The most recent polls from New York Times/CBS and the Washington Post/ABC confirm several important trends coming out of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. But the Times/CBS poll also contains a warning for the Democrats on how the race issue may play out.
On the Republican side, it is not surprising that John McCain’s revival and Huckabee’s emergence are coming at Mitt Romney’s expense. Romney’s chameleon character has been fully exposed, resulting in a growing Republican disapproval of his candidacy. His unfavorable ratings seem to increase as Republicans get to know him.
At the same time, few Republicans knew much about Huckabee a month ago, but since Iowa his favorable ratings have shot up, along with McCain’s. It’s interesting that despite all the highly public Republican Beltway angst about Huckabee and Romney’s negative attacks, Huckabee’s negative ratings have not gone up at all among Republicans nationally. So far, "aw shucks" evasions are working. However, the poll was conducted just as the more strident attacks by Thompson and Romney were beginning, following Thursday’s debate and continuing Sunday on CNN’s Late Edition (with Huckabee’s response).
Nor is the country fully aware of how blatantly Huckabee is telling his evangelical followers they’re about to take over the Republican party. So we’ll have to see what effect that has over time.
On the Democratic side, the poll shows the expected rise in Obama’s numbers nationally, some slight weakening for Clinton, and still small percentages for Edwards. But a particular set of findings is surprising. From the Times:
About half of black Democratic primary voters — 49 percent — said they planned to vote for Mr. Obama, while 34 percent said they backed Mrs. Clinton. Among white Democratic primary voters, 42 percent said they were supporting Mrs. Clinton, while 24 percent said they backed Mr. Obama. On the question of whether the country was ready for a black president, black voters were more skeptical than whites; 47 percent of blacks said the country was prepared to send a black person to the White House, while 56 percent of whites said they felt that way. A majority of whites and blacks, and men and women, considered the country ready for a woman president.
The survey showed that Democratic voters see Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton as evenly matched on several leadership qualities, despite the efforts of both camps to draw distinctions. Virtually the same percentages of Democrats said Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama could unify the country and bring about “real change.” Both were given high marks as potential commanders in chief.
A finding that only 56 percent of whites and 47 percent of blacks think we’re ready for a black President is not exactly reassuring. If Democrats truly see their principal candidates as more or less equally capable of leading the country, it’s essential that their ultimate choice not be driven by fears of perceived or actual racism. The danger in feeding this fear only reinforces what Jane Hamsher and others here have been saying about the need for the Democratic candidates to refrain from inflaming the racial issue, either directly, or by proxy. Neither campaign seems to have the good sense to rise above this.
There are (at least) two barriers that need to fall in this election, and however we sort that out, we need to leave no doubt we are ready for both. The country is longing for principled leadership, and this moment is the ideal opportunity for the Democratic candidates who wish to be our President to demonstrate it.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
I think there’s a big difference between generic items about “a black president” and having those questions applied to a specific individual. I’m not sure that the generic questions about race and/or gender will play out based on their expectations when presented as about Obama or Clinton.
Caw, caw! Good morning Scarecrow.
you would think there would be enough fodder to fuel the debate without having to resort to race and gender issues. This part of what they are doing is infuriating. It’s almost as if they are looking for a shortcut to cut the other off at the knees. That’s republican-think.
Stick to the issues!
“principled leadership” – May I have some more, sir?
what egregious said
Why do the polls never ask if voters would like to see a return to the rule of law, restoration of habeas corpus, an end to illegal wiretapping, restoration of Justice to its department and the impeachment and subsequent international war crimes trials of Bush and Cheney for torture?
When will the candidates talk about any of these issues?
Good morning, Scarecrow. Oops, forgot there- Caw, Caw. The racial flareups between Dem candidates grew worse in the past few days- I don’t get why the frontrunners & their PR machines aren’t firmly tamping this down rather than allowing it to inflame further. Talk issues, & no tingeing the debate w/race or gender. Moratorium on all such remarks by both candidates & their supporters.
Escalation of the race focus/tension needs to be dealt with openly & dismissed as beneath our Dem candidates. Right now. This is beneath my party.
This is from the NYT poll link above:
Now, I put that bold there because I have a question about that. Just who writes the candidates off?
How can the voters write them off when they hadn’t voted yet?
I want my vote to matter.
Good morning all.
JulieWaters — I agree poll answers to the generic questions can be be affected by feelings about the specific candidates. It’s not clear to me which way. The CW seemed to be that Obama was not eliciting anti-racial feelings to the degree candidates have in the past; if that is true, then I would have expected the percentages of those who think the country is “ready” would have been higher. Perhaps I’m looking at this upside down.
I find these polls unhelpful. The issue of a woman being elected is measurable nationwide. But a black president? My take is that there is some resistance to that in a large part of our country. And the MSM isn’t helping.
Talking Points Memo is following the race issue pretty closely. Josh has come to a conclusion – the Clintons are using a rope-a-dope strategy designed to provoke an angry response from the Obama campaign. Sadly, I suspect he is right. Also, sadly, I suspect that the American public is likely to be very responsive to this kind of inuendo, whether subtle from the Clintons or using a sledgehammer as we can expect from the reThugs. Here’s Josh:
“We seem to be at the point where there are now two credible possibilities. One is that the Clinton campaign is intentionally pursuing a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men. The other possibility is that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama.” http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063536.php
Aren’t you all aware that its definitely not the candidates that are pushing the racial issues, but the media. Boy, they are stirring the pot. Of course, that will be the whispering campaign tactics that will follow in the general election. Divide the party, especially along racial lines. They’ve almost lost the latino support in their fear of brown people from Mexico, so they hope that white and black democrats will start fighting each other. We are better than that. The Clintons are definitely not racist, but the Republicans definitely are, so be ready.
Elliot,
We don’t get to vote until APRIL!!!!! How on earth will our vote matter? The system is stacked against most of the country because the media has been charged by their owners to pick the candidates that will not rock the corpo boat. It will be interesting to see if they pull it off, yet again.
I don’t think they are tamping it down because they are simply baiting each other – trying to get someone to make a mistake… all politics, all the time… Clinton isn’t racist, Obama isn’t sexist – just a game to these 2…
Coffee’s ready – hold out your cups…
The Clintons themselves may not be, but they listen to the tactics of their very highly paid consultants who are master manipulators. I think Josh is on to something at TPM. It all feels somehow dirty. That’s not how I want to see the dems playing the game against one another.
I always start with the more benign interpretation first, until the cynics are proved right. I’m a great believer in people’s silliness. But when the offending surrogates are senior officials, long-time politicians, — people who should know better — etc, then you start to wonder.
So true. And thus, the continual ignoring/minimizing of John Edwards’ candidacy.
it’s infuriating!
To which was added by a reader of the site the possibility that the surrogates are there to egg Obama on, thereby making him look more…well it’s so disheartening about Dem on Dem conflict, that I’d rather not repeat it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063544.php
Race is gonna play a major role in this election. This election is going to bring out the worst of America. I’ve have already been bombarded with the e-mail about Obama’s church and how He’s a racist and probably a Muslim. I live in Georgia and have already heard plenty of people say, “I ain’t voting for no xxx”. I live in Georgia and am ashamed of the attitudes I’m hearing from so called christians. Everybody I work with are Southern baptist and all are racist and proud of it.
[Mod Note; Edited by mod.]
Plus we have Karl Rove feeding this with his dog whistle columns in the WSJ.
It is true general questions get different answers, but at this stage asking about “an African American” is going to mean Obama in a lot of people’s minds. Generic “Dem” congressional questions refer to a body of hundreds, so that is also different. There is surely some difference, but I suspect less than one might think.
And relative to whether it is the media’s narrative, the Clinton’s know very well how the media works and the timing of the comments by surrogates certainly feels like a strategy. If true, it also cynically assumes anti-racist voters will come home to them after baiting Obama into an “angry black man” image.
OT
Scarecrow, another Larry Johnson piece on Charlie Wilson’s War. FYI, FWIW.
