Hello:

I get the feeling that you righty's out there just can't get enthused about your candidates. I see Tom is still supporting his Rudy and Fred stuff. The Woverine ain't talking. Speech and Dennis ain't either. I ain't seen NOTHING from you guys lately about Huck and Wrongny.

The Dems on the other hand, would be happy to support ANY candidate, and will. That's why the Democratic candidate WILL be the next pres.

But, without 60 seats in the Senate, it matters not. Can the Dems ALSO take the Senate? Which seats?

excon

Sen John Warner is cashing in his chips here in VA. His seat will very likely to go to our former Democratic Governor, Mark Warner.

I stick by Thompson (1st ) and Rudy(2nd choice) . Rudy is not really trying in the Iowa contest . The latest Zogby has the Huckster and Romney tied for 1st and Thompson and MCCain tied for 3rd. The way Iowa works (it's kind of odd ) is that Thompson may get enough 2nd place votes to have a major surprise showing . Either way the race will be far from over after the perhaps 200,000 Iowans submit their preferences.

I think there is a real possibility of Democrat gains in the Senate and House but I doubt they will achieve fillibuster proof majorities.

The Dems have all adopted the Huey Long populism spouted by Edwards . To them the more they can convince the Americans they are victims the better they will do. The Huckster does a variation of William Jennings Bryan populism also . Given the choice between Huck and Romney I would choose Romney hands down. At least he has a solid record of governing and managing achievement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

At least he has a solid record of governing and managing achievment.

---

Hello again, tom:

It's true, and he only flip-flopped a little bit.

excon

Yeah, the people in Massachusetts really know how to pick 'em. The only thing you can count on with Romney is that he will eventually change his position.

Go Ron Paul!

Excon, are you really happy about the choices the Democratic party is serving up? I feel like I am living in bizarro world. Different faces, but the same empty garbage from all candidates on all sides. Wankers. All of 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Excon, are you really happy about the choices the Democratic party is serving up?

---

Hello Ruby:

No. But, I ain't a Democrat. I support Ron Paul. I AM a realist, however. A Democrat is going to win.

excon

excon, I meant to talk to you about that the other day. Wasn't sure if you were still supporting Ron Paul. Have you looked at his platform? What do you think about his stance on immigration and abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Excon, I meant to talk to you about that the other day. Wasn't sure if you were still supporting Ron Paul. Have you looked at his platform? What do you think about his stance on immigration and abortion?

---

Hello again, Ruby:

No, he's a whacko on those issues to be sure. But overall, he's less whacko than the rest. It's whacko to lock people up for drugs. He won't do that. It's whacko to invade and occupy countries like Iraq. He won't do that. It's whacko to print money. He won't do that.

The rest of the whacko candidates are going to do ALL of that.

The SHAME of this election, is that we'll get to choose between the lesser of two whackos.

excon

I don't know if my local info is absolutely correct but I guess they would have been told to amend anything that was wrong. The following info on Ron Paul's platform was taken from Commitment 2008 - Compare Candidates

"Iraq:
Opposes the war. He originally voted against it.1
Foreign Affairs:
Believes American presence in Middle East has led to higher energy costs. Believes tax dollars should stay at home, not be sent overseas.83
Homeland Security:
Opposes Patriot Act; believes security cannot replace privacy. Opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security; believes it creates bureaucracy and wastes funds.84
Immigration:
Favors strict border enforcement. Opposes citizenship for illegels and wants to repeal citizenship rights for children born to illegals inside the US.86
Economy:
Self-described "Tax-Payers Best Friend", he favors limited government and lower taxes.14
Education:
Supports tax credits for families to help pay for education and tax breaks for people who donate to local schools.14
Energy:
Wants to repeal federal gas tax to cut prices.81 Supports nuclear energy as a way to solve shortages.82
Climate Change:
No info
Health:
Believes government regulation has inflated prices. Favors very limited government and wants health care costs to be completely tax deductable.80
Social Security:
Believes government is unfairly raiding Social Security Trust Fund to fund other programs.14
Stem Cell Research:
Opposes embryonic stem-cell research. Believes the question of funding is a state issue.79
Same Sex Marriage:
Opposes same-sex marriage (believes it's a state issue)77
Abortion:
Anti-abortion (believes it's a state, not federal issue)78
Gun Control:
Opposes gun restrictions.87"

Sorry, I was posting at the same time you were. Yes, I do believe that we each have to form an opinion based upon our own point of views of who would be the lesser of the whackos and vote from there.

