US election 2008

Iraq, Health Care Major Issues in 2008 US Presidential Election

2007-10-29T07:06:24+01:00

The war in Iraq, U.S. relations with Iran and the state of the economy are all expected to be major factors in next year's presidential campaign. In the fourth part of his series on the 2008 election, National correspondent Jim Malone looks at the issues likely to dominate the debate.

Many experts predict Iraq will be the top issue in the 2008 campaign, much as it was when President Bush won re-election in 2004.

"The war is the overriding issue," said Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington, D.C. "Whenever there is a war that becomes the issue for a generation. Unless of course there is a recession and that might overshadow the war, but nobody knows whether that is going to happen or not."

Some Republicans believe the improved security situation in Iraq could help whoever becomes the Republican Party's presidential nominee next year. But Lichtman believes the Democratic nominee will have an advantage with independent voters going into the 2008 campaign.

"The recent situation may have slightly improved for the administration, but that has mainly moved Republicans," he said. "It has not moved Democrats at all and has not caused much movement among independents. And Republican votes [alone] are not going to be good enough for a presidential candidate [to win] in 2008."

Iraq remains a central issue in the battle for the Democratic Party nomination where Senator Hillary Clinton of New York continues to lead the field in public opinion polls.

Some of Clinton's rivals question her initial support of the war.

"It has not faded as an issue among Democratic activists," said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. "It has faded as a salient issue among the country for the simple reason that the Congress is divided and the Democrats do not seem to be able to win any votes and there seems to be a pessimism that there is no way they can stop Bush, and that the only way to change Iraq is when we have a new president."

Iraq, Iran and other foreign policy issues are getting a lot of attention on the campaign trail, especially in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

"The war in Iraq and the war on terror and Iran and nuclear weapons are things that are looming in front of people and they are concerned about it," said Arthur Sanders, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa. "You know, when candidates go to these [voter] forums, they get asked about that."

Those same issues are being discussed in New Hampshire as well. But Democrats there are also concerned with supporting a candidate who can win the general election in November of 2008.

"So, you see Iraq, but also typical Democratic concerns such as health care, for example, are on the list," said Dante Scala, who lectures on politics at the University of New Hampshire. "But given that candidates wind up having more or less similar positions on a host of issues, I think it does come down to factors such as personality and perceived electability."

Many experts believe the mix of issues at the moment favors the Democrats.

"They [Democrats] have many advantages, not least that we have had one party in power for eight years," said Larry Sabato, who directs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "Americans like to change, normally, after eight years, but we do not always do it. Second, there is no question that the president's unpopularity, which stems mainly from Iraq but also from (the response to Hurricane) Katrina and other events is going to be an albatross around the neck of any Republican nominee."

But Republican strategists say that the Democrat's advantage on the issues could change if the focus of the campaign turns to national security and the war on terror.

"The way that they [Republicans] might [gain an advantage] would be to paint a Democrat as being weak or inexperienced on foreign policy in general, not just Iraq, and the war on terror," said John Fortier, who monitors presidential politics at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Illegal immigration is another issue that could ignite passions in both the early primaries and in the general election campaign.

"Immigration has been an issue that has erupted periodically, and I think as an undercurrent is quite important," said Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University. "It is not as visible as some of the other issues on a day to day basis, but I know from talking to many activists that it is very, very important."

Recent national surveys suggest the war in Iraq and domestic concerns about health care, the economy and jobs top the list of voter priorities as the election cycle approaches.

In our final report in the series, a look at the possibility of a major third party candidate in next year's election.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Republicans Again on Defense for Congress in 2008

2007-10-29T07:04:34+01:00

Democrats hold a razor-thin majority in the United States Senate, with only forty-nine Democratic senators and two independents that caucus with the Democrats. Similarly, they won 233—around 54%—of the seats in the House in 2006; a mere swing of sixteen would cost them the majority. Despite what appears to be structural potential for Republicans to retake Congress in the next election cycle, the state of the electoral map suggests exactly otherwise: that losses borne by Republicans in 2006, even beyond those for the House and Senate, will prevent Republicans from winning majorities for years to come.

Although Democrats call their wins in Congress in 2006 “historic,” their thirty-seat win in the House came nowhere near the fifty-four seat swap that Republicans managed in 1994. The cornerstone of Republican wins in 1994 was taking a decisive majority of seats that were left open by retiring Democratic incumbents, many of whom were embattled in the bank scandals. In 2006, members of Republican leadership, such as then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, were credited with encouraging fellow Republicans to seek re-election to prevent more open seats that could have advantaged Democrats, thereby blunting the number of seats that could have been lost.

In 2008, however, already greater numbers of Republican incumbents from vulnerable districts, many of whom were serving in the minority for the first time, have announced that they will retire rather than seek re-election. Included in this category are Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, who is retiring, and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, who is leaving her House seat to run for Senate. Both Pryce and Wilson barely squeaked past 50% in 2006 in two of the closest races in the country. Still other Republicans, including Reps. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Jerry Weller of Illinois, and Ralph Regula of Ohio will be retiring in suburban districts nearly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, where Democrats can yield top-tier candidates.

Still others, like Bill Young of Florida and Tom Davis of Virginia, could choose to leave evenly divided districts to retire or seek a different office, causing the number of open seats to grow. Because the wave of retirements that allowed the Republicans to take the majority in 1994 did not happen for Democrats in 2006, some consider Democratic wins in 2006 to be a two-part cycle that will conclude with Republican retirements in 2008, which could cause Democrats to win nearly as many seats in 2008 as they already did in 2006.

These trends should be especially troubling for Republicans because the lines of House districts drawn for the 2000’s were drawn in Republicans’ favor to either defend Republican incumbents or add to the Republican majority. Congressional district lines are drawn by state legislatures with governors’ approval, and in 2006, Republicans lost control of three state senates, six state assemblies, and six governorships. For the first time since 1994, Democrats now hold a majority of the nation’s governors. When the 2010 census gives states the ability to redraw the lines of the House of Representatives districts, Democrats will have much greater power to influence those lines than they did for the 2000 census, entrenching Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008.

Thinking strategically, to have the best chance at retaking the House, Republicans should focus on retaking state legislatures and governorships to redraw lines from the 2020 census in their favor.

On the other side of the Capitol building, Republicans are in many ways both closer to and farther from retaking the Senate. Of the thirty-three senators elected in 2006, Republicans were only able to take nine. This was especially damaging because Democrats already held a majority of Senate seats in the 2006 cycle, because 2000, the last year those seats were up for election, was a good year for Democrats. The next two election cycles, in 2008 and in 2010, follow on elections held for those cycles in 2002 and in 2004, which were both extremely strong years for Republicans. For example, of senators up for election in 2008, Republicans have to defend twenty-two seats, while Democrats need only defend twelve, giving them a far greater opportunity to go on the offensive. Indeed, the only seats held by Democrats that are considered even marginally competitive are in South Dakota and Louisiana, while Republicans are either already the underdog or at least face credible challenges in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and others.

Further, Republican senators also face the problem of retirements: for the first time since 1958, one party, the Republicans, has five more open seats from retirements than the other party. In 1958, Republicans also had five more open seats to defend than the Democrats, who ended up taking thirteen seats from Republicans that year. No Democrat up for election in 2008 has announced a retirement, while Republicans in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Virginia all have.

