Obama Opens Up Huge Lead in Florida

"Joe America has had enough!"

Truer word were never spoken. And the sentiment goes for Mary America too.

A gigantic thumbs up to you.

I am hoping for a huge anti GOP backlash in the election- a loud and clear message about their obstruction and serving only the richest Americans such as the Koch brothers. For that to happen, we need a large majority of voters to show up at the ballot box. The 2010 elections were based on only a 37 to 41 percent voter turn out. That meant Teapublicans could win with as little as 19 to 21 percent of all eligible voters voting for them.

Teapublicans have called the 2010 elections a mandate to puff up, wrap themselves in flags, carry Bibles and grandstand about being the only real Americans, the only constitution experts, the only true Christians ("In God We Trust" discussions in congress) the only historians that know about the founding fathers.

Hopefully, the economy will stay afloat till November and prove Mitt or Newt wrong. The Chamber of Commerce, along with Corporations can layoff in an instant just to throw an election, while preserving their profits, tax breaks, and hiring till after they replace Obama. If the people buy into this corporate tactic, they have no one to blame but themselves. We all need to pitch in and pay our fair share, and that includes the rich, who have been paying much less lately.

demmie: you are so right! That type of manipulation scares the h--- out of me! IMO they've done worse to get what they want ,another puppet! VOTE and get all of those like thinking folks there too.

I am hoping for a huge anti GOP backlash in the election- a loud and clear message about their obstruction (benefiting) only the richest Americans...

and hurting the nation as a whole.

The world hasn't seen such callous disregard for the governed since Nero played his fiddle.

^ save the Republic....vote Libertarian

Road To Serfdom How ya been doin'?

I've been fine....but my Dad has broken his hip and I have been spending a good amount of time with him the past few weeks. He is 87 yrs old now, still sharp as a tack, and still disappointed that he has raised such a righty despite all his liberal teachings ;)

....thanx for asking YELLOWDOG....hope all is well with you :)

It's all good. Tell your dad he needs to stick to slow dancing now and get well soon. See you around the vine.

thanx YELLOWDOG - glad to hear...my Dad would love you. Left of center politically, funny, and always classy. Good Night Sir.

vote Libertarian

And prove you hate being a part of a community and prefer acting like a selfish 3-year old.

i Love being part of our community; both here on the vine and especially our beloved country. I just don't think it should cost me half my income to profess such love. :)

I also do not like what our leaders do with our $$$.

Where do they have low taxes, little government interference and a love of guns? Oh, yeah. Somalia. Enjoy!

The American People do not want the the highest office in the land to be FOR SALE.

Romney, will not be able to overcome his vast wealth and Morman Religion. The country will turn against him because of his beliefs and complete ignorance of the problems of average Americans.

There must be a whole lot of food stamp people in there.

There are, and a vast majority of them vote Republican. Welcome (back?) to the Vine.

There must be a whole lot of food stamp people in there.

Probably - The highest percentage of TANF recipients per capita is in traditionally red states due to the failed economic policies in those states. So it would not surprise me. And, when you add that 75% of all TANF recipients are either children, elderly or the disabled, thinking that FL has a high level of TANF recipients makes sense.

You know, I think you are on to something. We need to change the policies in all of those failed red states and toss the old folk in the water, that way we wouldn't have to worry about TANF, or any other programs of the social safety net - they wouldn't be needed. Time to get rid of those failures occupying the state house in Tallahassee.

northtosouth-

I thought food stamp people are Obama's voting base?

Food stamp people going republican? Obama's ship must really have run aground. my,my, my!!!

It would mean that Obama would have no chance to be reelected.

No the problem is that you didn't think.

Food stamp people going republican?

What, this shocks you? Considering more than 60% of TANF recipients are white I'm not sure why you find that shocking?

Ah the percentage game again...

Considering more than 60% of TANF recipients are white

Well being over 70 % of Americans are White it kind of stands to reason..

And really kind of defeats the Liberal mantra that whites are doing so much better than people of color ..Doesn't it?

And if your statement is true than 30 % of the population is using 40% of the SNAP benefits... Is that fair?

And really kind of defeats the Liberal mantra that whites are doing so much better than people of color

If that is indeed a mantra, then I'm sure that you'll have no problem producing some quote confirming that some significant number of people are actually making that argument. Cheaters notwithstanding, TANF recipients share a common profile - they are all poor. We waste time on the tangential issue of race because of those who seek to advantage themselves by leading us there.

I think that we all need to stop feeding badger because the only result is that we all wind up ankle-deep in troll dung.

History shows us, that they wont even show up to vote if unhappy with their candidate.

That depends on how it was worded. In most polls I have seen there is no division because they say "If Romney was the candidate, would you vote for Romney or Obama". And then separately they say "If Paul was the candidate, would you vote for Paul or Obama". And so on.

So the anti-Obama vote would still be represented.

Watch: There may be a large number of Dems and Repubs who will never vote anything other than party. But there's a whole bunch of people in between and they are the ones that decide the elections. My DH has already accepted the fact that he will be voting for a Dem for POTUS for the second time in his life. And it's not just because of my good influence, either...

Gotta say, IMO, given the choice between Obama and Gingrich, Obama is the far lesser of two evils...

Also, IMO, the DNC will run the most ruthlessly negative campaign in its' recent history against Romney, whose flip-flopping has provided plenty of ammo...just not nearly as much as Gingrich's bad temper and heavy past baggage.

Obama may not have a huge lead yet...but stay tuned.

My wild guess is that Newt is going to sound increasingly more desperate in the time remaining before the GOP convention. The GOP race will get ugly (uglier). He will be going after Santorum's voters with such comments as his recent in vitro fertilization statement. It is likely Newt will lose because it is too much of a stretch to nominate a blatant adulterer, an ex lobbyist, and someone that resigned from government after an overwhelming majority of congress and both parties gave him a censure over ethics violations.

If Mitt wins the nomination, he will be bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. He will be mandated to take on a right wing vice presidential candidate as a concession to base voters. Perry, Bachmann or Santorum? That will NOT help him in the general elections with mainstream Americans. Or there is a possibility that the Teapublicans will refuse to vote for a Mormon and split from the GOP to run their own candidates (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, etc...). That most likely would be the same experience as the Ross Perot bid for the white house and split the Republican vote.

Baron: The Dems are going to have it easy. They'll do two kinds of ads: the positive ones featuring Pres. Obama, and the negative ones will be clips of Republicans trash talking their own nominee. It will actually allow the Dems to take the high road. Negative ads? That's not us Dems being nasty. That's the Republicans... Paid for by the DNC.

They will be voting AGAINST Obama, not 'for' anyone,

This poll is a representation of the lesser of two evils. Before the GOP primaries, you had Obama in a tight race against a generic republican (or against the candidates before they started opening their mouths), which is really just a referendum on him.

Now, there are real republicans running against him and they can't go five minutes without exposing how corrupt or stupid they are, or both. Obama represents the lesser of two evils to a majority of Floridians against the losers leading the GOP primaries.

The GOTP primary is a contest to choose the candidate who will lose by the least amount of votes. The goal now if for them to hold unto the House and take the Senate.

Good luck with that.

They will be voting AGAINST Obama, not 'for' anyone, just like every American Presidential election. Its always choosing the lesser of two evils.

Sad but true. Just once, I'd like to vote for a man or woman who I thought would do the best job running this country.

I did that in 2008 and expect to do so again in November.

dwillie,

Maybe some day you too will have high standards for those who run this country.

They are obviously higher than yours.

Don't any of us Obama backers get too smug-we MUST show up and VOTE-I don't care if he is going to win by 10 million votes-make SURE yours is one of them. They(Tpubs) are desparate and will put ANYTHING to win!!!!!!!

Here, here, Carol!

And many of us will be voting against Mitt and Newt. Mitt is rich and cannot relate to average Americans while Newt is an adulterer with no ethics. Republicans have focused on the primaries only and not thought of the general election. So a lot of concessions have been made for right wing Republicans. Those concessions will be hard to defend in a general election with mainstream America with all of its diversity participating.

mountainmike-

<<<<<And many of us will be voting against Mitt and Newt. Mitt is rich and cannot relate to average Americans while Newt is an adulterer with no ethics>>>

And many more will be voting against Obama because:

(1) He is a liar. He broke a lot of his 2008 campaign promises.

(2) He is a socialist: "Spread the wealth"

(3) He is a Marxist: Promoting class warfare.

(4) Bankrupting this country: In three years he added $5T and he wants to add another $1.2T, making our national debt over $16T. How are you going to repay that? For sure our children and grandchildren will be burden with this debt.

(5) He is anti-white: He allows his AG to drop criminal charges the Black Panthers.

(6) He is pro-illegal immigrants. Orders his AG to file suit against States who passed laws on illegal immigrants.

(7) Obamacare: a job killer.

Well, his dismal job approval rating in the 40s says it all. So, bye-bye Obama. Back to Chicago and community organizing. Maybe president of ACORN.

He is a liar. He broke a lot of his 2008 campaign promises.

False.

) He is a socialist: "Spread the wealth"

False. Try again.

He is a Marxist: Promoting class warfare

Wow, you're three for three in the falsehood game.

Bankrupting this country: In three years he added $5T and he wants to add another $1.2T, making our national debt over $16T. How are you going to repay that? For sure our children and grandchildren will be burden with this debt.

Wow, four for four. The Obama administration inherited the worst economic conditions in decades as well as a $1.5 trillion shortfall.

He is anti-white: He allows his AG to drop criminal charges the Black Panthers.

And the lies keep on coming. The Bush DoJ dropped the charges. So....yeah.

He is pro-illegal immigrants. Orders his AG to file suit against States who passed laws on illegal immigrants.

Wow. You're really sticking to the debunked aren't you? Fact is, this administration has deported more than ever. So....yeah. Again.

Obamacare: a job killer.

And then the whopper of all whoppers. The PPACA does not kill jobs. Never will. Will help to save some lives though. Might even reduce insurance premiums and the cost of care.

Well, his dismal job approval rating in the 40s says it all.

Man, you're on a roll! As of today, 51%.

So, bye-bye Obama. Back to Chicago and community organizing. Maybe president of ACORN.

Nope. Four more years of improvement. Oh, and ACORN is gone. Where have you been? In a cave buying gold and MRE's from Glenn Beck?

You are either so ignorant about these things I'm talking about or just plain don't want to admit the truth. I could say more about you but I won't waste anymore time with you.

So we just click the ! on those eh? Dunno how this works anymore.

Yes, just click the "!" and then click from the choices.

In the case of 3.18 I did it twice. Once to mark it as "no value", and once again to mark it as inflammatory.

No Carol is over Obama wins you can all stay home .... We probably won't even show up to waste our time to vote ...

Pass the word election day Nov 7th will be a all Democrat day ....

Re-reg sighting in posts 3.16, 3.18 & 3.21.

Do not feed.

badger .... I am as conservative as they come and you were out of line with that comment ...

You are either so ignorant about these things I'm talking about or just plain don't want to admit the truth

Personal attacks are never ever acceptable to make a point... All it does is get you in trouble and diminish any possible point you had hoped to make!

And make all Conservatives look bad by association... How about you do us all a favor and drop the personal attacks before you get suspended! Or worst yet banned!

badger2012 If one does not understand the CoH, they will be banned and then have to re-reg to post their insults.

Re reg? Wow what a concept...talk about the truth eh?

