<p>From Post 170 I have no idea what that totally incoherent post is all about.</p>
<p>The post was about the convenience of a poor memory.</p>
<p>Mackinac Island, MI - Ex-Gov. Mitt Romney won the Michigan Republican Leadership Conference straw poll, receiving 39 % of the 979 votes cast.</p>
<p>Sen. John McCain came in second with 27%, followed by Rep. Ron Paul with 10.8%.</p>
<p>The straw poll, sponsored by the Hotline, was held this Friday and Saturday on Mackinac Island.</p>
<p>Frmr New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was close behind Paul, taking 10.62%. Frmr Sen. Fred Thompson took 7%. All five spoke before conference attendees this weekend, as did Rep. Duncan Hunter, who took 1% of the vote. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback were scheduled to appear, but cancelled on Friday. </p>
<p>The Michigan Republican party unofficially certified the straw poll results.</p>
<p>Only conference registrants who were Michigan residents were eligible to vote. </p>
<p>FInal results are below:</p>
<p>S. Brownback 3 .31%
Rudy Giuliani 104 10.62%
M. Huckabee 25 2.55%
D. Hunter 12 1.23%
J. McCain 260 26.56%
R. Paul 106 10.83%
M. Romney 383 39.12%
T. Tancredo 0
F. Thompson 70 7.15%
Uncomm 16 1.63%</p>
<p>
I watched on three of the networks and beg to disagree. The pitches were anything but high inside fastballs. To say that she “stayed on message” is Clintonesque spin for “she ignored the questions and gave the talking points that she had rehearsed.” Plus, her answers were so long, I felt like she was filibustering. She made Joe Biden look succinct. Her strategy was clearly one of spend as much time on a single question as possible and use the general topic of the question to get to your talking points. What a waste of time.</p>
<p>September 21, 2007
Americans Deeply Dissatisfied With Nation’s Governance
Democrats much more negative than Republicans</p>
<p>by Frank Newport </p>
<p>GALLUP NEWS SERVICE</p>
<p>PRINCETON, NJ – Americans remain deeply dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed today, fueled in large part by the negative sentiments of Democrats and independents. The current level of satisfaction is the lowest it has been this decade, and is as low as at any other point at which the question was asked since September 1973. There is no indication that Democrats have become more pleased with governance as a result of their takeover of Congress after last November’s election. </p>
<p>Basic Data</p>
<p>The question at issue in this analysis is straightforward: “On the whole, would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed?”</p>
<p>Gallup has asked this question every September since 2001 as part of the Gallup Poll Governance survey, and before then in the early 1970s, in 1984, and in 1991.</p>
<p>Sixty-seven percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed today, while only 31% are satisfied. This marks the most negative assessment of governance in response to this question since Gallup’s September 1973 poll, conducted in the midst of the ongoing Watergate scandal then engulfing the Nixon administration. (At that time, 26% were satisfied and 66% were dissatisfied.)</p>
<p>Since 2002, there has been a steady decline in satisfaction with the way the nation is being governed. This is not a surprise, of course, given the fact that most measures of presidential and Congressional approval have declined throughout that same time period. Still, these data provide further confirmation of the fact that the status of the national government in the eyes of average Americans is now extremely low. </p>
<p>Partisan Differences</p>
<p>There is a deep divide in the response to this governance question by partisanship. While more than 6 out of 10 Republicans say they are satisfied with the way the nation is being governed, only 18% of independents and Democrats agree.</p>
<p>While this partisan rift has been evident in each poll conducted since 2001, it has become more exaggerated in recent years. For example, there was a gap of 29 percentage points between the satisfaction level of Republicans and Democrats in September 2001, compared to the 45-point gap today. </p>
<p>One might have expected that Democrats’ satisfaction with the way things are being governed in the nation today would have improved this year given that Democrats took over control of the House and the Senate at the beginning of 2007. But this did not occur – Democrats are as negative now as they have been in the past two years. </p>
<p>It may be that respondents think solely about the presidency in answering this question. Or it may be that Democrats have decided that their party’s control of Congress has made little difference in the overall direction of the country and the way in which it is being governed. </p>
<p>At any rate, it is also important to note that Republicans’ satisfaction with the way the nation is being governed (63%), although high on a relative basis compared to independents and Democrats, is the lowest it has been across the seven September polls beginning in 2001 – and is also 13 points lower than last year.</p>
<p><a href=“Sen. Clinton Can't Pledge Troop Withdrawal - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3639881&page=1</a></p>
<p>"Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said this morning that she will not make any pledges regarding a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. "</p>
<p>"“Clearly, withdrawing is dangerous,” she said. “It has to be done responsibly, prudently, carefully, but we have said that there will be a likely continuing mission against al Qaeda in Iraq. … So I think that there are some limited missions, but the numbers we’re talking about are very much smaller than what we have there, and … the missions would be better defined.” </p>
<p>Despite her determination to bring American troops home, Clinton said it was inappropriate to speculate as to how many troops would remain in Iraq, but said that previous estimates of 40,000 to 75,000 troops were inaccurate. “The problems we’re going to face because of the failed policies and the poor decision-making of this administration are rather extraordinary and difficult and I don’t want to speculate about how we’re going to be approaching it until I actually have the facts in my hand and the authority to be able to make some decisions,” Clinton said. "</p>
