This story has mostly positive ratings. 187 votes / 17 sinks
SHOCK POLL: Clinton Takes 20-point lead in Pennsylvania
Politics – A new poll released Monday by the American Research Group gives Hillary Clinton a twenty point lead in Pennsylvania - up from a tied race just a week ago.
"A new poll released Monday by the American Research Group gives Hillary Clinton a twenty point lead in Pennsylvania - up from a tied race just a week ago.
A week ago, the same poll had Clinton tied with Barack Obama, each with 45 percent."
lol, and this week she's beating him 57% to just 37%:
Obama's comment about small towns, religion and guns is going to follow him the rest of the campaign. Those comments together with the Rev Wright fiasco are starting to hurt him.
Another group which is not pleased with Obama are Catholic voters who comprise almost 25% of all registered voters.
Todays front page story from Newsday which has a huge circulation in the 5 boroughs of NYC, Nassau and Suffolk Counties and other NY suburban communities.
"Barack Obama, who has come under attack by his presidential rivals for describing small-town voters as "bitter," seems to be weathering the storm to this point as far as voters are concerned. He maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton. That 10-point lead matches Obama's best of the campaign. Obama also still leads McCain by 2 points 46% to 44%.
Obama not in trouble for saying people are bitter.
He's in trouble cause he claimed that small town PA people are gun toting bible thumping racist and they are gun toting bible thumping racist because their bitter.
Anything about "bitter" not in the context of small town PA people are gun-toting bible thumping racist is irreverent.
Now do you agree or disagree with Obama that small town PA people are gun-toting bible thumping racist?
Yes or No
Once that's cleared up we can move on to the cause of small town PA people being gun-toting bible thumping racist.
"He's in trouble cause he claimed that small town PA people are gun toting bible thumping racist and they are gun toting bible thumping racist because their bitter."
I don't think Obama accused Pennsylvanians of being racist. Cite Obama's exact words accusing Pennsylvanians of racism.
INJEST:
"Now do you agree or disagree with Obama that small town PA people are gun-toting bible thumping racist?"
I don't know enough small town PA people to make that judgment.
While I don't condone Obama's casual generalizations, I also don't think it has an effect over his candidacy for the presidency. This media-generated controversy does not address foreign policy or domestic policy positions. It does not concern Obama's views on the war, the economy, health care, education, etc.
This "controversy" seems tailor-made to cater to the "values voter." And the fact you and the usual suspects seem so outraged about innocuous comment--particularly when McCain has been guilty of uttering much worse--implies you yourself may belong to this Bible-thumping, value-voter demographic.
If you have a substantive, policy-driven objection to Obama's positions, then fine. I can live with that. After all, democracy is all about choice. However, this story doesn't concern educated Democrats because it has nothing to do with the important issues facing our country--the war, the economy, health care, ss, education, etc. I guess what they say is true: Democrats tend to intellectualize debates and Republicans tend to emotionalize them.
"Therein lies a fundamental difference between Democrats, who tend to intellectualize elections, and Republicans, who like to emotionalize them."
you missed the next part of the article
"I feel your pain," Bill Clinton famously said, before he became the angry spouse of candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama's "change we can believe in" speaks directly to the anxiety and anger over the partisan divides of the last 20 years."
sounds like they are playing to the emotions of ALL voters.....
The Republican author of the USA Today article I cited above makes the argument that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are different from the usual Democratic candidates (like Al Gore and John Kerry) in the way that they can galvanize and inspire the hearts and emotions of voters.
In that sense, you're right--Bill and Obama capture the emotions of voters. But, contrary to your interpretation, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are NOT inspiring emotions INSTEAD OF intellectualizing the debate on domestic and foreign policy issues; Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are inspiring emotions IN ADDITION TO intellectualizing debate.
Usually, politicians are one or the other. Hillary, for example, is intellectual but not personable. McCain is personable, but not intellectual. What makes Bill Clinton and Barack Obama so popular is that they are a rare combination of both. They are intellectual, yet also personable.
(((may belong to this Bible-thumping, value-voter demographic.))) He writes that as if belonging to a group that reads the bible and has a 'value' system is a bad thing?
