COUNTDOWN (476 DAYS) TO VICTORY '04 -- FEEDBACK NEEDED FROM FREEPERS! (Includes Poll on Media)

Bush-Cheney '04, The White House, Republican National Committee, Washington Times ^ | 14 July 2003 | PhiKapMom/Various

[PhiKapMom]

Just curious if any Freepers were contacted in this poll of the media. Sure sounds like it! Because I thought this poll was so intersting, I posted the entire article on here. Please visit the Washington Times to get all the latest information from our Nation's Capital and boycott the Washington Post!

[Support Free Republic]

What would you do without YOUR favorite thread ? Please Contribute

[PhiKapMom]

If you would like on or off this Bush-Cheney '04 Ping List, please let me know!

Thanks,

PKM

BUSH + CHENEY = VICTORY '04

[carton253]

This is old news, but when the President came to Wright Patterson Airforce Base on 7/4, the sponsors expected a crowd of a couple of thousands.

Over 20,000 showed up.

[woodyinscc]

Maybe I'm out in left field, but I think the results of this poll have a direct tie in to ABC's anchor Peter Jennings announcing that he will seek U.S. citizenship(after 24 yrs)

[Sabertooth]

Thanks for the ping. Seen this?

Ballot initiative targets undocumented migrants

A Phoenix businessman and a local activist will pursue a 2004 ballot measure aimed at banning Arizona from spending state or local tax money on undocumented immigrants.

The main architects, Rusty Childress, owner of Childress Automall in Phoenix, and West Valley activist Kathy McKee, filed the ballot initiative application Monday with the secretary of state.

The proposed initiative, Protect Arizona Now, calls for state and local governments to verify the legal status of anyone seeking public services and to turn over undocumented immigrants to immigration officials. Federally mandated services, such as kindergarten through 12th-grade public education, would be exempted.

The measure also seeks stricter voter registration guidelines by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship.

Childress and McKee declined to discuss their ballot proposal Monday, but today will outline their plans to collect the 122,612 signatures required to place the issue on the 2004 ballot.

They are also behind a recall targeting Phoenix Councilwoman Peggy Neely for her support for a day labor center.

Democratic state lawmakers and other leaders criticized the proposal as anti-immigrant, saying there is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting and getting social services they are not entitled to receive.

"It's a scare tactic," said Sen. Linda Aguirre, a Phoenix Democrat. She and others said proponents want to move their anti-immigration agenda forward by playing on people's fears.

The proposed initiative comes two weeks after Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill that would have required residents to show identification to vote cast a ballot.

The governor's refusal to sign the voter ID bill left McKee and Childress with no other alternative but to take the matters directly to residents, they said in a prepared statement.

Under the initiative, government-issued identifications like driver's licenses would not be enough to get public services unless it could be verified the applicant is living in the country legally.

To register to vote, a person would need to show a copy of a birth certificate, U.S. passport or other documents proving citizenship.

Sen. Pete Rios, D-Hayden, and Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, who fought the voter ID legislation, are leading the effort against the ballot proposal.

Gallardo said he is still analyzing the possible statewide repercussions of the initiative.

McKee and Childress said undocumented immigrants are draining state and local governments, and officials turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal immigration.

"These traitorous bureaucrats thumb their noses at their legal constituents and blatantly violate laws," Childress said in the statement.
Arizona Republic
Elvia Diaz- July 8th, 2003

If this gets on the ballot, there's gonna be a political war in Arizona with national ramifications. Don't you love that "undocumented migrants/immigrants" flim-flam?

[MeekOneGOP]

[MeekOneGOP]

This is a . . .


NO DISRUPTOR ZONE !!

[prairiebreeze]

direct tie in to ABC's anchor Peter Jennings announcing that he will seek U.S. citizenship(after 24 yrs)

I believe we should consider saying a resounding "no!" What America doesn't need is more leftist liberal anti-US hatred.

Prairie

[Common Tator]

More than half — 51 percent — say that the bias is "liberal," while 26 percent discerned a "conservative" leaning. Fourteen percent felt neither phrase applied. Two-thirds of Republicans thought the bias is liberal, with 41 percent of Democrats agreeing. A third of Democrats said there was a conservative slant in the news media, the poll found.

Picture the American political spectrum as a horizontal line drawn from left to right. It has a scale of 0 to 100 with 50 being the center line.

The left most quarter is from 0 to 25 and the right most quarter is 75 to 100. What this is saying is the group of people that fall in the range of 49 to 100 think the media is biased for the left. The group that is in the 0 to 26 range think it is biased to the right. That means the media must fall between 27 and 48. If that is the case then the people from 0 to 26 will see the media as being to the right of them. The people in the 49 to 100 group will see the media as being to the left of them.

Those between 27 and 48 will see the media as neutral or just a little bit to the right or left of them.

According to this analysis the media center point is 12 points to the left of center. On a scale where the left is 0 to 50 then the media scores a 38. Remember we are going from far left to far right. 38 is a mainstream leftist position. For example a the group from 1 to 43 voted for Dukakis in 88 and 1 to 42 voted for Mondale in 84. A 38 is a reliable mainstream Democrat.

We can conclude from this that the media and Bill Clinton have identical ideological positions... But you knew that didn't you.

[PhiKapMom]

Was pretty convinced that a large portion of the media and the Clintons are on the same wave length; however, seeing how you determined that was fascinating. You took the Poll numbers provioded then showed the true meaning of the poll. That is impressive!

Thanks for posting that information.

[PhiKapMom]

That is a big difference. I hadn't heard the crowd size for the visit to Wright-Patt. Used to work there myself and been to the Museum many, many times.

Great place to visit and would urge anyone in the Dayton area to visit the AF Museum on the East side of Dayton and west of Fairborn.

[PhiKapMom]

You could be right -- I wondered why after all these years Jennings would become a citizen. Personally I would have rather he returned to Canada!

[PhiKapMom]

I am all in favor of that initiative. If you are here illegally, you should be getting no benefits and deported IMHO!

[NEWwoman]

Please ping me.

[PhiKapMom]

Those are two of my favorite pics. Especially the one of Rumsfeld! Everytime I see him in a press conference, that pictures comes to mind when someone asks a dumb question!

[PhiKapMom]

Will do!

[DrDeb]

Excellent analysis from Richard Benedetto at "USAToday":

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2003-07-13-benedetto_x.htm

Democrats' comments may come back to haunt them

WASHINGTON — In their eagerness to prove President Bush wrong on Iraq, Democrats are throwing caution to the wind and setting themselves up for what could be big fall in the 2004 elections.

Their shrill criticisms of the Iraq operation and more the president's assertions that Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction presented a clear and present danger to the security of the United Sates and its people, could bounce back on them.

Rather than cause a majority of Americans to turn on the president when the vote comes up next year, Democrats may be reminding voters of their party's biggest weakness: They are perceived as soft on national defense and therefore can not be trusted to manage the national security.

Given that weakness, Democrats should be cautious in their public statements on Iraq, no matter how badly they think the war's aftermath is going.

They don't have to march in lockstep with the president on everything he says and does. But they should carefully consider the words used to criticize or raise questions on Iraq and avoid making it sound like they wish the other side had won.

But many of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who continue to harbor the false belief that their party's anti-war left wing represents the views of the nation as a whole, just can't help themselves.

Like moths driven to a flame, they have viciously attacked the White House's admission that the president's statement, made in last January's State of the Union speech, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa was based on false intelligence.

Moreover, they have used the recent flurry of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and the rising death toll there to press the argument that we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place.

That, in the face of recent polls that show that a clear majority of Americans stilt think the Iraq war was worth fighting and two of three say the U.S. should stay and help rebuild the country.

Democrats are banking on those majorities to eventually turn on the war, come to the conclusion that Bush totally botched the management of the nation's foreign affairs and vote Democrat next year.

It's a dangerous gamble, especially since none of those running for president have established a set of foreign policy credentials that would suggest they have answers that Bush doesn't have.

So instead of pointing out how they could better manage this dangerous world better, they offer little more than harsh rhetoric.

On Thursday, the Democrats launched a TV ad accusing the president of lying. That was followed by a string of Democratic presidential hopefuls lining up to get their licks in.

• "It's not as matter of politics. It's matter of nation security, " said Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.. "We need a thorough investigation in order to re-establish the credibility of our own government."

• Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman appears to think he has a scandal of Watergate proportions on his hands. "Quite simply, we need to know what people in the administration knew about the weakness of our uranium intelligence reports and when they knew it," he said.

Meanwhile Bush, whose job-approval rating is holding at 62%, continues to stick to his guns: "I am convinced the world is a much more peaceful and secure place as a result of the actions," he said while traveling in Africa.

On Thursday, Bush sent this secretary of state, Colin Powell, a highly respected leader with an 83% favorable rating in latest polls, out to defend the administration against the critics:

"To think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown and overwrought conclusion."

Democrats trash the administration at their own risk. They still haven't passed the foreign policy credibility test. Bush and Powell have.

[DrDeb]

FYI: I post most of my articles/poll analyses on the DOSE -- quite frankly the rest of FR makes my skin crawl (too many Libertarians, Buchannanites, uber rightists, and DU trolls working unceasingly/incessantly to demoralize the committed Republicans at FR)!!!

[windchime]

The Wall St. Journal printed President Bush's speech delivered on Goree Island. Even harsh critics like CNN's Al Hunt called the speech eloquent.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003736