Because Republicans have Senate cycles coming up in 2008 and 2010 where they will have far more seats to defend than Democrats, they will have scarce opportunity to retake the majority. On the other hand, when 2012 comes around, it is the Democrats who will be on the defense. Republicans will have plenty of opportunities in a cycle in which they only have nine seats to defend.

Prospects for Republicans to retake the majority in Congress look slim for the remainder of the decade. As a result, Republican campaign organizations should adopt a defensive strategy to merely cope through the coming cycles. The most urgent area to go on the offensive is races for state legislatures and governors. If Republicans can take back more state legislatures and governors’ mansions, they will have a stronger hand to redraw congressional district lines in their favor in 2010. Still, opportunities to retake the majority will not come until 2012 at the earliest. As part of the defensive strategy, national organizations need to use their resources wisely while rebuilding their infrastructure, concentrating on only very competitive races, such as one waged by former state Assemblyman Dean Andal against local Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney, who indeed represents a Republican district. Spreading resources too thin could make the road back to a Republican majority even longer than it already is.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Is the US election 2008 over?

2007-10-29T07:02:21+01:00

London's Economist newspaper ran an article last week which more or less declared the U.S. election - or at least, the presidential race - over. Its prediction: Hilary Clinton will be the next president.

As is typical of Economist articles, it contained little nuance and made a strong case. Yet, even though the U.S. election is more than a year away, the sentiment is one which is starting to make its way into the American political establishment.

Two developments over the last few months have led Mrs. Clinton to become the odds-on favourite for the presidency. First is that she has taken a clear lead in the campaign for the Democratic nomination. She has edged past Barack Obama, who still draws crowds but has fallen behind her in fund-raising. And polls indicate that among Democratic supporters, she now enjoys a strong lead ahead of next winter's primaries and caucuses.

Not impressed

The second is that the Republican Party appears, at least for now, to be splintering. No one candidate has yet excited the party's imagination, let alone that of the wider the public. Moreover, the supposed base animated by the presidency of George W. Bush is less than impressed with the leading Republican candidates. There is a real danger to the party if it nominates a candidate that conservative Christians don't like, only to see them stay at home next year.

Yet the candidates that conservative Christian leaders do like, enjoy little support outside the party. Even within the party, there is a growing divide between old-fashioned conservatives and the current crop of neo-cons around the president - hardly a new divide, but one that has been exacerbated by this administration. And among evangelical Christians, who were so instrumental to Mr. Bush's two election victories, sentiment splits. Some want the party to broaden beyond the traditional-values agenda it has promoted, and there are even some signs of drift towards the Democratic Party.

Mr. Bush hasn't done his party many favours, either. Beloved though he may be of conservative Christians, his presidency is disliked by mostly everyone else. The number of Americans who now declare themselves to be Republicans has sunk to levels which would make it all but impossible for the party to win the next election.

So it all looks to be over. Instead, pundits can begin debating what Bill will get up to now that Hilary gets to select the interns.

I am always puzzled by this proclivity to declare U.S. elections over well before time, as if nothing can be expected to happen between now and November 2008. It's not as if journalists have no experience with this. I remember when Bill Clinton was declared all but dead in 1992; when Al Gore was declared unstoppable in 2000; and when Howard Dean - remember Howard Dean? - was virtually handed the Democratic nomination by journalists about this time four years ago.

Harold Wilson said it best: a week is a long time in politics. That makes a year an eternity. True, if things continue the way they are going, a Clinton presidency looks likely. If there are no surges in the Democratic race, because it does seem unlikely Hilary Clinton will stumble now, and if the Republicans cannot coalesce around a nominee, then the betting is probably reasonable.

But those two 'ifs' are big indeed. And all this optimism brushes aside Mrs. Clinton's highly problematic 'negatives' - the fact that not only do many Americans dislike her and her husband, but that the intensity of their dislike will turn them out to vote against her.

I wouldn't want to place this bet, at least not yet.

Source :
www.ielection08.com

Comments

US Election 2008 – Party Games, Prizes, and the Color of Money

2007-10-29T07:01:00+01:00

When presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was asked why he no longer wears the United States Flag lapel pin, he said “it has become a ‘substitution for patriotism’ since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”

I was among many astounded by his comment. I wear a flag pin on the lapel of my suit coat, and have another on the collar of my casual jacket. I wear the pin proudly as a symbol of, not a substitute for, my patriotism.

I believe this country needs more people to wear flag pins, fly the flag at their homes and insist that the flag be shown proper respect whenever and wherever it is displayed.

I have been referred to as a “super patriot” and a “flag waver” etc., and I proudly accept those names. Instead of apologizing for insulting those of us who do wear a flag pin or display our flags at home, perhaps Senator Obama needs a lesson in exactly what the flag means to the United States.

Hillary and NAFTA: Playing the Shell Game

Many can recall that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was heralded as one of Bill Clinton’s greatest domestic achievements as president. In the more recent past, Hillary Clinton spoke out on NAFTA, proposing that it and all other trade agreements be re-visited every five years with an eye on re-evaluating the U.S. position. This was, I believe, an obvious ploy to gain union support for her campaign.

How?

As far as NAFTA and other trade agreements are concerned, it means there would be a remote and far-flung possibility that they could be changed or even cancelled. Even the greasiest wheels in Washington move slowly, and it could well be into Hillary’s second term (if there is one) before anything meaningful regarding trade is looked at – and well after her second term before any action takes place. In other words, because she knows how Washington works, no one can point to her and say she made an idle campaign promise.

To U.S. union members, however, there would be nothing happening in the near future for them as far as all this is concerned. In fact, it could be five or ten years down the road – if ever – before the promise made to them comes true. In the meantime, Hillary receives their votes – the main reason for her announcement in the first place.

Dollars and Sense

Dollars

Several columns back, I wrote about the donations received by the Democrats and the Republicans. Here is a brief update on a few of those numbers.

At the end of the third quarter, Hillary Clinton raised more than $90 million dollars total for the first three quarters. It goes without saying that by the end of the year she will likely raise considerably more than $100 million. Where does the majority of this money come from? The answer is simple: Hollywood celebrities, labor unions, trial attorneys and other wealthy donors with an agenda.

The DNC has enriched their coffers by $100 million more than the RNC has thus far in 2007. Where have these funds come from? Liberal special interest groups and organizations like MoveOn.org.

Sense

You may be asking yourself: Where is the sense in all this? Rest assured it is not only to help propel Hillary Clinton or another Democrat into the Oval Office in 2008. It is also to defeat all Republicans in 2008 and beyond. The Republicans, on the other hand, do not appear to have mounted a counter attack strong enough to overcome the Democrat campaign machine and its huge amounts of money. Time is passing quickly, and I can’t see what they are waiting for. Can you?

Nobel, but No Bounce, for Gore

Now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize that everyone knew he was going to win on the day the nominations were announced, the Internet is buzzing with the big question: will Gore pursue the Democrat nomination for president?

The question is probably more on the mind of every Democrat candidate – especially those with lower poll numbers than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – than the mind of the individual voter. If Gore decides to renege on his statement that he would not seek the presidency, candidates from John Edwards down to Mike Gravel will be history. Obama would also feel the heat, and with his problems of late, he may want to start hoping that whoever wins the nomination will pick him as a running mate.

While Al Gore is still denying he will throw his hat in the ring as of this writing, his loyal supporters are still crying foul for the 2000 election and are talking him up big time. (Interestingly, post-prize poll data indicates that overall support for his potential candidacy remains limited.)

