Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Ground Hog Day: New Day, More Conservative Dems

It's ground hog day on the ramble. Wake up early, turn on the local news and watch another battle over whether a Democratic candidate is sufficiently conservative. In this case, it is sheriff Brad Ellsworth (D), who is running for the Indiana District 8 seat against incumbent Rep. John Hostettler (R).

Ohio River Ramble

Jim VandeHei

Posted by
Jim VandeHei
» About Jim

"I am pro-life," Ellsworth tells voters in an ad blanketing the Evansville media market. "I believe in traditional marriage and the Second Amendment. I am a sheriff who supports our troops." Like Mike Weaver, the Democratic candidate in Kentucky 2, Ellsworth is one of the prized Democratic recruits in a red state, a tough-looking law enforcer and social conservative.

But Republicans are trying to paint him as tree-hugging liberal who would put the considerably more liberal Nancy Pelosi in charge of Congress. The National Republican Congressional Committee is running an ad that shows Pelosi' photo, calling her an "extreme liberal" who would become speaker if Ellsworth prevails. "How can he possibly stop their liberal agenda?" the ad asks.

The Bloody 8th is earning its reputation this year, with most of the ads dark and negative. The DCCC, which plans to spend $1 million in this race, is bashing Hostettler, a throwback GOP incumbent, for voting to raise congressional salaries, weakening ethics rules and accepting money from oil companies. "Did Hostettler change Washington, or did Washington change Hostettler?" asks the anouncer.

Away from the television screenes, some of the charges border on the silly. In the local paper, the candidates are trading charges over Hostettler accepting money from other GOP lawmakers who accepted money from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Ellsworth campaign calls it "dirty special interest money." But Hostettler has not received any money from Abramoff directly.

For those of you keeping score at home: gas prices in Evansville: $2.06 for the cheap stuff. If we get time to post more on the topic later Weaver, in an interview yesterday, accused the Bush administration of manipulating prices.

Final note on the Weaver race: both campaigns said they have not polled recently. But a Lewis adviser said the GOP incumbent was up 18 points in a poll taken earlier this summer. Weaver polled about a month ago and aides said he was down single-digits and that the Lewis reelect number was 48 percent, a dangerous level for an incumbent.

-- Jim VandeHei

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  September 21, 2006; 11:18 AM ET
Categories:  House , Ohio River Ramble  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Audio: Cillizza and VandeHei Discuss Ky.'s 2nd
Next: Unorthodox Campaigner May Be in Trouble

Comments

These stories are getting a little dull...I miss The Line.

And where has RMill been all this time???

Posted by: Greg-G | September 26, 2006 9:02 AM | Report abuse

>>>did you miss Path?

did you miss the 9/11 commission?

without addressing each and every insane comment that you made in that laughable paragraph, your reliance on a Disney produced made for TV "docudrama" for your Clinton bashing is absolutely hysterical. Keep it up zouk, so funny. Dems are going to straighten things up and hopefully impeach this corrupt anti-American neofascist pro-torture administration. I cant wait! :)

Posted by: F&B | September 23, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Baghdad Bob is back, declaring victory while enemy troops have his castle surrounded. Fat and bald - you are farsical. What is Plamegate - a lie that is still being pursued by agenda media.
9/11 was planned and prepared during the Clinton Admin - did you miss Path? Yes Clinton was fiddling while NY, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, Iran were burning.
Regardless - the point about the future is that Dems wil make us less safe with their cowardly surrender and terrorist protection laws. I would love to see you go into their domain for a while and then let me knnow how you feel about their rights. Of course, you would be dead from torture and beheading. If there is one thing you can be absolutely sure of - it is that Dems do not solve problems or protect this country.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

>>>Nope. It's just a name. I'll leave the self loathing to you

Hey, you brought it up when you typed in your SN.

>>>Yes, war is expensive and tough

The WoT is expensive and tough. The Iraq War is a friggin FIASCO and you and everyone here knows it.

>>>And the next time you don't die in a terrorist attack on US soil you can thank the R's for it

I was in NYC on 9/11. Remember that? 9/11? Bush was in power then. What did he do to protect me then? He was on f'ing VACATION. He got the PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" on August 6th and what did he do then? What has he done to secure our borders? What has he done to secure the ports? What has he done to screen cargo on airplanes? What has he done to get to the bottom of why 9/11 actually happened (he opposed the 9/11 Commission, or have you forgotten abt that?).

>>>How about until then you stick to the only other issues Dems can think of

Why dont you stick your head BACK in the sand and pretend that Bush is making you more secure. B/c you obviously dont give a damn about anything but Anti-American NeoCon partisan rhetoric.

Oh, also, Global Warming is for real. Even Bush Admin's hand has been forced on the matter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001697.html

And if you can find ONE just ONE Dem on this board or elsewhere who is declaring William Jefferson INNOCENT, please post the link. Thanks.