"He writes that as if belonging to a group that reads the bible and has a 'value' system is a bad thing?"
There is a profound difference between a person with a value system, who also happens to read the Bible, and a person who votes based on the Bible (or the teachings of a single minister) to the exclusion of all other pressing, contemporary issues. In this way, the position of the "values voter" is not only myopic, but is also easily exploitable.
I don't think I would have to post documentation proving just how easily exploitable religious fundamentalists are, as the proof is so readily available that this should practically be common knowledge. And this rule doesn't only apply to Christians, but to people of all religions, including Muslims, Jews, etc.
It is possible to be a person with values and of faith without being enslaved by a single minister or book.
No, that was not my point. Read the first sentence of my post again. I said: "Different polls seem to be telling different stories."
The entire point of that post is to show that while there may in fact be political fallout from this media-generated controversy, this single poll cited by ALPHAGNOSSIS in this thread is far from definitive proof because other polls are reporting conflicting data. The "point" was NOT to demonstrate Obama's definitive lead on McCain; the point was to demonstrate there is disagreement among pollsters over how much of an effect this will have on Obama's candidacy. The Gallup Poll I cited was evidence of this conflicting data.
There is a meaningful difference between the point I am conveying and the argument you are construing.
There is no such thing as the "most consistently accurate pollster." Uncertainty, p-values, chi-square, sampling errors, etc. are applicable to ALL polls, which is precisely why RealClearPolitics calculates an average of 6 different polls instead of relying on any single poll. Of course, where RealClearPolitics falters is by reporting the statistical mean of the 6 polls instead of the median. Unlike the median, the statistical mean is easily influenced by outliers.
A statement like yours only demonstrates how shallow your knowledge is of fundamental statistical principles.
"Penn race unchanged by Obama remark. The Quinnipiac University poll found that Hillary Clinton leads Obama 50 to 44 percent, a margin unchanged since the organization's last statewide poll at the beginning of the month. The poll, conducted Wednesday through Sunday night, revealed no noticeable shift in support for polling done on Saturday or Sunday. It is the first indication that Obama's controversial remark may not dramatically change the head-to-head match-up in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next Tuesday."
First off this Poll is meaningless, what it's saying that all the other polls are incorrect and I find that hard to believe!
On the small town PA point take it from me he is on point there, they really are racist for the most part. they have been studies that the most racist of the American society are those who feel disenfranchised, and not only do they feel this way they are. From checking the news this is only a big deal to those like AG that wants McCain to face Clinton not Obama and those who would lose their minds if a black man wins the presidency because of their unfounded fears. We have all known that raciest rednecks vote for the GOP because they GOP will not let the Mexicans and blacks take their jobs. No they will not let that happen because they are too busy shipping it to other countries.
if I were a Penn voter I would show my displeasure at Obama's narrow minded sterotype buy going to the voteing booth and electing Clinton in a land slide. See what that, non bowling comon man want to be thinks of you when he just lost most of your delgates. He already will not let Florida and Mich. voters voices be heard because they do not help him.
You'd prove Obama's point. You're replacing the bible thumping gun toting stereotype with Hillary. Rather than voting for who you believe the most qualified your voting for someone because you have issues with someone else. Obama said middle Americans had issues that they could do nothing about so they take the easy way out and focus on easily identifiable issues.. You take the easy way out and vote for Hillary.
Is this CRAP really supposed to make poor people forget that the GOP is sitting around with their thumbs up there arses while tens of thousands of Americans are about to lose the roofs over their heads. C'mon, wingjobbers. Surely, you can do better than this. LOL
I hear ya PC, either it's the ole 'it's not our fault the Rs are the majority' or the 'yeah we're the majority, but the Rs won't let us get any work done'. I wonder how the Rs got work done all those years with the Ds there?
"I wonder how the Rs got work done all those years with the Ds there?"
They didn't. The Republicans did most of their damage in the 6 years when they controlled all 3 branches of the federal government.
A statement such as yours ignores the OVERWHELMING evidence (as I've posted below from MarketWatch, the NYT, the LA Times, etc.) that shows deregulation and a laissez-faire approach to the economy by Republicans did nothing to prevent the credit crisis, and in fact, only exacerbated it.
