2008 is becoming more and more interesting...

I've reported on the Democratic boycott of Florida and I've gotten some feedback from people (both from FL and not from FL) saying that I've been too harsh on the democratic presidential candidates and whatever else.

Well...

The Miami Herald has a story on the latest Mason Dixon Florida poll. The poll contains a lot of information but in general election match-ups...

Rudy Giuliani beats Hillary by 7 points.
Fred Thompson beats Hillary by 4 points.
Mitt Romney beats Hillary by 1 point.

Most interesting, though, is that more independents (54%, 47% and 45% respectively) selected the Republican candidate over Hillary.

Why? The Democratic boycott of Florida.

26% of independents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who "refuses to campaign in Florida in advance of the primary in order to placate voters in Iowa and New Hampshire."

According to the Sunshine Independents Blog, more than 2 million Floridians (19% of Florida voters ) are registered as independents. So, if 2 million independents vote, then roughly 520,000 of them would vote for the Republican candidate only because of the boycott. That's a lot more than the 527 votes that won Florida, and ultimately the presidency, for George W. Bush in 2000.

In 2004 John Kerry received 54% of independent votes to Bush's 41%. In 2000, 47% of independent voters marked their ballots for Al Gore while 46% voted for Bush. As stated earlier in this post, the independents are already leaning more toward Giuliani, Romney and Thompson than Hillary although the Democrat has won the majority of independent votes in Florida in the past 2 presidential elections.

Looks like Florida will play a key role in the presidential election once again.

Oh yeah, the relatively newly elected democratic Congress is setting new records. According to Gallup: "By historical standards, the current [congressional] 20% approval rating is among the lowest Gallup has ever recorded. In fact, in the 173 times since 1974 that Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing, Congress' approval rating has been at or below 20% only four times."

Again, the independents play a role here as only 14% of them approve of the current Congress. That's lower than th 20% of republicans that approve.

President Bush's approval rating is at 32% with 27% of independents approving of his job performance.

Please explain...

How anyone could believe that the "rights" granted to foreigners by the constitution of the United States of America should come before the lives of Americans. !!!




Someone over at the Daily Kos would rather Americans die so that foreigners could reap the benefits of the US Constitution.

"Here's the reality. Even if it was sure to be lost in a terrorist attack today, my life is not worth the Constitution. The life of my child, is not worth the Constitution. The life of hundreds -- thousands -- is not worth setting aside the rights ensured to us by the Constitution. Because setting aside the Constitution is a defeat greater than any that can be delivered to us by any instrument of terror or war."
This is in reference to Chris Dodd's statement that National Security comes before human rights. This blogger doesn't agree. The blogger is referring to Bush's "illegal" war.

Except, the US Constitution serves to protect the American people...


The blogger furthers this outlandish post by stating:


" We no longer read [National Security] as the end of the nation itself, but as encompassing any threat -- any possible threat -- to any one of that nations' three hundred million residents. That's not "national security," that's national fear. We're not facing the possible end of the nation in rebellion and riot, we're not even facing about the certain knowledge of impending attack. We're talking about setting aside the rights enshrined in the Constitution against only the possibility of attack. If you search your dictionary, I believe you will find that to be the very definition of cowardice, and no one willing to make that trade deserves to utter the oath listed above."


In the time of war (which was arguably declared on the US by the 9/11 attacks), national security is NOT something to be taken lightly. Instead of praising the President for his dedication to protecting this nation and its people from another 9/11 (which he most likely has in the past few years), this person has the nerve to call President Bush a coward.

All of you who agree with this or believe that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008 because of this take on national security, I ask you why you think the majority of Americans would rather die than have the President protect the nation? With the issue of illegal immigration such a hot topic and people being sick and tired of sanctuary cities and illegals receiving benefits that should be saved for AMERICANS, why on earth would something like this ever, EVER go over with the American people?


And I noticed that no one answered my previous question: What has President Bush done to those of you who dislike him so much?