Zogby: Romney Surges Ahead in New Hampshire

[Dos Equis]

Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:09 p.m. EDT
Zogby: Romney Surges Ahead in New Hampshire
 
Republican Mitt Romney has made an explosive leap ahead of his competitors in the first primary state of New Hampshire, jumping up to 35 percent support from 25 percent just a month ago.

Romney's surge leaves other top competitors John McCain, the senator from Arizona, and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in the dust, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The telephone survey shows Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York holds a small lead over Barack Obama of Illinois, with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards trailing behind — even as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has seen his support jump to 10 percent.

The poll, conducted May 15 and 16, 2007, included 500 likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters and 503 likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. The margin of error for each survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Romney, who also shows a small lead in Zogby International’s latest poll in Iowa, leads the GOP field in New Hampshire with 35 percent, and distances himself from McCain and Giuliani who are tied at 19 percent support. While Romney has surged ahead 10 points since Zogby’s April poll in New Hampshire, McCain has seen his support decrease from 25 percent, and Giuliani holds steady at 19 percent — the same level of support he received in last month’s poll.

While Clinton leads among Democrats at 28 percent, Obama is closing in at 26 percent and has shrunk her lead from 6 points in April to just 2 points in this latest New Hampshire survey.

Edwards lands in third at 15 percent support, falling from 23 percent support in Zogby’s April poll, even as Richardson surges ahead to 10 percent support, up from just 2 percent last month.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/17/151857.shtml?s=ic

[240 is Back]

you poo-poo'ed zogby when it polled on 911.


so they're suddenly a valid source, eh?


hypocrite!

[Dos Equis]

you poo-poo'ed zogby when it polled on 911.


so they're suddenly a valid source, eh?


hypocrite!

Ah shaddap.   

[OzmO]

you poo-poo'ed zogby when it polled on 911.


so they're suddenly a valid source, eh?


hypocrite!

Yeah what's up with that BB?   

[Dos Equis]

Yeah what's up with that BB?   

I am part of the 911 conspiracy.   

[OzmO]

I am part of the 911 conspiracy.   

I knew it!  You are getting paid by the government to squelch 9/11 CT hysteria aren't you?


j/k

[Dos Equis]

I knew it!  You are getting paid by the government to squelch 9/11 CT hysteria aren't you?


j/k

Guilty!  I am paid to be the antithesis of our resident 911 post whores.    

I am also one of OBL's body doubles.   

[240 is Back]

Guilty!  I am paid to be the antithesis of our resident 911 post whores.    

I am also one of OBL's body doubles.  

Could you give any less of a shit about your own country?

[Dos Equis]

Could you give any less of a shit about your own country?

Can't ya read?  I care a lot about my country.  Otherwise I wouldn't be getting paid by the government to quash this 911 CT nonsense. 

[240 is Back]

Can't ya read?  I care a lot about my country.  Otherwise I wouldn't be getting paid by the government to quash this 911 CT nonsense. 

The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony says the Official story is the nonsense one.

Anyway, you don't believe that a hyperforgetful attorney general puts our nation at risk.  Obviously you possess very poor judgment.

[Dos Equis]

The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony says the Official story is the nonsense one.

Anyway, you don't believe that a hyperforgetful attorney general puts our nation at risk.  Obviously you possess very poor judgment.

 And you believe the government faked the moon landing.  And that the government conspired to carry out the 93 WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the anthrax attacks, and that missiles were shot into the WTC on 911, complete with faked news coverage.  Oh, and that Timothy McVeigh was not really executed.  What did I miss? 

Now what were you saying about judgment? 

[egj13]

I shouldn't be mean, but as soon as I saw a picture of 240, I said to myself "if they ever asked me to describe the type of person that buys into CTs" I would have described a guy like that. Clearly just a young kid with to much time on his hands reading internet nonsense and buying into it.

[240 is Back]

Anyway, you don't believe that a hyperforgetful attorney general puts our nation at risk.  Obviously you possess very poor judgment.

You dodge this point...

[egj13]

You dodge this point...

No i don't think he puts our nation at risk. Like I said show me otherwise and I will come along.

[240 is Back]

No i don't think he puts our nation at risk. Like I said show me otherwise and I will come along.

Gonzales preps for a month straight to testify.

He forgets 45 times, under oath.

He spends a month straight reviewing the info, dates, times, emails, meetings, etc, to be refreshed... then he forgets it all on the stand.


No offense egj13, but the man is either grossly incompetent to the point of alzheimers, or he's lying.  So, the man in charge of the US Justice Dept is either lacking brain capacity, or he is capable of lying to Congress, the group he reports to regularly on highly important security info, cases, etc.

If you trust the life of you and your family to a man who 1) forgets major events he spent month studying, or 2) Lies boldface to Congress... then all the power to you.

I'd prefer a man who CAN remember what he did last week, and who CAN tell congress the truth.  But hey, I just have high standards like that.

[OzmO]

I don't see why this is even a point of debating.  He obviously lying and he's obvously covering up something.

where there's smoke ether is fire.  Now this fire may be insignificant but not to the degree that it would damage someone or something...otherwise why play dodge?

[Dos Equis]

I don't see why this is even a point of debating.  He obviously lying and he's obvously covering up something.

where there's smoke ether is fire.  Now this fire may be insignificant but not to the degree that it would damage someone or something...otherwise why play dodge?

Dude you've been snookered.  That is precisely what Democrats are trying to accomplish.  They are using the "wet noodle" approach:  throwing whatever they can on the wall and seeing what sticks.   

What is he covering up?  The firing of U.S. Attorneys to interfere with criminal investigations?  That was the (original) main thrust of this manufactured controversy.   

[OzmO]

Dude you've been snookered.  That is precisely what Democrats are trying to accomplish.  They are using the "wet noodle" approach:  throwing whatever they can on the wall and seeing what sticks.   

What is he covering up?  The firing of U.S. Attorneys to interfere with criminal investigations?  That was the (original) main thrust of this manufactured controversy.   

Then i wonder why he didn't just make 1 statement and said, "here is it is, i stand by it."

[Dos Equis]

Then i wonder why he didn't just make 1 statement and said, "here is it is, i stand by it."

He did.  I watched most of the Senate hearing and a large part of the House hearing.  In each hearing, there were two questions/observations that should have been the beginning and end of this matter:

1.  Did you fire any U.S. Attorney to interfere with a criminal investigation?  He answered unequivocally "no."  There is no evidence to the contrary. 

2.  He also said the prosecutions of various people, including Republican targets, are not handled by the U.S. Attorney, but by assistants who are not political appointees.  The departure of the U.S. Attorney has no impact on ongoing investigations/prosecutions in that office.  He said the offices are set up to withstand changes at the top.   

That about sums it up.  Where is the violation of the law?  I've actually said, repeatedly, that I'll jump all over him too if he fired those guys to interfere with a legitimate criminal investigation.  I haven't seen any evidence of this. 

All I've seen is a witch hunt.  A fishing expedition.  They had questions (likely prepared by Arnold & Porter) that were total set-up questions and it didn't matter what Gonzales said in response to those questions.  I thought both hearings were a circus. 

Don't forget Schumer's comment right after the hearing that this wasn't a "knock out blow, but I don't know the president keeps him after this," or something like that.  I think this is now largely about character assassination, partisan politics, and face-saving, because so many of them reached a conclusion and are now trying to justify that conclusion, without any facts to support it.   

If they believe the man committed a crime, convene a grand jury.   

Rant over. 

[240 is Back]

beach bum has low standards.


he's the kind of guy who would settle for a flavio when there are plenty of perfectly good shawn ray's out there.

[egj13]

Gonzales preps for a month straight to testify.

He forgets 45 times, under oath.

He spends a month straight reviewing the info, dates, times, emails, meetings, etc, to be refreshed... then he forgets it all on the stand.


No offense egj13, but the man is either grossly incompetent to the point of alzheimers, or he's lying.  So, the man in charge of the US Justice Dept is either lacking brain capacity, or he is capable of lying to Congress, the group he reports to regularly on highly important security info, cases, etc.

If you trust the life of you and your family to a man who 1) forgets major events he spent month studying, or 2) Lies boldface to Congress... then all the power to you.

I'd prefer a man who CAN remember what he did last week, and who CAN tell congress the truth.  But hey, I just have high standards like that.

If the dems wouldn't have started this we never would have heard about gonzales and our life would be the same as before

[240 is Back]

If the dems wouldn't have started this we never would have heard about gonzales and our life would be the same as before

hey man, you're cool with a forgetful liar being in charge of the agency which keeps us safe.

you didn't reach this position thru reason, so i sure as heck cannot reason you out of it.

[egj13]

hey man, you're cool with a forgetful liar being in charge of the agency which keeps us safe.

you didn't reach this position thru reason, so i sure as heck cannot reason you out of it.

Oh I reached it through reason. Like I said, you show me one instance where he had an impact on the operations of the US and I will see your side, but you can't. I'm not defending the guy and think he should step down because he didn't have the balls to stand up for himself. He should have said "I fired them, that was my right, leave me alone" but no he had to be a pushover and try to pass the buck. But how does it affect me? It doesn't so why care? I know what the problem is here though, no one on the internet has written anything for you to parrot about the subject so all you can do is call him forgetful. That is how you are, you read the internet all day and then parrot it here. Think for youself for once and ask yourself how this situation will effect you. It won't so why waste energy?