Rasmussen: 2/24/08 Latest Poll Shows McCain Leading over Both Democrats

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 2/24/2008 | Rasmussen Reports

[GVnana]

Sunday, February 24, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that John McCain continues to hold a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%. McCain has led both Democrats on each night of individual tracking since the controversial New York Times article on McCain was released earlier this week (see recent daily results and summary of recent state general election polls).

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats with a 284 to 229 lead in the Electoral College. If “leaners” are not included, the Democrats lead 238 to 189. Since yesterday, North Carolina has shifted from Safe Republican to Likely Republican while Wisconsin has shifted from Likely Democrat to Leans Democrat. New polling has been released today for Wisconsin and New Mexico. The Balance of Power Calculator determines projections by aggregating a variety of information from many sources including polls, the Rasmussen Markets, analyst assessments and more (see summary of recent state general election polling).

[OESY]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I just don’t understand what Bizarro World you live in to think that Hillary is more conservative than McCain, and that a person who is compelled to back McCain for pragmatic reasons is a liberal?

Let me start with the American Conservative Union ratings: McCain gets a lifetime rating of 82, Hillary 9, and Obama 8. I suppose you might think they are messing with your mind and that it is really a liberal front group. OK, pick any other comparison service (see below) if the ACU doesn’t work for you.

Now back the question itself: You say Hillary is preferable to McCain on many issues. Can you name three, and offer the evidence, perhaps past voting records, quotes, analyses...?

Pick any three issues out of this list I am furnishing to you where you believe Hillary has a stronger conservative position and record than John McCain. Compare and contrast. Support your argument.

abortion
Afghanistan
ANWAR
appointments
budget deficit
campaign finance
criminal vs. victim rights
Darfur
data mining
drug companies
economy
education
energy
English language
ethics
exercise of religion
free speech
gay marriage
global warming
Guantanamo
gun control
healthcare
hedge funds
homeland security
human rights
immigration
infrastructure
integrity
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Medicare
military preparedness
missile defense
mortgage contracts
national intelligence
nuclear
pork spending
preemption
regulation
restrictive real estate covenants
Russia
school vouchers
secure borders
Social Security
socialist redistribution
stem cell research
subprime lending
Supreme Court
surveillance
taxes
terrorism
tobacco & marijuana
tort reform
UN reform

Note some issues are broken out to make your job easier. Of course, you realize you’ve already been shot down on your assertion that Hillary would be stronger on defense because she is a woman. In my opinion, that’s muddled thinking for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Compare Candidates

John McCain

Iraq:
Supports current Administration plan.1
Foreign Affairs:
Believes Iran’s nuclear proliferation is a grave risk, and could further destabilize the region.27
Homeland Security:
Supports Patriot Act and wants intelligence officials to have all tools they need. Opposes detaining enemy combatants without legal rights.56
Immigration:
Supports path to citizenship for illegals already in the country, while tightening current border patrol.33
Economy:
Supports lowering taxes to help small businesses.13
Education:
Supports sending federal dollars directly to local schools, cutting back on red tape.13
Energy:
Supports alternative energies, and wants to look at nuclear possibilities.50
Climate Change:
Believes nation can’t ignore global warming. Supports cutting emissions through market forces that will bring about cleaner technology.13
Health:
Supports importing prescription drugs to lower costs.36
Social Security:
Says Social Security is failing, partially because it’s being unfairly raided to fund other government programs.13
Stem Cell Research:
Supports embryonic stem-cell research35
Same Sex Marriage:
Opposes same-sex marriage (believes it’s a state issue)34
Abortion:
Anti-abortion (believes it’s a state, not federal issue)33
Gun Control:
Supports background checks for gun buyers.57

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Iraq:
Opposes troop increases and says US should be out of Iraq by 2009, but doesn’t support cutting funds. She originally voted in favor of the war.1
Foreign Affairs:
Supports engagement and UN Sanctions against Iran. Wants a stronger international response to the situation in Darfur.39
Homeland Security:
Wants Homeland Security money more heavily focused on areas that are considered high-risk targets, like New York City.48
Immigration:
Supports a path to citizenship for most illegals already in the country. Supports tougher border patrol laws and wants to discourage businesses from hiring illegals.48
Economy:
Supports incentives for businesses to create jobs in struggling communities. Supports middle-class tax breaks.3
Education:
Believes No Child Left Behind needs to be changed. Says it’s forcing teachers to focus too much on standardized tests.48
Energy:
Supports putting oil company profits towards research on alternative energy.48
Climate Change:
Believes US must cut emissions to curb the effects of global warming.48
Health:
Supports lower prescription drug costs, and universal health care.3
Social Security:
Opposes privatization.40
Stem Cell Research:
Supports embryonic stem-cell research19
Same Sex Marriage:
Supports civil unions, but in the past has not supported same-sex marriage.52
Abortion:
Pro-choice3
Gun Control:
Supports ban on assault weapons and licenses for all handgun owners.49

Barack Obama

Iraq:
Supports capping troop levels, and wants full US withdrawal by March 2008. While not a Senator at the time, he has opposed the war from the start.1
Foreign Affairs:
Supports more monitoring of nuclear technology to make sure it stays out of terrorist hands. Believes more needs to be done to stop conflict in Africa.8
Homeland Security:
Wants Homeland Security money targeted more towards high-risk areas. Supports better protection for chemical plants. Wants more tracking of spent nuclear fuel so it doesn’t end up in terrorist hands.8
Immigration:
Supports a fence along Mexican border. Supports tougher laws to keep illegals from finding jobs. Supports granting citizenship to illegals already here as long as they pay fines and back taxes.21
Economy:
Supports tax incentives to companies that keep jobs in the US. Believes NAFTA needs to be renegotiated to protect American economy.21
Education:
Supports rewarding good teachers with better pay, and expanding summer learning programs. Wants to increase federal grants for college education.48
Energy:
Supports more renewable energies, and wants to look into clean coal uses to get the US away from foreign oil dependency. Proposed giving automakers help with health coverage in exchange for more hybrid production.48
Climate Change:
Believes global warming will bring devastating consequences if it’s not stopped. Supports capping emissions with incentives to corporations that cut greenhouse gases.8
Health:
Supports universal health care, and believes government should buy prescription drugs in bulk to reduce costs. Wants hospitals to be graded on performance and make a switch to cost-effective, computerized record-keeping.3
Social Security:
Opposes privatization, and believes the system can be fixed with minor changes.40
Stem Cell Research:
Supports embryonic stem-cell research19
Same Sex Marriage:
Supports civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.52
Abortion:
Pro-choice3
Gun Control:
Supports bans on assault weapons and concealed weapons.49

Source: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/compare-candidates/index.html

JOHN MCCAIN

1. More Troops on the Ground: a greater military commitment now is necessary. More troops are necessary to: a) clear and hold insurgent strongholds; b) to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; c) to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; d) to dismantle al Qaeda; e) to train the Iraqi Army; and, f) to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units.
2. Implement New Counterinsurgency Strategy: Iraqi and American forces must not only use force to clear areas occupied by insurgents but to stay and hold these areas to deny them as a base for insurgent forces.
3. Strengthen the Iraqi Armed Forces and Police: we cannot leave until Iraq can govern and protect itself.
4. Create the security necessary for political progress and stability: by controlling the violence in Iraq can we pave the way for a political settlement. But once the Iraqi government wields greater authority, it will be incumbent upon Iraqi leaders to take significant steps on their own.
5. Accelerate Political and Economic Reconstruction: there must be a greater emphasis on non-military components promoting economic development and representative, accountable governance.
6. Keep Senior Officers in place longer: Rotating our generals in and out of Iraq is a deeply flawed practice. If these are, in fact, the best leaders for the task, they should remain on the job as long as possible.
7. Call for International pressure on Syria and Iran: Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior.
8. Win the Homefront: If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, then the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle. Consequently, a renewed effort should be made at home to explain what is at stake in this war.

HILLARY CLINTON

Three Step Plan:
1. Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary’s First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary’s plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq’s civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As President, one of Hillary’s first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
2. Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home.
As President, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government.
3. A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region.
In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq.

BARACK OBAMA

1. Bring our troops home. Will immediately begin to remove troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
2. Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile. The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving.
3. Regional Diplomacy. Will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria.
4. Humanitarian Initiatives. Will form an international working group to address Iraq’s humanitarian crisis, e.g., the two million Iraqi refugees and the two million more displaced inside their own country.
5. No permanent bases in Iraq.

Source: http://www.militaryspousesforchange.com/Candidate_Comparisons.html

Meanwhile, here is a partial list of key word reasons not to vote for Hillary:

700 FBI files
Bimbo eruptions
Cattle futures
Child inoculation program
Chinese Army money
Chung, Riady, Lippo
Corrupt
Craig Livingstone
Crying
Davidian burning in Waco
Downing of Flight 800
FALN pander
Gennifer, Paula, Monica
Grand jury subpoenas
Hidden library files
Hsu
Huang, Tree, Thomassons
Income redistribution
IRS audits
Lanier, Baird, Wood
Lenzner, Palladino, Pellicano
Lincoln bedroom
Marxist training
McAuliffe, Ickes, Williamson
MIRV & missile technology
Monica surprise
Ned Lamont
Opposition (dirt) research
Over 250 lapses of memory
Reno & Elian Gonzales
Rose billing records
Ruby Ridge assassination
Scheming brothers
Security clearances
Selling pardons
Sexual harassment
Smartest woman
Socialist mindset
Stolen furniture
The Clinton dead
Travelgate
Universal healthcare
Vast Right Wing conspiracy
Vince Foster
War room—talking points
White House database
Whitewater

Thus, unless you can document your reasons, you cannot convince me that Hillary is more conservative than McCain, and I would urge you to vote for McCain and a Republican Congress.

.

[marcbold]

Obama can’t be beat. He is a messiah. Look. His face was found in a potato. http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/02/obamas-face-in-potato.html

[mad_as_he$$]

"Sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I just don’t understand what Bizarro World you live in to think that Hillary is more conservative than McCain, and that a person who is compelled to back McCain for pragmatic reasons is a liberal?"

Show me where I said Hillary was more conservative than McCain.

I already knew McCain's lifetime rating. If you look at the last 8 years your boy does not do so good.

You are not capable of hurting my feelings. What bizarro world do you live in where McCain is you choice? BTW how much does hired gun posting pay these days?

[jwalsh07]

What bizarro world do you live in where McCain is you choice?

The one where a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is the alternative. The one where the alternative doesn't have a clue about who the next Commissar in Chief of Russia is going to be. The same world where the alternative to McCain said that Americans wanted handouts last night.

That would be the United States of America on planet Earth.

[gridlock]

Obama is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 46%. McCain’s numbers are 55% favorable, 42% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 47% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 52%.

3% are undecided about Obama. 3% are undecided about McCain, and less than 1% are undecided about Clinton.

This is extraordinary. Everybody has already made up their minds about all the candidates, and it is only February. This is going to be one loooooong campaign.

[mad_as_he$$]

So you were for McCain all along?

[OESY]

Show me where I said Hillary was more conservative than McCain.

"And yes Hillary is preferable to McCain when it comes ot (sic) many issues." -- mad_as_he$$, February 26, 2008

I stand corrected: You are NOT voting for Hillary because she is more conservative than McCain. (No wonder you were unable to name a single issue where Hillary was more conservative.) You ARE voting for her because she is MORE LIBERAL on many issues. This is clearly confirmed by all the candidate comparisons available.

* * *

"I see very little differences (sic) between him and the other two as far a damage (sic) goes." -- mad_as_he$$, February 26, 2008

The ACU rates her votes as overwhelmingly LIBERAL compared to McCain. Strangely, you admitted that fact. So, tell me, how long have you been a troll? If so, we don't like your kind around here.

* * *

"No I do not agree I am so mad I cannot see straight." -- mad_as_he$$, February 26, 2008

Look, I can see this has been a very emotional experience for you--one that has made you, in your own words, mad as hell--driving you right to the lunatic fringe where you want to vote for the most LIBERAL candidate, even though it means reversing all the gains made by conservatives over the past 30 years. Lose the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court and you've lost the ball game for your lifetime and for the lifetime of your kids and probably your grandkids. I want to ask you to think about that--for once.

.

[OESY]

“The Presidential winner in November will probably appoint no fewer than two Supreme Court Justices. The likeliest vacancies, from an actuarial perspective, will come from the liberal wing of the Court. So a President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has the potential to set back the prolife agenda by 30 years. It could well be a generation before a President would have another opportunity to shift the balance on the Court to the right. [John] McCain’s harshest critics argue that his judicial picks could easily be as bad as anyone tapped by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. This is caricature, but even if it had merit, [they] would be trading the risk that Mr. McCain picks moderates for the court for the certainty that his opponent would appoint liberals. It’s always possible Mr. McCain would make a bad Supreme Court nomination, just as Ronald Reagan picked Anthony Kennedy, who later affirmed Roe v. Wade... The conservative coalition has learned a lot about picking judges since 1987, and especially since the nomination of David Souter by another Republican President. As the Harriet Myers interlude proved, another mystery pick by Mr. McCain or any other GOP President is far less likely than it used to be...[S]ocial conservatives may decide they can’t vote for Mr. McCain for any number of reasons. What they can’t do with any credibility is claim that helping to elect a liberal President will further the causes that these conservatives claim to believe most deeply in.” —The Wall Street Journal

“There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.” —Hugh Hewitt
“Kamikaze Republicans—those who say they’ll never vote for John McCain because he isn’t conservative enough—may get what they deserve. The Clintons... It isn’t necessary to love everything McCain has done to vote for him should he be the nominee. But it isn’t possible to argue that there’s no difference between McCain and Clinton (or Barack Obama), as some Republicans insist.” —Kathleen Parker

“A wise aphorism has it that the perfect is the enemy of the good. While conservatives tilt their noses expressively in the air at the idea of John McCain’s representing a movement he votes with 85 percent of the time, Democrats offer the electorate two strong believers in the power of big government, two babes in the woods when it comes to foreign policy, two fast friends of every liberal interest from pro-choice to gay rights to let’s-kill-the-Bush-tax-cuts.” —William Murchison

“We are a movement that believes in personal responsibility, so it’s time to take some. There are consequences to losing. Now is the time to rebuild and re-group, not whine or complain or sulk. Reagan lost many political battles along the way but never lost hope in the enduring nature of basic conservative principles. Neither should we.” —Laura Ingraham

.

[mad_as_he$$]

Quoting Hugh Hewitt? Please. He went out of fashion here on FR months ago. Quoting the WSJ? The primary pimp for foreign invaders? Conservatives will not get a voice in the nominations of any Justices in the next four years. Do you think the Dems aided by their buddy Arlen Specter are going to even let ONE conservative justice to be appointed? You are quit the fool.

You make foolish assumptions and leap to stupid conclusions. Why do you not go back to the coffee shop and stroke your bread and recite poetry.

[OESY]

Be careful what you wish for.

You and your monney will soon be parted.

.

[mad_as_he$$]

How is that relevant to the discussion? Your boy McCain is waffling on immigration again. Several threads this morning. You think Arlen Specter is going to let him pick conservative justices? Please.

[GVnana]

This is going to be one loooooong campaign.

It's a big fight for the middle ground. That's all this election has been from the start. I was surprised that the Democrat base so thoroughly repudiated Clinton. The nation, as a whole, seems to want a left-leaning correction. Not surprising considering historic trends in US politics.

Question is, how left? and how do we effectively characterize Obama?

[Owen]

Once again, stop with the nuance and contorted logic that lets people advance Democrat electoral prospects.

Let’s cover this one more time.

There Is No Such Thing As A Conservative. There Is No Such Thing As A Liberal.

There are only people more conservative than others, or more liberal than others.

This is not new. This is timeless.

You either support the more conservative option or you support the more liberal option. There is no middle ground, there is no value wallowing in the nuances that let you support a Democrat, and there is nothing new under the sun.

McCain in a nutshell? He is more conservative than Obama. That is McCain in a nutshell.

[OESY]

An Open Letter to Hillary Conservatives
Poe.com ^ | February 29, 2008 | Richard Lawrence Poe

Posted on 03/01/2008 10:15:57 AM EST by Richard Poe

by Richard Lawrence Poe
Friday, February 29, 2008 Archives
Permanent Link

I ADDRESS this column to that new breed of conservative, the Hillarycon. These are conservatives who support Hillary Clinton. Below I describe the three types of Hillarycon and explain why each is wrong.

TYPE 1: The Innocent Hillarycon

The first type is the most well-meaning, but possibly the most deluded. Innocent Hillarycons view Hillary as a weaker candidate than Obama, and thus seek to help Hillary win the nomination.

They are wrong. Hillary’s weakness is an illusion. She is playing rope-a-dope with Obama. By hanging on the ropes, and taking Obama’s punches, Hillary saves her strength for the knockout punch.

Rest assured, the knockout will come. No matter how many primaries Obama wins, Hillary will beat him at the convention. Backroom intrigue is her specialty.

Hillary will bully, bribe and blackmail the superdelegates to vote for her. She will claim disqualified delegates from Michigan and Florida. She will steal state delegates through litigation. At the appointed time, Hillary’s media operatives will ambush Obama with allegations of corruption, immorality and extremism.

Hillary has powerful patrons in all the right places. She will win the nomination.

The real purpose of Hillary’s rope-a-dope is to lull Republicans into complacency. In this, she has largely succeeded.

Conservative talk radio jocks have lost interest in Hillary. On February 11, Sean Hannity suspended his “Stop Hillary Express” campaign, arguing that Obama poses a greater threat. Rush Limbaugh told listeners on February 26, “the longer Hillary can stay in this the better for us.” He urged Republicans to register as Democrats and vote for Hillary in the primaries, “to keep that party at war with itself.”

Hillary’s rope-a-dope has paralyzed conservative book publishers, none of whom are assigning Hillary exposés. They fear she will drop from the race before their books hit the shelves.

“When I get anti-Hillary proposals, I tell them, ‘Just wait and see if she becomes president,’ ’’ says Marji Ross, president of Regnery Publishing. Regnery’s 2004 release Unfit for Command torpedoed John Kerry’s campaign.

No Unfit for Command will dog Hillary this election season. It is too late to assign such a research-intensive book. Hillary has outmaneuvered the dirt-diggers.

TYPE 2: The Crafty Hillarycon

The second type of Hillarycon supports her for Machiavellian reasons. A Hillary presidency would teach Americans a lesson, they say. Her extremist policies would shock the nation, driving voters into the conservative camp.

Nonsense. This is a formula for suicide. As president, Hillary would liquidate conservatives, unleashing the fury of America’s counterterror apparatus against us.

Most vulnerable are volunteer groups like the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which patrols the Mexican border to stop illegal crossings. Minutemen were outraged when President Bush called them “vigilantes”. But Bush never hampered their operations. President Hillary would handle them differently. She would declare the Minutemen “domestic terrorists” and send them to Gitmo for waterboarding.

If this sounds farfetched, consider the counterterror policies of the last Clinton regime. Barely a month after Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, Muslim jihadists detonated a bomb beneath the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring thousands. The Clintons responded by declaring war on “domestic terrorists”.

Only two days after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — on February 28, 1993 — the Clintons laid siege to the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. New York Governor Mario Cuomo told NBC on March 1 that our biggest security threat was, “Americans killing one another with guns”. Attorney General Janet Reno declared on March 13 that her number one priority would be protecting abortion clinics from terror attacks. Then came Project Megiddo, an FBI program targeting rightwing Christians.

TYPE 3: The Spiteful Hillarycon

The third type of Hillarycon supports Hillary out of spite. These are ideological purists whose hatred for President Bush has metastasized into hatred for all things Republican. Since they must vote Democrat or not vote at all, they choose Hillary, claiming she is more “conservative” than the rest.

Spiteful Hillarycons are the worst of the lot, because they are phonies. They know very well that Hillary has not a “conservative” bone in her body. But then, neither have the Spiteful Hillarycons.

What they share with Hillary is anger and vengefulness. They would gladly cast their votes for Mao Tse-Tung, if they thought it would vex President Bush. Their motives are psychological, not political.

This then is the Hillarycon agenda. It is neither a Republican agenda, nor a conservative agenda, nor a winning agenda. It is Hillary’s agenda. Surely we can do better than this.

Richard Lawrence Poe is a contributing editor to Newsmax, an award-winning journalist and a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, co-written with David Horowitz.

Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978774/posts

.

[mad_as_he$$]

Wow doesn’t look good for your boy McCain!!

[OESY]

Absolutely right. And not good for conservative principles or America for years to come either.

.

[TypeZoNegative]

I'm a busy man and I spent the past week with my fiancee, so I'm going to leave you with a quote from the great Thomas Sowell as to your claim.

"When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s... Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to "folklore" that "Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence." It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results--during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jew"

Think about it. In the meantime, I have to go home (I'm at a wifi cafe right now) with my "inferior genetic makeup" (Psychologists have estimated my IQ in the 140 range by the way although I haven't taken an official IQ test since I was 9 years old and my last results were in the 140-150 range) and get some computer parts off of Ebay and fix my white fiancee's computer. Her IQ is 95, by the way, so there goes your theory. I can give you a link on the socioeconomic reasons why my IQ is so high for being one of the "untermensch" but you're going to have to wait. Later. Or as my fiancee's people say, "ciao".

[TypeZoNegative]

Yes, the GOP will win in November, but Conservatives will lose. This guy is the reincarnation of Gerald Ford.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Yep. And then it’s up to we “Grown Ups” and “Patriots” get our acts together, systematically boot out the RINOs over the next four years from Congress and locally, and be ready to kick some @ss come 2012. :)

We’ve been down before, and sadly (and amazingly) we seem to be able to LEAD from a position of impotence.

I’ve never been able to figure that one out; we’re painted as such power-mad dictators, and yet, when it comes down to it, LEADERSHIP is sorely lacking.

[Gondring]

You think Arlen Specter is going to let him pick conservative justices? Please.

Yeah, look at who Sen. Specter let through under President Bush!