Wisconsin Primary

[Joemailman]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-foster-wins-hasterts-seat-080308,0,7539185.story

Democrat Foster wins Hastert's seat

In a stunning upset Saturday that could be a harbinger of trouble for the GOP this fall, a little-known Democratic physicist won the special election for a seat drawn to re-elect former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Bill Foster defeated Republican Jim Oberweis, who lost his fourth high-profile election in six years, following an expensive and highly negative contest.

The win gives Democrats another House seat until at least the end of the year. It also could serve as an omen for November, when two other Illinois congressional seats are up for grabs following Republican retirements and Sen. Barack Obama could bring out a huge turnout if he's the Democratic presidential nominee.

This is a shocker. I lived in this district until I moved to Wausau in 1996, and the only time I remember a Democrat winning was right after Watergate. It could mean a lot of normally safe Republican seats will be up for grabs this year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

who gives a shit. I want to read about people calling each other nasty names.

[The Leaper]

Well, i disagree. Voters aren't just voting for a candidate..they are voting by party.

Maybe the dumbasses you know vote by party line...but I think that is a massive generalization on your part for which you can provide not one shred of evidence to back up.

Sure, if things aren't going well, it is never good for incumbents. It also stands to reason the incumbent's party will suffer as well to some extent.

However, to claim people just vote by party line based on how well things are going? Huge stretch IMO.

And the point isn't pointless. The point was about campaign strategy. And, if you don't think that a barrage of ads and on point messages won't work, well, i think you are being naive.

Yep...it worked HORRIBLE for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Negative campaigning isn't looked upon highly...however, bringing up VALID points of contention is fair and logical in a political contest. McCain is not likely to resort to negative campaigning...painting Obama as a liberal due to his voting record and questioning some of his odd/bad choices in relationships is not negative campaigning. Those are facts or questions that demand answering. Claiming Obama is a Muslim, or that you aren't completely sure whether or not he is or isn't Muslim, is negative campaigning...and is the kind of useless crap that people get tired of.

McCain will be smart to paint himself as the more logical choice to represent bringing the country together. He's moderate...closer to the middle of the aisle than most in Washington who are nothing but party whores. Showing your opponent as a party whore...when the facts back it up...is appropriate.

As for the current housing mess...are you kidding? He encouraged all manner of other preditory lending practices as well.

Read what Elliot Spitzer has to say:

I could care less what Spitzer has to say...he's too busy screwing prostitutes and destroying whatever shred of credibility he has left.

I also seem to forget Bush coming out and telling lenders to plunge their standards...or perhaps I just recognize that GREED, not Bush, was responsible for predatory lending practices.

This election is not about Bush...he's gone, and I think just about everyone is thankful for that. McCain has never been close to Bush, nor was he a part of his administration...and as such I think most voters will consider him based on his views and thoughts for what he would like to accomplish, not where we are currently because of Bush. This is the first time in 50+ years that we don't have an incumbent president or vice-president running for office. That is noteworthy...and the American public recognizes that.

So if Bush is responsible for the housing crash, then I guess Clinton is to blame for Enron and the other corporate scandals that hit just after he left office?

Personally, I don't hold either accountable for the actions of those in the corporate world who knew better. Is the president responsible for every crime committed on his watch? Of course not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, i disagree. Voters aren't just voting for a candidate..they are voting by party.

Maybe the dumbasses you know vote by party line...but I think that is a massive generalization on your part for which you can provide not one shred of evidence to back up.

Sure, if things aren't going well, it is never good for incumbents. It also stands to reason the incumbent's party will suffer as well to some extent.

However, to claim people just vote by party line based on how well things are going? Huge stretch IMO.

And the point isn't pointless. The point was about campaign strategy. And, if you don't think that a barrage of ads and on point messages won't work, well, i think you are being naive.

Yep...it worked HORRIBLE for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Negative campaigning isn't looked upon highly...however, bringing up VALID points of contention is fair and logical in a political contest. McCain is not likely to resort to negative campaigning...painting Obama as a liberal due to his voting record and questioning some of his odd/bad choices in relationships is not negative campaigning. Those are facts or questions that demand answering. Claiming Obama is a Muslim, or that you aren't completely sure whether or not he is or isn't Muslim, is negative campaigning...and is the kind of useless crap that people get tired of.

McCain will be smart to paint himself as the more logical choice to represent bringing the country together. He's moderate...closer to the middle of the aisle than most in Washington who are nothing but party whores. Showing your opponent as a party whore...when the facts back it up...is appropriate.

As for the current housing mess...are you kidding? He encouraged all manner of other preditory lending practices as well.

Read what Elliot Spitzer has to say:

I could care less what Spitzer has to say...he's too busy screwing prostitutes and destroying whatever shred of credibility he has left.

I also seem to forget Bush coming out and telling lenders to plunge their standards...or perhaps I just recognize that GREED, not Bush, was responsible for predatory lending practices.

