January 09, 2008
Clinton, Obama tied in New Hampshire
Another minor annoyance with coverage of the presidential races is how who "wins" a state and who "loses" is actually defined.
With tonight's results it's quite obvious that Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire right? After all, she got 39 percent of the Democrat primary vote while Obama only garnered 37 percent.
Not really. The two candidates tied. Clinton walked out of New Hampshire with nine delegates, Obama racked up nine delegates. John Edwards got four delegates. The only real losers are Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel; but then everyone knows those three jamokes were losers before this race began...
Time to play a numbers game. Let's assume Obama got a landslide 44 percent of the vote and Clinton earned 36 percent, the reasonable overwhelming victory that political experts were predicting. It would have meant a shift of one delegate. With 4,049 Democratic delegates at stake nationally the desire by media types to coronate the Democrat presidential candidate based on the fortunes of one eventual vote at the convention is ridiculously absurd.
Throw in the state's "super delegates" - typically elected and DNC officials - and you wind up with a victory in New Hampshire for Obama; 12 to 11 to 4.
For the big picture, Clinton has 183, Obama 78 and Edwards 52. This kind of tells you the Clinton machine has a lot of elected officials and professional DNC cogs in it. But Obama has 25 elected delegates compared to Clinton's 24 and Edwards' 18. The race is wide open.
The same applies to the Republican stable.
The losers of Tuesday's race were certainly Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter who got nothing out of New Hampshire save for whatever souvenir Dixville doilies or scented bathroom soaps they might have picked up in their hotel rooms.
Mike Huckabee can now wear his I-campaigned-for-weeks-in-New Hampshire-and-all-I-got-is-this-lousy-delegate t-shirt. One delegate is always better than none though.
So that leaves John McCain and the presumed loser Mitt Romney. After all the handshakes, pancake breakfasts, baby kissing, glowering and menacing scowls McCain punched the tickets of seven delegates who are clambering aboard the Straight Talk Express. Romney gets four after spending more money than his campaign staff probably cares to talk about.
So if you've been watching the talking heads this arithmetic means Romney is on the ropes and should consider throwing in the towel. Except for the fact that he won Wyoming and got eight delegates from the Equality State. And eight is one more than seven the last time I counted.
The heck of it is that after three states, Romney is in the lead nationally. He has 30 delegates, compared to Huckabee's 21 and McCain's 10. Thompson has six, Paul two, Giuliani one and Hunter one. That's a total of 71 delegates out of 2,380 which will eventually be awarded. Guess it's time for candidates to start dropping out because the results of this race are inevitable.
These are the hard numbers. Obviously candidates win based more on popular perception on who is a front-runner, who is wounded and how fast voters stampede towards someone that looks like a winner.
Posted by DonWard at January 09, 2008
02:06 AM | Email This
Hillary!!! AAAAAALLLL RIGHT!!!
in their never-ending quest to be 'first' have suffered the dopeler effect
Def: dopeler effect - The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
"..win based more on popular perception.."
Your entire post was trumped by this statement.
3. When it comes to the Clintons, their entire success depends upon a high level of gullibility among Democrats. It's a plan that has always worked well for them.
I'm sure Obama's campaign manager, as well as most pollsters are experiencing caterpallor this morning. (i.e. think the commercial 'need to get away
'..ha) Ain't life grand
Def: caterpallor - The color your turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
So, according to the talking heads, Romney should drop out because he has the most delegates to-date? This doesn't compute.
Romney should drop out because his strategy to concentrate on the early states didn't work out? Tell you what. In any business (yes, folks, a campaign is run like a business) you make mistakes and you learn from them. Romney will adapt because he is the best manager, best leader and richest person in the campaign. Don't write him off.
Note to Talking Heads: Don't write off Rudy either. He is still on his stratergery.
Please tell me this is just a typo and that we're not playin' the OMG-he-has-a-funny-name-like-a-terrorist card:
...vote while Osama only garnered 37 percent...
7. Swatter, Romney will adapt because he really is the true agent of Change and will say whatever he thinks needs to be said in order to get elected. He's a Bill Clinton for the R's, but I think the Republicans care more about character than the Democrats do, so in the end it just won't work.
