Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

j Fl — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:27:44 GMT

hmm...sounds like some republican pollsters wishful thinking. Just last month the polls were opposite.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Bob, Orlando — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:00 GMT

This poll, along with other recent polls, only reinforces the feeling among many Democrats that Hillary (or Obama for that matter) is not a winning candidate. It is time that the media quits treating her as the inevitable choice and gives more coverage to other candidates. We are still a long way from the first primary or caucus vote being cast and any discussion about the Democratic candidates is monopolized by Hillary. I understand that you cannot ignore an "800 pound gorilla" but the media needs to start paying more attention to the alternatives. The more she is covered the less chance the others have to get their message out (and raise the money needed to do so, especially with the many large states moving up their primaries).

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Amy B Portland, ME — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:44:38 GMT

Can't you just see the political ads now of Guiliani's face morphing into George Bush's? Democrats are going to hang Bush on the Republican candidate no matter who it is. That's a pretty heavy weight.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Brad, Chicago, IL — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:47:32 GMT

I assume this poll is popular vote and not electoral votes, since we don't elect a president by popular vote...what would the results be in electoral votes?

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Iowa Mom — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:52:26 GMT

I too have to wonder at the validity of these polls. You have to look really hard in the blogs to find anyone who has a good think to say about McCain. I wouldn't vote for him if he was the last man standing. But, if Hillary really cared about any thing but herself, she would not be running. She has to know how divisive she is.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Russell in Maryland — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:01:21 GMT

Depressing but not unexpected. I lost all faith in the goodness and intelligence of Americans when so many voted for Bush's re-election knowing how bad it had been and how much worse it would get. Many are still in denial that they could have been so stupid and gullible. It is hard for people to admit they were wrong, they would rather stay the course than lose face and admit error no matter what the consequences. Wait, that's why Bush is such a regular American. Hmmm, maybe we should try to elect people who are better than we are -- what a concept. Maybe a president who is competent will not feel threatened surrounding themselves with other competent people. When did being smart, articulate, nuanced, educated, open-minded and reasoning become disqualifications for office?

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:19:54 GMT

Brad brings up an interesting point. The 2000 election, for instance, was'nt decided by the voters at all. It was decided by electoral delegates (and The Supreme Court, of course). That having been said, I still don't believe that America wants, or will elect another Republican President. Bush conjurs up too many negatives for that to happen as Amy, so aptly, points out. Furthermore, polling data at this juncture cannot be relied upon as being accurate. Back in March of 2003, Howard Dean was the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Head to head, the polls had him competing better than any other candidate against Bush, except for Wesley Clark, whom the polls showed as beating Bush. We all know how THAT turned out. Also, if you go back even farther to 1991, the Democratic front runner was Paul Tsongas. Nobody had even heard of Bill Clinton back then. So, the moral of this story is that pre-primary polls are generally wrong and they are not a good baramoter of what's to come. It's very normal for them to be skewed, as they are now.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Sierra, San Francisco — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:21:59 GMT

ABC - Anybody But Clinton !! Democrats, don't drink the cool aid !! Hillary is a self serving oppotunist who will lead us into defeat. She supported the Iraq war for political reasons. I knew Bush was lying about the war, why didn't she??? The Democrats have a chance to re-take the White House and increase their majorities in the Senate and the House. Why blow it (because we're Democrats?). Hillary stands for business as usual by Washigton insiders. What are her policies? What are her proposals? What does she stand for ? Let's try something new: Obama, Edwards or Richardson. Edwards shows populistic policies and ideas. Obama was honest enough to oppose the war from the beginning. Clinton, Dodd and Biden were all weasels on the war. The all supported it "to protect their political viability". Think about it, they sent you sons, daughters, brothers and sisters to die in a useless war, in order to further their political careers. If the Democratic party can't find better candidates than Clinton, Gore or Leiberman, they deserve to lose. Americans get the government they want. In the long run, Americans get the government they deserve.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB, SC — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:28:00 GMT

Let me help you understand why those who are generally fed up with the GOP and President Bush would still prefer a Republican over a Democrat, at least in my view. If you look at posts here and elsewhere you will see with out a doubt that conservatives will still take their party to task if they are unhappy with the job they are doing, but liberals will walk lockstep with their guy all the way and deny wrongdoing or impropriety even when it is a plain as the nose on their face. For example, to libs, Bill Clinton could do no wrong, George Bush can do no right. That is patently absurd, and most Americans, whether or not they support the war in Iraq, can see that. Also, those on the left are always talking about what's wrong with America, they want to change America, they ridicule and personally attack anyone and everyone who opposes their views. They advocate tolerance and diversity, but shout down anyone who disagrees with them. They overlook and excuse lies, misconception, partisanship, political grandstanding, and corruption within their own party, while taking every opportunity to jump on the slightest misstep from the other, either true or imagined. The pump up their egos and convince themselves they are the ones who are right by visiting blogs sush as this, which runs around 90% liberal, seemingly clueless that while the majority of posts in the blogosphere parrot their views, most Americans tend to disagree with them. Maybe they don't get out much. Maybe they spend so much time shouting down and ignoring the views of others that they can't see the forest for the trees. In short, while there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, the left is doing its best to corner the market. While many people may disaprove of Bush/Cheney, and the war, they can still see that the opposition provides little in the way of alternative solutions. They are quick to ctiticize, they are slow to provide solutions. They are against everything the right proposes, EVERYTHING, but rarely have any viable alternative suggestions. Sound bites, catch phrases, and political stunts are their crowning achievments, but little of substance ever gets accomplished. Personally, I wouldn't vote for any of the candidates listed above. Bob, Orlando makes a very astute point, both parties of late have crammed their top-tier candidates down American's throats and silence all others. Hillary cannot win, and it's doubtful Obama can either, not because one is a female and one is a black man, but because their views are not shared by most Americans. Most Americans don't care to endure another 4-8 years of a Clinton White House. Most Americans think Obama lacks experience. The left doens't get it. If they see a poll showing displeasure with an issue they jump on it with guns blazing, if they see the poll numbers shift against them then they suddenly see the light and are in favor of that same issue. Trial balloons are clouding liberal skies. How many democrats were for invading Iraq? A majority. But this spelled disaster for them if they didn't find a way to oppose it before mid-term elections in '06. While they showed enormous support for Bush's actions, behind closed doors they were looking for a way to backstep. When our troops had reached Bahgdad, and no sign of WMD were found, they kicked the door open. Bush lied. He invented reasons to go to war for political reason, yadda, yadda, yadda. They have steadily distanced themselves from their initial support ever since. "If only we had known", they say, "we never would've voted for it" If they are that easily duped, maybe they should find a new line of work. But the truth is they weren't duped, but they have sld that bill of goods to many Americans, at a huge price. Hillary seems to be the most easily duped of them all. In her book she swears she didn't know slick Willy was having affairs! Get out of town! If she is that naive she has absolutley no business being our president. I could right a book about the issue, but since I'm going long here I'll wrap it up. I've gotta go find a tarp to cover myself with and grab a few flags, because I'm in for it now.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Russell in Maryland — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:29:55 GMT

