Gas prices tighten presidential poll
McCain, Obama in near dead heat among Coloradans
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 24, 2008 at 9:22 a.m.
Updated July 25, 2008 at 12:44 a.m.
Photo by Carolyn Kaster © AP
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., waves to people on the street Thursday after holding a news conference outside Schmidt's Fudge Haus in Columbus. As rival Barack Obama toured Berlin, McCain told reporters he would loved to give a speech in Germany. "But I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a candidate for president."
John McCain has made big gains among Colorado voters in the past month and is now neck- and-neck with Barack Obama, according to a poll released Thursday.
McCain's bump could be because he favors increased domestic oil drilling, a view a majority of Coloradans share, some analysts said.
The Quinnipiac University poll shows McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, the top choice among 46 percent of likely Colorado voters. Democrat Barack Obama is the top choice among 44 percent of likely voters.
The poll of 1,425 likely Colorado voters, taken July 14-22, has a margin of error of 2.6 percentage points.
A month ago, Obama held a 49-44 percent lead over McCain in the same poll.
Tom Kise, communications director for the John McCain for President campaign in this region, said McCain surged ahead in Colorado because "he has laid out a plan for domestic energy that brings down the price of gas and will produce more jobs. That message is more in line with Coloradans' views."
Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, said she has seen polls the past couple days that show Obama in the lead.
"I think that's the way it's going to be the next several months, back and forth," she said. "We are a swing state."
Waak expects Obama's Middle East trip will increase his numbers - most of the voters were polled before he arrived there - as will the Democratic National Convention in Denver next month.
Key states closer
"I expect as we move into the campaign and he answers some of the irresponsible things coming out of the McCain campaign, we'll continue to see people swing over to Obama," Waak said.
The poll, conducted for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, zeroes in on key battleground states - Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin - where the presidential contest is expected to be close.
Besides surging ahead in Colorado, McCain made a big move in Minnesota and narrowed large Obama leads in Michigan and Wisconsin, the poll found.
Coloradans are evenly divided on which presidential candidate has the best energy policy. But by a 50 percent-39 percent lead, voters here say energy policy is more important than the policy on the war in Iraq when assessing which candidate should get the vote.
Democrats were winning on the energy issue as recently as April - convincing voters that their recipe for alternative fuels was the best solution for America's future, public opinion guru Floyd Ciruli said.
"Then it shifted in April, when gasoline hit $4 a gallon," said Ciruli, who heads Ciruli & Associates of Denver.
Suddenly, the pain at the gas pump was so acute that most voters moved away from the idealistic view of an American energy diet and looked for whom to blame for the high prices, he said.
They chose the Democrats, who've opposed drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"Sen. Barack Obama's post-primary bubble hasn't burst, but it is leaking a bit," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "It's been a good month for Sen. John McCain. His movement in these key states, not large except for Minnesota, jibes with the tightening we are seeing in the national polls."
scanlon@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2897
What they are saying
* FLOYD CIRULI, pollster
"We had begun to think there was a very significant Democratic advantage, but ($4-per-gallon gasoline) shows us how quickly an issue can energize and change the dynamics of a race."
* JOHN STRAAYER, CSU political science professor:
"I think Obama is getting more and more of the spotlight, and that works both ways. I think there's been an effort to raise questions about his background."
* FORMER COLORADO GOV. BILL OWENS:
"The race is going to be close, just as the last two presidential elections were. By mid- to late October, (the McCain campaign) will be peaking. So far, so good."
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 24, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
HSTOWEL writes:
I knew eventually the Flim Flam Man would fade in Colorado and voters would come back down to earth.
Nobama 08
July 24, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
WOW a whole 2 point lead with an error rate of 2.6. And in a state that has always been HEAVILY RED for years. That don't look to good for McSame.
July 24, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
McCain's new slogan - "Vote McBush McOld McSame. Let's keep our country in international shame and an economic quagmire for decades to come."
July 24, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Either way it goes here, it will be very close. The difference in this poll is within the margin of error so it really is a tie at this point.
Too bad we cannot eliminate the electoral college - it is stupid and outdated.
Then each persons vote would count!
But in the end our 9 electoral votes don,t mean that much!
I'd still bet on Obama being the next President -
Also I'd bet Colorado goes for B.O. as the convention being here just might be the tipping factor - but it will still be very close! Just as this poll indicates, and I'd bet too that another poll will be out showing Obama ahead...
July 24, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
squeakywheel writes:
Polls mean squat at this point.
It's amazing to me that the old fart is holding his own against the messiah.
I liked the primaries better, when the candidates could be themselves and say something profoundly stupid every single day.
Now it's just politics as usual. Yawn.
This may be the first time in my life that I don't vote for either, I'm thinking of voting for Yosemite Sam.
July 24, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
SickNTired writes:
I'm counting on the DNC being here in Denver to tip the scales against BO. Let the games begin.
July 24, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
dilligaf "That don't look to good for McSame."
Wow, nice how you spin BO blowing a 10 point lead into bad news for McCain. LOL
July 24, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
I don't think Obama will win Colorado since voters here are seeing the effects Democrats in office are having in the state. Ritter's a joke, Hickenlooper is turning into one, and I think people are starting to notice that Obama doesn't have much substance. Obama is a rehash of Jimmy Carter with his tax plans.
Voters want someone they can believe in, not someone with an inglorious and short political history. Funny, but all the catering to the DNC looks like it's backfiring.
(I think it's hilarious when people try to relate Bush and McCain as being alike. Just goes to show some people don't pay much attention. Bush and McCain have had publicized differences in many areas, but the easily led followers (sheep) of Obama are ignoring that.)
July 24, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
temurlan, it's because there are people that ignore reality and spin it to how they want something to turn out.
July 24, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
squeakywheel writes:
CO won't matter in the electoral college anyway.
If McCain can nail Florida and Ohio then it's all over for Obama's hopes of 10 years in the oval office, presiding over all 57 states.
July 24, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
If McCain has a chance, it will depend on who his VP will be. He is old, I mean old. What are the odds of him living to do two terms?
When he gets the call at 3:00AM at least he will be up, because at that age they go to sleep at 7:00PM. He cant use a computer, he is out of touch. Sorry..
July 24, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Cwillyrun1: I think your right on with your comment. I also don't think that Osaywhatever will win Colorado. The Dems have done a number on our state.
By the way, Are all the Dems home crying? Where are all of the normal lefties that post on here?
Party before person! It doesn't matter to me who is running. The lefties will lose just like before. And they will cry for 4 more years.
NOBAMA 08
July 24, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Story: "McCain... narrowed large gams in Michigan and Wisconsin, the poll found."
If McCain can narrow large butts in addition to large gams, he's got my vote.
July 24, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
DeimosJB writes:
This and every other poll I have seen does not matter because polls are not and have never been accurate. They ALWAYS skew because by definition polls require people to be at home to receive the call, rather than at work.
Recall that in the last election, Kerry had a large lead in most polls, and that didn't go so well for him. Even the forgettable Michael Dukakis had a big poll lead over Bush Sr. through the summer months.
I'll just wait for November, thanks.
July 24, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Froward69: How about Newsweek? Are creditable enough for you?
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by only 3 points. What a difference a few weeks can make.
July 24, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
GorditoMojito writes:
Shall we talk about the elephant in the room? Remember the "talkin down to" regarding race relations? How about the Marxist ideology espoused within Obama's Rev. Wright titled book?
Obama and Pelosi will bankrupt this country if given the chance and that's what voters need to decide. Does my neighbor deserve a couple hours of my labor every day in return for "Change?"
Equality at the expense of Economic Liberty is Communism.
