SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsModerate Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: tsigprofit who wrote (1038)5/9/2003 12:42:32 PM
From: Bald Eagle
   of 20773
 
Umm, I guess you forget about all the money that Enron gave to Democrats too and Clinton citing them as a "corporate model".

Also, Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden and TURNED DOWN the offer. As for warnings of 9/11, did someone call George Bush and tell him it was going to happen? I think you exaggerate the so-called "warning".

I guess you didn't mind Clinton letting the Chinese have secrets that now compromise this country's security for a few campaign dollars.

I feel much safer with this President than the previous one who "loathed" the military.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: The Philosopher who wrote (1058)5/9/2003 12:55:56 PM
From: Dale Baker
   of 20773
 
Only a stupid politician would give up the chance to have recurring revenue streams. Honest ones might, but not the smart ones.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: tsigprofit who wrote (1062)5/9/2003 12:57:58 PM
From: Bald Eagle
   of 20773
 
Majority Thinks Bush Will Win Second Term
Thursday, May 08, 2003
By Dana Blanton
URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86357,00.html
With the next presidential election about 18 months away, many Americans today think President Bush will be re-elected to a second term and, in head-to-head matchups, Bush bests the top Democratic contenders.

In the latest FOX News nationwide poll of registered voters, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation May 6-7, a majority (61 percent) predicts Bush will be re-elected, while 20 percent think he will be a one-term president.

Republicans are confident in their party leader retaining his office, as fully 85 percent think Bush will be re-elected compared to only 38 percent of Democrats. Independents fall in between with 57 percent thinking Bush will win in 2004.

Who is the opponent Bush is expected to defeat? The Democratic Party officially kicked off its primary season last week with a debate among nine candidates in South Carolina. Among Democrats nationally, the poll finds Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (search) edges out the others to capture the top spot of those looking for that party’s nomination.

Lieberman leads the group with 19 percent, followed by Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt (search) (14 percent) and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (search) (12 percent). The most recent candidate to enter the race officially, Florida Sen. Bob Graham (search), receives four percent — about the same as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (search) (five percent), North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (search) (five percent) and New York Minister Al Sharpton (search) (five percent). Former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (search) receives two percent followed by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (search) at one percent.

"People should remember that a year is a lifetime in politics," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman. "At this stage in 1992, Bill Clinton was barely a blip on the Democratic primary screen and then-President Bush was regarded as unbeatable because of his war victory. Things can change and change rapidly."

In hypothetical matchups, all of the Democratic candidates tested achieve about the same level of backing, with President Bush coming out on top by almost two-to-one.

Some Key Matchups
Bush 58% v. Kerry 29
Bush 57% v. Lieberman 31
Bush 56% v. Gephardt 30

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (search) is not an announced presidential candidate, but there is continuing speculation about her running — if not in 2004, then possibly in 2008. The former first lady’s numbers are similar to those of the other Democratic contenders (Bush 60 percent to Clinton 30 percent). This represents a six percentage point gain for the New York senator — six months ago the numbers were Bush 59 percent and Clinton 24 percent.

When asked which Democrat would be toughest for Bush to defeat, Republicans and Democrats agree that candidate would be Joe Lieberman. This early in the campaign season, many voters are unsure which Democrat would be the strongest against the president, but as of today 24 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of Democrats say Lieberman.

Sentiment is split on the start of the next presidential campaign. Even though the last election went into overtime, about equal numbers of voters say they are looking forward to (42 percent) the start of the 2004 campaign as say they are dreading it (43 percent). Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to say they are looking forward to the 2004 campaign (48 percent and 43 percent respectively), and independents are the most likely to be dreading it (54 percent).

Polling was conducted by telephone May 6-7, 2003 in the evenings. The sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted.

1. I'm going to read you a list of names of some possible candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in the next election. If a 2004 Democratic primary for president were held today, which ONE of the following candidates would you most likely vote for? (Well, to whom do you lean at this time?) (RANDOMIZE)

SUMMARY
Among Democrats (n=318)
Lieberman 19%
Gephardt 14
Kerry 12
Dean 5
Edwards 5
Sharpton 5
Graham 4
Moseley Braun 2
Kucinich 1
(Else/Other) 3
(Not sure) 29
(Would not vote) 1

• Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 14% 7%
25-26 Feb 03 16 13
14-15 Jan 03 15 8

• Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 19 13
25-26 Feb 03 15 13
14-15 Jan 03 29 28

• Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 12 12
25-26 Feb 03 10 10
14-15 Jan 03 13 17

