"Here, said Biden. This is the part of my brain that I use to figure this middle east stuff out with"
Posted on 04/01/2002 11:17:17 AM PST by Yehuda
I have some basic info on the 3 contenders for the Republican nomination to run against Biden this fall. Biden urges putting US troops in harms way in Israel (see last paragraph) as well as putting Egyptian and Saudi forces in Israel.
I would appreciate any feedback on the candidates as well as any thoughts on their potential for success.
Ray Clatworthy (deeply unsuccessful challenger last election) took almost 2/3 of a straw poll at a Delaware Republican Committee dinner recently.
Bill Holt finished second but is considered a decent contender to Clatworthy; imho he sounds like a RINO.
Mike Protack is an airline pilot and considered a long shot. I can find almost no info on him.
"Here, said Biden. This is the part of my brain that I use to figure this middle east stuff out with"
I supported Ray the last time and I will support him this time.
Biden has to be defeated - that is all their is to it. Unfortunately the sheeple of Wilmington and northern NCC continue to vote for him and the rest of the state become non essential. Same thing goes for Carper and the RINO Castle.
Getting the conservative voters out in Kent and Sussex counties is essential to any plan of getting rid of any of them - but particularly Biden.
I've got no problem with that plan!!!!!!!
I would venture to say that after 29 years in the U.S. Senate, it's way past time for Joe Biden to retire. The people of Delaware should all grow a conscience and get rid of the guy who is obviously a professional politician without no concept of true public service. Think of it this way...he is running for his SIXTH term in the U.S. Senate. If he serves in his entirity, that will be 36 years!
Biden should be voted out for this reason, if none other! The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rating of 14 out of 100 in voting on conservative issues. The National Taxpayers Union gave him a 9% in 2000 (the most recent year for which I could find information) and Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) gave him a 26% rating in their most recent survey of Congress. [These numbers are available at the web sites of the organizations in question and/or at Project Vote Smart.]
At this point almost ANYONE on the Republican ticket is going to be preferable to Joe Biden.
As for Clatworthy v. Holt, here are my thoughts:
Clatworthy is the candidate I would vote for, irrespective of how he did the last time he ran against Joe Biden. Chalk it up as a learning experience. Clatworthy seems to be genuinely conservative (in the same mold as the president) while Holt is a self-described "bi-partisan" and "independent". Furthermore, Holt talks a lot about the sad state of America's industries, education system and armed force. He doesn't talk about what's wrong in the American home. His comments in a statement about the increase of black convicts crowding prisons seem more inclined towards releasing these thugs than punishing them.
Holt seems to me to be an "East Coast" Republican - labeled a conservative only for his economic beliefs. Clatworthy seems like a more mainstream conservative.
I presume by their comments, and the poll you mentioned, that Clatworthy is the front runner. He received Gov. DuPont's endorsement, I see. Perhaps the two candidates are best contrasted in their web sites. Clatworthy's is a simple design that speaks plainly and comes across as genuine. Holt's is real "hi-tech" and "fancy" and comes across as a sales job by an empty suit.
Just my perception after visiting both sites.
I would guess that Clatworthy will face Biden and lose (again). I hope that's not the case.
Holt's website advertised an upcoming debate between all the candidates on April 5th, perhaps the transcript of the debate will be available shortly thereafter.
Okay.....
RE: Terrorism. I think the U.S. has a moral obligation to defend itself against terrorism by using the sports maxim that "a good defense is a great offense" and that the axis of evil - N.Korea, Iraq and Iran, Libya, Syria, etc. need to be essentially isolated and destroyed (politically and militarily speaking). Terrorists need to be sought the world over and rooted out. International coalition - phooey! America must lead on this issue, as it has in the past.
If we withdrew from the anti-American United Nations and spent that money on improving our national security and anti-terrorism organs, we'd been spending tax dollars a lot wiser.
