Our Individual Elections
Would you believe the district I'm in here in Florida (12th district) has no Democratic nominee? This despite the fact that there are supposedly more voters registered as Democrat than Republican. I certainly won't be voting for the Republican incumbent, Adam Putnam. There's an independent by by the name of Ed Bowlin III running whose big issue, aside from getting us out of Iraq (fine by me) is making English the official language (not fine by me). There's also a write-in candidate, Joe Viscusi, who seems to be a left-leaning Democrat in all but name, so it looks like he'll be getting my vote.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
-
99-1100896887
Living where we do( Vancouver is 30 miles from the US border we are more "aligned" with Washington, Oregon and Alaska geographically than we are with the rest of Canada),we are subject to Seattle TV stations. Yes, we have mud-slinging in Canada, to a certain extent, but it is considered impolite. I cannot believe what the Republican contender is doing re Sen.(D)Maria Cantwell. I have never heard him say what he stands for except " fresh faces in Washington" with "fresh ideas" .He is too busy slinging #### at Maria. Is this the common thing in the US this time around?
See attached :
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/289025_joel18.html
See attached :
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/289025_joel18.html
The Republicans thought they had a dream candidate in Swann, since he was a huge football hero with the Steelers, and they also thought that as an African-American he's get a substantial amount of the black vote. Wrong on both counts! LOL (Although, admittedly, early on he was within striking distance of Rendell.)Sonic Youth wrote:Otherwise, the news is very, very good in here in Pennsylvania, because it looks like it's going to shift from a red to a blue state. You don't need me to tell you what's going on with the Casey-Santorum race. Anyone who thinks Santorum is going to close that gap before the election is out of his gourd. Democratic governor Rendell is expected to beat out Lynn Swann (that's a guy) in a landslide. And several districts are expected to throw out a few incumbents and go blue. Woo-hoo!
And do you all know about the sex scandal going on in this state, involving a Republican incumbent?
There's also supposed to be a gazillion ballot questions, which I don't like. In Conneticut, there's never been more than two or three. I love voting, but c'mon. I don't have all day.
That guy Sherwood you alluded to with the sex scandal has ads running in which he apologizes for an adulterous affair (of course, he was a "family values" guy), and even better it came out that he paid off his mistress so she wouldn't being a lawsuit against him for repeatedly assaulting her and attempting to choke her, which he denies. So his campaign strategy is "The bad news is yes I had a mistress. The good news is that, no, I didn't try to kill her."
You can see his ad on YouTube. The guy is toast.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
?????
So Criddic is now Salon.com? (Meaning: you gotta wade through irrelevant stuff in order to get to the pertinent matters?)
As for me, I'm in a district where Republican leadership is very heavily entrenched. Not because this part of the state is heavily Republican - although it is - but because the Shuster family has been in power for four decades. Bud Shuster was the representative from 1971 to 2001, and abruptly resigned for health reasons. (He's still kicking, though.) This is the famous district that was The Battle of the Beverly Hillbillies. Damien, I'm sure, knows all about this. Nancy Kulp won the Democratic nomination, but Buddy Ebsen was hired to help campaign for Shuster's re-election.
Upon his resignation in '01, his son Bill took the Republican ticket, won the primary and the election and has been the rep. ever since. Both Shuster's have often ran unopposed. There is a Democratic opponent this year, but there's no reasonable expectation he'll win. At first I was thinking of being a nice guy and not placing a vote in this race. I mean, I'm new here, and who am I to vote against someone I barely know anything about? I figured if the dude was moderate enough, I could do so in good conscience. Well, he's not moderate enough. He's one of the more stringent opponents of gay marriage, so the opposition gets my vote.
Otherwise, the news is very, very good in here in Pennsylvania, because it looks like it's going to shift from a red to a blue state. You don't need me to tell you what's going on with the Casey-Santorum race. Anyone who thinks Santorum is going to close that gap before the election is out of his gourd. Democratic governor Rendell is expected to beat out Lynn Swann (that's a guy) in a landslide. And several districts are expected to throw out a few incumbents and go blue. Woo-hoo!
And do you all know about the sex scandal going on in this state, involving a Republican incumbent?
