Home » Users » Chad Lupkes » Blog » Ron Paul's "Honest Look"
Democracy for America personal blog for Chad Lupkes
Ron Paul's "Honest Look"
Linked to groups: Democracy for Washington
Representative Paul has put out a press release that proclaims him the champion of the working class, with plans to reduce the tax burden that we carry on our shoulders. What he does not describe is the effect that lifting that burden will do to the road at our feet. It's time to take an honest look at where his ideology is coming from and where legislative proposals based on that ideology will lead us. It's not a pretty picture.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan declared that government is the problem. He also talked about tax burdens, and stated his belief that not singling out any particular group to pay a higher price is somehow equitable, regardless of the differences in the ability of various economic classes of people to pay those prices in the first place. Government was set aside as a group outside of the people, and was set up as a straw man to be knocked down in speeches whenever necessary for political gain. This completely eliminated the notion that government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. We are the government, whether we want that responsibility or not, whether we are participating in it or not, and whether it seems to respond to our desires or not.
Paul's statement that "taxation is the most direct way government increases Americans' cost at the pump" is yet another way of separating the people from our government. Remember that our elected representatives in Congress debate and set those tax rates, and that they are approved by an elected President and enforced by locally elected or appointed officials. Fundamentally we the people tax ourselves in order to provide funds for highway maintenance, roads, transit and other costs associated with our transportation system. And this is not a sales tax that you calculate based on the purchase, it's figured into the cost of the gas before purchase.
Paul seems to want to give people the impression that we can just do without taxes once prices get too high. So we have to ask where the money goes that would get cut off if HR 2415 gets passed. The Government Accountability Office has a report that it gave to Congress in April of 2006 that shows this graph:
What you are seeing in this graph is the end of highway projects, the end of bridge maintenance, the end of safety improvements and the end of increased transit options to reduce the pollutants that go into the atmosphere. It means more potholes, more vehicle damage and more cost to consumers. But because that cost is not being paid by the government, it's not considered important.
Our refinery capacity is certainly an issue, but the solution presented of reducing or removing the environmental regulations that prevent new refineries from being built ignores the reason that those regulations were created in the first place. Does anyone remember how much attention the lack of refineries got after Katrina? It doesn't seem to have stopped, although I'm not surprised that it is the Washington Times opinion writers like H. Sterling Burnett who disdain clean air regulations. Who wouldn't want to breathe pollution when they can save a few dollars at the pump? I mean really, don't you just love the smell of hydrocarbons in the morning? Smells like progress, doesn't it. And cancer, but let's not talk about that. Let's also not talk about the 100 or so refineries that have been shut down by the industry due to consolidations or when they say that the cost of keeping our kids healthy was just too much for their profit margin.
Lowering the price at the pump is a solution, but it's a solution to the wrong problem. Rep. Paul makes a very important assumption in his press release, that oil and gas are, and indeed should be, the only way that we can keep our cars and trucks moving, the only way that we can transport ourselves, our products or anything. Like Al Gore has said, do we really need to carry 6,000 lbs of metal with us back and forth to the store? And if so, do we really need to move it by burning ancient sunlight? The pain that we feel at the pump is our own doing, and we can do something different if we choose to.
Unfortunately, Representative Ron Paul doesn't seem to be interested. He doesn't care about air pollution, doesn't care about climate change, has no interest at all in rail transportation, and wants nothing to do with renewable energy. In fact, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what he cares about, except the Iraq War because it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. Saving us money is nice, and it goes well with the meme that we are all on our own. However, the United States was founded on different principles. Progressive principles. Some even call them Christian principles. They can be summed up in a simple phrase: I am my brothers keeper.
Chad, Great post!
It's really important to remind people that Ron Paul is not really a Republican, but is rather, a Libertarian, and, as Aldon points out, not even a fiscal conservative in the real meaning of the phrase.
Libertarian philosophy seems based on pure disdain for the social contract: if somebody is strong enough to make it on their own, good for them and too bad for anyone who is weaker aka less successful. Libertarians seem to espouse the "I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder" mentality, the evil which was Ayn Rand's vision. The "law of the wild" seems fine to them. But perhpas that is only until they find themselves in a position of need: were he a soldier in Iraq, would Ron Paul wish his fellow soldiers to let him fight a battle without their cover and mutual help?? If he found himself in New Orleans after Katrina, would he hope for no helicopter to lift him off the roof of his home? When the uninspected bridge collapses, will he send away the EMTs and Rescue Squad?
And, yes, Aldon, there are shades of "uber menschen, uber alles" behind it.
Mike wrote “So what......in 4 more years it will be the same crap, for the cycle seems to keep repeating itself in this country............might as well start now, we’ve been sucking up to this type of ‘lesser of 2 evils’ for how many years now?”
This is the facile analysis of Ralph Nader that gave us eight years of a Bush administration. A Democratic president won’t be vetoing the legislation arriving from the Democratic congressional majority and won’t be using membership in the Federalist Society as a prerequisite to selecting Supreme Court justices. In fact, something in the neighborhood of 200 federal judicial appointments will be made by the incoming president. In your opinion, is someone with the contempt for the First Amendment that Mayor Giuliani had acceptable for this position?
Hanging with Howard -- ABR! ANYbody, But a Republican.
The Zogy poll is FIXED
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393
The online survey included 9,150 likely voters nationwide, and was conducted Nov. 21–26, 2007No way does the whole thing turn that fast ---go to pollingreport.com below.
I remember years ago, in checking ‘WHO’ they were calling, (this time they’re not disclosing that) there were way more Republicans called.
http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
On the other hand, it’s these non chess players at it again. Iowans have the ‘we just want a winner’ attitude, which could help Obama a little. But to put Hillary in the ‘fight to the top” mode --- might be good for her.
And people really need to stop comparing Ron Paul to Howard Dean. It just makes me cringe. They are nothing alike at all.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1649
Paul doesn't believe we should look out for each other:
"Voted NO on sending aid to Katrina victims.
"Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted.
"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"
Paul would be happy to do away with Social Security in a heartbeat. Howard Dean praised it.
"Howard Dean
"Social Security is a moral value for people who have worked all their life. They deserve to retire with dignity. We ought not to turn our retirement programs over to the same people who gave us Enron."
...."You know the Social Security debate is not just about money. It's about whether we have responsibility for each other as a community, or not."
floridagal .
Tue, 11/27/07
2:36 pm
Reply to this
And people really need to stop comparing Ron Paul to Howard Dean. It just makes me cringe. They are nothing alike at all
+++
Amen to that.
The only thing alike between these two men ?
They both have first and last names that can be first names.
Vice President Al Gore spoke to friends and supporters of Barbara Boxer just a few hours before he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2007.
Ron Paul as third party is Hillary's best chance.
Aldon, give me your take on Chris Dodd's contribution to Ned Lamont's effort.
just noticed that Aldon posted this morning, so that was a missed opportunity, maybe David will come by and can answer my question
I tried to explain the grassroots effort at progressive planks in the last National Platform to Dodd and know Aldon was involved in that. Dodd tended to be dismisssive of the National Platform seeming to think it a campaign document for the nominee rather than an expression of the people.