RE: Israel
Sharon, from my vantage point in small-town America (where I usually read about the news on the Internet or in my local paper), is doing a good job. I agreed with the Justice Dpt. Minister over there when he said a week ago or so that he needed one month of war to end the terrorism before getting meaningful negotiations at the peace table. (My favorite PM in recent memory was Netanyahu and I've heard bits and pieces that he might be returning to the PM's office? At least...that was before Sharon got some balls and unleased the IDF on these thugs.
I think that the land Israel has under its control is (a) less than what God promised Abraham and Jacob and (b) has been "fairly" won in self-defense measures taken against its Arab neighbors who have done nothing but consistently plot Israel's destruction since time immemorial.
Israel should not have to trade land for peace and I would like to think that the only way a "Palestinian" state would be created is if one of the ARAB nations gave up THEIR land. Israel should not sacrifice its resources to its enemies.
Israel has wanted nothing but peace since the nation was established. Israel is not an aggressor nation. ALL the fault for the past half-century of warfare can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Arab nations in the region and the terrorist networks that they support, harbor and encourage.
I am an American who sees our relationship with Israel to be a special one and I think that we owe Israel our support in defense of her national security. I don't wonder if Israel wouldn't be more ruthless with the criminals/terrorists they negotiate with and effectively end this mockery of a "peace process" for the better if they were fully assured the U.S. would stand behind them.
Personally, I think the U.S. should guarantee Israel's security by assuring them that any attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the vital security interests of the United States.
Just as Christians and Jews are descended of the same spiritual family, so are Americans and Israelis.
Arafat is a criminal and not a statesman. The IDF should go ahead and make a martyr out of him. Ha! Fat chance! (That he'd be a martyr, I mean.) If Bush gave the green light, don't you think Sharon would do it? Damn "world opinion" (there's no such thing.)
And who is Kofi Annan to tell the Israelis what to do when their very existence is threatened by the presence of their enemies within their own borders?
No nation can be secure if its borders are not secure.
No nation should be coerced into negotiating with its enemies, nor forced to concede anything to them.
I don't know how big a "peace movement" in Israel is, or what it's motives might be. I can only imagine that there are many Israelis who are simply tired of the constant warfare and hostility.
What happened to the fighting spirit of Israel's founders? I was pleased (no kidding) by events of the past week. It seems that fighting spirit has been resurrected for the present moment.
RE: 2nd Amendment
Briefly...(ha!)...American citizens should be free to own a weapon, carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise) and use a weapon at their discretion so long as the discharge of that weapon is not an infringement on the liberty of another (or another's property).
This Bush administration, among other things, could introduce legislation to repeal the Brady Bill (and subsequent Clinton-signed gun legislation). It would maker America a safer place to live, not a more dangerous one.
Furthermore, the use by the previous administration (Clinton) of the school shootings, particularly Jonesboro, Arkansas and Columbine High School in Colorado for the purposes of drudging up support for gun control is unconscienable.
I hope Charlton Heston lives long enough to see the Brady Bill repealed.
Thanks for the heads-up!!. I will be looking forward to helping remove him from office. His tenure is an embarrasement to the State of Delaware. I will be volunteering my time this summer/fall to the GOP, and following the candidates closely.
I can't stand either one of them, but gun grabber Castle is slightly better than "Banning guns is an idea whose time as come" Biden, not to mention committee votes.
DanFromMichigan mentioned Mike Castle as a person who could run a strong campaign... my ideal candidate would be former Governor Pete DuPont. The odds of convincing him to come out of retirement are about as likely as Daschle resigning, but I have no doubt that DuPont would be a BIG threat against Biden. DuPont won a HUGE election victory for Governor, running on a VERY conservative platform in a centrist state. That's impressive. He and Biden both rose to power in the mid 70s and have about the same level of support. DuPont would have been nominated for President in 1988 except G.H.W. Bush was V.P. and the "heir apprent".
