Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Women in the Military?

2008-01-27T00:33:58Z

Mitrebox: /* I don't care, but... */

{{debate}}

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure the fifty+ female soldiers who have died in Iraq and the thousands others who serve will be glad to hear how unsuited they are for combat. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*Women should not be in combat or combat support, where there at risk of being captured or killed by the enemy. Male soldiers will, by nature, want to rescue them from danger, even at the cost of neglected strategically more important missions.
*We can try to train this protective masculine nature out of men, but it can only backfire. Israel and one European country tried using Women to fight, but it didn't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::I used to work for the Isreali army, and I would not like to fight against those female soldiers? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:: We don't have that problem in Canada; we allow our women in front-line combat roles. It is very likely that the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces] simply has superior training. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Does anyone remember the phenomenon of the 9-11 mom, who was the Dodge Caravan driving soccer mom on September 10, but turned into a war monger after the events of the following day? She put the Pubs back in control of the Senate in 2002 after that Jeffords nonsense, and started signing up in droves to trade in her purple SUV for an olive-green HMMWV. Woe to the intruder who discounts the she-bear and molests her cubs. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Yes''': One of the objections is that women don't have the upper body strength to lug an overloaded pack into combat. Well, this is the 21st Century, and no one should be lugging the kinds of packs they've made them lug around since World War One. Someone's got to lay that misguided tradition to rest. We've got Stryker brigades and uparmored humvees, you live in your vehicle and get out now and then to lay some hurt on the enemy. And you get women ready for that part by making the same physical test requirements for both genders. Same kind of pushups, same time on the 2.5 miles. Any woman who can't do what a man does, physically, washes out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not. Every person has the right to do what he/she feels. If a women wants to join the military beside the men, they should.

== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, how much is 37% of 1/3? Around 12% I reckon. But that's only of those seeking VA help - not a representative group. I hate this kind of cherry-picking of statistics.

On the other hand, fighting men are a surly lot, and I would not be surprised if military rape rates were significantly higher than civilian rates.

A more professionl article (not a sensationalist news story) cited different statistics:
*researchers found that 79 percent of participants reported experiences of sexual harassment during their military service; 30 percent of the women reported an attempted or completed rape. [http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2003/march/031103military-rape.html Iowa University]

The odd thing is that I think it's the same study! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Lets just remember Joan of Arc. Yeah, women should be in the military and we need to stop being so sexist.[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:03, 31 June 2007

To tell you the truth I don't care who is in the military as long as they get the job done. But if they can't, man or woman, they should not be there.

Fact is women are in the military. They just aren't specifically put in positions where they might see offensive combat. However, without front lines and with terrorists hitting support troops (supply, medical), women are in units more likely to be attacked. I've served with many of them and I've never seen a task they could not accomplish. My opinion is about the draft (selective service) If women are going to be in the military (and even run for president) they should be registered for the draft just like every man between 18 and 45. We haven't used it in 40 years and I'd guess 60% of all 18 year old males would be 'unfit' if we did, but women should be ''registered'' just like men. It'll never happen though because theres no political benefit to it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 19:33, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2008-01-27T00:33:06Z

Mitrebox: /* I don't care, but... */

{{debate}}

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure the fifty+ female soldiers who have died in Iraq and the thousands others who serve will be glad to hear how unsuited they are for combat. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*Women should not be in combat or combat support, where there at risk of being captured or killed by the enemy. Male soldiers will, by nature, want to rescue them from danger, even at the cost of neglected strategically more important missions.
*We can try to train this protective masculine nature out of men, but it can only backfire. Israel and one European country tried using Women to fight, but it didn't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::I used to work for the Isreali army, and I would not like to fight against those female soldiers? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:: We don't have that problem in Canada; we allow our women in front-line combat roles. It is very likely that the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces] simply has superior training. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Does anyone remember the phenomenon of the 9-11 mom, who was the Dodge Caravan driving soccer mom on September 10, but turned into a war monger after the events of the following day? She put the Pubs back in control of the Senate in 2002 after that Jeffords nonsense, and started signing up in droves to trade in her purple SUV for an olive-green HMMWV. Woe to the intruder who discounts the she-bear and molests her cubs. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Yes''': One of the objections is that women don't have the upper body strength to lug an overloaded pack into combat. Well, this is the 21st Century, and no one should be lugging the kinds of packs they've made them lug around since World War One. Someone's got to lay that misguided tradition to rest. We've got Stryker brigades and uparmored humvees, you live in your vehicle and get out now and then to lay some hurt on the enemy. And you get women ready for that part by making the same physical test requirements for both genders. Same kind of pushups, same time on the 2.5 miles. Any woman who can't do what a man does, physically, washes out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not. Every person has the right to do what he/she feels. If a women wants to join the military beside the men, they should.

== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, how much is 37% of 1/3? Around 12% I reckon. But that's only of those seeking VA help - not a representative group. I hate this kind of cherry-picking of statistics.

On the other hand, fighting men are a surly lot, and I would not be surprised if military rape rates were significantly higher than civilian rates.

