Posted on 09/17/2006 5:58:24 PM PDT by cutepanda
I am surprised that nobody has noticed this poll taken by SurveyUSA on September 14th.
Nelson 53% : Harris 38%
Clearly, Harris is catching up fast. She used to be 30 points behind but in this post-primary poll, the gap has been narrowed to 15%.
Nelson is in his low 50s, he is clearly in danger. For all those Harris nonsayers, I say screw you!! If Harris keeps on campaigning, the victory is within reach!
When RINO Lincoln Chafee won his primary, all the GOP establishement signed a sigh of relief. However, a new poll to be released by Rasmussen shows the following astonishing results:
Whitehouse 51% : Chafee 43%.
Will GOP establishment pour in another $5MM to save this RHINO? Shall we say mission impossible after the conservative voters are pissed off by the blatant interference from Ms. Dole?
Go Harris! Screw you Lincoln Chafee.
As a lawyer, I have some knowledge of subpoenas. I appreciate that being served does not make you a target, but it's never a good thing, unless you happen to be providing information that will bring down a competitor.
Regarding Grand Jury secrecy. The fact of your (anyone's) appearance is not confidential. The words, phrases and presented evidence of your testimony is secret, as is any true bill until served/executed.
Any article in the Tampa Tribune regarding a Republican candidate is highly suspect in my book. The Tribune has been a more than willing tool for the Democrat party to use against Republican candidates for as long as I can remember, and that goes back to the FDR era. If Harris is eventually indicted for some crime I will accept the fact, but not until it IS fact and not just an implication of some vague, unspecified wrongdoing coming from a Tampa Tribune hack writer with DEMOCRAT STOOGE tattooed on his forehead.
It's a bit funny how the Tribune hack just happened to come into knowledge of these alleged subpoenas just before the campaign season begins don't you think?
No I don't suppose you would, you seem to be as much or more willing to believe the worst about Harris as the Tribune's most biased scribbler.
Nick; Here's what you are dealing with: ........."Former TV Network newsie, recovering lawyer (never practiced, but it made great credentials for the "crusading reporter" work)"
'Nuf' said!!!
Ignore him, he's still "smoking"!!!
Was there something in his report that you thought was not factual?
"Many people claim to not like the questions reporters ask them. In most cases what those people are really objecting to are their own answers."
Paul Harvey, NAB Convention, about 20 years ago.
It's not always a bad thing, either. The inquiry may have little to do with you, except that you had some dealing with whoever they are after. "It's never a good thing" sounds ominous. Was it your intent to mislead by innuendo?
Grand jury appearance? The article doesn't say anything about a grand jury appearance. Does the subpoena she received call for an appearance, or do they just want copies of any letters somebody might have written her? How would you know? The story says she got a subpoena. Now you have her appearing before a grand jury. More innuendo.
I understand you have some inner need to splash mud all over this conservative Republican candidate, but why not just make fun of her horse, instead of making misleading, ominous 'lawyer' noises that you have insufficiant knowledge to make?
Where did you get that information? Everything I have found about her voting record says just the opposite. Earlier today I researched her voting record on pro-life legislation since she arrived in Congress, and unless I'm losing my eyesight I have seen nothing but her total support for the pro-life position on proposed House legislation. The National Right to Life website shows her voting for the pro-life position on every bill that came before Congress while she was in office, resulting in a 100% pro-life rating.
The same goes for her record on legislation relatied to 2nd amendment rights. She has been 100% supportive of gun owners' 2nd Amendment rights and for legislation protecting the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits. She has also been 100% supportive of legislation designed to severely restrict government seizure of private property for reasons not directly related to actual needs for public accommodations such as highways and canals. I didn't have time to run down her record on every bill that came before Congress, but as far as the pro-life issue and gun owner's rights are concerned she supported the conservative position at virtually every opportunity. If not she would not be rated "A" by the NRA and rated highly by major pro-life orgs.
To sum up, unless I logged onto counterfeit copies of the ACU, NRA, NRTL, and VoteSmart websites, or unless the real sites are giving out false information, Harris' voting record is almost impeccably pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment rights, pro-private property rights, and very much conservative in virtually all respects. I'm not saying that your data are wrong, I'm just saying what I found.
I didn't say that the article is definitely not factual because I have no way of knowing whether or not it is, and in spite of your comments having often implied that you're a well connected political insider of some type I doubt that you know either.