It would be interesting if the nomination came down to a close choice between Gore and Clinton. There is no love lost between the Clintons and Gores since Gore’s tenure as Vice President under Bill Clinton.

On a side note, former President Jimmy Carter said of Al Gore, “I think he is the best qualified person to be President”. That in itself says volumes!

File this in the “we will see” category.

It Makes You Wonder

I have previously noted that the former senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, never had a chance to make it even close to the “top tier” of Democrat candidates vying for nomination. Now it appears his own party may want him off the candidate list completely.

Last week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a fundraising mailer to prospective donors listing seven candidates from which to choose their favorite for the nomination. Mike Gravel was not included.

The DCCC claims it was an oversight. However, one has to wonder if it was insight as to how the DCCC feels about Gravel’s poor attitude toward the Democrat-led Congress!

More Internet Resources for You

Are you looking for more information on the 2008 election? Here are several website with a generally non-partisan view that you may find useful:

OVAL OFFICE 2008

In existence since January 2005, Oval Office 2008 aims to be completely non-partisan in content and analysis. It also gives a different point of view, as the site is owned by a blogger in the U.K.

In addition to interesting and thought provoking articles, there is a forum, items sold in their store are used to rank the candidates (very poor and slanted to the Left), and includes links to other sites.

2008--ELECTION

This site has an ever-expanding resource directory for 2008 election data in addition to several other clickable choices. It has everything from candidate biographies to links that lead to historical election information. You’ll also find timelines for primaries, conventions and listings on “potential candidates” discussed but not declared.

POLITICAL MEDIA LINKS

At the top of this site’s home page is the statement: We have Left, Right and Center. The site lists many top political columnists and media outlets on the Web, including magazines, newspapers, syndicated columnists, websites, political organizations, political message boards, forums and humor sites. While large, the listing is no way complete. However, it will give the reader a cross-view on just about any issue. I book marked this site long ago, and recommend that you do the same.

Source :
www.ielection08.com

Comments

Free trade and the US election

2007-10-29T06:58:43+01:00

It may be more than a year away, but Americans already think they know what the big issues of the 2008 presidential election will be.

On the thousands of web pages, acres of newsprint and hours of airtime already devoted to the long race to the White House, two subjects get most attention: how and when to end the war in Iraq and how healthcare should be paid for.

But another issue is gaining prominence, one which is of much greater significance to the rest of the world.

Indeed, it is one that could have profound implications for the global economy.

The issue is free trade.

President Bush devoted his most recent weekly radio address to lauding the benefit America gets from free trade deals.

"Millions of American jobs depend on exports," he said.

"More exports support better and higher-paying jobs - and to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade."

Faltering idea?

Mr Bush's immediate priority is persuading Congress to approve his administration's latest free trade pacts with Colombia, Peru, Panama and South Korea.

But his remarks are also part of a more general debate that is unfolding in the US about whether free trade is in the country's interest at all.

America, it seems, is experiencing a revival of protectionism.

Almost all of the candidates vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee next year have adopted stances that flatly contradict the current president's fondness for free trade deals.

Front-runner Hilary Clinton wants all free trade deals to be revised every five years, including those that were negotiated by her husband's administration.

John Edwards, currently placed third among the Democratic hopefuls, has gone so far as to question how committed Americans really are to global trade.

"Trade has become a bad word for working Americans," he recently declared.

That, of course, is campaign rhetoric designed to appeal to Democrat voters.

Voter worries

What of the Republicans? Surely they share their president's belief in the benefits of free trade? Perhaps not.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found 60% of Republican voters think free trade is bad for America.

In contrast to the Democrats and their close ties to the trade unions, the Republican Party has a long tradition of pushing the agenda of American business.

So if two-thirds of Republican voters do not think it is a good idea, then the cause of free trade could be in real trouble in the world's biggest economy.

Most economists have no doubt that the US has benefited hugely from the global reduction of tariffs and the removal of other trade barriers over the last two decades.

Many also argue that it would profit even more if the remaining barriers were to be taken down.

Economic boost

Gary Hufbauer at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington devotes much of his research to measuring the impact of trade policy on the US economy.

He has calculated that if the US could negotiate free trade deals with all of its trading partners it would add between $450bn and $600bn (£220bn to £294bn) to the value of US output.

Divide that across the population and global free trade could make every household in the country up to $5,300 (£2,600) richer each year.

If economists are so convinced of the benefits of free trade, why aren't American voters?

The answer, of course, is that those combined benefits are not necessarily felt by individuals.

Instead, what many Americans, including US business owners, notice is that trade with other countries can make them poorer.

Manufacturing woes

Take Brian O'Shaughnessy, head of Revere Copper, which makes copper products for industrial customers around the world.

Mr O'Shaughnessy's company was founded in 1801 and is, he says, the oldest manufacturer in the US.

But the grand heritage has not saved it from the problems that have ravaged the American manufacturing sector.

This year, one of Revere's two plants has closed and Mr O'Shaughnessy has had to lay off 85 workers.

He believes this was a direct result of US policies, which make it too easy for foreign competitors to sell their products in America at his expense.

"I believe that there is no such thing as free trade", Mr O'Shaughnessy said.

"I believe that trade must be rules-based and that the rules must be fair."

To him the free trade deals negotiated by the US government are patently unfair.

While they may have lowered tariffs, he is appalled by what he sees as foreign governments' use of other means to promote their industries at the expense of America's.

"The USA continues to negotiate free trade agreements without recognising how its trading partners simply bypass the tariff reduction measures by raising or initiating new taxes."

Given the experience of Mr O'Shaughnessy and many like him, it is little wonder that Democratic politicians are finding a sympathetic audience for their more protectionist message.

Big question

For the Republican candidates it represents a dilemma.

Do they abandon their party's proud tradition of supporting free trade, or do they risk seeming indifferent to the struggles of the businessmen and women for whom they have long presumed to speak?

For now, they are doggedly sticking to the position that tearing down the barriers to trade is always a good thing.

"We cannot stop doing business with the rest of the world," as leading candidate Rudy Giuliani stated in the recent Republican debate.

Yet in the same debate, weaker rival candidates sounded more sceptical notes about the benefits of trade.

So unfavourable were the comments that one candidate, Fred Thompson, said Ronald Reagan would be "spinning in his grave" to hear Republicans sounding protectionist.

And if the polls continue to show that a big majority of Republican voters think taking down trade barriers is bad for the country, it will be a very brave politician who does not tailor his position accordingly.

All of which raises the possibility that the next president of the US will be a lot less committed to free trade than either Presidents Bush or Clinton before them.

If that is the case, then a lot of the world's wealth could be riding on the political debates rumbling on in America.

Source :
www.ielection08.com

Comments

Is the US election 2008 over?

2007-10-21T12:26:21+02:00

Not impressed

So it all looks to be over. Instead, pundits can begin debating what Bill will get up to now that Hilary gets to select the interns.

I wouldn't want to place this bet, at least not yet.

Source:
www.ielection08.com

Comments

Hillary Clinton rejects US presidential front-runner label

2007-10-21T12:24:42+02:00

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday rejected the front-runner label, but acknowledged increasing attacks from rivals in both parties _ which she said she will largely ignore.
«I'm well aware that my opponents on both sides are paying a lot more attention to me,» Clinton said. «I'm
reminded by some of my friends that when you get to be my age, having so many men paying attention to you is kind of flattering.» Clinton is about to turn 60.
Most national polls have shown Clinton atop the field of Democratic contenders for the 2008 election. She also has a financial edge over all the other candidates.
But Clinton said many voters remain unconvinced.
«I'm not taking anything for granted,» she said. «We've got a long way to go before that happens.

