Posted on 07/20/2006 4:06:21 PM PDT by neverdem
This is exactly how Hillary will do it. Her supporters, including Soros, will spend a billion dollars to get her back in the White House.
Don't expect this to change any time soon. Most conservatives I know would rather sit around and b*tch amongst themselves rather than do anything to help a candidate.
Good thing McCain-Feingold took the money out of politics.
Who's she gonna marry to do that? I don't see her winning it.
Yeah . Let's hope that the fear of Liberals in control will motivate people .The Republicans might not be perfect, but the alternaive is unthinkable .
I don't care how mad I am at the Republicans, when I see crap like this, knowing who's behind it and what their evil goal is, I will come out swinging to keep them from getting in!!
Then, in 2008, I'll take a look at going against Shuler, who is an empty suit.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Stupidity about WW III: 'Here's your Sign' "
Please see a statement on running for Congress, here,
As many as 24 Democratic-allied outside interest groups have launched attacks or waged other political activity in 82 congressional districts represented by House Republicans, according to data compiled the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).
So......................
what is the point here?
Ironically, one of the main targets of liberal groups is Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), one of the House authors of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that empowered outside groups by strengthening fundraising restrictions on the national parties.
There's nothing ironic about it at all - that was undoubtedly one of the motives behind the drafting of the bill to begin with - if Shays didn't realize it at the time, then it just means that he's an even bigger fool than everybody thinks he is...
The most serious mistake one can make is underestimating the enemy.
I wonder how many Democrats will vote in St. Tammany and St. Bernard Parish? I have a feeling we'll see the voter rolls bleed with illegal absentee voting.
If they send the moonbats out into Republican districts, it may actually help Republicans.
Paraphrasing - "At a time when so many are working for the minimum wage*, Heather Wilson voted herself a BIG raise yada, yada." They apparently think their audience is too stupid to understand that even dim congress critters voted for that raise.
Another ad accuses Bush of helping Heather raise campaign money. As a former liberal co-worker said on hearing that one ... "Get Out".
Bush raised that money at the "swanky" Hyatt Regency - gotta go for the class warfare whenever possible.
Anyway these are their "issues".
*(Albuquerque City Council enacted a "living wage" this past spring. Starts with $6.75 an hour minimum wage in 2007 - climbs to $7.50 an hour by 2009 - and as an aside it was announced today that job creation in NM dropped drastically and unexpectedly in the last couple of months - one could cry at the stupidity here)
Thanks for the links.
I have very little sympathy for anyone claiming to be a Republican who campaigns for Dems as you do.
What I do is describe as accurately as I can the facts on the ground of any political situation. Here in the 11th District race for Congress, the facts are: Heath Shuler is an empty suit, with no political experience, who is beholden to the unions for much of his support. He claims to be "a conservative" but if he votes with his financial backers, he will display himself as a liberal in short order.
Second set of facts: Democrats and Republicans are about even in registration in this District. Still, the District is strongly conservative because many of the Democrats are Zell Miller types who have no use for "San Francisco liberals." (Speaking of which, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi donated $4,000 to Schuler.) In state and national elections, this District consistently votes more conservative than North Carolina as a whole.
Third set of facts: The 16-year incumbent, Charles Taylor, has consistently voted for conservative positions on legislation in the House. However, he has a long and growing history of questionable and possibly corrupt financial transactions. He was involved with Abramoff in a well-publicized deal concerning the Chippewa Tribe and its casino in Minnesota.
Resulting fact: multiple, independent polls have been showing for a month that the voters of the 11th District prefer Heath Shuler by a significant margin. Shuler has room for his support to grow, since he is not universally known in the District. Taylor has no room to grow, since (for better or worse) he is universally known.
Put those facts together, and you reach the logical conclusion that Shuler will probably defeat Taylor in November. And if that is so, then I should plan to run against Shuler in 2008, which is exactly what I am looking at. I am not, however, campaigning for or against either Shuler or Taylor. Whoever wins, the District will get a defective Congressman from 2006 to 2008.
How do you translate that into a conclusion that I am "campaigning for Dems"?
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Stupidity about WW III: 'Here's your Sign' "
Please see a statement on running for Congress, here,
When has big labor NOT been energized to take back the House? Remember they are now split. If they too weak to get it done before what will different now?
I think that any reasonable person would say that that you are campaigning for Shuler to defeat Taylor, despite your protestation of neutrality.
I understand that you may hope to run against Shuler in 2008 but; it is inexcusable to want to put the Pelosi/Murtha gang in power, even in the hope of later dethroning them.
Pelosi/Murtha
Mclame/Sphincter
6 of one
Half dozen of the other.
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.