Next US President!

[Gen. Sandworm]

I know alot of you are not Americans but if you were who would you vote for???????

[natacha]

Obama likes Sarkozy.
And Sarkozy is a disaster. (38% of positive opinion)
Then Obama is worrying.

Clinton may be fine.

[overlord644]

i am neither sexist nor racist, but i honestly do believe that if Obama is elected president he will be assassinated , and seeing how most of US foreign policy is centered around the middle east (where Muslim customs prevail over all) i cant imagine a female president working out too well either

[32Bravo]

I don't think we non-Americans understand the nuances of American politics well enough to offer you a genuine response.

It's time for change in America, but Obama and Clinton both seem rather gimmicky.

Hukabee, I have absolutley no knowledge of other than, I assume, he is Republian. Therefore, I think, on balance I would have to go for McCain - even though I am contradicting myself regarding change - he seems to me to be rather moderate, if not liberal.

[the_librarian]

What I want to know is where is a character like TR when you need it? That would make a great president.

So here's the question-->what has changed, I honestly don't think TR could get elected today, given the climate?

Maybe I'm wrong....but that's what I think...........

[32Bravo]

It's a different age, my friend. He was a child of his times.

[Firefly]

I dunno. I watch the news from time to time and all I see is the usual round of sniping by all sides. Dragging up insignificant details from their pasts as if no one has ever done anything wrong as a President or candidate before.

I sure as heck know one thing about becoming a President, whoever you are it takes a huge amount of cash. This cash doesnt come without a price and so to a great extent wheover becomes President owes a lot to whoever funded their campaign. This in itself leaves everything open to corruption, kickbacks and political agendas towards any backers.

SO whoever gets elected after this long and often tedious process that you US citizens seem to insist on having end up owing something to someone.

Just my view.....

[Moreheaddriller]

Now i like john mcain but unfortunetly barack seems to be the choice but god i hope hillary fails

[gumalangi]

i dont know much abt all 4 of them, but, afro american become a US number 1,. must be something.

[natacha]

if Obama is elected president he will be assassinated

He knows that he has a chance to be killed and he chooses to continue. It's his own problem, not ours.

i am neither sexist nor racist (..) seeing how most of US foreign policy is centered around the middle east (where Muslim customs prevail over all) i cant imagine a female president working out too well either

Translation: "I'm not sexist but because some other country are sexist, US shall be sexist also." You are sexist !

[George Eller]

-

What was the name of the lady that lost against Sarkozy in the French elections?

-

[natacha]

Segolène Royal

[George Eller]

Segolène Royal
-

Didn't the majority of French female voters support Sarkozy instead of Segolène Royal even though Royal was a woman?

-

[32Bravo]

He knows that he has a chance to be killed and he chooses to continue. It's his own problem, not ours.


What do you mean by 'ours'?

Are you being sexist?


Translation: "I'm not sexist but because some other country are sexist, US shall be sexist also." You are sexist !


Your response is sexist!

Margaret Thatcher was female - who could imagine having sex with her?...well, Denis, I guess, bless him.

[natacha]

Yes because French woman are more religious and conservative, then they vote for right-wing.
I was making fun of overlord644 because i don't think that because some country are sexist, US shall be sexist. I think on the contrary, if a woman prove that she is able to manage a huge country, after that it can be more easy for all the woman in the world to get power.
Same thing, with Obama and black people but there are more woman in the world than black people (because there are black woman!). Then permit to woman to be powerful is more an emergency.

[32Bravo]

Yes because French woman are more religious and conservative, then they vote for right-wing.
I was making fun of overlord644 because i don't think that because some country are sexist, US shall be sexist. I think on the contrary, if a woman prove that she is able to manage a huge country, after that it can be more easy for all the woman in the world to get power.
Same thing, with Obama and black people but there are more woman in the world than black people (because there are black woman!). Then permit to woman to be powerful is more an emergency.

MT didn't do women any favours in Britain - once bitten twice shy.

Yes there are those that admired her, but they are not voting for another.

[George Eller]

Yes because French woman are more religious and conservative, then they vote for right-wing.
I was making fun of overlord644 because i don't think that because some country are sexist, US shall be sexist. I think on the contrary, if a woman prove that she is able to manage a huge country, after that it can be more easy for all the woman in the world to get power.
Same thing, with Obama and black people but there are more woman in the world than black people (because there are black woman!). Then permit to woman to be powerful is more an emergency.
-

Well, in recent history, a few women come to mind that have risen to positions of power in their respective countries: Golda Meir (Israel), Margaret Thatcher (UK), Tansu Ciller (Turkey), and Angela Merkel (Germany). Just a few examples, there are probably more.

:)

-

[overlord644]

You are sexist !

how's that? i specifically stated that i wasnt a sexist because, being a resident of the US, i have seen plenty of people who oppose Hillary Clinton (and believe me there are plenty of them) insulted with that term simply because there opposing a female politician.

And as for Obama's assasination being "his problem not ours"; i couldn't disagree more. The vice-president is chosen by the president not elected. In fact the average voter probably wont even bother to look into the political views of the V.P. because that position isnt really all that important. However if Obama is elected and is killed, well than that pushes this unimportant figure head into the oval office. So if Obama has a lousy V.P. than the whole country is screwed.

[RifleMan20]

I oppose hilary, she'll turn us in to a communism, am for obama

[Major Walter Schmidt]

What about Stephen Colbert?

[mike M.]

The video tells a whole lot about this imposter.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

[Nickdfresh]

The video tells a whole lot about this imposter.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

LOL Um, blatant partisan attacks ads tell nothing about anything...

If people vote based upon on what some shithead agenda'ist making a video using special interest money says --God help us all!

[mike M.]

If people vote based upon on what some shithead agenda'ist making a video using special interest money says --God help us all!


Your right..but tell me one thing in that video thats isnt true. Omomma's..shell is cracking..:)

edited to add: You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.

[mike M.]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352862,00.html

Its hard to believe this isnt law in every State??? Way to go Indiana!

[Drake]

I oppose hilary, she'll turn us in to a communism, am for obama

I'm an outsider on that matter, but my gut tells me that Obama would be a bad choice for the US and the western world.
I don't even know why, I never had a particular interest in US presidents, not even when everyone else was ranting about GWB and how he got elected in the first place. Maybe it's the messianic coating his campaign is trying to give him, we germans are pretty attentively for things like that for obvious reasons.
But something in this guy irritates me to no end.
Just today I read an article in Spiegel(weekly news magazine), which presumed, that Obama will make the race as presidential candidate for the democrats with super delegate votes, because the democrats now cannot anymore afford it to look as if they wouldn't elect a candidate because he was black, but this move will ultimatly cost them the presidency.

[Drake]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352862,00.html

Its hard to believe this isnt law in every State??? Way to go Indiana!

Don't you have a photo ID card anyway? Here in germany everyone over 16 is required to have one and you usually have to show it at the poll site together with the electoral invitiation, which gets compared to the electoral roll, to get the actual ballot.
I'm surprised there is a way to do it differently, since this way seems somehow obvious to me to prevent a certain type of manipulation.

[George Eller]

-

I'll be voting for John McCain, although my first choice would have been Mitt Romney, whom I voted for in the Florida Primary.

-

[Nickdfresh]

Your right..but tell me one thing in that video thats isnt true. Omomma's..shell is cracking..:)

edited to add: You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.


I dunno. I saw a poll last night with like 73% saying they were tired of the Rev. whateverhisnameis shiite and just want to get on with the election...

His "shell" is only cracking with decided partisans who've already made up their mind...

And the whole process of US elections is getting ridiculous. I think everything is over in the UK in like six weeks or something...

[Nickdfresh]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352862,00.html

Its hard to believe this isnt law in every State??? Way to go Indiana!

Um, even the Supreme Court admitted it would disenfranchise older and poor voters in regards and that there was no real reason for the law since voter fraud has never been an issue. Certainly not one any more prevalent then possible insecurities of Diebold digital voting machines, which have been routinely shown to be easily hacked. Then again, the Supreme Court seems to like to decide elections, even against the popular vote...

But I agree that we should have a national ID incorporated with the driver's license or something.

[Nickdfresh]

AP Poll: Clinton leads McCain by 9 points

By LIZ SIDOTI – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama. Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.

The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground this month in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago.

Since then, Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, raising questions anew about whether Obama can attract broad swaths of voters needed to triumph in such big states come the fall when the Democratic nominee will go up against McCain. At the same time, Obama was thrown on the defensive by his comment that residents of small-town America were bitter. The Illinois senator also continued to deal with the controversial remarks of his longtime Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"I don't think there's any question that over the last three weeks her stature has improved," said Harrison Hickman, a Democratic pollster unaligned in the primary. He attributed Clinton's gains to people moving from the "infatuation stage" of choosing the candidate they like the most to a "decision-making stage" where they determine who would make the best president.

Added Steve Lombardo, a GOP pollster: "This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can't seem to get his footing back."

The AP-Ipsos poll found Clinton and Obama about even in the race for the Democratic nomination. Underscoring deep divisions within the Democratic Party — and a potentially negative longer-term impact — 30 percent of Clinton supporters and 21 percent of Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain in November if their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination.

Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, but she has the advantage among superdelegates with about a third yet to make up their minds.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign.

He also urged undecided superdelegates — members of the Democratic National Committee as well as Democratic governors and members of Congress — to side with either Clinton or Obama before the August convention so the party can come together to take on McCain. The Arizona senator clinched the GOP nomination last month and has been campaigning freely since.

