Wednesday, June 06, 2007

WHO DO YOU THINK WON-NEW POLL

With the third GOP Presidential debate now history we here at the Real Sporer are curious who you, the reading public, thinks won Round 3. We have a new poll to the left so please express your opinion.

The results on the least loveable celebrity poll were not even competitive. Rosie O’Donnell had---77% of the vote in a four way race.

40 comments:

difference between R's and D's issue #1 said...

On issue after issue, the contrasts came through loud and clear. Where the Democrats squabbled over who is the most opposed to the war in Iraq, nearly all the Republicans spoke about the importance of not abandoning Iraq before it has been stabilized -- and defended the decision to invade in the first place. "Absolutely the right thing to do," said Rudy Giuliani.

Differences between R's and D's issue #2 said...

Where Democrats called for ever grander and more expensive government health-insurance schemes, the Republicans called unambiguously for a freer market in healthcare.

California Representative Duncan Hunter pointed out that 80 percent of the world's miracle drugs are developed in the United States because of a free enterprise system that encourages pharmaceutical companies to take expensive risks.

"Maybe they drill three dry holes in trying to produce a good drug that will save somebody's lives," he said. "Then they hit the jackpot and they produce something that will save people and help their health."

The differences are abundant. 08 is even more important to win that 04.grave consequences if D's win said...

On topics large and small --

#4 gays in the military,

#5 making English the official US language,

#6 using nuclear weapons to keep Iran from getting the bomb,

#7 even the proper role for former presidents

the differences between the parties came through, stark and unmistakable. If this week's debates are a preview of coming attractions, the 2008 campaign will be very divisive, and deeply consequential.

hitlery wants to be sure we know they are different from us. keep our eyes on the prize said...

THE MOST cogent characterization of last night's Republican presidential debate was made by Senator Hillary Clinton during the Democratic candidates' debate two nights earlier.

"The differences among us (D's) are minor," she said. "The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused."

the biggest difference of all - represents literally life and death. said...

There are two Americas, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is fond of saying. One recognizes the threat posed by radical Islam. The other is blind to it.

at least we know hagel didn't win the debate - bye bye chuckie! said...

The attorney general of Nebraska, Jon Bruning, said yesterday he will announce he will challenge Senator Hagel in the Republican primary, which is in May of 2008.

A poll conducted for Mr. Bruning shows him leading Mr. Hagel among likely Republican primary voters by 9 percentage points.

Mr. Bruning assails Mr, Hagel for being, "The Republican that talks like a Democrat," pointing to Mr. Hagel's support for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, as well as his discussion of impeaching President Bush.

"He's become arrogant and out of touch," Mr. Bruning said.

Fred Thompsons official site said...

ImwithFred.com

Fred on Hannity said...

THOMPSON: Well, I look at things like the threat that our country faces. Everybody is focused on Iraq now.

We ought to be thinking about the day after Iraq. We have a threat out there like we've never faced before.

And I don't think the American people are being apprised of it; I don't think they realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan.

We have a plan basically to get us through the next election.

And we've got a military that's still in the works, as far as transformation is concerned, to deal with that kind of a threat. We're spending much less than we need to, to face that threat.

Democrats want status quo - their heads are buried in the sand on these issues too said...

THOMPSON: I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism.

We have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.

We're an aging society, a good thing. We're living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it's going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We're going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

here's another HUGE difference between R's and D's. they side with the Imams instead of americans said...

A bill was introduced in Congress to protect civilians who report suspicious behavior - as we've requested citizens do - from being sued.

Congressman Peter King reported in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). "Rather than receiving praise for coming forward to protect the traveling public, the airport and airline personnel and 'John Doe' passengers are now confronting a civil lawsuit filed by the six individuals.

This represents a startling precedent, one that could freeze the very behavior law enforcement has encouraged.

If we are going to encourage the public to speak up to prevent a terrorist attack, then they must be assured that they will not face the threat of frivolous litigation."

In the vote that followed, the King amendment providing immunity was carried by 304 votes with 121 in opposition. And guess what?

In the New York delegation, 13 voted for the amendment and 16 voted no.

Those voting "no" were, all Democrats.

the illegal immigration debate ain't about mexicans dammit! why can't mccain figure that out? said...

Counterterrorism authorities have come to fear that the porous U.S.-Mexico border provides entry into the United States, not only for illegal aliens, but for Islamic terrorists as well.

And these same Islamic terrorists may also be using Mexico as the conduit to bring nuclear devices into the U.S. for a WMD attack.

These are among the chilling disclosure from Paul L. Williams, author of the just-released book "The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World."

According to Williams, al-Qaida has already hatched plans to smuggle nuclear materials across the Mexican border and use them for a mammoth simultaneous attack on several large U.S. cities.

Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups began infiltrating Mexico in the days after 9/11. By 2003, Canadian intelligence officials and Interpol told Mexican President Vincente Fox that al-Qaida had established several cells in Mexico to prepare for the next terrorist attacks.

it ain't about mexicans. it's about radical muslims and national security. why can't Pelosi get tha said...

Steve McCraw, assistant director of the FBI's Office of Intelligence, told the House Judiciary Committee in June 2003:

"The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricular consular provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officials."


Mexico has also become a conduit for aliens from terror-sponsoring states, known as "special-interest aliens," or SIAs. By 2006, a popular entry route from Mexico into Arizona was littered with "discarded Muslim prayer rugs, pages from the Quran, instructions in Arabic on how to cross the Rio Grande, and beverage boxes with Farsi and Arabic letters," writes Williams, a seasoned investigative reporter and former FBI consultant.

Due to a lack of detention facilities, those SIAs that are apprehended — who have numbered in the thousands in recent years — are released from custody after receiving hearing dates from immigration judges. Fewer than 5 percent actually show up for their hearing. The rest simply vanish.

Spotlight (on fear-mongers) said...

So is everybody scared yet, or should we hear from a few more commenters?

Anonymous said...

Spotlight - you sound like a very young and unwise 20 year old college student who lacks any wisdom. You are dangerous and the fact that your party is made up of a whole lot more of them, means your party is dangerous.

Go back to class now or the playground since it's summer break.

the party that thinks there's a conspiracy for everything is on display with spotlight said...

spotlight

why aren't you afraid of terrorism? Do you think those article clips are false? Do you think the Fort Dix thing was made up? Do you think the JFK plot was made up? Do you think Bush masterminded the 9-11 plot and planted bombs so building X (rosies building) collapsed on purpose? Do you think Bush arranged for Hurricane Katrina on purpose because he hates blacks? How do you feel about the holocaust? Did it happen? Was there another shooter in Dallas? Did we really land on the moon?

Why do democrats think there is no threat from terrorism? I'm seriously and intellectually curious how you arrive at your opinion?

apparently, nussle isn't running for office in iowa again said...

But Giuliani's top Iowa consultant Jim Nussle said the former mayor could afford to skip the straw poll, unlike other candidates who are hoping to demonstrate their campaigns' credibility with a good showing in Ames.

"When you are Giuliani and you have national name I.D., the straw poll doesn't have the same significance," said Nussle, a former congressman from eastern Iowa. "I don't think it would be as significant a tactical maneuver for him to participate in the straw poll."

Anonymous said...

the only reason why you'd skip the straw poll is if you don't have any organization in place and you are trying to hide that fact from your candidate who might not know any better.

this is a reflection on nussle's ability to organize a campaign, which we saw on FULL display during his unfortunate unsuccessful run for Gov when he was the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

coincidentally, he hired the same staff for Guiliani as he did for his Gov campaign. Connected? Coincidence?

we report, you decide.

gee ted, sounds like you guys are protecting us from a nutball said...

My e-mail today to the GOP:

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "MARK KLEIN, M.D." markklein1000@yahoo.com

Subject: My intentions if not listed on the Ames straw poll ballot

To: Iowa GOP-Craig Robinson
Ted Sporer leon moley

There is no rational reason for the Iowa GOP to keep me off the straw poll ballot. To do that is totally against the democratic principles the Republican Party claims to stand for.

If I'm excluded, I will recommend Republicans boycott Ames and base voters reconsider whether the party generally and its 2008 presidential nominee are worthy of our support.

MARK KLEIN, M.D.

the flying dutchman responds said...

Dr. Klein,

Respectfully sir, there is a reason why you're being left off of the Iowa Straw Poll ballot.

Your "campaign" in Iowa has been that of showing up at the Lincoln Day Dinner and pithy comments on the Des Moines Register's forums.

Your "campaign" website is a MySpace page....

You've received ZERO contributions to your campaign according to the FEC.

With all due respect sir, your campaign is a folly.

That being said..you want to run for President..thats your choice. However, that does not mean that Iowa GOP is obligated to ensure your participation in their events.

Anonymous said...

So this is the "tough guy," eh? Mr. "Tough on Terror" but afraid of primary voters.

What a poser.

on my god, i hope he doesn't still treat patients said...

The GOP is trying to exclude me because the party has good reason to fear I could do well, or win, at Ames. Last week I tied for 3rd place 3 votes behind Romney in the Grundy County GOP snap straw poll conducted at its monthly meeting. In August I got 52% of the vote on the Polk County GOP chairman's online straw poll. He then took my name off the poll and reset the count to zero. In March, 2006 at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis as a write-in i handily beat Guiliani, Brownback, Hagel, Gingrich, Tancredo, Barbour and JC Watts. McCain only beat me by about 20 votes. My results got listed as "Other"

I list no donors on my FEC filings because at the moment I don't need contributions. Have an all volunteer organization so I can fund our modest campaign finance needs out of my income. I have folks who gave up homes and businesses to come to Des Moines because they believe in me and my message.

I despise the way the GOP has treated me. Feel like I'm dealing with a Soviet style politburo.

To paraphrase Reagan the Republican Party is leaving me rather than I'm about to leave it.

this explains why congress has the same low approval ratings as bush. they ALL SUCK! said...

an excerpt from Lou Dobbs:

President George W. Bush, seeking support for his so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" proposal, declared that "America should not fear diversity." Those are neither the words of a leader, nor a uniter.

But the president isn't the only one lacking in leadership: Congress is hardly doing better.

Even though 84 percent of Americans say English should be the official language of government operations, and while 71 percent of Hispanics agree, the Senate Majority Leader called an amendment to make English the official language an act of prejudice.

Sen. Harry Reid declared bluntly "This amendment is racist." Such rhetoric from national leaders is unworthy of their offices and fails to elevate the American spirit.

Divisiveness begins in Washington, not in the hearts of Americans.

The dominance of corporate, parochial and special interests over the House of Representatives and the Senate did not begin with this Congress. But that dominance has become both a structural and chronic source of disunity.

Not only is corporate America spending more than $2 billion a year to lobby in Washington, but Congress in recent decades has organized itself around the special interests they seek to serve.

one nation, under god, indivisible with justice for all said...

Almost five decades ago, there were only four Congressional caucuses. Today there are about 200, most of which are dedicated solely to particular countries, regions, races, ethnicities, specific issues and special interests.

Group and interest politics have overwhelmed not only our public dialogue but also our legislative process.

When our elected officials spend more time and effort legislating on behalf of specific interest groups, the common good and national interest are subordinated by the very people we elect to serve all citizens and the nation.

It should be no surprise that approval ratings of the president and Congress are so low or that so many of us believe this country is headed in the wrong direction.

Are we as a nation well-served by a Congress that created the Albanian Issues Caucus,

the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus,

the Congressional Black Caucus,

the Organic Caucus,

the Caucus on Indonesia,

the Caucus on Swaziland,

the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus or,

the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans?

What about the 280 million working men and women and their families?

We would be better served if we rid Congress of these spurious and divisive caucuses that serve narrowly focused special interest groups and instead create the We the People Caucus.

Anonymous said...

congress has balkanized themselves to the peril of it's citizens.

holy crap john! what are ya doin? you sided with your D prez hopefuls and not your own party? huh? said...

The vote was 51-46 against the amendment.

Democrats succeeded in sucking support from Cornyn's proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization. The Senate backed that amendment 66-32.

Cornyn had painted his effort as a "defining issue" for any presidential candidate—a sign of the degree to which the contentious debate is bleeding over into the GOP campaign fray.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., alone among his party's presidential aspirants in backing the immigration measure, opposed Cornyn's bid and backed the Democratic alternative offered by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

McCain was joined in opposing the amendment by the Senate's four Democratic presidential hopefuls, Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Anonymous said...

what's up with rudy not going to the straw poll? has a state central committee member sporer--you've gotta be pissed. i'm pissed!
jim nussle giving iowa republicans the finger, once again.

mccain has no money, guiliani has no organization said...

mccain dropped out too. My guess the reason is money rather than organization. McCain has the best organization in the state. If he can't afford the straw poll, things must be bad all over. This sure makes Romney explode out of the gates. Huckabee is looking pretty darn good right now. This benefits him a great deal. It really opens the door for Fred Thompson to become the winner in Iowa.

you don't drop out unless you know you can't win or you have no money said...

This is the second time that mccain has dissed iowa republicans. Not good. He dropped out the last time because he knew he couldn't beat Bush. He must believe he can't win again and can't afford to not come in 1st - He couldn't afford to come in third behind Rudy and Mitt.

McCain is losing steam fast. Like an old man in a sweater.

rudy's statement on why he's not coming said...

DuHaime & Nussle on Rudy's Iowa Gambit

Campaign manager Mike DuHaime on the decision to skip the Ames straw poll:

"Some people may interpret this as we're not 100% playing in Iowa. (YES THAT'S TRUE)

We are 100% playing in Iowa. (WELL, MAYBE 25%)

You will see the Mayor there early and often. (NO LONGER CARE)

You will see us spending a great deal of resources to make sure we win the caucus in Iowa. (TOO LITTLE TOO LATE)

We respect the process a great deal..." (YEA, SURE YOU DO).

and we all blamed his staff for their bitchiness - it was nussle all the time said...

Congressman Jim Nussle on the significance of the straw poll:

"I happen to believe, in this instance, if you're a second tier candidate the straw poll is significant, because it gives you possibility the ability of getting some attention and being able to demonstrate some momentum. (JIM, IS THAT AN EXACT QUOTE? )

And that's the one thing, at least with Rudy Giuliani, is not necessary. (THAT IS ARROGANT AS HELL)

He's been able to demonstrate that already not only in Iowa, but more especially and more importantly, across the entire country...

"So we're very happy with this decision, the fact that we can now focus on the caucuses, the fact they've made a commitment yet again to the Iowa caucuses, and the fact the resources instead of being diverted toward this kind of a sideshow effort, can actually be applied to what is the most important mission here and that's winning and that's showing the kind of momentum toward the nomination that a candidate would need..." (RE-READ HOW NUSSLE CALLS IT A SIDESHOW USING THE LONGEST SENTENCE OF ALL TIME. NUSSLE BLOVIATES)

"Remember what this event is. I don't want to take away the significance of the caucus itself. The caucus is really the prize here. That's the effort toward building momentum, that's the victory int he victory column, that's the beginning of the delegate selection process, etc.

The straw poll is a fund raiser. Now it's a lot of fun. It's an exciting event. It's great fun for the 75 to 100 mile radius around Ames for the people who go there. But it is not a demographic cross section of the state or our caucus goers. It's not a scientific poll.

In fact, as many of the reporters on the call who cover both the straw poll and the caucuses know, candidates actually purchase the attendance. And so oftentimes some of these candidates who are a little bit better funded, a little bit better ability to "organize" which is supposed to be the test of all this.

Finally I'd just say the convention wisdom is based I would suggest on a couple of things that are not so conventional, but maybe more selfish. (NUSSLE - WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU LEARN ENGLISH AND GRAMMAR? - I'M FOCUSING ON THE SELFISH MOTIVATION YOU STATE)

Certainly, if you're part of the party you want to raise as much money as possible, and making the straw poll significant is to your advantage. So there's a reason why they would do it.

Others, candidates, who want to use it as a way of making their own candidacy legitimate, will want to make sure their participation or their position at the straw poll is significant.

So I understand why people are trying to make the this significant. (NUSSLE NEEDS AN ENGLISH TEACHER TO REVIEW HIS WRITING)

But I've got to add, and I think this is important for Iowa Republicans and all to remember, and that is the caucuses are what is important here.

The straw poll actually could, in fact, take away from Iowa's significance if we're not careful. (WOW - REALLY?)

It's not a serious event in the grand scheme of picking the nominee, and at this time in our history with the war on terror and the economic challenges facing our country, we need to have a serious conversation about our nominee and not just have these kind of fund raising straw polls and treating them as somehow significant."

Anonymous said...

and just when I was trying to decide between Rudy, John and Fred. I guess FRED wins by default.

Anonymous said...

You can't win if you don't play. Isn't that a slogan we hear all the time?

Anonymous said...

Just got polled ... when asked who I would NOT vote for I said after today that would be Rudy!!

When I asked who was paying for the poll, the pollster answered the Giuliani Campaign.

Thanks a lot Jim :-(

Spotlight said...

"why aren't you afraid of terrorism?"

In reply may I begin by quoting a Republican Mayor of NYC:

"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said [...]

"You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he added.

That was Bloomberg, commenting on the "plot" by the dull street corner book seller and his drug addict friend to blow up the whole of Long Island by touching off the nearly incombustible jet fuel pipeline. They talked about it for 18 months without raising any money or buying any gear. I guess the FBI got tired of following them around.

I do think terrorism is a threat, just greatly exaggerated by jingoists and exacerbated by current war policies. I arrive at this opinion from history: terrorism recurs in many parts of the world but good police work stops most of it. There is nothing new going on. Ask anyone from abroad.

I am too old for recess or summer vacations, even old enough to recall how fear-mongers used the spread of communism to serve the same purpose now served by the Threat of TERRORISTS. (I even read J Edgar Hoover's book "Masters of Deceit--What the Communist Bosses are Doing Now to Bring America to its Knees")

Be very afraid, indeed.

defeating "jihadi" john mcquisling is priority number one said...

So Johnny Petain is now going to skip the straw poll. He must have found out that jihadis and illegals can't vote.

Anonymous said...

I plan on getting a ticket from the Romney crowd and then eating their food and voting for Ron Paul (since Mark Klein is being dissed by the party)

Anonymous said...

I can't do anything about lighting striking, but I can do something about terrorism. Your analogy that getting hit by lighting is the same as fighting terrorism has not a bit of relevance. THus my opinion that you are young.

Since you feel so well read on the subject by reading J Edgar Hoover, is your plan to simply ignore terorism because you believe it is a small threat? How dang big does it need to be before you care?

How many people must die before you thinks it's a big deal? Is there a number to which you could refer? If 3000 wasn't enough, what number WOULD get your attention?

In your research, did you read about how Lenin and Stalin used people like you, who held similar self hating american opinions back then as you do today, were an integral part of their strategy to destroy america?

They called them USEFUL IDIOTS. Did you ever read about that? What did you learn? What do you refute?

Yup, you qualify. Useful idiots are people our enemies use to attempt to destroy America from within. That's what you are doing. It's an old story.

Anonymous said...

I think more people die from bee stings and dog bites than from terrorism. Maybe we should declare war on the little buggers.

Spotlight said...

I said getting hit by lightning is as likely as getting hit by terrorists (here in the USA).

According to the Natl Weather Service about 700 get hit annually. So in the 6 years since since 9/11 there have been 4200 hit by lightning in the US and none hit by terrorists.

Plan accordingly. Don't ignore terrorism or lightning. Or dogs and bees.

Believe me 9/11 got my attention. But it doesn't run my life or my politics. It wasn't a bolt out of the blue. It could have been avoided with either serious attention from the top or with a different foreign policy.

the future first husband is a pervert said...

You are right Spotlight. Why DID Sandy Berger steal those 9-11 documents? Maybe because "It could have been avoided with either serious attention from the top or with a different foreign policy" BEFORE 9-11, like during the Clinton years when all that terrorism when on while he was using cigars for purposes not originally intended?

He had a foreign policy alright - a foreign object policy.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore