Hagan ad worst ever

[politico]

If Kay Hagan is going to throw away money in the U.S. Senate the way she throws it away on glossy 4-page worthless mailers then I don't want her anywhere near Washington, D.C.

In what has to be one of the worst pieces of political tripe masquerading as a campaign ad that I've ever seen, Hagan's mailer bashing Dole's record on jobs is clearly designed to appeal only to those who stopped learning at about the age of eight.

It contains unbelievable B.S.

"Outsourcing" didn't happen much in the 1960's, when Dole first went to Washington, India and China were developing countries with mostly uneducated workforces that couldn't compete for our jobs.

Today, thousands of good-paying North Carolina jobs have been shipped overseas.I don't know what kind morons Hagan thinks NC voters are but it gets worse...

China was a third world country when Dole went to Washington. But today, China is a manufacturing giant, operating in violation of trade agreements and smuggling textiles through Mexico.Hagan is trying to make the case that NC's manufacturing and textile jobs would still be here if it weren't for Senator Dole.

She succeeded in making the case that her campaign manager is an idiot.

[Dharma]

All the ads are getting out of hand. Both parties. I can't wait until November 5th - just so I don't have to be subjected to anymore of them.

However, I guess you haven't seen Dole's rabid homophobe flyer I got. It was insulting and I can't believe people are stupid enough to know what's she doing. She's losing on the real issues so she's trying to appeal to our animal brains.

The other ad she's got implies all the Republicans are going to lose. She said "vote for me or the liberals will have a blank check". While I think it is far more intelligent of her than the homophobe add, I'm wondering what you think of an ad Dole put out saying your party is going to lose everything?

[dhyatt]

All the ads are getting out of hand. Both parties. I can't wait until November 5th - just so I don't have to be subjected to anymore of them.

However, I guess you haven't seen Dole's rabid homophobe flyer I got. It was insulting and I can't believe people are stupid enough to know what's she doing. She's losing on the real issues so she's trying to appeal to our animal brains.

The other ad she's got implies all the Republicans are going to lose. She said "vote for me or the liberals will have a blank check". While I think it is far more intelligent of her than the homophobe add, I'm wondering what you think of an ad Dole put out saying your party is going to lose everything?

I think she's probably right about the danger of having one party control the House, Senate, and Presidency ;-)

Haven't seen the 'homophobe' flyer. If anyone has it and can scan it, use the Upload Files option on the homepage main menu and upload it directly to http://carypolitics.org/images/stories/2008_Campaign_Flyers/xxxx.xxx

[dhyatt]

All the ads are getting out of hand. Both parties. I can't wait until November 5th - just so I don't have to be subjected to anymore of them.

[snip]

Forgot to mention... even some of banner ads on CP are really, really bad - the Obama one especially :-/



(just kidding, for the humor impaired)

[Laurie]

If Kay Hagan is going to throw away money in the U.S. Senate the way she throws it away on glossy 4-page worthless mailers then I don't want her anywhere near Washington, D.C.

In what has to be one of the worst pieces of political tripe masquerading as a campaign ad that I've ever seen, Hagan's mailer bashing Dole's record on jobs is clearly designed to appeal only to those who stopped learning at about the age of eight.

It contains unbelievable B.S.

"Outsourcing" didn't happen much in the 1960's, when Dole first went to Washington, India and China were developing countries with mostly uneducated workforces that couldn't compete for our jobs.

Today, thousands of good-paying North Carolina jobs have been shipped overseas.I don't know what kind morons Hagan thinks NC voters are but it gets worse...

China was a third world country when Dole went to Washington. But today, China is a manufacturing giant, operating in violation of trade agreements and smuggling textiles through Mexico.Hagan is trying to make the case that NC's manufacturing and textile jobs would still be here if it weren't for Senator Dole.

She succeeded in making the case that her campaign manager is an idiot.

The 4 page flyer was not put out by Kay Hagan. It was done by Majority Action.