A more professionl article (not a sensationalist news story) cited different statistics:
*researchers found that 79 percent of participants reported experiences of sexual harassment during their military service; 30 percent of the women reported an attempted or completed rape. [http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2003/march/031103military-rape.html Iowa University]

The odd thing is that I think it's the same study! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Lets just remember Joan of Arc. Yeah, women should be in the military and we need to stop being so sexist.[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:03, 31 June 2007

To tell you the truth I don't care who is in the military as long as they get the job done. But if they can't, man or woman, they should not be there.

Fact is women are in the military. They just aren't specifically put in positions where they might see offensive combat. However, without front lines and with terrorists hitting support troops (supply, medical), women are in units more likely to be attacked. I've served with many of them and I've never seen a task they could not accomplish. My opinion is about the draft (selective service) If women are going to be in the military (and even run for president) they should be registered for the draft just like every man between 18 and 45. We haven't used it in 40 years and I'd guess 60% of all 18 year old males would be 'unfit' if we did, women should be ''registered'' just like men. It'll never happen though because theres no political benefit to it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 19:33, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Does History Matter?

2008-01-27T00:13:28Z

Mitrebox: /* Geography */

[[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who was closer to being right?

==Henry Ford: "history is bunk"==
If ''"...the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today"'', than who's to say the history we make today will be cared about by our children? ;-). If we don't care about history now, than none of our descendants will care about us. Of course even if we do care about history, there's still a huge chance they still won't care about their past. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:22, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I say let the govrnment take the history books and make their own history, then preach it to us [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"==
The perfect example of this is the nation of Israel. Fortunately though, we've got a good God. Even when Israel was disobeying God and repenting again... over and over again, God was still faithful to His promises. And if we repent and put our trust in Him alone, we can avoid repeating those bad things in history. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"==
While this is the classic Wikipedia model, I hope Conservapedia can avoid being condemned to repeat this bunk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::"Vulgas vult decepi" -Phaedrus 15BC-50AD. Translated as "The people wish to be deceived."--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:40, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

==Other Perspectives==
If history doesn't matter, why don't we just make it so this wiki no longer stores the history of the pages that are created and edited ;-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Who is this guy above?...what a joker :) my point is this:
History is a thing of the past hahahahahaha...seriously though, history is important and I think that if history is discarded then we not only remove the career option of archeologists etc, but also, people who have done great and brave things will be discarded also and things like the Holocaust should certainly not be forgotten as we must recognise this as a very terrible time.
What about things like the 'Tower of Freedom' and its purpose of marking the dreadful day of the terror attack on the Twin Towers...are we really going to discard that...are we going to discard the Somme, D-Day, Napoleon, Stalin, The Beatles, yes The Beatles were a rock group but they have had a massive impact on the world...think about it, Liverpool firmly on the map, Strawberry Fields...Penny Lane...yes, an impact they have made.
Also, to prevent disasters from happening such as the Mnt St Helens eruption, many lives could have been saved if only someone had looked at historical records of this volcanoe's previous eruptions and how they have occured and what happpened during the eruption.
History is important in court cases and such if something has just been uncovered even though it may have happened decades ago.
Are we able to discard history should be the question and the only answer to that is simple...NO!!!
[User: bealecr] 16:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nobody cares about history==
Hell, look at Afghanistan. You can go back to the 1700s or 1980s to see that nobody can win there. Or, re Iraq, you can go back to the 1970s and Vietnam and see that you can't "liberate" a country that (with substantial justification in both cases) sees you simply as a self-interested neo-colonial oppressor.

Or you can just go to the local library, fire up the microfiche machine and look at the past 50 years of gun crime in the US. At least Australian Prime Minister John Howard outlawed assault rifles after Martin Bryant massacred all those people in Port Arthur in 1996.

What's the next blast from the past we can look forward to from the US? Witch burnings, perhaps, or simply some good, old-fashioned lynchings (though they'd be Mexican illegal immigrants this time, no doubt). Perhaps California, Oregon and New York should secede. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think he means essentially "conquer". Obviously, if no outside country can "win", the Afghanis must be "winning" the wars of invasion/colonization/conquest etc. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If that's the meaning, then the basic premise is flawed. The US and NATO are not trying ot "conquer" Afghanistan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Afghan history shows that any try from outside to conquer the country by military finally failed completely. Some success can definitely be reported regarding humanitarian support and building up basic infra structure, which surely needs protection through police forces and sometimes even military forces. Surely no perfect story and still much left to be done. The economy, i.e. farming is still mainly based on opium poppy. But even when slow, some progress has definitely been achieved. The number of children going to school sky rocketed, the number of girls in particular. So, history can teach you a lesson, but it cannot replace your own thinking. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:40, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Everything matters ==
How will you know where your going unless you know where you've been. Archaeological history, the history of the sun, moon, earth, ...etc. How else could people plan for the future unless they knew the history of the past. Which is why any historian worth their salt will get their information from multiple sources, archaeological artifacts and/or sites, and anthropological studies. History most definitely doesn't mean anything to those who try to rewrite it for selfish reasons. Such as political or assorted ideological purposes and used as propaganda to further their own agendas. Of which you will no doubt denote many examples of on this debate subject.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
We can learn from it.

