Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

NoH8

Inna, generosity doesn't always have a dollar amount attached to it. People can give tons of money away and still be stingy with their hearts and vice versa.

shokk

And Anne why wouldn't Amy be worried about your endorsement of Obama.......maybe she feels that you are not being sincere........I have no idea but if Obama ends up being the Democrat nominee Hillary will do everything she can to get McCain elected.......she wants to be President and I don't believe for one minute that she really cares one bit about her own party......its about her.......Shokk

anneshirley

About Cheney.  He didn't earn any of his money by hard work; he got it through stock options.  He was made CEO of Halliburton when he left government, despite having no relevant experience.  I was more qualified to be Halliburton's CEO, and probably most of you.  And while he was CEO of Halliburton, he did nothing to improve its profitability, which is the job of a CEO.  It was not until Halliburton knew he was leaving the company, for government again, that it awarded him so many stock options. And for good reason, if one examines how Halliburton has made its money since Cheney became Veep.

There are certainly ways we could solve the problem of men like Cheney who use their contacts in government to serivce themselves into becoming millionaires (and billionaires)--and they all do it, Republicans and Democrats alike, which is why I trust none of them.

We can get rid of lobbyists altogether, and I have yet to hear a good reason why we haven't.  And if not that, we can make it a crime for anyone who was previously an elected official to work for any company that lobbies federal or local governments. Lobbyists are the bane of our government and until something real is done about it--not all these bandaid approaches--nothing will change in Washington. 

 

To keep a promise: 

Some elected officials are, if possible, even worse than the ones who deal with lobbyists directly. Senator Obama is a case in point. He claims purity and highmindedness and even runs ads telling the American public that he doesn't accept money from lobbyists. True!  He solicits the money directly. He accepted hundreds of thousands from the executives of an Illinois nuclear company he was supposed to be protecting his voters from. In fact, the law that he brags he drafted and passed never was passed, and even if it were, it had been watered down so much by his office it no longer had any teeth in it.  If anyone wants to know more about this, send me a PM and I'll give you the full details.

Shokk--there are no canned responses, just the ones I come up with, totally uncanned I assure you. In particular, I wouldn't use anything from "moveon," which, as you may not know, endorsed Obama. Hillary is my candidate. I don't believe I've ever called you or anyone else on this thread 'stupid.'  I also don't believe any of my responses are hateful, although you may not agree with them.  Mainly, I'm interested in history and detail.  If you have information that shows Cheney in a different light, post it.  Readers can judge for themselves if information posted here or on any other post is factually correct. And with the internet available to all of us, it's relatively easy to do so.        

Blundin2005

Halliburton...Dubai....Market Watch article (conservative financial journal)

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/halliburtons-dubai-move----negative/story.aspx?guid={1BAF9477-2F81-4624-BE98-A8AB21821E9A} 

Cheney's hands are very dirty. 

shokk

Really Anne no canned responses...............so your post from "The Nation" is an article that you wrote?

anneshirley

Shokk--I am shocked to think that you think I had an ulterior motive for praising Obama.  

In all seriousness, it's like having a huge itch when I read something that i know to be factually incorrect. I have to scratch it, or in this case post the correct figures.  So shoot me!

Thanks Marilyn--and how are your elections going?  Miguel keeps me informed every night now on the controversy over Alitalia!  Will Berlesconi stop the sale?  I have to say it's the one airline I absolutely won't fly, even when it offers lower fares. 

Shokk, again--Of course I didn't write the article that I posted.  That's why it's in italics and I cite "The Nation" as the source.  I posted it so everyone reading my post could ascertain that I had backup for my assertions, that they weren't just coming from my head.  Yes, "The Nation" does lean left, but that doesn't make it any less, or more, reliable than a reputable right leaning magazine, of which there are many.  "The Nation" doesn't post what it can't support or it would have gone out of business many years ago.    There are libel laws. 

Blundin2005

About Obama's fund raising....I read an article in the Boston Globe about the race for Senate .... according to the article, the other candidates were both millionaires ... Obama utilized the "millionaire exception" rule, (legislation proposed by McCain and Finegold) for fundraising.  I don't know if it is still valid today. 

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/gov/articles_publications/articles/between_20020301

anneshirley

Sorry Inna. I made a promise so can't respond to your last post.  We'll just have to let it lie.

anneshirley

Imagine if Bloomburg ran!  The lobbyists would have a field day.

