Williams, Russert ignored own NBC poll to question Clinton's electability
While discussing a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on the June 13 edition of NBC's Nightly News, host Brian Williams, after noting that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) is leading the Democratic field for the presidential nomination, said to NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert that "the $60,000 question is: Is she electable as president?" Russert cited a June 1-3 Gallup poll, which found that Clinton's "favorable rating amongst all Americans was 46 percent, her disapproval, 50 percent," and called this "a real warning sign." He concluded that "it would be a very difficult, hotly contested campaign -- winnable -- but no doubt difficult." But the June 8-11 NBC News/WSJ poll itself actually included a question specifically addressing the issue of Clinton's electability. The poll found that in a head-to-head match-up with the Republican front-runner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Clinton would win, 48 percent to 43 percent, a 10-point change from the last NBC News/WSJ poll taken in March, which showed Giuliani leading Clinton 47 percent to 42 percent.
From the poll:
If the next election for president were held today, and Rudy Giuliani were the Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton were the Democratic candidate, for whom would you vote?
06/07
03/07
Rudy Giuliani
43
47
Hillary Clinton
48
42
Depends (VOL)
1
3
Neither/other (VOL)
5
4
Not sure
3
4
The only other poll question that pitted a Democrat against a Republican featured Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) beating former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) 50 to 31 percent.
From the June 13 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Now, Tim, as you know, we have an open election season here, first in many decades. What about -- starts with the Democrats, and as a subset of the Democrats -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's numbers.
RUSSERT: It's very important to look at this race now, Brian. Here we are in June of '07. Hillary Clinton's at 39 percent. She is up over Barack Obama now by 14 points. He has fallen from 31 to 25. John Edwards has fallen from 20 to 15 -- all this from April to June. The two debates have been very good for Senator Clinton, and Brian, amongst women, Senator Clinton is now leading Barack Obama by 18 points. There is a profound gender gap.
WILLIAMS: And if she succeeds and becomes the nominee of her party, the $60,000 question is: Is she electable as president?
RUSSERT: There's a real warning sign on that. We don't know. The Gallup organization did a poll. Her favorable rating amongst all Americans was 46 percent; her disapproval, 50 percent. So, it would be a very difficult, hotly contested campaign -- winnable -- but no doubt difficult.
All these candidate's electability is in question, there is no misinformation in that statement regarding anyone. It's a crowded field with wide open races on both sides, considering their is no "heir apparent" candidate for the first time, in a long time.
Are pundits not even allowed to question that anymore? Wow.
I think I'm mostly in the same boat. Russert clearly and flatly states that a Hillary victory would be "very difficult" but "winnable".
Even if he did cite NBC's poll, that's still a 5% margin. I don't think that's a large margin when we're this early into the campaign, and the rightwing mudslinging that's going to be crucial to a Republican victory has only just begun.
Giuliani is leading in the Polls on the Republican side.
His electability is questioned daily by many pundits, radio & TV commentators, newspapers, magazines, and the internet.
So why can't Hillary's electability be discussed?
Because MMFA doesn't think it's what?... fair?
Okie dokie ::roll eyes::
Yes, of course the reason is obvious. Media Matters is trying to spin polls for Hillary to avoid what is an obvious question of electablity. There are a large number of people who will not vote for Hillary, both on the left and right. This is beyond obvious. Media Matters is trying to pretend that this problem doesn't really exist.
That is what a campaign website does for it's candidate, though. They try to spin things in the best possible light for their candidate, as Media Matters is doing here.
I agree Steve. I won't voter for her. I'll stay home if she is the nominee of my party.
Vote Kucinich in the primary and go Green if they nominate Hillary. Don't waste your vote by staying home, go out and protest with it.
Why would he go out of his way to doubt the front runner? Why not say the same about the rest?
The front runners are often under the most scrutiny. It's common knowledge that Hillary will have a hard time winning. Her negatives are very high.
TOMMY:
Granted, the pundits handicapping the presidential horserace, with the primaries (let alone the election) still many months away, is a useless exercise. They don't KNOW anything, so they're all just speculating and guessing.
However, this dialogue SPECIFICALLY referred to a particular recent POLL. In that poll, the "$60,000" question Williams alluded to was ASKED and ANSWERED. This was in the POLL being discussed, the "matter at hand".
Instead of referring to the answer directly in front of their eyes, in the poll THEY chose to discuss -- where the dynamic between Hillary and Rudy has REVERSED, and Hillary POLLS as a winner if Rudy is the GOP's nominee -- Russert decides to instead reference candidate's "negatives". The poll was taken with all positives and negatives already in play (these were "likely voters", no?), and so Russert's POINT was moot, a distraction.
The factual finding from the poll that matters ... Hillary beats Rudy (if the election were held today) ... these "poll analysts" completely ignored.
THAT is the bias. Overlook a positive result to instead fog the issue with an irrelevant tangent into "negatives" ... a standard by which Hillary could be FRAMED by Russert as a longshot with a hard slog ahead.
