Hillary Clinton: Made in China

[Dan J 277]

I would hope voters would realize how bad of an idea it was to vote solely on faith and values issues with Bush.

This is from the AP, today:

Seven in 10 in the nonpartisan Pew Research Center poll said they believe it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs, including broad majorities of both parties.

...

John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said the poll showed a candidate's religion is "not always the most important factor, but one important factor" for voters.

The survey was conducted by the Pew religion forum and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It involved telephone interviews with 3,002 randomly chosen adults conducted from August 1 to 18, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

I know, but you can have a president who is Christain, but not want to make the government an arm of the evangelical church.

Ironically though, if the evangelical movement is successful in deteriorating the separation of church and state, it will lead to much greater secularism in the US. Its the separation of church and state, that allows for the flourishing of many different religions. All you have to do is look at Europe to see what happened when the countries had state churches.

[chri'stina 190]

I would hope voters would realize how bad of an idea it was to vote solely on faith and values issues with Bush.

This is from the AP, today:

Seven in 10 in the nonpartisan Pew Research Center poll said they believe it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs, including broad majorities of both parties.

...

John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said the poll showed a candidate's religion is "not always the most important factor, but one important factor" for voters.

The survey was conducted by the Pew religion forum and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It involved telephone interviews with 3,002 randomly chosen adults conducted from August 1 to 18, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

I know, but you can have a president who is Christain, but not want to make the government an arm of the evangelical church.

Ironically though, if the evangelical movement is successful in deteriorating the separation of church and state, it will lead to much greater secularism in the US. Its the separation of church and state, that allows for the flourishing of many different religions. All you have to do is look at Europe to see what happened when the countries had state churches.

I'll agree that there are some evangelical groups who may want there to be less difference between church and state, but I believe many people act overly paranoid about that. I am a so called evangelical, and the separation of church and state is very important to me. I think most Americans realize the importance. But if issues like being against abortion mean I am trying to make church and state united instead of separated, then people have the wrong idea. Abortion to me is an issue of killing, and while my religion may shape that, I don't think it is only a Christian view, but should be a view held by any who value life, no matter what religion. People who value the life of someone outside the womb, or of animals (that are treated better than people at times), should value the life forming inside a woman. One slogan I like, "Equal rights for pre-born people". If people think that means I am trying to make the govt united with church, then I think it's paranoia.

[GaryC 7]

Five Easy Arguments Against Fred Thompson

by Jennifer RubinPublished: August 26, 2007

When Fred Thompson enters the Republican primary in September, he’ll bring considerable charm, a nearly perfect pro-life voting record, a base of support from conservative opinion makers and a useful distance from the calamities which have befallen Republicans of late.

Still, the still-hypothetical Thompson candidacy is likely to prove a lot more vulnerable to attack than it seems on paper, and his opponents will have plenty of ammunition at their disposal.

Here are five relatively simple arguments that could give the Thompson campaign serious trouble.

“He’s no Washington outsider.”

Much of Fred Thompson’s charm lies in his seeming aloofness from Beltway politics. He hasn’t wanted to be president his whole life, he repeats again and again. He hasn’t made a career as a politician and doesn’t “need” to be president. (Not a candidate I'd want to vote for if he's only half in it)

His opponents’ answer should be to repeat the “L” word—lobbyist—endlessly. Mr. Thompson’s lobbying for a pro-choice group was more significant for the lobbying part than the pro-choice part. In defending himself against charges he aided the pro-choice cause Thompson was forced to reveal that he’s lobbied for dozens of clients, so many he can’t remember them all. Suddenly he was less outside and more inside than some of the current contenders. Add to that his gamesmanship in manipulating the “testing the waters” rule (which allowed him to prolong his entry, keep his TV series on the air and delay financial disclosures) and Mr. Thompson suddenly looks like a Beltway pro who built a career exploiting all the angles.

“He loves small government and federalism except when he votes.”

Mr. Thompson, to the extent he has talked in detail about any subject, has touted the benefits of returning to a Republican version of limited government and re-establishing that principle that the federal government should play a more limited role (focusing, for example, on securing the borders and fighting terrorism). Savvy opponents will argue that Thompson talks a good game, one that appeals to traditional Republican themes, but has actually contributed greatly to the expansion of federal power. The most obvious illustration will be McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform which he championed, co-sponsored and defended in a brief before the Supreme Court. Nothing rankles conservative activists more than federal regulation of political speech and Mr. Thompson, his opponents will say, bears as much responsibility as McCain for this intrusion of the federal government into campaigns, political speech and interest-group advocacy. They will no doubt also point to his vote in favor of No Child Left Behind, which federalized education, hugely expanded Washington’s spending on education and helped undermine state and local control of schools.

“We need a tough executive, not another amiable conservative.”

The Bush has been an embarrassment in its mismanagement of the war, the failure to deal with natural disasters like Katrina and the creation of personnel disasters like Alberto Gonzales. Republicans are well aware that they have something to prove before the public once again thinks of Republicans as tough, businesslike stewards of effective government. Three of Mr. Thompson’s toughest opponents—Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee—all boast records as executives and will remind voters repeatedly of their successes and executive know-how. Mr. Thompson, as rival campaigns will no doubt remind voters, has never run anything, and, so far, isn’t doing a very good job of running his own campaign. Being a conservative is nice, they will say, but it’s not enough.

