stopmediabias's tags:
stopmediabias's most popular posts:
stopmediabias reads (1):
Who's reading stopmediabias (21):

Who Will Be the Next President?

stopmediabias posted on Jan 01, 2008 | views: 398 | Tags: huckabee, nutter, Clinton, Obama, Romney
      Now that the race for the White House is in full swing does anyone have any ideas who the next President is going to be.  On the Democratic side the strong possibilities are Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.  On the Republican side it looks like Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani.
 
      Regardless of who the nominees are I think it will come down to two things that will determine who is going to lead this country.  Number one is what are the teams?  If Romney and Clinton get the nomination who will they choose as their running mates.  I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a strong team.  The two most popular candidates with one having a Presidential husband who brings the experience and the other has the youthful vitality and both would show America is all for diversity.
 
     This would be scary to Conservatives like myself until a comparison with another team is thrown in.  Look at a Romney/Huckabee ticket.  This I believe would be an unstoppable team.  Romney would get the Conservatives and Republicans and Huckabee would get a lot of moderate Democrats and independents as well as the RINO's (Republican In Name Only.)
 
     The second deciding factor in who is going to be President is the debates.  The debates are the final test of who gets the job.  The teams on both sides mentioned above in a debate would be tough for Democrats.  The Democratic party has defined their base as being like mice who follow the Piper (Al Gore) into hysteria.  The scary thing is many of them believe Global Warming is a far greater threat to the planet than Islamo Fascism.
 
     Republicans have defined their party on fighting the war on terrorism with Iraq being central in the fight.  I firmly believe if the economy doesn't fall to pieces and Iraq stays on the positive trend the Democrats are going to get a trouncing.  If the sub-prime mortgage debacle keeps pulling everything down and some major event in the world of terrorism happens I think the Republicans will loose.  
 
     I honestly believe if everything stays the same or gets better there is no possible way the Democrats can win.  After everything we've been through with 9/11, terrorism, natural disasters, corporate meltdowns etc the American people will see that we fared very good under a Republican administration.  The unemployment numbers are very good as well the economy.  With the Republicans being able to use the vibrant economy as an issue to their benefit and their stance on fighting terrorism the American people will be easily swayed. 
 
     As a Conservative I find it sad the Democrats only chance of winning is if something bad happens.  For them gas prices, terrorism, the economy, weather (they can pin everything on global warming and blame Republicans) if all of these areas take a turn for the worse it is beneficial to the Democrats.  I think the American people will choose the people who can best keep this country safe, employed and prosperous.   


send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 04, 2008....
    Islamo Fascism? Is your real name David Horowitz? It would fit in with all that other nutter-speak of yours.
     
    ...on fighting the war on terrorism with Iraq....  ...Iraq stays on the positive trend...
     
    ...if everything stays the same or gets better...
     
    ...After everything we've been through with 9/11, terrorism, natural disasters, corporate meltdowns etc the American people will see that we fared very good under a Republican administration...
     
    ..The unemployment numbers are very good as well the economy.  With the Republicans being able to use the vibrant economy as an issue to their benefit and their stance on fighting terrorism the American people will be easily.. swayed...
     
    What planet pray tell are you visiting now?
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 05, 2008....
     

    The unemployment rate rose sharply in December to its highest level in more than two years, raising the likelihood of a recession as the housing slump begins eating away at the previously sturdy household incomes that had been a pillar of the economy.

    The rise in the jobless rate to 5% from 4.7% in November -- and an increase of only 18,000 in nonfarm jobs, the worst performance in four years -- adds pressure on the Federal Reserve to swallow its concerns about inflation and cut interest rates more steeply later this month.

    Economic Anxiety Roils Stocks

    Stocks fell sharply as a major crutch for the hobbling U.S. economy -- employment growth -- began to look rickety.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average spent the entire day in the red and finished near its intraday trough, off 257.44 points, or 2%, at 12800.18, its lowest close since late November. The blue-chip indicator was hurt by a disappointing Labor Department report showing that nonfarm payrolls rose by just 18,000 workers in December, the job market's worst performance since August 2003. The unemployment rate rose to 5%, the highest level since November 2005, from 4.7% the previous month.

     
    The unemployment rate surged to 5 percent in December as the economy added a meager 18,000 jobs, the smallest monthly increase in four years, the Labor Department reported on Friday.
     
