Listen to the soothing words. Think Google!
Allow me to post a question. Should the US Postal Service be permitted to open all your mail, copy it, file it, cross-reference it, index every word, store it indefinitely and use and share that information as it sees fit for commercial purposes or most any other purpose?
Ridiculous? Outrageous? Yes. Yes.
But guess what, Google is already doing it. Any email you send either using a gmail account or to someone with a gmail account is being stored and used by Google for whatever they may want to do with it in the future and now.
Here is a story that did not get posted. It is about a new service offered by Google called Buzz. As it turns out, Google, is already toning down Google Buzz because of growing criticism from people concerned with privacy. Google is backing off, slightly.
Google has already prowled most every neighborhood in the US and photographed every house and posted it for whomever for whatever, and is aggregating intelligence on a scale that would have staggered the KGB and CIA in the not too distant past.
It is way past time to throttle Google.
_________________________
Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service
By MIGUEL HELFT
Published: February 12, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — When Google introduced Buzz — its answer to Facebook and Twitter — it hoped to get the service off to a fast start. New users of Buzz, which was added to Gmail on Tuesday, found themselves with a ready-made network of friends automatically selected by the company based on the people that each user communicated with most frequently through Google’s e-mail and chat services.
Google's decision to use e-mail and chat as the basis of a social network was unfair and deceptive, some critics claimed.
But what Google viewed as an obvious shortcut stirred up a beehive of angry critics. Many users bristled at what they considered an invasion of privacy, and they faulted the company for failing to ask permission before sharing a person’s Buzz contacts with a broad audience. For the last three days, Google has faced a firestorm of criticism on blogs and Web sites, and it has already been forced to alter some features of the service.
E-mail, it turns out, can hold many secrets, from the names of personal physicians and illicit lovers to the identities of whistle-blowers and antigovernment activists. And Google, so recently a hero to many people for threatening to leave China after hacking attempts against the Gmail accounts of human rights activists, now finds itself being pilloried as a clumsy violator of privacy.
As Evgeny Morozov wrote in a blog post for Foreign Policy, “If I were working for the Iranian or the Chinese government, I would immediately dispatch my Internet geek squads to check on Google Buzz accounts for political activists and see if they have any connections that were previously unknown to the government."
Mr. Morozov is a researcher on the impact of the Internet on totalitarian regimes at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University under a fellowship financed by Yahoo. In an interview, he said the flap over Buzz “definitely undermines Google’s credibility when it talks about freedom of expression.”
In an e-mail message, Todd Jackson, product manager for Gmail and Google Buzz, said, “Google remains completely committed to freedom of expression and to privacy, and we have a strong track record of protecting both.”
Mr. Jackson defended the setup of the Buzz service. He said that Buzz came with a built-in circle of contacts to provide a better experience to users and that many liked that feature. He said that it was very easy for users to edit who they were following on the service and who could follow them. He also said that anyone could hide their list of Buzz contacts with a single click.
After numerous bloggers complained that the privacy controls were difficult to find and adjust, Google agreed to make changes. In a blog post Thursday night, Mr. Jackson wrote that the company had made it easier for people to hide their Buzz contacts and block followers whose identity was unknown.
“It is still early, and we have a long list of improvements on the way,” Mr. Jackson wrote. “We look forward to hearing more suggestions and will continue to improve the Buzz experience with user transparency and control top of mind.”
Mr. Jackson said Buzz had proved popular, with tens of millions of people trying it in the last two days.
But some critics said that Google’s decision to use e-mail and chat correspondence as the basis of a social network was fundamentally misguided. While it is common for social networks to make public a person’s list of friends and followers, those lists are not typically created from e-mail conversations.
“People thought what they had was an address book for an e-mail program, and Google decided to turn that into a friends list for a new social network,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in Washington. “E-mail is one of the few things that people understand to be private.”
Mr. Rotenberg said that his organization planned to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claiming that the Google’s use of e-mail conversations to build a social network was unfair and deceptive.
In an expletive-laden article that was widely cited on the Web, a blogger who writes about issues related to violence against women complained that Google had made her fearful. She said that she had unexpectedly discovered a list of people, which may have included her abusive ex-husband or people who sent hostile comments to her blog, following her and her comments on Google Reader, a service for reading blogs and automated news feeds.
