<p>Lucianne is very influential, and I think the self-selecting is the issue. I have seen plenty (countless) dissenting points of view on Lucianne. Perhaps that’s just a reflection of the diversity of thought on the “right” as opposed to a real presence of people on the “left.” Dunno. But she does accept comments, as does powerline, and they often represent a broad range of opinions. Of course there are whackjobs on the right but Lucianne doesn’t tolerate that, either, and takes them down immediately.</p>
<p>I’m going to have to officially take exception to that statistic. Anklebitingpundits and captainsquartersblog both take comments, and Captain Ed is not only influential, but incredibly well respected, also. I’ve also seen some whoopsadoozer comments on huffingtonpost.</p>
<p>According to this article by a conservative writer at Lew Rockwell’s ultra-conservative site, Lucianne was banning all articles (even from established media) about the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore at one point, due to their criticism of Bush. And the Rockwell post author claims Lucianne.com has a history of banning posters who don’t conform adequately to “Bush and Republican worship.”</p>
<p>Conyat I respectfully disagree with that and I’ve been reading luci since inception. I actually think she banned posts about the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore because of the viciousness of some of the comments, not because of the content of the articles. There are whackjobs there, just as there are at huffingtonpost. Whackjobness isn’t the sole purview of either side.</p>
<p>Well, I haven’t been on the lucianne.com site, so I don’t know personally, but Rev. Barnwell (the Rockwell author) has a good reputation for honesty. </p>
<p>She’s also banned articles from the New York Review of Books and Britian’s respected Prospect magazine claiming they weren’t “legitimate” news sources.</p>
<p>Perhaps, but it seems out of character given some the really viscious racial comments she’s let stand. Why censor the entire article in one case, but not even the comments in the other?</p>
<p>It also depends on the source. Luci has some pretty strict rules. I also read the article by Rev. Barnwell, and I don’t think that was particularly honest. But it may not be representative of his entire body of work, just like the posts he referenced aren’t representative of all ldotters or all postings.</p>
<p>zoosermom said .the current situation is untenable. But I still think tax increases are unacceptable </p>
<p>This kind of dogmatic thinking misses the point and prevents real progress form being made. It fits neatly into a 30 second attack ad, but does little to help the nation solve our problems. </p>
<p>Think about the Deficit Reduction Act of 93, it cut some taxes, and raised others; productivity went up, workers pay went up, spending went up, corporate profits went up, interest rates and inflation went down, the stock market went up, tax revenue went up, and the federal budget was balanced for the first time in years. It makes no sense to just say tax increases are unacceptable. </p>
<p>As a result of the 93 law all income brackets shared in the growth of our economy, the 1.2% of the taxpayers in the top income bracket whose taxes had been increased in 93 saw their net worth grow faster than all others. They had paid more in the way of federal income tax, but their net worth went up, a good investment in good government. </p>
<p>We a nation are going to have to first think and then work our way out of the mistakes made in the name of neo-conservative dogma in the last eight years. This will take everyone being willing to keep an open mind about what is best for the nation as a whole and each of us as individuals. </p>
<p>For the record, not one Republican vote for the Deficit Reduction Act of 93.</p>
<p>"This kind of dogmatic thinking misses the point and prevents real progress form being made. It fits neatly into a 30 second attack ad, but does little to help the nation solve our problems. "</p>
<p>Says you. But you’re not the be-all and end-all, so your opinion is no more valid than mine. I happen to think and others do as well, that the starting point of respecting private citizens’ money and property and enacting policy that doesn’t encroach would go a long way to solving many of our country’s problems.</p>
<p>FYI. From the same CNN/WMUR Poll posted last night:</p>
<p>"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Where does the Republican presidential race in New Hampshire stand? New Hampshire Republicans had a debate and now they have a new front-runner.</p>
<p>In early April, there were two front-runners in the New Hampshire Republican primary: Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were tied for first place.</p>
<p>Now, after last week’s CNN-WMUR-New Hampshire Union Leader debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, things have changed. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has picked up support, from 17 percent in April to 28 percent now. He’s the new front-runner, by a narrow margin, while Giuliani and John McCain both lost support. They’re still tied – but for second, at 20 percent each."</p>
<p>zoosermom…my point is you are going to have to think…just no new taxes is not a policy…as for your comment “starting point of respecting private citizens’ money and property and enacting policy that doesn’t encroach” I agree completly…however there will still be a need for a tax policy all I am saying is it should be a good tax policy…the '93 act was good tax policy…I think we need a new tax policy with the same type of thinking behind it…</p>
