DELAWARE WATCH
Since I happen to agree with the bulk of what Seth said in his letter, I'm not goin to "rebut" it, per se. However, if you think the endorsement of a college student will affect the decision of a 40-50-60-70 year old delegate (and check the roster, that's the age group you're dealing with), you've had a smidge too much Kool-Aid.
Does it make my argument for me if I simply state that the only person seemingly excited about the Protack campaign left the Dems because they sold out to the right?
Lets be realistic for a moment. Jan Ting is not going to be the next US Senator from Delaware. Mike Protack just wants to be something. And last but not least, Terry Strine is an idiot who has had a large hand in selling out to party elites for a buck and then telling us how much money he has raised. In essence he has run the party into the ground. It no longer stands for middle class values, concerns and morals.
As a Republican, our biggest problem is Terry Strine.
"However, if you think the endorsement of a college student will affect the decision of a 40-50-60-70 year old delegate (and check the roster, that's the age group you're dealing with), you've had a smidge too much Kool-Aid."
I don't share your view that college students rank low in the scale of being. But I do think that since this particular college student sits in the Exec. Committee, the message is transparent: the leadership w/ gray hair also shares the young man's view.
Then there is that business of Ting's campaign paying for the letter--paying to corrupt the process. That hardly is a good endorsement for Ting on the trustworthiness scale.
"Does it make my argument for me if I simply state that the only person seemingly excited about the Protack campaign left the Dems because they sold out to the right?"
Yuck, yuck, yuck....
What it really means is that the only person articulating a concern for the integrity of the political & democratic process for the rank & file of the Repub party is himself not a Repub.
I haven't drunk the Kool aid. I'm providing the antidote for those who have.
"It no longer stands for middle class values, concerns and morals"
Yep.
Well this is all fine ! However, since you believe neither one will win, are you really happy with Carper ?
Shit, I think Terry Strine could better then dishonest Tom.
The simple truth is that Protack is like your crazy uncle. Of course he's welcome at the dinner table, but you'll have to excuse us if we wince a little when he demands to say grace, carve the turkey, and complain about the meal after it's done. History tells us that's what's going to happen.
Any candidate, D or R, who advocates the end of Medicare and Medicaid (as Protack does) will be radioactive to the electorate and thus to party leadership.
I have no idea what Protack really means when he says "universal health care." I suspect his version is nothing like what progressives advocate.
His website says his plan would be funded by 5% personal contribs to some kind of MSA, with the rest to come from the Feds (funded by what tax? On who? Paid to which fat-cat HMOs?).
MSA = Mike's Stupid Ass
Rick J says "if you think the endorsement of a college student will affect the decision of a 40-50-60-70 year old delegate .... you've had a smidge too much Kool-Aid."
Absolutely right!! Jan Ting, Strine, and Wimer apparently think the letter has an affect or else why bother sending it?
RickJ assumes that the delegates actually are a real grass roots group and not stacked with party hacks and Strine loyalists cowed by his Executive board mafia , even before these letter get sent. He also assumes that 'they' sent this letter out to get votes, versus to send the message that "OUR CHOICE IS INEVITABLE - WE ALREADY HAVE EVERYONE YOUNG AND OLD - GIVE UP PROTACK."
HEY KOOL-AID! A round for RickJ?
This Wimer person should resign for abusing the trust of his office.
Boy, emotions do come out this time of year don't they.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
I never say that any plan will be funded by an 5% MSA, nothing could be further. States have flexibility but also certain goals they must reach.In fact I interviewed with the AFL CIO today and they liked my plan. The 5% has to with Long Term Health Care savings.
I have addressed many groups and they favor what I am proposing. Crticism is welcome but it needs to somewhat informed. Also, Universal care negates the neeed for Medicaid and Medicare and is not a negative at all. Coverage and affordability are the key things not the name of the government program.
As for Seth, the young man deserves credit for being involved. He hails from Lancaster, Pa and spent last summer as a resident at Terry Strine's house. So his opinions do count as an individual but my experience as a college student was working 30 40 hours a week to pay for my education and I did not have the luxury of engaging in political clubs so I don't know how much impact he will have.
The people that matter are Republican voters and we did a statewide professional poll this week of likely Republican voters and Protack (I) polled 80.5% and Ting had 19.5% The veterans poll was very similar.