There's also supposed to be a gazillion ballot questions, which I don't like. In Conneticut, there's never been more than two or three. I love voting, but c'mon. I don't have all day.
So Criddic is now Salon.com? (Meaning: you gotta wade through irrelevant stuff in order to get to the pertinent matters?)
As for me, I'm in a district where Republican leadership is very heavily entrenched. Not because this part of the state is heavily Republican - although it is - but because the Shuster family has been in power for four decades. Bud Shuster was the representative from 1971 to 2001, and abruptly resigned for health reasons. (He's still kicking, though.) This is the famous district that was The Battle of the Beverly Hillbillies. Damien, I'm sure, knows all about this. Nancy Kulp won the Democratic nomination, but Buddy Ebsen was hired to help campaign for Shuster's re-election.
Upon his resignation in '01, his son Bill took the Republican ticket, won the primary and the election and has been the rep. ever since. Both Shuster's have often ran unopposed. There is a Democratic opponent this year, but there's no reasonable expectation he'll win. At first I was thinking of being a nice guy and not placing a vote in this race. I mean, I'm new here, and who am I to vote against someone I barely know anything about? I figured if the dude was moderate enough, I could do so in good conscience. Well, he's not moderate enough. He's one of the more stringent opponents of gay marriage, so the opposition gets my vote.
Otherwise, the news is very, very good in here in Pennsylvania, because it looks like it's going to shift from a red to a blue state. You don't need me to tell you what's going on with the Casey-Santorum race. Anyone who thinks Santorum is going to close that gap before the election is out of his gourd. Democratic governor Rendell is expected to beat out Lynn Swann (that's a guy) in a landslide. And several districts are expected to throw out a few incumbents and go blue. Woo-hoo!
And do you all know about the sex scandal going on in this state, involving a Republican incumbent?
There's also supposed to be a gazillion ballot questions, which I don't like. In Conneticut, there's never been more than two or three. I love voting, but c'mon. I don't have all day.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Sonic, his local stuff is at the bottom (though I agree the article probably should have gone under New Developments).
However, I have to say that I'm actually proud of criddic for once. This article isn't a vacuous right wing screw job.
However, I have to say that I'm actually proud of criddic for once. This article isn't a vacuous right wing screw job.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
HOUSE CLEANING
By RALPH PETERS
October 14, 2006 -- IT'S time to get a grip. And to be honest with ourselves. The fear-mongering and juvenile nastiness we, the people, endure from both political parties would have us believe that disaster looms in November.
It doesn't. You, the voters, are going to make your individual choices based upon your private beliefs. And our country is going to be better for it.
The Republicans are going to get a dose of castor oil. They need it. If we, the people, are lucky, the Dems will take the House, while the Republicans will hold on to a majority in the Senate. That split-decision would be good news for America.
Why? Despite the predictions of doom from both sides if we don't vote for the candidates selected by their party hacks (who think you and I are just chumps), our government functions best when one party controls the House and the other holds the Senate.
Why? Power corrupts. Fast. When either party - it doesn't matter which one - controls both houses of Congress, we get two very bad results. First, the party in power becomes arrogant and exclusive. Second, half of our population feels it doesn't have a voice in government.
The result is polarization of the sort we suffer now. Extremist voices are too influential in both parties and the rest of us - in the vast center - are treated as irrelevant. When either party controls everything, it ignores the wishes of the majority. A monopoly of power isn't democracy.
And we don't get efficient legislation. It seems counter-intuitive, but we're more apt to get gridlock on Capitol Hill when one party rules. The laws and amendments proposed grow too extreme as special interests become overbearing. The Bolsheviks bully the Mensheviks. And it all breaks down.
We must have the integrity to recognize that our democracy is based upon compromise. Nobody gets everything they want. If anyone did, it would be very bad for this country.
It would be unfortunate if the Dems captured both houses of Congress. But even Republicans should hope they get the House.
Why? For all of the reasons cited above - and one more: For six years, the Dems have had a free ride, criticizing everything while accepting responsibility for nothing; with control of the House, they'd have to get serious at last.
Let's see Nancy Pelosi & Co. offer serious legislation instead of sound-bites. Show us what the donkey can do when it has to stop braying and shoulder a burden.