What I do know and what I said is that the Tampa Tribune is an all-out, no holds barred advocate for all Democrat candidates, and has been since my grandfather and his brother were Democratic office holders and heavily involved in FL politics during the depression era and WWII. I don't put any variety of skullduggery past the Tampa Tribune or a Tribune writer if it improves the chances of a Democrat candidate winning, and I won't accept as fact any allegations of Harris' wrongdoing in office until I see it verified by an unbiased source. If she is proved guilty of malfeasance in office I will change my opinion of her and renounce my support for her candidacy, but that is not by any means the case at this time.
Youve been ending your comments since I posted this thread,
full of it mean anything to you?
Ops4
Your right and the data is wrong he posted. Troll numbers,
'Would anyone here at FR been foolish enough to say the things she said. I think not.'
So?? I think many would have said the same thing, it is not foolish unless you get your talking points from the left.
'She is far from the endorsed candidate. She won the primary but is actively opposed by most Rs here in Florida.'
Any proof? She won the primary convincingly and hence the majority support of Republicans. Do you have any facts to support your theory that most Rs dont support her or you are just talking out of your backside as usual.
'If she hadn't been so bullheaded and self-important, we might have nominated someone who could have beaten the idiot Astronaut/Congressduffus Nelson'
She can still beat Nelson, she is fine and fantastic women who has the support of conservatives. Take your defeatist attitude elsewhere.
She will win the election.
Wonderful!
She's ALMOST at 40% of the vote, with 100% name ID, in a state where every other statewide elected official is a Republican!
Outstanding! Break out the Champaign!
</sarcasm>
Ben Nelson of Nebraska (NOT Bill Nelson of Florida, very different person) votes over 50% of the time with the R's.
But no, none vote with the R's as much as Chafee votes with the D's.
Because usually, contrary to popular belief, there is a HUGE difference between the so-called RINO's and the D's.
Chafee is pretty much the only exception to that rule in the Senate. The ONLY difference I can see between them is A. Chafee (supposedly) will vote for a R majority leader (who knows if it's 50/50, he's flirted with jumping before), B. He votes to end judicial fillibusters.
Other then that, he actually is worthless.
But in every other case where people carelessly throw around the term RINO, (i.e. McCain, Graham, and even people like Specter, Snowe, Collins etc.) there is a rather large difference on a number of different issues.
>>But they have subpoenaed all sorts of campaign contribution records.... and she got caught lying about whether or not they had been subpoenaed.
<<
So says a disgruntled ex-employee ! - -
Then again, Harris seems to have made a lot of those in the last ten months .
>>>The interview to an Christian magazine was well debated and analysed here on FR, she was referring to importance of Christians in politics and made no reference to any other religion, Liberal freaks as usual overreacted to the interview without any original thought.
Let me cut to the chase. Would anyone here at FR been foolish enough to say the things she said. I think not.
>>Katherine Harris has no chance, she is not an honest woman (she has lied to me too many times), is not especially Conservative compared to some leading Republicans nationally and after 2000'
>If you dislike her so much, atleast quit sniping at her, she has enough Republicans to support her and maybe even win the election. But openly criticising her and wishing for Nelson to get elected is stupid, you need to be reminded this is a conservative board , Harris is the endorsed Republican who has support of conservatives in the election.
She is far from the endorsed candidate. She won the primary but is actively opposed by most Rs here in Florida.
God knows I don't want Nelson elected, but he will be, in a landslide, dammit.
If she hadn't been so bullheaded and self-important, we might have nominated someone who could have beaten the idiot Astronaut/Congressduffus Nelson.
<<
I am not from Florida nor do I reside there now - - so I cannot truly know how the Florida GOP voters feel .
But I would hazard a guess that most Republican in Fl support her after the Primary, somewhat uneasily, yes, but they do now support her .
Secondly, being targeted is just that- who is doing the targeting and why ? Some leftwing group, claiming to be non-partisan, calling for an investigation ?
Seems we had a lot of that right after the Election of 2000 - - even a congressional inquiry - nothing came out of it !
Not unless you believe the paranoid ratings of that Limey Greg Palast .
Rep Katherine Harris maybe bullheaded, but she is not self-important - - perhaps a little to ambitious for her own good ~
And lastly, for all you naysayers who claim to be GOP, then you should have advanced a better candidate of your own way back in August of 2005 .....................................
Stop blaming Katherine Harris fans and supporters for the timidity of Alan Bense and Jeb Bush and Tommy Franks !
If the last two did not want to run, it cannot possibly be because they were terrified of Katherine's Friends and their terrible wrath that they would have decend upon a popular GOP governor and a popular retired general . .
I say you whiney excuses for Republicans have no one else to blame but yourselves . . . . .
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.