gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
galenrox said:please explain this tactic, I haven't heard of it before.
I haven't heard any serious rumblings about the democrats doing any sort of filibuster on Roberts. In my opinion, that would be a moot point.Aaron said:fillibustering on Roberts would make the democrats lose yet again another presidential election and more seats in the house so it will not get them any where.
Mikkel said:Aaron, you're only offering extreme speculation... Do you really think that a filibuster on the Roberts nomination will affect the dems chances in 2008? I don't think the failures of 'no child left behind' in 2001 and 2002 even slightly affected Bush's campaign last year. An act this far before the presidential election will have very little bearing.
Shuamort, the only rumblings of a filibuster I've heard have been in the last 8 hours due to the bypass of the senate on the bolton nomination. This is only speculation, but I do believe that it is a very real possibility.
cnredd said:It's not the Presidential election of 2008 anyone should be concerned about.
It's the Senate elections 0f 2006 that should be the immediate concern.
Mikkel said:The president can't even say "Nuclear Option". If you think the dems will get it hard for trying to filibuster, I can't tell you how bad it will be for republicans if they go with the nuclear option, especially with approval ratings so low. It's "Nuke-ya-ler".
Well, we have an ambassador, yes. And since he's a recess appointee, he's a temporary man til the 2007 congress. The thing to consider is that Bolton is the person who best reflects the views of the current administration and the role that they want to play in the UN.gordontravels said:We have a good ambassador to the United Nations now and we will all see how he does his job.
Mikkel said:I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Ohio turn blue before 2008.
Mikkel said:He got better grades than Kerry. He cheated off of Gore.
I hope you didn't take my mocking of the president as an actual talking point. I just find it amusing that the Repubs chose to name one of their tactics something that Bush can't even pronounce. It amuses me.
On a more serious note, I agree that Congress' aproval rating has dropped considerably, but that doesn't necessarily mean more conservative seats. Gubenatorial approval ratings are down as well, especially my governor, Bob Taft (R), who's approval rating is down to a whopping 19% due to his little 'coin' scandal. Whew! I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Ohio turn blue before 2008.
Kennedy, Clinton, Lott, and Santorum.Mikkel said:
gordontravels said:Well as I read your post you were the one that brought up approval ratings. I don't put value on approval ratings any more than I put value on polls. How many polls or approval ratings have you participated in? How were the questions asked? What were the questions? In what order were the questions asked? Ad infinitum?
President Truman had a 23% approval rating in his own term as President. One thing that gave him that low rating was that he fired a top RepublicanI think that should put it into perspective. As far as mocking a President; I only read what you post. There was a time in this country when the President won an election and gained respect along with disagreement from the other side. Now disaffected former government employees can write a book and hawk it in the media regardless of who sources are or whether there is proof to back it. Both sides do it.
I think respect is lacking more and more in the political arena, political debate forums and is promoted vigorously by the out of control media. Some of us go along with that path; some don't. Which are we? :duel
shuamort said:Kennedy, Clinton, Lott, and Santorum.
:shock:
I'm glad I don't live in any of those states and have to watch the mudslinging commercials that are gonna happen.
Mikkel said:I think republicans threw respect out the window when they issued the president's penis a subpoena in the 90's. Bush ignored the views of half of the people in America, including my own. If he has no respect for what I, and 50% of the country stands for, I have no respect for him.
As for approval ratings, apart from speculation, we don't have a lot else to go on. I CAN tell you that, generally with republican incumbant candidates, their approval ratings generally mark their expected vote percentage.
I don't know what to tell you to restore any faith you may have had in pollsters, but they truly do their best to remain impartial (unless they're push polling that McCain had an illegitimate black baby during the 2000 republican primaries).
Pollsters like Gallup, Mason-Dixon, Zogby, and Rasmussen have all been very reliable over the last 50 years in predicting the presidency and other elected offices.
Mikkel said:As for Clinton vs. Bush? I have much more respect for a president who's good at his job and bad at his personal life instead of the other way around. Perhaps Clinton got some of what he deserved, but Bush misled the country into war, and still doesn't respect half of the country. He deserves every last bit of flack he gets.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?