October 31, 2006
Courtesy of Jim Geraghty's "Jedi Council".
I am seeing so many different polls that are contradicting each other in so many crucial races I've stopped looking at them. I think back to 2004 and 2002. My gut says the GOP holds onto both chambers. We'll see.
It wasnt that long ago when Ned Lamont was the most beloved figure amongst the Nutroots. But lately, the Nutroots have turned on their erstwhile hero like the pack of rabid Chihuahuas that they are. One can hardly read a left wing blog without seeing opprobrium hurled in Nedrenalines direction for the awful campaign that he has run.It doesn't matter how loud you scream, how hard you stamp your feet or how many vulgarities you post - on election day you're only one vote. Allow me to quote Willy Wonka: "Everyone gets one, and one is enough for everyone."
In truth, Lamont was straitjacketed by his primary campaign. Its not exactly like tacking to the sensible center was an option once he had a bunch of overly-enthused moonbats whopping it up in his living room.
But the real point of the Lamont campaign is that even in left of center Connecticut, theres not much enthusiasm for the Democratic candidates beyond the fevered base which admittedly has enthusiasm to spare. But in America, you only get to vote once regardless of how passionate you are about a candidate or the issues. Its that little technicality, and not any meta-campaign failures, that have doomed the Lamont campaign and suggest a bad moon rising for the left.
October 26, 2006
Democrats may say what they please and do as they please - Republican speech must be carefully scrutinized for any hint of inappropriateness - and all Republicans be immediately called on to disavow anything anywhere done with less than perfect gentlemanliness & elegance.Go read the whole thing here.
Democrats may strike in any way they like - and may go sobbing to the media if they get back any portion of what they dish out.
And it works, because after all: in this game, the ref wears their jersey.
Honestly, what a bunch of pussies.
"How does a mother put that into words?"
And will Democrat Joe Courtney do all he can to keep our soldiers safe? Or will he vote to cut funding for our troops? I have no doubt that voters who can answer these questions honestly will pull the lever for Simmons on Nov. 7th. Plain and simple.
Earlier this year I would have thought CT-2 to be the most vulnerable of the three Senate races. Now I'd have to say its more likely CT-4. CT-5 is safe at this point.
h/t: The RCP Blog
Lefties will rightly assume that this decision hurts Democrats but for the wrong reason. They believe that any effect will be the result of Christian Right bigotry against gays.
Wrong. This is the major fallacy on which they assess opposition to same-sex marriage. Certainly anti-gay bigotry exists to a certain extent but most Christian Conservatives don't "hate gays" as many on the Left would assert (as if they even know any). Liberals find it so easy to hate their political opponents that they have trouble grasping the concept that you can be opposed to something without being motivated by the same kind of hatred.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is a majority opinion in this country because a majority of the population is against redefining the institution of marriage. If same-sex couples were to simply seek legal rights comparable to those that afforded to traditional marriage - something along the lines of domestic partnerships or civil unions - they would run into very little opposition. But in the minds of most Americans, a redefinition of a cultural institution like marriage is neither desired nor warranted. And when this happens via judicial fiat rather than the consent of the governed, then you have a problem.
Gays rightly want to have the ability to determine issues such as hospital access, estate planning, tax partnerships, and so on -- the "incidentals of marriage", as the court puts it. The court ordered the legislature to recognize these relationships as either marriages or civil unions, but both are basically contractual relationships, and the government recognizes and enforces these routinely...What the NJ Supreme Court has done is remind voters - two weeks out from a mid-term election - about the importance of having a Judiciary that interprets laws rather than making them up at their own whim. The President has a six-year record of appointing the former and, in order to ensure that this continues for the next two years, the Senate must remain Republican-controlled. And even that doesn't guaranty anything.
...This issue really is simple. If two adults want to live together, nothing stops them from doing so, no matter the gender composition of the relationship. The government cannot stop adults from doing so, and has no real interest in doing so. What gays want is an active government sanction for the relationship, and that is a legitimate public policy interest for the people of New Jersey -- and the people should make that decision. As long as gay couples can contract as described above, no one faces any kind of discrimination for their relationships.