Jim44 & YD, badger is clearly a re-reg who has already been banned. The only way to relieve ourselves of him (at least temporarily) is to report offending posts which would invite scrutiny of Newsvine moderators. In the meantime, Do Not Feed.

dwillie ... reported but I hate it when those that profess to be on my side embarrass me ... with comments such as those ...

I know it's hard (I sometimes feel the same way about the other end of the ideological spectrum), but you shouldn't worry about it. I do believe, however, that expressing your displeasure at such nonsense strengthens your credibility when we argue about actual issues in that your arguments are not easily waived off as coming from an irrational personal bias.

Soph-

You liberals just can't handle the truth. Now, tell me what I said that is not true.

When I said Obama is a liar,that's true and I can prove it.

When I said Obama is anti-white, it is true and I could prove it.

When I said Obama conned his way to the WH, it is true and I could prove it.

When I said, Obama is pro-illegal immigrants, it's true and I could prove it.

If what I'm saying is not true then refute it rather than say I'm violating the CoH, or my statements are inflammatory.

When you write something in here, it will be debated vigorously: don't expect to get a free pass. As my favorite president Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Badger, your assertions have been proven false. You have "proven" nothing. You did violate the CoH, specifically #1

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation. More +

1. Adding a personal attack to an otherwise valuable comment or article serves only to render that contribution invalid in its entirety. Such content is subject to moderation.
2. Harassment and/or intimidation of others on Newsvine will not be tolerated, and patterns of such behavior may result in account cancelation.

If what I'm saying is not true then refute it

I did.

When you write something in here, it will be debated vigorously: don't expect to get a free pass.

That's pretty insightful for someone who has only been on the vine for 2 weeks. Have you been with us before?

One more thing, grenade trolling is frowned upon:

You liberals just can't handle the truth

This is an example of grenade trolling. Continue personal attacks and grenade trolling and it will be reported. Have a pleasant day.

No worries, Soph. Just trying to do our new friend a favor, and defend your honor in the process m'lady.

Thanks love

Again, no worries. I fired an email off to Tyler. It'll work itself out.

Soph and n-to-s, I've also done that which is recommended with those which would be considered trolls. Makes it easier to read through by never having to have my intelligence insulted with inane crap.

If we could find our way to never respond to those type of comments maybe they would stop?

If we could find our way to never respond to those type of comments maybe they would stop?

And if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. I'm with you though, Maggie.

Two polls three days apart show a HUGE lead even though one of the polls show a tie?

LOL. Just can't handle the facts. Yes, a sudden shift of 8 points is pretty significant. It's above the margin of error, so it's not a fluke.

I expect the election is going to be a nightmare for you!

Yes, a sudden shift of 8 points is pretty significant. It's above the margin of error, so it's not a fluke.

What part of my posting did you not understand? There was no sudden shift of 8 points - NBC poll showed Obama picking up ONE point not 8 -

Want to try again?

BostonMan-3128434

- Gee this seed isn't biased is it?

I suppose that if it doesn't reflect what you want to believe, you would say that...

So what makes you think that your opinion reflects anything more than what you choose to believe?

Let me point out something that really should be obvious.

Newsvine is an opinion-driven site. You are not a journalist, not a reporter. Neither am I. Everything you read here reflects opinion. Why whine about "bias"? We're all putting our personal opinions out there. Most of us attempt to back up our opinions with some kind of measurable data, but at the end of the day, it's still your opinion, or mine.

Quit with the "bias" moaning, it means nothing.

Just. Can't. Handle. The. Truth.

So sad.

I suppose that if it doesn't reflect what you want to believe, you would say that...

What i believe? HOW ABOUT THE FACTS ?

Romney and rest of the candidates, however, continue to trail President Obama in Florida among all voters. Romney does best, but loses 49-41 percent, a point worse than a month ago.

Can you read that above? He picked up ONE point over the last month - And that is only in the NBC poll - Quinnipiac shows them even does it not and it was taken three days before the NBC poll - I think you do not like facts huh ?

Quit with the "bias" moaning, it means nothing.

Ok in the future i will just say it is untrue as opposed to biased

Just. Can't. Handle. The. Truth.

So sad.

What truth are you talking about exactly? I have posted nothing but the truth it is just that you do not like it

The truth ? That is subjective often times... The truth from the survey ..did you bother to notice how the survey was broken down ?

Survey of 2,795 registered voters, including a subsample of 682 likely GOP primary voters was conducted January 25-27, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 1.9 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 3.8 percentage points among likely GOP primary voters. Results from the poll conducted December 4-7, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 10-12, 2011 are in parentheses.

So of 2,795 people surveyed 682 were Republicans....

Now you know your get a fair sample there ...../sarc

Survey = Joke

Truth is fickle. When it goes left it is all well and good. When it leans a little right...Who needs it.

Boston man. I say stick to your guns. It is worth it. A man who thinks for himself, and just doesn't repeat the blatherings of others, in order to gain esteem, is a wealthy man.

The truth ? That is subjective often times... The truth from the survey ..did you bother to notice how the survey was broken down ?

Jim you are missing the point - According to ONE poll - NBC poll that is, Obama is up by 8 points - Which is an increase of ONE point from a month ago -

According to Quinnipiac they are even and according to Suffolk Romney is up FIVE points

So how the hell does "Obama opens huge lead in Florida" even come close to the truth ?

Survey = Joke

Ok so then this whole story about Obama opening up a huge lead is a joke - I agree

Thanks Jp - It is easy to stick to my guns when i have the facts on my side

BostonMan

We are what 10 months out of the General Election? I don't really care what the Polls between President Obama and any possible GOP candidate is... really so much can and will happen between now and election day that issue as far a polling is concerned is worthless IMO ...

Poll the GOP Primaries ... The General Election is to far away to matter in a poll... And way to many things could happen that will effect peoples decision between now and Nov !

The polling of General election match-ups I believe are attempts by both GOP and DNC operatives to manipulate the GOP selection of its Candidate!

Jim i think it is too early also - I am just merely pointing out the absurbidity of this article headline - Obama is not opening up some huge lead - He picked up one point in an NBC poll and the other polls show them almost even yet the headline reads

Obama opens up huge lead in Florida

Yea ...as I said its all an attempt to effect the GOP primaries....

Boston man, YAWN,
The question is, do you want to support vulture capitalism as opposed to venture, liberty or liberty-in-law.
Gingrich in the DC revolving door has been a lobbyist of K Street and Romney is part of Wall Street, even with bank accounts in Cayman Island a British Colony, and Switzerland- those European countries that this vulture eyes on.
Are you Main Street ? What's really on your mind?

Romney has changed. I don't think all Americans are currently exposed to the full extent of how he has changed since his last run for president. I have to admit that I once respected Romney as a right of center moderate. I can no longer say that. He has been heavily micro managed by handlers and made huge concessions for Teapublicans. Every concession statement he has made has alienated moderates, independents and cross over voters. When he last ran for president, he wasn't unemployed and making millions of dollars off of investments.

Right now he looks like the problem with income/wealth inequality in America, not the solution. A good example of a "job creator"? Look at the BAIN track record for the corporations they were helping going bankrupt. He looks more like a job unemployer. And having a maid, house/mansion cleaner and property/mansion maintenance crew doesn't really count. How would Mitt with no diversity or women's right in his life ever relate to average Americans?

Yes, a sudden shift of 8 points is pretty significant.

shift of 8 points, shift of 8 points, shift of 8 points

there is a shift of 8 pouints... nowhere did thisbusymonster say obama gained 8 points a shift can happen from another LOSING points... good lord... the freaking hissy fit...

Here's the latest polls (notice the plural pollS) showing Obama spanking Romney pretty handily as Rasmussen shows Obama beating Romney by 6 points

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Oh, and double digits over Gingrich.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

Guess what, Rasmussen also shows the President with a positive approval rating,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Overall, it's not looking good for the GOP at this point in the game.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

Agent - Read this slowly ok - NBC poll showed a ONE percentage point shift in their polls -

Get it?

good lord is right

I have it from one pundit just this morning that Mitt will likely win Florida primary. How? Dunno. Maybe Newt will stick his foot in his mouth again. He's good at that. Maybe he'll say something about trimming Social Security or Medicare.

MinnieApolis

According to Quinnipiac, Romney has a 14 point lead in Florida as of today. I have never seen such wild shifts back and forth in Republican voter sentiment ever.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

Here's the latest polls (notice the plural pollS) showing Obama spanking Romney pretty handily as Rasmussen shows Obama beating Romney by 6 points

Spanking him handily? Good one - The average gives Obama a 2.4 percent lead over Romney?

Guess what, Rasmussen also shows the President with a positive approval rating,

Did you notice the top line? THE AVERAGE IS -.3 - He does not have a positive approval rating

ya know BM you always WHINE about others being patronizing and others have noted that as well... but you sure do it often enough... while complaining about others... Get it??

1/11/2012 Quinnipiac - Obama v Romney: 43 - 46
1/25/2012 Suffolk University - Obama v Romney: 42-47
1/26/2012 Quinnipiac - Obama v Romney: 45-45

But now we see:

1/29/2012 NBC News/Marist - Obama v Romney 49-41.

looks like an 8 point SHIFT to me.... just saying... and of course we all know there are differences in polls and who's taking them...

we can also note a couple different poll that has obama up +6... others may be less... besides it's january little early to have any real influence on a Nov. election...

General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Rasmussen Reports
Obama 47, Romney 41
Obama +6

General Election: Romney vs. Obama
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl
Obama 49, Romney 43
Obama +6

Pointing out facts is now whining?

You are using two different polls with two different results to say it is a 8 point shift? The fact is the NBC poll which show Obama with a 8 point lead had him with a 6 point lead last month -

I guess you must agree then that the headline is misleading right? I mean if so many different polls show so many different results it is misleading to say he opened up a huge lead it it not?

Spanking him handily? Good one - The average gives Obama a 2.4 percent lead over Romney?

That's an average of polling from 1/5 to 1/29. Even the Fox News poll from two weeks ago showed Obama with a lead. When you look at the most recent polls, Obama's trend is up while Mittens' trend is down.

Did you notice the top line? THE AVERAGE IS -.3 - He does not have a positive approval rating

Of course I did. Did you notice the average extends back to the 11th? 18 days is a long time in politics. If you average the two most recent Obama's approval rating is a +3 while Congress' approval is an abysmal -67 in the WSJ poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Looking at the most recent data, things are trending poorly for Republicans. It's undeniable BM.

northtosouth

...things are trending poorly for Republicans. It's undeniable BM.

Nah, they've got a secret weapon. Ruby slippers. Just tap those heels together three times and -

No, wait. We're talking about Republicans. It's tap those toes three times under the stall wall.

Oh, for heaven's sake, let him have it. Big Deal - The Headline doesn't meet with his expectations. OOOOOOMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYY! Lions and Tigers and Bears, OH MY!

I have seen "the polls". It all depends on who is asking the questions and how the questions are asked. So any poll can bend any result any way they want. Check out the Newsmax polls. The questions are so canted that they are ludicrous.

If you want to know who is the person is that is for the people - I can tell you without the poll. President Barack Obama. If you want to know who is growing the base I can tell you without the poll. President Barack Obama. If you want to know who is going to win the election. I can tell you without the poll. President Barack Obama. Why? Because he is the only real human being that is running for the job. The rest are figments of the Republican Spin Philosophy. Lie long enough, hard enough, fast enough and the world will believe you. Hitler did that and he is the hero to these bigoted, greedy, ugly blots on the face of our country.