NoH8

Even though I disagree with almost everything Cheney has said and done while in office, I don't think he's a bad person. He could have turned away from Mary and disowned her like some with his belief system do. I'm not ready to nominate him for father of the year, because he could have done a lot more for gay rights, particularly gay parental rights since Mary and her wife had at least one child. I have heard in some rumors that he has different beliefs that Bush on gay rights and he hasn't said more because of being 2nd to Bush and we all know people who disagree with bush lose their jobs.

anneshirley

Marilyn--I just read the article that you posted.  There is a way of dealing with companies like Halliburton (I hope I don't sound too much like a protectionist here).  We can legislate that no government contracts over certain amounts (or money coming from the U.S. government, which is different) can go to companies that don't have at least 75% of their assets located in the United States.  That would put us at odds with other countries, and I don't know how to deal with that but I'm sure there are some compromises that can be made.  The French are still protecting their farmers yet they continue to do business in the global marketplace.

shokk

Amy I know that the left thinks Bush is a monster but if your talking about gay marriage/rights Cheney is not afraid of Bush or losing his job...........if everyone that disagreed with George W. Bush were fired then Laura Bush would be a single woman........she is very pro choice and came right out and made her voice heard during the campaign......President Bush adores his wife and they just agreed to disagree..........Cheney loves his daughter.......he has made that very clear.........you know Amy that the far right homophobes do not define most conservatives any more then the far left marxist define the majority of liberals........Shokk

Rosemary44

Shokk,

I know Clinton will support Obama should she lose at the convention.  She already said she would.  I'm sure Obama will do the same for her.  First, they're democrats and they have to unite the party which they'll both do.  

NoH8

you know Amy that the far right homophobes do not define most conservatives any more then the far left marxist define the majority of liberals........

Sometimes it just seems that way. When I listened to some of the speeches at that conservative conference right after McCain because the nominee-- it sure seemed like the bulk of them wish we didn't exist.

shokk

Rosemary with all due respect what Hillary says she will do and what she will actually do behind the scenes are two different things.......if Obama ends up winning the Presidency her hopes for ever becoming President are pretty well gone........for all the crap she has endured with her husband and public humiliation she has suffered it has been for this "prize" of becoming President herself........if McCain becomes President then at least she can run against him in 2012..........Shokk

NoH8

Rosemary- I sure hope you're right about Clinton supporting Obama at the convention-- I know she said she would, I hope she will enthusiastically in her tone of voice as well as in her words. 

Those Hillary supporters who say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee,would you change your mind if Obama chose her as Veep?

shokk

Jeez Amy the far right is just "loud".........Shokk

Blundin2005

Anne,

It is not possible to legislate morality....nor do we want it to be.

Halliburton and the floundering Carlyle Capital part of Carlye Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group) exercised their freedom to pursue happiness through maximized profits from the war...albiet with insider information.....and on the backs of Americans who pay taxes and fight their wars.

NoH8

Thanks shokk! That makes me feel a lot better--- they sure are loud!

anneshirley

Marilyn--I wish everyone thought as you do, about not legislating morality.  So many folks are trying to do just that.

I'm not wholly sure though what you're referring to?  If it's to the enactment of laws that would prevent the awarding of government contracts to companies that don't do business in the U.S. I don't believe that's  related to morality,  but to business practices. Whether it would help or hinder the U.S. economy I don't know.  I suppose we're so far along in this global economy, that it's impossible to pull back.   It now dominates almost every aspect of our lives.  It has certainly helped countries like China and India.  Just yesterday, a car company in India announced it was purchasing the most prestigious British car company.  I don't think the British have any car manufacturing companies left after this purchase.  But if we can't stop it, or come up with more creative ideas for supporting our workers, then Americans will have to adjust their expectations.  The old days of expecting that one's children would do better than their parents is no longer possible now that the manufacturing base in the U.S. is disappearing.   

Back to Halliburton.  Good business practice alone should dictate that such things as "no bid" contracts are done away with.  A good many of the government contracts handed out in Iraq and other areas where the U.S. is waging war were awarded through "no bid" contracts to companies that gave large sums of money to the Republicans.  (I'm sure we'll find some similar stories about the Democrats.)   

Rosemary--the word I didn't mention was "war-profiteer."  It was once a capital crime--not that I believe in the death penalty but this was how seriously society judged people who made money from the waging of war.  There's a famous movie about it--"All My Sons" (1948)--with Edward G. Robinson. Robinson's character had sold defective bomb parts to the U.S. government which caused the deaths of some Americans, including as I remember one of his sons.

According to the media, the people threatening not to vote for the Democratic candidate, if it's not their Democrat, are Obama supporters.  Inna suggested recently that with age comes wisdom and since most of the old folk--like me--are Hillary supporters, we know in the end it's the platform that counts. 

