In what may be the most exciting mid term election in history, the Democrats currently seem to hold a slight edge for control of the House, while the battle for the Senate is dead even.
The latest polls give Democratic challengers the lead over Republican Senators in five states. Needing six victories to wrest Senate control from the GOP, all eyes - and a great deal of money - are turning toward the contest in Missouri. There, the race between Republican Senator Jim Talent and Democrat Claire McCaskill is dead even.
Republicans, who, in the past, have been better organized at getting out the votes, feel that their well-oiled machine will carry the day.
In addition, Republicans are hoping to capitalize on Senator John F. Kerry's, by now, well known misspeak and convince the voters that Kerry does not respect the troops and, because of that, no Democrat can be trusted to guard our national security.
It wouldn't be surprising to even see those nasty swift-boaters jump on Kerry today, as they did in the last general election. However, that dog may be getting a little old to hunt effectively. Also, it could be a minefield for the GOP, given Kerry's meritorious service in combat and Bush's extraordinary service in avoiding it.
The bottom line on this incident is that it will quickly become "yesterday's news," and should have little or no impact on the outcome of the elections.
Kerry summed up the situation quite well when he said: "I make apologies to no one about my criticism of the president and his broken policy that kills and maims our heroes in Iraq every single day....President Bush owes an apology to our troops and to their families for his disaster in Iraq."
Meanwhile, as this non event fades into the background, Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia is, once again, facing criticism for his conduct and that of his campaign. Locked in a tight race with Jim Webb, video cameras caught three of his campaign workers removing a man from an event in Charlottesville, Virginia and throwing him to the ground. Evidently, the man had asked the Senator why he had spit at his first wife.
This incident follows Allen's famous gaffe of referring to a Democratic volunteer of Indian descent as "macaca," which is considered to be a racial slur. And, before the print was dry on that story, a former acquaintance charged that as a young man, Allen often used a racial slur to refer to African Americans - an allegation the senator denied.
A poll by CNN, completed before the ejection incident, found Webb ahead of Allen, 50% to 46%, but that advantage is within the poll's margin of error.
Other recent polls show Democratic challengers with solid leads in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and somewhat smaller leads in Rhode Island and Montana.
If these four states fall to the Democrats, then control of the Senate would be theirs as long as they capture at least two of the three contests in Virginia, Tennessee and Missouri.
In Tennessee, Republican Bob Corker is currently ahead in the polls, so this narrows the area of extreme interest to Virginia and Missouri, and with Republican George Allen apparently falling behind in Virginia, Missouri looms as the pivotal campaign.
In the last ten statewide polls neither candidate in Missouri has held a lead of more than 3 percentage points, so it is hot....hot....hot.
The GOP may be better at getting out the vote, but Missouri Democrats have an ace up their sleeve - Bush is scheduled to appear there on Friday.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
Now, what do you think about 2008? LOL
BTW how does any incumbent (either side of the isle) win reelection on Tuesday when congress' job approval is 19%? I know I will not be casting a vote for anyone from the "109th do-less-than-nothing congress", this year or '08.
FOX has their own spin on that Kerry thing, and it is downright deceitful, out and out lying in fact. They so selectively c/o and add other things from historic footage of Kerry so as to completely distort everything he has ever said to make him appear as bad as they can ... of course their viewers are so distrustful of other news sources ( because FOX has convinced them that all other sources are off the wall liberal) that they will never watch them for more balance in seeking real truth.
These FOX followers then do not know any better. It is no excuse for their ignorance because that is the way they all want it. They have this nasty habit (and they seem to even believe themselves) of taking everything bad or outright evil about their party ... then convince themselves that those faults only apply to their opposition, the evil koolaid drinking 'others' ... what a crock of sh%t !
Even yet tonite FOX is nonstop KERRY, even brought the head swiftboat creep into it with his statements (lies) about it all ... They have so much REAL garbage that they want to hide behind whatever diverts attention ... Kerry just happened to be the best that they could come up with ... they will stoop as low as it takes ... what a way to win friends and influence people ... those neo-CONs must be in complete denial ... or a bunch of psychopaths ... how else could they even stand each other, let alone 'like' each other ... some 'sickness' on their part ...
When oh when will real truth ever become the norm ???
BUT ... that does make the others REALLY liberal ... it is only in comparison ... yet that allows the FOX commentators to INSIST that the others are liberal ... and for FOX's captured audience of faithful loyalists, that mantra (all of those various mantras) are the gospel !
Thus if the FOX crowd ever went to another channel to check on anything, naturally their preferred suspicion would SEEM to be upheld.