So BostonMan, can't stand the headline? Let him change it = it doesn't move the facts.

I always take polls with a very LARGE grain of salt. So much depends on how the questions are phrased and what kinds of options the poll-ees are given. I am wondering if the results also depend on whether the race is presented (in the questions) as between Obama and Romney (only two choices) or if Newt and Paul are also offered (splitting the GOP vote). We have two different pollsters here; comparing the results without knowing how the question was presented and in what order the choices were listed may truly be like comparing apples and oranges.

idk Minnie.....if the choice is Mitt or Obama or Newt & Obama....what do we really have??? a choice between statists, The differences are "relatively" minor. For a real change> vote Ron Paul

In my opinion voting Paul is a vote for serfdom for at least half the voters in the country. His position of Federal DeConstruction will be the largest deregulation imaginable for a great many people where the ones that make the rules get all the gold and everyone else can go to hell. No thanks. Of course that's just my personal opinion and you are free to have yours. As for the polls by my count the shift for Obama is +11 from -3 on 1-11 to +8 on 1-29 and while we are ten months out the trend is that Romney looks good till you see him up close and then you see Obama even better than you did before someone spent billions to convince you that what he was doing wasn't working and you look around and low and behold they really are working. and then you think "How much better could it be if I just cast my vote for Obama and people that won't obstruct everything." Makes sense to me.

For a real change> vote Ron Paul

I agree that Paul has some, how can I put this, different ideas. The problem there is that Paul lacks leadership skills or the ability (or desire maybe?) to build consensus. Plus he has some positions that are contrary to libertarian philosophy. For example, he'd have the federal government define marriage as one man/one woman and define a zygote as a person.

Actually they are more sick of the arrogant non leadership in the WH then as you put it the governor they sure dont like hearing Obama on another one of his campaign speeches promising more of the same. After 3 years now all of a sudden his new one we cant wait I wonder what the hell he has been waiting for over the last 3 incompetent years.

Rick-".............what the hell he has been waiting for over the last 3 incompetent years."

Co-operation??????????????

Compromise????????????????

Possibly even a Congress that wants to work for a better nation for all of it's people instead of brokering a sale of it to wealth and power.

Emmadog, They are not going to deal with the EPIC loose of Romney to Obama ...you can tell that already.

they sure dont like hearing Obama on another one of his campaign speeches promising more of the same

Soon, polls will become irrelevant. I can already see the rhetoric forming, like a fungus on my mind.

GA Girl- I think you are toooooooo correct. It's gonna get a whole lot worse, I fear, before it gets a whole lot better.

IMHO, the only way to stop the derailment of this this run-away train we're on, is to make sure we can vote, loudly, as many of these idiots out of office, that we can.

FR sent.

There would be not point to but the President back in if he still has no one to work with which means to me that the next midterms are just as or more important the this election in November. We have got to stay engaged enough to get to stupid bastards out of congress.

GA Girl----Exactly!! The republicans must be shown the door. Nothing much will change unless the Democrats regain control of the House. It would be so great if the Democrats could gain a super majority in the Senate, also. Then things would start turning around at a much faster pace. It can be done. Everyone must get out and vote.

Anybody (left or right) that wants to take comfort in polls at this juncture is being rather foolish. There is an awful lot of track in this race to be run yet.

Could not agree more...I think this sort of poll actually hurts Obama a bit, because when it tightens; the reports will quote the "huge" disparity with a poll like this.

I concur FLYNAVY. Democrats should not allow themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security. What Romney and his PACs have spent millions in Florida to eviscerate Gingrich is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what they will spend in that state on the General Election. The state has a history of disenfranchising it's voters of color and they sold the governor's office to a man who operated a criminal enterprise. Voter registration, voter turnout and campaign messaging must be better than it has ever been AND the economy must continue improving before President Obama can hope that election reflects current polling.

On the one hand, you are right: it's too early to rely on any polls. But, at the same time, it is interesting that the more the R's campaign the worse they do. I mean, they have dominated the news cycle for months now. You'd think they'd be on top of the world. If Coke were getting that much free ad time, we'd all be caffeine monsters now. And yet, somehow, the more the R's get that fee advertising the worse they do. That tells you a whole lot about how badly they are messing up their campaigns!!! Which gives me hope that these polls DO mean something.

I've said it before.... The GOP debates are the best advertising money that the DNC "never" spent. The more the PUBS talk, the more free ammunition they are giving to the Dems.

The biggest thing I see is the largest polling companies feedback is Obama bouncing back from previous disapproval ratings while congress' disapproval has dropped to the worst of the worst level in this history of polling and flat lined. I'm sure Republicans/Teapublicans will bend over backwards not to notice that such things like John Boehner trying to force the Keystone Pipeline through congress after taking over a million dollars from big oil and investing himself in the 7 Keystone corporations is helping to flat line congress disapproval at a historic low level.

mountainmike, thank you for bringing up the fact that Boehner has gotten money from big oil. Why the Repub/Tea party can't see that money controls Boehner and Congress is beyond me. I'm wondering how much of a kickback he's getting from other big corporations.

A lot of the Tea Party members of congress have gotten lot of money from big oil.

Then.....post the names of those members of congress that have gotten lot of money from big oil.

And.....our big oil is ours, bad is to favor foreign countries with drilling and oil when we don't have enough jobs for the Americans.

determined0a1

Then.....post the names of those members of congress that have gotten lot of money from big oil.

um, all of the above Katie.

General election Gallop Poll:

Romney 51

Obama 40

Well, 40 is around Obama's job approval rating. Gallop poll is more credible than others.

What's the Gallop Poll? Why are you bringing up issues with horses?

Oh -- and you lied. Not unexpected of rereg trolls, but still way too easy to prove.

Grea-

Around 40%+ is Obama's job approval rating. So, that's just about his poll number against any opponent. Bye-bye Obama. JC you will no longer be the worst president ever.

Grae

Ya seen this new poll?

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

I for one don't put much faith in polls this far out, but it kind of looks ugly for President Obama....

Good thing he'll be up against one of two that have negatives higher than approval ratings and in state by state matchups against the GOPers, Obama pulls 274 electoral votes. Remember, the problems that the GOPers are having is due to their highly unpopular Governors. In FL, Scott is below 30% approval and is killing the GOPer brand. In Indiana, Daniels is just above 30%, and we know what happened there today and what will happen on Sunday (be prepared for huge, nationally televised protests). In Michigan and Ohio, the GOP is killing the brand there, as well. Let's assume Ohio and FL both go Obama (he leads against all of the clown car full of Republicons), how is it even remotely possible for any GOPer to win?

And, again, at 48% nationally, he is better at this time in his Presidency than the GOPer godling, Ronnie Ray-gun (the man who raised taxes on the middles class and poor 13 times).

how is it even remotely possible for any GOPer to win?

As I said above I don't put much stock in polls this early out as you pointed out as with President Reagan ...

But its kind of amazing gallup has it 323 Romney 215 Obama... Hummmmmmm ..

I guess we shall see ... And just a note ... In national elections the office of President is the focal point... so I really wouldn't put a lot of stock in whether they like their Governor or not... They go to vote for President!

Michigan was given to DNC and to assume because you see protests that a majority of a State feels a certain way ...Sorry is a stretch... Union organized protests hardly reflex average citizens ... You know as well as I that the percentage of Union employees in this country has never been lower and to tell people they can work in a union plant be covered by the union and not have to give the union dues ...HAHAHA Living in a Right to Work State ..I know how the average folks feel about it ..They get their cake and get to eat it too ! ...

Jim, this is also from gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx

If you look through the info on Gallup's site, there's some good stuff there. It's clear they mostly poll older conservatives, but if you break down the data it seems like it might just be an interesting race. FYI, if Gallup has them tied, it doesn't bode well for Republicans. Their polls historically lean conservative.

NorthtoSouth...

if Gallup has them tied, it doesn't bode well for Republicans

I don't know, shouldn't the sitting President be kicking butt? with the Republicans out there killing each other?

You see the glass half empty... I see it as half full that the Republican is tied doesn't bode well for the incumbent...

But hey we are going to see things in the best possible light for our hoped outcome (smiles) its just human!

The same could be said of Obama

Have you seen his approval ratings now vs when he was elected ?

Have you seen his approval ratings now vs when he was elected ?

Compare those to similar points in the Reagan Presidency.

What does that have to do with Obama vs Romney?

If I remember right from my poli-sci college days, most presidents are running at a 50% or less approval rating by the time their (first) term is up.

The polls are interesting---but IMO it's a mistake to get too happy (or sad) over them, like FLYNAVY has said. The GOP has not settled on an actual nominee yet, and the Obama re-election machine is barely into first-gear. There's still some smoke to clear, and a lot of race left to run...

That said, IMO Obama vs. Romney might be a "horse race", but nothing short of a miracle can put Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul in the White House as anything other than tourists.

Romney's got deep pockets...but the Obama machine has demonstrated its' ability to raise big bucks through small donors and the Internet.

And that said----OBAMA/BIDEN in 2012!

but the Obama machine has demonstrated its' ability to raise big bucks through small donors and the Internet

And 3500 dollar a plate dinners right?

President Obama will attend two Silicon Valley fundraisers Sunday evening. Both events are private. The first is a fundraiser at the home of Symantec chairman John Thompson in Woodside. Around 300 people paid $2,500 for their opportunity to meet Obama at that event. The event is expected to raise over $750,000.

Facebook COO Cheryl Sandberg will host the second event -- a dinner -- with Obama at her home in Atherton. Each person paid $3,500 for a plate at the Sandberg dinner, which is expected to raise $2.5 million for Obama's campaign.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8367243

That said - Anyone but Obama in 2012

@BostonMan,

Yeah, $3500 per plate (and possibly higher) dinners will factor into Obama's fundraising as well---just like they'll be part of the GOP nominee's once that nominee is settled upon. Some stuff is just common to political campaign fundraising, regardless of the party or the candidate, these days.

Probably, the only "cure" for these high-dollar dinners----which are nothing but a mechanism for lobbyists and other special interests to buy influence in the halls of power, on both sides of the aisle---is complete public funding for political campaigns, and/or tough crackdowns on private contributions and the repeal of Citizens United. Neither party will ever impose meaningful campaign finance reform to get the special interest money (and the attendant corruption) out of Washington, because everybody's hands are in the till.

And the Baron means, EVERYBODY'S.

That said, Obama's first White House run set a precedent for raising big bucks through small donors, using the Web. It is a campaign that will be studied in political campaign management courses for years. Lessons will be learned and built upon---by both parties.

And THAT said---got nothin' but respect for your "declaration" of "Anyone but Obama in 2012," but I'd like to add...be careful what you wish for, because sh*t can ALWAYS get worse.

I agree baron i wish private funding of campaigns was not allowed - Yes Obama's election was a lesson in campaigning for money thru the web and it has already been used by both sides since then .

You are right be careful what you wish for - I think people wished for " hope and change" when they voted in Obama but let's face it things have not really changed much have they ?

Yeah, we were promised hope and change alright. And a whole entire other side of the government to do a job to help that come about. Seems the whole entire other side of the government is takeing taxpayers money for nothing while squalling about how to cut entitlements and spending that tapayers money is used for. Refusing to cooperate, to take part in, to allow any thing good to come out of it. They have sabatoged the peoples wishes over and over.

