Poll: Johnson has "hefty" lead over McKinney

[wyldwolf]

A new poll by Insider Advantage shows challenger Hank Johnson with a hefty lead over incumbent Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic run-off for the 4th District congressional race.

The poll shows Johnson leading McKinney, 46 to 21 percent, with a third of voters undecided. The survey recorded the responses of 489 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 5 percent.

Run-offs are notorious for low turnout, which often makes telephone surveys unreliable. Matt Towery, CEO of InsiderAdvantage, said he was unwilling to say that McKinney was headed for certain defeat. "But is she in deep, deep, deep, deep trouble? Yes," he said.

Towery said McKinney and Johnson split the African-American vote in the district, which makes up nearly 53 percent of the electorate. But an overwhelming number of white voters surveyed, who make up 42 percent of the 4th District electorate, said they preferred Johnson.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0727metpoll.html

If I'm not mistaken, Insider Advantage was one of the few polls that showed Mark Taylor with leads over Cathy Cox in the Gubernatorial primary race.

[Totallybushed]

1. Unfortunate news

for Mckinney, and for progressives everywhere, if true.

However, it does point out the fact that if you are in a public position (congresswoman, movie star, etc), it is best to avoid confrontations with law enforcement officers. If fact, that applies to us lesser mortals as well.

You can't win at the time. If the officer is wrong, take it to court.

Best luck to her in the run-off.

[sgxnk]

3. i think

the operative fact here is that IF you are involved in a "confrontation" with law enforcement where you are CLEARLY in the wrong, that you should not immediately claim "racial profiling" and other such nonsense when same was CLEARLY not the case, and dispute facts that are clear and witnessed by many people

cynthia mckinney played (in a completely unjustified example) the race card, and thus did a disservice to all REAL victims of racial prejudice, and she consistently refused to take responsibility for her behavior

practically the entire democratic establishment (not to mention republicans) failed to come to her side on this issue, which is quite telling as well

clearly, mckinney was wrong. clearly, she tried to place the blame elsewhere

and clearly she is now reaping the consequences

police officers of all races and genders, and those sympathetic to po's are almost uniformly (no pun intended) now opposed to mckinney. i know this for a fact

she has nobody to blame but herself

[xchrom]

4. ''i know this for a fact''

don't know you well enough for me to trust your facts.

[sgxnk]

8. i know lots of cops

im a cop. know lots of cops. i know that 100% of them i have talked to are against her NOW

many are democrats.

NONE of them support mckinney NOW

many did before

that is my 'basis of knowledge'

[xchrom]

17. i could care -- it's anecdotal.

it means you know some people -- well i know some people too.

[sgxnk]

18. it IS anecdotal

i totally agree

but i have, as a virtue of my profession, an insight into "what cops think" since i know literally hundreds

while i have only spoken about this issue to a couple of dozen, n=24 so to speak, the opinion was unanimous

believe it or not, there's a fair %age of cops who are democracts

but none of them i spoke to have any respect for mckinney ANYMORE (many used to )

nobody came to her side because she was so demonstrably in the wrong

not the congressional black caucus

not the democrats in general

\the fact pattern of the case is pretty compelling

moreso is the fact that she did not dispute that FACT pattern, but her basic argument came down to "it MUST be racial profiling because I'm black"

yeah, that's a compelling argument (rolls eyes)

mckinney, like oh so many other politicians, is her own worst enemy

hubris baby. it's what's for dinner

[xchrom]

19. very little in this world is black and white.

and somewhere out there is a cop with a different perspective than yours.

i try very hard NOT to speak for all gay men -- precisely because it bites me in the ass when i do.

you haven't said anything here that enlightens me to another conclusion.

[sgxnk]

21. i agree

i am not speaking for all cops

i am saying that OF the cops i spoke to (not to mention the congressional black caucus, congressional democrats, etc.) VERY few people supported mckinney's absurd claims or her actions during or immediately after incident

even SHE finally decided to issue an apology

few things ARE black and white

what IS so, is a very simple fact (not disputable)

cynthia mckinney had a lawful DUTY to stop when told to by a capitol police officer

she disobeyed that order

that's not in dispute as far as i can tell

she is her own worst enemy

again, what is most egregious about this was not the initial act, it was her attempt to smear the officer (and the capitol police) with no evidence of racial profiling, save for the fact that she is black.

that's absurd

[xchrom]

23. yes you made all that abundantly clear in post #3.

mckinney bad -- she punched a cop.


i'm merely pointing out that it's better that we speak for ourselves -- when we don't have a pocketful of stats in our pocket.

[hijinx87]

39. I'm not sure I would say she is "bad" . . . .

but it was clearly politically suicidal.

I actually think she has betrayed us by not being able
to avoid an easily avoidable incident. she is a brilliant
woman, she should have known better.

[sgxnk]

68. exactly

this is an example of hubris overwhelming brains

not that uncommon, especially among people in powerful positions

and now she might pay the price

her bad

[sgxnk]

67. i'm not saying she is "bad"

i am saying that she exhibited extraordinary "head up a**ness" in this particular incident

NOT in her initial actions, AS much as the aftermath

i don't have a pocketful of stats.

i have n=25 or so, which is better than most people in regards to cops attitudes towards mckinney

so, i offered my personal experience, as well as other stuff

[Ken Burch]

82. No white male congressmembers were ever stopped by the capital cops.

nt.

[MrBenchley]

93. Another amazing "Kenny fact"

desperately pulled out of thin air

[Ken Burch]

94. It's true. They just don't stop white Congressmembers.

You can't show me a single incident to the contrary.

It's sickening how badly you want to see a progressive African American female replaced by a pro-war Tom.

[MrBenchley]

95. Not even close to true....

As post 88 in this thread shows...

And before you start squawking, guess which one of you has credibility....

By the way, nice attempted use of the "Uncle Tom" slur...too bad it carries no weight, coming as it does from you.

[Ken Burch]

115. Post 88 is the account of one person, an enemy of Cynthia McKinney

and who the heck is "deaconess" anyway? Does she spend entire days watching what the capital cops get up to?

Cynthia wasn't indicted by the grand jury. The reality is, what happened between her and the cop would be a non-issue if the DLC'ers weren't blowing it up to drive a strong progressive courageous African American woman out of Congress and replace her with a convictionless cypher whose campaign tactics include such courageous acts as attacking his opponent's hairstyle.

[MrBenchley]

116. Guess which one of you has credibility, Kenny.

Hint: It ain't you.

[Ken Burch]

118. NO...it ain't me...

It must be ME, instead...

[oasis]

29. Cops have a "cops are always right" mentality. Of course they would back

one of their boys against the congresswoman. As far as the ones you say supported her before the incident, I'd put as much weight on the testimony of those cops as I would when they take the witness stand against a defendant.

[ChiciB1]

57. To Which I Heartedly Agree!!

Cops are cops are cops are cops! My daughter's brother is a cop.... turns me of totally, AND his brother AND my daughter!

Must be the uniform or something.... I don't know. I have a sister whose husband was a cop for a while, but had this "attitude" thing AND he was a bit "dirty" not in complete corruptible way.... just took stash & cash from time to time. He no longer is one, changed his profession and I like him much better. A friend of mine married a cop... did the same thing and bragged about it.

My son got involved with drugs and while I TRIED very very hard to understand that they do meet a lot of unsavory characters, I who had NEVER had ANY run in with any cops was treated like something that crawled out from under a rug! I bailed my son out a couple of times and came away feeling a little bit "scummy" just by the way the treated ME!!

I'm sure there are good cops, I keep saying that because I want to be fair, but most of my experience with them has been "negative!" Actually more than negative, it was condescending! I know one thing for sure.... I won't be doing anything to get MYSELF in trouble and maybe that's why they treat people the way they do. They're jails are over-crowded and the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. AND, even if it did, THEY aren't going to help you find out SQUAT!!

You sit, you wait and you SHUT-UP! I absolutely despise having to even walk into a police station!

[ChiciB1]

58. CORRECTION TO POST....

it's my daughter's husband's brother is a cop... and his brother and my daughter don't get along that well, neither do the two brothers. But they do see each other from time to time.

[oasis]

62. Cops, bank tellers, teachers.Service has dropped off across the board.

At least you can put in complaints with most service employees and get results. If you figure to get into a beef with cops, you'd better bring along a lawyer or a councilperson.

[ChiciB1]

65. Very True.... Even IF You Haven't Done ANYTHING Wrong!!! n/t

[sgxnk]

70. there are other witnesses

BESIDES the cop

the facts of the incident are not in dispute

that's a big part of this

this is not a matter of mckinney disputing the fact pattern

it's a matter of mckinney assuming nefarious intent (with no evidence) in the cop's mind vs. the commonsense conclusion based on the fact pattern

it is also undisputed that she was given a lawful order to stop, and she refused to obey it.

if she had (lord forbid) obeyed the law and just stopped on the order of the capitol hill police officer, he could have checked her id w.o incident and the whole thing wouldn't have been an incident

if you honestly think ANY cop, especially one who works in a sensitive environment with high power politicians, WANTED to challenge a senator (iow, he KNEW it was a senator), then you can't smell - because the smell test says "bogus"

mckinney, ex post incident, played the race card/victim card. what made that particularly ironic is that she was in the "priveleged/powerful" position vs. the hapless cop who was just trying to do his job

maybe he should have just let somebody through security AT OUR US CAPITOL that he didn't recognize because he might create an incident by DARING to ask a black woman to "stop" at a security checkpoint.

oh, the horror!

the fact that the congressional black congress et al did NOT come to mckinney's defense is also strong evidence of her stupidity and arrogance

in this incident

[oasis]

72. Read post #29, where do I dispute the "so called" facts of the incident?

The response in that post challenges the veracity of the cops who you claim supported her before the incident.

[sgxnk]

73. right

so everybody that disputes your preconceived prejudice (opinion formed without evidence) is lying (has no veracity)

oh, so telling

[oasis]

74. Cops will lie to support/protect each other. That's not an "opinion

formed without evidence" it's a fact.

[sgxnk]

77. we are talking about

cops and their support or non-support of mckinney pre and post her stupidity

hardly an omerta incident

[oasis]

89. "What we are talking about" is what YOU said the cops told you. People

who offer up anecdotal accounts as "evidence" should expect to be challenged. You took the word of your fellow officers who said they supported Rep. McKinney before the incident.

And just because they're cops, we're supposed to believe them too.:eyes:

[sgxnk]

69. well

at least i now know of your preconceived prejudice against cops

so, that explains your position. it comes from prejudice

thanks for clarifying for me

[oasis]

71. I'm no more "prejudiced" against cops than you are against McKinney.

I'll borrow your terminology to help explain my position.;-)

[sgxnk]

79. there is no prejudice

in responding to a fact pattern and making reasonable conclusions

in this case, there is essentially NO dispute about the fact pattern. disinterested witnesses agree with the cops report, and with what mckinney admitted

the only facts in questions are as to intent

there is prejudice in making assumptions about people's veracity based on their race, gender, ethnicity, or profession

[oasis]

90. You said "COPS were 100% againsnt Cynthia now". It's making an assumption

that a cop's word has more credibility than an ordinary citizen. Is that the prejudice you're talking about?

[Ken Burch]

81. "many did before" yeah right

Like more than a handful of police officers in this country have ever been on the side of the poor against the rich, people instead of property, peace instead of war.

Christ, it was just a little shove. The guy was wearing kevlar. He probably didn't even feel it.

It just isn't enough to justify ending the career of a progressive hero and replacing her with a bland, silent nobody who has no principles.
It's eloquence being beaten by silent obedience. It's just sad.

No one who isn't a white reactionary could possibly celebrate the defeat of Cynthia McKinney. It would be a great day for Rush and O'Reilly but not for anyone with a soul.

[mojowork_n]

6. Clearly, you've got an agenda

Or you wouldn't have hammered the word "clearly" to death in your ungrammatical, un-punctuated, un-referenced, linked or substantiated rant.

Personally, I think all the capitol hill cops (it is a patronage job, so most all current staff are Republican party-appointed flacks and toadies) would recognize Cynthia in their sleep. They just pretended not to notice. Starting with the retiring Capitol Hill cop-in-chief -- who got his earliest training bashing heads at the '68 Chicago democratic convention -- this wasn't about dis-respecting any officer. Quite the reverse. It gave AM Hate-radio squawkers a free ride for their 'two-minute hates' for weeks and weeks. When Delay and Cunningham and Abramoff and others were leading the headlines.

[wyldwolf]

7. so using the word "clearly" means one has an agenda?

[hijinx87]

45. I think you are probably right, wyldwolf.

police unions all over georgia are endorsing her opponent,
who is a democrat, after all, and will almost definitely
win in november.

[sgxnk]

80. great point

this is not a dem/repub issue

or even a cop/senator issue

it's a (i did something stupid and criminal and i won't accept responsibility for it, but will instead pretend to be a victim and impugn a cop's credibility because i am too much of a power hungry coward to admit culpability) issue

...

or something

that's why the congressional black caucus was quick to distance themselves from her histrionics

[Ken Burch]

92. A "Democrat" who opposes a pull-out date on the war

And thus supports keeping our troops(among them the poorest of constituents)coming home in boxes forever.

This is someone DU people are thrilled to see coming to Congress?

We can assume the guy will be a bland, silent nobody there. That's what polite, obedient congressmembers turn out to be.

[WoodrowFan]

138. clearly! (NT)

[sgxnk]

9. the refuge of a scoundrel

it is the refuge of a SCOUNDREL and a sophomoric debate tactic to impugn somebody's motivations, when you can't dispute the facts

you want to see black helicopters when none are there

the dems CORRECTLY realized mckinney's claim was complete rubbish

cops realize the same

i am sure you are such a great mindreader that you "think" that ALL capital hill cops would recognize mckinney in their sleep (even when she totally changed her haircut and walked right past them)

the operative issue was this

she was told to stop by a police officer who did not (according to him, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt) recognize her AND she was not wearing her ID pin

she refused the lawful order, AND assaulted (albeit in a minor manner) the cop

THEN< she failed to take responsibility (if she did that, the case would be a nonissue imo) and instead tried to play the race card

she acted like a fool, dems and repubs alike recognized that (which is why they didn't rush to her side), she then retracted because even she realized she was acting like an idiot,

and now she is probably gonna pay the consequences

her bad

[Totallybushed]

10. Which bring us back to

my original point: You CANNOT win in a confrontation with an officer of the law.

I have a friend who is a part-time policeman in a small town. According to him, if he has to haul someone off to jail, say in a traffic incident, it doesn't matter to him if the case gets thrownn out by the judge later. THE IDIOT HAS STILL SPENT THE NIGHT IN JAIL, and he can't get that back.

[sgxnk]

13. the point is

you CAN win

i AM an officer of the law

if she had OBEYED the lawful order, and stopped. the cop would have verified her ID and she would have been on her way

as has happened hundreds of times with senators entering the capital

i have dealt with literally thousands of incidents where i gave a lawful order to stop (whether a traffic stop or otherwise) and shortly thereafter the citizen went on their way, whether it was a terry stop situation , a traffic stop, or whatnot

when people OBEY lawful orders, in the vast majority of incidents, the issue is a nonissue

the issue is that she had a legal duty to obey the lawful order to stop

you will note that no brief, or other proceeding has determined that the order by the officer for her to stop has been forwarded. clearly, that order was lawful

for pete's sake. we want security in our govt. buildings, and we so empower LEO's to secure that

THEN, when an LEO working the capitol (or is it capital?) building is doing his job, he gets accused of "racial profiling" for stopping somebody he does not recognize and who walked past the security checkpoint

again, what MADE it the issue it was, was her refusal to simply say "my bad"

which ,eventually she did, after her absurd attempt at playing the victim failed with nearly everybody. including a very many people who have been strong advocates for eliminating racial profiling

because they rightly realized that THIS case was clearly NOT such a case

and mckinney acted like an idiot

during, and more importantly, AFTEr the incident

furthermore, let;'s get real here. the LAST thing ANY capitol police officer (or any LEO) wants is to be involved in such a major media issue. the idea that he DID recognize her, but decided to stop her anyways, just "because" is so patently absurd it is laughable

[Totallybushed]

20. It seems to me that we are

saying the same thing in different ways.

She should NOT have confronted, let alone attacked the police officer. You CANNOT win when you do that.

[sgxnk]

22. oh yes

that i agree with

attacking police is a bad idea :)

[mojowork_n]

11. No, YOUR bad

There are no facts. There has been no trial, except for the Bushevik "show trial" that was held to disgrace Cynthia, as publically as possible, in the AM spectrum of the E-M band. This should have been a completely minor, pointless non-issue.

And using scurrilous debate tactics, yourself, to counter my request for:

A LINK, some documented PROOF, something besides the capitol hill cop b.s., hearsay and distortions.

But you didn't have any.

What utter, complete and total nonsense.

I should at least thank you for not going the 'tin-foil' hat route -- black helicopters just goes to show how far you're reaching to try and put this into an emotional, prejudicial context.

You failed.

[DCCyclone]

14. I think it's clear McKinney was in the wrong...

...from the mere fact that the Congressional Black Caucus wouldn't back her on this. Hell, they even backed William Jefferson after Jefferson was caught with $90K in bribe money in his freezer!

I used to live on Capitol Hill, for 11 years until a couple years ago, and my walking commute between my apartment and work took me past the U.S. Capitol Police headquarters everyday. I encountered Capitol cops a fair amount in my years as a Hill resident, even though I was just a neighborhood resident who didn't work on the Hill, and I have to say they struck me as the NICEST, most FRIENDLY law enforcement officers I've ever seen. And I say this as a man of color who gets enraged when I hear stories of racial profiling and police brutality.

Cynthia McKinney is a hothead with a short fuse and routinely overreacts to things, and this was just the latest embarrassing example of it. That's not to say there aren't quite a few hotheads in Congress, but at the least you can't be politically tone-deaf and must be measured in public behavior--but McKinney is just the gift that keeps on giving.

[sgxnk]

16. great post

what i see this issue as, is a classic issue of "privilege"

not racial or even class privilege, but the same kind of "i can do no wrong because i am XXXXX" arrogance we often see in high ranking figures, or celebrities, and CERTAINLY in politicians.

because mckinney is a senator, she simply thought the law did not apply to her, and there was no way a lowly cop could STOP her

she is not the first (lord knows) to act this way. the fact that she would do it so blatantly, in public, and then not even consider that she was in the wrong for quite some time is clear evidence to me of this attitude.

i don't think she had malicious intent at all. i truly think that she probably thought she WAS in the right, from the beginning.

which just goes to show the intoxicating effects of political power and privilege. we have seen this hundreds of times in the actions of very powerful people and documentation of same goes back thousands of years.

wasn't it caligula who had his HORSE appointed to the senate?

it's just an issue of arrogance, drawn from political power

it gets out of hand sometimes

[oasis]

46. Shouldn't cops be on your list of arrogant people in positions of power ?

BTW, McKinney is not a senator, she's a congresswoman representing Georgia's 4th district.

[Vidar]

78. Damned good point.

[fuzzyball]

27. As a person of color, your post deserves accolades....

But your skin color is of no concern to me. What I like is
your character which indicates you can think clearly, rationally
and do not brandish the "color card" to make excuses for your own
failures as rep. McKinney did.

[sgxnk]

15. false

there are plenty of facts. many of those facts were STIPULATED to by mckinney in her (way too late) apology

the underlying facts of the case are not in dispute. not by witnesses, not by mckinney, and not by the officer himself.

she ADMITTED same in her (i think it was her 3rd) statement

the only thing in dispute by people who want to see conspiracies and black helicopters (ie you) is whether or not the cop

1) actually DID recognize her , but wanted to stop her anyways because she was black, or he was a jerk, or whatever

2) did not recognize her

clearly, based on the fact pattern at hand, 2 is the more likely conclusion

furthermore, EVEN if (1) was the case, which is silly but assume for the sake of argument, she STILL had the LAWFUL duty to stop upon the order of the capitol police officer

period

that is a matter of law not in dispute

and she did not have the right assault him

those facts are not in dispute and are tangential to the issue of whether or not the cop recognized her

rule of law matters

[struggle4progress]

113. Clearly the grand jury declined to indict McKinney -- and indicting ..

.. is significantly easier than convicting: this rather suggests that that the situation may not have been as clear as you claim it was.

Lots of different kinds of people become police officers, and lots of different kinds of people get elected to Congress: in my experience, neither the fact of being in Congress nor the fact of being in uniform provides per se very much useful information about a person's credibility.

[seriousstan]

2. She will be trounced in the runoff election. Nobody to blame but herself.

It isn't the first time she sunk her own campaign.

[RangerSmith]

24. Oh, hide and watch who she'll blame

cause you can bet the farm that she will be screaming election fraud.

[seriousstan]

28. Why would you say that? She has no history of that...or does she.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2730773

[oasis]

30. Georgia uses Diebold machines. That's why Max Cleland lost.

[hijinx87]

42. very true.

she has lost reelection before for much the same kinds of
reasons.

[NaturalHigh]

5. Is her father blaming Jews again?

[lalajohns]

12. Not a nice comment!

Cynthia McKinney will just fine in the run off!

[hijinx87]

40. politics ain't about being "nice"

it's about winning.

and she is about to get pasted.

[MrBenchley]

51. Notice the anti-semitism is just ducky

It's pointing it out that's wrong...

[hijinx87]

64. I would reply to this . . .

but I am honestly not sure what it means.

[MrBenchley]

66. Sorry if it wasn't clear

It seems to bother the person you replied yto not even a tiny little bit that McKinney's father is publicly bigoted (McKinney's no picnic either--she's campaigned with Louis Farrakhan by her side.). The fuss is that somebody noted it out loud.

Evidently ranting about Jews is nice, but publicly raising an objection to someone ranting about Jews is not.

[wyldwolf]

25. well, there was GOOD news for McKinney

she got Andy Young's endorsement (who also endorsed Mark Taylor who, incidently, WON'T endorse McKinney)

[hijinx87]

41. the best news for cynthia . . . .

is that the undecideds (30%) exceed the amount she
trails in the polls.

I expect it to tighten up, but she will lose. big.

[MrsT]

26. It wouldn't suprise me if she lost

She has definitely made some mistakes.

[Doctor_J]

31. How are Hank's politics?

Closer to Cynthia or closer to Zell?

[hijinx87]

49. for what it's worth . . .

here is the issues section of his website. While it doesn't
say much, I must say, compared to mckinney's congressional
website, it is an encyclopedia of information.


http://www.hankforcongress.com/issues

[GAPeace]

105. McKinney's website is the house.gov one

the Campaign website isn't based on votes unlike her House website.

[Cookie wookie]

32. Makes me wonder why so many people want to get

rid of McKinney when she is one of the few who stands up for the people against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company.

Guess they want her out.

And BTW: what politician could stand up to the kind of scrunity and battering that McKinney gets in the media and even here.... None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

They want her out alright and they are getting lots of helpers from the high-and-mighty, self-righteous know it alls (without evidence), just give me some coporate news trash and I'll run with it crowd.

Disgust.

[beaconess]

33. Or maybe her constituents know her better than out-of-state bloogers do

Assuming that Cynthia McKinney's in trouble because she "stands up against" Bush et al, implies that her constituents in her own back yard are stupid pawns.

To the contrary - McKinney's constituents know her better than anyone else - especially those bloggers who are attacking them from afar as idiots - and if she loses it will be because they've decided that they don't want her representing them anymore.

[Cookie wookie]

59. I happen to be a constituent

And if she loses it will because people have been taken in like little fish to the media spin hook.

I'd just like to know what her oponent has going for him other than he's her opponent and made hay out of the bad press she got.

When I contact her, she listens and NO ONE ELSE DOES from my state.

When I contact her, she acts, and very few Democrats in Congress do.

What will he do? Anyone have a clue? Get along? Behave? Have good manners? Smile and be quiet? Go along with the crowd?

[beaconess]

86. You haven't been fooled but anyone who disagrees with you are stupid fish?

Oh, what a shame that everyone in Georgia's 4th is not as intelligent and impervious to being taken in by media spin as you.

[Cookie wookie]

87. I look at her record and what she does represents me and like-minded

others in Georgia on issues that are of vital importance:

Verified Voting
She's worked behind the scenes, even before she was re-elected 2 years ago, with us on the verified voting issue when Dems in the Legislature in Georgia were standing together in total opposition to vvpb (to protect Cathy Cox). I'd write to our legislators in Congress and get letters back assuring me paperless evoting was secure.

Cynthia listened, educated herself and acted:

McKinney Urges Inquiry Into Electronic Voting
Fourth-District Rep. Cynthia McKinney on Monday called for an investigation of the state's electronic voting machines, pointing to numerous problems with equipment failure, defects and software problems in the 2002 elections.
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6159

War in Iraq
She's been an outspoken critic of the administration on the war, when it was hard to find any Dems in Congress who would clearly stand up against this illegal, immoral war.

Destroying Iraq Isn't Enough for Bush, An Immoral and Illegal War, By Rep. CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Remarks at Chicago Anti-War Rally, March 19, 2005, http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney03222005.html

9/11
She's called for an investigation of when the president knew there was a threat, even though it meant losing her seat in Congress because of the smears that followed.

http://www.911truth.org/osamas/mckinney.html

McKinney reopens 9/11
Conspiracy theories implicating president aired at 8-hour hearing
Bob Kemper - Staff
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Washington --- Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack --- claims participants said the commission ignored.

"The commission's report was not a rush to judgment, it was a rush to exoneration," said John Judge, a member of McKinney's staff and a representative of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the Sept. 11 commission's report.
http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/news_241efd8d9666d13800b4.html

Stood up to Rumsfeld on Sex Rings, Missing Pentagon Trillions and 9/11 Games

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/240305mckinneygrills.htm

This is just a sampling of the countless times her voice has been there for me and others who sat with no one else to represent our concerns in the state and in Washington.

She hit a nerve when she went up against Rumsfeld, it appears. She's so outspoken I imagine they dogged her every day until they could find some mis-step they could magnify out of proportion in the media to bring her down. If everyone else in Congress got that kind of media battering, we'd have no one there (maybe a good thing). The powers that be don't want anyone in Washington mentioning all the unmentionable issues that she does. Why do we think everyone else is so silent or plays along so well. Because they are afraid that what happens to her will happen to them. As voters we do have the ability to show everyone in Congress that in our little district, we will not consent.

I hope others in the district will look at her record and draw the same conclusions and work to put her back in Washingtonn where she'll continue to serve our interests and those of other Americans whose voices are not being heard otherwise, at great personal risk to herself I might add.

[beaconess]

88. "Why do we think everyone else is so silent or plays along so well."

"Because they are afraid that what happens to her will happen to them."

Whatever you may think of Cynthia McKinney - and we clearly do not agree about her - John Lewis and Maxine Waters and John Conyers and Sheila Jackson Lee and the other 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who "remained silent" (and, in fact, pressed McKinney to back off) are not cowards.

And if any other Member of Congress had carried on the way she did when a Capitol Police Officer who failed to recognize them asked them to stop after skirting a metal detector (something I've personally seen happen to countless Members - all of whom simply stopped and said "I'm Congressman So-And-So" and went on their way after an apology from the officer), they, too would have been lambasted by the press.

McKinney doesn't take stands that many other Members of Congress - especially members of the CBC - don't take - she just wraps so many of her actions in bizarre behavior that detracts from her message that many folk find her to be much less effective than she should be. There's more to being an effective legislator and agitator than screaming, hurling accusations and calling people names - anyone can do that. But actually effecting change takes savvy, skill and judgment, attributes that many people believe that McKinney does not possess and seems unwilling to develop.

[hijinx87]

34. this could be a blessing in disguise

I would expect johnson to be as reliable a progressive
vote as mckinney, but without the unfortunate baggage.

and I could just hear kkkarl rove gearing up to make
her a campaign issue.

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Fair enough, but at what point do you stop running from

possible Rove targets?

[hijinx87]

38. easy.

you stop running from the rove targets that don't hand the
sonofabitch a loaded revolver.

look, I will miss her, but I would wager that after a year, you
wouldn't be able to tell the difference between his voting record
and hers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

44. Democrats caught 'blinking' are the only revolver Karl ever needed.

Did the war heros John Kerry or Max Cleland hand Karl a loaded (C Mac style) revolver? I don't think so.

This isn't about her challenger, he might be the second coming for all I know. :shrug: One thing is for sure though, He'll get no slack from Karl Rove.

[hijinx87]

52. several things . . . .

I read your posts, LMcG, and respect the hell out of
you. but . . . .

the challenger and the situation are both crucial.

cleland lost a statewide race in a very red state.

kerry, and this is as politely as I can put it, wasn't
the most exciting candidate we have ever nominated.

and my comment about KKKarl rove had nothing to do with
the georgia 4th. it had to do with making her a national
issue. and don't put it past him.

I am just tired of losing elections for stupid and
avoidable reasons.

[Awsi Dooger]

56. Excellent post

That's what I've tried to emphasize for years, different situations require different handicapping when choosing a candidate. Exactly right about Kerry. When you're trying to bump a presidential incumbent in the TV amd multimedia era, you need charisma and likeability, not a perfect resume. That's why I backed Edwards, beginning two years earlier. The personal factors are not quite as important in an open race, where the public weighs course of the nation and not, do I prefer this guy over the known quantity?

Cleland and Barnes lost a state that was turning more red than we realized, especially with the Ralph Reed GOTV blitz that year. DUers love to champion the pre-election polls in that Cleland race and ignore the early exit poll numbers that were leaked on the internet before VNS collapsed, and showed Chambliss with a 4 point lead.

Regarding McKinney, she once again ignored the variable that in a state with open primaries, a House member can't afford to enrage the other side, or they have the ability to tilt your next primary.

[hijinx87]

63. your point on open primaries is very well stated

georgia is a loss. we can win individual house districts, but it will
never turn blue. and we need to NOT stomp on our crank in relatively minor
house races. that's step #1.

but edwards is, practically speaking, a newbie. and paradoxically enough,
he ain't getting any less green as we go along.

we had better nominate the former gov of VA, or wesley clark. or we're
dead meat.

[Ken Burch]

83. Clark would be ok, but Warner would treat most of the party as the enemy

It would never be worth nominating somebody who is actually to Clinton's RIGHT.

You'd never know he was a Democratic president.

[wyldwolf]

84. LOL! No, a small faction of the party would treat Warner as the enemy

...just like they did, and still do, Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

91. The fact is, other than being slightly pro-choice and very pale green

Warner agrees with the GOP on everything that matters. He's even more conservative than Clinton.

Why even bother trying to elect the guy to be a Democratic president?
He'd keep us in the war forever and continue to destroy what remains of social services. He'd also be basically anti-union(I.E. pro "free-trade").

Warner's in the wrong party.

[wyldwolf]

103. Sure... right...

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

114. So, other than a mild display of scoffing...

You can offer no rebuttal to my point. Thanks for admitting that Warner is basically a Republican and thus not worthy of our party's nomination.

[wyldwolf]

119. you want to debate this? OK, lets go

First, a few guidelines:

Define "what matters."

Define what a conservative position is and a liberal position is on the issues "that matter" then explain why that is so. If Warner hold a position similar to that of Truman or JFK or even Clinton, why would anyone take your word over theirs on what the "Democratic" position should be.

C'mon. Let's do this.

[Ken Burch]

120. A conservative position is any position similar to Reagan/Bush/Bush.

A progressive position is one that takes the side of ordinary people against corporations, for peace against war(except for pre-World War II isolationism)for equality against greed.

As near as I can tell, Warner's positions are only progressive(and only moderately so at that)on reproductive choice and the environment. On defense, economics, trade, social justice, he pretty much takes positions putting business first, putting "free trade" before worker's rights, war before peace. We are supposed to swallow all this because he'd be "a Democratic president" when supposedly no one else could manage this.

And the fact that Truman and JFK took what most people would now see as conservative to openly right-wing positions on defense issues(positions that made the world situation, in general, far more unstable and confrontational)does NOT mean that those positions aren't right wing now.
Nor that Clinton's support for corporation-drafted "free trade" deals wasn't reactionary.

Nor that accepting right-wing rhetoric about the supposed immorality of the poor ceases to be reactionary simply because Clinton was a Democrat.

Now fire away.

[wyldwolf]

121. but what if that position is similar to Truman/Kennedy/Johnson/Carter?

All were proponant of free trade, muscular national defense.

Only the far left would see these position as "Republican" because Democrats held them first.

[Ken Burch]

122. They were seen as "Democratic" back then. So what?

Until 1964, "state's rights"(and we all know what THAT meant)were a Democratic position.
In 1860 absolute defense of slavery was a plank in the Democratic platform.
In 1844 and 1848 the party was perfectly willing to defend the theft of 1/3 of the territory of Mexico, and in the 1830's the party nominated a man(Andrew Jackson)who was basically guilty of genocide against Native Americans.

That a position was once held by Democrats does not mean it is still acceptable to hold that position today.

A Truman/JFK/Scoop Jackson defense policy commits us to Vietnam after Vietnam after Vietnam. A "free trade" policy commits us to the immiseration of the developing world through the imposition of massive austerity program.

I want a Democratic president who has learned from the past and will repeat none of its bloodsoaked mistakes. Is that "far left"?

It wouldn't be so bad if, at least, Warner were to support closing the School of the Americas or agree not to be hostile to progressive governments in Latin America. But we both know he won't do anything like that.

[wyldwolf]

123. they're still seen as Democrats by all but the hard left.

Do a poll OUTSIDE the netroots.

[Ken Burch]

124. Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming

majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals. Nobody but a few rich corporados EVER backed the FTA, NAFTA, CAFTA. And the reason why is obvious.
Those deals serve no one but the wealthy. The working class majority gets screwed.

Clinton hurt most of the Democratic base by pushing so hard for NAFTA. If he'd put in one tenth of the effort he used on that on health care, it woulda sailed through. Why was fighting for what corporations wanted so much more important than fighting for what the vast majority of the people wanted and still want(I.E., universal health care, single payer if possible)?

And the same thing holds true for the Iraq War. Even YOU have to admit that one was an absolute failure as policy by now.

[wyldwolf]

127. you're changing the subject

You said "Truman/Kennedy/Johnson/Carter were seen as Democrats back then..."

I said "they're still seen as Democrats by all but the hard left."

Going to pass that one right by? Hmmmm...

Anyway...

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals.

1. Program on International Policy Attitudes. Oct. 21-29, 1999. N=1,826 adults nationwide.

"Please tell me which of the following two statements comes closer to your point of view. (A) Free trade is a good idea, because it can lead to lower prices and the long term growth of the economy. (B) Free trade is a bad idea, because it can lead to lower wages and people losing their jobs."

Good idea 51%
Bad idea 44%
Don’t know 5%

"Do you think the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, has been good or bad for the United States?"

Good 44%
Bad 30%
Neither 7%
Don’t know 19%

2. Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. July 8-18, 2004. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.


Thinking about trade for a moment: In general, do you think that free trade agreements, like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, have been a good thing or a bad thing for the United States?" Upon request, respondents were read full name of NAFTA: "The North American Free Trade Agreement."


Good Thing 47%
Bad Thing 34%
Unsure 19%

Two polls I found at random seem to dispute your claim.

Clinton hurt most of the Democratic base by pushing so hard for NAFTA.

Realy? Got stats on that?

And the same thing holds true for the Iraq War. Even YOU have to admit that one was an absolute failure as policy by now.

I've always felt that way. :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

130. I didn't say that those Democratic presidents weren't considered

Democratic presidents anymore.

I said some of their policies would not be considered Democratic policies today. That's a huge difference.

And you cherrypicked one poll.

[wyldwolf]

132. come now, Ken

If you say, "They were seen as "Democratic" back then. So what?" Isn't the implication they are no longer seen as Democrats now? Why else would you write that if that wasn't the message. Must you play semantic word games? And in regards to the policies, why do Democrats who subscribe to such policies still get elected in large numbers if they or the policies are no longer seen as Democratic?

And actually I cherrypicked TWO polls - which is two more than you picked.

[Ken Burch]

133. In the name of clarity, let me state this: by "they", I meant the policies

I spoke of, not the presidents themselves, presidents who, unlike the DLC, were staunchly pro-union(and remember, if you're not staunchly pro-union, you really can't ask for the votes of working people with a clear conscience.)

As to why people who take such policies get elected? Well, they get big corporate money and they are slightly less horrible than the people they are running against.

But the question with Warner remains: Why SHOULD Democrats nominate someone who agrees with Republicans far more than he disagrees with them?
Why should the party go along with moving the political spectrum further and further right?

[wyldwolf]

135. hmmm...

presidents who, unlike the DLC, were staunchly pro-union(and remember, if you're not staunchly pro-union, you really can't ask for the votes of working people with a clear conscience.)

JFK wasn't staunchly pro-Union. Bill Clinton/Al Gore/Mark Warner/Tim Kaine/Hillary Clinton/ hell, the entire elected body of the DLC asked for and recieved the votes of the working people and did excellent by them.

But that isn't really what this is about. Try to avoid the following crutches: DLC, big money... oops, too late.

As to why people who take such policies get elected? Well, they get big corporate money and they are slightly less horrible than the people they are running against.

Ken, they get elected BIG. OFTEN. IN LARGE NUMBERS. Surely with all the money floating around in "progressive" circles these days and labor influence, that fact could surely change if the votes were there by the PEOPLE to get elected.

But the question with Warner remains: Why SHOULD Democrats nominate someone who agrees with Republicans far more than he disagrees with them?

They shouldn't. But that doesn't describe Warner... unless you have a head to head match-up sheet that compares them issue by issue that can prove you point. Do you?

Why should the party go along with moving the political spectrum further and further right?

Because the rightward direction is away from the left and back towards the center.

So, got those polls yet on trade agreements? Let's not forget that...

[Ken Burch]

139. the direction "back towards the center" is towards making elections

meaningless. Why bother to try to get anybody elected if you have to agree that things will stay pretty much the same no matter who wins?
Especially since the status quo leaves the poor out in the cold, leaves working people out in the cold, and simply preserves the dominance of the rich?

Elections should feature a Democratic candidate with convictions just as strong and clear as the GOP candidate...not a rich Southern boy with great hair who hates poor people as the candidate of both parties.

We all know that a Warner/Allen race in '08 would be a pathetic joke, since they agree on everything that matters.

[wyldwolf]

140. Ken - why do you make statements only to abandon them?

So far, you've said that the overwhelming majority of Americans (70%) disapproved of free trade agreements, but have abandoned that.

And you're still insisting that Warner agrees with the Republicans most of the time, but offer nothing to substantiate it.

All the populist/revolutionary rhetoric in the world ("hates poor people/a rich Southern boy with great hair/pathetic joke) won't change the fact that your arguments are thin and unsubstantiated.

[Ken Burch]

141. I haven't abandoned that. I'll now present some polls that do reflect my

conclusions on the unpopularity of "free trade".

Here's one from the 2004 election period, from a basically conservative "free trade" source, USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-23-free-trade_x.htm

[Ken Burch]

142. Here's another:

http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm

[Ken Burch]

143. And another(actually, several others in this case):

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/03/why-trade-is-next-big-issue.html

[Ken Burch]

144. And another:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_April_14/ai_n13609782

[Ken Burch]

146. And an analysis that totally discredits the Pew poll you cited.

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1201-14.htm

Obviously, being one country among many, we will be trading with other countries. But we don't have to do it on corporate power's terms. We can have trade that doesn't make life worse for the poor and the workers.
We just need to negotiate it that way.

[wyldwolf]

154. (sigh) - Ken... this article does not prove what you've asserted

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals.

[wyldwolf]

153. Where is that 70% percent figure in that poll?

I'll remind you again of what you asserted:

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals.

[Ken Burch]

156. The specific number isn't the point. You're being didactic.

You demand proof. When I provide it, you refuse to accept it. Your insistance on sourcing is thus discredited as nothing more than sophistry.

[wyldwolf]

158. Ken, it doesn't give an "overwhelming majority" either

You said:

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals.

Remember - you said EVERY POLL THAT HAS BEEN DONE shows an OVERWHELMING majority of the American opposed to free trade.

1. I've shown you two polls where that isn't the case. I could show you a third. Your point is nullified right there.
2. No poll you've shown shows an OVERWHELMING majority of the American opposed to free trade. How many have you shown that even show a slight majority opposed to free trade?

[wyldwolf]

152. Let me remind you again what you asserted:

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals.

[wyldwolf]

151. now, which one of these polls state what you've asserted?

I'll remind you again what you said:

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals.

THAT has already been proven false.

[wyldwolf]

145. unfortunately, Ken, that doesn't substantiate your point

you orignally said:

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed (to free trade.)

The poll you link to concentrates on Americans making more than $100,000 a year.


Now, do you have that head to head match-up on Bush and Warner yet?

[Ken Burch]

147. I'll have it later. But you know that Warner is to Clinton's right,

so my basic point isn't in dispute. We'd be nominating someone you'd never know was a Dem if we nominated Warner. And there's no reason to think such a candidate would do better than anyone else, since those who want conservatism on the major issues are never going to stop voting straight-ticket GOP, and such voters aren't the majority anyway.

[wyldwolf]

148. no, I don't know that ...

...and your basic point is very much in dispute.

We'd be nominating someone you'd never know was a Dem if we nominated Warner

I know Warner is a Dem.

And there's no reason to think such a candidate would do better than anyone else, since those who want conservatism on the major issues are never going to stop voting straight-ticket GOP, and such voters aren't the majority anyway.

That whole argument is predicated on the mistaken notion that Warner is a conservative.

I'll look forward to your REAL poll numbers and that head to head match up later. :)

[Ken Burch]

149. You didn't read the part where it said that support for "free trade"

had dropped among all groups, but especially among the highest income people(Y'know, the only ones who ever got anything out of it?).

And the series of polls I presented do show a large level of opposition to trade deals negotiated on the terms of multinational corporations.
Why don't we just scrap those deals and negotiate new ones that work for the good of all? Why does it have to be this approach to globalization and no other?

The rising tide doesn't lift all boats after all.

[wyldwolf]

150. yes I did. It still doesn't give the 70% figure or ...

...imply an "overwhelming" majority.

[Ken Burch]

155. The exact 70% figure isn't the point. The clear and solid majority

opposition is.

There's no reason to be a stickler on one number.

[wyldwolf]

157. Ken, it doesn't give a clear and solid majority, either

Every poll that's been done on "free trade" has had the overwhelming majority of the American people(usually about 70%)opposed to the corporate-drafted trade deals.

Remember - you said EVERY POLL THAT HAS BEEN DONE shows an OVERWHELMING majority of the American opposed to free trade.

1. I've shown you two polls where that isn't the case. I could show you a third.
2. No poll you've shown shows an OVERWHELMING majority of the American opposed to free trade. How many have you shown that even show a slight majority opposed to free trade?

[wyldwolf]

159. Ken, you should just give this point up

You said EVERY poll ever done show an OVERWHELMING lack of support from the American people on free trade. Just ONE poll that contradicted that would have rendered your statement false. Yet I provided two, and could provide others.

Even your "star" article, from USA Today, said:

the PIPA poll shows most Americans remain supportive, or at least tolerant, of free trade, but with big caveats. "They're not saying, 'put on the brakes,' " he said. "But they are saying, 'Don't step on the gas. Don't rush. We need to make adjustments. We need more time to adapt to these changes.'"

NO poll you've shown shows an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed, outright or otherwise, to free trade.

Why don't we move on to your other claim - that Warner is just like Bush?

[wiley]

55. I love that Clinton website, BTW

[Ken Burch]

96. And if he's a bland little silent centrist drone

You'd be happy with that, too. Even though that would mean he'd be useless.

[LincolnMcGrath]

97. Hank Johnson Ad on Daily Kos

As if Cynthia McKinney didn't suffer enough indignity when she dared to change her hairstyle, now her opponent, Hank Johnson, has a campaign ad on Daily Kos trotting out one of the most hackneyed woman-bashing tropes there is:

I wonder if any politician would ever make a reference to a male opponent's "shrill, polarizing politics"?

Note to Hank Johnson's campaign: Disagree with her views, her voting record if you want to, but don't embarrass yourself by stooping this low.


http://culturecat.net/node/1122

[Ken Burch]

98. Further proving my point.

Thanks for posting that, Lincoln.

[LincolnMcGrath]

99. Hey!, Neal Boortz loves Cynthia's opponent!

Say What?

[rinsd]

160. Yes, the old smear by association

If Johnson is a repubilican/conservative because Neil boortz( who in his mindless hatred of McKinney would likely support Ted kennedy should he run against her), does that make McKinney an anti-semite for hanging with Farrakan and her father's reprehensible comments?

I guess I should be happy that no one here is calling Johnson an "Uncle Tom" much like how Majette was treated.

[GAPeace]

112. He's a pro-Israel hawk being backed by the GOP like Majette

He's not an outspoken warrior who attends peace rallies and fights for indigenous people across the world.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hijinx87]

43. all of this is true.

but she played into their hands.

democrats have the deck stacked against them. they have to
do it better and cleaner than the other guy.

[LincolnMcGrath]

47. "but she played into their hands"

Is she under SEC investigation like Frist?

Has she been censured 3 times like Delay?

Is she tied to Jack Abramoff?

Has she tapped anyone's phone?

:shrug:

[hijinx87]

53. she did.

period.

she is smarter than this. she knew better, and even if she
didn't know better, she should have done better.

we can relax, though. the georgia 4th will be well represented
regardless. johnson's bona fides are unquestionable.

[Cookie wookie]

61. And just exactly what could she have done to avoid

their smears and scrutiny?

Crawl in a hole. No matter what she does she will be battered because she doesn't play nice with the fascist pigs.

[onenote]

75. so do a lot of other people

Maybe its that some people would like a more effective representative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2416868&mesg_id=2419425

[AtomicKitten]

36. Like all other races,

it will be sorted out in the primary. May the best candidate win.

[xchrom]

48. but with the history of rigged elections in recent years

we have no reason to believe that the sorting out will be legitimate.
if it is close.

[AtomicKitten]

50. sad but true

I have this horrible feeling that the Connecticut primary will be monkeyed with in some way. I read that some Republicans tried to change party registration to vote in the Dem primary, but it was too late; there are always those that routinely crossover vote anyway. But the truth is cheating has become not only so rampant but also so taken in stride that I wouldn't put it past either party to try to manipulate the vote to further their own agenda.

I just want a clean election. Period. For crissakes, is that too much to ask?

Feh.

[xchrom]

54. i have the same feelings about conneticut as you --

if the election is close -- i have no doubts it will go to lieberman.

and mckinney already lost one electon due to funny business.

so we'll see.

[hijinx87]

60. it was a primary

they were all democrats. and they will both be democrats in
the runoff.

[Vidar]

76. Sorry to hear this.

[Cha]

85. THis is Hank Johnson..

http://hankforcongress.com/

[Slaughtermeyer]

100. THIS is Hank Johnson's supporter.

Hank Johnson is Bush's choice in the runoff...IS HE YOURS?

The Business - Industry PAC of Washington, DC, whose president Greg Casey is a known Bush supporter, gave $1000 to Johnson's campaign.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00418293/224360/sa/ALL

[LincolnMcGrath]

101. Neal Boortz backs "Fair Tax” supporter Hank Johnson in Ga.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2748805&mesg_id=2748805

[SaveElmer]

137. And the following are in the employ of Rupert Murdoch...

John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Bill Bradley

[CatWoman]

102. today's AJC says they are in a dead heat

:shrug:

McKinney, Johnson in a dead heat

http://www.ajc.com

[GAPeace]

106. It'll be McKinney's working class base vs GOP voters

Just like in 2002. If she loses she'll still be a hero in the hearts of many, and will likely regain her seat in 2008.

[wyldwolf]

107. that was from the morning after the primary race

[CatWoman]

108. so why would they have it posted on today's paper?

I'm quite sure it would have been updated by now???

Do you live in my district?

[wyldwolf]

109. It's a video. Click it.

No, I live one district over.

[CatWoman]

110. I ask because your opinion of her borders on the personal

at any rate, today's coverage does not appear as dire as that original story:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/election06/electionpage.html

[wyldwolf]

111. So? What of the opinions of Joe Lieberman here?

Think they all live in CT?

I don't see anything at the link you gave that indicates at all how the race is going percentage-wise, except for the sams poll I put in the OP.

[Ken Burch]

126. There is no way that Cynthia deserves hostility equivalent to Lieberman

slapping a cop is not the moral equivalent of cheerleading for a senseless war and demonizing those who call for that war to be stopped.

And Cynthia is not responsible for the opinions of her father.

[wyldwolf]

128. sure she does

accepring money from people with terrorist ties. Big no no.

[GAPeace]

104. The Georgia Establishment has been after her for a long time

Unfortunately for the Establishment, she has built up tremendous support among the downtrodden and weak here and abroad. The fact that all Big Money and major media (including GOP endorsements of Johnson) are against her will be daunting -- it will be a fight to the end here.

[wyldwolf]

117. why has the bulk of her contributions come from out of state?

[Ken Burch]

125. Because she is a national and international symbol of courage and hope

Whereas Johnson is a symbol of nothing other than hairstyle attacks as a political strategy.

[wyldwolf]

129. then elect her for a national and international post

But she's currently a House member who's #1 priority is to her district.

[Ken Burch]

134. So House members have no right to speak out on the larger issues?

Where do you get that?

Does that mean, for example, that Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams had no right to speak out against the Mexican War when they served in Congress?

[wyldwolf]

136. sure they do

But McKinney's larger issues are grand 911 conspiracy theories and investigations into the death of a thuggish rapper.

[Capn Sunshine]

131. the AIPAC stooge who ran aginst her last time had the same result

They were passing the hat in both synagogues I attend, stating she was "anti-semitic " and a "terrorist sympathisizer"

Now, they've got others to do that for them.