Not quite. Thats the only poll that has the lead that close. CNN has Kerry up by 11 % WMUR had him up by 18 % and another by 20%. the MSNBC/REuters/Zogby poll which you are talking about here had Iowa as a "statistical dead heat" too. Kerry beat Dean by 20 % in that last week. The tracking polls arent reliable in New Hampshire though. But I have a feeling Dean wont do that well , at least not as well as he was supposed to do being up by 30 points 2 weeks ago. But then again , 1 year ago they would have been happy with 3rd in Iowa too, right ?
why do you think Kerry is a moderate? his campaign, since mary beth cahill took over, is more of the same class warfare, soak-the-rich, tripe that al gore championed in 2000. how well did that work for gore? john kennedy-by-proxy kerry is no republican's idea of a moderate.
Ah, accusations of "class warfare"; how lame. As if returning to the fiscal policy of the longest economic expansion in postwar history is 'class warfare' ; Particularly so in that Bush' last round of tax cuts expires in 2010 -- does that mean that the bill itself is practicing class warfare by expiring? Indeed, I bet it hates america too. Although I guess huge tax breaks for the rich at the expense of future generations, and increasing the share of the tax burden of the middle class isn't class warfare -- it's more like class rape.
Sorry the image is a little out of focus , he didnt have the White House photographers Bush did on USS Mission Accomplished. Kerry doesnt need Republicans to believe hes a moderate, just the independents out there.
That's too funny, basso. The only "soaking" the rich is getting is from the rain of money decending on them courtesy of the Bush Administration. So, do you like deficits of 470+ billion dollars? Is that Conservative? I think not. The most Radical man running right now for President, who has a chance of winning, is the man sitting in that chair in the Oval Office. I'm glad you like him. Enjoy it, because it's not going to last another four years.
God I hate the rolleyes. Troy: It's hard to know which polls to trust. They're reading pretty differently. ARG has Kerry at 38, Dean at 20, Edwards at 16, Clark 15, Lieberman 5. CNN/USA Today/Gallup has Kerry 38, Dean 25, Lieberman 12, Clark 10, Edwards 9 for the 23rd and 24th. WMUR has Kerry 37, Dean 22, Edwards 12, Clark 11, Lieberman 8. Meanwhile WHDH has a new drop for Dean, with Kerry at 38 and Dean at 17. Clark (10) and Edwards (9) trail. Each of the polls except WHDH shows a positive trend for Dean, while the MSNBC/Reuters/Zogby poll shows a serious trend toward Dean in the daily (as opposed to three-day) tracking, with a difference between Dean and Kerry at 2 or 3 percent over the last day. I don't think Dean'll pull it out, but predicting anything at this point is a fool's errand. Even so, everything seems to be pointing to Kerry first, Dean second. I'm guessing Edwards has the best shot at third (just a feeling), which would be horrible news for Clark. If Clark wins third, it really doesn't hurt Edwards as much. Lieberman's a non-factor. Even if he pulls off an upset for third, he's toast in the South. If Dean doesn't regain serious momentum from an upset win or a strong showing in second, the South won't do anything for him either. Barring a real upset (Dean in first, one of the guys battling for third passing Dean for second), coming into SC, this still looks like Kerry v. Edwards winding up in a Kerry-Edwards ticket. Clark's been fading everywhere but Oklahoma and that ain't gonna do it for him.
here's a different perspective, from another vietnam vet: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004604 -- Conduct Unbecoming Kerry doesn't deserve Vietnam vets' support. BY STEPHEN SHERMAN Monday, January 26, 2004 12:01 a.m. A turning point may have been reached in the Iowa caucuses when Special Forces Lt. James Rassmann came forward to thank John Kerry for saving his life in Vietnam. Although Mr. Rassmann, like most of my veteran friends, is a Republican, he said that he'd vote for Mr. Kerry. I don't know if the incident influenced the caucus results. But I took special interest in the story because Jim served in my unit. Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool. That Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans; that his service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor ("for personal bravery") and a Silver Star ("for gallantry") is even more compelling. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he accepted at face value. In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals--so now he can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam. Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights. I'm not surprised that there are veterans who support a VVAW activist, if only because there are so few fellow veterans in politics. Ideally, there'd be many more. If you are going to vote on military appropriations, it would be nice if you didn't disrespect the soldiers. Congress hasn't had the courage to declare war in more than 60 years, despite numerous instances in which we have sent our military in harm's way. Of all the "lessons of Vietnam," surely one is that America needs a leader capable of demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to finish what they have collectively started. But the bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the individual's record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I can understand my former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude. And I would hate to see anyone giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for president just because being a Vietnam veteran is "back in style." Mr. Sherman was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Vietnam, 1967-68.