I think we need to dock their pay, cancel the insurance and lifetime benefits that were promised for doing their job to us, and send em to the unemployment line and then cut the funds to the unemployment line. That speaks THEIR language doesnt it? I have yet to hear an obama hater speak to this most obvious situation in their own party. Why?

Obama is the ONLY choice for 2012

.

Linda in the future it might be easier for you to just say " It's all Republican's fault" since that is basically what you are saying- Of course those years when Obama had a Dem controlled house and Senate did not matter i guess?

Was it real change and transparency when they rushed thru the Healthcare bill so they " could see what was in it" ?

I have yet to hear an obama hater speak to this most obvious situation in their own party. Why?

First off just because i do not agree with Obama does not mean i hate him - Can you not agree with a politician without hating him or her?

Obama is the ONLY choice for 2012

He is your only choice if you are a Democrat yes -

I have yet to hear an obama hater speak to this most obvious situation in their own party. Why?

What situation do you mean exactly? Do you have a question you would like to ask ?

Republicans are offering two real possible candidates for president in 2012.

Mitt is an unemployed multi millionaire making his money through investments only, and with banking accounts in Switzerland with UBS and in the Cayman Islands, the two favorite places in the world for off shore tax evasion bank accounts. The Romney lifestyle has no diversity in it and no women's rights. Can he even relate to average Americans?

Newt is an ex lobbyist, a legislator who resigned from congress after an overwhelming majority of both parties voted to censure him, and there can be no doubts about him being an adulterer. He has made sloppy if not racist statements about black Americans and seems to have no concept of diversity. Newt is un electable in a general election with mainstream America due to his track record.

Republicans need to have a legitimate contender in the context of a general election with mainstream America. Since America's new majority is all of the ethnic minorities combined, there is a mandate to relate to ALL Americans. Instead, the loud and clear message from both candidates is that they cannot really relate to diversity at all.

Since America's new majority is all of the ethnic minorities combined, there is a mandate to relate to ALL Americans

Sorry but that is wrong

http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/racial-and-ethnic-composition-united-states

..let's face it things have not really changed much have they ?

It is you, BM, who cannot face the fact that things have changed - for the better.

January 2009:
- 13 months into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression
- Unemployment skyrocketing
- Job losses at 800,000 per month
- 150,000 troops in Iraq
- Full Al Qaeda leadership in place
- Qadaffi in power
- Bin Laden still at large
- DADT the law of the land
- 30 million Americans with no health insurance
- Insurance companies able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and cease coverage upon sickness
- Banks gouging students and taxpayers through student loan program
- Limited student financial assistance

January 2012:
- Economy in recovery (albeit slow)
- Unemployment slowly but steadily falling
- 22 consecutive months of private sector job growth
- The Iraq War is over
- Al Qaeda leadership decapitated
- Qadaffi gone
- Bin Laden gone
- DADT gone
- Previously uninsured Americans covered
- Insurance companies no longer able to deny coverage or drop coverage upon sickness
- Expensive middleman role for banks in student loan management eliminated
- Pell Grants expanded

Along the way, this President has ordered the take out of pirates and the rescuing of hostages. He has put the world on a path to further reductions in nuclear arms. Equal pay is now the law of the land. Cuts in defense spending are finally on the table. Record numbers of illegal immigrants have been deported and border crossings of undocumented immigrants are down dramatically.

The assertion that change for the better has somehow not occurred is total bull$hit and the only people who continue to argue such nonsense are either self-servingly nescient or morbidly obtuse.

To clarify my point - I'm saying MAINSTREAM America, meaning the large cities included. If we are talking about a general mainstream election instead of local elections this will be a huge factor.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2011

2010 Census Shows America's Diversity

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn125.html

It is you, BM, who cannot face the fact that things have changed - for the better.

Things are better? Really?

How's the housing market?

How's the unemployment?

How's the deficit?

How's that Patriot Act repeal going?

The assertion that change for the better has somehow not occurred is total bull$hit and the only people who continue to argue such nonsense are either self-servingly nescient or morbidly obtuse.

Tell the almost 9% unemployed how much better things have gotten ok ?

Things are better? Really?

Yep.

How's the housing market?

Overall, getting better.

How's the unemployment?

Unless you've been living in a cave, you'd know that unemployment back down to March 2009 levels and dropping. It's only a matter of time before unemployment is lower than the 6.8% we saw in October 2008.

How's the deficit?

The deficit is coming down, and soon the debt will follow. Once both wars are wrapped up, a huge chunk of the deficit will disappear. Don't forget, this President inherited a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit and record government spending.

How's that Patriot Act repeal going?

Considering that Congress has to do this, I'd take it up with your congressman. I'm not happy about the Patriot Act being in place either, but to solely blame this President is disingenuous at best.

Tell the almost 9% unemployed how much better things have gotten ok ?

It's 8.5% and decreasing. How about you ask your republican Senator Brown to step up to the plate and take a stand for America. Maybe if some of the republicans were willing to accept their own proposals when proposed by a democrat things would get better faster. Ever think of that?

Yep.

I disagree

Overall, getting better.

Again i disagree

Foreclosures keep pushing house prices lower

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/26/10237449-foreclosures-keep-pushing-house-prices-lower

Unless you've been living in a cave, you'd know that unemployment back down to March 2009 levels and dropping. It's only a matter of time before unemployment is lower than the 6.8% we saw in October 2008.

Really? I disagree again

A broad measure of unemployment, which includes people who want to work but have stopped looking and those working only part time but who want more work, dropped to an almost three-year low of 15.2 percent from 15.6 percent in November.

Still, all told, 23.7 million Americans are either out of work or underemployed.

With the labor market still far from healthy, the debt crisis in Europe unresolved and tensions over Iran threatening to drive up oil prices, the U.S. economy faces stiff headwinds.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7BM0AB20120106

The deficit is coming down, and soon the debt will follow. Once both wars are wrapped up, a huge chunk of the deficit will disappear. Don't forget, this President inherited a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit and record government spending.

The deficit is coming down ?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government will run a $973 billion deficit for the entire 2012 budget year, which began on Oct. 1. While lower than last year's $1.3 trillion imbalance, it would be higher than any previous deficit before fiscal year 2009.

The government ran an all-time record deficit of $1.41 trillion in fiscal 2009, and a $1.29 trillion imbalance in 2010.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-12/federal-government-budget-deficit/52518302/1

Considering that Congress has to do this, I'd take it up with your congressman. I'm not happy about the Patriot Act being in place either, but to solely blame this President is disingenuous at best.

I did not blame him solely - But he was against it while running correct ? Yet he signed it back into law right?

t's 8.5% and decreasing. How about you ask your republican Senator Brown to step up to the plate and take a stand for America. Maybe if some of the republicans were willing to accept their own proposals when proposed by a democrat things would get better faster. Ever think of that?

Scott Brown has voted against party lines more than most Senators- from either party -
A stand for America? Please spending money we do not have is not taking a stand for America - It is driving us more into debt

Are things getting better? Does a bear @!$%# in the woods?

22 months of continued job growth, reduction in unemployment, we are no longer bleeding 800thousand jobs a month like we was doing when Obama was sworn in, and! and! and! wait for it! We got Bin Laden!!!!!! and then some!!!! LUVIN IT!!

And lets not forget this was all accomplished without the help of the whole other side of the government that was elected to serve. um hm.

Don't forget

When Obama took over for Bush in January of 2009, America was only $10.6 trillion in debt. In less than three years, the nation’s debt has ballooned past the $15 trillion dollar threshold.

To put it in perspective, as National Review notes, the national debt has grown by a stunning $48,994.12 per second that Obama has been in office.

Yeh things are going great

I disagree

No one with a properly firing set of brain synapses gives a $hit. Cherry-picking a number of suboptimal situations is easy, particularly if you duplicitously fixate on specific points in time, ignore context and ignore direction. A healthy capacity for prevarication helps as well. Your posts, BM, employ all of those and then some in order to draw to conclusions that have nothing to do with reality.

Your posts consistently fall well short of credible, BM, as they among other things consistently avoid looking at the totality of our situation from where we were to where we are. Yours is a self-servingly cynical perspective that clearly wishes for the worst and cherry-picking the bad when the worst does not happen. There is zero reason to view such offerings as cogent.

You disagree? So what?

Foreclosures keep pushing house prices lower

It's important to grasp why foreclosures will continue for a while longer. The remainder of the pay-option ARMs will begin to adjust up this year. Whomever was unable to get out from under those loans will most likely default. The trend will slow and eventually stop on a nation wide level sometime around August of this year. To ignore that prices and activity are increasing in areas like Phoenix, Tampa and Miami (one of the hardest hit areas price wise) is disingenuous.

Really? I disagree again

No surprise there, especially when the truth is inconvenient. The truth is the unemployment situation is getting better. The rate would be lower were it not for GOVERNMENT JOBS BEING ELIMINATED. Sorry, had to make sure you saw that. The private sector has had a steady 22 months of job growth while federal and state governments have shed payroll. Had government held steady and not eliminated jobs, unemployment would be as low as 6% right now.

The deficit is coming down ?

Yes, it is. The information you provided supports that. Know why 2009 had the highest budget deficit in history? Because the GWB administration kept both wars and Medicare part D off the books until then. Contrary to false opinion, this administration hasn't increased spending. Rather, it's decreased spending. By a half a trillion dollars in fact.

Please spending money we do not have is not taking a stand for America - It is driving us more into debt

Talk to the previous administration about starting two wars, increasing benefits (that benefited drug companies not seniors) for medicare recipients while lowering taxes (something NO president has done in time of war). Want to know why we have $10 trillion more debt today than in 2001? Ask Republicans.

Don't forget

When Obama took over for Bush in January of 2009, America was only $10.6 trillion in debt. In less than three years, the nation’s debt has ballooned past the $15 trillion dollar threshold.

I won't forget. Also, don't forget that when Bush took over in January 2001 we were only $5.7 trillion in debt with a surplus.

Yeh things are going great

A helluva lot better than they were heading in 2008.

No one with a properly firing set of brain synapses gives a $hit.

There you go willie- Dint take long for you to come unhinged huh - Can't have an honest debate so start going off the deep end? Good luck with your anger issues

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To ignore that prices and activity are increasing in areas like Phoenix, Tampa and Miami (one of the hardest hit areas price wise) is disingenuous.

I am not ignoring those places - I am speaking in general about the country - Not looking at specific places

No surprise there, especially when the truth is inconvenient. The truth is the unemployment situation is getting better. The rate would be lower were it not for GOVERNMENT JOBS BEING ELIMINATED. Sorry, had to make sure you saw that. The private sector has had a steady 22 months of job growth while federal and state governments have shed payroll. Had government held steady and not eliminated jobs, unemployment would be as low as 6% right now.

Government jobs needed to be eliminated - Cut the fat from the payrolls - It is happening all across the country - Out of necessity -

Yes, it is. The information you provided supports that. Know why 2009 had the highest budget deficit in history? Because the GWB administration kept both wars and Medicare part D off the books until then. Contrary to false opinion, this administration hasn't increased spending. Rather, it's decreased spending. By a half a trillion dollars in fact.

Oh stimulus, cash for clunkers, healthcare had nothing to do with the deficit?

