Why is this happening?
Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows. CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her. Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.
Has Hilary taken so many different positions that now she has pissed off everyone?
A few more plantation comments and she's toast.
Who will come out ahead?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
I think Rice could be pres if she ran
Ain't no way Rice, or any woman would ever win Presidency in '08. The USA is just not to the point where they will accept a woman in that position, let alone a minority woman. Ain't gonna happen in '08, period.
Furthermore,in the last 4 months, Rice has been seen in the media with the likes of Hilarious, publicly backing some very controversial government programs for minorities. (One of the increasing problems that helped turn the tides, and put Republicans back in power was exactly that sort of thing.) People suspect, and rightly so, that Rice would feel obligated to support lots of programs for minorities. She would be under pressure day and night. Those aren't the things that show up in polls; most people won't admit to those attitudes no way, no how, not even to themselves, until forced to at the very last minute at the voting booths.)
We still have a lot of baby boomers, who may like the way Rice makes Bush look good, but they would never support her if she were standing alone.
very nice comments anon...
you are probably right...but during the election the media would not be able to attack her as bad because she is a woman and minority, or the Left would look really bad if they did attack her
Interesting bit about the emotional centers, eh? Looks like they used EEG's, and other electrical brain wave monitoring devices. I haven't had time to get all the specs though.
Makes it clear that lots of polling results aren't worth very much in the final analysis. People have deep rooted emotional reasons for their beliefs that they really wouldn't admit to, even in a private poll, up to the last minute. I gotta run, but more later about how this works. I thought you would be the perfect one to expound on this further.
New Study:
Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.
And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.
Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.
The results were announced Tuesday.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
Bias on both sides
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.
Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.
Check out the whole story, which includes a link to the research study report.
More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182641,00.html
About Rice and the media not attacking her. I believe they would viciously attack her anyway, regardless of her being a woman, and a minority. That is, if she didn't succumb to the left's demands, especially concerning the ACLU, and the NAACP.
The media would be unmerciful to her then, maybe even more so, because of her minority status. They would then tout that she not a 'true' minority...you know the term for that. What is it they are calling the black Republicans these days? I am in such a hurry, my mental block has kicked in. But I'm sure you know what term that is? Help me out here, OK?
uncle tom has been used...
and house n_____
re: Anonymous...
Is that Stephanie I see? Maybe not.
ya, what happened to her?
I. Don't. Know...
But I put on extra guards at the gate.
what do you mean?
I believe he is referring to a block of IP addresses to the comments section of his blog.
Apparently, he believes all folks are like him, and will repeatedly stalk him unmercifully, as he does to others', posting nastiness on his blog whenever they have a disagreement with him. (Just as he stalks "Just Ain't Right" yet.) This stalking behavior of his persisted for months, he even had a post up on his blog for a month just for the sole purpose of being mean to "Just Ain't Right". Yes, she practically begged him to stop, but he wouldn't.
So apparently now, his belief that all people react as he does, is making him a wee bit paranoid.
It's a tad egocentric, really.
Man, I am confused...who are you anon?
Who am I? Just a Republican who likes your blogsite.
I thought of this little scenario we just discussed, when I found the below article tonight. Enjoy!
TECHNOLOGY / CIRCUITS | January 18, 2006
From the Desk of David Pogue: How to Be a Curmudgeon on the Internet
Here they are, courtesy of Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society (PAINS): "Rules for Trolls and Pills."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/technology/circuits/19POGUE-EMAIL.html?ex=1138510800&en=ef78c908194506f2&ei=5070
This is too funny. I didn't want you to miss this. (Does anyone ever look at links, anyway?) Guilty as charged for occasionally being a curmudgeon, especially under Section 8) Trolling, located at the bottom of the list.
I'm sure everyone is guilty of at least one item in the list. Especially if you examine these rules under the political topics, rather than consumer topics, such as presented here.
RULES FOR TROLLS AND PILLS
WHEREAS, 95 percent of all the e-mail received by critics and columnists is civil, friendly or respectfully constructive;
but WHEREAS, this is the Internet age, and we're all anonymous and can avoid making eye contact forever;
and WHEREAS, there's so much information overload, a little heat and drama on your part may be necessary just to be heard above the din;
and WHEREAS, many of those who fire off potshots are missing out on some of the best techniques for effective snippiness;
THEREFORE let us now post the rules for membership in the Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society.