The Dems have a suicide wish if they nominate Hillary.
I have to admit though, whoever came up with the "lets get all emotional" ploy the day before polling in order to play to the female vote was pretty clever (sorry, but I just don't see it as being genuine). Probably the same person that taught Bill how to bite his lower lip to indicate he "feels our pain".
The MSM knows their target audience is populated by damn fools, at best. Here is an excellent example:
Yahoo headline this morning and I imagine the livestock that gets their information via Yahoo Headlines will wring their hands while commiserating with their fellow morons about the "fact" that the - U.S. worst in health care.
The real tragedy is that the simple minded buffoons don't have what it takes to do a quick internet search and find out in which country the cancer survival rates are hightest and be able to connect the dots.
Here i have done it for them.
Thanks for a reality check with real math, Don. Despite the ever changing media stampedes, the "fat lady ain't sung."
I loved the two male hecklers at the Hill's press confab over the weekend. Truth be known they were paid by Bill a couple of hundred buck to toss some sexist drivel and spur the Pat Ireland crowd (the best $200 bucks he ever spent). And the Hill's tears? That tender moment deserves an Academy Award. Was I the only one who laughed so hard I peed my pants? Oh, the humanity of it all!
11. Agree with you Splinter. Many in the media support Billary because they honestly believe it will be Bill's third term. Now, I'm going Dr. Phil, girlfriend has so many payback issues that her term will be HER term and that is the really scary part for this country. Bubba has a lot of personal flaws but being an incompetant pol is not one of them. He is the one that was capable of triangulation and compromise, she is not. Billary is one ship I don't want to do down on. So, that now that Paultard has been exposed, I can vote for anyone other than the crook.
Comparing Romney to Bill Clinton is pretty despicable, Doug. However, your take on Clinton may be different than mine. Clinton was known as "Slick Willie" even before he ran for president and it was that moniker that turned me off to him from the get-go. So, for you to compare Romney to Clinton is despicable is my book.
And don't you find it interesting that Romney is called a flip-flopper when his opinion on abortion has matured, but McCain is a man of principles when just after getting his immigration bill stuffed down his throat (pander bear is running for president at that time), he is now against illegal immigration and has "learned a lesson"? I find it duplicitous.
And the same goes for Huckabee will his ever evolving stands on foreign and domestic policies.
13. Didn't you see that the woman whose question caused Hillary's tears voted for Obama. There goes your theory -right out the window. You guys are so callous and into yourselves, thinking compassion and emotion belongs to the Repugs. You're livin in a dream world, which will soon be shattered!
14. Great post Don. So many people don't have a clue how the system works. This game is still wide open. Heck, even Paul is doing better than expected.
Yes, Paul is doing about what is expected. Many of the young tech types who support him have no idea of the history of this country and the civil rights era. There is a standard range of support for the ideas of the David Dukes so add many of the young who are begnin on issues of race with those of people who lean toward Duke and you get the support. Also, I think that there are those who want a third party to help Billary pumping up Paul added in.
Perhaps her emotions were genuine, but I guess my problem is that, with the Clintons, you can never be sure. Everything about them seems to be poll-driven and rehearsed. Granted, I think Hillary (or just about anyone with a pulse) would do a better job than George W. Bush, but I really am not looking forward to another four years of payback and partisanship that we would get with another Clinton (or Edwards) Administration.
17. Splinter, thank you for the reasonable response - I differ but I can understand that.
My thinking on the Clintons' is that they know how to play the political game and thus seem disingenious doing so at times. Key word 'game', because it IS a frickin game and you have to develop a technique for it. I'm willing to 'tolerate' game-playing to achieve the final result. I believe Hillary has this country at heart and just because she will approach running this country in a manner different than the 'good 'ol boy' approach does not mean that whe wont do a good job.
" I believe Hillary has this country at heart and just because she will approach running this country in a manner different than the 'good 'ol boy' approach does not mean that whe wont do a good job."
What do you base this statement on, other than your emotion?