((They didn't. The Republicans did most of their damage in the 6 years when they controlled all 3 branches of the federal government.))
Er this has to do with more than the economy, it has to do with the Dems inability to get even one of your pet projects started. How's that Impeachment going and the other little things 'promised' and gleefully voted on by you?
And the Dems weren't around at all? That's exactly what I'm saying here, you are a fine example. The Rs were in charge for 6 years (with the Dems there),,,, the Dems have been in charge for what 2 and they have done nothing, so what do you and they say,,,,,, oh but the mean ole Rs they are in our way, as if the Dems never once stood in the way of the Rs for the 6 years. It just doesn't fly with me.
Why is it the Rs can get things done and the Ds can't? Some would think that 'talk' is the only thing the Ds are good at. The Rs don't talk too well, but they know how to put a plan into action and Ger Er Done.
Er...Read PC25's post again. Er...He SPECIFICALLY limits the discussion to the credit crisis. Er...Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte. Er...
PC25: "we are not talking about record national debts we were talking about the sub prime mortgage crisis and his quote that the GOP is responsible and sitting on its arses"
SLATE:
"it has to do with the Dems inability to get even one of your pet projects started."
It sounds as if someone needs a lesson or three on veto overrides and cloture. As has been demonstrated time and again by the obstructionist Congressional Republican minority, Democrats do not have the votes to achieve either one.
Examples of Republicans' partisan recalcitrance to reach across the aisle and compromise are plenty. For example:
"On two of the most critical bills this Congress has considered -- the Medicare and energy bills -- Republican committee members met in private, refusing to allow entry to Democrats by claiming that the meetings were not official conference sessions. While Republican leaders claimed to obey congressional rules by allowing Democrats to attend the opening and closing sessions, the actual writing of the bills was done in secret and exclusively by Republicans; in some cases, Democrats didn't even know in which room their committee colleagues were holed up writing the bill. Democrats were not permitted entry into the closed-door talks to write the complicated bill."
"Bush chose to govern from the 'right-in' rather than the 'center-out.' This pattern held on budget resolutions, tax cuts, energy, Medicare prescription drugs, family planning and abortion, trade, and most other major bills. This tended to leave Democrats out of the equation and to put great pressure on Republican moderates to acquiesce in positions formulated by the conservative 'majority within the majority.' The exclusion of Democrats from conference committees reached a new high in 2003,
facilitated by unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. The extraordinary lengths to which the Republicans went to win roll-call votes represented a further shutting out of Democrats, for the idea was to win with as little bipartisan accommodation as possible. 'The Republicans had better hope that the Democrats never regain the majority,' Sen. John McCain warned in late 2003."
In this instance, Cheney violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 by holding a PRIVATE meeting that even the oil executives wouldn't acknowledge. And when these oil execs were questioned about it, they lied to Congress with the help of Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
"Vice President Dick Cheney cleared his calendar for an April 17 private meeting with Lay regarding what aides described as 'energy policy matters' and 'the energy crisis in California.' Cheney and his aides met at least six times with Lay and other Enron officials while preparing the National Energy Policy Development Group's report, which is the basis for the Administration's energy policy proposals. When Cheney and Lay met in April 2001, Lay handed Cheney a three-page "wish list" of corporate recommendations."
"Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, task forces like Cheney's must conduct public meetings, must allow interested parties to attend and must keep publicly available records. But arguing "executive privilege," Cheney, his aides and Cabinet departments have refused requests for records, despite legal challenges from the General Accounting Office and private groups. One lawsuit has freed up Energy Department documents that begin to hint at the extent of the influence that energy corporations exercised over Administration policies."
"the group adopted all or significant portions of the recommendations in 7 of 8 policy areas. 17 policies clearly benefit the company--including proposals to extend federal control of transmission lines, use federal eminent-domain authority to override state decisions on transmission-line siting, expedite permitting for new energy facilities and limit the use of price controls."
When oil execs were questioned about the existence of this PRIVATE meeting, they LIED about it before Congress with the help of Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who refused to swear them under oath:
"A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives."