But of course, you ignore Duke Cunningscam, Coingate, Plamegate, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, and the countless investigations of impropriety on the Right side of the aisle.

Go back to Ignoranceville and leave protecting the country and solving the problems to the Democrats. Adios loser.

Posted by: F&B | September 22, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

War in Iraq had nothing to do with anything?? - so Saddam wasn't giving money to suicide bombers and generally supporting terrorists. that sounds like sumptin. how about the other 23 reasons given long before the war for defending ourselves against this despot. when you make those absolutist statements, you automatically disqualify yourself from being considered reasonable. I guess your views on everything coincide with that notion.
the education you are offering makes kids dumber. the retirment program you advocate costs me money and rapes the poor. some smelly cheese there.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2006 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Nope. It's just a name. I'll leave the self loathing to you. Yes, war is expensive and tough. And the next time you don't die in a terrorist attack on US soil you can thank the R's for it. How about until then you stick to the only other issues Dems can think of: Al Gore's global warming (nevermind the Earth has been warming for over a 100 years, not just since January 2001) or corrupt politicians (at least just the R's because D's don't do the same thing - except for ABSCAM, or Dan Rostenkowski, or William Jefferson, or the Daly's, etc., etc.)

Posted by: Ih8Bloggers | September 22, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

>>>we'll spend more and more taxpayer money to give you some government cheese

At least we offer govt cheese (social security, education, port security, etc).

The R's "spend more and more" ($300 BILLION + another $70 approved) for a War in Iraq that had nothing to do with anything (certainly not the War on Terror or 9/11), has led to 2600+ American troops DEAD, and marked decline in the stability of our foreign affairs.

Btw, Ih8bloggers, now that you have posted does that mean you hate yourself?

Posted by: F&B | September 22, 2006 2:41 PM | Report abuse

you are all morons. Republican do blindly follow Bush and his doctrine, but at least they believe in something. Libs only believe that everyone other than them is wrong. Where does that get us? Worse yet, for all of their "humane" intentions, they empower the downtrodden to be taught and told how to live. You want wine and cheese? This is the liberal version - we'll spend more and more taxpayer money to give you some government cheese. Even if you are completely capable of improving upon a crappy meal of government cheese but too lazy or stupid to do anything about it we will still make sure you are taken care of. Even if you rob, steal, murder to get more we'll take care of you...and blame everyone else because well we're right because we gave you cheese.

Posted by: Ih8Bloggers | September 22, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

>>>Fat and bald - so its Ok to kill civilians just not to torture anyone.

It is never OK to kill civillians (even for America to kill civillians like we've done in Iraq accidentally AND purposefully) and it is never OK to torture (as we have done in Iraq/secret prisons). Period. Period period period.

You are clearly advocating torture. Thus you clearly have no sense of the inherent morality or ethics of the human condition, so this conversation is over.

Posted by: F&B | September 22, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

the facts of the Geneva convention: terrorists who target civilians are not covered.
" combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population" and "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."
From http://www.aim.org/guest_column/4888_0_6_0_C/

shall we start calling you Libs the 'terrorist protection party'. they want to kill us. don't you get it? Perhaps you should nominate Hugo for your leader, he sounds just like you.

Fat and bald - so its Ok to kill civilians just not to torture anyone. Is loud music more repulsive then murder? Can you find a morality that makes any sense?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2006 10:53 AM | Report abuse

If you want to get a peek at conspiracies, check out the new investigative report called Capital Crooks in US News and World Report. Its about the Duke Cunningham scandal and if you can read this and actually feel safer, then there's really no hope for this country. Its absolutely terrifying to realize how much the GOP has sold this country to the highest bidder, on the backs of our soldiers, and with no regard to how their dirty dealings affect this nation. And, people like KOZ and bhoomes are proud of this party? That explains alot about them. This is the party of morality, of Christianity?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/home.htm

Posted by: KAS | September 22, 2006 7:15 AM | Report abuse

>>>how much of a wuss are you really? this is why you can't be trusted to defend us - You are a wuss.

I am a human being who does not condone TORTURE of other human beings. I wouldnt even treat an animal the way you would have OTHER PEOPLE treat a fellow human being. YOU are a disgusting pig and a coward.

Posted by: F&B | September 21, 2006 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Confronted with the facts, you simply hurl insults. But clearly, that's all you're capable of.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2006 6:27 PM | Report abuse

If Iran and Syria surrender... oh please. Syria has been working with us quietly, didn't you know that? They torture people for us.

And Iran has worked with us as well in Iraq. They were thrilled when we overthrew Saddam -- he was their biggest enemy! What bush and whatever his name abedoofuss or whatever bluster about in public has nothing to do with reality -- it's to please their simpleminded base.

Now escuse me, i have my 37 cats to feed.

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Is there anything in this world which is as it seems to you zany Libs? Or is everything wrapped in conspiracy? how do they pull all this off with so many of you onto their game? Let me guess - the lazy, partisan press corps.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

perhaps there is hope... i dare to say it....

