win.
For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.
But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.
Case in point: Our two most recent presidents, both of whom I covered while they were governors seeking the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are wildly talented politicians. Both claimed two presidential victories, in all four cases arguably as underdogs. Both could skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign.
But their success came not because they convinced the news media (and much of the public) that they would be the best president, but because they dominated the campaign narrative that portrayed them as the best candidate in a world-class political competition. In the end, both men were better presidential candidates than they were presidents.
So if we for too long allowed ourselves to be beguiled by “What It Takes” — certainly not the author’s fault — what do those of us who cover politics do now? After all, Mr. Cramer’s style of campaign coverage is alluring in an election season that features so many candidates with heroic biographies and successful careers in and out of politics. (Not to mention two wide-open races.)
Well, we pause, take a deep breath and resist. At least sometimes. In the face of polls and horse-race maneuvering, we can try to keep from getting sucked in by it all. We should examine a candidate’s public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance. But what might appear simple to a voter can, I know, seem hard for a journalist.
If past is prologue, the winners of the major-party nominations will be those who demonstrate they have what it takes to win. But in the short time remaining voters and journalists alike should be focused on a deeper question: Do the candidates have what it takes to fill the most difficult job in the world?
GOP rivals square off in YouTube showdown RAW STORY Published: Wednesday November 28, 2007
Republican presidential contenders are facing a field of unknown debate questioners in St. Petersburg, Fla., Wednesday night -- ordinary Americans, who submitted their queries for the candidates via YouTube.
The evening's first question touched on illegal immigration, a particularly contentious issue among many in the Republican field. In a YouTube submission addressed to Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor was asked if he would "aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens" into the US. The questioner also accused Giuliani of running a "sanctuary city" for illegals during his time as mayor.
"The reality is, New York City was not a sanctuary city," Giuliani responded, adding that the city had deported illegal immigrants that had "committed a crime or was suspected of a crime." He went on to add that as president, he would stop people crossing the American border by "deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence...and just stopping people from coming in."
Asked by moderator Anderson Cooper if New York City was in fact a "sanctuary city," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney responded, "Absolutely."
"It called itself a sanctuary city," he continued, "and as a matter of fact, when the Welfare Reform Act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status."
Given an opportunity to respond, Giuliani quickly ratcheted up the intensity of the evening's rhetoric. "It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the worse record," he said. "In his case there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them. There was even a sanctuary mansion -- at his own home illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned in to anybody or by anyone...so I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city."
Romney, standing at a podium adjacent to Giuliani's, shot back that the former mayor knew "better than that," as the two candidates talked over one another. "You did, you did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?" Giuliani interjected.
"No, I did not," said Romney. "If you're a homeowner, and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home...if you hear someone that's working out there -- not that you've employed, but that the company has -- if you hear somebody with a funny accent, you as homeowner are supposed to go out there and say 'I want to see your papers.' Is that what you're suggesting?"
The exchange between the two candidates dominated the first portion of the debate, with Giuliani going on to accuse Romney of having a "holier than thou attitude" about his approach to immigration. "Immigration is not holier than thou, mayor, it's against the law," responded Romney.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) was the first to respond to another immigration-themed question, which asked whether the candidates would pledge as president "to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally."
"Yes, I'd pledge that," said Thompson. "A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded, "Yes, of course," to the question, but added "and we never proposed amnesty...we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well and they need some protections under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion."
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who has centered much of his campaign on the immigration issue, later joked that the candidates were attempting to "out-Tancredo" him.
Immigration-related disagreements raged on in an exchange between former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and Romney. Discussing tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants, Huckabee had said that that children should not be "punished because their parent committed a crime."
"Mike, that's not your money. That's the taxpayers' money," Romney responded after saying Huckabee reminded him of "liberals in Massachusetts."
As the evening's focus later shirted to government spending, libertarian-leaning candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was asked if he could name three federal programs he would cut from the budget.
"I would like to change Washington and we could by cutting three programs such as the Department of Education...the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security..." He then went on to critique US foreign policy. "And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars and we can spend most of that, or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home."
Sen. McCain responded to Paul's comments moments later. "I've heard him now in many debates talking about bringing out troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed. "And I want to tell you," he said, facing Paul, "that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II...we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement." McCain, who spent Thanksgiving in Iraq, told Paul that the troops' message was "let us win."
"The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active-duty officers -- military personnel," Paul responded. "I'm not not an isolationist."
Later in the evening, a series of YouTube video submitters asked a series of questions about abortion. Asked whether he would signed a federal abortion ban passed by Congress -- in the event that the landmark abortion case Roe vs. Wade was overturned -- Giliani said he would "probably not sign it. I would leave to the states to make that decision." He added that he didn't believe that abortion should be criminalized.
Gov. Romney said he would "welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion in this country" and would be "delighted to sign that bill." Commenting about his former advocacy of a woman's right to choose, a position he held as governor, Romney said he had been wrong. "If people in this country are looking for someone who's never made a mistake on a policy issue and is not willing to admit they're ever wrong, they're going to have to find somebody else. On abortion, I was wrong."
Asked what those involved in abortions -- both women and doctors -- should be charged with should abortion become illegal, Rep. Paul warned against having a "federal abortion police," adding that issue was best left in the hands of individual states.
In a subsequent YouTube question, a submitter held a a bible to in front of the camera and asked the candidates if they believed "every word of this book."
Giuliani said he believed it, "but I don't believe it necessarily literally true in every single respect...I think it's the greatest book ever written, I read it frequently, I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life."
"Yeah, the Bible is the word of God," said Romney, pressed by Cooper as to whether he believed every word. "I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God," he added.
Huckabee, an ordained minister, said he believed the Bible was "exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself." He continued, however, that there were allegorical elements in the scriptures.
As the evening moved into ts final segment, which focused on foreign policy, the GOP contenders fielded a question about the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding.
Asked how Republican candidates could disagree with Sen. McCain's position on the subject given his "first-hand knowledge" as a POW during the Vietnam War, Romney said McCain was an "expert," but added that he didn't believe the presidential candidates should describe acceptable interrogation measures. He continued that he opposed torture, but did not directly answer a follow-up question from Cooper pressing him about whether he considered waterboarding to meet that definition.
"Well, Governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is," McCain replied solemnly, addressing Romney. "I'm astonished you would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone who we are [holding] captive, and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's a violation of the Geneva conventions; it's a violation of existing law."
McCain later said that waterboarding was "clearly the definition of torture," and added that "life is not 24and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane yet effective."
On the subject of gays in the military, a retired brigadier general, who is gay, asked the candidates if military service men and women were "professional" enough to serve with gays and lesbians. Romney and McCain said they believed the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy seemed to be working. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), stated that he felt homosexuals in uniform was a danger to "unit cohesion."
The debate, co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube, was the Republicans' eighth major confrontation of the 2008 campaign. People from across the country submitted as many as 5,000 videos.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads in national polls but trails former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in early-voting Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney faces challenges from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa, and from Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire.
Key day for both parties as voters in more than 20 US states make their choice of candidates... as more than 20 states vote in the United States' Super Tuesday primary elections – the country's largest-ever such vote.
Polls indicate a close finish between Barack Obama and the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in the 22 Democratic state primaries, with the gap still closing.
Meanwhile, Republicans are contemplating a different situation, with John McCain hoping his commanding lead over his conservative rival, Mitt Romney, will give him a knockout blow that effectively ends the race.
Mr Obama polls 43 points to Mrs Clinton's 45 in CNN's Poll of Polls, as his numbers close with hers in a battle in which 1,618 delegates will be chosen for a summer convention, where 2,025 are needed for victory.
Mr Obama's managers say a good showing today will provide momentum for further primary battles later this month.
Mrs Clinton's campaign is, meanwhile, hoping her lock on the party machine will keep her ahead.
The Republican race is dominated by an ebullient Mr McCain, who has begun pushing into the centre ground of American politics with an eye on the presidential race itself.
Meanwhile, the conservative wing of the party is split between Mr Romney and the third-placed challenger, Mike Huckabee.
All eyes are on California, biggest of all the states, with 370 delegates. For the Republicans, it is a must-win state for Mr Romney.
Mr Obama trails Mrs Clinton there by two percentage points, while a third of voters say they have not made up their minds.
The uncertainty over Tuesday's race comes in part because it has never happened before. Never have so many voters – 40 per cent of the total – voted in primary ballots on the same day.
The Republicans have 1,023 delegates at stake. Mr McCain leads with 93 delegates, followed by Mr Romney with 77, Mr Huckabee at 40 and Texas Congressman Ron Paul with four, according to the latest tally.
For Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, the Democrats award their delegates proportionally and the two campaigns have said they do not expect either candidate to deal the knockout blow to secure the nomination from today's results.
Originally, the state primary elections were spread across the calendar, allowing candidates to conduct "whistle-stop" tours of the nation.
But in a race to be among the first states to poll, the original total of seven Super Tuesday states has swollen to 24.