This election is not about Bush...he's gone, and I think just about everyone is thankful for that. McCain has never been close to Bush, nor was he a part of his administration...and as such I think most voters will consider him based on his views and thoughts for what he would like to accomplish, not where we are currently because of Bush. This is the first time in 50+ years that we don't have an incumbent president or vice-president running for office. That is noteworthy...and the American public recognizes that.

So if Bush is responsible for the housing crash, then I guess Clinton is to blame for Enron and the other corporate scandals that hit just after he left office?

Personally, I don't hold either accountable for the actions of those in the corporate world who knew better. Is the president responsible for every crime committed on his watch? Of course not.

Dude, what planet are you on. Most voters are by party. that is why we call the others swing votes, etc. Very few people cross party lines.

I guess the term registered repub or dem means nothing to you..or all this campaigning. Sigh.

Approx say that party matters to them, while 1/3 say it doesn't. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that those who care VOTE at a higher percentage.

Roughly 73% of people indentify themselves as either R or D.

Campaing ads: Huh? They worked great for Bush. You don't think the Swift boat ads didnt' work? You don't think Willie Horton didn't work? I guess the concept and efficacy of advertising is beyond you.

Whether is is looked upon favorably or not is not relevant. The only relevance is that they work. And, you make a stupid conclusion..the ads don't have to come from the candidate..they have others do their dirty work.

McCain as moderate...great. Except everything he is doing now goes against that image...kowtowing the far right...illegals..sorry but the american public favors a pathway to citizenship..and mccain was for that now he isn't, new found opposition to the roe v. wade, war, sudden change of heart regarding the RR..falwell was an "agent of intolerance," now he hired his debate coach, McCain against bush tax cuts..now with bush on them, reconciles with Norquist, was against torture..now not so much, was anti ethanol..now for it, can't even keep track of his thougts on the confed flag,

If he doesn't court them he loses in a landslide. Who's zooming who?

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

Spitzer: Right, throw the baby out with the bathwater. What was the problem with the economist? If we disregard everyone based on their sexual peccadilloes their would be few to listen to, if any at all.

Enron: Right. Sorry, but i don't remember any closed door meetings with Bill about energy policy. BTW, i dont' think you'll ever find a dem that isnt for more corporate governance...less is squarely on the repub side.

Enron was caused, if we wanna examine the roots by...deregulation..oops, leaper..who was in favor of that.

Government regulations and rules need to be updated for the new economy, not relaxed and eliminated. Guess which side the repubs fall on?

[The Leaper]

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

His voting record suggests otherwise...unless you think towing the Dem line 99% of the time is the middle of the country.

I'm not hobnobbing with known domestic terrorists that plotted to blow up government buildings, nor would I ever consider doing so. I'm not dealing with sleazy criminals to obtain a million dollar mansion either. My wife and family are quite proud of America, despite its flaws. I wouldn't THINK of saying "this is the first time I am proud of my country"...and if I did say it, I would IMMEDIATELY correct it.

Sorry, but Obama is hardly representative of the middle. McCain doesn't really represent the middle either, but he is closer to the middle than either Obama or Clinton based on his record. Sure, he has to court the right-wing if he is going to win the election...that is called politics, Ty. How many politicians actually do what they say they will?

[swede]

I think the Republicans are huge underdogs in this presidential election. If the Dems can't win this one after Bush Jr., I don't know when they'll ever win one.

You make a good point. The frightening thing is that somehow he got reelected...

That's what'll happen when you put up John Kerry as your candidate for POTUS.

Better the fool you know.

[swede]

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

Sorry, but Obama is hardly representative of the middle.

Since by all rational measures Obama is a fully inspected and certified Grade A liberal I think what Tyrone means is that Obama is closer to fooling the middle that he's in the middle than McCain is to demonstrating to the middle that he's in the middle.

And I think he's right.

One doesn't have to imagine a more poorly prepared candidate because the peanut farmer from Georgia--the modern standard for shitty presidents--had far better credentials than Obama. Obama has nothing to offer but ambition and hate dressed in fuzzy feel-good platitudes.

Lord help me--even Hillary would be a better President.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Obama is hardly middle. Look up the first things he's said he'd push if elected President.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

His voting record suggests otherwise...unless you think towing the Dem line 99% of the time is the middle of the country.

I'm not hobnobbing with known domestic terrorists that plotted to blow up government buildings, nor would I ever consider doing so. I'm not dealing with sleazy criminals to obtain a million dollar mansion either. My wife and family are quite proud of America, despite its flaws. I wouldn't THINK of saying "this is the first time I am proud of my country"...and if I did say it, I would IMMEDIATELY correct it.

Sorry, but Obama is hardly representative of the middle. McCain doesn't really represent the middle either, but he is closer to the middle than either Obama or Clinton based on his record. Sure, he has to court the right-wing if he is going to win the election...that is called politics, Ty. How many politicians actually do what they say they will?

Congress.org lists both as centrists. And pretty close to each other.

You can argue till you're blue the face but america favors pro choice, pathway to citizenship, isn't in favor of "bomb, bomb, bomb, iraq," etc.

Are you really going to talk about sleazy friends? Hello Keating 5!

As for what YOU would say...you have conflated the argument. That would be what you wife woud do. Who cares what she did? She isn't going to be the president..and she has fully explained what she meant. Should I view Bush better because Laura appears to be a fine woman? No, Bush stands on his record.

Domestic terrorist..you mean in Egypt..because you sentence is misleading.

But, let's take you example and run with it. McCain is being endorsed by Southern Baptists. The vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention who publicly endorsed the assasination of a doctor by a member of an underground terror organization is a McCain supporter. So, i guess McCain is associated with domestic terrorism...in THE GOOD OL' US of A.

What about a candidate that admits he "went after" an endorsement from a "man" who spews both hate and bigotry? John McCain did exactly that. And his reward? An endorsement from one of the most warped and twisted religious figures around: John Hagee. We all know him for the horrific statements that fly out of mouth but apparently not McCain or his BFF Joe Lieberman, who actually compared Hagee to Moses! A pastor who condemns women and blacks, who says New Orleans suffered Katrina because of their sins and wants the US to start a war with Iran - to bring about the subsequent return of Jesus Christ compares to Mosses? God help us all.

How about some of Hagee's greatest?

Catholic church
Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." From his book, Jerusalem Countdown

Women aka bitches
The feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." He also shows his lack of respect for us women in these "jokes" in his very own book, What every man wants in a women. Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." And don't forget in his wife's (2nd wife) part of the book where she says women should submit to their husbands even if they feel strongly that it's wrong!

Blacks..aka, those uppity negroes
In Hagees' church bulletin "The Cluster" there was a fund raiser for their high school seniors. No bake sale here they held a "slave sale" It was announced that 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and told the church members to "Make plans to come and go home with a slave."

Islam
When Terry Gross (Fresh Air host) asked if "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."

McCain on Hagee
Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions."

Why doesn't McCain tell us exactly what he doesn't endorse? And, while he is at it, why don't you tell us why you went after this vile, hatefult bigot's endorseement?

Do what they say? So, you are basically saying that Mccain is lying to us? But, then, what makes you feel that standard shouldn't be applied to Obama?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have been hearing from Obama supporters that there is no way that they would accept Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket in either position. Nancy Pelosi has stated that a combined ticket is an impossibility because of Hillary's dirty tactics (an oddly divisive comment from the Speaker of the House.) The Obama supporters are treating her pronouncement as definitive.

Obama has stated many times that he is confident that he can capture Hillary's supporters, but the reverse is not necessarilly true. I think the Obama camp greatly misunderstands the landscape, a great number of Clinton voters are politically moderate and will find McCain palatable.

I am personally in a state of turmoil. I am so turned-off by the dishonest propaganda of Obama supporters. And I do not think Obama is ready to be president, we should be choosing from people who have a longer track record. I like John McCain. I'm readying my "Democrats for McCain" bumper stickers and buttons.

But can I REALLY vote for a Republican!? Damn, I'd rather go on a two-week fishing trip with Scott Campbell.

Apologies for baring my tortured soul. Thank you for your support in these trying times.

[BallHawk]

Perhaps one could base their vote off who McCain picks as the nominee? McCain's odds at croaking in his first term are 50%, so if he picks somebody like Charlie Crist.....

[Harlan Huckleby]

Perhaps one could base their vote off who McCain picks as the nominee? McCain's odds at croaking in his first term are 50%, so if he picks somebody like Charlie Crist.....

My brief exposure to Crist has been unimpressive - guy seems like a real worm.

Randy Rhodes on Air America claims that Hillary is cutting Obama down to size so that McCain will win presidency, and Hillary can run again before she is old and shriveled.

I will hate whoever McCain picks because I hate all republicans. (only kidding, sort of, but there aren't that many who would be acceptable to me. )

[Joemailman]

Ranting Randy loses it a bit at times, but I think she's right about this one. If Hillary can't get the nomination, the last thing she wants is for Obama to win.

I don't know what McCain will do for a running mate. Picking Romney would shore up some of his problems with conservatives, but most people think McCain stand stand Romney. Picking a woman would be a bold move, and might draw a lot of moderate women who are mad Hillary didn't get the nomination.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Hillary can't get the nomination, the last thing she wants is for Obama to win.

It's possible, at least if she feels anything like I do!

I'm really down on Obama. Not on the man, but his campaign. He might make a good president, I can't claim a crystal ball.

It's a long shot that Hillary would be able to get nomination & presidency in a future race.

Rush Limbaugh thinks that Hillary will want VP so she can assasinate Obama, send him to join Vince Foster in heaven. You might think Rush is joking.

Barack would be wise to risk assasination and work with Hillary as his VP. Short of that, I think Barack should do what's best for the Democratic Party and (by extension) America and drop out of the race.

[Joemailman]

If Hillary can't get the nomination, the last thing she wants is for Obama to win.

Barack would be wise to risk assasination and work with Hillary as his VP.

I'd be ok with that, as long as he calls her at 3 A.M. to offer her the position.