The War within... The Republican Party

[zoosermom]

<p>“ZM, btw, if things are still a train wreck in terms of the GOP nomination after Super Tuesday, the odds that Newt Gingrich gets the nomination via a brokered convention drop under 200-1, maybe under 100-1.”</p>

<p>I would be, ummmm, OK with that. Newt’s my man.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>"To the Funding Father</p>

<p>Obviously dishonesty is your forte."</p>

<p>To Gottaloveucla: shame on you. There is an intelligent debate going on here between people who have different and even overlapping views, but there is no reason for the type of rhetoric you’ve used here. You also showed by that post #59 that you (a) don’t know what you’re talking about and (b) have no sense of real perspective.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>I think Bloomberg would pull liberal voters from the “Anyone but Hillary” pile, but if someone else is the Democratic nominee it will make less difference.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“I think Bloomberg would pull liberal voters from the “Anyone but Hillary” pile, but if someone else is the Democratic nominee it will make less difference.”</p>

<p>I think that’s exactly right – but as you can see, I’ve been working from the assumption that she will be the nominee. Of course, that could be a faulty assumption.</p>

[mini]

<p>I’m neither a liberal nor a Democrat. I will, however, vote for any of the Democrats over any of the Republicans, even Rick Perry, who I fully expect will be the nominee. Except Hillary. I will vote for Bloomberg rather than Hillary. Heck, I would vote for Huckaboom over Hillary.</p>

<p>Doesn’t matter, though. I live in Washington State. My vote doesn’t count.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>mini, why are you so sure that Perry will be the nominee?</p>

[mini]

<p>Because there won’t be enough delegates for any one Rep. by convention time, and because he is the ONLY big-state Republican who can unite the four branches of the Republican party.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

If you want to claim that the Democrats have veered far left, that is all well and good, but with respect to what? To a stereotypical neocon social conservative, maybe, but with respect to the average American voter? Can you back that statement up?

</p>

<p>Sure. Look at the issue of universal health care and the recent vote on SCHIP. When presented in a slanted manner as a CNN poll did, it makes it look like the American public is solidly in the Dem corner:

As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would create a program to spend 35 billion dollars to provide health insurance to some children in middle-income families. Do you think Congress should vote to create that program by overriding Bush’s veto, or do you think Congress should vote to block that program by sustaining Bush’s veto?"

The result of this poll indicated that 61% wanted the veto to be over ridden. Of course, the question was worded in a blatantly biased manner because the veto was not against “creating” a program but rather to what extent it should be expanded.</p>

<p>When asked in a more accurate manner as USA Today did, the results were flipped:

As you may know, Congress is considering a bill that would increase the number of children eligible for government subsidized health insurance, but the Democrats in Congress and President Bush disagree on how much to increase the program.
As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?"

The results was 52% in favor of Bush and only 40% in favor of the Dems.</p>

<p>Everyone thinks that their personal position is consistent with the majority of the American public. The fact is that if you find a candidate whose views are nearly 100% aligned with the base of either party, they are going to be very vulnerable to a candidate who has any appeal to the center. If McCain is nominated, the Dems will be very vulnerable - especially if Hillary is their nominee (not just because of her positions being consistent with the left but also because of her unlikeability.)</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>All of these posts show one thing…the dirty laundry is being aired and at least when we get the noms for both parties, they will have to be on facts and not mud, i.e. swift boat and Dan Rathers doctored records.</p>

<p>FF I agree if McCain is the nom, he will win whether it is Hill or Obama. Hillary has likeability issues and die-hard republicans will come out in droves not to have Bill in the Whitehouse. Obama will not be able to stand against a war hero, supporter of vetoing pork barrel (already proven), records will show he stated Rumsfield should have been gone which relieves him of a Bush crony</p>

[gottaloveucla]

<p>

Everyone thinks that their personal position is consistent with the majority of the American public. The fact is that if you find a candidate whose views are nearly 100% aligned with the base of either party, they are going to be very vulnerable to a candidate who has any appeal to the center. If McCain is nominated, the Dems will be very vulnerable

</p>

<p>You already said Huckabee is moderate. So I guess that means McCain is too. Haha. </p>

<p>

. Obama will not be able to stand against a war hero

</p>

<p>If McCain brings up his military service we will attack it and cast doubt on it. That sounds harsh, but we will. The Repugs did it to Kerry and we will do the same. This is presidential politics.</p>

<p>

Sure. Look at the issue of universal health care and the recent vote on SCHIP.