Privately, many campaign officials are furious that candidates cannot hope to dovetail their messages to individual states.
It will be interesting tomorrow. I've never caucussed before but plan to even though I'm pretty much drowning in Obama worship where I live. G-man I'm counting on you to have your MEM-"Leave Hillary alone!" graphic ready for a likely sour grapes post from yours truly. Then again who knows about them polls except that they've usually been wrong when it comes to Obama & Hillary.
If it makes you feel better, MEM, I doubt that either Obama or Clinton will be down for the count after today. I think it's a real horse race for your side of the aisle and perhaps even a brokered convention.
It's been decades since the Democrats have controlled the New York State Senate. Decades. But, tonight, they moved within one vote of control. With a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Assembly, the State is on the verge of becoming the blue bastion it should be:
Quote:
Democrat Darrel Aubertine has upset Republican Will Barclay in the special election for New York State's 48th Senate District – slicing the Republican majority in the State Senate to just one.
With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the Associated Press projected the victory. Aubertine has 27,532 votes, or 52 percent, to 25,001 votes for Barclay, 48 percent.
This win is HUGE. it is a bellwether race - in a district that has nearly twice as many republicans as Democrats.
State legislatures matter. A lot. Control of state legislatures matters. A lot.
I live near (but don't vote in) this district and got to see the commercials these guys put out against each other on TV.
Barclary was a fairly unappealing candidate. He looked like Bill Gates (only younger and dorkier) and had no presence. I'm not terribly surprised by this result. The "red" parts of NYS have always been sort of purple.
On the bright side, if the Senate flips, NY will be truly a one-party rule state for the first time in my life. It might be fun to see what the state that already has the highest tax burden in the nation thinks of the Democrats after a few years of complete Democrat domination.
Oh, the House Republicans are so screwed. The Hill has yet another look at GOP prospects -- and the potential for GOP leadership changes. It's delicious:
Quote:
The sky is falling on House Republicans and there is no sign of it letting up.
The GOP loss in Mississippi’s special election Tuesday is the strongest sign yet that the Republican Party is in shambles. And while some Republicans see a light at the end of the tunnel, that light more likely represents the Democratic train that is primed to mow down more Republicans in November.
The third straight House special election loss in three conservative districts this year is a clear indication that the GOP brand is turning off voters and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is in disarray.
In the wake of the devastating loss, the first question facing House Republican leaders is whether they will keep Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) as NRCC chairman. Speculation has been rampant that Cole would be asked to step down should Republicans lose in Mississippi, and on Tuesday that chatter intensified.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will be under tremendous pressure to do something dramatic after the trio of losses. Boehner has publicly clashed with Cole over staffing and lackluster fundraising numbers but despite their differences, their political futures are tied together.
Significant gains by House Democrats this fall would likely lead to Boehner and Cole losing their leadership posts. Travis Childers (D), who narrowly defeated Greg Davis (R) on Tuesday, will push the Democrats’ total in the House to 236 members. With six months to go until the elections, political analysts and observers are suggesting Democrats could reach 250 in the next Congress.
Some Republican conference members have criticized Boehner for not effectively managing Cole.
GOP strategists and lobbyists have also questioned Boehner’s leadership. One Republican source noted that, after Boehner called for staffing changes at the NRCC, Cole refused and triumphed in the showdown.
Last night, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Glen Davis in Mississippi's First Congressional District. The Republican party was spending a boatload of money to save what should be a solid GOP seat. They failed BIG TIME. The final margin was an impressive 8-point victory: 54% - 46%.
The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated. The Republican party is in serious trouble in 2008. This is their third loss in a row of open house seats in GOP districts. Tim Russert even acknowledged how big this is for Democrats saying, "That is a seismic election, believe me." Huckabee just admitted that this is bad for the Republicans. The Democratic Party are on our way to a historic election.
As the NY Times reported yesterday, the GOP tried to make Obama the issue in Mississippi.
Quote:
Hoping to hang on to a Congressional seat in a tight special election here on Tuesday, Republicans in this mostly white and very conservative district are trying to make the vote more a referendum on Senator Barack Obama than on the candidates themselves.
In advertisements and speeches, Republicans have repeatedly associated Travis Childers, the white Democrat threatening to take the seat away from the Republican Party, with Mr. Obama. Republicans say Mr. Obama’s liberal values are out of place in the district. But for many Democratic veterans here, the tactic is a throwback to the old and unwelcome politics of race, a standby in Mississippi campaigning.
Former Gov. William Winter, a Democrat, expressed shock at the current campaign.