According to the Washington Post, Majority Action is "A new independent political organization made up of former Democratic members of Congress and high-level party operatives. The goal of Majority Action, according to co-chairman Joe Andrew, is to level the financial playing field in Republican-held seats where a potential national wave could wipe out a number of incumbents... Andrew and Don Fowler -- both former Democratic National Committee chairmen -- anchor the group's leadership circle, which includes a panoply of former lawmakers, including past Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairmen Tony Coelho (Calif.) and Martin Frost (Tex.)."

[Laurie]

Forgot to mention... even some of banner ads on CP are really, really bad - the Obama one especially :-/



(just kidding, for the humor impaired)

It warms my heart every time I see that Obama banner up there.

[Wuptdo]

Laurie wrote:
"It warms my heart every time I see that Obama banner up there."

Must be nice Laurie, because every time I see the "Obama" banner, it chills my heart and this comes to mind:
http://www.trashcity.org/BLITZ/BLIT0801.JPG
The Waco Massacre (http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html)
Change for America?

[dhyatt]

If Kay Hagan is going to throw away money in the U.S. Senate the way she throws it away on glossy 4-page worthless mailers then I don't want her anywhere near Washington, D.C.

In what has to be one of the worst pieces of political tripe masquerading as a campaign ad that I've ever seen, Hagan's mailer bashing Dole's record on jobs is clearly designed to appeal only to those who stopped learning at about the age of eight.

It contains unbelievable B.S.

"Outsourcing" didn't happen much in the 1960's, when Dole first went to Washington, India and China were developing countries with mostly uneducated workforces that couldn't compete for our jobs.

Today, thousands of good-paying North Carolina jobs have been shipped overseas.I don't know what kind of morons Hagan thinks NC voters are but it gets worse...

China was a third world country when Dole went to Washington. But today, China is a manufacturing giant, operating in violation of trade agreements and smuggling textiles through Mexico.Hagan is trying to make the case that NC's manufacturing and textile jobs would still be here if it weren't for Senator Dole.

She succeeded in making the case that her campaign manager is an idiot.

The 4 page flyer was not put out by Kay Hagan. It was done by Majority Action.

[snip]

You're right. My apologies to Hagan's campaign manager.

[Brent]

A tremendous number of the negative ads (mail, TV, radio), and, at least of the ones I've seen, nearly all of the very worst, most negative ads -- on both sides -- are by groups independent of the candidates' campaigns.

Many/most of these groups belong in the OUT OF CONTROL thread. They thoroughly trash people, stretching the truth, often to the breaking point, and generally aren't the least bit accountable.

It's disgusting, but it won't change, because both sides decry the other side doing it, but snicker at and enjoy the ones done against the other side.

But I do wonder how some of these people sleep at night.

[francejamie]

I think she's probably right about the danger of having one party control the House, Senate, and Presidency ;-)




LOL! That didn't seem to bother any of the Righties for 200-2006.

[dhyatt]

I think she's probably right about the danger of having one party control the House, Senate, and Presidency ;-)




LOL! That didn't seem to bother any of the Righties for 200-2006.

The 'Righties' never had House, Presidency, and 60+ seats in the Senate. i.e. - they were never filibuster proof. The Democrats very well might after this election and that's what you *should* be afraid of. ...make that *very* afraid of.

[JoeCiulla]

I think she's probably right about the danger of having one party control the House, Senate, and Presidency ;-)




LOL! That didn't seem to bother any of the Righties for 200-2006.

The 'Righties' never had House, Presidency, and 60+ seats in the Senate. i.e. - they were never filibuster proof. The Democrats very well might after this election and that's what you *should* be afraid of. ...make that *very* afraid of.

Number one reason I voted for McCain

[MattD]

LOL! That didn't seem to bother any of the Righties for 200-2006.

The 'Righties' never had House, Presidency, and 60+ seats in the Senate. i.e. - they were never filibuster proof. The Democrats very well might after this election and that's what you *should* be afraid of. ...make that *very* afraid of.[/QUOTE]

Number one reason I voted for McCain[/QUOTE]

Having this checks and balance is an issue McCain should have (and should be doing) been doing a month ago... as I stated in another thread.