1. Use the strongest language possible. Calling names is always effective, and four-letter words show that you mean business.
2. Having a violent opinion of something doesn't require you to actually try it yourself. After all, plenty of people heatedly object to books they haven't read or movies they haven't seen. Heck, you can imagine perfectly well if something is any good.
3. If it's a positive review that you didn't like, call the reviewer a "fanboy." Do not entertain the notion that the product, service, show, movie, book or restaurant might, in fact, be good. Instead, assume that the reviewer has received payment from the reviewee. Work in the word "shill" if possible.
4. If it's a negative review, call the reviewer a "basher" and describe the review as a "hatchet job." Accuse him of being paid off by the reviewee's *rival*.
5. If it's a mixed review, ignore the passages that balance the argument. Pretend that the entire review is all positive or all negative. Refer to it either as a "rave" or a "slam."
6. If you find a sentence early in the article that rubs you the wrong way, you are by no means obligated to finish reading. Stop right where you are--express your anger while it's still good and hot! What are the odds that the writer is going to say anything else relevant to your point later in the piece, anyway?
7. If the writer responds to your e-mail with evidence that you're wrong (for example, by citing a paragraph that you overlooked), disappear without responding. This is the anonymous Internet; slipping away without consequence or civility is your privilege.
8. Trolling is making a deliberately inflammatory remark, one that you know perfectly well is baloney, just to get a rise out of other people. Trolling is an art. Trolling works just fine for an audience of one (say, a journalist), but of course the real fun is trolling on public bulletin boards where you can get dozens of people screaming at you simultaneously. Comments on religion, politics or Mac-vs.-Windows are always good bets. The talented troll sits back to enjoy the fireworks with a smirk, and never, ever responds to the responses.
9. Don't let generalities slip by. Don't tolerate simplifications for the sake of a non-technical audience. Ignore conditional words like "generally," "usually" and "most." If you read a sentence that says, for example, "The VisionPhone is among the first consumer videophones," cite the reviewer's ignorance and laziness for failing to mention the prototype developed by AT&T for the 1964 World's Fair. Send copies of your note to the publication's publisher and, if possible, its advertisers.
And there you have it: the nine habits of highly effective pills. After all: if you're going to be a miserable curmudgeon, you may as well do it up right!
Having the press in your pocket can change minds, but this poll looks promising... added to the fact that she is definitely the front-runner.
On my blogpage I ask if she is the worst Dem we could elect. I would be interested in your opinion.
You would have to tell me what you mean by worst....but I would have to say there are worse Dem's we could elect.
Dean would be worse, anyone who is far, far left...Hilary is far left, but she tries to play the role of a moderate from time to time...just like bill did...if she could stay away from scandle she might not be the worst.
People like Dean are all the way to the Left. they are moonbat crazy cool-aid drinkers...
Democrats would do best if they ran Mark Warner, Brian Schweitzer, or Evan Bayh.
My hunch though is that some crazy anti-war guy will get the nomination. It is also possible one of the above may suck up to the communists and hippies to get votes, but so far they're all keeping their cards close to their chests.
OMG! Jason! Brian Sweatzer? Please! Where are you from? Brian's a bumbling fool. One of the reasons he was elected Governor of MT, is because the Republicans didn't have a single soul worth a spit to run against anyone. The other reason being due to the completely inept Republican Governor Ms. Judy before Brian. And the only reason she won back then is because Montanans hate Democrats so very much, and they didn't have a decent choice to pick from then either, just as was the case for Brian. When Judy's term was up, lots of folks were so enraged at her ineptness, they figured they may as well take a gamble at something new. Montana has long been a Republican state. Sweatzer has little to no respect from anyone in MT. He's just a figurehead they need. Good Grief! I have been reading the MT news and groaning all morning about some of the idiotic things Sweatzer has been saying, and trying to do. He's the epitome of a 'big blustering pussy'. Pretty much, he's just a puppet whose strings are being pulled by smarter, more evil Democrats. There's not a whole lot of neurons firing in his upper deck. I have been watching Brain dead Brian since he did his publicity stunts in the early 90's of transporting elderly folks across the Canadian border to get cheap prescription drugs. He really wanted to be Gov back then, but he couldn't even get the ticket to try and beat Marc Racicot.
