US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
diamond said:
1-
We never chanted "Death to Japan", so why you brought it up is beyond me

i already addressed why i brought it up, but since it is beyond you i'll quote it again.

unico said:
My point is, people don't need to advertise their intentions for there to be a threat. As with the example of nuking Japan, it is quite clear that anyone who holds nuclear weapons in their custody has the capabilities to use them.

intentions are intentions, whether they are announced or not. there is no justification to use nuclear weapons. there is no justification to HAVE nuclear weapons.

what sort of argument is made when one country (who OWNS THOUSANDS of nukes) is telling another to not?

EVERYONE needs to disarm. period.
 
unico said:


i already addressed why i brought it up, but since it is beyond you i'll quote it again.



intentions are intentions, whether they are announced or not. there is no justification to use nuclear weapons. there is no justification to HAVE nuclear weapons.

what sort of argument is made when one country (who OWNS THOUSANDS of nukes) is telling another to not?

EVERYONE needs to disarm. period.

Exactly! Iran, Isreal, and The United States all have nuclear weapons. We (The United States) and Isreal cannot expect Iran to disarm if we're not willing to do so ourselves. On the same token, Iran could not and should not ask us or Isreal to disarm. All 3 nations (and any others with nuclear weapons) have to reach a concious, deliberate agreement to disarm (which they haven't, to my knowledge. I was just being hypothetical). As Mia stated, just because Iran is creating the most identifiable threats, that doesn't mean other nations are not thinking about attacking with nuclear weapons. The only way to some semblance of safety is to have world disarmament as soon as possible.
 
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, yet. So far they are still enriching uranium.

I would say, there are countries that are more likely to use those weapons and others that are less likely to do so, and with Iran I wouldn't be comfortable as well.
But I would also say that Iran actually using nuclear weapons against Israel is rather unlikely, as Israel isn't that large a country so any nuke would do harm to the surrounding countries as well. And I think Amadinejad and his peers are not so naive as to use these weapons against the US because he certainly knows that this would be the end of it all.

I've read that plans in WWII were to use the nukes against the German cities of Mannheim and Wilhelmshaven, but Germany surrendered and a victory was in sight early enough. I don't know how accurate that is, but one has to consider that the development was started because of Germany, and the fear that the Nazis are developing one.

Of course, all countries in the world getting rid of their nuclear weapons would be great, and clearly, everyone with a sane mind would be all for it, but to be realistically it's not likely that we will see this happen in our lifetime.
 
Vincent Vega said:
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, yet. So far they are still enriching uranium.

I would say, there are countries that are more likely to use those weapons and others that are less likely to do so, and with Iran I wouldn't be comfortable as well.
But I would also say that Iran actually using nuclear weapons against Israel is rather unlikely, as Israel isn't that large a country so any nuke would do harm to the surrounding countries as well. And I think Amadinejad and his peers are not so naive as to use these weapons against the US because he certainly knows that this would be the end of it all.

I've read that plans in WWII were to use the nukes against the German cities of Mannheim and Wilhelmshaven, but Germany surrendered and a victory was in sight early enough. I don't know how accurate that is, but one has to consider that the development was started because of Germany, and the fear that the Nazis are developing one.

Of course, all countries in the world getting rid of their nuclear weapons would be great, and clearly, everyone with a sane mind would be all for it, but to be realistically it's not likely that we will see this happen in our lifetime.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that we're not entirely sure if Iran has nuclear weapons, but that it's extremely likely that they do. That has usually been the slant in the media I've seen, which isn't surprising, considering how the media is always going for the biggest story. I'd never heard the rumor about the possibility of using nukes on Germany. I wouldn't have put it past the U.S. at that point, but I'm glad nothing ever played out. As for your last paragraph, I sadly have to agree. I was speaking of the best case scenario; which would be total world disarmament, but I'm not naive enough to think it will happen in the near future, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone see Dennis Kucinich on O'Reilly ? Here's what he said, there's video on the Factor site if anyone dares to go there. Kucinich is just a cool customer who knows how to handle himself-from what I have seen usually with dignity and class too. Hey O'Reilly approves of him so he must be super cool.

This is a rush transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," October 30, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the "Top Story" tonight, joining us from Washington, a participant in that Democratic debate, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

I notice you did not really beat up on Hillary Clinton. Did you think it was fair that the others did?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, she was spun around. It was not her finest moment, but the fact of the matter is, there is a lot about those debates that are totally artificial.