I just returned from five days of visiting with relatives in Wisconsin over Thanksgiving. I always use these get togethers as a "political baramoter" on where people are, who are interested in politics; but not junkies like most of us online. My extended family runs the entire gamut from far left (me and my two sons) to far right (a cousin who is a hard core Marine). It also includes people from 18 to 86 years old. 80% white; 20% African American.
The ones on the Republican side of things have no favored candidate; but will work hard for their nominee if Clinton is our candidate. Otherwise they will probably vote, but not do much else. The ones on the Democratic side run from supporting Kucinich, Edwards and Obama; basically anyone but Hillary. (I don't have a favorite). They indicated that if someone other than Hillary is the nominee, they will actively volunteer. If Hillary is the nominee, they will not even vote for her.
I tried to establish a reason for this. It's definitely not sexist. It's a question of trust. No one knows what she stands for nor believes anything she says; it's a question of personality - she just seems mean, cold and calculating; and it's a question of needing new blood and new ideas. In 2008, it'll be 20 years since Bush 41. 20 years with either a Bush or Clinton in the White House; and the feeling is that it's time for a change and for someone who can actually bring the country togther; as it has not been since at least 1992.
Whenever Hillary is mentioned people just laugh like she's just some joke. The idea of a continuing Clinton soap opera in the White House is awful. Anyway, no clearcut favorite on either side; but clear agreement on anyone but Hillary. That's the report from a pretty typical bellweather family from Wisconsin and Michigan.
former thinks Ron Paul is all that and a bag of chips. He not only thinks that crumbling roads, bridges and sewers is the way to go, but that this presents a perfect business opportunity for rich people to build their own infrastructural elements and charge poor people for the privilege of using it.
....
Government was set aside as a group outside of the people, and was set up as a straw man to be knocked down in speeches whenever necessary for political gain. This completely eliminated the notion that government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. We are the government, whether we want that responsibility or not, whether we are participating in it or not, and whether it seems to respond to our desires or not.
-----------
It is amazing how easy real life in people's consciousness might be replaced with imaginary one!
All what needed is just NOT TO pay attention on words "supposed to" above and PRETEND that something which is "suppose to happen" is really happening!
It is not so, it is nit truth. Those two things ARE different. Reality IS NOT what it "suppose to be" but what IT IS!!!
Government IS NOT "the People" and IT IS IMPORTANT (contrary to what author trying to convince us), again, IT IS IMPORTANT either we, "the People" are "participating in it or not".
As for the Ron Paul's stances on this and other issues it is better to read HIS words rather then words ABOUT his words.
Even Reagan's words better to bring literally as quotes rather then just to mention ABOUT it. Here are some of those words, yes, been said more then quarter of a century ago! Thinking about those words, may do some explanations for his success:
"
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
"
nice hit piece chad now i know that the dems are scare of ron paul too!! its all hillary or nothing dfa is selling american people out it wont work the people dont trust you all anymore 11% for congress so it over boys ron paul revolition is here to stay.
13.
Tom Bearse
Tue, 11/27/07
3:24 pm
former thinks Ron Paul is all that and a bag of chips. He not only thinks that crumbling roads, bridges and sewers is the way to go, but that this presents a perfect business opportunity for rich people to build their own infrastructural elements and charge poor people for the privilege of using it.
---------
In this upside down world the upside down understanding of reality is not surprising.
All what is mentioned by Tom above IS a consequence of GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT not "the People's" one!
former wrote "All what is mentioned by Tom above IS a consequence of GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT not 'the People's' one!"
I don't get it. Are you heading up the People's Brigade in charge of road and bridge construction and repair?
Aldon Hynes sarah john who are you? never seen your post before are you paid hacks?
Daniel wrote "its all hillary or nothing."
Who is the Clinton booster here in your mind? I have yet to smoke him or her out.
Tom Bearse
Tue, 11/27/07
3:24 pm
Reply to this
former thinks Ron Paul is all that and a bag of chips. He not only thinks that crumbling roads, bridges and sewers is the way to go, but that this presents a perfect business opportunity for rich people to build their own infrastructural elements and charge poor people for the privilege of using it. this what we have now there selling are toll road to people over sea and chargeing more money to drive is that what you want?
Thank you Susan for that video....It sounded like the entire rooming chanting Run Al Run.
2nd Place Eco Spot mercial
http://current.com/items/87600881_ecospot_second_place_winner_are_you_game
15.
DANIEL ROONEY
Tue, 11/27/07
3:49 pm
Reply to this
nice hit piece chad now i know that the dems are scare of ron paul too!!
----------
That's the point!!!
Both Parties' establishments are EQUALLY scared..., exactly THE SAME as they were scared some years ago by Howard Dean.
It may sounds strange but they both have the same stance in essence, no matter one realizes it or not.
The "saint place" can't be empty.
If "you have power" then NO ONE ELSE (including Government) have it .
If Government has no power then NO ONE ELSE BUT "you have it"!
Gun-Grabbers Crank Up Anti-Second Amendment Propaganda
TruthNews | November 27, 2007
Kurt Nimmo
Now that the Supremes have agreed to rule on the Second Amendment, the corporate media has launched a full-court press to convince America it does not have a right to bear firearms.
"Activists on both sides of the steaming debate over guns ought to be able to agree, at the very least, on two things. The first is that the language of the Second Amendment is, grammatically speaking, incomprehensible. The second is that the time has come for clarity from the Supreme Court about whether the "right to bear arms" is an individual or collective one," writes Andrew Cohen for CBS News.
(Article Continues Below)
In fact, the Second Amendment is quite explicit: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Cohen and other gun-grabbers concentrate on "the three, jarring, comma-spliced clauses of the amendment," that is to say they attack the grammar of the amendment and would have us believe our forefathers were indecisive and "were no more willing or capable of making tough decisions about contentious issues (like gun rights) than are their modern-day counterparts," that is to say a gaggle of appointed statists determined to dismantle the Constitution.
Cohen is a postmodern apologist for state power over the individual. The Supremes, he declares, "should chart a course that does to the Second Amendment what we long ago did to the First Amendment; identify a strong individual right but allow for that right to be trumped from time to time by certain kinds of regulations." In other words, the state should agree in principle that the individual has a right to bear firearms but that principle should be "trumped," that is to say denied, by the exigencies of state power. Put another way, you may have a right to bear arms, at least on paper, but in practice the state will "regulate" (deny) that right.
"So we would then get a Second Amendment that both recognizes our right to own and possess guns and recognizes the government's ability to restrain that right in certain, yet-to-be-determined ways."
Nonsense. The founders realized that the individual had a natural, indivisible right to possess firearms precisely because of the nature of state power. It has nothing to do with "certain, yet-to-be-determined" exigencies of the state.
In regard to grammar and the trickery Andrew Cohen has in mind, founder George Mason, who co-authored the Second Amendment, wrote during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution in 1788: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
That should resolve Cohen's grammatical problem, but it will not, of course.
In Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Richard Henry Lee wrote: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves."
