Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Ad spending tops $6 million in Mass. Senate special election

1. Ad spending by the candidates, party committees and outside organizations in the final week of the Massachusetts Senate special election will go over $6 million, according to a detailed look at expenditures provided to the Fix. The two candidates are the biggest spenders with state Sen. Scott Brown (R) dropping just short of $2 million in the final week while state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) is spending $1.5 million. While Brown is outspending Coakley, Democratic-affiliated outside groups are making up the difference, with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in for $831,000 and the Service Employees International Union spending $685,000 on ads. More groups are buying television time on the Republican side -- four in total -- with the Chamber of Commerce ($400,000) and the American Future Fund ($375,000) leading the way. (In an odd twist, New Hampshire Senate candidate Bill Binnie is spending $200,000 -- through a group called Americans for Responsible Health Care -- on ads in support of Brown.) The massive spending in the race's final week is further evidence that both sides believe it is up for grabs and are doing everything they can to try and tilt what now looks like a very close contest.

2. Former Tennessee representative Harold Ford Jr. sat down with the New York Times Monday to discuss his increasingly likely challenge to appointed New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D). The highlights: 1) Ford on the "why" behind the candidacy: "Upon really moving here, and spending time here, I have had a number of people inquire whether New York would be a place that I would consider pursuing a political career." 2) Ford repeatedly emphasized his independence during his time in Congress and hit Gillibrand for how she came into the seat. "She is not the incumbent," he said. "New Yorkers have never had a chance to vote for her. She has never stood on the ballot before." 3) Ford would oppose the Obama administration's health care plan; "I couldn't support a health care bill that places the kind of burdens on New York State that this one does," he said. 4) Among the places in the Empire State Ford has visited outside New York City: Buffalo and Syracuse, and he will be in Rochester and Albany in the near future. 5) Ford on abortion: "I have been painted as being this right-wing zealot on choice. Nothing could be further from the truth." Ford on abortion, part deux: "To say that I am pro life is just wrong. I am personally pro-choice and legislatively pro-choice." Read the whole interview. WELL worth it.

3. Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz's stunning decision to pull out of the governor's race to instead pursue the now-open state attorney general's post creates the very real possibility that liberal blogosphere hero Ned Lamont could be the next governor of the Nutmeg State. With Bysiewicz out, the Democratic primary for governor is a two way fight between Lamont, who ousted Sen. Joe Lieberman in a 2006 Democratic primary only to lose to Lieberman in the general election, and Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2006. Lamont has two clear advantages in a one-on-one primary fight against Malloy. First, he is a darling of the liberal left (both in the state and nationally), a terrific place to be in a primary fight likely to be controlled by liberals. Second, Lamont has significant personal wealth and a willingness to spend it -- he dropped $17 million of his own money on the 2006 Senate race -- that could make a huge difference in a state covered in part by the pricey New York City media market. And, while Republicans believe either Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele or former ambassador Tom Foley will have a fighting chance in the general election, the Democratic nominee has to be considered the favorite due to the state's Democratic lean and the long string of Republican control of the governor's mansion. Governor Lamont, then, isn't such a far-fetched idea.

4. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's gubernatorial candidacy, announced Tuesday, gives Democrats a fighting chance to hold the seat -- more than they could say just eight days ago when embattled Gov. Bill Ritter (D) looked like he was still planning to run for reelection. National Republicans, letting partisan bomb-throwing get in the way of common sense, issued a release pronouncing Hickenlooper a "third tier" candidate despite poll data that shows the mayor is among the most popular elected officials in the state. That's not to say Democrats won't face a real fight in Colorado, a fight they might have avoided if Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, clearly their strongest candidate, had decided to return to the state to run. Among Hickenlooper's hurdles: 1) He faces the prospect of a primary fight against former state House speaker Andrew Romanoff who is currently running a primary against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. There is an effort underway to get Romanoff to run for lieutenant governor under Hickenlooper, a move that would solve all of Colorado Democrats' problems but it's not clear whether Romanoff is interested in the job. 2) Republicans will now be able to cast the race as choice between Denver and the rest of the state. (Former Rep. Scott McInnis, the near-certain Republican nominee, hails from the state's Western Slope.) Like most states, Colorado voters who don't live in Denver are suspicious of those who do -- a dynamic Republicans will seek to stoke. 3) Hickenlooper, while well known in the sprawling Denver media market, has never run statewide before and must adjust on the fly to doing so. McInnis, of course, is making his first statewide bid as well so it may wind up being a moot point.