'proclaimed that until we eliminate the hate-teaching in those madrassas, we will not be able to prevail'

YES! for zouk. absolutely. but where do you think the madrassas are. my friend? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, our 'allies' --and also the folks who brought us 9/11. You saw the photo I posted yesterday of bush kissing Prince Abdullah on the lips--after 9/11? Did that make you sick? It did me...

Do you really not understand why so many can't stand the man? Because we love america and he is soft on our enemies. Because they are his buddies in the oil biz.

Do you know where Wahhabism [the brnach of Islam that is actually evil] started? In the 1920's as a reaction to British colonialism in the Middle East -- for oil.

It all goes back to oil -- all the enormous dangers we face -- all go back to the industrial revolution. bush is part of the problem, not of the solution. Until we as a country get a grip on the root causes of all this, and start pressuring our government to crack down on terrorist coddling governments like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we will continue to be in terrible danger.

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

If Iran and Syria surrender, I bet lots of problems would go away.
there were lots of Nazis left in DE after the war. Look at the history of those years and you will see a Nazi eradication plan.
the current problem is with the arbitrary borders that can hide the enemy, when he is pervasive througout a region. We generally respect borders and they do not. We will eventually have to make living anywhere in that region so uncomfortable for all of them, that they finally give up. they need to become hopeless and lose their sponsors. Like the Nazi's did. It is a difficult plan but the choice is that or let them randomly kill us in various places throughout the world. the support for the Taliban in Afghanistan is dwindling. the same will eventually happen in Iraq after lots of the bad guys are killed off. that is what you do in war - kill off most of the enemy and let the rest give up from hopelessness. It is called attrition and is the most typical method of warfare. Maybe you Dems don't have the fortitude to see this through. It's OK though, the voters will pick the Rs to finish the job. you can go back to your cats now.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

KoZ says "whiny crybabies can't tolerate a single sacrifice or allow any terrorist to be uncomfortable in any way. tell me why they are not spies (Geneva convention - no uniforms, no country) and deserve immediate hanging, after a fair trial of course."

Because we are not infallible. Because the humans carrying out these policies make mistakes. Wouldn't it be great if 1) we could count on torture to only generate useful information and 2) we could determine beforehand who had the good info recoverable by torture? Problem is 1) it doesn't and 2) we don't. So, in using torture, folks who have no info for us, and maybe aren't even really terrorists, end up strapped to the waterboard, or with their fingernails pulled out, or whatever it is that is done to make them talk. Then what? "Uh, sorry, here's 10 grand for your poppy farm, have a nice life?" Or do you just kill 'em anyway? Of course, their family & neighbors saw our forces haul the dude off, so they know who dissappeared him and wham! a new crop of terrorists have been created. Hey - this war on terror could last forever that way; I better buy me some defense contractor mutual funds and retire now.

Posted by: bsimon | September 21, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

KoZ just learned that "until we eliminate the hate-teaching in those madrassas, we will not be able to prevail. Let's hear about this from our esteemed press."

Well, some folks have been promoting that view for 5 years or so. But the "kill em all & let God sort 'em out" types reply by calling such folks weak liberals too worried about what people think of us. Not that that run-on sentence makes any sense.

P.S. Some important differences between the current ideological battle and WWII, is that in WWII there were governments from whom we could accept surrender. There were armies against which we were fighting. It shouldn't have to be explained that the current conflict is a different beast entirely.

Posted by: bsimon | September 21, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Humane interrogation :
PLease tell me all your secrets, pretty please, pretty please with sugar on top? who is the fool who thinks this will work? 1. the terrorists are not winning. 2. thier perception of any success is just a magnification of our own modest failures, further enhanced by you whiny crybabies who can't tolerate a single sacrifice or allow any terrorist to be uncomfortable in any way. tell me why they are not spies (Geneva convention - no uniforms, no country) and deserve immediate hanging, after a fair trial of course.

If playing loud music is torture, I guess my parents deserved Geneva protection during the 60s and 70s. Get real, I paid to go to summer camp that had worse punishments for sneaking out at night. how much of a wuss are you really? this is why you can't be trusted to defend us - You are a wuss.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

>>>why are we the tolerant ones when they are the killers

B/c WE are the UNITED STATES, you idiot.

People like you would have us sink to the level of Syria by outsourcing torture instead of humane interrogation. People like you are causing the terrorists to WIN by making US look like the bad guys (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, secret CIA prisons, torture).

Dont be a frickin fool zouk.

Posted by: F&B | September 21, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

It is not clear that you can't fight an idealogy with a military. We did defeat the Nazis with a military - and their allies. I suppose you may have a point there, but it is subject to some kind of proof which you haven't provided. but you can hold one at bay while you employ other methods. Example - the USSR. I read something the other day which I can't cite exactly which proclaimed that until we eliminate the hate-teaching in those madrassas, we will not be able to prevail. Let's hear about this from our esteemed press. why do they always side with the enemy. example Pope says muslims are violent - result : muslim violence, NYT calls for apology - from the Pope. Example - cartoons show unpleasant rendition of muslim religion. result - muslim violence and contest for worse cartoons. why are we the tolerant ones when they are the killers. It is not equal. Israel is not a bad guy. Is this open to debate or can we all agree. If not, what do you Libs really stand for after all?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Correction on the 4:45 pm post - It should have been Sen. Menendez, not Martinez.