She rejected criticism from rivals like fellow Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards, who say she is too closely tied to Washington to bring about real change.
«I'm going to continue to attack the problems of America,» Clinton said. «I'm going to focus on what I would do as president.

Source :
www.ielection08.com

Comments

US Election 2008, War-Based solution or Peace-Based One ?

2007-10-17T09:27:17+02:00

A decision making process where people choose people to hold official offices, Yes ELECTION , the usual mechanism by which modern democracy fills offices in the legislature, sometimes in the executive and judiciary, and for regional and local government .

According to Fr.Fank Pavone, M.E.V.National Director,"it's a declarations of"done deal" before
they're done. It's war of polls and "front-runners," of probabilities and predictions".

There are two important questions relating to elections; The first is that who may vote , which is a central issue in elections and the second is which stage are we in regard to election .
Before clarifying about these two important questions we must have some pre-knowledge about history of elections and two stages which are distinguished in them .

The first most important thing to know is that the electorate does not generally include the entire population; For example,many countries prohibit those judged mentally incompetent from voting, and all jurisdictions require a minimum age for voting .

Historicaly, many other groups of people have also been excluded from voting . For instance,the democracy of ancient Athens did not allow women,foreigners,or slaves to vote, and the original United States Constitution left the topic of suffrage to the states;
Usually only white male property owners were able to vote ! Much of the history of elections involves the effort to promote suffrage for excluded groups. The women's suffrage movement gave women in many countries the right to vote, and securing the right to vote freely was a major goal of the american civil rights to vote , and securing the right to vote to other groups which remain excluded in some places ( such as convicted felons, members of certain minorities, and the economically disadvantaged) continues to be a significant goal of voting rights advocates .

The second most important thing to be mentioned is that there are two important stages to an election .
Stage one, in which we are now , is the period of time when we get to decide who will be on the ballot. Stage two, which comes after the primates are all finished , is when we figure out who on the ballot should get our vote .
These are two very different stages .
Key to winning the psychological battle for the election is to keep remiding ourselves that we are in stage One, not stage Two .

The fact is that right now, nobody knows which candidate will be on the ballot for the presidential election in November of 2008 . It could be any one of the candidates who have already declared their intention to run, or it could be someone we haven't heard of yet. As past elections have shown,"front-runners" at this stage of the process do not necessarily become the winner on election day. And in the age of blogs, circumstances in politics change faster than ever, and the dynamics of change are more numerous and unpredictable than ever. Many things still have to happen.
Straw polls, debates into a much stronger position that they now enjoy .

The 2008 Election battle is well underway, but the battlefield, at this stage of the election is not in the voting booth, and not even in the bank .

Writer : Abdollah Nikpey
Editor : Adel Sarlak
In Corporation With iElection08 website : www.ielection08.com

Comments

Election 2008 – Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

2007-10-11T08:14:36+02:00

Changing Tack

During the recent Democrat debate (if you can call it that) at Dartmouth College, it seems the top three Democrat hopefuls have flipped their positions on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Hillary Clinton, who has been hedging her position on Iraq from day one, said during the debate, “It’s very difficult to know what we will be inheriting.” Perhaps she should have paid more attention to General Petraeus’ report?

Barack Obama followed a similar pattern, saying, “It’s hard to project four years from now.” Indeed, Senator Obama, but you could have given a more specific answer had you been paying more attention rather than criticizing!

John Edwards stated that his position differs from Clinton and Obama in that if elected he would immediately bring home one half the troops stationed in Iraq. Finally, a solid commitment instead of a vague, run-around answer! I hope he means what he says because if elected, he has no room for adjustment.

It’s interesting to note that Clinton did not vote in favor of the Senate action that condemned Moveon.org for the ad they placed in the New York Times calling General Petraeus a liar. Obama did not vote at all, as is his normal practice on proceedings that may be controversial. (He likely worries that his vote may come back to haunt him in the future.) This is nothing new: it was his modus operandi when he was a state senator for Illinois. Edwards, of course, could not vote. However he could have made a strong statement of condemnation – but didn’t. Democrat candidates seem reluctant to criticize Moveon.org for anything. Why? Could it possibly be the $300 million that Movon.org has donated both to individual candidates and the Democrat Party? Those donations come with a price, which was clearly evidenced by a statement made by Moveon.org back in December of 2004: “We bought it, we own it and we’re going to take it back.” I’ll give you one guess as to what they were referring to.

Change for the Better?

Speaking of the debate at Dartmouth, we were promised “change” in Washington, meaning business as usual will cease to be business as usual. Hillary Clinton says her experience is the key. Obama claims his new ideas are the answer. He also claims his refusal to accept money from lobbyists means he is not in anybody’s pocket – hinting strongly that anyone (read: Clinton) who has accepted such funds is beholden to the lobbyist’s client. Apparently potential voters don’t agree, as Clinton is running 20+% points ahead of Obama in most national polls. Still, the only poll that really counts is the election…

The More Things Change…

Recently Barack Obama, as reported in the TimesOnLine, stated Hillary Clinton was not experienced enough to handle the presidency. He said “she worked the system both as First Lady and as New York’s junior Senator.” Bill Clinton jumped in to defend his wife’s abilities (something he said weeks ago he would not do) by saying Obama is “too inexperienced to handle the country’s challenges.” Obama continued the tit for tat by claiming Hillary didn’t know what she was doing when she voted to authorize the Iraq invasion.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been bouncing the experience ball back and forth for some time, but now that Bill Clinton has stepped on to the court, it could be a new game. Is this a good or bad thing? We’ll find out soon enough.

During a forum set up by the Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary suggested that every child born in the United States either be given a $5,000 savings bond, or its equivalent to be used to help with college tuition or the purchase of a home. What Hillary neglected to say was how this would be paid for and what the eligibility requirement would be. There are estimated to be 4 million babies born in the U.S. every year and at $5,000 for each one, that would be an expense to the government (read: us) of $20 billion plus every year. Yes, that’s billion with a “B”. Unsurprisingly, Republicans called it

source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Thompson upstaged by Giuliani, Romney

2007-10-11T08:13:44+02:00

WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson emerged Tuesday from weeks of preparation for his first presidential debate, but largely watched from the sidelines as rivals Mitt Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani clashed over who can return the party to its fiscally conservative roots.

Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee best known as a TV and movie actor, did not officially enter the race until last month. On the stage of a theater in Dearborn, Mich., he sought to allay concerns that he lacked the drive and preparation to run for president.

Thompson appeared nervous in the debate's opening moments. But he displayed flashes of humor as the two-hour forum on economic policy, sponsored by CNBC, MSNBC and the Wall Street Journal, drew to a close. A debate transcript is available here.

By and large, the nine men seeking the GOP nomination echoed one another in calling for restraint in taxes, spending and government regulation.

But Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, took on Giuliani over his fiscal record as New York mayor. That, in turn, led Giuliani to criticize Romney more harshly than before.

"I led, he lagged," Giuliani said, insisting that he was more vigorous than Romney in cutting both taxes and spending.

The competition to establish their bona fides as champions of fiscal discipline comes as Republicans are struggling to regain the edge they once held on economic issues. Recent polls have found that Americans favor Democrats for dealing with the deficit, federal spending, taxes and the economy.