Was just listening to NPR in the car; they were reporting on this issue, had an excerpt of HRC quoted on one of the Sunday talk shows on this topic.
She said you’ve got a superbly qualified African-American and a woman running to break the highest glass ceiling — and it’s not about race.
As soon as she said that, it’s ALL about race, and she knows it.
So damned embarrassed and sickened by that. It’s the classic, “Don’t think of an elephant” manipulation and ownership of frame.
Poof! there’s an elephant in your mind’s eye.
And poof! It’s all about race.
HRC needs a dose of STFU on that topic.
We are a racist and sexist nation. And we have been under the despotic leadership of a group of folks who take the cake for both issues. As a result, resources have never been tighter and as a resort, everyone is fighting for there fair share of the pot of resources.
My issue remains, not that Obama should not be selected because of my fear of racism…but my fear that he is untested in that kind of battle. I haven’t watched him fight it. It’s not that I don’t think he can, it’s that I just don’t know how he will handle it. I think it’s a fair discussion because we have seen Hillary fight it (racism, and sexism) for a long time.
I think both candidates will be in for a very difficult battle but I agree we cannot run from the fight.
For anyone using the NYTimes as a source of accurate information is laughable. The NYTimes is about misinformation, disinformation and subterfuge. It’s a corrupted and complicit organization that is more concerned with preserving the status quo and the priviledge of the ruling elites.
So true. They’re only able to get away with it because so many people still pay attention to the Conglomerate Media. We should all be trying to get more and more people reading places like FDL every day.
Of course, that fact that electronic voting machines can be easily rigged isn’t going to help our cause either.
http://blackboxvoting.org/
(BlueStateRedHead…I left you a response on the last thread)
Thanks for the coffee, OC. I’m afraid you may be right & it’s all a gotcha game between the two frontrunners. This crap certainly denigrates the debate they should be having right now.
Time for me to donate to Edwards again. I hope he can stay in to the very last.
this is a very interesting statistick;
I’m Jewish, and when gore was running for president I thought running with lieberman was a huge mistake
at the time I didn’t know how much I would dispise lieverman as a politician but I did know there is anti semitism in this country and I thought there was not a chance on the planet we would ever elect a jewish president or vice president
so I thought gore doomed his own candidacy…I was wrong, gore won the election, the supreme court took it away but that’s besides the point, I don’t think it would have even been close enough to steal had gore chosen someone else
I am feeling exactly the same way about hillary and about oboma
I know if not now then when, if not us then who, there has never been a better chance for us to elect a minority or a women, so if we get the office then this was great and I will rejoice
however, if bigotry and hatred galvanize the republican party enough, and they steal enough votes otherwise and we loose this election, it will be the greatest strategic mistake we could have possibly made for this nation
there is more at stake this election then any others, there has been too much damage and the president’s policies will go forward and the damage will continue if we elect another republican
that, combined with the FACT that edwards IS the best candidate, he HAS the best ideas, the best proposals and is the ONLY real progressive who has made it clear there WILL be campaign reform
I am surely sorry oboma and clinton are running this cycle, and which ever wins, I really hope they don’t pick the other as their running mate
this is really like the quaterback throwing the ball to the oposing team in our end zone…if they would have any chance at all, we are giving it to them
there, I said it
And how is it that Rove, who left in disgrace, can be given airtime in the WSJ?
Yes, but the question is also whether Hillary’s campaign is trying to test Obama on that and if so, its different than what you are saying. She would not be fighting the racism but using it to her advantage. That is what is worrying many people watching this.
The polls are showing increasing concern about the economy, and most of the candidates are proposing some type of economic stimulus package. All three Dems have proposed packages that total between $75 and $120 billions, mostly focused on pumping spendable dollars to folks most in need.
I thought it interesting/revealing that CNN’s Blitzer twice asked Huckabee whether he thought something should be done, and Huckabee responded that he thought we should do a better job of enforcing trade agreements so we don’t get lead-based toys from China. He had no idea what Blitzer was talking about.