Mea culpa!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | September 21, 2006 5:03 PM | Report abuse

KoZ asked "don't any of you have one original idea in your puny heads? "

Oh yeah, I fogot. I thought the rebuttal to your 'dems need to get tough on security' challenge was pretty good. I just thought that one up. It needs to be refined, but I'll get some good mileage out of it. 2 rules about the 'war on terror' the GOP hasn't learned in the last 5 years:

1) you can't fight an ideology with a military
2) if you break rule #1, bring a big 'effin army.

Posted by: bsimon | September 21, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

KoZ says "all this Bush bashing has gotten so very stale."

C'mon, lighten up. The imaginary fiasco about his wine and cheese party was pretty funny, wasn't it? Inviting me to imagine him at an event where booze is served really inveted no less of a response. Cheap shot? sure. But we can all laugh together, can't we?

Wait a sec, I gotta go feed the cats, then I can get back to you. My goal is to feed 30 today, to break my own best record (28 - how'd you guess?)

Posted by: bsimon | September 21, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

>>>Dubya at a Brie and Chablis gathering

The have and the have-more's

aka "Mah Base"

You don't think Bush actually "hangs out" with the "common folk" do you zouk?

Posted by: F&B | September 21, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes - the problem in New Jersey which forced the closing of state parks, casinos, etc. was a Jon Corzine problem. Sen. Martinez wouldn't have had any involvement in it, so it doesn't rub off on him.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | September 21, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

all this Bush bashing has gotten so very stale. don't any of you have one original idea in your puny heads? Have any of you ever done one thing in service of your country besides write trivial insults on websites. Bush actually was in the National Guard. were you? Bush was governor. Bush is President. Despite any perceived shortcomings, this is quite a life of accomplishment. What does your resume say? Helped 28 cats find food? Complained daily on leftist website about the Government's policies. Wow, that is some contribution. I will alert Who's Who.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

It's so amusng these chickenhawk types who've never served talking about 'getting tough'. what a joke... pathetic. Reminds me of something I read by David Sirota today:

'Meanwhile, chickenhawks who refused to serve in the military when they had the chance continue to sit comfortably in their Washington offices and transform their sick insecurities of personal weakness and frailty into screams for more American soldiers to be sent to die in Iraq.'

I mean, our generals say we need about twice as many troops as we actually have to 'win' --whatever that means... so why aren't all these war cheerleader over there? Those traitors are causing us to lose.

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Y'all are right. I called Nancy Pelosi a name. My bad. But I was trying to convey the idea that image is important, and hers is one that is out of touch with voters in rural areas like the ones VandeHei and Cizilla are covering right now. (I was also referring to her practice of name calling...responding to Chavez's speech by calling him a thug)

So, the problem with Pelosi is that she appears out of touch with most voters, despite her sincere attempts to focus on issues like jobs and torture. It seems that those attempts fall by the wayside (for whatever reason; I'm not a conspiracy theorist and won't blame the press; people just aren't that interested in that stuff, while the Republicans make the "wine and cheese" stuff a priority by attaching it to her image).

Picturing Barbara Streisand at a beer and brat fest is pretty funny.

Posted by: NSM | September 21, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

KoZ says "until the Dems acknowledge there is a war on and we need to get tough to win it."

Well, Dem failings aside, the Rs need to learn how to get tough to win this thing too. 1) you can't beat an ideology with a military. 2) if you choose to break rule #1, bring a big 'effin army.

Posted by: bsimon | September 21, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, he caught a big fish! You're right! I forgot. Most important thing he's ever done, I'm sure.

Well actually, he WAS a pilot. He was grounded for refusing to take a physical --some seem to think to had to do with drugs -- and he was decertified. But he handles a golf cart in a very manly way!

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 4:31 PM | Report abuse

drindl, Bush fishes. Didn't you hear about his biggest accomplishment during his presidency? He caught a big perch in the Prairie Chapel pond. And the man doesn't need to ride horses, he's a jet-fighter pilot. His old man only flew prop planes. Boy-wonder wins again!

Posted by: bsimon | September 21, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

don't confuse this website with the rest of the world. That is a well known bias in decision theory. Please note that the polls (which this website lives and dies by) have moved decisively in the Rs direction. I am not claiming that a few seats won't switch, but overall control is a lock for the Rs until the Dems acknowledge there is a war on and we need to get tough to win it. I may seem like the voice screaming in the wilderness in this lonely little outpost, but the rest of the country is now paying attetion and shifting evermore right day by day as the loony left makes their views clear.