<p>1sokkermom…good to see this post …you are starting to read and understand the value of polling at this early date….keep us informed as you find this stuff…that way we will all be able to watch the ebb and flow of the presidential race….</p>
<p>The trick at this point is to try to ascertain when the polling stops showing the ebb and flow and starts to show a trend…my guess is we will begin to see this much later and maybe much later than in the past. I particularly want to see what affect F. Thompson‘s entry has. The question will be, does he take votes and from whom. The same for Newt when and if he gets in.</p>
<p>“I particularly want to see what affect F. Thompson‘s entry has. The question will be, does he take votes and from whom. The same for Newt when and if he gets in.”</p>
<p>I saw a different poll this morning (Rasmussen) and I think thus far, Thompson is drawing from McCain, although it’s not clear how much of that is Thompson and how much is anger at McCain. I don’t think Newt will get in, though. By the way, I find realclearpolitics to have the best polling roundup.</p>
<p>I haven’t been following this thread that carefully, but I believe that someone earlier said that liberals don’t consider Hilary to be one of them. You wouldn’t know that from this poll:
<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-06/30445335.pdf[/url]”>http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-06/30445335.pdf</a>
Note that Hilary’s overall percentage among Democratic primary voters is 33% (versus 22 for Obama and 15 for Gore). Yet, when just liberal Democrats are considered, her tally jumps all the way to 40 (versus 21 for Obama and 18 for Gore). </p>
<p>So, I think that the assertion of Hillary being the stealth candidate is warranted - unless you think that liberals don’t want to vote for a fellow liberal.</p>
<p>The interesting thing from this poll is that despite Hillary being the leading Dem candidate, she trails to the top 3 Rep. candidates. Yet, Obama beats all three Rep. candidates. So, from that perspective: Go Hillary!</p>
<p>Every time we’ve cut taxes in the past 30 years the national debt has soared. Cutting taxes is a synonym for “stealing from our children.” Reference to vague magic wands which will allow us to tax ourselves at a rate less than necessary to pay our bills without stealing from our children is smoke and mirrors. Double talk, sound-bite logic, and name-calling won’t change that.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s time to start acting like adults. Our parent’s generation went a long way towards paying off the legitimate national debt incurred in WWII. It wasn’t until Reagan’s voodoo economics that we became willing participants in the shell game which ends up screwing our kids over. </p>
<p>A propaganda machine which can convince an intelligent woman that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa at a time when they couldn’t get it from the mines, couldn’t transport it out of Africa if they got it, and had no way to do anything with it if they did import it, has no difficulty encouraging a mindset that anyone who proposes setting tax rates at a non-deficit level is “irresponsible.” After all, if any opinion is as valid as any other why not pick the opinion that gives me money (while ignoring the cost to our kids?)</p>
<p>“1sokkermom…good to see this post …you are starting to read and understand the value of polling at this early date…”</p>
<p>Not really tommybill. Just trying to be fair and balanced. </p>
<p>The Republican numbers from CNN/ WMUR poll were from 304 people who “plan to vote in the Republican primary”.</p>
<p>“The telephone poll was conducted for CNN and WMUR television by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. It involved telephone interviews from June 6-11 with 304 adults who said they plan to vote in the Republican primary. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.”</p>
<p>FF-many people on the left do not consider themselves Democrats. Yet, they will vote in the Pres. election. Me, for instance. So, polling liberal Dems does not give you a poll on who’s liberal.</p>
<p>However, your second point is one I have been maintaining–she will not beat a Republican. Obama and Edwards both have a better shot.</p>
<p>Presidential elections are decided too close to 50%/50% to say that one party or the other “can’t win” this far in advance of election day 2008. For one thing, we don’t even know who the two nominees will be and whether or not they are capable of running big-league campaigns. We also don’t know if a third-party fringe candidate will muck up the results as, for example, Ralph Nader did in 2000. For example, a Guiliani nomination would almost certainly spawn an anti-abortion third party candidacy on the far right…which could have a profound effect on the election.</p>
<p>The other interesting aspect to the general election is that both of the two current Democratic frontrunners bring elements of affinity voting (woman candidate/black candidate) to table in ways that the public opinion polling may or may not be able to accurately capture.</p>
<p>"Presidential elections are decided too close to 50%/50% to say that one party or the other “can’t win” this far in advance of election day 2008. "</p>
<p>Actually, under the terms of service, I can say that. I can also believe it.</p>
</p>