“I am appalled that this blatant appeal to racial prejudice is still being employed,” said Mr. Winter, who lost the 1967 governor’s race after his segregationist opponent circulated handbills showing blacks listening to one of his speeches. Mr. Winter went on to win the governor’s office 12 years later.
That tactic failed.
The GOP has got nothing...nothing going for it this year.
Here's the statement on this win tonight from Senator Obama. The defeat of the GOP and its ugly campaign was also a victory for the Democratic nominee for President:
Quote:
"I want to congratulate Congressman-elect Travis Childers on winning this special election. By electing Travis in this traditionally overwhelmingly Republican district, the people of Mississippi voted to end the politics of division and distraction, and bring about real change. This is the third special election in recent months that Democrats have won in traditionally Republican areas -- an unmistakable sign that Americans want to make a clean break from the failed Bush policies of the past - and are not looking for four more years of those failed policies from John McCain. I look forward to working with Travis in the months ahead to fix our economy, and make a difference in the lives of America's hardworking families," said Barack Obama.
A Republican lost in a heavily Republican district running ads about the Democrat as being linked with Barak Obama and Reverend Wright and the Democrat still WON big??
Seems the Republicans should really be worried about now. Their fall strategy just fizzled out and with their OWN People!
The Washington Post tells us that Republicans are turning on themselves. It's getting ugly on Capitol Hill. Republican fratricide is becoming an epidemic. Couldn't happen to a better group of people:
Quote:
House Republicans turned on themselves yesterday after a third straight loss of a GOP-held House seat in special elections this year left both parties contemplating widespread Democratic gains in November.
In huddles, closed-door meetings and hastily arranged conference calls, some Republicans demanded the head of their political chief, while others decried their leadership as out of touch with the political catastrophe they face.
GOP leaders sought yesterday to "re-brand" the party with a new slogan and renewed pledges of fiscal rectitude and limited government. But the slogan -- "The Change You Deserve" -- came under mocking fire, because it parallels Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" motto and it mirrors the advertising slogan for the antidepressant Effexor.
Having Bush out there tellign people of the great sacrifice he made for the troops (giving up golf) isn't helping much either.
I see playing to white fears of Obama and Wright simply didn't do it. People are more pissed off at Bush than they are afraid of change. And that seems to include Republicans as well.
Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:
Quote:
Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.
The feared setback for Republicans, coming two years after their 2006 drubbing, is unusual for several reasons. It is rare for a party to lose two election cycles in a row. And many expect losses even if their presidential candidate, John McCain, captures the White House....
"It's like 2006 never ended for Republicans," said Jennifer Duffy, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of 10 to 20 seats in the House and four to seven in the Senate....
The dynamics at work: voters' sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge....
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is heading Senate Republicans' re-election effort, recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that it would be "a great night" if his party can hold Democratic pickups in the Senate to three or four seats in November.
Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:
Quote:
Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.
The feared setback for Republicans, coming two years after their 2006 drubbing, is unusual for several reasons. It is rare for a party to lose two election cycles in a row. And many expect losses even if their presidential candidate, John McCain, captures the White House....
"It's like 2006 never ended for Republicans," said Jennifer Duffy, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of 10 to 20 seats in the House and four to seven in the Senate....
The dynamics at work: voters' sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge....
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is heading Senate Republicans' re-election effort, recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that it would be "a great night" if his party can hold Democratic pickups in the Senate to three or four seats in November.
Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:
Quote:
Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.
The feared setback for Republicans, coming two years after their 2006 drubbing, is unusual for several reasons. It is rare for a party to lose two election cycles in a row. And many expect losses even if their presidential candidate, John McCain, captures the White House....
"It's like 2006 never ended for Republicans," said Jennifer Duffy, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of 10 to 20 seats in the House and four to seven in the Senate....
The dynamics at work: voters' sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge....
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is heading Senate Republicans' re-election effort, recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that it would be "a great night" if his party can hold Democratic pickups in the Senate to three or four seats in November.
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:
Quote:
Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.
The feared setback for Republicans, coming two years after their 2006 drubbing, is unusual for several reasons. It is rare for a party to lose two election cycles in a row. And many expect losses even if their presidential candidate, John McCain, captures the White House....
"It's like 2006 never ended for Republicans," said Jennifer Duffy, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of 10 to 20 seats in the House and four to seven in the Senate....
The dynamics at work: voters' sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge....
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is heading Senate Republicans' re-election effort, recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that it would be "a great night" if his party can hold Democratic pickups in the Senate to three or four seats in November.
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
[/youtube]... 