"Bill Thomas (R-CA) broke down in tears on the House floor today as he confessed to a hushed assemblage that he summoned the Capitol police to break up a meeting of Democrats. Late in the evening of July 17, Republican committee staffers substantially rewrote the Portman-Cardin bill and Thomas introduced the new 90-page bill as a substitute the next day, demanding a vote before any congressmen of either party had a chance to read it. The legislation is both complex and controversial. The Democrats objected and adjourned to a nearby library to review their options, leaving behind a single member, Pete Stark of California, to delay action by the committee by exercising his prerogative to have the bill read line-by-line. Thomas summoned the Capitol police to eject the Democrats from their impromptu meeting room, claiming they were engaging in disorderly conduct."
"How's that Impeachment going and the other little things 'promised'"
Impeachment was never on the table, according to Pelosi. As for the other "100-day" promises, if you actually paid attention to facts you would have noticed that the Democratic Congress is making progress and has done as much as it could with its limited majority to pass everything they promised.
6) H.R. 4, "Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act."
Status: Passed Jan. 12th, 2007
7) H.R. 5, "College Student Relief Act of 2007."
Status: Passed Jan. 17th, 2007
8) H.R. 6, "Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act."
Status: Passed Jan. 18th, 2007
SLATE:
"The Rs were in charge for 6 years (with the Dems there)"
Read my posts of how Republicans deviously excluded Democrats from participating in the legislative process. Also note that for those 6 years, Republicans controlled ALL THREE branches of the federal government. Whereas for the past two years Democrats have only controlled ONE branch of the federal government with such a small majority that they neither force cloture nor presidential veto override.
Your ill-informed comments demonstrate just how poor your civics education was.
LOL you are one pompous person,,,, I see you must have failed Mrs. Bee's class on how to bring people to your side by using kind wordsâ;¦ You are one piece of work,,,,, go back to your statistical existence,,,, I'm sure it's so much fun
Is this the best you can muster to counter my document-supported argument? LOL.
I guess I'm not really surprised by your incompetence, but to top it off you toss in a remark that implies knowing fundamental statistical principles is a bad thing -- in a thread about POLLS. LOL. Your anti-intellectual comment is laughable and a poor excuse for your ignorance.
271)
"A new poll released Monday by the American Research Group gives Hillary Clinton a twenty point lead in Pennsylvania - up from a tied race just a week ago.
A week ago, the same poll had Clinton tied with Barack Obama, each with 45 percent."
lol, and this week she's beating him 57% to just 37%:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
How much you want to bet Obama's stupid comments boosted Hillary's polling?
I thought Obama was the boy-genius who was going to unite everyone and change everything. lol
Obama's comment about small towns, religion and guns is going to follow him the rest of the campaign. Those comments together with the Rev Wright fiasco are starting to hurt him.
Another group which is not pleased with Obama are Catholic voters who comprise almost 25% of all registered voters.
Todays front page story from Newsday which has a huge circulation in the 5 boroughs of NYC, Nassau and Suffolk Counties and other NY suburban communities.
The front page
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/print...
the story
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/print...
similar stories from Penn papers
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-0412...
Different polls seem to be telling different stories. For example:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106504/Gallup-Daily-...
"Barack Obama, who has come under attack by his presidential rivals for describing small-town voters as "bitter," seems to be weathering the storm to this point as far as voters are concerned. He maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton. That 10-point lead matches Obama's best of the campaign. Obama also still leads McCain by 2 points 46% to 44%.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008...
"Now, it's time for the rest of us to weigh in. Vote away. With all this talk about "bitter" Americans, how do you feel? Are you bitter?
64% Yes. I'll show you bitter when I vote.
30% No, actually I feel pretty good.
6% Yes, but it isn't any politician's fault."
The LA Times?
Just when did LA become a "Small" town?
Obama not in trouble for saying people are bitter.
He's in trouble cause he claimed that small town PA people are gun toting bible thumping racist and they are gun toting bible thumping racist because their bitter.
Anything about "bitter" not in the context of small town PA people are gun-toting bible thumping racist is irreverent.
Now do you agree or disagree with Obama that small town PA people are gun-toting bible thumping racist?