“My privacy concerns are not trite,” wrote the blogger, who uses the pseudonym Harriet Jacobs. “They are linked to my actual physical safety, and I will now have to spend the next few days maintaining that safety by continually knocking down followers as they pop up.”
In a further effort to contain the fallout, Google reached out to her and made changes to enhance the privacy of shared comments on Google Reader.
Some privacy experts said that Google had made matters worse by making it difficult for people to hide their lists of Buzz contacts after they realized that those lists had been made public. Some users assumed that they could simply turn off the Buzz service, but that proved inadequate.
“You want to have a simple rollback mechanism, so once things are not what you expected them to be, you can get out quickly and not have to play a game of Whack-a-Mole,” said Deirdre Mulligan, a privacy expert and assistant professor at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley.
Google said it was planning to address that issue soon.
Google is known for releasing new products before they are fully ready and then improving them over time. But its decision to do so with Buzz, coupled with its introduction to all 176 million Gmail users by default, appears to have backfired.
“It was a terrible mistake,” said Danny Sullivan, a specialist on Google and editor of SearchEngineLand, an industry blog. “I don’t think people expected that Google would show the world who you are connected with. And if there was a way to opt out, it was really easy to miss.”
An earlier version of this article misidentified the name of the blog Evgeny Morozov wrote a post for. It is Foreign Policy, not Foreign Affairs.
Where is the outrage?
ReplyDeleteThere is no outrage because most people are all too eager to jump in front of television cameras or gather hundreds of friends on facebook or twitter every waking moment.
ReplyDeleteAfter a drink or two, many will drop trou to show you their most recent tat on the ass or elsewhere.
I can't find that site.
ReplyDeleteJust ask google.
ReplyDeleteWhat site?
ReplyDeleteIf you're not doing anything wrong, what is there to fear?
ReplyDelete(I accept Holder as a fair arbiter)
ReplyDeleteIt's the point, Doug.
ReplyDeleteDon't we owe the Pantybomber a set of Balls?
ReplyDeleteUse Buzz for a harvest list of his friends.
This 667 sq/ft house in Burbank sold for 545 k in 2006!
ReplyDeleteScroll down for picture. ...Neat and clean.
ReplyDeletePeople supposedly still like BHO a lot.
ReplyDeleteCan we spell "White Guilt?"
A very likeable narcissistic Marxist power mongering control freak.
ReplyDeleteWSJ: "70 Percent likeable."
ReplyDeleteDoug, why is that I always find you in a one sided conversation?
ReplyDeleteObits:
ReplyDeleteDoug Fieger, 57; led L.A. band the Knack, sang "My Sharona"
Frederick C. Weyand, 93; last U.S. commander in Vietnam
Henry Fukuhara, 96; watercolorist led workshops in Manzanar
No one else to talk to:
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that you are a construct.
Unlike Bob, I fear getting a hard-on over something unreal.
ReplyDeleteI am. I am what ever you'd like me to be.
ReplyDeleteNo one said, I was unreal.
ReplyDeleteA yam?
ReplyDeleteI thot T said she made you up.
ReplyDeleteMelody, was created through the initials of MLD. I could put my real name there but I would still be MLD or Melody. My name was created not me. But you can put together an image just like I put together images of all of you.
ReplyDeleteSo, then a yam would give you a hard on?
ReplyDeleteI think it's the Vitamin A.
ReplyDeleteAnd where did a yam come from?
ReplyDelete"I am. I am what ever you'd like me to be."
ReplyDelete...and God, of course.
No that would be vitamin B3.
ReplyDeleteYou're saying yams are an A Black Hole?
ReplyDelete...I think not.
ReplyDeleteMeLoDy said...
ReplyDeleteI am. I am what ever you'd like me to be.
So MLD is BHO?
Good to know the Crystal is a master of the apology for America.
ReplyDeletePOTUS would approve.
If you're using it for, um....that, then I think so. While, vitamin A is good for you, I think the only thing yams will do to you is make you orange.
ReplyDeleteSo an ideologue hides behind
ReplyDelete"MLD"
WIO?
Why do I get the feeling you are ignoring WIO?
ReplyDeleteMLD could be T, Lilith or whomever...
ReplyDeleteSome people do go online to create personas and screw with people...
Maybe MLD is a apart of T...