If the Dems fail to take the House, 2008 is going to be much, much tougher for the GOP. Given responsibility, the Dems are apt to expose themselves as dilettantes on security and foreign policy - they're experienced at attacking Bush, but let's see them take on Iran, North Korea, terrorism, Chinese currency manipulation, Putin, Chavez and, not least, Iraq. Oh, and Castro's dying.
If the Dems have better ideas, let's see 'em. If they don't, they'll pay in 2008.
Personally, I'm with the Dems on most domestic issues. They appear hopelessly inane on security affairs - which trump everything else just now - but on women's rights, a living wage, the environment (why on earth aren't conservatives for conservation?), the pursuit of alternative fuels and just about everything but security matters, the Dems better represent the views of the average American than the far-right's social absolutists.
Let's face it: Both parties are corrupt, dishonest, arrogant, hypocritical, intellectually vacuous and utterly unconcerned with the fate of the average American - you. Think you or your kids matter one bit to Howard Dean or Karl Rove? Meanwhile, the big-money, over-organized nature of our contemporary system prevents the emergence of the viable third party we so desperately need.
For now, the best that we, the people, can do is to make sure that neither party sweeps the table. All law-abiding Americans should feel represented in our government. A compromise law that fully satisfies no one is always better than a law that panders to a small, rabid faction on either the left or right.
The party faithful on both sides will reject these arguments. But our country's more important than either party.
Wouldn't America be better off if every parasite living off the election-campaign circus were to disappear tomorrow? Why should we, the people, suffer the tyranny of mediocre, un-elected men and women whose selfish agendas so rarely reflect our needs?
The men and women in uniform who died for this country across the last 23 decades didn't give their lives so that we could vote straight party lines. Party lines are for communists, fascists and fools. Neither party is ever 100 percent right.
It's our duty - our duty - to our country to vote for the best man or woman, not just for the candidate the backroom boys shoved at us.
Don't vote for the Democratic or Republican party in November. Vote for individuals. Vote on the issues. Vote for what you really believe. Vote for the common good.
Vote for America.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit the Fight."
--
Due to my promise I think I will post my local elections right here. But I have to look up some stuff first.
I should be paying more attention to my local elections. All I know is that the Governor race is between Spitzer and Faso, that Hillary has a free ride to re-election, that Spirro has a lot of trouble in the Attorney General race and that it doesn't look like we'll have any Republicans representing New York for the next couple of years.
Personally, Hillary is a 50-50 proposition for me. She has supported finishing the job in Iraq, which is very important, but I don't like her. I know that winning re-election will give her a real boost to winning the Democratic Nomination for President in 2008. Democrats aren't going to stay mad at her forever, since she really is in sync with most of their social beliefs. Right now I think her approvals are around 57%, so it is likely she'll win somewhere around 60% of the vote or more on the 7th. Don't know whether that's good news or not. We'll see. I have a feeling she'll be running against Guiliani in the general election in two years, a tough battle for the White House. Hey, maybe I'll even vote for her...this year anyway.
By RALPH PETERS
October 14, 2006 -- IT'S time to get a grip. And to be honest with ourselves. The fear-mongering and juvenile nastiness we, the people, endure from both political parties would have us believe that disaster looms in November.
It doesn't. You, the voters, are going to make your individual choices based upon your private beliefs. And our country is going to be better for it.
The Republicans are going to get a dose of castor oil. They need it. If we, the people, are lucky, the Dems will take the House, while the Republicans will hold on to a majority in the Senate. That split-decision would be good news for America.
Why? Despite the predictions of doom from both sides if we don't vote for the candidates selected by their party hacks (who think you and I are just chumps), our government functions best when one party controls the House and the other holds the Senate.
Why? Power corrupts. Fast. When either party - it doesn't matter which one - controls both houses of Congress, we get two very bad results. First, the party in power becomes arrogant and exclusive. Second, half of our population feels it doesn't have a voice in government.
The result is polarization of the sort we suffer now. Extremist voices are too influential in both parties and the rest of us - in the vast center - are treated as irrelevant. When either party controls everything, it ignores the wishes of the majority. A monopoly of power isn't democracy.
And we don't get efficient legislation. It seems counter-intuitive, but we're more apt to get gridlock on Capitol Hill when one party rules. The laws and amendments proposed grow too extreme as special interests become overbearing. The Bolsheviks bully the Mensheviks. And it all breaks down.
We must have the integrity to recognize that our democracy is based upon compromise. Nobody gets everything they want. If anyone did, it would be very bad for this country.
It would be unfortunate if the Dems captured both houses of Congress. But even Republicans should hope they get the House.
Why? For all of the reasons cited above - and one more: For six years, the Dems have had a free ride, criticizing everything while accepting responsibility for nothing; with control of the House, they'd have to get serious at last.
Let's see Nancy Pelosi & Co. offer serious legislation instead of sound-bites. Show us what the donkey can do when it has to stop braying and shoulder a burden.
If the Dems fail to take the House, 2008 is going to be much, much tougher for the GOP. Given responsibility, the Dems are apt to expose themselves as dilettantes on security and foreign policy - they're experienced at attacking Bush, but let's see them take on Iran, North Korea, terrorism, Chinese currency manipulation, Putin, Chavez and, not least, Iraq. Oh, and Castro's dying.
If the Dems have better ideas, let's see 'em. If they don't, they'll pay in 2008.
Personally, I'm with the Dems on most domestic issues. They appear hopelessly inane on security affairs - which trump everything else just now - but on women's rights, a living wage, the environment (why on earth aren't conservatives for conservation?), the pursuit of alternative fuels and just about everything but security matters, the Dems better represent the views of the average American than the far-right's social absolutists.
Let's face it: Both parties are corrupt, dishonest, arrogant, hypocritical, intellectually vacuous and utterly unconcerned with the fate of the average American - you. Think you or your kids matter one bit to Howard Dean or Karl Rove? Meanwhile, the big-money, over-organized nature of our contemporary system prevents the emergence of the viable third party we so desperately need.
For now, the best that we, the people, can do is to make sure that neither party sweeps the table. All law-abiding Americans should feel represented in our government. A compromise law that fully satisfies no one is always better than a law that panders to a small, rabid faction on either the left or right.
The party faithful on both sides will reject these arguments. But our country's more important than either party.
Wouldn't America be better off if every parasite living off the election-campaign circus were to disappear tomorrow? Why should we, the people, suffer the tyranny of mediocre, un-elected men and women whose selfish agendas so rarely reflect our needs?
The men and women in uniform who died for this country across the last 23 decades didn't give their lives so that we could vote straight party lines. Party lines are for communists, fascists and fools. Neither party is ever 100 percent right.
It's our duty - our duty - to our country to vote for the best man or woman, not just for the candidate the backroom boys shoved at us.
Don't vote for the Democratic or Republican party in November. Vote for individuals. Vote on the issues. Vote for what you really believe. Vote for the common good.
Vote for America.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit the Fight."
--
Due to my promise I think I will post my local elections right here. But I have to look up some stuff first.
I should be paying more attention to my local elections. All I know is that the Governor race is between Spitzer and Faso, that Hillary has a free ride to re-election, that Spirro has a lot of trouble in the Attorney General race and that it doesn't look like we'll have any Republicans representing New York for the next couple of years.
Personally, Hillary is a 50-50 proposition for me. She has supported finishing the job in Iraq, which is very important, but I don't like her. I know that winning re-election will give her a real boost to winning the Democratic Nomination for President in 2008. Democrats aren't going to stay mad at her forever, since she really is in sync with most of their social beliefs. Right now I think her approvals are around 57%, so it is likely she'll win somewhere around 60% of the vote or more on the 7th. Don't know whether that's good news or not. We'll see. I have a feeling she'll be running against Guiliani in the general election in two years, a tough battle for the White House. Hey, maybe I'll even vote for her...this year anyway.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Don't have any other place to put this, but I ran across this trip down memory lane (admittedly, one not all of you will wish to take, and one I cannot remember for the fact that I was barely one year old at the time).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....000.htm
Bush Wasn't Always a Front-Runner
By Michael Holmes
Associated Press Writer
Sunday, Oct. 17, 1999; 11:40 a.m. EDT
AUSTIN, Texas –– On the stump, George W. Bush was for business, against government regulation and intent on running as his own man despite a well-known father.
"Responsibility," he said, "is a good thing to learn."