Yes or No
Once that's cleared up we can move on to the cause of small town PA people being gun-toting bible thumping racist.
INJEST:
"He's in trouble cause he claimed that small town PA people are gun toting bible thumping racist and they are gun toting bible thumping racist because their bitter."
I don't think Obama accused Pennsylvanians of being racist. Cite Obama's exact words accusing Pennsylvanians of racism.
INJEST:
"Now do you agree or disagree with Obama that small town PA people are gun-toting bible thumping racist?"
I don't know enough small town PA people to make that judgment.
While I don't condone Obama's casual generalizations, I also don't think it has an effect over his candidacy for the presidency. This media-generated controversy does not address foreign policy or domestic policy positions. It does not concern Obama's views on the war, the economy, health care, education, etc.
This "controversy" seems tailor-made to cater to the "values voter." And the fact you and the usual suspects seem so outraged about innocuous comment--particularly when McCain has been guilty of uttering much worse--implies you yourself may belong to this Bible-thumping, value-voter demographic.
If you have a substantive, policy-driven objection to Obama's positions, then fine. I can live with that. After all, democracy is all about choice. However, this story doesn't concern educated Democrats because it has nothing to do with the important issues facing our country--the war, the economy, health care, ss, education, etc. I guess what they say is true: Democrats tend to intellectualize debates and Republicans tend to emotionalize them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/...
"Therein lies a fundamental difference between Democrats, who tend to intellectualize elections, and Republicans, who like to emotionalize them."
"Therein lies a fundamental difference between Democrats, who tend to intellectualize elections, and Republicans, who like to emotionalize them."
you missed the next part of the article
"I feel your pain," Bill Clinton famously said, before he became the angry spouse of candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama's "change we can believe in" speaks directly to the anxiety and anger over the partisan divides of the last 20 years."
sounds like they are playing to the emotions of ALL voters.....
You've partially misconstrued the argument.
The Republican author of the USA Today article I cited above makes the argument that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are different from the usual Democratic candidates (like Al Gore and John Kerry) in the way that they can galvanize and inspire the hearts and emotions of voters.
In that sense, you're right--Bill and Obama capture the emotions of voters. But, contrary to your interpretation, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are NOT inspiring emotions INSTEAD OF intellectualizing the debate on domestic and foreign policy issues; Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are inspiring emotions IN ADDITION TO intellectualizing debate.
Usually, politicians are one or the other. Hillary, for example, is intellectual but not personable. McCain is personable, but not intellectual. What makes Bill Clinton and Barack Obama so popular is that they are a rare combination of both. They are intellectual, yet also personable.
(((may belong to this Bible-thumping, value-voter demographic.))) He writes that as if belonging to a group that reads the bible and has a 'value' system is a bad thing?
SLATE:
"He writes that as if belonging to a group that reads the bible and has a 'value' system is a bad thing?"
There is a profound difference between a person with a value system, who also happens to read the Bible, and a person who votes based on the Bible (or the teachings of a single minister) to the exclusion of all other pressing, contemporary issues. In this way, the position of the "values voter" is not only myopic, but is also easily exploitable.
I don't think I would have to post documentation proving just how easily exploitable religious fundamentalists are, as the proof is so readily available that this should practically be common knowledge. And this rule doesn't only apply to Christians, but to people of all religions, including Muslims, Jews, etc.
It is possible to be a person with values and of faith without being enslaved by a single minister or book.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...
Did you notice the huge 7.0% outlier represented by the Rasmussen poll, which is clearly skewing the results of RealClearPolitic's 6-poll average?
This is why reputable statisticians tend to report medians, instead of statistical means -- to account for outliers like the Rasmussen poll.
What your RealClearPolitic article shows is that Obama and McCain are in a statistical tie. It's too close to call this election either way.
exactly my point when you said Obama leads McCain by 2 percentage points 46 to 44
No, that was not my point. Read the first sentence of my post again. I said: "Different polls seem to be telling different stories."
The entire point of that post is to show that while there may in fact be political fallout from this media-generated controversy, this single poll cited by ALPHAGNOSSIS in this thread is far from definitive proof because other polls are reporting conflicting data. The "point" was NOT to demonstrate Obama's definitive lead on McCain; the point was to demonstrate there is disagreement among pollsters over how much of an effect this will have on Obama's candidacy. The Gallup Poll I cited was evidence of this conflicting data.