MLD talks about shaving her legs, sex and other nonsense, but rarely discusses geo-politics.
Whereas T focuses mostly on geopolitics (with a little lesbian tossed in for street creds)
It would not surprise me if MLD and T are the same person...
Nor I.
ReplyDeleteBob would be devastated.
...in a Sweeedish sort of way.
Interesting theory and you'll never know. People do that and it's very hard.
ReplyDeleteI don't ever comment on politics because it doesn't interest me. But that doesn't mean I have nothing to talk about.
Then bob is a fool...
ReplyDeletesorry bob, but to get your nuts in an uproar over a cyber persona is shear stupidity...
Please don't get into that.
ReplyDelete...and I don't always talk about sex.
ReplyDeleteshaving legs is one of my sexual fantasies.
ReplyDeleteMeLoDy said...
ReplyDeleteInteresting theory and you'll never know. People do that and it's very hard.
-----------------------
No, it aint hard,,, it's two loggin's... as for knowing? I dont really give a flying fuck....
MeLoDy said...I don't ever comment on politics because it doesn't interest me. But that doesn't mean I have nothing to talk about.
Nothing that interests me for cyber talking, or many of us...
I am not a sports fan, so i dont hang out in sportsbars talking about politics, mostly because its not the interest of the bar...
No law says you cant post here, but if your universe of posts is getting drunk, shaving your legs, what color panties you wear then post away and many of us shall skip over your nonsense... Your nonsense may excite several of the Bar members, but since I do think you are a construct I wonder at what purpose you have in driving the conversation away from more substantial topics...
ego?
loneliness?
cult of personality?
who knows, and better yet who cares...
I yam what I yam.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you have to be such a dick?
ReplyDeletePopeye said...
ReplyDeleteI yam what I yam.
lol
MeLoDy said...
ReplyDeleteWhy do you have to be such a dick?
Mon Feb 15, 09:23:00 AM EST
Cause I actually have one?
Doug said...
ReplyDeleteshaving legs is one of my sexual fantasies.
Sorry Doug, shaving your legs aint one of mine...
no matter how much you beg...
Obviouly, you don't know how to ues it well.
ReplyDeleteFor Shame!
ReplyDelete...I was not thinking about shaving yours, WIO, sorry for the misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteWhen asked to pick what is most important in a successful relationship, about half picked "Respect" (49%), followed by "Trust" (37%), and a "Sense of humor" (10%). "Sex" was picked by 2%. "Money" recorded 0%. When asked to pick what is most important in a successful relationship, about half picked "Respect" (49%), followed by "Trust" (37%), and a "Sense of humor" (10%). "Sex" was picked by 2%. "Money" recorded 0%.
ReplyDeleteMost People Would Marry Spouse Again
Sounds to me like they only interviewed the people that had stayed married, not the 50% that haad gotten divorced.
And while on the topic of love this is good--
Although we almost always read "Romeo and Juliet" as the quintessential story of love at first sight,Shakespeare actually offered his own sly critique of romantic love at the beginning of the play. Romeo is pining away for love -- but not for Juliet. There is another fair damsel who has rejected Romeo's advances, and he declares himself inconsolable. He disdains finding someone else and tells Benvolio, "Thou canst not teach me to forget" -- which is, of course, precisely what happens a few scenes later when Romeo meets Juliet and realizes that he was completely wrong before and only now has discovered true love.
Which is good. Romeo is always Romeo, just like Ahab the Seaman always equals Ahad.
Hamlet though, begings to hear himself think. Some conditions call for rolling with the punches some don't. What workds in one situation fails in another.
article below
Fucking English Majors!
ReplyDelete...and Swedes, to boot!
MeLoDy said...
ReplyDeleteObviouly, you don't know how to ues it well.
wow... the insults fly....
I think you were trying to say:
Obviouly, you don't know how to use it well.
But what makes you say that? I have bred successfully at least 2 times, maybe more, cant say, havent been surprised by offspring seeking out their daddy, but my skills using my cock have never been questioned by those who seek my cock...
why would i give a hoot what an imaginary cyber gal thinks about my dick usage?
I am more concerned about 5.4 million murdered in the Congo over the last 10 years...
I am more concerned about America sending an Ambassador to Syria
I am more concerned about Iran getting the Bomb...
