newsobserver.com projects - Knowlegis - Comments

"Otherwise, it is accurate."

ThomasBrock — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:26:56 -0400

You mean to say...

Other than falsely implying that Hagan's campaign paid for the original ad...

Other than omitting details for the "Best in Congress award"...

and

Other than claiming a role in military support which can neither be proven accurate nor inaccurate...

The ad is accurate?

Wow. I wonder, Ryan, what would it take for you to say that the ad is one big whopper of a lie?

(edited for clarification)

Uh, thinc...

ThomasBrock — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:24:15 -0400

My point was that the DSCC ad was accurate, not that the Dole ad was accurate.

Perhaps my writing wasn't the clearest...

Watch your facts, ThomasBrock

thinc — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:40:03 -0400

The Hagan campaign didn't pay for the ad. The DSCC did.

Will you dig?

zoobatmania — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:18:20 -0400

The "Best of Congress" award was given to 10 Senator and 14 House members. Only 50 applied, how many of them were Senators?

Ten, maybe?

Re: Claims Dept: DSCC on Dole's effectiveness

RDDavis — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:53:33 -0400

In the first two years, Dole was in the middle of the pack, ranking 56th and 46th. But with Republicans in the minority last year, her effectiveness ranking plummeted to 93rd.

AH YES! And at the time that her effectiveness was much higher, where were gas prices? MUCH LOWER! And where were grocery prices? About 100 bucks lower per month.

Re: Is 93rd ad unfair to Dole?

maiapinion — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:34:27 -0400

Obviously, it's not unfair, since Richard Burr, who is, as you point out, also a first-termer, ranks significantly higher. Elizabeth Dole has been singularly ineffective as a Senator from North Carolina. I suspect that's because she's not really from North Carolina at all.