July 24, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
I'm amazed that Obama isn't way ahead given the special support he's currently getting from the main stream media. No objective person could deny the special treatment and coverage he's been given on his overseas tour. He is being portrayed as the presumptive President. It looks like the news media will openly influence and probably decide the Presidency this time around. Perhaps we need some congressional investigations on this process? Doesn't this trump the Fairness Doctrine issue?
July 24, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
leatherneck
Sounds like it should be REDNECK. Tell me why you like the old man, not why you dont like OBAMA. You and your party dont work like that. Not much to say, I know you have to wait untill rush tells you to think. YOU ARE WEAK.
OBAMA 08 COLORADO
July 24, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
dilligaf writes:
"WOW a whole 2 point lead with an error rate of 2.6. And in a state that has always been HEAVILY RED for years. That don't look to good for McSame."
"Red for years"? Were you out of the state during the 2006 election? Do you see the current make up of our Fed and State representation and the Governor's Office? Strange perspective that you have.
July 24, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
This country is already bankrupt to the tune of TRILLIONS !
No it is not caused by "illegals". Tax cuts and war.
This will be a close race in Colorado and it should be fun to watch.
It will be interesting to see if McCain support translates into more Repubs in the legislature.
July 24, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
NNNNOOOOOO!
July 24, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Nobama: I also think that MSM has over stepped their ability to influence the public here and around the world. You think we will actually get an investigation into the Fairness Doctrine?
I don't think it will happen? But that would be nice to see.
I think people are starting to see through Osaywhatever's BS, and it's now showing up in the polls. Simply put, he doesn't have the experience to be the president, and he will say anything to get a vote.
July 24, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Dan2,
I agree with your sentiments and conclusion 100%. But, I just can't make myself waste a vote. It is definitely a "lesser of two evils" choice. The nominating process just doesn't work if these are the best candidates this country has to offer.
July 24, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
leatherneck,
I want to believe what you say is true. But, I think there may be a majority of people who are so naive and gullible that they will follow Obama right off the cliff. It's all about image and speaches now. Substance goes right over their heads. Obama is like a good evangelist and he has "followers" who belive in the mantras: hope, change, future, chicken-in-every pot, etc. I'm not sure this movement can be stopped with logic or reason. Maybe some kind of personal expose would do it, but those have mostly been blown off by the news media so far.
July 24, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
ShadyGrady writes:
I'm with davies, any butt narrower has my vote.
July 24, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
DenverSpam: I will stick with my party, thanks for your concern though. I could make a list of what I like about McCain, but your right I could make a longer list of what I dislike about Obama.
July 24, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrJim writes:
July 21, Rasmussen has it 47 - 42 for B.H.O.
July 24, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69,
This isn't about "republicanism" versus Democrat. It's about capitalism versus socialism. The Federal Government should not be responsible or directly involved in all of these education, health care, and economic issues that everyone is whining about. The capitalistic system will take of it, but not without consequences which are probably deserved. I don't know how this society has evolved to the point where people expect solutions from the Feds. It's become an automatic premise without question, even by the Republicans. If you want a European model of socialistic govenment, then vote for the socialists, but be honest about the reasons.
July 24, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69,
OK. Give me some "logic or reason" to vote FOR Obama. I don't want to hear about Bush, or McCain, or any of your cute little made-up words, e.g. "Retardlicans", because I'm smarter than you. Give me something positive about Obama, other than his charisma, looks, articulation, or personal attributes. What about his experience or specific policies do you like?
July 24, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
froward, shut up already. The Democrats are running the state right now so if anyone's been dropped as a registered voter, odds are the Democrats are behind it.
DenverDan, what does age have to do with it? Are you saying because your dad's an old man that he's irrelevant and can't get things done anymore? Or if you're the old man, then you must be, right? Either way, one of you should just be pushed aside into a retirement home with nursing aids to help you, using your logic. I'd rather choose a person for President who's done something rather than a person who has no history and likes to TALK about what he would do, and most of that is even laughable.
July 24, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoRick69 writes:
cwillyrun1 :pukes:
July 24, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69,
You didn't respond to my question about Obama. But, you're starting to scare me a little. Do you understand the difference between the Federal government versus State and Local government? Are saying we should just throw out the State and Local and let the Federal government provide Police and Fire protection? Do you know what that sounds like? Get a grip, man.
July 24, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
PajamaPulitzer
2 Presidents in the past 40 years
Thanks for the dollar being lower than Euro. Thanks for gas at $4.00. Thanks for the middel class being poor. Thanks for 1900 days past "Mission Accomplished" . Are you dumb and blind. Just because you voted for the him twice. Hard to say you made a mistake. People want change. That wont happen with the McSame people doing the same things.
OMAMA 08 Punk A@@
July 24, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
SickNTired - never looked at it that way - but you are right, The DNC in Denver might just become "ugly" and that could tip the state from Obama, not for him.
July 24, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Nobama
To bad your answer to the all the Hate is Mr.Burns from the Simmpsons. Man he is old, so are your comments. DORK!!!!
OBAMA 08
July 24, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Cwillyrun1 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
July 24, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Dan2, I KNOW what form of government we have in the USA. I have a clue - thank you!
I still believe however that the electoral college should be over turned and the President elected on the basis of the Popular vote!
Where is is writen that by definition any Constitutional Republic must have an Electoral college type system built into it's election process?
It is another insulation of the people from the government - and old - unneeded and outdated one in this case.
Yes it is in OUR constitution, but it can be changed, and I think should be!
That is my opinion, one I have held most of my adult life and it is not a Clueless opinion,
- What is your argument in favor of it somehow being nessassary and better, How is it better to have your vote nullified just because the people in your state think other than you do? Even if you happen to agree with the majority of the Country?
July 24, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
DenverDan,
I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Are you talking to ME? Make some sense, and I'll gladly reply directly to any point. Most of you Libs just go off on your own little rants with personal insults (e.g. Dork). Sometimes I think you must be writing in a high school classroom somewhere.
July 24, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
DenverDan, you're discriminatory, aren't you? Man, I wonder how Ronal Reagan did such a good job after the failure of Jimmy Carter since Reagan was an old man too.
froward, Coffman isn't running the state government, and I'm thinking there's checks and balances that would prevent anyone from purging voter records. Do you have any proof you can provide us that shows Coffman's done anything against the law since he's been in his position? Making baseless, unfounded accusations is a form of slander. In your paranoid mind, you might be convinced anyone other than a Democrat is guilty of something, but it's a far cry from reality.
July 24, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Dan2,
Wonderful last post! But, don't overwhelm them with too much substance. Try and get them to focus on just one or two issues.
Forward69,
Unless you DID freely admit that you are voting for "American socialism" as espoused by Obama, I'm STILL waiting for a direct response to my Obama experience/policy question. It's been some time. Do you want me to repeat the question? Or, are you just not able to come up with anything specific?
July 24, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Based on the press coverage I thought Obama was already president. Or king or pope or czar. Do we still get to vote?
July 24, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
PajamaPulitze
You have know idea what your talking about. When do you start school? Get off you moms computer. You cant reason with people on the right because they have thier small minds are made up. I am part of the new working poor class thanks to your never do wrong Bush jr.
With Clinton we had a Surplus. With Jr we are at highest debt in histoty!!!! Must be Carter fault.
July 24, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
diff, the electoral college makes sense. It keeps a politician from focusing on California, New York, Florida, Ohio and Texas at the expense of the rest of the country. As a matter of fact, it makes voting in states other than those more relevant since the Presidential hopefuls have to make campaign stops in each state, instead of only in the most heavily populated states. It makes your vote count as much as someone in New York, get it? Based on your comments, I'm not sure you fully understand how the electoral college works.
