This has not been a good year for the Republicans.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Seems to be a good year for them in Canada, as they're about to take power....

[2GOLD 0]

Remind me again why it's my sworn duty to hate John McCain. I think he's a good guy.

 

Because he kicked your dog and killed your unborn son in the future with a piece of fishing line.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Seems to be a good year for them in Canada, as they're about to take power....

 

The Conservatives in Canada are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans. If the Conservatives had ran on a Republican Party platform they would have gotten killed.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Private health care, low taxes and in favour of sending Canucks to Iraq? That sounds pretty Republican to me.

[SuperJerk 0]

Remind me again why it's my sworn duty to hate John McCain. I think he's a good guy.

Because he's the sworn enemy of free speech for wanting to limit how much money corporations could spend on political advertising, and the campaign finance reform bill he sponsored could somehow be used to ban internet blogs. At least that's what people have told me.

[Art Sandusky 0]

You forgot how he insists on torture being a bad thing. I mean, what fuckin' country is he looking out for? Terroristia, that's where.

[Special K 0]

He has the gall to have his own ideas that don't fall completely in line with either party. At this point, I'll vote for anyone like that, even if they have the opposite views as I do.

[snuffbox 0]

He fathered a black baby and hes not a Patriot.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

He smells like onions and absinthe.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So how much do you think the domestic spying and Abramoff stuff is going to affect the midterms? I'm guessing it will inexplicably faze absolutely no one and the Democrats will actually lose seats. That isn't just me being my dirty liberal self either, I really do expect the Republicans to make gains.

[snuffbox 0]

After watching the Kerry campaign do NOTHING about the swiftboat ads...I doubt that the Dems will capitalize on Abramoff, spying, DeLay, Haliburton's water, Frist's problems, the budget cuts/rich dude tax breaks, body armor, CIA/Plame, or anything else. Despite the obvious that Dems have to work with up to November, I also wouldnt be surprised by Republican gains.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html

 

WHAT THE FUCK

 

Yeah, I was right.

[SuperJerk 0]

Poll: Most think Bush is failing second term

President 'looking forward' to congressional campaigning

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate in November's congressional elections who opposes President Bush, and 58 percent consider his second term a failure so far, according to a poll released Thursday.

 

Fewer people consider Bush to be honest and trustworthy now than did a year ago, and 53 percent said they believe his administration deliberately misled the public about Iraq's purported weapons program before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found.

 

Pollsters interviewed 1,006 American adults Friday through Sunday. Most questions in the survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

Bush is preparing for his State of the Union address, set for next week, and told reporters Thursday that he is "looking forward" to campaigning for Republicans in November's elections.

 

But the latest poll indicated Americans remain in apessimistic mood.

 

Fifty-eight percent of those polled said Bush's second term has been a failure so far, while 38 percent said they consider it a success. A smaller number -- 52 percent -- consider his entire presidency a failure to date, with 46 percent calling it successful.

 

In the latter case, the numbers fall within those two questions' margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

 

Bush defended his performance Thursday, pointing to an improved economy despite higher prices for gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. He said the November elections would be about "peace and prosperity."

 

"We've got a record, and a good one," he said. "That's what I intend to campaign on and explain to people why I made the decisions I made, and why they're necessary to protect the American people, and why they've been necessary to keep this economy strong -- and why the policies we've got will keep this economy strong in the future."

 

But 51 percent of those polled said they were more likely to vote for a candidate in congressional elections who opposes Bush, while 40 percent said they were likely to vote for a candidate who backs the president.

 

Bush's own approval rating remained at 43 percent, unchanged since mid-December, according to results released earlier this week. Another 54 percent disapproved of his job performance, that survey found.

 

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed in the latest poll -- 62 percent -- said they were dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States, while 35 percent said they were satisfied.

 

And 64 percent said things in the United States have gotten worse in the past five years, while 28 percent said things have improved.

 

For the first time since Bush took office in 2001, a majority of those polled said the president -- who campaigned as "a uniter, not a divider" -- has been a divisive leader. Fifty-four percent called Bush a divider, while 41 percent called him a uniter.

 

Just over a third -- 34 percent -- said Bush had a clear plan for solving the nation's problems, and 44 percent agreed that he cared about the needs of people like them and shared their values.

 

A narrow majority of 51 percent said they consider Bush to be a strong and decisive leader, compared with 48 percent who disagreed. Although those totals fall within the margin of sampling error, they mark a decline from a year ago, when 61 percent called the president strong and decisive.

Split on honesty

 

Americans were divided evenly -- 49-49 -- on the question of Bush's honesty.

 

The number of those polled who consider Bush trustworthy improved from a November survey, when only 46 percent rated him honest. But the figure is down from a year ago, when 56 percent considered him honest and trustworthy, and only 41 percent disapproved.

 

Specifically, 53 percent said they believe his administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as Bush and other top officials argued on the eve of the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

 

Once Hussein was overthrown, U.S. inspectors concluded that Iraq had not kept stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and a nuclear weapons program, though Iraq had concealed weapons-related research from the United Nations.

 

U.S. troops are battling a persistent insurgency in Iraq, with two soldiers killed in combat Wednesday, raising the American death toll to 2,238. More than 2,000 of those have died since Bush declared an end to "major combat operations" May 1, 2003.