It is almost laughable when you have John Edwards criticizing Hillary for taking money from Washington lobbyists when his campaign is heavily funded from New York hedge funds; or Barack Obama criticizing her for her support of the war when she and Barack Obama have identical positions when it comes to funding the war.

So a lot of this is about nuances and not about a real difference or distinction without a difference.

O'REILLY: OK. But once in a while, something breaks out, as the driver's license thing did, because that is a simple deal. Do you support the governor of New York giving illegals driver's licenses? Yes or no and...

KUCINICH: Here is how would have answered that.

O'REILLY: . why? But wait, wait, wait. But that jumps out, that jumps out, because it is not nuance, there is not a lot of room to wiggle. But wiggle Senator Clinton did. And boy oh boy that is going to hurt her, is it not?

KUCINICH: You know what, though? Look, I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on Iraq, on Iran, on trade, on health care. I have established very strong positions challenging her on every turn. But you have to look at the environment there. That could happen to anybody getting spun around like that.

It is not necessarily the best judge of who is going to be the best leader of the country.

O'REILLY: OK. OK. But why didn't she just answer the question.

KUCINICH: . particularly.

O'REILLY: . though, Congressman? Look, do you support it or not, yes or no?

KUCINICH: Well, let me answer the question.

O'REILLY: No, whoa, whoa, whoa! I want you to answer the question.

(LAUGHTER)

O'REILLY: But I know what your answer is going to be. I do not know what her answer is going to be. And no one else does either. You can't have it both ways.

KUCINICH: You know what? I'm through defending her. I'll just say that she should have answered the question more directly. It would have been better for her if she had. I think that she does have that problem where she tries to please people on both sides of an issue. You can't always do that. And I think she found that out last night.

O'REILLY: All right. Now you want illegals to have driver's licenses.

KUCINICH: I want — in immigration, there should be a pact to legalization and then you help people get their licenses.

O'REILLY: OK. That is reasonable. That is reasonable. Now you are considered a far left guy by many.

KUCINICH: Mainstream.

O'REILLY: I like you — I want to tell the audience, I like you. You are the only Democratic presidential candidate that has got enough guts to come in here, and you don't pander to anybody, and you're not afraid of MoveOn and the other kooks.

But I want your reaction on the trend now. And I'm sure you've seen it, President Clinton interrupted, Bill Maher interrupted, Condoleezza Rice had a kook with fake blood on her hand right by her face. This is what happened last night, Senator (sic).

Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: She has given the Republicans the biggest issue they have got so far.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All U.S. troops out of Iraq now! No more blood for oil!

MATTHEWS: Well, I agree with the sentiment, at least.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do I.

MATTHEWS: If not the message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: All right. What a shock, MSNBC agrees with the sentiment. But the bigger question is, the far left loons are running wild, and they've been emboldened. What do you think about that?

KUCINICH: I wouldn't ever want to go along with your characterization. But I would want to say this, that, you know, our political debate sometimes gets out of hand, and I think it is better when — let me back up a minute.

You know, Bill, this is kind of symptomatic of the times. There was a poem written about a hundred years ago called "The Second Coming" that talks about the center not holding and all things falling apart. We are starting to see, you know, symptoms of that in our society. And with the president talking about World War III, with there being a lot of emotion in the air, you know, things are getting out of control. And that is just an example. And I think it could happen.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: All right. But there have been many examples over the past.

KUCINICH: . of any political persuasion.

O'REILLY: All right. But it is all generated by the far left. Now what is wrong with my characterization? Because look, when you have these 9/11 conspirators telling Bill Clinton at a speech that there was an inside job, when you have gay militants invading a church in San Francisco and defiling the Eucharist, and it is all coming from the far left, you can't argue with that. It is right before our eyes here, Senator (sic).

KUCINICH: Well, you know, I mean, I believe in preserving the sacred. And I also believe that if — that former presidents, whatever their politics, deserve respect. So you know, we have to have a certain amount of respect. We also have to have truth-telling too.

In a democratic society, with the First Amendment, there is always going to be a balance to that...

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: But truth-telling does not mean that you have a right to go up to the secretary of state and get right in her face with a bloody hand. And that is dangerous. So I want responsible politicians, and I believe you are one, to speak out against this.