Talk to the previous administration about starting two wars, increasing benefits (that benefited drug companies not seniors) for medicare recipients while lowering taxes (something NO president has done in time of war). Want to know why we have $10 trillion more debt today than in 2001? Ask Republicans

I would but they are gone- I never said Bush was a fiscal conservative - His mistakes do not mean Obama gets a free pass though

I won't forget. Also, don't forget that when Bush took over in January 2001 we were only $5.7 trillion in debt with a surplus.

So Obama is on his way to outspending Bush? I agree

A helluva lot better than they were heading in 2008.

Unemployment was 7.6 when Obama took over - It is now 8.5 and was as high as 10%

I do not agree things are better

Can't have an honest debate so start going off the deep end?

Well, to be fair, there has to be an honest debate. I'm not sure you are capable of that.

I am not ignoring those places - I am speaking in general about the country - Not looking at specific places

Then you are ignoring a much broader return to where prices should be. Not the over inflated prices of 2007.

Government jobs needed to be eliminated - Cut the fat from the payrolls - It is happening all across the country - Out of necessity -

Wow, we actually agree on something. Now, as more people are going back to work (remember private sector job growth, that thing that's been happening for more than 22 months steadily) tax revenues will increase. Some of those laid off gov workers might just get their jobs back.

Oh stimulus, cash for clunkers, healthcare had nothing to do with the deficit?

Considering that the deficit decreased, I'm not sure where you're going. FY 2009 was Bush's budget. That's how it works. FY 2009 started in October of 2008. So, yeah. And, Obamacare reduces the deficit so I'm not sure where you were going with that.

I would but they are gone- I never said Bush was a fiscal conservative - His mistakes do not mean Obama gets a free pass though

Actually, the main players are still there (Cantor, Boehner, McConnell) and should be held accountable. But, alas, you won't. It's more fashionable to blame Obama for money spent in 2003 and the bill's just come due. As far as Obama getting a free pass, why should Obama take the blame for money BushCo spent 6 years ago? See, we are paying now for money spent in the budget many moons ago. It's intellectually dishonest to deny that. We are still paying for the tax cuts that should have never happened. We'll be paying for them for a long time.

So Obama is on his way to outspending Bush? I agree

No, actually Obama has reduced spending, but don't let inconvenient facts disrupt your argument of "Obama spends like a drunken sailor" (which is an insult to drunken sailors. I've never seen a drunken sailor spend much money. They're already drunk.).

Unemployment was 7.6 when Obama took over - It is now 8.5 and was as high as 10%

And unemployment was 3.8% when Bush took office. Left with it around 8%. What's your point?

Can't have an honest debate...

Your posting with honesty is a prerequisite for an honest debate

...but let's face it things have not really changed much have they ?

With statements like that, you yourself have said you're not even interested in an honest debate, so why should anyone give a damn what you agree or disagree with.

And we got Bin Laden!!!

The only ones that spend like a drunken sailor is the Republican started with Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 . Repug spend 2-1 over Dems. The Repug are responsible for destroy the Post Offices.

Would someone please tell me how to contact Soph? This is ridiculous. There is no statement that you can make that s/he won't turn into another garbage statement. If you talk specifics, s/he switches to general. If you talk general, s/he switches to specifics.

This person isn't interested in honest debate, s/he is simply baiting because s/he can't find any other kind of games to play, and s/he has never had so much attention in the last year. Yuk!!!

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/chart-day-republican-vs-democratic-spending

@#7.17 BM (love that acronym!), we know you disagree. Hear this: you and your opinion are irrelevant here. You have no cred, just vitriol. You don't count.

We'll do this without you.

Boston Man

What was Obamas approval rating among Republicans in January 2009?

Baron Brian-

Romney's got deep pockets...but the Obama machine has demonstrated its' ability to raise big bucks through small donors and the Internet.

Small donors, you mean food stamp people? Well, $1 for every food stamp person, why that's about $40 million. Yup, that Obama machine works great.

.but the Obama machine has demonstrated its' ability to raise big bucks through small donors and the Internet.

HAHAHAHAHA

Yea small donors at $38,500 to mingle with or a plate for dinner with the president.... Some small donors ....

President Obama, First Lady and VP Biden to Net $5.3M in One-Day Haul

Obama will mingle with 50 supporters at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington tonight, where tickets start at $35,800 per person, a campaign official told ABC News. Then he’ll attend a fundraising dinner at a private residence in Chevy Chase, Md., with 70 guests. Tickets are $35,800 per couple for the exclusive event as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/president-obama-first-lady-and-vp-biden-to-net-5-3m-in-one-day-haul/

You people still believing that lie about all the poor people giving $5 dollars ...LOL

Which one of you can pay $38,500 just to go mingle with the president? Or put out $38,000 for dinner?

Get real folks !

In the latest polls in Florida, Gov. Scott is polling in the low 30's, I think the people have seen first hand what a Tea Party gov. looks like and they don't like it one bit. One and done for Scott, the biggest crook in Medicare fraud in history. It may be close in Fl. in Nov., but I think Obama will win because people in Fl., have seen just exactly what the Tpubs are doing to our state.

Good, good, good news.

Now maybe, I can get back to the beauty I love so much. I promised myself that I would NEVER live and/or survive and definitely not thrive under Scott.

(That's if he hasn't sold a/o privatized it before he goes down, down, down.) :)

michelle! Oh wow! he has gained some ground! A few months ago his popularity was a whole whoppin 26 percent!

A new poll released Tuesday by Quinnipiac University shows 38 percent of the 1,412 registered voters responding on a random telephone survey taken between Jan. 4 - 8 gave the first-term Republican a positive job approval compared to 50 percent who rated Scott's job performance negatively. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/quinnipiac-poll-florida-governor-rick-scott-still-struggling-with-job-approval-numbers#ixzz1kxmtgEuU

So Obama's approval rating is at 45% - Guess the two of them are in pretty close company huh ?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Dont go selling me your snake oil boston, I live here, I know full well what is going on. Spent 60 mil of his own money to get the damn job.

Linda, I live here too, and Scott has made Gov. Walker of Wis. look good. (Well, maybe at least they are close. LOL)

Snake oil? Is that what you are calling polls now when you do not agree with them?

Absolutely! I wish we had recall lisk Wisconsin!! LOL

Snake oil? Is that what you are calling polls now when you do not agree with them?

No, but Rasmussen's poll shows a +4 on the job approval. Is this one snake oil?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Isn't amazing all the kind words libs now have for the South and Florida in particular? Fear not however, the wind shall surely blow from another direction and they shall change their stripes yet again.

NObama 2012!!!

I live in Florida, am not a liberal, voted for Obama last time and will do so again. The only thing the republicans can do is go outta their way to make sure Obama is re elected. I mean, just look at the fools eating each other alive, the division in the party itself. It isnt even funny any more, It is pathetic! I think its up to 15 mil spent just to trash one another over the last couple of days. Pathetic I say.

very funny Ly2K!!!!

Unfortunately it is always about jobs and the economy. Everything else could be hell, but if the economy is picking up steam it will be an easy win for Obama.

Should it sour, it isn't gonna matter much what else Obama has done. I'm one who understands he has spent the last 3 years with a totally dysfunctional congress of both parties, but just for starters his foreign policy has repaired many fractured relations.

Still if people can't pay their bills or put food on the table, he will pay. Many will abandon him even for a worse case scenario. There certainly are worse case scenarios coming our way if people vote one of these Republicans into the WH.

What Really? said. Ditto. (It was too true to let it go with just a vote up.)

Can the republicans win? No not withouth underhanded tactics they cannot and they know it too. Why do you think we are having all the re districting going on and cut downs in early voting times and having to have picture id and all that? Keep the eyes open! Then if they still start losing they will claim faulty voting machines, human error, or FRAUD!

Why do you think we are having all the re districting going on

Because we just did a census and the redistricting reflects the latest census findings

Then if they still start losing they will claim faulty voting machines, human error, or FRAUD!

You mean they will pull a GORE ?

Because we just did a census and the redistricting reflects the latest census findings

BostonMan,

In Ohio, it is not redrawn very logically. The City of Columbus Ohio is now over 800,000 people in the city limits and it does not have its own rep. What other city in the top 14 largest cities in the US do not have their own rep?

And why did Ohio lose two Reps when it actually had positive growth, but Michigan who had negative growth didn't lose a single Rep? One reason is because Southern and Western states included the number of illegal immigrants in their population numbers and included any troops overseas. Southern states can't have it both ways, you can include them to get more reps and then complain about them.

Have a good day.

I did not say how they drew them up was logical just that they do it after the census - Same thing happens here in Mass -

One reason is because Southern and Western states included the number of illegal immigrants in their population numbers and included any troops overseas

They included them or the federal government who went around and did the census counted them ?

You mean they will pull a GORE ?

No, Gore won Florida. The AG in Florida disallowed votes for Gore because of "hanging chads" and such. Remember who the Gov of Florida was? Jeb Bush ring a bell?

Yes i remember and do you remember what happened after that ? What the Supreme court ruled?

What the Supreme court ruled?

Yep. They, in a 5-4 decision, ruled against the Florida Supreme Court which had tried to defend the rights of Florida citizens. Instead, the SCOTUS ruled for Bush who sued to halt the recount (because he KNEW he'd lost). The conservative judges on the SCOTUS violated the 14th amendment while citing it as the basis for their decision.

WoW Linda

Looks like your already preparing for the excuses of defeat....With every possible conspiracy theory you could think of in advance ...

They can't win ...because I say so ...therefore if they do then they must have ____________— (fill in the Blank) .... Seems kind of a pathetic approach to an election 10 months before election day when you have zero idea what might happen between now and then .... But really EXPECTED ! When a group of people are so driven with hate ...its easy to get them to believe anything to support their position...

Sadly its happening in America ...

Absolutely, Jim44. Just read anything written by the Republicans. Just listen to Glen Beck. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh. Just watch Fox Whatever. The hatred spews and spews like Niagara Falls.

The hatred they have fostered for this President is disgusting putting it mildly. They have disrespected his office. his family, his wife, himself, they have refused to do anything to help our country just because he is an American that has honor, decency, refuses to play their good old boys game, really wants to help the citizens instead of the slime on Wall Street and the Oil Companies and most of all because he has the whole darned Party so outclassed that they know there is no decent way to beat him.

Sorry about that>

Do you honestly think Obama will win?

With Obama's job approval rating in the 40s, how could he win?

With 8%+ unemployment rate, how could he win?

With more 60%+ of Americans think that we are headed in the wrong direction, how could Obama win?

With a lot of broken 2008 campaign promises, how could Obama win?

With a tax cheat Sec of Treasury, how could Obama win?

With an incompetent and arrogant AG, how could Obama win?

With so many czars in his administration, how could Obama?

With blunders about Solyndra, Keystone pipeline, oil rig disaster, etc., how could Obama win?

With a first lady Michelle aka Marie Antoinette,how could Obama win?

Most importantly, Obama being a compulsive liar, how could he win?

No way, Jose!!! OMG (Obama Must Go)

Read the news about the pumping money out of nothing from the Dems

With Obama's job approval rating in the 40s, how could he win?

The same way that Reagan won with his approval lower than Obama's at the same point in his Presidency.

The rest is just right wing horse hockey and smears with zero basis in fact.

Grea-

Sorry, Obama is no Reagan.

And hopefully President Obama will not have Alzheimer's in his second term. Unlike Reagan (blessed be his name).

Sorry, Obama is no Reagan.

Good thing. Ray-gun was a complete moron (even before his Alzheimer's caused Nancy to take over with the help of her psychic).