I am more concerned about runaway spending by the Obama admin..
these are the things that concern me...
not your legs, panties or booze obsession
Opinion
ReplyDelete'Romeo and Juliet' has led us astray
Romantic love, love at first sight -- it's great theater but disastrous dating advice.
By Andrew Trees
February 14, 2010
E-mail
Print
Text Size
What if Shakespeare had it wrong about love in "Romeo and Juliet"? In fact, what if all of us have it wrong and our ideals of love and romance are hopelessly awry? Although we are supposed to be celebrating our love for that special someone on Valentine's Day, perhaps the time has come to reconsider the concept of romantic love, at least as it has been conceived in Western societies.
As we busily track down red roses, the best chocolates and the finest champagnes, we need to ask whether, in the pursuit of the perfect romance, we haven't declared war on true love. Cupid's arrow does strike often, but with the U.S. divorce rate near 50%, one has to wonder whether the wound is particularly deep or long-lasting.
As I found when researching my book on the science of human attraction, our typical romantic beliefs are quite often wrong. For instance, even couples who are blissfully happy together can't count on a happy ending. The PAIR project, a long-term academic study of couples, found that those most in love when they marry are also the most likely to get divorced.
And the chemical attraction that many people rely on to choose a partner has been found to fade "to neutrality" in two to three years. That's right, neutrality, which might work well for Switzerland but is deadly for a marriage.
Perhaps most damning of all, I discovered that wife murderers tend to be strong subscribers to the romantic ideal. Take that, Romeo and Juliet.
Love and romance did not always rule the roost. As recently as the 1930s, American men ranked mutual attraction as only the fourth most important quality for a relationship, while women had it even lower, placing it fifth (in a 1956 survey, women dropped it all the way to sixth). But in recent decades, love has climbed to No. 1, accompanied by a rise in the importance of looks, which suggests that our romance with romance is long on style and short on substance.
I hate to sound unromantic on this day of all days, but perhaps it's time to place less emphasis on romantic attraction as the key to finding a partner. What can shoulder some of the load? I would suggest that we rely a little more on what science has discovered about human attraction.
For instance, some researchers can now predict whether a couple will stay together with far more accuracy than the couple themselves. And it has less to do with the things we might think, such as fighting, and far more to do with the things we take for granted, such as asking your spouse about his or her day.
That doesn't mean we need to jettison every aspect of chemical attraction. Several studies have found that for women, a man's body odor is a helpful guide to finding a good genetic match (but only if the woman is not taking an oral contraceptive, which reverses her usual smell preferences). Body odor doesn't sound very romantic, but perhaps the better question to ask is: How did our narrow ideal of romantic love come to hold such complete sway in the first place?
Imagine a dating world turned on its head, in which people were not given the freedom to opt into or out of a relationship -- such as a culture that practices arranged marriages. What researchers have found will be shocking to Westerners weaned on the idea of romantic love.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a 1982 study by two Indian researchers, the level of self-reported love in arranged marriages increased over time until they surpassed the level of self-reported love in marriages that were freely chosen. Incredible as it sounds, people with a very limited say in choosing their own spouses eventually became happier with their relationships than people with the freedom to choose anyone they wanted.
Although we almost always read "Romeo and Juliet" as the quintessential story of love at first sight,Shakespeare actually offered his own sly critique of romantic love at the beginning of the play. Romeo is pining away for love -- but not for Juliet. There is another fair damsel who has rejected Romeo's advances, and he declares himself inconsolable. He disdains finding someone else and tells Benvolio, "Thou canst not teach me to forget" -- which is, of course, precisely what happens a few scenes later when Romeo meets Juliet and realizes that he was completely wrong before and only now has discovered true love.
We never remember that part of the story, though, because if we think of "Romeo and Juliet" from that perspective, the whole play starts to skew in ways that contradict our usual romantic notions.
Perhaps the time has come for us to take a skeptical view of romance, particularly the over-the-top variety peddled so effectively on Valentine's Day. We should throw off the shackles of our reigning romantic orthodoxy and realize that "Romeo and Juliet" and its many cultural offspring have led us astray. Shakespeare's story may be transcendent entertainment, but it is disastrous dating advice.
Andrew Trees is the author of "Decoding Love."
WiO: MLD could be T, Lilith or whomever...