Mary Katherine Ham puts it another way:
Gee, wouldn't this all be easier if we could vote on this kind of thing?Again, how exactly will this affect turnout among both Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents? Impossible to tell.
Political implications? Big reminder to the social conservative base and other folks worried about the judiciary that they don't cotton to courts making these decisions for them.
But voters now have some new post-election consequences to chew on in the voting booth. And for States like Tennessee and Virginia that have same-sex marriage bans on the ballot this year it could provide the kind of motivated turnout that heavily favors the GOP and keeps their Senate seats - and Senate control - in Republican hands.
TN Rep. Harold Ford (Dem candidate for Senate) spoke out against the ruling and supports the TN same-sex marriage ban. And Kos is pissed.
October 25, 2006
My money is on a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
Either way, we'll have a new significant issue to reflect on two weeks out from an election.
h/t: AmSpec Blog
Boom. NJ Court pulls a Massachusetts. Rules in favor of "rights" for same-sex couples but gives NJ legislature six months to decide whether call it same-sex marriage or just civil unions. Media frenzy to follow...
Captain Ed thinks that - once again - the MSM is "misunderestimating" his political capital.
Stolberg undermines her own thesis, although readers have to press several paragraphs into the piece to figure that out. First, Bush has raised a lot of money in the areas where he has campaigned; the Sarasota visit raised $375,000 for a Congressional campaign, a rather impressive showing; the average cost of an entire Congressional campaign hovers around $2 million as of 2004. Bush raised 20% of that in one showing. He has also campaigned for George Allen, who now leads James Webb, as well as incumbents likely to win re-election such as Richard Pombo in California -- hardly a place where a Republican albatross would show up.The President's approval ratings may be saging among those who are inclined to dislike him anyway, but despite the intra-party bitching lately his presence in this campaign is a plus in driving up enthusiasm throughout the base.
Once again, Bush seems to have confounded political analysts. In 2002, pundits expressed surprise that Bush would risk his standing as President by campaigning in a midterm election the Republicans were sure to lose. He went full throttle on campaign mode for that election, and voters rewarded him with clear control of the Senate and a wider margin in the House. In 2004, analysts were certain that Bush would lose in the middle of an unpopular war and were proven wrong once again, although in their defense no one expected the Democrats to pick such a poor challenger as John Kerry.
October 24, 2006
the new RNC video is up. I like the "Oh-Eh-Oh" chant at the end.
...but of course, it's for the "Common Good", right?
The MSM is trying their hardest to dampen GOP spirits. And another day brings another poll - one that says to Republicans: "You're Doomed!"
But hold on a minute, we ought to take a closer look behind the numbers. And BullDogPundit - once again - points out some peculiarities that go to the heart of its credibility.
In the poll, 22% of respondents arent even eligible to vote. And of those 78% that are registered, a full 25% either claimed they would probably vote, or that chances were, at best 50/50 that they would do so. And strangely, 78% were registered, 22% werent and 3% had no opinion. Um, thats 103%, which strangely does match the historical voting participation rate in many of many urban areas, graveyards, pet stores, homeless shelters (in Democrat wards) and Alzheimers wings of nursing homes.Add to that all these polls of local races that show conflicting results and - call me silly - I'd have to say that I'm having a hard time believing the hype.
Whats also interesting is that the poll doesnt ask these people if they actually voted in 2004 (or 2002), and if so, who they voted for.
Further, just looking at the demographics should give you pause. The poll is made up of 35% Independents and Others, which Republicans only make up 28% of all respondents (Democrats make up 30%). In 2004, only 26% of voters were Independents, and that was in a Presidential race. So come on, do these idiots really think that on election day 40% of voters are going to be unaffiliated with either party? Give me a break.