It kept us from having Al Gore as President, and that means we're not a part of his former plans of a New World Order, where the United States is subserviant to the United Nations. It also meant that several of our national parks remain United States property, instead of Gore giving those parks to the United Nations. I won't even go into his delusions in regards to global warming.
July 24, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Can't say I'm surprised - I've voted big-D Democratic since 1972, and I'm having trouble considering voting for Obama. I'm starting to wonder what a Democratically controlled Congress (both chambers) with a independent minded McCain might be like - would he be able to keep the wild spenders (of both parties) in check while ridding the Executive of the Shrub/Rove holdovers? Or would he feel beholden to the existing ineptitude and continue along the path set out by Shrub's handlers?
The question just asked "How did we get to the point where ME comes before WE?" surprises me coming from a professed Libertarian. Most discussions I've had with folks of a libertarian bent reveals a "Me before We" mindset as their main reason for wanting the 'smallest possible government' in the first place.
July 24, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69,
One more time. Obama is not proposing that "corporations" "pick up the tab" for the "Federal Military". And, I haven't heard him discussing the anectdotal story about your friends appendix. And, Obama has not accused the CDC of doing "nothing to actually prevent disease". Try and focus. Give me one positive point about Obama's experince or stated policies that you think make him worthy of my vote. This will be the third or fourth time I've posed the question and all you do is come back with "stuff" that is off the wall and irrelavent.
July 24, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Denverdan: As usual with your past few worthless comments. You go to name calling if you don't get people to believe your crap, and things don't go your way. That is a typical Lib reaction to most issues they have no clue on. I know you just got done crying, it will be ok, come off the ledge. You think Osama is going to wave a magic wand and the economy will be all better and gas will fall back to under 3 dollars per gallon?
You will have 4 more years to cry.
Anyone but Obama in 08
July 24, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
SickNTired writes:
Diff ... it will be a spectacular implosion!
July 24, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
DenverDan writes:
"PajamaPulitze
You have know idea what your talking about. When do you start school?"
What a clever retort, DenverDan. But, I'm thinking you may have made a Freudian slip there when you said "know" instead of "no". Slow down a little bit, OK?
July 24, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Read this about Al Gore....... http://www.pushhamburger.com/what1.htm
How anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.
July 24, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
froward, Obama doesn't have experience that compares to what Bush had in 2000, but nice try. Bush was governor of Texas. Has Obama been a leader at any level? Being a Senator is not leading a city, a state, or the country. Think clearly, and go back and try again.
July 24, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
REDNECK
I wear the name LIB with pride. I cant wait untill we win. I will see who is crying all of you white men who hate on Obama. Never talk up the old man, Just hate. By the way Regan was in his 70's at the end of two terms. If Mr. Burns gets in he will be 72.when he starts. Break out the fiber.
OBAMA 08
July 24, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69 writes:
"Obama is of about the same experience as Bushjr in 2000. more in regards to federal government. Mcain has the chops but rarely sticks to topic, the same stand on policy and I must say McCain has the beginnings of dementia. (caused by age)
the Real difference in choice is bush is a C student, McCain is a D student and Obama is an A student.
say what you will but I feel the smartest Guy in the room should be President."
That's IT? That's all you've got? Obama has about the same experience as Bush? FYI, Bush is not on the ballot. (Bush had governed one of the largest states in the US and holds an MBA from Harvard, but that's irrelavent to my question.) Then you take off on McCain's dementia? Do you remember I asked for you to leave Bush and McCain out of it, and not include Obama's personal attributes ("smartest guy in the room", which you can't possibly know or prove). I'm STILL looking for specific positive points on Obama's experience or stated policies.
Where's the referee when you need one? This fight should be called by TKO. Froward69 hasn't got a punch, and I've proven it. I just can't keep beating him up like this.
Nobama has left the building. See ya!
July 24, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Cwillyrun1 -
I must wonder from your final paragraph if your view would be the same had the Bush/Gore election been reversed - Bush won the popular vote and Gore the Electoral(?)
The candidates NOW focus most of their time in the more populated states anyway
And with more polulated states in the east it is weighted in favor of entire regions.
How much time have they spend in AK or MT or ID or WY or NM opposed to Calif, New York, Ohio etc.
The Electoral votes each state has is directly proportional to the population. You make it sound like each state has the same number of votes in the Electoral College... Colorado, has 9 California has 55.
I must strongly disagree with your argument!
July 24, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Americanmade writes:
It's time to think out of the box. I'm tired of people thinking that things are either black or white, Democrate or Republican. It's time to think Republicrate or better yet AMERICAN! Let's wake up and work as a team! Let's drop our differences and see what we have in common and work together to make America a strong and respected country again. It was Democrates AND Republicans who got us in the mess we are in now. It's time to get them to stop their bickering or stand in the corner for some time out while some one else steps in to straighten things out. Time is running out and China is knocking at our back door...is your congressman going to open it?
July 24, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSmith2 writes:
What I want to know is how many of their sample was Republican, Democrat, and Unaffiliated. And were they going off of party registration or party self-identification?
July 24, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Nobama
Tell me you dont think Bush is smarter than Obama. Leave Bush and McCain out of it. Why it does not fit your NOBOMA bashing. You have to back up your trash with something. It is hard to do when you voted for him twice. You wanted to talk about experience as long as it not the guy you voted for. Bushs people had a lot of experience and look what that got him.
NOMRBURNS
July 24, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Froward69 writes: "we have tried republicanism, lets do the right thing Vote Democratic."
We tried "democrat" too - he was called Jimmy Carter.
No thanks!
July 24, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69,
I just can't help myself. I had to look at your last post, and it's incredible:
"Obama can compromise and work across the isle far better than mcCain can."
What possible basis do you have to make that statement. It's just pure conjecture on your part, and not supported by any fact. Obama has been in the Senate for two years. During that time he has been totally aligned with the Democrats, rated as the most Liberal member of the Senate. McCain, who has been in Congress/Senate for 26 years (I'm not saying that's good), has a reputation as a maverick, i.e., not always aligning with the Republican Party (I'm not saying that's bad). Point is: McCain would be more likely to deal with the opposition party than Obama. There are specific examples, Campaign Finance Reform, and Immigration Reform. I, personally, am opposed ot McCain's position on those issues, but this totally rebuts your contention that Obama would be more willing to compromise with the opposition party.
Froward69, you just can't keep throwing out this stuff and expect people to take you seriously. But, I guess that isn't a prerequisite to post.
July 24, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Dan2 - I must agree with what you have in your first paragraph - the limiting of governmental powers, and Branches of government, their "balances" of power in our constitution does that fairly well. (some arguments could be made about the Supreme court and against theirs being lifetime appointments tho -but that is yet another subject..)
Why does that REQUIRE an electoral college?
I also understand states right and agree with it for the most part - but how does eliminating the Electoral college detract from states rights or lessen the protections from a minority being overrunning by the an "unjust" majority?
AND
You are arguing in favor of the electoral vote based on the logistics it would take to count and recount votes accurately- what is that about? We seem to have trouble doing that as is now however with our level of technology this should not be a problem, again that is another subject..
Take a look at explanations of why the electoral college was put into place back in the mid 1700's and see if any of those make sense TODAY. It is old, Un-nessasary, outdated and it is time to change it!
If every vote counts -then it should count in the Presidential election same as in any other election. without an electoral college that CAN - change it's votes!
July 24, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Denver(Spam): You will be waiting at least 4 more years, so keep the hanky handy.
July 24, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ezana writes:
If McCain wins this thing it will be because of deception. Obama could very well have been the least liberal of all the Dem. yet one flawed study (most liberal in the Senate is presented as fact)Go to senate website for yourself and see how many of bill cosponsors have R's next to their names!His voting record makes him about the 43rd most liberal. Hillary has him beat hands down!
http://www.progressivepunch.org/membe...