They MIGHT have said, "Even with Hillary's negatives very high, our poll shows that in a matchup with Rudy Guilliani, Hillary is the winner." They didn't. Therefore, they are engaging in punditry with the intent to deceive, and that is MISINFORMATION.
Nope. Not in the Land of Polls. Here, the daily popularity poll means everything. All must bow to the most popular! The cult of celebrity. Remember where you are ...in America, the celebrity-obsessed.
In consumerism, the desire to be "in" must be paramount for the Skinneresque brainwashing to work. One must follow the herd to be popular. Popularity is the only true measure of success. Unlike the Romans, who worshipped Fate and Fortune, Americans worship Fame.
All to sell more Coca-Cola and the next right-wing president to the masses.
How can anyone be so friggin ignorant? How is this misinformation? My GOD. I've heard of stupid people, but I'd have to say the morons asking this question on these boards have to be about the stupidest imbeciles I've ever met.
Here's how, needlebrains. First, to the morons who spoke about how Giuliani's electability has been questioned as well, SPARE US YOUR MISINFORMATION.
While many pundits and so-called "experts", along with just about every person with a brain has questioned whether Rudy Giuliani could win the NOMINATION of the Repuglikkkunt Party, there has been NO ONE who has ever questioned his viability as a candidate in a GENERAL ELECTION.
Contrary to this, DESPITE THE FACT SHE'S BEEN THE FRONT RUNNER OF HER PARTY, there have been NUMEROUS MORONS, from Chris Matthews to Sean Hannity, who've NOT ONLY questioned Hillary's chances (and by questioned here, I really mean stated flat out that a snowball has a better chance of staying frozen in hell) of winning a general election, but have gone out of their way to CONTINUALLY question whether she could even win the PRIMARY election and become her party's candidate.
If you morons can't see the disinformation in two pundits discussing her, raising these SAME PHONY BS issues about her "SUPPOSED" electability in a general election WHEN THEIR OWN FRIGGIN POLL THEY JUST CITED SHOWED HER WINNING AGAINST THE OPPOSITION PARTY'S FRONT-RUNNING CANDIDATE, then you need to go back to that bodega you bought that cheapa$$ brain from, and get another...lol
I admire your passion. Your delivery's a tad...childish? Why so angry and abusive?
I have to agree with you there tommy. I mean geesh, we still have 17 months of reich wing smearing to go before the election!
Have no fear - clear, concise and specific policy details and a positive vision from any of these Democratic candidates should easily trump any sleazy smears from the other side.
Yeah, that worked for Gore.
...and Kerry.
Pete,
I guess it's easier to think the smears sunk their candidacy instead of holding them accountable for their own election losses.
Issues, vision, personality, competence, stature, mood of the country and their own intangibles is what elects or doesn't elect them to office.
Bush won both of his elections on issues, vision, personality, competence, and stature? Those aren't the elections I remember, especially in the case of Kerry.
Fear and smear, combined with a lackluster response, played a huge role in Kerry's downfall.
Kerry lost because he was a traitor for meeting secretly with the N. Vietnamese.
The Dems could have run ANY moderate and won the last election. The smears Kerry got were all self-inflicted.
You show with every post you are a liar and a moron. Kerry was not a traitor his smears were lies and scurillious and you are without a shred of decency or a working brain cell
Tommy, smears from the other side influence the perception of many if not all of those criteria. Don't you think the perception of the public is important?
I didn't say they don't play any role or have no influence. But I think that if a smear is an outright lie, and refuted with easily verifiable evidence, then it hurts the accuser far more than the one being accused.
Negative ads are not necessarily smears, as I would define them......if that what you and the others are referring to as "smears".
There are lots of smears that are easily refutable that are still being used, though. It's a nice concept that the truth should always win out, but as this site shows regularly, lies continually make their way into the public dialogue.
And there are other disingeneous methods that are borderline criminal that can't be overcome regardless:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5584839,00.html
Doesn't the negative mud-slinging go both ways?
That theory is proved wrong every time someone says that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet (just to name one of many examples), which is something journalists are still doing to this day.
smear is an outright lie, and refuted with easily verifiable evidence, then it hurts the accuser far more than the one being accused
That is touching faith in the rationality and honesty of our national discourse.
I fervently wish I lived in such a society.
Tommy,
That would be true if not for the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans who "smeared" Kerry clearly lied and they clearly had a profound effect on the election.
Kerry ran on a pro-war platform and alienated the liberal vote. There was also the voting shenanigans in Ohio, their Sect of State was a Bush state campaign chairman...same set up as Florida 2000.
IMO, if Republican candidates did play fair, they simply wouldn't win, especially after seeing the Bush agenda go up in a stay-the-course blaze of glory.
Pete,
You act as if only R candidates stoop to smear campaigns and that D candidates never do.....you can't believe that. They all use it if it's placed in their lap.
No, I don't believe all Dems fight fairly. I'm saying that reality has a liberal bias. Therefore, the right has no choice but to throw more dookie to ensure victory. On the other hand, the Dems have the option to invoke reality more often than having to fling dookie at their opponent. I can't remember a time when this was more prevalent than the '04 race.
There is NO Democratic equivalent to the Swift Boat Liars for Rent. Dems are probably not above using such tactics they probably dont think they will play as well with THEIR base as opposed to the GOP knowing what will work with THEIR base.
They did have some good issues to run on, in fact, Bush has stolen a few of them and tries to play them off as his own. But Gore's and Kerry's real failings were that they did not have a rapid response team with total media access in place to counter every smear. That costs big bucks and quite frankly, there's something wrong with our election system if you can sink your opponent by outspending him.
Oh, and you forgot that the very Corporate Media from which they would have to BUY spots to counter the lies, had/has given those lies the crucial boost of 24/7 free repitition and amplification, courtesy of their gratitude for being allowed to consolidate beyond reason, to extinguish the last vestiges of competitive endeavor in favor of Oligopoly. Ray-Gun's FCC is the accomplice of the Repugnant/Corporate Media criminal.
I did forget that, it is definitely unfair to force one candidate to pay for airtime while the other gets free unfettered access. Real election reform should address this!
Oh, that old unindentifiable, incredibly vague, favorite liberal punching bag, blame everything on, boogeyman known as the Corporate Media is raising havoc again.
If we could just get our hands around this evil villian??
I know. Where's underdog when you need him? Sweet Polly Purebred is under assault!
Ahh, a generational gem for sure. Thanks for the reminder.
:)
Peter Parker, You spider is ready for pick up.
I thought it was Sweet Polly Pureheart. Jeez, I haven't heard purebred or pureheart or whatever it is for a long time.
The corporate media is neither unindentifiable nor incredibly vague. The corporations and figureheads responsible for biased news programming and publishing are routinely called out by name. There's no way you aren't aware of this fact.
Tommy, here it is again, in case you missed my response to this in the previous thread where you brought it up, I've also added a good one from Murdoch:
September 2006, Georgia Christian Coalition Dinner in Atlanta:
When introducing Ann Coulter, Mike Gallagher told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t make it, he said.
Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”
January 2007, World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland:
Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Rupert Murdoch said: “No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Charlie Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”
These are but two examples that have made it into public knowledge. I wonder what else goes on?
Pete, Fox News and the rightwing pundits you use as an example are but a pebble in the sand of the entire media in this country. Do you want me to admit they are in the tank for Bush, fine, I have said so many times.
Unless you, or somebody here, can offer up substantive proof, beyond liberal rhetoric, that the mainstream media, which includes the major television networks, newspapers, to mention just a few, are specifically receiving instructions on their coverage of Bush and the White House in a verifiable favorable way.........then the rest of it is just liberal paranoia and excessive whining.
Sorry, can't buy it.
My documented examples are "liberal rhetoric"?
Your examples are Fox News and admitted rightwing radio hosts. Hardly a representative and substantive sample of the mainstream corporate media in the tank for Bush.
Fox News dominates cable news.
Rightwingers dominate talk radio.
But alas, merely pebbles in the sand.
News Coporation:
Nearly $25 billion in revenue reported June 2006.
47,000 employees.
Newspapers, magazines, cable channels, movie studios, sports teams and leagues, Direct TV...
But alas, a mere pebble in the sand.
Pete,
Yes, how many mainstream media outlets are there in this country? Dozens. You pick one, Fox News, and admitted, biased rightwing radio hosts. And that is your example of the corporate media conglomerate in the tank for Bush?
You can't be serious.
That is a perfect example of a "corporate media conglomerate in the tank for Bush." Clear Channel is another perfect example. But I supposed they're just another pebble?
Issues, vision, personality, competence, stature were all sold as elitism in both Gore and Kerry's cases.
TOMMY SAYS: "Issues, vision, personality, competence, stature, mood of the country and their own intangibles is what elects or doesn't elect them to office."
Assuming Tommy is correct ... and it's pretty to think so ... could Tommy perhaps explain why the Rightwing spends such a gargantuan amount of time and money on ginning up smears against their foes and phony "IMAGES" for their own guys?
If the Swift Boat Liars, and Bush's ridiculous self-labelling of "Compassionate Conservative" are such non-starters in influencing an election based on Tommy's wonderful criteria, why do the Rightwing election managers devote so many fortunes on this stuff that makes no difference?
It's a mystery, so many Rightwing political shakers and movers completely wasting their time (according to Tommy).
Tex,
You would have to ask the RIGHTWING smear sellers that question, I suppose.
In the meantime, keep blabbering and whining about how unfair the media and every other non-Democratic breathing entity is in this mean old world of politics.
TOMMY:
Thanks. I will.
And it seems to be working, your party of choice is in the crapper and sinking every lower. Bad news for you, but great news for America.
Tex,
The only "party" I am involved in at the moment is the one I am planning to throw this weekend......and if you are fishing for an invite, well, if you bring a bottle, you can come.
If Tex shows up, are you going to ask him why he is there? ;0)
Just between you and me, I really don't think he'd get beyond the driveway gates, and even then the cameras would catch him on the lawn, or the electric fence around the pool perimeter might shock him - and if he managed to get to the front door, my staff would think he's the help, probably.
