Harris, Nelson will debate

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060907/BLOG01/60907018/-1/RSS ^ | 7 September 2006

[NautiNurse]

For most of the summer, Katherine Harris's Republican primary opponents complained bitterly that Harris would not agree to debate them.

But that won’t be a complaint from Sen. Bill Nelson, the Democrat Harris faces in November. Harris and Nelson will have two debates over the next 60 days.

The first will be on Oct. 23. That debate, arranged by Leadership Florida, the Florida Press Association and Florida Public Broadcasting will be at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale and will air from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on the state’s 25 public television stations.

A second one-hour debate will be on Nov. 1. That debate will be hosted by NBC Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert and carried live by Florida’s NBC stations from the campus of the University of Central Florida beginning at 7 p.m.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Realism is a virtue in politics and most everything else.

The only "realism" depicted here is the Matrix-like "reality" concocted by the FL liberal media and Harris critics. Why don't you break free?

Harris has serious flaws in her personality, a brewing ethics controversy that she has lied about

50% of FL primary voters thought otherwise.

and is far behind in the polls with no plausible basis for recovery.

If she's far behind in the polls why is she being attacked non-stop by the liberals/RINOs and Nelson agreeing to debate her.

These are not "spears at Harris" but recitations of publicly known facts.

These are not facts, they're your own negative and biased opinions spoon-fed to you by the media.

[NautiNurse]

These are not "spears at Harris" but recitations of publicly known facts.

Yes, they are repetitive spears. You have nothing new to contribute. You continually regurgitate the same old info published for months in every rag that we've already read and discussed at length. Thus, you are supporting Nelson in this forum.

[balrog666]

Big plus for Nelson. Harris can't keep two ideas straight in her head for 2 minutes. Sad for the GOP.

No, but she can debate like a Young-Earth-Creationist throwing out so many stupid and inane ideas that they could never be corrected in just one little debate. Of course, that would show her to be maroon that she is and turn off all the literate voters ...

shhh - nevermind.

[NautiNurse]

Let's see how Katherine Harris' credentials compare to yours, Bucky:

A former IBM marketing executive and vice president of a commercial real estate firm, Rep. Harris earned a Master’s Degree from Harvard University with a specialization in international trade and negotiations, and a Bachelor’s Degree in history from Agnes Scott College. She studied abroad at the University of Madrid and at L’Abri outside Geneva, Switzerland. Her commitment to public service has earned Rep. Harris numerous awards, including the Mel Fisher Award for International Trade Advocacy; the Florida Economic Development Council Legislator of the Year Award; the Florida United Business Association Outstanding Legislator Award; the Florida Arts Advocacy Award, the Sarasota Humanitarian of the Year Award and the Sarasota Statesman of the Year Award.

[OPS4]

Excellent post Nurse.
Ops4

[Rockingham]

(1) As a matter of fact, Harris has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating a defense contracting corruption scandal, the same scandal that sent Republican Rep. "Duke" Cunningham to prison. Harris got reported campaign contributions from the defense contractor involved, was lavishly wined and dined by him, and, arguably, did questionable favors for him. Harris lied to her campaign staff and the public by denying that she had been subpoenaed, and she also failed to disclose the subpoena as US House rules require. These are unpleasant facts, but they are facts nonetheless, not media inventions.

(2) As a matter of mixed fact and opinion, Harris also has serious defects in her personal temperament that led to the loss of several capable campaign teams and ineffective handling of the controversies attending her. Barring indictment and conviction for corruption, these defects are not disqualifying as to Harris holding office, but they are a serious impediment to her political effectiveness. She has the GOP nomination, but will not come close to mounting an effective campaign or even raising the resources necessary for doing so.

(3) Personally, even knowing about these things, I will vote for Harris against Nelson. I fully expect her to lose though due to high negatives in statewide polling that date from the 2000 election and are aggravated by the defense contracting scandal. After Harris loses, I expect that she will blame the GOP for the loss. Harris will not be deterred by the fact that in doing so, she will devalue the cause her most ardent supporters are dedicated to. None of that "If we lose D-Day, it is only my fault alone" stuff like Ike intended, or some kind of Reaganesque Gipper speech. Harris will blame the GOP, not herself.

(4) As a matter of opinion, if one is a Harris enthusiast or even just a wavering GOP voter or conservative, I recommend voting and even working for Harris. The effort is worthwhile in spite of the above. A lot of campaigns that are destined to lose have to be fought, and fought hard, for the sake of the larger GOP cause.

(5) As a matter of opinion, if one loathes Harris and is not inclined to vote for her, here is another, perhaps grimmer way of looking at it. Nelson is liberal, and therefore dishonest and vile in the way that liberalism and liberals working in politics are always fundamentally dishonest and vile. Harris is nutty, but Nelson is worse. Vote for the screwball, not for the pinko, al Queda hugging baby-killer.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

(1) As a matter of fact, Harris has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating a defense contracting corruption scandal

DOJ already stated that Harris wasn't the focus of their investigation.

As a matter of mixed fact and opinion, Harris also has serious defects in her personal temperament that led to the loss of several capable campaign teams and ineffective handling of the controversies attending her.

Rumors, not substantiated from disgruntled staffers. These staffers didn't like how independent Harris is, so they quit. Much ado about nothing.

(3) Personally, even knowing about these things, I will vote for Harris against Nelson.

So why waste your time criticizing her if you're going to vote for her anyway? If you don't like her you don't vote for her, right?

I fully expect her to lose though due to high negatives in statewide polling that date from the 2000 election and are aggravated by the defense contracting scandal.