ReplyDeleteThere's a Jewish carpenter used to be my boss, he said "Swear off making oaths. Just let your yes be yes and your no no." So: No.
MLD talks about shaving her legs, sex and other nonsense, but rarely discusses geo-politics. Whereas T focuses mostly on geopolitics (with a little lesbian tossed in for street creds)
I don't talk about shaving my legs because I have been blessed with leg hairs so fine and soft that I never need to shave them. Sometimes I like to weigh in on the nice pictures that are posted here, I have the same eye for gams that some of the clowns here do, but how does a lesbian have "street cred" on a conservative blog?
It would not surprise me if MLD and T are the same person...
MLD is unique. In some ways she is more feminine than me, but she likes sports and sometimes she talks like a sailor. I don't usually resort to naughty language. Despite that, she has her charm, and Bob was responding to that, but he took it a little too far. MLD is married, and she remains mostly behind an online veil, as do we all.
T: I don't talk about shaving my legs because I have been blessed with leg hairs so fine and soft that I never need to shave them.
ReplyDeleteWe know that because you have spoken about that... The real question is, how many times have Joe Biden or Dick Cheney talked about whether they shave their legs or not?
T, you have proved yourself in discussing geo-politics...
ReplyDeletehowever you have also shown us that you do have multiple online personas...
You certainly know alot about puters....
So if you are one, two or more cyber personas, that is a mystery, not really too important...
Just would rather her or you (whomever you label it as) discuss why the world ignores the Congo and the butchery...
"Respect" (49%), followed by "Trust" (37%), and a "Sense of humor" (10%). "Sex" was picked by 2%. "Money" recorded 0%.
ReplyDeleteI'd add sex in motels. My wife always seems to like to have sex in every motel....wears you down though after about a three week trip. I think it's something about the continental breakfast in the mornings. Does not have to get up and the the eggs and coffee, but that's just a theory.
I also think if you can't trust what someone in saying to you they aren't worth talking to.
bob said...
ReplyDelete"Respect" (49%), followed by "Trust" (37%), and a "Sense of humor" (10%). "Sex" was picked by 2%. "Money" recorded 0%.
I'd add sex in motels. My wife always seems to like to have sex in every motel....
Just to be clear, your wife likes sex with YOU in motels?
bob said...
ReplyDelete"Respect" (49%), followed by "Trust" (37%), and a "Sense of humor" (10%). "Sex" was picked by 2%. "Money" recorded 0%.
I'd add sex in motels. My wife always seems to like to have sex in every motel....
I couldnt say that with a straight face... my wife USED to be a flight attendant and stayed in different motels 22 times a month...
Just to be clear, your wife likes sex with YOU in motels?
ReplyDelete:) And just me. Yes, I should have added that, I suppose.
After thirty years I get a little sloppy.
What a gentleman.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't include the wife.
...never a fan of sloppy seconds.
ReplyDeleteI couldnt say that with a straight face... my wife USED to be a flight attendant and stayed in different motels 22 times a month...
ReplyDeleteThat would be a workout, after a year of it, and long flights.
Gallegher railing about MSNBC repeatedly showing
ReplyDeleteLuge Snuff Film.
Guess what?
...never seen it.
Not a snuff film afficianado.
...cept for cool airline and NASCAR crashes.
ReplyDelete:-)
That was a fib, I avoid those too.
ReplyDelete...but it's hard.
New users of Buzz, which was added to Gmail on Tuesday
ReplyDeleteWhat is the alternative to Google? My gmail is slow as hell. And I did notice the Buzz thing come on, though didn't know what it was. I'm not using it whatever it is.
Kudos to the three female regulars at the EB who put up with the shit they get here and keep coming back for more.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tough crowd.
(By the way, what ever happened Stella. She evidently didn't like her initiation to the blog. More importantly, what ever happened to that lady, friend of T's, that posted here a couple of times. I forget her name.)
With regard to "substantial topics" WiO, wouldn't your dick fall into the the category of "less substantial topics".
:)
.
Women aren't tough?
ReplyDeleteEver had a baby?
A 3 day shit almost does me in.
ReplyDelete(in ecstasy, that is)
Brennan:
ReplyDelete20 percent recidivism of released terrorists is
"Is not that bad."
...our released prisoners here have a worse record.