And neither side should. This is going to come down to turn out - pure and simple. And for the last two election cycles, the GOP has the edge there. It's GOTV is effective. The Democrats GOTV comes down to bribing homeless people with booze and smokes.
DNC Chair Howard Dean has been squandering money on his 50-state pipedream and now his Committee is resorting to borrowing money, while Republicans have plenty of cash on hand.
Two weeks to go and a Democrat takeover over of Congress is far from assured.
October 20, 2006
Things are looking grim for the "Freshmaker". Remember the remix of this ad?
It's even funnier to watch now. Heh.
All the Lefty bloggers were trying to convince themselves that Republican Alan Schlesinger wiped the floor with Lieberman in Monday's debate. Apparently, it mattered very little to Lieberman's supporters. In fact, he hurt Lamont more:
While 35 percent of Connecticut voters watched Monday's candidate debate, another 35 percent said they heard or read about the debate. Of those who watched the debate or read or heard about it, only 3 percent say they changed their mind about whom they would vote for as a result of the debate.So, what are you guys going to try next? Reverse psychology? "Don't vote for Ned. He's too good for CT"?
Ned Lamont needed to score a knockout in the debates to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, but he apparently didn't lay a glove on him," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.
"Lamont's negatives are up and he has fallen farther behind in the matchup against Lieberman because of his drop among independent voters and men.
"Observers had speculated that Alan Schlesinger would benefit from the debate exposure and take Republican votes away from Lieberman," Dr. Schwartz added. "Instead, he took Republican votes away from Lamont."
October 18, 2006
Now, honestly, I don't know if he has information to bolster this confidence or if he's just bluffing.
But neither does the Left. And their reaction to this should be amusing as they're so obsessed with him.
Martin Lewis at the HuffPo warns Dems to take this seriously, quoting "The Untouchables".
Thanks to LittleMissChatterbox for the heads-up.
October 12, 2006
Democrats here are convinced that Mr. Lieberman stands a good chance of returning to the Senate as an independent, and many have reassured him that he will not be stripped of his seniority if he wins, according to people in several Senate offices, who were granted anonymity to speak of the sensitive situation amid an intense political climate.Lamont's campaign isn't winning over the majority of Connecticut voters. Why would it? He's a single-issue candidate with no experience and no grasp of the issues. I got a mailer from his campaign just yesterday and it was nothing but Joe-bashing. That may have worked among the anti-war Democrats but it ain't gonna fly with the rest of the State.
Meanwhile, Mr. Lamont, the Democratic nominee, failed to pick up significant momentum early on and has not maintained the level of national excitement that his long-shot candidacy first drew when he roared to victory in the August primary. He pumped another $2 million into his campaign on Tuesday, bringing his total personal contribution to $6 million since the primary, and $10 million over all. And a new poll released on Wednesday showed Mr. Lamont behind by eight points.
Polls have showed Lieberman anywhere from 2 to 20 points ahead of Lamont but they all have had one thing in common since the primary: Lamont hasn't led in a single one and it's looking very much like he peaked in early August. The nominee's fellow Democrats are privately saying that he's done but won't dare do so publicly lest they incur the wrath of the moonbat base.
Despite the rush from many Democrats to endorse Mr. Lamont after his triumph only a handful chose personal loyalty to Mr. Lieberman over the Democratic nominee picked by voters some now quietly admit they would be satisfied to see their longtime colleague returned to Washington. But none of the Democrats would speak for attribution because of pressure to publicly appear supportive of their partys nominee, and they were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about their feelings toward Mr. Lieberman.But you can bet they'll be falling all over themselves on November 8th to get back in Joe's good graces.
October 11, 2006
Without even the pretense of a real plan for our future, the Democrats have hung their hopes on a depressed conservative base. It is the only way they can win. Swing voters mean little in the polarized political world in which we find ourselves. And the effects of that polarization are magnified in traditionally low-turnout mid-term elections where only the active and energized take part.Go read the whole thing.