5. Want to get the "Morning Fix" -- the five political nuggets you need to know as flagged by yours truly -- delivered to your inbox every morning? It's only one click away. Sign up today, receive the Morning Fix tomorrow. Do it -- you know you want to!

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 13, 2010; 5:56 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: National air wars heat up in Mass. Senate special
Next: Republicans sense opportunity in Massachusetts special election

Comments

Ah, bsimon, you're bringing a smile to the Blade's face today.

Nice to see the Democrats take Cucinelli's old seat.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 13, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

TO: bsimon1 @ 3:22 p.m.

Roz looks out for ops that waste taxpayer money and deplete humint resources.

Ask "drindl" or "JakeD" who she is. Surely they know.

Now don't tell me you have to Google "humint."

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 13, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I scroll past so many nonsensical posts, I lose track of who is whom.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Whoops! I didn't notice the last comment was from thesis #2. I apologize for the mistaken identity.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Not even Google knows who Roz Mazer is, though I admit I'm too lazy to click past the first page of results, which is a long list of what look to me like scrivener posts here at the fix, now public, the ACLU and some of the other wapost blogs.

The only non-blog post was to a 1970 article in Time magazine.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Roz%20Mazer&hl=en&ned=us&tab=nw

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944134,00.html

"His press secretary, Roz Mazer, is a 21-year-old senior on leave from Syracuse University."


Scriv, little buddy, you are a potential thesis.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

As if you don't know who Roz Mazer is.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICA!!!

www.AMERICAWAKEUPNOW.net

Posted by: AMERICAWAKEUP | January 13, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Who is Roz Mazer?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

TO: bsimon1 @ 12:42 p.m.

From your lips to Roz Mazer's ears.

Check her next report, maybe?

Alea iacta est.

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 13, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

yes i do, elijah. we have spoken about it at our local Dem party meetings, and her record so far is fine. you have to realize state-wide the r party is really weak here.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, ok. I can see that. My best friend lived in NY for a while, but since he moved to TX, I haven't been able to follow NY politics as much. Do you think Gillibrand will keep her senate seat if she wins the primary?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

elijah -- Blade and Ddawd are both right.

Nobody likes Paterson much, the whole Spitzer thing left a bad taste and nobody much knew who Paterson was -- he never showed his face during the campaign. Plus, he really is a terrible communicator and some of his cuts to the budget [schools/hospitals] really unpopular. I think he's getting a little better, but never enough to beat Mario, if he gets into it.

So he was already unpopular, and then he brings in Gillibrand, whose policies as rep were unpopular downstate/in the cities, where the great majority of New Yorkers live. NYC people are notoriously anti-gun, for instance, most cities that have in the past been menaced by gangs and waves of gun violence are. And she was pretty gung-ho gun rights -- bad match. And not pro-choice to boot. I reject 'moderate' though, those positions are rightwing to us here.

HOWEVER, her performance so far has been satisfactory, she knows where she is and is not stupid. So, as I said, what has Ford got to offer- a challenge from the right when one from the left would have been more appropriate? And a banker?

The same negatives as she, plus Bloomberg and Corzine, and no positives. And one big negative -- he knows nothing about the state and everything he says demonstrates that.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

More, tell me that you got the reward you deserved! If not this is a tragic tale of loves labores lost. C'mon man, give us a happy ending...about your happy ending.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Oh dang, the fake 37th is mad. Bummer, dude.

Turn that frown upside down!

Posted by: jasperanselm | January 13, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

And what have you been doing today so far? I'm sorry, dude. I just dont think you have much credibility when you were doing the same thing you are accusing me of before I was doing it and have done nothing else, where as I have moved on to politics.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

A man in his forties in LA, between marriages, takes a beautiful woman to see "Princess Bride" at a famous theater on Wilshire Blvd. in Westwood. He is caught up in the hilarity of the dialogue. She is profoundly convinced this is the most romantic movie ever. He must--not--laugh if he is to get lucky. Painful.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | January 13, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50 writes
"BLOG SPAMMER REVEALS ULTERIOR MOTIVE IN AD HOMINEM ATTACK?

