In the Death of God we Trust? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Printable View
In the Death of God we Trust? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Look more closely at Romney. It is hard to condemn his message and he has a powerful personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Wanna bet?~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I watched the videos. I don't see anything wrong with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Representative government! If I were running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, I would have promised the same things. Did Mitt ever do anything to change Massachusetts abortion laws? No. Does he believe in giving to the less fortunate? Yes. Did he want to return to Reagan era politics? Maybe, but not in Mass, where people wouldn't have readily accepted it.
This is U.S. politics. If you want unwavering beliefs and stubbornness, follow the elections of bishops.
Also, Roe v. Wade is a sham decision that takes away from the legislative process regarding abortion in this country. They found a constitutional right that exists nowhere. Many people believe that it is murder and most believe that it should be more strongly regulated at the very least. Until we overturn that decision, 5 judges in 1973 will have decided that they knew better than the American state or federal legislative processes. You can be "pro-abortion" and want to overturn roe, as it simply puts the rights back into the hands of the various states OR the federal legislative process.
But thanks for the links. Just visual confirmation of what I believe we had all heard. I thought I was going to have a ball dropped on me.
Tuff is right in this regard. Mass is a unique state, I know I live here. Yes its liberal and there are also socialist leanings here. To Mitt's credit he had a fairly successful govenorship in the sense he did sell some of his ideas to the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The legislature here is overwhelmingly democrat he had one hand tied behind his back going in. That kind of expirence might be useful considering where the conservatives stack up in 08. How many senators are retiring?
Mitt's the only guy in the republican field who has dealt with and worked with a hostile majority in the legislature. He wouldnt be my first choice, because he is a CEO and a good one, but CEO's rarely succeed in a democratic situation.
TSM:
Nice post.
Odie:
Good point about the CEO thingee.
Exactly. One of the reasons that I originally picked Giuliani is that he doesn't go out of his way to appear annoyingly pious like some of the other candidates. Vote Nietzsche, the embodiment of der Amerikanische Übermensch :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
__________________
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tzsche187a.jpg
"I'm Friedrich Nietzsche and I approve of this post"
No, he didn't, but I believe a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that it would have encountered a lot of opposition, as you stated, so it would have been foolhardy to even try such a move in Mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I'm not saying that a candidate has to be unchangeable in their persona. I'm merely saying that he's a complete and utter hypocrite to go on a commercial saying "Republicans should act like Republicans, so vote Mitt." Also that I don't trust much of what he says, on account of the fact that he very well could just be saying it to try and get himself elected, as he seems to have done in Mass. So frankly, I'm not sure that I trust him on much of anything he says.Quote:
This is U.S. politics. If you want unwavering beliefs and stubbornness, follow the elections of bishops.
Now this I do very much agree on with you. As for many people believing its murder, well, there are a lot who say its a woman's right as well. A further complication of the matter(at least in my opinion) is that should we forbid abortion, the wealthy will still be able to fly to Mexico or Canada and have an abortion done there, completely legal. If we could convince Mexico and Canada to put laws forth banning abortion, and enforcing them, then I would have less of a problem.Quote:
Also, Roe v. Wade is a sham decision that takes away from the legislative process regarding abortion in this country. They found a constitutional right that exists nowhere. Many people believe that it is murder and most believe that it should be more strongly regulated at the very least. Until we overturn that decision, 5 judges in 1973 will have decided that they knew better than the American state or federal legislative processes. You can be "pro-abortion" and want to overturn roe, as it simply puts the rights back into the hands of the various states OR the federal legislative process.
Your welcome. It is quite apparent that I will be unable to convince you otherwise of Mitt Romney. BTW, I'm afraid I lack the intelligence or wisdom to "drop the ball" on anyone regarding the coming political election. I can voice my opinion, but unlike others, I'm afraid that I generally lack the supreme political insight to figure it all out before everyone else. Perhaps maybe because this will be my first time caucusing/voting? Ah well.Quote:
But thanks for the links. Just visual confirmation of what I believe we had all heard. I thought I was going to have a ball dropped on me.