Also on Monday, the head of the Republicans' House campaign committee said the party would rather face Obama in November because the GOP believes Clinton would be more of a threat to McCain among moderate voters.

Said Tom Cole, a congressman from Oklahoma: Obama "is by any definition very liberal, to the left of Hillary Clinton, in a center-right country. That is very, very helpful to us."

Nearly half the people in the AP-Ipsos poll said the protracted Democratic primary will hurt their party's chances in November; more Obama supporters than Clinton backers said they had that fear.

Overall, people said they trusted Clinton and Obama about the same to handle Iraq and the economy; McCain got similar ratings on Iraq but trailed both Democrats on the economy. And while roughly the same percentage of people said they trusted both Democrats to understand their problems, fewer trusted McCain.

When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.

Clinton has a newfound edge among seniors, too, 51 percent to 39 percent; McCain had previously had the advantage. And, Clinton has improved her margin over McCain among people under age 30; two-thirds of them now side with her. McCain leads Obama among seniors, while Obama leads McCain among those under 30 but by a smaller margin than Clinton does.

She also now leads among Catholics, always an important swing voting group in a general election, and improved her standing in the South as well as in cities and among families making under $25,000 a year. But she lost ground among families making between $50,000 and $100,000; they narrowly support McCain.

The poll, taken April 23-27, questioned 1,001 adults nationally, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 457 Democratic voters and people leaning Democratic, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.6 points, and 346 Republicans or GOP-leaning voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.3 points.

AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP6aoeuUCqIEo5DHDOCMLHyUOCpgD90BA64O0) Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

[Rising Sun*]

I'm an outsider on that matter, but my gut tells me that Obama would be a bad choice for the US and the western world.
I don't even know why, I never had a particular interest in US presidents, not even when everyone else was ranting about GWB and how he got elected in the first place. Maybe it's the messianic coating his campaign is trying to give him, we germans are pretty attentively for things like that for obvious reasons.


That sums up a common view here, among people who can even be bothered with the ridiculous amount of local press coverage of what is just a ridiculously complicated and drawn out party pre-selection process for someone to run for prez. Here, it takes place behind closed doors, within the parties as it should. In a couple of weeks. With almost no press coverage and a result at the end. Thanks be to god for that!

Obama comes across as a lightweight, white coffee, not-black, Harvard man supposedly understanding the blacks in the ghettos and projects, spin doctor full of pretend black shit with no street cred for blacks, whites, hispanics, or anyone else. Sounds almost like the perfect candidate. :rolleyes:

Hillary is full of shit too, like every politician, but her shit is less shitful than Obama's.

Like McCain has to worry. America ain't ready for woman or a vaguely black prez yet, especially when it has a bloke who served his nation better and much harder in uniform (or for five starving years in a rat infested North Vietnamese shit hole) than anyone since 1945, including JFK and Dad Bush. That doesn't qualify him for office, but to the extent that JFK and Dad Bush were elected on their military records and Dubya wasn't (owing to his military records conveniently going missing at the critical moment :rolleyes:), he has the runs on the board.

But none of that really matters, because Dubya is clearly an idiot puppet as will be whoever is the next prez of whichever interests bankroll and elect him, which interests he or she will serve.

So it doesn't matter who the puppet is, because they'll be a puppet muppet.

[mike M.]

My son who is 18 yrs old has to show I.D. to go see a R rated movie, hell..I had to show my I.D. at the Savon store last week when my wife's allergies were kicking up and I had to buy some over the counter Claritian. Try doing anything else in this country where you don't have to produce an id that is as important as voting. I cant see how requiring someone to have an I.D. is a burden on them or makes them a " Victim".
Voter fraud is a tough issue, we know its happening but its hard to prove. There were no documented cases of "widespread fraud" because there was no way to document it. I remember the Dornan / Sanchez race here in California a few years ago, illegal's from Mexico were voting in that race. She won by something like 960 votes. There's still no mechanism to revoke voter registrations upon the death of a voter. Conceivably, a person could keep on requesting absentee ballots by mail for a dead person indefinitely. The system is full of holes. Still, we monitor other countries elections through the UN by applying higher standards of proof than we require at home. Bit hypocritical, isn't it?
I just don't understand how having an I.D. would be a burden on the poor or elderly.
I support I.D's to vote

[Nickdfresh]

My son who is 18 yrs old has to show I.D. to go see a R rated movie, hell..I had to show my I.D. at the Savon store last week when my wife's allergies were kicking up and I had to buy some over the counter Claritian. Try doing anything else in this country where you don't have to produce an id that is as important as voting. I cant see how requiring someone to have an I.D. is a burden on them or makes them a " Victim".

The "Claritan" law is rather stupid I think (to prevent meph dealers from setting up labs in the US --now they just do it in Mexico or Canada). The whole silly restrictions are a bit of a joke. But that's another issue.

People have "voter registration cards" and are in a log book of residents/registered voters; at least where I live...

And we know people often vote outside their listed residential areas (i.e. Ann Coulter, the very columnist calling out Dems for potential voting irregularities), which is voter fraud. But as long as they have a picture ID, the it's okay now...

And people living in rural areas with little or no access to DMVs, etc., will now effectively be nonpersons. So they may well have situations of elderly, handicapped voters that have lived and voted in areas for years now being turned away simply, even though the poll workers have known them all their lives.

But actually, this is a very disingenuous ploy by (mostly, but certainly not always Republicans), because what we could do is make it very easy on everyone and just automatically register to vote at the DMV. Something that has routinely been frustrated. This is yet another hurtle to participatory democracy...

Voter fraud is a tough issue, we know its happening but its hard to prove. There were no documented cases of "widespread fraud" because there was no way to document it.

Absolutely false. There have been no widespread voter fraud cases, and any widespread (on the lever to effect an national election) would quickly be hounded out by interest groups with ease. There simply is little payoff in a relative few voters impersonating other people. More than a few dozen such incidents will be detected and send up red flags..

I remember the Dornan / Sanchez race here in California a few years ago, illegal's from Mexico were voting in that race. She won by something like 960 votes. There's still no mechanism to revoke voter registrations upon the death of a voter.

How exactly will voter ID solve any of this? If dead people are "voting," then certianly no one cast the vote and some form of manipulation took place beyond the polling stations...

Secondly, you raise a valid point regarding illegals voting, but even in that race, we're not sure that what turned out to be dozens, not thousands, of illegal votes even mattered in the race:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5DD133FF935A25751C0A9619582 60

Conceivably, a person could keep on requesting absentee ballots by mail for a dead person indefinitely. The system is full of holes. Still, we monitor other countries elections through the UN by applying higher standards of proof than we require at home. Bit hypocritical, isn't it?

I absolutely agree with the last statement. But the knife cuts both ways. There are allegations that certain elections officials in Florida (i.e. Katherine Harris, who has since been largely exsposed and a mentally ill dipshit that made patently absurd statements during her embarrassing, fail congressional campaign) may have purged voter rolls of people that they thought would go against their candidates using the most frivolous of excuses...

Oh, and then there is DIEbold. The machine that can easily be hacked. I think we can make the argument that this is far more an ...

I just don't understand how having an I.D. would be a burden on the poor or elderly.
I support I.D's to vote

Because there are people who cannot get a picture ID very easily, so there should be provisions as such...

The argument against it is here at Slate.com. (http://www.slate.com/id/2181573/) Basically, it is rectifying a problem that doesn't exist in order to purge the rolls of people that may presumably vote for candidates that champion underclass...

Slate.com:

First and foremost, Indiana's law is a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The voting fraud it purports to address is illusory. And the means it employs needlessly make it far more difficult for some citizens—especially those who are low-income, elderly, or lack easy access to transportation—to vote.

The basic legal standard for assessing a voting restriction of this sort is whether the need for the restriction is sufficiently weighty to justify the burden on legitimate voters. Photo-ID supporters argue that the requirement is necessary to prevent voter fraud, and that it imposes a negligible burden because legitimate voters invariably possess a government-issued photo ID. Both claims are wrong: A photo-ID requirement, in fact, is essentially of no benefit in preventing voter fraud, and it disenfranchises scores of legitimate voters.

There is no dispute that Indiana's photo-ID requirement addresses one, and only one, species of fraud—so-called "in-person impersonation fraud," which would occur if an ineligible voter were to come to the polls and attempt to cast a ballot by falsely claiming the identity of an eligible voter. In the entire history of Indiana, the total number of reported instances of this kind of fraud is zero. Nor is there reliable evidence that in-person impersonation fraud has occurred anywhere else in the country.

Mike, you raise some great points and some real issues, but I think that this law is far more cynical then it sounds. And the potentialities of fraud via electronic voting are far more of a danger..

[George Eller]

AP Poll: Clinton leads McCain by 9 points

By LIZ SIDOTI – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama. Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.

The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground this month in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago.

Since then, Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, raising questions anew about whether Obama can attract broad swaths of voters needed to triumph in such big states come the fall when the Democratic nominee will go up against McCain. At the same time, Obama was thrown on the defensive by his comment that residents of small-town America were bitter. The Illinois senator also continued to deal with the controversial remarks of his longtime Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"I don't think there's any question that over the last three weeks her stature has improved," said Harrison Hickman, a Democratic pollster unaligned in the primary. He attributed Clinton's gains to people moving from the "infatuation stage" of choosing the candidate they like the most to a "decision-making stage" where they determine who would make the best president.

Added Steve Lombardo, a GOP pollster: "This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can't seem to get his footing back."

