by Shocker Jim, Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:58:15 AM EDT
A pleasant surprise struck me when I read this morning's Wichita Eagle. The paper's editorial board decided to endorse Democratic challenger Jim Slattery over incumbent Bush-enabler Pat Roberts for the Senate.
It's not likely to matter too much, but it's good to see that Roberts isn't being given a free pass for this term's misdeeds. In fact, the Eagle's board laid out a number of the arguments against Roberts in their editorial.
Here's the story link.
by Shocker Jim, Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:36:12 AM EDT
The Wichita Eagle is reporting that 2010 might finally be the year for famously indecisive Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran (KS-01) to run for either the Senate or for governor. The story is HERE.
Brownback's seat will be up in 2010 and, due to term limits, there will be no incumbent in the gubernatorial race. Moran could be interested in either.
Unfortunately for Democrats, this isn't a case of an isolated member of Congress who has never run a statewide race. Since District 1 covers most of the state, any Kansas practically has to been living under a rock not to have heard of him. Practically everyone except for Governor Sebelius -- a match-up which could happen only if this was a Senate race -- would start out with a serious name-recognition disadvantage if they ran against him.
by Shocker Jim, Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 06:16:12 PM EST
I just had cable re-installed last week and I've already seen the "Mumbo Jumbo" anti-net-neutrality ad twice. (This is the one where, among other things, they print "Mumbo Jumbo" in Google-style letters.)
If you haven't seen the ad yourself, they're saying that "net neutrality is bad for consumers." Let's just hope that consumers aren't stupid enough to believe that. If they are, they might actually believe that their Internet-service bill could go down if the telecom industry is allowed to gut net neutrality.
Has anyone else been seeing this ad recently? Is this just a local placement?
by Shocker Jim, Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:48:00 PM EDT
I'm halfway across the country from the campaign, but I'd like to know whether Ned Lamont
or Alan Schlesinger has hit the Sore Loser regarding the Supreme Court. If they have, has either candidate asked whether he'd support a neocon to replace someone like Justice Stevens? Did it come up in the debates at all?
This should have been made THE
wedge issue since it became clear that Loserman was the de facto R candidate. How can Rs vote for someone who won't say he'll support Bush's nominee if another opening comes up before 2009? How can any Democrat vote for someone who says he will?
This is the issue where Traitor Joe must be forced
to commit -- and commit on camera
-- before the election. This is the issue where he can do the longest-lasting damage to the country, especially if it comes down to his vote enabling Cheney to break a 50-50 tie. If he won't commit, package that in an ad, hammer him with the support of Bolton, and ask "Which other Bush appointees will Joe support?"
by Shocker Jim, Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:07:12 PM EDT