</p>

<p>False premise.SCHIP =/ Universal Health Care . The Repugs try to point Universal Health Care as a government program, but it is not. Do you also want to talk about choice, the war in Iraq, Civil Unions, tax cuts for millionaries, and the lot. Public opinion is with the Democrats in 2008. The pendelum has swung and in the process, the pendelum has cracked the armor of the Republican Party.</p>

[gottaloveucla]

<p>

May 2007
On May 4-7, CNN polled 1,028 adults nationwide. 34% said they favored the war in Iraq, 65% opposed, and 1% was undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%. [1]</p>

<p>[edit] August 2007
On August 6-8, CNN polled 1,029 adults nationwide. 33% said they favored the war in Iraq, 64% opposed, and 3% was undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%. [1]</p>

<p>[edit] September 2007
On September 10-12, in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, 33% approved of George Bush’s handling of the “situation in Iraq”, while 65% disapproved of it. [1]

</p>

<p>There’s Iraq.</p>

<p>[American</a> popular opinion on invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia”>Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia)</p>

[fencersmother]

<p>Gottaloveucla: you remind me of a democrat Michael Savage with your “Crookiani” and such.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“You already said Huckabee is moderate. So I guess that means McCain is too. Haha.”</p>

<p>Perhaps you should check to see if they have a course in reading comprehension at UCLA. Hint: having “some beliefs that are more centrist in nature” does not necessarily make one a “moderate” on all issues.</p>

[gottaloveucla]

<p>Health Care</p>

<p>

While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public’s domestic agenda, ranked as far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values. Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats — not the Republicans — were more likely to improve the health care system. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts.

</p>

<p>[NY</a> Times Advertisement](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ei=5088&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ex=1330405200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1200593004-sKqIrhQzqs94p+lIymH7cQ]NY”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ei=5088&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ex=1330405200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1200593004-sKqIrhQzqs94p+lIymH7cQ)</p>

<p>You want more?</p>

<p>And Abortion [url=<a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm]Abortion[/url”>Abortion]Abortion[/url</a>]</p>

[fencersmother]

<p>Has anyone looked at the site for Obama’s church? It’s downright anti-american (not to say racist on its own.). He’ll never get my vote (but you already knew that).</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>Gottaluv,</p>

<p>I can not believe you would attack a man who was a POW for years on his military record. Kerry could not prove his record, it even showed that he wasn’t where he said he was. (Kerry’s response…oops I messed up on the dates and the people I was with…how come the people he was with never came out and said that the swift boaters were liein…I think there were 65 boater against him that the media tracked their record and could prove that Kerry’s dates were incorrect) Nobody can dispute McCain. Do you think he was staying in a POW camp just in case someday he would run for President. Do you think he said keep me in the worse conditions ever possible because I want to rat out my fellow Americans? Do you think his compatriots who describe the bombing on his camp that his father ordered were lying when they said he was cheering?
I am sorry if you believe that attacking him on his pain makes you as a voter a better person (I guess he wanted to rat out his compatriots so badly he also endured the broken bones, and that he was so self centered that he made sure his wife and children had to endure the fact that he was a POW, because it meant more to him to help out the other side)</p>

<p>BTW I lived in the UK that has universal health care, I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone…it is a government program. The brits who have money go to France for their healthcare</p>

[fencersmother]

<p>My UK friends and relatives all come to the US for health care - as do my Canadian friends. I wouldn’t go to the UK to have my teeth cleaned!</p>

[gottaloveucla]

<p>And hey FF, I found your own poll of Health Care on pollingreport.com</p>

<p>You stated this one.

As you may know, Congress is considering a bill that would increase the number of children eligible for government subsidized health insurance, but the Democrats in Congress and President Bush disagree on how much to increase the program.
As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?"

</p>

<p>WHy not post the other questions from the same poll Like >

“Based on what you have heard or read about this bill, who do you have more confidence in to handle this issue: George W. Bush or the Democrats in Congress?”

Result was 52 Dems, 32 Bushevik.<br>
Seems like no matter the context this President has been such a walking disaster that anything associated with him will get the voters to go the other way. So get that picture of McCain bear-hugging Bush and googbye.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>UCLA,</p>

<p>I have already shown how polls on healthcare can be worded to give the impression that people want more government involvement in healthcare/insurance. However, when polls dig into the truth of the subject, the public takes a different stand. So, only to the extent that the Dems will continue to obfuscate and demagogue a subject which is their forte, will they be successful.</p>

[gottaloveucla]

<p>TO BULLET</p>

<p>

BTW I lived in the UK that has universal health care, I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone…it is a government program. The brits who have money go to France for their healthcare

</p>

<p>France has goverment-funded health care too. Also, John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam and O’Reilly (huge liberal I know) even said the attacks against him like the ones you say are mostly dishonest and distorted. So we’ll dish it up against McCain. THe mistake was not pointing out in 04’ also that George Bush “protected America” during the Vietnam War from… Texas.</p>