On the other hand, he seems to know exactly what to say to the evangelicals he spoke to — essentially telling them that as one of them, evangelicals could lead the Republican party. He’s very blatant in front of them; very evasive on national television.
the wall street journal is a concervative publication, I grant they had legitimate journalists on staff but their editorial is concervative
rove is going to be defied in the press just as reagan
I wonder if some of the reluctance of Black votes to support Obama in the polls is based on fears that he would be assassinated. I saw a couple of articles in the NYT where this possibility was mentioned by people identified as Black.
I can’t seem to find the article online, but the dead-tree Atlanta Journal-Constitution had results of a poll of Georgia voters. Obama leads Hillary 36-33 (inside the 5% moe). Also, Obama gets 65% of black votes, but only (I think) 14% of white votes. Granted, this is Georgia. But this disparity is shocking to me. It also shows how influential the back vote is in Georgia (at least among Democrats).
I’m such a conspiracy theorists
is it possible they have been so machiavellian to have admitted a faultering economy so that the war takes a second seat?
the economy is no worse then it has been for two years, they are only reporting statistics that are showing the economic decline now
seems to me the war is the thing not the economy
Being disgraced/disgraceful and writing for the WSJ editorial page are entirely consistent.
it’s the knowledge of how deep the hatred for blacks sits.
they know the prejudice, they know it every day, they don’t think oboma can win and they know the democrats must win
it’s pragmatism
have to run to work, will see all in a few
Re Dem on Dem and the influence of the progressosphere, just now up:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/14/8318/70873
With over a trillion dollars wasted, the economy is just another example of collateral damage.
in fact it is mandatory.
“There are (at least) two barriers that need to fall in this election, and however we sort that out, we need to leave no doubt we are ready for both.”
I assume the two barriers are race and gender. So I must vote for either one of the two even though I find both splendidly unqualified? Spare me.
You know what’s really interesting here, too?
Race becomes an issue when Michigan’s primary has been taken out of play by Clinton supporters.
Detroit is 83% African-American (that’s nearly 8% of the total state population, in one city); Flint is 53% African-American. And NONE of these people can vote in the primary for Obama because the Michigan primary has been jacked up.
How convenient that there won’t be an Obama win leading into Nevada (which has similar demographics to Michigan) or South Carolina (which is far more diverse).
before I go, time to get really really scared
going nuclear is dick cheney’s wet dream and if you are wondering, make no mistake about it, if the president launches a nuclear attack he WILL declare a national emergency and he WILL declare martial law and he WILL suspend the constitution
make no mistake, that is what will happen…timing seems about right also, they will run up to war right about a month before the scheduled election
Yes!! Run against the Bush Crime Syndicate, dammit!!
What a shame to ignore the low-hanging fruit. And do it now, to fire up the base (us). Then in the general, tie whatever candidate the Repugs throw up to BushCo with barbed wire.
No matter what happens with Iraq/Afghanistan, I think the economy is already a huge issue, and it will only become more important as businesses contract, people lose jobs, and we get more foreclosures.
In the last week, all three Dems have announced major econ stimulus plans, a sign they think this is a major issue.
whether or not you find either or both unqualified, they will surely be more qualified then any republican feilded as of yet
so you will still be voting for the most qualified if either of these two are our candidate
principled leadership
Oh, Scarecrow, how long has it been since we’ve seen those words together in anything but wishful thinking?
Damn the polls and full speed ahead. The polls and adherence to them are jerking us around.
Perris, you are not being conspiratorial in wondering how the economy suddenly got elevated to numero uno. And the campaign itself is providing cover for BushCo. Does anyone know what they’ve been up to lately? Well, have we ever? (See “principled leadership” above.)
a little birdie wrote to me and said that we will be invading Pakistan this summer, going over the border. God, I hope not!
Uh, hasn’t all she’s been saying recently is that Obama’s inexperienced and unqualified? At the same time she says he’s a “superbly qualified African-American?”
Sounds like she’s saying African-Americans aren’t qualified to be President.
But now they will blame it on Musharraf, who has become expendable in warning us to keep our warmongering out of his country. See how this works?
It’s NEVER too late for leadership
sadly-yes.