Zachariah Johnson, arguing in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, wrote: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," declared Samuel Adams in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789.
George Washington understood well what Cohen and the gun-grabbers do not: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
Thomas Paine knew that "horrid mischief" would ensue if the people were denied their right to arms. "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside."
Thomas Jefferson: "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
In fact, Jefferson considered it not only a right for the individual to be armed, but a duty. Predictably, Cohen and the gun-grabbers do not make mention of this philosophic attitude, preferring instead to tell us the founders were conflicted and, absurdly, wanted to postpone the debate "for another day."
Cohen and crew believe Congress, after a Supreme Court "decision," has the right to regulate our firearms out of existence. Patrick Henry had something to say about this: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Finally, Thomas Jefferson explained precisely why there is a Second Amendment: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Indeed, let them… before it is too late.
Both Parties' establishments are EQUALLY scared..., exactly THE SAME as they were scared some years ago by Howard an who kill howard dean is own party!!!! the blog has short memorys
A few weeks from now in Bali, Indonesia is our chance. Government leaders from around the globe will gather to take heed of the scientists' findings and to craft an international treaty that will halt global warming. A treaty that will be a platform for dozens of clean energy solutions that can provide essential services to developed and developing countries alike. The time is now.
Please click here to send a message to a leading member of the US government delegation to the Bali Climate Change Conference urging him to agree to a treaty that addresses the scientists' recommendations -- a treaty that will cut global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth:
http://whatcounts.com/t?ctl=1A636D1:B48891D42D1DD9F21D112D5CE5D2F6C57CC3331E5D7D1EA6&
This is not a partisan issue; it is a moral issue. Together we can chart a course that will make our children proud and provide a healthier future for them and for their own children. Left unchecked, however, we will have so violated our responsibility to future generations that no court of law or place of worship could look at humankind without making a harsh judgment.
UN Secretary-General Ban said about Saturday's IPCC report, "These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie. But they are even more terrifying because they are real..." With an eye toward the upcoming government meeting in Bali, Ban said, "The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice. I expect the world's policy makers to do the same."
"Slowing and reversing these threats is the defining challenge of our age...It contains one overarching message for all of us: that there are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change."
Please click here to send a message to the US government delegation to the Bali Conference urging him to agree to a treaty that addresses the scientists' recommendations:
http://whatcounts.com/t?ctl=1A636D1:B48891D42D1DD9F21D112D5CE5D2F6C57CC3331E5D7D1EA6&
Cathy Zoi
CEO
Alliance for Climate Protection
25.
DANIEL ROONEY
Tue, 11/27/07
4:01 pm
...why cant people here see it?
-------
confused...for generations..., takes time.
The only 2 candidates worse than Bush-Cheney: Hillary and Rudy
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11272007.html
In new books writers as disparate as Naomi Wolf and Pat Buchanan conclude that America as we know her is disappearing. Both writers hope, but are not confident, that enough Americans will catch on in time to find the leadership to pull America back from the brink.
If polls are reliable, a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with President Bush and Congress. However, Americans are far short of Wolf and Buchanan's grasp of our peril.
Americans are unable to connect their dissatisfaction with the current political leadership with their choice of new leaders. All polls show that Hillary Clinton is far in the lead for the Democratic presidential nomination and Rudy Giuliani is far in the lead for the Republican nomination These are the only two candidates guaranteed to be worse than Bush/Cheney.
Both Hillary and Rudy are committed to the war. Both refuse to rule out expanding the war to Iran and beyond. Both are totally in the pocket of the Israel Lobby. Indeed, practically every Giuliani advisor is a member of the Lobby. Both defend the police state measures that "protect us from terrorism." And neither gives a hoot for the US Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. The Republican Giuliani is likely to overturn the Second Amendment even quicker than the Democrat Hillary.
Yet in November polls, Republicans prefer Giuliani by a margin of five or six to one over Ron Paul, the only principled Republican candidate and a person who without any doubt believes in the Constitution and would protect it.
Democrats prefer Hillary by a margin of twenty to one over Dennis Kucinich, the only member of Congress sufficiently concerned and courageous to introduce impeachment against the notorious war criminal Dick Cheney. By margins as much as forty-four to one, Democrats prefer Hillary to Senator Christopher Dodd, who promises to give America back its Constitution in the first hour of his administration. Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel does not even register in the polls.
Obviously, the American people haven't a clue. In November 2007 they show a distinct preference for leaders who are even worse than the ones with whom they are currently dissatisfied. What does this tell us about the American people and their commitment to be sufficiently informed for democracy to function?
It tells us that they are not up to the challenge. It is only a matter of time before America succumbs to the plutocracy, against which Warren Buffet recently warned Congress, or the fascist tyranny that Naomi Wolf sees in our future.
The 11% Baloney – Republican Propoganda
Polls: Amazing how people hear one number and just keep running with it. ONE poll stated that the ‘entire congress’ only received an 11% approval rating. THAT poll asked…do you disapprove? or ‘slightly’ or ‘leaning towards’ disapproval – which all counted for DISAPPROVAL. And remember, the vote was about the ‘entire’ congress, including the Republicans. All the vote blocking, filibustering, stopping the Democrats and the fearless leader threatening to Veto figures into this.
These are more realistic numbers: Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll: November 8-11, 2007
First - the SET UP question: "Democrats gained majorities in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections and have been in the majority in both Houses of Congress all year. Do you think that the new Democratic majority in Congress is doing better, worse or about the same as the Republican majority that was in power before them
All voters: Better 25 %: worse 22%: same 46%: unsure 6%
Democrats: Better 46%: worse 7%: same 43%: unsure 3%
http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm#misc
Regardless – when asked who they would be voting for in 2008 – it’s Democrats 50% and Republicans 35%. ABC Poll
Daniel wrote "this what we have now there selling are toll road to people over sea and chargeing more money to drive is that what you want?"
Are you insane?
Re: #7. That was exactly where Reagan was going. Take the people out of the decision making positions, and the problem will be solved. True conservatives never wanted a Democracy, just ask Hamilton.
CONGRESS – Job Rating in recent national polls
See also: Detailed trend
Survey
ApproveDisap-proveUnsureApprove
minusDates%%%Disapprove
.
Gallup
11/11-14/07206911-49.
AP-Ipsos
11/5-7/072570*-45.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
11/1-5/07196813-49.
ABC/Washington Post
10/29 - 11/1/0728657-37.
Quinnipiac RV
10/23-29/07217010-49.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
10/23-24/07255422-29.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg RV10/19-22/0722699-47.
CBS
10/12-16/07275914-32.
CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
10/12-14/0722753-53.
Gallup
10/12-14/0729646-35.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
10/9-10/07246312-39.
NPR LV10/4, 6-7/0725696-44.
Gallup
10/4-7/0723716-48.
AP-Ipsos
10/1-3/072273*-51.
ABC/Washington Post
9/27-30/0729656-36.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
9/25-26/07246313-39.
CBS
9/14-16/0727658-38.
Gallup
9/14-16/0724715-47.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
9/11-12/07325611-24.
AP-Ipsos
9/10-12/072671*-45.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
9/7-10/07236512-42.