[francejamie]

The 'Righties' never had House, Presidency, and 60+ seats in the Senate. i.e. - they were never filibuster proof. The Democrats very well might after this election and that's what you *should* be afraid of. ...make that *very* afraid of.


Of course on the extremely rare occasion that the Dems actually did filabuster, to prevent things like a handful of extreme far right judges from being confirmed, you are the same people who yelled that they "deserve an up or down vote."

Hmmmm, funny how scary it is for you when it goes the other way.

The Reps almost had this kind of majority and , yes, it did scare the crap out of those of us on the left.

Of course, they lived up to their expectations, by getting us into a pointless war, and destroying the economy.

[chaboard]

The 'Righties' never had House, Presidency, and 60+ seats in the Senate. i.e. - they were never filibuster proof. The Democrats very well might after this election and that's what you *should* be afraid of. ...make that *very* afraid of.

Number one reason I voted for McCain

Having this checks and balance is an issue McCain should have (and should be doing) been doing a month ago... as I stated in another thread.

Wouldn't have helped. Recent polling has shown "divided government" to be even less popular than the GOP. A recent national poll had (going from memory here, know it's within a point or two) ~55% say they wanted President & Congress in the same hands and only ~33% saying they wanted them divided. And Charlie Cook mentioned on Meet The Press last wek that "divided government" has never polled lower than it is right now.

Which, of course, makes sense when you think about it. People desperately want change....and divided government gridlock is the guaranteed path of *least* change.

[JoeCiulla]

The Reps almost had this kind of majority and , yes, it did scare the crap out of those of us on the left.



Exactly, you relish the Democratic domination of American government which may be even stronger than the Republicans had? There are plenty of things GW wouldn't have gotten away with had there been checks and balances in play. I don't think we can assume the Dems will be above this when they are in power.

No, I'm not saying they will start a war or spy on people.

But there are different abuses of power, and they may take many forms. If Obama wins with, say, 55% of the vote, he and his party may be in a position to dictate policy which 45% of the country detests. Makes me nervous.

[francejamie]

Exactly, you relish the Democratic domination of American government which may be even stronger than the Republicans had? There are plenty of things GW wouldn't have gotten away with had there been checks and balances in play. I don't think we can assume the Dems will be above this when they are in power.

No, I'm not saying they will start a war or spy on people.

But there are different abuses of power, and they may take many forms. If Obama wins with, say, 55% of the vote, he and his party may be in a position to dictate policy which 45% of the country detests. Makes me nervous.

For starters, I'm sure it won't be nearly the domination the GOP, party of fear, is making it out to be. First, the Dems most likely won't actually have 60 seats in the Senate. Second, the Dems won't march in total lockstep. The Dem leadership couldn't even get them all to vote for the bailout bill, what makes you think they will consistently vote on anything together? Finally, the Dems will want to hold onto or increase their lead in just 2 years so they aren't going to be pushing a far left agenda which will lose their moderate support. They will stay at least reasonably moderate.

Also, we do need a few years of a left government to try to clean up the corruption of 2000-2006.

It's not going to happen, but I think we'd all welcome some criminal investigations of the previous administration. I'd like to see people like Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Bush held accountable for their crimes. You'd like to see Congress spend it's time worrying about that stuff, so they aren't passing left wing laws.

[JoeCiulla]

For starters, I'm sure it won't be nearly the domination the GOP, party of fear, is making it out to be. First, the Dems most likely won't actually have 60 seats in the Senate. Second, the Dems won't march in total lockstep. The Dem leadership couldn't even get them all to vote for the bailout bill, what makes you think they will consistently vote on anything together? Finally, the Dems will want to hold onto or increase their lead in just 2 years so they aren't going to be pushing a far left agenda which will lose their moderate support. They will stay at least reasonably moderate.