One obvious explanation is that Clinton is female and Obama is black. You can't throw away the 30% sexist, racist vote and expect to win. The only thing worse would be a gay atheist black woman candidate -- then you would need to write-off 80% of the vote. This is before you start looking at important qualifications.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB, SC — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:30:48 GMT

TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO Ok, at least his name gets some mention as one of Americans' choices.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:32:18 GMT

Unnamed sources claim the recent polls were conducted at primarily Professional Wrestling Events, Tractor Pulls, and Monster Truck Competitions. - Independent Party News Service

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Middle-Earther, Grotto — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:32:43 GMT

Why is it that libs question the validity of every poll that doesn't lean their way, but jump up and down screaming and pointing every time one is released showing results favorable to them?

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Lee In Mountain CA — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:33:24 GMT

Good point, Bob. The MSM should stop treating Hillary as the "heir apparent" and get more coverage on everyone. GWB has, I'm pretty sure, finished the Republican party for a generation or so, unless martial law "saves the day."

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

lexington,kentucky — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:48:09 GMT

I strongly suspect that any Republican Senator up for re-election in 2008 shall be tossed out like a gum wrapper. The American public has seen what 7 years of hell is like. Further, they all stood by and watched.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

U2 — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:51:34 GMT

Middle-Earther: The same reason repubs jump up and down when a poll shows Bush "surging" but question the validity of anything that shows the opposite !! It's called being human - but then maybe you arent human after all:-) I think Guiliani poses the biggest threat for the Democrats - along with Clinton. If somehow Democrats nominate Clinton, then it's game set match to the Repubs. I still think Guiliani will eventually get torn down by the conservative base for his cross-dressing, gay-loving, abortion-promoting Noo York ways !!

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Dave — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:51:57 GMT

I have to agree with Russell from Maryland. The 2000 and 2004 elections certainly showed that in presidential candidates the cream certainly doesn't rise to the top. Then again, why should it? What person in his or her right mind would want their name (and their families names) dragged through the mud to get elected to an office that ages everyone who has held it by at least 20 years. The smart players don't run for president; it is too much time and trouble (not to mention money). This is how you get people like ex senator Thompson looking like the great savior of the the Republican hopes for the presidential election. And he isn't even a good actor.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:57:02 GMT

Middle. They've been hangin' around the Republicans too long.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Dave, Tn — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:07:20 GMT

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL oh the culture of corruption and war profiteering. Can you imagine what kind of a story this would have been the last few years if she were a Republican? Would the networks have hammered it as much as the DeLay story? Guess we'll never know. Privileges for Democrats are crimes for Republicans

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

The Dogg in Florida — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:14:20 GMT

When NEWSWEEK says that top Republicans are leading polls for 2008's presidential race, you all say that the poll is clearly flawed or biased. But, when NEWSWEEK says that the president's approval rating is 33%, everyone is jumping all over it, calling anyone who dares to share a conservative viewpoint as part of the "27% crowd". So which is it? Are all polls flawed or none of them? Remember, there are conservatives out there who don't approve of everything the President does. Yet, if we have the audacity on this board to support a policy of his or share a conservative viewpoint on an issue, we get attacked.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:17:02 GMT

Hillary would snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for the Democrats. I believe John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark are the best people to lead the party. Republicans hate Hillary as much as Democrats hate Bush. Why do we need for divisiveness and politics as usual. I don't know who I will vote for at this juncture but I know it will be ABC.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John Stout WD, IL. — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:19:12 GMT

LOL LOL LOL! The truth cuts even deeper when it comes from your own people! You all are completely unwinding and lashing out because you didn't here what you wanted hear! It's Hillarity how you all will twist things to suit your delusions, even against your own.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John Stout WD, IL. — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:29:17 GMT

Good point Lee In Mountain CA about Bob, Orlando's good point. Great sarcasm, really funny, good one...I laughed and laughed! LOL LOL good one! Do another one...do another...comon!