Giuliani has a new campaign:

Giuliani To Run For President Of 9/11 | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

The sad thing about him is that there are many things to like about his positions . But his head in the sand foreign policy would be dangerous to the country . The days the oceans could protect us went by the wayside with the advent of the ICBM .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

"Iraq:
Opposes the war. He originally voted against it.1
Foreign Affairs:
Believes American presence in Middle East has led to higher energy costs. Believes tax dollars should stay at home, not be sent overseas.83
Homeland Security:
Opposes Patriot Act; believes security cannot replace privacy. Opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security; believes it creates bureaucracy and wastes funds.84
Immigration:
Favors strict border enforcement. Opposes citizenship for illegels and wants to repeal citizenship rights for children born to illegals inside the US.86
Economy:
Self-described "Tax-Payers Best Friend", he favors limited government and lower taxes.14
Education:
Supports tax credits for families to help pay for education and tax breaks for people who donate to local schools.14
Energy:
Wants to repeal federal gas tax to cut prices.81 Supports nuclear energy as a way to solve shortages.82
Climate Change:
No info
Health:
Believes government regulation has inflated prices. Favors very limited government and wants health care costs to be completely tax deductable.80
Social Security:
Believes government is unfairly raiding Social Security Trust Fund to fund other programs.14
Stem Cell Research:
Opposes embryonic stem-cell research. Believes the question of funding is a state issue.79
Same Sex Marriage:
Opposes same-sex marriage (believes it's a state issue)77
Abortion:
Anti-abortion (believes it's a state, not federal issue)78
Gun Control:
Opposes gun restrictions.87"

---

These are the main reasons I like Ron Paul!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I stick by Thompson (1st ) and Rudy(2nd choice) .

---

Looks like Rudy may be your only man: Thompson may drop out, back McCain - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com

Quiet? Barring a good showing from Fred, I have already thrown my support behind Rudy. I don't find much to get excited about with Romney and the Huckster. Romney reminds me of a Republican Bill Clinton and I think the Huckster will mean certain defeat in November. I can almost certainly guarantee if Huckabee gets the nod all hell will break loose from the left over the possibility of a preacher in the White House.

Enthused? No. I don't get very enthused over anyone these days... except Romo and Marion the Barbarian Barber when they're on fire. :)

McCain would certainly get a boost from a Thompson endorsement . I can only hope that Thompson catches fire. He has come out with solid thoughtful conservative positions on all the major issues of the day. I think that Thompson is the candidate best able to unite all the factions of the former conservative majority .

If he is not in then my support will be with Rudy due to solid foreign policy positions ;a great record of achievement running NYC ,and the electability factor. And if he isn't in then I will adopt excon's solution... the lesser of two whackos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

McCain would certainly get a boost from a Thompson endorsement . I can onlty hope that Thompson catches fire. He has come out with solid thoughtful conservative positions on all the major issues of the day. I think that Thompson is the candidate best able to unite all the factions of the former conservative majority .

If he is not in then my support will be with Rudy due to solid foreign policy positions ;a great record of achievement running NYC ,and the electability factor. And if he isn't in then I will adopt Excon's solution... the lesser of two whackos.

---

I hope it doesn't come to the lesser of two wackos and I hope Fred does well tonight. I found his "accidental candidate" remarks refreshing.

Quote:

---

"I like to say that I'm only consumed by very, very few things and politics is not one of them. The welfare of my country and my kids and grandkids are one of them. But if people really want in their president a super type-A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night thinking about for years how they could achieve the presidency of the United States, someone who could look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning — I ain't that guy."

---

Ain't that exactly what this country has been looking for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The sad thing about him is that there are many things to like about his positions . But his head in the sand foreign policy would be dangerous to the country . The days the oceans could protect us went by the wayside with the advent of the ICBM .

---

Speaking of foreign policy experience, did you hear what qualifies Obama as compared to Hillary?

Quote:

---

“It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa.”

---

Yep, after getting elected to the Senate and being touted as "a potential presidential candidate" he managed to find his way to visit his grandmother for the first time in 14 years and tab that as his foreign policy experience.

What's to say, Excon.

I don't like Huck or Mitt all that much. Nothing against either of them, they just don't excite me.

I absolutely detest McCain's politics, but you already knew that.

That leaves Thompson and Rudy. I like them both, but I'm a bit more excited over Rudy for several reasons.

First, Rudy has proven crisis management leadership skills, whereas Fred does not. That's not to say that Fred doesn't possess such abilities, but he hasn't had to show them, and Rudy has.

Second, Rudy has a proven record of crime-stopping, economic rebuilding, anti-terrorist stances, and an uncompromising stance against anything that endangers his constituents. Thompson is good, but he's not QUITE as unconpromising as Rudy is.

Third... and this is something that was pointed out by Ann Coulter... Rudy managed to win NY as a Republican. NY is a liberal state. The fact that Rudy was able to win it twice, as a Republican, means that he knows how to run in and win in liberal states. Fred has only won office in right-wing Tennessee. He's never had to try to win a liberal state before. In that sense, both Rudy and Mitt (who won as a Republican in liberal Massachusetts) have an advantage over Thompson and Huckabee who have only run in conservative states.

So my choices, in order, are Rudy, Thompson, Romney and Huckabee. McCain doesn't make my list.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Third... and this is something that was pointed out by Ann Coulter...

---

Dude, she's a step away from being certifiably insane:
Ann Coulter wants Jews "to be perfected
YouTube - Ann Coulter wants Jews "to be perfected"

Her view on US schools: "at worst they are criminal training labs where teachers sexually abuse the children between drinking binges .."
YouTube - Ann Coulter Is A Complete Idiot

Want more 'cause there's lots.

Here is the complete text of the Coulter interview. FOXNews.com - Columnist Ann Coulter Shocks Cable TV Show, Declaring 'Jews Need to Be Perfected by Becoming Christians' - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Regardless about how over the top you think her comments may have been (and in context she was only simplifying a theological divide between Jews and Christians) ,that does not discount the validity of her observation about Rudy succeeding as a conservative mayor in a very liberal city. I think it is a valid point made about both Rudy and Romney.

Tom, do you truly believe Rudy is conservative?

I go by what a leading conservative columnist (Geroge Will) says ;that Rudy led the most conservative government in the last 40 to 50 years.

He was speaking in terms of fiscal conservatism of course . If I were to use the Romney analogy of a 3 legged stool I would say Rudy only fails regarding social conservatism . Fiscal and foreign policy he is rock solid... and it is debatable at this point how much the executive influences social policy anyway . The best they can do is appoint originalists to the courts ;and Rudy has promised to do that .

Rudy Giuliani 1996: “Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to mine.”

Even his mother doesn't believe he is a Republican.

I was so hoping Thompson was going to come out swinging, but he has been a great big nothing. Ron Paul can at least prove he has read the constitution and has an understanding of individual rights.

There is no denying that Thompson is my 1st choice. We will know in the next few weeks if his unique strategy is working . Certainly he is defying conventional wisdom by running his campaign this way .But if he is right he will redefine the grueling expectations on candidates . He is right ;who in their right mind would want a job that requires this much campaigning ;this much begging for money ? The whole process is undignified.

More George Will on Rudy :

Quote:

---

Will noted that the mayoralty of New York City carries specific challenges, calling it "liberalism's laboratory" and a center for "learned dependency". He spoke about Giuliani's conservative instincts -- such as when he declared fatherhood the best social program, or raising taxes a "dumb, stupid, idiotic, and moronic idea". Will assured the CPAC activists that Giuliani's conservatism is the same flavor as Lady Thatcher's, and that pugnacity is his political philosophy.

---

Captain's Quarters

When Giuliani left office NYC was facing a 4.5 BILLION dollar deficit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emland

These are the main reasons I like Ron Paul!

---

Emmy, I posted that because I have a pretty good idea of excon's political leanings and thought some of Paul's positions might not be in line with excon's. excon, have you looked at Mike Gravel's platform? If so, what differences between the two candidates would prompt you to pick Paul over Gravel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Excon, have you looked at Mike Gravel's platform?

---

Hello again, Ruby:

No I haven't.

What?? You expect intelligent stuff to come out of me ALL the time?

excon

Of course! Do you want me to post his platform here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

First, Rudy has proven crisis management leadership skills, whereas Fred does not. That's not to say that Fred doesn't possess such abilities, but he hasn't had to show them, and Rudy has.

Elliot

---

But Elliot if the country is going along as well and as safely as you would have us believe why would you need a president with "proven crisis management leadership skills". Hasn't Bush and his government crisis-proofed the US with its tough policies? There has after all been no terrorist attacks against the US on US soil since his election. Crisis management leadership should be low on your agenda. :)

Skell, that would be a very bad way to approach this In my opinion. Crisis management is actually high on my agenda and always has been. I believe we very much need to elect a President who is capable of handling himself in any crisis even if we were living during a time of peace. That is always an expectation I have of any person elected to that office. With the current climate, it could very well translate into a disaster if we don't. Although we haven't experienced another major terrorist attack on US soil since 2001, we haven't secured our borders. I refuse to live my life in fear but I won't turn a blind eye to the very good possibility that we will be attacked again. Right now, due to Bush's decision to enter Iraq, he created, whether intentionally or not, a situation in which the terrorists have flocked to that region to kill our people. Logistically & financially, it is easier for them to do so than to attempt to kill us here. Also, they would rather attack our military forces and try to wipe them out rather than civilians who don't pose as big a threat to them. They don't need to travel to U.S. soil to inflict damage upon us. If we pull out our troops completely, as the Democrats are promising to do when they are elected, we can't assume they won't come after us here again. To elect someone who might not be capable of holding it together and making the right decision during a major crisis, would be a serious mistake on our part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Skell, that would be a very bad way to approach this IMHO. Crisis management is actually high on my agenda and always has been. I believe we very much need to elect a President who is capable of handling himself in any crisis even if we were living during a time of peace. That is always an expectation I have of any person elected to that office. With the current climate, it could very well translate into a disaster if we don't. Although we haven't experienced another major terrorist attack on US soil since 2001, we haven't secured our borders. I refuse to live my life in fear but I won't turn a blind eye to the very good possibility that we will be attacked again. Right now, due to Bush's decision to enter Iraq, he created, whether intentionally or not, a situation in which the terrorists have flocked to that region to kill our people. Logistically & financially, it is easier for them to do so than to attempt to kill us here. Also, they would rather attack our military forces and try to wipe them out rather than civilians who don't pose as big a threat to them. They don't need to travel to U.S. soil to inflict damage upon us. If we pull out our troops completely, as the Democrats are promising to do when they are elected, we can't assume they won't come after us here again. To elect someone who might not be capable of holding it together and making the right decision during a major crisis, would be a serious mistake on our part.

---

I agree with you Ruby. I also agree with Elliot. I was just having a little go at him regarding previous comments about Bush making the US a safer place. I tend to disagree with him and I think it is definitely wise to elect a president with good crisis management skills. The US (and Australia) in my opinion are less safe now than they have ever been! That's where my off topic argument was heading.

Just a quick one I was thinking about. On the basis of crisis management you would have to say that Bush is a failure given the shambles that was New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

LOL! Unlike others here, I never stated I was a Bush fan. ;) Although I lay a good amount of blame on the mayor of New Orleans, the governor of Louisiana, along with the Federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

LOL! Unlike others here, I never stated I was a Bush fan. ;) Although I lay a good amount of blame on the mayor of New Orleans, the governor of Louisiana, along with the Federal government.

---

LOL! I know you haven't Ruby :)
And of course there are many parties that are responsible. Not just the chief.

I'm in Iowa. Have been long time ind who always voted GOP (except once) and now I'm registered R... my observations...

No longer surprised about the evangelical push here... (pat robertson 2nd place in 88)... you don't feel it as part of the daily scene, but man, they turn out for the vote. Huck spent a FRACTION of the dollars here than romney (like a couple million to something like 55 mil, give or take a few) and he did really well.

Thompson is the best for the gop based solely on his being transparent in his beliefs. I may not agree with him on some issues, but I trust what he says is what he will do. He is clearly a man of integrity and clear conviction. He clearly represents the "typical" gop platform. I don't think there's any pretense about him, and he's one of very few who isn't a talking head that speaks to whatever room he's in.

Hell, and anyone who says they hate to campaign but they think they'll be a good prez has half their wits about them.

But I'm not sure hed get and energize the reagan dems... he might be close to him in beliefs, but I just don't see him drawing over people. Maybe I'm wrong.

Not that we in Iowa represent the rest of the country (lets not talk about the first in the nation crap... I don't get it... its nice for our economy every four years, but its whacked... makes no sense to me), but when I walked into the polling site I had to stop at a table where they were registering people for the caucus... at this particular one several people were changing party affiliation.

While there I saw three R's switch to D's. They came together and were in support of obama. So here, at least, in one little school in one little precinct, not only did independents show but it seems some gop'ers jumped ship in the other direction.

Isn't it interesting how bill is now all of a sudden a part of the clinton campaign, speaking out and starting to take shots? Seems pretty desperate to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kp2171

isnt it interesting how bill is now all of a sudden a part of the clinton campaign, speaking out and starting to take shots? seems pretty desperate to me.

---

I noticed that when I was reading today's new that he had some negative comments about Obama and the way the press treats him compared to his missus. Tough toenails.. It didn't look good as far as I was concerned considering how far she appears to be falling behind.