anybody else see this? I picked it up from Capitol Hill Blue...........Anybody from Ohio want to comment?
I live in San Diego, but grew up in Cincinnati.
TRL
Full Version: Republicans write off DeWine; move to other races
I haven't heard this, but last I did hear, was that this race was at the very least, dead even, which for the GOP is very bad news. If true, it is very, very telling......
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch writes:
QUOTE
Senior Republican leaders have concluded that Sen. Mike DeWine, of Ohio, is likely heading for defeat and are moving to reduce financial support for his race and divert party money to other embattled Republican senators, party officials said.
The decision to effectively write off DeWine's seat, after internal Republican polls showed him falling behind his Democratic challenger, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is part of a fluid series of choices by top leaders in both parties as they set the strategic framework of the campaign's final three weeks — signaling, by where they are spending television money and other resources, the Senate and House races where they believe they have the best chances of success.
The decision to effectively write off DeWine's seat, after internal Republican polls showed him falling behind his Democratic challenger, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is part of a fluid series of choices by top leaders in both parties as they set the strategic framework of the campaign's final three weeks — signaling, by where they are spending television money and other resources, the Senate and House races where they believe they have the best chances of success.
Yes indeed. Ed Gillespie was a guest on "Tucker" a few minutes ago, and this fact was mentioned. Gillespie was very much out of character. Stammering and stuttering all over the place. Told me alot.
In spite of this evident fact, our Imperious President and his handler, Karl Rove, are almost "inexplicably upbeat" about the elections -- with Rove even saying that the GOP will lose only 10 seats in the House at most and maintain control of the Senate. Even Cleopatra could never be so bad off as "Queen of Da' Nile". 
QUOTE(UCLAfan @ Oct 17 2006, 04:31 PM) 
In spite of this evident fact, our Imperious President and his handler, Karl Rove, are almost "inexplicably upbeat" about the elections -- with Rove even saying that the GOP will lose only 10 seats in the House at most and maintain control of the Senate. Even Cleopatra could never be so bad off as "Queen of Da' Nile".
I read about Bush and Rove being "upbeat" about the election, and both saying that there will be a Republican House, and Hastert will be the leader after the election. It makes me wonder 2 things.
Are BOTH of them out to lunch? Bush I can understand, but Rove is much to canny, or
What has Rove got up his sleeve. I might be a conspiracy theorist, but there was an article
yesterday (can't find the link) that the US has a "unnamed senior Al-Queda leader" in a secret
CIA jail. Could this be Rove's "October surprise"?
almost wish it had been Voinovich instead of DeWine
dislike him more than DeWine
dislike him more than DeWine
One segment of "Hardball" today was on the very latest polls. It still looks good for the Dems to take the House, and its 50/50 for a Dem. takeover of the Senate. 
Well, the decision on Saddam comes down the day before Election Day. How coincidental AND convenient. Maybe that'll overshadow the Foley-Kolbe-teen-page-sex-scandal, the Abramoff-crime-syndicate drama, North Korea's nuclear telenovela, and so on. But hey, Cheney says things are going "remarkably well" in Iraq, just as Ann Coulter said things in Afghanistan are going "swimmingly." Maybe they're just being extremely ironic. Or are delusional. Or lying through their teeth. With this crowd, it's really hard to tell.
Again, the news is encouraging.
QUOTE(UCLAfan @ Oct 17 2006, 12:31 PM)
In spite of this evident fact, our Imperious President and his handler, Karl Rove, are almost "inexplicably upbeat" about the elections -- with Rove even saying that the GOP will lose only 10 seats in the House at most and maintain control of the Senate. Even Cleopatra could never be so bad off as "Queen of Da' Nile".
Two possibilities (or maybe three):
1. Bush and Rove are bluffing. After a few months of grim news and a disspirited base, Bush and Rove think the only way they can keep the majorities they need is by conveying confidence and constancy to the party faithful.
2. Rove has an H-bomb of an October surprise that will pull back public opinion (have they got evidence that Osama was killed? have they actually captured him? will it suddenly leak a week before the election that the CIA thwarted an actual dirty bomb attack somewhere? will there be a coup in Iraq? is the Navy going to trigger hostilities with Iran over the Straits of Hormuz just before the election?).
3. Rove and Bush are right -- the Democrats are counting their chickens before they're hatched. All the up-beat news in the Blue camp might end up suppressing Blue voter turnout ("heck, Casey's going to cream Santorum, so I'm not going to bother to vote").
most Democrats are aware of the problems with voting so I doubt too many would stay home in important races like Pennsylvania
I'm worried about voter turn-out in California
the Democrats picked such a winner to take on Ahnuld that there's a possiblity that people may stay home rather than vote
I'm worried about voter turn-out in California
the Democrats picked such a winner to take on Ahnuld that there's a possiblity that people may stay home rather than vote
Steve Westly would've given the Dems a far better chance to defeat Arnold in California. And the sad thing is that the entire party knew it. All the polls before the June primary showed Arnold losing to Wesley in a potential matchup in the governor's race, yet trouncing Angelides head-to-head. But what did all the big Dems like Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer do? They endorsed Angelides. 
Bob Novak on " Meet The Press" this morning talking about the elections. " I don't think they are that important." Spoken like a true..idiot!
QUOTE(TheOtherFSU @ Oct 20 2006, 10:14 PM)
Steve Westly would've given the Dems a far better chance to defeat Arnold in California. And the sad thing is that the entire party knew it. All the polls before the June primary showed Arnold losing to Wesley in a potential matchup in the governor's race, yet trouncing Angelides head-to-head. But what did all the big Dems like Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer do? They endorsed Angelides.
Angelides ran one of the dirtiest campaigns in my recent memory
I think that the endorsements that he received were paybacks for when he was state party chair
he certainly wasn't the better candidate
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.