Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is this more or less troubling than Frist's thing with cats?

• Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.
  
  [snip]
  
  As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
  
  As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway.

link

How on Earth could you do that to your dog?

That's troubling? He doesn't drink alcohol OR caffiene and he's got a better portable tanning booth than John Edwards. Mitt Romney's a cyborg. without a soul and a liar who hasn't the nuts to stand firm on abortion. His hair might win some awards, but he's not winning jack. He's a three dollar bill.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's troubling? He doesn't drink alcohol OR caffiene and he's got a better portable tanning booth than John Edwards. Mitt Romney's a cyborg. without a soul and a liar who hasn't the nuts to stand firm on abortion. His hair might win some awards, but he's not winning jack. He's a three dollar bill.

In Massachusetts, we like to think of him as a conservative John Kerry without the personality.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you can bear to watch, Coulter gets the worst of this exchange with Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews.

I was going to post this link the other day. Edwards totally shamed her. Years ago, it used to be entertaining to read Coulter's columns. Now it's like watching a train wreck.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?
  
  Democrats 41%
  
  Republicans 38%
  
  Both the same
  (not listed) 9%
  
  Don't know
  (not listed) 12%

linky

It would be more interesting if they asked WHICH Dem or Repub they'd rather have in charge.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?
  
  Democrats 41%
  
  Republicans 38%
  
  Both the same
  (not listed) 9%
  
  Don't know
  (not listed) 12%

linky

this is as expected. most people wish there wasn't the war, so they'd pick the guy most likely to surrender his way out of it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I was going to post this link the other day. Edwards totally shamed her. Years ago, it used to be entertaining to read Coulter's columns. Now it's like watching a train wreck.

Edwards can't shame anything. She's got cancer, but so do about 5 million other people. It adds no gravity to her commentary, which was otherwise vacant grandstanding. Coulter played her like a fiddle. Ann probably sold another 2000 books and got herself booked on five more shows by proving she can get Democrats to tsk tsk her on national television.

Coulter's best ignored, and Edwards should stick to smiling next to her husband.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?
  
  Democrats 41%
  
  Republicans 38%
  
  Both the same
  (not listed) 9%
  
  Don't know
  (not listed) 12%

linky

"Neither" would have done 97%. And considering how Iraq's gone and Bush's approval #s, that thin margin of difference is more an embarrassment to Dems than Republicans.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is as expected. most people wish there wasn't the war, so they'd pick the guy most likely to surrender his way out of it.

To whom would they surrender?

eta: How do you think the Iraqis feel when dummy says he wants to turn Iraq into another Israel?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To whom would they surrender?

eta: How do you think the Iraqis feel when dummy says he wants to turn Iraq into another Israel?

CAIR.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
eta: How do you think the Iraqis feel when dummy says he wants to turn Iraq into another Israel?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ith_a_Jew&only

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ith_a_Jew&only

Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?

[sgtclub]

• WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
  The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.
  
  Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.
  
  Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.
  
  "Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."
  
  Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.
  
  Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him.
  
  "It's the flip-flop of Hillary," Harris said of Romney. "One could suppose it's the Mormon issue -- we didn't ask follow-up questions -- but his religion is an issue."
  
  On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.
  
  That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.
  
  Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.
  
  McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.
  
  The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
  
  

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
  The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.
  
  Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.
  
  Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.
  
  "Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."
  
  Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.
  
  Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him.
  
  "It's the flip-flop of Hillary," Harris said of Romney. "One could suppose it's the Mormon issue -- we didn't ask follow-up questions -- but his religion is an issue."
  
  On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.
  
  That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.
  
  Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.
  
  McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.
  
  The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
  
  

Add in a Bloomberg run and she's got major problems. The thing with Hillary is the Right and Moderate voters haven't really accepted her inevitable crowning as the Dem nominee. They won't realize it until after the Dem Convention, and most moderate Republicans and independents who would vote for a moderate Democrat are going to be REALLY fucking angry at their choices.

Rudy could beat her because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY who owns a business or works hard for a living an intends to try to keep his or her decent standard of living will EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

She'll get the "gimme my benefits" crowds, the clueless soccer moms and college students and a smattering of people who believe her "I'm moving to the middle" bullshit. Most of all of that is concentrated in the cities. She'll take the blue states and sail whover the GOP runs into the White House on red and purple state anti-Hillary vote.

The Democrats' biggest problem is the Electoral College. And the longer I live, the more I see the wisdom of that system.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Add in a Bloomberg run and she's got major problems. The thing with Hillary is the Right and Moderate voters haven't really accepted her inevitable crowning as the Dem nominee. They won't realize it until after the Dem Convention, and most moderate Republicans and independents who would vote for a moderate Democrat are going to be REALLY fucking angry at their choices.

Rudy could beat her because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY who owns a business or works hard for a living an intends to try to keep his or her decent standard of living will EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

She'll get the "gimme my benefits" crowds, the clueless soccer moms and college students and a smattering of people who believe her "I'm moving to the middle" bullshit. Most of all of that is concentrated in the cities. She'll take the blue states and sail whover the GOP runs into the White House on red and purple state anti-Hillary vote.

The Democrats' biggest problem is the Electoral College. And the longer I live, the more I see the wisdom of that system.

Just off the top of my head, I would say she'd lose Michigan, Pa. regardless of who she's against, and even NY- if its Rudy.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Just off the top of my head, I would say she'd lose Michigan, Pa. regardless of who she's against, and even NY- if its Rudy.

I think you're overestimating Rudy's popularity in NY. Bloomie would probably give her more of a run for her money.