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

scott, winona mn — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:36:22 GMT

Darren, small request: Don't write such long comments/messages. Not sure about anyone else, but I run out here while I'm waiting for something and I don't have time to read tomes. Be succinct if possible. Thanks.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:38:25 GMT

Darren, A few posts back you pronounced that that "conservatives will still take their party to task if they are unhappy with the job they are doing, but liberals will walk lockstep with their guy all the way and deny wrongdoing or impropriety even when it is a plain as the nose on their face." At the same time I hear main stream media, conservative talking heads, and other right leaning folks shake their heads that the democrats and liberals in general can't win because they never speak with one voice. It is clear to me that the republicans have always been very good at picking a front runner early and getting the machine rolling fast and hard. This impresses the "casual electorate". They don't have to think very hard or read very much. All they have to do is listen to Fox and friends and get their glittering generality for the day and it's time to feel good. Yep, for the standard American Citizen of today the Radical Christian dominated Republican party gives them everything they need to abdicate their responsibility as citizens. I read a lot in these posts about the Democrats being a shoo in for '08. I don't think that is necessarily true. I think the race will go to the party that can shovel the best load of s**t to a gullible, dis-interested, undeserving citizenry. America will get the leadership it deserves.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John Stout WD, IL. — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:44:27 GMT

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR--- Correction about Hillarity... most of the country DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT like Hillarity! Get your facts straight. Also...most of us, that you so willingly seem to try to speak for all the time, are hoping Hillarity wins the primary! LOL LOL LOL. You all are so in the dark!

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Still Crazy After All These Years — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:54:40 GMT

"Both Sides Now'-Joni Mitchell

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:03:26 GMT

Darren,.........to say that GOP'ers "call their party to task," while Lib's tow the party line, might just be the most egregious LIE anyone has ever attempted to perpetrate on this or any other "blog." True Republicans are the most "disciplined" voters on earth, while Democrats have crossed the aisle NUMEROUS times. (i.e. "The Reagan Democrats.") You talk a good game. But, you aint got da' juice. It's perfectly normal for the polls to be skewed this far in advance of the election.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

JIrby, Colorado Springs — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:13:46 GMT

Did everyone see the Bush stand up comedy from yesterday? Bush is really funny, and actually making fun of himself, beating his critics to the punch. Still, nothing on this planet right now is quite as funny as Bush being unintentionally funny. For the video of Bush being funny, go to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17846185/ Probably Repubs will die laughing over this one.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley Westchester, NY — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:14:27 GMT

and ah Darren.........for the record; Democrats in BOTH houses of Congress combined voted AGAINST the war in Iraq 147 - 110. Republicans voted for the war within their own ranks 296 - 6. But, that's okay. Don't let fact or truth get in the way of your psychotic interpretation of the truth.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

M.E., Albany, Ga. — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:15:35 GMT

MCain "tops" Hillary, Giuliani "beats" her, and Obama's trails her in a "heat". Can't turn your back on those "polls" for a minute. What's she doing in "Pol-land" anyway? "Take it all with a grain of salt"-(my father)

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

JJ in NJ — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:17:20 GMT

Uh, HELLO? There's another top-tier candidate out there, folks. John Edwards is the candidate who scares the bejeebus out of the Republicans. They can use the "frigid b*tch" smear with Hillary (whom I despise, BTW, and who is a guaranteed loser -- as Andrew Sullivan said, the only person who can help the Republicans now is Hillary Clinton), they can make innuendos that Obama is a terrorist, but what can they say about Edwards? He's a trial lawyer? Given corporate conduct of late, I think people are coming around to realize that lawyers who fight for ordinary people are important. All you have to see to know that Edwards terrifies them is Rush Limbaugh's response to Elizabeth Edwards' illness.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:20:37 GMT

Two things. First off, national polls are meaningless in politics unless you're trying to formulate talking points. Statewide polls are what you want to see in order to get any concept of who is going to win a nomination and you usually need to pay to see them. So while it's great for the GOP that their candidates are ahead right now, it's silly to think that these have any impact beyond people talking about it. Second, Hillary's nomination is hardly locked up. The first debate hasn't even happened yet and there is just under a year for other candidates to get their recognition up. The net roots haven't gotten really solidly behind anyone and the endorsements are, for the most part, not in yet. Add into this that Obama is between 7 - 12% behind but is getting six digit attendance at his rallies - in large part due to people who are considered nonlikely voters and the water just gets murkier. Polls will swing, money will flow, and it won't be until after February 5th that we will know is the respective nominees for President. But for what it's worth I'm rooting for Tancredo too. But that's because I'd like to see a Democrat in the White House. ;)

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

M. Boley — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:34:38 GMT

Hey Darren, the same things can be said for those on the Right. Ditch the biases and acknowledge the reality: Republicans are just as capable of making the declaration that George W. Bush can do no wrong just as Democrats say that Bill Clinton can do no wrong.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John Doe, The Peanute — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:37:42 GMT

Regarding Darren's post at 1:28 pm, I have to make some observations. 1)It's really funny when you deride the Democratic Party as people who will use ad hominems and then proceed to call us every right wing slur in recent memory. 2)The American public at large wants out of Iraq, supports health care reform, supports stem cell research, and supports environmental protections. You can find the polls that I am referencing at http://www.pollingreport.com/. To think that Democratic Party is out of sync with the majority of Americans is, at present, simply not true. This is evident in President Bush's approval numbers (which by the way haven't hit 50% since December of 2005) and in the last election cycle. I appreciate that you think you are right and that I am wrong. However the observable evidence on this matter doesn't agree with your statements. I will, however, agree that Hillary is a bad idea for the Democrats and for America. She has all of her husband's political ambition and none of his charisma or political savy. She is quite possibly the worst legislator I have ever seen and she is represents the last gasp of the DLC/Third Way crowd. As alway, just my opinions.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Susan, Nebraska — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:45:00 GMT

We are coming off the heels of a polarizing administration, we dont need another with Hilary. My only concern is there is a vast right wing conspiracy to keep her out of office just because she is a Clinton and a woman. (sorry, I couldn't help myself :))

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Susan, Nebraska — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:50:25 GMT