Obama is no more socialist then you. People believe he will raise taxes on the middle class-since when is 250,000 a year middle class?!? One in ten think he went to a madrassa (even Fox admits it's untrue), yet i'm getting push polls on my phone that treat it like it's a fact! If McCain wins it will be because of lies! Period. I hope you all enjoy watching you're social security squandered in the stock market, decades of war, a continuation of the effects unregulated mortage lenders, Roe vs. Wade overturned.
July 24, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
tunaman65 writes:
Interesting that Obama's trip overseas is doing nothing for his numbers. He should have stayed home.
July 24, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"We tried "democrat" too"---you bet we did cowpoke...how'd that turn out for the country...compared to trying our little experiment with bush/mccain policies?
oh yeah...i forgot...we don't have to guess:
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
oops.
and i just can't help myself:
"you have had but 2 Presidents in the past 40 years while the GOP has had 5. You think maybe your policies are out of touch with the American people"
pjmama...as we've established several times...the majority of americans support the dems stances on the issues before the country today.
furthermore, since you brought it up...how do you rationalize support for the track records of the republican presidents over the last 50 years?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
considering that mccain's financial plans continue bush's policy of deficit spending and tax cuts in time of war....how do you further rationalize a vote for mcsame?
July 24, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
DenverDan writes:
"Nobama
Tell me you dont think Bush is smarter than Obama. Leave Bush and McCain out of it. Why it does not fit your NOBOMA bashing. You have to back up your trash with something. It is hard to do when you voted for him twice. You wanted to talk about experience as long as it not the guy you voted for. Bushs people had a lot of experience and look what that got him."
Read my lips, now: Bush is not on the ballot! I do not bring up Bush in my posts, only in response to Libs who just can't help going off on their Bush rants without provocation. I am not defending Bush, and I am not bashing Obama. (Can you cite an example?) I'm asking you Libs to give me reasons to vote for Obama, that have something to do with his experience or stated policy. I don't care about any other candidates or former presidents. Can you just focus for once? This is not a word association game, or a chance for you to rant at will. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. Try it.
July 24, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
steel - if you really want to know - take 15 mins to look at his web site!
no president will or can do it with out
1)public support, and
2)congressional support -
Most of the opposition to "changes" will come from one or more of these camps - and again well be stuck trying to be someplace in the middle ground and or doing the same old same old the old same way!
July 24, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
froward, try providing proof of how Bush bankrupted everything his father bought for him. I know you can't, and won't do it, but I'll give you an opportunity.
You still fail with your comments on Bush and Obama. Bush was leader of one of the most populated states in the country. Obama is not. Bush also had his father to lean on for anything on the federal level, Obama has nobody. You bring up "learning the workings of Congress", so anybody in Congress must be highly qualified to become President, right? I don't think so, but hey, you can have your opinion.
Too bad you can't make a good debate...... I don't even have to try and I still make you look bad. Others are too.
July 24, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
jay writes: "We tried "democrat" too"---you bet we did cowpoke...how'd that turn out for the country..."
Well, let's see...
Long lines at the gas pumps and Americans held hostage in Iran.
(The same hostages who were released THE SAME DAY Reagan took over).
Terrorists take Republicans seriously - that's why Hamas is pulling for Obama.
July 24, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
diff, you can disagree, and that's fine. But you disagree with the majority of Americans. The electoral college was covered fairly well by Dan2 at 12:02. But to expand a little.... the electoral college means that the states most heavily populated don't determine the outcome of the vote. Deny it if you will, but under a popular vote, a Presidential hopeful only needs to worry about a half dozen states to win an election, while the rest of the country wouldn't matter.
Don't have much hope for it changing..... because it won't. Funny how it was fine until the Dems lost the election in 2000 and then there was a cry from them to change it, but it still won't happen.
July 24, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
DenverDan, you'd vote for a man surrounded by people who hate white people?
July 24, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
froward, here to help you again. Our current economic grief? Obama talks about taxing the oil companies to reduce gas prices, which is the opposite of what would happen. The last time it was tired was during the Carter administration, and it failed badly. Long gas lines and higher gas prices resulted. Preeminent ambassador of goodwill? The Israeli-Egyptian peace accord is the only thing that comes to mind with that, the rest is just him thinking he still has relevance in the global picture, which he doesn't. Carter should've stuck to the peanuts instead of becoming a nut himself.
How do you feel about supporting a candidate that in 2005 voted FOR corporate welfare? No, not McCain, but Obama. Obama voted for it and to say he's against it goes opposite of what his record shows.
July 24, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Cwillyrun1 - I am happy to disagree especialy with the majority- that's what the Diff is about; something Different!
"You know why we the call the main stream a s stream - because it is so shallow" (Geo Carlin)
There are some good arguments on both sides of this issue - But in this case I am not just playing Devils advocate - I have held this believe since Jr High Civics class ( no.. that is not about HONDA cars)
I too doubt it will change - at least in our life time -
I will still vote - and vote for Obama
even IF the polls tell me at the end of October that it is a waste of time...
July 24, 2008
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Wow forward, mental midget today? I wouldn't want you for a secretary, so don't worry.
Anyway, you're the one making the accusations, so get going with proving it instead of coming across as if you just got off the short bus with your special helmet sliding off and drool running down your chin.
July 24, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
LoneTreeLady75 writes:
Both candidates are awful choices. This will be the first time in 15 years that I will not vote.
July 24, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
NOBAMA
You said "I am not defending Bush, and I am not bashing Obama"
Your ID name is "NOBAMA". You sound like rush L.
July 24, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
LoneTreeLady75 writes:
LOL Freethought, I definitely didnt vote for Bush. I've voted Libertarian the last few elections. Thanks for trying to start an argument though!
July 24, 2008
1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Froward69 writes: "ToeNee, back it up ... so what did regan do to free the hostages?"
Reagan just had to be Reagan. That was all it took.
Froward69 - You wouldn't happen to wear tights and a multi-colored hat with jinglebells on the tips, would you?
July 24, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Chillyrun1
DenverDan, you'd vote for a man surrounded by people who hate white people?
The sad truth is you probly think that is true. People at fox news amd AM radio think if they say things like that enough it will be a fact. Crap like this are why I am not a Republican any more.
July 24, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
"Froward69 writes:
Nobama, have you even looked at the tax policy breakdown...?"
All I need to know is that he wants to INCREASE taxes by repealing the tax cuts that are in place. So far, that's the ONLY point of Obama's policy that you have cited. Is that why you want me to vote for Obama? As long as your taxes are increased, you don't care if others are taxed more? Are you subject to capital gains taxes? You don't have to be "rich" to pay captial gains taxes. Are you going to parrot back the "tax the rich" mantra that Democrats are so fond of. That, in itself, is a socialist policy.
July 24, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Froward69 writes: "Carter did the negotiating and ignored his campaign."
No politician since the dawn of time (on either side) EVER ignored his campaign.
July 24, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Cowboy writes: "Reagan just had to be Reagan. That was all it took."
LOL It's funny but true.
July 24, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Nobama, I think it's hilarious that you keep forcing froward to type "NOBAMA"
July 24, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
DenverDan writes:
NOBAMA
"You said "I am not defending Bush, and I am not bashing Obama"
Your ID name is "NOBAMA". You sound like rush L."
DD,
I'm trying really hard to follow your logic. I think I'm missing something. My ID name is "NOBAMA", ergo this proves I'm "bashing Obama". Then you come back with the equally profound quote "you sound like rush L", ergo I'm supposed to be offended?