The task for our opponents, then, is to win the war of emotional energy. So much of what we are seeing and hearing now from the talking heads in the media and the Democratic party is designed to accomplish two things. First, they hope the never-ending dirge of bad news and scandal will squeeze whatever small number of votes it can from a diminishing pool of fence-sitters. Second, and many times more importantly, they seek to demoralize and deflate the conservative faithful. For they know that every vote not cast by a disgruntled and despairing Republican Eyore is one less vote they have to overcome in their quest for control.
Are you worried about November? Do you feel a growing sense of defeat within you every time another segment is aired on the network news about the escalating violence in Iraq? Perhaps your energy and excitement level take yet another hit every time your newspaper publishes an article exposing more bad news in the Foley scandal. Make no mistake; that is exactly what those stories are designed to do.
To quote John Belushi, "Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we say it is!"
October 10, 2006
Don't show me generic ballot questions. Show me individual races. 95% are already decided. The districts are so gerrymandered that the deck is stacked against a control change that would look anything remotely like the one from 1994.
Go ahead, call me naive. But think closely about these polls. They call a bunch of registered voters and ask if they would support the Republican or Democrat. No names or specific candidates, mind you. Just the parties. A third of the electorate doesn't even belong to one.
The question is basically a snapshot referendum on party preference - which one the respondent dislikes the least.
Comparing this data to the handful of competitive races is apples and oranges. If you're breathlessly watching generic ballot polls, keep watching and tell me what you see next week and the week after and so on. The only significance is that if the MSM keeps beating this drum, Republicans may get frustrated and depressed and figure "why bother?".
But then, that's exactly what they're hoping for. Some on the GOP side (or Conservative side) are already throwing in the towel. That's a mistake. Because a low turnout on one side will certainly push these close races in favor of the other.
Rusty says it best:
If you don't vote, the record will show that you had a chance to stop this onslaught of leftwing insanity, and you submitted.By "leftwing insanity", he's referring to the laundry list of horrible consequences that would result from a Democrat-controlled House. Go read the list and cringe.
Bill Bennett has a similar message to Conservatives, also a worthy read.
If you're at all skeptical that this Foley story was designed to suppress turnout, read The American Prowler this morning:
According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, "I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed the coup de grace, not the first shot."Ten days, eh? It would have made a lot more sense. Remember the impact of the Bush DUI story FIVE DAYS before the 2000 election? Same principle here.
So why the rush? According to another DNC operative: bad polling numbers across the country. "Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York," says the operative. "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling barely held a five-seat majority if the election were to be held at the end of August. That was doable for Democrats from September 1 to November 7. But by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. In the Senate, it looked like a wash. We held seats in Florida, Nebraska, picked up seats in Pennsylvania, but that that was about it. They were holding in Missouri and possibly within reach of Maryland and Washington. We were looking at a disaster in the making."
The story originally broke ten days ago. If they had followed through on the original plan - ten days before the election - then imagine that today was the election. Look at the polls, the opinion, the MSM spin. It would have worked like a charm. Because dispirited Republicans would have figured "why bother?".
Now is not the time to be dispirited. Now is the time to be fired up.
Can the Democrats and their media buddies keep the intensity of this story going for 28 more days? Doubtful. But if we let it, it could be remembered as the moment when the tide turned against the GOP.
There's lots of time remaining on the clock. And plenty of time to turn the tide back.
Now stop being such a bunch of whiny, bitching pussies and let's prevent the "left wing insanity."
As usual, Bull Dog Pundit does a fair job of reading the fine print and poking the NYT and WaPo polls full of holes. His point dovetails with this post in that the MSM is using the polls to drive "news".
