Saturday, August 05, 2006

Thelma Drake losing moderate and conservative republicans

I ran into a friend today. Her family owns a popular restaurant in Virginia Beach. Her family is very Republican....I've never known them to vote any other way.

Imagine my surprise to hear that they are dissatisfied with Thelma Drake and will not be voting for her in November. When moderate and conservative Republicans aren't happy... it's a safe bet that Thelma is in big trouble.

Exceptional public speaking skills at "coffee's with Thelma" cannot cover up a record of voting 97% of the time to "stay a disastrous course," allowing oil corporations to gouge the public with high gas prices, and letting defense contractors who de-fraud the US government off the hook...it doesn't evven wash among many Republicans.

10 comments:

Insider said...

Funny...is that the best ya got? A campaign to not vote for Thelma?

Is it too hard to convince someone to vote for Phil?

Eileen Levandoski said...

Sounds like deja vu all over again. Kaine v. Kilgore. Poisson v. Black. GOP voters would rather stay home.

K said...

Well, I'd rather Kellam won, but I'll certainly settle for a loss by Thelma!

Whatever gets Democrats one seat closer to controlling the House is good news!

Insider said...

eileen, keep dreaming

Mosquito? You'd accept anyone with a D next to his name? that's pretty sad.

Mosquito said...

Insider...you are so off base...I don't belong to either party...

So no I won't accept ANYONE with a D next to her/his name...

But you won't see me vote for a Thelma Drake who votes AGAINST making Oil and War Profiteering "unprofitable." Drake is protecting companies from harsher penalties who have de-frauded the US government in Iraq. She also voted against putting a stop to the huge profiteering by BIG OIL...

I do not see Drake taking any action to "protect" our constitution nor insist that the Bush administration follow the rule of domestic or international law (for example "excessive use of signing statements" instead of vetoes, renditions, suspending habeous corpus, "infiltrating" Quaker peace groups, or the NSA wiretapping issue). What has Drake done to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and policies?

I see that Bush and Cheney giver her lots of support with her fundraising. I view her as a Cheney/Bush pawn who has been caught red-handed with her hand in the corporate cookie jar. I am puzzled why anyone would support someone with this type or record?

It's safe to say that I'm not for ANYONE who puts party first and country second...

Insider said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Insider said...

Then why did you say "Whatever gets Democrats one seat closer to controlling the House is good news!"

Whatever means whatever.

Since the above statement puts party first, it seems you aren't for yourself!

Mosquito said...

Insider...I've been clear on the current crucial need that we need to restore a balance of power in DC in order to make "wrongdoers" accountable. That Translates to get the Republicans who are enabling the corruption OUT of Office. One doesn't have to be a democrat to understand why "even" Republicans are either not voting or voting Democratic this fall.

I never see you replying to the facts about Drake's (or Allen's) "indefensible" record....only muddying up the waters so that the facts and issues can be avoided...

I'm clear on the facts...and when you are willing to address the facts of what Drake has done (some of which are pointed out in the post_...then maybe a discussion can occurr...

so enough said...
buzz buzz....M

Insider said...

The only thing you have to offer is negative attacks.

You criticize people who put party first, and then defend your own putting party first statements.

And you say I muddy the waters?

akesling said...

Ain't that "Insider" funny? The Repugs' only defense for most of their candidates is to say to the other side, "is that all you got, a reason NOT to vote for our candidate?" Like having a list of complaints against Thelma the length of Santa's wish list in November isn't reason enough to vote AGAINST her.

Is voting AGAINST a candidate something new to Repugs? Maybe they really have just crawled out from under a rock and politics is something new to them. That could be it!

And the idea that the Democrats are the creators of negative attacks sort of proves this whole thing is new to them. I KNOW they remember Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth," and that now it's a description for anyone attacking a candidate with unsubstantiated and false claims. HECK, even Thelma herself called Moveon.org's campaign "Swiftboating." THIS in itself, the ignorance of a person running for office to use a negative term created by her own party to describe what the OTHER side is doing, is enough to vote against her.