Actually I have lots of people who keep me from getting lonely - its called the Republican majority and comprises over half of the seats in both houses. were you referring to some alternative reality? Like Gore won on '00? Or Dems are frugal? Or Dems will defend us? Does your Spok have a beard?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews today backed off speculating that the House might change hands, and now believes that there's no chance that the Senate will change. All because of an upturn in the President's poll approval numbers.

"Hardball !" my foot. More like, "Whichever Way the Wind Blows !"

How many times have the President's poll numbers gone up after a PR campaign, only to drop back down after a week or two?

One poll yesterday had the President in the mid 40's, but another equally respected one had him in the mid 30's (sorry I don't remember which ones they were).

Matthews did have one good point though, there has been drop-off in the MSM coverage of the Iraq War. Maybe once Opie and Anthony have their turn at a comdey routine before the U.N. General Assembly, the serious discussion will go back to "What do we do in Iraq other than adapt, and adapt again and adapt again."

Posted by: Nor'Easter | September 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Publican support of republicans in congress just hit 25%...

Nor'easter, bush has been to plenty of those. Don't forget, he's a phony. He was brought up in private schools in Connecticut--driven by a chaffeur. He bought that 'ranch' [which has no actual cattle] just before the elections, because reagan had one. Rove's idea. He's never been on an actual horse-- he prefers golf carts. He went to Yale, for chrissake, and was a rich fratboy and draft dodger. He never played sports, doesn't shoot, doesn't fish.

Nothing about him is real. It's all just well-orchestrated theatre.

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"Try to picture:

Dubya at a Brie and Chablis gathering"

I tried that, and every time, it was followed by an image of him driving home drunk to beat his wife. Seems like the man can't hold his liquor.

Posted by: bsimon | September 21, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

don't confuse this website with the rest of the world. That is a well known bias in decision theory. Please note that the polls (which this website lives and dies by) have moved decisively in the Rs direction. I am not claiming that a few seats won't switch, but overall control is a lock for the Rs until the Dems acknowledge there is a war on and we need to get tough to win it. I may seem like the voice screaming in the wilderness in this lonely little outpost, but the rest of the country is now paying attetion and shifting evermore right day by day as the loony left makes their views clear.

Actually I have lots of people who keep me from getting lonely - its called the Republican majority and comprises over half of the seats in both houses. were you referring to some alternative reality? Like Gore won on '00? Or Dems are frugal? Or Dems will defend us? Does your Spok have a beard?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk wrote: "...all these deranged crackpots coming out into the light is exactly why the voters will re-elect all the Rs (again) despite historical precedent in midterm elections and a nasty little war. tin-foil hat people can't be trusted or believed. Just review a few facts if you need convincing. they never line up with tin-foil-hat statements."

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

This exact kind of post is why, following the election, you're going to have to change your screen name and pretend to be someone else. Predictions like yours will be the prism of "credibility" that people will judge you by -- at least those who have not already written you off by now.

Doesn't it get lonely, screaming into the night with only bhoomes to keep you company, about just how well the Rs are going to do in the election? I mean, even VIVABUSH has slinked on off rather than continue his laughable predictions (that OH would have a R governor was his most laughable).

I get it. The emperor has no clothes. The Rs, thanks to Bush, have been exposed. It's not comfortable for you and folks like bhoomes. I really do understand. But really, trying to deny reality with your daily wishful thinking is absurd.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 21, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Your on Colin, I don't live in NJ but I have to think they are getting tired of all the corruption. Plus I believe he will pay for the sins of State Government after the casinos were shut down just to raise taxes again. If Kean doesn't win, then is either the worst politician in the world or New Jerseyians are a glutton for bad government and punishment.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 21, 2006 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Wine and cheese liberal -- what the hell does that mean?"

Try to picture:

Dubya at a Brie and Chablis gathering, or

Barbra Streisand at a Beer and Brat fest.

If you just reverse the mental image, the World returns to normal.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | September 21, 2006 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Wine and cheese liberal -- what the hell does that mean?

What does food have to do with this? What do 'conservatives' eat -- rocks and nails, becuase it's 'tough'?

These phony constructions, this silly name-calling, why do people allow themselves to be fooled by such childish nonsense? I asked, and still got no answer, just sound bites. Can't you think a little deeper than that?

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 3:56 PM | Report abuse

>>>they also think the NYT prints truths.

Judy Miller

>>>The thing that scares folks about Pelosi is her image as a wine and cheese NorCal liberal

If you dont like wine and cheese from NorCal there is something really wrong with you.

Politcally, she is no different than the Liberals in Oklahoma or Ohio.

>>>name calling won't change people's perceptions

Then you agree that calling Pelosi a "wine and cheese liberal" wont change the fact that she is going to be Speaker of the House come January. Sweet.

Posted by: F&B | September 21, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The thing that scares folks about Pelosi is her image as a wine and cheese NorCal liberal. It's the same reason people voted for Bush instead of Kerry. Broder's article today was pretty accurate on that score. Right or wrong, image is important in elections these days, and it's a different image than it was 30 years ago.