KUCINICH: I think it is — was it Justice Holmes — you know, there was one of the justices said that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. So there is a point at which you can cross the line. I think that the conditions that are existing today in our politics, Bill, where people feel that Washington is not responsive in any way, Democrats or Republicans...

O'REILLY: Then elect new people.

KUCINICH: Democrats and Republicans alike. I think it is driving people to be a little bit more desperate. I'm not justifying it...

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: You can't have anarchy, though, anarchy is dangerous, as you know. Hey, Congressman.

KUCINICH: I wish.

O'REILLY: Go ahead, last word.

KUCINICH: I wish we had — I wish the Democrats here did have a firm hand on governance. They told the American people a year ago they were going to get out of Iraq. They haven't done it. I mean, I'm take issue with my own party, Bill.

O'REILLY: All right. We are going to have you back. I want to talk about the UFO deal that you apparently saw. That's very interesting. But you are always welcome, Congressman, you are a standup guy, and we appreciate it.

KUCINICH: Thank you, Bill.
 
Last edited:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! HOW DID I MISS HIM ON O'REILLY???!!!!?!?!?!?! :sad:

Thank you SO MUCH for posting this. I think that says a lot that he showed up. He's such an awesome guy. I think that is his first appearance there. He didn't make an appearance last time around.

We can call people we disagree with all the names we want. But you gotta admit, there is a lot to be said about those who have earned the respect of people on opposing sides without pandering them. He inspires me to be a better person.

:heart:
 
zogby.com

Oct 29

Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28%), followed by McCain (21%) and Fred Thompson (9%). One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%). Clinton was the top choice among women (24%), while 14% would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11% would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18%) to Clinton (17%) on this issue, while 15% said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19% overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15%) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28%).

As the possibility the U.S. may strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68%) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – of those, 27% believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31%) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22% said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15% said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9% believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.

For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1226
 
I never watch O'Reilly, so sadly, no, I did not see this. But it sounds like Kucinich kept his cool, so good on him for that. And honestly, I'm glad he didn't beat up on Clinton and didn't try to bash her or anything. It's so easy to sit there and claim that other candidates are wrong and say why, but I much prefer hearing a politician talk about themselves and why they think the way they do instead of discuss those they're up against.

And he's also right regarding the reason why some people are resorting to desperate measures. It's true, they just want to be heard, and they're not. That doesn't necessarily make their actions right, no, but at the same time, you know, the government really does have to wake up and realize that they answer to us. Not the other way around.

As for this latest article:

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon,

If that's truly representative of voters, then that...really depresses me. For the love of god, we don't need to be involved in any more military strikes! We can't afford it, for one thing, and for another, I think we should work on cleaning up the mess with Iraq before we go around making any more messes (or we could, you know, try that diplomacy thing, too...).

Angela
 
Last edited:
I was curious about that poem Dennis was talking about, it's a Yeats poem

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


The Second Coming" is a poem by William Butler Yeats first printed in The Dial (November 1920) and afterwards included in his 1921 verse collection Michael Robartes and the Dancer. The poem uses religious symbolism to illustrate Yeats' anguish over the apparent decline of Europe's ruling class, and his occult belief that Western civilization (if not the whole world) was nearing the terminal point of a 2000-year historical cycle.

The poem was written in 1919 in the aftermath of the First World War. The various manuscript revisions of the poem also have references to the French and Irish Revolutions as well as to Germany and Russia. It is highly doubtful that the poem was solely inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917, which some claim Yeats viewed as a threat to the aristocratic class he favored.
 
Thanks for sharing that information as well as the poem itself, MrsSpringsteen. It's not the most uplifting of poems, true, but still, I love the imagery in it, there's some excellent lines in there. Particularly this part:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

I think that describes the present-day situation here in the U.S. very well. Sadly.

Thanks again for that, that was some good reading :).