Furthermore, this summer, some national Democrats were having orgasms believing Sweatzer would make a good Presidential candidate, specifically for the reason that he won governorship of MT, a LONG time Republican state. The thinking was that if he could win here, he would be able to win over Republicans anywhere. The mistake they failed to realize is that there were very concrete reasons he won governorship, (at last), none of which have anything to do with any imagined abilities he has at managing affairs. This past summer, when the Dems were rubbing their hands in glee, thinking they had found someone in their party as charasmatic as Marc Racicot was to both parties, to possibly take on the '08 Pres. elections, Brian himself published statements here, saying "I just ain't that smart". Quote is verbatim.
This much I will give him...he knows that he is not Presidential material. When I think of pot bellied Brian visiting heads of state elsewhere, and trying to impress, the mental pic just doesn't materialize...cause it ain't gonna happen. He really is a blustering idiot. The things I read last night and this AM about what he's saying and doing causes involuntary eye rolling, and groaning. He's quickly digging a huge gravesite for himself in a state with less than a million people, and for anyone to imagine he could be Pres.? He'd be creamed at any debate. Please! Where are you coming up with this nonsense?
Most Montanans already rue the day they elected Brian, out of sheer desperation.
On the other hand, the new polls show good approval ratings for Conrad Burns' third term...literally my personal hero. And the more idiotic Brian behaves, it's just all the more that people here, and everywhere want good solid Republicans to stay in office. So Brain dead Brian's idiocy is effecting some good after all;)
anonymous --
Schweitzer had a 66% approval rating on 09/20/05. The only Democratic governor with a higher approval rating is Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming. Objectively, Schweitzer is a much, much better option for Democrats than the usual suspects of Kerry, Pelosi, Dean, Gore, Clinton and so forth. Again, if they want to win, they should run Warner, Schweitzer, or Bayh at the top of the ticket.
When people start calling their opponents "fools" and "stupid" like liberals call Reagan and Bush, you know they're low on ammo.
I'll be sure and send on over some links to some of the idiocies Sweaty has implemented. Give me some time over the weekend to assemble them in a neat little package for you. I don't usually save every piece of crap that I read on my computer, you know? It's not a low on ammo thing Jason, but a short on time thing.
Heck...I'll even see if I can't dig up the quotes of his where he PERSONALLY admitted "I ain't that smart". Have you ever met the man? And it's like I said before, the Democrats 'approve' of him running simply because they believe he will be charasmatic, such as Racicot was for Republicans, and therefore regain Democrats some semblance of power. They are encouraged because of his win, in a traditionally STRONG REPUBLICAN state, and that's IT. But I explained the fallacies to that sort of thinking to you already. That is the only reason they even considered him for the Pres running. Sweaty has, already in the short time of governorship here, created such financial castrophes for MT, that by the time his term is up, he will be utterly despised. There are already several lawsuits against the state, from businesses adversely affected by Sweaty and his advisors (brains). If he can't run this state, how is he supposed to run the country?
And I might add that the approval ratings in the final analysis, are worth about as much as a hot cup of 'jack squat'. Approval ratings come and go with the tides of change. Common sense endures forever. And Sweaty just doesn't have what it takes to be Pres. That is common sense. Where are these approval ratings coming from? Do you have links to all this approval Sweaty is getting?
Schweitzer is more popular in Montana than Bush. All ratings I have read over the last six months put him in the mid 60's. Sure, besides winning elections, approval means little.
Moreover, if Schweitzer is messing things up as bad as you say (you haven't said much, except he is stupid), he must have more appeal with redstaters than I thought (I've only seen him on C-SPAN), again, given the ratings. Earlier I got the number from USA Today; here's the most recent link I found (12-25-05):
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/12/25/news/mtregional/news08.txt
"HELENA - Montana voters gave Gov. Brian Schweitzer the highest job approval rating of top elected officials, a new Lee Newspapers poll found.
