Politics - 18 August 2007

in a presidential election was 1976 and Carter won with 50.1% of the vote.

Clinton won in 1992 with 43%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

Clinton won in 1996 with 49.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

The link to 1976 is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1976

2007-08-18 05:20:35 · 9 answers · asked by GOPneedsarealconservative 4

Edwards Calls Coulter 'She-Devil'

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html

Two equals going at it. This is great stuff!

2007-08-18 05:09:06 · 23 answers · asked by DANCER 2

most of America is moderate?

2007-08-18 05:06:52 · 4 answers · asked by daddio 7

.. not reduce fighting amongst the tribes, at least until the troops leave?

2007-08-18 05:04:41 · 3 answers · asked by . 5

2007-08-18 04:52:11 · 3 answers · asked by Page 4

2007-08-18 04:43:01 · 4 answers · asked by pot roast 1

please state your political position, occupation, and level of education. its a survey.

2007-08-18 04:34:38 · 14 answers · asked by jimmy j 2

The study says that walking in rough terrain and dragging a heavy deer can strain a man's heart.

Should men quit cutting the lawn and shoveling snow too?

Is this a study funded by liberal environmentalists to get rid of hunting? Or do they truly care about men --- the stress their hearts go through when mowing the law and shoveling snow?

The study even said that many of the men smoke too much and are obese. The cause of the men being "at risk" of a heart attack while hunting isn't the hunting. It's their lifestyle during the other 51 weeks of the year.

If these men quit hunting, would libs focus on improving the men's terrible health? Or would the Libs just be happy to have "saved a deer" even though many of the men will die of a heart attack one day anyway?

2007-08-18 04:31:58 · 20 answers · asked by Duminos 2

2007-08-18 04:28:52 · 19 answers · asked by . 5

As always sources appreciated.

2007-08-18 04:16:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Edwards gets $500,000 salary every year from Fortress Investments. That sure adds up over time.

He has made millions of dollars with his $16 million worth of investments at Fortress.

He has taken $150,000 in campaign contributions from these close friends of his.

Hillary and Obama have also taken over $10,000 from Fortress.

Do Hillary, Obama, and Edwards now support sub-prime lenders who they had accused of "predatory practices" against the poor?

2007-08-18 04:11:53 · 13 answers · asked by Duminos 2

It’s getting harder to deny that General Petraeus is making progress.


“The only thing this surge will accomplish is a surge of more death and destruction.” That was the prediction of blogger and antiwar activist Arianna Huffington back in December of last year — one month before the Senate unanimously confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as commander in Iraq.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” That was the judgment of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in April — two months before the reinforcements General Petraeus needed to fully implement his new “surge” strategy had arrived in Iraq.

In mid-June, just as troop strength was reaching the level needed to carry out the revised mission, Senator Reid added: “As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."

But now those intended results are being seen — as even some critics of the war, to their credit, are acknowledging. “More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) told reporters.

“My sense is that the tactical momentum is there with the troops,” Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.) said to PBS’s Charlie Rose.

The debate over the war in Iraq is shifting, though more slowly than is the war in Iraq, thanks to a well-funded and determined anti-war movement and too many in the media for whom good news is no news.

A few days ago, CNN’s Kyra Phillips interviewed Lt. General Raymond Odierno, General Petraeus’s top deputy. She might have asked whether his troops now have both the will and a way to defeat al Qaeda suicide-bombers and Iranian-backed death squads. Instead, her inquiring mind wanted to know: “Do you think that this job that you've taken on could be career suicide?”

Because of scant media interest, most Americans don’t even realize that the so-called surge is a new and different strategy, implemented by General Petraeus because the approach of his predecessors — not least former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield — failed.

Rumsfeld wanted a “light footprint” in Iraq, not an intrusive military occupation. He thought more troops would mean more targets for our enemies. He pushed hard for Iraqis to provide their own security as quickly as possible.

Under the Rumsfeld strategy, most American forces spent most of their time in Forward Operating Bases (FOBs). Cut off from the local population, they received little intelligence. And since they were providing security for themselves but not for Iraqis, Iraqis turned to sectarian militias which grew larger, stronger, and more violent.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda in Iraq deployed suicide-bombers to mass-murder civilians as a way to stoke sectarian violence. Al Qaeda calculated — not unreasonably — that Americans would withdraw rather than remain in the crossfire of a civil war.

