McCain to lose even more support among women and Hispanics?

[marite]

<p>Tega: It’s actually $482 billions

President Bush’s budget chief blamed the faltering economy and the bipartisan stimulus package for the record $482 billion deficit the White House predicted for the 2009 budget year.
The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.</p>

<p>The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.</p>

<p>Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the deficit would be about 3.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, the measure of the nation’s total economy.

[White</a> House projects record deficit for 2009 - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html]White”>White House projects record deficit for 2009 - CNN.com)</p>

<p>The earmarks that McCain has been attacking amount to about $20 billions.
[McCain’s</a> Fantasy War on Earmarks - Fact Checker](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html]McCain’s”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html)</p>

[marite]

<p>Xiggi:</p>

<p>The explanation went like this: Napoleon’s superiority lay in his artillery. But what could one expect in a place called Water-l’eau. It rained and rained the day before the battle… A triple curse.</p>

[tega]

<p>

tega - your link sys the page is unavailable.

</p>

<p>Sorry, I tried to fix it, but it is still not working. You can google, The Greatest Scandal wall street journal to get the article.</p>

[tega]

<p>marite, yes it is $420 Billion, I don’t know why I wrote the figure I had before.</p>

<p>I know that earmarks wont make a dent, but it is the right step to take. Most importantly, we need to keep federal spending in check.</p>

[marite]

<p>Agree, but that’s not really a plan to reduce the deficit. And saying nothing is off the table sounds like he does not really have a plan.</p>

[barrons]

<p>JM leads among likely voters. Woo-Hoo</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>McCain supporters may want to read this:</p>

<p>[Gains</a> for McCain in latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll - On Politics - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/gains-for-mccai.html]Gains”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/gains-for-mccai.html)</p>

<p>

Among registered voters, McCain still trails Obama, but by less. He is behind by 3 percentage points in the new poll (47%-44%) vs. a 6-point disadvantage (48%-42%) in late June.</p>

<p>Results based on the survey of 791 likely voters have margins of error of +/- 4 percentage points – so McCain’s lead is not outside that range. Results based on the survey of 900 registered voters also have margins of error of +/- 4 percentage points.</p>

<p>Gallup editor Frank Newport tells Jill that “registered voters are much more important at the moment,” because Election Day is still 100 days away, but that the likely-voter result suggests that it may be possible for McCain to energize Republicans and turn them out this fall.

</p>

<p>McCain should be a tad bit worried. His gains are largely due to the fact that he went negative against Obama. However, there are still 100 days until the election and negative campaigning only works in the short term. Sure he can try to keep it up for 100 days and turn out the conservative base; however, McCain the Maverick’s base and independents looking for real solutions and a leader who’s looking forward not backward are going to be turned off by such prolonged negative campaigning.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Given the circumstances being close right now is fantastic. Many pundits were ready to hand BO the election.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Given the circumstances being close right now is fantastic. Many pundits were ready to hand BO the election.

</p>

<p>Don’t forget that McCain is getting a free ride in the press right now.</p>

<p>

A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which conservatives have always regarded as sympathetic, says the three broadcast networks have been more critical of Obama than of John McCain in their recent news coverage. Most of what the networks air is neutral, according to the study. But when reporters offer opinions, 72 percent of those about Obama are negative–compared to 57 percent for McCain.

</p>

[Kafka89]

<p>^78% of election news mentions obama, 51% mentions McCain.</p>

<p>They’re being more critical of Obama now because he’s been making major mistakes.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

They’re being more critical of Obama now because he’s been making major mistakes.

</p>

<p>Like what? Saying that the surge is what started the Sunni Awakening? Oh wait, that was McCain.</p>

[Kafka89]

<p>^No, like creating a seal strikingly similar to the presidential seal, spending his time talking to massive crowds in europe and acting as if he were the current president, while neglecting to visit troops on two separate ocassions. He also refused to attend the set debate in Arlington, TX against McCain in front of current soldiers and veterans from past wars. He refuses to partake in any debates of any structure with McCain - even debates without questions!</p>

<p>People are starting to wake up now. That’s what’s happening. Obama’s refusal to admit that the surge was effective strategy just shows that he’s an obdurate putz.</p>

[marite]

<p>If those are major mistakes, what are minor ones? invading Iraq on the pretext that there were WMDs?<br>
Some of the things you cite are gaffes–i,e, minor stuff. McCain has committed plenty of those, too. Let’s concentrate on the things that really matter.</p>

[parentofbear]

<p>Sounds like Arizona is following California and Washington. I sure don’t see my home state as anything but very liberal.</p>

<p>Newjack88 your post #12 sure looks like quotas to me.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>parentofbear:</p>

<p>Post #21?</p>

<p>If so, if you think that is what quotas are, you have a long ways to go in becoming informed on this subject.</p>

[Kafka89]

<p>marite, i dont need to argue over the WMDs situation with you. Top intelligence around the world completely supported the notion that Hussein was hiding WMDs. Read World War IV by Norman Pohoretz - then tell me there was no case regarding WMDs. </p>

<p>Dodging debates 10 times over is no small blunder. It’s a sign of weakness.</p>

[garland]

<p>Does Hans Blix count? After all, he was there.</p>

<p>

Speaking on the anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has “the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past” — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.</p>

<p>“There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction,” said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations’ chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something” - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the “tip of the iceberg” or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg’s past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year. </p>

<p>Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of “critical thinking.” The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix’s team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America’s pre-emptive, unilateral actions “have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere.”

</p>

<p>[U.N&lt;/a&gt;. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of “critical thinking” in Iraq](<a href=“http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml]U.N”>U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq)</p>

[marite]

<p>Yes, Norman Podhoretz is more of an expert than Hans Blix! He was there, in Iraq, looking for WMDs, of course. And he is a totally unbiased source of news and analysis. NOT.</p>

[mini]

<p>“Top intelligence around the world completely supported the notion that Hussein was hiding WMDs.”</p>

<p>At the the time of the invasion and aggressive, hostile occupation of Iraq, there was only ONE source of information about Iraq’s supposed WMD program, and that was Curveball. He had already been discredited by German intelligence (who actually held him), and by France and Great Britain. The U.S. was quite aware that he was discredited, but chose to “sell” the discredited intelligence (“it’s a slam-dunk”) to the American people.</p>

[AMom2]

<p>BTW, did you notice that Libya and North Korea are now coming around. I think the Iraq war helped change their minds.</p>