    Economists viewed the report as the most powerful indication to date that the United States could well be falling into a recessionary downturn. Evidence of widening unemployment heightened anticipation that the Federal Reserve would further cut interest rates this month, perhaps by an unusually large half a percentage point, in a bid to prevent the economy from sliding into the muck.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 06, 2008....

    I'm assuming you've just repeated back the things I said because you do not agree with them.  When you read my post and put it into context it shows that I was talking about the economy as whole since President Bush got into office. 

    Your first link:

    The unemployment rate rose sharply in December to its highest level in more than two years, raising the likelihood of a recession as the housing slump begins eating away at the previously sturdy household incomes that had been a pillar of the economy.The rise in the jobless rate to 5% from 4.7% in November -- and an increase of only 18,000 in nonfarm jobs, the worst performance in four years -- adds pressure on the Federal Reserve to swallow its concerns about inflation and cut interest rates more steeply later this month."
     
     

    If you actually go and read the entire article, which you didn't or you wouldn't have sourced it, it shows that yes our economy is going into a downturn, the economy does do that.  The unemployment rate even at 5% is historically low, and if you look at the overall unemployment rate after 7 years the news is positive.

    I generally trust the WSJ but I question there use of terms like "the rate rose sharply" or "the unemplyment rate surged"  4.7 to 5% us hardly rising sharply or even a surge.

    It will definitly hurt the Republicans if the economy continues on a downturn, but I think if we figure out how to help with these subprime mortgages, and this housing slump it will turn around.  We have a resiliant economy in a technologically thriving world, these is no reason to be pessimistic.

    Do you disagree that the Democrats have placed global warming as a far greater threat than terrorism and this will hurt them in that it makes them look weak?

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 06, 2008....
     
    There are different estimates of the number of unemployed and the unemployment rate (in percent). While official unemployment in June 2006 is 4.8%, real unemployment is 12,3%, which includes those who want a job now but are classified as "not in the labor market" and additional jobs needed to keep up with population growth since April 2000 when employment began to decline.
     
    ...figuring this out is really complicated. Government has made it so complicated that it actually leads me to think that it's on purpose. The U.S. government does not want to officially admit that there's an effective 20M person (over 12%) slack in the labor force ( 20M / ~160M = ~12%). And this does not include the underemployed.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 06, 2008....

    All this doesn't mean anything.  There is always going to be a percentage of the population that is unemployed regardless of who is in power.  Historically President Bush has a good record of creating jobs even after terrorism, natural disasters, etc..  This study above doesn't take into account the people that work under the table.  If they are going to stretch the variables they should include all of them. 

    You dodged my question...

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 06, 2008....
    Pathetic - Paul Krugman

    The new White House “fact sheet” on the economy declares that job growth since August 2003 is the “longest continuous months of job growth on record.”

    That’s literally true – the Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the great jobs boom of the 1990s do show a couple of scattered months of job decline, although these are probably statistical blips. But by any reasonable standard, job growth in the Bush years has fallen way short of growth in the Clinton years.

    All the data are available at the BLS web site.

    Over the whole of the Clinton administration, the economy added 22.7 million jobs – 237,000 per month.

    Over the whole of the Bush administration to date, the economy added only 5.8 million jobs – 72,000 per month.

    The Bushies like to pretend that history began in August 2003, so that they can ignore the job losses early in the administration. But even that doesn’t do the trick. Since August 2003, the economy has added 8.5 million jobs – 172,000 per month. So even by cherry-picking the good Bush years and pretending the bad years never happened, they still can’t match the average rate of job creation under Clinton.

    Now, you might say that Clinton doesn’t deserve all the credit for good things that happened on his watch – and I agree. But it’s the Bushies who are trying to spin a mediocre job record into proof that their policies are wonderful.

    Did I mention that the Clinton job boom followed an, um, increase in taxes?

  • stopmediabias said on Jan 06, 2008....
    Paul Krugman is a lying partisan fanatic, he hates our President and America.  He's been debunked more times than Al Gore and has virtually zero credibility.  Why exactly does he take the total number of Clinton jobs created and divides by the total number of months, but he seems to subtract the total number of jobs lost for President Bush and fails to mention those lost jobs were from 9/11, natural disasters, and corporate meltdowns, something the President doesn't have a lot of control of.  Krugman's word, just like the New York Times isn't worth anymore than a pile of crap. 
  • sheltercrow said on Jan 06, 2008....
    Your word is worth more? Please excuse me as I was ill informed that your credibility was so great. Have you consulted Mr. Drudge on this?
     
