GFN wrote on Apr 20, 2006 9:01 AM:Jim, in a normal situation, I'd agree with you, but the corruption issue is getting so large that it can, and, I believe, will carry this election. President Bush's admitting to the leak was the final straw. Once again, he bold-faced lied. The message will be sent...enough of Republican deceit. I believe it is the Republicans who will be the ones who will lead this fight. It is the party that has values and the GOP is embarrassed and angry as hell and isn't going to take it anymore! Busby wins.

OceansideKos wrote on Apr 20, 2006 12:08 PM:A couple of things. Is there anything to back up your assertion that "low turnouts typical of a special election almost always help the underdog"? You did say "almost" which weakens your argument considerably. And it certainly didn't help the Republican underdogs in this race. Also, you definitely show your bias with the "easy-going,surfing Bilbray". How about the easy-going, surfing lobbyist"? And yes, I understand that there are lobbyists of all ilks, and that not all of them have ties to Jack Abramhoff, but it just so happens that BB does. And please keep note of who gets the nastiest in this fight- from all appearances, getting elected through mean-spirited and often VERY inaccurate smears of opposition candidates is the only thing Republicans do well.

Mike wrote on Apr 20, 2006 5:09 PM:Jim, it's fuzzy math like yours that in other contexts gets Republicans in trouble too. How did you conclude that 56% of the vote was for Republicans? Ah, everyone that didn't vote for Busby voted for Republicans. Therefore since she had close to 44%, they had collectively 56%. WRONG!. You had three other candidates that weren't Republicans also running that collectively got 2.73% of the vote, leaving the Republicans with around 53.5% of the vote, LESS than 10% more than Busby's totals. Two of those candidates from neither the Dems or the Republicans will be running in the June election too. A 50%+1 majority isn't needed then. Just a plurality of the votes. And you don't need a 10% swing to trigger a win. Likely a 5% swing of votes (which probably has more to do with turnout than it does with people "switching" votes) will do it. If Eric Roach pressures Bilbray a lot, and runs as a write-in as he's rumored to possibly do, that would practically give the election to Busby. Even just running against him for the nomination whereas Busby is likely going to run unopposed will create perhaps the necessary confusion to give her the votes she needs to win. My guess is that as many has half of Richard Earnest's supporters might move to support Busby instead of Bilbray. He spoke out against the attack ads against Busby as effectively as anyone has in one of the campaign forums before the election. A lot of the progressive and moderate voters that supported him would probably find Bilbray less palatable than Busby. Probably the same could be said for a few other candidates. Also note that Bilbray HAS BEEN a lobbyist, the very sort of people that many are pointing to the reasons why we have so much trouble in Washington now with the scandals that took out Cunningham. Busby is no "extreme left wing liberal" either. She's pretty centrist and moderate herself, and was a former Republican to boot. The difference is she is more out of the "big money, special interest politics" that affect BOTH political parties in Washington, that are creating the Abramoff/Cunningham monsters, that Bilbray has played an instrumental role himself in with his lobbying activities (check out his work in the Bajagua deal). I would argue that many in the North County have had enough of corruption. We've certainly had our fill of it in the last few years, and not just with Cunningham. We as voters won't be looking so much whethere someone is "liberal" or "conservative" which are increasingly becoming meaningless terms in today's political landscape when "conservative" politicians are the ones that are bringing us "big" government and the heaviest spending we've ever seen there, NOT the "liberals", and they're spending more money on rewarding cronies of this corrupt system rather than trying to spend money to increase citizens' collective welfare or boost and fuel the economy by helping broader segments of it be better off. Though many of this district might still be blind in their "dislike" for those labeled as "liberals", there are many that I would respect have decent judgement that are moderate as we both would agree that would see Busby as the choice to represent them better. One person isn't going to clean up Washington, but Busby going there in June before the November election, will help signal others are ready to take that message in there too come November, and collectively, they can make a difference.

Jim wrote on Apr 20, 2006 9:45 PM:Republicans are slipping. Many are abandoning the party because of the Bush hypocrisy. Others will not vote for a lobbyist, even if he is a Republican. If a lobbyist is the best the Republicans can come up with, perhaps they deserve to lose on June 6th.

Mark wrote on May 15, 2006 6:34 AM:"Yes, I realize Busby's supporters are going to dispute that assertion and try to paint the easy-going, surfing Bilbray as some sort of right-wing ideologue ---- if I were them, I'd do the same. What other option do they have?" I dealt with Bilbray when he was in Congress a number of times in my position as a legislative representative for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Easy going was NOT one of the traits Mr Bilbray displayed, however, arrogant, cocky and know it all were. You may believe Bibray is a moderate Sir, but when right wing ideologues like Dick Cheney come to town to stump for someone, it does tend to color one's opinion.

Lee wrote on Oct 19, 2006 11:31 AM:Jim, I'll bet you defended Cunningham just as ardently as you're defending Bilbray.