The REAL FACTS are that the controlling corporate interests that actually own and thus control ALL of said media outlets (including all of the major book publishing houses) actually editorialize to the degree that they express views, both conservative, neocon, and liberal ... for general believability to the consumer, so that in the end the overall message that 'they' (the owners) want to impress upon the sheeple (all of us) is that which best serves their interests and motives.
It is very much to 'their' advantage to have all of us believe that certain sources are liberal ... that makes the liberals TRUST more those sources ... and it gives the far right and lesser radical on 'that' side a 'comparison' (false though) to decide for themselves ... uh huh, I got a real deal on a bridge I'll sell you cheap ...
So if 'you' really wanted Liberal media, you would have to go FSTV or LINK and watch their input in order to really find an overall balance that was meaningful ... but those that are Partisan will not evaluate the whole mix, they only seek the ONE opinion that supports their own ... that is what our POLARIZATION is all about !
The 'famous' or 'infamous' NYT is also only Liberal in COMPARISON ... these are more accurately called STRAWMEN !
The only way for this system to work as it does, is to keep the people as sheeple as they can, and that is exactly what is being done. Those of you that are the most adamant that your leaders have your best interests at heart, are the very ones that support them and keep this system screwing everyone of us ... you included, but you are too blinded by 'their' suggested Patriotism which is really Nationalism, that gives you the motivation to support them and fight us.
It is just what 'they' want, division, so strengths are divided and manageable, thus easy to conquer ALL by using the one half to battle the other, for 'them'.
That my friend (potentially) is just how it really works ... all would be wise to begin to wonder IF this could really be true ... even your future, depends upon the eventual realization of this ... deny at your own peril !!!
My opinion is there is no real news anymore. It has all become opinion and editorial, no real news. Left or right, all opinion and editorializing. I just wish they would stop denying it as it is so obvious. I also think the term "liberal" is way overused. It's hard to tell what the word means anymore as it has been used by everybody for everything both good and bad. In fact for me it is a dead word, like racist and a few other terms. They have become meaningless. So when people call themselves liberal I think they don/t know what they are ss the term is meaningless for me. But that's for me, it may actually mean something to others and that's fine.
Thanks,
Who has even heard the word before? In their haste to vilify George Allen, the Lefties have blown this so out of proportion as to make it more about their venom than the actual name-calling. In my opinion, once Kerry made his apology, that was the end of it. Also in my opinion, once Allen made his apology, that was the end of it.
With all that put to bed, why haven't the Lefties moved back to the issues? They keep flogging this dead horse. Could it be that Webb isn't that interesting, and they're happier NOT talking about the issues? If I'm not mistaken, Allen was killing Webb on the issues before this stupid Macaca incident occured. Maybe that's all the Webb campaign has.............
If you're making the point that Fox News, being what it is, makes every other news show look liberal, you're probably right. But the bigger question is : what if Fox hadn't come along? How long would it have taken us to notice that ALL the news shows were Liberal, and that no one covered the Conservative point of view?
It also raises the fact that equal time has never been given to Conservative issues, until Fox News arrived on the scene. This is something we Conservatives have known for a very long time, but Lefties would never admit. Just more Left Wing stuff to be exasperated about in the long run.
Is that the service he was Proud of ? Or the service he hated so much he threw the medals away?
Perhaps that was never setteled. so much fodder I guess.
The biggest loss in this disastrous state of affairs is even a remote semblance of elected officials wanting to hold office in order to do something for the good of the people. "The People" apparently hold no water any more. When EVERYTHING becomes politicized, there are always winners and losers. In which case, someone will always be unhappy.
What ever happened to trying to come to a conclusion that has merit for all?
Attacking Foley for his mis-doings, or the Republicans for their whole batch of mis-doers, or the Conservatives for their whole batch (starting with Haggard, the Evangelical), or Kerry or the ever-popular Clintons - - - how does that benefit anyone? If one party wins based on bashing the other -- what do I get from that?
It's stupid, Stupid, STUPID.
just Joe, yes I have a thing for FOX and not without reason. I do attempt a neutral fair-minded research about the crap that some call 'news', and I agree that it is all a scam ... I just wish that more people would wake up and realize it.
Bret, Yes, I suppose that FOX satisfies a lot of conservatives ... in a way that is a shame because I doubt that conservatives would be quite so extremely conservative w/o FOX convincing them of the things that they do (much of which is extremely disingenuous), and that is also then the major reason for the extremism of the liberal BACKLASH.
Conservatives speaking against liberals evidently do not concede that they speak with extreme venom and all of the 'other' things liberals are accused of. Most of which originates as hateful speech from the right. By far the biggest share of such that comes from liberals is just the reaction to the origination ... believe it or not.