If this had been a 'typical' campaign, I'd agree with you. But Obama has succeeded in setting some incredibly higher hopes. The legions of young voters, Obama Girls, and such will be very disappointed by anything less than a full left assault -- the same agenda which you point out will lose liberals. Bit of a pickle.


Also, we do need a few years of a left government to try to clean up the corruption of 2000-2006.

Time will tell.


It's not going to happen, but I think we'd all welcome some criminal investigations of the previous administration. I'd like to see people like Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Bush held accountable for their crimes. You'd like to see Congress spend it's time worrying about that stuff, so they aren't passing left wing laws.

I'd like to hope that Rove and his ilk have made themselves so politically toxic that they will never be heard from again. I'd rather see Congress spending it's time fixing problems in a 'mid-wing' way.

As to George Bush, his legacy as one of our wost US Presidents is sealed. I would hate to see time and resources spent on dredging through his administration, when that time could be spent constructively.

We will come out of this elections, again, as a nation divided. 45% or so of Americans will be unhappy with the election results. Consuming our resources on a witch hunt will only serve to further divide our country, and will only reinforce the opinion many Americans have that political parties primary concern is holding power.

[chaboard]

I'd like to hope that Rove and his ilk have made themselves so politically toxic that they will never be heard from again. I'd rather see Congress spending it's time fixing problems in a 'mid-wing' way.

As to George Bush, his legacy as one of our wost US Presidents is sealed. I would hate to see time and resources spent on dredging through his administration, when that time could be spent constructively.

We will come out of this elections, again, as a nation divided. 45% or so of Americans will be unhappy with the election results. Consuming our resources on a witch hunt will only serve to further divide our country, and will only reinforce the opinion many Americans have that political parties primary concern is holding power.

It was EXACTLY this attitude in 1976 and 1987 that allowed "toxic" discredited people like Cheney and Rumsfeld to come to power AGAIN. Enforcing the law IS time "spent constructively" - not only does it keep a current-day Cheney type from rising again in 20 years...it also serves to deter new Cheney's from starting down that path.

Refusal to hold the criminals accountable is functionally equivalent to sanctioning their crimes. I understand that you, Joe, don't have any issue with corruption in office....but those of us who do must insist that the law be upheld. Our democracry depends on it.

[DarylB]

For starters, I'm sure it won't be nearly the domination the GOP, party of fear, is making it out to be. First, the Dems most likely won't actually have 60 seats in the Senate. Second, the Dems won't march in total lockstep. The Dem leadership couldn't even get them all to vote for the bailout bill, what makes you think they will consistently vote on anything together? Finally, the Dems will want to hold onto or increase their lead in just 2 years so they aren't going to be pushing a far left agenda which will lose their moderate support. They will stay at least reasonably moderate.
If this had been a 'typical' campaign, I'd agree with you. But Obama has succeeded in setting some incredibly higher hopes. The legions of young voters, Obama Girls, and such will be very disappointed by anything less than a full left assault -- the same agenda which you point out will lose liberals. Bit of a pickle.

......


It's not going to happen, but I think we'd all welcome some criminal investigations of the previous administration. I'd like to see people like Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Bush held accountable for their crimes. You'd like to see Congress spend it's time worrying about that stuff, so they aren't passing left wing laws.


Joe,

I've got Jamie on ignore, but since you quoted him, this popped up (thanks a bunch!)

It has been the express purpose of Democrats to get enough seats to totally silence Republicans. In that effort, they have repeatedly called for "investigations" and called the Republicans "criminals", and referred to their decisions as "crimes". We have no guarantee,short of the checks and balances of the original founders, that it will not be political genocide. We have the past experience of Bork, and Thomas as the only proof we need to what lengths they will go. We have been shot and had power taken by force in a coup d'etat. Now, Democrats say "trust us, we'll not be in lockstep, so you'll be safe under our patronizing hand of domination".