PBUH
Just heard Brennan soundbyte:
ReplyDeleteAnother Obama White Eunich.
There's a study out that says men spend $150 on Valentine's Day while women only spend $85 on Valentine's Day. Such a materialistic view. Me and my Sweetie gave each other...each other. Free!
ReplyDeleteWIO: Just would rather her or you (whomever you label it as) discuss why the world ignores the Congo and the butchery...
ReplyDeleteUh...because there's no oil there. Next?
As far as the actual topic goes, just remember there is no privacy on the net, ever, unless you use encryption. Except for online banking, I don't really need computer privacy. I came out as gay after my discharge from the NAV (as a First Class Petty Officer, Cryptologic Technician, Technical) so there's nothing anyone can use to blackmail me.
ReplyDeletebob: Several studies have found that for women, a man's body odor is a helpful guide to finding a good genetic match
ReplyDeleteYeah, if the guy works on his truck all day, then comes in to bed still wearing his greasy clothes and greasy hair, no shower, no change of raiment, spits his chaw into one of the eleven cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon he has hanging on the windowsill under the Stars and Bars, his body odor is a helpful guide indeed as to whether he's a good match. But I want to know why it took several studies to figure that out.
quirk: With regard to "substantial topics" WiO, wouldn't your dick fall into the the category of "less substantial topics".
ReplyDelete:)
Yep....
Teresita said...
ReplyDeleteWIO: Just would rather her or you (whomever you label it as) discuss why the world ignores the Congo and the butchery...
Uh...because there's no oil there. Next?
No oil in Gaza
No oil in Gaza, true, but Gaza is in the Dar al-Islam, which means it is forever Muslim, never to be occupied by non-Muslims. Just like Andalusia in Spain. Every time non-Muslims go in there to stop the Gazans from having a little fun with their fireworks, it enrages the other parts of the Dar al-Islam, and some of them have oil. And because they have oil, they have US politicians in their pocket like so many nickels and dimes.
ReplyDeleteI heard that the USA killed 12 civilians in Afghanistan, I wonder will the USA press the UN to investigate as it did with Israel in Gaza?
ReplyDeleteevan bayh D to retire...
ReplyDeletelol
another one gone...
Yeah, if the guy works on his truck all day, then comes in to bed still wearing his greasy clothes and greasy hair, no shower, no change of raiment, spits his chaw into one of the eleven cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon he has hanging on the windowsill under the Stars and Bars, his body odor is a helpful guide indeed as to whether he's a good match. But I want to know why it took several studies to figure that out.
ReplyDeleteHey, the smell diesel fuel and fertilizer did it for me every time. They could have just asked the wife and I.
I'm not buying that part about money though. After a certain point, it doesn't make much difference, but I've seen financial difficulties take down a lot of marriages.
WiO:I heard that the USA killed 12 civilians in Afghanistan, I wonder will the USA press the UN to investigate as it did with Israel in Gaza?
ReplyDeleteThe Blue Helmets will investigate, but as in Gaza, they require a five star hotel be provided for the administrative personnel, and they require the military that is being investigated for atrocities to provide complete force protection for the investigators, as well as all logistics and expenses.
America is going down a terrible road, just ask any arab or moslem..
ReplyDeleteAmerica has killed 14 taliban to each American killed, this is disproportionate response...
I want it to be more disproportionate. A hundred of theirs for every one of ours like in Mogadishu 1993, and even that's selling our boys cheaply.
ReplyDeleteIs Dino back?
ReplyDeleteDemocratic Senator Patty Murray holds double-digit leads on three of the top Republicans who hope to unseat her in this year’s Senate race in Washington State.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Murray, who is expected to seek a fourth six-year term this fall, leads Republican state Senator Don Benton 50% to 38%.
Against former professional football player Clint Didier, now a private businessman active in the Tea Party movement, Murray has a 15-point lead, 49% to 34%.
The incumbent posts a 48% to 33% lead over businessman and motivational speaker Chris Widener.
In the three contests, anywhere from three (3%) to five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate and nine (9%) to 14% are undecided. An incumbent at this stage of the contest who earns less than 50% is considered potentially vulnerable.