Michigan, hit hard by foreign trade and a beleaguered auto industry, is emblematic of an awkward reality for the GOP: Even though the economy is strong by many measures, including the booming stock market, many voters remain uneasy about the future, and large parts of the manufacturing sector are struggling.

All the Democratic candidates have made sure to address voters' economic concerns. On Tuesday, the Republicans split over whether to view the state of the economy as a glass half full or half empty.

Brimming with optimism, Thompson said, "Not enough has been done to tell what some call the greatest story never told, and that is that we are enjoying a period of growth right now."

But other candidates warned that a Pollyanna outlook risked seeming out of touch.

"A lot of people are going to be watching this debate. They're going to hear Republicans on this stage talk about how great the economy is," said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. "And frankly, when they hear that, they're going to probably reach for the dial."

The dispute between Romney and Giuliani over their credentials as fiscal disciplinarians reflects in part the pressure on them to restore the confidence of economic conservatives, who have been disillusioned by the growth in federal spending since President Bush took office.

Romney also faulted Giuliani for filing a lawsuit to overturn the line-item veto that Congress passed under President Clinton. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with Giuliani, who on Tuesday called the measure unconstitutional and said it would have deprived New York of badly needed funds.

"I don't think it's a bad idea to have a Republican presidential candidate who actually has beat President Clinton at something," Giuliani said.

Tensions between Romney and Giuliani escalated as Thompson was seeking to establish his position in the crowded and highly unsettled Republican contest.

For the most part, Thompson did not stray from party orthodoxy, hailing the virtues of small government and free trade. He also called attention to long-term problems with Social Security and Medicare, both of which face insolvency with the forthcoming retirement of the baby-boom generation.

He suggested that one option for preserving Social Security would be to slow the growth of benefits by pegging annual benefit increases to the inflation rate.

All in all, Thompson "gave solid answers, though he said nothing to stir the Republican soul," said political scientist John J. Pitney Jr. of Claremont McKenna College. "He beat low expectations and fell short of high ones."

On foreign policy, the candidates disagreed over whether a president would need the approval of Congress to take military action against nuclear facilities in Iran.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Clinton unveils plan to boost 401(K) savings

2007-10-10T12:43:30+02:00

WEBSTER CITY, Iowa - Expanding on her appeal for middle class support, Hillary Clinton yesterday unveiled her second-costliest proposal of the campaign so far, one that aims to boost Americans' retirement savings with up to $1,000 from the federal government a year.

Her proposal would make 401(k) retirement savings plans, traditionally offered by private employers, available to all Americans, even those who have their own businesses or do not work.

For a couple earning up to $60,000 a year, the government would match the first $1,000 they invested in their 401(k) each year. For a couple earning between $60,000 and $100,000, the government would match a maximum of $500 a year.

"I think every American deserves a chance to build a solid nest egg, to help save for that new home, to send a child to college, and to secure that comfortable retirement," Clinton said, adding that Americans are saving less than they have since the start of the Great Depression in 1929.

Clinton's American Retirement Accounts plan would cost $20 billion to $25 billion each year, the New York senator's advisers said yesterday, compared with about $110 billion a year for her universal healthcare proposal. She said she would pay for it by freezing the estate tax at the 2009 level, which would mean taxing inheritances worth more than $7 million per couple. President Bush wants to phase out the tax by 2010.

Her advisers said that for every wealthy family that would pay more in taxes, 5,000 other families would pay less. They cited research from the Congressional Budget Office indicating only 7,000 estates in the United States are worth more than $7 million and only 65 farm estates are worth that much.

Clinton got flak after the Democratic candidates' latest debate in New Hampshire last month because she refused to specify how she would overhaul Social Security. That is the basis on which the Republican National Committee bashed her proposal yesterday.

"Hillary Clinton has avoided answering how she would save Social Security, instead asking that Americans trust her on retirement security by pointing to her husband's record," said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. "But that record is one of increased taxes on Social Security benefits and drastic cuts to Medicare."

Clinton accused the Bush administration of fear mongering about Social Security, and said her 401(k) plan would not come at the expense of the program. While Clinton has been highlighting a populist message on her "Middle Class Express" bus tour through Iowa, some of her rivals sought to portray her as beholden to the rich, playing off the news that the Senate is unlikely to pass a tax increase on private-equity firms. Though Clinton favored the tax cut, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois seized on the issue to recall Clinton's remark this summer that lobbyists "represent real Americans."

"If there was ever a doubt that Washington lobbyists don't actually represent real Americans, it's the fact that they stopped leaders of both parties from requiring elite investment firms to pay their fair share of taxes," he said.

Scott Helman of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

How Clinton has built her lead

2007-10-08T10:48:36+02:00

WASHINGTON -- Carol Levesque, a retired New Hampshire social worker, used to think Hillary Rodham Clinton was not cut out for the White House. Levesque looked askance at Clinton's decision to run for the U.S. Senate. She was lukewarm about how Clinton conducted herself as first lady to an unfaithful husband.

Now, Levesque is an avid fan. After seeing Clinton three times, she was wowed by the New York Democrat's apparent brainpower. She was, to use her word, "underwhelmed" by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when he made a presidential campaign stop in Peterborough, N.H., recently. And as the granddaughter of a pioneering supporter of women's suffrage, Levesque, 65, is thrilled with the prospect of electing a woman president.

Levesque's conversion offers a window into how Clinton has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination: One of the most demonized politicians in America has begun to win a second look from skeptics. And among women and seniors, such as Levesque, she has built big leads over her rivals.

That underscores one of Clinton's most important assets in the turbulent few months ahead of the balloting set for early January. She has built a political base -- reflected in polls -- of voters who dominate the Democratic nominating process: seniors, women and blue-collar voters.

That's a troublesome trend for Obama, who has drawn his support mainly from the young and the affluent. He had been considered the candidate most likely to slow the Clinton juggernaut. But her lead in national polls has widened. Nationally, Clinton leads Obama 38% to 22%, according to the latest Pollster.com aggregation of surveys. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is under 14%. The latest campaign reports showed that in the last three months, Clinton for the first time raised more money than Obama.

Still, a Clinton nomination is far from a foregone conclusion. In Iowa, whose voters are first in the nominating process, the race is effectively a toss-up among Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Many presidential front-runners have been thrown off course by an early upset or by failing to meet the expectations that attach to the leader in national polls. And Clinton is still struggling to allay a concern among many Democrats that she is too polarizing to win the general election.

Her rivals say that national surveys reflect little more than Clinton's high name recognition. They suggest that most voters have yet to focus on alternative candidates.

"This campaign is still at its early stage for voters," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager. "The vast majority of voters have not made a decision."

But Mark Penn, Clinton's pollster, says that the long primary contest has given voters unusually extensive exposure to the candidates, and so Clinton's standing is built on more than fame.

"What we are seeing in polls is not a reflection of name recognition," said Penn. "It's a reflection of listening to the candidates."

Yet she also has high negative ratings in some polls. For more than a decade, she has been attacked in a shelfload of books, on countless websites and in repeated direct-mail drives. Her detractors see her as a calculating opportunist with a crisis- ridden past.

Paradoxically, Clinton may be benefiting from that unflattering image as she reintroduces herself.

"If she showed up and doesn't have a horn and tail and speaks clearly and engagingly, people say, 'You know, she's all right,' " said Andrew E. Smith, a pollster at the University of New Hampshire.