Darren, I have to throw back one of your BS flags at you on this one. "that conservatives will still take their party to task if they are unhappy with the job they are doing, but liberals will walk lockstep with their guy all the way and deny wrongdoing or impropriety even when it is a plain as the nose on their face." You still believe there were weapons of mass distraction. Just who are you taking to task on this one??? Or are you walking lockstep with your administration. P.S. I asked you a direct question yesterday and yet again you side stepped it. What gives.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Peter Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:00:40 GMT

Hillary Clinton is a shrill, opportunistic, and insincere nut case who reminds me more and more of Senator Stillson from Stephen King's 'Dead Zone'. I cannot and will not vote for her. I only hope that our party can come up with a better candidate, because the more the country sees and hears her, the less likely it will be to elect her.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Asad — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:17:03 GMT

Wow... Democrats walk in lock step? Did Darren just accuse us liberals as being organized and disciplined? He must be talking about Neo-Libs. Either that or I'm having an identity crisis.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB, SC — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:22:59 GMT

Well said , Dogg. Oops, gotta go, I might upset someone if I write more than sentence or two.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB,SC — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:45:37 GMT

John Doe: I really don't put much faith in polls, as I have pointed out here. They are too easily skewed, and you can get any result you want if you pick the right demographic and ask the right questions. Or by making them overly simplified. I want out of Iraq too, but not until the time is right. I think our health care system needs reform, but putting the federal government in charge of it doesn't inspire much confidence in me. Who doesn't support protecting the environment. Also, as I said yesterday and numerous times before, just because most Americans say they favor something, it doesn't mean it's the best thing for the country. That's why we are governed by rule of law and not public whim. If you asked most Americans if they want the government to provide them with a free home, tax-free, and put $100k in their bank accounts I will bet you dollars to donuts you will get an overwhelming yes. But, that wouldn't really be feasible or best for the country would it? The sad fact is, most Americans are terribly uniformed when it come to major issues, but almost all have a steadfast opinion on nearly everything.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Scott, Arlington, VA — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:58:25 GMT

Look - the polls do not matter right now. However - it does seem that the liberal's (who are NEVER wrong) yet are unable to DEBATE (Al Gore) and only spew hatred are being exposed for what they are - hipocrites.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Dave, Tn — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:03:35 GMT

Here's a FOX poll that might make some "feel" better :-) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262398,00.html

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

JIrby, Colorado Springs — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:31:54 GMT

On Rasmussen Reports, a poll that I personally think is run by Fox News, Bush is now at 17% who strongly approve and 22% who slightly approve. 43% strongly disapprove. The reason I refer to this poll is that it is taken every day. The lowest strongly approval he has had is 16%, so he is near that now. I think about half of that 17% who strongly approve must be on this blog.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:34:42 GMT

".....The sad fact is, most Americans are terribly uniformed when it come to major issues, but almost all have a steadfast opinion on nearly everything.".....DARREN POPE, MB,SC..........Noooooooooooo! Say it aint so, Darren! Hee, hee, is that "uniformed," like your earlier statement that 'the majority of Democrats supported the war?'

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:39:02 GMT

Darren: You make good points about polls and how they are used. Somethings I would point is that 1)some polls are specifically looking to get info on a specific demographic and those polls are occasionally cited by people who don't realize their purpose. However, when a President consistently polls below 50% for two years, that's not poll bias, skewed questions, or poor methodology. That's just reality and I think the GOP really needs to examine why the American people are so profoundly upset with them. 2)While polls are very dependent on the questions asked and it is true that anyone would say yes to real estate that is cheap and tax free; the same standard should be applied to the polls that ask questiosn along the lines of "Do you support leaving Iraq if it meant that the terrorists follow us home?". What idiot would agree to that? However, just like the house, that question is based on a hypothetical that is not likely to occur. Finally, you mention alot of policy stances that are commonly associated with left wing politics that aren't necessarily true. The Democrats in Congress (please note: this group is different than people in the streets or even on this forum) have no intention of precipitously withdrawing from Iraq. They want to leave but they want to do it in an orderly manner that gives Iraq the best transition possible under terrible circumstances and protects our forces. There are many different health care reform options, only one of which is completely state funded. Allowing the government to negotiate with Rx comanies to get better deals for Medicare/Medicaide, providing subsidies for small businesses who provide health care to their workers, and mandating that large corporations provide health care are all ideas that I have heard espoused by many different Democrats from across the spectrum. EPA rules need to be strengthened and we need to put a curb on carbon emissions. Frankly, from what I hear from the right that is viewed as a bunch of global warming hysterics. Personally I believe we are affecting the climate negatively. I don't know if we are all going to die tomorrow like some people seem to think, but it needs to be a priority. The Republicans don't seem to have any sense of urgency on this issue. And then there is stem cell research which should be funded like any other promising medical research. Use embryos from fertility clinics instead of abortion clinics to avoid that quagmire. Those embryos are destroyed anyway and if the people whos DNA created them want them donated to science it is their choice. All of these issues enjoy healthy levels of support amongst most Americans and -with the possible exception of Iraq- pose absolutely no danger to our over all strength as a nation. (Iraq is debatable and I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree.) It is the Democratic Party that supports those positions and, I feel, it will be the support of those positions that will translate into victory in the next two election cycles at the very least. If the GOP can't find a different fomula then the usual guns/gays/god schtick they will continue to loose and continue to be marginalized until they are the regional party of the South. This, of course, assumes that the Democrats don't make any inroads in the South...

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Rick Lapin, Albuquerque, NM — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:52:19 GMT

Name one Democrat who has shown more brains, guts, common sense, and hard, selfless work -- and has been half as successful in achieving his or her stated goals -- than Howard Dean. Just one. Offhand, would y'all say he's in a better or a worse position (dark-horse-wise) than he was last time around? Talk about your real-life, genuine, hands-on, grass-roots, populist movers and shakers ...