Grea-

Could you back your statement about Reagan, or you are just blowing hot air.

Hempluva-

<<<<Once Obama gets a chance to defend himself and the accomplishments of his admin. - ->>>>>

- - - - his nose starts getting longer.

Badger, please adhere to the CoH.

northtosouth-

How did I violate the CoH?

I think you just don't want to face the truth.

northtosoutg-

Why is it that when you are losing the debate you cry "foul"(CoH violation/Imfammatory remarks)?

It seems like it's okay for you to attack the conservatives but it's not okay for others to counterattack.

You open up a can of worms and expect nobody to do nothing about it.

We, conservatives and liberals are here to debate issues. The fact is there are more negatives on the liberal side than on the conservative side. That's why liberals cannot win the debate. For example, liberals would claim that Obama is doing great and we are better off today than when he took office. Obama's job approval rating is in the 40s. Under Obama's administration the national debt increased from $10T to $15T(obama wants to add another $1.2T). Unemployment is up in the 8%+. Housing crisis is worse. Is Obama doing great? Are we really better off today than when Obama took office three years ago? Claim what your heart'sn desire, but don't cry foul when I vigorously refute your claim.

When liberals claim that Obama is doing great and things are looking better, are they being honest or they just plainly want to ignore the truth. When you ignore the truth you resort to something incoherent or absurd, like claiming violation of CoH. It is not fair. I hope that conservatives be treated the same as liberals.

I do in fact think the president is doing a fine job.

I would ask any conservative who backs any of the remaining candidates and any policies put forth by any republican politician on the federal or state level these questions: What is the difference between anything they are proposing now and what they've offered up for the last 30 or so years? What is different from what Bush II's policies were?

As far as debt goes, I'll analogize it this way. If I let a bunch of morons use my credit card to throw a party in my house there will be a double price to pay. First, I'll have the cost of all the booze to pay for. That is what they spent and barfed up all over my living room. That dough is long gone. Next, I'll have to pay to clean up that vomit and for everything they broke. That is the addition to the debt on my credit card. That is a simplification of what Bush and the republicans have done. They had a big party in our country with the credit that they were entrusted with. Now, Obama has been given the credit card and he has to run up the bill a bit more to clean up the mess they left. Otherwise, we will have to live in a broken down, puke covered dump while the party boys make off with what's left of the party favors.

Why is it that when you are losing the debate you cry "foul"

Sorry, but personal attacks are a violation of the CoH. It's important to understand that. Losing the debate? Hardly. There is do debate, as your "points" have been refuted.

For example, liberals would claim that Obama is doing great and we are better off today than when he took office.

I'd say that is the case. Unemployment was skyrocketing when this president took office. It was arrested and is declining. Jobs were hemorrhaging at a rate of 700,000 per month. Private sector jobs are being added. The economy was in a complete tailspin, now we have positive growth. While the economy isn't roaring back, understanding economics and the nature of this recession is the key to understanding why it's not roaring back. It seems conservatives either do not understand, or ignore, the fact that this recession is vastly different from any other.

Obama's job approval rating is in the 40s.

It's been between 46% and 51% over the last couple of weeks. Understand this, Ronald Reagan's approval rating at the same time in his presidency wasn't much better. Neither was Bill Clinton's. They were both re-elected. Here's the other key point, Ronald Reagan presided over a much weaker recession in the early 80's, and unemployment at the same time in his presidency was about the same as it is now for this president. Considering the depth of the recession and the unprecedented opposition from the Republican party this administration is doing a damn fine job.

Under Obama's administration the national debt increased from $10T to $15T(obama wants to add another $1.2T).

While the number looks ominous (and it is) understanding where the debt has come from is key. Again, either conservatives don't understand or just plain ignore the reasons behind the debt. Why was the national debt at $10.6 trillion when Obama took office? Well, we need to look back 30+ years ago, when Reagan began racking up record debt. So soon conservatives forget about the great "Japan scare", when the Japanese were buying our debt. Everyone was so afraid that Japan was going to own us. We had a huge trade deficit with Japan and they were lending us money like crazy. Sound familiar? Sounds like China today, doesn't it. See, it's quite simple. As you run up debt, the interest payments get exponentially larger. Considering the national debt was at $5.6 trillion when GWB took office (and being paid off, by the way, as we had a budget surplus), and ended up at $10.6 trillion by the end of his two terms (by way of unnecessary tax cuts, two unfunded wars, lucrative private contracts to companies like Haliburton and Blackwater, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan, TARP, not to mention mounting interest payments) I'd say we're pretty darn lucky the debt is ONLY at $15.2 trillion right now. As unemployment drops, more people will be contributing taxes thus shrinking the deficit. Reductions in spending will shrink the deficit (now less than $1 trillion. Obama inherited a $1.5 trillion deficit, but don't let that get in the way of blaming him for all our ills either.). Taxes must return to 2000 levels. It's an imperative if we are to corral our debt issue.

I'll give you a simple explanation on how debt works. Let's say you have a credit card with no limit. You have been carrying a balance of $5000 every month and paying just enough to keep the balance at $5k. Now, let's say your pay is cut at work (tax cut) and you decide to embark on some wild adventure that costs you $1000 a month. You have less cash coming in, so where do you get the money? That's right, you borrow it. As you borrow, you're still making the same payment every month. What is the result? That's right, you're no deeper in debt. Are you going to blame your wife a couple years down the road when she takes control of the finances and finds that you've run up so many bills that she can't keep up with the interest payments? I'd hope not. She hasn't worked, and now needs to go back to work. She's got to spend money to find a job. Buy some interview clothing, take a couple classes to get up to speed. Otherwise, she can't get a job. Get it? Does that make sense?

Unemployment is up in the 8%+

It's back to March 2009 levels. I'd say that's an accomplishment considering the nature and depth of the recession. Jobs are the last indicator of a recession and the last indicator of a recovery. Heck, had there not been so many government layoffs unemployment would be around 6.5% right now. Pretty good all things considered.

Housing crisis is worse.

Not true at all. The big banks aren't lending like they were 4 years ago, but that's a good thing. The fact is, the housing market is where it should be. Prices are where they would be had there not been a period of price over inflation. Housing traditionally increases in value anywhere from 3-5% per year. Not the rates of 15-30% we saw from 2003 to 2006. This was an anomaly and needed a correction. Unfortunately, banks giving out interest only mortgages (no, democrats didn't push this on anyone and Fannie and Freddie didn't come up with these loans. The were created long before Fannie and Freddie jumped on the band wagon) and borrowers wanting more than they could afford exacerbated the problem. The market is going up, albeit slowly (as it should) and will continue to go up.

Are we really better off today than when Obama took office three years ago?

All economic indicators point to yes. I don't understand why conservatives ignore this fact. Oh, wait, yes I do.

Claim what your heart'sn desire, but don't cry foul when I vigorously refute your claim.

Then, by all means, refute it with fact. Not "here's a number and it's scary, so there!". Explain your position, it's integral to a debate. Spewing debunked talking points is not debating, no matter what you hear from Hannity, O'Reily or Beck (or Maddow and Olberman for that matter).

When liberals claim that Obama is doing great and things are looking better, are they being honest or they just plainly want to ignore the truth.

No, as we back up our position with the how and the why. I would suggest you try to do the same.

When you ignore the truth you resort to something incoherent or absurd, like claiming violation of CoH

When you violate the CoH or the User Agreement, I'll point it out. Trying to derail a seed with absurd statements will get you suspended or your account deleted. Since you are new (I think) I'll let you know.

Bottom line, come to the table ready to back up your assertions. It makes for a much more honest intellectual discussion.

northtosouth-

When you claim that we are better off today than when Obama took office three years ago, you just don't want to admit these facts:

(1) unemployment rate is higher now than three years ago.

(2) national debt went up from $10T to $15T(Obama wants to add another $1,2T).

(3) More people are in the food stamp program now than three years ago.

(4) There are more foreclosure on houses now than three years ago.

(5) Our credit rating was downgraded on Obama's watch.

(6) Consumer confidence is lower now than before Obama's regime.

To verify these facts go to :

Now with these facts, could you honestly say we are better off today than when Obama took office.

With a job approval rating in the mid 40s,could you honestly say Obama is doing a "great" job?

have a nice day!!

(1) unemployment rate is higher now than three years ago.

Wrong. It's the same. You fail to acknowledge that this country was hemorrhaging jobs to the tune of 700,000 a month as Obama was taking office. Arrested and reversed the trend, this president did. Sorry, but simply stating something as a negative without explaining why is an epic fail.

(2) national debt went up from $10T to $15T(Obama wants to add another $1,2T).

Read my post above for an explanation. Either you just don't understand or you are willfully ignoring the truth. Yes, the debt went up. It'll go down.

(3) More people are in the food stamp program now than three years ago.

That's what it's there for. To help Americans in time of need. By the way, SNAP is a temporary assistance program. That number will decline as people go back to work.

(4) There are more foreclosure on houses now than three years ago.

Did President Obama write the mortgages? Did he sign for the borrowers? No. If you have an issue with foreclosures, talk to the banks and the people that took out the loans.

(5) Our credit rating was downgraded on Obama's watch.

Yep, and we all know why.

John Chambers, the head of sovereign ratings at S&P, told CNN that the political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling proved to be a key issue, with "the U.S. government getting to the last day before they had cash-management problems."

Few governments separate the budget process from the debt-authorization process as the United States does, he noted.

And, though the budget deal that finally was reached will deliver at least $2.1 trillion in savings over the next decade, that will not suffice, he said. "It's going to be difficult to get beyond that -- at least in the near term -- and you do need to get beyond that to get to a point where the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to stabilize."

Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."

Congress should shoulder some of the blame, he said. "The first thing it could have done is to have raised the debt celining in a timely manner so that much of this debate had been avoided to begin with, as it had done 60 or 70 times since 1960 without that much debate."

So blaming this President for that is disingenuous at best.

(6) Consumer confidence is lower now than before Obama's regime.

The economy slamming into a wall at the end of GWB's administration might have something to do with that. Did you just appear on this earth or something? The economy has been in decline for several years, it only came to a head in 2008.

To verify these facts go to :

Where? Oh, that's right. You just re-registered. You need to get out of the greenhouse before you can post links. Sorry.

Now with these facts, could you honestly say we are better off today than when Obama took office.

Yep. Most definitely. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that the economy is getting better and people are going back to work. I wish we could go back to the way things were in November 2008 for you, but I'd much prefer to keep moving forward.

With a job approval rating in the mid 40s,could you honestly say Obama is doing a "great" job?

Between 46-51%, depending on who you talk to. By the way, there are liberals who are not all that hot on his performance. You know why? We didn't get universal healthcare. He's moved to the center, and a bit right of center. But that sure doesn't mean we're not going to vote for the man! Sorry, but again I debunked your talking points.

Where? Oh, that's right. You just re-registered. You need to get out of the greenhouse before you can post links. Sorry.

*giggles

NorthtoSouth

forget Badger... He is not worth your time dude... He claims to be a Conservative ... But he is a unclaimed and abandoned pup... by the Conservatives I know here!

forget Badger... He is not worth your time dude... He claims to be a Conservative ... But he is a unclaimed and abandoned pup... by the Conservatives I know here!

You're probably right, Jim.

But where's the fun in that? /sarc

LOL... Them go get him just stay in the C of H ...

Them go get him just stay in the C of H ...