Levesque disapproved when Clinton ran for the Senate just as her husband was about to leave the White House. Eventually, however, Levesque became impressed with Clinton's Senate career and with the range of issues Clinton addressed as a presidential candidate.

Levesque also cites a factor that Clinton says she often hears: "I really hoped someday I would live long enough to see a woman as president."

Women, who make up the majority of the Democratic electorate, are a vital part of Clinton's political base. Gallup surveys in August and September found that 51% of women aged 18 to 49 supported Clinton, compared with 29% supporting Obama and 10% Edwards. Among older women, the gap in Clinton's favor was even greater.

Taking nothing for granted, the Clinton campaign has aggressively targeted women. A weekly "HillGram" sent to tens of thousands of potential supporters, for instance, deals with such issues as breast cancer, equal pay for equal work and other topics of interest to female voters. The campaign also holds events at venues tailored to women, including a national hairdressers' convention in Boston and children's play centers around the country.

And Clinton's signature issue -- healthcare -- is a big draw for many women.

"It's a problem for a lot of people's families," said Melanie Sowa, 40, a South Carolina homemaker who supports Clinton because of her gender as well as her pledge to make healthcare more affordable and accessible.

Clinton's pollster thinks Clinton does well among seniors, another important voting bloc, because they place a premium on experience. "Young people don't tend to value experience because they haven't been through a stock market crash or world wars," Penn said.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Clinton preferred over Giuliani in US race: poll

2007-10-07T09:58:54+02:00

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democrat Hillary Clinton would beat Republican Rudolph Giuliani in the race for the US presidency if the election was held now, according to poll data released Thursday.

Senator Clinton, wife of ex-president Bill Clinton and the strong front-runner for the Democratic nomination for next year's election, held a 51-43 percent margin over Giuliani in a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll showed Democrat voters favoring Clinton over Giuliani by 88-9 percent while independents were for Clinton 48-44 percent. Republican voters preferred Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, 88-10 percent.

The poll also showed that two-thirds of voters believe Clinton would take the country in a different direction compared with her husband during his 1993-2001 presidency, with most considering that "a good thing."

Another Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday showed Clinton was the solid favorite for the Democrat nomination in the November 2008 election.

She held a 33 point lead over her closest rival, fellow Senator Barack Obama.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Democrats 2008: Hillary 40%, Obama 26%

2007-10-06T08:46:43+02:00

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the most popular United States presidential contender for supporters of the Democratic Party, according to a poll by Ipsos-Public Affairs released by the Associated Press. 40 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator in a 2008 primary.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 26 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 12 per cent. Support is lower for New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Delaware senator Joe Biden, and Connecticut senator Chris Dodd.

On Oct. 4, Edwards urged Americans to pay little attention to fundraising figures, saying, "The only thing that matters (to pundits) is fundraising contests, who can raise the most money, who can get the most money from special interests. Electability goes way beyond money. My campaign will not be limited to New York and Los Angeles and Chicago."

In American elections, candidates require 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the White House. In November 2004, Republican George W. Bush earned a second term after securing 286 electoral votes from 31 states. Democratic nominee John Kerry received 252 electoral votes from 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.

Polling Data

If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were (the following), for whom would you vote?
(Democrats and Democratic leaners only)

Oct. 2007

Sept. 2007

Jul. 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton

40%

43%

36%

Barack Obama

26%

23%

20%

John Edwards

12%

13%

11%

Bill Richardson

Joe Biden

Chris Dodd

Other

Al Gore

n.a.

15%

None

Not sure

10%

See Also :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Republicans 2008: Thompson 25%, Giuliani 23%

2007-10-02T13:15:36+02:00

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Fred Thompson is barely ahead in the national race for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in the United States, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 25 per cent of respondents would vote for the actor and former Tennessee senator in a 2008 primary.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is second with 23 per cent, followed by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with 13 per cent, Arizona senator John McCain with 10 per cent, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee with six per cent.

On Sept. 30, McCain said he would not support the use of medical marijuana, adding, "I don’t think that the preponderance of medical opinion in America agrees with (the) assertion that it’s the most effective way of treating pain."

Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.

Polling Data

Republican Presidential Primary Contenders

Sept. 30

Sept. 23

Sept. 10

Fred Thompson

25%

26%

28%

Rudy Giuliani

23%

22%

21%

Mitt Romney

13%

12%

John McCain

10%

14%

12%

Mike Huckabee

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Obama's backers say swelling of his support belies the polls - The Boston Globe

2007-10-01T12:28:40+02:00

PETERBOROUGH, N.H. - It's a warm fall morning in southwest New Hampshire and people are streaming onto a farm to see Barack Obama speak in front of a red clapboard barn. They are young, old, walking, in wheelchairs, dressed up, and dressed down - about 1,000 in all.

The gathering is massive for Peterborough, population 6,000, but hardly surprising: For months, Obama has drawn huge crowds in big cities, small hamlets, and every place in between, a reflection of the infectious excitement his candidacy has generated.

"We just have to turn the people into votes," a young, clipboard-wielding Obama volunteer tells a man arriving for the rally.

That simple imperative crystallizes perfectly the challenge facing Obama as the Democratic primary race enters the crucial three months before voters in Iowa and New Hampshire begin choosing the party's nominee. His powerful and growing grass-roots network - reaffirmed by thousands of new donors in the third quarter of this year - has reached historic proportions. But his poll numbers in early primary states are largely flat.

A survey released last week by the University of New Hampshire showed rival Hillary Clinton leading Obama 43 percent to 20 percent among likely Democratic voters, matching her largest margin in the Granite State. Outside of Iowa, where polls indicate a tight three-way race, Clinton also holds substantial leads.

Pundits, commentators, and even some Obama supporters have begun to ask: How will he move the needle?

"I don't understand why he's 20 points behind Hillary," said Timothy Steele, an Obama enthusiast from Hancock, N.H., who runs a medical-device company. "It's really at a point when it should start being urgent."

At the same time, voters in New Hampshire and Iowa are notoriously hard to pin down in polls. Even many Clinton supporters are not fully committed - only 17 percent of respondents in the UNH survey said they had definitely made up their minds. And the TV ad wars have yet to begin in earnest.

"He's still in the game, and he's still hunting for votes. He's just an underdog in this race," said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign and is neutral this cycle. "Barack is going into the final 13 weeks of the campaign in great shape."

Obama's advisers say they are confident they have the organization, the buzz, the money, and the candidate with a message the country is hungry for. And they say that, despite the intense media scrutiny and onslaught of state and national polls, most people have yet to really focus on the race.

"The reality is both sides know [the polls] don't count until January," said Ned Helms, cochairman of Obama's New Hampshire campaign.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, argued that most voters not with Clinton at this point will never be, and that gives Obama a huge opportunity if he can capitalize on it.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Democrats Build Plan to Override Health Bill Veto - New York Times

2007-09-30T11:46:15+02:00

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — Democrats and their allies mapped out a strategy on Friday that they hoped would enable them to override President Bush’s expected veto of a bipartisan bill providing health insurance for 10 million children, most of them in low-income families.

Democratic leaders said they would highlight the contrast between the president’s request for large sums of money for the Iraq war and his opposition to smaller sums for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as Schip.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said, “It’s ironic that in the very same week that the president says he’s going to veto the bill because we can’t afford it, he is asking, what, for $45 billion more over and above his initial request for the war in Iraq, money that we know is being spent without accountability, without a plan for how we can leave Iraq.”