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB, SC — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:02:09 GMT

Susan, I must have missed your question, sorry. Pose it again and I'll give you an answer. On the subject of WMD, everyone knows Sadaam had them, the question is, where did they go? There is very compelling evidence that he moved them into Syria in the weeks leading up to the US invasion. He may have believed that if no WMD were found, there would be intense international pressure for an American withdrawal, and that would allow him to remain in power. He was at least partially correct in his analysis if that was actually the case. My stance has always been that there has been no solid evidence of WMD in Iraq at the time of our invasion, but since we KNOW FOR A FACT THAT HE HAD THEM AT ONE TIME, who should we believe and support, Sadaam, or our own president? Sadly, many here will say the former. Many are not even willing to look at the evidence that Sadaam's WMD were moved to Syria. A simple search, type in WMD and Syria, will bring all you need to at least form an intelligent, informed opinion.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

blacksheep, Pope County, Ar. — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:16:46 GMT

It would seem, after reading all of his posts today that "Durwood Pope" has earned a truckload of flags so far today, If he continues perhaps he will have a convoy of trucks by the end of the day! On the bright side, he will have plenty to throw at people for a while! "Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies." -Rousas Rushdoony, Founder of the Christian Reconstruction Movement

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

David Williams, Plano, texas — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:25:29 GMT

When it is ever going to become about us? When is the important thing going to be the results of what happens to us, as a result of electing one of these people? Killing the messenger and character assignation have long been the revered and favored methods of the GOP to sway the masses into electing their people into office. In the last election, the whole GOP strategy was to demonize John Kerry, and demonize him they did. Who will ever forget the Swift boat veterans. Two years later however, where are we as a result? Are we stuck in an ongoing war that is showing absolutely no hopes of resolve? Are we gaining on the national debt? Is the environment we live in either safer or cleaner? Have we gained sensible policies towards our nations Health care? Are we more respected around the world? Are we creating jobs and keeping them here in the US? Our we continually being gouged by greedy oil companies? The list goes on an on. In the last election George Bush only needed to prove that he was the more likable of the two men. That fact that he was on the wrong side of every single issue mattered not, George is the one we would prefer to have a beer with, and so we made him our President. Are we better off by having elected George Bush? It is obvious the answer is no. Did we learn from our mistake, and are we going to put what’s best for us ahead of personalities this time? That remains to be seen.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB, SC — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:59:34 GMT

John Doe, I find it hard to disagree with anything you said above, so I won't. In fact everything you said rings true. When I refer to libs, or dems, often maybe I don't paint a clear picture what and who I am referring to. The far left and the party elite are usually who I mean. You can't question the fact that the far left has been in control of the party for some time now. I'm not any happier with the GOP, although I do like Tom Tancredo. He has a message that resonates, and needs to be heard by more Americans. On the whole, I believe the government that sits in DC today is a far cry from what was intended by our founding fathers(here come the attacks on them now)and needs to be put in check by the American people. The best way to do that would be for voters to take a serious look at 3rd party candidates. Libertarians or others. It doesn't matter what your politics are, intelligent people can respectfully disagree, find an outsider that you can get behind, and get behind them. Ignore the candidates that are forced on us and look for alternatives. If a movement in that direction could gain some ground, enough to keep either of the major parties from holding a clear majority it might force some bipartisanship and make the THREE parties work together and create a little give and take. Or it may be too late, in which case we're all doomed.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Russell in Maryland — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:11:50 GMT

"We get the government we deserve" - A Month of Sundays - Don Henley (lifted from H.L. Mencken?)

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:20:41 GMT

John Stout, I only speak for myself. If what I say strikes a chord with you that must mean it is the opposite of what you believe which I am more than happy to do. Also, my facts are straight. Hillary is not hated by all Americans. In fact, her numbers are higher than the President who you seem to believe in so much. Besides, how can you say such bad things about your home girl.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Russell in Maryland — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:24:40 GMT

"I don't belong to an organized political party -- I'm a Democrat" -- Will Rogers. Thus it was and still is and probably will ever be -- and that is a good thing. Despite what Darren Pope says, the Republicans are far more organized with enforced discipline and suppression of dissent -- which gives them an advantage greater than their numbers would indicate. No one would accuse them of being nuanced. Their mantra goes on. You are with us or against us. You are on the side of right or else you are wrong. Love it or leave. Agree or shut up.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:37:45 GMT

Darren: I have to disagree with your assertion that the far left is in control of the Democratic Party. At present there is a grassroots movement that is predominantly center-left attempting to regain control from groups like the DLC and the Blue Dogs who are predominantly moderate to center right. I think the impression that the Dems are moving to the "radical" fringes is based on the fact that we have been playing to the conservative independants for so long. We did this because it worked so well for the GOP in the 90s and we were trying to emulate that success. What we forgot was that there was a left leaning section of the independants that we were not energizing enough to get them out to vote. The strategy shift to energize the left leaning independants coupled with the Bush administration shifting the GOP so incredibly far to the right (so much so that we find conservative leaning independants voting for Democrats) is probably the largest contributor to our recent success at the polls. This is actually somewhat disturbing to me in the sense that I absolutely love a divided government. The Democrats should be checking the social conservatives on social policy and the Republicans should be checking Democrats on financial matters with foreign relations being colabrative. Or that's how I think it should work anyway (I'm still holding out hope that Santa Clause isn't really just dad too. ;)). The danger here is that I honestly think the GOP is hamstringing themselves for, conceivably, a decade here. If that happens and the Democrats get the same governmental trifecta that the Bush administration got... that's a bad thing. Neither side is completely right or completely wrong. However, with Bush tying the GOP to every nonsensical and unpopular policy known to man we run the risk of getting into a situation were the Democrats wind up with a permanent majority which is just as bad, in the long run, as a permanent Republican majority. Third parties are not the answer. Getting involved with party politics on a local level is. The third parties really should be factions within the established parties. It is hard and slow going but I think that is the better response. Oh yeah... if you want to see the left's political fringe find a Kucinich supporter (and then thank your lucky stars that the left fringe isn't really in charge of the Democrats).