• North Carolina Sen. John Edwards

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 5 6
25-26 Feb 03 6 4
14-15 Jan 03 8 8

• Former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 2 3
25-26 Feb 03 5 1

• Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 5 2
25-26 Feb 03 4 2
14-15 Jan 03 2 2

• New York Minister Al Sharpton

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 5 2
25-26 Feb 03 4 3
14-15 Jan 03 5 2

• Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 1 2
25-26 Feb 03 2 1

• Florida Sen. Bob Graham

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 4 5

• (Someone else/Other)

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 3 12
25-26 Feb 03 5 10
14-15 Jan 03 8 11

• (Not sure)

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 29 28
25-26 Feb 03 33 43
14-15 Jan 03 20 24

• (Would not vote)

Dem Ind
6-7 May 03 1 8

2. Which Democrat do you think would be the toughest opponent for President Bush to run against in 2004? (OPEN)

All Rep Dem Ind
(Joe Lieberman) 17% 24% 15% 9%
(Dick Gephardt) 11 10 10 12
(John Kerry) 10 9 11 11
(Hillary Clinton) 8 6 10 7
(Al Gore) 5 4 8 4
(Bob Graham) 4 4 4 7
(John Edwards) 2 1 2 3
(Al Sharpton) 2 1 3 -
(Howard Dean) 1 - 2 2
(Carol Moseley Braun) 1 - 1 1
(Dennis Kucinich) - - - -
(Other - specify) 1 - 1 2
(Not sure) 38 41 33 42

3. If the election for president of the United States were held today, for who would you vote if the candidates were: (rotate order)
1. Republican George W. Bush 2. Democrat John Kerry 3. (Not sure/Other)4. (Would not vote)

Bush Kerry (NS/Other) (Would not vote)
6-7 May 03 58% 29 11 2
17-18 Dec 02 57% 29 12 2

4. For whom would you vote if the candidates were: (rotate order)
1. Republican George W. Bush 2. Democrat Joe Lieberman 3. (Not sure/Other) 4. (Would not vote)

Bush Lieberman (NS/Other) (Would not vote)
6-7 May 03 57% 31 10 2
17-18 Dec 02 56% 31 10 3
6-7 Aug 02 55% 30 14 1
6-7 Jun 01 53% 32 14 1

5. For whom would you vote if the candidates were: (rotate order)
1. Republican George W. Bush 2. Democrat Dick Gephardt 3. (Not sure/Other)4. (Would not vote)

Bush Gephardt (NS/Other) (Would not vote)
6-7 May 03 56% 30 12 2

6. For whom would you vote if the candidates were: (rotate order)
1. Republican George W. Bush 2. Democrat Hillary Clinton 3. (Not sure/Other) 4. (Would not vote)

Bush Clinton (NS/Other) (Would not vote)
6-7 May 03 60% 30 8 2
19-20 Nov 02 59% 24 16 1
6-7 Aug 02 58% 28 12 2
10-11 Jan 01 45% 34 21 -

7. Would you say you are looking forward to the start of the 2004 presidential campaign or dreading it?

1. Looking forward to it 42%
2. Dreading it 43
3. (Not sure) 15

8. President Bush has completed over half of his term in office. Based on what you know right now, do you think he will be re-elected in 2004 or not?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Bald Eagle who wrote (1065)5/9/2003 1:27:02 PM
From: tsigprofit
   of 20773
 
1 1/2 years away - forever in politics..

Don't get too cocky yet..from your own Fox News
quote:

"People should remember that a year is a lifetime in politics," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman. "At this stage in 1992, Bill Clinton was barely a blip on the Democratic primary screen and then-President Bush was regarded as unbeatable because of his war victory. Things can change and change rapidly."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: tsigprofit who wrote (1066)5/9/2003 1:29:17 PM
From: Bald Eagle
   of 20773
 
I can live with whoever gets elected. My happiness is not dependent on who is in the White House as it appears to be for some folks, both on the right and the left.
However, at this stage, I wouldn't bet against Bush.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: tsigprofit who wrote (1039)5/9/2003 1:30:38 PM
From: epicure
   of 20773
 
After seeing both sides of it for so long, the back of it will be a welcome change. I look forward to that.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: tsigprofit who wrote (1066)5/9/2003 1:34:27 PM
From: epicure
   of 20773
 
The economy, a large terrorist attack aimed at us because of our Iraqi conquest, or any number of other events (including problems of his own, surfacing) could easily bring Bush down.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: epicure who wrote (1069)5/9/2003 1:37:06 PM
From: tsigprofit
   of 20773
 
The Gore-ing of John Kerry
salon.com

The Gore-ing of John Kerry
They've already made fact-free charges that he's a "phony" with deep "identity" problems. Will a toxic press corps eager for a takedown poison the senator's presidential chances the way it did Al Gore's?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Ben Fritz

May 7, 2003 | Media accounts describe him as phony and calculating, incapable of making a heartfelt statement. His history is analyzed cynically, sometimes falsely: Misrepresentations of his statements and actions metastasize into myth. As a result, he is seen as the archetypal slippery, soulless politician. That much of the supporting evidence is false seems utterly beside the point.

