http://www.wexlergroup.com/Open Seats/texas.htm Oh, who's weeping now? Just goes to show you that this thing is going down to the wire.
Wrong again, rookie. The source of that poll (Fairbank, Maslin, et al) which shows Kirk in the lead is a left-wing policy organization. They specialize in "helping Democrats" according to their website. http://fmma.com/press.htm They also focus on Spanish-speakers, an historically Democratic group. http://fmma.com/ Nice try Rocketman, you should have dug a little deeper and discovered this yourself. Find me some objective data please. CASE CLOSED.
Do you know who they polled in that poll? For that matter, who did Zogby poll? Do you really think if they only surveyed liberals that Ron Kirk would have a commanding lead in said poll? Probably not, you're dumb enough to believe that Kirk has no shot, which anyone with half a brain will tell you he does.
It is in Fairbank, Maslin's best interest to represent that their preferred candidate is winning. This helps build momentum for the campaign. Therefore, this is not objective data and must be thrown out. Sorry rookie, try again. I'm not surprised that you are forced to resort to personal insults. Most people do the same thing when they are either flat wrong or don't have any evidence to support a losing argument. Sigh.
If they were going to do that, why didn't they conduct a poll that would show that Kirk had a commanding lead? I think you're just scared that Kirk's starting to spend some money on well-done, non-attacking ads that show his moderation and bi-partisanship while Cornyn is still whining about Kirk going out of state to raise money even though he does the same thing. If you don't think this thing's going down to the wire, you're a moron, plain and simple. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with me on that, even you. Hell, you have to take the one of the scant times someone says something positive about you and put it in your signature. YOU'VE BEEN EJECTED, MORON.
I don't give a damn about any polls. What I do give a damn about is how candidates run their campaigns. I'll give you my take on the Kirk/Cornyn race from an independent's perspective. Kirk--talks about what he has done Coryny--doesn't talk about his accomplishments, he just tries to sling mud. Like many other candidates this year..*cough..Perry/Sanchez...cough* they think that running commercials denigrating their opponent is good enough. Whatever happened to candidates talking about what they want to do, or have done, etc.. It seems like there is nothing but mud-slinging goin on at all times. No wonder that voter turnout is so low all the time...nobody knows who they should vote for, and are tired of the name calling. The only people that like that style are straight line party voters. They believe everything the candidate from their precious party says. Thats one of the advantages of being independant, I dont have to toe the party line, and I feel free to vote for whatever candidate I feel like believes like I do. and as an aside, would it hurt you to be a little less inflammatory with your rhetoric T_J?? I can't speak for others, but it doesn't help me to try to see what your sayin, since I can't bear to read your posts half the time..
I'm probably not even going to vote in the governor's race. Is that really the best that Texas can come up with?
My problem with Ron Kirk is that it's too hard to tell what he believes. When he was Mayor, he tended to believe whatever Little Ross and the Downtown Business Interests wanted him to believe. For all intents and purposes, he might as well have been a Republican (as a matter of fact, since the Dallas Mayoral Elections are non-partisan, I never really thought about him being a Democrat until the noise about him running for the Senate came out). I also didn't care for his playing the race card in the Trinity River debate. He kept saying that people who opposed building a new tollway along the river were racist, specifically as it dealt with building some levees to protect a very small number of houses in an African-American neighborhood (and a whole lot of industrial property). The folks who lived in that neighborhood, by the way, didn't want the levees. They wanted buyouts. However, anyone who espoused that position was accused of being a racist. So basically, Kirk defended the massive giveaway to Little Ross and the DBIs that would also happen to help a very small number of African-American homeowners while, according to the Army Corps of Engineers, making flooding worse in many places in Dallas by playing the race card. That's disturbing to me (and it's disturbing to me that Kirk was still so willing to carry the water for Ross Perot, Jr. and a handful of weathy owners even after the engineering studies showed how much the plan could hurt Dallas). Maybe he was just unwilling to go against such wealthy interests at a time when he knew he would be relying on them to raise money for his future Senate campaign, though I don't know that that's any better an excuse. Not really a fan of John Cornyn, either, though. But since he wasn't the Mayor of Dallas, I haven't heard as much about whatever folly he may or may not have been involved with.
I will vote because it is my duty, but I probably won't select either one of those idiots for governor. Is None of the Above on the ballot this year?
I can see why you 'Publicans would be stoked about getting another Republican senator. GWB and Co. have wanted to use 9/11 to ram through their entire agenda ("while I have high approval ratings, let's see how much we can help out my oil buddies and so forth"). Having a majority in the Senate would help them out in that respect. (Just trying to start something. )
Yeah, I know the Democrats just run for office and let the chips fall where they may. They never hope to take control of the Presidency and the Houses of Congress in order to get their agenda through, and they certainly never use high approval ratings to attempt to get their agenda passed. I remember when Clinton had high ratings, and he said "Well, we can't try to pass anything until my ratings fall. I wouldn't want to use my high approval ratings to push through my agenda." (and I like how the Republican agenda is reduced to simply paying back buddies and campaign contributors. I guess Republicans can't possibly believe in anything and want to pursue those beliefs. Only Democrats are allowed to believe things). It's no wonder the debate gets so shrill. I may not agree with a lot of what Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) believe, but I don't dismiss it. I respect that they have opinions, beliefs and views, and that just because they disagree with my own doesn't mean that their opinions aren't valid ones. And I don't ascribe sinister motives to those beliefs, opinions and views. George W. Bush was not my first choice for President (or anywhere in my Top 25), but I'm not going to be so closed-minded to believe that nothing he does is based on what he believes is good for the country (whether it truly is good for the country is a different debate) and is just an attempt to help out 'oil buddies' and so forth.
As I said, just starting something. I think GWB has done a decent job with the 9/11 matter. Anything else, well, hmn. No. But I was glad when the Republican senator became independent last year, so we all get our good news and our bad news.
The Supreme Court decided not to hear the Republican appeal, thus letting Lautenberg run. Run Frank, Run! washingtonpost.com Poll: Lautenberg Leads Forrester in N.J. Senate Race By Dale Russakoff Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 7, 2002; 2:37 PM Days after entering the tumultuous New Jersey Senate race, former three-term senator Frank Lautenberg (D) has inched ahead of Republican Doug Forrester, although 54 percent of the state's likely voters believe it was "unfair" for Democrats to replace the tarnished incumbent, Robert G. Torricelli, so late in the campaign, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this morning. The poll of 514 likely voters, taken Wednesday through Sunday, found Lautenberg leading 49-45, essentially flipping the 48-44 lead Forrester had over Torricelli in a Qunnipiac Poll released Sept. 12. Lautenberg's lead is within the poll's margin of error, putting the two men in a statistical dead heat. Torricelli dropped out of the race a week ago, as his support plummeted in the face of continuing attention to his ethical lapses. Gov. James E. McGreevey was turned down by three younger Democrats before finally asking the 78-year-old Lautenberg to step in. Forrester's campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to order that Torricelli's name remain on the ballot because a statutory deadline for ballot changes passed two weeks before the Democrat withdrew. They said the rights of overseas and military absentee voters who already have been sent Torricelli-Forrester ballots otherwise would be violated. They are seeking to overturn a unanimous ruling by the state supreme court allowing the ballot change in order to give voters a "full and fair ballot choice." Interviews with voters across the state in recent days found that outrage over the Torricelli-Lautenberg switch was most intense among those who said they are traditional Republican voters. While many others called the switch unfair, they said it was no more so than other aspects of politics in both parties, and would not affect their vote. Similarly, while 54 percent of those polled called the switch unfair, 30 percent said they could not vote for the Democratic candidate because of it. The poll found both Republican and Democratic voters strongly committed to their own party's candidate, while independents, who make up the majority of the state's voters, are split almost evenly between the two. "The new Democratic candidate has turned the New Jersey Senate race into a whole new ball game that will be decided by independent voters. New Jersey voters don't like the way Sen. Lautenberg got on the ballot, but they are glad to see tarnished Sen. Robert Torricelli gone," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Forrester's campaign manager, Bill Pascoe, observed that what he calls "the Torricelli-Lautenberg Machine" has yet to win more than 50 percent support in a poll. "For a career political machine, that's serious trouble," he said. The poll found that Forrester has become better known to New Jersey voters as a result of the furor over what is widely known here as "the switcheroo." But, according to Richards, a larger percentage of voters view Forrester negatively now than in the Sept. 12 poll, and his support has dropped among independents.
I found it ironic that Bush referenced JFK's speech to the nation during the Cuban Missle Crisis while speaking to a live audience in Cincinnati so he could bask in their applause on live TV. I saw JFK's speech to the nation live... from the White House... because we were in a crisis. Bush will never be mistaken for John F. Kennedy.