I agree, which means leading from principles rather than knee-jerking to polls. That said, see what’s happened to Edwards for walking that walk.
We live in a plastic world of media consultants and manufactured consent. Any person who can be seen rising to the top is going to be packaged to appeal so some “demographic”. It’s people like Mark Penn, Frank Luntz etc who are responsible for obscuring real issues and framing everything as a cartoon and a horse race.
A real issues person is hardly taken seriously and Denis was asked about UFOs or Edwards was harangued about his hair cut and Gore about a brown suit. What total utter rubbish.
But most of the top tier pols and candidates don’t really have issues as they are mostly triangulators playing to whatever constituency they need support from.
The real ideologues on the right, work behind the scenes in think tanks scheming their agendas and framing them as salable… such as the phrase “free markets” which makes everything thing capitalism is aligned with freedom and liberty. Nothing of the sort. It’s all about top down control by the few and shepherding the masses along in ignorance.
What a bunch of clowns we are discussing.
I don’t think this electorate is sufficiently mature (brain damaged) to elect a female or an African-American President.
Cling to this silly idealism, and you’ll get a GOP basket case elected.
sorry off topic….littleboots/little prick is bellowing about democracy in Arab countries,where he and his pals do ALL THEIR BIZZNESS
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
But why are tax cuts so prominent in the plans (at least for Obama and Clinton, I’m having trouble finding details on Edwards’ plan beyond $25 billion for jobs creation)? Resorting to voodoo really disappoints me on this one. Yet again, they are totally lacking the courage to point out the failures of the last eight years of Republican disasters. To propose more of the same is totally unacceptable. I haven’t seen anyone take them to task on this yet.
you called?
Read Krugman this morning. Unless I am a moron, I read a subtle endorsement of John Edwards.
If Al Gore is not going to run, then he needs to be point person for calling the Pugs on their crap — past, present, planned. Someone highly visible, with nothing to lose (what? they’ll take back his Oscar?) needs to speak truth to bullshit!
sadly-no.
The Huckster says that evangies are about to take over the Republican party? I thought that already happened.
Good news! You’re not a moron!
Link to Krugman article.
Always turn to Krugman 1st thing, & I’m w/you on the reading.
The bad news is that Edwards is carrying water for the whole dang party (and what a party it is). And he may drown from the effort to maintain integrity.
Wingnut welfare.
All three Dem plans share the concept that to stimulate the economy quickly, you need to get dollars into the hands of those most likely to spend it quickly — hence the focus on low income. A common approach is to extend unemployment benefits, or send out rebate checks to those unlikely to pay taxes. These are combined with mortgage relief, rate freezes, increased subsidies for energy bills, etc. All accept the need for deficit spending — no offsetting cuts or new taxes — for this one-time prime the pump effort.
morning!
OT – congressional committees return to work tomorrow (at least some of them do), the weekly hearings list will be posted tonight.
I think that there is no quick fix because the Republics have destroyed the value of the dollar.
Take, for example, John McCain’s admission that economics isn’t his thing. “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he says. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.” Krugman today.
Anyone else read this and think it said, “I’ve got Greenspan’s back.”
(I’m on caffeine and Republican overload this morning — apologies for being so effusive.)
anything in any of them about repealing the horriffic bankruptcy bill?
The NYT editorial has a summary of the various econ stimulus plans:
I don’t think so; they do favor allowing courts to restructure mortgages, which the bankruptcy bill prevented — but that’s not part of the stimulus plans. But they favor mortgage relief; e.g., Hillary would freeze rates temporarily for some with adjustables.
I retain some faint hope that the back-and-forth on race is part of jockeying for votes in the South Carolina primary, where both the Clinton and Obama camps may see it as serving their cause, and that it may subside afterwards. But I’ve always been an optimist.
Do you think priming the pump will do anything?
will it be worthwhile?
Keep an eye out for telecom immunity. No doubt (at all) Reid thinks the stink has blown off that particular pile of shit and will be thinking that immunity will now pass quickly and quietly.
Let us disabuse Reid of this belief.