19. WVH Well, I'll have to admit that it is indeed on emotion and a 'gut feel', but isn't that what we all rely on after studying the facts best we can and coming to a decision. She's been a stalwart through thick and thin suffering many 'attacks' by the opposition and others and investigation after investigation which turned up very little, if any thing. She stuck 'by her man' through a very difficult situation which shows 'character' and determination. Bottom line is that I see in her certain equal or above qualities of what I see in any 'other politician'. To some degree, yes it becomes 'subjective' and faith, hope and gut feel plays a role.
+Plus: I confess to being a Democrat.
Chris Rock, the comic in his New Year's Eve show said the following:
1. I have been married to my wife over ten years, she is great, but if she came up here and took the mike, you wouldn't think she was funny and he said just because the spouse of the pilot has been married to them 20 years, do you want the spouse flying your plane if they are not a pilot?
So, she didn't kill her horndog husband that shows restraint, not that she necessarily has the qualifications to be President. Rock is on target, being close to power is not the same thing as knowing how to excercise power. Bubba has the ability to compromise and triangulate. He and Reagan are the two best pols of the last 100 years.
2. Compared to the guys in the race who went through the system and earned their way there. She attached herself to a man and that is how she got power. I want to see a woman president, but at least you can say about Margaret Thatcher, she earned her way there. I love digging into my feminist pals who support Hillary because she really is just a clean version of Anna Nicole Smith, isn't she? You can't have it both ways, either you really kick butt like Thatcher or you really are Smith, Tammy Wynette and others. Showing remarkable restrainst in a domestic situation does not, in my mind, qualify her to be president. My two cents.
21. WVH: Good stuff, but in my (not-so-humble) opinion: she WAS the pilot the whole time.
22. Not from what I hear from my sources. She did have a bigger office than most veeps. The line I hear most often was "If Mama ain't happy, no one is happy." So, everyone tried to keep Mama happy. That makes for presidential material? Don't think so.
23. We'll have to agree to disagree there WVH. You WILL have plenty of opportunity to judge her accordingly when she takes office. I hope you're not disappointed, I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
HillBill @17 -
My problem with both parties IS this entire "game" type thinking. Leading America should not be a game and even using that term just shows me that we think of our politics as teams. Each party has a different philosophy, but it should not be about "getting" the other guy all the time. I vote based on who I think can do the best job of running the country, not what team they are on. What I find refreshing about Obama is that he at least is trying to appeal to all Americans, not just those on Team Democrat.
25. Unfortunately, HB, your complete lack of reasoning is all the disappointment we need. Supporting a Clinton because you "feel" like it provides no justification. Fortunately, their are, I believe, enough people out there who will actually look at her record (non-existent) blow thru her lies (35 years of WHAT?) and get past her shtick (Tears on demand) to see that she's an empty suit (like, come to think of it, the three top democrats are empty suits) who has done nothing for this country, has no experience relative to running the US, and, essentially and politically, amounts to a waste of skin.
26. Good point splinter, and I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately it's the nature of the beast so to speak. We're dealing with 'politicians' here and 'they' have comprised this game scenario. I believe we all know that the best managers and/or leaders are in the corporate world, thus we are left with the 'politicians' and to that end we must subscribe to a certain amount of 'game playing' wherein it's one 'team' against the other. But, be that as it may BOTH teams are ostensibly for the best interests of America so ergo we (through our best determination) will elect yet another 'politician'.
Chris Rock has it pretty right about her "experience", she owes everything she has to Bill. No question.
But what really disturbs me is the "Iron my shirt" shtick.
This was a complete setup by the Clinton machine. You tell me how a guy gets into a tightly controlled venue with a sign like that. It just doesn't happen. If it was that easy, there would be a lot more of that stuff being done on both sides . . . and it's not. These are very controlled venues. They bus in the right people to hoot and hollar and only the Cool Aid drinkers get to the front row (where he was). "Iron my shirt" was complete scripted BS to get the feminestas (which she is losing) up in arms. And it worked pretty well.
Look how good Hillary handled it. Some complete stranger stands up and starts shouting and she says "Let's turn up the lights." She knew it was coming. He didn't sound very committed to whatever he was trying to communicate either.