But he's welcome nonetheless.
The way things are going for the current administration Donald Duck could get elected as president, if he claimed to be a Democrat. Seeing how this administration had bungled everything so far it's hard to imagine how they can pull off a win. Does anybody think the next 17 months will be better?
By your accounts any Democrat should be trouncing any Republican in a very convincing manner......and they are not.
I would definitely say their electability is in serious question.
Why is their electability so questionable? All they have to do is have a specific policy and a positive vision, and they should easily win. Wouldn't you say so?
Unless their policy and vision is rejected by the voters. Is it?
If their policies are being rejected, then your "have no fear" comment regarding all Dem candidates doesn't make a lot of sense. The two comments just seem a little contradictory, can you reconcile them?
What? If a candidate offers their vision and a clear stance on issues, and it's a good one, then along with their other attributes they can trump lying smears most of the time. If a candidate offers a lousy vision and their stance on issues is out of whack or not received well, they will lose, most likely.
I have no clue what you feel is contradictory about that?
If they can do that, then we should "have no fear", because ALL of them can overcome smears and therefore should be electable. At the same time, the electablity of ANY of them is questionable.
It does make sense if you think that no Dem candidate can forward a positive vision or detailed plan. But if that's the case, why not just say "they'll lose whether they're smeared or not"?
Brab,
You can disagree or not, but I believe, generally speaking, candidates lose elections based on the criteria I mentioned earlier. And when people blame election losses primarily on smears is just denying reality.
That's why I say present your vision and be clear on the issues and if they are well received by the voting public over your opponents, you will most likely prevail in most cases. Of course there are exceptions, there always are.
It's the "have no fear" line that seems odd. Maybe I should emphasize that more, that it seems contradictory to say that and then say "none of your candidates may be electable". Is it the definition of "electable" that's the problem? Does "unelectable" not mean that someone basically has no chance, like an Alan Keyes?
The "have no fear" was a little tongue in cheek play on words.......but it's sarcasm was based on a little reality, in my opinion, of which I've tried to explain
I missed how that was a play on words, but if that much is sarcasm then it makes more sense.
It was in the vein of "Have no fear, Underdog is here!"........if you remember that?
Sure, I remember that, but it seems like the reference sort of came out of nowhere.
BRAB: Remember, Bush's "VISION" was one of balanced budgets, NO NATION BUILDING, a smaller government, open and accountable government, strict adherence to law and order, and being a "uniter, not a divider".
So, Tommy's idea of looking to what the candidates SAY on any issue has a little problem. It seems that some candidates are LYING THEIR ASSES OFF.
Bingo Tex, His vision of those things were very attractive and one of the reasons he was elected. He failed miserably on them, you are right.
I was going to write in his brother Disco, but Donald does have some connections via uncle Scrooge that Disco hasn't seemed to cultivate.
Sure Doc, but why a duck?
Already some people are saying she's unelectable. Wow, I'm convinced!
I know your being ironic Tommy. I still have an urge to shout Bets!
Ironic? No.
I am saying that for someone to even question anyone of these candidate's electability is enough to land them here under misinformation is, well, ridiculous.
Also of note in the poll is the number who would vote for Depends,down to 1% from 3%.
If that's an indication of the fearmongers losing their juice, Worrierking and I may have to rethink our Star-Spangled adult diaper enterprise.
Yikes! I hadn't realized Depends numbers were in the crapper.
I'm not sure the idea of a Depends campaign holds water any more.
I give up. I don't think I can wring another drop of comedy out of this one.
Maybe someone with a dryer sense of humor could add to it.
Oh, sure. Leave it to us to wipe up after you now that you've sh@t all over the place!
Wrong, Tommy. You have no evidence to suggest that MMFA would condemn doubts about "anyone's" electability.
There are electability questions about Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul and even Mitt Romney, and I doub but Russert had to pick Hillary as the subject of electability, ignoring the fact that she leads the 9-11 "hero" in his NBC poll.
As of June, people are willing to elect Hillary Clinton as their president, at least looking at the popular vote, according to this poll. Hillary Clinton has no electability issues in the numbers reflected on this poll.
Why didn't Russert raise the question of Giuliani's electability?
I believe because they were discussing Clinton. And anyone that questions Guiliani's electability would be equally appropriate and correct.
The issue is the word "electability." Saying someone will have a difficult time winning is a fair assessment of a candidate's chances. But questioning their overall electablity has many shades of meaning and is desirable, from the repubs point of view. It suggests warts, cooties, underlying character flaws, general lack of serious wide-spread support, etc.
So I think the choice of the nuanced term "electablity" qualifies this item to be on MMFA.
You are free to perceive it as some nefarious term if you choose. To me, stating one's difficulty in winning is the same as questioning one's electability.
Oh please.
Giuliani, Romney & McCain's electability are being discussed all over the tube, radio, internet & in print.
I suppose none of you have a problem with that.
Hillary Clinton's electability is fair game.
Of couse it is J, and given how the Clintons are arguably the most polarizing political figures in modern times, questioning Mrs. Clinton's electability is a no brainer.