To conclude, I just wanted to post about the many accomplishments of Hillary Clinton:
Hillary did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft.
Hillary did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales.
Hillary did nothing regarding the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hillary voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Hillary said little or nothing during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito.
Hillary did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Michael Mukasey.
Hillary said nothing during this summer’s vote on the Iraq War Supplemental.
Hillary said little or nothing during the vote to extend FISA.
Hillary said little or nothing on the Walter Reid scandal, even though she sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hillary has said nothing during the current debate on Telecom Immunity.
Hillary has said nothing on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney.
Hillary has said nothing on the possible impeachment of George Bush.
Hillary has said nothing on the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration.
Hillary campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont.
Hillary did nothing to stop Medicare Part D.
Hillary did nothing to stop the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill.
Hillary voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill.
Hillary proposed legislation to ban flag burning.
Hillary voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.
Hillary voted FOR the reauthorization of the USAPATRIOT act.
Hillary voted AGAINST an amendment that would prohibit the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets.
Hillary voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.
Hillary voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.
I don’t think so, especially since he was never the front man. I think at most he’ll end up like Gingrich (someone who had a big success followed by a crashing reversal), especially if the ‘08 elections are as much of a trainwreck for the GOP as it appears. Of course, that still would mean he’ll get far more attention and less condemnation than he deserves.
I really don’t know who, if either side, is attempting to gain from the issue. It seems to me that most people who have continued to call themselves Democrats over the past 30 years would take great offense at a candidate perceived as trying to use race as an issue. Therefore, it doesn’t seem that it would be in the Clinton interest to try, even subtly, to introduce race as an issue. I would have thought they would be smarter than that.
Whichever side is doing it is not only endangering the election, but endangering the future of the Democratic party when, for the first time in decades, it has a chance of reforging a rational coalition which can work for the common good.
agree wholeheratedly
I think the goal is to soften/lessen the effects of a likely recession. Krugman’s column has a good summary of what the plans are trying to do, but he doesn’t explain the alternative energy pieces.
Ian Welsh argues that if we do deficit spending to prime the economy (Keynsian style), we should focus on technologies we prefer, like alternative energy development, which both produce new jobs here and encourage innovation that helps solve longer-run problems. Edwards and Clinton plans both seem to do that. I’m hoping Ian will do a post on this soon. Hint, Hint.
and then he could always look in the mirror at Dorian Gray/himself
Most striking thing to me between the two polls is when you add up the numbers. WP/ABC for the three Dem candidates adds up to 90, thus you have 10% undecided. The NYT/CBS adds up to 80 and in that poll it’s 20% undecided. That alone could almost account for the difference in the Obama polling, if undecideds are breaking for him more than for hillary.
Just something to keep in mind and watch for.
I think it would be far to little and far to late. A service based economy lacks the new money provided by a manufacturing based economy. The ever growing list of service providers chasing the ever dwindling supply of cash is the problem. Bandaids and traditional jump starts may not work this time.
agree again…..dump the middle east,exxon Cheney …all at the same time
OT, but this vid just up via TPM is too good not to share:
Democrats for Romney
Why would the Clintons want to engage in racial politics immediately before the South Carolina primary? It makes no sense to alienate the biggest block of voters in South Carolina. If you were interested in doing such a thing, and frankly I don’t believe they are, this would be a piss poor time to do it.
Sorry, Clinton voted for the Patriot Act. Obama has yet to discover that preaching and acting are not the same thing. If I live past the election, I wouldn’t be unhappy with a Repug prez and a Dem congress. I am tired of the lesser of two evils argument, and maybe stalemate at the highest levels would wake the sheeple, but I doubt it. After all the Constitution is just a piece of paper either way, ain’t it?
Hence the need to go strongly into the alternative energy field. Both R&D and manufacturing would be needed. IIRC the Apollo Alliance program was based on a 10 year plan that would produce something like 3 million jobs.
What the hell are we waiting for? (rhetorical question)
excellent.
707!