If it wasn't a setup, what is the guy trying to say by yelling "IRON MY SHIRT!!!"? Makes no sense. It was a complete setup and by the look of things it worked pretty damned good.
Splinter, believe it or not George Bush is not running for president. He has been at it for 7 years, and like all second termers, I am looking for a change.
However, where have you been? The economy has been rocking till lately when it appears the Ds will take over the presidency. The Bush tax cuts worked.
While there have been mistakes, Bush has been stalwart on foreign policy. I hope any successor can have such a good record when they are done. I doubt it, but who knows.
29. Sir Hinton: it seems the glass always seems half empty to you and/or you aspire to equal Art Bell's conspiracy theories? I will be interested in your judgements after the election. Surely you wont be one who (like some Dems professed, with Bush) will 'move out of the Country' if Hillary is elected?
Swatter: "Bush has been stalwart on foreign policy"
Please. The man is a grossly incompetent coward. At the first sign of agression from an outside force, he is the first to toss out or revise BASIC constitutional liberties and grab as much power as possible. "Yellow" comes to mind as the best way to describe the man.
You know damned well that if a Democrat had tried to grab half the power Bush has tried to grab, or made even a small fraction of his 'mistakes', you would be up in arms and demanding impeachment.
Regarding McCain and his immigration policy, as he pointed out he learned his lesson. It wasn't a case of changing a position in order to get elected, it was a case of coming to realize in what order the American people clearly wanted something done. Whereas Romney has clearly changed position and rhetoric (now that he is a fan of Reagan) to suit getting elected. That makes for a great politician but it also makes for exit polling numbers that show people don't trust him.
I'd like to point something out about both McCain, Romney and Thompson that really, really, made me sick. Did you notice what happened starting the day after Iowa? Every fricken third word out of the mouths of Romney, McCain and Thompson was the word "Change". It was the same with Clinton and Obama. Give me a fricken break, that just makes me sick to see the future President of the United States 'CHANGING' his/her tune based on opinion poll. DISGUSTING. At least Rudy and Huckabee laid low - for now - we'll see what happens.
This country is in a world of hurt if our next President decides on a whim that hey, polling says I'll be more liked if we (insert program here: offer $50 abortions, approve gay marraige, require universal healthcare, grant reparatations, give Iran nuclear plant plans so theirs would be safe, ban gas-powered cars etc.)
32. #30 You said a mouthful there splinter. Spot on!
It is so humorous reading which candidates two Democrats want the Republicans to nominate. I said the same thing last week.
But, hey, I can change. I think Democrats should have the option/ability to help select the next President of the US. Since the Ds are "feel good" candidates, the President is now being selected in the R primary. For that reason, Democrats, bring it on and give us your opinions.
Well, Doug, wasn't it also during the last weekend debates that the moderators asked the candidates if they were "change" artists? Can't we just get rid of the press? The "journalists" are so clueless.
And yes, the word "change" out of the blue was sickening, but they had to address it. It is "silly" season after all.
Romney flip-flopped but McCain was pragmatic? Or McCain flip-flopped but Romney's opinion matured? I choose the latter, but actually, I consider neither a flip-flopper in the footsteps of the John Kerry.
McCain is losing my vote over immigration. I thought he was viable last summer till he led the charge.
34. You WILL have plenty of opportunity to judge her accordingly when she takes office. I hope you're not disappointed, I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
We HAVE had plenty of time to judge her and the word 'surprise' doesn't cover it... a better description would be 'cold sweat, night terrors when someone pounds on your door in the dead of night'.
Slick Willie was in for the fun of it. He said and talked himself into beleiving whatever was necessary to climb the next rung of the power ladder.
Whoribillary is an unapologetic Marxist. She BELIEVES the 'common good' crap. She BELIEVES she is Lthe only lord and saviour of the USA. She BELIEVES only she can accomplish what all other failed socialist couldn't. I'm sure she weeps real tears at night that she wasn't born Marie Antoinette then reincarnated as Eva Perone
She is a dangerous, frightening one-woman communist government.
I truly hope she is the dim nominee.
