New Pew Research, Interesting

Divisions over Campaign Appearances by Obama, Palin

Just as in August, Republicans, Democrats and independents differ considerably about the impact of campaign appearances by Sarah Palin or Barack Obama – as well as a candidate’s affiliation with the Tea Party movement.

Nearly four-in-ten Republicans (38%) say campaign support from Palin would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, but 45% say it would make no difference. Just 12% say this would make them less likely to support a candidate.

Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) say a Palin appearance would make them less likely to vote for a candidate, up from 58% in August. By about four-to-one, more independents say Palin’s support would make them less likely to vote for a candidate than say it would make them more likely to do so (43% less likely, 11% more likely); 44% of independents say it would make no difference.
 
About half of Democrats (49%) say Obama’s campaign help would make them more likely to vote for a congressional candidate while just 10% say it would make them less likely to vote for that candidate (40% say it would make no difference). By contrast, Republicans view an Obama campaign stop as a considerable liability: 72% of Republicans say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if Barack Obama campaigns on his or her behalf. This is up from 57% in early August.

Among independents, 44% say that Obama campaigning for a candidate would make no difference to their vote; 32% say it would make them less likely to vote for that candidate while just 20% say that it would make them more likely to support that candidate.
............................................................................
Looks like backing from politicians on either side is not a big thing.

The biggest obstacle to change for the better is not Obama, Palin, etc. The single biggest obstacle to solving many of the country's problems is this:

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Spending, at least within congressional districts, still seems to be popular.

Yes through the bums out (whoever you think the bums are)...but unless you and I...and our neighbors overcome what was quoted...nothing of significance will ever change.

How typical of Americans today. They want everyone else to do without, as long as they've got theirs.

Careful ONO, you are sounding like a crazy liberal.


The government was never intended to be a handout source for the population.
You really think 99 weeks of unemployment is a good thing?
When I was working it was 26. Before that 13.

If you mean I've 'got mine' which consist of barely getting by as long as I cut out eating out, movies, new clothes, lunches and snacks, then yes, dear, I've got mine.
And you don't get any of it.

Actually, I was refering to "spending in congressional districts". Doesn't matter which side you are on, people hate earmarks and spending unless THEY are the ones benefitting from it.

I don't go to movies, buy new clothes or eat out. I don't have TIME! I DO however do pretty well in the snack department.

Ahh, agree there. I voted against Shelby for all his pork. Too bad the rest of Alabama voted for him.

There should be a limit that each congressman can only get one special project per year for his home state. Sometimes it can be a good thing. BUT it can't be a tribute to himself, like Charlie Rangel.

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
There should be a limit that each congressman can only get one special project per year for his home state.

How about if we actually limited them to what they are lawfully entitled to spend money on...Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution...

Whoops that would disrupt MY district's pork...can't have that.

Strict interpretation of that section would actually cause a few problems. Such as:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


And this one already has:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
Strict interpretation of that section would actually cause a few problems. Such as:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


And this one already has:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

No problems here...sounds good...bring 'em home.

And once again, if we demanded they only spent money on what has been constitutionally delegated to them...the credit problem would be much smaller.

DoD appropriations are renewed annually.

Thank you inter.

Now it makes sense.