Angela
 
Here's a a little Gospel poem about Dennis K please enjoy:

In the beginning God created Man in his own Image
everybody except Dennis Kucinich.:angry:

kucinich1.jpg


:wink:

dbs
 
Rudy's bogus healthcare stats

By Joe Conason
salon.com, Nov. 02


To a politician pandering to his party's right wing, a role that Rudolph Giuliani plays every day now, citing his own recovery from prostate cancer as an argument against "socialized medicine" must have seemed like pure genius. The radio ad that went up this week in New Hampshire suggests that Giuliani not only faced down the 9/11 terrorists--or something like that--but triumphed over a terrifying disease as well, without the help of any government bureaucrats. Or as Giuliani himself says in the controversial ad: "I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving cancer--and thank God I was cured of it--in the United States: 82%. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44% under socialized medicine."

Yes, it's another inspiring and instructive story--or would be, perhaps, if only it were true. The former New York mayor did survive prostate cancer, but otherwise his statistical claims were not difficult to debunk, as reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and other news outlets quickly discovered. Giuliani had picked up his numbers from an article in City Journal, a publication of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and simply repeated them in public without bothering to check their validity. Unfortunately, they were essentially fraudulent figures, extrapolated inaccurately from old data (by a doctor who also advises the Giuliani campaign on healthcare).

Accurate and current data, easily available from public health agencies and medical authorities, shows that the survival rate from prostate cancer in England is better than 74% and in the United States is better than 98%. Even that difference, as experts explained, probably has nothing to do with the British National Health Service and much to do with the aggressive screening programs employed in this country. (And for the moment, let's merely mention another highly pertinent issue, namely that the great majority of prostate cancers occur in men over 65, which indicates that many if not most are treated successfully under Medicare--our version of national health insurance for the elderly--or by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which comes as close to truly socialist healthcare as any system in the world.)

The Giuliani ad's problems go well beyond a pair of phony numbers. Among the blogging wonks scrutinizing the relevant health data is Ezra Klein, who asked a separate but penetrating question: "Wouldn't it be interesting to find out if the gold-standard care Giuliani got during his prostate cancer came while he was on government-provided health insurance?"

As Klein surmised, Giuliani was serving as mayor and participating in a city of New York health plan when his doctor informed him that his prostate biopsy had come up positive. The coverage he enjoyed--which resembles the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan--permits all city employees, from trash haulers and subway clerks up to the mayor himself, to select from a variety of insurance providers, and it is not much different from the reform proposals adopted by his nemesis Hillary Clinton. In the spring of 2000, when Giuliani learned that he had cancer and abruptly dropped out of the Senate race against Sen. Clinton, he was enrolled as a member of GHI, one of the two gigantic HMO groups that provide care for most city workers (the other is known as HIP). He underwent surgery and radiation at Mount Sinai Hospital, a prestigious institution that participates in the GHI plan, which means that his costs were largely underwritten by city taxpayers.

So does that qualify as "socialized medicine"?

At GHI and HIP, the city government pays the premiums for its hundreds of thousands of enrolled members, of course. On the board of directors of GHI, a nonprofit corporation, sit half a dozen officials from the city's largest unions, including Harry Nespoli, president of the Sanitationmen's Association Local 831, and Roger Toussaint, president of the Transport Workers Union Local 100 (who led a tough, illegal strike against the subway system last year). Among the many state and federal regulations and programs that support the operations of these major insurers is a New York state "risk allocation pool" that cushions the financial impacts of certain kinds of mandated coverage. If that isn't socialism, it hardly sounds like pure private enterprise, either. While that may startle a boob who accepted the premise of Giuliani's silly commercial, it is hardly surprising to anyone familiar with the pedigree of GHI and HIP, which were among the earliest examples of prepaid healthcare in the United States. Both were originally cooperative enterprises, founded by idealistic progressives whose hope was to make care more affordable for working-class families. (And their earliest supporters notably included Fiorello LaGuardia, a liberal Republican mayor of New York who happened to be of Italian descent.)

Naturally such hopeful initiatives outraged the reactionary ideologues and political mountebanks of that era. Back in 1937, the appearance of Washington's first group health plan for federal employees was denounced in Time magazine as a "blood-curdling new excursion into the practice of medicine" by the government, which surely meant the end of professionalism, declining standards, ruinous expenses and nothing less than the advent of "Soviet medicine."

We've heard it all before, Rudy. And 70 years later, it isn't exactly fresh.
 
Poll Finds Americans Pessimistic, Want Change
War, Economy, Politics Sour Views of Nation's Direction

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 4, 2007; A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.