We have had, to this point in our countries history, a democratic form of government, in which the elective process was used to determine who got to call the shots. The "loyal opposition was never so far out of power that their influence of moderation was not a factor. Now, we have the prospect of the Democrats introducing us to the old Soviet system of purges (the last guy in office is deposed, then discredited, his pictures and statues come down, he gets a "trial" that lasts about 30 seconds in front of his detractors, and is sent off to a gulag). We now have the prospect of Democrats calling for purges. What better evidence do we need to have that we need a divided government to ensure the rights of the half of the country out of power are not "purged", than these pre-election calls for purges? If they are so premature isn seeking purges now, even before they have the power they've been seeking, what will they do, and to what excesses will they stoop once entrusted with total control of the agenda, the money, and the power to enforce their will upon us all. When they're calling for Trials, calling leaders criminals, and are in line to assume complete and absolute dictatorial power, it's over. Welcome to East Berlin, 2008!

[Dharma]

you're leaving proof to psychiatrists at Dorothea Dix that you shoud be a permanent resident.

I'm really afraid for people in your area if Obama wins next week. You don't work for the US Postal Service, do you?

Dharma,
You're spending too much time with chaboard, your posts never used to be like this.

You're fast. If you'll notice, Joe, I deleted it rather quickly, because I thought better of it.

But I beg to ask you, is it okay for Daryl to say what he says yet you "moderates" NEVER call him on anything?

[JoeCiulla]

Dharma,
I deleted my post as well

[Dharma]

Dharma,
I deleted my post as well

Okay..but my question to all of you moderates and true conservatives about Daryl still stands....

Do you agree with all of his extreme right wing rhetoric? If you find it extreme, why don't you say anything?

[JoeCiulla]

Dharma,
I deleted my post as well

Okay..but my question to all of you moderates and true conservatives about Daryl still stands....

Do you agree with all of his extreme right wing rhetoric? If you find it extreme, why don't you say anything?

Well, there are several areas I don't agree with any right wingers on. Sometimes I do jump in and disagree, other times the left-leaners attack with enough gusto that I just can't see piling on.

Some things I don't agree with the righties, since you sorta asked:

1. Support abortion
2. Believe in evolution, not creation of man
3. We should get out of Iraq now, or very soon. Even if we kill every terrorist, we leave behind three religious factions who hate eachother more than they hate us, and are all ready to go back to religious dictatorship.
4. Taxes. The right answer is, as so often occurs, somewhere in the middle. I don't support taxation as a means of social engineering. But, our country is broke and someone has to pay. Personally, I'd be ok with paying higher taxes if the money went toward paying off the national debt instead of subsidizing other programs which our nation can't afford.

You asked a fair question, I gave you an honest answer. I could also list the liberal positions I don't agree with, but I think you already know them.

Show me a 3rd political party with moderate positions and I'll sign up in a jiffy. So might legions of other unaffiliated voters, who by the way make up the fastest growing political 'party.'

[Dharma]

Dharma,
I deleted my post as well

Okay..but my question to all of you moderates and true conservatives about Daryl still stands....

Do you agree with all of his extreme right wing rhetoric? If you find it extreme, why don't you say anything?

Well, there are several areas I don't agree with any right wingers on. Sometimes I do jump in and disagree, other times the left-leaners attack with enough gusto that I just can't see piling on.

Some things I don't agree with the righties, since you sorta asked:

1. Support abortion
2. Believe in evolution, not creation of man
3. We should get out of Iraq now, or very soon. Even if we kill every terrorist, we leave behind three religious factions who hate eachother more than they hate us, and are all ready to go back to religious dictatorship.
4. Taxes. The right answer is, as so often occurs, somewhere in the middle. I don't support taxation as a means of social engineering. But, our country is broke and someone has to pay. Personally, I'd be ok with paying higher taxes if the money went toward paying off the national debt instead of subsidizing other programs which our nation can't afford.

You asked a fair question, I gave you an honest answer. I could also list the liberal positions I don't agree with, but I think you already know them.

Show me a 3rd political party with moderate positions and I'll sign up in a jiffy. So might legions of other unaffiliated voters, who by the way make up the fastest growing political 'party.'



Well, I thank you for your honest answer but perhaps I should have been more clear.