Disclaimer: I also have a beef against Romney because I get the eery feeling that if he gets elected, I'm gonna end up being drafted.(be it a logical fear or not)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
A pro-life stance is not the litmus test required to call yourself a republican. I don't believe it should be the litmus test in either party. In the democratic party, a pro-life stance has traditionally barred you from higher office or speech giving (I have seen this change as of late - Murtha, Reid, Casey, etc.)
I believe in overturning Roe v Wade. This will not affect current laws in a number of states (HI, NY, CA, MA...), but other states will have the opportunity to draft legislation that accurately describes the will of citizens with regards to the issue. I don't see how this could be a bad thing - I am content on eliminating as many of what I believe I accurately describe as infanticides as possible. I will, as a New Yorker, continue to lobby against abortion in my State, but in a representative republic, that is all I will be able to do as far as I can see.
Anyway, regarding what makes a Republican - I think it favors businesses, the private sector and self-reliance (individuals and States). This (tends to) include fewer taxes, fewer government bureaucracies and a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. All of those stances have been in question at one point or another within the party, but I believe that they generally apply. (all of that is arguable - again, I'm speaking in generalities.)
Anyway, the pro-life argument was picked up by the GOP because NARAL and Planned Parenthood have pretty much bought up the democratic party under the guise of "womens rights" and "choice". This is a shame - I'd love to have some options in an election.
BTW - You're a smart guy, you have the insight.
Well, what you just described as 'republicans' is certainly what the idea of republicans is supposed to be. Hasn't really been that for the last oh, 8 years at least. Anyways, one more commercial of Romney's that just sickens me.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nOPp9K1JUCs&feature=related
Increasing the military by AT LEAST 100,000? Either he's nuts, or he's just lying his arse off to try and get approval from the republicans with more, shall we say, militant meanings. Also, are Republicans supposed to downsize the miiltary as a part of downsizing government as a whole? Or is the military considered a different entity in itself?
Also, the 'monitoring Al Qaeda calls into America' bit concerns me a bit. Sure, it sounds nice that Al Qaeda won't be calling us. But what about just every day, average joes who're calling their family from a different country and are being monitored by the government just because their last name is "Ali"? Not to mention that by doing so, we're monitoring our own citizens, which I believe to be a violation of of our rights. If we're to base our assumptions of him based on what we hear, which isn't even itself neccessarily true, then Romney will only end up feuling the Islamophobia in our country even more. That is rather counter-productive towards any efforts in establishing good relations with the non-American Islamic community, in addition to giving radicals more ammo with which to recruit followers to said organizations. Also, he seems to be following in GWB's footpaths regarding ignoring the inherent hypocrisy in buying oil from the Saudi Monarchy, which has some of the strictest and most unjust interpretations of law in the world, as well as supporting a military dictator in Pakistan, while condemning Iran and others for what are similar offenses. He might have some agreeable economic policies; however, I cannot support his foreign policy, or the invasion of rights, if he actually does what he says(which as I said, isn't a safe bet). And as for if he does do the opposite of what he says? Well then we can safely know that he's a lying hypocrite who does whatever he can to gain power, not a trait I like having in a Presidency which already is overstepping its bounds of power.
I hope this is accurate. I have my fingers crossed.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...PAGE/712140350
Obama edges Clinton in poll
Romney well ahead in 'Monitor' survey
By SARAH LIEBOWITZ
Monitor staff
December 14. 2007 12:41AM
Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire into a toss-up, according to a new Monitor opinion poll. The results - which show Obama with a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton - mirror other polls released this week, indicating that Clinton's once-imposing lead has evaporated in the run-up to New Hampshire's Jan. 8 primary.
The poll suggests that the Democratic race could hinge on the turnout of undeclared voters, who aren't registered with either political party. Much of Obama's backing comes from undeclared voters, while registered Democrats make up the bulk of Clinton's support. In New Hampshire, undeclared voters can vote in either party primary, giving them sway in both contests.
"The more undeclared voters that decide to vote in the Democratic primary, the better chance Obama wins," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000, the Maryland-based nonpartisan polling firm that conducted the poll for the Monitor on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. "What Hillary Clinton has to hope is that more of the established Democrats come out to vote."
If the Democratic race is in flux, the Republican race in New Hampshire has remained constant in recent months, with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney continuing to hold a double-digit lead over his nearest competitors.
According to the poll, Romney would win 31 percent of the vote if the Republican primary were held today. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, would earn 18 percent and 17 percent respectively. Although Mike Huckabee is leading some Iowa polls, his campaign hasn't surged in New Hampshire: 9 percent of voters back the former Arkansas governor.
The figures were similar in July, when a Monitor poll showed that 27 percent of those surveyed backed Romney, 20 percent picked Giuliani and 16 percent chose McCain.
Informal interviews with voters yesterday in Concord turned up several leaning toward Obama. Those voters described Obama in much the same way the Illinois senator describes himself: as an agent of change, a new face in Washington.
Charles Shipman, who is registered as undeclared, said that he would support Clinton should she win the Democratic nomination. But Obama "offers sort of a fresh start, more of a clean slate, less baggage," said Shipman of Manchester.
Of the likely Democratic primary voters surveyed for the Monitor poll, 37 percent aren't registered with a political party. When it came to those undeclared voters, Obama trounced his opponents: 40 percent of undeclared voters likely to vote in the Democratic primary backed Obama, compared with 23 percent for Clinton and 13 percent for former North Carolina senator John Edwards.
Clinton, in contrast, won the support of more registered Democrats: 36 percent said they'd vote for Clinton, compared with 27 percent for Obama and 21 percent for Edwards.
For Rhonda Ashley of Contoocook, Obama will be the first Democrat she's supported in a recent presidential election. In 2000, she backed McCain in the state's primary; in 2004, she voted Republican. Obama "has an enthusiasm that I don't see in any of the other candidates," Ashley said. As for Clinton, "I feel like Hillary will go wherever the polls tell her to go."
Apart from undeclared voters, Obama now draws considerable support from women. Of the female, likely Democratic voters surveyed, 34 percent say they'd choose Obama, compared with 32 percent for Clinton. Female voters have widely been considered a key demographic for Clinton, the former first lady and U.S. senator from New York.
"That's where the biggest gains have been made for Obama," Ali said. "That gender gap - right now, he's removed it."
But if some voters have settled on a candidate, others voiced indecision.
Rich Eichhorn of Hopkinton has yet to decide which primary to vote in. "I can go either way; it's less about left or right," said Eichhorn, who voted for McCain in 2000. "We need somebody who can lead people."
And Marilyn Wyzga, a registered Democrat from Hillsboro, is considering voting for Edwards or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. She likes Edwards's "honest and direct approach," but she is also drawn to Richardson's "experience."
Obama, Clinton and Edwards were the only Democratic candidates to win double-digit support in the poll - 32 percent of likely Democratic primary voters surveyed backed Obama, 31 percent chose Clinton, and 18 percent went with Edwards. Richardson followed with 8 percent support. Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd all placed in the low single digits.
The results of the Monitor poll were similar to those of a University of New Hampshire poll released earlier this week. That survey showed Clinton leading Obama by just one percentage point, well within the margin of error.
In the Monitor's July poll, 33 percent of likely Democratic voters surveyed chose Clinton, while 25 percent picked Obama. Edwards won 15 percent of the vote in that poll, while Richardson took 7 percent.
On the Republican side, several voters said that they're continuing to assess the candidates.
Gary Nylen of Bow backed McCain in 2000. Now, he said, "I don't know whether I'll vote for him, Giuliani, Romney or Huckabee." Nylen, who considers immigration and national security the most important issues, cited aspects of each candidate that he found appealing, including Giuliani's leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Nylen is frustrated by political promises that he said were unlikely to come to fruition. "Don't give us rhetoric," Nylen said. "Give us facts.
"I can't make a decision right now, because I don't feel comfortable," he said.
On the Republican side, 13 percent of voters surveyed said they remained undecided about whom to vote for, compared with 5 percent among the likely Democratic voters.
Bill Anderson, who is registered as undeclared, would happily take characteristics of several Republican candidates and roll them into one politician: Huckabee's social conservatism, McCain's emphasis on national security, Romney's managerial abilities.
But without that option, "I'll take any one of them over the inexperienced guy and the person I don't trust," said Anderson, of Weare, referring to Obama and Clinton. Giuliani's stance on abortion - the former mayor has supported abortion rights - led Anderson to rule him out.
It's unclear how many undeclared voters plan to participate in the Republican primary. Of the likely Republican voters surveyed, 19 percent are undeclared. In 2000, support from undeclared voters helped McCain widen his lead over George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.
Research 2000 used randomly generated telephone numbers to interview 600 likely voters. Those interviewed - 186 Democrats (31 percent), 180 Republicans (30 percent) and 234 voters who identified themselves as independents (39 percent) - reflect voter registration numbers. The interviews included 288 men and 312 women. The poll has a four percentage point margin of error, although that figure is higher for subgroups within the poll.
Looking ahead to the general election, the three highest-polling Democrats beat each of the highest-polling Republicans.
In those head-to-head match-ups, Obama fared best among the Democrats, beating Romney, Giuliani and McCain by the largest margins. Although Edwards also wins those match-ups, several of those contests are a statistical dead heat. Clinton lies between Obama and Edwards, leading each of the three Republicans by at least six percentage points.
Of the Republicans, Romney looks to face the toughest general election battles, according to the poll. Obama leads Romney by 12 points, with Clinton and Edwards besting Romney by eight points and five points respectively. For Giuliani and McCain, the margins are smaller.
"I think it's tough for a Republican in New Hampshire," Ali said. "It's the Democrats' state to lose."
------ End of article
By SARAH LIEBOWITZ
Monitor staff
This article is: 0 days old.
I would like to know why McCain isn't getting more press coverage. I mean, the dude is placing third in a lot of polls, tied with Giuliani in Iowa, and yet it's as if he doesn't exist. Why is he getting such a cold shoulder from the media? What do they know that I don't?
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
It would seem that Iowa and New Hampshire will thin out the second tier, but that likely results (could change, 3-4 weeks is an eternity in nomination politics) show a split between Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani while the Dems will be Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Leaves South Carolina with a lot of looming importance.
South Carolina -- the state that gave us Firm Thurm, Fort Sumter, Secession and John C. Calhoun.
Interesting indeed.
SC is also the watershed for Thompson and Edwards. If Edwards doesn't have 2 2nd places or 1 first after SC, he'd done. If Thompson doesn't appear near the head of the list there, so is he.
Good to know that we'll have a nominee by mid-February. We need to get plenty of mud ready for a long summer.
They know that Mcain died way back in 2005, at the age of 93. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
He's good, McCain, but his moment has passed. He should've been the candidate in 2000.
They've decided that he's a Veep waiting to happen -- but no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
McCain doesn't look as young as he did -- so he doesn't film as well. This matters on TV -- they want people to watch. McCain even wears sweaters under a sport jacket sometimes....:shame:
Visual image is all to the one-eyed god, but one eye has trouble with depth perception.
McCain doesn't attack the sacred cows of the Reaganite wing or the Evangelicals as he did before -- which made good copy (and fit with many of their unexpressed personal peeves).
McCain just doesn't "do it" for them, so without an outright winin one of the first three, he's on the media's second tier [as in to be ushered out].
Huckabee is winning pretty much every single poll I've seen for SC right now. He needs to just hurry up and go away. Outside of his social conservatism, he'd make a better Democrat than a Republican- I can't believe his 'Mister Niceguy' image has carried him so far. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Don't get me wrong, I think Huckabee is a nice guy, but that in itself is no reason for him to be president.
Absolutely. I would rather have Giuliani than Huckabee in office any day. Fortunately, Giuliani's good economic sense and Huckabee's social sense are preserved in the eminently electable bridge builder - Mitt, so hopefully I won't have to make that choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Well, if the polls are anything at all to consider, it's looking like Huckbama in Iowa.
Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee hold 9-point leads in Iowa with less than three weeks to go before the Jan. 3 caucuses, according to a new poll conducted for Lee Enterprises newspapers. [...]