Sixty-four percent of voters gave Schweitzer a positive job performance score in his first year in office. U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was next with 59 percent.
A trio of Republicans followed. Rep. Denny Rehberg was at 58 percent, Sen. Conrad Burns at 51 percent and President Bush at 48 percent, falling below 50 percent for the first time in a Lee poll. All three Republicans saw their job performance scores drop since the last Lee poll in May."
BTW, I'll most likely be voting Republican in 2008. However, if we insist on being objective, you have to admit Schweitzer is a better candidate than someone like Gore or Clinton.
OK, let's start with Sweaty's disclaimer last summer, Jason. Here's the link:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2005/07/21/build/state/35-schweitzer-rumors.inc
I barely know where to start when describing how nutty Sweaty is...there are way too many concerns Montanans have that he is botching up. I do have links for them all, but the list is far too extensive to place on Game's blog.
One apparent trend though is that he has been increasing the size of the government here, far more than is necessary. He has appointed committees for every popular liberal passion imaginable. Almost every single appointee to these committees are staunch Democrats. The latest is a committee on global warming, in which he talks about the drought MT has, that of course he believes is brought on by global warming. Scoff.
And truly funny is how one can trek through the articles, and see how one week he rants and raves about an issue, and condemns the Bush administration, on CNN, and other MSM sources, then in the very next couple of weeks, have to eat his words when he finds out he was dead wrong...when the local experts remind him how it really is. Only he doesn't bother to admit he was wrong, and needlessly made a scene. One example of this irrational, uninformed behavior of his is when he demanded that Bush send some of the MT Nat. Guard home from Iraq to help fight fires this past year. He claimed we didn't have enough firefighters, or enough planes to manage. He really made a big scene then. He was wrong.
He just keeps whoring himself out to the libs, spouting off what they want to hear as loud as he can over every MSM out there. I even have an article where he tries to suck up to Hollywood movie producers.
OH MY GOSH, there are tons of examples on every issue imaginable where he has spouted his ignorance, all last year. All preserved very nicely on the Net. I use the Billings Gazette as my source. Even though it is a very liberal newspaper, the ineptness cannot be hid, when you have read all the articles from week to week. And since it is a local paper, it covers the issues a tad more realistically. He just can't hide the mess he's making from most people here. The libs from CA, aka implants here, like him, but go figure. I have an article about how many millions of dollars in taxes wealthy CA's owe MT, they are filthy rich, yet won't pay their taxes. They run back to CA before the state can grab them. Since they go back and forth between the 2 states, they do return to wreak more havoc, but still manage to avoid tax collectors. I suspect those are the people that give him high approval ratings, those and people who don't keep up with things enough to see the obvious incompetence. I do believe the approval polls done here in MT are extremely biased, regarding who is even questioned. Matter of fact, I know most of them are biased in this way.
Oh, his coal to fuel rants are extremely funny too, especially when he tries to talk like an environmentalist expert one week, then the next week be on coal to fuel rants. And his stance on the fuel taxes here last summer didn't set well with most folks, and even renewed efforts to try and get Denny Rehberg to run next term. Oh, then there's the water rights and conservation issues, he managed to bilk property owners out of more money for.
He's quickly depleting any treasury excesses MT has, and we will be broke soon. Hide and watch. I will try to organize a concise list of his hypocrisies, if you really want to see what he does, and not just rely on the way the MSM has built him up for their own purposes. The liberal MSM is only trying to come up with a guy that they think will be the Democrat equivalent to Bush and have sort of a personal down to earth touchy feely aura, you know? Only Bush does have a lot more smarts and class than Sweaty.
I kept up with Sweaty's idiocies all last year, and have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I have to live with the big dummy for another 3 years.
Another extremely funny thing is just how bad he has ticked off the teachers' union. That was a huge campaign promise of his, about what wondeful things he would do for the MT school systems. Well, he's a flake, and he has really ticked them off, just like he is ticking off the business owners, and farmers and ranchers. He's almost as good at ticking people off, both libs and conservatives, right now as Hilarious is.
Ammo? Oh yeah, I have plenty of ammo. Do you have the necessary time it requires to read all the ammo?