I always do (I think)!

You make a very good point. These two are not talking about issues, they are in fact revealing everything about each other that disqualifies either of them for office. They in fact are doing the democrats job for them. All outta greed and revenge!

Romney has not a clue about any of us that were not born with a silver spoon in our mouths. I heard his children were born with a 100 million to get em a good start in life. I heard he has money in offshore accounts and sent jobs overseas after closing them here in florida.

Newt? Well, Romney has him pretty well covered but what Newt doesnt get is it is his revenge and hateful lingo that turns people off moreso than all the money mittens has thrown around. He just doesnt get that people are not into either of them. Im looking for someone else to come on the scene. But in the meantime. They have made it very clear that Obama is the one that should be re elected. They have done a wonderful job letting us know its neither one of them that can handle the job.....

Just curious but did you feel the same way about Clinton and John Edwards supporters?

Do you think that this old man Newt is going to change " his colors" overnight. I don't buy his " I'm saved and cured" bullcrap one minute because it's in his DNA.

Just curious but did you feel the same way about Clinton and John Edwards supporters?

BostonMan,

To be fair to Clinton, Clinton didn't run on family values and he didn't run for the party that claims that family values are extremely important for any politican. I think this fact puts things in perspective.

Have a good day.

To be fair to Clinton, Clinton didn't run on family values and he didn't run for the party that claims that family values are extremely important for any politican.

So .... Do I understand you correctly ...Since he didn't "run" on family values... He is not required to have them or be an example to Americans of them?

So since his party does not "claim" family values are important...They are therefore not important...

Since Democrats don't claim to support Family Values they can't be held responsible for having family values ...So Cheating on your spouse is what acceptable?

So using that logic if something is not specifically a platform plank they run on ... They can't be held to that standard ! Interesting concept...

Since Democrats don't claim to support Family Values they can't be held responsible for having family values ...So Cheating on your spouse is what acceptable?

So using that logic if something is not specifically a platform plank they run on ... They can't be held to that standard ! Interesting concept...

Jim,

I can see you didn't understand what I was saying. If someone wants to hold up a principal and say this is why someone should vote for me, you need to be judged by your own standard, otherwise you are a hypocrite and you aren't the person you led everyone to believe.

If someone does not claim to be something and then that person does something under that category, the person isn't a hypocrite and they didn't lie to anyone. A person can not be a hypocrite and a liar if they never claimed to be something that they were indeed not.

I never said the act isn't bad or undesirable, but I am talking about someone's principals and standards that they asked to be held up to. If you put something as a party plank, you are saying that your party believes this and their candidate follow this so if a person is not, then it makes the party look like a hypocrite, especially if they do not made said person resign or get out of their party. If you can follow your own standards, then what is the point of having standards?

It is just like bragging about how great you are at basketball, but when you play in front of those you bragged to and are absolutely terrible, you deserve to be criticized. But if you never bragged about how you are at basketball and have a bad game, you should be criticize or at least as much as if you bragged because you never claimed you were good.

P.S. I am not a Democrat so I really don't care what they have in their platform or not. I am using it as an example for your question. And where did I say it was okay to cheat on anyone's wife?

Have a good day.

Clinton was wrong. John Edwards was wrong.

I never liked Edwards nor would have voted for him. I supported Clinton being impeached for lying.

I did not support Clinton in her decision. I wouldn't stand by my man for any reason if he cheated on me. That's why I got divorced.

I just love the impotent neener neener I have no answer so I'll just throw out the same But Clinton did this......blah blah

Yeah and Newt was cheating while he was going around pontificating about family values and Clinton must go...but I guess Conservatives forget that minor detail.

GGMS

If it helps I don't like Newt and will not vote for him... Not only because of his personal shortcomings... But he is also a self admitted Progressive... And he is just about as much a Big Government guy as President Obama...

You see I have problems with the Progressive agenda with its President Obama or Newt Gingrich .... I am an equal opportunity dis-liker of Progressive goals... Be they Republican or Democrat ..White or Black....

Colonial82

No I fully understood you point I just didn't agree with it... For me... I don't care if you run on family values or not... I hold all politicians regardless of party to the same standard...

They don't get some special pass because they refused to say publicly that they believe in Family values (in this case) or any other moral issues.

You can point out the Hypocrisy and I will point right along with you... But truthfully, if we eliminate every politician for holding a hypocritical position on one issue or another.... Capital Hill would be deserted (hey maybe that's not such a bad idea) along with decades of past residents of 1600 Penn. Ave ... Every State house and Governors mansion... in the nation !!!

My position is whether someone is a hypocrite or an adulterer is one worse than the other? Just because one stated a position they were not able to live up to or the one as in Edwards and Clinton One was the President of the United States who is the top Law Enforcement Man in the nation that lies to a Grand Jury ! No hypocrisy ?

Or Edwards ...He might not have said he was the family values guy ...but he was dragging a wife around with him ... while using campaign funds to take care of a girl friend and soon to be Love child... Hypocrisy ?

What they say or what they present themselves to be are the same thing... And for me none of them get the Free Pass...

Just my Opinion !

I'm willing to give Clinton a bit of a break because he and Hillary worked it out apparently and remain married to this day. I don't give Edwards a pass and wouldn't vote for him. Gingrich is a repeat offender and came up with the lamest excuse in the world for his betrayals.

fireryone

Got to disagree with you a bit on Bill.... As far as the sex thing , Yep that was and should always have been between him and Hilary ...

But he does not get a pass on the President of the United States committing Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury....

I seem to remember Democrats elated to see Scotter Libby go to Prison, for much Less. And pissed when he got his sentence commuted.... Were they NOT?

No matter how much you beat that horse, it is still dead.

Ah come on Dog .... follow the entire conversation ...its not a beat up on Bill thing ....

I seem to remember Democrats elated to see Scotter Libby go to Prison, for much Less.

Libby outed a CIA NOC. That's a little different then trying to cover up a dalliance with cigars.

Libby outed a CIA NOC. That's a little different then trying to cover up a dalliance with cigars.

Proven repeatedly to not be true... She was not .... I repeat was not undercover.... He was not charged with outing her .... Sorry he was charged with ....and convicted of ....

In the subsequent federal trial, United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements) and acquitted on the second count of making false statements.

........

The trial confirmed that the leak came first from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; since Fitzgerald did not charge Armitage and did not charge anyone else, Libby's conviction effectively ended the investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

Lets make it clear once and for all.... Scotter Libby Did not Out Valerie Plame

Richard Armitage admitted it was himself .... Try to get the facts on the issue ...

That's a little different then trying to cover up a dalliance with cigars.

Sorry Perjury to a Federal Grand Jury ... Is Perjury to a Grand Jury ....the reason for the lie doesn't make it not a lie... You want to make it about sex ...I want to stay focused on Perjury by the sitting President of the United States!

Sorry NorthtoSouth ... I must respectfully disagree ... Perjury by Clinton and perjury by Libby...

Its the same thing....

Proven repeatedly to not be true... She was not .... I repeat was not undercover.

She was listed as "non-official cover" or NOC by the CIA at the time she was outed.

The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary dutytravel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

He was not charged with outing her ..

You are correct. He was charged for basically covering up the leak to which he was privy.

Lets make it clear once and for all.... Scotter Libby Did not Out Valerie Plame

You are correct, he did not directly out Plame. He was privy to who did and yet did nothing about it.

Richard Armitage admitted it was himself .

Armitige said it was an "accident", a slip of the tongue in passing.

That's a little different then trying to cover up a dalliance with cigars.

Very much so. One violated a federal law (the Plame affair) while the other was a violation of trust between a husband and wife.

Sorry Perjury to a Federal Grand Jury ... Is Perjury to a Grand Jury ....the reason for the lie doesn't make it not a lie... You want to make it about sex ...I want to stay focused on Perjury by the sitting President of the United States!

Clinton was acquitted in his trial. Libby was not. So I have to also respectfully disagree. The trial at which Clinton was compelled to testify was a witch hunt orchestrated by a man who, as we now know, was actively engaged in an affair himself. The Libby trial came about as a direct result of Scooter Libby lying to CIA investigators in order to cover up a violation of federal law. Two very different circumstances.

That is precisely how I would have responded northtosouth! Thank you.

Thanks, fireryone.

Nope, Obama is a man-child, or maybe a boy who wants to be king.

Obama is a con artist. he conned his way to the WH: "Hope & Change"

It won't happen this time around. There will be a change, for sure. Know what I mean?

.

maggie-

What happened? Got stumped?

I have? I will vote for Romney over Gingrich so not sure what "my man's " credibility has to do with it if Gingrich is not " my man"

I merely asked a simple question - Are all those who are disgusted by Gingrich as disgusted with the two people i mentioned?

Family Values. That's when you get your two daughters from your first marriage to say that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

...Sounds like the introduction to a typical guest on the Ricki Lake show.

Boston Man my point was not to pick your man only that when all your arguement is 'look he's just like this guy and you like him' that's the same as 'if your disgusted with this guy you should be disgusted with thses other guys' No, if your man, whoever he is, can't stand on his own character background comparing him to some one else with bad,weak, disgusting character, weakens your mans (whoever he is) character even more. Thers's a reason we pick people with weak chartacter to compare our man against.

Let's face it - close the loopholes, set the tax rate at 30%, the wealthy are still paying twice what Romney is paying now. The fact of the matter are those loopholes. A 37% tax that can be reduced legally with capital games loopholes, etc. to less than half that amount for a person that has more money than the last 8 Presidents is just a shame.

Even 30% looks pretty good under those circumstances.

Romney is retired, he lives from his 401k.

If you are a food stamp person, vote Obama. After all, he is the food stamp president. Yes?

^ and he is also the corporate hand-out king as well.....a truly failed presidency

Romney is retired, he lives from his 401k.

Romney doesn't have a 401k, so.....yeah.

If you are a food stamp person, vote Obama. After all, he is the food stamp president. Yes?

No. Oh, and most TANF recipients are republican voters so....uh yeah.

and he is also the corporate hand-out king as well.....a truly failed presidency

And, uh no again. Sorry guys, but epic fails all around.

and most TANF recipients are republican voters

come on ...Ya got to source something like that....

Hard reality to swallow northtosouth but your Dear Leader has been the recipient of the MOST corporate funds in American presidential campaign history

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

the emperor is not wearing any clothes!!!!!

AND> He dishes to the rich faster than he dishes to the poor. Of course I can site the multiple examples of arguments made by Ron Paul but you may not listen. How bout the Huffington Post though????

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-shivani/the-corporatist-explanati_b_434286.html

http://the-classic-liberal.com/obama-corporatism/

or the classic liberal

http://mydd.com/2010/4/11/ron-paul-obam

or myDD

but no one says it better than Ron Paul :)

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-04-25/obama-is-a-corporatist/

you see northtosouth our POTUS is merely rewarding those generous campaign donors from 2008 in hopes (and they will) that they donate again here in 2012.

These racial tactics used to work. Suddenly, they are a lot more risky.

Being an Angry White Male only works when you are in fact in the majority and have nothing to really complain about. When you finally find that you are in the emerging minority, nobody cares about your whining.

There is actually a lesson to be learned here: Be nice to the people on the way up the American Dream ladder, because you will meet the same people on the way down.