Clatworthy Wins GOP Endorsement and gets DuPont endorsement - 5/12/2002
DOVER - Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ray Clatworthy won the overwhelming endorsement Saturday of delegates to the state GOP convention in Dewey Beach.
It's still crucial to do whatever we can to unseat Biden and/or make it rough for him to get reelected. Not only for Delaware...
Unfortunatly, I haven't heard anything from Rocky's race in Michigan either.
No. #1 is extremely vunerable Democrats facing likely defeat in November . Every year, these are Democrats who get elected in generally conservative states and make the stupid mistake of being unabashedly socialist in office and sticking their neck out for the Dems. Also included are 'RATs who break a major campaign promise, or get stuck in a major scandal. Most of these guys are facing a very strong, popular Republican who holds a big office in the state and won re-election by a landslide. I would say only two races fit the catergory this year: Thune (R) vs. Johnson (D) in South Dakota (say your prayers, Johnson), and Coleman (R) vs. Wellstone (D) in Minnesota. (Yes, I know Minnesota is fairly liberal and Wellstone was elected Senator twice, but Coleman is the most popular mayor in the state and Wellstone's approval rating is in the toilet after he broke his 1990 pledge)
No. #2 is Democrats who are pretty vunerable, but still cling to power unless the GOP does very well . Many of these are Democrats in conservative states, only they're moke sneaky than the above morons, and therefore they maintain a devout following in the state. Many of them won election by only 1-2% last time, but have been buttering up the public since then. Additionally, they may be in catergory #2 instead of #1 because the GOP nominated the wrong guy, a lackluster or corrupt loser, or the Dems may have gotten some kind of boost in the national media lately. Republicans in these states are extremely frustrated because they have to find some way between now and November to bring the 'RAT senator back down to their previous "likely will be defeated" status, but the 'RAT is slick. Races include Taylor? (R) vs. Baucus in Montana, Ganske/Sailer (R) vs. Harkin in Iowa, Talent (R) vs. Carnahan (D) in Missouri (would be in catergory #1 if the GOP had nominated Emmerson), Chambliss/Irvin (R) vs. Cleland (D) in Georgia, Cookley (R) vs. Laudrieu (D) in Louisiana, and Forrester? (R) vs. Torcicelli (D) in New Jersey (would be catergory #1 except New Jersey is super liberal)
No. #3 is the Democrats who are beatable, at least in THEORY, but it will be a major uphill battle to do so. Most of these are in states where the statewide GOP office-holders tend to be squishy moderates, although the grassroot Republicans do a good job nominating conservatives (pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, etc.) for the Senate. Conservatives DO win statewide office, but rarely. The states tend to "swing" areas that elect equal amounts of Republicans and Democrats. The Democrat incumbant Senators here have a powerful machine in major cities, have rural support, and have been holding major office in the state for 20+ years. As a result, their Republican opponents are deemed unlikely victors, always struggling to get funds and name reconitizion. We CAN win these, mainly because people are sick of the machine incumbant, but the candidates have to benefit from the incumbant screwing up or some sort of national effort to get out the name of the GOP candidate. I would include Clayworthy (R) against Biden (D) in that catergory. Also would be our Senate race here in Illinois, DurKin (R) vs. Durbin (D), the race in Michigan, Rocky (R) vs. Levin (D), and the race in West Virgina-- honest Jay Wolfe (R) vs. buy-the-election Jay Rockefeller (D). The best thing to do is these states is to try to get outside funding from groups like the Madison Project, see if you can attract national celebrites to show up and promote your guy if they agree with him (example: we had Wayne Pierra stumping for O'Malley, and Phil Gramm will be promoting Durkin), and rally hardcore grassroots conservatives to show up and cause an upset. You CANNOT rely on the state party, which is "too busy" funding resources to open races (such as the Governorship.