CBS/New York Times
9/4-8/07236611-43.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
8/21-22/07246017-36.
Pew
8/1-18/07216514-44.
Gallup
8/13-16/0718766-58.
Quinnipiac RV
8/7-13/07207010-50.
CBS
8/8-12/07256312-38.
AP-Ipsos
8/6-8/072572*-47.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
7/27-30/07246313-39.
CBS/New York Times
7/20-22/07266113-35.
Diageo/Hotline RV
7/19-22/0725688-43.
ABC/Washington Post
7/18-21/0737604-23.
CBS/New York Times
7/9-17/07295912-30.
Gallup
7/12-15/0727667-39.
AP-Ipsos
7/9-11/072470*-46.
CBS
6/26-28/07276013-33.
Newsweek
6/18-19/07256312-38.
Gallup
6/11-14/0724715-47.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
6/8-11/07236413-41.
Quinnipiac RV
6/5-11/07236611-43.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg6/7-10/0727658-38.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
6/5-6/07295515-26.
ABC/Washington Post
5/29 - 6/1/0739538-14.
CBS/New York Times
5/18-23/07365212-16.
Diageo/Hotline RV
5/16-20/0731618-30.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
5/15-16/07325315-21.
Gallup
5/10-13/0729647-35.
AP-Ipsos
5/7-9/073560*-25.
Quinnipiac RV
4/25 - 5/1/0739529-13.
Diageo/Hotline RV
4/26-30/0738548-16.
NPR LV4/26-29/0735596-24.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
4/20-23/07315217-21.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
4/17-18/07354916-14.
ABC/Washington Post
4/12-15/0744543-10.
CBS
4/9-12/07345412-20.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg4/5-9/0734588-24.
Gallup
4/2-5/0733607-27.
AP-Ipsos
4/2-4/074057*-17.
Diageo/Hotline RV
3/29 - 4/1/07375211-15.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
3/27-28/07305416-24.
Gallup
3/11-14/0728648-36.
CBS/New York Times
3/7-11/07315316-22.
AP-Ipsos
3/5-7/073363*-30.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
3/2-5/07315316-22.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
2/27-28/07324920-17.
CBS/New York Times
2/23-27/07335017-17.
ABC/Washington Post
2/22-25/0741545-13.
Diageo/Hotline RV
2/21-24/07305516-25.
CBS
2/8-11/07325216-20.
AP-Ipsos
2/5-7/073458*-24.
Gallup
2/1-4/0737558-18.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
1/30-31/07334422-11.
CBS
1/18-21/07334918-16.
ABC/Washington Post
1/16-19/0743508-7.
AP-Ipsos
1/16-18/073460*-26.
Gallup
1/15-18/0735569-21.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
1/16-17/07324721-15.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg1/13-16/07364420-8.
Diageo/Hotline RV
1/11-14/07314921-18.
AP-Ipsos
1/8-10/073262*-30.
Gallup
12/11-14/0621745-53.
ABC/Washington Post
12/7-11/0637576-20.
AP-Ipsos
12/4-6/062767*-40.
AP-Ipsos
11/13-15/062670*-44.
Gallup
11/9-12/0626677-41.
Diageo/Hotline RV
11/8-12/06276311-36.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV
11/4-5/06295713-28.
USA Today/Gallup
11/2-5/06266311-37.
ABC/Washington Post RV
11/1-4/0636604-24.
CBS/New York Times
10/27-31/06295615-27.
AP-AOL
10/20-25/062572*-47.
Diageo/Hotline RV
10/19-23/0627659-38.
USA Today/Gallup
10/20-22/0626676-41.
ABC/Washington Post
10/19-22/0631654-34.
NBC/Wall Street Journal RV
10/13-16/0616759-59.
Gallup
10/9-12/0623716-48.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV
10/10-11/0631636-32.
CNN
10/6-8/0628639-35.
USA Today/Gallup
10/6-8/0624687-44.
ABC/Washington Post
10/5-8/0632662-34.
CBS/New York Times
10/5-8/0627649-37.
Time
10/3-4/06315712-26.
AP-Ipsos
10/2-4/062769*-42.
Diageo/Hotline RV
9/24-26/0628657-37.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg9/16-19/06305713-27.
CBS/New York Times
9/15-19/06256114-36.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV
9/12-13/06295318-24.
AP-Ipsos *
9/11-13/062968 -39.
NBC/Wall Street Journal RV
9/8-11/06206515-45.
Gallup
9/7-10/0629638-34.
ABC
9/5-7/0640555-15.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
8/29-30/06246115-37.
Cook/RT Strategies RV8/25-27/06315812-27.
Time
8/22-24/06305911-29.
CBS/New York Times
8/17-21/06296011-31.
Diageo/Hotline RV
8/17-20/0631618-30.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
8/8-9/06245817-34.
Gallup
8/7-10/0627658-38.
AP-Ipsos
8/7-9/062969*-30.
ABC/Washington Post
8/3-6/0636604-24.
Cook/RT Strategies RV7/28-30/06285715-29.
CBS/New York Times
7/21-25/06285814-30.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
7/21-24/06256015-35.
Diageo/Hotline RV
7/20-23/06315811-27.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
7/11-12/06256114-36.
AP-Ipsos *
7/10-12/062768 -41.
Gallup
7/6-9/06296110-32.
Time
6/27-29/06315514-24.
Diageo/Hotline RV
6/21-25/0630628-32.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
6/13-14/06295912-30.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
6/9-12/06236413-41.
CBS6/10-11/06266014-34.
AP-Ipsos *
6/5-7/062473 -49.
Cook/RT Strategies RV6/1-4/06275617-29.
Gallup
6/1-4/06276310-36.
Diageo/Hotline RV
5/18-21/0629647-35.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
5/16-18/06275617-29.
CBS5/16-17/06265915-33.
ABC/Washington Post
5/11-15/0633634-30.
Gallup
5/8-11/0621718-50.
CBS/New York Times
5/4-8/06236413-41.
AP-Ipsos *
5/1-3/062571 -46.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
4/21-24/06226513-43.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
4/18-19/06255223-27.
Gallup
4/10-13/0623707-47.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg4/8-11/06286111-33.
ABC/Washington Post
4/6-9/0635623-27.
CBS4/6-9/06276112-34.
AP-Ipsos *
4/3-5/063067 -37.
Time
3/22-23/06394912-10.
Gallup
3/13-16/0627658-38.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
3/14-15/06295516-26.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
3/10-13/06335314-20.
CBS3/9-12/06325414-22.
AP-Ipsos *
3/6-8/063166 -35.
ABC/Washington Post
3/2-5/0636623-26.
Quinnipiac RV
2/21-28/06256311-38.
CBS2/22-26/06286111-33.
Diageo/Hotline RV
2/16-19/0630618-31.
Gallup
2/6-9/06256510-40.
AP-Ipsos *
2/6-8/063561 -26.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
1/26-29/06295615-27.
ABC/Washington Post
1/23-26/0643534-10.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
1/24-25/06345116-17.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg1/22-25/06355510-20.