NoH8

Gallup Poll: Many Democrats Ready to Vote McCain if Their First Choice Doesn't Make It to Novemberby FOXNews.com Wednesday, March 26, 2008Facebook Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg Email Many Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters are ready to spurn the Democratic party and vote for John McCain in November if their candidate doesn't win the presidential nomination, according to a new poll out Wednesday.And a second poll out Wednesday shows most voters - including 85 percent of Democrats - believe there's a chance that the battle between Clinton and Obama will not be resolved before the August convention.Among people who identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters, 28 percent said they would vote for McCain if Obama is his opponent, the March 7-22 Gallup Poll Daily election tracking survey found.The same poll found that 19 percent of Obama supporters would switch sides and cast ballots for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.The survey interviewed 6,657 Democratic voters nationwide and had a margin of error of 2 percent.Click here to read the Gallup Poll discussion of the survey. Gallup analysts note that the results could change by November, by which time Democrats will have made great efforts to unify the party.Gallup analysts also noted that voters tend to threaten party desertion but don't necessarily do so. A recent Gallup survey found that 11 percent of Republican voters said they would vote for a different party or not at all if McCain doesn't pick a running mate who is more conservative than he is.Historically, the party-switch factor has shown to be less dramatic, Gallup analysts said. Less than 10 percent of Republicans and Democrats crossed party lines in pre-election Gallup polls from 1992 to 2004.In the second poll, Rasmussen Reports found that 87 percent of all voters - and 85 percent of Democrats - believe it is "somewhat likely" that both Clinton and Obama will remain in the race until the convention. Fifty-two percent of Democrats said it is "very likely" the nomination won't be decided until the convention.The Rasmussen poll (March 24-25, 800 likely voters, +/- 4 percentage points) also found that there's equal dislike on either side of the Democratic race for the rival candidate: 22 percent of both Clinton and Obama supporters said they believe the other candidate should drop out of the race.

Poll: Twenty-Eight Percent Of Hillary Supporters Would Back McCain If Obama Wins

By Greg Sargent - March 26, 2008, 11:34AM

This, from Gallup, is the first polling I've seen on this question -- it finds that Hillary supporters say they're more likely to bolt to McCain if their choice doesn't end up as the nominee:

Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is.

You hear lots more media attention being paid to the idea that Obama's supporters would bolt to McCain than to the possibility that Hillary's would. It's worth keeping in mind that you can't take it for granted, as some pundits seem to, that Hillary backers will all support Obama.

On the other hand, one problem with this poll is it doesn't account for how Hillary might win. If Obama won the pledged delegate count and popular vote, and the super dels put Hillary over the top, you could easily see the number of Obama supporters not willing to back Hillary spiking.

anneshirley

i agree with one sentence in the above--that people rather dramatically say they'll switch sides if their candidate doesn't win.  And Democrats are probably more dramatic than Republicans--it's all that contained passion erupting.

However, it's not Hillary Clinton who told voters, very publicly (who knows what she's telling the super delegates privately) that her voters wouldn't vote for Obama. Obama said this about his own voters, suggesting that Hillary's voters were true Democrats and would support him, but that his were not, and might go to the Republican--or stay home. His statement angered me and it no doubt angered many of Hillary's supporters, so perhaps that's the reason for the greater number.

My very strong view is that Democrats, believing as we do, could not vote for McCain under any circumstance, or not vote for that matter.

It's worth noting, however, that in a recent Rasmussen Poll 6% of the people polled said they will probably vote for Nader.  The Poll found 39% support for Obama and Clinton, 6% for Nader, and 45% for McCain.  Someone had better rein in Nader, or it's Florida all over again. 

However, the Rasmussen and Gallup Polls give the super delegates even more reason to throw their support to Hillary, assuming they are interested in getting a Democrat into the White House.  In response to an earlier question by Shokk, I posted a piece on the reason for super delegates--to override the pledged delegates when they believe the person with the most pledged delegates cannot win the general.  Whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the concept of super delegates, that's their purpose, just like whether one agrees or disagrees that the Florida and Michigan delegates don't count for Hillary.  In that case, the DNC is following its  self-imposed rule, and I hope it will do the same concerning its  very undemocratic and self-imposed rule on super delegates.

shokk

Amy you better hope Obama doesn't put Hillary on his ticket.........he'll end up having some kind of "accident" and Hillary will become President..........and speaking of "accidents" has Bill Richardson had his yet?.........Shokk