It's amazing that the three you mentioned are all perceived as electable yet they have questionable numbers in polling. Hillary's "electability" seems to have no relationship to her poll numbers. Hmmm.
Wrong Iowalib, Giuliani is the leading candidate in the Republican Polls, yet his electability is discussed on a daily basis.
Why should Hillary be immune????
Intersting enough, the only (R) candidate that is surrounding himself with Bush insiders is Fred Thompson.
One thing about this that is likely affecting the discussion here is that Russert contradicted himself.
The question was, is Clinton electable, i.e., can she be elected president. Not would she, can she.
Russert first said "we don't know" and then said "yes" ("winnable but difficult").
Overall, the impression left by his answer is "well, maybe she could be elected but it's kind of a long shot." That might be a defensible position, but said in the course of discussing a poll which has her leading (or at worst in a statistical dead heat with) the leading GOPper candidate, it does seem a little disingenuous.
On television, "electability" is a code word for the MSM's veto power.
Between candidates putting their hats in the ring and the elections is the MSM veto process, where they declare which of the candidates will be allowed to reach the nomination round. If they declare a candidate "unelectable", they are stating their intention to make the candidate disappear from the airwaves, no matter how much money they raise, no matter how good their poll numbers, no matter how many people attend their rallies (except perhaps they might repeatedly show a clip of one thing the candidate did which they declare to be utterly humiliating).
If they say that a candidate's electability is questionable, then they are sending the candidate a signal that the candidate must jump through more hoops to prove that they are willing to work within the narratives and frames that the MSM have in play.
An excellent inventory of the tools in the MSM's burglars' bag. So, why not MORA the SOBs right out of the equation, by forcing divestitures so severe that Mom 'N Pop ownerships become the mainstay of the media? [HINT: I still don't believe in the Fairness Doctrine, but would not need that, if ownerships were sufficiently diversified and accessible.]
Have no fear - clear, concise and specific policy details and a positive vision from any of these Democratic candidates should easily trump any sleazy smears from the other side. - tommy
tommy,
You are absolutely wrong. There were two candidates running in one of our counties. Republicans from outside our state came in with money and put out commercials attacking the Dem member of the race. The attack was total and pure smear. Even the newspaper which is pure pro-Republican condemned this outright smear. The smear did work.
In my state Republicans win on only one factor which is smear your opponent lie lie lie smear smear smear.
There is a documentary known as "So goes the Nation" it is a well documented and well done documentary. It showed how Kerry was doing quite well until the smear machine got into high gear. Nothing has changed except the smear. The smear worked it did affect Kerry's standings.
What is even suprising about the documentary in order for you to understand it take note of Media Matters column on the Conservative Myth. The documentary showed that hardly anyone agreed with Bush they saw him as a talking parrot a man with no vision but can talk like a stuck record. He only won on one point which is he wears God on his sleeve.
You need to know how elections are won and lost and they aren't won and lost based on your naive and almost child like notion of all you have to do is speak with clarity. No my dear tommy winning is dirty business.
How do you explain prosecutor gate. Bush and Gonzales without question planned to rig the 2008 election. That is how elections are won. Did you forget the Republican voter purges where legitimate voters were purged. That's called shaving the dice. That is how Republicans win and that is how elections are won. Come on Tommy you are not that naive.
The poor Democrats. It's a wonder they ever win any election, much less have the courage to go on anymore. Imagine what they valiantly fight every day with their last breath.......thank God it's never because they are on the wrong side of the issues, but rather;
1) The evil corporate media.
2) Endless and unfair smears constantly.
3) Rigged elections.
4) Mean rightwing radio hosts.
5) Anything and everything that they can whine about..........(yawn)
Tommy,
Do you really believe Mr Smith goes to Washington? Or do you believe Tamanny Hall in this day and age it would be Bush Rove Hall.
I mean as a party supporter stop acting like spoiled, whiny brats and start taking responsibility on why your specific candidates lose elections.....and stop blaming everything but the kitchen sink.
Cry babies get no respect.
Tommy.
I don't belong to any party. I am one of the rare few that believe the true experiment of this nation is to see if a country can be run for the people by the people.
Parties are nothing more than a group that realizes that if they organize they can take over the steering wheel of the country and that group isn't interested in the welfare of the people of the United States. They are only interested in their own ideology hell or high water.
Your bubble is popped because I know politics is dirty business and you are actual trying to con the readers of this site that Republicans are all Mister Smiths looking out for our welfare. Why just the other day Bush added to his minions a corporate lobbyists. Blurs the line between lobbyists and government worker that's for sure.
*I*'ll be a crybaby for you: not only the voter purges in Ohio, but even the COUNTING was rigged: With Ohio to Kerry, as it appears is 97%+ likely, from the "raw-vote" processing we did have available even after the Repugnant machine finished cheating, Bungle ain't in the White House, he is in jail (where he might be stored until charges are ready at The Hague). Two in a row - stolen.
John Kerry should have called you then, because even he didn't challenge his own lost election. Perhaps you could have given him the benefit of your inside information that he didn't think was solid enough to mount even a simple challenge.