CBS/New York Times
1/20-25/06296110-32.
Diageo/Hotline RV
1/12-15/06315910-28.
Gallup
1/9-12/0627677-40.
ABC/Washington Post
1/5-8/0641555-14.
CBS1/5-8/06275716-30.
AP-Ipsos *
1/3-5/063463 -29.
ABC/Washington Post
12/15-18/0543534-10.
NPR LV12/15, 17-18/0543516-8.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
12/13-14/05305218-22.
Diageo/Hotline RV
12/12-13/05266410-38.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
12/9-12/05256015-35.
Gallup
12/5-8/0529638-34.
AP-Ipsos *
12/5-7/053165 -34.
CBS/New York Times
12/2-6/05335314-20.
Quinnipiac RV
11/28 - 12/4/05276111-34.
Time
11/29 - 12/1/05335513-22.
Diageo/Hotline RV
11/11-15/05365312-17.
Gallup
11/7-10/0529638-34.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
11/4-7/05285715-29.
AP-Ipsos *
10/31 - 11/2/053759 -22.
ABC/Washington Post
10/30 - 11/2/0537594-22.
CBS
10/30 - 11/1/05345313-19.
Gallup
10/13-16/0529647-35.
Diageo/Hotline RV10/12-16/05296210-33.
AP-Ipsos *10/3-5/053561 -26.
CBS10/3-5/05315712-26.
Newsweek
9/29-30/05325612-24.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
9/13-14/05344917-15.
Gallup
9/12-15/0535596-24.
CBS/New York Times9/9-13/05345412-20.
NBC/Wall Street Journal9/9-12/05295318-24
RV = registered voters. LV = likely voters.
* AP-Ipsos question includes a "mixed feelings" option.
minusDates%%%Disapprove
.
Gallup
11/11-14/07206911-49.
AP-Ipsos
11/5-7/072570*-45.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
11/1-5/07196813-49.
ABC/Washington Post
10/29 - 11/1/0728657-37.
Quinnipiac RV
10/23-29/07217010-49.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
10/23-24/07255422-29.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg RV10/19-22/0722699-47.
CBS
10/12-16/07275914-32.
CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
10/12-14/0722753-53.
Gallup
10/12-14/0729646-35.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
10/9-10/07246312-39.
NPR LV10/4, 6-7/0725696-44.
Gallup
10/4-7/0723716-48.
AP-Ipsos
10/1-3/072273*-51.
ABC/Washington Post
9/27-30/0729656-36.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
9/25-26/07246313-39.
CBS
9/14-16/0727658-38.
Gallup
9/14-16/0724715-47.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
9/11-12/07325611-24.
AP-Ipsos
9/10-12/072671*-45.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
9/7-10/07236512-42.
CBS/New York Times
9/4-8/07236611-43.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
8/21-22/07246017-36.
Pew
8/1-18/07216514-44.
Gallup
8/13-16/0718766-58.
Quinnipiac RV
8/7-13/07207010-50.
CBS
8/8-12/07256312-38.
AP-Ipsos
8/6-8/072572*-47.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
7/27-30/07246313-39.
CBS/New York Times
7/20-22/07266113-35.
Diageo/Hotline RV
7/19-22/0725688-43.
ABC/Washington Post
7/18-21/0737604-23.
CBS/New York Times
7/9-17/07295912-30.
Gallup
7/12-15/0727667-39.
AP-Ipsos
7/9-11/072470*-46.
CBS
6/26-28/07276013-33.
Newsweek
6/18-19/07256312-38.
Gallup
6/11-14/0724715-47.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
6/8-11/07236413-41.
Quinnipiac RV
6/5-11/07236611-43.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg6/7-10/0727658-38.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
6/5-6/07295515-26.
ABC/Washington Post
5/29 - 6/1/0739538-14.
CBS/New York Times
5/18-23/07365212-16.
Diageo/Hotline RV
5/16-20/0731618-30.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
5/15-16/07325315-21.
Gallup
5/10-13/0729647-35.
AP-Ipsos
5/7-9/073560*-25.
Quinnipiac RV
4/25 - 5/1/0739529-13.
Diageo/Hotline RV
4/26-30/0738548-16.
NPR LV4/26-29/0735596-24.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
4/20-23/07315217-21.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
4/17-18/07354916-14.
ABC/Washington Post
4/12-15/0744543-10.
CBS
4/9-12/07345412-20.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg4/5-9/0734588-24.
Gallup
4/2-5/0733607-27.
AP-Ipsos
4/2-4/074057*-17.
Diageo/Hotline RV
3/29 - 4/1/07375211-15.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
3/27-28/07305416-24.
Gallup
3/11-14/0728648-36.
CBS/New York Times
3/7-11/07315316-22.
AP-Ipsos
3/5-7/073363*-30.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
3/2-5/07315316-22.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
2/27-28/07324920-17.
CBS/New York Times
2/23-27/07335017-17.
ABC/Washington Post
2/22-25/0741545-13.
Diageo/Hotline RV
2/21-24/07305516-25.
CBS
2/8-11/07325216-20.
AP-Ipsos
2/5-7/073458*-24.
Gallup
2/1-4/0737558-18.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
1/30-31/07334422-11.
CBS
1/18-21/07334918-16.
ABC/Washington Post
1/16-19/0743508-7.
AP-Ipsos
1/16-18/073460*-26.
Gallup
1/15-18/0735569-21.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
1/16-17/07324721-15.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg1/13-16/07364420-8.
Diageo/Hotline RV
1/11-14/07314921-18.
AP-Ipsos
1/8-10/073262*-30.
Gallup
12/11-14/0621745-53.
ABC/Washington Post
12/7-11/0637576-20.
AP-Ipsos
12/4-6/062767*-40.
AP-Ipsos
11/13-15/062670*-44.
Gallup
11/9-12/0626677-41.
Diageo/Hotline RV
11/8-12/06276311-36.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV
11/4-5/06295713-28.
USA Today/Gallup
11/2-5/06266311-37.
ABC/Washington Post RV
11/1-4/0636604-24.
CBS/New York Times
10/27-31/06295615-27.
AP-AOL
10/20-25/062572*-47.
Diageo/Hotline RV
10/19-23/0627659-38.
USA Today/Gallup
10/20-22/0626676-41.
ABC/Washington Post
10/19-22/0631654-34.
NBC/Wall Street Journal RV
10/13-16/0616759-59.
Gallup
10/9-12/0623716-48.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV
10/10-11/0631636-32.
CNN
10/6-8/0628639-35.
USA Today/Gallup
10/6-8/0624687-44.
ABC/Washington Post
10/5-8/0632662-34.
CBS/New York Times
10/5-8/0627649-37.
Time
10/3-4/06315712-26.
AP-Ipsos
10/2-4/062769*-42.
Diageo/Hotline RV
9/24-26/0628657-37.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg9/16-19/06305713-27.
CBS/New York Times
9/15-19/06256114-36.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV
9/12-13/06295318-24.
AP-Ipsos *
9/11-13/062968 -39.
NBC/Wall Street Journal RV
9/8-11/06206515-45.