"drindl" @ 10:15 a.m., in attacking another poster, seems to have exposed the true mission of "regulars" who, on a daily, hour-by-hour basis, blog-spam "The Fix" and other WaPo, Politico, Daily Kos (etc.) blogs:"


Dutiful scriviner, without eyes on the ground such as yourself, we would never learn that the program has been compromised. "drindl" has been suitably disciplined & will be transitioned into other work.

Sincerely,
the overlords

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


I don't see you speaking much about the political issues - you are simply complaining about other posters.

AND again, I call them like I see them, and your little gang here acts like a bunch of fifth grade schoolgirls who don't get their way.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"As for my phrasing, that's all Princess Bride."

Yes, which is why I found it funny. I suspect your foil did not, which makes it all the more funny.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

BB, I think the main problem with Gillebrand is that she's an upstater and had the congressional voting record to match. This doesn't sit well with a lot of people since a NY Senate seat is just a waste if occupied by a blue dog. However, she has been one of the most liberal members of the Senate since taking that position. I guess the concern will still remain, though. If she reverts back to her old ways, it will be harder to get rid of her six years from now.

But I like the job she's been doing so far.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 13, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey am I just volunteering here, or can i get a piece of that taxpayer-funding?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I think Gillebrand has the same problem as Burris--an appointment procedure that was a mess by a governor with legitimacy issues. Paterson wasn't elected governor and made some early high profile mistakes upon taking the office. The whole Kennedy trial balloon went down badly and he was see as leaving her dangling. Finally, Gillebrand is a moderate in a blue state. It adds up to an opportunity.

NY seems to be friendly to carpet baggers, though they have tended to be those with high political profiles to start with. Not so sure about Ford, though.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 13, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

BLOG SPAMMER REVEALS ULTERIOR MOTIVE IN AD HOMINEM ATTACK?

"drindl" @ 10:15 a.m., in attacking another poster, seems to have exposed the true mission of "regulars" who, on a daily, hour-by-hour basis, blog-spam "The Fix" and other WaPo, Politico, Daily Kos (etc.) blogs:

Their postings appear to be a coordinated (possibly taxpayer-funded) "black op" intended to pollute discourse and to deflect attention from revealing or controversial postings by legitimate commentators who are not paid trolls on a mission.


Excellent! We woke scrivener up!

Posted by: jasperanselm | January 13, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Ok, getting back on topic (if I may) Drindle, or anyone else from New York, what is the major objection people have to Gillibrand? Has she been a disappointment in Sec. Clintons old seat? Is there a serious threat to her chances of winning a general? Just curious. While we're at it, what is so objectionable about Gov. Patterson? I know he is not popular at all, but I don't know why. Is it just the whole anti-incumbant wave sweeping the nation right now, or is there a tangiable reason?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"What Can Brown Do For You?"

Nothing. Terrible campaign. I rejected that slogan and they should have listened.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Jake. I thought we were on a politics blog. If we are on a politics blog, and we are going to talk about people claiming persecution, my mind naturaly goes to one place.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

BLOG SPAMMER REVEALS ULTERIOR MOTIVE IN AD HOMINEM ATTACK?

"drindl" @ 10:15 a.m., in attacking another poster, seems to have exposed the true mission of "regulars" who, on a daily, hour-by-hour basis, blog-spam "The Fix" and other WaPo, Politico, Daily Kos (etc.) blogs:

Their postings appear to be a coordinated (possibly taxpayer-funded) "black op" intended to pollute discourse and to deflect attention from revealing or controversial postings by legitimate commentators who are not paid trolls on a mission.

ROSYLN MAZER, Office of DNI: Are you aware? Is this kosher?

An analysis by WaPo of both content and IP addresses could confirm the veracity of these statements.

But, ironically, media outlets appear to have a vested interest in NOT revealing the apparent truth about blog-spamming -- because the media outlets benefit from the goosed-up "hit count" from paid trolls who repeatedly post comments when "regular" people are busy doing their jobs.