    You make it up as you go. Your winging it for the cause is laudable but your utter disregard for facts is not. If you could let yourself get past the right wing boiler plate propaganda you might at least sound intelligent.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 08, 2008....

    I didn't say my word is worth more.  I declare right up front I'm a partisan conservative and certainly don't try to hide it.  Drudge sources the New York Times on the Drudge Report, you source the New York Times, do you see what I'm getting at?  See if you can find anywhere where I sourced Matt Drudge.

    Go back and research Krugman's numbers, I did when some other zipperhead used the same article.  He falsely and unfairly compares Clinton numbers with Bush numbers after he takes them waayy out of context. 

    I challenge you right now,  find one single piece of propaganda on my site.  You won't because it doesn't exist.  Now lets go to your site and see what we have. 

    Do you identify yourself as a Liberal on your side? 

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 08, 2008....

    For one fleeting moment... no that moment never happened... you would not even impress Joseph Goebbels except for your tenacity to falsify in the face of fact.

    Go back and research Krugman's numbers, I did when some other zipperhead used the same article.  He falsely and unfairly compares Clinton numbers with Bush numbers after he takes them waayy out of context

    Along with your usual political right wing dirge, which can be ignored for it's implied opinion over fact, you too often lie blatantly, which makes you a sort of pathetic joke. You are too intellectually lazy to do any research yourself which makes your assertions on your supposed investigations a pathetic joke too.

    One need not even take the time to check if what you have written contains any truth whatever for the simple reason that your dingbat diatribe it is entirely available to anyone that watches the TV on sunday morning; the mind numbing, lower brain stem, lowest common denominator fare available to the insipid from the pundit programing. It relieves one of the relative tedium of that might be encountered with an honest dialog. Thanks for letting me off the hook.

    Yawn.

  • stopmediabias said on Jan 08, 2008....

    you are such moron, I all ready read this shit on the other post. 

    And you still cannot answer a simple question,

    I'll ask another: Do you identify yourself as a lazy insane koolaid-drinking pinhead on your side?

    No, don't answer that, just stay over there in Liberal-ville and let us Conservatives be.

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 09, 2008....
    Just to fix my spelling a bit...
     
    "It relieves one of the relative tedium of what might be encountered with an honest dialog."
     
    I am an independent. But before I leave you to your nutter-speak I would like to mention that you have the... yawn... responsibility to back you dingbat chit not I.
     
    Later Tater.
  • stopmediabias said on Jan 10, 2008....

    Anybody that is an independent is someone who is ashamed of their beliefs.  Your a classic far lefty who is conflicted.  This why you won't actually debate and get wierd when someone calls you a liberal.  You either lean to left or lean to the right, there is no in between.

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 10, 2008....


    chat
    Why is it your always telling everyone what they are? This left and right thing has gotten you all screwed up. What we are is people that may not agree with your social and political mores. I have fairly common sense idealogical groundings. You on the other hand are what I would consider a far right corporate cutie.

  • stopmediabias said on Jan 10, 2008....

    "common sense idealogical groundings"

    This is what is scary about you people.  You think the far left is main-stream. 

    Why does someone who takes the Liberal point of view on everything say they are an independant?

  • sheltercrow said on Jan 10, 2008....


    chat
    "There can be no doubt --" said K., quite softly, for he was elated by the breathless attention of the meeting; in that stillness a subdued hum was audible which was more exciting than the wildest applause -- "there can be no doubt that behind all the actions of this court of justice, that is to say in my case, behind my arrest and today's interrogation, there is a great organization at work. An organization which not only employs corrupt warders, oafish Inspectors, and Examining Magistrates of whom the best that can be said is that they recognize their own limitations, but also has at its disposal a judicial hierarchy of high, indeed of the highest rank, with an indispensable and numerous retinue of servants, clerks, police, and other assistants, perhaps even hangmen, I do not shrink from that word. And the significance of this great organization, gentlemen? It consists in this, that innocent persons are accused of guilt, and senseless proceedings are put in motion against them ..."

    The Trial by Franz Kafka

Comment on "Who Will Be the Next President?"

huckabee nutter Clinton Obama Romney (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)