Tuesday, July 17, 2007


I think I found a live feed link for the Senate debate. Check it out.


McFlip McFlop said...

Marlys Popma, McCain's top aide for outreach among social conservatives, reversed her Monday resignation after McCain and others lobbied the longtime Iowa GOP activist to sleep on it.

geez, it's always about guns, god and abortion with the d's. is Lizzie the candidate now? said...

By Mike Dorning
Washington Bureau
Published July 18, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.

Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.

= rights for women means having your abortions paid for by the govt per obama said...

Obama, who earlier gained the endorsement of Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty, offered the group a vision of equal opportunity for women, tying a call for improved access to contraceptives for low-income women with a call for an "updated social contract" that includes paid maternity leave and expanded school hours.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

once again, clinton won't reveal her plan, just criticize others said...

Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal.

She provided a bruising critique of Bush administration policies and Republican conservatives on abortion rights and contraception policy.

She criticized cuts in contraception services for low-income women, lengthy delays in approving over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" contraceptive pill and redirection of sex education funds to abstinence-only programs that do not include information on contraceptive use or condoms toto prevent the spread of AIDS.

reporter dave price thinks vilsack is a liar. he's correct. as a liar, he's a soulmate of hillary said...


This from Dave Price, the political reporter at WHO under the title; "Did he Lie to Me?"

It reminds me of a day in 2004. John Kerry won the caucuses in January. Christie Vilsack had endorsed him. Her husband hadn't. After the caucuses, I was in the Governor's office with several other reporters. We asked Vilsack if he would endorse Kerry. He told me "no". The next day, the Des Moines Register reported Vilsack would endorse Kerry. I later found out that Vilsack already knew at the time he was endorsing. He said his staff said it would be o.k. to release his decision to the newspaper.

I wonder why he just didn't tell that to me and the other reporters standing with me? I wonder why he told me he'd pay off his own bills? I wonder

wtf? hijack the jury system? is he on crack? said...


During John Edwards’ remarks to an annual forum of his fellow trial lawyers in Chicago on Sunday, the former senator spoke passionately about civil justice issues, joked about “that little house that we have in North Carolina” and warned of “a very concerted, very orchestrated radical right agenda” to “hijack the jury system.”

empirical evidence? where is it? he's in single digits and his wife is now the candidate said...

Amongst friends and fund-raisers, Edwards was much more blunt.

“All the empirical evidence shows that I am the strongest general election candidate,” said Mr. Edwards.

The reason, he said, was simple:

“What will happen with almost complete certainty, is in December and January, our caucus-goers, the New Hampshire primary voters, will be evaluating who they think is the strongest general election candidate.

They like all of us. I mean, that’s the truth. They like me. They like Hillary. And they like Obama. They are trying to decide who they think will be the strongest general election candidate. And that will get more intense, the closer we get to the caucus and primaries.”

Then came the sell:

“Well, this is not even close—who’s the strongest general election candidate. Every piece of empirical evidence shows you exactly the same thing that your gut will tell you anyway.”

oh, there it is. he has his own private impirical evidence that no one else can see said...

To support his argument, Edwards cited a poll that he said showed him outperforming Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama in head-to-head match-ups with leading Republican candidates.

“I saw a poll a week and a half ago, done by an independent polling firm, testing each of us against the top four Republicans, in about, I want to say, this isn’t going to be exactly right, but in about 20 states, mostly swing states,” Mr. Edwards said.

“And I beat every Republican in 20 states. All of ‘em. Hillary won in about half the states roughly, close to half, and Obama, I think, won nowhere, if I remember correctly.”

(The Edwards campaign said it could not locate the independent poll that Mr. Edwards was referring to, but pointed to in-house polling from June that they said showed Mr. Edwards as the Democratic candidate with the most success against Republicans in match-ups nationally and in key battleground states.)

"believe my personal private polls, don't believe national public polls" said...

Mr. Edwards attributed his opponents’ lead in national polls to media coverage, and pleaded with his audience not to be swayed by their impressive fund-raising totals.

