Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Friday, September 18, 2015
NJ Watchdog: Christie hopes CNN debate begins comeback
On the ropes, Christie hopes CNN debate begins his comeback
Instead of duking it out with the other 10 GOP hopefuls on the stage, the New Jersey governor aimed his blows at opponents who weren't present -- President Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic-controlled legislature in his home state.
“In seven short years, this president has stripped away their trust and faith and belief that the next generation will have a better life,” Christie declared in his opening statement. “He’s stolen that from us, and when I’m president, I’m going to take it back.”
He also urged the other Republican candidates to unite against Clinton for her support of Planned Parenthood.
“We shouldn’t be fighting with each other,” he said. “She’s the real opponent.”
And Christie identified himself as an “outsider” – like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Firorina – explaining that he is a Republican in a blue state.
“I’ve vetoed 400 bills from a crazy liberal Democratic legislature,” he said.
While Christie tried to play nice with his GOP opponents, there were numerous skirmishes between other contenders. Front-runner Trump exchanged sharp barbs with Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Rand Paul.
But when Trump and Fiorina started criticizing each other’s track records in business, Christie interrupted with a crowd-pleasing line.
“You’re both successful people – congratulations,” he scolded. “You know who’s not successful in this country? The middle class who’s getting plowed over by Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let’s start talking about those issues tonight and stop this childish back and forth between the two of you.”
The question is whether Christie landed punches enough to keep his campaign off the canvas. Positioned on the far end of the stage, a half-hour passed between questions posed to him by moderators at one point.
The governor entered the debate needing to score points with viewers to revive a campaign that’s taken a beating in public opinion polls.
Earlier this week, Christie fell to 11th place with only 1 percent support among GOP voters in both the ABC News/Washington Post and CBS News/New York Times polls.
The story is online at http://watchdog.org/238568/christie-cnn-debate/.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Did The Cubans Plot To Smear Senator Menendez?
Last night the Washington Post reported that Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) sent a letter to Justice Department officials asking the Justice Department to pursue evidence obtained by U.S. investigators that the Cuban government concocted an elaborate plot to smear him with allegations that he cavorted with underage prostitutes, during his reelection campaign last year.
The reasons given as to why the Cuban government would go through such extraordinary lengths to smear our good senator seems to be a little silly. Menendez who is of Cuban descent, has been a vocal critics of the Castro regime during his tenure in Congress and at the time, was preparing to assume the powerful chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
This alleged plot sounds a bit amateurish and a little to 1960's - 1970's Cold War-ish to believe but evidently it's true. Does the CIA actually still do these things today?
Senator Menendez was on CNN this morning talking about it
The reasons given as to why the Cuban government would go through such extraordinary lengths to smear our good senator seems to be a little silly. Menendez who is of Cuban descent, has been a vocal critics of the Castro regime during his tenure in Congress and at the time, was preparing to assume the powerful chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
This alleged plot sounds a bit amateurish and a little to 1960's - 1970's Cold War-ish to believe but evidently it's true. Does the CIA actually still do these things today?
Senator Menendez was on CNN this morning talking about it
Saturday, March 29, 2014
EDITORIAL: IT IS A TIME TO MAKE PROGRESS ON GENDER EQUITY
By John Currie
Earlier this week, I joined Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, at Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics for a conversation about her career.
Pelosi’s story is incredible, as is her record of working to improve the lives of all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. She argued convincingly for the need to promote of women in politics and across society, and I was struck by the truth and simplicity of her message: “When women succeed, New Jersey succeeds.”
Ensuring that women — our mothers, sisters, and daughters — have the same opportunities as their male counterparts is not a political issue. Nor is it a “women’s” issue or a “Democratic” issue. It is a family issue, and an economic issue.
It is in everyone’s interest to keep children learning and parents earning by promoting fair pay, a proper work and life balance, and affordable childcare. Doing so can make us all more prosperous while strengthening the backbone of our country’s economy, the middle class.
Why, then, are we not making progress on these fronts?
Sadly, Republican obstructionism is to blame.
The Republican-controlled Congress is obsessed with repealing and undermining the Affordable Care Act and the protections the historic law includes. For example, they would allow health insurance companies to again consider womanhood a preexisting medical condition. That is not going to happen.
Washington Republicans are also standing in the way of progress. They prevented increases in the minimum wage, delayed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and refused to promote access to affordable, high quality childcare. They would not consider improving paid family and medical leave, and they denied a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act… the list examples goes on.
Such misguided priorities beg the question: is the Republican Party really so out of touch with America’s needs, and those of women in particular?
A recent CNN Poll says yes. A majority of Americans, “do not believe the Republican Party understands the problems and concerns of women today,” the report said.
The irony is that the Republicans know their approach is flawed. After President Barack Obama’s reelection, Republican leaders admitted that their party was alienating huge swaths of voters. Operatives argued for reaching out to communities of color, being more inclusive of gay Americans, and, notably, attracting more women to the party. They commissioned an “autopsy report,” which recommended, “a forward-leaning vision for voting Republican that appeals to women.” Then, they organized seminars to teach their candidates how to talk to women, how to talk about women, and how to run against women. But, mistakenly, they failed to rethink their policy priorities.
Sadly, this is not just an inside-the-beltway dilemma. New Jersey’s scandal-plagued governor, Chris Christie, is no better. His agenda has never been friendly to women or the middle class.
Governor Christie has vetoed equal pay legislation multiple times and he opposed paid family leave. He even argued that raising the minimum wage was “just an irresponsible thing to do” and “a truly ridiculous idea,” despite compelling economic evidence to the contrary.
When given the opportunity to help women access health care services and bring funds to the state, Christie did neither. Our governor eliminated nearly $7.5 million for family planning services that would have been matched 9-to-1 by federal funds.
Yes, you read that correctly. Rather than saving $45 million a year, Christie preferred to deny thousands of women access to mammograms and other basic health care services.
These are fundamental issues, not abstract concerns, that have tangible affects on working women and their families.
Consider the gender wage gap. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, women in New Jersey are paid 78 cents for every dollar paid to men, creating a yearly $13,413 gap between what full time working men and working women earn. Meanwhile, African American women were paid 64 cents and Latinas just 55 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. The organization estimated that closing that gap would help working women pick up the tab for basic family expenses: 103 more weeks of food; 6 more months of mortgage and utilities payments; 12 more months of rent; or 3,848 more gallons of gas.
Democrats have always stood with women, and we will continue to fight for fair and equal treatment under the law. We understand that the impact of so-called women’s issues is not gender specific — everyone sitting around our kitchen tables is affected by such societal inequities.
As the next election approaches, I am hopeful that the Republican Party will see the error in their ways. It’s time to make progress on gender equity.
John Currie is the Chairman of the New Jersey Democratic State Committee
Earlier this week, I joined Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, at Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics for a conversation about her career.
Pelosi’s story is incredible, as is her record of working to improve the lives of all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. She argued convincingly for the need to promote of women in politics and across society, and I was struck by the truth and simplicity of her message: “When women succeed, New Jersey succeeds.”
Ensuring that women — our mothers, sisters, and daughters — have the same opportunities as their male counterparts is not a political issue. Nor is it a “women’s” issue or a “Democratic” issue. It is a family issue, and an economic issue.
It is in everyone’s interest to keep children learning and parents earning by promoting fair pay, a proper work and life balance, and affordable childcare. Doing so can make us all more prosperous while strengthening the backbone of our country’s economy, the middle class.
Why, then, are we not making progress on these fronts?
Sadly, Republican obstructionism is to blame.
The Republican-controlled Congress is obsessed with repealing and undermining the Affordable Care Act and the protections the historic law includes. For example, they would allow health insurance companies to again consider womanhood a preexisting medical condition. That is not going to happen.
Washington Republicans are also standing in the way of progress. They prevented increases in the minimum wage, delayed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and refused to promote access to affordable, high quality childcare. They would not consider improving paid family and medical leave, and they denied a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act… the list examples goes on.
Such misguided priorities beg the question: is the Republican Party really so out of touch with America’s needs, and those of women in particular?
A recent CNN Poll says yes. A majority of Americans, “do not believe the Republican Party understands the problems and concerns of women today,” the report said.
The irony is that the Republicans know their approach is flawed. After President Barack Obama’s reelection, Republican leaders admitted that their party was alienating huge swaths of voters. Operatives argued for reaching out to communities of color, being more inclusive of gay Americans, and, notably, attracting more women to the party. They commissioned an “autopsy report,” which recommended, “a forward-leaning vision for voting Republican that appeals to women.” Then, they organized seminars to teach their candidates how to talk to women, how to talk about women, and how to run against women. But, mistakenly, they failed to rethink their policy priorities.
Sadly, this is not just an inside-the-beltway dilemma. New Jersey’s scandal-plagued governor, Chris Christie, is no better. His agenda has never been friendly to women or the middle class.
Governor Christie has vetoed equal pay legislation multiple times and he opposed paid family leave. He even argued that raising the minimum wage was “just an irresponsible thing to do” and “a truly ridiculous idea,” despite compelling economic evidence to the contrary.
When given the opportunity to help women access health care services and bring funds to the state, Christie did neither. Our governor eliminated nearly $7.5 million for family planning services that would have been matched 9-to-1 by federal funds.
Yes, you read that correctly. Rather than saving $45 million a year, Christie preferred to deny thousands of women access to mammograms and other basic health care services.
These are fundamental issues, not abstract concerns, that have tangible affects on working women and their families.
Consider the gender wage gap. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, women in New Jersey are paid 78 cents for every dollar paid to men, creating a yearly $13,413 gap between what full time working men and working women earn. Meanwhile, African American women were paid 64 cents and Latinas just 55 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. The organization estimated that closing that gap would help working women pick up the tab for basic family expenses: 103 more weeks of food; 6 more months of mortgage and utilities payments; 12 more months of rent; or 3,848 more gallons of gas.
Democrats have always stood with women, and we will continue to fight for fair and equal treatment under the law. We understand that the impact of so-called women’s issues is not gender specific — everyone sitting around our kitchen tables is affected by such societal inequities.
As the next election approaches, I am hopeful that the Republican Party will see the error in their ways. It’s time to make progress on gender equity.
John Currie is the Chairman of the New Jersey Democratic State Committee
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Christie's Grand Standing
by Josh Levitt
Buono For Governor
Yesterday Governor Christie participated in a panel discussion with right-wing Governors called "“Republican Governors on What’s Working at the State Level.” But, instead of talking about New Jersey's struggling economy or the 400,000 New Jerseyans out of work, Governor Christie focused on his favorite topic: his inevitable 2016 presidential run. In a move designed solely to appeal to national Republicans, Governor Christie attacked one of his likely 2016 opponents for his foreign policy views. At this point, Gov. Christie is just itching to leave New Jersey in the dust to satisfy his political ambition.
Christie Cites 9/11 in Assailing Libertarian Trend in GOP
By Jonathan Martin//New York Times
Invoking the families of 9/11 victims, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey on Thursdayheatedly denounced the growing libertarian drift on national security in the Republican Party that is favored by Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and others in the party. “This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” Mr. Christie said on a panel with other Republican governors here. Asked if he was alluding to Mr. Paul, a potential Republican presidential rival, Mr. Christie spoke in deeply personal terms about the impact of the 2001 terrorist attacks on his state. “You can name any number of people and he’s one of them,” Mr. Christie shot back before referring to the more than 600 New Jersey families who lost relatives in the attacks. “These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.”
Christie goes after libertarians — hard
By Aaron Blake//Washington Post
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment. “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said. Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down. “You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”
Christie: NSA critics should talk to 9/11 families
CNN
Opponents of government spying programs should talk to families who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said at a Republican governors forum Thursday. Asked about the influence of libertarian-minded leaders in the GOP - including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky - Christie said that when it comes to national security, those who oppose National Security Agency programs that monitor Americans' electronic activity were just wrong. "These esoteric, intellectual debates - I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and orphans and have that conversation," Christie said. "And they won't. That's a lot tougher conversation to have." Christie was appearing on a panel of governors that also included Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mike Pence of Indiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin. All four are considered potential candidates for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, though the topic did not arise on Thursday.
Christie: Rand Paul 'dangerous'
By Hadas Gold//Politico
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ripping libertarians - including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). - for challenging government surveillance programs and failing to understand the dangers of terrorism. “This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” the New Jersey governor said on Thursday at a Republican governors forum in Aspen, Colo. “You can name any number of people and (Paul is) one of them.”
Christie vs. Paul: The fight for the future of GOP foreign policy
By Aaron Blake//Washington Post
Shortly after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took to the stage with three fellow Republican governors here Thursday, he derided self-serving politicians who try to be all things to all people and are afraid to alienate anyone. By the end of the session, hosted by the nonpartisan Aspen Institute, Christie put his potential 2016 presidential hopes where his mouth is. And in the process, he set himself apart from — and risked alienating — a very significant and growing swath of the Republican Party led by Sen. Rand Paul: libertarians.
Libertarianism and the coming Republican political war
By Chris Cizzilla//Washington Post
...2. Chris Christie: The New Jersey governor’s condemnation of the creeping libertarianism within the GOP proves two things: 1) He’s running for president and 2) He will do so as a defense-defending hawk in the mold of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The question for Christie is whether he is another incarnation of Rudy Giuliani (tough talking hawk whose moderate credentials doomed him) or a whole new — and more successful — model for GOP candidate. Time will tell — but he’s definitely running. (Previous ranking: 2)
Gov. Christie Joins Anti-Rand Paul Club
By Abby Phillip//ABC News
The anti-Rand Paul club gained a new member: New Jersey’s Republican Gov. Chris Christie. Christie ripped into the Kentucky senator and his cohorts for promoting a “dangerous” libertarian philosophy on national security issues in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. “I just want us to be really cautious because this strain of libertarianism going through both parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said at an Aspen Institute panel of Republican governors in Colorado Thursday night. Asked specifically whether he was referring to Paul, Christie said, “You can name any number of people and he’s one of them.”
Rand Paul to Chris Christie: You need to talk to more real Americans
By Ralph Z. Hallow//Washington Times
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, leading the opposition to drone killing of U.S. citizens and to massive government surveillance of U.S. citizens email and phone records, fired back at fellow Republican Christie Christie, the New Jersey governor, who had attacked the Kentucky Republican for opposing massive government surveillance of U.S. citizens. “If Governor Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric,’ he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years,” Paul senior adviser Doug Stafford told The Washington Times. Mr. Christie had told fellow GOP governors in Aspen, Colo., on Thursday that Mr. Paul is part of a “strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought.”
Buono For Governor
Yesterday Governor Christie participated in a panel discussion with right-wing Governors called "“Republican Governors on What’s Working at the State Level.” But, instead of talking about New Jersey's struggling economy or the 400,000 New Jerseyans out of work, Governor Christie focused on his favorite topic: his inevitable 2016 presidential run. In a move designed solely to appeal to national Republicans, Governor Christie attacked one of his likely 2016 opponents for his foreign policy views. At this point, Gov. Christie is just itching to leave New Jersey in the dust to satisfy his political ambition.
Christie Cites 9/11 in Assailing Libertarian Trend in GOP
By Jonathan Martin//New York Times
Invoking the families of 9/11 victims, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey on Thursdayheatedly denounced the growing libertarian drift on national security in the Republican Party that is favored by Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and others in the party. “This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” Mr. Christie said on a panel with other Republican governors here. Asked if he was alluding to Mr. Paul, a potential Republican presidential rival, Mr. Christie spoke in deeply personal terms about the impact of the 2001 terrorist attacks on his state. “You can name any number of people and he’s one of them,” Mr. Christie shot back before referring to the more than 600 New Jersey families who lost relatives in the attacks. “These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.”
Christie goes after libertarians — hard
By Aaron Blake//Washington Post
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment. “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said. Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down. “You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”
Christie: NSA critics should talk to 9/11 families
CNN
Opponents of government spying programs should talk to families who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said at a Republican governors forum Thursday. Asked about the influence of libertarian-minded leaders in the GOP - including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky - Christie said that when it comes to national security, those who oppose National Security Agency programs that monitor Americans' electronic activity were just wrong. "These esoteric, intellectual debates - I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and orphans and have that conversation," Christie said. "And they won't. That's a lot tougher conversation to have." Christie was appearing on a panel of governors that also included Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mike Pence of Indiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin. All four are considered potential candidates for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, though the topic did not arise on Thursday.
Christie: Rand Paul 'dangerous'
By Hadas Gold//Politico
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ripping libertarians - including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). - for challenging government surveillance programs and failing to understand the dangers of terrorism. “This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” the New Jersey governor said on Thursday at a Republican governors forum in Aspen, Colo. “You can name any number of people and (Paul is) one of them.”
Christie vs. Paul: The fight for the future of GOP foreign policy
By Aaron Blake//Washington Post
Shortly after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took to the stage with three fellow Republican governors here Thursday, he derided self-serving politicians who try to be all things to all people and are afraid to alienate anyone. By the end of the session, hosted by the nonpartisan Aspen Institute, Christie put his potential 2016 presidential hopes where his mouth is. And in the process, he set himself apart from — and risked alienating — a very significant and growing swath of the Republican Party led by Sen. Rand Paul: libertarians.
Libertarianism and the coming Republican political war
By Chris Cizzilla//Washington Post
...2. Chris Christie: The New Jersey governor’s condemnation of the creeping libertarianism within the GOP proves two things: 1) He’s running for president and 2) He will do so as a defense-defending hawk in the mold of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The question for Christie is whether he is another incarnation of Rudy Giuliani (tough talking hawk whose moderate credentials doomed him) or a whole new — and more successful — model for GOP candidate. Time will tell — but he’s definitely running. (Previous ranking: 2)
Gov. Christie Joins Anti-Rand Paul Club
By Abby Phillip//ABC News
The anti-Rand Paul club gained a new member: New Jersey’s Republican Gov. Chris Christie. Christie ripped into the Kentucky senator and his cohorts for promoting a “dangerous” libertarian philosophy on national security issues in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. “I just want us to be really cautious because this strain of libertarianism going through both parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said at an Aspen Institute panel of Republican governors in Colorado Thursday night. Asked specifically whether he was referring to Paul, Christie said, “You can name any number of people and he’s one of them.”
Rand Paul to Chris Christie: You need to talk to more real Americans
By Ralph Z. Hallow//Washington Times
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, leading the opposition to drone killing of U.S. citizens and to massive government surveillance of U.S. citizens email and phone records, fired back at fellow Republican Christie Christie, the New Jersey governor, who had attacked the Kentucky Republican for opposing massive government surveillance of U.S. citizens. “If Governor Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric,’ he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years,” Paul senior adviser Doug Stafford told The Washington Times. Mr. Christie had told fellow GOP governors in Aspen, Colo., on Thursday that Mr. Paul is part of a “strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought.”
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Rep. Pallone: Boehner doesn't care about blue states NY, NJ
Early this morning Frank Pallone appeared on CNN's Early Start show to talk about why a comprehensive Sandy relief bill is needed now.
From the CNN Pressroom blog
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) criticizes Speaker John Boehner for not bringing a Hurricane Sandy relief bill up for a vote on Tuesday because he thinks Boehner wanted to avoid too much spending at one time, opting for a more “obscure” piecemeal plan of lesser payments.
Rep. Pallone says, “I really think that the speaker doesn't care about New York and New Jersey. In other words, we're blue states. The fact of the matter is that he was afraid to bring this up yesterday, in my opinion, because the Tea Party and the right wing did not want to vote for the spending bill for New York or primarily for New York and New Jersey.”
From the CNN Pressroom blog
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) criticizes Speaker John Boehner for not bringing a Hurricane Sandy relief bill up for a vote on Tuesday because he thinks Boehner wanted to avoid too much spending at one time, opting for a more “obscure” piecemeal plan of lesser payments.
Rep. Pallone says, “I really think that the speaker doesn't care about New York and New Jersey. In other words, we're blue states. The fact of the matter is that he was afraid to bring this up yesterday, in my opinion, because the Tea Party and the right wing did not want to vote for the spending bill for New York or primarily for New York and New Jersey.”
Friday, June 29, 2012
Jon Stewart: CNN & Fox News Report Supreme Court Decision
And if you just happened to miss what Jon Stewart had to say about what happened yesterday when the Supreme Court handed down it's landmark decisions on health care reform, here's your chance to get his take on it.
Of course he doesn't address what was side by those on both side of the debate; no he goes after CNN and FOX News for trying to be the first to report the Courts ruling and getting it wrong!
Both reported that the individual mandate provision in the Affordable Health Care Act was struck down by the Court only to report minutes later that they were wrong.
It's a classic clip and very funny, you have to see it if you haven't already.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Want to avoid another Depression? Try understanding the first one.
By Robert S. McElvaine -
the Washington Post /published July 10th,2011
the Washington Post /published July 10th,2011
“I have seen the future, and it works,” journalist Lincoln Steffens famously said of his 1919 visit to Bolshevik Russia. Guided by his economic faith, Steffens saw the future as he wanted it to be, not as it would be.Robert S. McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College, is the author of “The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941.”
What excuse do we have when we follow people who, guided by a different economic faith, see the past as they want it to have been, not as it was? Today, under the influence of leaders blinded to facts by certain faith, we are careening toward a repetition of mistakes that led to catastrophe.
A CNN poll conducted in June found that almost half of Americans now think that another Great Depression is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to occur within the next 12 months.
There is a genuine danger that the already weak economy could turn into a second coming of the hard times of the 1930s. The focus of many politicians today on cutting spending and avoiding tax increases on the wealthy is based on a misunderstanding of what led to and extended the Great Depression — and it is setting us up for a new collapse.
Most people realize that a failure to raise the debt ceiling could be catastrophic. But the drastic cuts in federal spending that some Republicans are demanding in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling would be a repeat of the mistakes that prevented a full recovery in the 1930s and then caused a secondary collapse in 1937.
With the economy in a precarious position, slashing spending, concentrating ever more wealth and income at the top, and blocking effective regulation is a
prescription for disaster.
In fact, the first part of this prescription is very similar to one written by Dr. New Deal himself. Fearful of massive budget deficits, President Franklin Roosevelt cut back on spending as soon as his 1936 re-election was secured, plunging the economy into a renewed free fall that introduced the word “recession” into our lexicon so as to avoid calling the collapse a renewed depression.
Yet that is the course upon which a unified Republican Party is insisting. For their part, President Barack Obama and many Democrats have ceded the battlefield and are just trying to reduce the number of casualties.
Conservatives appear to be united behind a set of beliefs that are dangerously wrong. Theirs is a faith-based economics that contrasts with fact-based economics; their god is named the Market. Their economics is as immune to facts as its opposite, Marxism. Call it Marketism. A devout Marketist believes that the Market is always right and any government intervention is, well, sinful.
For more than two generations, the Great Depression discredited this religion. But beginning around 1980, with the election of Ronald Reagan, the Marketists staged a revival.
One of my students brilliantly, if accidentally, captured the essence of this economic fundamentalism in a journal entry a few years ago: “During his presidency, Reagan implemented sloppy-side economics.” It is that sloppy-side economics that conservatives have been pushing ever since, and the more it fails, the harder they push it.
During the Great Depression, Roosevelt called for “bold, persistent experimentation” and said: “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
But the position of faithful Marketists, then and now, is this: Take their method and try it. If it fails, deny its failure and try it again, and again, and again. But above all, keep trying the same thing.
Since the beginning of the Obama administration, Republicans have been working unstintingly to misread the history of the Depression and implement policies similar to those that led to the collapses of 1929 and 2008. “One of the good things about reading history is you learn a good deal,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared early in 2009. “And we know for sure that the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work. In 1940, unemployment was still 15 percent. And it’s widely agreed among economists that what got us out of the doldrums that we were in during the Depression was the beginning of World War II.”
Well, yes — but that fact demonstrates just the opposite of what Marketist fundamentalists argue.
It is plain that the reason the New Deal failed to end the Depression is not that Roosevelt and Congress overspent, but that they underspent. The New Deal was not too reckless in its spending; it was too cautious. The war ended the Depression precisely because it obliged Roosevelt and Congress to spend greater and greater amounts without worrying about where the money was coming from.
The basic reason that the Obama administration has not yet ended the economic disaster it inherited is the same reason that prevented the New Deal from ending the Depression FDR inherited: It hasn’t spent enough. The 2009 stimulus staved off a
second Great Depression, but it should have been much larger to produce a genuine recovery. Subsequently, even with majorities in both houses, the Democrats let the GOP define the argument and failed to force through needed programs to get the economy back on its feet.
It has been the alleged “socialism” of the New Deal that has prevented another Depression for seven decades. While a market-based economy is clearly the best system, it carries serious risks. Government intervention minimizes those risks for businesses and for people — just a spoonful of “socialism” helps the capitalism go up.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes,” Mark Twain is said to have remarked. To the extent that our current history sounds like the 1930s, it is because of the lack of sense on the part of politicians. We know better than to slash spending and allow the rich to become even richer in a weak economy, but we’re set on doing it anyway.
If there is a new Great Depression, it won’t be without rhyme, but it will be without reason.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Distort, Attack, Repeat: The Fox Propaganda Machine in Action
If your of the belief that Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party, you'll be interested in watching a hour by hour slide show that takes you through a typical day on the "Fixed" news network of relentless "Obama bashing".
The feature can be found over at Rolling Stone's website and accompanies a story about how Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes created the most profitable propaganda machine in history.
Ailes runs the most profitable – and therefore least accountable – head of the News Corp. hydra. Fox News reaped an estimated profit of $816 million last year – nearly a fifth of Murdoch’s global haul. The cable channel’s earnings rivaled those of News Corp.’s entire film division, which includes 20th Century Fox, and helped offset a slump at Murdoch’s beloved newspapers unit, which took a $3 billion write-down after acquiring The Wall Street Journal. With its bare-bones news gathering operation – Fox News has one-third the staff and 30 fewer bureaus than CNN – Ailes generates profit margins above 50 percent. Nearly half comes from advertising, and the rest is dues from cable companies. Fox News now reaches 100 million households, attracting more viewers than all other cable-news outlets combined, and Ailes aims for his network to “throw off a billion in profits.”
Monday, September 6, 2010
Dear President Obama: More of this, please
This piece of video is the best that I've heard coming from President Obama in a very long time. If he continues this type of offensive against the Republican "Party of No" Democratic prospects come November will be much improved.
This video is from the website Crooks and Liars
This video is from the website Crooks and Liars
Monday, February 15, 2010
Poll: Bush still blamed for economy
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
More Americans blame the Bush administration for the nation's economic troubles than the Obama administration, according to a new poll.
(CNN) - More than a year after President George W. Bush left office, more Americans continue to blame his administration over any other entity for the nation's economic woes, according to a new poll.
In a New York Times/CBS News survey out Friday, 31 percent of Americans said the Bush administration is at fault for the current state of the economy while only 7 percent pointed their finger at President Obama and his team.
An additional 23 percent said the fault lies with Wall Street institutions while 13 percent assign the blame to Congress. Nearly 10 percent said the blame lies with all of them.
In a CNN/Opinion Research poll released last November, the public appeared split on who should be blamed if economic conditions don't approve: 47 percent said Bush and congressional Republicans while 45 percent said Obama and congressional Democrats.
"The public still tends to blame the Republicans for current economic conditions," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But looking forward is another matter. Americans think the GOP is responsible for getting us into this mess, but they think both parties are responsible for getting us out of it."
The poll, conducted February 5-10, interviewed 1,084 Americans and carries a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
More Americans blame the Bush administration for the nation's economic troubles than the Obama administration, according to a new poll.
(CNN) - More than a year after President George W. Bush left office, more Americans continue to blame his administration over any other entity for the nation's economic woes, according to a new poll.
In a New York Times/CBS News survey out Friday, 31 percent of Americans said the Bush administration is at fault for the current state of the economy while only 7 percent pointed their finger at President Obama and his team.
An additional 23 percent said the fault lies with Wall Street institutions while 13 percent assign the blame to Congress. Nearly 10 percent said the blame lies with all of them.
In a CNN/Opinion Research poll released last November, the public appeared split on who should be blamed if economic conditions don't approve: 47 percent said Bush and congressional Republicans while 45 percent said Obama and congressional Democrats.
"The public still tends to blame the Republicans for current economic conditions," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But looking forward is another matter. Americans think the GOP is responsible for getting us into this mess, but they think both parties are responsible for getting us out of it."
The poll, conducted February 5-10, interviewed 1,084 Americans and carries a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Commentary: GOP's "small government" talk is hollow
By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.
PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- As the budget debate heats up, Republicans are warning of socialism in the White House and claiming that Democrats are rushing back to their dangerous tonic of big government.
Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh warned that "the future is not Big Government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been disaster."
On CNN, former Vice President Dick Cheney said he is worried that the administration is using the current economic conditions to "justify" a "massive expansion" in the government.
After the past eight years in American politics, it is impossible to reconcile current promises by conservatives for small government with the historical record of President Bush's administration. Most experts on the left and right can find one issue upon which to agree: The federal government expanded significantly after 2001 when George W. Bush was in the White House.
The growth did not just take place with national security spending but with domestic programs as well. Even as the administration fought to reduce the cost of certain programs by preventing cost-of-living increases in benefits, in many other areas of policy -- such as Medicare prescription drug benefits, federal education standards and agricultural subsidies -- the federal government expanded by leaps and bounds. And then there are the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Federal spending stood at about $1.9 trillion in 2000, when Democrat Bill Clinton ended his presidency. In his final year in office, Bush proposed to spend $3.1 trillion for fiscal year 2009. President Obama's budget proposal for fiscal 2010 is $3.6 trillion.
Nor can Republicans blame a Democratic Congress for being responsible for these trends. Much of the expansion took place between 2002 and 2006, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes was writing about "big government conservatism" back in 2003.
Two years later, the right-wing CATO Institute published a report noting that total government spending had grown by 33 percent in President Bush's first term, lamenting that "President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson."
There were some areas where Bush backed off government cuts because programs were too popular, like Social Security. In other areas, like federal education policy and prescription drug benefits, the president seemed enthusiastic about bigger government.
Bush and Cheney also embraced a vision of presidential power that revolved around a largely unregulated and centralized executive branch with massive authority over the citizenry. This was a far cry from the days of Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, a Republican who constantly warned about the dangers of presidential power to America's liberties.
After the 2008 election, Cheney was not apologetic. He explained that "the president believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that given a challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster."
Importantly, the marriage between conservatism and a robust federal government was not unique to the Bush presidency. The roots of Bush's comfort with government can be traced to the Republican Right in the 1950s, members of Congress who called for an aggressive response to domestic and international communism.
Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were two Republicans who pragmatically accepted that Americans had come to expect that the federal government would protect against certain risks and that trying to reverse politics to the pre-New Deal period would be politically suicidal.
"Should any political party," Eisenhower said, "attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
When Nixon and congressional Republicans battled with Democrats over Social Security between 1970 and 1972, the debate revolved over how much to expand the program. Congressional Democrats wanted to increase benefits through the legislative process, while Nixon wanted to index benefits so they automatically increased with inflation.
Nixon and Congress did both.
President Reagan backed off his most ambitious efforts to cut government, most dramatically when he abandoned his proposal to curtail Social Security after facing a fierce backlash, while the military budget boomed. President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, which was one of the boldest regulatory expansions of government since the civil rights laws of the 1960s.
All of these presidents, particularly Nixon and Reagan, likewise promoted a muscular vision of presidential power that strengthened the authority of government and introduced concepts, such as the unitary executive, which would become the intellectual underpinning of the Bush administration.
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal," Nixon told David Frost in 1977. Like it or not, strengthening the presidency is one of the most important ways in which the role of government has grown since the nation's founding.
Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power. The rhetoric of small government has helped Republicans attract some support in the past, but it is hard to take such rhetoric seriously given the historical record -- and it is a now a question whether this rhetoric is even appealing since many Americans want government to help them cope with the current crisis.
Special to CNN
note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.
PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- As the budget debate heats up, Republicans are warning of socialism in the White House and claiming that Democrats are rushing back to their dangerous tonic of big government.
Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh warned that "the future is not Big Government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been disaster."
On CNN, former Vice President Dick Cheney said he is worried that the administration is using the current economic conditions to "justify" a "massive expansion" in the government.
After the past eight years in American politics, it is impossible to reconcile current promises by conservatives for small government with the historical record of President Bush's administration. Most experts on the left and right can find one issue upon which to agree: The federal government expanded significantly after 2001 when George W. Bush was in the White House.
The growth did not just take place with national security spending but with domestic programs as well. Even as the administration fought to reduce the cost of certain programs by preventing cost-of-living increases in benefits, in many other areas of policy -- such as Medicare prescription drug benefits, federal education standards and agricultural subsidies -- the federal government expanded by leaps and bounds. And then there are the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Federal spending stood at about $1.9 trillion in 2000, when Democrat Bill Clinton ended his presidency. In his final year in office, Bush proposed to spend $3.1 trillion for fiscal year 2009. President Obama's budget proposal for fiscal 2010 is $3.6 trillion.
Nor can Republicans blame a Democratic Congress for being responsible for these trends. Much of the expansion took place between 2002 and 2006, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes was writing about "big government conservatism" back in 2003.
Two years later, the right-wing CATO Institute published a report noting that total government spending had grown by 33 percent in President Bush's first term, lamenting that "President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson."
There were some areas where Bush backed off government cuts because programs were too popular, like Social Security. In other areas, like federal education policy and prescription drug benefits, the president seemed enthusiastic about bigger government.
Bush and Cheney also embraced a vision of presidential power that revolved around a largely unregulated and centralized executive branch with massive authority over the citizenry. This was a far cry from the days of Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, a Republican who constantly warned about the dangers of presidential power to America's liberties.
After the 2008 election, Cheney was not apologetic. He explained that "the president believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that given a challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster."
Importantly, the marriage between conservatism and a robust federal government was not unique to the Bush presidency. The roots of Bush's comfort with government can be traced to the Republican Right in the 1950s, members of Congress who called for an aggressive response to domestic and international communism.
Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were two Republicans who pragmatically accepted that Americans had come to expect that the federal government would protect against certain risks and that trying to reverse politics to the pre-New Deal period would be politically suicidal.
"Should any political party," Eisenhower said, "attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
When Nixon and congressional Republicans battled with Democrats over Social Security between 1970 and 1972, the debate revolved over how much to expand the program. Congressional Democrats wanted to increase benefits through the legislative process, while Nixon wanted to index benefits so they automatically increased with inflation.
Nixon and Congress did both.
President Reagan backed off his most ambitious efforts to cut government, most dramatically when he abandoned his proposal to curtail Social Security after facing a fierce backlash, while the military budget boomed. President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, which was one of the boldest regulatory expansions of government since the civil rights laws of the 1960s.
All of these presidents, particularly Nixon and Reagan, likewise promoted a muscular vision of presidential power that strengthened the authority of government and introduced concepts, such as the unitary executive, which would become the intellectual underpinning of the Bush administration.
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal," Nixon told David Frost in 1977. Like it or not, strengthening the presidency is one of the most important ways in which the role of government has grown since the nation's founding.
Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power. The rhetoric of small government has helped Republicans attract some support in the past, but it is hard to take such rhetoric seriously given the historical record -- and it is a now a question whether this rhetoric is even appealing since many Americans want government to help them cope with the current crisis.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Obama Plans Media Blitz
"Obama will talk separately with the anchors of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News Channel at the Oval Office on Tuesday. The networks will air their interviews over the course of the afternoon and the early evening."
Obama is expected to make the case for his economic stimulus package.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Quote of the Day
"It's presumptuous to feel sorry for another man. But I feel somewhat -- I feel somewhat badly for him... I think that President Bush and, unlike Vice President Cheney, is, upon reflection beginning to acknowledge some of the serious, if not mistakes, misjudgments that he made."
-- Vice President-elect Joe Biden, in an interview on Larry King Live, taking another swipe at his predecessor.
Political Wire
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Quote of the Day
-- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview on CNN, on the problems of the Republican party.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Quote of the Day
-- David Gergen, interviewed on CNN, about Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
-- Political Wire
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Dying Boy's Last Wish Granted : A Reason to Give Thanks
Seattle, Washington - Brenden Foster spoke, and hundreds answered.
Eleven year old Brenden Foster died this day of Friday, 21 November 2008, but throughout this world he will be remembered always. His darkest hour was his brightest light. This is a story as much of his words as it is of his deeds.
His dying wish was to help the homeless. "They're probably starving, so give 'em a chance, food and water." It has become a national movement. He wasn't afraid to die. He had said that he just wanted to make a difference, before his time came. And he did!
Touched by a young boy with an old soul, kind hearts answered Brenden's urgings to feed the homeless and took part in KOMO's Stuff the Truck food drive in honor of Brenden on Thursday.
"They're probably starving, so give'em a chance," he had said.
And so many did just that. In these hard financial times, many put their own needs aside to think of Brenden's last wish.
"I'm so thankful for what I have that I just have to give," said Joan Riley.
"He's just a little old man in a child's body. It's a shame he has to go early. Very wise young man," said Karen Blacketer.
Blacketer has little to give these days; she lost her job. But she believes in Brenden's dream and knows the need is great. So she dug deep in her pocket and gave to those less fortunate.
And she wasn't alone.
Lines of cars formed at Fred Meyer stores in Federal Way, Bothell and Issaquah. People donated cart after cart of groceries, boxes of food that will stock the shelves at Northwest Harvest and Food Lifeline.
Local businesses jumped in as well. Schwartz Brothers Bakery donated 3,500 muffins.
We didn't just stuff the truck; we stuffed six and a half. Generous souls helped raise more than $60,000 in cash donations. And along with the donations, many shared smiles and tears while talking about their inspiration, beloved Brenden.
Brenden was once the kid who ran the fastest, climbed the highest and dreamed of becoming a marine photographer. Leukemia took away all those things, but not his dying wish to help others.
Brenden saw TV coverage of the incredible turnout, and his family members said their sick boy was simply overjoyed amid his pain and discomfort.
"He doesn't have much time....24, 48 hours. Course we never know. That's up to God," said his grandmother, Patricia McMorrow.
Brenden's only 11 but his grandma says he's at peace with his passing.
"He's ready. He's told us that the angels have come three times and he's ready to go with them," Pat said.
Leukemia will win this round, but Brenden wants everyone to know this is just the beginning of the good he wants to inspire.
"He tells us that when he's an angel, he's going to keep doing the good work," Pat said.
He was a regular kid, who wanted to become marine photographer. Some time ago had been diagnosed with leukemia. As death was staring him in his face, its others that he was thinking about. The homeless caught Brenden's heartfelt attention. He had said, "Well, I was getting back from one of my appointments and I saw this big thing full of homeless people and then I thought. I should just get them something." That the country, even the world responded, he said, "I think that is great. You think that's great?"
He had one more wish, and that was to sprinkle wildflower seeds to save the bees. He had heard that the bees were dying off. His wish was answered by a retired pilot who asked his flying friends to sprinkle wild flower seeds around the world on Brenden's behalf.
He spoke with the wisdom of ages. Of that which made him feel sad, he had said was, "When someone gives up." His advice was, "Follow your dreams. Don't let anything stop you." Asked what he thought the best things in life are, he said, "Just having one."
If we can learn anything in this life, we can be inspired to do so by this young man.
Three years ago, doctors diagnosed Brenden with leukemia. His body may have been held back but his spirit excelled far beyond the dreams of most of us. On death, "It happens. It's natural," He said.
"I should be gone in a week or so", he had said. "I had a great time. And until my time comes, I'm going to keep having a great time," he said. I heard that he saw angels coming for him three times in the night before he left us. Then Brenden took his darkest hour and turned it into the brightest of light that truly can inspire the world.
God bless his little soul.
We all should remember Brenden this holiday season (and always) by thinking of the less fortunate. Give to you local food bank or shelter and help others in need.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Condoleezza Rice ‘especially proud’ of Obama victory.
During a press conference this morning, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said John McCain was “gracious” and “a great patriot,” while Barack Obama was “inspirational” and “will continue to be.” A jubilant Rice added that she was proud of her country – “it continues to surprise…it continues to beat all odds and expectations.” She concluded, “On a personal note, as an African-American, I’m especially proud.”
Think Progress
Think Progress
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Quote of the Day
"A campaign at war with itself cannot fight its opponent effectively."
-- GOP strategist Ed Rollins, writing for CNN, using the presidential campaigns of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain as examples.
-- GOP strategist Ed Rollins, writing for CNN, using the presidential campaigns of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain as examples.
Locally you can also add the feud between Republican Monmouth County Freeholder Candidates, Lillian Burry and John Curly, into his example.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
CNN Poll: Obama won the night
CNN) — A national poll of debate watchers suggests that Barack Obama won the second presidential debate.
Fifty-four percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released 30 minutes after the end of the debate say that Obama did the best job Tuesday night, with 30 percent saying McCain performed better.
According to the poll, 64 percent had a favorable opinion of Obama after the debate, an an increase of four points from his pre-debate showing. McCain’s approval rating remains unchanged: 51 percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of McCain after the debate.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted by telephone with 675 adult Americans who watched the debate. All interviews were taken after the end of the debate. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Fifty-four percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released 30 minutes after the end of the debate say that Obama did the best job Tuesday night, with 30 percent saying McCain performed better.
According to the poll, 64 percent had a favorable opinion of Obama after the debate, an an increase of four points from his pre-debate showing. McCain’s approval rating remains unchanged: 51 percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of McCain after the debate.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted by telephone with 675 adult Americans who watched the debate. All interviews were taken after the end of the debate. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)