The last couple days, O'Reilly says that he is stunned ! He says that studies have shown the MSM to have covered stories favorable to the Dems 77% lately to only 12% favorable to the Repubs ... now think about that ... what does that mean ?
Naturally, the INSINUATION that his listeners are supposed to believe ... is that the MSM is not FAIR because they are so LIBERAL.
BUT REALLY ... could it just be possible that ... the actual news around the Republicans during that period WAS REALLY 77% negative because that is the truth of the matter ? ... I really think so. But no spin Bill would never lie to the folk ... nah
But of course it is also mirrored everywhere else in one form or other by one side or other ... politics ... it all sucks !
On the Allen Webb thing for example, I discount the Macaca stuff and the pointing a gun stuff because they cancel each other out. But I was deeply offended by the pedophillic pornograqphy in Webb's writing even as I discount the anti-woman bias that comes through. One is important to me while his opinion of women is not.
When I listen to today's economic news, I buy that the repubs are doing good things because it fits with what I learned in all of the economic courses I took in college and grad school (and we know universities are not hotbeds of conservative ideologies) but I discount the dems criticisms (especially when Pelosi likens today's numbers to those found as we were emerging from the great depression) because when Clinton had virtually the same numbers, the economy was the best it had been in the history of the world. They can't have it both ways.
This is just a long winded way of saying that once we recognize our personal bias we can account for it in forming our opinions and choosing which opinions of others we want to accept.
There really aren't too many people that absorb a piece of information and say "hey, that's right, I've been wrong all my life, I'm going to change my whole political philosophy."
But then again, there are those pesky "undecideds" that have been known to throw a monkey wrench into the caldron of conventional wisdom.
That's why it's never over 'till....mmmmm I forgot the rest of it.
1) that swift boat dog will NEVER be too old to hunt, so long as those embittered old cold war paper pushers [like Rumsfeld--and his snowflakes--and Cheney, et. al.] keep feeding it. No one envisioned that it would hobble out of the minefields in the first place, least of all John Kerry--so taken off guard that he was completely toothless in defending himself; or, more likely, his handlers didn't think he needed to even bother. After all, Viet Nam is old history, right? Just say the word in the same sentence with Iraq to hear the menacing growl, see the lip curl and the yellow teeth come out. Actually, those old mine fields turned out to be more like gold mines, whose veins ran really deep, didn't they? Just thow deep and how low they'll go remains to be seen.
2) Kerry's apology is way more than a non-event. For those democrats, especially progressive dem's, who were terrified at the prospect of his making a bid for 08, he's now as lame a duck as Bush. That he referred to his recent statements [some of which I heartily concur with and only wish he had said a long time ago] as a botched joke, is a joke indeed, and the last laugh is on him. But then, our president is one of the least articulate and most hilarious men--and I don't mean jocular--ever to sit in the oval office. So, who knows? Things get more Alice in Wonderlandish everyday.
3) I like your sense of humor re the Dem's in Missouri having Bush up their sleeve, but perhaps you're not joking; i.e., with Poppy Bush and former Prez Clinton out stumping together for charity, and Hillary hugging the center for dear life, what is so preposterous about upper echelon Missourian's leaning across the aisle once in awhile to pat each other's back a bit. Helps maintain the illusion for constituents that bipartisanship is still alive and well. Wish they'd do it more often in the halls of congress. Oh wait, they did do that in Congress--when they ALL voted for war. Hmm, is that what bipartisanship looks like--wait just a darned minute--why that's, that's a darned big old elephant!
By the way, I think that Webb was a republican before he was democrat. And, of course, being a Californian, you know about the guy in So Calif who used to be a democrat--but is now a republican--going after Sanchez's (D) seat in the house by sending threatening mailers to the immigrant community--with the apparent inside assistance from a local policeman. And, he [the former dem now repub who would be a congressman] refuses to back off and step down !!!
Will the REAL TRUE slimy, stupid bastards who are too downright lazy to think for themselves--and don't like it when others do--stand up now? Neutral you say? I don't trust neutral--too akin to flip flopper--like hedge betting. Honesty and conviction would be nice--win or lose.
I remain eternally optimistic....
If the contest is fixed, then you Left Wingers shouldn't even worry about voting. Stay home that day. Or better yet, don't go to vote, just proceed to the hate rally.
Bret, Yes, I suppose that FOX satisfies a lot of conservatives ... in a way that is a shame because I doubt that conservatives would be quite so extremely conservative w/o FOX convincing them of the things that they do (much of which is extremely disingenuous), and that is also then the major reason for the extremism of the liberal BACKLASH.
Jerry, you make some good points and, on the whole, I agree with your underlying premise that, after all, news is a business and thar's gold in them thar hills. But you never fail to let your rationale be tainted by your partisanship and your infatuation with Fox News is almost scary. To say there would be no extreme conservatives and no liberal backlash if there was no Fox News is like saying there wouldn't be any crime if there weren't any police. I think your arguments would hold more water if you stuck to the core issue to which you often refer. "SHEEPLE" You, no doubt, have to realize "sheeple" come from all sides. You speak of them with condescending disdain and then takes sides as if some of us are less sheeply(?) than others and only those who know the "real truth" can take the high ground. Go ahead and take the leap. Come down squarely in the middle and validate your arguments with the knowledge you already possess. Politicians and media, left or right, feed on devisiveness and confusion and all us loyal sheeple just keep getting sheared.
I like what your both saying. My mother used to say that "No one is absolutely perfect; BUT, some people are more perfect than others; and, it's up to you to use your common sense and be able to tell who's who and what's--if you want to survive in this world." Boy, was she right--and it's HARD WORK. It's easier to be a lazy sheeple!
As regards : " … that is a shame because I doubt that conservatives would be quite so extremely conservative w/o FOX convincing them of the things that they do (much of which is extremely disingenuous), and that is also then the major reason for the extremism of the liberal BACKLASH. … "
You say: " … To say there would be no extreme conservatives and no liberal backlash if there was no Fox News is like saying there wouldn't be any crime if there weren't any police…. "
I do not see that to be a fair analogy at all. If you read a little closer you will find that I mentioned "quite so extreme" … it does make a difference. But I guess it is a good example of that we all read into it just what we most want to hear …
Maybe that applies to the part about 'sheeple' also … as if you followed closer many of my comments you would see that I have mentioned that being applicable to ALL of US before. Where it seems one sided, that is just the 'backlash' that I speak of.
I also mention often the 'divisiveness' as being the desired result of leadership tricks to divide and conquer … that is what this is all about !
My so-called 'infatuation' with Fox Media is a very valid one. If you saw it with the perspective of study of it as I have done, you could not help but agree … IMnsHO.
We probably agree on more things than we disagree upon I suspect.
Peace, j.
Fox News is so popular because the media has been only one way - liberal, for so long. We Conservatives have yearned for just one news station that didn't spin every story so liberally. We don't want to hear that. We want to hear a much more level-headed story when it is reported.
Think about it. Without Fox News, what would we have heard about DanRatherGate? Probably nothing.
I think we do agree, at least fundamentally, more than we disagree. Actually, I think the crime/police analogy is quite appropriate. To dismiss it as a matter of degree is a dodge. There again, the analogy applies; i.e. crime wouldn't be so bad if there just weren't so many police. It's a circular argument and one, IMHO, that does not apply to the extreme rhetoric that comes from either side.
As for the backlash you speak of. Isn't that also a circular argument. The extreme left-wing backlash is predicated on the right-wing extremism perpetuated by one tv station? Were right-wing extremists just kinda sorta extreme till Fox News came along? That dog won't hunt, Jerry. Extremists are like spoiled brats, give them a stage and they show thier ass. It's only fair, don't you think, that right-wingers get a platform, too?
In my last post I said: It's a circular argument and one, IMHO, that does not apply to the extreme rhetoric that comes from either side.
I meant to say: "that DOES apply". Sorry for the confusion.
I loved the crime/police analogy - you're right!
People have a need to spew sometimes. Logic puts a cork on spewage - its just that simple. LOL
One way to look at this election is to consider the advantages of having some sort of balance of power. If the Democrats take the House, the balance so created could be some consolation to those who vote Republican.
This nation and all other Democratic nations thrive on checks and balances. Historically, problems tend to arise when checks and balances are not in place.
Balance is good! Checks and balances are eseential [which is why the current state of affairs makes us--well some of us--a bit nervous! BUT, political clones [republicrats and demicans] do not necessarily make for balance, especially when they're equally beholden to Washington lobbyists with deep pockets. For example, Feinstein and Arnold work well together and genuinely see eye to eye on a lot of issues--but maybe the real issue is how that gets translated back to the general and overall good of the populace, so to speak.
George Mc: I admire both Chaffee and Jeffords--speaking of basically fair and balanced--we could use more like them-. In Chafee's case, I think he actually left his party behind because he is really an independent kind of guy; and, yes I agree he should have done a Jeffords. Whereas in Lieberman's case he really should have been a republican--but then he may not have been elected in the first place nor held his position for so long. I agree, the world is not a simple place. People change and constituencies change and the world is changing to fast apparently for us to be able to assimilate the changes and move on smoothly. Perhaps some of that will change. I personally would like to see more independents, like Jeffords. And some say, well then we'll have a stalemate situation--but what could be more of a stalemate than this last congress? And, the one before that!