Rose-Colored Glasses
If the Congressional Election were held today, 47% of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district while 36% would pull the voting lever for a Republican. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found 4% favoring a third-party option while 13% are not sure. A month ago, the Democrats enjoyed a 45% to 35% advantage.Still lots of time between now and Election Day 2008, but time is ticking away.
While Hagel is in danger of “losing his base” in a GOP primary contest because of his position on Iraq, Myers says, Bruning “runs the risk of alienating the electorate in a general election.”Beyond the subjective analysis, the LJS article offers the following quantitative tidbit:
That creates “a tremendous opportunity for Democrats,” state party executive director Matt Connealy suggests.
Hagel’s 51 percent [public approval] compared to 44 percent for Bush, 54 percent for Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey — a potential Democratic Senate candidate — 61 percent for Bruning and 70 percent for Dave Heineman.Omaha's Democratic Mayor Mike Fahey already enjoys 54% statewide approval despite never having run statewide before and therefore probably having lower name recognition statewide. He's already ahead of Hagel's 51% and within striking distance of Bruning's 61% despite Bruning having already run and won statewide as Nebraska Attorney General. I offer that this is very positive news for Fahey and a very solid starting point should he enter the race.
If there is anywhere that government is overstepping personal freedoms, it is by encroaching in personal decisions between an individual and her doctor.Campaigning is about both having the most appealing or appropriate positions on the issues and making those positions sound the most appealing or appropriate or illustrating why they are as such. Marchand gets it. Sununu chooses to keep digging his hole.
posted by Senate2008Guru | 12:03 PM
12 Comments:
Can you explain how that last bit is conservative hypocrisy?
Explain how which bit is conservative hypocrisy? The part about Fred Thompson having pre-marital sex, getting his girlfriend pregnant out of wedlock in high school, and then ultimately divorcing her? Explain how that is hypocritical to the "family values" anti-pre-marital-sex, anti-pregnancy-out-of-wedlock, "pro-marriage," pro-family mantra of conservative Republicans? Do you really need me to explain it? Really? Seriously?
Instead of explaining how its hypocritical to your image of the Republican Party, please find a quote for me from Fred Thompson where he rails against pre-marital sex, pregnancy out of wedlock, or divorce.
BTW, gleefully reporting and criticizing about these things that Fred Thompson did in high school is just as shameful as the conservative Republicans that you roll your eyes at.
va blogger - once again, I have to ask if you read what I actually wrote. I neither praise nor criticize Fred Thompson for his actions. I take no position on his actions whatsoever.
What I criticize, if you bothered to pay attention, are social conservatives and Republicans who proclaim "family values" positions eschewing pre-marital sex, pregnancy out of wedlock, divorce, and the like, and then hold up somebody who has engaged in these activities as a standard-bearer. That's the hypocrisy.
Thanks for that "best case scenario". I needed a laugh. Hey, maybe the entire GOP caucus will resign, thus giving Democrats 100 seats.
Since its a news item that has nothing to do with the 2008 races, you obviously found some compelling reason to post it, and the attitude conveys a smug satisfaction with the wrong-doing of a Republican.
But please find for me a social conservative who has gone on record as saying they are against pre-marital sex and divorce, and has also gone on record as saying that Fred Thompson is their standard-bearer.
Or, if you like, you can continue to accuse an entire party of hypocrisy due to your generalizations and assumptions.
va blogger - smug satisfaction, huh? Well, when you respond like a condescending ass, I call you out on it and I prove you wrong.
You asked me to find you "a social conservative who has gone on record as saying they are against pre-marital sex and divorce, and has also gone on record as saying that Fred Thompson is their standard-bearer."
Well, how about Congressman Zach Wamp? He advocates for abstinence education, saying that "abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy" (something Fred Thompson clearly did not practice). And, lo and behold, the same Congressman Zach Wamp is the Co-Chair of the "Draft Fred Thompson 2008" Committee. Wamp wants Thompson to be President and the GOP standard-bearer! Hey, here is a whole column by Wamp listing reasons why Thompson should run for President, and reason #3 notes Thompson's 'conservative credentials' on marriage, despite Thompson's pre-marital sex, impregnating his teenage girlfriend out of wedlock, and ultimately divorcing her. Sounds like a healthy dose of hypocrisy.
(And, once again, va blogger, I have to remind you: this isn't CNN or the daily paper. It's my blog. I focus on the 2008 Senate races, but I reserve the right on my own blog to post anything that I find to be particularly interesting. If you don't like it, don't read the blog.)
I wasn't impugning your right to post anything you find of interest. I was just noting that you obviously found some compelling reason to post the news about Fred Thompson. And by "compelling", I mean "derisive", "partisan", and "self-serving".
And that would make Zach Womp a hypocrite, correct? So unless Zach Womp is the entirity of the Republican Party, or unless the Republican Party is simply 26 million clones of Zach Womp, maybe the extreme generalization that Republicans are hypocrites is a bit much, no?
I forgot. Its your own blog. You maintain the right to squander whatever credibility you think you hve.
yet another republican, confusing a mirror for a picture of their opponent.
thanks va blogger. "You maintain the right to squander whatever credibility you think you have." Man, I needed a good laugh.
Glad to help.
Whenever I need a good laugh, I think of the people who think that Senator Dole is going to lose re-election.
Ill bet you are still recovering from the muscles you pulled laughing at everyone who thought the Dems would win the Senate by beating George Allen.
Another Republican talking point from you. When facts prove you wrong, resort to petty attacks.
You're right. I shall no longer resort to petty attacks like:
yet another republican, confusing a mirror for a picture of their opponent.
thanks va blogger. "You maintain the right to squander whatever credibility you think you have." Man, I needed a good laugh.
Teach me, Oh learned one, the ways of rising above pettiness and personal attacks.
Post a Comment
<< Home