Hillary Clinton Supports Terrorist Propaganda

[Wild Cobra]

The GOP lost the middle 2 years ago.

I'm not so sure that’s what happened. In my view, the GOP lost the conservatives. Historically, the GOP has won more when talking and voting conservative. I think allot of conservatives just had no one they wanted to vote for in '06.

Think about the two major flaws the GOP had in conservative views:

1) Allowed the biggest increase in spending in years rather than getting a grasp on socil spending and pork projects.

2) Too many advocated amnesty and don't want to enforce immigration.

I'll throw in another that is a factor of republican views on our president. Did you know that president Bush's disapproval rating took an immediate 7 point increase when he implied the Minute Men were vigilantes? The more he let conservatives know his views on border enforcement the lower his ratings went, and he drug down the GOP with him. It is already a given in normal cases that he will have a partisan 45% disapproval. We have a great economy, low unemployment, but conservatives will never forgive president Bush and other republicans who approve of pork barrel spending and lax immigration laws.

[boutons_]

'pork barrel spending"

will remain, and will remain anonymous (earmarks). The govt runs on $$, politicians run on $$, voters vote their pocketbooks. pork/earmarks are actually a tiny %age of the total govt budget. Federal politicians will never vote to kill pork and earmarks. They think they are en led to vote them, and the recipients think they are en led to receive them. It's America's version of socialism.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...lreport#trends

I don't support pork and earmarks, but it's not really a HUGE budgetary problem, compared to bull of $15B in head's research grants to the oilcos (anybody follow up the results of that no-strings-attached gift?), $50B in subsidies for ethanol, and $1T in cuts in estate taxes for the hyper-rich, and of course the runaway, untouchable defense budget racket and corrupt MIC.

[PixelPusher]

I'm not so sure that’s what happened. In my view, the GOP lost the conservatives. Historically, the GOP has won more when talking and voting conservative. I think allot of conservatives just had no one they wanted to vote for in '06.

Think about the two major flaws the GOP had in conservative views:

1) Allowed the biggest increase in spending in years rather than getting a grasp on socil spending and pork projects.

2) Too many advocated amnesty and don't want to enforce immigration.

I'll throw in another that is a factor of republican views on our president. Did you know that president Bush's disapproval rating took an immediate 7 point increase when he implied the Minute Men were vigilantes? The more he let conservatives know his views on border enforcement the lower his ratings went, and he drug down the GOP with him. It is already a given in normal cases that he will have a partisan 45% disapproval. We have a great economy, low unemployment, but conservatives will never forgive president Bush and other republicans who approve of pork barrel spending and lax immigration laws.

All of the above explains Bush's sub-30's approval rating (and the comparativley lackluster fundraising capability of current GOP prez candidates), but to my original point, that the GOP lost the middle 2 years ago:

From October of 2006 (just before the midterms): Independent voters favor Democrats by 2 to 1

-snippet-
The independent voters surveyed said they plan to support Democratic candidates over Republicans by roughly 2 to 1 -- 59 percent to 31 percent -- the largest margin in any Post-ABC News poll this year. Forty-five percent said it would be good if Democrats recaptured the House majority, while 10 percent said it would not be. The rest said it would not matter.

and more recently: Political environment continues to favor Democrats

-snippet-
The Democratic edge becomes obvious and more impressive when looking at not just party identification, but also party "leaning." In each poll it conducts, Gallup asks those who identify as independents whether they lean more to the Democratic or Republican Party. Generally speaking, partisan leaners' at udes and reported behaviors are more like those of party identifiers than those with no party attachment or leaning.

These days, a greater proportion of independents express a leaning toward the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. When party leanings are taken into account, the 5-percentage-point Democratic advantage on national partisanship from the first quarter grows to 12 points, 52% to 40%.

The disproportionate leaning toward the Democratic Party among independents has been evident since early 2005. During the first term of Bush's presidency, independents' leanings broke about evenly between the two parties.

Democrats had a slightly larger 14-point advantage on leaned-party identification in the final quarter of 2006 than its 12-point edge in the most recent quarter. But those two gaps in favor of the Democrats are the largest Gallup has measured for either party in any quarterly average since it began regularly tracking leaned-party identification in 1991. (Gallup did ask leaned-party identification prior to 1991, though not on a consistent basis. Historical data indicates that Democratic advantages in leaned-party identification even greater than the recent 14-point edge were not uncommon in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s).

Contrary to your assertion, the middle isn't a half-n-half mixture, with a tons of disaffected conservatives waiting for the GOP to reform so they can re-up their Republican party membership, it's more made up of people who continue to be really pissed off at Bush and the GOP.