<p>Her Answer?</p>
<p>Yup. Her policy, in fact, isn’t very different from those stated by GWB. Once things are reasonably under control, we can draw down troops, train up the Iraqi military, reserve our troops for “limited missions” in support of our “continuing strategic interests” in the region. But we really can’t make any real decisions until we see how things develop.</p>
<p>In other words, finish building the permanent U.S. military bases on the Iranian border.</p>
<p>fundingfather:</p>
<p>I guess your Republican clucking pundits disagree. Both David Brooks and Brit Hume said they were very impressed by Clinton’s interviews in their respective roundtable discussions following the interviews.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, maybe if you overlook one teensy-weensy little difference:</p>
<p>a) Clinton wants to begin withdrawing signficant numbers of US troops immediately.</p>
<p>b) Bush doesn’t. His clear intent is to keep every available US soldier in Iraq for as long as possible, drawing down only to the extent that we run out of troops.</p>
<p>ID, David Brooks and Brit Hume speak with forked tongues. If they are waxing rhapsodic over Hillary, the translation is that they see her as the easiest to beat.</p>
<p>Baloney. No sane politician wants to run against a pro bowl caliber campaign. They want to run against a campaign that is undisciplined, wandering around off message, and prone to gaffes. I have never seen a non-incumbent Presidential campaign operating at the level of the Clinton campaign.</p>
<p>For those who don’t want to watch the full interviews, here is the funniest thing I’ve seen: a 10 minute highlights mashup of video clips from all five interviews. This had me rolling on the floor, a truly astonishing display of “staying on message”:</p>
<p>“Resistance is Futile!”
<a href=“http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054016.php[/url]”>http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054016.php</a></p>
<p>
The problem with pundits’ evaluation of political performance is that it is based on how well the person dances versus how they respond to the questions. Clinton was very good at avoiding the questions and danced marvelously - but it was far from “the Straight Talk Express”. She didn’t even come close to answering any questions and proceeded to take up so much time presenting her rehearsed talking points that it prevented any follow-up questions. </p>
<p>If that is how you rate politicians, then Hillary is “your girl”. To me, she is the democratic version of Mitt Romney - way too programmed.</p>
<p>Hello. These are politicians!</p>
<p>Your complaint is as silly as saying we only select football players for the NFL on the basis of how well they play football.</p>
<p>Clinton responded to every question with substantive answers. She just didn’t fall into the “gotcha question” traps that are the stock in trade of the pundit shows. She gave HER answers, not Tim Russert’s and Chris Wallace’s answers.</p>
<p>NYM02, I don’t know about that. A deeply Republican businessman I collaborate on on some UCLA stuff is resigned not only to a Hillary nomination but a Hillary presidency. To the point where he’s looking for the few good things that could come out of it from his point of view, cf., Nixon to China but from the opposite side. Personally, I think Hillary is the strongest Dem candidate: she’s shown that she can take a punch, she’s shown that she can give a punch. Given the GOP smear machine, it’s a necessary qualification for any candidate…I was so disappointed with Kerry’s campaign in that regard. Of course, in old country, we knew how to deal with people like Bob Shrum…he would have been stood up against a wall and shot.</p>
<p>" deeply Republican businessman I collaborate on on some UCLA stuff is resigned not only to a Hillary nomination but a Hillary presidency."</p>
<p>Add me to his ranks.</p>
<p>From Post 190 … I have never seen a non-incumbent Presidential campaign operating at the level of the Clinton campaign.</p>
<p>I have to agree the whole campaign has been very impressive. </p>
<p>I am hearing from people in Iowa the same thing. Some in Iowa who didnt support Sen. Clinton because that thought she would lose are now changing their minds. The party activist in the community I worked in for the general election of 04 have all just about moved to her, none of them supported her in January 07. Every time I talk to one of them they comment on how well her campaign is being run, and then say I think she can win. This antidotal evidence also being shown in Iowa polling where Sen Clinton has consistently improved her numbers all year. </p>
<p>I suggest people take a look at this link, <a href=“Pollster”>Pollster;
<p>The advantage people in Iowa have is that they get to see the candidate up close and can form an opinion of the candidate as a person from personal contact. The Hilldbeast image is being killed off and the right wing may be left without what they perceive as her greatest weakness. The campaign is very aware of the image problem and seems to be doing an excellent job of mitigating it, both with her personal contact and the way the campaign is shaping and presenting her public publicly pronouncements, and its promotion.</p>
<p>If that is how you rate politicians, then Hillary is “your girl”. To me, she is the democratic version of Mitt Romney - way too programmed.</p>
<p>It seems to me if someone other than the candidate is making all the important decisions and dictating how they are to be presented then you can say the candidate is programmed. However if the candidate herself is making the important decisions its not programming, its leadership. I dont think any of us could make the case { I am sure you can make an argument, but I said the case} that anyone other than Sen. Clinton is making the important decisions in her campaign.</p>
<p>News like this will not be helpful to the Rs as they go into an election year. </p>
<p>Does anyone want to try to make the case that the economic policies of the Bush Administration have been good for America? </p>
<p>Is anyone going to try to make the case that the US economy would be worse off without the Bush policies? If so please try now, I would love to read what the argument you are going to try to make. </p>
<p>Consumer Confidence Drops in September
.