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Russell in Maryland — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:38:49 GMT

Rick Lapin, Howard Dean is great choice -- I can only dream. The Democratic party doesn't deserve him, but maybe some cream can rise to the top. If he could avoid being stabbed in the back by his own party "leaders" he could really take back many of the southern red states with his 50 state strategy. Many are just waiting for a democratic to pay attention to them. respect them, campaign there and actually ask for their vote. Maybe team him one way or another with Edwards.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Roger, Oakland, CA — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:15:52 GMT

Darren - I googled like you asked, and here's what I found: "A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party." Sounds like Curveball...[WorldNetDaily.com, 1/6/04...incidentally, there's an ad to the left of the article for conservative t-shirts as well as a link that answers the question "Should Christians be armed? The ultimate Biblical exploration of self defense"]. There's another article from the New York Sun echoed by Cybercast News Service (created by the Media Research Center). There's one from powerlineblog and another from newsmax (I like the links to "Al Gore's Convenient Lie" and "Think Conservative...think values...think strength...think Condi). I came across something from John Bolten telling congress that the US was looking into it...back in 2003. Then there's an article from CNN in which the ISG doubts the claims. Based on my initial canvas, my conclusion is that the WMD to Syria evidence is weak, touted in the unabashedly conservative world, and highly suspect. It could be true, but I'd assume if the administration had any evidence at all this would make it to, at least, Fox News and ABC. As for Hussein vs Bush: You're setting up a straw man. Most who doubted the existence of wmd did so because of the findings of the IAEA. It's never been a choice between Bush and Hussein.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Barbara, TN — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:31:04 GMT

We have never had a Woman President, and we have never had an African-American President. No matter how well-qualified Hillary or Obama are, I think this is a bad time in our history to have an experimental election to see if it is possible to elect either of the two. If it turns out to be impossible due to long-standing prejudices (and as much as we deny them, they do still exist), we are stuck with a Republican President again. Plus we will have Cheney and Bush as "Elder Statesmen" to offer advice and twist an arm or two.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Lee Steele — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:43:28 GMT

WMD is Syria? Nonsense! Months before PRESIDENT LIAR said "I have not yet authorized the use of force" we were occupying Iraq. We held the airfields before the "war" even started. We had been doing over flights for YEARS and had wall-to-wall satellite coverage. ANy WMD being moved to Syria would have been detected and attacked. They managed to find some trucks used to generate hydrogen for weather balloons - what did those stinking liars tell us they were? Mobile chemical warfare labs? What a steamy pile of lies.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:45:57 GMT

To Sierra in San Francisco.....YOU and the attitude you come off with, are a big part of the reason why the Republicans held the majority in congress for as long as they did, and defintely the reason why Bush took the White House twice. Where were YOU, and where was your B.S. and "bravado" when Republicans in congress tried to stifle and surpress Bill Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act in 1993? Where was your big mouth when they tried to K.O. the Crime Bill in 1994, and used the ban on assault weapons, and the NRA to catapault themselves into the majority? Where were YOU when Newt Gingrich was pushing the "Contract ON America" down the troats of the American public, in spite of the fact that the economy had already turned around in the spring of 1994? Where were YOU when Jerry FARTWELL and the (im)moral "majority" were running TV ad's accusing the President of The United States of murdering Vince Foster? (By the way, FARTWELL has already announced that he will run a HATE CAMPAIGN against Hillary if she gets the nomination. Apparently, you're announcing that you'll help him.) Where were YOU when The Republican Congress and Ken Starr ran a-muck with the law, and tried to remove a sitting President for a personal indiscretion? HUH? Where were YOU Sierra, tell us? You want us to follow your detritus "I hate Hillary" mantra, because she voted to give a discretionary power to a President who severely abused it. You say YOU "knew" there were no WMD. But you weren't a part of any of the briefings she attended, and you fail to mention that we had THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES running around telling people "we cannot wait for the smoking gun that will come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Hillary was / is a United States Senator with a responsibility to her constituency. She did what she felt she had to do in the hysterical aftermath of 911, to protect the people she represents. The information she and other congressional Democrats were given, was cherry picked by people loyal to Bush, SPECIFICALLY to mislead them into voting for the use of force in Iraq. But you COMPLETELY ignore and excuse that fact. You also fail to mention that the combined vote count, for all Democrats in BOTH houses of congress was 147 - 110 AGAINST going to war. There were 302 Republicans in both the Senate and The House of Representatives who voted on this measure. 296 of them voted FOR the war. You lay the complete blame for this war at Hillary's feet (as do other EXTREMIST idiots like yourself). But you completely excuse the 296 Republicans who voted in favor of going to war in Iraq and you say NOTHING about the fact that Bush LIED through his teeth to the congress and to the American people. I find that curiously intriguing. I saw your post to me the other day, regarding my commentary on Code Pink's incongruous protest at Hillary's rally earlier this week. Code Pink is / are a bunch of jerk-off's who need to get their asses over to The White House where Mr. Bush can hear their chortling anti-war chants. But they are too damn lazy to do that, so they pulled a "drive by" on Hillary instead. Even the crowd drowned them out with a chant of their own, "Go see BUSH!" You talk about Obama being against the war from the start. I say that's non-sense because he had the luxury of not being in The Senate when that vote was taken in 2002. He doesn't come from the state where 2800 people DIED on 911, and he was never briefed by Bush's people like Hillary and other congressional Dem's were. Obama has exactly two years in office as a U.S. Senator and "some" experience as a State Legislator in Illinois. He is UNQUALIFIED and as a result his candidacy will result in yet another Republican winning The White House in 2008. But, you don't care about that. I could go along with Edwards or Richardson. But I would remined you that Edwards voted for the war also (a little factoid you forgot to mention), and Richardson, aliken to Obama, never had to make a decision with regard to voting for or against the war in Iraq. The bottom line is that for some inexplicable reason, extremeists who can't get their own God Damned way within our party, want to do everythig they can to rip our base apart before the campaigning even starts. It's almost as if you WANT another NEO-CONSERVATIVE jack ass to win in 2008, so you can blame it all on Hillary. Get it together Sierra! Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way! But DO NOT tell me or any other Democrat that we shouldn't vote for Hillary simply because YOU can't get your own way within Democratic ranks. You're right about one thing though; if you and your extremeist friends don't stop the whinning, and crying about Hillary you will DESERVE the Neo-Con you get in The White House instead!

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:08:06 GMT

<< We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.>> Wow...apparently J. Merle didn't read this. Of course, somehow that latest profanity laden tirade got approved for posting. And someone gave Darren grief for posting something that was "too long".

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Susan, Nebraska — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:30:18 GMT

Darren, here is the post you requested I re-post. It was in reference to you responding to a blogger stating that Bush said a dictatorship would be easier for him. And you referenced Daniel Pearl and others who had been executed. Thank you for responding. BTW I will not apologize to the blogger who feels the posts are too long. "Darren, I am going to apologize upfront because I think you have broad shoulders to have 90% of the people here jump on you at once. That being said if you have answered this since your 2:06 blog I apologize. Don't you believe the fact that we are the United States of America makes us better than those responsible for the deaths you spoke about at the end of that blog. The Geneva Convention is very clear about what is acceptable practice when it comes to treatment of other human beings. There is not an asteric in it that says, but if they are a terrorist then see the paragraph labled special exceptions. That is what makes this country great, that we don't stoop to the levels of these other countries. And that we don't let our emotions make our decisions. That is why the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights, the Nuremberg principles just to name a few were all written. And that is why we belong to the United Nations. The combination of all these things, along with many others have worked for hundreds of years. Now we have a administration that disregards those documents and invents his own. Like the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act, just to name a couple. If he doesn't like it, he signs a bill to go around it. He has repeatedly said he wont listen to congress that he "would be the final decision maker", Dick Cheney has said in reference to whether or not they were going to listen to Congress that "you can't run a war by committee".(MTP January 17th approx) I understand you are not a Bush backer, and you believe that we need to finish what we started. I also understand that you believe the Iraqi's were involved in 9/11. But please tell me that you can see, when you aren't all fired up, that the United States is like silly putty in this administrations hands. They just mold it and do whatever they want with it, regardless of the results."

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Susan, Nebraska — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:41:04 GMT

WOW J.Merle, I agree with everything you said except for berating Sierra. It is the voice of the people that keep this alive, but please don't stoop to the level of all the name callers on the blog. I understand that by saying this I am leaving myself open to the same thing. But as Americans we have a right to voice our opinions, and rebuttals carry a lot more weight and validity if they are done in a professional manner.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB, SC — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:30:10 GMT

Susan, there is no asterisk, but the Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy non-combatants, in other words, terrorists. They do not wear a uniform, instead they dress as civilians and when they launch their cowardly attacks they blend back in to the population, which often causes more civilian deaths.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

jtb — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:37:50 GMT

Darren: save your breath. Excellent synopsis about why the left and the Dems will FAIL at electing a Dem President in "08. When it happens, we can listen to all the sqealing and moaning and whining about "stolen elections", Ohio precincts this, and Florida chads that, when the simple truth of the matter is, even though most Americans don't LIKE GW now, they will overwhelmingly elect ANOTHER Repub President, because the Far Left and the Democrats, AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, are out of touch with Americans. You know, let them have the House. It's becoming plain as day that its the EXECUTIVE branch that throws the most weight in matters that matter most. Catchy phrase, huh? "..in matters that matter most".

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:47:26 GMT

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA said........ << We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.>> Wow...apparently J. Merle didn't read this. Of course, somehow that latest profanity laden tirade got approved for posting. And someone gave Darren grief for posting something that was "too long". ........."Profanity laden," Grimey? Hardly! I guess you didn't care for the spirit and the content of what posted, and you would like to see it censored. That's fine, you're entitled to your opoinion. But please don't mis-represent what I wrote as being "profanity laden" because that is a simple LIE. I used the words "asses" and "damned." That certainly doesn't qualify my piece as being "profanity laden." I can see why your name is "Grimey." By the way, your comments were "attacking" mine. So you're as much in violation as you accuse others of being. I notice that the moderators of this board give some lee-way with regard to what gets posted. I think I speak for everyone when I say, we'd rather have it that way, than to have strict censorship of one's political expressions. There have been other posters who have used explicitly worse language than I did. But, I see you chose to complain about me, and about those who criticized Darren. So in other words, whatever gets approved for posting is okay with you, as long as it doesn't clash with YOUR political viewpont.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

jtb — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:57:08 GMT

J. Merle Stanley: do you like your fellow Libs with fava beans and a nice Chianti? fffffffffffffffffffft!

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Carrie, NW Iowa — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:13:35 GMT