I'm waiting for the conservatives to realize that their immigration stance doesn't mesh with fiscal conservatism. I am appalled at how many 'conservatives' preach going after small businesses and big businesses in regards to immigration. More regulation, put the business owners in jail, it's the businesses responsibility, etc. Folks, there is a shortage of cheap labor in this country - hence the businesses are moving to other country's to get their labor supply. There is a shortage of cheap legal immigrant workers. There is an overabundance of regulations on small businesses.
The solution isn't to make the supply/demand equation for workers even more out of whack. There is a reason the fiscal conservative groups are asking for a comprehensive solution.
What part of the Republican base does the rampant anti-immigrant section fall into? I think it's some latent isolationist section or anti-Mexican faction, because it really isn't an evangelical point of view or one from fiscal conservatism, it's just there. It maybe one of those positions that is neither Republican nor Democrat, crosses party lines as a belief structure in itself. Immigration is just a stand alone subject. Reagan didn't know how to deal with it politically, no one really does, it has to be dealt with practically.
End result: There needs to be more legal immigrant workers in this country to satisfy the demand for such and there needs to be solid border security.
If it is the Republican establishment position that there are too many Mexicans in the U.S. and we should deport them all - well that's really a stupid position based on something other than the reality that there is a shortage of cheap labor in this country (due to regulation as well as supply).
This is exactly how partisanship works... what a great example to work with. Thanks.
Bushie-Chimp was in for the fun of it. He said and talked himself into beleiving whatever was necessary to climb the next rung of the power ladder.
Rudy (or Mitt or Huckabee or...) is an unapologetic Fascist. He BELIEVES the 'common threat' crap. He BELIEVES he is the only lord and saviour of the USA. He BELIEVES only he can accomplish what all other failed fascists couldn't. I'm sure he weeps real tears at night that he wasn't born Adolf Hilter then reincarnated as Saddam Hussien.
See how it works? :) So simple to be a partisan hack.
37. Again and again you have to love the left because they always engage in self destruction. The Clinton machine is so closely linked to the MSM, that even a tie can get spun as a win. They will nominate her and then lose. You gotta love it. Just like they did with John Francois Kerry.
38. Hey all, what ever happen to DUFF-boy.
Billary's biggest cheer leader.
39. Doug: One reason, albeit minor, for the shortage of agricultural workers during harvest times is because we have regulated American kids out of those jobs. There was a time when, starting with Jr. High, we strung beans and picked daffodils during spring break, and picked all manner of berries during summer vacation. Learned to work hard, earn our own money, acquired a work ethic, and bought our own back to school clothes, which was a big help for a family raising five girls. That does not happen any more. Those jobs are no longer available to kids.
I can't speak for conservatives, but an "illegal" immigrant is an illegal immigrant. That is the problem.
Our immigration department is worthless. They should be allowing more "legal" immigration, but you don't just give cards and more benefits to "illegals" and then let them become citizens.
Then, you need to stop the flow of illegals into the country with a fence.
Been to LA lately? The illegals own that town. That what you want? That is what you would have kept with McCain-Kennedy.
41. I was just listening to Ronald Reagan (sitting in for Dave Ross) on KIRO. His take on last nite is that indeed the 'tracking polls' were wrong, in fact Obama was never really ahead of Hillary to begin with. If come-back-kid labe is to be affixed, it should be to Obama because in last 'valid' poll he was down near 12 points and came back to within 2-pts. Scenario was mfg by MSM to define Hillary as the come-back here.
All polling has shown the American people want to border problem fixed. And yes that means going after people who do not belong here.
where have you been.
43. Army/Vet: we (who work with him) have not heard from Duffman in over 3-weeks. He's down in the deep SA jungle without any phones, computers or electricity. He made it to a phone a few weeks ago and was in good spirits even asking to tell his friends he was still rootin for Hillary. We too think he's a little kooky.
What? We left that place in the 1970's.. I was there too.
What he's trying to relive his younger days. LOL
I think the HOT air just came out of Ron Paul gang.
Many have been asking questions about some of the support he's been getting. I guess this now proves that RP as courting the weird groups!