DOUBTERS, READ THIS:

http://nowpublic.com/world/how-u-s-spy-ops-censor-web-political-speech

OR

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener -- "How U.S. Spy Ops Censor Web Political Speech." Also see: U.S. Censors Net as Obama Lectures China on Net Censorship."
NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 13, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Brown can go away.

Even the national republican leaders know this is a wild goose chase and are staying home. If they really thought they had a chance, they would be out on the campaign trail with Brown.

Just keep stimulating the local economy with those republican advertising dollars. It's greatly appreciated.

Posted by: jasperanselm | January 13, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

How about YOU leave Sarah Palin out of it for once?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

What Can Brown Do For You?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"I weel find the six-fingered man, and I will say to him:"I am Inigo Montoya. You keeled my father. Prepare to die."

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Everyone tune your shoe-phones to channel 16 for new orders.

Posted by: jasperanselm | January 13, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I can't speak for them, 37th. But I don't want to control the conversation. I want open debate. That’s why I'm here. I don't have any problem with you making your case against me on the political issue O' the day. What is irritating is why you whine (and I'd use another word if it wouldn't violate the rules) about people ganging up on you. Put on the big boy pants and debate like a grown-up. Otherwise, I'd suggest learning to live with that persecuted feeling. Maybe you and Sarah Palin can commiserate about that.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

." I still think there are a bunch of you on this blog who are working together."

Margaret -- he's onto us. Contact me on the secret channel, Code 666.


Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

@ bsimon1 - My main point was that 37th throws that word around a lot when it is inappropriate. As for my phrasing, that's all Princess Bride. The original quote:

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 13, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

BB, I don't think I'll ever understand how more people tune in for Leno than for Conan.. The latter is far funnier. Not even close.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 13, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama still has a black eye from the way the Massachusetts election has been going - whether Brown wins or not.


The democrats simply can not get over the fact that the country does not want Obama's version of health care.


I can understand how the democrats feel - they had so much hope last year, but Obama has been such a disappointment.

There is a sense of betrayal coming over the democrats - they are not sure who to blame - they are still clinging to the thought that Obama was not a FRAUD from the start, however the evidence is mounting and it is becoming more difficult to deny.


Even to themselves.

GO SCOTT BROWN.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


I call them as I see them. Sorry if you don't like it. I still think there are a bunch of you on this blog who are working together.


It is quite hilarious.

You guys get all upset when you can not control the conversation - and when other points of view are actually presented.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Not everyone, 37th. Just you. And not necessarily always. Just until you decide to bring informed opinions, and stop accusing others of the same character flaws that you are guilty of.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Not only that but she turned a blind eye while her organization WWE was responsible for deaths of several of her employees from steriod and HGH abuse. If this was any other sport there would be congressional hearings and prosecutions. She is not that far removed from Michael Jackson's Dr.

drindl "McMahon is a vaudevillian clown, running as shady a violent/pornographic enterprise as can be found anywhere -- one that regularly offends anyone with any sense of decency."

Posted by: MerrillFrank | January 13, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

""McMahon will likely defeat Simmons for the R nomination, and Blumenthal is going to be in for the race of his life against an outside businesswoman."

Blumenthal is widely, widely repected and rightly so. McMahon is a vaudevillian clown, running as shady a violent/pornographic enterprise as can be found anywhere -- one that regularly offends anyone with any sense of decency.

I don't even see a contest. You want to talk about full disclosure? Check out some of the circulating videos of WWF performers having 'sex' with female corpses in coffins or simulated beating/raping women -- brought to you by Linda McMahon. Do you really think CT wants this national embarassment? C'mon."

Forget CT -- I'd be looking forward to people like Sarah Palin trying to defend this woman as a good Republican.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 13, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse


margaretmeyers says her gang members are better than everyone else


Fresh news and information.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

The people I know in Connecticut are not crazy about Linda McMahon -

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

"FairlingtonBlade ... Your comment proves my point."

Was your point that he's funny?

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Drindl actually gathers information and posts interesting sources. Yes, she has a definite viewpoint, but everyday she brings fresh news and information to this blog, along with her informed opinion. 37th posts frequently and repeats his/her opinions and (largely uninformed) assertions endlessly. S/he adds little.

Drindl is a frequent, interesting, informed and informative poster. 37th is merely a frequent poster.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 13, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Careful, elijah, it can be hazardous to your health to try to talk reason to the fake 37th. It's a waste of time. The conversation is beyond his IQ.