Only from America could this question arise.
- of course context matters
- and of course we can learn from those who have gone before us

Mate...I totally agree!! In America, history is important too. Example: If someone had bothered to look at the history of Mnt. St. Helens' eruption, they would've realised that it will blow sideways. If they had but checked this, then many more lives would've been saved.
I can't believe that apparently nobody cares about their history, about the sacrifices people made so that we could be alive today. Just less than 100 years ago and again in 1939, thousands of brave men risked it all, laid down their lives so that we may speak English that we would retain our cultures, our pride, even so that we may live today and I'm sure they didn't do all this so that some idiot could say that they didn't care about history. Whoever that was is an ignorant pig and no I don't think that this view about the person is without evidence. I truly can not believe that someone thinks it appropriate to not recognise the importance of history, as history has shaped us, shaped whole cultures, whole countries, shaped the entire world.

==History *does* matter.==
There are things in history that should NEVER EVER be forgotten. If "history does not matter", this technically would encompass things such as the second world war, or the reasons that lead to it; also forgotten would be the sacrifices millions of people made during that war, and all the inhumane atrocities carried out by people of those times: Nazi Germany´s horrifying human experiments, the Japanese-carried out atrocities in China, Soviet Russia and all the "good" their communist ideals did to the world, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Actually, "history" would technically encompass even the events of the Bible.

Still some of you dare say "History does not matter?" [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Coming in contact with other cultures one will notice a lot of differences. Which way is right is often a moot discussion, in particular when neglecting the historical background of these differences.

==Yes!==
As Winston Churchill said, "If we do not study history we are doomed to repeat it". Also from a Christian's perspective, we can learn about God's grace, sovereignty, etc. from history, and it helps us understand other cultures and religions. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:25, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

NEVAR FORGET. Seriously though, history is crucial to morality and civilisation - but only so long as it is accurate. So many conflicts in the world today could be resolved if only people had access to unfiltered accounts of their people's histories, as both victims and aggressors. When it becomes warped and distorted to suit an ideology, revisionist history can be every bit as poisonous as organised religion. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Geography==
If history matters its only because geography made it so. History and Geography/Geology invariably linked. Look at any historical event or any current event.
:The city of Venice, founded in a swampy marsh because Milanese (descendent's of Romans) were being attacked by barbarians. Found the marsh easily defensible.
:Discover of America, Columbus searching for a quick way to Asia
:Liberation of Kuwait 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait seizing (then)25% of the worlds oil reserves.
:California, population quickly surged because of the Gold Rush, spawning statehood, more general westward expansion and a Trans-Atlantic railroad.
:The state of Utah, Mormons chased out of Missouri, settled at an 'oasis in the desert', would have likely been chased out of California.

People who don't know history don't know geography either, both are '''important''' even though their effects are so large they are not entirely self evident with regard to the daily lives of individuals.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 19:11, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Does History Matter?

2008-01-27T00:11:27Z

Mitrebox: /* Geography */

[[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who was closer to being right?

==Henry Ford: "history is bunk"==
If ''"...the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today"'', than who's to say the history we make today will be cared about by our children? ;-). If we don't care about history now, than none of our descendants will care about us. Of course even if we do care about history, there's still a huge chance they still won't care about their past. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:22, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I say let the govrnment take the history books and make their own history, then preach it to us [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"==
The perfect example of this is the nation of Israel. Fortunately though, we've got a good God. Even when Israel was disobeying God and repenting again... over and over again, God was still faithful to His promises. And if we repent and put our trust in Him alone, we can avoid repeating those bad things in history. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"==
While this is the classic Wikipedia model, I hope Conservapedia can avoid being condemned to repeat this bunk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::"Vulgas vult decepi" -Phaedrus 15BC-50AD. Translated as "The people wish to be deceived."--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:40, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

==Other Perspectives==
If history doesn't matter, why don't we just make it so this wiki no longer stores the history of the pages that are created and edited ;-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Who is this guy above?...what a joker :) my point is this:
History is a thing of the past hahahahahaha...seriously though, history is important and I think that if history is discarded then we not only remove the career option of archeologists etc, but also, people who have done great and brave things will be discarded also and things like the Holocaust should certainly not be forgotten as we must recognise this as a very terrible time.
What about things like the 'Tower of Freedom' and its purpose of marking the dreadful day of the terror attack on the Twin Towers...are we really going to discard that...are we going to discard the Somme, D-Day, Napoleon, Stalin, The Beatles, yes The Beatles were a rock group but they have had a massive impact on the world...think about it, Liverpool firmly on the map, Strawberry Fields...Penny Lane...yes, an impact they have made.
Also, to prevent disasters from happening such as the Mnt St Helens eruption, many lives could have been saved if only someone had looked at historical records of this volcanoe's previous eruptions and how they have occured and what happpened during the eruption.
History is important in court cases and such if something has just been uncovered even though it may have happened decades ago.
Are we able to discard history should be the question and the only answer to that is simple...NO!!!
[User: bealecr] 16:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nobody cares about history==
Hell, look at Afghanistan. You can go back to the 1700s or 1980s to see that nobody can win there. Or, re Iraq, you can go back to the 1970s and Vietnam and see that you can't "liberate" a country that (with substantial justification in both cases) sees you simply as a self-interested neo-colonial oppressor.