And name calling won't change people's perceptions.

Posted by: NSM | September 21, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I think VanderHei is the reporter who is married to a republican lobbyist. I'm not positive it's him, but I know definitely one of the Wapo's political reporters is.

Oh look the masochist nutbag is back. He reminds me of a drunk who crashes your party, paws and insults your guests, then throws up on the furniture before passing out on top of the dog.

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Same old loony lefties with the same paranoia about the big government. do you like Big G or not? Oh, I see, only when it is Dem big G. Between cat-lady Drindl, Fat and Bald, and that windbag JEP, you have all the makings of a Woody Allen movie here. Isn't it just grand that all your delusions coincide in this little universe. Anyone who thinks the WaPo is a Republican shill is simply daft. they also think the NYT prints truths. go figure. all these deranged crackpots coming out into the light is exactly why the voters will re-elect all the Rs (again) despite historical precedent in midterm elections and a nasty little war. tin-foil hat people can't be trusted or believed. Just review a few facts if you need convincing. they never line up with tin-foil-hat statements.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 21, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse

ABC's Dean Norland reports: In the wake of Hugo Chavez referring to President Bush as a racist, imperial "devil" while speaking to the United Nations, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referred to the Venezuelan president as a "thug."

Pelosi said at her weekly on-camera briefing, "Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had speaking at the United Nations. In doing so, in the manner in which he characterized the President, he demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela. I think Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern-day Simon Bolivar, but all he is is an everyday thug."

--Sooo--where's Denny Hastert?

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I just don't know what it is that scares people so much about Nancy Pelosi. Is it that she's woman, or she has buggy eyes? What does she believe in that is such anathema? I never get any real answers to these questions, becuase it's simply a matter of demonization. Like Michael Moore, like Howard Dean. They just get bashed by the right for no reason, over and over and over, and people just believe it.

You have to give people someone to hate and fear if you want to foment a culture war. And Rove knows that dividing the country is the best way to win. So they has gone about dividing in every possible way.

Of course, that also makes us very weak as a country, and vulnerable to attack, but as long as republicans stay in power, they don't r eally care about that. They're making too much money, and anyway, it won't be them getting killed.

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Would it be fair to say that Hostettler is more closely connected to Delay and Abramoff than Ellsworth is to Pelosi?

So why don't the Democrats "down there" make some ads of Delay and Abramoff standing at St. Andrews in their kilts, and float a bad photo of Hostettler over it that shrinks down and plops into their bag of golf balls.

Now THAT would be on a par with the Pelosi ad.

FORE!!!

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 2:44 PM | Report abuse

>>>"Jobs" is not a social issue?

You heard it from NSM, if it's not being preached in the MegaChurches, nobody gives a damn.

Btw, can you spare a dollar for Jesus? Make that $10. Come to think of it, make it $1000 and you get a photo with Karl Rove.

I'm not a Christian, but if I was, Id be more frightened about extemists taking over my religion (and government) than blowing me up in an airplane. Perfect example: Ralph Reed.

Posted by: F&B | September 21, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- when kean gets to the Senate, will he be able to hang out with Senator Forrestor? Also, I was wondering how exactly Forrestor manages to be both governor and a Senator at the same time - if you win both races (cause that's what the NJ polls said would happen) do you just keep both jobs?

Finally, I can't believe Tom Kean Sr. is running for Senate. How old is he now? Oh right, it's his unaccomplished son...which people are JUST starting to realize. Dollars to Donuts Kean loses by a minimum of 5 points.

Posted by: Colin | September 21, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Too bad you focused so narrowly on one candidate.

This Democrat doesn't speak for me.

Don't take Kentucky Democrats for granted. Guess you missed Senator Obama's speech in Louisville. If you're looking for what my Party looks like, sounds like and stands for...may I suggest you review his transcript?

Posted by: kym.russell@insight.com | September 21, 2006 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I think all of you are underestimating Hostettler. I live in the IN 9 (we'll here about it later I'm sure) only a few miles from the 8th. Hostettler is a true loony. He took a loaded gun onto a plane and got away with it. He said Democrats 'demonize' Christians. He won his seat in '94 with the wave and somehow manages to keep fending off challengers. I know a lot of people (including myself) would love to see him go down.

As for the Pelosi ads, they will affect people out here. She's way out of step with southern Indiana. Ellsworth is a star candidate, but I think the ads might wear a little of the shine off.

Posted by: Zach | September 21, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"I can't imagine that most people agree with Nancy Pelosi on most issues."

I do.

...you haven't been reading this blog long, huh?

"people in rural areas care less about why they're making less money for more work than they do about "social issues" like gay marriage and abortion."

I s'pose that all depends on how close they are to the unemployment line.

Montana and Wyoming have Halliburton right now, drilling away indiscriminately and hiring profusely, so those cowboys out on the pullin' rig aren't gonna complain.

