Posted on 08/26/2006 3:17:58 PM PDT by FreeKeys
WARRENSBURG, Mo. -- Sen. Jim Talent is not responsible for $3-a-gallon gas or the Iraq war, but many voters here are linking him to an unpopular commander in chief and say they will punish him at the polls because he is a Republican.
Mr. Talent faces a significant re-election challenge in November, with Democratic state Auditor Claire McCaskill essentially running even with him in the polls. Voters in the increasingly frustrated electorate here, especially in economically challenged rural Missouri, say they likely will seek a change, even though they may disagree with the Democrats.
Most voters interviewed said life "could be better, could be worse," in the words of one, but all said they were mostly unhappy with the direction of the nation. They also described themselves as skeptical or cynics, saying once Missouri politicians leave the state, they lose touch with real folks.
"It seems like once people get up there, they forget about where they came from," said Dick Wilbers ... After observing Mr. Talent earlier this month at the Governor's Ham Breakfast at the Missouri State Fair, he said he is likely to base his vote on the price of gas come Nov. 7.
Mr. Talent, who won his Senate seat in a 2002 special election, is in tune with that sentiment. "This is an election where they sense that the Washington establishment is alienated from them, and they are right," he said. "They want people who will move that establishment. The question is: Are you going to make the system work for their values and their interests?"
Mrs. McCaskill, who is backed by former President Bill Clinton, said voters are more concerned about gas prices and think politicians would rather help big corporations than the working man.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Good post. And your last point was one I thought of too. Isn't it amazing how Republican presidents leave strong economies for Democratic presidents who take office after them to steal the credit for like Reagan did for Clinton. b=But Democratic presidents just leave economies in recession for the seceeding Republican president to clean up, including things like disasterous environmental policies such as 30+ boutique fuel blends or vetoing ANWR drilling the negative consequences of which said Republican president then gets blamed for. Tshewww, that was a mouthful.
Anyway, I recognize the role world demand plays in the price of gas and especially the China and India factor. I just wanted to point out how Democratic policy made it worse, yet a Republican president gets blamed for the results.
Oh spare me, just because the GOP has control of Congress doesn't mean it has control of its more liberal members who vote consistently against more domestic drilling. During half the time they controlled Congress they had a Democratic president run by Al Gore who wanted nothing of increased fossil fuel production. For the next 6 they had diminished majorities with more liberal members being able to control close votes and more party-line voting by Democrats marching in lock step with their party's orders to give Bush as few legislative successes as possible.
Regardless, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress, about 90%, vote for increased domestic drilling but with razor thin majorities in the House and Senate, it takes only a few RINOs to gum up the works. The president has consistently called for Congress to send him a bill for drilling in ANWR, which is a vast improvement over his Democratic predecesor who VETOED drilling in ANWR. And numerous times ANWR drilling has made it through the House only to be killed by Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter and a couple other RINOs in the Senate. So just because the GOP has control of Congress doesn't mean they're able to force all their members to vote in lock step or that they control their more liberal elements. At least something of an energy bill has been passed, flawed though it is, and recently a bill to allow more drilling off the coasts. But the GOP didn't create the regulations or fuel blends or ANWR veto in 1996, much less the international competition for oil, that all conspire to keep gas prices high.
And on the issue of stem cell research, Missouri is not Massachusetts. People are not going to vote based on that issue other than people who'd already not vote for Tallent. I use to be a stem cell supporter and opposed the president's opposition to it, until I started reading up on the fact stem cell research has been a dry well.
Although there has been research on both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells since the fifties, only adult stem-cell research has produced any cures - and lots of 'em [my emphasis]. Adult stem cells have been used for decades to treat dozens of diseases, including Type I diabetes, liver disease, and spinal cord injuries. Currently, adult stem cells are used to treat more than eighty
different diseases.
Here are 16 of them and footnotes the reference (if you're interested it can be found at
http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stem-cell-story.html and is very informative).
By contrast, the embryonic stem-cell researchers have produced nothing [me again]. They have treated nothing.
They have not even begun one human clinical trial. They've successfully treated a few rodents, but they keep running into two problems: First, the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. Second, they tend to cause malignancies called teratomas - meaning 'monster tumors'.
Embryonic stem-cell researchers were in trouble. It was as if thirty years after the invention of electricity, they were still trying to get someone to fund their research on candles. Results tend to draw more research dollars than pie-in-the-sky claims to maybe, possibly someday find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, paralysis, Parkinson's disease, PMS, balding and hemorrhoidal
itch. No one is going to buy a drawing of a potential cure when somebody else is already selling the cure.