As for being a crazy uncle, that doesn't bother me at all. I am responsible for almost 100,000 lives every year and I make go no go decisions all the time, you may disagree with my views but my judgment is sound. Every thing I do is pass/fail and after 11,000 hours I haven't put one tire in the mud or bent one piece of metal.
Thanks
"The people that matter are Republican voters and we did a statewide professional poll this week of likely Republican voters and Protack (I) polled 80.5% and Ting had 19.5% The veterans poll was very similar."
With what? Who paid for it? What was the sample size? What were the questions? Post it all, cross-tabs and everything and somebody besides Dana Garett might believe you. You can email it to Dana, and I'm sure he would post it for you. We all look forward to that data.
Come on Prozak you hand picked the call list! The only thing you have right is 80.5% for Ting and 19.5% for Prozak ! For crying out loud close the window and put Oxygen mask on ! You can fly a jet with you head up your ass
Press Release: For Immediate Release
Poll Shows Protack Has Strong Support Among Republican Voters
A random sampling of registered Delaware voters that noted they were likely to vote in the upcoming election was conducted by telephone by NSON Opinion Research on April 24 and 25, 2006 and shows Mike Protack with a commanding lead over Jan Ting.
The poll of 2056 voters was conducted on two separate evenings and the respondents were asked, “If the Republican Primary were held today, who would you support?”
Of the voters who had an opinion, 440 people selected Mike Protack and 106 people selected Jan Ting.
The survey has a +- margin of error of 6%, with a 85% confidence level for “likely Republican voters” for the state of Delaware.
NSON Opinion Research is a nationally known political polling company based in Salt Lake City, Utah. NSON, which has been in business since 1992, has branch offices in Rhode Island and Washington, DC that serve the New England and mid-Atlantic regions.
Please contact the Mike Protack for United States Senate campaign at 302-690-3946 for more details regarding this poll.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////
For information regarding NSON Opinion Research, please contact:
Karl Pace
Press Contact
NSON Opinion Research
731 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
karlpace@NSONinfo.com
801-994-0321
www.NSONinfo.com
The data is there, no one was handpicked. It is similar to the Veterans poll which was more convincing.
The truth is sometimes hard to handle but it is the truth.
As for flying Jets I think your irrationalilty shows through with your ranting.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike, shouldnt you be in Dewey trying to win delegates?
Prozak is quite delusional and needs to check out FAA-G-8082-15, shouldn't jump into BS until you read it.
So why didn't you approve the results to be posted on line at www.nsoninfo.com.
How convenient the Results Center link is down !
Navigator to Pilot , your full of shit !
Prozak following directions but reduce air speed to #1 and 4 then push forward !
That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 36°09'30" N., long. 114°03'00" W.; northeast to lat. 36°14'00" N., long. 113°09'50" W.; thence northeast along the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park to lat. 36°24'47" N., long. 112°52'00" W.; to lat. 36°30'30" N., long. 112°36'15" W. to lat. 36°21'30" N., long. 112°00'00" W. to lat. 36°35'30" N., long. 111°53'10" W., to lat. 36°53'00" N., long. 111°36'45" W. to lat. 36°53'00" N., long. 111°33'00" W.; to lat. 36°19'00" N., long. 111°50'50" W.; to lat. 36°17'00" N., long. 111°42'00" W.; to lat. 35°59'30" N., long. 111°42'00" W.; to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 112°03'55" W.; thence counterclockwise via the 5 statute mile radius of the Grand Canyon Airport airport reference point (lat. 35°57'09" N., long. 112°08'47" W.) to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 112°14'00" W.; to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 113°11'00" W.; to lat. 35°42'30" N., long. 113°11'00" W.; to 35°38'30" N.; long. 113°27'30" W.; thence counterclockwise via the 5 statute mile radius of the Peach Springs VORTAC to lat. 35°41'20" N., long. 113°36'00" W.; to lat. 35°55'25" N., long. 113°49'10" W.; to lat. 35°57'45" N., 113°45'20" W.; thence northwest along the park boundary to lat. 36°02'20" N., long. 113°50'15" W.; to 36°00'10" N., long. 113°53'45" W.; thence to the point of beginning.
2056 polled, 440 votes
So Mike, you only got 21% of the vote?