Darren - The Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan when we invaded. Thus, those fighting for the Taliban actually comprised the country's military. Just because we want to call them something else doesn't make them less than what they were - soldiers fighting for their country.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Lee Steele — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:21:52 GMT

jtb - only Hillary can blow the '08 election for the Democrats - that or martial law by a failed and disgraced president. Weren't you on here squealing and screeching about how the Dems would never take over the Congress? Besides - maybe the Dems will steal this election - you seem OK with stolen elections.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:43:22 GMT

Ask Sierra, jtb. She seems to want to eat Hillary alive.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Susan, Nebraska — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:05:15 GMT

Ok Darren, but what makes this country better than those you lothe. . . . the fact that we don't (or aren't supposed to (abu graib))treat other human beings like that. Thats part of what makes this the great country that we are. And why people flee towards it to be a part of it.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

jtb — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:20:23 GMT

Lee: yes, you are correct: I couldn't imagine the millions who voted Repub in "04 would sit on their hands, and watch the Limousine Libs like Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd, and Kerry take the reigns of Government. Boy, was I wrong. If you can find any of these turncoat Republicans, please ask them to join the discussion. They weren't smart enough to realize that they WEREN'T voting against Bush, but against fellow Repub elected Congresspersons. BIG MISTAKE

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Susan, Nebraska — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:25:56 GMT

jtb-maybe, just maybe, they agree with the majority of Americans and were demanding change. It's a jagged little pill for you I know.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:29:07 GMT

LEE, I disagree. Obama will get beat BADLY. Too inexeperienced, and YES the G.O.P. WILL polarize the election based upon his color. Especially down south and out in the mid-west. (Gilliani did that very thing here in 1993 when he ran against David Dinkins for Mayor.) It wouldn't be moral, and it wouldn't be right. But they don't care. If it wins an election for them, they'll do it anyway.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Dorothy — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:32:45 GMT

"Isn't it ironic...can you see..."--Alanis Morisette, from the album "Jagged Little Pill"

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:39:54 GMT

Susan in Nebraska............wanna' know why The American People voted for Democrats? Because those like jtb, say things like this; "I couldn't imagine the millions who voted Repub in "04 would sit on their hands, and watch the Limousine Libs like Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd, and Kerry take the reigns of Government.".....Now we're "Limosine Libs." jtb just doesn't get it, and he probably never will. "The times they are a' changing"..... and so is the political attitude of our country. Whether jtb, or any republiCANT for that matter, wants to admit it or not, the G.O.P. stands two chances of winning the Presidency again next year; NONE and ABSOLUTELY none.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Susan, Nebraska — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:56:01 GMT

I tend to agree with you J. Merle, however, I dont believe geography is the only issue that has to be overcome here. I think it is a male/female issue and age issue as well. I believe there is an older generation of males and some females that wouldn't vote for an african american OR a female just because they are bigots. Sad but true. Yes I am from the mid-west, but I don't think it is as much geography as age. I am 33 years old, and I tend to believe that my generation is more forward thinking than those before me. I could be wrong!!!! No offense intended.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:36:13 GMT

J. Merle...In no way shape or form am I advocating censorship. But it never hurts to show respect to fellow posters. Calling someone an "extremist idiot" is unnecessary. If it is someone "trolling" and throwing out a ridiculous viewpoint...fine. But, Sierra has been posting here for quite a while. I don't agree with her often, but I do respect her opinion. Also, please keep in mind that as someone who leans conservative, this isn't the blog I'd be checking out if I only wanted to see political views that square with mine. I think what makes this blog nice is that there are a variety of opinions. There are several on the right and quite a few on the left. But, there is normally a pretty nice dialogue. I stepped up for Darren because someone made a request that posts be kept succinct. I wasn't trying to slam you at all, I just thought that a post of that length that basically trashed one other regular poster was unnecessary. I give your viewpoitns the same respect as I do to every other regular poster here. (FYI...the name is a reference to a rather obscure character from "The Simpsons").

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Frank "Grimey" Grimes — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:39:49 GMT

Susan...very well stated. You and I are roughly the same age and I have no problem with a candidate of any gender, race, etc. (and...*gasp* I am conservative). The job should go to the best person regardless of their gender, race, religion, etc.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Lee — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:44:35 GMT

I see Hillary or Obama as VP. Can you imagine a VP with Cheney's authority named "Hillary" looking into to the books? My bet is on martial law. I don't think Obama would get beat badly, though. No amount of crap can bury a honestly positive message.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Jane, Southern Mississippi — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:37:21 GMT

In reference to Democrats being in lock step, I quote Will Rogers, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." That about sums it up.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Darren Pope, MB, SC — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:20:36 GMT

Susan, Abu Ghraib was horrible, but it was a handful of individuals, and those who tried to cover up their deplorable mistreatment of prisoners who were responsible, not the U.S. as a whole. As for the Taliban, well some may call them an army, but according to the Geneva Convention, combatants MUST wear a uniform, and adhere to accepted international rules of warfare. The Taliban did neither. They were a terrorist group who assumed power and subjugated the population to horrific treatment. They were not fighting for their country, as Carrie asserted, but for a radical Islamic cause. To enslave and forcibly control the entire population of a country.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

John In Nashville — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:40:01 GMT

I have voted for only two Democrats in my 38 years of voting, but, in November of 2006, I pulled the lever for a straight Democratic ticket for state, local and national elections. I’m obviously disgusted with the Republican Party. The primary reason (not the only reason) is that President Bush’s arrogance has caused me to think hard about the consequences of putting the wrong person in a position of unequaled individual power, the US Presidency. I used to think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the worst Presidents during my lifetime but they’re looking better as time goes on. Dare I vote for Hillary or Gore?? Its more of a possibility than I ever thought possible.

Poll: Bush down, GOP '08 candidates up

Jane, Southern Mississippi — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:45:02 GMT

JMerle, you said it. And it's not right, but that 's the way it is. Sad. I wish we'd be proven wrong though.