General Petraeus, the Army’s top counterinsurgency expert, decided it was time for a different approach. He moved troops out of the FOBs and put them into Iraqi cities and villages where they have been providing security for Iraqis — who have shown their appreciation by providing intelligence that spy satellites can’t retrieve.

He is targeting al Qaeda, as well as the Shia militias trained, funded and equipped by Tehran — their cells, strongholds, and bomb factories. And with added troop strength, he has been able to hold the neighborhoods he has cleared.

It also is true that most traditional Iraqi leaders have been repelled by al Qaeda’s brutality and extremism. Americans, by contrast, have shown the local sheiks respect, while training and partnering with Iraqis — making it clear they would like nothing better than to see Iraqis take charge of their own security as soon as they are ready.

On top of all that, U.S. soldiers have been doubling as diplomats: helping to reconcile Sunni and Shia tribal groups, and even bringing insurgents — those not affiliated with al Qaeda or Tehran — into line with the Iraqi government.

This week, General Odierno launched “Operation Phantom Strike,” a new offensive that aims to pursue the al Qaeda terrorists and Iranian-backed militias displaced from their safe havens by this summer’s earlier actions: Operation Phantom Thunder, and Operation Fard al-Qanoon (the Baghdad Security Plan).

Operation Phantom Strike, if it is successful, will mean more “death and destruction” — mostly for America’s sworn enemies. No doubt, the anti-war crowd will both oppose that and pronounce it a failure even before it’s fully underway. But other Americans — if they learn what is really happening in Iraq — will support the troops. Most will favor giving them the time and resources they need to complete their mission.

2007-08-18 04:03:13 · 11 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

What have they done for us lately?

2007-08-18 03:41:12 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-18 03:09:06 · 15 answers · asked by ballerb j 1

Sarcasm of course:
"He posed as a... volunteer under a false name. Stole the campaign stationary. Ginned up 1,000 invitations to the opening reception for Dixon headquarters promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" and distributed them where Chicago's hippies and drunken hobos congregated."
"In 1973 the Republican National Committee hired the Young Master at $9,200 per year ($43,000 in today's money) to give seminars that included lessons in political dirty tricks. At one, he was recorded giving lessons on how to root through an opponent's garbage." And his reply:"What's wrong with that?"
"The RNC head who hired him was George H.W. Bush. Fast friends he became with the Bush family, especially their fake-cowboy son George Jr. Onwards and upwards with the Bush family and the Republican Party."
And it is rumoured he will work with Fred Thompson...


http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/garbage_man?tx=3

2007-08-18 02:56:31 · 8 answers · asked by bruce b 3

2007-08-18 02:45:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-18 02:37:44 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-18 02:28:18 · 11 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5

If manufacturing goes out of the country, support jobs are in India, our construction and services jobs are filled by Mexicans what exactly are we supposed to do for income? We can't all be lawyers or college professors.

2007-08-18 02:27:19 · 18 answers · asked by Locutus1of1 5

As a fiscal conservative, I'd like to see spending come down. Wouldn't you?

2007-08-18 02:24:58 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Note: I'm not for leaving Iraq immediately cause thats not practical.

2007-08-18 02:18:27 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-18 02:14:48 · 15 answers · asked by a person of interest 5

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070817/NEWS01/308170015

2007-08-18 02:09:20 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I consider myself a Liberal on social issues and a moderate on ecomonic issues. Even though capitalism is not perfect I believe it can be used for the good of society but left unchecked it also corrupts. What's weird though is that I have always admired men who were against capitalism...like Che Guevara for example. Is it normal to see anti-capitalists as heroes and still support globalization?

2007-08-18 02:08:55 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Has the President stumbled on the perfect way to unite the country? By continuing to support Alberto Gonzales despite the latest news about the FBI directors notes about the “Godfather” scene in Ashcrofts hospital room. These contemporaneous notes, which contradict what Gonzales has said, are just another hit on Gonzales. So, maybe Bush has finally united the country………AGAINST HIM!

2007-08-18 02:03:12 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Now, instead of talking about his nonsense ideas on "the issues", to try to gain press and image, he has to name call Ann Coulter. Isn't that pathetic?

Read the article and blog comments:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html

2007-08-18 02:01:57 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-18 01:59:38 · 12 answers · asked by a person of interest 5

By making it impossible to US factories to compete by shackling them with envirnmental laws and unions?

2007-08-18 01:57:44 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

They even accused Iran of "interfering in Iraq". Now who would DARE do such a thing...

2007-08-18 01:55:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-18 01:40:39 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous