"Take away our right to vote. That's the Southerland solution.

Another Great one

I understand that both parties do this and I kind of like it because I personally think the ads are funny.

If anyone has one that (s)he personally thinks is good just post it here.


YouTube - TV Ad - Shame On Steve - "Beginning" (Steve Southerland)

The worst one.

This is just blatantly misleading. It just says he wants to add a 23% percent sales tax on everything.

What it forgets to mention is that he would also abolish the IRS. But of course Boyd is hoping people don't figure that out.

Apparently Democrats are doing this a lot this year.

http://factcheck.org/2010/10/sales-tax-spin/


Politifact Florida an independent agency gives this ad a "False" rating.

http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/oct/11/allen-boyd/allen-boyd-campaign-ad-claims-steve-southerland-di/
YouTube - TV Ad - Shame On Steve - "Blackboard"

Boyd's way down in the polls, desperate men do desperate things, no matter what their party affiliation might be.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/house/florida/2

IMHO, 12-15 points down, and with 6 days left, Boyd's toast.

If this other Fla. teabagger/clown wins (which ftlog may actually happen😱) his offices here and in D.C. are going to be called daily (speed dial)--his staff is going to be so sick of little 'ol me, they may all resign!

What I find interesting is the negativity of an ad that says Southerland wishes to take away a "right" that is constitutionally awarded. It is disingenuous at best.
The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed how our Senators were selected. Until then, they were appointed by state legislatures. I wonder how many citizens are aware of this bit of history. I know most, if not all, who post on the SoWal political forum are. But the negative ad adheres to something sinister going on in the selection of our Senators. It plays on the general public's ignorance of our former political process. The Amendment, in the eyes of some, took away the power of the states to ascert some control of the federal governmnent. There are usually two sides to every story, but all politicians strive to make sure you hear only theirs.

If this other Fla. teabagger/clown wins (which ftlog may actually happen😱) his offices here and in D.C. are going to be called daily (speed dial)--his staff is going to be so sick of little 'ol me, they may all resign!

We still put up with you AC, with all of your "stuff', so I am sure that the "teabagger/clown" if he wins...will too. A speed dial threat pretty weak stuff coming from you.

What I find interesting is the negativity of an ad that says Southerland wishes to take away a "right" that is constitutionally awarded. It is disingenuous at best.
The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed how our Senators were selected. Until then, they were appointed by state legislatures. I wonder how many citizens are aware of this bit of history. I know most, if not all, who post on the SoWal political forum are. But the negative ad adheres to something sinister going on in the selection of our Senators. It plays on the general public's ignorance of our former political process. The Amendment, in the eyes of some, took away the power of the states to ascert some control of the federal governmnent. There are usually two sides to every story, but all politicians strive to make sure you hear only theirs.

Andy the point is that instead of directly electing Senators we would have to elect the legislature in the hopes that they would elect the Senator we wanted, why change that? Nobody alive remembers the old Senatorial election process why go back to that?

Better stock up on commissary items while you can, my prediction is that Tyndall will go first, Eglin and Hurlburt will be next to go after Steve gets elected.

What I find interesting is the negativity of an ad that says Southerland wishes to take away a "right" that is constitutionally awarded. It is disingenuous at best.

I have to disagree with you - the new Republicans have been advocating repeal of several constitutional amendments, this is just one. I think they feel that amendments are not as "fixed" as the original Constitution.

However, I have not heard Southerland say (in this election) that he favors repeal. This must have been something he advocated in the primaries, or before.

As usual, you are whistling past the graveyard. No one suggested changing, even Southerland. It is a possiblility that might be considered should we ever wish to return some of the power our states have lost back to them. You appear to have no inkling of what the 9th and l0th amendments to the Constitution mean.
As far as Southerland's election is concerned, I really don't think he is so stupid (though I'm sure you do) as to put Eglin or the other bases in jeopardy. Bases, however, are moved from time to time through the BRAC process. Such may be the case in the future but if it makes you feel good you may blame our next Congressman. Regardless, anything would be an improvement, IMO, over Allen Boyd. I will add only this. Even if no one is alive to remember, there is nothing wrong with repealing Amendments. Its been done before, and before you get on your high horse, no, I'm not advocating it. I just think the ad is spurious as many have been during this election on both sides.

As usual, you are whistling past the graveyard. No one suggested changing, even Southerland. It is a possiblility that might be considered should we ever wish to return some of the power our states have lost back to them. You appear to have no inkling of what the 9th and l0th amendments to the Constitution mean.
As far as Southerland's election is concerned, I really don't think he is so stupid (though I'm sure you do) as to put Eglin or the other bases in jeopardy. Bases, however, are moved from time to time through the BRAC process. Such may be the case in the future but if it makes you feel good you may blame our next Congressman. Regardless, anything would be an improvement, IMO, over Allen Boyd. I will add only this. Even if no one is alive to remember, there is nothing wrong with repealing Amendments. Its been done before, and before you get on your high horse, no, I'm not advocating it. I just think the ad is spurious as many have been during this election on both sides.

Andy, I was trying to be reasonable here - I am neither whistling nor on a horse. I said I was unaware of Southerland ever espousing the repeal. I agree that the ad is a complete reach.

It's the 17th amendment, anyway.

And if you weren't responding to me, in the words of Emily Litella.,..."Never mind"

Andy the point is that instead of directly electing Senators we would have to elect the legislature in the hopes that they would elect the Senator we wanted, why change that? Nobody alive remembers the old Senatorial election process why go back to that?

Better stock up on commissary items while you can, my prediction is that Tyndall will go first, Eglin and Hurlburt will be next to go after Steve gets elected.

Why do you think this?

I have to disagree with you - the new Republicans have been advocating repeal of several constitutional amendments, this is just one. I think they feel that amendments are not as "fixed" as the original Constitution.

However, I have not heard Southerland say (in this election) that he favors repeal. This must have been something he advocated in the primaries, or before.

There's nothing wrong with repealing or amending the Constitution. If you want to change it, that's the right way to do it.

I'm not sure what Southerland thinks about this, there's no mention of it on his site. But there's no way it would happen anyway.

Why do you think this?

Which committees do you think a freshman representative will be sitting on?

Allen Boyd has used his power, in the past, to keep or bring programs to area bases. Southerland will have no power to do that as a freshman. I don't rely on the military being here for my income, I wonder how many people voting against Allen Boyd do?

On the upside, Tyndall will make an incredible fly in resort once it's redeveloped.