As Americans we are all in the same boat and if the ship goes down we are all in trouble. Red meat politics has always been divisive it work when you had a huge majority. That time has gone and it is time to move on E plurabis Unum

Used to be that one ran on their accomplishments and their character. Those have long since gone and given rise to what we see now. Sign of the hateful times we live in. Like a cock fight. My chicken can peck yur chickens eyes out, no my chicken can peck your chickens eyes out and eat the brain as well. Politics is nothin more than a freakin cock fight and we spectators get to choose what? The dirtiest fighter? The one that tells the least lies? Spends the most money? Will do the least damage? You get me point.

Linda-

""""Used to be that one ran on their accomplishments and their character"""

For sure, Obama will not run on his accomplishments and character.

Linda-

Do you think Obama will ran on his accomplishments and character?

You think he will say he is proud of Obamacare?

You think he will say he is an honest politician?

You think he will say he is competent leader?

Here's what I think he will say," We are making progress. I see the light at the end of the tunnel. Give me four more years."

Sorry, mr.Obama, you made a bad situation worse. You gotta go!!! Bye-bye BO!!!!!!!

Sorry, mr.Obama, you made a bad situation worse.

How so? Facts, please.

badger2012 is likely a re-reg, northtosouth. You're only chucking troll food.

badger2012 is likely a re-reg, northtosouth. You're only chucking troll food.

I figured as much, but it's up to Tyler and Sally to make that call.

northtosouth-

If you don't know the facts, then I'll conclude you are not a well informed individual.

I don't know what you do, but you need to keep up with current events. Okay?

You and dwille call me re-reg/troll. That's a personal attack. Would you tell Tyler and Sally your personal attack on me?

If you don't know the facts, then I'll conclude you are not a well informed individual.

I don't know what you do, but you need to keep up with current events. Okay?

Have a pleasant day, Badger.

.

Soph-

I can take anything they throw at me. All I ask is they do the same.

You should not engage in a fight if you can't take punches.

I don't intend on reporting anyone for violation of the CoH. That's kids stuff.

Just goes to show some folks are here to fight Soph. Other's like to discuss issues and have some civil discourse.

It's one thing to have an opinion...and if comments are made to be factual...they should be, IMHO, backed up with something.

Reporting CoH violations is not kid stuff...re registering and bringing the same talking point rhetoric is...again, IMHO.

Soph, if a poor soul has to re-reg, would one want to email the rules enforcers to bring attention to themselves?

Well thank you Donna

Jst what us stupid Republicans need a Progressive Democrat to tell us what is wrong with our candidates and inform us how our fellow brother and sister Conservatives or deserting the sinking GOP ship to join you and President Obama to save the world from Conservatives....

(yea this was Sarc)

How about Democrats that have no real desire to see the GOP win anything .... Please allow us to select our own candidate and then your candidate and ours can meet on the battlefield of idea's and let the American people vote for the one they trust most!

The politics of personal attack seem to be your tactic ....

Romney has these shifty, beady eyes

This worries me and tells me he has some things to hide and that his overall honesty is in question.

As if you would have voted for a Republican ....HAHAHAHAHA

Americans are smart, and can see behind the lies.

No truer words have ever been spoken ... (smiles) As if we don't see Progressive Democrats such as yourself tearing down the GOP Candidates through personal attacks ...

We have eyes and we can see ...We have ears and we can Hear ...

We KNOW your GOAL ... And you waste so much of your time LOL

Jim, you're absolutely welcome! The disgusting things your party and candidates have said about Obama and you're worried about my little post? You had better listen more closely to what you're party has said. Everything from the birthers to racial attacks have come from them. You shouldn't defend their lies while condemning the Democrats. If any Republican has a chance at the Presidency, I as a citizen with free speech can express my opinion of them. Or are you trying to take that right away too? Your time has been wasted in your post. Maybe some other viners will let you know what they think too. Say what you will and do your worst, we're ready for you and always have been. It won't be the first time we Dems have dealt with the likes of you and it won't be the last. Do your worst, we're ready. Obama 2012!

PS, Your candidates are tearing themselves down!

Wait a minute here! You got romney and gingrich going for each others throat and telling whopper lies about each other and that is when they are not telling whoppers about Obama and you gonna attack dems or liberals or anyone else that calls it as they sees it? After what your party has handed out for the last three? Um, and you really think we are gonna take YOU seriously? ROFL, Im having a ball! It just gets better and better! Personally I love it when you all eat your own! And your right too, no way in hell would I vote republican. I voted for Georgie Porgie and look where that got us. Deal

Donna, I know what ya mean about them there shifty beady eyeballs too! But I want gingrich to win! He is on a roll at just being gingrich. They sure can pik em!

Say what you will and do your worst

I just did my "worst" Or at least the worst I plan to do on a personal level to a fellow viner....I thought that I quite graciously asked that YOU...

Please allow us to select our own candidate and then your candidate and ours can meet on the battlefield of idea's and let the American people vote for the one they trust most!

I really don't see that as asking to much ... Stop pretending as if your concerned for whats best for the GOP... At least Linda was honest ...She wants Gingrich to win because she feels he would be the easiest for Obama to beat ....

Jim, I have never been the least bit concerned about what's best for the GOP. Where did you get that stupid idea? Graciously or not, you are telling me that I should not express my opinion about a Republican candidate. I'm telling you that it's my constitutional right to do just that. I could ask you and your fellow Republicans to please start respecting your president, but I know that the same constitution sadly gives you the right not to. And your party certainly takes advantage of that right. You as a party will select your candidate regardless of what anybody says. I resent you calling me dishonest, for what I've said to you is exactly what I think. Had you said that in my presence and to my face,...well , let's just say you wouldn't get away with it. Have a good evening.

Donna ....

It would appear that you short term memory escapes you.... Re you while you stand on your soap box and proclaim these injustices toward our current president ...President Obama....

Do you remember the conduct of the Left and the Democratic Party from 2000 - 2008 toward our then President G.W. Bush?

Do you really believe you have the moral High ground on this issue? Really !!!!!

Lets compare ......

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HINhfkQAz1g

Tell me You have the moral High ground and I will call you a ...... Well there goes that C of H thing again !

I'm not looking for moral high ground. Even a moron would recognize that. What is it that you cannot understand in this conversation we've had? I'm telling you that I have my right to my opinion and to express it. Please reread the posts. That's all I'm trying to get you to understand. You keep trying to elevate this into something it is NOT! I will not talk with you again. I will be ignoring you, you're just not worth the time or effort. Go argue with somebody else as you seem to be looking for a fight. I'd like to give you one, but not here on the vine.

Smiles ......

http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-tells/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhWbXDZXlkY

http://www.alternet.org/news/142747/10_horrifying_racist_attacks_on_obama/

So much for your 8 years, this in 3 years Jim44

Smiles

Thanks, Don. Lest we forget.

OK Don ....

Your first link ....

CNN: Death Threats Against Obama Increase By 400 Percent

Right? Only one problem .....

Obama Death Threats Falsely Reported by CNN's Rick Sanchez, Says Secret Service Director

According to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, however, both of these left-wing media reports are patently false. In fact, according to Director Sullivan, death threats against President Obama are no greater than those leveled against Presidents Bush and Clinton.

http://voices.yahoo.com/obama-death-threats-falsely-reported-cnns-rick-5012476.html

Just took a minute to debunk that one....

2. the you tube ... And ?

3. Sorry Don ... A AltNet hit piece with partial quotes that are not sourced ... not worth even spending the time trying to chase down the comments... I would gladly research and confirm or deny anything that can be sourced....

If it helps you to believe I am fair ... several of the things about the witch-doctor pictures and crap like that yes I know they are or were real and they were disgusting, tasteless and inappropriate not just toward a president but toward any Black man... And I stand against any such trashy action, by anyone!

I find it very funny Jim nothing anyone puts up is good enough for you. Now I can and will post every example of death threats made toward the President but then you would say those are not true either.

But then you always use your little sources and always you tube.

Such hypocrisy but then that's always your position.

Now let's get real, there have been more death threats toward Obama in the 3 years he has been President than the 8 years of Bush and especially from your masters.

Don I provided a source that proved what you said about the number of threats wrong... By the Directer of the Secret Service ....

You can claim anything you want about me or about you claim of more threats ...

But the link you provided was DIRECTLY DEBUNKED BY THE SECRET SERVICE ... The specific not just a general comment he specifically said the report you are claiming was FALSE ! ...

Don you may not like it that I take the time to check on what you say .... But if you post something that has been debunked .... And I prove its been debunked ...I don't care if you like it ... Its a fact that you have to live with...!

Now I can and will post every example of death threats made toward the President but then you would say those are not true either.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? It appears from this comment NOT !!!

"If it helps you to believe I am fair ... several of the things about the witch-doctor pictures and crap like that yes I know they are or were real and they were disgusting, tasteless and inappropriate not just toward a president but toward any Black man... And I stand against any such trashy action, by anyone! "

Don why take this personal...You posted something you thought was true ...I knew it had been refuted by the Secret Service... You now know the truth ...And you should be HAPPY that President Obama has not been threatened more than any other president .... That should be GOOD NEWS to you !!!!!

Yet instead it seems to be upsetting to you that there is not as much hate as you thought or had been lead to believe...

So Don that does not make sense .... Its as if you wanted there to be more hate and threats...

WHY ? Is it upsetting to you that the Secret Service says president Obama had not been threatened more than any other president?

Now let's get real, there have been more death threats toward Obama in the 3 years he has been President than the 8 years of Bush and especially from your masters.

I proved that statement wrong, when you sourced it in the previous post ...So for you to make it again, can you support it with a source other than Don SAY'S its true so it must be excepted as FACT?

Really Jim you never proved me wrong about this statement

Now let's get real, there have been more death threats toward Obama in the 3 years he has been President than the 8 years of Bush and especially from your masters.

Don what is your proof for this statement ? This?

http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-tells/

My Jim just look at all the stuff on that particular page, as an example.

Never mind Don I tire of your game ....

I addressed that "evidence" in my # 25.12 and you just pretended that I didn't debunk the 1st one laughed at the second and questioned the third as un-sourced Altnet accusations... You refused to clarify are give anything specific other than the one you did give that I proved FALSE ! ....

Bring facts ...something with a real source....

Provide one source that can confirm your statement ....

there have been more death threats toward Obama in the 3 years he has been President than the 8 years of Bush

Prove that statement .... listing incidents does not prove that statement ...

That is a quantifiable statement .... How many threats were there against Bush in his 8 years ?

And how many were there against Obama in his first 3 years?

You most know those numbers to know that one is more than the other! So PROVE IT !

Or drop the subject because you can't! Sorry your opinion doesn't count... I am going with the Director of the Secret Service over you .... Call him a LIAR !

-------------------

As I have already provided you once !!!!!!!!!

Obama Death Threats Falsely Reported by CNN's Rick Sanchez, Says Secret Service Director

According to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, however, both of these left-wing media reports are patently false. In fact, according to Director Sullivan, death threats against President Obama are no greater than those leveled against Presidents Bush and Clinton.

http://voices.yahoo.com/obama-death-threats-falsely-reported-cnns-rick-5012476.html

And you still refuse to see the light. Oh well I tried to get you off the right path and on to the correct path Jim.

No Don you refused to actually face the issue and admit that you just might have over extended in your statement ... You made a statement that you may well believe to be true, yet know you can't prove and will not back down ...

But thats OK ... Anyone reading this exchange ... They can read!

Later Gator !

Yes they can read and after they know you can't prove other wise. Smiles