“It’s very important not to be deceived about what you see about a lot of national media attention and national Democratic primary voter polls, which are a direct reflection of whoever is getting publicity at that moment. That’s all they are,” Mr. Edwards said, adding that the only places voters actually had gotten to know the candidates were Iowa and New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent Nevada and South Carolina. “That’s just the reality of the way this works.”

"if we can get past the emotion and glitz, we can change the sky color to green from blue" said...

Mr. Edwards tried to convince his supporters and donors that despite his more modest fund-raising totals and his being behind in national surveys, his slight lead in Iowa polls put him in an enviable position.

“Just in case you don’t know, every campaign knows what I just said,” Mr. Edwards said about the difficulty of turning around after a defeat in Iowa.

“This is not just me. If you want to know what people believe matters, look at where Obama and Hillary are spending their time and where they are spending their money. Follow the money and follow the candidates’ time and you will know what they think matters.”

He added that “both of them, by the way, have been in Iowa more than me in this campaign—they are living in Iowa and New Hampshire, because they understand that if you lose Iowa it is incredibly hard to turn it around.”

Mr. Edwards didn’t bring up the fact that he virtually took up residence in Iowa for months, if not years, before officially joining the race, helping him to build the small lead there that he still clings to over Mrs. Clinton in most polls.

“So this is what we are facing,” Mr. Edwards said. “We have to get past the emotion and the glitz and get to what matters.”

if the jail is a priority, fund it with existing taxes. maybe fund it with the values fund??? said...

The Polk County Board of Supervisors is scrapping its plans to ask for money for a new Polk County Courthouse.

The board had planned to borrow $180 million to pay for the proposed building. But those plans have been put on hold. Voters would have had to agree to borrow that money.

The announcement of the delay comes less than one week after voters in Polk County overwhelmingly shot down a proposed one percentage point sales tax increase.

the voters love america, only 8% are not proud and I bet they are ALL democrats said...

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Wed Jul 18, 8:13 AM ET

Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing only a fair or poor job -- the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll.

"Americans feel their government is not accomplishing the people's business," Zogby said. "They feel the system is seriously broken."

In the survey taken July 12 through July 14, about 66 percent said Bush had done only a fair or poor job as president, with 34 percent ranking his performance as excellent or good.

That is up slightly from his low of 30 percent in early March.

But the marks for Congress, mired in gridlock over a series of partisan political battles after Democrats took power in the 2006 elections, continued to drop.

While 83 percent said Congress was doing a fair or poor job, just 14 percent rated it excellent or good.

Last October, in its final days, the Republican-led Congress earned ratings of excellent or good from 23 percent of voters.

"There is a growing sense that people voted for change in 2006 and they aren't getting it," Zogby said.

About two-thirds of the likely voters surveyed said they were "very" proud of the United States, with 22 percent saying they were "fairly" proud and 8 percent saying they were not very proud of their country.

so, r's care about national security and D's do not - historical truth proven once again said...

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

The vote is in. 52 Yea, 47 Nay. The motion fails. We continue to FIGHT FIGHT FOR AMERICA!

R's voting YEA

Collins - Maine
Hagel - Nebraska
Smith - Oregon
Snowe - Maine

D's voting NAY

Lieberman (I)
Harry Reid?????????????

Anonymous said...

Steve, what do you do that allows you to blog all day?

harkin was one of the three that voted no. he's an extremist anti-american said...

earlier, the Senate voted on two war-related amendments.

The Cornyn amendment, “to express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists,” passed 94-3, with 3 not voting.

RF said...

"r's care about national security and D's do not - historical truth proven once again"

This combined with some comments from previous threads about the Iraq War being fought to save Western civilization prove that we truly have very different premises and starting points. With such different perspectives, how could we ever agree on this.

First of all. If our civilization depends on this war, God help us. Kiss your kids goodbye. We are doomed.

