" Century Fox Post"

'The Internet World Newspaper'
.
........
.
____________________

EDITOR'S DESK

Marilyn Monroe Almost Naked

Candice Swanpoel's Hot Body

Sizzling Celebrities!

First Indian To Bare For Playboy

Joanna Krupa's Sexy Car Wash

Crazy Fans Of Euro 2012

Pamela Anderson's Style Evolution

Top Detox Foods

'Rosie Huntington' Bra Mania

Meet The Sexy Kate Upton!

HOUSE OF THE WEEK

Showing posts with label U.S Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S Elections. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 October 2012

Top 10 Debate Moments Of U.S Elections


The course of presidential election can change in a second onstage. Here are 10 moments that mattered.

Ronald Reagan: warming to the cold war warrior; For America, there will always be a bright new dawn ahead; Shepard Sherbell/CORBIS SABA
Ronald Reagan was one of the most successful debaters of modern times.

Kennedy - Nixon (1960): The first debate
In the first nationally televised presidential debate, then-Senator John F. Kennedy proved the power of “optics” by edging then-Vice President Richard Nixon mostly on the basis of appearance.
Although both candidates performed well in the debate itself, Kennedy simply looked better - he wore makeup, which Nixon declined to do, and the senator’s dark blue suit looked much better on black-and-white TV than his opponent’s light grey one.
Having trailed slightly in the polls, Kennedy emerged with a lead. Nixon tried to correct his optics issues for subsequent debates, but the damage was done: Kennedy never surrendered the edge he had gained.
-
Ford - Carter (1976): No Soviet domination of Eastern Europe
In perhaps the most bizarre moment in presidential debate history, incumbent and front-runner Gerald Ford made a misstatement so big that it is thought to have cost him the election.
Responding to a question about the growing influence of communism in France and Italy, Ford insisted that “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be.”
When the confused moderator haltingly asked for clarification, Ford doubled down, saying that Warsaw Pact nations like Poland and Romania were “autonomous” and free from Soviet influence.
-
Reagan - Carter (1980): There you go again
In the 1980 election, there was only one debate, and Ronald Reagan’s ease in front of the camera shone through.
In this clip, President Jimmy Carter calls Governor Reagan an opponent of Medicare, but Reagan confidently laughs off the attack, chiding, “There you go again” before jumping into his rebuttal.
With one phrase, the challenger had won the debate. The line effectively mocked the President and blunted his accusation at the same time.
-
Reagan v Mondale (1984): youth and inexperience
Just as he had done against Carter in 1980, Reagan showed his ease in front of an audience and disarming sense of humor in his debate with 1984 opponent Walter Mondale
At 73, Reagan was already the oldest president in history, and some had expressed doubts about his fitness to lead the country in a time of crisis. Asked about the issue, Reagan said he had no doubts about his own fitness, and further promised not to use the “youth and inexperience” of his opponent against him.
Even Mondale, then a spry 56, had to laugh. He later said he knew “that was the end of my campaign.”
-
Bentsen v Quayle (1988): you’re no Jack Kennedy
In his vice-presidential debate with Senate colleague Lloyd Bentsen, Dan Quayle, then just 41, equated his experience in government to that of the late John F Kennedy.
Bentsen, a long-serving Democrat, was clearly offended. He quickly responded: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
The Texan senator’s coolness and mature poise left Quayle looking miffed - and outmatched. In the end, though, Bentsen’s great line had no effect on Bush/Quayle’s lead in the polls.
-
Dukakis v Bush (1988): death penalty
The real failure of Bentsen’s down-ticket debate heroics may have simply been that he was Michael Dukakis’ running mate.
In his second debate with George HW Bush, Dukakis was asked (as the opening question, brutally enough) whether he’d favour capital punishment if his wife were murdered. Dukakis barely paused before saying “No,” and launching into a canned statement regarding the ineffectiveness of the death penalty.
The manner of his answer, if not the substance, struck the wrong chord with voters, who were surprised at his emotionless response. Dukakis went on to a resounding defeat at the polls.
-
Clinton v Bush v Perot (1992): No experience
In 1992, Ross Perot, a tech industry billionaire, became the most successful non-major party presidential candidate in 80 years, campaigning mostly on a platform of deficit reduction. Although he led the polls in June, Perot had fallen to a distant third by October.
The first debate brought the upstart candidate back in a big way. Responding to his opponents’ jabs at his lack of experience, Perot shot back, “Well, they’ve got a point. I don’t have any experience at runnin’ up a $4 trillion debt.”
The quip played perfectly to Perot’s appeal as a Washington outsider, and he went on to win an impressive 19 per cent of the popular vote.
Clinton v Bush (1992): How has the national debt affected you personally?
During a town-hall style debate in 1992, President Bush and Governor Clinton were asked by an audience member how the recession had affected them personally.
Bush struggled to answer the question, at first speaking about his grandchildren and eventually saying that it wasn’t fair to assume that he didn’t understand the recession just because it hadn’t affected him directly.
Clinton pounced on the weak response, earnestly relating how his time as governor of a small state meant that “when people lose their jobs, there’s a good chance I’ll know ‘em by their names.” The contrast of Clinton’s empathetic tone with Bush’s defensive answer helped cement national dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
-
Bush v Gore (2000): the nod
Unlike most of our debate moments, this one’s not a quote, per se, but rarely has body language encapsulated an entire campaign so well.
In a town-hall style debate during the 2000 election, Al Gore completed a statement by asking his opponent, George W Bush, whether he supported a specific bill. As Bush, standing, began to respond, Gore got up and began to walk toward him, stopping a foot or two away. Gore stared at him, but Bush calmly turned and acknowledged his opponent with a confident nod before continuing his remarks.
The moment exemplified both candidates’ facility with public speaking: Bush was easygoing and folksy (often, later, to a fault), while Gore was uncomfortable, sometimes visibly so, under such a bright spotlight.
-
Biden v Palin (2008): Can I call you Joe?
Even more than Bentsen vs Quayle, Biden vs Palin in 2008 was a contrast between experience and novelty. Biden was a six-term Senator and former presidential candidate himself, while Palin had been governor of Alaska for less than two years.
As the two strode out on stage and shook hands, a microphone picked up their conversation. The young Alaskan Governor, meeting Biden for the first time, asked, “Hey, can I call you Joe?” Naturally, the ever-affable Biden responded that she could.
It was neither a gaffe nor a zinger, but a genuine moment of personal chemistry that stuck with audiences longer than any of the policy questions either candidate answered.

Akin's Apology    Obama's Remarks  White House     Medicare     U.S      Religion     CBO    Voters Undecided    Clint Eastwood          


Edited By Cen Fox Post Team

Monday, 1 October 2012

Fairness Will Win The Debate And Win The Election


The usual hype is that each presidential election presents us with the clearest and most important choice we will ever face. For this once, the hype just happens to be true. The candidates, Obama and Romney, offer sharply contrasting agendas on how much the goal of achieving fairness should inform our policy and tax decisions.
It turns out that fairness is very much hardwired into our human nature. Darwin said that if you want to understand human psychology, you should study baboons and babies, not books of philosophy. Chimps and monkeys tell us an intriguing story that elucidates who we are and may provide a valuable tip on who will win this election. They love cucumbers and carrots and will work hard at complex tasks to earn them -- but they love grapes even more. If a chimp gets used to being upgraded to grapes as a reward, he will disdainfully refuse the previously very desirable cuke or carrot and may even angrily throw it back at the experimenter. And a chimp will similarly reject proffered cukes if he sees another nearby chimp being differentially rewarded with grapes. The obvious message to the experimenter, and to us, is- 'you must play fair'.
Pretty interesting stuff. But then it gets really fascinating. If you pair two chimps within sight of each other, and shortchange just one of them with cucumbers, the other will sometimes stand up for his buddy by rejecting his own portion of grapes. These chimps -- let's call them the Democrats -- are not only demanding fairness for themselves -- they want fairness for their buddies. Altruistic fairness doesn't always prevail, but, under the right conditions, it is inherent to the chimp make-up -- and to ours.
Human beings have both capacities -- we can be ruthlessly selfish or selflessly fair. Whether we listen to our better angels or act like hyenas at the carcass depends on context and circumstance and person. Starvation selects for selfishness, but some people are selfless even when starving -- while others stay selfish even when sated. For most of us (but not all), a point is reached where grapes become less sweet if we are the only ones who get to have them, while our fellows are having a very hard time of it. We then do the fair thing-perhaps a cucumber or carrot will do the trick for us if this means our buddies will also get something to eat.
Fairness certainly has its limits. Complete equality works only for hunters and gatherers- it doesn't stand up to the huge accumulation of surplus wealth that came with agriculture, exploded with the industrial revolution, and is now being greatly expanded by globalization. The bigger the pie, the more unequally it will be split. That's inevitable- human nature, economics, and political science all dictate that substantial inequality is here to stay. We have done the experiment- the utopian dream of a completely equal society turned inevitably into a communist nightmare.
But unfairness also has its limits. The net worth of the top 1% of U.S. citizens is $8.4 million -- 69 times the median for everyone else at $121,000. And the gap is rapidly widening under trickle down policies that don't ever really trickle down and taxation that hits the secretary with a higher rate than her boss. Latest example -- the 1 percenters have reaped 93% of the income gains accruing from the recovery that occurred after the deep recession caused by them through greedy financial manipulations.
There are reasons to think we are now at a tipping point and headed back to some semblance of greater equity and common sense. The unfairness has become too blatant to ignore and its economic consequences too devastating to accept. The apologists for extreme inequality (this means you, Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, et al) have badly overplayed their hand in fashioning the Romney/Ryan ticket and in exacting a no-new-tax-on-the-super rich pledge from the Republican party.
Romney is the perfect poster boy for excessive wealth acquired through legal tax evasion. His unwillingness to be transparent about his previous tax returns and questionable offshore accounts turn dry statistics into an in-your-face reality -- the modern successful robber baron. Ryan is the fashioner of a radically draconian budget that deeply cuts services for everyone so that the top 1% can acquire an even more outsized share of our national net worth.
This ticket has too much baggage to fly.
Romney has attacked Obama for wanting to redistribute wealth, trumpeting that this is not the American way. He has it backward. In fact, an actual redistribution of wealth has already been going on for thirty years -- wealth taken from the middle class and given to the super rich. Obama is just trying to bring things back toward the traditional distribution that applied before the Bush tax giveaways to the 1%. Failing empires often suffer from precisely this kind of reckless greed- which always winds up destroying the economy and rending the social fabric. As a country, we must choose to return to the much better balance we have maintained for most of our history from Jackson to Reagan -- with just occasional destructive detours for faux gilded ages like the one we are in the midst of now
Obama is the moderate trying to restore the longstanding American traditions of fairness and social mobility. The Romneys, Ryans, and Kochs are not at all conservative in the real sense of wanting to conserve hallowed American traditions. They are instead radicals in sheep's clothing, trying to further rig an already rigged deck so as to further favor the already favored very few. If our economy is to thrive and our polity to remain resilient, we must reduce what is becoming a really outlandish extreme of inequality.
I predict that the first presidential debate will crystallize the stakes in this election and serve as prelude to an unexpected landslide victory for fairness. The issue is not just that Romney is an inept spokesman and lackluster debater (he is both) -- it goes beyond the medium to the stale snake oil in the message. As Abraham Lincoln said -- "you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
The apologists for inequality have tried every gambit in their bag of tricks -- blame Obama for Bush's disastrous wars, deregulation, and deficit spending; question Obama's birth, faith, and loyalty; and (most shamefully) obstruct centrist policies for political gain, even at the expense of national interest.
Against this distracting calumny, Obama will argue the simple and indisputable point that we need to share the sacrifice and split the pie more fairly if we are to thrive as an economy and cohere as a nation. A considerable degree of unfairness is an unavoidable part of life -- but beyond a certain point, it is a luxury the US and our people can no longer afford. We the people want a fair deal.


Edited By Cen Fox Post Team

Sunday, 30 September 2012

Romney Supporters: "Forget The Polls, Romney Will Win"


Add polling data to the growing list of things Republicans and Democrats don’t see eye to eye on.
With Barack Obama, by the reckoning of most polls, surging ahead of challenger Mitt Romney in recent weeks, many prominent Republicans have begun questioning the methodology, and the motives, of the pollsters. The skepticism has trickled down to the local level.
At Romney’s Sept. 28 rally at Valley Forge Military Academy—a state where he faces, according to election forecaster Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, an 8.6 point deficit and has just a three percent chance of winning—each of the attendees Patch spoke with expressed the view that recent polling data isn't an accurate reflection of the state of the race.

Poll Dance

Sharon Kanze is among the dubious. The problem, to her mind, is this: it’s a broadly accepted political truism that voters are more likely to support candidates who they perceive as doing well. So left-leaning pollsters, aided by members of the media with sympathetic views, have gamed the system to give the president a reelection nudge.
“That’s why I think they’re being manipulated in that direction,” the Romney supporter explained from her spot in line outside the academy. “The press is just so pro-Obama.”
Polly Beckham, a Romney volunteer out of Ambler, doesn’t have quite as fully-formed views as Kanze’s about the hows and whys of the polling problem, but she shares her sense that there’s a growing disconnect between how the race is being reported and the actual facts on the ground.
“I work in the Conshohocken Ryan/Romney office, and I talk to people. I’ve had people on the line who have said, for instance, a Democratic leader in Aliquippa, said ‘I’m so sick of this environment, I’m voting Republican.’”
She added, “There’s a lot going on below the surface. I think we’re about even in Pennsylvania.”
Brian Peppel, the head of the Phoenixville Republican Committee and a key player in Romney’s Chester County campaign, said, polls aside, there are other important indicators that auger well for his candidate.
Because TV ads are prohibitively expensive in Pennsylvania, both campaigns have focused on the “ground game”—old-fashioned, get out the vote efforts—and in that area the Romney team, Peppel says, is well ahead of the competition.
“The voter contacts we’ve made in Chester County have surpassed the last two elections already. And we’re leading the nation in voter contacts and get out the vote efforts,” he said.
“Pennsylvania is in play, despite what people are saying.”

Bad Intentions, or Just Bad Technique?

Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-6), who spoke at the rally, told Patch he thinks the polls are off, but attributed their shortcomings more to bad methodology than ideology.
“[Pollsters] are using the wrong turnout model in their polling. If you’re using the 2008 turnout models, you’re using the wrong models, because Republicans have more voter intensity right now than Democrats. That’s the opposite of what it was four years ago,” said the congressman who is, by measure of the very polls he criticized, a heavy favorite to return to Washington for his sixth term.
Gerlach also threw cold water on the notion that the impression of a lead in a campaign necessarily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“I’ve been in this before, it cuts both ways,” he said. “It might depress your turnout.”
Edward Kochman, a Romney supporter who has residences in King of Prussia and Florida—“Two swing states,” he noted—is similarly optimistic.
“I’m very glad that the pollsters are saying Obama has a lead,” he laughed. “I hope the Democrats will stay home hoping he doesn’t need their help again.”


Edited By Cen Fox Post Team

Hot Babes In Bikinis

"Foxy Megan"

Focus On Terrorism!

Who Won Round 2?

Students March In Madrid

'Today' Shows Staffers Split

Addicted To Exercise!