its lowest level since a 98.3 reading in November 2005, when gas and oil prices soared after hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast
<a href=“Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News”>Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News;
<p>Existing Home Sales Drop for Sixth Month in August to Slowest Pace Since 2002</p>
<p>housing market has been battered by the steepest downturn in 16 years</p>
<p><a href=“Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News”>Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News;
<p>Alleged Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich voted against the reauthorization of childrens health care tonight in the House and thereby threw his support to President Bush who has promised to veto the bill.</p>
<p>Tommybill, Hillary may soon be in the position to resurrect the slogan that marked her husband’s successful bid for President, “It’s The Economy, Stupid!”—unless there’s another significant terrorist attack against Americans, either here or abroad. Anybody want to speculate as to the likelihood of that happening?</p>
<p>Poll shows Clinton lead grows over Obama
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
8 hours, 22 minutes ago </p>
<p>As Democrats ready for a key debate at Dartmouth College tonight, a new poll released yesterday shows support for Sen. Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic presidential primary votes has soared and she now has a more than two-to-one lead over Sen. Barack Obama.
A University of New Hampshire poll completed for WMUR and CNN shows that with non-candidate Al Gore in the survey, Clinton is supported by 41 percent of those polled to 19 percent for Obama. Without Gore in the mix, it’s Clinton with 43 percent and Obama with 20 percent,
Today, the New Hampshire Union Leader has learned, UNH will release a poll done for the same television outlets showing that John McCain has gained on front-runners Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
The GOP poll is expected to show that Romney’s support has slightly eroded since the last UNH poll in July, while Giuliani and McCain have gained support. McCain is expected to be within, or close to, the poll’s margin of error behind the two.
In yesterday’s Democratic poll, John Edwards was third at 12 percent and Bill Richardson fourth, at 6 percent.
The poll also shows that while most likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have a preference, fully 55 percent have yet to make up their minds. The GOP poll will show an even higher percentage of likely voters in that primary who have yet to make up their minds. That’s down from 64 percent in a July poll by UNH.
Clinton’s lead in the same poll in July was 8 percentage points, 33 to 25 percent.
In an August poll by the American Research Group, Clinton led Obama 37 to 17 percent.
The new UNH poll interviewed 307 adults who said they plan to vote in the Democratic primary. The margin of error is 5.5 percent.
The new UNH poll shows that 54 percent of New Hampshire Democratic voters believe Clinton has the best chance of defeating the GOP nominee in a general election, compared to 37 percent in the July survey.
The poll also shows that 36 percent believe Clinton is the most likely to bring change to the country, as compared to 24 percent for Obama.
The poll was released on the same day Obama’s campaign began airing its first New Hampshire television ad, in which the Illinois senator asks voters to believe in his ability to bring change to Washington.
Richardson’s campaign yesterday announced a new ad will begin airing today featuring prominent liberal bloggers saying that Richardson is the only candidate who will truly end the war in Iraq by bring all American troops home except for a small group to guard the embassy.
Richardson said he intends to make the distinction between his position and those of Clinton, Obama and Edwards the “centerpiece” of tonight’s debate.
He said he will challenge the others “as to why they want to leave troops behind. I’m going to press it intensely. That’s a fundamental issue dividing the three major candidates and myself.”
Richardson also set expectations for himself in the New Hampshire primary. He said he needs to finish third, ahead of one of the three front-runners.</p>