Are you pleased? It sounds like right around your usual average.
If the precursor statements to the poll questions are anything like those used in the veteran's poll, then the poll is worthless. Paraphrasing:
"Would you rather vote for a war protestor who may have burned his draft card, or a proud veteran of our Armed Forces - like Mike Protack?"
Bingo Rick!
The war we waged in Southeast Asia from about 1959 until 1975, primarily in VietNam, was an utterly abject failure of American foreign policy and strained our international credibility to its lowest limit before the current President took it down a notch. Just like our current-day repeat failure, now in SouthWEST Asia, a wacko Texan was the idiot-in-chief. Unfortunately this time the wacko Texan hijacked my own party. *GASP*
The VietCong sent a message to the world (including middle-eastern indigenous populations) that America can be brought to her knees. It is widely accepted that our failed policy back then soon invited what are now decades of misadventure by mid-east despots (of all sorts) who saw our obvious weakness not only in coming out defeated but in our going in the first place. Afghanistan and the Soviets proved them right. Now we are back it at it and they are inflicting history's 2nd repeat lesson on us because we have a President who learned nothing about history while being on the wrong side of it. A man who avoided answering the call to war and is thus the quickest to send others to die for his.
The fact that Protack is using the ghosts of our first big f***-up war in his campaign shows how unarmed he is as a candidate and a leader. For him to make an issue of such a totally irrelevant pseudo-Patriotic litmus test shows me, once and for all, that he is not fit to serve in the United States Congress or any other office. How absurd and pathetic is his thinking, both in strategy and substance? Other than crotchety shell shocked vets (probably from pre-VietNam era) and dumbass Texas yahoos who the hell still thinks VietNam was nothing but our stupidest blunder of the 20th Century?
It is safe to say that, past a certain point, anyone who supported the war back then had no heart. Even safer is to say that anyone who supports it today has no brain.
So based on this we can know that Ting once had a heart but now he has no brain. We can also know that Protack has neither. From their manipulation/handling of this question we can also figure out one more thing about Ting and Protack which is that Ting has no balls and Protack only thinks he has some (on closer inspection Protack is an armchair warrior with the same bullshit chicken-hawk bravado that got us into both wars - not the same as having a pair of nuts.)
So, I guess I would rather take the guy who once took a stand against war rather than the guy who not only stands for it but exploits it for his political ends. Protack should test the party to its limits but in the final analysis Ting is the better candidate. It is a shame he is such a sell-out since he may have done a great job if he wasn't just a Strine & Co draftee. (He didn't burn his card this time huh?).
In any event 2006 will not find this Republican voting for Carper, Protack, or Ting in any elections of any sort. It's time to cast for the Libertarian candidate Bill Morris, an extremely credible right-thinking individual.
No longer will I be voting for the lesser of any evils. Is not voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil?
Oops, apologies. Just realized Bill Morris is running for the House not the Senate.
I guess I am screwed on the Senate race - can I vote for Bill Roth?? Heck, John Ashcroft was beaten by a dead man....certainly Carper deserves no better.
Is the argument that someone who has educated themselves about the race made an informed choice and shared it?
Real World example: "After careful consideration of the two candidates, I believe that one of them is clearly a better choice. Good luck figuring out if I'm right!"
Or is the argument that the person who benefitted from that selection mailed it out?
Real World example: "Thank you so much for the letter of recommendation! Now, if you wouldn't mind sending out to any and all prospective employers, I'm sure I'll have a job in no time!"
"Is the argument that someone who has educated themselves about the race made an informed choice and shared it?"
"Or is the argument that the person who benefitted from that selection mailed it out?"
The argument, for the Nth time, is that nominating the approved candidate for the republican party belongs EXCLUSIVELY to the rank & file of the Rep Party as expressed through their delgates at the convention. The argument is that members of the party's leadership are to avoid stating their preferences before the convention and to ensure that the process of determining the approved nominee is as fair and free from improper influence as possible.
WHen Wimer, an ex officio member of the Exec Committee, endorses a candidate PRIOR TO THE CONVENTION, then he has violated the trust given to him as a Party leader. That the Ting campaign paid for the letter only adds an appearence of impropriety to something (just writing the letter itself prior to the convention) that is clearly improper. It's double muck. That's the argument.
Commenting by HaloScan