The AP-Ipsos poll found Clinton and Obama about even in the race for the Democratic nomination. Underscoring deep divisions within the Democratic Party — and a potentially negative longer-term impact — 30 percent of Clinton supporters and 21 percent of Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain in November if their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination.

Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, but she has the advantage among superdelegates with about a third yet to make up their minds.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign.

He also urged undecided superdelegates — members of the Democratic National Committee as well as Democratic governors and members of Congress — to side with either Clinton or Obama before the August convention so the party can come together to take on McCain. The Arizona senator clinched the GOP nomination last month and has been campaigning freely since.

Also on Monday, the head of the Republicans' House campaign committee said the party would rather face Obama in November because the GOP believes Clinton would be more of a threat to McCain among moderate voters.

Said Tom Cole, a congressman from Oklahoma: Obama "is by any definition very liberal, to the left of Hillary Clinton, in a center-right country. That is very, very helpful to us."

Nearly half the people in the AP-Ipsos poll said the protracted Democratic primary will hurt their party's chances in November; more Obama supporters than Clinton backers said they had that fear.

Overall, people said they trusted Clinton and Obama about the same to handle Iraq and the economy; McCain got similar ratings on Iraq but trailed both Democrats on the economy. And while roughly the same percentage of people said they trusted both Democrats to understand their problems, fewer trusted McCain.

When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.

Clinton has a newfound edge among seniors, too, 51 percent to 39 percent; McCain had previously had the advantage. And, Clinton has improved her margin over McCain among people under age 30; two-thirds of them now side with her. McCain leads Obama among seniors, while Obama leads McCain among those under 30 but by a smaller margin than Clinton does.

She also now leads among Catholics, always an important swing voting group in a general election, and improved her standing in the South as well as in cities and among families making under $25,000 a year. But she lost ground among families making between $50,000 and $100,000; they narrowly support McCain.

The poll, taken April 23-27, questioned 1,001 adults nationally, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 457 Democratic voters and people leaning Democratic, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.6 points, and 346 Republicans or GOP-leaning voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.3 points.

AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP6aoeuUCqIEo5DHDOCMLHyUOCpgD90BA64O0) Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
-

Kind of moot though, if Obama wins the Democrat nomination as he is likely to do.

I don't put much stock in polls this early in the game. Most of the time the momentum swings back and forth like a pendulum. What counts is who has the lead, momentum, and most voters out on election day. :)

-

More polling organizations for future reference:

Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/

Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Rasmussen Polls
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/older_content/home/most_recent_articles/most_recent_articles

Zogby International
http://www.zogby.com

-

[Nickdfresh]

-

Kind of moot though, if Obama wins the Democrat nomination as he is likely to do.

I don't put much stock in polls this early in the game. Most of the time the momentum swings back and forth like a pendulum. What counts is who has the lead, momentum, and most voters out on election day. :)

-

More polling organizations for future reference:

Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/

Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Rasmussen Polls
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/older_content/home/most_recent_articles/most_recent_articles

Zogby International
http://www.zogby.com

-

I agree George that nothing can be decided from polls, other than I think this is going to be a very close election and an interesting one to watch. But for a while, I think McCain had a slight advantage statistically speaking, now it seems to have swung the other way.

We'll see...

[BAR_GUNNER]

i am neither sexist nor racist, but i honestly do believe that if Obama is elected president he will be assassinated , and seeing how most of US foreign policy is centered around the middle east (where Muslim customs prevail over all) i cant imagine a female president working out too well either

My wife and I were talking about that just after he announced. Some extremest or KKK member would think it would make him part of history to do it. There are always those around. But, they would have to keep him in solitary to keep him from being killed in prison.

[BAR_GUNNER]

"Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign."

To me, such statements are idiotic. For many decades, the nominations were never settled until after the Conventions. Then the real campaign began between the candidates. To me much of the real interest in the campaigns came from both conventions themselves. Speeches from those nominated, especially after TV began broadcasting them in the early years.

Those making such statements, to me indicates they want the candidate who happens to be leading now, as their candidate. They want to cut off debates, and voting for the other candidate, so the person they want to win is assured.

Personally, I want everyone to have every opportunity to say whatever they have to say. Wish the contest between the Republicans also had continued, we would have had more debates, learned a lot more about each candidate.

[BAR_GUNNER]

Your right..but tell me one thing in that video thats isnt true. Omomma's..shell is cracking..:)

edited to add: You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.

Correct, and when a man says he has chosen to support a Pastor for 20 years, and has not been influenced by his opinions, he I believe is lying.

When he says no one would quit going to a church because a Pastor says such things, it shows he is ignorant. Ive left many a church, looking for one where I agreed with all the Pastor said, because of things that were not near as controversial.

Until he said the these and other things, we had intended to vote for him.
If he wins the nomination, we will vote for McCain...

The reason I finally chose the Salvation Army, was because I could agree with what they were, what they did, what they said and they way they spent money donated. Building hospitals, drug rehab units, community centers for children, etc.. instead of multi-million dollar homes for the Pastor. In the S.A. over 94 cents of every dollar goes to help people.

[BAR_GUNNER]

Now, THAT would be a President. At least Colbert would keep us laughing.

[Nickdfresh]

"Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign."
...


I think he's right. I'm not a big fan of how long these elections take --forever! They cost more an more money which puts politicians more and more into the pockets of various donors and special interest groups...

[tankgeezer]

I think he's right. I'm not a big fan of how long these elections take --forever! They cost more an more money which puts politicians more and more into the pockets of various donors and special interest groups...

The schedule for the election process is still as it was in the 18th Century, when there was little more than horseback, and some few trains for transportation,and all election results were by handcount, courier, and the mail. It would be nice to have it changed to speed things up a bit,,,

[BAR_GUNNER]

Many states have switched to electronic voting. If I remember correctly, thirteen states are distributing ballots to servicemen by email. About seven of them are allowing them to vote by email. This can be a way of testing elections by email, if they can find secure ways of doing that. In the military they have secure email, so they can.

WA or OR, forget which, is voting by mail, and counting all mail in ballots.
Can't see why that could not be done in more states, bet it saves money.

Ive everyone did, than all states would count all absentee ballots.

[Nickdfresh]

By Deborah Hastings - ASSOCIATED PRESS
Updated: 05/07/08 6:40 AM

Nuns lack photo ID, can’t vote in primary

Twelve Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a primary polling place by a fellow sister because they didn’t have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow members of Saint Mary’s Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote but didn’t get one.

“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,’ ” McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

The convent will make “a very concerted effort” to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election, McGuire said. “We’re going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done.”

Secretary of State Todd Rokita was unapologetic.

“Indiana’s Voter ID Law applies to everyone. From all accounts that we’ve heard, the sisters were aware of the photo ID requirements and chose not to follow them,” he said.

Elsewhere across Indiana, voting appeared to run smoothly, despite the fears of some elections experts that the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to strike down Indiana’s controversial photo identification law could cause confusion at the polls.

Indiana’s photo ID law is the strictest in the country. The Republican- led effort was designed to combat ballot fraud, according to supporters, although they acknowledged that no case of voter impersonation at the polls has ever been prosecuted in Indiana.

The state’s American Civil Liberties Union sued, calling the law a poll tax that disproportionately affected minorities and elderly voters who are most likely to lack such identification. On April 28, the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the law did not violate the Constitution.

In a primary expected to draw record numbers, a voter hotline set up by the secretary of state’s office mostly received calls concerning precinct locations, a spokeswoman said.

But a group of voting rights advocates that established a separate hotline reported receiving several calls from would-be voters who were turned away at precincts because they lacked state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

One newly married woman said she was told she couldn’t vote because her driver’s license name didn’t match the one on her voter registration record, said Myrna Perez of the Brennan Center Justice at New York University Law School, coordinator of the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hotline. Another woman said she was turned away from casting her first-ever ballot because she had only a college-issued ID card and an out-of-state driver’s license, Perez said.

“These laws are confusing. People don’t know how they’re supposed to be applied,” she said.

According to the New Voters Project, sponsored by Student Public Interest Groups, about a dozen college students at Notre Dame, Butler University and Indiana University said they were told at the polls they didn’t have the right form of identification.

In some counties, polling locations ran short on ballots as voters flocked to Indiana’s first meaningful presidential primary in 40 years.

Link (http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/340692.html)

[mike M.]

"Secretary of State Todd Rokita was unapologetic.

“Indiana’s Voter ID Law applies to everyone. From all accounts that we’ve heard, the sisters were aware of the photo ID requirements and chose not to follow them,” he said."


Good for Todd..I back him 100%..the laws do apply to everyone, even nuns. I bet if the law required the church's people who pass the collection plat on sundays had to have a picture I.D. you know they would be all over that...

[Nickdfresh]

--Indiana’s photo ID law is the strictest in the country. The Republican- led effort was designed to combat ballot fraud, according to supporters, although they acknowledged that no case of voter impersonation at the polls has ever been prosecuted in Indiana.


One newly married woman said she was told she couldn’t vote because her driver’s license name didn’t match the one on her voter registration record...another woman said she was turned away from casting her first-ever ballot because she had only a college-issued ID card and an out-of-state driver’s license, Perez said.

“These laws are confusing. People don’t know how they’re supposed to be applied,” she said.--

Whatever man. While I am not opposed to voters identification, this law is nothing more than a cynical effort to disenfranchise people from participatory democracy and is being unfairly prosecuted in the absence of a Federally mandated national ID as it can be enforced unevenly and is open to interpretations...

And creating laws for problems that really don't exist is hardly anything "conservative" nor libertarian...

[mike M.]