It's not going to happen bub. The "pollsters" have been saying this since she ran for Congress back in 2002. That huge swath of lefty angry voters still pissed over the recall? Totally non-existent.

After Harris loses, I expect that she will blame the GOP for the loss.

I think if she loses she'll easily obtain a high-ranking job in a future GOP administration or in the private sector.

[NautiNurse]

1. Harris has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury

You continually regurgitate the same old info published for months in every rag and thread that we've already read and discussed at length.

2. the loss of several...campaign teams

You continually regurgitate the same old info published for months in every rag and thread that we've already read and discussed at length.

3. I fully expect her to lose

You continually regurgitate the same old info published for months in every rag and thread that we've already read and discussed at length.

4. As a matter of opinion, if one is a Harris enthusiast or even just a wavering GOP voter or conservative, I recommend voting and even working for Harris.

Finally! A comment that does not directly contribute to promoting Nelson's re-election.

5. here is another, perhaps grimmer way of looking at it. Nelson is liberal, and therefore dishonest and vile in the way that liberalism and liberals working in politics are always fundamentally dishonest and vile.

It's nice to see you really do understand the need to oust liberal Bill Nelson. However, continually tossing spears at Harris does nothing to accomplish the task at hand.

[Rockingham]

I know a good bit about Nelson's flaws -- which is why I wish we had a better candidate against him. Harris needs to make a case for her election that will appeal to a majority of the general electorate. The facts that you wish would not mentioned will continue to burden her effort unless she finds a way to address them and put them to rest convincingly.

[NautiNurse]

The fact that the same stories are regurgitated over and over and over ad nauseum is a MSM issue unto itself. Add to that the most unflattering photos of Katherine Harris are always depicted with the stories. Together, a whole lot of plain folks like me (not as politically savvy as you) are noticing the smear campaign. It's a girl thing.

[Rockingham]

The DOJ should affirmatively clear Harris if she is in the clear, not simply issue formulaic comments that do not rule out charges. Harris is not clear of a potential indictment, and especially so if new information turns up, as it often does in investigations.

Actually, I know one of Harris's former staffers and know him to be truthful and loyal. Harris repeatedly smeared him and other former staffers when she called them "disloyal" for quitting. That led them to talk and refute the allegations she had made against them.

I will vote for Harris as the GOP nominee, and long ago made clear that I would do so, but that does mean I am obliged to fall silent and stupid. Nothing about Harris that I have posted here is not already in the media, so what we are talking about is how to evaluate an unappealing candidate in a hard political situation. I prefer realism to happy talk and don't-scare-the-kids silence.

After the election, one of us will get to call coup against the other. Harris' temperament does not make her a reliable team player, which bars any role in a GOP administration. My guess is that she will write a book, and then set up a PAC or a foundation, or perhaps retreat to private life. I assume, tentatively, that she may be an embarrassed witness but will not be indicted in the defense contracting scandal.

[Rockingham]

Repetition of bad things and use of bad photos is the way of the news media against disfavored candidates and personalities. Not fair, perhaps, but that is how it is, so fair or not doesn't really count. Go into the rough territory of politics, expect bad things and don't whine about it, just figure out how to win. Instinctively viewing bad stuff that way is a guy thing, I guess.

[NautiNurse]

I know one of Harris's former staffers and know him to be truthful and loyal. Harris repeatedly smeared him and other former staffers when she called them "disloyal" for quitting.

And this info is publicized in which new sources? --as opposed to the thesaurus full of negative Harris descriptions published in every news source across the world.

[NautiNurse]

Repetition of bad things and use of bad photos is the way of the news media against disfavored candidates and personalities.

You are using the same MO for your advantage too. Who do you think you are kidding?

[Rockingham]

The former Harris staffers were interviewed on record by the press weeks after they quit. That I know one of those staffers is inconsequential to the larger point: when Harris' staff quit because of being abused and lied to by Harris, they kept quiet -- until they got fed up with being repeatedly accused of disloyalty by her. Harris's better course would have been to refer to differences of opinion with her staff and let the story die. For most politicians, that course would have been instinctive.

Unlike the news media, I do not distribute photos or news for the general public. I post my comments here in frustration at Harris blowing her campaign apart repeatedly through bad decisions and foolish conduct that often seem to generate cheers from her enthusiasts. More than that, Harris is virtually certain to lose, and the fault will be hers, not that of the GOP. Harris is entitled to have enthusiastic supporters, and they are entitled to have enthusiasm for her, but a sense of realism about her is in order as a remedy against exaggerated disappointment.

This year's Florida Senate campaign -- and even this election year -- are but moments in a larger battle. If (when) Harris loses, cry, get mad, get drunk, kick the furniture, but do not blame the GOP, blame Harris. Then rearm for the next part of the battle.

[NautiNurse]

Second request: Cite your sources re abuse and lies.

[balrog666]

Don't waste your time - they've already downed the Kool-Aid.

[NautiNurse]

No, we don't drink your atheist juice.

[Rockingham]

"Feds interview Harris' ex-campaign manager," By ANITA KUMAR, St. Petersburg Times Staff Writer, Published September 9, 2006

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/09/news_pf/State/Feds_interview_Harris.shtml


"Subpoena adds to Harris' woes," By ASSOCIATED PRESS,
Published August 3, 2006

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/03/news_pf/State/Subpoena_adds_to_Harr.shtml

There are more articles if you like, a lot more.

[NautiNurse]

As I suspected, once again you have not produced a single source that indicates Harris lied as you have alleged. Instead, you are using this forum to campaign against the conservative nominee in the U.S. Senate race.