Posted by: jasperanselm | January 13, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Mass elects moderate Republicans ie Ed Brooke, Bill Weld and pre-2008 Willard Mitt Romney, not some tea bagger Bush clone.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | January 13, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The Fix is a good name for this tripe. Democrats 24/7 with no integrity. The sooner liberal rags like these are shown the door to the bankruptcy court the better.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | January 13, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"McMahon will likely defeat Simmons for the R nomination, and Blumenthal is going to be in for the race of his life against an outside businesswoman."

Blumenthal is widely, widely repected and rightly so. McMahon is a vaudevillian clown, running as shady a violent/pornographic enterprise as can be found anywhere -- one that regularly offends anyone with any sense of decency.

I don't even see a contest. You want to talk about full disclosure? Check out some of the circulating videos of WWF performers having 'sex' with female corpses in coffins or simulated beating/raping women -- brought to you by Linda McMahon. Do you really think CT wants this national embarassment? C'mon.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

How is that different from what YOU do, 37th?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

drindl


If you believe that your views make you a superior person to others in the opposite party, then you are arrogant.


And you are arrogant if you constantly put down people in the other party.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

"THIS is the problem: you act like the other party is not legitimate - like their issues are not legitimate.
Your attitude is one of arogance - they are dumb, we are smart.
The attitude is so ugly."
- 37th
==
Are you serious with this? Really? I mean, in a sense you are not wrong. The attitude of arrogance; that those who do not agree with us are not legitimate; is the problem. But as an accusation coming from you, it seems a bit like one cooking utensil referring to the color of another.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 13, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

drindl


America is about tolerance of other people's views.

That is what your problem is : you believe that avoiding offense is really important.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Mass. is actually really close now. I would still say, just due to the Democratic leaning of Mass., that Coakley is the slight favorite. It is impressive that Brown is able to put up such an impressive fight here, though. To me, Coakley is in the same situation that Sen. Talent was in in 2006. Great candidate facing a really tough political environment for his party, and lost by about 1 point. I think Coakley survives, but barely.

I think Colorodo is gone for D's, as Republicans will take the Governor & US Senate seat this year. McInnis & Norton are great candidates whom will benefit from the national political environment and turn Colorodo back red in 2010.

Gillibrand will likely beat out Ford, if he runs. I think Gillibrand will be the D nominee in NY. Question is, will we get a Republican nominee worth some salt to challenge her? If we do, it has to be frmr. Gov. Pataki or US Rep. King. Either of those 2 would present a challenge to Gillibrand and give Republicans a good shot to win.

In Conn., Byswiesicz must want Lieberman's senate seat. Since Blumenthal is in for Dodd, Byswiesicz will take the more easily won AG's race and prepare for Lieberman in 2012. This is what it sounds like to me. A coup for Democrats, however. They now have Blumenthal for Dodd's spot, they will be able to give their liberal darling, Ned Lamont, a shot to win the governor's race. Plus, they can get Byswiesicz against Lieberman in 2012. Also, I'm not sure Blumenthal is a shoo in, as he's never been in a tough race. I think Linda McMahon will be the R nominee, and will have about $50,000,000 to ensure that Blumenthal is fully disclosed and will have a very tough race this time. McMahon will likely defeat Simmons for the R nomination, and Blumenthal is going to be in for the race of his life against an outside businesswoman.

Posted by: reason5 | January 13, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

WHAT


i find most arrogant

and offensive

about a certain poster

....

is that

he thinks what he says

is so important


HE makes everYONE


else

scroll for hours

to get past his

DRECK.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

ATTN. TOM PEREZ, U.S. Deputy Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights:

Why is CRD AWOL on extrajudicial targeting, torture and fed-funded "community watch" vigilante terrorism?

U.S. GOV'T USES CBS NEWS TO COVER UP MICROWAVE CELL TOWER TORTURE OF U.S. CITIZENS?

• A government-wide cover up that makes Watergate look like just another black bag job?