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, “This is all a matter of priorities: the cost of Iraq, $333 million a day; the cost of Schip, $19 million a day.”

The campaign for the legislation will also include grass-roots advocacy and political advertisements, and will initially focus on about 15 House Republicans who voted against the bill. Supporters of the legislation hope to persuade them to switch.

But House Republican leaders said they felt sure they could sustain the veto, and two lawmakers on the Democrats’ list said that they would support Mr. Bush.

The bill passed this week by the House and the Senate would provide $60 billion for the program over the next five years, up $35 billion from the current level of spending. On Wednesday, the administration said it would seek $42 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing its total request to nearly $190 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, which begins Monday.

In an interview on Friday, the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said there was “a 100 percent probability” that the House would sustain the president’s veto.

But, Mr. Blunt said, the coincidental timing of the vote on the child health bill and the request for money in Iraq “was not helpful.”

The White House, on the defensive, is trying to bolster Republicans who fear they might be penalized by voters if they side with the president.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said Friday, “It is preposterous for people to suggest that the president of the United States doesn’t care about children, that he wants children to suffer.”

Ms. Perino said the president had a policy difference with Democrats in Congress because he did not want “additional government-run health care, socialized-type medicine.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who helped write the bill, said he would reach out to House Republicans and urge them to override the veto.

“This bill is not socialized medicine,” Mr. Grassley said. “Screaming ‘socialized medicine’ is like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from reading the bill, looking at the facts.”

The battle will be fought in the House, where the child health bill was approved on Tuesday by a vote of 265 to 159 — well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Bush on Friday and said she was praying he would sign the bill.

But Mr. Blunt said: “I bet she’s praying for him not to sign it. The bill is all about politics. It’s pretty good politics for the Democrats.”

Still, Democrats face an uphill fight to persuade Republicans to change their votes. Supporters would need 289 yes votes to enact the bill over the president’s objections if all the members were voting.

The House now has 433 members and two vacant seats.

One of the Republicans singled out for special attention by Democrats was Representative Judy Biggert, from a suburban Chicago district. She was one of 16 Republicans who signed a letter to the speaker last week, urging her to take up the Senate version of the child health bill.

The compromise closely followed the Senate version, but Mrs. Biggert voted against it, saying, “It would push Americans one step closer to socialized medicine.”

In an interview on Friday, Mrs. Biggert said she would vote to sustain the veto.

Democrats said they would also focus their efforts on Republicans like Representatives Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois, John R. Kuhl Jr. of New York, Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan and H. James Saxton of New Jersey.

Mr. McCotter said he was a big supporter of the child health program, but would vote to uphold the president’s veto, even if critics ran television advertisements against him.

Under the bill, the federal excise tax on cigarettes would be increased to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents.

“I vowed never to raise taxes on anybody, no matter how disliked they might be,” Mr. McCotter said in an interview. He said he would rather be voted out of office than go back on his promises to constituents.

Republican senators who worked on the compromise bill, like Mr. Grassley and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, said they had tried in vain to persuade White House officials to join the negotiations.

Ms. Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said that after vetoing the bill, Mr. Bush would like to “sit down and come to a compromise” with Congress.

The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said the president should not hold his breath waiting for such a deal. Democrats, he said, have already made many concessions to keep the support of Senate Republicans.

Source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

Hillary Leads, Thompson Gains in Florida

2007-09-29T09:07:16+02:00

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most popular United States presidential contender for Democratic Party supporters in the Sunshine State, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 47 per cent of likely Democratic primary voters in Florida would vote for the New York senator in next year’s primary.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 22 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 11 per cent. Four per cent of respondents would vote for other candidates, and 15 per cent are undecided.

In the sample of Republican Party supporters, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is first with 29 per cent, followed by actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson with 23 per cent—up six points since August. Arizona senator John McCain is third with 12 per cent, followed by Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with 11 per cent, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee with three per cent.

Earlier this year, a law passed in Florida mandates for the state’s presidential primaries to be held either on the first Tuesday of February, or seven days after the New Hampshire contest. The Republican and Democratic primaries in Florida are tentatively scheduled for Jan. 29, 2008.

In 2004, Massachusetts senator John Kerry won the Democratic Florida primary with 77 per cent of the vote. The Republican contest was cancelled, after incumbent George W. Bush was nominated by the state’s party.

Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next U.S. presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.

Original Releases from Rasmussen Reports: Republican Primary and Democratic Primary

Polling Data

Election 2008: Florida Democratic Presidential Primary

Sept. 2007

Aug. 2007

Jul. 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton

47%

43%

46%

Barack Obama

22%

24%

15%

John Edwards

11%

13%

Some other candidate

Not sure

15%

16%

21%

Election 2008: Florida Republican Primary

Sept. 2007

Aug. 2007

Jul. 2007

Rudy Giuliani

29%

30%

22%

Fred Thompson

23%

17%

21%

John McCain

12%

13%

Mitt Romney

11%

15%

13%

Mike Huckabee

n.a.

Some other candidate

Source: Rasmussen Reports

Comments

Senators Seek Strong Vote for Program

2007-09-27T11:16:03+02:00

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators supporting a large spending increase for a popular children's health insurance program hope that a wide margin of bipartisan approval will persuade President Bush to change his mind about vetoing the measure.

The Senate, which overwhelming approved similar legislation two months ago, was scheduled to vote Thursday on the bill funding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. The program would receive $60 billion over the next five years under the Senate proposal.

The House approved similar legislation Tuesday, but not by a veto-proof margin. With both houses of Congress required to override a presidential veto by two-thirds majorities, the measure is thought to be doomed even with substantial GOP backing.

"This compromise bill maintains the focus on low-income uninsured children and adds coverage for more than 3 million low-income children," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday on the Senate floor.

Bush has recommended spending $30 billion on the program, which subsidizes health coverage for children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

The president and many GOP lawmakers who oppose the bill say it would extend government-sponsored health coverage to middle-income families. It could potentially let the state of New York amend its program to cover children up to four times the federal poverty level, or nearly $83,000 for a family of four, opponents argue.

White House officials acknowledge that the current administration or future ones would have to grant New York's application to expand SCHIP coverage to that income level. But Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said it would be "next to impossible" to reject such an application because of the bill.

Grassley has said he doesn't buy that argument. He said the SCHIP legislation does nothing to change the authority that Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has when it comes to eligibility limits in the states.

"The authority to approve what states do with the CHIP program rests with him and no one else," Grassley said.

The children's health program expires on Sept. 30. A bill that would temporarily fund the program at current levels, as well as the budgets of 15 Cabinet departments and dozens of agencies, passed the House on Wednesday.

Comments

Election 2008 – Skinny Dippers Out of Left Field

2007-09-26T10:53:34+02:00

As we inch closer to the 2008 presidential election, the issues continue to pile up on both sides of the ideological aisle. Let’s take a look at some of the more recent developments.

Who Will Serve as Picard’s Number One?

It may be a bit early – even presumptuous – to hook up a candidate with a possible running mate, but in this election cycle there’s no reason why an educated guess – or even wild speculation – should be ignored.

First, let’s look at whom the Democrats may choose. According to polls, it seems that the majority of Democrat voters have already decided their candidate will be Hillary Clinton. I have always believed Hillary will be the nominee, and as the campaign moves on, I feel that it is almost a sure thing. For one thing, she has succeeded in “softening up her image.” While I think it’s only a temporary front, she seems to be convincing the voters. In a recent AP-IPSOS poll of 1000 people, she was ahead of Barack Obama by 34% to 20%, and that spread holds very close in looking at other polls as well.