Daryl has been spouting off about how Obama is going to turn the US into Nazi world and well, I'm sure you've read his pyschotic posts of recent. He and Wup call people "wetbacks" and use racist language yet it seems easier for some of you to jump all over Chaboard for using a cuss word or rubbing you the wrong way. When a kid stumbles on this site, he might see a cuss word but it's more likely he hasn't seen Daryl's rhetoric about the left or Wup calling people "wetbacks".

So, I'm just wondering why you moderates let them get away with that.

For the record, I think it was Rachel Hunter posting heer a year ago and I told her she was diverting the message of the left by how she posted here. There were a few extreme lefties and I DID address them.

Are Daryl and Wup left alone because people are afraid of them?

[chaboard]

So might legions of other unaffiliated voters, who by the way make up the fastest growing political 'party.'

I'm pretty sure this is no longer true. New Democratic registrations have grown much faster than unaffiliated or independent registrations in 2008.

For example , here in NC, the final numbers (excluding one-stop early voting registration) were:
208,000 Democrats
148,000 Unaffiliated
34,000 Republican

[JoeCiulla]

Dharma,
I deleted my post as well

Okay..but my question to all of you moderates and true conservatives about Daryl still stands....

Do you agree with all of his extreme right wing rhetoric? If you find it extreme, why don't you say anything?

Well, there are several areas I don't agree with any right wingers on. Sometimes I do jump in and disagree, other times the left-leaners attack with enough gusto that I just can't see piling on.

Some things I don't agree with the righties, since you sorta asked:

1. Support abortion
2. Believe in evolution, not creation of man
3. We should get out of Iraq now, or very soon. Even if we kill every terrorist, we leave behind three religious factions who hate eachother more than they hate us, and are all ready to go back to religious dictatorship.
4. Taxes. The right answer is, as so often occurs, somewhere in the middle. I don't support taxation as a means of social engineering. But, our country is broke and someone has to pay. Personally, I'd be ok with paying higher taxes if the money went toward paying off the national debt instead of subsidizing other programs which our nation can't afford.

You asked a fair question, I gave you an honest answer. I could also list the liberal positions I don't agree with, but I think you already know them.

Show me a 3rd political party with moderate positions and I'll sign up in a jiffy. So might legions of other unaffiliated voters, who by the way make up the fastest growing political 'party.'



Well, I thank you for your honest answer but perhaps I should have been more clear.

Daryl has been spouting off about how Obama is going to turn the US into Nazi world and well, I'm sure you've read his pyschotic posts of recent. He and Wup call people "wetbacks" and use racist language yet it seems easier for some of you to jump all over Chaboard for using a cuss word or rubbing you the wrong way. When a kid stumbles on this site, he might see a cuss word but it's more likely he hasn't seen Daryl's rhetoric about the left or Wup calling people "wetbacks".

So, I'm just wondering why you moderates let them get away with that.

For the record, I think it was Rachel Hunter posting heer a year ago and I told her she was diverting the message of the left by how she posted here. There were a few extreme lefties and I DID address them.

Are Daryl and Wup left alone because people are afraid of them?

I'm more afraid of you than I am of them :iconbiggrin:

No, I don't think an Obama presidency will bring armageddon upon America (But I do believe he will lead too far to the left). But you and others do a pretty good job of challenging posts that go too far to the right.

I reserve most of my passion for what happens at the local level, and am gaining passion for what happens in the state legislature.

[Laurie]

Daryl has been spouting off about how Obama is going to turn the US into Nazi world and well, I'm sure you've read his pyschotic posts of recent. He and Wup call people "wetbacks" and use racist language yet it seems easier for some of you to jump all over Chaboard for using a cuss word or rubbing you the wrong way. When a kid stumbles on this site, he might see a cuss word but it's more likely he hasn't seen Daryl's rhetoric about the left or Wup calling people "wetbacks".

There are some posts that stand on their own for their extreme offensiveness and inappropriateness and no reply is needed. It reflects on the poster, and most everyone sees them for what they are.