Gallup
9/7-10/0629638-34.
ABC
9/5-7/0640555-15.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
8/29-30/06246115-37.
Cook/RT Strategies RV8/25-27/06315812-27.
Time
8/22-24/06305911-29.
CBS/New York Times
8/17-21/06296011-31.
Diageo/Hotline RV
8/17-20/0631618-30.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
8/8-9/06245817-34.
Gallup
8/7-10/0627658-38.
AP-Ipsos
8/7-9/062969*-30.
ABC/Washington Post
8/3-6/0636604-24.
Cook/RT Strategies RV7/28-30/06285715-29.
CBS/New York Times
7/21-25/06285814-30.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
7/21-24/06256015-35.
Diageo/Hotline RV
7/20-23/06315811-27.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
7/11-12/06256114-36.
AP-Ipsos *
7/10-12/062768 -41.
Gallup
7/6-9/06296110-32.
Time
6/27-29/06315514-24.
Diageo/Hotline RV
6/21-25/0630628-32.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
6/13-14/06295912-30.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
6/9-12/06236413-41.
CBS6/10-11/06266014-34.
AP-Ipsos *
6/5-7/062473 -49.
Cook/RT Strategies RV6/1-4/06275617-29.
Gallup
6/1-4/06276310-36.
Diageo/Hotline RV
5/18-21/0629647-35.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
5/16-18/06275617-29.
CBS5/16-17/06265915-33.
ABC/Washington Post
5/11-15/0633634-30.
Gallup
5/8-11/0621718-50.
CBS/New York Times
5/4-8/06236413-41.
AP-Ipsos *
5/1-3/062571 -46.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
4/21-24/06226513-43.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
4/18-19/06255223-27.
Gallup
4/10-13/0623707-47.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg4/8-11/06286111-33.
ABC/Washington Post
4/6-9/0635623-27.
CBS4/6-9/06276112-34.
AP-Ipsos *
4/3-5/063067 -37.
Time
3/22-23/06394912-10.
Gallup
3/13-16/0627658-38.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
3/14-15/06295516-26.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
3/10-13/06335314-20.
CBS3/9-12/06325414-22.
AP-Ipsos *
3/6-8/063166 -35.
ABC/Washington Post
3/2-5/0636623-26.
Quinnipiac RV
2/21-28/06256311-38.
CBS2/22-26/06286111-33.
Diageo/Hotline RV
2/16-19/0630618-31.
Gallup
2/6-9/06256510-40.
AP-Ipsos *
2/6-8/063561 -26.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
1/26-29/06295615-27.
ABC/Washington Post
1/23-26/0643534-10.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
1/24-25/06345116-17.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg1/22-25/06355510-20.
CBS/New York Times
1/20-25/06296110-32.
Diageo/Hotline RV
1/12-15/06315910-28.
Gallup
1/9-12/0627677-40.
ABC/Washington Post
1/5-8/0641555-14.
CBS1/5-8/06275716-30.
AP-Ipsos *
1/3-5/063463 -29.
ABC/Washington Post
12/15-18/0543534-10.
NPR LV12/15, 17-18/0543516-8.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
12/13-14/05305218-22.
Diageo/Hotline RV
12/12-13/05266410-38.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
12/9-12/05256015-35.
Gallup
12/5-8/0529638-34.
AP-Ipsos *
12/5-7/053165 -34.
CBS/New York Times
12/2-6/05335314-20.
Quinnipiac RV
11/28 - 12/4/05276111-34.
Time
11/29 - 12/1/05335513-22.
Diageo/Hotline RV
11/11-15/05365312-17.
Gallup
11/7-10/0529638-34.
NBC/Wall Street Journal
11/4-7/05285715-29.
AP-Ipsos *
10/31 - 11/2/053759 -22.
ABC/Washington Post
10/30 - 11/2/0537594-22.
CBS
10/30 - 11/1/05345313-19.
Gallup
10/13-16/0529647-35.
Diageo/Hotline RV10/12-16/05296210-33.
AP-Ipsos *10/3-5/053561 -26.
CBS10/3-5/05315712-26.
Newsweek
9/29-30/05325612-24.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV
9/13-14/05344917-15.
Gallup
9/12-15/0535596-24.
CBS/New York Times9/9-13/05345412-20.
NBC/Wall Street Journal9/9-12/05295318-24
RV = registered voters. LV = likely voters.
* AP-Ipsos question includes a "mixed feelings" option.
According to Counterpunch, Paul is "the only principled Republican candidate and a person who without any doubt believes in the Constitution and would protect it."
Presumably these would be the Constitutional protections against gun control laws, social security, civil rights and affirmative action laws, environmental regulation, minimum wages, food and drug standards, roads, bridges, sewers, and public services of any kind.
A woman's Constitutional right to privacy in matters regarding reproduction, obviously, would not be protected. Oh well, sorry.
Foreign Companies Buy U.S. Roads, Bridges
Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.
On a single day in June, an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.
Few people know that the tolls from the U.S. side of the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, go to a subsidiary of an Australian company — which also owns a bridge in Alabama.
Some experts welcome the trend. Robert Poole, transportation director for the conservative think tank Reason Foundation, said private investors can raise more money than politicians to build new roads because these kind of owners are willing to raise tolls.
A woman's Constitutional right to privacy in matters regarding reproduction, obviously, would not be protected. Oh well, sorry. hey who care if we kill millions of babys so why dont you start with your own tom? sick
Daniel wrote "hey who care if we kill millions of babys so why dont you start with your own tom? sick."
Thanks for showing us your Lark pack. Since you care so much, shouldn't you be adopting the unwanted infant of another woman you insisted must be required by law to carry her pregnancy to term about now?
The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.
The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.
In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.
In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:
- I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
- I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
- Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
- I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.
Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty. d not going to let you get away with your hit on ron paul let the infowar start!!!
Sheesh, Daniel, CHILL!
You are not winning advocates at all, but here is one person who would like to wring your neck until you learn some manners.
Gawd ... this returning to the work world is OK, but hard after a long day to see endless screeds from people who apparently do not support Dean ... on the blog that Dean people started.
NObody is worse than Bush/Cheney. NObody. You could pick two plain Americans off the street and they'd do a better job and be way more honest. In fact, you could pick two plain old Republicans off the street - and even THEY would do a better job.
I remember when Fox and Bush and all kept saying - 'we really want Hillary to run". That was a double reverse. One: They wanted the more informed to think - they thought they could certainly beat her. Two: For the rest, by saying they were FOR her running, many would be against her just for that reason. Strange how they're now all changing tactics - and ferociously attacking Hillary Clinton. HINT
E. J. Dionne is a welcome voice of reason.
============
Liberals' Lesson Down Under
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007; A17
Kevin Rudd, Australia's incoming prime minister, combines iron discipline with a puckish sense of humor, political toughness with a reflective spiritual side, and a youthful disposition with an old pro's skill at divining where a majority lies.
The triumph of Rudd and his Australian Labor Party holds lessons for Democrats and other center-left parties. John Howard, the conservative incumbent swept from power after 11 years in office, had presided over record prosperity. For the first time in the country's history, wrote Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald, a government was tossed out in unambiguously strong economic times.