October 04, 2006
RealClearPolitics.com has an excellent commentary this morning as to why an editorial from that very paper making just that suggestion is pointless and counter-productive. The author, Peter Mulhern who is also a contributor to the blog "The American Thinker" where the piece is also posted, puts it this way:
It would be pointless because Republicans can't mitigate whatever political damage there is going to be from the Foley scandal by jettisoning Hastert and company. The damage is done and it has nothing to do with the Speaker. Political junkies may think that the Foley scandal hurts because it undermines public trust in the House leadership, but that's not the source of the pain. The number of voters who know or care about the House leadership is infinitesimally small.Denny Hastert has been a relatively quiet Speaker of the House. That's been a good thing, in my opinion. When you have a controversial speaker, you create a target for the opposition. Hastert has been a steady steward, but many Conservatives don't particularly care for him. He hasn't reigned in spending sufficiently. He hasn't paid enough attention to many of the issues that drive them. It's precisely because Hastert hasn't been a lighting rod for Conservatives that many of them think nothing of using this situation with Mark Foley as an excuse to throw him over the side.
Democrats didn't keep Mark Foley's sins on ice and serve them up shortly before an election to make Dennis Hastert look negligent. They did it to drive a wedge between the GOP and its evangelical supporters by publicizing the fact that the Republican leadership in Congress gave the benefit of a substantial doubt to a known homosexual.
The tactical calculation behind the Foley scandal is the same as the calculation that drove both John Kerry and John Edwards to babble on about Mary Cheney's sexual orientation in nationally televised debates. Democrats believe that they can suppress the evangelical vote by suggesting that the GOP is too gay friendly and they aren't about to let mere scruples stand in their way. Kerry's lesbian gambit failed because the targeted voters were not the troglodyte simpletons of the Democrats' imagination. They largely recognized and resented the condescension motivating the attack, and affirmed their respect for tender love within a family.
Maybe the Democrats are right about evangelicals this time and maybe they aren't. Either way, replacing the Speaker now would be beside the point. It would also be devastating to the Republican Party.
In politics you never win by losing. Dumping Hastert and the rest of the leadership team would be a loss. His departure would empower Democrats and dispirit Republicans. It would underscore the Republican's principal political liability, which is that many of their own supporters see them as spineless weenies.It's time to fight. Fight to win. As I said yesterday, losing achieves nothing. Losing is for losers. We have a deadly enemy to fight, judges to confirm and tax policies to protect to keep our economy moving forward. Republicans in general - and Conservatives in particular - should think long and hard about what we really have to lose.
Caving in to groundless and hysterical criticism is the quintessence of spinelessness. Republicans have made a habit of it.
They were too timid to change the rule that required Tom Delay to resign his leadership post when the rube who passes for a prosecutor in Travis County, Texas trumped up an indictment against him. The Bush administration couldn't stand and fight when it came under fire for including sixteen words in a State of the Union Address, every one of which was true. It never even tried to defend itself when Democrats and the media were spewing nonsense about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for the purpose of blaming President Bush for everything that may have gone wrong in New Orleans. One could, as Zell Miller once said, "go on and on and on."
Republicans can't afford to crumble yet again just five weeks before an election. They can't win a fight without fighting and it's better to start late than never.
October 03, 2006
"So, how's it going on the campaign trail, Liebs, old pal? Looking forward to keeping that seniority are we? Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more?"
The nutroots, of course, sees this as a betrayal. And I don't blame them.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that supports Lamont, said Lieberman may be spreading false information to make himself a more attractive candidate.Seems to me that Reid and co. not only see the writing on the wall in terms of Lamont's viability but they're also making preparations should the Senate make-up end up in a tie - 49-49-2.
This is a Lieberman campaign tactic, he said. Democratic leaders are supporting Ned Lamont.
Bill Grad, who sits on the Democratic Town Council of Greenwich, Conn., Lamonts home town, said Lieberman has very actively distanced himself from the Democratic Party, and that it was wrong of leaders to promise anything.
Why should Reid tell the guy in advance that hell have his seniority. If it comes to that, thats fine. But its disappointing, its greatly disappointing that he would be given assurances.
It'll be interesting to read the Lefty blogs in the coming days.
126 queries taking 0.1148 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.