The overall landscape tilts in the direction of the Democrats, but there is evidence in the new poll -- matched in conversations with political strategists in both parties and follow-up interviews with survey participants -- that the coming battle for the White House is shaping up to be another hard-fought, highly negative and closely decided contest.

At this point, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, holds the edge in hypothetical match-ups with four of the top contenders for the Republican nomination. But against the two best-known GOP candidates, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), her margins are far from comfortable. Not one of the leading candidates in either party has a favorable rating above 51 percent in the new poll.

And while Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability -- in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her -- she also outpaces any other candidate on strong unfavorables. More than a third, 35 percent, have strongly negative views of her, more than 10 points higher than any other contender.

Overall, the public's sour mood is evident not only in the desire for a change in direction but also in assessments of those who control the reins of power in Washington. For the fourth consecutive month, Bush's approval rating remains at a career low. Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove. Majorities have disapproved of Bush's job performance for more than 2 1/2 years.

In follow-up interviews, people were quick to find fault with what they see in Washington and to express their desire for something different. "I think Bush has been extremely polarizing to the country," said Amber Welsh, a full-time mother of three young children who lives in Davis, Calif. "While I think it started before Bush, I think Bush has pushed it even further. I think the next president needs to be one who brings us together as a country."

Democrats can take little comfort in Bush's numbers, however. A year after voters turned Republicans out of power in the House and the Senate, approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress's performance is lower than the president's rating, registering just 28 percent. That is the lowest since November 1995, when Republicans controlled Congress and the capital was paralyzed in a budgetary fight that shut down the government.

Congressional Democrats now fare just slightly better. Only 36 percent of those surveyed approve of the way they are handling their jobs, down sharply from April when, 100 days into the new Congress, 54 percent said they approved.

Whatever their dissatisfaction with the Democrats, however, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they want the party to emerge from the 2008 election in control of Congress; 40 percent would prefer the GOP to retake power. One reason is that 32 percent approve of congressional Republicans, and in a series of other measures it becomes clear that the eventual Republican nominee for president may be burdened by a tarnished party label in the general election.

Thirty-nine percent of Americans said they now have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, lower than at any point since December 1998, when Republicans were in the midst of impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Among the GOP rank and file, Republican favorability has fallen 15 percentage points since March 2006 (from 93 percent to 78 percent). It has dropped 19 points among independents, whose support for Democratic candidates in last year's midterm elections contributed significantly to GOP losses in the House and the Senate.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed said they want to keep going "in the direction Bush has been taking us," and the appetite for change is as high as it was in the summer of 1992, in the lead-up to Bill Clinton's defeat of President George H.W. Bush. It is significantly higher than it was in the summer of 2000 or the fall of 1988.

"We're in a terrible mess," said Jay Davis, who works on computers for an insurance company and lives in Portland, Maine. "The war is an incredible mistake, and it becomes more and more obvious. The economy is just being propped up with toothpicks."

Jo Wright, a retired Episcopal priest from Vinita, Okla., said, "It just seems that after these eight years most people think there's got to be a change, and I'm with them."

Greg Coy, a 911 dispatcher who lives in Shippensburg, Pa., is less pessimistic about the overall state of the country than Davis or Wright, but he is unhappy with both the president and Congress. He voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but he said: "If he came up again [for reelection], I wouldn't vote for him. The last year I think he's dropped something, and I'm not sure what it is."

Coy also offered a broader indictment of a political system he sees as gridlocked by partisanship. "Here's the problem with this country," he said. "Just because it's a Republican idea, Democrats don't like it, and because it's a Democratic idea, Republicans don't like it. The Congress should go with what works for this country. We have gotten away from that."

Justin Munro, a contractor from Reading, Pa., offered a less widely held view of Bush's policies and the direction of the country. "I'm pretty confident that time will prove that maybe going into Iraq was the right thing to do," he said. He also believes that Bush has not gotten enough credit on the economy: "I think we'll look back on that, too, and see that the tax cuts were the right thing to do."

At this stage, three issues dominate the electoral landscape, with the war in Iraq at the top of the list. Nearly half of all adults, 45 percent, cited Iraq as the most or second-most important issue in their choice for president. About three in 10 cited the economy and jobs (29 percent) or health care (27 percent). All other issues are in the single digits.

Iraq is tops across party lines, but Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to highlight health care as one of the two most important issues for 2008 (34 percent to 16 percent). Health-care concerns peak among African Americans: Twenty percent called it the election's most important issue, and 38 percent said it is one of the top two.