I wish proof of citizenship was required to even register to vote, and that the registration card would have a photo. As it is now I don't have to show any I.D. here in California, I show up with my sample ballot that was mailed to my house and I'm good to go. However, the card should be re-validated every 5 or so years. I fail to see what's so horrible about this. Everyone has to renew their driver's license and passport after a stated period. I have to renew my DL 51, hunting license, fishing license periodically.

A citizen has the right to vote. However, the government has the right to determine that the person is a legal citizen, and that he is in fact who they say they are. That's essentially what the Supreme Court said. To be eligible to vote, you have to be a citizen, not a convicted felon, and have to be who you say you are. Nothing more. And the Supreme Court agreed with that, as long as the same conditions were imposed on everyone.

It's to help eliminate fraud but some may need fraud to win..:(

[Nickdfresh]

I wish proof of citizenship was required to even register to vote, and that the registration card would have a photo.

It is. The proof is provided when you registered along with residence. And feel free to show an election where non-citizens are believed to have had any sort of impact whatsoever..

As it is now I don't have to show any I.D. here in California, I show up with my sample ballot that was mailed to my house and I'm good to go. However, the card should be re-validated every 5 or so years. I fail to see what's so horrible about this. Everyone has to renew their driver's license and passport after a stated period. I have to renew my DL 51, hunting license, fishing license periodically.

A citizen has the right to vote. However, the government has the right to determine that the person is a legal citizen, and that he is in fact who they say they are. That's essentially what the Supreme Court said. To be eligible to vote, you have to be a citizen, not a convicted felon, and have to be who you say you are. Nothing more. And the Supreme Court agreed with that, as long as the same conditions were imposed on everyone.

It's to help eliminate fraud but some may need fraud to win..:(

Actually, in the United States, voter registration in itself is made to be a hurdle. Voting is not a privilege allowed for a fee as driving and fishing are. It is an inherent right. One cannot register at the DMV for instance and there certainly are those that seek to minimize the electorate. With voter turnout shamefully low to the extent that it is a national embarrassment, I doubt many of these issues of fantasy voter fraud really exist. And as of yet, nobody (despite much disingenuous innuendo) has shown an election to have been altered by widespread voter fraud. Indeed, many of the interest groups behind this bill are the ones having the most credible accusations against them. Vis-a-vis, Katherine Harris' purging of Florida voter rolls (of blacks) deemed most likely Democratic prior to the 2000 election, when of course the candidate with less total votes was appointed by the Supreme Court anyways. Or the use of Diebold electronic voting machines that have been shown to be easily susceptible to being hacked and altered with viruses.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/06/diebold-voting-machine-hacked-in-four-minutes-flat/

These laws are little more than a means to deny minorities their inherent democratic rights in the absence of a nat'l voter ID card...

[redcoat]

If I translated my British political viewpoint into US terms, I would probably vote for the Democratic party.
My choice of the two Democratic candidates would be Obama, as I think Hilliary has too much baggage as the ex-first lady.

[Nickdfresh]

I'm kind of sick of the the US being run by political dynasties such as Bushes and Clintons...

[32Bravo]

I'm kind of sick of the the US being run by political dynasties such as Bushes and Clintons...

Whoever is the best candidate, surely?

It does seem to be a long and exhausting slog to election, and that's even before you get onto the Presidential elections. Do the candidates have the time to govern?

I did read (somewhere?) that there was a consideration, at some time or other, of cutting the Presidential terms of office down to one term, but making this a six year term so as to allow more time for matters of government. Others wish to extend the number of terms of service.

[Nickdfresh]

Whoever is the best candidate, surely?

It does seem to be a long and exhausting slog to election, and that's even before you get onto the Presidential elections. Do the candidates have the time to govern?

I did read (somewhere?) that there was a consideration, at some time or other, of cutting the Presidential terms of office down to one term, but making this a six year term so as to allow more time for matters of government. Others wish to extend the number of terms of service.


There's a guy I heard interviewed on NPR a few months back that advocates that. He wrote a book on how the US needs a new "Constitutional Convention" and among his reforms is making the Presidency a one-term, six year office. I think that president could run again after the next election though...

[32Bravo]

There's a guy I heard interviewed on NPR a few months back that advocates that. He wrote a book on how the US needs a new "Constitutional Convention" and among his reforms is making the Presidency a one-term, six year office. I think that president could run again after the next election though...


Makes sense, from the point of view of allowing the President to get on with matters of government.

[kallinikosdrama1992]

well i would vote for Barack Obama , first of all because i think he believes what he says and i think he is going to make the difference but i don't know why . Also , i'm no racist , but i would like to see how a colored-person would govern the USA

[Churchill]

I believe that the Republicans will win because Obama and Hillary can't stop throwing insults at each other and making themselves look bad. Darn, Obama would be a good prez...

[Rising Sun*]

I believe that the Republicans will win because Obama and Hillary can't stop throwing insults at each other and making themselves look bad. Darn, Obama would be a good prez...

I think the Republicans have a better chance, purely because I doubt that most Americans are ready for a black or a woman as their president, at least from the black and woman currently offered.

[Nickdfresh]

NYT: Obama, McCain map fall strategies
Two sides say they would be open to holding unmoderated debates
By Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times
updated 6:46 a.m. ET, Sun., May. 11, 2008

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are already drawing up strategies for taking each other on in the general election, focusing on the same groups — including independent voters and Latinos — and about a dozen states where they think the contest is likely to be decided this fall, campaign aides said.

In a sign of what could be an extremely unusual fall campaign, the two sides said Saturday that they would be open to holding joint forums or unmoderated debates across the country in front of voters through the summer. Mr. Obama, campaigning in Oregon, said that the proposal, floated by Mr. McCain’s advisers, was “a great idea.”

Even before Mr. Obama fully wraps up the Democratic presidential nomination, he and Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, are starting to assemble teams in the key battlegrounds, develop negative advertising and engage each other in earnest on the issues and a combustible mix of other topics, including age and patriotism.

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, will spend the next week delivering a series of speeches on global warming, evidence of his intention to battle Mr. Obama for independent voters, a group the two men have laid claim to. Those voters tend to recoil from hard-edged partisan politics, and presumably would be receptive to the kind of bipartisan forum that Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama seemed open to on Saturday.

Courting independents
Clearly concerned that questions about such things as his association with his former pastor had damaged his standing with independents, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is likely to embark on a summertime tour intended to highlight the life story that was once central to his appeal. Preliminary plans include a stop in Hawaii, his birthplace, and a major address there at Punchbowl Cemetery, where his maternal grandfather, who fought in World War II, is buried.

Mr. Obama’s campaign is firing up voter-registration efforts and sending troops to Ohio and Pennsylvania, states that he lost in the primaries but that his aides said he must win to capture the White House. Mr. McCain’s advisers said they had tracked Mr. Obama’s struggles with blue-collar voters there and would open campaign headquarters in both states in early June.

Beyond that, aides to the two men said Latino voters would be central to victory in a swath of Western states now viewed as prime battlefields, including Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

These decisions by Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama to look ahead to the fall reflect their conclusion that it is only a matter of time before Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York steps away from the fight for the Democratic nomination.

Mr. McCain is looking first to states where President Bush narrowly lost in 2004 and where Mr. Obama lost primaries, starting with New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Mr. Obama is looking to states where he won caucuses and primaries — including some, like Virginia, that have been solidly Republican in recent presidential elections — as well as others where he has organizations in place.

Ads aimed at undercutting
And the two sides have produced television advertisements that will be rolled out as soon as the Democratic contest is officially resolved. These advertisements are directed less at promoting themselves than at undercutting their opponents.

The Republican National Committee is planning a $19.5 million advertising campaign to portray Mr. Obama, 46, as out of touch with the country and too inexperienced to be commander in chief, seeking to put him on the defensive before he can use his financial advantage against Mr. McCain, 71, party officials said.

“In 1984, Ronald Reagan said, ‘I’m not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,’ ” said Frank Donatelli, the deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee. “Well, we are going to exploit Obama’s youth and inexperience.”

On the Democratic side, Mr. Obama’s aides this week put finishing touches on advertisements intended to tether Mr. McCain to Mr. Bush and chip away at his image as a maverick, an identity that the aides said they found remained strong with voters.

“By November, every voter will know that McCain is offering a third Bush term,” said Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe.

Advisers to Mr. Obama said their research suggested that Mr. McCain, notwithstanding his high profile in American politics for more than a decade, was not well known to many voters. In particular, Mr. Obama’s aides said they would highlight Mr. McCain’s opposition to abortion rights to try to stem the flow of disaffected women who backed Mrs. Clinton in the primaries and whom Mr. McCain’s aides said they would aggressively court.

The strategies reflect a lesson from the 2004 presidential campaign, when top aides to Mr. Bush, some of whom are working for Mr. McCain today, began a well-financed television campaign to define and undercut Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, the moment he became his party’s nominee.

Mr. Obama’s advisers said they were mindful that he had not yet won the nomination and that six contests remained. Still, they said it was crucial to begin engaging Mr. McCain as soon possible.

Independent voters have been critical in presidential elections as the country has become polarized along party lines. What makes this election different is the extent to which Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have turned to independent voters for support throughout their careers.

Historically, independent voters have responded to specific issues and concerns, in particular an emphasis on government reform and an aversion to overly bitter partisan wrangling. Accordingly, Mr. McCain’s advisers said they would present him as a senator who frequently stepped across the aisle, while portraying Mr. Obama as a down-the-line Democratic voter who is ideologically out of touch with much of the country.

“We believe America is still a slightly right-of-center country, and that is what McCain is,” said Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “If you look at Obama’s base and his record, he is a pretty conventional liberal.”

Mr. Obama’s advisers, meanwhile, intend to present Mr. McCain as a product of Washington who moved closer to the Bush administration to win the Republican nomination.

The two men also have sought to build their candidacies around images of reform, unconstrained by traditional political molds. The rivals are openly discussing staging forums across the country to speak directly to voters, an idea that is by any measure unconventional for a general election campaign.

Asked about the idea on Saturday, Mr. Obama told reporters in Oregon, “If I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that’s something that I’m going to welcome.”

Hiscpanics drawing attention
Hispanic voters could find themselves drawing more attention from presidential candidates than ever before. Their votes could prove critical in determining whether Democrats capture states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico and whether Republicans have any chance of being competitive in California.

Mr. McCain’s identification with legislation that would have permitted some illegal immigrants to attain citizenship, a position he moved away from in the primaries but never renounced, gives him an opportunity to compete for those voters, who except for Cubans in Florida appear to have largely settled into the Democratic camp in recent years.

Mr. Obama also supported measures that would have allowed immigrants to attain citizenship but struggled to win over Hispanic voters in his primary fight, signaling a potential problem for him in the fall campaign. Mr. Obama’s aides said the endorsement by Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, one of the nation’s most prominent Hispanic leaders, could prove more critical in the general election than in the primary.

Both sides say the states clearly in play now include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Republicans said they hoped to put New Jersey and possibly California into play; Democrats said African-Americans could make Mr. Obama competitive in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Mr. Obama’s advisers said they had a strong chance of taking Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia away from the Republican column.

Mr. Obama has a clear financial advantage. By March 31, Mr. McCain had raised about $80 million and reported about $11 million in cash on hand. Mr. Obama had raised three times as much — about $240 million — and had more than four times as much in the bank.

But the Republican National Committee, which is permitted to spend money on Mr. McCain’s behalf, has raised $31 million, compared with just $6 million by the Democratic National Committee. And Republican officials said they were not concerned about being outspent between now and the conventions.

Cont'd

[Nickdfresh]

Disadvantage in Fla., Mich.
Mr. Obama’s advisers said that as a result of the five-month series of primaries and caucuses, he had a nearly national campaign apparatus in place and had identified and registered thousands of new voters. That said, they acknowledged that they were at a disadvantage in two important states — Florida and Michigan — because those states had early primaries in defiance of the Democratic National Committee, and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.

“Organizationally, we have now built very powerful organizations in every state but Michigan and Florida,” Mr. Plouffe said. “That is one huge silver lining to how long this nomination fight has gone on.”

Republicans will seek to portray Mr. Obama as out of touch with many voters on issues like abortion and gay rights. Some of Mr. McCain’s advisers said they also thought that Mr. Obama had displayed a number of vulnerabilities as a candidate that they would seek to exploit: they argued that he was prone to becoming irritated when tired or pressed on tough questions, that he had trouble connecting with voters in smaller settings and that he had run a campaign light on substance.

In the eyes of the Obama campaign, Mr. McCain’s chief weaknesses include continuing to embrace the Iraq war, his support for extending the administration’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (he once opposed the idea) and his suggestion that the economy had made “great progress” in the last eight years.

Mr. Obama has said he has no intention of making age — Mr. McCain is 25 years older — an overt issue in the general election campaign. Yet in recent weeks, the Obama campaign has made a point of showing their candidate in settings, on the basketball court, as well as surrounded by his young family, that could be seen as telegraphing the message without explicitly raising the issue.


Copyright © 2008 The New York Times

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24562497/)

[32Bravo]

Extract from an e-mail i received today:

In case you were wondering, the news stories have proven once again that in America, everything bowls down to RACE. Now that Obama has handed Mrs. Clinton

“a good thrashing” – as you Brits like to say, she’s playing the ultimate trump card – RACE – to keep her chances of winning the nomination alive.



There are so many subtle and not so subtle subtexts to what she is doing. She has shown her true colors – She is a White Woman – in the darkest sense of the word – forgive my deliberate play with words.



She is playing on classism, racism and sexism to try and grab a hold of the Democratic nomination. She has shown how much she truly despises Black Americans – who once embraced her and were stupid enough to call her husband the first Black President – although I always felt they were totally undeserving of such affection.



Now, in my cynical view, I’m sure she will try for vice presidency, if she is unable to win the nomination for president. If she becomes vice president, look out. As sure as my name is *^%, the Clintons will arrange for something tragic to befall Mr. Obama so they can assume the presidency. During their reign, there was a lot of speculation that they killed at least two of their followers who fell out of favor – Vince Foster – who was a financial advisor, and the other is Ron Brown, the former Secretary of Commerce, whose plane mysteriously fell from the sky – killing all on board.



In my book, the Clintons are a personification of evil and I hope they can rot away quietly in some corner of Arkansas although I don’t care where it is as long as they rot quietly.

I would hate to vote for John McCain, but I will never vote for the Clintons.

[BAR_GUNNER]

well i would vote for Barack Obama , first of all because i think he believes what he says and i think he is going to make the difference but i don't know why . Also , i'm no racist , but i would like to see how a colored-person would govern the USA

He may believe what he says, that does not mean what he says is correct. Especially when he says you can go to a church like Rev Wrights for over 20 years, and it has not effect. When you can have a personal friend like Bill Ayers, one of the first terrorists in the US, and it has no effect on what you believe. When you serve on the same Board of Directors of an organization which promotes hate. When he says no one would leave a church, just because of the Hate a pastor preaches, etc... he is either out of touch with the majority of people or he is lying, and either way I'd not vote for him.

Ive been an Independent all my life, and vote for who I believe is the best person for the job, regardless of their affiliation. There is no way that I could vote for a person who attended a church like Wrights for 20 years, and defended him. Sure now he does not, but that is self-serving, it does not mean that he believes any differently. He still attends that church, and the new Pastor was hand picked by Rev Wright, to continue in his footsteps. He has already been shown to be preaching hate.

Ive attended churches for over 75 years, and left many of them that I did not agree with, had many relatives do the same. Looking for one where we agreed with all they preached. Found what we was looking for in the Salvation Army. They practice what they preach.

[32Bravo]

Was Obama's use of the term "Sweetie" such a big deal?

[Nickdfresh]

He may believe what he says, that does not mean what he says is correct. Especially when he says you can go to a church like Rev Wrights for over 20 years, and it has not effect. When you can have a personal friend like Bill Ayers, one of the first terrorists in the US, and it has no effect on what you believe. When you serve on the same Board of Directors of an organization which promotes hate. When he says no one would leave a church, just because of the Hate a pastor preaches, etc... he is either out of touch with the majority of people or he is lying, and either way I'd not vote for him.

Personally, I could give a shit about Wright. He's not running for president, and aside from some really out there conspiracy stuff, most of what he said was taken out of context and I certainly don't agree with everything he said, he still had a point...

And secondly, the Ayers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers) thing had been debunked. They're not friends, and while Ayers was a 60's radical, he's also now a distinguished professor at U of I who has renounced violence and has expressed remorse over his "narcissistic, arrogant" actions in the 1960s, despite the mischaracterizations by some articles. No more controversial to me than the actions of Colin Powell, who while in the US Army during Vietnam is alleged to have covered up facets of the Mei Lai massacre..

By using such semantic logic to indict people with their pasts, one could also say that the US Congress has had racists and "terrorists" in it, Robert Bird was in the Klu Klux Klan (in the 1930s) and Strom Thurman was a white supremacist who had very clear ties to the Klan, but I never hear Republican's calling him a "racist terrorist." A man who had a long running love affair with a black woman he still wanted to relegate to second-class status and deny basic civil liberties too...

BTW, I still admire Powell, Thurman, and Bird. Because I think they regret their past transactions and the good they've done outweighs their early smarmy activities...

Ive been an Independent all my life, and vote for who I believe is the best person for the job, regardless of their affiliation. There is no way that I could vote for a person who attended a church like Wrights for 20 years, and defended him. Sure now he does not, but that is self-serving, it does not mean that he believes any differently. He still attends that church, and the new Pastor was hand picked by Rev Wright, to continue in his footsteps. He has already been shown to be preaching hate.

Ive attended churches for over 75 years, and left many of them that I did not agree with, had many relatives do the same. Looking for one where we agreed with all they preached. Found what we was looking for in the Salvation Army. They practice what they preach.

Actually, Obama has "renounced" Wright. And I won't vote for a President that panders to assholes like Falwell and Robertson, two guys that said that 9/11 was caused by gays and abortionists, which by their logic is effectively making God a terrorist, since he uses terrorists to murder innocent people...

McCain called them out after the fact as "agents of intolerance," but now he does his little flip-flop dance to make up in order to pander to the extreme Christian Right...Even though John McCain clearly hates them and probably doesn't even believe half of what he says (in many ways, most of my political views are probably dead-on with McCain's as I'm a "liberal, Rockefeller" Republican, but I will simply not vote for someone that wants to continue the Iraq War indefinitely) According to some, McCain is loved by the 'liberal' journalists that travel with him because he openly admits distaste to the very factions in the GOP he is now smiling at and pandering too, sort of a hoodwink approach. I fail to see how this is any less disingenuous that the actions of Barrack Obama...

[Rising Sun*]

He may believe what he says, that does not mean what he says is correct.

Spot on!

Add in the highly unlikely possibility of a politician actually believing in anything much apart from saying and doing whatever is necessary to get into power and Obama is just as well qualified as every other liar to be elected.