The year: 1978.
Bush was making his first bid for elected office – for a House seat. He lost.
Much has changed since that congressional campaign. Much has stayed the same.
"He was conservative and a personable young man," says Jane Anne Stinnett of Lubbock. "Still is."
–––
Bush was in the oil business in Midland, his childhood hometown, when he announced his candidacy in July 1977 for the House seat representing West Texas' 19th District.
"George just drove into town one day and started walking down a strip mall shopping center," said Mike Weiss, who was to become his Lubbock campaign chairman. "I happened to be in a men's store. He walked up and introduced himself. I liked him." The two met again the next day, talked, "and I signed on."
West Texas in 1978, like much of the state, was solidly Democratic. No Republican had been elected governor in 100 years. Democrats controlled politics from the Statehouse to the courthouses.
"There was a pretty general feeling that Republicans couldn't get elected," Weiss said.
But Bush's first problem was not a Democrat; it was the GOP primary.
He was challenged by Jim Reese, a conservative Republican and former Odessa mayor who was defeated two years earlier in a bid for the House seat, and Joe Hickox of Shallowater. Bush led the primary with 6,296 votes and bested Reese in a runoff.
Bush's general election opponent, Democrat Kent Hance, was a state senator from Lubbock, the district's biggest city.
There were not many philosophical disagreements. Bush said Hance would make a good Republican. Hance said Bush would make a good conservative Democrat.
"On issues of oil and gas, inflation, national defense, the public works bill and extension of time to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, Hance and Bush were as compatible as two warts on a toad," the Midland Reporter-Telegram wrote.
Hance, who now practices law in Austin, recalls that they were asked about gun control at a forum. "Every candidate was against it. When they finally got down to me, I said, 'Not only am I against it – if they ever pass it and try to get your guns, I'll come over to your house and help you.' Even Bush laughed at that."
Bush's campaign speeches were peppered with lines today's audiences will recognize.
On the economy: Government "should help people realize their American dream. People should be given a chance to realize their own ambitions."
On personal responsibility: "In my view, individuals need to solve their own problems. The federal government hurts what we are trying to achieve."
On negative campaigning: "Our whole thing is to keep it positive. People are tired of negative politicians ... I'm convinced people are looking for somebody to say, 'Here's what's good.'"
On the influence of his father, who had been a congressman, U.S. Senate candidate, GOP chairman, CIA director and U.S. envoy to China: "We don't need dad in this race."
Hance made an issue of Bush's family ties and his prep school, Ivy League education. He even poked fun at Bush's jogging.
"We tried to make it Texas Tech vs. Yale. And in that district, the Red Raiders will beat the Bulldogs every time," Hance recalls.
Bush responded, "Would you like me to run as Sam Smith? The problem is I can't abandon my background. I'm not trying to hide behind any facade."
Bush proved a tough opponent.
"Our original strategy was that I'd be the good guy next door, and Bush would be the outsider," Hance said.
"After a few months, at a strategy session, one of my guys said, 'You know, he's turning out to be a good ol' boy.' After that, Bush was the guy next door – but I'd be in their house, one of the relatives."
Then, as now, Bush was a prodigious fund-raiser. Between July 1 and Sept. 30, he raised $207,558. Hance pulled in just $74,822.
A "Bush Bash" ad in Texas Tech's student newspaper offered "free beer-music." Hance's campaign launched an 11th-hour attack, but he says he does not think that played a role in the outcome.
A key factor, both sides agree, was demographics.
Bush's background was in the oil business and Midland was an oil town. Lubbock and much of the rest of the High Plains district was farm and ranch country. Lubbock was Hance territory. He had represented much of the region in the state Senate.
"Hance worked the rural areas extremely well. He had friendships built up over 10, 15 years that were impossible to overcome in the period of time we had," Weiss said. "If they had played that football game another quarter, we'd have won."
Hance says Election Day arrived in the nick of time.
"It was Bush's first campaign, and he improved every week. By the end of the race, he was an excellent candidate. I really didn't want another month of campaigning. There was no doubt in my mind that I didn't want to face him again, either," Hance said.
When the votes were counted, Hance had 54,729; Bush got 48,070.
The Democrat went to Congress, backed Ronald Reagan's tax cut and eventually became a Republican.
