Jump to content

Ford or Corker?

idlewild

By idlewild
in Tennessee

Ford or Corker?  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Ford or Corker?

    • Harold Ford Jr.
      36
    • Bob Corker
      14
    • Anyone but these two
      4

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
BrandonTO416 Burg

BrandonTO416

Posted
Posted

The latest poll numbers are encouraging:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State...esseeSenate.htm

"Tennessee Senate: Ford (D) 48%; Corker 46% "

Various reports:

http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20061010_fordpoll/

"New DSCC Poll Has Ford Besting Corker, 51-44, Bush Has a 35% Approval in Tennessee"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15081872/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocky top buzz Hamlet

rocky top buzz

Posted
Posted

There are several things I don't like about Ford:

- He's a Washington Insider, already connected with the big name lobbyists

- He's never held a private sector job

- I think he's out of touch with Tennesseans because he's never spent a lot of time here.

- He made million's last year, yet gave $0 to charities last year (documented on his tax records).

- Most of his financial support has come from Hollywood and New York. If those people are supporting his campaign, they will expect him to support their political agenda above the needs of Tennesseans.

Bob Corker is a self made success story in Tennessee. He also has shown, by leaving mayor after 1 term, that he has no interest in being a career politician.

If you like holywood politics, then Ford's your man. I just don't think that's the case with most Tennesseans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrandonTO416 Burg

BrandonTO416

Posted
Posted

There are several things I don't like about Ford:

- He's a Washington Insider, already connected with the big name lobbyists

- He's never held a private sector job

- I think he's out of touch with Tennesseans because he's never spent a lot of time here.

- He made million's last year, yet gave $0 to charities last year (documented on his tax records).

- Most of his financial support has come from Hollywood and New York. If those people are supporting his campaign, they will expect him to support their political agenda above the needs of Tennesseans.

Bob Corker is a self made success story in Tennessee. He also has shown, by leaving mayor after 1 term, that he has no interest in being a career politician.

If you like holywood politics, then Ford's your man. I just don't think that's the case with most Tennesseans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocky top buzz Hamlet

rocky top buzz

Posted
Posted

And when did being a CEO type qualify you for being more honest and having the ability to really understand what is needed in the legislative branch?...

...Because equality, alternative energy, change of course in Iraq, and expanded health care are important to me. NOT your hollywood/fearmongering talking points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrandonTO416 Burg

BrandonTO416

Posted
Posted

Unfortunately, yes its a disappointment that he is supporting Amendment 1. But the good news is that he's voted for a lot of other gay rights bills that Republicans stall and stand against.

When you're gay, you have two choices: people who constantly throw bombs at you, and people who at least ignore you.

Even if you don't get what you want, its better to be left alone than to have bombs thrown at you. At least with the ones who ignore you, you may stand up and scream at them to get their attention every now and then.

Also, I don't subscribe to the idea that CEO's wear a shield of teflon and are better at being politicians. CEO's have a habit of ignoring what is best for people, and not serving the public. Many times CEO's are nifty at backroom deals, serving the self, and forgetting the people who elected them. They care more about the corporations they have served and their friends than laws which help people.

A matter of fact, the Bush Administration was seen as the "CEO Administration" and ran on that in 2000. Dick Cheney and his CEO past came back to haunt this government with its big business contracting deals to only friends of the party. Bush is a bad CEO, he runs everything into the ground.

You see the world through a very different lens. While I think we need a healthy business environment, I don't believe corporations should have more power than the average individual. I believe in more equality.

One of the biggest positive changes we can have in politics is publicly funded elections where the federal government mandates free TV air time - remember that the public owns the airwaves and licenses TV air time to private corporations such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, etc. - because the number one reason for waste and need for dialing-for-dollars politics is because all that money goes into TV ads. Ads, which for the most part, do not serve a purpose of conveying information.

All those hundreds of millions of advertising dollars are re-spent into lobbying the government to NOT pass campaign finance reform that includes publicly financed elections. Its a viscious cycle that will take a lot of people rising up against this and electing people with the courage to change the system.

If we could mandate free air time for candidates and give everyone a level playing field (so long as they meet certain requirements, such as a certain percent of votes in the primary or signatures or whatever), we would be well on our way to a cleaner democracy. Will it be perfect? Absolutely not. Better than we have today? Absolutely! It will be closer to American politics of yesteryear where average people have a larger voice, regardless of your viewpoint. We could also open up our system to multi-parties. Two parties do not represent the opinions of all Americans.

But people like you don't believe in this?? (I ask that as a question as much as anything) This should be a non-partisan issue. But people on your side of the fence politically, and the corporations, say that it limits free speech. I've heard Phil Valentine make the free speech argument on radio before the few times i've actually listened into his banter.

Since when did a corporation have "free speech" over an individual's free speech? Since when was the first amendment written for a non-human entity?