“There’s no there there.”

To date, Thompson has gotten by with no tax plan, no health plan, no proposal for Iraq and no suggestions for returning Washington to fiscal sobriety. His opponents have reams of commitments, plans and programs which they say show that they are ready to hit the ground running. What is Thompson offering? He has hinted that entitlements are an issue—hardly a revelation to anyone following the news in the last decade—but hasn’t offered his own prescription for Social Security or Medicare reform. If Thompson can’t go toe-to-toe with opponents in detailed policy debates, they will be able to make the case that he’s simply not ready for the job.

“Hillary will kill him.”

Electabilty is certainly on Republicans’ minds these days as they come to the recognition the public is not pleased with their party and will be seeking to throw the rascals out. Mr. Thompson may have a harder time than any of the leading Republican contenders demonstrating that he can put any states in play for the G.O.P. in the general election. Nearly 80 percent of his initial round of contributions came from southern states—a sign that voters from purple and blue states have yet to discover his attractions. When Mr. Thompson attacks New York City in his pro-gun and anti-immigration ads, he’s not making friends with voters who like New York City and live in other urban centers. Are suburban and urban voters really ready for another folksy figure with rural props? (A red pickup truck? Really?) Couple all that with polls showing that his gender gap –a traditional Republican worry—is vast and that he badly trails Hillary Clinton in one-on-one match ups, and the arguments against Thompson ’08 start to make themselves.

source

Grasping at straws Dev? Your "hit pieces" are laughable!! Mrs Scandle is an easy target and you will just have to get used to it. If you think this is bad now just wait. It will be a scandle a day with Mrs Scandle. She is dirtier than a pig in a poke and even less appealing than one.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The VRWC is oiling up and readying for a fight. I just hope none of them think that Hillary isn't ready. She's been preparing for this showdown for years.

[JODO 2]

Here's a fact... Fred Thompson doesn't have a ghost of chance of even taking the Primary.

Edited September 7, 2007 by JODO

[mawilson 2,133]

The VRWC is oiling up and readying for a fight. I just hope none of them think that Hillary isn't ready. She's been preparing for this showdown for years.

I honestly can't believe that people are seriously considering Hillary for President.

Is America really ready for a female to take over? The same America that elected

GWB to a second term?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, not only do we have China poisoning our population in every conceivable way, and getting away with it, ...

That's solely the American consumer's fault.

How's the author expecting to be taken seriously?

[no name 1]

Grasping at straws Dev? Your "hit pieces" are laughable!! Mrs Scandle is an easy target and you will just have to get used to it. If you think this is bad now just wait. It will be a scandle a day with Mrs Scandle. She is dirtier than a pig in a poke and even less appealing than one.

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

Is America really ready for a female to take over? The same America that elected GWB to a second term?

EXACTLY why they are ready.

[GaryC 7]

Grasping at straws Dev? Your "hit pieces" are laughable!! Mrs Scandle is an easy target and you will just have to get used to it. If you think this is bad now just wait. It will be a scandle a day with Mrs Scandle. She is dirtier than a pig in a poke and even less appealing than one.

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

Yeah, I guess a Hillary supporter would know how to spell it. Get used to that word, it will be a very common one where she is concerned.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Grasping at straws Dev? Your "hit pieces" are laughable!! Mrs Scandle is an easy target and you will just have to get used to it. If you think this is bad now just wait. It will be a scandle a day with Mrs Scandle. She is dirtier than a pig in a poke and even less appealing than one.

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

ya should, ya'll have had enough of them

Is America really ready for a female to take over? The same America that elected GWB to a second term?

EXACTLY why they are ready.

true, the bar has been lowered to ground level now

[no name 1]

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

ya should, ya'll have had enough of them

pot meet kettle

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

ya should, ya'll have had enough of them

pot meet kettle

not wanting to argue about the bar being on the ground i see

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

ya should, ya'll have had enough of them

pot meet kettle

not wanting to argue about the bar being on the ground i see

The last 7-8 years has lowered the bar in the estimation of a good many people. That said, they only see W occasionally (like that thing at the Sydney Opera House). We get to listen to it almost everyday.

[no name 1]

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

ya should, ya'll have had enough of them

pot meet kettle

not wanting to argue about the bar being on the ground i see

It was lowered by the IDIOT in office now, you chopfcuk. I forget the Republicans are not as smart as the Dems - they need it spelled out.

Edited September 7, 2007 by devilette

[GaryC 7]

It's spelled 'scandal'. We Democrats are educated, you know.

ya should, ya'll have had enough of them

pot meet kettle

not wanting to argue about the bar being on the ground i see

It was lowered by the IDIOT in office now, you chopfcuk. I forget the Republicans are not as smart as the Dems - they need it spelled out.

Maybe, but to elect Mrs. Scandal they will have to dig a hole for the bar.