60 Seat Majority: Scare tactic or a hope for a better tomorrow?

A new campaign line is emerging: The Democrats control the House of Representatives. They are on their way to a filibuster proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Therefore, we need John McCain in the White House to prevent the Democrats have complete control.

The Politico reports, “Dems could hit 60 Senate Seats.” Now, I have posted many times about the Senate races and the many chances they have to pick up seats, but let’s not lose sight of facts.

Currently, the Senate has 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Currently, the two Independents caucus with the Democrats, but it would be hard to believe that Joe Leiberman would continue this next year. He has gone from supporting McCain because the war in Iraq is his most important issues and outweighs the fact that he disagrees with McCain on most all over issues, to now attacking Obama on taxes and health care.

So, to reach 60, the Democrats need to hold all of their seats, plus gain 10 more. What does this mean?

1. They win in VA, NM, CO, OR, NH, AK and NC. 7 down, 3 to go.
2. They need to win in KY and MN. MN is looking better and better, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has never been down in his Kentucky race.
3. They need to find one more seat in GA, AL, NE, ME…none of these look too good so far.
4. They need to hold onto all of their own incumbents, include a tight race in Louisiana.

So, the Republican message is, Voters should be scared of Democrats in control and should therefore, vote for McCain. Is it credible to make voters scared of Democrats in power. It would seem that this is exactly what the voters want! They want an end to the war in Iraq. They want affordable health care coverage. They want investment in stem cell research. They want lower taxes for the middle class. They want opportunities to send their children to college. They want investment in renewable energy sources. So, while Republicans make the case that we need to be scared of Democrats, voters are sending the message that they’ve had enough of Republican policies.

Instead of being scared of Democrats, maybe voters across the country will come together to help candidates like Scott Kleeb defeat former Bush Administration insider Mike Johanns, and make the 60 seat majority a reality, instead of just a scare tactic.

Palin defends her accusations against Obama, Time Magazine calls her ’simply wrong.’

Time Magazine joined the many news organizations to discredit the charges that the McCain campaign continues to make.

The latest is that Obama “pals around with terrorists.”

Time Magazine points out there the accusation is “simply wrong.” The truth is that Obama met Bill Ayers when they ended up both being on a charity board in Chicago.

The liberal media strikes again….

Today’s assault comes from the left-wing Associated Press.  They suggest that the McCain campaign’s decision to assault Obama’s character is over the line, comparing it the the Willie Horton campaign in 1988 and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.  The AP has the audacity to claim that trying to pair Obama with terrorists is over the line.  McCain and Palin just want voters to believe that Obama is not like us, and if that means they have to turn him into a terrorist sympathizer, what’s wrong with that?

Read the whole AP analysis here…if you can handle their liberal bias

The liberal media takes another shot at Palin…

by pointing out the truth.   Check out Brian Williams opening remark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/brian-williams-on-the-lat_n_131858.html

Bill Maher figured out a new strategy for McCain….

At the next debate, after they shake hands, McCain is going to pretend like his wallet is missing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/the-good-news-is-palin-ca_n_131854.html

Obama = Hope, McCain = indignation

Check out this report from Dan Hill of Sensory Logic. Through analyzing people’s responses to Obama and McCain campaign ads, he concluded that while Obama is a credible messenger of Hope, McCain is only credible as a messenger of anger and indignation. Ouch!

Is McCain saying, “If Obama would debate me, I wouldn’t lie about him”

Each time McCain airs an attack ad, “liberal” media types like the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Factcheck.org are quick to point out the falsehoods, misleading nature and misrepresentations in the ads.  Lately, McCain has been asked about them.  His response is that first, the ads are correct, and second, Obama won’t debate me.  Here’s an exchange from his interview with NPR:

Have you come back to your advisers at any point and said — for example, the ad that ran with your name on it saying that Barack Obama supported comprehensive sex education for primary school students, something that factcheck.org said was wrong. Have you ever gone to your staff and said, “Take that ad off. It’s not right”?

It’s factually correct. It’s absolutely factually correct, and you can go on my Web site and you can see the exact language of the bill that Senator Obama sponsored. But the point is that if he had agreed to the town hall meetings that I asked him to do all around the country, like Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater had once agreed to do, the tenor of this campaign would be dramatically different. (emphasis mine) If we’d have gone around the country, and stood side-by-side before the American people and listened to their hopes and dreams and aspirations, the whole tenor of this campaign would be dramatically different. I’m proud of the campaign we are running, the ads are factually correct. And if someone named factcheck.org or anybody else doesn’t agree with it, I respectfully disagree with their conclusions.

So when McCain talks about a different tenor, what is he trying to tell us.  If all of his attacks are honest, why wouldn’t they fit into a campaign with a more positive tenor?  Maybe that will be the next question he tries to answer.