It's 2007, get over it.
That is a typical Tommy: "Get over it." Well, I'll probably eventually get over it, right after the last Repugnant has been in Hell several centuries - no make that millenia - even though I may only get to enjoy the spectacle as a participant, rather than an audience. Meantime, as to the wisdom of Kerry's decision to drop the contest - that is questionable; but since it took nearly two years to tally the dirty little originals, 'midst the obstructions of the Repugnant machine in Ohio, and since two quite contestable elections in Florida were just "dropped" by the House, it likely wouldn't have prevailed if he had contested. Next time, we'll know to look for 90+% Dem precincts that produce larger vote totals for Bungle than their respective registered voters. And for Repugnant precincts that produce 100% Bungleoids, again in excess of registrations. Curiously, the counts were right on the exit polls until about 10:30; then, a 2-1/2 hour "dead" period, followed by "new" counts jumping up that reversed clear trending from earlier, in some instances in precincts which had finished the tally prior to 10:30. The more I read about Ohio, the more I accept the suggestion that the "dead" period was the pipelining of vote totals to a non-Ohio computer to be "massaged", then returned as though somehow the generated numbers were related to the ballots that clearly had not been counted.
NOTE FROM PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
... to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and other family of the 3000+ servicemen killed and the tens of thousands maimed in Bush's Iraq War ...
with no justification, no end in sight, no leadership, and no competence from the White House.
FROM: GW Bush, President
TO: Whiney Americans.
GET OVER IT.
The Ohio voting whining is a canard. Practically all the problems with voting were in the big city, Democratic Party stronghold precincts.
The major complaint as I understand it was long waits to vote. And even then the polls stayed open.
Of course it's a canard....and an unproven myth that spreads on the internet and with conspiracy advocates as an excuse to avoid dealing with the real reasons they lose elections.
Not good enough candidates with not good enough positions on issues.
I'm not sure what you mean by myth, but the presence of election irregularities and fraud is more than myth. Eighteen months in prison for rigging a recount is no myth. Neither are allegations of vote-caging that were answered not with an investigation, but with an no-confirmation-needed appointment of the alleged perpetrator to U.S. Attorney.
I don't believe anyone can say for certain as to what the outcome in, e.g., Ohio, would have been. The nature of some the irregularities simply makes any determination impossible. However, unless we want to end up with an election system as reliable as that of, e.g., Zimbabwe, we'd better be very concerned about the current state of ours.
By the way, Kerry's lack of pursuit of fraud is irrelevant. To argue that his actions indicates no fraud or irregularities is fallacious.
"Practically all the problems with voting were in the big city, Democratic Party stronghold precincts."
If there's accusations of fraud...that helped Republicans...Where else would you expect to find the problems?
The Democratic areas are where the bulk of the votes are that they would need to negate. To point out that the problems were in Democratic areas to suggest that there was no Republican-driven fraud (or that Blackwell had no influence over those areas) is completely bizarre. It may or may not be the case, but that reasoning is not a valid argument either way.
^^^^^^^^^
Moonbat Alert!
How do you explain prosecutor gate. Bush and Gonzales without question planned to rig the 2008 election....by Harlequin
Please kindly produce this evidence.
Bush can't manage a War, I doubt he, along with Gonzo could rig anything successfully.
a mass of evidence has been generated from the testimony of Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, documents turned over by the Justice Department, and statements by some of the fired US attorneys showing that the White House oversaw the firings as part of a drive to tilt elections in favor of Republican candidates. The scheme was to pack the US attorney system with Bush loyalists who would file trumped-up criminal “vote fraud” cases against Democratic officials and pro-Democratic voter registration groups, and compel state election officials to purge voter roles of poor and minority voters.
It has been well documented that most of the nine US attorneys who were fired were removed because they balked at filing politically motivated vote fraud or corruption charges in advance of the 2006 elections. Others who were fired had carried out successful corruption cases against Republican lawmakers.
Your cowardly leader wanted the investigation done in secrecy, not under oath and no transcript. Those were the terms of Bush the coward. And Bush even tells Putin to have a transparent government. Come on Jeter2 do you really think it was performance the prosectors were fired on? Do you really believe Gonales of no memory and Bush of no credibility is on the up and up?
Yet, the Democrats slaughtered the Republicans in the recent election? So they weren't too good at rigging elections, were they?
Maybe they'll have better luck in 2008.
I'm with you on that.
If there's one thing that conclusively points to Bush/Gonzo election-tampering involvement in the '06 season, it's the complete and utter failure in its results...
No Harlequin, what I believe is that you are doing your own interpretation on whether this was a nefarious plot to rig an election by an idiot & his dimwitted sidekick. Sorry but your alleged "evidence" is a stretch to those ends, though it would make a great idea for a novel.
And if you actually read any of my posts here, you'd know I'm not a Bush loyalist. Once again YOU wrongly lump everyone into one group.
Breaking News : Not ALL Republican/Conservatives support Bush.
Geez.
You are a Bush loyalist. You haven't even answered the question which is do you really believe the prosectors were correctly fired because of performance?