Class warfare won't hunt this time around. Listen to an Edwards stump speech. We're not lying down for that this time. It's too important to ordinary Americans that Bush lose. Bill Maher got off a good line about this the other night. He talked about how the Democrats used to get painted 'tax and spend' and then said 'isn't tax and spend better than don't tax and spend?' If you'd told me in the early 90s the Democrats were going to be the irrefutable party of fiscal responsibility I would have said you were crazy, but here we are. And cutesy slogans like 'class warfare' aren't going to be enough this time around. It's gotten so bad that Americans are actually paying attention to the issues now and not just last election's bumper stickers.
i'll grant you republicans are not exactly spendthrifts, but it doesn't follow that democrats are therefore fiscally responsible. the best that can be said of anyone in congress, dem, rep, ind, is that none of them are trying to live w/in a budget.
it'll be difficult to take your drudge accusations seriously while you keep a proven lie as your sig, no matter the font size...
From conservative blogmeister extraordinaire Andrew SUllivan, cognizant of reality: Although you are probably right in that a democratic controlled congress combined with a democratic executive would probably not be that judicious. The best situation would be that of the Clinton years for finances, where, even if a Democratic executive wanted to raise spending, he would not probably not be allowed to do so, if only out of spite and pure politics, and where congress could not engage in massive tax giveaways like in the past four years and cripple the nations finances.
Clinton did and Kerry voted for it. And Dean balanced 11 budgets in Vermont, making difficult, unpopular cuts to do it. The major Democratic candidates are all committed to a balanced budget while Bush runs up the largest deficit in the nation's history, continues to propose budget-busting spending and now wants to make the largest tax cut for the rich in our nation's history permanent. The fiscal responsibility debate is a debate we'd win handily. And, even if they didn't actually vote Dem, many Republicans would agree. Your Sherman editorial's a joke by the way. A veteran protesting the Vietnam war is no longer considered unpatriotic -- it's considered courageous. And in Kerry we have a decorated veteran who supported a president who misled him and the rest of Congress and then didn't adhere to the guidelines for war that he himself suggested. His opposition to the way the war's been conducted will serve him well. His position (on Nam and on Iraq) is in line with the mainstream in this country.
Proven lie? Hubbard, a supply sider and sworn enemy of O'Neill, said he doesn't recall it happening. At most that's a contrary allegation. T-R-A-N-S-C-R-I-P-T-S We'll see. Basso, things like smuggling uranium from Niger, GWB is a fiscal conservative, etc, are "proven lies" At most this is a disputed allegation, which neither the speaker nor his spokesman has seen fit to deny. BTW, please update me on the progress of the investigation of Mr. O'Neill's breach of National Security when you get a chance..I know you were concerned about this issue...when will charges be filed? IS the grand jury fired up and ready to go? Thx One last thing, speaking of sigs, I don't get the point of your latest magnum opus. Is Dean's first statement disproven by the second statement? I don't really follow.
For what it's worth, I seem to remember that Zogby is usually more accurate than most public polls. I've seen him nail stuff when his polls looked completely different from everyone else's. Watch, somebody's going to Google and come up with 37 examples of Zogby being off ... I tend to believe the trend lines on these things. In Iowa, Kerry was clearly trending up and Dean was trending down for weeks. The trend continued on Election Day, resulting in a pretty big Kerry victory. Although NH is pretty unpredictable and they love to send a "message" with their presidential primary vote (see McCain, John and Buchanan, Pat), I see the trend continuing on Election Day and Kerry only barely beating Dean. I don't see a clear-cut Dem nominee until late Feb, maybe early March.
