BernardR wrote:AN 11% SPREAD--IMAGINE THAT!!!!
Yep, there can be quite some differences from one poll to the other.
Twelve polls that were released in May, however, all had Bush's approval rate between 31% and 38%, so Rasmussen seems definitely slightly out of whack in comparison. You can find an overview
here.
FEC finds Frist violated law by failing to disclose $1.4 million personal loan
RAW STORY
Published: Thursday June 1, 2006
Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) received notice from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) indicating that in response to a complaint filed by CREW, the FEC found that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's 2000 Senate campaign committee, Frist 2000, Inc. violated federal campaign finance laws, RAW STORY can report. Their release follows.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FEC_finds_Frist_violated_law_by_0601.html
The only poll that makes a difference, As you well know, nimh, is the poll taken every two years.
Poll in 1994- Democrats lose the House and Senate during Clinton's first term.
Poll in 1996- Clinton re-elected but Democrat losses continue in the Senate. Democrats gain 3 seats in the House but are still 20 seats short of a majority
Poll in 1998- Republicans still hold 55 Senate Seats; Republicans still hold the House but Democrats gain four seats, Democrats still 12 seats short of a majority
Poll in 2000- George W. Bush elected President. House and Senate still in Republican Hands except for a defection of a Republican Senator to the Democrats.
Poll in 2002- The party in power traditionally loses seats in the Senate and House in off years. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate and House in 2002.
Poll in 2004- George W. Bush re-elected as president. Republicans held majorities in the House and Senate.
Poll in 2006- This will occur in FIVE months. Anyone who has followed Politics knows that FIVE months is an eternity in politics.
We shall see, but History has recorded the fact that Bill Clinton kicked away the Democrat's perennial hold on the House and Senate. For that, the Republicans owe him and the Health Reform Specialist--Hillary Rodham Clinton, a substantial debt.
BernardR wrote:The only poll that makes a difference, As you well know, nimh, is the poll taken every two years.
For someone who claims to be indifferent to polls you sure were cackling loudly about the one you found on Rasmussen..
As Hegel commented on "indifference" in his "Philosophy of History"---
It is a matter of perfect indifference where a thing originated; the only question is: "Is it true in and for itself"?
BernardR wrote:The only poll that makes a difference, As you well know, nimh, is the poll taken every two years.
Bernard, I very much respect your opinions expressed elsewhere, but if the only relevent poll is the one taken every 2 years, then what make of you of the "performance" of elected officials in the interim ie: in between elections.
Is there not some duty or obligation of the elected officials to deliberately remain in the favor of the electorate?
Of course there is. But, I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Candidone, that the politicians and their highly trained staffs know a great deal more about how to remain in favor of the electorate.
The President has indicated that he is in favor of a constitutional amendment to declare marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
You know, of course, that this will not pass through the legislature.
It is ONE WAY of remaining in favor of the electorate.
The President has indicated that the House and the Senate should get together to negotiate a bill on Immigration which will siomultaneously guard our borders, punish law breaking Immigrants, reward those who pay a fine and learn English and allow Businesses to set up special termporary worker plans.
Those are some ways of remaining in favor of the electorate
The President has indicated that he is hopeful that, with our help and support, the new government in Iraq will be able to quell the violence and administer the country without most of our troops remaining there.
Those are some ways of remaining in favor of the electorate
I am certain that you understand that each party appeals to its base and then attempts to capture the voters in the middle.
The problem arises when voters on the extreme left or the extreme right view a presidential action; a senatorial action or a House action as inimical to its interests.
If you watch the next five months very carefully, Mr. Candidone, you will see the various candidates place themselves in ways which will indeed respond to the needs of their constituents in their districts. That is as it should be.
Anyone who, on philosophical grounds, excoriates a candidate from, for example, a District in the South with a strong Baptist Base, for backing legislation to retain Christian symbols in Government Buildings, may indeed be correct philosophically but not politically. The office holder is in office to represent his constituents.
Subpoenas issued in probe of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
RAW STORY
Published: Monday June 5, 2006
Today's edition of ROLL CALL is reporting that at least four subpoenas have been issued to four clients of a lobbying firm in connection with a federal grand jury investigation of Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA).
The registrstion restricted article may be read here. Excerpts follow:
#
At least four clients of the lobbying firm Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White have been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles as part of probe of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
Federal investigators are looking into the ties between Lewis and former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.), a partner in Copeland Lowery, and are focusing at this point chiefly on Jeffrey Shockey, the deputy chief of staff for the Appropriations panel who previously worked for the lobbying firm, several sources close to the probe said.
#
In a statement from Lewis' office, Riverside County, Calif., was also cited as having been issued a subpoena, although county officials could not be reached for comment on Friday.
Lewis said in a statement that he has "not been contacted by the Justice Department regarding any investigation." Lewis added: "It is my hope that whatever review that is under way in the 41st Congressional District [of California] will be quickly concluded so that Justice Department investigators can move on to more pressing matters."
Lewis' office declined to comment on whether he has hired a criminal defense attorney to assist him during the probe.
nimh wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Put the Democrats in power and the numbers flip.
What that assumption ignores is that the poll numbers listed above are not y'r usual party-in-power numbers. You can quickly check that by looking at the plus/minus numbers compared to even just a few months ago. Even just last January, the perception that the Republicans were the more corrupt wasnt as marked as it is now.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Notice the poll didn't ask whether or not those polled believed the Democrats to be a party of integrity.
Hm.
Well, there's this poll below. And conveniently enough, it was held both last January, with Bush and the Republicans in power (but
before the latest slide in the image of the Republicans in this respect) - and in July 1994, when Clinton and the Democrats were in power.
It doesn't make it look like your assertion that, "Put the Democrats in power and the numbers flip", holds any water.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey
conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.
Jan. 4-8, 2006. NA=1,503 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Please tell me if you think the phrase I read better describes the Republican Party and its leaders or the Democratic Party and its leaders.
Which party do you think is better described by the phrase [see below]?"
"Governs in an honest and ethical way"
January 2006
30% Republican Party
37% Democratic Party
33% Both Equally (vol.) / Neither (vol.) / Unsure
July 1994
32% Republican Party
35% Democratic Party
33% Both Equally (vol.) / Neither (vol.) / Unsure
Nimh, you will, reliably, focus your demonstrable intelligence on the advancement of all thought and design characterized as "progressive."
B-F-D.
Watch the Republican primary to be held tomorrow in Montana. The incumbent, Burns (17 years in the US Senate) may or not be tainted by his links to the lobbyist Abramoff. There is no doubt that Burns has been able to bring home the bacon in Federal money to his state. But will that be good enough to get over the corruption hurdle?
realjohnboy- I respect your balanced and referenced views on Politics and elections. You may,of course, have heard that Burns won easily in Montana and that the GOP candidate that ran in Cunningham's place in California also won. It would appear that the so-called decline in the President's job ratings and the alleged "Abramoff" scandal is being overlooked by the American Public.
The only people who take the Job Approval ratings and the Abramoff "scandals" seriously insofar as the may impinge on the elections in 2006 are the New York Times, the Nation Magazine and Howard Dean.
Thank you, Bernard, for the comment about being fair and balanced or whatever. I was one of the early joiners to A2K back in 2002. I think I was enlistee #173 or so. Like many folks, I was a member of the now defunct Abuzz site. That place was brutal with regards to personal attacks, name-calling etc. I fear that A2K is heading down the same path.
I try to be civil.
Mr Burns did indeed win the Repub primary in Montana with no real problem. So his alledged ties to Abramoff seem to not have influenced the Repubs in choosing their candidate. But he barely won in 2000 and he faces a formidable Dem in Jon Testor. It should be interesting.
I think the second paragraph in your last posting still may turn out to be wrong; but that would be speculation at this point.
And you may be right, realjohnboy, sir!
But, the pundits on the left had Burns all but buried and the California Democrats could only say that, Mr. Bilray, who staved off a challenge from a much much more liberal Republican, that had garnered five percentage points less than the points in the previous election of Cunningham.
A few more wins by the Bush Administration---Zarkawi is kaput--and the margins may indeed be restored.
No, but his brother Eiko, is here.
My flagboy and your flagboy, sittin by the fire.
My flagboy told your flagboy, I'm going to set your flag on fire.
Talkin' 'bout
(Hey now! Hey now!)
...
flag? flag? I don have no flag. I don need your stinkin flag.
And, what does a flag have to do with this thread which is supposed to be about "Political corruption"?
It seems the GOP loves to funnel money through tax exempt organizations as more details come out about Abramoff and his dealings
Quote:
Nonprofit Groups Funneled Money For Abramoff
Funds Flowed to Lobbying Campaigns
By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 25, 2006; Page A01
Newly released documents in the Jack Abramoff investigation shed light on how the lobbyist secretly routed his clients' funds through tax-exempt organizations with the acquiescence of those in charge, including prominent conservative activist Grover Norquist.
The federal probe has brought a string of bribery-related charges and plea deals. The possible misuse of tax-exempt groups is also receiving investigators' attention, sources familiar with the matter said.
source
I read the link given by Mr. Parados in an attempt to smear Republican OFFICE HOLDERS. The link mentions only ONE Republican Office holder- Rep. Tom De Lay who has resigned his leadership post after being indicted. Indictment, as anyone who followed the indictment of President WIlliam Jefferson Clinton knows, is not a sentence of guilty.
The rest of the people mentioned in the article referenced by Mr. Parados are not, I repeat are not, Republican OFFICE HOLDERS. The people mentioned , Daniel Lopin, John Kartch, Ralph Reed, Amy Ridenour and Grover Nordquist ARE NOT people elected to office as a Republican by the people of the United States----yet, Mr.Parados slyly says--"The GOP loves to funnel money through tax exempt organizations"
Another exaggeration and distortion from Mr. Parados!!!!!!
I read the link given by Mr. Parados in an attempt to smear Republican OFFICE HOLDERS. The link mentions only ONE Republican Office holder- Rep. Tom De Lay who has resigned his leadership post after being indicted. Indictment, as anyone who followed the indictment of President WIlliam Jefferson Clinton knows, is not a sentence of guilty.
The rest of the people mentioned in the article referenced by Mr. Parados are not, I repeat are not, Republican OFFICE HOLDERS. The people mentioned , Daniel Lopin, John Kartch, Ralph Reed, Amy Ridenour and Grover Nordquist ARE NOT people elected to office as a Republican by the people of the United States----yet, Mr.Parados slyly says--"The GOP loves to funnel money through tax exempt organizations"
Another exaggeration and distortion from Mr. Parados!!!!!!