From down here, I still can't see America being ready for a nominally black or more or less genuinely female president, although Hillary may have more balls than Bill but rather less charm.

[Nickdfresh]

Spot on!

Add in the highly unlikely possibility of a politician actually believing in anything much apart from saying and doing whatever is necessary to get into power and Obama is just as well qualified as every other liar to be elected.

From down here, I still can't see America being ready for a nominally black or more or less genuinely female president, although Hillary may have more balls than Bill but rather less charm.


That's going to depend heavily on the younger vote. Recent studies and a few political books have shown that most twenty to early thirty-somethings tend not to be as nearly race conscious and are for more accepting of women in positions of leadership/power. They also tend to moderately lean to the left. And this War affects their generation to most...

[Rising Sun*]

That's going to depend heavily on the younger vote. Recent studies and a few political books have shown that most twenty to early thirty-somethings tend not to be as nearly race conscious and are for more accepting of women in positions of leadership/power. They also tend to moderately lean to the left. And this War affects their generation to most...

Thanks. I didn't know that.

But, will they come out to vote?

[Rising Sun*]

Our politics generally lack clear extreme religious influences like Hagee, which isn't to say that we don't have them behind the scenes like the Exclusive Bretheren or haven't had them in the past like the DLP or very minor current parties like Family First.

Still, I don't think our electorate in general would tolerate the Mc Cain Hagee link as it appears to have been tolerated in America, as indeed the Bush Christians-save-Israel-for-Christ's-Second-Coming camp were tolerated and courted by Bush as McCain is now doing. For example,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-posner/hagees-lesson-plan-for-bu_b_102101.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/politics/14hagee.html?em&ex=1210910400&en=2912e762c2a23b99&ei=5087%0A

So the question is not so much whether or not extreme or trivial minority elements have too much influence, but do candidates and political parties in their pursuit for power court the wrong people without regard to whatever principle they stand for? Assuming they stand for any principle.

Personally, I'd be astonished to find a politician who condemns say, homosexuals or an ethnic group, who wouldn't be prepared to do a deal with those groups if they looked like it would get him or her elected.

For a change, I'd like to see a politician who says 'This is what I stand for. If you don't like it, don't vote for me.'

Instead they all turn themselves into bendy men and women, trying to please everyone and standing for nothing.

[mike M.]

Hell YES America is ready for an African American or woman as president, just not these two in my eyes. I think all 3 choices we have suck and am amazed we cant do better. Have you noticed..not one of these candidates have addressed the border problem??

[Nickdfresh]

Thanks. I didn't know that.

But, will they come out to vote?

I honestly don't know. But McCain is hardly lighting up the polls, and I believe he and Obama are pretty much neck and neck...

And some senior GOP strategists thank that there is no way McCain is going to win because he inspires apathy and will not appeal to the extreme Christian Right zombies...

[mike M.]

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.

www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton ------ Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 ------ Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 ------ Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 ----- Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 ------ Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 ------- Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 -------- Married making 125K - tax $31,250


Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above
think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest
President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they
will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that
fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is
like the movie, The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of
some money and they don't even know what happened.

edited to try and adjust graph.

[Nickdfresh]

Hell YES America is ready for an African American or woman as president, just not these two in my eyes. I think all 3 choices we have suck and am amazed we cant do better. Have you noticed..not one of these candidates have addressed the border problem??


Because neither side realistically understands the problem, nor do they tell the truth...

It's either a wonderful story of immigrants achieving the American dream and Cesar Chavez, or it's a great way for companies to skirt minimum wage laws and roll back the New Deal worker benefits...

It's very cynical. Yet no one will speak to the problem that when Clinton tightened the border-crossings, that's when they "stayed." Illegal immigrants used to come here to work as agricultural laborers (which are needed), but they went home mostly. Now, because the desert crossing points are so hazardous, they tended to bring their families so they only had to do it once and stay here...

The Piece of Shit legislation designed to address the problem worked for no one, not the immigrants nor did it address the legitimate labor shortages or actually deal with companies that knowingly make it a part of their business plan to hire illegals so they can pay a fraction of the wages they would pay to Americans in say skill trades such as construction-related industries...

[Nickdfresh]

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.

www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton ------ Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 ------ Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 ------ Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 ----- Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 ------ Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 ------- Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 -------- Married making 125K - tax $31,250


Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above
think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest
President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they
will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that
fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is
like the movie, The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of
some money and they don't even know what happened.

edited to try and adjust graph.

Oh please, spare me the partisan bullshit links often shown to be completely false and one-sided, cherrypicked, out of context, or completely disingenuous for some reason. I'm sorry, but partisan foundations funded by the rich, corporations, big oil, etc. are not exactly noted for their honesty...

Where has underfunding the gov't, and switching the tax burden to the "Blue" states that generate most of the US economy so Red states can get more money than they pay to Washington and not have to pay the amount of State taxes in places like Califunia and New Yawk!

The economy roared under Clinton, how's it under Bush? Does the $400 or so average savings really matter? Wow! I can get a DVD player that I can sell when we get laid off!

Perhaps you can tell us why the average US worker is more productive than he/she was 20 years ago. Works longer hours. Why corporations have much bigger profits and pay their shitty CEOs so much more money, yet----worker wages in the US are stagnant? Yet, some major companies like Wal(China)-Mart and Toy'sR (from China with lead) are actually forcing HOURLY US WORKERS TO WORK OVERTIME, OFF-THE-BOOKS FOR FREE!!! And consistently getting away with it! I mean, the hourly, often minimum wage workers can float more dough to Sam Walton's walking piles-of-shit children, who turned a very progressive worker-centered-company (many of the original cashiers working the older stores in the South are millionaires due to generous stock-options and profit sharing on programs that have long been killed off by greedy bastards named Walton) into workers' hell...

Who lets them get away with this kind of BS? Politicians and people dumb enough to believe that Wal-Mart's prices are significantly cheaper across the board. They're really not...

I guess the kids will pay later as we buy now, on credit. What a great example the gov't sets. We pay for a War on money borrowed from China, then lecture Americans on why they don't save...

[mike M.]

So everything is Wal Marts fault???? LOL You make me laugh Nick.

Here are a few stats..
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border; also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States."
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

[Nickdfresh]

So everything is Wal Marts fault???? LOL You make me laugh Nick.

Feel free to quote where I said it was ALL Wal-Mart's fault...

But, feel free to look up how they've openly called for US companies to reduce manufacturing costs by sending their plants to China. Which has led to a massive trade imbalance only now being slightly addressed by the lower dollar...

In any case, feel free to view the Frontline program on it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

On China (largely boosted courtesy of Wal-Mart, who have tried to hire illegals as well BTW. Mainly through a phony cleaning "contractor," they were called out on it)

Here are a few stats.

LOL And you crack me up! If it's on the internet, it must be true!

Dude, at least rely of something approaching a news site that doesn't have partisan pretensions...


1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

This is only a projection, no one knows for sure. But the vast majority of illegal immigrants do come here to work, they just earn so little (since they can't complain about illegally low pay or being forced to work over 40-hours a week for no overtime, etc.)
....
[/quote]

BTW Mike, please feel free as too how illegal immigrants have contributed to the Housing market crisis or gas prices spiraling out of control...

Mind you, I do not believe in unrestricted illegal immigration either, but I also don't believe in slightly Nazi-esque contentions that somehow illegal immigrants are too blame for all of our problems...

And if you're going to cheerypick statistics, at least attmept something at balance:

June 25, 2006
Econoblog: The Costs and Benefits of Immigration

A Wall Street Journal Online Econoblog on the costs and benefits of immigration:

Immigration's Costs -- And Benefits, Econonblog, WSJ: ...The Wall Street Journal Online asked economists Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, and Philip Martin, of the University of California, Davis, to discuss the underlying causes of immigration (both legal and illegal), its historical roots and the nature of the current political uproar over the issue.

Gordon Hanson writes: For all the heat that the debate about immigration has generated, the net economic impact of immigration on the U.S. economy appears to be remarkably small. First, some thoughts on legal immigration, before we address illegal immigrants.

By bringing new workers into the economy, immigration allows existing U.S. capital, land, and technology to be used more efficiently. Also on the plus side, immigrants pay property taxes, sales taxes, Social Security taxes, and income taxes.

In the negative column, immigrants use public services in the form of public education, fire and police protection, government assistance, etc. Add the positive and negative elements together and you get what looks like a very small number.

We can calculate the gain to U.S. GDP due to immigration, known in econ parlance as the immigration surplus, using a simple formula that is a function of three things:

• The importance of labor to the U.S. economy
• The size of the immigrant labor inflow
• The change in U.S. wages due to immigration

Whether legal or illegal, immigration generates a gain in national income by making U.S. business more productive. George Borjas and Larry Katz have examined the specific consequences of immigration from Mexico for U.S. wages.

But illegal immigration differs from legal immigration in several important respects. First, illegal immigrants tend to have low skill levels, which means they end up in jobs in agriculture, construction, household services, landscaping, low-end manufacturing, or restaurants and lodging. Employers in these industries (and consumers of the goods these industries produce) are primarily the ones who benefit from illegal immigration. In a recent study, Patricia Cortes, a graduate student at MIT, finds that U.S. cities that have higher larger immigrant inflows have lower prices for housekeeping, gardening, and other labor intensive services. Ten percent more immigration lowers prices for these services by about 1.3%.

