Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : The Next President 2008 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (1775)	11/24/2007 12:16:16 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3215

NYT: Suicide manual for Dems By Ann Coulter jewishworldreview.com \| Here's a story that may not have been deemed "Fit to Print": In the six months that ended Sept. 25, The New York Times' daily circulation was down another 4.51 percent to about a million readers a day. The paper's Sunday circulation was down 7.59 percent to about 1.5 million readers. In short, the Times is dropping faster than Hillary in New Hampshire. (Meanwhile, the Drudge Report has more than 16 million readers every day.) One can only hope that none of the Democratic presidential candidates are among the disaffected hordes lining up to cancel their Times subscriptions. The Times is so accustomed to lying about the news to prove that "most Americans" agree with the Times, that it seems poised to lead the Democrats — and any Republicans stupid enough to believe the Times — down a primrose path to their own destruction. So if you know a Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't currently read the Times, by all means order him a subscription. On Sunday, Times readers learned that despite this year's historic revolt of normal Americans against amnesty for illegal aliens: "Some polls show that the majority of Americans agree with proposals backed by most Democrats in the Senate, as well as some Republicans, to establish a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally." Was the reporter who wrote that sentence the Darfur bureau chief for the past year? By "some polls," I gather he means "a show of hands during a meeting of the Times editorial board" or "a quick backstage survey in the MSNBC greenroom." As I believe Americans made resoundingly clear this year, the only "path to citizenship" they favor involves making an application from Norway, waiting a few years and then coming over when it's legal. Americans were so emphatic on this point that they forced a sitting president to withdraw his signature legislative accomplishment for his second term — amnesty for illegal aliens, aka a "path to citizenship" for illegals. This was the goal supported by the president's acolytes at the Fox News Channel as well as a nearly monolithic Democratic Party and its acolytes at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, Oxygen TV, the Food Network, the Golf Channel, the Home Shopping Network, The in-house "Learn to Gamble" channel at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas and Comedy Central (unless that was just a sketch on the "Mind of (Carlos) Mencia"). But ordinary Americans had a different idea. Their idea was: Let's not reward law-breakers with the ultimate prize: U.S. citizenship. And the ordinary Americans won. The Times disregards all of that history to announce that it has secret polls showing that Americans support a "path to citizenship" for illegals after all! These polls are living in the shadows! Only those "angriest on immigration," the Times said, are still using the various words related to immigration that liberals are trying to turn into new "N-words," such as, for example, "immigration." With an exhausting use of air quotes, the Times reports that: "The Republicans have railed against 'amnesty' and 'sanctuary cities.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'illegals' out." In liberal-speak, that sentence would read: "The Republicans have railed against 'puppies' and 'kittens.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'baby seals' out." (In my version, the sentence would read: "Believing New York Times 'polls,' Democrats irritate 'voters.'") Half the English language is becoming the "N-word" as far as liberals are concerned. Words are always bad for liberals. Words allow people to understand what liberals are saying. According to the Times, all decent, cultured Americans cringe when politicians use foul words like "illegals" to describe illegals. Apparently, what most Americans are clamoring for is yet more automatic messages that begin, "Press '1' for English." That, at least, is the message the Times got from the stunning victory of grassroots over the elites on the immigration bill this year. It is against my best interests to mention how utterly out of touch Times editors and reporters are with any Americans east of Central Park West and west of Riverside Drive. I enjoy watching the Democratic presidential candidates take clear, unequivocal positions in favor of driver's licenses for illegals and then denouncing those very positions a week later (after the real polls come in). Some people love watching the trees change color every fall. I enjoy watching the candidates' positions on immigration change. But it is too much for any human to endure to read the Times' version of history in which "most Americans" agree with the Times on illegal immigration in the very year Americans punched back against illegal immigration so hard that the entire Washington establishment is still reeling. It's not like we have to go back to the Coolidge administration to get some sense of what Americans think about amnesty for illegals. (I mean "amnesty" for "illegals.") jewishworldreview.com

To: calgal who wrote (1775)	11/24/2007 12:18:46 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 3215

jewishworldreview.com

To: calgal who wrote (1775)	11/24/2007 2:18:45 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 3215

Smears and slurs are flying in the 2008 White House race, and with polls narrowing and first nominating contests just six weeks away, experts predict the rough stuff has only just begun. Candidates are upbraiding party rivals, savaging foes in the opposite party, and reports are emerging of malevolent telephone-borne personal attacks on several candidates in the key leadoff state of Iowa. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, fresh from a brace of debate showdowns, are increasingly turning their guns on one another. The former first lady is also target number one for Republicans, when they are not mocking one another over immigration policy, a hotbed issue for party activists. "You can't have a campaign without negativity," said Professor Emmett Buell, of Denison University, Ohio, an expert on negative campaigning. "By definition, a campaign is an attempt to make the argument that you are a superior choice to your opponents, you have to criticize (them) and extol yourself." The temperature of the Democratic race hit boiling last weekend, with an innocuous item by a conservative columnist suggesting front-runner Clinton had "scandalous" information on Obama. Obama immediately called on Clinton to dish the dirt, or disown it, escalating a row which ended with her camp accusing him of falling for Republican tricks. Clinton jabbed Obama with withering sarcasm on Tuesday, mocking his suggestion that his boyhood years living in Indonesia had given him a more nuanced worldview. "Voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big complex international challenges we face," she said. A third Democrat, John Edwards also got into the action. "Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about throwing mud' in the last debate -- when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another," he said through communications director Chris Kofinis. The Clinton-Obama spat rumbles on because both candidates want it to. Obama is using their exchanges to brand Clinton a product of a warped Washington political culture, while she claims he is too inexperienced to be president. "As the contest gets closer and closer to the January kick-off, you are going to continue you see harsher exchanges, because the stakes are high and Clinton and Obama have a lot of money," said Professor John Geer, of Vanderbilt University, Tennessee. But launching negative attacks can sometimes backfire. "Attackers often run the risk of increasing their own negatives, but the aim is to define someone in such a way that it is a revelation to voters ... and reduce (their) support," said Buell. While the Clinton-Obama wars are in the open, a more vicious form of attacks is brewing in Iowa. Several reports have detailed "push-polling" -- a telephone call to voters masquerading as a poll, which highlights a perceived negative aspect of a politician's character. Republican Mitt Romney, is blasting "un-American" 'push-poll' slurs about his Mormon faith, a perceived liability among Christian evangelical voters. Even the cancer battle of Democrat John Edwards's wife Elizabeth appears to be the subject of such anonymous slanders. Negative campaigning is as old as US politics itself, and dates from the days when attacks travelled by political pamphlet rather than YouTube video. Famous recent examples include the 1988 campaign of former president George H.W. Bush who seized on video of an ill-at-ease Democratic rival Michael Dukakis in a battle tank as a narrator told viewers they couldn't risk him as commander in chief. In the 2004 presidential battle, Republicans used footage of Democrat John Kerry on a windsurfer, claiming he was indecisive: "John Kerry, whichever way the wind blows." Kerry also provided a masterclass on how not to fight back, taking the high road after "Swiftboat" ads impugned his Vietnam war service. That experience, and the desire to let no attack go unanswered, seems seared on the souls of Obama and Clinton as they trade blows in the 2008 race. afp.google.com