She is well qualified for the gooper nomination
Not racism, but “momentum”
When the parties opened up the nomination process a generation ago, it was partly in the belief that the voters would focus more on issues and less on the horse race aspect of the nomination process. Pretty much the reverse seems to have happened, and the voters are so obsessed with not “wasting” their votes on their ideologically preferred candidate, that nomination contests are over almost before they begin, with everyone jumping on the bandwagon of the candidate who is somehow, on often the thinnest of evidence, thought to be the most electable. This creates a bias towards the safe and bland that often doesn’t at all reflect the real electability potential of the candidate, but only what most voters imagine most other voters will find electable. See also: Kerry, John. It is much more likely that this poll data, gathered at the height of nomination campaign, doesn’t reflect the voters’ personal feelings or thoughts about the race of a candidate at all, but entirely what they imagine that all those other voters think and feel. Yes, this negative “momentum” is a factor that hurts Obama in the nomination fight, but isn’t at all a predictor of trouble once we have a nominee.
Well, it was rather ludicrous to see the news reports when Murdoch was bidding for the WSJ to see that he was going to have a “special panel to assure the editorial independence of the WSJ going forward under his watch. Especially since the editorial pages of the WSJ have been among the craziest and least rational of a paper (outside the NY Post.
Unfortunately, Murdoch never made the same promise to assure the news pages stayed independent and rational.
So Rove having a voice on the WSJ editorial pages is not at all surprising.
Fortunately for the GOP, a post-Super-Tuesday savior is apparently waiting in the wings.
From the Topeka Capitol-Journal:
Emphasis added, to denote the savior-wannabe.
Praedor, thank you and hopefully the Obama campaign cannot be trapped into trying to out play the race card and drug use trumpet being played by the Clintons. The Clintons strategy is to try and make Obama seem unelectable and the Clintons the default candidate. In this vein, the Clintons started the drug use rumors with Sheehan and have now taken it to another level with the BET guy. The BET guy, unlike, Sheehan, is not being “fired”, no fall guy this time. Bill Clinton is keeping the “fairy tale” bs alive by “expaining” at every opportunity what he means and, in the extreme, making it seem like Obama appointed Sharpton to defend Obama, thereby attempting to scare “mainstream” voters.
I want them to reframe that “new taxes” crap to read;
“re claiming middle class assets which were irresponsibly transferred to the wealthy”
bing, shut their faces right the frig up
Hey! where was the spew alert on that one!
*wiping off keyboard*
the lesser of two evils is still a democrat
I wonder if there’s anything we can do to help the development of a Paul/Keyes 3rd party candidacy.
Move the Earth into the Gamma Quadrant.
Thank you Scarecrow
great stats up at think progress right now;
contrary to the rediculsouls spin machine making believe reagas was anything but a horror show, the country does NOT want a reagan president
ron paul is the only candidate on the republican side that has a brain
if he’s their candidate he might not do so badly
more from the same site;
As much as I like Alan Keyes, I don’t think he would go along with Paul for the VP. Keyes is very much an idealist and loyal to his conservative views, especially his social conservative views. He won’t compromise those. Most true conservatives will not vote for Paul anyway because of his socially liberal views.
what exactly is socially liberal about his views?
he wants no social projects what so ever, no public education, no envirnemnt regulations, nothing
if you mean his liberal personal views like keep government out of the bedroom I think you have a point
I wasn’t serious. I don’t like either.
Hillary Clinton stands beside a billionaire black man (in a Church) as he attacks the character of Barack Obama…and she says nothing. And then we are told that it is the Obama campaign that is responsible for the racism that has been injected into the campaign. They must believe we are all a bunch of idiots.
You want a R unitary executive where congress doesn’t matter? Why are you posting on a lefty blog?
You think an OB-GYN who’s never seen a woman who needs an abortion for her life or health has a brain?
well, let me rephrase, compared to everyone else in the field he’s the only one that seems like he has a brain
howz zat?
Is this disconnect between their behavior and what you consider appropriate for the Party causing you to have doubts that Clinton & Obama best represent the party?
Yep, ready to hit the ground running on day one!