Bush went back to the oil business in Midland and eventually bought a piece of the Texas Rangers baseball team.
When Bush announced plans in 1993 to challenge popular Democratic Gov. Ann Richards, one of his first contributions was a $10,000 check from Kent Hance.
"When I handed him that check, he laughed and said, 'Fifteen years ago a lot of people from Midland wouldn't have believed this,'" Hance recalled. "I said a lot of people from Lubbock wouldn't have believed it, either."
© Copyright 1999 The Associated Press
--
Promise my next post on this thread will reflect my home state's candidates for 2006. Of course we all know one of them is Hilary Clinton for U.S. Senate in NY.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....000.htm
Bush Wasn't Always a Front-Runner
By Michael Holmes
Associated Press Writer
Sunday, Oct. 17, 1999; 11:40 a.m. EDT
AUSTIN, Texas –– On the stump, George W. Bush was for business, against government regulation and intent on running as his own man despite a well-known father.
"Responsibility," he said, "is a good thing to learn."
The year: 1978.
Bush was making his first bid for elected office – for a House seat. He lost.
Much has changed since that congressional campaign. Much has stayed the same.
"He was conservative and a personable young man," says Jane Anne Stinnett of Lubbock. "Still is."
–––
Bush was in the oil business in Midland, his childhood hometown, when he announced his candidacy in July 1977 for the House seat representing West Texas' 19th District.
"George just drove into town one day and started walking down a strip mall shopping center," said Mike Weiss, who was to become his Lubbock campaign chairman. "I happened to be in a men's store. He walked up and introduced himself. I liked him." The two met again the next day, talked, "and I signed on."
West Texas in 1978, like much of the state, was solidly Democratic. No Republican had been elected governor in 100 years. Democrats controlled politics from the Statehouse to the courthouses.
"There was a pretty general feeling that Republicans couldn't get elected," Weiss said.
But Bush's first problem was not a Democrat; it was the GOP primary.
He was challenged by Jim Reese, a conservative Republican and former Odessa mayor who was defeated two years earlier in a bid for the House seat, and Joe Hickox of Shallowater. Bush led the primary with 6,296 votes and bested Reese in a runoff.
Bush's general election opponent, Democrat Kent Hance, was a state senator from Lubbock, the district's biggest city.
There were not many philosophical disagreements. Bush said Hance would make a good Republican. Hance said Bush would make a good conservative Democrat.
"On issues of oil and gas, inflation, national defense, the public works bill and extension of time to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, Hance and Bush were as compatible as two warts on a toad," the Midland Reporter-Telegram wrote.
Hance, who now practices law in Austin, recalls that they were asked about gun control at a forum. "Every candidate was against it. When they finally got down to me, I said, 'Not only am I against it – if they ever pass it and try to get your guns, I'll come over to your house and help you.' Even Bush laughed at that."
Bush's campaign speeches were peppered with lines today's audiences will recognize.
On the economy: Government "should help people realize their American dream. People should be given a chance to realize their own ambitions."
On personal responsibility: "In my view, individuals need to solve their own problems. The federal government hurts what we are trying to achieve."
On negative campaigning: "Our whole thing is to keep it positive. People are tired of negative politicians ... I'm convinced people are looking for somebody to say, 'Here's what's good.'"
On the influence of his father, who had been a congressman, U.S. Senate candidate, GOP chairman, CIA director and U.S. envoy to China: "We don't need dad in this race."
Hance made an issue of Bush's family ties and his prep school, Ivy League education. He even poked fun at Bush's jogging.
"We tried to make it Texas Tech vs. Yale. And in that district, the Red Raiders will beat the Bulldogs every time," Hance recalls.
Bush responded, "Would you like me to run as Sam Smith? The problem is I can't abandon my background. I'm not trying to hide behind any facade."
Bush proved a tough opponent.
"Our original strategy was that I'd be the good guy next door, and Bush would be the outsider," Hance said.
"After a few months, at a strategy session, one of my guys said, 'You know, he's turning out to be a good ol' boy.' After that, Bush was the guy next door – but I'd be in their house, one of the relatives."
Then, as now, Bush was a prodigious fund-raiser. Between July 1 and Sept. 30, he raised $207,558. Hance pulled in just $74,822.