[clambake]

Contrary to your assertion, the middle isn't a half-n-half mixture, with a tons of disaffected conservatives waiting for the GOP to reform so they can re-up their Republican party membership, it's more made up of people who continue to be really pissed off at Bush and the GOP.

I served 11 years. Have you served? I didn't think so. If you had, you'd be much smarter. I, myself, am much smarter than some of those dead GI's that I saw coming to the morgue in pieces. Even though I was stationed in a command center in back of the room, I could still tell.

[Wild Cobra]

Contrary to your assertion, the middle isn't a half-n-half mixture, with a tons of disaffected conservatives waiting for the GOP to reform so they can re-up their Republican party membership, it's more made up of people who continue to be really pissed off at Bush and the GOP.

The middle as you describe it vs. the graphs you show are not necessarily moderates either.

Notice it says "independent!" As conservative as I am, I am in that category, not the republican.

I wonder if they did a poll on left vs. right with moderates rather than democrat vs. republicans with independents?

Maybe you are right, but please note your link does not contradict my view.

[PixelPusher]

The middle as you describe it vs. the graphs you show are not necessarily moderates either.

Notice it says "independent!" As conservative as I am, I am in that category, not the republican.

I wonder if they did a poll on left vs. right with moderates rather than democrat vs. republicans with independents?

Maybe you are right, but please note your link does not contradict my view.

Are you saying the two-thirds of independents that lean Democratic aren't moderate?

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying the two-thirds of independents that lean Democratic aren't moderate?

I'm not making a claim to the breakdown. I really don't know. I do know that a huge part of the conservatives were so pissed at spending and immigration issues, they didn't vote. It might have made the difference, and I believe it would have. The "middle" probably had something to do with it also. but there were actually conservative hosts convincing their listeners that we should let the democrats win, as a lesson.

I don't know the breakdown, but what was classed as independent includes the Green party, socialists, communists, libertarians, the cons ution party, etc. The first three likely vote for democrats when they don't vote for their party and the latter two likely vote republican when not voting party lines. The libertarian party is probably the largest of the independents, and most may be considered more to the liberal thought process. That is more because they believe in the personal freedom concept rather than individually advocating any particular left leaning view. The common thread with libertarians is small government, personal freedoms, and individual responsibility. Since it is the democrats generally wanting to spend more, grow the government, and restrict freedoms with regulations, the republicans generally get most the libertarian vote. Libertarians didn't stick so close to republicans in 2006. Like I said. Spending and borders. Borders may not seem like an issue libertarians care about, but republicans seem to ignore a key point the cons ution allows, and libertarians care about the cons ution. Immigration law is spelled out in the cons ution as a government function.

[PixelPusher]

I'm not making a claim to the breakdown. I really don't know. I do know that a huge part of the conservatives were so pissed at spending and immigration issues, they didn't vote. It might have made the difference, and I believe it would have. The "middle" probably had something to do with it also. but there were actually conservative hosts convincing their listeners that we should let the democrats win, as a lesson.

I don't know the breakdown, but what was classed as independent includes the Green party, socialists, communists, libertarians, the cons ution party, etc. The first three likely vote for democrats when they don't vote for their party and the latter two likely vote republican when not voting party lines. The libertarian party is probably the largest of the independents, and most may be considered more to the liberal thought process. That is more because they believe in the personal freedom concept rather than individually advocating any particular left leaning view. The common thread with libertarians is small government, personal freedoms, and individual responsibility. Since it is the democrats generally wanting to spend more, grow the government, and restrict freedoms with regulations, the republicans generally get most the libertarian vote. Libertarians didn't stick so close to republicans in 2006. Like I said. Spending and borders. Borders may not seem like an issue libertarians care about, but republicans seem to ignore a key point the cons ution allows, and libertarians care about the cons ution. Immigration law is spelled out in the cons ution as a government function.

What makes you think most independents are libertarians? Here's another piece of that Gallup poll article:



Basically, only 3% of those surveyed were for any sort of 3rd pary (Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.) with 11% undecided. That leaves the rest of the independents to support a Democrat or a Repubican, and most support the Democrat. If most independents were Libertarians, they would have make a larger dent in the "3rd Party" category, or, if they were bound and determined to stick it to the GOP for not representing their values, remained in the "undecided" category.

Most independents are, well, just that..."independent" - for a variety of reasons including disaffection with both parties, or politics in general, or for holding a myriad of political beliefs that don't fit into the "liberal/conservative" packaging.

