Yesterday I wrote a post about Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's impressive fundraising numbers(considering she's the one Democrat who is expected to lose in '08). Here is an update, again showing the strength of the Democrats, even in traditionally red states.
In Virginia, a Republican state for the most part, a Democrat has more than double the amount of cash on hand than that of his two Republican opponents combined. Democrat Mark Warner has raised $1.1 million since he entered the race on 9/13. That means he raised over a million dollars in just two weeks (the money count was totaled at the end of September). His two potential GOP opponents, Jim Gilmore and Tom Davis, raised $200,000 and $222,000 respectively.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Let the Debate Continue
One of my goals when I began Politidose was to get feedback from different people, whether they agreed or disagreed with me and my beliefs. I truly believe the one thing that is crucial to keep our democracy alive is good, honest, debate. So what I have here are comments that came from two of my posts("Al Gore: A True American Hero" and "A Message to Barack Obama: Shut Up"). The debate, in essence, is about whether or not Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate:
-lacyadjuster said...
The ONLY reason why 53% of the people are on a poll supporting Hillary is because Al hasn't said he will run. If he ran, the polls supporting the current Democratic nominees would nosedive. Don't you get it? Pointing to the polls is inaccurate argument for why Al shouldn't run.
-joseph patrick said...
The polls do show that democrats are very happy with their current choices. There is not a clear, defined niche where Gore is needed.
-johnny said...
Democrats were also very happy with their choices in the election years when they nominated Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. That doesn't mean the current group of nominees are the best candidates in the election. Neither democrats nor republicans elect the president. It's the independents who eventually determine the election and I'm not sold on Hillary Clinton's electability.
-joseph patrick said...
I agree with you there, but Hillary has a record of getting Independents to vote for her, as do the Clintons in general. Also, I believe, as Clinton is the most moderate, most centrist, out of all the candidates, she would do the best in a general election.
johnny said...
One of my problems with Hillary is that you don't really know where she stands. Her opinions seem to be poll driven. After criticizing Obama for saying he'd talk with Iranian leaders with no holds barred, Hillary has now taken the same stance. ~ AP "During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive. But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran 'with no conditions.'"
-joseph patrick said...
^I too had heard that from the AP, but as it turns out they were actually wrong. Here is the correction: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/associated_pres_8.php Basically it says she did not say what AP is saying: "Hillary is saying here that her administration would negotiate with Iran the country unconditionally -- something she's said in various forms repeatedly in the past. She is not saying -- as Barack Obama did -- that she'd personally meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Their dispute centered around whether to engage in unconditional personal diplomacy. Whichever side you take, and whatever you think of this distinction, there's just no meaningful flip-flop here."
-johnny said...
How exactly do you meet with a "Country unconditionally" but not that country's leaders? Exactly WHO would she be meeting with? That's like Iran saying that they will meet with US unconditionally but NOT our government's leaders? If that's Hillary's explanation, it's going to be a hard one to sell to the majority of the electorate. Don't think that I'm coming down especially hard on Hillary because of her front-runner status because when the general election comes, I don't think the independents and undecideds are going to buy that explanation and they're the ones who decide the elections in November.
-joseph patrick said...
If you listen to the question posed to Hillary at the event, the question was about her administration, not herself personally. She answered the question with saying yes, but the question wasn't about her, it was about her administration. So I assume she meant people like the Secretary of State, etc. And that explanation is not actually from the Hillary campaign, its from Fox News, who for once actually did some good by playing back the question then the answer.
-johnny said...
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to... It's all about semantics and when you have to get into technical terms, you lose most of the voters, who now think you're crawfishing.
-joseph patrick said...
I get what you're saying, but as honest people, shouldn't we stand up and tell the AP:"wait, you took Hillary out of context." Isn't it our duty as Americans to search for the truth and not just eat everything we're fed by the media?
So let the debate continue---I want to hear your opinions and get your feedback. What are your opinions of Hillary Clinton?
-lacyadjuster said...
The ONLY reason why 53% of the people are on a poll supporting Hillary is because Al hasn't said he will run. If he ran, the polls supporting the current Democratic nominees would nosedive. Don't you get it? Pointing to the polls is inaccurate argument for why Al shouldn't run.
-joseph patrick said...
The polls do show that democrats are very happy with their current choices. There is not a clear, defined niche where Gore is needed.
-johnny said...
Democrats were also very happy with their choices in the election years when they nominated Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. That doesn't mean the current group of nominees are the best candidates in the election. Neither democrats nor republicans elect the president. It's the independents who eventually determine the election and I'm not sold on Hillary Clinton's electability.
-joseph patrick said...
I agree with you there, but Hillary has a record of getting Independents to vote for her, as do the Clintons in general. Also, I believe, as Clinton is the most moderate, most centrist, out of all the candidates, she would do the best in a general election.
johnny said...
One of my problems with Hillary is that you don't really know where she stands. Her opinions seem to be poll driven. After criticizing Obama for saying he'd talk with Iranian leaders with no holds barred, Hillary has now taken the same stance. ~ AP "During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive. But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran 'with no conditions.'"
-joseph patrick said...
^I too had heard that from the AP, but as it turns out they were actually wrong. Here is the correction: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/associated_pres_8.php Basically it says she did not say what AP is saying: "Hillary is saying here that her administration would negotiate with Iran the country unconditionally -- something she's said in various forms repeatedly in the past. She is not saying -- as Barack Obama did -- that she'd personally meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Their dispute centered around whether to engage in unconditional personal diplomacy. Whichever side you take, and whatever you think of this distinction, there's just no meaningful flip-flop here."
-johnny said...
How exactly do you meet with a "Country unconditionally" but not that country's leaders? Exactly WHO would she be meeting with? That's like Iran saying that they will meet with US unconditionally but NOT our government's leaders? If that's Hillary's explanation, it's going to be a hard one to sell to the majority of the electorate. Don't think that I'm coming down especially hard on Hillary because of her front-runner status because when the general election comes, I don't think the independents and undecideds are going to buy that explanation and they're the ones who decide the elections in November.
-joseph patrick said...
If you listen to the question posed to Hillary at the event, the question was about her administration, not herself personally. She answered the question with saying yes, but the question wasn't about her, it was about her administration. So I assume she meant people like the Secretary of State, etc. And that explanation is not actually from the Hillary campaign, its from Fox News, who for once actually did some good by playing back the question then the answer.
-johnny said...
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to... It's all about semantics and when you have to get into technical terms, you lose most of the voters, who now think you're crawfishing.
-joseph patrick said...
I get what you're saying, but as honest people, shouldn't we stand up and tell the AP:"wait, you took Hillary out of context." Isn't it our duty as Americans to search for the truth and not just eat everything we're fed by the media?
So let the debate continue---I want to hear your opinions and get your feedback. What are your opinions of Hillary Clinton?
The True Conservative Republican?
The week has only just begun, but the battle of words is already in full swing. What we have this time is a sort of four-way argument between Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Thompson on who is the true conservative in the race. The battle stems from a comment Romney made, stating that he is the only candidate that represents "the Republican wing of the Republican Party". This, along with the rest of his speech, was an obvious jab at Giuliani. Romney consistently challenges Rudy on his liberal social positions, his illegal immigration positions, and his multiple wives, citing that he(Romney) is a "family man" while Rudy is not.
Yet after Romney's comments about being from "the Republican wing of the Republican Party", another candidate jumped in the mix. Sen. John McCain's campaign responded with the following:
"Mitt Romney actively worked to defeat the Republican candidate trying to reclaim my old congressional seat. Therefore, I'm amazed that Romney would claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party -- because when Romney had a chance to contribute to a New Hampshire Republican, he chose to fund a liberal New Hampshire Democrat instead."
McCain has also been bringing up Romney's change of position on issues such as abortion, essentially branding Romney with the stereotypical "Massachusetts-liberal" label.
And then, of course, we had to get the "new Reagan", Fred Thompson, to join in on the fun. Fred brought up that he "was a conservative Republican in the Senate, (he) is a conservative Republican today, and will be one as President." Fred also stressed that he is the only "true Republican" in the race.
The truth is, there is no ideal, true conservative in the race among the frontrunners. Giuliani is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-illegal immigration Republican. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until his "revelation" that came just in time for the 2008 election. McCain's most questionable past issue was his recent attempt at immigration reform where he was accused of being "pro-amnesty". Even "the Reagan conservative" Thompson is not as strict of a conservative as many would like. He is divorced, married to a trophy wife, he has stated that he doesn't go to church, and he has lobbied for pro-choice groups.
What strikes me as odd is that you have all these Republican voters who say they aren't happy with their choice of candidates because there is no "true conservative" or "true Republican". But the truth is, there are "true conservatives" and "true Republicans" in the race. Mike Huckabee is extremely conservative and there is nothing questionable about him from his past. Possibly the most conservative candidate is Ron Paul. He is very conservative on all social issues, he is a fiscal conservative, he wants smaller government, AND he embodies the good old Republican ideal of non-interventionism when dealing with foreign countries who don't pose a threat to the U.S. My point: There are real choices for Republican voters so I don't know why they complain when they have everything they want right in front of them.
Yet after Romney's comments about being from "the Republican wing of the Republican Party", another candidate jumped in the mix. Sen. John McCain's campaign responded with the following:
"Mitt Romney actively worked to defeat the Republican candidate trying to reclaim my old congressional seat. Therefore, I'm amazed that Romney would claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party -- because when Romney had a chance to contribute to a New Hampshire Republican, he chose to fund a liberal New Hampshire Democrat instead."
McCain has also been bringing up Romney's change of position on issues such as abortion, essentially branding Romney with the stereotypical "Massachusetts-liberal" label.
And then, of course, we had to get the "new Reagan", Fred Thompson, to join in on the fun. Fred brought up that he "was a conservative Republican in the Senate, (he) is a conservative Republican today, and will be one as President." Fred also stressed that he is the only "true Republican" in the race.
The truth is, there is no ideal, true conservative in the race among the frontrunners. Giuliani is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-illegal immigration Republican. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until his "revelation" that came just in time for the 2008 election. McCain's most questionable past issue was his recent attempt at immigration reform where he was accused of being "pro-amnesty". Even "the Reagan conservative" Thompson is not as strict of a conservative as many would like. He is divorced, married to a trophy wife, he has stated that he doesn't go to church, and he has lobbied for pro-choice groups.
What strikes me as odd is that you have all these Republican voters who say they aren't happy with their choice of candidates because there is no "true conservative" or "true Republican". But the truth is, there are "true conservatives" and "true Republicans" in the race. Mike Huckabee is extremely conservative and there is nothing questionable about him from his past. Possibly the most conservative candidate is Ron Paul. He is very conservative on all social issues, he is a fiscal conservative, he wants smaller government, AND he embodies the good old Republican ideal of non-interventionism when dealing with foreign countries who don't pose a threat to the U.S. My point: There are real choices for Republican voters so I don't know why they complain when they have everything they want right in front of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)