A "Bush Bash" ad in Texas Tech's student newspaper offered "free beer-music." Hance's campaign launched an 11th-hour attack, but he says he does not think that played a role in the outcome.
A key factor, both sides agree, was demographics.
Bush's background was in the oil business and Midland was an oil town. Lubbock and much of the rest of the High Plains district was farm and ranch country. Lubbock was Hance territory. He had represented much of the region in the state Senate.
"Hance worked the rural areas extremely well. He had friendships built up over 10, 15 years that were impossible to overcome in the period of time we had," Weiss said. "If they had played that football game another quarter, we'd have won."
Hance says Election Day arrived in the nick of time.
"It was Bush's first campaign, and he improved every week. By the end of the race, he was an excellent candidate. I really didn't want another month of campaigning. There was no doubt in my mind that I didn't want to face him again, either," Hance said.
When the votes were counted, Hance had 54,729; Bush got 48,070.
The Democrat went to Congress, backed Ronald Reagan's tax cut and eventually became a Republican.
Bush went back to the oil business in Midland and eventually bought a piece of the Texas Rangers baseball team.
When Bush announced plans in 1993 to challenge popular Democratic Gov. Ann Richards, one of his first contributions was a $10,000 check from Kent Hance.
"When I handed him that check, he laughed and said, 'Fifteen years ago a lot of people from Midland wouldn't have believed this,'" Hance recalled. "I said a lot of people from Lubbock wouldn't have believed it, either."
© Copyright 1999 The Associated Press
--
Promise my next post on this thread will reflect my home state's candidates for 2006. Of course we all know one of them is Hilary Clinton for U.S. Senate in NY.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Surprise that I'm voting Democrat considering what I have to choose from.
United State Senator Jim Talent vs. State Auditor Claire McCaskill.
It's a must win for senate control and the race is tight.
My US Rep is Roy Blunt (am I not in the shittiest place one could possibly be). With our area very keen on Blunt and his right wing "legacy" as well as our area's historical support of nutjobs like John Ashcroft, I see nothing short of his death or conviction stopping us from re-electing him in perpetuity.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1160502086
United State Senator Jim Talent vs. State Auditor Claire McCaskill.
It's a must win for senate control and the race is tight.
My US Rep is Roy Blunt (am I not in the shittiest place one could possibly be). With our area very keen on Blunt and his right wing "legacy" as well as our area's historical support of nutjobs like John Ashcroft, I see nothing short of his death or conviction stopping us from re-electing him in perpetuity.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1160502086
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I thought I could create a thread for us to list the individual election chioces we have based on where we live.
As I live in Florida, for the U.S. Senate my incumbent Senator, Democrat Bill Nelson, will coast to reelection as the Republican nominee is the imbecile Katherine Harris. She has run such an imcompetent campaign that even Governor Jeb Bush has said she will lose. Whatever role she had in stealing Florida in 2000, it must have been heavily supporting, as she's the type of person who would have lost track of the secret phony ballots even if she was hiding them up her ass. Because Bill Nelson is a pro-war and fairly right-wing Democrat, I feel it's safe to make a protest vote for a progressive independent candidate named Brian Moore. Here's his web site:
http://www.votebrianmoore.com/
In my house district, incumbent Repbulican John Mica is being challenged by Democrat John Chagnon, who I'll be quite happy to vote for.
http://www.johnchagnon2006.com/
As I live in Florida, for the U.S. Senate my incumbent Senator, Democrat Bill Nelson, will coast to reelection as the Republican nominee is the imbecile Katherine Harris. She has run such an imcompetent campaign that even Governor Jeb Bush has said she will lose. Whatever role she had in stealing Florida in 2000, it must have been heavily supporting, as she's the type of person who would have lost track of the secret phony ballots even if she was hiding them up her ass. Because Bill Nelson is a pro-war and fairly right-wing Democrat, I feel it's safe to make a protest vote for a progressive independent candidate named Brian Moore. Here's his web site:
http://www.votebrianmoore.com/
In my house district, incumbent Repbulican John Mica is being challenged by Democrat John Chagnon, who I'll be quite happy to vote for.
http://www.johnchagnon2006.com/