Beesie

I saw the latest poll today and it confirms what I suspected.  While I do think that some Democrats are being dramatic about voting for McCain if their preferred candidate doesn't win, I also believe that there are reasons why the poll results may be valid and why more Clinton supporters might shift to McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

While Clinton and Obama have similar positions on most of the issues, I suspect that many Clinton supporters have chosen Clinton not so much because they prefer her or like her personally but because they have concerns and questions about Obama.  Many Clinton supporters feel that Obama is too inexperienced and too much of an unknown.  Not ready for the presidency (yet, anyway).  And recently, as more information has become known about Obama, rather than appease the concerns, it's heightened the concerns.   I don't think people who feel this way would be willing to vote for Obama.  While McCain might not be on the same page with regard to all the issues, he is a centrist Republican, and for some, it's 'better the devil I know than the one I don't know'.  In fact, as I've been talking to my American friends & family, most are either McCain supporters who would be okay with Clinton as a 2nd choice, or Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain if Obama was the Democratic nominee.   The recent issues that have come out about Obama have simply moved him out of the back-up position for a lot of people. 

Of course, that might change by November.  But for now, I think the latest Gallup poll makes perfect sense, based on what I'm seeing, hearing and reading.

NoH8

Where do you get that Obama himself told voters his supporters would not support hillary?

I know that at least from the hundreds of campaign emails I read daily-- a lot of his staff and volunteers are so fed up with her dirty politics they won't vote for her.

Had Hillary won a more honorable campaign, I most definitely would have supported her. As positive as parts of the clinton term were, they were so negative with all the scandals. As much as the Clintons blame the republicans for all of them, Hillary brought a lot of them on herself by stretching ethics to the very edge between barely legal and illegal. I don't want to go through 4 years of drama. Ethics are important to me and I don't think I can support someone who needs to depend on what the definition is is, to figure out how to answer politically correctly. 

Rosemary44

Amy,

What an interesting question.  I just don't think they'll ever be each others' V.P.  I use to believe in the checks and balances that we have in our system, but after our lawmakers jumped into a war after hearing first hand that the inspectors could not find anything remotely appearing as weapons of mass destruction, I've lost faith in our checks and balances system.  It was a unique time in our history coming so soon after 9/11, and everyone would have been thought a traitor if they didn't vote for war, but no one really questioned it strong enough. Having a V.P. that a President could really confer with could possibly put those check and balances back in place.

For me to vote for Obama, he'll need a strong V.P. and not just a yes- man Cheney, who I really think is running the show in the White House. Yes, I probably could vote for him if Clinton ran with him.  I don't see her as anyone's yes-man.  The both of them together could get the democratic platform passed in congress which is what we all want.  She has friends on both sides of the aisle.  I doubt she'll do it though and doubt he'll ask her.  But it could be a powerhouse combo.

Shokk,

I don't expect either candidate to go on the campaign trail for each other.  I expect them to be on TV shows, go to their State rallies, either in N.Y. or Illinois, when the candidate is there.  Maybe hit the trail with them in their respective States and that's all I would be expecting.  You'll see, they don't want another republican president, they'll help each other.

anneshirley

Obama said exactly that! And very clearly, in person and on TV, as I don't attend his rallies.

I will vote for Obama, however, if he wins the nomination. I might even campaign for him--but that's months away, so I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Hillary Clinton is not planning to knock off anyone, now or in the future, and that type of innuendo is really out of place here, or perhaps I'm the only person that it bothers! 

I know you hate Hillary, Amy. However, I'm not sure if it's productive to keep repeating it. Do you really view women as chattels of their husbands, which is what your last sentence suggests?

And how's about an actual issue for today:

Scientists are citing "rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica" as the cause of an initial collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. The damage got started at the end of February when an iceberg dropped off and triggered the "runaway disintegration" of a 160-square-mile portion of the 5,282-square-mile shelf.

The ice shelf, which scientists speculate has floated in the Antarctic region for hundreds of years, is succumbing to recent rises in temperature in the area--an average of 0.9 degree Fahrenheit every 10 years for the last 50 years.

Sorry, can't remember the news organization that just published this, but you can Google it under "Ice Shelf Melting." 

 

shokk

Sorry Anne that comment was out of line..........Shokk

anneshirley

Shokk--Okay.  Aren't you one of the few people on the Spitzer thread that actually showed any humanity towards the poor man and his family, which is why I was doubly shocked.  That was you, wasn't it?

shokk

Yes Anne that was me...........what can I say........I am human and conservative  and every now and then I will say something really stupid in trying to be funny......but please when I step out of line I hope anyone here will call me on it...........Shokk