Do you EVER make a point? Or, are you just into insults and irrelavent rants? Give me a pitch to hit or get out of the ball game.
July 24, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
SickNTired writes:
Froward. If you must insult someone, get it right. INBRED. Were you left behind in "no child left behind"?
July 24, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Forward69,
Apparently YOU can't spell inbred. But, I'm not surprised.
July 24, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
cowboy...i posted actual facts and data for you to look at...did you take a look? what did you think? was there a trend?
"Bush was leader of one of the most populated states in the country. "
you bet he was, cwilly...and we should have paid attention to his track record there.
furthermore, cwilly, obama wants to end corporate welfare for oil companies. if the oil companies have the ability influence prices...why are they immune to charges of price gouging? Why the capitol hill two step in congressional committee meetings? if they don't have that ability...then why not end a lot of the corporate welfare they're supposed to be using for research and development and funnel some of those funds towards alternative energy dev? it's not like the corporate welfare has helped to keep our gas prices under control:
1992
$19/barrel
$1.05/gallon
2000
$23/barrel
$1.42/gallon
somewhere in here the republicans held meetings with the "energy task force"
2008
$140+/barrel
$4/gallon
this is just one guy talking...but if we're seeing these kind of increases...i'd just as soon use the corporate welfare elsewhere.
if you folks are so keen on continuing bush's platform under mccain...explain to me why we'd continue using policies that helped to lower median family income, adjusted for inflation, from $59,398 in 2000 to $58,407 in 2006?
i mean come on...the stock market would have to get to roughly 14,500 points, again...adjusted for inflation, to get to the point we had before the republican reign took effect.
i don't know about you, but that's about all the "success" i can take.
July 24, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69 writes:
"you just proved my point Nobama, you refuse to see the tax DECREASE Obama will deliver.
no rational thought here.
indoctrinated blind followers of rushL. none of you give a shit about Americas fate nor Americas future. Only retaining power for Fascists."
Now you're just making youself look foolish. Are you saying that Obama is proposing a net decrease in income taxes? Just answer the question, please. (Guess we're about to see who is "rational".) You think the last statement you just made is "rational". You're starting to scare me again with this Fascists thing. I think maybe I've flushed you out for all to see.
July 24, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
CDee writes:
So we have a democrat majority in the house and the senate.
If we get a democrat president, who are they going to blame when things so wrong?
They won’t be able to blame it on the nasty, hateful republicans anymore.
July 24, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
jay,
I love it when you trot out the facts. Seems to me there is a deep collective breath taken by the Libs. But, now you've done it. They will be back soon with all of their stock rants that have nothing to do with what you said. It's like a smoke screen attack.
July 24, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
DenverDan: You flip flop just like Osaywhatever. And your a racist.
You are a flaming liberal, and your not helping your party or arguements at all with your BS.
DenverDan, you'd vote for a man surrounded by people who hate white people?
"The sad truth is you probly think that is true. People at fox news amd AM radio think if they say things like that enough it will be a fact. Crap like this are why I am not a Republican any more."
"I wear the name LIB with pride."
"you white men who hate on Obama"
I dought that you were ever a Republican very seriously.
July 24, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Nobama writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
July 24, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Froward69 writes: "can you spell I-N-B-R-E-A-D?"
Are you serious? Priceless!
Jay - any link that starts with "www.dems" is hardly going to be objective.
I don't need the link - I lived the Carter era. Hands down, the worst president this country has ever had. Carter makes George Bush look like George Washington!
July 24, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Nobama, Obama is not a flip flopper. Flip floppers only take one position at a time. He is a both sideser.
July 24, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Anyone that trusts a poll needs to have their voter card pulled! Polls can be manipulated to say what ever that person wants, you want Obama to pull ahead poll in Boulder and Denver you want McCain to pull ahead poll the rest of the state. Polls are polical tools by left wing and right wing leaning papers to make their party look good. Everyone just need to vote the way they want and let the numbers fall were may. But I see alot of Chad counting and machine errors coming in november also alot of dead people voting Obama is from chicago where the dead keep on voting.
July 24, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69,
OK. I guess that pretty much shows where you are coming from and what you're all about. That was my objective today, and I achieved it. Why don't you just crawl back up on the porch and quit trying to run with the big dogs. But, you still scare me. Are you going to be all right?
July 24, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Obama just rocked Europe. Cant wait to see how people on the right make that a bad thing. 200.000 were there to see him. WOW!
The old man would not fill a candy store there. Wonder why? Cant wait to hear why it is bad to be liked by the world? They must not know he didnt have a pin on his coat!
Obama 08
July 24, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
ToeNee writes:
"Nobama - CNN does give us Glenn Beck. So their not all bad in my book."
You're right, of course. I was referring to their news reports versus commentary. (I have a hard time telling the differnece on CNN.) I should have made that distinction.
July 24, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
raoul writes:
froward69
get a life. you've been posting non stop for over 4 hours trying to pursuade people of how intelligent you are and that Obama's the answer to the world.
the result: you must be a real jack*ss and I'd vote for McCain just because pr&cks like you support Obama
July 24, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
katie212 writes:
WHAT.
July 24, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
SickNTired writes:
Froward, please pull your head out of your arse and put it in the dictionary. I think you mean epiphany? Are you inbred?
July 24, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
DenverDan writes:
"Obama just rocked Europe. Cant wait to see how people on the right make that a bad thing. 200.000 were there to see him. WOW!"
How about we turn this around? Tell me why this is so great? Obama mesmerizes crowds wherever he goes. No doubt about it. So do international rock stars. How does that translate into anything but a superficial personal quality? BTW, I'm still waiting on YOU to come up with a positive reason to vote for Obama that is not related to purely personal attributes. Which point on experience or policy have you come up with?
July 24, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Froward69 writes:
"you are nothing more than a parrot of Oxycontin addicted rush."
Wow, you really have a way with jibberish. But, I liked it better when you used four letter words. Back to the point, did you ever answer my question about Obama's "tax plan" (the only specific Obama policy you've even referred to all day long). Does it amount to a net "decrease" in Federal taxes, as you implied, or a net "increase", which is fact? Could you just respond to just one point today so I can sign off? Please?
July 24, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Froward, yes, when they are good. That one is good and accurate.
July 24, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoDan writes:
"sentiment blaming Democrats for the soaring price of gas"???
Who made that up? GEEZ! Froward, did you start that rumor?
July 24, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Nobama: I have noticed that none of the Libs have answered your direct questions? Have any of them been answered? I wonder why that is? Is because the answer would discredit their ajenda, or because they don't want to answer because it would prove them wrong?
July 24, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Forward69,
Obama's proposal: "Increase" in taxes or "Decrease" in taxes? Just a simple choice. You just can't do it, can you? All you have are insulting come backs.
July 24, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
JMac - Are you and Fro' roomies up at Ft. Logan?
That's right. Hostages released the day Reagan takes office. What don't you understand about that?
You sound like if you don't see it on YouTube - then you don't believe it ever happened. Go buy a book.
July 24, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Forward69: Please, you have been spewing you liber crap all day. Nobama and I are still waiting for a direct answer. Not insults
July 24, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Speeches in Germany don't win elections in the US.
The title of the story is: "McCain leads in Colorado, poll shows"
Savor it while you can! Your love affair with Obama is going to end the same way as it did with Gore... Kerry... Hillary...
Another poor Democrat loser crying about how "it was stolen from us".