You dodged that question it is pure an plain to see. Just as Gonzales dodged the question by failing to remember 77 times.
The only thing a Bush loyalist like your self fell on was Bush can fire and so there. Without even getting into the real reason why the prosectors were fired. Dodgy isn't it?
Protect Bush all you want I don't care. A loyalist is a loyalist is a loyalist. Now if you were ever loyal to the United States it might do you proud.
As you know, Prosecutors may be hired & fired by Presidents for any number of reasons. It's been done before, it will be done again [probably after the next election]
YOU are making the accusation that these firings were part of a nefarious plot to rig the 2008 elections. Since you failed to produce any credible evidence you've attempted to change the subject.
You may refer to me anyway you like, and I will refer to you as a Moonbat.
Basically all you do here is whine....
You proved my point out of your own mouth. You ran with your tail between your leg and hugged the president can fire a will. You dodge the question not one but twice and I do belive you will do it a million times for your cowardly leader. The question is do you really believe the fired prosectors failed to perform their duties.
In a letter to the current White House counsel, Fred Fielding, Rep. Conyers cited the case of David Iglesias, who was fired from his position as US attorney in New Mexico. Conyers wrote that Iglesias was put on the firing list only after Rove relayed complaints about him to the White House counsel’s office. That happened, Conyers said, “only after Mr. Rove was specifically enlisted by several prominent New Mexico Republicans in their effort to have Mr. Iglesias fired.” The unnamed New Mexico Republicans included Senator Peter Domenici.
These Republicans wanted Iglesias to return corruption indictments against Democrats before the 2006 elections.
The question is do you really believe the fired prosecutors failed to perform their duties.
No that wasn't the question, there you go again trying to change my initial challenge to you. One you failed to produce any credible evidence to.
YOU claimed that the firing of Prosecutors was proof that Bush & Gonzo planned on rigging the 2008 election.
So THE QUESTION was : Please produce the evidence. Please produce the proof.
You produced nothing but your own interpretation of alleged motives behind the firing of these Prosecutors.
Even if they were not fired because of performance, it does NOT prove they were fired so that Bush & Gonzo were plotting to rig the 2008 elections.
Get it yet? Probably not.
Jeez, Jeter: with your slugging percentage, you have GOT to have better eyesight than that! The hearings underway produce fresh testimony daily supporting the allegation Harlequin made, In fact, some of the charges derive directly from surmises by the witnesses themselves, and they are 100% Republican witnesses. Why, do you suppose, did Monica II, need - insist upon - immunity in return for her testimony?
I suppose you dismiss even the 64 days served by Griffin in excess of the maximum "interim" duration which he and Gonzo insisted was his status, once this can of worms fell open?
JETER:
I note your disparagement of "the WHINE".
As an accusation, you think it carries weight and power in countering those who have complaints, or criticize the status quo.
I will remind you that the American Revolution began as a bunch of colonists whining to King George.
Martin Luther King had a lot of things he whined about ... injustice foremost.
Women go to court whining about being raped.
Whining by Unions brought us the 40 hour work week (family values), safer work environments, health care programs, and the end to child labor and slave labor.
The American WHINE is a proud thing.
In fact, I thank your for attributing that trait to the Liberal/Progressive movement. Whining can move mountains. I'm PROUD to be a whiner!
People who have real injustices or grievances and move and act accordingly to correct and improve those circumstances are problem solvers and trailblazers.
Those that pathetically complain about their lot in life or moan about their situations and blame everyone else, are whiners.
Carry on proud whiner.
And those who can't tell the difference snivel on websites under nicknames like Tommy
I'm PROUD to be a whiner!...by Tex
I dunno Tex you might want to re-think about calling yourself a Proud Whiner
Whine: to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way
Talk about missing the point. Tex was humorously reframing the word "whine" to accomodate the broad partisan-based definition routinely employed by some here. Tex is obviously well aware of the true definition of the word.
Clams Clams Clams
Do you honestly think that I don't think that Tex knows what the definition of Whine is?
I see the problem you're having, I forgot to put one of my winky faces ;-) in my post.
Obviously [well obviously I would think to most] I was being facetious.
I know this may pain you, but Tex & I actually had a very civil disscussion the other day on another thread. I'd like to believe it was a sort of detente...So why would I delibertly leave him a nasty dig? Oh I'm sure Tex & I will clash again one of these days...BUT this was not one of those days.
Clams, don't look for trouble where there is none.
And Tex, if you read my post to you, there should have been a ;-) to designate that I was being humorous too.
Ok Clams? All better?
Oh, I get it. Tex satirizes your's and Tommy's use of the word "whine," and then you oh-so-cleverly one-up him by posting the real definition of the word. What a rapier-like wit. Ha, ha, ha! LOL!! ROTFL!!!! LMAO!!!!!! :-D ;-) :'-) ;-)!!!!!!
There you go Clams. You're slow, but eventually you catch on.
Gee I wonder why Tommy thinks you're a...oh never mind.
You have a really nice evening. ;-)
As long as Democrats think the only reason they lost is because of smears, they'll keep on losing.
Then why do Republicans smear if they think that is of no factor?
...that's not all Russert ignored...
On the show 'Meet the Press', August 7, 2005, he had author David Kirby refuting an Institute of Medicine spokesman, Harvey Fineberg who was speaking to the National Academy's putting to rest of there ever having been a mercury vaccine autism risk. Then Kirby mentioned his research turned up the fact...and was before February 2007's big hoax announcement by the CDC regarding their alleged 'study'...that the CDC had removed public records on autism epidemiology and handed them over to a private HMO where its controllers could decide who got to see them. In other words, the CDC hid the evidence in a move to block independent research, but since they gave it away apparently, it could be considered theft--what else is new in the cult of corruption's crime spree?
Anyway, Russert didn't so much as blink. It looks like his collar is too tight, maybe he needs a bigger shirt size.
A candidate's lack of "electibility" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The measure of a candidate's ability to be elected is whether he or she can accumulate more votes than the opposition. To say Hillary Clinton (or Rudy Gulliani, or Obama, or Thompson, or anyone from any party) is not "electible" is not bias, it's nonsense. To the extent it's punditry, it's bad punditry. To the extent it's reporting, its bad reporting. Until someone can come up with a definition of "electibility" that is not circular, self-referential, or blatant question-begging, these goofballs should stop speculating.
..you mention 'accumulate', like it really didn't matter what the votes were or where they come from, even if they're nothing more than swapped out blank punched cards from the old-school of switcheroo..
I have no idea how you infer that from my post. In any event, would it make you happier if I said the test of a candiate's electibility is nothing more or less than the number of voters willing to cast their respective votes for his or her election?
And, by the way, the goofballs I was referring to were Williams and Russert.
Hilary is an abject failure. End of story, nobody will vote for her.
We all want to see a decent person w/ unwaivering message and a voting record to back it up as the next president...don't we?
As far as I can see all but Gravel on the democratic ticket aren't worth the paper our currency is printed on and all but one GOP candidate has a clear message that is shocking to hear from a republicans mouth. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the candidate no one in the mainstream wants to talk about. But this fact is somewhat concerning considering the message he preaches.
He has been against the war from the start, tried to get congress to declare war if we really needed to go because that is part of their responsibility inherited to them by the constitution.
He was mocked on the congressional floor for this by democrats and GOP's alike claiming the constitution is outdated and irrelevant.
I realize many of you reading this post laugh at the notion of voting for another republican for the white house. For me I would have laughed at the notion a year ago as well. However watching some of his interviews on you tube and listening to some of his speeches given in congress, Ron Paul has earned my vote.
All the other candidates are bought and paid for already. You don't acquire 10's of millions of dollars of special interest money and not have to owe someone something when you get to office.
Vote for the one candidate that is here for us and our country!
RON PAUL
I'd have agreed with you a week or so ago. I do appreciate what he brings to the debate. He has some history I'm not to wild about. He's worth watching. We'll see what he has to say and how easy it is to hear his voice. He's not real popular by "mainstream" Republicans He may find himself, somehow censored, by his own party.
Hillary's "electibility" is a legitimate question. After an 8 year presidency of an inexperienced corporate whore whose only claim to legitimacy is nepotism, does America really want another one?
That's all the media will offer and that's just who the brainwashed will vote for. Just sit back and watch the "They're unelectable" and "Two Parties Only!" crew attack anyone who challenges the system. They have as much rebellion in their souls as robots.
Thanks to everyone for participating.
By reading the comments and discussion we have to conclude that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Rudolph Giuliani, whose marriage to her cousin, infidelity, love towards gays (whom Republicans hate), and pro-abortion views make him a vunlberable candidate.
Fred Thompson is also unelectable because right-wingers are very unpopular these days, as reflected by polls (See Bush, Cheney, etc. etc. etc.)
YAAWNNN . . .
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
I REALLY WISH some of these clowns - right and left - who question Senator Clinton's "electability" would ask some of the 55 percent who elected her to the US Senate in 2000 . . . or some of the eighty-one percent who voted for her in the NY primary in 2006 . . . or some of the nearly seventy percent who returned her to the US Senate in 2006 . . .
This is all a CROCK . . . almost, but not quite, as big a crock as the other reason some talking heads and their faithful give for why they won't vote for Hillary: they claim the USA will not be taken seriously, particularly in the Arab world, by having a female head of state . . .
To which I have to ask: Did Great Britain have problem being taken seriously with Margaret Thatcher as prime minister? How about Israel with Golda Meir? Or India with Indira Ghandi? Or Pakistan with Benazir Bhutto? Or the Philippines with Corazon Aquino and Miriam Defensor Santiago? Or Canada with Kim Campbell?
Look, if you don't like Hillary, have disagreement with her, and don't want to vote for her, FINE . . . but please, say you have issues with her positions - on health care, the war and her vote, immigration, whatever . . . ENOUGH with the sexual bias. I've come to expect that sort of thing coming from the rabid, far-right, "Hate Hillary" crowd . . . it's simply annoying when it comes from supposed progressives, too . . .