 

The war in Iraq topped the list of respondents' concerns going into 2006, with 58 percent calling it extremely important. Terrorism was next with 57 percent, followed by health care with 47 percent, the economy at 46 percent and corruption at 45 percent.

 

Most of those polled said they believe the United States will have a "significant number" of troops in Iraq for more than a year, with 47 percent believing the U.S. commitment will last one to three years and 33 percent believing the U.S. presence will last longer than that.

 

Thirty-four percent said they considered economic conditions good and 5 percent excellent, while 41 percent rated the economy fair and 18 percent poor.

 

Asked which way the economy was headed, 35 percent said they believed it was improving; 54 percent said it was getting worse.

 

Economic growth has picked up in recent months, and unemployment has declined since 2003. But gasoline prices remain well over $2 a gallon on average, and natural gas and heating oil bills have gone up since 2005.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/bush.poll/index.html

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Haha, well of course Bush's second term has thus far been a failure. He's had a disputed election in Iraq, his Social Security plan went absolutley NOWHERE, and his tax reform package is stalled in Congress and no one wants to touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

Now he's trying to reform American health care which I totally don't get. After all, his Medicare benefit package has left some poor seniors without their medicine and states are now having to pay for it in the interim. Plus, his plan is calling for more individual tax breaks on health care which is not going to stop the massive spending on health care (it will probably increase it), will benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, and will cause even BIGGER deficits.

 

I'm a conservative, don't get me wrong, but this administration just doesn't know when to lock onto an issue it can win or go about doing 'reforms' the right way so they will be accepted. No wonder I voted for Nader in 2004.

[Special K 0]

Well, the Iraqi election I would call a success. And while it may not be a policy thing, he WILL manage to change the makeup of the supreme court. I think the congrssional elections will go well for the conservatives. Hopefully, come 2008 we'll have a conservative legislature, a liberal prez, and a somewhat liberal Judiciary, but restrained. That could be ideal.

 

Of course who knows whats going to happen in the Middle East between here and there.

[Vampiro69 0]

The thing about second terms in office for Presidents is that no matter what party he is affiliated with, they always struggle since they are a lame duck.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm a conservative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I voted for Nader

You do know we have a thing called the Libertarian Party.

[snuffbox 0]

Word is getting around slowly about the LP...

[NoCalMike 0]

So the latest buzz on the State of the Union is that Bush is going to address rising health insurance costs.............

 

by telling people to think about "personal health savings accounts" Yes people that's right. Don't worry about your employer ripping away heath insurance, because NOW you can save a little cash off each check for a personal health savings account. I mean even though the fact of the matter is one minor surgery could wipeout a LIFETIME of savings, and that 99% of people who go into bankruptcy is due to medical costs, it sounds perfectly plausible to tell people the answer to the health cost crisis is simply to "save up junior"

 

I am really hoping this is a joke, but my sources tell me otherwise. Of course I wouldn't expect Mr. Bush to deliver this great news so bluntly. Look for awesome buzz words.

[Special K 0]

my sources tell me otherwise.

 

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I'm a conservative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I voted for Nader

You do know we have a thing called the Libertarian Party.

 

 

So the latest buzz on the State of the Union is that Bush is going to address rising health insurance costs.............

 

by telling people to think about "personal health savings accounts" Yes people that's right. Don't worry about your employer ripping away heath insurance, because NOW you can save a little cash off each check for a personal health savings account. I mean even though the fact of the matter is one minor surgery could wipeout a LIFETIME of savings, and that 99% of people who go into bankruptcy is due to medical costs, it sounds perfectly plausible to tell people the answer to the health cost crisis is simply to "save up junior"

 

I am really hoping this is a joke, but my sources tell me otherwise. Of course I wouldn't expect Mr. Bush to deliver this great news so bluntly. Look for awesome buzz words.

 

 

I didn't much like the LP candidate in the last election. I saw him give a few speeches here and there and was greatly underwhelmed. Therefore, no vote from me in this election.

 

As far as the HSA's go, I think President Bush wants to accompany them with "catastrophic health insurance." The HSA's give you money for minor medical expenses which, the theory goes, would make people reign in costs because they are using their own money. However, this does have a negative because catastrophic health insurance does carry high deductibles and a great many Americans may not be able to purchase them.

 

Politically, I think that health costs need to be solved in a better way than the European system (due to the fact that increasing quantity of the care = decreasing quality of the care + a fiscal nightmare for the govt.) but Bush's plan is bad b/c it wants more tax cuts which will strain the budget and it's the wrong issue to tackle due to the recent Medicare debacle. Then again, Bush doesn't have much else to go with since his Social Security plan was blown to bits and his tax reform panel is being completely ignored.

[snuffbox 0]

Mike Badnarik was underwhelming....but Nader's hypocrisy won you over?

[Guest]

Ok, I now have the power to vote. Do I keep the Governator in office or do I let someone else take his spot?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Ok, I now have the power to vote. Do I keep the Governator in office or do I let someone else take his spot?

 

You mean the One-Term-inator?

[Guest]

Yeah, because he's not staying in office.

[SuperJerk 0]

Ok, I now have the power to vote. Do I keep the Governator in office or do I let someone else take his spot?

 

You mean the One-Term-inator?

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I do what I can.