Until Saturday's vote, Labor had lost four elections in a row. One young Labor politician I spoke with during a visit to Australia this summer worried whether her party would have any future if it lost a fifth time. As it happens, Labor under Rudd won its largest share of the vote in 60 years. Howard lost his own seat in a rout in which Labor went from 60 seats to about 86 seats (some races are still close) in the 150-member House of Representatives.
Rudd built on a strong reaction against Howard's new workplace laws curtailing the rights of workers and unions. Labor won a swath of seats in the far suburbs of the big metropolitan areas where younger two-income families flourish but also struggle with rising mortgage rates and the work-family-community time crunch.
But it is the success of the 50-year-old Rudd in drawing a generational line across the Australian electorate that could be adopted elsewhere, particularly in countries like ours where young people are frustrated with replays of old battles. He overwhelmed the 68-year-old Howard among voters under age 30, beat him among those 30 to 50, and ran even or slightly behind among voters over 50.
Everything Rudd did cast the election as a choice between the past and the future, old and new, tired and fresh, all embodied in his core slogans, "New Leadership" and "Fresh Ideas." The issues he emphasized -- the need for action against global warming, an "education revolution" to make Australia "the best-educated country in the world," and a pledge to bring broadband technology to the entire nation -- reinforced his resolutely up-to-date aura.
[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Some endless screeds of my own ... my rebellion! LOL
We will know there is no racism when: On ALL forms, employment, voter's registration, etc. - you do not have to list what RACE you are!
Locking us in ... you betcha. Monica has the right of it.
===============
Locking Us Into Iraq?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, November 27, 2007; 1:44 PM
Is President Bush trying to tie the hands of his successor when it comes to Iraq?
While Washington is focused on today's pretend peace conference in Annapolis, this week's big Mideast news may well have come yesterday, when Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki quietly signed a momentous agreement about the future of U.S.-Iraqi relations.
Without any advance notice or public ceremony, Bush and Maliki agreed to a framework that calls for important decisions -- about such key issues as permanent U.S. military bases, long-term troop deployment and accountability for private contractors -- to be set in stone before Bush leaves office. And, while approval of the Iraqi parliament will be required, the U.S. Congress apparently won't get any say.
Peter Baker and Ann Scott Tyson write in The Washington Post: "The nonbinding statement sets the parameters for talks on a formal pact. Those negotiations will address thorny issues such as what mission U.S. forces in Iraq will pursue, whether they will establish permanent bases, and what kind of immunity, if any, should be granted to private security contractors such as Blackwater Worldwide."
Olivier Knox writes for AFP: "US 'war czar' Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said that next year's talks would cover issues at the heart of the bitter US debate over the war. . . .
"'The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, US presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States,' the general said.
"Lute's remarks were notable in that top US officials, starting with Bush, have repeatedly denied seeking permanent bases in Iraq or that the US deployment -- currently at roughly 162,000 troops -- is open-ended.
"The Bush-Maliki agreement was also expected to raise eyebrows with one provision that cited the need to promote the flow of international capital to Iraq but 'especially American investments.'
"Monday's announcement means that the Bush administration and Iraq will work out the future of US forces in Iraq in the shadow of the November 2008 US presidential election and despite sky-high US public opposition to the war.
"Any resulting agreement could limit the ability of Bush's successor to break with the current US strategy, as Democratic candidates have promised to do amid increasingly vocal calls for a US withdrawal.
[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
This particular article should not contain new news, but like Monica's catapulting of the Iraqi groups meeting in Scandinavia that is singularly uncovered elsewhere, it should also be reiterated ... and reiterated ... until people FINALLY *get* it.
==================
The Bush Family Gets Away with Crimes That Would Land Anyone Else in Jail
By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted November 26, 2007.
For decades, the Bush family has operated above the law, using powerful connections to brush aside evidence that would put lesser Americans in the slammer.
In the history of the American Republic, perhaps no political family has been more protected from scandal than the Bushes.
When the Bushes are involved in dirty deals or even criminal activity, standards of evidence change. Instead of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would lock up an average citizen, the evidence must be perfect.
If there's any doubt at all, the Bushes must be presumed innocent. Even when their guilt is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, it's their accusers and those who dare investigate who get the worst of it. Their motives are challenged and their own shortcomings are cast in the harshest possible light.
For decades -- arguably going back generations -- the Bushes have been protected by their unique position straddling two centers of national power, the family's blueblood Eastern Establishment ties and the Texas oil crowd with strong links to the Republican Right. [For details on this family phenomenon, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
This reality was underscored again by how major news outlets and the right-wing press reacted to a new piece of evidence implicating George W. Bush in a criminal cover-up in the "Plame-gate" scandal.
Though the evidence is now overwhelming that President Bush was part of a White House cabal that leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert CIA officer and then covered up the facts, major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, continue to pooh-pooh this extraordinary scandal.
[...]
http://www.alternet.org/story/68843
Re: #19
nice hit piece chad now i know that the dems are scare of ron paul too!! its all hillary or nothing dfa is selling american people out it wont work the people dont trust you all anymore 11% for congress so it over boys ron paul revolition is here to stay.
Daniel, I'm going to be as clear as I can be here. I am not "scared" of Ron Paul as a Democrat. I am scared of the possibility that he may win, and I say that as an American and as a citizen of the world. Ron Paul as President would not help this country one bit. Social Security would not be fixed, Health Care would not be fixed, Education would not be fixed, Climate Change would be ignored, Corporate abuses of power would be ignored. We would have 4 years that would go down into history as worse than anything Bush could ever have done. If the Democrats maintain their majority, there would be more vetos than ever before in history, and Congress would be in absolute chaos. Any appointments to the Supreme Court would be destructive to this country for decades.
As a Democrat, I'm not scared of Ron Paul. He doesn't have any more of a chance on the Republican side than Kucinich has on the Democratic side. And I've said that a head to head match-up putting Ron v. Dennis would be good for the country because it would give people a clear choice for once.
But I have not given money to Ron Paul, I have not voted for him in any online polls, and I do not want him as President. It would hold everything back for another 4 years, and with our environment and economy on the rocks, I'm not sure if the USA would survive. I'm not sure that the planet would survive.
The people will decide. We will have our election, and we'll see what happens. But nothing will get me to think about moving away faster than a Paul victory.
JudyforDean
Tue, 11/27/07
5:07 pm
Reply to this
Sheesh, Daniel, CHILL!
You are not winning advocates at all, not trying too the case is hopless!!!! sorry for ramp dfa sucks! there protecting there own butt. the blog is dieing so is the left an right matrix.
At the rate we keep mowing down our *friends* in Iraq, soon only the *militants* will be left.
OUT. NOW.
===================
Four Iraqi civilians dead after US troops open fire on minibus
James Orr and agencies
Tuesday November 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
US troops in Baghdad today opened fire on a minibus that failed to stop at a checkpoint, killing up to four Iraqi bank workers.
The shooting took place in the city's northern Shaab district, known as a Shia militia stronghold, as the minibus driver was collecting employees to go to work.
