Take a look at this poll. The numbers for John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton weren't so surprising. But look at Al Gore's numbers--from 29% likely to vote for him a year ago to now 40%, and just as good as Hillary's numbers. Just goes to show you what showing the public what you're really passionate about instead of pandering can really do for your image.
I've been pretty impressed with McCain recently, standing up to the White House regarding these issues about torture. Nice to know he's still willing to be somewhat of a maverick within the Republican Party to stand up for what he believes in. This recent article in the Washington Post exemplifies when torture can go terribly wrong. However, maybe I've been watching too much 24, but if you can't submit prisoners to some form of discomfort or humiliation, what incentive would real terrorists and enemies have to talk? I'm just asking--I really haven't made up my opinion on this.
[both topics from Fully Myelinated]
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Should we be gearing up for a McCain vs. Gore debate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The poll was done by Fox News. Believe what you want about media bias.
I was surprised Rudy Guliani fared so well. If you look at some of the other polls on the link, Guliani is actually perceived as a more acceptable candidate to Republicans than John McCain. In fact, even Condoleeza Rice does better than McCain. Interesting stuff...
Well, considering that McCain is not the most obedient republican, I'm not surprised that the Fox polls have him behind Guiliani. Fox is not a news channel, it's a cheerleader. Their slogan is erroneous, not to mention redundant, and their full name is a misnomer, if not an oxymoron.
I certainly feel for the poor guy from Canada. Besides being saddened by his torture, I'm disappointed that he isn't allowed to sue because of "national security reasons." That excuse is getting ridiculous. I'm waiting for them to use it as a reason for Bush to have a third term.
Yeah, the story about this Canadian is very sad. Other than him "confessing" to being trained in Afghanistan, I'm not sure exactly what useful information the U.S. was thinking he could provide them.
But I'd still like to know, if the U.S. had a person in custody that they positively knew had information, what exactly can you do to get it out of him?
Except that he would have to run against Hillary Clinton to get the Democratic Nomination, and I don't think that he will do that.
Post a Comment