If she were to get the nomination, whom would she pick as her running mate? As I’ve said previously, I think she will look outside the group of candidates. Perhaps she’ll pick Mark Warner from Virginia, or Ret. General Wesley Clark. In the press and on the Net, I continue to see Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Al Gore (he says no way) and even Barack Obama attached to Hillary as possible running mates. I suppose some of them could have a fair shot, especially Dodd or Richardson, but I consider Obama a far reach. Right now, he has nothing special to offer Hillary’s campaign but that could easily change. Alternatively, Dodd could be an asset to her campaign due to his experience in D.C., and Richardson could help pull in the Hispanic vote.

It’s harder to pin down the Republican leader, but there are three candidates favored as the possible front-runner in the polls: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I will skip Thompson for this round as he only officially declared his candidacy several weeks ago. I also don’t feel there is enough known about his beliefs, ideas, preferences or proposed policies to hazard even an educated guess whom he would choose as running mate.

That leaves us with Giuliani and Romney, and at this juncture, I believe Duncan Hunter could be the best choice for either of them. His name has been mentioned in the press, but only on a list that includes second tier candidate Mike Huckabee, potential candidates George Pataki (I don’t see this happening) and Condi Rice (she says no way), and Tim Pawlenty. But frankly, until there is a more solid leader for the Republican nomination, I think it’s foolish to try to link a suitable running mate with a candidate. The Republican race is almost wide open at this date.

From Toe Dipping to Skinny Dipping

Getting back to Fred Thompson, he finally declared his candidacy for President after months of putting together an organization, raising money, and keeping the rest of the Republican hopefuls guessing. That big toe he dipped into the pond has given way to the whole enchilada. The entry of Thompson in the race has had a marked effect in the standings of the other candidates. Recent polls show Romney back down to 9% and in an American Research Group poll from September 16th, Giuliani was at 24% with Thompson virtually tied at 23%. It appears that Thompson may be picking up voters lost by Romney. It remains to be seen if the support shown in Iowa and New Hampshire for Romney will be able to carry him through, and also if the initial support shown Thompson will be lasting or just a blip. Thompson does have a good support base in the Southern states, however.

Thompson does have a big question mark next to his name, however, because he is the first presidential candidate who is a former lobbyist – and many voters have a dubious opinion of lobbyists. Political consultant and columnist Dick Morris points out that Thompson has promised to “shake up Washington,” but how can he do that if his campaign is full of corporate insiders? Developments in this campaign will be intriguing.

Hillary Clinton Holds Her Own

Back on the Democrat front, Hillary Clinton maintains a strong position over Barack Obama in the national polls. For example, American Research Group has Clinton at 39% and Obama at 20% and Rasmussen Reports show Clinton at 40% and Obama at 20%. However, the Winthrop University/ETV Poll, taken at a predominantly black University in South Carolina, has some interesting results. Among 700 blacks polled, Obama has 35.4%; Clinton, 30.7%; and John Edwards limping in at 3%. No other candidate rises above the 1% mark. However, 28.7% of those surveyed were undecided, a huge potential for votes that Democrat candidates can be expected to target. Unsurprisingly, there was virtually no surprise for Republicans in this particular poll.

Out of Left Field

A surprise of sorts came to light last week when another black candidate, conservative Alan Keyes, joined the race (presumably on the Republican side, as there is no mention of party affiliation on his web site). Keyes ran for president in 1996 and 2000. His last attempt at gaining public office was in 2004 when he ran against Barack Obama in the Illinois senatorial race. Keyes is a somewhat colorful character who served as a diplomat under Ronald Reagan and has had his own radio show. He has a reputation for being rather outspoken and one thing he will be remembered for was back in the 2004 campaign when, on a cable TV news show, he called Obama a “socialist and a liar” and said that “Christ would never vote for Obama because of his position on abortion.” It’s doubtful he poses any threat to any of the announced candidates thus far, but his hat in the ring should provide some zest to the proceedings.

Everything Old is New Again…and More Expensive

Last week, Hillary Clinton announced her “new” healthcare plan, which she claims differs from her old (1993) healthcare plan. John Edwards and Barack Obama have also introduced theirs. Could this election turn into a “Democrat healthcare battle” and nothing get resolved? The particulars are all being studied, sorted out and changed accordingly, making it impossible to determine which may be the best plan. Only one thing is certain: if any of these Democrats win, his/her plan will cost the taxpayer more dollars.

It’s important to note that the report on Iraq to the President and Congress by General Petraeus was received with decidedly mixed feelings. The President said he would follow the report’s suggestions and, predictably, Democrat leaders in Congress claimed the report was written for Bush to further “his” war effort. Their complaining may have backfired, however, as the controversy engendered by the report may have given the Republicans a positive boost in the upcoming election. The far Left organization MoveOn.org placed the now-infamous ad in the New York Times, calling General Petraeus a liar who has betrayed his country. This further miscalculation by the Left has elicited criticism from Republicans and some Democrats who quickly realized that attacking a four-star general does not sit well with the American public.

Check It Out

In closing, I would like to tell you about a great website I came across, which is a joint venture of the Congressional Quarterly and the St. Petersburg Times. It’s called Politifact, and its combined staff of reporters and news researchers sort through commentary, claims, and spin to bring you closer to the truth about what is being served on the political table for your consumption. Be sure to bookmark the site for your future use in the 14 months remaining to Election 2008, as it should provide a wealth of useful information.

Comments

Florida Democrats Holding Early Primary

2007-09-26T09:07:37+02:00

Florida’s state Democratic Party made the announcement on Sunday that they will go against the request of the national Democratic party and hold their presidential primary early, on January 29th.

This means that no Florida delegate will be seated at the next Democratic convention set for next summer. Apparently the state party does not care the slightest bit though.

Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman stated “We will be voting on January 29th with our candidates on the ballot. At the end of the day, we came down on the side of having a fair and open election.”

This came one month after the national party decided to strip Florida of its 210 delegates unless they changed the date. Party rules state only a few state primaries can be held before February 5th.

Michigan is also challenging the party as well with a January 15th primary scheduled.

Florida argues that this schedule allows for less populous states to have a disproportionate influence on who they select and nominate.

source :

www.ielection08.com

Comments

What I Want To Do?

2007-09-26T09:04:31+02:00

The importance of election in each country is obvious for anyone.

Some elections are limited to their own area, but US 2008 election is important for many countries and many people in the world.

According to the latest statistics Democratic Party is more popular than the Republican currently mainly due to the Bush Administration Performance. What about Hillary Clinton & Rudy Giuliani other major candidates in the Republication or Democratic Party? What about Democrat vs. Republican?

And Maybe One Million Questions such as these. What do you think?

In our Website:

People ask and select questions they have about us election 2008 answered by users or candidates.

The questions will be getting voted, so we will have only those questions on the spotlight which matters to many people;

Latest news and information on the web about us election 2008; these news will be gathered by the users & they will get voted by others;

therefore, users & visitors will only see the news which matters to many other people & are selected by people themselves;

you could always join & make your effect; this is a complete democratic society in which all of the citizen are ranked based on their clearly defined contribution to the society & hopefully it could be a good practice for all political elections.

Information about latest statistical report on us election 2008 voted by the users or aggregated from the web;

JOIN US TODAY !

www.ielection08.com

Comments