There is a meaningful difference between the point I am conveying and the argument you are construing.
Just read about the "polling group":
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/12/problem...
Rasmussen is the most consistently accurate pollster there is. : )
There is no such thing as the "most consistently accurate pollster." Uncertainty, p-values, chi-square, sampling errors, etc. are applicable to ALL polls, which is precisely why RealClearPolitics calculates an average of 6 different polls instead of relying on any single poll. Of course, where RealClearPolitics falters is by reporting the statistical mean of the 6 polls instead of the median. Unlike the median, the statistical mean is easily influenced by outliers.
A statement like yours only demonstrates how shallow your knowledge is of fundamental statistical principles.
More Conflicting Data:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9617....
"Penn race unchanged by Obama remark. The Quinnipiac University poll found that Hillary Clinton leads Obama 50 to 44 percent, a margin unchanged since the organization's last statewide poll at the beginning of the month. The poll, conducted Wednesday through Sunday night, revealed no noticeable shift in support for polling done on Saturday or Sunday. It is the first indication that Obama's controversial remark may not dramatically change the head-to-head match-up in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next Tuesday."
First off this Poll is meaningless, what it's saying that all the other polls are incorrect and I find that hard to believe!
On the small town PA point take it from me he is on point there, they really are racist for the most part. they have been studies that the most racist of the American society are those who feel disenfranchised, and not only do they feel this way they are. From checking the news this is only a big deal to those like AG that wants McCain to face Clinton not Obama and those who would lose their minds if a black man wins the presidency because of their unfounded fears. We have all known that raciest rednecks vote for the GOP because they GOP will not let the Mexicans and blacks take their jobs. No they will not let that happen because they are too busy shipping it to other countries.
if I were a Penn voter I would show my displeasure at Obama's narrow minded sterotype buy going to the voteing booth and electing Clinton in a land slide. See what that, non bowling comon man want to be thinks of you when he just lost most of your delgates. He already will not let Florida and Mich. voters voices be heard because they do not help him.
You'd prove Obama's point. You're replacing the bible thumping gun toting stereotype with Hillary. Rather than voting for who you believe the most qualified your voting for someone because you have issues with someone else. Obama said middle Americans had issues that they could do nothing about so they take the easy way out and focus on easily identifiable issues.. You take the easy way out and vote for Hillary.
Is this CRAP really supposed to make poor people forget that the GOP is sitting around with their thumbs up there arses while tens of thousands of Americans are about to lose the roofs over their heads. C'mon, wingjobbers. Surely, you can do better than this. LOL
Did you say something Messo?
Surely the democrats could have done better than Obama.
Pee Wee Herman for President Locky? I hear that the Big Shoe Dance goes well with the blue collar crowd hehehe.
As I would agree with the Republicans. The cream is not rising to the top in either party.
the last I heard the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.........LOL
Democrats Split on Ways to Ease Mortgage Crunch
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/business/04ho...
The Subprime Mortgage Mess and the Carter-Era Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/199361...
Government Regulations Nurtured Subprime Mortgage Crisis
http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/2007/08...
and this one is a beauty
Edwards, Foreclosure Critic, Has Investing Tie to Subprime Lenders
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999...
Day 722: John Edwards, Subprime Lenders And Katrina Victims
http://vatul.net/blog/index.php/1438/
Chronicle of Houses Foreclosed
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/0...
that DAMN BUSH!!!!!! and all those lousy stinking Republicans.........what are you guys going to do come January of 2009
I hear ya PC, either it's the ole 'it's not our fault the Rs are the majority' or the 'yeah we're the majority, but the Rs won't let us get any work done'. I wonder how the Rs got work done all those years with the Ds there?
Um, perhaps because the Ds weren't being obstructionist boobs? Just a thought...
LOL no? Maybe the Rs know how to lead and get people on their side?
SLATE:
"I wonder how the Rs got work done all those years with the Ds there?"
They didn't. The Republicans did most of their damage in the 6 years when they controlled all 3 branches of the federal government.