While 12 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents cited immigration as one of the top two issues, it was highlighted by 3 percent of Democrats. Terrorism is also a more prominent concern among Republicans; 17 percent put it in their top two, while 3 percent of Democrats did the same.

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

There are other signs suggesting that the political landscape has become less favorable to Republicans than it was at the beginning of Bush's presidency. By 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans said they favor smaller government with fewer services over bigger government with more services -- long a key Republican argument. But support for smaller government is significantly lower than it was before both the 2000 and 2002 elections.

In the new poll, support for allowing same-sex civil unions is up significantly from 2004. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, now support giving homosexual couples some of the legal rights of married heterosexuals.

There is a more even divide on another hot-button issue: Fifty-one percent would support a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements; 44 percent would oppose that.

Strategists in both parties agree on the overall shape of the political landscape a year from the 2008 election, but they differ as to how voters will ultimately register their desire for change.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said an electorate that took out its anger on Republicans a year ago remains mad, with the hostility still focused on the president's party.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said, "It is a political environment pretty heavily tilted toward the Democrats." One hope, he added, is that an early end to the GOP nominating battle will allow the winner time "to put the current administration in the rearview mirror, placing the focus on the nominee's candidacy and agenda."

Still, strategists on both sides foresee another close election. "The biggest dynamic is that people want change from the policies of the Bush administration," said Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist. But he added that "it's not a clear path" to victory for the Democrats, noting that no Democratic nominee has won 50 percent of the general-election vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Stuart Stevens, a media adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said no Republican candidate will argue next year that the country is in great shape, but he discounted the effectiveness of running against Bush in the fall of 2008. "A year from now, it's not going to be a referendum on President Bush, it's going to be a choice between two candidates," he said.

Much will happen in the coming months that could reshape the political climate. But at this point, in a matchup of current front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani are tightly paired: 50 percent of respondents would support Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. Against McCain, Clinton has a clearer edge, 52 percent to 43 percent. She has even larger advantages over former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (16 points) and Romney (18 points), both of whom remain undefined in the eyes of many voters.

In each of these potential contests, Clinton has a big edge among women. In a head-to-head with Giuliani, 56 percent of women would back Clinton, and 40 percent would vote for Giuliani. By contrast, men would tilt toward Giuliani 51 percent to 44 percent.

Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 among a random sample of 1,131 adults, and includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
 
What kind of interview was that? Can we see it? Oy vey. I admit I wish I saw it, they have some video. Gotta love a guy who talks about his wife in such a way.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3444170n

This morning, Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth, appeared on the CBS "Early Show." And the Ohio Representative seemed none too happy when anchor Hannah Storm brought up his wife's age, beauty, and jewelry. Here's a portion of the transcript:

Hannah Storm: You have a core group of supporters for your political views, but a lot of people [are] talking about your wife and the fact that she's over three decades younger and she statuesque and beautiful and has a pierced tongue. What do you make of the attention on her?

Dennis Kucinich: Well, the most important thing I would tell you, Hannah, as a professional, is it's important not to trivialize a woman who has worked on international humanitarian matters, you know, helping people in Africa get access to energy and to housing and education, helping poor people and children in India, working with a group connected with Mother Teresa, working with the Mission To Seafarers in London. Here's a woman of great accomplishment with a Master's degree in international conflict resolution, and I hope that you're going to talk about more than a tongue stud.

After Storm asked Elizabeth Kucinich what she would bring to the White House, the "Early Show" anchor returned to the topic.

Hannah Storm: I know that your husband doesn't want to focus on your tongue ring, but you do have one, correct?

Elizabeth Kucinich: I do.

Hannah Storm: And would you remove it if you became first lady or leave it in?

Elizabeth Kucinich: It's part of me now. It's been there ten years, so --

Hannah Storm: Can we see it?

Elizabeth Kucinich: No, you can't. Sorry.

Dennis Kucinich: That's my privilege.


Check out the video for the full effect. It's not quite as tense as it seems when you read it – during that last exchange, it's worth noting, all three are laughing.

Still, things stayed interesting until the end. After Elizabeth Kucinich pointed out that Dennis is "polling fourth now" and Dennis added, "when I get to third place, everything changes," Storm responded: "When you get to third place, or you meet with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, we'll have you back."

To which Dennis Kucinich responded, one finger in the air: "You know, remember you said that."
 
One year from today, Rudy Giuliani will be the President-elect of the United States.

Just thought I'd share.
 
2861U2 said:
One year from today, Rudy Giuliani will be the President-elect of the United States.

Just thought I'd share.

if this is the road he takes to get the nomination and win the election

would it matter, to you?


Strategists for Rudy Giuliani are quietly preparing a significantly race-based campaign strategy to strengthen support among socially conservative white voters, in the South as well as in the North. […]

The themes the campaign are lining up for renewed emphasis are those reflecting Giuliani’s confrontational stance towards black New Yorkers and their white liberal allies, as well as his record of siding decisively with the police against minorities who launched protests alleging police brutality during the years he was mayor from 1994-2001.

Giuliani’s eight years as New York’s chief executive exemplified a Northern adaptation of the GOP’s politically successful “Southern strategy” - the strategy playing on white resistance to and resentment of federal legislation passed in the 1960s mandating desegregation - resistance that produced a realignment in the South and fractured the Democratic loyalties of white working class voters in the urban North from 1968 to 2004.
 
2861U2 said:
One year from today, Rudy Giuliani will be the President-elect of the United States.

Just thought I'd share.

I sincerely hope you are wrong about that. Count me among the Americans from that article who want a change, and now. I do agree that the Democrats are really going to have to step up their game and prove that they will be better for this country than the Republicans. They can't cave into the Republicans' demands and jabs and stuff, they need to stick up for themselves and fight it out to the end. Once they do that, I think that'll help greatly. I just know that I'm sick to death of the Republican party the way it is now. I don't want another 4 to 8 years of someone who follows in the footsteps of Bush. I really, really don't.

As for the interview with Kucinich and his wife, I'm with unico-come on, the interviewer seriously chose to talk about his wife's tongue ring? Who cares, really? I dunno if you're aware of this, "Early Show", but there's this thing called a presidential race going on, and Kucinich is part of that and stuff, so shut up about the tongue ring and discuss the more important issues at hand. Sheesh.

Angela
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul raised $3.8 million today. That's pretty damn impressive.

EDIT: AP is reporting more than $4.2 million.
 
Last edited:
Well that's, um, interesting

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — Two prominent supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign in South Carolina called state Democratic Party officials urging them to oppose putting comedian Stephen Colbert's name on the primary ballot, according to party officials and Obama supporters with knowledge of the calls.

Colbert, the host of Comedy Central's "Colbert Report," saw his hopes to be placed on the primary ballot ended last week when the South Carolina Democratic Party executive council voted 13-3 to block his bid, with the majority of voters saying he was not a viable enough candidate to be included in the primary.

At least one member of the executive council, who requested anonymity, told CNN he felt "pressured" by former State Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum to oppose Colbert from being placed on the ballot.

Tenenbaum is a high-profile supporter of Obama. Her endorsement of Obama in April was touted by the campaign, and she has appeared at several Obama campaign events, including the opening of one of their campaign headquarters this summer. Obama campaigned for Tenenbaum in South Carolina when she ran for Senate in 2004.

"She said it wouldn't be fair to the other candidates. That he [Colbert] wouldn't be sincere. That he was only running in one state," said the executive council official.

The official added: "The Obama people, they just didn't want him at all."

Tenenbaum disagreed with the characterization that she lobbied to keep Colbert off the ballot for political reasons.

"I think lobbying was too strong a word," she said in an interview with CNN. "I called them to see what they were thinking, and if they had made up their mind. I am a volunteer in that campaign, and so I am not a staffer. And I thought it could have taken votes away from a lot of people."

Another Obama endorser who regularly appears at campaign events, state Rep. Bakari Sellers, also made phone calls to members of the party's executive council about Colbert, according to Sellers.

"I placed the calls as a concerned Democrat, realizing that we are a country in despair," Sellers told CNN. "It is not a time for games or to make a mockery of the process."

Given the lopsided vote of the executive council against Colbert, it's unclear if the calls had significant bearing on Colbert's fate as a bona fide presidential candidate.

But the calls raise questions about the Obama supporters' motives, given their close ties to the campaign and the fact that Colbert and Obama both draw support from a similar demographic.

"A lot of Obama's support is among younger, college-educated folks, and a lot of Colbert's watchers are younger, college-educated folks," said Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at Winthrop University.

"I understand that Obama might potentially lose some voters," said Huffmon, who also noted that having Colbert on the ballot would likely bring in new primary voters rather than take them from other candidates. "But in a race where every vote counts it's a valid concern."

The Obama campaign denied any connection to the phone calls.

"Democrats in South Carolina, including supporters of ours, had strong feelings on both sides of the ballot issue and ultimately it was South Carolina Democrats who made this decision," said Obama's South Carolina communications director Kevin Griffis.

According to members of the executive council, Tenenbaum also called council member Jim Lander, the former South Carolina Comptroller General, as well as another member of the executive council who refused to be identified but said he was confident Tenenbaum was not calling on behalf of Obama's campaign.

The party officials called by Sellers did not return calls from CNN.

Tenenbaum said her quarrel with having Colbert's name on the ballot was pragmatic rather than political. In deciding which candidates to allow in the primary, the state Democratic Party also had to consider that for every name on the ballot, they would have to pay $20,000 to the state election commission.

"The whole thing is just the money," said Tenenbaum, who said she is currently fundraising for the party. "He did not meet the criteria … It's all in fun and let's just leave it at that."

According to state party rules, for a candidate to be placed on the ballot, he or she must demonstrate national viability as well as spend time campaigning in the state.

The three members of the executive council who voted in favor of putting Colbert on the ballot were state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg; Charles Hamby, former chairman of the Oconee County Democratic Party; and Lumus Byrd of Laurens County.

The Columbia-based lawyer who represented Colbert in his bid to be placed on the ballot, Dwight Drake, is a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Drake has told CNN in the past he was initially contacted directly by Colbert's surrogates to assist in the comedian’s bid.

As for Colbert, he issued a statement late Monday declaring that his campaign is officially over.

"I am shocked and saddened by the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council's 13-to-3 vote to keep me off their presidential primary ballot," Colbert said. "Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history–only ten votes–I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle. It is time for this nation to heal.

"I want say to my supporters, this is not over. While I may accept the decision of the Council, the fight goes on! The dream endures! … And I am going off the air until I can talk about this without weeping."
 
Washington Post

For Hillary Clinton, Surprising Celebrity Ties

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Friday, November 2, 2007

Startling new information suggests a secret connection between Hillary Rodham Clinton and our era's most controversial, charismatic and polarizing women:

Madonna, Angelina Jolie and Camilla Parker-Bowles -- they're all her cousins.

Not that they've hung out at many reunions together. HRC and Madge are 10th cousins, who share the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, according to research by Washington genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner. The Democratic front-runner is ninth cousin once removed to Prince Charles's wife, while Jolie is her ninth cousin twice removed.

Reitwiesner is the Library of Congress employee whose research formed the basis for our blockbuster story on how Fred Thompson and Elvis Presley are eighth cousins once removed (explains a lot) and made headlines with the discovery that Barack Obama is descended from slave owners. He declined to comment about the Hillary kin, but made his work available on his Web site ( http://www.wargs.com).

Clinton's connection to all three women comes via 17th century French ancestors who made their way to Quebec before drifting south. Speaking of Canadians: Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette -- Clinton's tenth cousins once removed. Though when you go back that far, we probably all are.
 
Michael H on the rise:

Huckabee: Jesus Still Important

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 12:57 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size



Speaking at a Dallas-area church, Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee eschewed campaign rhetoric and instead spoke about Jesus, his religious convictions, and a United States that is “the result of divine intervention.”

Addressing the congregation of the 28,000-member Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Tex., on Sunday, Huckabee — an ordained Southern Baptist minister — said his faith does not guarantee him political success or wealth, but it gives him confidence in the outcome of his life, the Dallas Morning News reported.

“If you lose everything but you still have Jesus, you have what you need,” Huckabee said. “If you’re with Jesus Christ, we know how it turns out in the final moment. I’ve read the last chapter in the book, and we do end up winning.”

Huckabee urged the church to pray for America, which he believes was not the result of “human wisdom” but instead was “the result of divine intervention.”

At a press conference in Plano, the candidate said: “There is not a disconnect between strong faith and good government. In fact, I’d like to believe there is a wonderful connection.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom