SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (16669)11/18/2003 7:13:27 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793677
 
I am really hooked on HBO's own shows. They are soooo much better quality than Network that there is no comparison. My favorite one right now is "Carnevale." A very spooky show. "The Wire" is an ongoing series that is a good as it gets.

My main objection is the sex. I like porn as well as the next man. However, I really feel sorry for the fine actresses who are forced to participate in the very graphic simulated sex on these shows. If they don't they can't get these roles, which are great otherwise. When you watch the shows, you know most of the sex has been cut in for effect, and really is not needed for the story.

And you know damn well that every kid in a HBO TV household is seeing it. No wonder that a lot of Conservative Christians are so upset. And more people should be.

Oh, well, maybe I am just envious. All I had when I was a kid was "National Geographic."



To: Lane3 who wrote (16669)11/18/2003 7:42:26 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793677
 
"The key political question is whether Bush is at the bottom of a slide from wartime highs, or at a temporary pause in a longer decline. The answer may have more to do with the economy than with developments in Iraq, and here, too, there is a hint of positive news for Bush: Forty-eight percent approve of his handling of the economy and 49 percent disapprove."

Holding Steady
Bush Administration Gets a Break From the Polls at a Sensitive Point

Nov. 17
— Public views of the war in Iraq are holding steady in the face of stepped-up guerrilla attacks and mounting casualties, and President Bush's job approval rating has stabilized as well — a respite for the administration at a sensitive political point.

According to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Bush's overall job approval rating stands at 57 percent, about the same as it was in late October and fairly stable since July. Bush's approval rating for handling the situation in Iraq is a good deal lower — 48 percent — but this, too, has steadied.

Those are positive results for the White House given that the last few weeks have been some of the deadliest in Iraq since the war started in March. So is the fact that 62 percent of Americans say U.S forces should remain until order is restored, despite the casualties.

Other results are less favorable, suggesting the president's Iraq policy is far from out of the woods. Sixty-four percent term the number of U.S. casualties as "unacceptable," and just a narrow majority, 52 percent, say the war was worth fighting. (But the number who say it was not worth fighting also has stabilized, at 44 percent in the last three ABCNEWS/Washington Post polls).

The key political question is whether Bush is at the bottom of a slide from wartime highs, or at a temporary pause in a longer decline. The answer may have more to do with the economy than with developments in Iraq, and here, too, there is a hint of positive news for Bush: Forty-eight percent approve of his handling of the economy and 49 percent disapprove.

While still weak, and essentially unchanged from two weeks ago, those numbers are somewhat better than two months ago, when Bush's economic rating reached a career-low 42 percent. And, for the first time since July, less than a majority disapproves of his economic performance.

The economy is clearly the wild card. The strong third-quarter GDP shows striking growth; the question is whether that reaches voters — in the form of jobs and income — in time for Bush to benefit in November. The benefits of recovery from the 1990-1991 recession were slow to filter down from Wall Street to Main Street, helping cost Bush's father a second term.

This poll was conducted Wednesday through Sunday, as the Bush administration moved to speed up the timetable for a transfer of power in Iraq (a transitional government by June and election of a permanent government by the end of 2005). Parameters for an endgame may make the continued mission somewhat more palatable in the short run.

Casualties

As noted, 64 percent say the level of casualties is unacceptable — a numeric high, but essentially unchanged from two weeks ago despite the rising toll.

At the same time unacceptability of the casualty count is up 20 points since June.

The 52 percent who say the war was worth fighting also is a numeric low, but again essentially unchanged from two October polls, when it was 54 percent. It's down from a high of 70 percent on April 30. (A similar pattern occurred after the Persian Gulf war more than a decade ago. At war's end, 86 percent said it was worth the cost; four months later that was down to 67 percent).

Presidential Approval

While Bush's job approval rating is down 20 points from his 2003 high of 77 percent at the height of the war, his current rating, 57 percent, matches the career averages of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Even Bush's low — 53 percent a month ago — is high when compared with the previous four presidents. Clinton's low was 43 percent approval, Reagan's 42 percent. Bush's father bottomed out at 33 percent and Jimmy Carter reached 28 percent.

Groups

There are sharp partisan differences in Bush's ratings. Nine in 10 Republicans approve of his performance as president; that slides to 51 percent of independents and only a third of Democrats. The partisan pattern is similar on Iraq and the economy, with more than eight in 10 Republicans approving, compared with about four in 10 independents and a quarter or fewer of Democrats.

There also are marked divides by gender and race. Bush's overall rating is 11 points higher among men than women, 62 percent to 51 percent. The gap is also 11 points on Iraq and 13 points on the economy. And while majorities of whites approve, that falls to just over one-third of nonwhites in terms of Bush's overall work, and one-quarter for his work on the economy and his handling of Iraq.

These divisions carry over to questions about Iraq. While 57 percent of men say the war was worth fighting, women split, 48 percent to 47 percent. And while majorities of both sexes say the level of casualties is unacceptable, men are 14 points more likely than women to say the opposite.

Seventy-two percent of men say U.S. forces should remain in Iraq until order is restored, compared with 53 percent of women. Just among independents — classic swing voters — the gender gap is 27 points.

Views of casualties are intertwined with feelings about the war. Among those who say the level of casualties is acceptable, more than eight in 10 say the war was worth fighting; this falls to just over a third who say the casualties are unacceptable.

Most of those who disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq and say the war wasn't worth fighting say the United States should withdraw its troops. But those who call the level of casualties unacceptable split on the stay-or-withdraw question, 47 percent to 48 percent.

Methodology

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Nov. 12-16, among a random national sample of 1,023 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

Analysis by ABCNEWS' David Morris. Previous ABCNEWS polls can be found in our Poll Vault.

abcnews.go.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (16669)11/19/2003 5:49:22 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793677
 
GOP has lost its way
By Martha Ezzard

I have eaten the same grits, loved the same mountains and sung the same hymns as Zell Miller, and I've concluded the Georgia senator - who doesn't want to dance anymore with the one what brung him - has twisted history to suit his histrionics.

I am a native Georgian who thinks it's the Republican Party that has forsaken its roots: equal rights, civil liberties and government that stays out of our personal lives.

If the Democratic Party is the captive of the "loony left," as Miller claims, the Republican Party has sold its soul to the radical right and divorced itself from the First Amendment to marry church and state.

Institutionalizing such extremism, the Texas GOP even has a plank in its platform pledging to dispel "the myth" of church and state separation.

It's true that Democrats have always made a place for liberal extremists in their tattered tent. Still, unlike the gated GOP, no litmus tests are required for entry, not even a "Mother Jones" subscription card.

With the election of Ronald Reagan, the GOP turned its back on a long history of defending individual liberties and environmental preservation. Oil rigs now replace antelope. Party members pledge anti-abortion allegiance. Affirmative action must end.

Having grown up in the South, I wanted no part of the segregationist party that ruled Georgia through the Talmadge dynasty of my childhood and, later on, the pick-ax politics of Lester Maddox.

When my husband's career took us to Colorado, I took a position as press aide to one of the nation's last liberal Republican governors, the late John Love. Later, I was elected as a Republican to the Legislature, just in time to bump up against the Coors' funded Reagan revolution in the West.

"Isn't this the party of Abraham Lincoln?" I'd ask my GOP colleagues as I marched with Democratic women for equal rights and abortion rights.

No, came the answer, this is the party of Phyllis Schlafly and the cookie-baking Eagle Forum.

"Isn't this the party of Teddy Roosevelt?" I'd ask, as I watched my environmental initiatives shot down by my own party.

No, came the answer, this is the party of James Watt, the GOP interior secretary who was finally forced from office after opening wilderness areas to energy exploitation.

"Isn't this the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower?" I asked as Republicans spent billions on a flawed Star Wars defense system that kept safe only the pocketbooks of the military-industrial complex.

In 1986, when I ran for statewide office, I heard my husband say to some rural women: "Nah, she's not one of those women's libbers."

Furious, I asked him what in the world he was doing. "Keep quiet," he said, "I just got you the GOP chairman in Kit Carson County." But a pro-choice Republican in the party of Pat Robertson was doomed even when talking to farmers about the price of wheat.

I later resigned my state Senate seat, then changed parties - but I can't say that I would be comfortable in either party today, and I suspect I'm not the only one who feels that way.

(Even though we opinion writers comment on political philosophy, we avoid direct partisan involvement.)

Miller thinks liberal Democrats are out of step with the conservative South. But President Bush, as he shrinks our liberties and dictates our moral lives, is hardly an authentic conservative.

In the end, Miller is right about only one thing: the danger of extremism to the two-party system.

Respected journalist Walter Lippman, whose observations about American politics chronicled our century until he died in 1974, said moderation in both parties was key to democracy's survival.

In 1938, when New Deal Democrats were trying to purge nonbelievers, Lippman wrote: "The party system has worked in America precisely because there are conservatives, moderates and radicals in both parties, and in comparatively equal proportions. … It has meant that the central mass of moderate citizens has always been stronger than the extremists."

Miller is hard at work destroying what's left of moderation in the South.

* Martha Ezzard writes for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, P.O. Box 4689, Atlanta, GA 30302; e-mail: mezzard@ajc.com.