Or you can just go to the local library, fire up the microfiche machine and look at the past 50 years of gun crime in the US. At least Australian Prime Minister John Howard outlawed assault rifles after Martin Bryant massacred all those people in Port Arthur in 1996.

What's the next blast from the past we can look forward to from the US? Witch burnings, perhaps, or simply some good, old-fashioned lynchings (though they'd be Mexican illegal immigrants this time, no doubt). Perhaps California, Oregon and New York should secede. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think he means essentially "conquer". Obviously, if no outside country can "win", the Afghanis must be "winning" the wars of invasion/colonization/conquest etc. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If that's the meaning, then the basic premise is flawed. The US and NATO are not trying ot "conquer" Afghanistan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Afghan history shows that any try from outside to conquer the country by military finally failed completely. Some success can definitely be reported regarding humanitarian support and building up basic infra structure, which surely needs protection through police forces and sometimes even military forces. Surely no perfect story and still much left to be done. The economy, i.e. farming is still mainly based on opium poppy. But even when slow, some progress has definitely been achieved. The number of children going to school sky rocketed, the number of girls in particular. So, history can teach you a lesson, but it cannot replace your own thinking. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:40, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Everything matters ==
How will you know where your going unless you know where you've been. Archaeological history, the history of the sun, moon, earth, ...etc. How else could people plan for the future unless they knew the history of the past. Which is why any historian worth their salt will get their information from multiple sources, archaeological artifacts and/or sites, and anthropological studies. History most definitely doesn't mean anything to those who try to rewrite it for selfish reasons. Such as political or assorted ideological purposes and used as propaganda to further their own agendas. Of which you will no doubt denote many examples of on this debate subject.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
We can learn from it.

Only from America could this question arise.
- of course context matters
- and of course we can learn from those who have gone before us

Mate...I totally agree!! In America, history is important too. Example: If someone had bothered to look at the history of Mnt. St. Helens' eruption, they would've realised that it will blow sideways. If they had but checked this, then many more lives would've been saved.
I can't believe that apparently nobody cares about their history, about the sacrifices people made so that we could be alive today. Just less than 100 years ago and again in 1939, thousands of brave men risked it all, laid down their lives so that we may speak English that we would retain our cultures, our pride, even so that we may live today and I'm sure they didn't do all this so that some idiot could say that they didn't care about history. Whoever that was is an ignorant pig and no I don't think that this view about the person is without evidence. I truly can not believe that someone thinks it appropriate to not recognise the importance of history, as history has shaped us, shaped whole cultures, whole countries, shaped the entire world.

==History *does* matter.==
There are things in history that should NEVER EVER be forgotten. If "history does not matter", this technically would encompass things such as the second world war, or the reasons that lead to it; also forgotten would be the sacrifices millions of people made during that war, and all the inhumane atrocities carried out by people of those times: Nazi Germany´s horrifying human experiments, the Japanese-carried out atrocities in China, Soviet Russia and all the "good" their communist ideals did to the world, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Actually, "history" would technically encompass even the events of the Bible.

Still some of you dare say "History does not matter?" [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Coming in contact with other cultures one will notice a lot of differences. Which way is right is often a moot discussion, in particular when neglecting the historical background of these differences.

==Yes!==
As Winston Churchill said, "If we do not study history we are doomed to repeat it". Also from a Christian's perspective, we can learn about God's grace, sovereignty, etc. from history, and it helps us understand other cultures and religions. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:25, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

NEVAR FORGET. Seriously though, history is crucial to morality and civilisation - but only so long as it is accurate. So many conflicts in the world today could be resolved if only people had access to unfiltered accounts of their people's histories, as both victims and aggressors. When it becomes warped and distorted to suit an ideology, revisionist history can be every bit as poisonous as organised religion. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Geography==
If history matters its only because geography made it so. History and Geography invariably linked. Look at any historical event or any current event.
:The city of Venice, founded in a swampy marsh because Milanese (descendent's of Romans) were being attacked by barbarians. Found the marsh easily defensible.
:Discover of America, Columbus searching for a quick way to Asia
:Liberation of Kuwait 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait seizing (then)25% of the worlds oil reserves.
:California, population quickly surged because of the Gold Rush, spawning statehood, more general westward expansion and a Trans-Atlantic railroad.
:The state of Utah, Mormons chased out of Missouri, settled at an 'oasis in the desert', would have likely been chased out of California.

People who don't know history don't know geography either, both are '''important''' even though their effects are so large they are not entirely self evident with regard to the daily lives of individuals.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 19:11, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Does History Matter?

2008-01-26T23:59:43Z

Mitrebox: Start new topic

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-01-26T22:46:10Z

Mitrebox: /* Democratic Strategy */

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice-President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice-President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election (unless former Vice President [[Al Gore]] runs.) In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

== Republican Strategy ==
[[Image:Republican candidates.jpg|right|thumb|400px|The Republican candidates; Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, John McCain and Duncan Hunter]]
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]]

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]]
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections -- particularly if the Republicans nominate [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], or another candidate associated with one of those states.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical. The Republican candidate will need to force the Democrats into a vote on the current issues, highlighting experience and being in touch with the views of the average American on issues such as immigration, taxes, and National Security.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===
[[Image:HillaryC.jpg|right]]
Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]]

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Possible Democratic Party Candidates ===
VP [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]]

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref>

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]] <ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

==Third parties==
New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. If he runs, he could put in over one billion dollars of his own money into the race.

Former Congresswoman [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated for voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html]

[[Michael C. Smith]] is a [[Libertarian]] candidate.

==Opinion polling==
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus===
The first caucus was the [[Iowa Caucus]], which happened both for the Democrats and Republicans on January 3, 2008. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barrack Obama]], who barely beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| [[Barrack Obama]]
| 38%
|-
| [[John Edwards]]
| 30%
|-
| [[Hillary Clinton]]
| 29%
|-
| [[Bill Richardson]]
| 2%
|-
| [[Joseph Biden]]
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barrack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| [[Mike Huckabee]]
| 34%
|-
| [[Mitt Romney]]
| 25%
|-
| [[Fred Thompson]]
| 13%
|-
| [[John McCain]]
| 13%
|-
| [[Ron Paul]]
| 10%
|-
| [[Rudy Giuliani]]
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-01-26T22:43:42Z

Mitrebox: /* Democratic Strategy */

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice-President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice-President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election (unless former Vice President [[Al Gore]] runs.) In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

== Republican Strategy ==
[[Image:Republican candidates.jpg|right|thumb|400px|The Republican candidates; Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, John McCain and Duncan Hunter]]
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]]

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]]
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections -- particularly if the Republicans nominate [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], or another candidate associated with one of those states.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. The Republican candidate will need to force the Democrats into a vote on the current issues, highlighting experience and being in touch with the views of the average American on issues such as immigration, taxes, and National Security.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===
[[Image:HillaryC.jpg|right]]
Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]]

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Possible Democratic Party Candidates ===
VP [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]]

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref>

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]] <ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

==Third parties==
New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. If he runs, he could put in over one billion dollars of his own money into the race.

Former Congresswoman [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated for voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html]

[[Michael C. Smith]] is a [[Libertarian]] candidate.

==Opinion polling==
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus===
The first caucus was the [[Iowa Caucus]], which happened both for the Democrats and Republicans on January 3, 2008. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barrack Obama]], who barely beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| [[Barrack Obama]]
| 38%
|-
| [[John Edwards]]
| 30%
|-
| [[Hillary Clinton]]
| 29%
|-
| [[Bill Richardson]]
| 2%
|-
| [[Joseph Biden]]
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barrack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| [[Mike Huckabee]]
| 34%
|-
| [[Mitt Romney]]
| 25%
|-
| [[Fred Thompson]]
| 13%
|-
| [[John McCain]]
| 13%
|-
| [[Ron Paul]]
| 10%
|-
| [[Rudy Giuliani]]
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-01-26T22:42:39Z

Mitrebox: /* Democratic Strategy */

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice-President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice-President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election (unless former Vice President [[Al Gore]] runs.) In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

== Republican Strategy ==
[[Image:Republican candidates.jpg|right|thumb|400px|The Republican candidates; Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, John McCain and Duncan Hunter]]
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]]

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]]
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections -- particularly if the Republicans nominate [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], or another candidate associated with one of those states.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. The Republican candidate will need to force the Democrats into a vote on the current issues, highlighting experience and being in touch with the views of the average American.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===
[[Image:HillaryC.jpg|right]]
Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]]

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Possible Democratic Party Candidates ===
VP [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]]

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref>

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]] <ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

==Third parties==
New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. If he runs, he could put in over one billion dollars of his own money into the race.

Former Congresswoman [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated for voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html]

[[Michael C. Smith]] is a [[Libertarian]] candidate.

==Opinion polling==
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus===
The first caucus was the [[Iowa Caucus]], which happened both for the Democrats and Republicans on January 3, 2008. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barrack Obama]], who barely beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| [[Barrack Obama]]
| 38%
|-
| [[John Edwards]]
| 30%
|-
| [[Hillary Clinton]]
| 29%
|-
| [[Bill Richardson]]
| 2%
|-
| [[Joseph Biden]]
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barrack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| [[Mike Huckabee]]
| 34%
|-
| [[Mitt Romney]]
| 25%
|-
| [[Fred Thompson]]
| 13%
|-
| [[John McCain]]
| 13%
|-
| [[Ron Paul]]
| 10%
|-
| [[Rudy Giuliani]]
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-01-26T22:40:55Z

Mitrebox: /* Democratic Strategy */ Kuchenich out - Gravel not first tier

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and will end on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice-President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice-President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election (unless former Vice President [[Al Gore]] runs.) In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

== Republican Strategy ==
[[Image:Republican candidates.jpg|right|thumb|400px|The Republican candidates; Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, John McCain and Duncan Hunter]]
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}}

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]]

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]]
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections -- particularly if the Republicans nominate [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], or another candidate associated with one of those states.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit all time highs as recently as October 2007). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. The Republican candidate will need to force the Democrats into a vote on the current issues, highlighting experience and being in touch with the views of the average American.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===
[[Image:HillaryC.jpg|right]]
Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]]

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Possible Democratic Party Candidates ===
VP [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]]

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref>

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]] <ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

==Third parties==
New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. If he runs, he could put in over one billion dollars of his own money into the race.

Former Congresswoman [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated for voting against the [[Iraq War]] and arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, is considering bid on the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]] ticket. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62891,00.html]

[[Michael C. Smith]] is a [[Libertarian]] candidate.

==Opinion polling==
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus===
The first caucus was the [[Iowa Caucus]], which happened both for the Democrats and Republicans on January 3, 2008. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barrack Obama]], who barely beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| [[Barrack Obama]]
| 38%
|-
| [[John Edwards]]
| 30%
|-
| [[Hillary Clinton]]
| 29%
|-
| [[Bill Richardson]]
| 2%
|-
| [[Joseph Biden]]
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barrack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| [[Mike Huckabee]]
| 34%
|-
| [[Mitt Romney]]
| 25%
|-
| [[Fred Thompson]]
| 13%
|-
| [[John McCain]]
| 13%
|-
| [[Ron Paul]]
| 10%
|-
| [[Rudy Giuliani]]
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

Secure Fence Act of 2006

2008-01-26T20:56:35Z

Mitrebox: 700 is in the source listed

'''The Secure the Fence Act of 2006'''(HR 6061 PCS) was a bill passed by the [[109th Congress]] and signed by the President [[George W. Bush]] in an attempt to secure the [[United States]]' southern border through physical means.

The act included the following provisions:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061026-1.html</ref>

*Authorizes the construction of almost 700 miles of additional fencing along our Southern border;
* Authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting to help prevent people from entering our country illegally;
* Authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.

Although the Act was passed and signed into law in October 2006, The [[Department of Homeland Security]] has delayed the construction process. Eighteen months after the act was passed only fifteen miles of fence was constructed along the southern border with [[Mexico]].<ref> http://www.americanpatrol.com/07-FEATURES/070826-FENCE-FIBS-EXPOSED/070826-AsISeeItGS_.html</reF>

==External Links==
[http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/immigration/securefenceact2006.html Full Text of the Secure the Fence Act of 2006]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Law]]

Flat tax

2008-01-26T20:49:52Z

Mitrebox: reflist

'''Flat Tax''' is a single low [[tax]] rate, which is coupled with the elimination of all or most exemptions, on all taxpayers.

The Flat Tax, as far as modern politics are concerned, was first popularized by [[Steve Forbes]] in his 1996 Presidential Primary campaign.<ref># Steve Forbes, 2005. Flat Tax Revolution. Washington: Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0-89526-040-9</ref>

Democrats often cite that the current [[Income tax]] as ''Progressive'' as it increases the rate paid by the taxpayer as income increases. Flat Tax supporters call that unfair and state that the Flat Tax treats all tax payers equal as it has one single bracket.

==See also ==

*[[Formula Grant]]
*[[Front]]
*[[Gender Gap]]

[[Category:United States Government]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Flat tax

2008-01-26T20:49:21Z

Mitrebox: Flat Tax - Steve Forbes, - one tax bracket

User talk:DeanS

2008-01-26T20:31:53Z

Mitrebox: Thanks for the welcome

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list]
</blockquote>

{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | No Ping-ponging Conversations!
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Archive Policy
|-
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.
|}

[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Team ==

Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Learn_together and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agreee? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:Yes, I agree. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::Excellent my friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:16, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.''

First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)

:Good. How about if you make a team page where we can collaborate on our efforts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)

::Good idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Please use:

[[Featured articles]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:10, 13 December 2007 (EST)

::: Any suggestion to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)

::::[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)

: Any comment about the actual list? Which do you think could be next one? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:: [[Jesus Christ]] would be my choice. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:50, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==[[Genocide]]==

This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Present ==

Have a present:

[[Image:Crocoite.jpg]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:Gracias Joaquín y Feliz Navidad a ti. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:50, 24 December 2007 (EST)

==Image==
Great link to the 360º image from Everest! Incredible view. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Fox! Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:32, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Webcam links ==

These webcam links are very interesting! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Dan! I found a link on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318306,00.html Fox News - Links to Webcams Around the World] that has other great links we can add to our articles. I'm going to be taking a break from editing soon, so feel free to peruse the views and add some to Conservapedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:29, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:: Excellent material. Good work! Have a happy new year, too! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Fantastic blocks ==

Fantastic blocks, Crocoite! God bless you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:Thank you Andy :) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Contest4 ==

Crocoite, we need you in Contest4. Can you join it? In particular, your front-page edits and archiving are terrific. Please add your name at [[Conservapedia:Contest4]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:40, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Andy, thanks for the invite. Due to work commitments seven days a week now, I will have limited participation. Good luck with the contest! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Good work with our team page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Brian. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::I will get around to tallying my running total today; twice I've done it and neglected to remove a certain four letter word from one of the blocks I did, causing the spam filter to block my score page edit :D I am always a bit busier on Shabbat, but I will try to do more shortly. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks Fox. I also asked the judges - [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Contest4&curid=56045&diff=374556&oldid=370777 How many points for adding categories to images] since I know we both added cats yesterday. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::Yeah, I saw; I think that 2 is justified, as they are getting two or three cats added, and it can be slightly harder to figure exactly where - as an image - they belong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Mine were really easy, since I just added 1 cat each + I just used the cat from the article the image links to; of course 2 pts each would be nice ;-). I'll leave it to the judges to decide before I score the pts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:27, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Great work in the contest :) Much appreciated [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Fox!. I wanted to do more, but that's all I could do considering I've been working seven days a week. Thanks to you and the rest of our team, we won again! Of course, in the end, Conservapedia is a much better place due to the efforts from both teams. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:07, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:I voted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 11:22, 24 January 2008 (EST)
==Wow==
Lol - usually, after I put a delete tag on an article, at least a few seconds go by before it's deleted - but you got it in a split second! Great job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Iduan. You're making a lot of positive contributions to this site. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:59, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for the welcome ==

While I realize its bot driven and has all the sincerity of a mass mailing I would like to say thanks. I just discovered this site and I'm almost ecstatic to be here. Finally an internet community that gets it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 15:31, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Income tax

2008-01-26T20:27:26Z

Mitrebox: /* Other Taxation systems */

'''Income tax''' is a [[tax]] levied by [[government]] on the [[income]] of individuals and businesses. The income tax came to the [[United States]] by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]] to the [[Constitution]], and is levied by the [[Internal Revenue Service]]. [[Republican|Republican]] politicians, believing in a smaller, more efficient, and less expensive government, work hard to cut income taxes.

===Year 2007 income brackets and tax rates===

An individual's marginal income [[tax bracket]] depends upon their income and their tax-filing classification. [[As of 2007]], there are six tax brackets for ordinary income (ranging from 10% to 35%) and four classifications: single, married filing jointly (or qualified widow or widower), married filing separately, and [[Head of Household (Tax)|head of household]].
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right"
|-
! width=75 | Marginal Tax Rate
! width=150 | Single
! width=150 | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er)
! width=150 | Married Filing Separately
! width=150 | Head of Household
|-
!10%
| $0 – $7,825 || $0 – $15,650 || $0 – $7,825 || $0 – $11,200
|-
!15%
| $7,826 – $31,850 || $15,651 – $63,700 || $7,826 – $31,850 || $11,201 – $42,650
|-
!25%
| $31,851 – $77,100 || $63,701 – $128,500 || $31,851 – $64,250 || $42,651 – $110,100
|-
!28%
| $77,101 – $160,850 || $128,501 – $195,850 || $64,251 – $97,925 || $110,101 – $178,350
|-
!33%
|$160,851 – $349,700 || $195,851 – $349,700 || $97,926 – $174,850 || $178,351 – $349,700
|-
!35%
|$349,701+ || $349,701+ || $174,851+ || $349,701+
|}

An individual pays tax at a given bracket only for each dollar within that bracket's range. For example, a single taxpayer who earned $10,000 in 2007 would be taxed 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,825th dollar (10% × $7,825 = $782.50), then 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,826th dollar to the 10,000th dollar (15% × $2,175 = $326.25), for a total of $1,108.75. Notice this amount ($1,108.75) is lower than if the individual had been taxed at 15% on the full $10,000 (for a tax of $1,500). This is because the individual's marginal rate (the percentage tax on the last dollar earned, here 15%) has no effect on the income taxed at a lower bracket (here the first $7,825 of income taxed at 10%). This ensures that every rise in a person's pre-tax salary results in an increase of their after-tax salary, contrary to the popular misconception that being bumped into a higher tax bracket reduces after-tax income.

==States and Local Municipalities==
Most states and even some cities asses a tax on income, further increasing the amount of money withheld before a worker even sees their paycheck.

==Other Taxation systems==
Other state and national proposed tax systems include the Flat Tax and the Fair tax
*[[Flat Tax]] - creates a single income tax bracket that applies equally to all Americans
*[[Fair Tax]] - eliminates the income tax in favor of a consumption tax, most often proposed as a ~23% National Sales tax

==Sources==
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap12.htm

[[Category:Economics]]

Income tax

2008-01-26T20:26:39Z

Mitrebox: Income tax brackets - example calculation - local - alternatives (Flat/Fair)

'''Income tax''' is a [[tax]] levied by [[government]] on the [[income]] of individuals and businesses. The income tax came to the [[United States]] by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]] to the [[Constitution]], and is levied by the [[Internal Revenue Service]]. [[Republican|Republican]] politicians, believing in a smaller, more efficient, and less expensive government, work hard to cut income taxes.

===Year 2007 income brackets and tax rates===

An individual's marginal income [[tax bracket]] depends upon their income and their tax-filing classification. [[As of 2007]], there are six tax brackets for ordinary income (ranging from 10% to 35%) and four classifications: single, married filing jointly (or qualified widow or widower), married filing separately, and [[Head of Household (Tax)|head of household]].
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right"
|-
! width=75 | Marginal Tax Rate
! width=150 | Single
! width=150 | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er)
! width=150 | Married Filing Separately
! width=150 | Head of Household
|-
!10%
| $0 – $7,825 || $0 – $15,650 || $0 – $7,825 || $0 – $11,200
|-
!15%
| $7,826 – $31,850 || $15,651 – $63,700 || $7,826 – $31,850 || $11,201 – $42,650
|-
!25%
| $31,851 – $77,100 || $63,701 – $128,500 || $31,851 – $64,250 || $42,651 – $110,100
|-
!28%
| $77,101 – $160,850 || $128,501 – $195,850 || $64,251 – $97,925 || $110,101 – $178,350
|-
!33%
|$160,851 – $349,700 || $195,851 – $349,700 || $97,926 – $174,850 || $178,351 – $349,700
|-
!35%
|$349,701+ || $349,701+ || $174,851+ || $349,701+
|}

An individual pays tax at a given bracket only for each dollar within that bracket's range. For example, a single taxpayer who earned $10,000 in 2007 would be taxed 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,825th dollar (10% × $7,825 = $782.50), then 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,826th dollar to the 10,000th dollar (15% × $2,175 = $326.25), for a total of $1,108.75. Notice this amount ($1,108.75) is lower than if the individual had been taxed at 15% on the full $10,000 (for a tax of $1,500). This is because the individual's marginal rate (the percentage tax on the last dollar earned, here 15%) has no effect on the income taxed at a lower bracket (here the first $7,825 of income taxed at 10%). This ensures that every rise in a person's pre-tax salary results in an increase of their after-tax salary, contrary to the popular misconception that being bumped into a higher tax bracket reduces after-tax income.

==States and Local Municipalities==
Most states and even some cities asses a tax on income, further increasing the amount of money withheld before a worker even sees their paycheck.

==Other Taxation systems==
Other state and national proposed tax systems include the Flat Tax and the Fair tax
*Flat Tax - a single income tax bracket that applies equally to all Americans
*Fair Tax - eliminates the income tax in favor of a consumption tax, most often proposed as a ~23% National Sales tax

==Sources==
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap12.htm

[[Category:Economics]]

George W. Bush

2008-01-26T20:14:31Z

Mitrebox: /* Economic issues */ Tax Cuts - spawned largest increase in total reciepts ever- IRS at all time high

{{President
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|seq=43
|term_start=January 20, 2001
|term_end=Present
|party=Republican
|vp=Dick Cheney
|previous=Bill Clinton
|next=Incumbent
|birth_date=July 6, 1946
|birth_place=New Haven, Connecticut
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Laura Bush
|spouse2=
|religion=United Methodist
}}
'''George Walker Bush''' (born New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In 2004 Bush won reelection, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000 <ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref>. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

== Foreign policy ==
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. In his [[State of the Union]] address on January 29, 2002, he asserted that an "[[axis of evil]]" consisting of [[North Korea]], [[Iran]], and [[Iraq]] was "arming to threaten the peace of the world" and "pose[d] a grave and growing danger".<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html Presidential State of the Union Address] [[January 29]] [[2002]].</ref> Since then, the Bush administration has pursued military action in [[Afghanistan]] and, more controversially, in [[Iraq]], with the stated aims of eliminating threats to United States security and combating [[terrorism]].

===Afghanistan===
On October 7, 2001, US and [[Australia]]n forces were deployed in [[Afghanistan]], then governed by the [[Taliban]], an extremist [[Islamic]] government. They initiated a [[bombing]] campaign which led to the Taliban losing control of [[Kabul]], Afghanistan's capital city, on November 13. By December 2001, an "Afghan Interim Authority" had been installed, led by current Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]].<ref>[http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm Fact Sheet], Center for Defense Information, 2002-02-14</ref> The stated aims of military action in Afghanistan were to topple the Taliban and to eliminate or capture key leaders of the terrorist group [[al-Qaeda]], as well as destroying all al-Qaeda bases and activities in Afghanistan. However, al-Qaeda leader [[Osama bin Laden]] escaped a battle in December 2001 in [[Tora Bora]] and has not yet been successfully captured.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16 U.S. Concludes bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight], The Washington Post, 2002-04-17</ref>

Despite the US troops' early success in removing them from power, the Taliban was regrouping and amassing funds and recruits by 2003.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html?related Taliban Appears to be Regrouped and Well-Funded], Christian Science Monitor, 2003-05-08</ref> In 2006, offensives against the Taliban such as [[Operation Mountain Thrust]] attained limited success.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=285 World Cannot Give Up On Afghanistan, Coalition Officials Say], US Department of Defense, 2006-02-28</ref> The Taliban remain a major threat to security in Afghanistan today, with US and allied troops working alongside the Afghan government of [[Hamid Karzai]] to combat the Taliban.

===Iraq===

Egyptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and President Bush] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. September 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref>

In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, </ref>

== Economic issues ==
Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the tax on estates. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Since the tax cuts, IRS revenues have actually increased from $1.78 Trillion in 2003 to $2.56 Trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007. Corporations show profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the Capital Gains Tax, with a subsequent surge in investment.

== Family ==
[[Image:GWBush.jpg|thumb|300px|right|President Bush admires pictures of his family in the Oval Office.]]
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of leukemia.

==Faith==
George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a Bible I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref>

==Polls==

When President George W. Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies including the [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]] have become unpopular. <ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, he reached the lowest popularity levels of any president in history, with an approval rating of only 24% as shown by a [[Reuters]] poll (although respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with the [[Democrat]]-controlled [[Congress]], which received poll ratings of only 11%).<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Political people]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
{{USPresidents}}