49. Good linking Ragnar...but alas it will be no gaffe; 'twill be us 'lemmings' who'll have the last laugh [smiling smugly]
50. There's a swell photo on the net showing a Hillary and Bill merging and they call it HillBill.
How come when Romney matures he is a flip-flopper, but when Huckabee flip-flops, he is just "retreating". This latest is in direct contrast to his advisor stating just yesterday he was supporting a constitutional amendment to eliminate the loophole allowing illegals born in the US to be automatically US citizens.
or you can go to orbusmax.com for another link.
52. Yeah because to today's Progressives, it is a smug laugh that they want to increase government and create ever greater reliance on the state. Success is failure. All animals are equal.
#52: "All animals are equal"
that is correct grasshopper however, some are working animals and some graze from the work of others
55. Also on the DR show today RR took a call from a guy who said that the watchdog groups in NH (apparently similar to our Shark) are finding the manual count differs from the electronic count quite significantly in favor of Obama?
Do you suppose King Co has been subcontracted to count the votes.
57. There's one other clinton "weapon" out there to watch. The 3rd party.
Could the gov of NY help the senator of NY in order to get somebody "from" NY in the white house?
BC never got a majority vote and there is another very wealthy guy in line to help them. HMmmmmm
58. PC, I think you mean the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg rather than the governor of NY State, Elliot Spitzer...
Single issue immigration voters:
I'll remind you once again, Federal law is very clear, the act of an alien illegally entering the U.S. is a MISDEMEANOR offense. Federal law grants the penalty of a FINE. While I don't agree completely with the comprehensive plans offered up, it does make perfectly good sense legally, that any alien here illegally could pay a fine and then become documented - assuming of course there is a need for more legal immigrants (which there is) and assuming it is a first offense.
The immigration solution based on current law is pretty clear: Beef up the borders first. Create a type of 'AMNESTY (which as shown in the first paragraph really isn't the case)' program whereby illegals register and pay their fine - and certain ones deported if that is the case. Increase the number of legal immigrant workers by 12 million (or whatever the number is that the anti-immigrant folks believe is the number taking away jobs from Americans that Americans won't do) and this could be by legalizing those who have paid for their crime - hey it's what we expect from the American system once you paid your debt to society.
Finally, change the bloody law so that illegal immigration is a felony. You do realize that under current law these illegal immigrants who have only committed the misdemeanors still are allowed to earn citizenship? If it becomes a felony, they couldn't.
Instead, what do we have? A bunch of rabid, foaming mouth conservatives bad talking the candidates who actually have approaches that follow current law, in favor of whichever Republican candidate that can spout the loudest fire from their mouths against the illegals.
"She is a dangerous, frightening one-woman communist government."
There you go again, playing the socialist card. Hillary != Chavez/Putin.
"Yes, Paul is doing about what is expected. Many of the young tech types who support him have no idea of the history of this country and the civil rights era."
So your saying that Tech Workers are racist by association because they give money to Paul. That's like saying Pres. Bush is a felon because he was visited several times by Jack Abramoff during his first term.
Doug says "Federal law is very clear, the act of an alien illegally entering the U.S. is a MISDEMEANOR offense."
And working with a stolen social security number is identity theft, and working under the table without a social security number is tax fraud. If they are doing neither then they are not earning a living and are misusing welfare, health care and other benefits. They are also endangering the health of U.S. citizens since they are not health screened before entering the country.
By all means, increase the number of LEGAL immigrants that are allowed in the country--based on the education and skills WE, as a country, need. Don't give people who came here illegally benefits above and beyond those that have been waiting to come in the country legally. And what has been offered does not put them "at the back of the line". There are many, many people OUTSIDE the country that didn't come here illegally that would love to take the deal that McCain, Bush, et al. were offering to the illegals.