July 24, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
The article states that democrats are the cause of high fuel prices. Bull honky!! Speculators and OPEC is the problem. Any oil drilled in the US or off shore goes on the world market. It does not stay here. Yes it will increase the supply which will lower prices a little, but it is not ging to be enough to jump start this economy or lower commodities prices. Also, developement of new oil fields takes time at the fastest it will be three years before that oil will make a dent in the market and the size of the dent depends on quality and quantity of production. Refinery capacity is another problem our old refineries no longer meet the sulfer polution emission standards. Conversion is expensive and takes time. Polititions are not the big issue. They don't control the world market. Those of you who want to blame polititions need to do some reading. They are only a small part of the problem. Speculators on wall street are what needs to be stopped. 12 billion dollars a month in Iraq is what needs to be stopped. I suggest those of you who are so upset over not being able to be glutonous consumers do some reading.
I recomend reading some sound material on the Oil Drum web site.
July 24, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Forward69,
"Nomama, asks, "Increase" in taxes or "Decrease" in taxes?"
BOTH simpleton."
I shouldn't bring this up, but I'm going to. I happen to hold a CPA certificate in the State of Colorado and you just called me a "simpleton" when it comes to taxes. Now, that hurt. And, if anybody would just look at the statement you made above, I'm pretty sure they would figure out who the "simpleton" is. It was really amusing to read your analysis of that article. Talk about spin. I asked about tax "increases" or "decreases" and you want the bottom line to be about the deficit. The "facts" are that Obama's tax proposal would create a net "increase" in the Federal tax rates, hence the assumption that the Federal deficit would be less under Obama. That is based solely upon the premise that our current taxable incomes would be subject to greater tax rates. The "fact" is that, historically, when the tax rates were decreased, the total Federal revenue from income taxes actually went up because there was more capital left with the taxpayers to invest and create more taxable revenue. The problem is everybody assumes that all tax revenues will be spent but they won't be sufficient. Find me a candidate who will limit the spending to current revenue levels.
Now, where are the personal insults, Froward69? You've looked foolish and radical all day long, and you still don't get it.
July 24, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Terrorist nations support Obama because he is so weak on national security."
i find this statement hard to believe considering the data surrounding the republican track record of the last 8 years.
the terrorists had a good 8 years...why in the world would they want the republicans out of office?
they perpetrated the single largest terrorist attack on the US.
our country responded by attacking those folks where they lived and worked.
then the republicans shifted our resources to needlessly invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no imminent threat to the US.
since then our fiscal stability has decreased.
global terrorism has skyrocketed.
iran went nuclear.
north korea restarted building nukes.
our military is at "the breaking point" according to our own generals.
why in the world would you think...considering those facts, that the "evildoers" would want the republicans any where but right where they are?
"Jay - any link that starts with "www.dems" is hardly going to be objective"
cowboy, the link just compiles info from gov't agencies like the irs and the census bureau. there's no need to fear the facts.
by the way...why are you still ranting about carter? obama's platform much more closely mirrors clinton's.
here are those numbers again...they're pretty hard to run from:
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
"I'm still waiting on YOU to come up with a positive reason to vote for Obama that is not related to purely personal attributes"
willful ignorance is no excuse for not knowing anything about obama's platform, nobama.
www.barackobama.com
i suggest you get some education on the policy stances of both candidates before november or do us a favor and stay home.
as far as the taxes go....please get some credible info on it. continuing bush's fiscal policies under mcsame will give us more total debt than obama's plan.
if you're not aware of that please do some research as this isn't exactly breaking news or rocket science.
at some point you're going to have to ask yourself why you're in the minority on this issue (one of many i suspect).
Quinnipiac University Poll. May 8-12, 2008. N=1,745 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.4.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?"
Approve 20%
Disapprove 75%
Unsure 4%
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. June 19-23, 2008. N=1,233 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Would you say the country is better off because of George W. Bush's economic policies than when he became president almost eight years ago, or worse off, or is the country about the same as it was then?"
Better 9%
Worse 75%
Same 12%
Unsure 4%
July 24, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Actually, Obama didn't rock Europe. In Israel, as he prayed at the wall with his campaign signs everywhere, there were protesters yelling, "our land is not for sale, Obama", and that tells me he didn't go over well there. In Berlin, he talked about appeasing terrorist nations instead of truly coming up with a top notch speech like JFK did in 1963 or Ronald Reagan did in 1987. He couldn't give a speech anywhere close to what those two did in the past. JFK said he'd stand up to communism no matter the cost, and Reagan told Gorby to tear the wall down. Obama says the United States is the root of the world's problems and that, as President, he'd destroy all nuclear weapons and hope others would follow. How naive, and weak. I don't want a coward and wannabe traitor for President. What was really bizarre is Obama gave the speech at a tower that Hitler prized, and he had campaign signs and balloons at that event. Who's he campaigning to, Americans or foreigners? Obama in no way compares to JFK or Reagan, so he should give it up and quit trying. You sorry people even trying to compare Obama to JFK are ignorant of facts and history. JFK wouldn't appease anyone, Obama wants to though. Why is it the Democrats have become the party of appeasement?
Carter's only real military achievement was the failed rescue hostage. Iran knew that the next President wasn't a pushover so they returned the hostages before they paid dearly.
DenverDan is racist, based off of his white hate comments, and he doesn't get it that Obama has two big influences in pastors that talk about hating white people.
July 24, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, then you should also pay attention to Obama's track record. Oh wait, he has none. How do you feel about that?
That light at the end of the tunnel..... it's not hope for Obama, it's the freight train coming full speed if he becomes President.
July 24, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Big_D, take your time and find the differences out for yourself. I'm sure you're capable of it, I mean, even 5 year olds know how to navigate the internet.
I also think it's funny you mention bigotry with Republicans, yet your wannabe President has racists for friends..... Obama's own words on Jeremiah Wright, not mine.
July 24, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
The differences between John McCain and George Bush:
1)one is older
2)
...
...
.....
......
......
.......
UH -sorry
can I get back to on that.....
July 24, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Ah man! Blew the PUNCH line --
Can I get back to YOU on that . . .
That's why I never made doing stand up...
July 24, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, have you seen the ratings approval of the Democratic controlled Congress and Senate? It makes Bush's ratings look pretty good. Too funny, man, but you make it easy.
July 24, 2008
4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
Diff,
That "joke" you posted is pretty juvenile. GROW UP!
July 24, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"jay, then you should also pay attention to Obama's track record. Oh wait, he has none. How do you feel about that?"
i'm glad you asked, cwilly. what you first need to do is as i said, educate yourself on the candidate's POLICY stances. at that point you'll realize that it is possible to take a look at the track record of both sets of policy stances. you see, fortunately for us, mccain's platform is nearly identical to bush's. obama's on the other hand is nearly identical to clinton's.
once you've come to terms with those politically inconvenient facts, it's not hard to put the numbers side by side and determine which set of policy stances has a better track record.
as i said...i'm glad you asked:
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
"jay, have you seen the ratings approval of the Democratic controlled Congress and Senate?"
no i haven't, cwilly...and you know why? because the democrats don't control congress.
they need a supermajority for that...and since the american people are tired of republicans in congress not respecting their wishes on a wide variety of issues, the dems may just get one this fall.
if, on the other hand, your theory is true that the dems are the cause of the dismal congressional ratings...they shouldn't gain seats in november, right?
i guess we'll know in a few months who was correct.
July 24, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
shaggy don't pout. either refute the points or troll somewhere else.
July 24, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
jay,
I've said this more than once today. Bush is not on the ballot. Why do you Libs insist on running against Bush? Shall we dredge up Clinton while we're at it? Those guys are not relevant. I'm not here to defend the Bush Administration. And I'm not here to sell John McCain. But, I don't see any way you can support Obama on any specific issues except the change, future, hope, articulation, charisma, or looks thing. These are not substantive, even though they may be appealing to the mindless masses. I can only come up with socialist policies and programs and tax increases. If that's what you support, then why can't the Libs just admit it? At least I could respect someone for saying it.