Second, illegal immigrants, by virtue of their low income levels and their tenuous attachment to the legal economy, don't pay all that much in taxes. Yet their kids still attend school and their U.S.-born kids still get access to Medicare. What does this mean for the net fiscal consequences of illegal immigration? The Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, estimates that the short-run net fiscal impact of illegal immigration is negative, on the order of $10 billion in 2002, or 0.09% of U.S. GDP in that year. This is not a big number.

As with immigration overall, what upsets people is not the aggregate impact of illegal immigration, which, as with legal immigration, seems to be more or less a wash. It is that the benefits of illegal immigration are enjoyed by one group -- the employers who hire them (and the consumers of their services) -- while the costs are incurred by other groups -- low-skilled workers and taxpayers in states where illegal immigrants reside.

Philip Martin writes: Gordon is right: Immigration, whether legal or illegal, adds workers, most of whom get jobs, which makes the U.S. economy larger. If there are economies of scale, as when producing more lowers the cost of production, the prices of some goods fall, benefiting those who buy those goods at home and abroad.

Most of the benefits of immigration go to the immigrants who earn higher wages in the U.S. than they would at home. In the standard triangle analysis, there are no net economic benefits to the U.S. economy (the triangle in the Hanson and Borjas papers above, as well as in my book "Promise Unfulfilled: Unions, Immigration, and Farm Workers") if wages do not fall with the addition of immigrant workers.

It has been very hard to agree on how much wages declined because of immigration, but the 3% estimate of Borjas is reasonable.

With migrants getting most of the gain from immigration in their wages, and owners of capital and land getting most of the rest in higher profits and rents, the surplus triangle is 1/10 of 1% of GDP. Pro-immigration people stress that immigration is positive, a net economic benefit, and in a $13 trillion economy, 1% is $13 billion. Anti-immigrant people stress that immigration adds $13 billion, or about two weeks' growth in an economy growing 2.5% a year.

Economists agree that the immigration generates a small net economic benefit for the U.S. and in doing so redistributes income from workers to owners of capital and land. Perhaps this is why immigration is such a political hot potato; it's mostly a distribution issue and, for governments that are in the business of redistributing income via taxes and subsidies, regulating immigration is another redistribution tool.

How many, from where and in what status are the core questions of immigration policy. Could the U.S. get a larger economic benefit if changed the mix of immigrants arriving?

The National Research Council data suggest the answer is yes. Making often heroic assumptions about how well immigrants and their children will fare in the U.S., the NRC calculated the present value of a typical immigrant arriving in the U.S. in the mid-1990s to be $89,000, that is, taking into account the taxes paid of immigrants and assuming that their children and grandchildren are like their U.S.-born counterparts, the NRC estimated that the present value of the taxes paid will exceed tax-supported benefits consumed by $89,000 over the next 50+ years.

However, the same study emphasized that the key to the benefits of immigration for the U.S. are their level of education. Those with more than a high-school education had a net present value of almost $200,000, while those with less than a high-school education had a net present value of negative $13,000. ... [... continue reading - free link ... covers the history of immigration including the Bracero program as well as the challenges ahead].



Courtesy of The Wall Street Journal Eco-Blog (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/06/econoblog_the_c.html)

I'd also like to ask you Mike, what do you propose to do about illegal immigration?

[mike M.]

Cherrypick...you like that word huh?

As smart as you are Nick..why dont you run for office.. You can fill ol teddys spot.. LOL

[Nickdfresh]

Cherrypick...you like that word huh?

Well, I guess now is where we start with the personal attacks...

But yes, it pretty adequately describes the use of stand alone 'shocking' statistics without any real context...

As smart as you are Nick..why dont you run for office.. You can fill ol teddys spot.. LOL

I never claimed to be smart, just to have common sense enough not to distill all problems down to (mainly) Latin immigrants, who have become the new Chinese coolies in some quarters...

I blame the special business interests and their lobbyists that have bribed the federal gov't into looking the other way. Not necessarily the immigrants that would fall off numbers wise once businesses no longer hired them...

Whoah, you mean it's "all" Ted Kennedy's "fault," now?

Well, he was in the minority party from 1994 to 2006. So, what did all the current windbag Republican populist wave-riders do about the scourge of illegal immigration in that time frame? Um, was it nothing? Who was it that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants?

Why, they even had complete control of the gov't from 2001-2006, yep, five years of nothing! Gee, I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

But it's Ted Kennedy's fault, the Right's favorite whipping boy...

[BAR_GUNNER]

Spot on!

Add in the highly unlikely possibility of a politician actually believing in anything much apart from saying and doing whatever is necessary to get into power and Obama is just as well qualified as every other liar to be elected.

From down here, I still can't see America being ready for a nominally black or more or less genuinely female president, although Hillary may have more balls than Bill but rather less charm.

It's hard to have balls, and charm at the same time... :)

[BAR_GUNNER]

Whoah, you mean it's "all" Ted Kennedy's "fault," now?

Well, he was in the minority party from 1994 to 2006. So, what did all the current windbag Republican populist wave-riders do about the scourge of illegal immigration in that time frame? Um, was it nothing? Who was it that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants?

Why, they even had complete control of the gov't from 2001-2006, yep, five years of nothing! Gee, I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

But it's Ted Kennedy's fault, the Right's favorite whipping boy...

The only thing I blame him for, is getting Drunk, and Driving off a bridge, with his date, killing her. Am originally from MA, and have never understood why voters there vote for some of the pols they vote for. They knew Mayor Curley was stealing money from the State, but still voted him back into office over, and over. Even after being convicted for mail fraud, they voted for him again. :roll:

[BAR_GUNNER]

[i]

Whatever man. While I am not opposed to voters identification, this law is nothing more than a cynical effort to disenfranchise people from participatory democracy and is being unfairly prosecuted in the absence of a Federally mandated national ID as it can be enforced unevenly and is open to interpretations...

And creating laws for problems that really don't exist is hardly anything "conservative" nor libertarian...

Your words contradict you, you can't be unopposed to voter ID, and believe it is a "cynical effort to disenfranchise people" "is being unfairly prosecuted", etc. The law, is the law, is the law of the state.

It is not like the law was passed two days before the election, and no one knew what it was or what ID they had to have. Everyone had the opportunity to know, and to get proper ID. Laws apply to everyone, not just those where you think it is ok to apply it, and not those where you do not think it should apply.

Traffic laws are different in many states, if you violate them, you pay. Those who violate election laws are no different than a traffic violator. They do not deserve any special privileges, just because they are ignorant of the law. According to your concept, if I do not know the speed limit past a school in your state, I should be allowed to drive at whatever speed I choose. Then, let the children be aware they are no longer safe.:shock:

[Nickdfresh]

The only thing I blame him for, is getting Drunk, and Driving off a bridge, with his date, killing her. Am originally from MA, and have never understood why voters there vote for some of the pols they vote for. They knew Mayor Curley was stealing money from the State, but still voted him back into office over, and over. Even after being convicted for mail fraud, they voted for him again. :roll:

First of all, that has nothing to do with the discussion. I believe Mike was referring to Ted's support for the lousy immigration bill, not his past history. And George Bush's had a penchant for the use of cocaine and also getting drunk and driving, but fortunately, he never killed anyone. He wife also was involved in a hit and run accident. She nailed a pedestrian and sped off, using her families' money and connections to avoid serious consequence. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that wasn't Mike's big complaint about Kennedy nor the basis for acting like I'm like him. And they vote for him in MA because he brings home large amounts of federal funding that somewhat compensates for MA's large contribution to the economy. Nobody condones Kennedy for what he did. The only reason he perhaps gets a free pass for that one was that he lost two brothers to assassination in about five years, which clearly put him over the edge. I'm not saying that that's an excuse. But feel free to offer one politician, especially a president, that doesn't have skeletons in their closet...

But there are dozens of scandals that have erupted over political members of both parties, but mostly involving the one acting very arrogantly that was in power until recently...

There are dozens of politicians that have skeletons in their closets...At the end of the day, you vote for who you vote for. If Ted hadn't lost JFK and RFK, he'd of been thrown out on his ass. And if he hadn't driven off that bridge and gotten that girl killed, he'd probably have been president...

[Nickdfresh]

Your words contradict you, you can't be unopposed

Really? It's not "ID," it's picture "ID" that solves a problem that doesn't exist and creates other ones...

...to voter ID, and believe it is a "cynical effort to disenfranchise people" "is being unfairly prosecuted", etc. The law, is the law, is the law of the state.

Really? You mean just because a state enacts a law, that's okay? Like the Nuremberg laws?

Since when is government supposed to regulate where no problems exist?

BTW, I said I have no problem with a voter ID law provided we have a national ID card registered at birth and updated every five years or so, much like in Europe...

It is not like the law was passed two days before the election, and no one knew what it was or what ID they had to have. Everyone had the opportunity to know, and to get proper ID. Laws apply to everyone, not just those where you think it is ok to apply it, and not those where you do not think it should apply.

No everyone gets the "opportunity" to get picture ID. As best I can tell, one must have a driver's license or a student ID to vote...

Traffic laws are different in many states, if you violate them, you pay.

Traffic laws simply do not apply. Driving is a privilege, voting is an inherent right!

Those who violate election laws are no different than a traffic violator.

No, they're much worse as they're perverting the election system. But, no one has ever been found guilty of that in Indiana...I don't think we can say the same about driving...

They do not deserve any special privileges, just because they are ignorant of the law.

Oh, so American citizens aren't allowed to vote now? Now we have hurdles? Qualifications?