62. "If the New Hampshire debates settled anything, it's which party has the stomach to take on radical Islam. The Democrats couldn't even identify the enemy. Not once. Really. We scanned the transcripts of Saturday's debates hosted by ABC News and tallied up the references to Islamic terrorism. The rhetorical divide between Democrats and Republicans on that score alone--ignoring the yawning gaps in policy--is stunning. None of the four Democrat presidential candidates--despite running for an office that demands they lead the ongoing global war against Islamic extremists--could bring himself or herself to define the enemy we face as Islamic. Their combined references to 'Islam' or 'Islamic' totaled zero--even though moderator Charles Gibson prompted them with a question about 'Islamic radicals' threatening the U.S. with nuclear terrorism. But Democrats refused to go there. Out of respect for their constituency, there was a complete blackout regarding Islamic jihad... Republicans, on the other hand, called the enemy by its proper name. The candidates referred to terrorists and terrorism as 'Islamic,' while also citing radical 'Islam' as the problem, no less than 22 times... They get it. Democrats don't. They talked a lot about 'fighting' --fighting insurance companies and big business and Wall Street and polluters. But will they fight the real enemy--Islamic terrorists?... These contrasting performances in New Hampshire should crystallize in voters' minds more than any other recent example how one party understands the titanic challenge we face from radical Islam, while the other decidedly does not." --Investor's Business Daily
Bill H, you're right - working under the table and not paying social security is illegal - either you're pretending to be a self-employed business (who doesn't see through that scam) or you're working for someone that isn't withholding your SS nor paying their half - which means they're the lawbreaker.
We've had 7, going on 8 years of the chief law enforcer either choosing to ignore, or lacking the ability to do their job and enforce the law.
Who's fault then is it for the situation we're in today?
64. BA, this has been going on a lot longer than 7 or 8 years. We need to build the fence on the border. Even though it was passed over a year ago, they still haven't made any progress. We also need to vote on and pass The Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act offered by Heath Schuler that has large bipartisan support. But Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow it to come to a vote...
All that is true, but as far as the Feds are concerned, they can charge an illegal alien with a misdemeanor. To go after them for working illegally they would have to have proof and all the stuff they need to go after an American citizen if they think they are committing a crime - Hence how many of the 12 million illegals get into trouble for working illegally?
A practical solution is in order. If that means fining them, increasing the amount of legal immigrant workers and having the illegals that paid their fine to stand back in line to get a worker's permit - that's one way to do it. However, under current law, the act of entering the country illegally is still just a misdemeanor punishable by a fine for a first offense. I don't even want to figure out if there is a statue of limitation on the crime, maybe there is, I haven't checked.
But, they can make it a felony for future illegal crossings, however, those that have done so thus far are on the hook for a misdemeanor.
DonWard: note that by the same standard, EDWARDS came in THIRD in Iowa.
Clinton came in third in the state delegate count, but second in the national delegate count (because she picked up one district that has an extra delegate or something).
"So your saying that Tech Workers are racist by association because they give money to Paul. That's like saying Pres. Bush is a felon because he was visited several times by Jack Abramoff during his first term."
No, I am saying that many in this country are ignorant of the civil rights struggle. Some actually are racist. But, racists come in all colors, religions, and occupations. Some party leaders of both parties are racist.
I don't know if you ever watch Leno's Jaywalking segments? This country has so dumbed down education and through grade inflation, we have a generation of people that are ignorant. If you want an interesting book to read, Dictionary of Cultural literacy. Most Americans are clueless about a lot of their history.
This country has so dumbed down education and through grade inflation,
Which is controled by the Gov/NEA & unions.
So what in the heck would make you think your government run health care would be any better or safer!
If you have a plan other than what we have, put it on the table. If you want to eliminate what we currently have, put it on the table. Right now all you are saying is what is the status quo is bad, so replace it with what? Whether you choose to stand in place or not, here is what is going to happen. The dems will put some sort of health care plan on the table. You can criticize it, call them socialist and stomp your feet. The electorate will either vote them in or not. Most likely the electorate will vote them in because they want health care. Guess what, after the dems are in office, you'll just be angry. You can either play the political game, or not. Your choice.
70. Most likely the electorate will vote them in because they want health care.
I don't agree. It reminds me of the 2 poll questions about how satisfied you are with your life and what direction you think the country is going.
Last poll, +86% were very satisified with their lives... but more than half thought the country is going to hell in a handbasket. The 2 results are at odds with each other. People love their lives but think their neighbors are failures. BUT people tend to vote on their personal experience, NOT because lefty politicians have convinced them vague unknown neighbors need something from their pockets.