i'm not defending bush on his admin's spending record, just saying Teddy Kenned-errr, John Kerry would be no better. I'm sure i've posted this before, but just in case you missed it, once more, w/ feeling: -- Deficit Denial By PETE SEPP and DREW JOHNSON The seven remaining Democrat presidential challengers have decried the size of the mounting Bush budget deficits. However, a closer look at their own platforms reveals an inconvenient fact: the budget shortfalls they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies. GO FIGURE New federal spending proposed by the Democratic candidates for president. Annual Increase in billions Sharpton: $1,327.01 Kucinich: 1,060.35 Kerry: 265.11 Dean: 222.90 Clark: 220.66 Edwards: 199.48 Lieberman: 169.55 Source: NTUF calculations from BillTally and cost-accounting sources. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the seven contenders' agendas, using our BillTally budget software and relying on third-party sources (such as the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to every proposal they've offered. We found that each candidate calls for spending increases which would substantially swell the deficit -- on average, an additional $479.23 billion beyond the present projection (effectively a 21.5% increase in federal spending). Each of the Democrats has at one time called for full or partial repeal of the Bush tax cut, as if this were a panacea for federal budgetary woes and a license to introduce new proposals. Even by the most generous estimates, the projected federal revenue reduction in 2004 as a result of the 2003 tax cuts is $135 billion -- yet, the thriftiest of the Democratic platforms calls for $170 billion in new spending. Howard Dean has labeled himself a "fiscal conservative," but his policies -- including complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts -- would increase the federal deficit by $88 billion in just the first year. Where would the candidates cut? Someone hid the knives. Out of well over 200 proposals with a budgetary impact offered by the candidates, just two would reduce federal spending. Nor do these alarming figures account for the fact that the temptation to spend even more money can be much greater after entering the White House. Consider President Bush, who, after campaigning as a fiscal conservative, has seen federal spending increase by 23.7% over the past three years. Even the most parsimonious of the candidates eclipses that total by over 15%. Pity the American taxpayer.
I pity the fool who buys this rubbish. This is completely moronic -- this assumes that President Sharpton's programs would just be rubber stamped by a Republican congress and just implemented in whatever form (and to whatever costs that the 'nonpartisan' taxpayer foundation decided to ascribe to them) Finally, I note that this article doesn't seem to take into account any proposed spending DECREASES in any area -- at all. If President Sharpton supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq, wouldn't it stand to reason if you were to calculate his hypothetically rubber stamped budget, you would discout the 2-4 Billion a month that Iraq is costing us? Apparently, these hacks didn't see fit to do that, at least I don't see anything about speding decreases or net costs in their article. EDIT, I went to the NTFU's website and checked out their source material. Exactly as I thought, they failed to include any candidates proposed spending decreases in their 'study' Doesn't it seem ridiculously unfair to assume that each candidates proposed increases would make through untouched and fully funded, yet their proposed decreases would not result in one cent of savings? This study is a hatchet job by a right wing organization for use by shills to propagate throughout the interent. Too many clicks to find the truth. In fact, here's Clark's projections as to how much he could save, now, I grant that this proposal is admittedly rosy, and the categorizations ar a bit vague, since its straight off of his website, but NONE of these calculations were included by your astute hitmen/authors in this so called 'study', they simply added up what they felt were the costs, didn't add in the proposed decreases, and subtracted by the savings of repealing Bush' tax cuts. Let's see some figures. Actual figures, not made up studies like this piece of garbage.. Like the ones here that spell out Bush's atrocious record: www.cbo.gov That may be a new world record in deconstruction....how many more lies do you have to post basso before you give up?
I agree that they would spend just as much, that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is whether they would elect to pay for what they spend, or pass on the spending plus intrest to future generations like the Bush administration has done. They wouldn't cut taxes drastically again and again while spending more. They certainly wouldn't cut taxes the same way they that the Bush administration has. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Batman, Did you catch the Dean interview on MSNBC today? Hopefully it's a sign of things to come. He was finally back to himself talking the issues that earned him that original lead, and he did with a lot more calm. His wife was with him as well. He's certainly very respectful of her and maybe she calms him down.