No. #4 is the Democrats in ultra-liberal states who are virtually IMPOSSIBLE to kick out. Many of these states won't elect anyone with an "R" next to his name. Period. In a few rare circumstance, they will elect a "Republican" to the left of Christie Todd Whitman. I generally write these states off and feel sorry for the Republicans who have to put on the facade of a contest. These years races include Kandel (R) vs. Kerry (D) in Mass., and Tingle (R) vs. Reed (D) in Rhode Island.
A lot of Delaware Catholics think that since Biden professes himself to be Catholic, that he's pro-life. They haven't checked his voting record. It's appalling. Please tell all your pro-life friends in Delaware that Biden consistently votes pro-abortion.
We can make being pro-choice politically-incorrect for him. It's time for Joe to GO. Thank you all for your help.
Really? That's an different take than what I ususally hear. Durbin won by 10% last time and Laudrieu won by .5%, although admittedly the circumstances are different this time around.
Durbin's 1996 opponent was some unknown, "youthful" (in his early 30s) state rep. that Durbin completely villifed and destroyed because the guy made repealing the assalt weapons ban a keystone of his campaign (Durbin slandered the guy and said he planned to give kids guns, and Durkin did not have enough money left to run rebuttal ads). They also mocked him as naive and inexperienced..plus he had all those kids. ::sigh::
I'm optimistic this time because moderates and conservatives are united around the guy the GOP nominated this time (Durkin has a very centrist, "open-minded" persona in public-- but his voting record and platform is actually VERY conservative). Plus we got the simular-sounding name thing (liberals are so dumb in this state, they elected a Republican state rep named "Larry Woolard" because his sounded like the retiring Democrat state senator, Lary Woodard) Plus a bunch of "independants" and conservative Democrats are backing Durkin over Durbin, and he's got alot of out-of-state help.
Meanwhile, Durbin has completed alienated his "base" in his hometown of springfield, because he campaigned as a "moderate" in 1996 and has voted more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Durbin's about as popular in central Illinois as Al Gore is in Tennessee. Whether that'll be enough to outvote Chicago (it rarely is) remains to be seen.
I probably rate Laudrieu higher simply because her state is much more conservative, but we're still rooting for Durkin here because a victory is still possible. Some freepers act like Illinois is New England, but hey, those are the same types who said a dorky, rich, unknown state Senator named Peter Fitzgerald would never defeat Moseley-Braun. ;-)
Regarding the IL race, I saw an article recently (I'll go look for it, in case you didn't see it) regarding McCain [ugh!] supporting Durkin. And that the GOP was giving this race another look because Durbin's numbers weren't impressive for an incumbent. A late Apr Chicago Tribune poll showed Durbin (D) over Durkin (R) by 49-33%, with Durkin only having 73% name recognition. The article claimed the poll had data suggesting the race could/would tighten if Durkin could raise his profile. A visit by McCain would do just that. I still have to give the benefit to Durbin, but I personally think the GOP has a better shot at this seat than at Landrieu's.
Good posts by Coop, and BillyBoy (as usual). Illinois is an extreme case of what Karl Rove has pointed out nationally. 1994 had an extremely high turnout of the Christian Right/social conservatives. Since then it has declined. Perceived flipflops by '98's Al Salvi are blamed for discourgaing IL Conservatives.
In the March primary, social conservatives had a clear choice and chose to not get involved. The only way to win IL in Nov 2002 is to find someway to motivate the social conservatives to get involved. In Schaumburg Township (and my precincts in it) we have bucked the trend and turnout is up. But in the rest of Cook County, and DuPage, with DuPage machine candidates on the ballot in the primary, the turnout was sick....and it was the social conservatives who did not turnout, at least not in the strength of '94. A visit by McCain might hurt with them.
Durbin's support is broad but shallow. A lot can happen before November. Maybe we'll get lucky. A good Mel Gibson movie or similar cultural phenom would help.
Castle and duPont are the only Republicans that could knock off Biden. Both are total cowards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.