Embryonic stem-cell researchers had only one choice: Accuse anyone opposed to taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell
research of being 'anti-science'.
Like sheep, most of the U.S. citizens bought the lie.
At a debate in New York before Reeve died, the head of a biotechnology company actually put his hand over the mouth of Reeve's
debating partner to prevent Reeve from hearing about the stunning advances being made with adult stem cell cures. ... Until Michael
Fumento wrote about Hwang Mi-soon, the South Korean woman who began to walk again thanks to adult stem cells, there was no mention of it in any document on Nexis.
In the August 24, 2004, New York Times, science writer Gina Kolata claimed that no one had succeeded in using adult stem cells 'to treat diseases'.
So much for our so-called 'free press.'
Remember ... the debate in Congress is NOT whether it shall be unlawful to do any research whatsoever using a human embryo, but whether the federal government should pay for such research! That's why the California Proposition 71 was allowed to stand.
Attorney General and then used drapes to cover up the nudity of the statues at the Justice Department.
Link to www.talentforsenate.com
TV ads are bought now, and money helps get the message out when things are close.
The dems are using a sensible tactic, in their view, of linking in the voters minds a connection between local races to the white house. The radio ads here are a good example of that. In this way, the local statehouse representative ballot is a mini-referendum or defacto presidential race.
If you have not, please take the time to read a pamphlet, or book or two on the futures market. It would be impossible to stop worldwide trading and it would be counterproductive even if it could be done.
Not great, but one heck of a lot better than your playmate using a
CIGAR.
How many of these tax cuts expire within a year or two? Why is debating immigration reform openly such a big accomplishment? It doesnt take all that much effort to talk especially when you are demogauging the issue and not trying to come up with real solutions.
Seems like our side should be shouting from the roof tops that it is the Democrats who consistently vote against further oil exploration and production.
And in what century will the GOP have that much greater numbers in congress than they do now? Ever? So Republicans didnt do anything about energy because they wanted to keep the issue alive so they could bash the environmentalists over drilling. To them its all a political game. None of them on either side care whether they accomplish anything any more. It's all politics 24x7 and we pay for their games literally and figuratively.
Two words: tax cuts.
Don't like tax cuts? You're in luck if the Dems take over.
If you like higher taxes, playing frankenstein with the tissues of aborted human fetuses, and allowing Kevorkian-style doctors to cap the helpless and aged if they are too weak to say "no," the Dems have a wonderful paradise waiting for you.
You want to bet? The stem cell issue is going to get people out to vote in the off year election just like putting the ammendment defining marriage did to bring out people in the last election. More than 70% of Missourians support stem cell research. They are not all McCaskil voters. I'm going to vote for Talent and for stem cell research but I can guarantee that the issue is going to bring out a lot of voters who arent going to be too happy with Talent.
If what you say is true and embrionic stem cells continue to lose out to adult stem cells, then fine. But take the funding decisions out of the hands of abortionists and pro life single issue people. Right now we are letting a few religious whackos control science just like they are trying to control science education in the public schools. I dont care if they pray in school even at public assemblies and I dont care if they can say the name Jesus in school, but I do mind when they start teaching whacko crap about the World being created in seven literal days or promoting the idea that a few cells are equivalent to any living and breathing human being just because the Pope interprets some Psalm as saying life begins at conception.
Why not just ban captialism and free enterprise?
I think that one big problem with the Talent campaign is the fact that all his advertising strongly emphasizes his record of bipartisanship and working with Democrats. Bush isn't mentioned nor is Iraq or any of the president's policies. I'm not sure that running away from the president is going to work.
'swhy the Donks will fight voter IDs to the death.
It's simple mechanics. The congressional engine may be Republican, but the mass it has to move includes a huge Democrat deadweight. It's like trying to pull a freight car filled with lead plates uphill with a gasoline-powered V8. You can't understand why it can't go from 0-60 in 12 seconds and get 75 miles per gallon too.
I can understand the problem. And the solution.
We need more Republican horsepower and less Democrat deadweight.
Lead, follow, or get out the way.
Many of these tax cuts are set to expire and the Republicans cant get a majority to vote for their extension so what difference does it make? Aborted fetuses are by definition dead or in the process of dying, so is it more wrong to get some good from their death. I dont want politicians, especially those being manipulated by a bunch of single issue kooks controlling when I or anyone else can be allowed to die.
I would suggest if you aren't from Missouri, move here and vote for McRoadkill to register you distaste for Bush and Talent.
Is that why we are trying to purge the RINOs like Specter and Chafee so we can permanently lose those seats?
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.