Its these core values that set people like me and you apart.

Its a huge disconnect.

Now if you don't subscribe to the extreme conservative ideology like Phil Valentine and other radio personalities around here, I apologize. But if you support what I'm talking about, you would be a small minority within your side. The conservative side strongly believes in pay-for-play politics and bases that opinion on the free speech of a corporation to buy its way into Congress and the Presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrandonTO416 Burg

BrandonTO416

Posted
Posted

Here's the favorite add of the Republican Senatorial committee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM3moGL3fIk

Its typical negative advertising: they talk about procedural votes from many years ago (the intelligence vote they quoted was a procedural vote from March 2003, yet he voted for an increase in funding at the final revision of the bill - just one example).

And the kicker is that they started running these Playboy commercials. This one isn't event he worst ad, there has been an add lately where it features some sketchy looking girl on TV and its hilarious. I'm not sure its going to help Corker, but we'll see.

I don't even know the full story behind the Playboy issue. Apparently Ford attended a dinner once that had Playboy bunnies featured, but there was no nudity, and there was no interaction between his group and the Playboy group. The connection is so loose, I'm surprised TV stations are allowing the advertising to run.

Here are other select ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scuyu6W3ZWw

This ad falsely claims that he voted to cut the Department of Defense Budget by 16% based on a procedural vote, Resolution #70 as quoted in the ad - from the year 2000 might I add - yet Harold Ford is on record for voting in favor of the Clinton Military package in 2000 which was an increase in spending.

The Corker ad is a response to this ad:

I don't have time to go through a line by line dissent, but you can look up the voting records www.google.com. Or here http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Harold_Ford.htm

For other ads go here.

Harold Ford:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;search=Search

Bob Corker:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;search=Search

One thing Ford has been great at is standing up for himself. Here's a clip from a debate in Chattanooga.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj17uPiFzCw

His stump speeches are also pretty well, and less orthodox than many previous campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocky top buzz Hamlet

rocky top buzz

Posted
Posted

You wouldn't believe the advertisements running here.

The RNC and RNSC have re-routed all their funding to retaining three states: Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia. They see these three states as the only hope for retaining a Republican Senate. Given Tennessee's slight conservative advantage, its possible, but I hope for the future of this country it won't happen.

I'll be happy to post some YouTube links later to some of the advertising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrandonTO416 Burg

BrandonTO416

Posted
Posted

HERE is the INFAMOUS ad that has run which goes far beyond a below the belt hit.

Its actually quite hilarious and I think it serves to help votes for Ford.

When I saw this ad on TV, I thought to myself how desperate the Republican party has become. Its so desperate that if the people of Tennessee actually elect Corker that the joke is on the people of this state who voted for him.

I realize Corker himself has denounced this ad, but the problem IS the party establishment. Corker IS an establishment Republican. Corker will give the same corruption just that much more power, and its up to the people to discern this and vote accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocky top buzz Hamlet

rocky top buzz

Posted
Posted

Both you and metro commented that the republicans can't run on anything and that's the reason for negative ad's, so I just wanted to remind everyone that actually, the first negative ad came from Ford.

As for campaign finance reform, you didn't answer my question, you just assumed I am against it. I just don't see how publicly financed campaigns can work without eliminating any third party (or 4th, 5th, 6th) party canidacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

Both you and metro commented that the republicans can't run on anything and that's the reason for negative ad's, so I just wanted to remind everyone that actually, the first negative ad came from Ford.

As for campaign finance reform, you didn't answer my question, you just assumed I am against it. I just don't see how publicly financed campaigns can work without eliminating any third party (or 4th, 5th, 6th) party canidacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrandonTO416 Burg

BrandonTO416

Posted
Posted

Both you and metro commented that the republicans can't run on anything and that's the reason for negative ad's, so I just wanted to remind everyone that actually, the first negative ad came from Ford.

As for campaign finance reform, you didn't answer my question, you just assumed I am against it. I just don't see how publicly financed campaigns can work without eliminating any third party (or 4th, 5th, 6th) party canidacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocky top buzz Hamlet

rocky top buzz

Posted
Posted

I personally haven't said whether I'm for or against it; I'm just curious how you guys think it should work. As for ethics reform in the GOP congress, the Dems had 40 years to reform ethics the same.

Here's a question: If I have a billion dollars and I want Corker to win, why should I not be able to buy airtime on public airwaves and run an ad supporting Corker? Or say the same for Ford?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

I personally haven't said whether I'm for or against it; I'm just curious how you guys think it should work. As for ethics reform in the GOP congress, the Dems had 40 years to reform ethics the same.

Here's a question: If I have a billion dollars and I want Corker to win, why should I not be able to buy airtime on public airwaves and run an ad supporting Corker? Or say the same for Ford?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.