But South Dakota has not been so lucky.

"People in rural areas" covers a lot of territory.

I would guess those folks in Dakota are now much more likely to be concerned about "jobs" than gay marriage.

Take away the easy money in Montana, and those roughnecks would feel the same.

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"'Jobs' is not a social issue?"

No, they're an economic issue. If that's your cup of tea, have fun, I guess, but my point was that people in rural areas care less about why they're making less money for more work than they do about "social issues" like gay marriage and abortion.

Not everyone is as "enlightened" as those posting on the Washington Post website...and yet, my guess is that you'll be the first to celebrate a Democratic victory in November, JEP. You need them but you dislike them?

Posted by: NSM | September 21, 2006 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"Hostettler is a lightweight"

Hostettler's sitting in one of the most powerful governmental bodies in the world, and has been accused of taking tainted money to hold onto that seat...

If that is "lightweight", then what DOES matter?

Trivializing something as meaningful as Hostettler's campaign integrity is sheer indulgence.

There are no little fish in that big DC pond, every one of them takes part in affecting the entire world, on a daily basis.

So it might be prudent for all of us to seek to know the truth about those we are electing.

"Hostettler's a lightweight.."

Mighty big words, in the face of the current "situation."

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Scott;
Chris didn't write this post...

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The stupidity of some posters on this blog never ceases to amaze me. I'm absolutely not interested in addressing everything I've just read, but I have to say a few things.

The WaPo is not in Karl Rove's back pocket. In fact, its quite a liberal newspaper. As I've said many times before, Chris Cillizza is one of the most balanced political reporters I've read in recent years. Finding anything to betray partisanship in his writing is very rare.

And yes, it is silly to accuse Hostettler of taking Abramoff money! Why did Jack so to so much trouble to protect little old John Hostettler when his direct contributions brought down much more influential lawmakers like Bob Ney. The fact is, Hostettler is a lightweight, and not worth Abramoff's time. It just so happens that some members that took Abramoff money turned around and gave some to Hostettler, who desperately needs it due to his reluctance to fundraise. Try to keep an open mind guys; not everything is a conspiracy.

Posted by: scott | September 21, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

No that's ""delayed"..

Some form of a.d.d.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't vandeHei himself have some DeLay connection?

Posted by: vienna local | September 21, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"Jim Talents pulls a connection between all these disparate, unrelated incidents ..."

"Progress for America is airing an ad which links Saddam Hussein to a string of terrorist attacks going back all the way to the Olympic athletes..."

Same thing, but they will deny it, even as we all LOL...

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 1:11 PM | Report abuse

So, Weaver gets it.

He thinks the Bush administration has manipulated gas prices.

But no details, only.... "if we get time" will post more on it later. Chris no time or no inclination?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 21, 2006 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"The tactic of tying local candidates to party leadership is an effective one."

..and who all would NOT like to get their photo taken with Bush?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is a God send to us, no reasonable moderate american wants her only two heartbeats from being CINC. So in competive and mixed districts we can frame the debate between who would you rather have in charge, Pelosi or Denny Hastert. If you want to talk about crime syndicates you need to look no futher that NJ. Oh, what a coencidnce, Bob Menmendez is being investisgated for corruption along with the rest of the democratic establishment in NJ. Can you say SEN KEAN.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 21, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"issues like jobs aren't necessarily as important as stances on social issues.


"Jobs" is not a social issue?

This is going to be fun.

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"they don't operate so much like a political party as a crime syndicate."

and in defense of our favorite syndicated crime syndicate, at least the Mafia doesn't pretend to hold some sort of moral high ground...

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

More dirty campaigning. Jim Talents pulls a connection between all these disparate, unrelated incidents and groups out of thin air -- a total breathtaking fiction, and runs it--there's no end to the lies. Hey why not throw in the sinking of the Titanic?

'ABC's Teddy Davis reports: In the closely contested state of Missouri (and on national cable), the conservative Progress for America is airing an ad which links Saddam Hussein to a string of terrorist attacks going back all the way to the Olympic athletes who were killed in Munich in 1972 and including the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, 241 dead Marines in Lebanon in 1983, "hundreds killed" in Nairobi in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and Al Qaeda's attack on the US in 2001.

To underscore his argument that "these" are "cold-blooded murderers" whose work is not done, the ad's narrator, Gen. Bedard, ends with a reference to the recently foiled British terror plot.

Missouri features a key Senate race between Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO) and Democrat Claire McCaskill.'

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Strong work getting out of the beltway. The tone of the campaigns should signal to people following your trip that issues like jobs aren't necessarily as important as stances on social issues. I live in a rural state (Montana), and like it or not, people here don't share the same outlook as the big city folks (I've lived in big cities, too). The tactic of tying local candidates to party leadership is an effective one. I can't imagine that most people agree with Nancy Pelosi on most issues.