According to your concept, if I do not know the speed limit past a school in your state, I should be allowed to drive at whatever speed I choose. Then, let the children be aware they are no longer safe.:shock:

Actually, according to "my concept," (and a whole host of legal scholars, even one of the Justices that voted to defend the law in the Supreme Court), they're making laws for crimes that likely do not exist effectively preventing elderly and minorities that are unable or cannot afford to drive or have no use for a picture ID otherwise in their lives..

[mike M.]

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that wasn't Mike's big complaint about Kennedy nor the basis for acting like I'm like him.


What was my BIG complaint about Kennedy? All I said was maybe you could fill his spot. :) But I do wonder what his health care would have been like if we / He had the social medicine / government healthcare that he supports?



Like I said..I'm not impressed with either party, for me its going to be the lesser of two evils and that's sad. If you want more government and taxes in your life vote Democrat..If you want Less..vote Republican

[Nickdfresh]

What was my BIG complaint about Kennedy? All I said was maybe you could fill his spot. :)

Ha! If I had his money, I sure as hell wouldn't run for office. I'd be chilling on Martha's Vineyard with margaritas and a stable of bikini-clad women...:) ;)

I'm not happy with either party either. But by believing what all evidence seems to contradicts, you're just enabling their recent bad behavior and failures like the "Contract with America."
'
Neither am I. But by just handing one of them your vote based on stereotypes that all real evidence seems to contradict, you're just enabling them and their overall shameful recent behavior...

[mike M.]

Ha! If I had his money, I sure as hell wouldn't run for office. I'd be chilling on Martha's Vineyard with margaritas and a stable of bikini-clad women...:) ;)



Now That's something we can agree on..bring on the lady's and drinks :) I never understood why anyone with enough money to live a rice lifestyle would want to run for office. I guess its about the power

[Nickdfresh]

Now That's something we can agree on..bring on the lady's and drinks :)

The Cape and the Vineyard are pretty great in summer...

I never understood why anyone with enough money to live a rice lifestyle would want to run for office. I guess its about the power

Well, you have to understand that their father Joe was a bit of a prick. Even though they were wealthy, it was a very uncomfortable sort of rich where each kid was scrutinized in a hypercompetitive upbringing. Not too mention that much tragedy struck the family even before they started getting shot.

I think the short of it was that when you already have more money than God, what existential purpose is there left to life but to achieve power? Speaking for JFK, he pretty much could have any women he wanted by the time he was 25, when he wanted. But this has to be balanced against the fact that he suffered a traumatic childhood of constant illness and hospital stays ultimately tied to Addison's Disease and the crudely prescribed overuse of steroids to relieve his severe digestive ailments. But he seemed to be disinterested in anything not young and pretty or regarding current events or foreign affairs...

Pity, but it seems Ted's term will be ending --permanently...

[32Bravo]

In my most humble opinion, to demonstrate that their liberalism and racial tolerance is not just talk, and that they truly have turned their back on past misdeeds, in my opinion, both the Democratic party (and the U.S. in the subsequent elections) needs to elect Barak Obama. Democrat party campaign has become besmirched by hypocracy, it is a sign of the underlying racism in modern America, and the problems that this will continue to cause for the American people and the credibility of the US in the world political arena.

[mike M.]

In my most humble opinion, to demonstrate that their liberalism and racial tolerance is not just talk, and that they truly have turned their back on past misdeeds, in my opinion, both the Democratic party (and the U.S. in the subsequent elections) needs to elect Barak Obama. Democrat party campaign has become besmirched by hypocracy, it is a sign of the underlying racism in modern America, and the problems that this will continue to cause for the American people and the credibility of the US in the world political arena.


WOW!! I couldn't disagree more with what you said. I sure hope most Americans aren't that stupid, to vote for someone just because the color of their skin. I like to judge men by their actions and deeds ..not the color of their skin.

The Hon. James David Manning, PhD warns us NOT to vote for obamma yomamma

James David Manning is an African American energetic and visionary pastor of the ATLAH World Missionary Church located in ATLAH, New York. He has founded three schools and developed a national church ministry. He holds a PhD in philosophy, the author of The Oblation Hour book, a former Marketing Executive with Proctor and Gamble and the Ford Motor Company.

This video is just over 6 minutes and should be a real eye opener for all Americans.


Warning!!! http://www.youtube.com/user/ATLAHWorldwide

edited to add: I would vote for Larry elder in a heart beat and he's black. http://www.larryelder.com/larrysbooks.html

[32Bravo]

WOW!! I couldn't disagree more with what you said.

Naturally!


I sure hope most Americans aren't that stupid, to vote for someone just because the color of their skin. I like to judge men by their actions and deeds ..not the color of their skin.

So do I!



The Hon. James David Manning, PhD warns us NOT to vote for obamma yomamma

James David Manning is an African American energetic and visionary pastor of the ATLAH World Missionary Church located in ATLAH, New York. He has founded three schools and developed a national church ministry. He holds a PhD in philosophy, the author of The Oblation Hour book, a former Marketing Executive with Proctor and Gamble and the Ford Motor Company.

This video is just over 6 minutes and should be a real eye opener for all Americans.


Warning!!! http://www.youtube.com/user/ATLAHWorldwide



One black man with a bogeyman message to the white folks, and he must be listened to. He must be right!..he's one of them!...he's black!...and he has a Phd!.... Yes'm!

It does reinforce my argument, above, somewhat.


edited to add: I would vote for Larry elder in a heart beat and he's black.

Amazing!... What are his fiscal and foreign policies?

Easy to say you'd vote for him, but the proof of thee udding, as they say.
Luckily for you he isn't standing for election - yet! :D



THE TEN THINGS YOU CAN'T SAY IN AMERICA


Let's say them here:


Elder says and proves what no one else will:

1. Blacks are more racist than whites
2. White condescension is as real as black racism
3. The media bias: it's real, it's widespread, it's destructive
4. The glass ceiling: full of holes
5. America's greatest problem: illegitimacy
6. The big lie: our healthcare crisis
7. The welfare state: helping us to death
8. Republicans vs. Democrats: maybe a dime's worth of difference
9. Vietnam II: the war on drugs, and we're losing that one too
10. Gun control advocates: good guys with blood on their hands


No wonder he doesn't want Obama to win - he wants to be the first black president himself. :)


Here are some more positive images of African-Americans. Some interesting archives.

Just a few randomly selected pages:

http://www.diversityinbusiness.com/index.htm

http://www.diversityinbusiness.com/dib2002/dib20202/ExecInsight_RMoore.htm

http://www.diversityinbusiness.com/Archived_Indexes/ix_TheAfricanAmExp.htm

[Rising Sun*]

The Hon. James David Manning, PhD warns us NOT to vote for obamma yomamma

James David Manning is an African American energetic and visionary pastor of the ATLAH World Missionary Church located in ATLAH, New York. He has founded three schools and developed a national church ministry. He holds a PhD in philosophy, the author of The Oblation Hour book, a former Marketing Executive with Proctor and Gamble and the Ford Motor Company.

This video is just over 6 minutes and should be a real eye opener for all Americans.

Warning!!! http://www.youtube.com/user/ATLAHWorldwide

It's not much of an eye opener for me.

It just confirms that people who throw around their supposed impressive academic qualifications to bolster their crazy assertions rather than presenting a reasoned argument should be viewed with scepticism. (or skepticism for you Yanks. :D).

Manning implies that he has a Ph. D from Union Theological Seminary with his references to his graduate studies there, but he doesn’t. He awarded it to himself from his own seminary, but you won't find that prominently displayed on his website, but it's there.

He graduated from The College of New Rochelle with a BA degree, continued on to Union Theological Seminary in N.Y.C. where he was awarded a Master of Divinity Degree and finally received a Doctor of Philosophy degree from The Atlah Theological Seminary. http://atlah.org/about/pastormanning.html

I expect he managed to fit that in between talking to a couple of angels in a park and so on. http://atlah.org/about/kingtotallygoodjoseph.html

Manning refers to himself as an alumnus of the Oxford Round Table. The imputation is that he got some academic qualification there, but he doesn't mention what it was. Hardly surprising, as the Oxford Round Table is not an educational institution. It does not have graduates who could call themselves alumni. Nor is it part of Oxford University.

The Round Table is not a degree granting institution and does not have a formal academical connection with the University of Oxford. http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Content-Main/page/disclaimer.html

Similarly he refers to being at St Anthony's College at Oxford, but he doesn't say anything about getting a qualification there. I wouldn't be surprised if he just stayed there as a paying guest while he was qualifying as an ‘alumnus’ of the Oxford Round Table which doesn't have alumni.

That bloke has bullshit and fraud written all over him. He’s just a black version of crooks like Jim Bakker and in the fullness of time will probably be found to be so, to the dismay of those who believed his bullshit and to the cost of those whose pockets he got his hands into.

[Nickdfresh]

McCain talks issues as troubles pile up

Carla Marinucci,John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writers

Friday, May 23, 2008
On a Bay Area campaign stop, Sen. John McCain, the presum... With California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by his side, S... McCain supporter, Trey Peckenpaugh waits for Sen. John Mc... Sen. John McCain (right) is joined by Gov. Arnold Schwarz... More...

(05-22) 16:03 PDT Union City - -- Facing a pile of controversial campaign troubles - including incendiary comments by televangelist John Hagee that forced him to reject Hagee's endorsement - Sen. John McCain tried mightily to shift the focus to economic issues and his Democratic opponent Barack Obama on Thursday during a California campaign swing.

McCain, speaking at a Silicon Valley forum on economic issues alongside Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, issued a renewed call for "comprehensive immigration reform" as a top agenda item for the next president. He called for a "temporary agricultural program,"