See: Poynter.org (Journalism groups -- Reporting): "U.S. Uses CBS News..."
Also -- "U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves" and "GESTAPO USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-uses-cbs-news-cover-microwave-cell-tower-torture
http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 13, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Harold Ford is not going anywhere -- at least not as a Democrat. It isn't that he's independent -- far from it. He's completely at the behest of the banking industry, as the NYTimes interview portrayed and we knew already. He might want to think about getting a better publicist, one who will walk him through land mines like this interview:

'After Mr. Ford, a five-term Tennessee congressman, arrived in New York, he took a job as a vice chairman at Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America). But he kept a toe in politics, becoming a commentator on Fox and then NBC, which features him several days a week on programs like MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Mr. Ford, 39, expressed enthusiasm about his new hometown, though he described a life quite different than most New Yorkers. On many days, he is driven to an NBC television studio in a chauffeured car. He and his wife, Emily, a 29-year-old fashion executive, live a few blocks from the Lexington Avenue subway line in the Flatiron district. But Mr. Ford said he takes the subway only occasionally in the winter, to avoid the cold when he cannot hail a cab.

Asked whether he had visited all five boroughs, he mentioned taking a helicopter ride across the city with fellow executives, at the invitation of Raymond W. Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner. “The only place I have not spent considerable time is Staten Island,” he said, adding that “I landed there in the helicopter, so I can say yes.”

***

Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank, but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. “I am a capitalist,” he said. “I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well."

This stuff is like everything most New Yorkers and the rest of america as well find offensive and about a big a turn off as you are going to find in politics today.

He's a chairman at Merrill Lynch, has a limousine and driver and appears on far-right wing TV shows? Excuse me, was he trying to kill his candidacy, or is he just that clueless?

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade


Your comment proves my point.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

BB, anyone who posts thoughts that diverge from 37th's numerous, very numerous, posts is called "arrogant." As they say in AA, 37th needs to take his own inventory before he starts in on others.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 13, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I can not imagine a thought that is more silly. Posted by: 37thand0street

I dunno, I thought the BLOOD IN THE BAY thought was

WAY

SILLIER.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 13, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

37th writes
"Additional ads are not going to help Coakley - they are like quicksand to her - the more ads she puts on tv, the more conservatives are motivated to go to the polls."


If 100% of conservatives in MA show up to vote, Coakley only needs about 50% of Dems to secure a victory.

Given the relative enthusiasm, my guess is the risk of attracting higher conservative turnout is small relative to the need to ensure Dem turnout.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Democratic domination of special elections continues. Rightwingnut rejected.

Woo-hoo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/12/AR2010011203717.html

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 13, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

@37th - You keep using that word (arrogance). I do not think it means what you think it means.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 13, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers

THIS is the problem: you act like the other party is not legitimate - like their issues are not legitimate.

Your attitude is one of arogance - they are dumb, we are smart.


The attitude is so ugly.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

My boycott of Boston will remain in place until the votes are actually counted. Also, Ford gave a great interview. I have carefully observed Harold Ford over the years he was a Congressman and now political analyst for MSNBC. Early in his political career he impressed me with his abilty to analyze issues objectively without giving way to partisan politics. We need more Senators like him, Senators who will speak and vote their mind on issues and not succumb to pressures from the White House or their party caucus. We need more candidates for the Senate like Harold Ford and Joe Sestak of PA who are willing to take the political risk of throwing their hats into the ring despite pressures from the White House and state political leaders to stay out.

Finally, I believe that in the not-to-distant future, Harold Ford will make a great U.S. President. He is highly intelligent, and actually well- versed in issues, principled, and yes, conservative. If he keeps getting shut out as a Democrat, he could run as Palin's VP ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Michael Steele would enjoy being a late night talk show host. I hear there's an opening on NBC at 12:05. Or 11:35. Or maybe 1:05.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 13, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

The fact that Ned Lamont in Connecticut is running for governor is astonishing to me. I have lived in 9 different states in my life. Connecticut is among them. If I was an advisot to Lamont, I would have urged him to stage a rematch against Joe Lieberman for the Senate seat. While CT is a liberal state, Republicans have been considerably more competitive in gubernatorial elections --- See Lowell Weicker, Rowland and Jodi Rell, all GOP with back-toback victories -- than they are in Senate. Lamont is an ideological candidate in a state that is very pragmatic in the way it is run. When CT voters want to send a message, they send people to Congress, not the state houes. Also, Dan Malloy has a very good record as mayor of Stamford. The primary will not be a cakewalk for Lamont.