The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.
Meanwhile, Hillary seems to be flailing:
After forcing Billy Shaheen out of her campaign, Hillary has now pivoted to a "no surprises" argument which at least seems to spring directly from the Obama-cocaine talk--and is certain to keep that talk alive. This also represents an important new campaign theme for Hillary. For most of the past year her candidacy has been premised on her experience. Now she's making electability a central issue.
Intuitively, such a pivot might seem dangerous, given that Hillary's divisiveness has always troubled Democrats. But this week's New York Times-CBS poll found that 63 percent of Democratic voters consider her the most electable candidate--a fact the campaign flagged in a recent conference call. Maybe Team Hillary now sees electability as their path back towards the nomination. Unfortunately for Obama, it could be an ugly one.
I'm writing in "Gah".
I don't like any of them. I hope none of them become our next president. But, due to the two party lock on this system, one of them probably will.
Lets see, I get to choose from a group of pro-capitalists and a group of pro-capitalists.
The more to the left I have moved politically, the more similar the two parties seem.
I'm tired of being forced to choose between party 1.A and party 1.B :no:
May I inquire what you want then? Communism? ~;)
A left-wing utopia would be slightly more in line with what I want. And to keep it "on-topic", I am not confident that any of the candidates in either party could deliver a left-wing utopia. I remain hopeful that someone will though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
^_^
Keep dreaming. That's one think I'm glad that's one think the candidates agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
John McCain picked up a few endorsements recently. Don't know if it will make any difference at all, but it's nice to see others clueing in to why he would make a good President.
This morning he was endorsed by his favorite former Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which comes on the heels of back to back-to-back endorsements from 3 newspapers over the weekend: The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and The Portsmouth Herald.
If the Des Moines Register is supporting him, that's not neccesarily a positive thing. Nearly everyone who reads it knows the newspaper's a piece of junk more often than not, but they don't have any competition anymore, so we're kinda stuck with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
How dare Democrats support Obama? He's not angry or partisan enough!
On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.
On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these things through a kind of outbreak of good feeling...
Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
This is a bad thing?
Intellectually, no -- of course not. In terms of being in step with one's party -- perhaps. This is the albatross that has kept the Dems from beating a GOP nominee who was anything but a sure thing in either the 2k or '04elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The democrat fringe is proportionately larger than the republican cadre of whack jobs and, to those annointed purists, any Dem who is not ready to push hard NOW for an eco-socialist future is part of the problem. They make Hannity seem "nuanced" by comparison....:dizzy:
Seamus, I'd be interested to see if anyone has made a serious attempt to quantify the kook fringe of either party. That would be an interesting exercise.
Ye gods, there's even better stuff further down in the interview. Krugman really hates the idea of anybody thinking about compromise or bipartisanship. How dare they!
When Obama used the word "crisis" about Social Security it gave me a little bit of a sense of, "Hmmm -- I'm a little worried that my initial concerns were more right than I knew."
To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn't been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush's Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun.
A Democrat talk about dealing with entitlements? Egads! Gadzooks! Martha, quickly, dial 911!
(Footnote: I kinda suspect that the only President who can make headway on entitlements will be a Dem. In much the same way that only confirmed cold warrior Nixon could go to China, ya know? Or in the way that only a liberal heartthrob like Bill Clinton could make meaningful changes to Welfare ...)
I'm probably gonna open another thread right before the election to see how opinions in the org have changed. What do you think? Redundant?
Now THAT, my proto-simian compadre, is an interesting take. My conservative-oriented self has always defaulted to the idea that it would take a Reaganesque leader who established the roll-back of entitlements as his mission in the same dedicated fashion that Reagan set out to end the Cold War. My thoughts on Nixon and China are mixed, but I've always had a deep respect for Nixon's intellect, so your analogy touches a chord. Maybe you can develop it some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Meanwhile, it's beginnig to look more and more like a crap-shoot for the big 3 or 4 of both parties. Hard to say who'll emerge on top when IA, NH, & SC are on the books -- for either side! We're in for a horse race, at least at the outset.