The potential vulnerability is highlighted when Murray is matched against Dino Rossi, the unsuccessful GOP candidate in the state’s last two gubernatorial contests. Certainly the best-known of the Republicans, Rossi attracts 48% of the vote in a match-up with Murray while the incumbent earns 46%. One percent (1%) like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
But Rossi, despite encouragement from many Republicans, says so far that he’s not interested in running for the Senate.
Teresita said...
ReplyDeleteI want it to be more disproportionate. A hundred of theirs for every one of ours like in Mogadishu 1993, and even that's selling our boys cheaply.
Me too.. and there is GOOD rational for it..
The Arabs now have set the price for one low ranking israeli soldier as for 2000 captive terrorists...
So, the KIA should reflect that ratio as well...
THEY'RE DROPPING LIKE FLIES
ReplyDeleteBy DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on February 15, 2010
Printer-Friendly Version
Enter Coats. Exit Bayh. Bye, bye, Bayh!
The first time Evan Bayh gets a serious race for re-election, he quits!
The Scott Brown victory is still rippling through the House and the Senate causing retirements among committed, dedicated, long-term liberal Democrats. Seeing voter anger, they are heading for the hills.
The process seems to work as follows:
a. Public anger manifests itself in the Brown victory
b. The improvement in Republican chances impels top notch, former statewide elected officials to jump into races against Democratic incumbents
c. The Democrat bows out in the face of likely defeat. Suddenly, he wants to spend more time with his family.
This process has run its course in Indiana and may shortly be manifest in Wisconsin where former Governor Tommy Thompson is considering a run against Senator Russ Feingold. It may yet play out in Arkansas where Senator Blanche Lincoln now has a top tier opponent in Congressman John Boozman. And Senator Patty Murray may hear footsteps behind her with the entry into the race of wealthy businessman Paul Akers and the possible entry of former almost-Governor Dino Rossi. Rossi lost the governorship of Washington State in a Franken-esque theft after initial counts showed him defeating Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. Now Governor Gregoire won in the recount.
In New York State, billionaire Mort Zuckerman may take on appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and, if he doesn't, former Governor George Pataki might jump into the race.
When we predicted a Republican win in the Senate in 2010, some laughed. But nobody's laughing now.
On a less high profile level, the House is also swinging Republican. The death of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha opens the way for a likely GOP pickup in a special election and the Republicans now stand to pick up ten more seats through Democratic retirements. One wonders if the likes of Texas Democrat Chip Edwards, South Carolina's John Spratt, or Arkansas' Mike Ross might not be far behind in the race into retirement.
It now looks more likely than ever that Congress will go Republican in the elections of 2010.
"The Scott Brown victory is still rippling through the House and the Senate ..."
ReplyDeleteMore like
RIPPING SOME SERIOUS ASS!
Gawd it's beautiful!
Now if Feinstein and Pelosi would just kick the bucket, and Boxer runs off to Sudan with a Palestinian...
ReplyDelete"But I want to know why it took several studies to figure that out."
ReplyDeletePreviously they only asked gals like you?
How can you know it so well, yet reject it???
I think lesbians never met the right man...
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton comes to mind....
:-)
ReplyDeleteHey, 'Rat:
That Islamic Site says al-Hakim was the bigwig, not Alwhoever?
I've just done the once unthinkable. I've written a conciliatory letter to a long lost cousin of mine, while at the same time subtly blaming her for everything, who was once called the wild wicked witch of the west by my wife.
ReplyDeleteWhat's come over me?
Somehow this is going to turn out all wrong, like ending in a gunfight.
Democrats are dropping like flies, I've cleaned my room, I'm almost expecting some kind of alien visitation.
If my democratic Congressman Minnick had any brains, he'd get out now too. He's cooked. That vote for Pelosi for Speaker isn't going to go over well.
ReplyDelete"I've just done the once unthinkable. I've written a conciliatory letter to a long lost cousin of mine, "
ReplyDelete---
Just last nite on WSJ Radio, they were talking about people using the internets to appologize for shit that happened so far back that most people didn't even remember.
"Sorry I dated Bobby Joe behind your back, I've felt guilty about it ever since"
"Who?
Whaaaat???"
If anyone has ever apologoized in my extended family it would be a first and a surprize to me. I can't remember it ever happening.
ReplyDelete"Blood is thicker than water but money is thicker than blood"
Is love thicker than blood, water, money?