Simpson V. Young
The last time U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young faced someone widely viewed as a strong challenger was 1992. Young trounced Karen Moffitt that year with nearly 57 percent of the vote, his closest re-election bid since joining Congress in 1970. Given that history, nobody's calling Democrat Samm Simpson a real threat to the incumbent Republican from Indian Shores just yet. But Simpson says she is undaunted despite the odds.
"This is not about a person I'm running against; this is about an ideology that I believe is devastating our country. I believe it's very important that we do not have one-party rule in Washington," said Simpson, a former marketing executive from Dunedin who wants Congress to thoroughly investigate the Bush administration.
More here.
"This is not about a person I'm running against; this is about an ideology that I believe is devastating our country. I believe it's very important that we do not have one-party rule in Washington," said Simpson, a former marketing executive from Dunedin who wants Congress to thoroughly investigate the Bush administration.
More here.
21 Comments:
At 9:19 AM, May 17, 2006, WhoIsJohnGalt? said…
I'm not in a position to vote for Simpson, but I do have to say that she is very inspiring to watch speak. She will, in the very least, give Bill a run for his money. It should be an interesting race.
At 9:31 AM, May 17, 2006, TampaBryan said…
For the first time that I can remember, all of the incumbent Republicans in Florida are opposed with at least a marginally credible candidate. Even Joe Viscusi, opposing Adam Putnam, is credible despite his NPA status. He is a former Democratic State Rep and very well known in Lakeland. So, all of the R's are going to have run their own races, giving the four unopposed D's the opportunity to throw money at the targeted races (Districts 9, 13 and 22) And with the work that Wexler and Wasserman-Schultz are going to do for Klein, Clay Shaw may as well start packing his office now!
At 9:35 AM, May 17, 2006, Reality Check said…
Dream on Democrats...
No one is beating Putnam, no matter how "credible" and Bill Young will trounce Ms. Simpson like she stole something...
yawn........
At 9:42 AM, May 17, 2006, jpublic said…
I too have seen Samm Simpson speak, and I agree with you whoisjohngalt. I started watching this one when she announced. If she can bring Young out from behind his puppets, to actually debate Simpson in public, it may in deed be very interesting.
She has fire, and doesn't see her opponent as anything other than an opponent. Young wields no intimidation power over this challenger. However, she will need to go beyond Bush-bashing on this one, and formulate a clear and concise position on the issues. Young, and his well-trained voice puppets have a tremendous amount of experience at “Don’t even bother campaigning Bill… campaigning).
Simpson has it in her… but she needs to show it from here on.
At 9:48 AM, May 17, 2006, TampaBryan said…
reality check -
I don't think anyone ever said Putnam or Young were going to lose. My point, which you completely missed, was that the R's are going to have to spend money on their own races, because their challengers are at least credible, and won't be able to help Bilirakis in 9, whoever the R is in 13 and Shaw in 22, the way they would have been able to were they unopposed. That's the problem with you damn Republicans, you have to have everything spelled out for you. Well, I guess that explains why you all keep voting for a President who is borderline retarded.
At 9:59 AM, May 17, 2006, jpublic said…
tampabryan,
“I guess that explains why you all keep voting for a President who is borderline retarded.”
… Borderline?… borderline?… Hell man, he flat jump over it like his corporate buddies have with their illegal slave labor…(err… Guest Workers).
I foresee the day we call rapists “Guest sex partners”… and bank robbers… “People who make guest withdraws”
At 11:07 AM, May 17, 2006, RonLincoln said…
And every time that "borderline retarded president" is on the ballot he trounces who ever the democrats run against him
At 11:20 AM, May 17, 2006, WhoIsJohnGalt? said…
Or does he Ron Lincoln?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1334249
At 11:21 AM, May 17, 2006, TampaBryan said…
Ron -
You are absolutely right. The main problem with the D candidates is that they are TOO intelligent. The majority of Americans would rather vote for someone who is dumber than they are as opposed to someone who makes them feel dumb. That and the fact that the far right christians actually believe all of the Republican election year promises. Have you heard anything about the gay marriage amendment since the last election? No, you haven't but you will this summer. the R's in Congress are reviving it just in time to scare everyone (right before the election) that every gay person in America wants to molest your children and invade your churches with weddings. As soon as the christian right realizes that the R's just make empty election year promises to passify them and start voting their economic interests, as opposed to divisive cultural issues, the Republicans day in the sun will be over.
At 11:34 AM, May 17, 2006, TampaBryan said…
Ron -
Another thing. I don't think Gore receiving more popular votes than Bush in 2000 (almost 1 million more) can be considered a trouncing. So, you see, that while our system elected Bush, the majority of Americans did not. God, I feel like I am talking to a second grader here. You R's really are slow!
At 11:53 AM, May 17, 2006, jpublic said…
“God, I feel like I am talking to a second grader here. You R's really are slow!”