Posted by: Jay20 | January 13, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Additional ads are not going to help Coakley - they are like quicksand to her - the more ads she puts on tv, the more conservatives are motivated to go to the polls.


Coakley was depending on a low turn-out election.

At this point, all hopes for a low turn-out election are lost. Scott Brown is surging. The pollsters are calculating Coakley's percentage based on a low turn-out. NOW the situation is different.

Additional commercials are going to help?

The additional commercials are simply going to drive up the turn-out. The Republicans are motivated. You are not going to de-motivate them in one week. GO SCOTT BROWN.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

SHOWDOWN:

'Top Republican National Committee members “are preparing a motion demanding that RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele cancel promotional events” for his new book. “The proposed motion, to be presented to the 168-member RNC at its annual winter meeting in Honolulu at the end of this month, also would direct him to donate to the RNC and Republican candidates all proceeds from the book.”

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Andy, thanks for the demographic info on CO.

Your read on TX is inaccurate, however. Only Austin puts up big D majorities, but they are thinned if you look at Austin Metro, because the suburbs lean R. Metro Houston[I include everything from Port Arthur to Galveston] and DFW are up for grabs, with a D lean. Metro SA is only a D lean. EP doesn't vote much, but when a few do, it is D. The LRGV cities don't vote much, but the few vote D. Corpus, Amarillo, Lubbock, Tyler-Marshall-Longview, Midland-Odessa, Abilene, Wichita Falls, Killeen-Waco-Temple-Belton; these vote R 2-1, with good turnouts in state races. Bryan-College Station leans R. Then the Big Empty votes R as high as 90%, with mixed turnout.

You would think rural electrification and the Farm-to-Market highway system, unparalleled in America, had been R ideas, for which the Big Empty remains grateful.

What really does happen in state politics is that as the cities grow powerful the "big empties" lose their clout in the state capitols. Thus when rancher Dolph Briscoe was Speaker of the House and then Governor, we got that Farm-Market highway system. Dolph remains a loyal D in his 90s, but most of his contemporaries have become alienated as the D Party became the party of city interests. In the state leges, Rs have played to the "sense of loss" that the small towns, small isolated cities, rural county seats and farmers and ranchers have felt.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 13, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

'I feel like city versus country is just another aspect of the class war the GOP stokes everywhere. It's really just part of the "they are elitists with no understanding of real life" or "don't let *them* be the boss of you" memes.'

You are absolutely right here, margaret. The right and their constant harping on 'latte-drinking, volvo-driving elites' is nothing but another wedge they use to divide people. Republicans are the party of corporate power and wealth -- all the phony slogans and folksy 'heehawing' in the world can't change that.

Sarah Palin is nothing but the voice of the mammoth extraction industry -- coming from big red lips.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The past month has really hit Obama in the face with REALITY. Starting with the exposure of his soft terrorism policies, to the exposure of his hypocrisy on racial issues to the Coakley scare.


The question is: Is Obama smart enough to shift course, put aside his arrogance and his fraudulent campaign themes, and begin to govern properly ???

OR is Obama going to jam the health care bill down the throats of American and destroy vast segments of the democratic party in the process ????

Scott Brown winning and blocking the health care bill would actually be good for Obama.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers


You have some twisted view of the world if you believe the Republicans are responsible for "class war and race war" - two issues that have constantly come from the left.

Margaret, was Karl Marx a Republican ???

I can not imagine a thought that is more silly.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

About Ford:

--"She [Gillibrand] is not the incumbent," he said. "New Yorkers have never had a chance to vote for her. "

As Andy said, 'wha?' He's really showing his ignorance here. Foot in mouth.

--"Ford would oppose the Obama administration's health care plan;"

Good going, Ford, lost most of us already. NY Dems largely in favor of the health plan. Tin ear.

--"Among the places in the Empire State Ford has visited outside New York City: Buffalo and Syracuse.'

Not too impressive, Harold. If you're a carpetbagger, the least you can do is a 'listening tour' ala Hillary -- travel around the state and get to actually know something about it before you waltz in and decide you're taking over the joint. Geographically challenged.

--"To say that I am pro life is just wrong.'

Please don't insult our intelligence. We know your record. And generally speaking, you don't use that language if you are pro-choice, because you see 'pro-life' as a mischaracterization -- we are not 'anti-life.'

He loses in his home state for being too far right, so he thinks we want him?

I've been involved in NY politics for 25 years. Someone on Gillibrand's left might have had a chance -- but a challenge from the right? Not here, not now. He's got nothing to offer.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

"We all can agree that nothing gets conservatives to the polls like the SMELL OF BLOOD IN THE BAY."

I thought it was the SMELL EXUDED FROM CHENEY'S GLANDS that got conservatives to the polls.


Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 13, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Chris writes:

Among the places in the Empire State Ford has visited outside New York City: Buffalo and Syracuse, and he will be in Rochester and Albany in the near future.

---------------------


OK He has "visited" Buffalo - I guess that clinches the win for him up there.


Ford has hardly traveled around the state of New York, much less having the contacts and experience to be able to win an election in those regions.

I supposed he thinks he can win on Long Island because he has been to a few parties in the Hamptons.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,

I feel like city versus country is just another aspect of the class war the GOP stokes everywhere. It's really just part of the "they are elitists with no understanding of real life" or "don't let *them* be the boss of you" memes.

Class war and race war are the tein ditches the GOP prefers to keep us mired in. Divisive BS, certainly, as we will all sink or rise together.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 13, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

I am seriously wondering how much the additional commercial ad spending by the democrats is going to help Coakley - instead it will only drive more conservatives to the polls.


Coakley is in quicksand - the more she moves the more she goes backwards.


The metrics of the race have shifted dramatically - from a low turn-out election to an election in which the conservatives are motivated and NOW THEY SMELL BLOOD.

We all can agree that nothing gets conservatives to the polls like the SMELL OF BLOOD IN THE BAY.

Because the attention of voters is basically compressed to this week, Scott Brown's performance at the debate this week was key - he had to show viability. He by far exceeded that standard - he looked great on tv, and he kidded how he wasn't part of the Republican establishment because he drove a truck.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Thats true Parker. Also money doesnt' buy grassroots orginization and the Democrats have that in spades in the Bay State. The GOP is a shadow of a party in Mass, and I expect that and the ad wars to win this for Coakley confortably.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 13, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

I am not sold on the idea that Ned Lamont will win the Democratic primary. I found his performance in the Connecticut senate primary to be more an anti-Joe sentament. Because of that I wonder if Dannal Malloy can paint Lamont as unprepared and all glitter. That being said, people who are pro-Lamont say that he is a really smart and passionate guy who wouldn't be beholden to any sort of special interests.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 13, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

If you have the money, why not spend it? Ad spending does not necessarily man Coakley is in trouble.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 13, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Mark, the thing about CC's take on the Denver market is that the greater Denver/Boulder metropolitan area has a population of around 3 million and the rest of the state is 2 million combined. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much the rest of the state thinks that Hickenlooper is a city slicker if he wins the majority of the vote in Denver he wins the race. Same goes for Texas too if you look at Houston/Dallas/etc vs the rural parts of the state.

I really can't beleive that Harold Ford said "New Yorkers have never had a chance to vote for her. She has never stood on the ballot before." She was an ELECTED congresswoman from northern NY for two terms before she became a senator. On top of that Ford is hoping for a large black turnout to help his campaign, but the thing is that any black voter advantage he has will be stomped by the female advantage that Gillenbrand brings to the table.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 13, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

"Like most states, Colorado voters who don't live in Denver are suspicious of those who do..."

CC meant that as in most states, the "country" voters are suspicious of the big city "slickers". Obviously, Amarillo voters are not suspicious of Denver voters, although Amarillo is closer to Denver than it is to Austin. But the line got me thinking about Goodhair. He will play that card against KBH [Houston, Austin, UT Law, Dallas, and DC] the city girl, won't he? And if he wins the primary, he will play it again against White [former Mayor of Houston]. Oddly, no one is slicker than Rick and it is not just his hair.

CC, the R debate is coming up in TX and Medina is IN. She is a character worth one colorful paragraph from you and she may pull enough of the TEA protest vote to even up the odds for KBH.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 13, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company