Dueling partisan polling shows leads for both candidates while external polling has shown Schauer closing the distance in what has generally been considered a strong pick-up opportunity for Democrats looking to increase their majority in the U.S. Congress.Schwarz told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he decided to endorse Schauer over Republican Rep. Tim Walberg because the anti-tax Club for Growth began running ads critical of Schauer.
The Club for Growth injected more than $1 million into the 2006 primary, helping Walberg defeat Schwarz, then a first-term congressman.
(snip)
Schwarz says he couldn't remain neutral in the race once the group got involved. He says it's "the straw that broke the camel's back."
A debate between Schauer and Walberg is set for October 7.
Posts
4 comments:
The old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is in play here. Schauer took Schwarz seat in the State Senate when Joe went off to Congress, so it is no surprise that Schwarz made the endorsement once Club for Growth (another enemy of Schwarz) started putting out their media ads in the district.
Walberg is a buffoon and deserves to lose. I just don't see Schauer making up enough ground, especially when the minor candidates are racking up valuable percentage points from Schauer.
Obama's numbers are climbing so coattails may be at hand for Schaur. This in addition to an endorsement from a politician from the opposing party may well be enough.
I don't think he (Schwarz) would have done this a year ago, because the "don't speak ill" rule was still in place.
I suspect that many republicans will be running away from the club's endorsement in future elections, as their ideology garners more blame for our economic insecurity.
The two major GOP gubernatorial hopefuls are going to be hard pressed to sell themselves as anti-establishment populists.
Is Schwarz considering a run?
Not sure if Walbutt's vote to kill the bailout will help or hurt him. Most of us lost thousands in our retirement accounts in the subsequent 800 point DOW drop. I'm still undecided about the bailout. We've been spoon fed so much doom and gloom from the Bush regime over the years, that I don't know what to believe anymore. One thing for sure, the firing of CEOs responsible for bank failures should be part of any bailout.
spirogyra,
Your losses are paper losses unless you panic. Most of the paper losses in the stock market are only losses of prior paper gains.
Here is a thought to ponder:
The probablity of our government acting quickly to seal off the bleeding wounds by jamming them full of thousand dollar bills is almost as funny as SNL. We need some realy slick con artists who look like executive quality leaders to turn the Fannie/Freddie, and AIG, and GM, recipients into profitable deals.
All we need to do is nail those blood-suckers with their crimes and offer them a chance to escape the consequences if they will take over the management of our failing financial corporations.
Fire the wimps who didn't leap at the chance use loopholes and shoddy legislation to rape and pillage for personal benefits. They don't "get it"!
Shuffle the perpetrators around a bit to sharpen their wits, and offer huge bonuses for turning the economy around. (Don't mention to them that they will be paid with Monopoly money that is worthless, until it is too late for them to steal any real dollars!)
Firing these sharpsters would be a waste of genuinely brilliant financial leaders, who have a firm grasp of our "free market" economics that reward the clever and punish the trusting.
The big problem will be keeping these financial geniuses from re-surfacing on our doorsteps with updated religious self-help books. As I understand it, the sequel to the Bible now simultaneously promotes life and supports war, successfully eliminating this annoying conflict of values.
Post a Comment