That's how Republicans caricatured Al Gore in 2000 -- a line the media dutifully parroted. And as the 2004 presidential campaign gets underway, it's happening again. This time the victim is Sen. John Kerry.

Like Gore, the Massachusetts Democrat has been characterized, with some justice, as being aloof and cold. On Saturday, when asked about his haughty image during the first debate among the Democratic candidates, he tried to laugh it off (in much the same way Gore unsuccessfully joked about being stiff in 2000) by suggesting he "ought to just disappear and contemplate that by myself."

But the press has pushed its pseudo-analysis of Kerry far beyond the innocuous observation that he lacks charisma. And in so doing, it is following the same irresponsible course it did with Gore.

As Gore and now Kerry are learning the hard way, you can't laugh off an image problem to a press corps that now almost always takes personality more seriously than policy. That reporting style has exploded in popularity ever since the New York Times' Maureen Dowd took her acid observations on the presidential campaign trail in 1992 and became a household name. The Washington Monthly observed at the time that "Today's campaign planes and buses are freighted with Dowd disciples: hyperliterate capital-W Writers with an eye for detail and an ear for the shuffling going on behind the curtain." Over time, it's created an even greater blood lust among political reporters for that canny observation or cutting insight -- and whether they are true or not doesn't always seem to matter.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: epicure who wrote (1068)5/9/2003 1:37:08 PM
From: Bald Eagle
   of 20773
 
Hypocrisy Hall of Fame?
Here’s a modest proposal for contemporary historians.

Much has been written lately about the President’s search for a lasting presidential legacy. With the economy crumbling at the end of his shift and a Middle East peace agreement out of reach, we’re left with two options.

If you can’t say anything good…say nothing at all.

But if it proves impossible or impractical to bury eight years of Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian and Oklahoma City, there may be a third alternative.

Rather than wasting taxpayers’ money building a Clinton Presidential library, we suggest the first family of graft solicit a few million dollars from the Red Chinese and their many corporate sponsors to construct…Bill Clinton’s Hypocrisy Hall of Fame.

The exhibits could be varied but with a common theme. Say one thing. Do another.

We could open the "rogue’s gallery" with a picture of young Bill Clinton meeting John F. Kennedy in the oval office…and a soundtrack of former vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentson saying, "I knew John F. Kennedy. And you…sir…are no John F. Kennedy."

There would be a framed copy of Bill’s famous letter to the ROTC commander stating how he "loathes the military," right next to President Bill saluting a Marine honor guard.

We would hear a tape recording from his anti-tobacco campaign, displayed next to a photo of Monica Lewinsky and a partially smoked cigar.

In the media room, we would see Bill Clinton telling a giggling MTV audience how he tried marijuana once but didn’t inhale. Push the button on another screen and we get Bill praising his own "anti-drug" legacy. Footage pops up from last Thursday’s press conference where he tells reporters, "We must never give up on making our children’s futures safe and drug-free."

Once more, we would view footage of a laughing Bill Clinton exiting Ron Brown’s funeral, catching sight of a video camera and instantly changing his emotions, weeping uncontrollably to fit the mood of the moment.

The "Wag the Dog" exhibit would feature an intense president telling the nation, "I did not have sex with that woman," the video instantly cutting away to footage of a smoking aspirin factory in the Sudan, attacked to deflect media attention from key congressional impeachment hearings.

And for the coup de grace…we would hear Bill Clinton promising America the most "ethical" administration in the history of the nation. Then, we would enter the archives, filled with millions of "deleted e-mails" and thousands of pages of testimony from the dozens of criminal investigations involving Mr. Clinton and his associates…many imprisoned…some deceased.

Will there be a second "Hillary" wing in the works?

This is the stuff that nightmares are made of.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: epicure who wrote (1069)5/9/2003 1:44:39 PM
From: Bald Eagle
   of 20773
 
RE:a large terrorist attack

That would help Bush, IMO. The American people don't trust the Democrats to defend them against terrorism. What exactly did the Slickster do in his eight years except fire one or two missiles at a tent.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10