It’s classic “follow the leader” type stuff tambabryan.
Not much to add, you handled it perfect. But be careful… reality and facts scare the hell out of them…
Ron, you should get with reality check… maybe he could help…. Pun intended!
At 2:10 PM, May 17, 2006, maninblack said…
geez are you guys still bringing up 2000? why don't you just moveon.org.
one big reason GW was reelected was because when facing an enemy who wants to kill you with no remorse or fear you need a decisive leader. GW continues to demonstrate that no matter whether you agree or disagree with him he will stand his ground (ok, unless your name is Harriet Meirs).
unlike Kerry who voted for before he voted against, GW stands firm and our enemies know it and the voters know it.
At 2:31 PM, May 17, 2006, WhoIsJohnGalt? said…
Maninblack:
If you really think that we went to war because a GROUP (mind you, not a country) of a few horrible, hateful, nutjobs attacked the city of New York and DC, then you are simply delusional.
Furthermore, it is not the presidents job to stand on "his" ground and make decisions "no matter whether you agree or disagree with him." It is his job to stand for the people of this country and to make decisions that are best for the nation's citizens.
It's people like you black.....people like you.
At 3:23 PM, May 17, 2006, RonLincoln said…
i was actually starting to worry about losing some seats this year but the dems are too concerned with sending Bush and his administration to jail and being against a war most of the dems voted for. Also still complaining about an election that happened 6 years ago.
I will concede we might lose some seats (i.e. Shaw) but certainly not enough to lose Congress
What happened to the Joe Liberman's and the moderate dems.
At 3:47 PM, May 17, 2006, WhoIsJohnGalt? said…
RonLincoln said...
And every time that "borderline retarded president" is on the ballot he trounces who ever the democrats run against him
I believe that was actually you that was bringing up the past elections. You can't expect that you won't get some backfires with a loaded and unjustified word like "trounces."
At 4:13 PM, May 17, 2006, TampaBryan said…
whoisjohngalt -
Obviously Ron is a typical Republican. All they know how to do is attack, state incorrect facts and then blame the dems for it when they get called on the carpet. I won't respond to him any longer as I refuse to get into a battle of wits with a completely unarmed person!
At 4:53 PM, May 17, 2006, RonLincoln said…
WHoisjohngalt-
Fair enough, i should not have used the word trounce. I dont mind saying so when i am incorrect.
Tampabryan-
I dont believe that will ruin my day.
Where was i attacking anyone? My main premise is when dems are an angry bunch of liberals they lose. The more Howard Dean or Pelosi opens their mouth the better it is for the republicans. Examples are the 02 and 04 elections.
Besides using the word "trounce" instead of "never lost an election" where was i wrong?
At 5:04 PM, May 17, 2006, TampaBryan said…
You weren't wrong. Bush has never lost an election (unless you condsider 1976, when he was still a raging alcoholic) and the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris made sure of that. Understand I am not a member of the extreme left wing of the party and don't condone the vitriolic spewing of a few. I want to see centrists get elected, regardless of what party they are from. The best way to govern is from a pragmatic standpoint and pragmatists come from the middle, not the extreme fringes.
And, as far as using "trounce" vs "never lost an election", if you think they are synonamous, you really need to get a new thesaurus.
At 10:32 PM, May 17, 2006, david & goliath said…
Whatever happened to Simpson vs Young?
I personally don't care who is smarter that who, whose grandma is tougher or whose ass smells best.
I'm voting for Samm because she actually answers the questions and she's not afraid to speak her mind. She seeks truth for our great nation and it comes from the heart, not some great political aspiration or money hungry power dreams.
Most people running for office can't eve get close to that. In fact I haven't seen another one yet.
She's got the biggest balls on the court.....let the games begin!
At 6:35 PM, May 19, 2006, 1sourcem said…
Adam,
I know there is a general amnesty/immunity for errors in spelling and grammar in a blog, but the "V." isn't right. In a lawsuit, you use a small "v." for versus, and in other competitions, like campaigns or boxing, you use a "vs." or just "vs", but not usually capitalized.
Not that I'm a stickler for proper English, but here it looks like a middle initial. Since you seem to repeat this format, I thought I would say something.
At 7:15 PM, May 19, 2006, stpeteguy said…
Here, here, D & G. And thanks for reeling this back in.
Not only is she refreshingly honest, she's got that real "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" kind of evangelic zeal going. (Goes with her being a born again Christian who actually believes in separation of church and state, and showing respect for religious diversity.)
Attractive not only to the liberals who want to kick some butt in Washington, but also to the constitution loving independents, and the Eisenhower/TR/Bobb Barr Republicans who think it's kind of a bad idea for congress to roll over and allow a president to coronate himself king.
Something Mr. Young and Co. haven't seemed to have a problem with.
The only thing preventing this gal from being a real player is money.
Post a Comment
<< Home