A statement such as yours ignores the OVERWHELMING evidence (as I've posted below from MarketWatch, the NYT, the LA Times, etc.) that shows deregulation and a laissez-faire approach to the economy by Republicans did nothing to prevent the credit crisis, and in fact, only exacerbated it.
((They didn't. The Republicans did most of their damage in the 6 years when they controlled all 3 branches of the federal government.))
Er this has to do with more than the economy, it has to do with the Dems inability to get even one of your pet projects started. How's that Impeachment going and the other little things 'promised' and gleefully voted on by you?
And the Dems weren't around at all? That's exactly what I'm saying here, you are a fine example. The Rs were in charge for 6 years (with the Dems there),,,, the Dems have been in charge for what 2 and they have done nothing, so what do you and they say,,,,,, oh but the mean ole Rs they are in our way, as if the Dems never once stood in the way of the Rs for the 6 years. It just doesn't fly with me.
Why is it the Rs can get things done and the Ds can't? Some would think that 'talk' is the only thing the Ds are good at. The Rs don't talk too well, but they know how to put a plan into action and Ger Er Done.
SLATE:
"Er this has to do with more than the economy"
Er...Read PC25's post again. Er...He SPECIFICALLY limits the discussion to the credit crisis. Er...Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte. Er...
PC25: "we are not talking about record national debts we were talking about the sub prime mortgage crisis and his quote that the GOP is responsible and sitting on its arses"
SLATE:
"it has to do with the Dems inability to get even one of your pet projects started."
It sounds as if someone needs a lesson or three on veto overrides and cloture. As has been demonstrated time and again by the obstructionist Congressional Republican minority, Democrats do not have the votes to achieve either one.
Examples of Republicans' partisan recalcitrance to reach across the aisle and compromise are plenty. For example:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004...
"On two of the most critical bills this Congress has considered -- the Medicare and energy bills -- Republican committee members met in private, refusing to allow entry to Democrats by claiming that the meetings were not official conference sessions. While Republican leaders claimed to obey congressional rules by allowing Democrats to attend the opening and closing sessions, the actual writing of the bills was done in secret and exclusively by Republicans; in some cases, Democrats didn't even know in which room their committee colleagues were holed up writing the bill. Democrats were not permitted entry into the closed-door talks to write the complicated bill."
http://www.spa.american.edu/ccps/getpdf.php?tab...
"Bush chose to govern from the 'right-in' rather than the 'center-out.' This pattern held on budget resolutions, tax cuts, energy, Medicare prescription drugs, family planning and abortion, trade, and most other major bills. This tended to leave Democrats out of the equation and to put great pressure on Republican moderates to acquiesce in positions formulated by the conservative 'majority within the majority.' The exclusion of Democrats from conference committees reached a new high in 2003,
facilitated by unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. The extraordinary lengths to which the Republicans went to win roll-call votes represented a further shutting out of Democrats, for the idea was to win with as little bipartisan accommodation as possible. 'The Republicans had better hope that the Democrats never regain the majority,' Sen. John McCain warned in late 2003."
In this instance, Cheney violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 by holding a PRIVATE meeting that even the oil executives wouldn't acknowledge. And when these oil execs were questioned about it, they lied to Congress with the help of Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols
"Vice President Dick Cheney cleared his calendar for an April 17 private meeting with Lay regarding what aides described as 'energy policy matters' and 'the energy crisis in California.' Cheney and his aides met at least six times with Lay and other Enron officials while preparing the National Energy Policy Development Group's report, which is the basis for the Administration's energy policy proposals. When Cheney and Lay met in April 2001, Lay handed Cheney a three-page "wish list" of corporate recommendations."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols
"Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, task forces like Cheney's must conduct public meetings, must allow interested parties to attend and must keep publicly available records. But arguing "executive privilege," Cheney, his aides and Cabinet departments have refused requests for records, despite legal challenges from the General Accounting Office and private groups. One lawsuit has freed up Energy Department documents that begin to hint at the extent of the influence that energy corporations exercised over Administration policies."
"the group adopted all or significant portions of the recommendations in 7 of 8 policy areas. 17 policies clearly benefit the company--including proposals to extend federal control of transmission lines, use federal eminent-domain authority to override state decisions on transmission-line siting, expedite permitting for new energy facilities and limit the use of price controls."
When oil execs were questioned about the existence of this PRIVATE meeting, they LIED about it before Congress with the help of Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who refused to swear them under oath:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/energy...
CHAIRMAN TED STEVENS: The question whether Senator Domenici and I should administer oaths to these witnesses. I shall not administer an oath today.
CANTWELL: Mr. Chairman, I did send you a letter cosigned by eight of my colleagues asking that the witnesses be sworn in. This rare joint hearing--
STEVENS: I did not yield to make a statement.
BOXER: Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to vote on whether we swear--
STEVENS: There will be no vote. It is not in order at all.
BOXER: Mr. Chairman, I move that we swear in the witnesses.
STEVENS: And I rule that out of order.
CANTWELL: I second the motion.
STEVENS: Thank you very much. That is the last we are going to hear about that because it is out of order.
This lie continued until a WH document proved the existence of this PRIVATE meeting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...
"Bill Thomas (R-CA) broke down in tears on the House floor today as he confessed to a hushed assemblage that he summoned the Capitol police to break up a meeting of Democrats. Late in the evening of July 17, Republican committee staffers substantially rewrote the Portman-Cardin bill and Thomas introduced the new 90-page bill as a substitute the next day, demanding a vote before any congressmen of either party had a chance to read it. The legislation is both complex and controversial. The Democrats objected and adjourned to a nearby library to review their options, leaving behind a single member, Pete Stark of California, to delay action by the committee by exercising his prerogative to have the bill read line-by-line. Thomas summoned the Capitol police to eject the Democrats from their impromptu meeting room, claiming they were engaging in disorderly conduct."
SLATE:
"How's that Impeachment going and the other little things 'promised'"
Impeachment was never on the table, according to Pelosi. As for the other "100-day" promises, if you actually paid attention to facts you would have noticed that the Democratic Congress is making progress and has done as much as it could with its limited majority to pass everything they promised.
1) H.Res. 1, "Implementing 9/11 Commission's Recommendations"
Status: Passed Jan. 9, 2007; The Administration opposes it
2) H.Res. 6, Title II, "Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress."
Status: Passed Jan. 4th, 2007
3) H.Res. 6, Title IV, "Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress."
Status: Passed Jan. 5th, 2007
4) H.R. 2, "Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007."
Status: Passed Jan. 10th, 2007
5) H.R. 3, "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act."
Status: Passed 253-174, Jan. 11th, 2007; vetoed
6) H.R. 4, "Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act."
Status: Passed Jan. 12th, 2007
7) H.R. 5, "College Student Relief Act of 2007."
Status: Passed Jan. 17th, 2007
8) H.R. 6, "Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act."
Status: Passed Jan. 18th, 2007
SLATE:
"The Rs were in charge for 6 years (with the Dems there)"
Read my posts of how Republicans deviously excluded Democrats from participating in the legislative process. Also note that for those 6 years, Republicans controlled ALL THREE branches of the federal government. Whereas for the past two years Democrats have only controlled ONE branch of the federal government with such a small majority that they neither force cloture nor presidential veto override.
Your ill-informed comments demonstrate just how poor your civics education was.
Pathetic.
LOL you are one pompous person,,,, I see you must have failed Mrs. Bee's class on how to bring people to your side by using kind wordsâ;¦ You are one piece of work,,,,, go back to your statistical existence,,,, I'm sure it's so much fun
Is this the best you can muster to counter my document-supported argument? LOL.
I guess I'm not really surprised by your incompetence, but to top it off you toss in a remark that implies knowing fundamental statistical principles is a bad thing -- in a thread about POLLS. LOL. Your anti-intellectual comment is laughable and a poor excuse for your ignorance.
Pathetic.
unfortunately the current administration's legacy will live long after they're all dead and buried
you don't really think events set in motion stop when those who set them going are out of power or even gone from this earth, do you?
Yeah I hear ya, I'm still feeling the affects of the Carter Administration
Rejoice that the B*stard is gone!
Which Bassturd are ya talking about?