Initial police reports suggested four people had been killed in the incident, including three women.
But Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the Iraqi interior ministry spokesman, claimed only one woman was killed in the attack and five passengers injured.
"We do not know what happened and we asked the multinational forces to investigate the event," Khalaf said.
[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33137...
Daniel, I think that you need to try some yoga.
There are times when things have been worse ... just not for us.
And yes, I agree that they are pretty bad. But you are alienating those whom you would probably like.
Yet another reason for Al to heed our calls and take up the mantle that is rightfully his.
=================
Rudd talks climate change with Gore
Barbara McMahon in Sydney
Tuesday November 27, 2007
Guardian
Australia's plans to join the fight against global warming were underscored on Tuesday when the country's new leader, Kevin Rudd, said he had talked to the leading climate change campaigner Al Gore.
Rudd, whose Labor party swept to a decisive win over the outgoing conservative prime minister, John Howard, at the weekend, has already decided to ratify the Kyoto pact limiting greenhouse gas emissions, overturning a key policy of his predecessor, who refused to endorse the agreement.
The 50-year-old new leader revealed that the former US vice-president Mr Gore called him yesterday to congratulate him on his election triumph, and that the two men talked about global warming and climate change.
"'G'day, Kevin?' that's what he started by saying," Rudd told reporters. I've taught Al how to say g'day. As you know, with some of our American friends, it's very hard to get it quite right."
The prime minister-elect continued: "We talked a lot about climate change and some of the important things which need to be done globally. We will resume that conversation [at the UN climate change summit] in Bali over a strong cup of tea - or something stronger."
Rudd has already confirmed that he will attend the meeting to discuss a successor treaty to Kyoto, which ends in 2012.
The youthful prime minister's desire to bring Australia back into the international fold on fighting climate change is in direct contrast with the outgoing leader, who allied himself to the US in refusing to ratify Kyoto.
[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33138...
Good luck, guys, but so long as the *thugs* control $$$ and power, the fix will always be in.
=================
Air firm accused of rendition flights role
Ian Cobain
Tuesday November 27, 2007
Guardian
The US government is attempting to halt a lawsuit that could establish whether any of the Central Intelligence Agency's so-called rendition flights have been partly planned on British soil. Lawyers representing a number of men who have been held at Guantánamo are suing Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of the Boeing Corporation, accusing Jeppesen of involvement in the flights that took the men to secret prisons around the world. Once there, the men say, they were tortured.
The lawyers say they strongly suspect that at least some of the logistic support for the CIA's flights was arranged at Jeppesen's office in Crawley, West Sussex, a few miles from Gatwick airport.
However, the US government is asking a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit because "to proceed would risk the disclosure of highly classified information" about the agency's methods.
According to Washington's arguments, that information would include "whether any private entities or other countries assisted the CIA", as well as the locations of any secret prisons and "the methods of interrogation employed".
The men's lawyers at Reprieve, a London-based legal charity, say that if the case is dismissed, they may sue Jeppesen for damages in the English courts.
[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33137...
There's a report on KOS that Kucinich is suggesting that Ron Paul might be a good VP for him.
I'm afraid that PillowLand is beckoning, so this is the last.
Keep the Dean flame alive and hold it high!
=================
Published on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 by USA Today
McClellan Admission Evokes Memories of Nixon Era
by DeWayne Wickham
This trail is starting to look familiar. When an excerpt from the soon-to-be-released book by former presidential press secretary Scott McClellan revealed that President Bush and Vice President Cheney instructed him to tell journalists that top White House aides played no role in the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, I had an eerie feeling that the nation had been down this path before.
In discussing a 2003 press briefing during which he told reporters that Karl Rove, the president’s political adviser, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, had nothing to do with the leak, McClellan says he was misled.”There was one problem,” he wrote of what he told journalists that day. “It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff (Andrew Card) and the president himself,” McClellan writes.
This blurb from What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong with Washington, is posted on the website of its publisher, Public Affairs Books.
[...]
In March, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, lying to a grand jury and to FBI agents investigating the leak of Plame Wilson’s identity. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison, but Bush commuted his prison time.
The seedy path taken by Bush’s aides looks a lot like one taken by another White House.
[...]
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007...
Have you noticed that nothing surprises us anymore? That's the first step to taking effective action.
Hillary Clinton has sent Bush a letter saying "no permanent bases in Iraq." LOL
Dodd was first.
Re: #58
Hi Monica,
Ron Paul's campaign doesn't think it's a good match. And neither do I. What Dennis wants to do is heal the country and bring us together. The problem is that he is choosing the person whose ideas are as far away from him as possible, except on Iraq. That's not an authentic progressive ticket, and it will not get my support.
new thread..
http://blogforamerica.com/view/23106#com...
52. I hate to say this, but after watching the interview with George and Laura, I'm afraid that Bush Two is a basket case. Yes, they stand him up and give him speeches to read, but there doesn't seem to be much "there" there. I was really startled by the conversation about Jenna's engagement. Bush couldn't anwer the simplest question, stick to the text. When Charlie asked if they were planning a wedding in the White House, Laura said "maybe we can talk about that this weekend." It was the weirdest thing.
Tom Bearse
Tue, 11/27/07
3:46 pm
Reply to this
Daniel wrote "its all hillary or nothing."
Who is the Clinton booster here in your mind? I have yet to smoke him or her out. the dems party and dfa all who are here will support dem not repugs!
Tue, 11/27/07
5:49 pm
Reply to this
Re: #58
Hi Monica,
Ron Paul's campaign doesn't think it's a good match. And neither do I. What Dennis wants to do is heal the country and bring us together. The problem is that he is choosing the person whose ideas are as far away from him as possible, except on Iraq. That's not an authentic progressive ticket, and it will not get my support.
you people belive everthing that you read or hear its all bullshit!!!JudyforDean
Tue, 11/27/07
5:28 pm
Reply to this
Daniel, I think that you need to try some yoga.
There are times when things have been worse ... just not for us.
And yes, I agree that they are pretty bad. But you are alienating those whom you would probably like.
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
Dreams wow gold
By wow gold w on Nov 22, 2009 3:17 AM EST -
the Psychobiology talk about the pc wow gold game
By wow gold w on Nov 21, 2009 11:39 PM EST -
Spring Trend 2009 Abercrombie & Fitch
By Abercrombie F on Nov 21, 2009 9:44 PM EST -
Vacationing?
By Phoenix V on Nov 21, 2009 2:07 PM EST -
Bags And Shoes Gucci or Louboutin
By Buy l on Nov 21, 2009 2:37 AM EST
-
By Aldon Hynes on Nov 27, 2007 7:59 AM ESTChad,
Thanks for this post and bringing people back to core progressive values. As a fiscally conservative, on first glance, Ron Paul might seem appealing. Yet a true fiscal conservative is interested in seeing money spent properly, not money squandered by failing to maintain what we have. We still honor the old phrase, "A stitch in time saves nine.
For a different view of the Ron Paul phenomenon, I’d urge you to stop by my blog and read the post Ron Paul von Hindenburg.
Aldon