July 24, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
jay,
Oh, and about this:
"because the democrats don't control congress.
they need a supermajority for that...and since the american people are tired of republicans in congress not respecting their wishes on a wide variety of issues, the dems may just get one this fall."
You like to come back with the "get educated" line, but I'm pretty sure you could use a civics lesson. A "supermajority" would only be requred in the Senate to end a fillibuster or in both House and Senate to override a veto. How many of those have been required since the Democrats achieved a majority in 2006. It's all talk and no action. They surely didn't need a "supermajority" to pass the 2009 appropriations bills, none of which have been passed. You're just making excuses because the Dems have accomplished a thing except useless investigations.
July 24, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Cwillyrun1 - So you are saying that worse a than bad rating (congress) makes a Bad rating(Bush) acceptable?
That is really lame!
We should all expect and in fact DEMAND better from every politician in Washington.
G.W. is a Pi$$ poor leader plan and simple, and most republicans in D.C. agree with that . . .
Leadership is what Obama offers as President, Not power. NO president has the power to get done all he says he will or wants to
The power is in the hands of congress and the People, and it is WE the people who are much to blame for not holding politicians accountable and or voting those out who don't live up to expectations, and promises. The amount of engagement and the numbers of younger voters who are taking an interest in this election cycle I think is the best think so far about it!
I hope that continues!
Power to the people!
July 24, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
BREAKING NEWS- RMN poster wins the most pathetic award for the week
and the week is not over yet!
A Sense of humor would sever you well - to bad you can't buy one!
Alive - get over yourself!
July 24, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
freethought - McCain might never have been a POW had he been a better pilot - he crashed 4 or 5 Navy fighters before he got "shot down" in Nam -
if that IS what happened...
I know for certain that a lot of "Downed Aircraft" - blamed on enemy fire were indeed not...
That many fighter crashes for one pilot begs the question - just that there are too many blind patriots that the question will never get asked -
but I Wonder......
July 24, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Big_D writes:
Nobama,
"Could you please point out every policy difference between McSame, I mean McCain, and Bush? I don’t see any so maybe you could tell me."
What is with you Libs? Bush is not on the ballot. Can you get off your Bush rants? McCain is not as Conservative, allegedly. I don't care much for either one of them. Having said that, yes, I believe I could come up with a few differences, but it doesn't matter to me and they are not significant. Given the choices I have, hypothetically of course, I would vote for Bush over Obama. I believe many Conservatives would say the same thing. Bet you don't ever see a poll on that. That sorta blows your basic premise, doesn't it? You assume that all of us think Bush is a villain. The only reason Bush's approval is way down is because he disappointed his Conservative base on education, fiscal, and immigration issues. That, added to the Liberal disapproval percentage, accounts to the 67% disapproval. Pretty simple logic, really. But, I don't have any regrets with him having served versus Gore or Kerry. But, what difference does that make at this point in time? And, if McCain is similar, which he is, that makes him bad too? What's bad is your premise and logic.
July 24, 2008
5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
I think everyone should vote for Obama because he is half black and half white. That way we could look like we finally have let black people do something important in this country, but claim the white part as the president and keep everything the same. Its a win win situation. With McCain we are just going to be embarrassed by more goofy jokes and a president that will be pooping himself shortly after inauguration.
July 24, 2008
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
Obama is like Dennis the Menace, and McCain is Mr. Wilson. They should make that into a SNL skit. It has been fun this week to watch the McCain camp turn into little crybabies because no one wanted to play with them. Might be the "old man smell" that permeates their events.
July 24, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Big_D writes:
"nomama,
I will take that as a griping condescending admission of defeat."
You really do have a problem coming to logical conclusions don't you. Or else you have a problem comprehending plain simple words. I don't like the choices I have. But, I am not conceding defeat. I believe Obama lacks substance, and I think the American people will eventually see that. The poll cited in the letter suggests that may already be happening. If McCain wins, which I believe might be a 50/50 proposition, I think the best I get out of it is lower taxes (I don't make $350,000, but I might have capital gains taxes) and the prospects of more Conservative judges. Practically speaking, I think it's more likely that we will have a stalemate between Congress and the President. You know what? That's not all bad compared to Obama and a Democrat Congress.
July 24, 2008
8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
maw writes:
can anyone tell me if obama and his pastor are muslims?
July 24, 2008
8:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Frank25 writes:
Obama is in Europe with U.S. Liberal Press touting same Marxist, Socialist policies that have Europe in high tax economy with majority depending on government for existence. I also note they have problem with terrorists (home-grown)who live in racist enclaves, and believe they are being mistreated. Obama has the words, but no resume, experience, or high value actions that he has accomplished. From being a "get out the vote neighorhood organizer 4 years ago, he has been on the job as Illinois Senator for 143 days. Remainder of his term has been spent campaigning, and voting "present" on bills.
McCain has a complete history (read "The Nighningale's Song)by Robert Timburg 1995, local library, or Amazon.com for $13.23. Story of McCain, Poindexter, Webb, North, and McFarlane at Naval Academy in same class, their service after graduation, then in President Reagan's administration in a paperback book, 583 pages. Learn the truth about McCain, since he is a private person, even in national politics. He is trying to preserve his family's privacy, even while campaigning. He turned down Admiral and retired with over 22 years in Navy. Having both arms broken, shoulder smashed, leg broken, tortured as POW, he knew he would never get a combat command. He moved to Arizona and entered politics, serving his constituents and their policies. Married to Cindy for 28 years, they have 2 boys in Military and his policies are based on experience, training while serving in Navy, attending Military Command and Staff Schools where world politics and military trained to move into policy making at highest levels. As a Senator, he has been intimately involved with funding military, and working with classified information that is not available to non-cleared, and only on "need to know" basis. Not allowed to talk or use that in campaign, although it does not prevent others from leaking to NY Times and Washington Post. I served 26 years as enlisted (senior NCO), and solidly support McCain, regardless of age. He will choose a Vice President in case problem happens, so Speaker of House does not get to set in oval office. Only problems I have, which he stated he has learned, concerns Amnesty-border-identification security, and funding higher education. I don't believe we realize high quality product that we pay for with percentage of students at colleges and universities. We have too many "professional students" who do not know who or what they are even at graduation. They should drive trucks, learn welding, plumbing, or other service skills until they decide what their future eductional needs are. Then maybe we could save money by not having so many illegals sneaking over our borders carrying drugs, diseases, and bad habits to take those jobs.
July 24, 2008
8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Burbmom writes:
The slide down has started for Obama...finally!
The people of the United States are coming to the decision they can't trust Obama on many levels.
McCain '08
July 24, 2008
8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_Galt writes:
A succinct comparison of McCain & Obama.
McCAIN'S A HERO!! OBAMA'S A ZERO!
Nuff said.
July 24, 2008
9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
ManginoTorreta writes:
God I can't wait until the election season is over.
July 24, 2008
9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
"Then maybe we could save money by not having so many illegals sneaking over our borders carrying drugs, diseases, and bad habits to take those jobs." Well, you sure exposed the whole intent of your post, haven't you? Almost had us fooled that you knew what the h*ll you were talking about.....good lord spare us from bigots trying to justify their own paranoia...
July 24, 2008
9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
chuckyg writes:
I will take McCains age and experiance over a lieing liberal like Obama anyday. There is no dought our choices aren't great but I have to say party before person.