Second. I would reverse the premise. Our western civilization is not the one threatened. By all accounts, it is thriving. It is the extremist Islamic version of civilization that is threatened. I believe that is the main reason for terrorism. They are fighting to survive. Realistically, do you think our civilization would collapse with another 9/11, dirty bomb, or even a real nuclear device on our soil? As much as those are undesirable and horrible things, they would not destroy us, our great ideals or our civilization.

None of this is to suggest terrorism is ok and that we should not fight it. From my perspective, the Iraq War is completely counterproductive in our long-term fight against terrorism.

I knew him when he was just teddy said...

Teddy, you missed your class reunion? What's up with that?

Buddy, who says you can't go home? I'm sure your class mates would like to hear about the White House Christmas Party or some other political stories.

The Real Sporer said...

No, it wouldn't collapse overnight but it would continue to deteriorate. I don't like the hassle of entering a courthouse, much less an airport.

Do you think we should change our position on freedom of speech to better accomodate coexistencw with the people who want to assasinate the editors of the Danish newsrag that published cartoon about Mohammed (the pedophile). Do you really think we could coexist with the caliphate the Islamofacists have in mind?

However one felt about invading Iraq we are there. Do you not believe the Al Qaeda leadership statements about the importance to them of victory in Iraq? If you do believe them, and truly have a grasp of the history of warfare, then you know why we must win.

We took out another major Al Qaeda leadership figure on the 4th of July.

RF said...

"If you do believe them, and truly have a grasp of the history of warfare, then you know why we must win."

Even if we do win in Iraq (as you have previously defined) where are we with the WOT? Are we done? Do you really think the threat is going to be significantly less after we achieve this elusive "victory"? As you said, we are in Iraq. Agreed. At this point of time, we have no good options. In my view, the worst option is to keep chasing this elusive "victory," which, even if achieved, will not in any significant way further the goals of the long-term WOT. Withdrawal/cut&run/redeployment or whatever will surely have serious drawbacks. But those drawbacks pale in comparison to the negative impacts of our continued presence in Iraq.

RF said...

"Do you really think we could coexist with the caliphate the Islamofacists have in mind?"

Well, we are basically dealing with the same thing with Iran right now. In the end, our superior system and ideals will win. I have faith in our country and our ideals. That's how we defeated the Soviets. And if you think the Islamofacists somehow compare to Hitler's Germany, you need to hit your history books again. They ain't the same thing.

this is why d's can't be in charge of national security. they give up too easy. said...

RF said:

First of all. If our civilization depends on this war, God help us. Kiss your kids goodbye. We are doomed.

Anonymous said...

rf - hitler wanted racial purity and NO JEWS!

the Islamofascists want racial purity and NO JEWS!

How are these concepts different?

RF said...


You must have missed the sarcasm. - People who start stupid wars like the one we have in Iraq should not be in charge of our national security. Extremely scary. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price for this administration's incompetent national “security” policy.

RF said...

Hitler vs. Islamofacists. Same concepts, vastly different means of executing the plans. Hitler, being in charge of the second largest economy in the world, actually had the capability to execute his vision.

Anonymous said...

rf - you are correct. and, we beat them. if we could beat germany with all of their resources, why are you guys so sure we can't beat a few thousand towel headed camel jockeys who are barely functional in the 21st century?

Why do you think we are weaker than them?

It's pathetic for americans to believe we can't win so we must run.

the Vichy Democrats are what is frightening and I don't want my children and grandchildren paying the price for Harry (Henri Petain) Reid's and Damascus Nancy's treasonpus collaboration with the enemy.

RF said...

As I said in my earlier post in this thread, we are not weaker than the Islamofacists are. They are the ones fighting for their survival. However, Hitler’s Germany was a well-defined target, a nation state. From the perspective of fighting an actual war, a pretty easily identifiable target. The Islamofacists are completely the opposite. Stateless, diffuse, scattered all over the world. “Victory” in Iraq won’t solve anything significant when it comes to terrorism. And as I said, they will never be able to beat us anyway.