[gtownspur]

Leave it to pixel to bring up the popularity argument. Americans are shifty mofos. Don't resort back to your principles if this same tactic is employed against you whenever the next polarizing issue.

WHat will Pixel choose?

Polls or Principles?

[PixelPusher]

Leave it to pixel to bring up the popularity argument. Americans are shifty mofos. Don't resort back to your principles if this same tactic is employed against you whenever the next polarizing issue.

WHat will Pixel choose?

Polls or Principles?

The debate WildCobra and I are having is about popularity, dip .

[gtownspur]

The debate WildCobra and I are having is about popularity, dip .

I have no clue about why Wild Cobra is even engaging you in such stupid debate. He did however say that dems were in danger of losing the middle if the dems pullout, and then suddenly we started seeing gallup polls being posted by yourself. How insecure were you about your party to pull out gallup polls with out arguing your position on hillary?

[PixelPusher]

I have no clue about why Wild Cobra is even engaging you in such stupid debate. He did however say that dems were in danger of losing the middle if the dems pullout, and then suddenly we started seeing gallup polls being posted by yourself. How insecure were you about your party to pull out gallup polls with out arguing your position on hillary?

Well, it's helpful for both of us to first be able to define what "the middle" is first...run along now, the grownups are talking.

[gtownspur]

Well, it's helpful for both of us to first be able to define what "the middle" is first...run along now, the grownups are talking.

And you both failed at defininig the so called "middle", and got nowhere except for flexing and striking poses. I hope you both aren't adults, because our kids are definately in trouble if that's the case.

[PixelPusher]

I hope you both aren't adults, because our kids are definately in trouble if that's the case.

...says the guy who makes every other post a bat crazy rant about "bukakkes".

[gtownspur]

...says the guy who makes every other post a bat crazy rant about "bukakkes".

I'm sorry, it's not like i'm going ape about the fragility of my ideology and resorting to post Gallup polls when the oppurtunity is given.

[PixelPusher]

I'm sorry, it's not like i'm going ape about the fragility of my ideology and resorting to post Gallup polls when the oppurtunity is given.

Your right, gtown...the next time WC and I discuss politics, we won't use any of those crazy facts and such...we'll just trade gay slurs and obscure pop culture references like you do.

[gtownspur]

Your right, gtown...the next time WC and I discuss politics, we won't use any of those crazy facts and such...we'll just trade gay slurs and obscure pop culture references like you do.

Bukkakes is not a gay slur. this is why spurstalk should ins ute age limits because failure to have one has gotten young innocent children exposed to satire, and dirty language.

but hey kiddo, i'm glad you're taking a step forward. Don't take yourself serioulsy, cuz no one else does. And those gallup oppinion polls you post as facts, (see the oxymoron, and i don't mean moron in the general sense, Pixel is not the subject here!) well let me tell you, they are as factual as the flying flip, a certain jolly person in the North pole gives when he reads your wishes for world peace, a toy train, and more intimate time with your little league umpire, in your Christmas wish letter.

So don't get bent out of shape if i don't take you seriously. It's not that i despise you. It's just that I find your "facts" humorous, as contradictory as that sounds.

[PixelPusher]

Bukkakes is not a gay slur. this is why spurstalk should ins ute age limits because failure to have one has gotten young innocent children exposed to satire, and dirty language.

I referring to the actual gay slurs you've levelled over the year and a half I've been on this board, not your bukkake rants.

but hey kiddo, i'm glad you're taking a step forward. Don't take yourself serioulsy, cuz no one else does. And those gallup oppinion polls you post as facts, (see the oxymoron, and i don't mean moron in the general sense, Pixel is not the subject here!) well let me tell you, they are as factual as the flying flip, a certain jolly person in the North pole gives when he reads your wishes for world peace, a toy train, and more intimate time with your little league umpire, in your Christmas wish letter.

So don't get bent out of shape if i don't take you seriously. It's not that i despise you. It's just that I find your "facts" humorous, as contradictory as that sounds.

A "flying flip"...wow, that was profound. You really showed me. I'll never look at another poll again...

[Wild Cobra]

What makes you think most independents are libertarians? Here's another piece of that Gallup poll article:



Basically, only 3% of those surveyed were for any sort of 3rd pary (Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.) with 11% undecided.

All I'm going to say is you cannot assume what you are assuming. I have no other responce to such irrational thinking on your part.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, this is what I see as the middle. Those who do not vote party lines and those who are not single issue voters. That is why I say the republicans lost the conservatives. Those taking single issues to heart and not voting, or voting democrat, were those who are adamant about spending and immigration reform. The republican majority failed us in these two areas.

[xrayzebra]

Dan, I was told you would really like this little email joke.
So enjoy.

Have you ever heard that a dog "knows" when an earthquake is about to hit?
Have you ever heard that a dog can "sense" when a tornado
is stirring up, even twenty miles away?

Do you remember hearing that, before the December tsunami
struck Southeast Asia , dogs started running frantically away
from the seashore, at breakneck speed?

I'm a firm believer that animals and especially dogs have
keen insights into the Truth.

And you can't tell me that dogs can't sense a potentially
terrible disaster well in advance.

Simply said, a good ol' hound dog just KNOWS when
something isn't right . . when impending doom is upon us.



. .

[PixelPusher]

Well, I hope the Bushbots got all the jollies they could from this cheap shot, because Edelman's boss had to come in and try to re-establish some semblence of responsibility and credibility.This is about as close to a genuine mea culpa SecDef Robert Gates can make in a carefully scripted, WH approved response to HC's 2nd letter.

Gates seeks to calm feud with Clinton


By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that a top Pentagon official did not intend to impugn her patriotism by suggesting her questions about U.S. planning in Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
ADVERTISEMENT

At the same time, Gates defended his aide and the author of the letter, Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman, calling him "a valued member" who provides "wise counsel and years of experience (that) are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military."

The letter also contains the most explicit admission to date that the Pentagon is in fact planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, with Gates telling Clinton: "You may rest assured that such planning is indeed taking place with my active involvement."

Late Thursday, lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee were told they would get the briefing Clinton had been seeking for months on the issue of troop withdrawal.

The closed-door briefing next week is expected to be given by Edelman and Lt. Gen. John Sattler, who oversees plans and strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the notice sent to Democratic senators who had seconded Clinton's request.

Gates, in the three-page missive obtained by The Associated Press, sought to calm a politically stoked exchange between the Pentagon and the Democratic presidential front-runner over planning for the withdrawal of U.S forces from Iraq.

The feud burst into the open last week when Edelman sent a stinging letter to Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee who had sought answers in May about how troops, equipment and vehicles would leave Iraq.

Edelman wrote that public discussion of withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda that the U.S. will abandon its allies in Iraq" and exacerbates sectarian tensions there. The New York senator said Edelman's answer impugned her patriotism while avoiding serious questions about troop withdrawal plans.

Gates' letter, dated Wednesday, insisted that was not the point of Edelman's missive.

"I emphatically assure you that we do not claim, suggest, or otherwise believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies, nor do we question anyone's motives in this regard," Gates wrote.

The Defense secretary both agreed with Clinton that congressional oversight of military planning is needed and at the same time defended Edelman.

"I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intention," Gates wrote.

"I agree with you that planning concerning the future of U.S. forces in Iraq — including the drawdown of those forces at the right time — is not only appropriate but essential," Gates wrote, adding that Edelman also agrees with that point.

The weeklong back-and-forth underscored the escalating animosity between the Bush administration and the Democratically controlled Congress in the standoff over Iraq policy, and the center seat the divide holds in the 2008 presidential race.

Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines said the senator was "disappointed that Secretary Gates does not repudiate Undersecretary Edelman's unacceptable political attack."

Reines added that Clinton welcomes Gates statement that congressional oversight of the Iraq war is essential.

"She continues to believe strongly that there is absolutely no room for impugning the patriotism of those who rightfully engage in congressional oversight," Reines said.

The public feud between the Edelman and Clinton could win her points among anti-war voters and liberal Democrats, a critical cons uency in primary voting that has challenged her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war.

Facing questions about the war during Monday night's debate, Clinton mentioned the letter and the feud.

Among her top Democratic rivals, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has argued that he opposed the war from the start when he was serving in the Illinois legislature. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, has disavowed his 2002 vote giving President Bush the authority to oust Saddam Hussein's regime.

Clinton, in a call Friday with reporters, said in response to Edelman's letter that she was "shocked by the timeworn tactic of once again impugning the patriotism of any of us who raise serious questions" about the Iraq war.

She was joined in the call by 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who accused the Bush administration of making "planning a dirty word and an alien concept."

She also complained directly to Gates in writing, asking if he agreed with Edelman's comments. Edelman is a former aide to Vice President Cheney, and served as an ambassador during the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Military leaders have long acknowledged that they have plans for all contingencies in the Iraq war — more recently saying they have looked at adding troops, pulling troops out and maintaining current levels.

They have provided no details, and insisted that decisions hinge on the report from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, which is due in September. Both men are to testify before Congress on how the current strategy is working and whether it needs to be revised.