McCain '08
July 24, 2008
9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
McCain is not a hero. Being a bad pilot and a smart mouth to your captors is not a hero. A real hero would have kept his mouth shut and tried to escape which is the soldiers code of conduct. Now he can't even raise his hand to do a proper salute to the soldiers he would be commander of. The guy is an angry old man that cant even deliver a punch line properly. Bush would be glad for him to win simply because he would run the whole show into the ground and take a lot of heat off of the mess he made of this country.
July 24, 2008
9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
platoro79 writes:
Polls call land lines---young voters only have cell phones.
July 24, 2008
10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"Polls call land lines---young voters only have cell phones."
Young voters are the LEAST likely people to vote, so no needs to care what the mindless twinkie eating Obama kiddies think.
July 24, 2008
10:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Frank25 writes:
Justsayin and commoncents both got your panties caught in a bind. I had 13 of those young illegals living next door for almost a year (no women in house), coming and going at all times of night. Stole 12 year old furnace out of house, bypassed electric meter, water meter, and trashed $200,000 house. Did not pay rent, and their spanish landlord-owner lost house, lender sold it as fixer-upper for $98,000. Pleasure having new owner living there, after repair and painting, new yard, new furnace, and is quiet. So you try living next to illegals, and see what your attitude is. When trash piled up, and some looked like liquid supplies, I contacted zoning, and police checked out their cars, house, yard, but informed me they were not allowed to ask about citizenship, or ask for same. I was not sure if they were running a chop shop, or a meth lab, or both. At age 79, I did not want to take chance. Now for McCain being a bad pilot. Justsayin obviously has no military knowledge and has not researched McCain. You don't go through Navy pilot training, get pilot wings, become carrier qualified and be a bad pilot. He also served as Instructor Pilot, before U.S.S. Forestal assignment, where another plane cooked off missile and struck McCains plane, dropped his bombs on deck with fuel tanks, McCain climed out of cockpit, down nose and dropped off into flames, rolling out of the flames. Bomb blew killing deck crew, setting other planes on fire, and 134 men died. McCain signed onto another plane, after healing and went to Yankee Station where on his 18th mission over Hanoi, he dropped his bombs, but when plane did not react on pull-out, he ejected. Broke both arms, leg, and he landed in lake (9 feet deep), got beat up by Vietnamese civilians, then shoulder smashed by rifle butt. Captors then hung him by those broken arms to try for confession, which he refused to give. No "smartmouth" at all. Simple refusual to comply. What action would you have taken, justsayin??? He went through repeated torture sessions throughout the over 5 years, and Colonel Bud Day suffered same in over 7 years. Our friends Jane Fonda and John Kerry prolonged the retention of POWs another 2 years by meeting Vietnamese negotiators in Paris while they were arguing over shape of table. The left either cannot read, or will not accept facts, since their minds are made up. I served 26 years 18 day in military as enlisted (Senior NCO) and research, and decide my own opinions. Read the book I recommended, and you won't post such stupid comments in future. I served non-partisan, and unbiased for those 26 years. I could vote for Democrat, if candidates compared to FDR, or Harry Truman. You have not had a legitamite candidate since, and settle for slim resumes and actions.
July 25, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Bush is not on the ballot. Why do you Libs insist on running against Bush? Shall we dredge up Clinton while we're at it? "
more willful ignorance about the fact that mccain's platform is nearly identical to that of bush.
you guys can't run from that, including you nobama.
why you apparently believe that we shouldn't study the track record of the policies that make up the candidate's platform isn't a surprise...just kind of pathetic.
yes...and while we're at it...we should absolutely talk about clinton's track record...because obama's platform is nearly identical to hillary's...which is why there were no big policy debate fireworks in the primary. hillary's is nearly identical to that of her husband...therefore...well...you get the idea.
let's take a look at the pesky data once again in order to compare the track record for mccain's policies and obama's:
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
nobama...what are your thoughts on those numbers?
see more favorable numbers on one side predominantly?
"A "supermajority" would only be requred in the Senate to end a fillibuster or in both House and Senate to override a veto."
bingo.
hope this clears it up for you. if you don't realize how many initiatives and legislation has been killed by even the threat of a filibuster or a veto...then again...you should probably make sure you educate yourself on these details before pulling the lever to elect another republican who refuses to enact the will of the american people while in congress.
"You're just making excuses because the Dems have accomplished a thing except useless investigations"
not quite...you just don't know enough about what has transpired in congress over the last two years to understand that the republicans have consistently obstructed initiatives and legislation with the support of the vast majority of americans.
why you would then whine that nothing is being accomplished speaks volumes about your political extremism.
with this, you give us another clue:
" If McCain wins, which I believe might be a 50/50 proposition, I think the best I get out of it is lower taxes (I don't make $350,000, but I might have capital gains taxes) and the prospects of more Conservative judges. "
we've already debunked the mccain tax myths here...so that's just fluff.
what is telling, however, is your concern about judicial appointments.
fundamentalist much?
don't let your dogma and superstitious beliefs dictate your voting habits.
don't vote against your own best interests because ted haggard tells you to.
cut the strings.
July 25, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rallyracer7 writes:
Ok, I love this talk about how Body Odor is going to cut taxes, tax the rich, give to the poor, be Robin Hood. Also, this talk about the Republican government meeting with the "Energy task force" and raising prices..... It's called supply and demand. You dems that believe in a man who has no track record of leading anyone, and a plan that is to change the country to what? I like NOBAMA have failed to see anyone give a good reason, that is not bashing Bush or McCain, as to why BO should be president. I'm not voting for someone who has the ideals of Malcom X. I am not a racist, I enjoy my time every race and gender, but I am not about to vote for someone who's policies are about making the people who work for their money pay more taxes. The middle class is not poor, they are just feeling the effects of a weakening dollar, and I'm sorry for them, but guess what, the rich are feeling it as well. Not only do we pay the same prices for gas, but we pay twice the tax as you "middle class" people do.
July 25, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"It's called supply and demand"
rally...can you tell us how supply and demand explains this trend?
1992
$19/barrel
$1.05/gallon
2000
$23/barrel
$1.42/gallon
somewhere in here the republicans held meetings with the "energy task force"
2008
$140+/barrel
$4/gallon
"I like NOBAMA have failed to see anyone give a good reason, that is not bashing Bush or McCain, as to why BO should be president"
let's go over the concept and numbers one more time in the hope that you'll actually look at the data and reply...
mccain's platform is nearly identical to bush's on the major issues before the country. ditto with obama and clinton.
thus we can examine the track records of w and bubba to determine which set of policy stances has a better chance for success according to past performance.
pretty simple stuff. i hope i'm not losing you.
here's the data compiled by the dems who, unlike republicans, can actually brag about their track record.
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
the data was compiled in part from these sources:
1 Bureau of Economic Analysis
2 Department of Treasury
3 Congressional Budget Office
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics
5 United States Census Bureau
thoughts, rally?
you seem to have been confronted with information that would suggest that obama's policy stances are more successful for the country than are mccain's.
so...are you going to vote along policy stances...or is something else influencing your judgement. superstitious beliefs? political loyalties? emotions about "trust" after listening to talk radio? i'm not saying that there's anything wrong with allowing these intangibles to push your vote one way or another...it's a free country...but if so...then it certainly explains why you might not give the data much influence over your decision.
July 25, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
squeakywheel: "This may be the first time in my life that I don't vote for either, I'm thinking of voting for Yosemite Sam."
Sorry, Bush isn't allowed to serve a third term.
July 26, 2008
2:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
proudlyliberal writes:
Regarding Frank25's statement: "From being a "get out the vote neighorhood organizer 4 years ago, he has been on the job as Illinois Senator for 143 days." Obama served in the Illinois Senate for 8 years before he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
July 26, 2008
2:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
proudlyliberal writes:
Also, Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993-2004. It will certainly be good to again have a President who understands and honors the Constitution.