I thought VandeHei's point that Democrats need to make inroads in the South was well made. The same is true in the intermountain West. Good reporting, guys.

Posted by: NSM | September 21, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Have to agree with JEP. In the following paragraph:
"Away from the television screenes, some of the charges border on the silly. In the local paper, the candidates are trading charges over Hostettler accepting money from other GOP lawmakers who accepted money from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Ellsworth campaign calls it "dirty special interest money." But Hostettler has not received any money from Abramoff directly."

How the heck can ANY money possibly received from Abramoff be regarded as silly? Let's see, Delay resigned and Ney resigned because of money from Abramoff. Apparently Mr. Vanderhei thinks their resignations are a bloody laugh riot.

Also agree on the criticism of 'directly' as a word choice. Abramoff is many things but stupid isn't one of them. If a canceled check is what you're looking for as proof of 'direct' contributions you absolutley have NOT been paying attention to the facts of the Ney and Delay cases. To quote Dilbert: "When did ignorance become a point of view?"

'Silly' would refer to something blatantly stupid, like trying to equate Ellsworth with Pelosi. Abramoff's influence is poles apart from being 'silly.'

That paragraph needs to be rewritten; too many beers on the road?

Oh, and if you write something about gasoline please include some kind of comparison between polling numbers and gas prices. That's the kind of mildly original research I'd look for from CC.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 21, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"they don't operate so much like a political party as a crime syndicate."

...especially in terms of campaign finances.

And they are so arrogantly ostentatious with their muddy money,(re; Delay, Cunningham, Abramoff, etc. ad infinitum)) they have not been able cover thier muddy tracks now that the season of lies is upon us.

Wouldn't take much of a grand jury to sort it out, because it is already quite transparent.

Hostettler's just one of many examples.

Exceptfor one problem: the people who currently can convene one of those are the most likely to be scrutinized.

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

REpubllicans Today:

On Tuesday, Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia proudly boasted to a local Chamber of Commerce that he had "voted for torture."

proud of voting for torture... excuse me, I must be lost. Is this the Soviet Union?

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"some of the charges border on the silly."

Campaign finance corruption...

...how silly. And certainly not germane to the issue of fair and honest elections.

Once again, your stripes are showing.

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Actually, it's quite easy to Dems to be conservative now, because there are no more conservative republicans. They've all moved so far to the right they're in bed with Mussolini and they don't operate so much like a political party as a crime syndicate.

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"How can he possibly stop their liberal agenda?" the ad asks.

The 'liberal' media and the 'conservatives' can't seem to make up their minds. Are the Dems 'disorganized' and have 'no ideas' or do they have a 'liberal agenda'? It can't be both, you see.

If there is a 'liberal agenda' perhaps one of you wingers out there would like to explain to me what is...

Posted by: drindl | September 21, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"Did Hostettler change Washington, or did Washington change Hostettler?"

Or has he always been "that way?"

Just wondering...

Compare any incumbent Republican congressman's voting record to Tom Delay's, for a thermometer of their culpability. When you hear "voted 90% in lock step with Delay," it isn't just a campaign tactic, it is a stinging incictment.

And I love that give-away line, "But Hostettler has not received any money from Abramoff directly."

What about Delay's PAC money?

I'm just wondering here, in terms of incumbent R's, who all got a chunk big of all that "muddy" money?

It may have been delivered through surrogates and minions, but inevitably the sources were the same.

Funny thing about dirty money, it never loses that smell, no matter how many hands it passes through.

When you feel compelled to add "directly" to the end of that give-away sentence, you are willingly or unwittingly part of their ability to perpetuate the campaign-finance cover-up.

What's the real story on the R's campaign finance advantage? How much of the Republican advantage is muddy.

I like that, "muddy" instead of "dirty" makes it so much less offensive in terms of framing...

The muddy money of the rank and file Republicans... Just why IS it so thick and murky?

We don't expect the MSM to respond, they get to clean all that muddy money up by turning it into advertising revenues, forever bleached upon their books.

Now that's efficiency! Who cares what it does to the heart and soul of democracy, there's a bottom line to attend to.

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

This whole campaign is a big advertisement for Conservative campaigns.

Not ONE MENTION of JOBS or the local ECONOMY in any of these posts.

Completely and totally skirting every single issue other than "how conservative can you get".

The WaPo should be ashamed at this entire fiasco. Or at least they WOULD be if they werent already in Karl Rove's back pocket.

Total waste of time and money for more Right Wing propaganda. I call bulls__t on the post. Again.

Posted by: F&B | September 21, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"tree-hugging liberal"

Since is when is "tree-hugging" relegated strictly to liberals?

A lot of sportsmen and naturalists of a more centrist bent are not necessarily "liberals."

So how is it "enviornmentalist" can't fit with in the center right along with "I believe in traditional marriage and the Second Amendment. I am a sheriff who supports our troops..."?

This is a purely academic question.

You guys' stripes are showing...

Posted by: JEP | September 21, 2006 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company