OK Jason, I addressed some of the polling issues briefly regarding MT's so called love affair with Schweitzer. Those polls are not at all very accurate, at least from what I have read about the way they were conducted. A couple of them were done by freshman college students, go figure. I would have to see the actual data on how the polls were conducted before I was sold that Montanans love Schweitzer.
But I'm glad you will be voting Republican in 2008:D
OMG! You got info from the Missoulian?! The biggest liberal infested, region in the entire state? That's where the majority of the tax evading CA's hang out, right there where "A River Runs Through It". Pretty place, I have relatives there, but just hate the large number of idiotic environmental liberals there.
Yes, I agree with you on that one...he would be a better candidate than Gore or Clinton. Hide and watch and see what his approval ratings are in another year or year and a half. Not so fetching, I'll bet. And if you read the Gazette articles, you will find that Sweaty has been sucking up in a BIG way to the tribes. Hmmmm.
Another suck up has been to women voters. Check out how many new socialist programs for women he has orchestrated, or is in the process of doing so.
Those Gazette articles on Sweaty are priceless when tracked in their entirety over the last year. They would give you a much better idea of how stupid he really is, when you see the flip flops and mistakes in judgement he has made. But if you don't read them all...about 600, you won't see the details very clearly. Gotta stay on the ball after the home boys, you know?
As far as sucking up to the hippies, check out all the articles about the environmental 'issues' he has spewed about this past year. When closely examined, you will find that even the experts in the respective areas of these env. issues have corrected him time and again. The man truly knows very little about very little.
I hate like heck to put all these long posts on Game's blog. But here goes with the last of this saga. I know you were just thinking, based on approval ratings that Schweitzer would make a better candidate for a win over the others, Jason. However, before I label someone as stupid, I usually have the facts. I just hate to have to explain them in detail, because usually I'm a pretty quiet sort. But, realistically, based on real life situations, not the MSM approval ratings engineered by the Democrats, Schweitzer has ben doing what every liberal does best...make a mess out of things and a fool of himself in the process. So by the time the 2008 elections roll around, the rest of the country will already have full knowledge of the mess Sweaty got himself into here, and they shouldn't even consider him as a Pres. candidate. Here's a few links on reality to get you started.
Teachers mad as hell at Sweaty:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2006/01/27/build/state/70-ed-groups.inc
Board members mad as hell at Sweaty:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2005/12/10/build/state/55-gov-board.inc
Civil rights council started by Sweaty:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2006/01/17/build/state/65-rights-council.inc
Sweaty and global warming:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2006/01/19/build/state/70-gloabl-warming-gov.inc
Sweaty and public defender commission:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2005/07/03/build/state/73-defender-commission.inc
Oh the list is extensive.
Keeping it real, Sweaty is doing what liberals do best...making an ass out of himself, and ticking EVERYONE off.
anonymous --
Whether Schweitzer throws his hat in the ring is one question. But it is obvious that Warner, Bayh, or Schweitzer would all be better options for the Democrats when compared to Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Feingold, and the other usual suspects.
Your list of complaints against Schweitzer seem trivial and quaint.
In Illinois, when a politician is doing something wrong, it is something like looking the other way while the city water department runs a heroin ring, raiding the state pension fund to balance the budget, giving out trucking licenses for bribes, or investment firms paying kickbacks to do business with the Illinois State Teachers Retirement System.
I read your links. It appears Schweitzer is keeping his base happy with cosmetic fluff without *doing* anything that will piss off moderates. That's smart politics.
Your articles complain Schweitzer is showing fiscal restraint with the teacher's unions, has done a few cosmetic things to promote diversity (I hate the diversity nazis as much as you do, but Dem voters eat it up), and takes the science on global warming seriously while not doing anything about it. You also complained Schweitzer was too concerned about putting out fires, though politically while not being concerned is a problem, being too concerned never will be. Polls are scientific, and all of the big and little ones I've seen agree with each other. I know you hate the guy, but all of this is *not* going to hurt Schweitzer in a national election, should he run in the future.
Jason, I only sent those links to get you started. It's like I said in a previous post here. You really do need to track through the archives to get the whole hypocrisy picture. Reading just the few that I put here doesn't enlghten at all. One week, he says one thing, and the next week he does the opposite. It helps to have an understanding of the precarious balance of MT's economy too. Also helps to have an understanding of the uniqueness of Montanans in general.
And the point with the teachers is that he has promised them so much while campaigning and stringing them along,(about one third of the articles out of that 600 are on schools and teachers) and the fact that he has finally managed to incite complete outrage, which you can see through all the articles, is just plain funny. This news yesterday am, had my retired superintendent of schools Republican mother grinning from ear to ear. She is not for the teachers unions, never has been, but she enjoys the way Sweaty
is inciting such rage, and making an ass of himself.
There has not been fiscal restraint..like I said, he has started up very costly commissions, and councils, and starting costly env. programs. The latest BS I heard was something about coyotes and the Fish and Game Dept. Seems like shooting the poor creatures, to control the populations is too cruel. The guys doing the shooting are not cruel. It's one shot, bang and it's over. But now with the new and improved animal rights libs, we'll have to "put them to sleep". $$$$$.
And we don't have the same sort of 'climate' as Illinois does, because we don't even have as many people in the entire state as there is in Chicago. I lived in O'Fallon, Il for a few years. Nice place. So anyway, the corruption is not about the same things. You actually have to know this state's pops, to understand.
And don't think for a moment that conservatives aren't keeping track of all his hypocrisies, and they are just giving himself enough rope right now to hang himself real good. Republicans usually are patient, tolerant people. When most libs get in office, they get the gung ho thing going on, and they just aren't prudent. Dems get excited about polls and publicity, while the Rep's sit back, hide and watch, and let them hang themselves. Like I said, I'd have to see the actual methods of the way these approval studies were conducted to buy them anyway. IMO, most aren't very scientific at all.
And the gist of the fire scenarios, and the global warming (we had an extremely WET year last year), is that he clearly didn't know what he was talking about and ticked people off.
You really do need to read all those articles to get a more realistic view of what is happening with his political suicide. And know the issues MT has.
The fuel taxes alone, enraged people, I named other things too. Now, read them all. When one only reads a selection of them, one can easily arrive at the very conclusions you did. That's understandable. I would have assessed the same way you did, had I not been tracking him for a long time.
But hide and watch. I'm right about this. He really is bankrupting the state. This will not be good for him.
He's trying very hard to walk that thin line between conservatives, and liberals...but he's getting off balance. I gotta go for now.
I saw an article in the Rolling Stone about him...I'll have to comment on that later. It's too funny. But many of these preliminary approval ratings are fleeting, built up by the media glorification of their 'pet' politicians. This is because lots of folks don't keep up with what the politicians are even doing, until their actions hit the wallets. Then there's fire, and hell to pay.
One last thing before I head out. "Trivial and Quaint"? Oh my! It's best you don't ever run for a public office in our "trivial and quaint" state. Just saying something like that could get you shot.
Just keep in mind what state he is messing with. It's not the same thing as Illinois.
anonymous --
You must be on crack if you seriously believe commissions on diversity and the other things I took the time to read will hurt a Democratic presidential candidate in New York, Massachusetts, California and so forth. You were around during the Clinton years, right? His approval ratings were highest when he got caught cheating on his wife. We can and do defeat the Dems on matters of gravity -- America can't trust them on security, they'll ruin our health care, blah blah blah. Attacking the ticky-tack stuff is a recipe for failure.
Someone like Warner starts with none of the blue states in play. It will be easier for the Dems to win if the are putting the Republicans on the defensive in Arkansas and Ohio and so forth if the Dems don't have to defend their home turf in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. This is common sense for anyone who likes to follow American politics.
You remind me of Democrats who were saying polls about Bush were fake propaganda from the corporate media when they were up around 70%, but are now cheering pollsters for doing their jobs since the numbers are currently in the low 40s. Let us all be objective here and leave the conspiracy theories at the door.
I think you missed some of the abstract points I made. But I'm ready to stop beating this dead horse for now. And some days I WISH I was on crack;)
But I'm still going to hope his suicidal tendencies here, deter the rest of the country from blindly following him, based on the National Democrats media propaganda of him. He's no good.
Post a Comment