Check out some similar questions!

NeedKarma · Apr 1, 2008, 06:05 AM

Don't know.

tomder55 · Apr 1, 2008, 06:10 AM

I do know. His support was actually limited and fringe. But they made a lot of noise ,were passionate ,and they are internet savy .

Allheart · Apr 1, 2008, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

A lot of people thought that was Ron Paul. Rarely has a candidate received so much support from the regular joe.

So then why? Why isn't he still in the running? I guess financial backing, which only adds to the problems.

Allheart · Apr 1, 2008, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.

Hi Tom,

I have to admit myself, that the media focused so much on Hillary and Obama so much, that everyone else was in the shadows, and hard to even to be seen or even heard.

I liked Edwards... a lot...

I just hope we are going to be okay and move forward, no matter who gets in.

NeedKarma · Apr 1, 2008, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I do know. His support was actually limited and fringe. But they made alot of noise ,were passionate ,and they are internet savy .

Your country needs more people like that.

tomder55 · Apr 1, 2008, 06:24 AM

Allheart . Edwards had as much name recognition going in as anyone in the race. Perhaps the people are not as moved by his populist 2 Americas rhetoric as he thought.

Allheart · Apr 1, 2008, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Allheart . Edwards had as much name recognition going in as anyone in the race. Perhaps the people are not as moved by his populist 2 Americas rhetoric as he thought.

:) So what do you really think of Edwards Tom :) Just kidding.

But the spotlight seemed to be on Hillary and Obama. You have to admit it was huge.

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by BABRAM

You titled the post painting it with a broad stroke "Can the Democrats tell the truth." I know it hurts the GOP to be reminded of the previous Bush vs McCain death match, but I felt obligated to my country. It was my patriotic duty. :rolleyes:

Always helpful :)

And what part of "Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far," do you not understand? Steve, I gave your boy credit. John has to sit back and watch the Democrats for now, but don't think his negative tone doesn't resonate for pending dissension against Obama.

Sorry, you did - I need new glasses. Seriously, I can hardly see the screen any more, lol. That third glass of wine didn't help either :D

Per John McCain: "I will … make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people."

It's coming Steve. Hillary started trying to go after Barack on relative issues and then had to resort to toilet tricks. John's only problem will be developing new negatives since Hillary's wearing the subject out. See what I know is that John really wants this presidency, every bit as much as Hillary. This is John McCain's last hurrah.

I have no doubt it's going to get uglier, I'm just baffled by all of these fantasies of Clinton and Obama. Do they really think we're that stupid?

Not at all. The Obama campaign compared to the Clinton campaign is heavenly. Obama has not gone after McCain except for issues that McCain himself has brought up and then John pays, and pays dearly. ;)

The only thing Obama seems to have on McCain is misrepresenting his "100 years" statement. Even the DNC has been howling for weeks about telling the 'truth' about the "real John McCain" and nothing has stuck. Not... one... thing.

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Skell

Steve I have to say that I think this one is a little nit picky. They aren't flat out lies to your face bullsh1t. They may be a little exaggerated but honestly tell me a politician in history that hasn't exaggerated a little, especially during an election year.

Apparently you don't see the symbolism and emotions evoked in Obama relating his "very existence" to the Kennedys of Camelot while addressing civil rights activists in Selma and telling them:

"So the Kennedys decided 'we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.' This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great-great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves. . . . So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

That's BS if ever I heard it. And you know, it wasn't me but the Washington Post, one of the most liberal papers in the country that broke this story. Apparently they thought it was worth mentioning.

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

So, I'm willing to give your dufus in chief, the HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, a break in that he really thought Iraq had WMD's...

Someone pick me up off the floor...

That's just me. I can tell the difference between a little lie, and A GREAT BIG WHOPPER!! You can't?? Dude!

Sure I can. I also know that while Bush claimed progress in Iraq he also acknowledged on many occasions there were setbacks, there was more work to do, that he knew the American people weren't satisfied with the situation and that he wasn't either. Nevertheless, I'm not happy with how things went in Iraq and have been critical of Bush... but he is the president we have now. You should know I'm not pleased with any of the choices, but I have to wonder why anyone should trust these two Democrats that can't seem to stop making stuff up all of a sudden as the NEXT president.

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

No, after eight years of it, I'm definitely ready for a change.

OK, I'll play along... in YOUR view do you want ANOTHER president that can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy. ;)

NeedKarma · Apr 1, 2008, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

OK, I'll play along...in YOUR view do you want ANOTHER president that can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy. ;)

Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!

Allheart · Apr 1, 2008, 08:10 AM

I'm with Ordinary Guy - I'm ready for a change as well.

Not that I dislike President Bush, he's my President, and Commander in Chief at the moment, so I respect him as much.

I also think it takes more then one man to cause all of this upset and kind of feel bad that it all lays on his shoulders.

I do wonder in his personal private moments, how he feels about it all. It must get to him.
I just hope, that although, there are so many that may disagree with his choices, that he, feels he did his personal best. I am just grateful I am not in those shoes, that's for sure.

I just hope that the next President, can bring more harmony, both domestically and abroad.

George_1950 · Apr 1, 2008, 08:40 AM

Politics is definitely a 'grown-up's sport', especially for the participants. The office of President of the United States is no place for pathogenic liars or inexperienced wannabes with an identity crisis.
I recall just after 9/11, President Bush said that he was dedicating the remainder of his presidency to winning the war on terror. You might recall that the U.S. had done most nothing about terrorism during the Clinton years, other than create a firewall between intelligence sharing between CIA and FBI. That is when I first thought that Bush might be a little 'extreme'; now, it appears he was prophetic.
Lying seems to me endemic with Democrats: Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. If I were a Democrat, I would say, 'Sure, all politicians lie.'
And, there are different kinds of lies, such as the lie Nixon got caught up in, in a cover-up of what happened on his watch. But I have no recollection of Reagan lying, though partisans will say he did; and I have no recollection of W lying, either as candidate or president.
excon wants to make an issue with Bush giving progress reports on the war in Iraq, as if they were lies. But isn't Bush the 'captain' of his team? Isn't the captain supposed to keep his team focused and involved? And playing to win? As for the progress reports being misleading or in error, did anyone anticipate the role played by Iran? What has Hillary or Obama or Pelosi or Reid had to say about Iran interfering in Iraq? What has the UN done about it?

Allheart · Apr 1, 2008, 08:53 AM

George, I so agree that in the years prior to President Bush, there were areas, seriously lacking attention, to the point of almost disgrace.

One thing I do admire about him, he continued his path despite all the lashing, whether earned or not. No caving, nothing.

I honestly do thank him and am grateful to anyone that holds or has held that position.

Just wish all the mudsligging and falsehoods would be no longer. I live in a dream world, I know.

BABRAM · Apr 1, 2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.

I would had gone about managing Ron Paul's campaign differently. Some of it has to do with R. Paul being very good at getting his points across, one on one, which he didn't do enough of. The other problem is he ran into was that he simply was ostracized by other top candidates in the Republican party and not invited to some of the primary debates. I don't know what kind of budget R. Paul was working on, I'm sure smaller than others. But he needed more appearances in interview situations nationally and that could had helped. His fewer numbers in votes doesn't represent the man's ideas as bad. Bush was selected twice in charge of our country and yet now his ratings have plunged even among those that voted him.

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Allheart

I'm with Ordinary Guy - I'm ready for a change as well.

Not that I dislike President Bush, he's my President, and Commander in Chief at the moment, so I respect him as much.

I also think it takes more then one man to cause all of this upset and kinda feel bad that it all lays on his shoulders.

I do wonder in his personal private moments, how he feels about it all. It must get to him.
I just hope, that although, there are so many that may disagree with his choices, that he, feels he did his personal best. I am just grateful I am not in those shoes, that's for sure.

I just hope that the next President, can bring more harmony, both domestically and abroad.

Allheart, I think we're all ready for change. But contrary to what the left is saying we're going to get change whether we like it or not. McCain is NOT going to offer a "third Bush term" like Howard Dean and Obama keep saying.

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!

Been listening to Obama and Howard Dean have you? Fortunately for us NK, it's not your choice to make :D

NeedKarma · Apr 1, 2008, 09:30 AM

I'll do my part to counter your constant negative posts and mudslinging... when I have the time (it's not my life's ambition as it is yours) :D

tomder55 · Apr 1, 2008, 09:58 AM

I don't know what kind of budget R. Paul was working on, I'm sure smaller than others.

He led in fund raising by a long shot. Just another example that money can't buy the Presidency.

He was only excluded in later debates after it was clear that he was marginal and only taking time away from serious contenders. Since the networks for right or wrong host the debates they are played under their game rules.

Again ;I don't think that was decisive because his campaign was just not resonating with the majority of the Republican voters. As for his exposure ;he was a frequent guest on the various FOX broadcasts . Not sure about the other networks ;but the only Republican it seems who are welcome there are John McCain and any other Republican who opposes various aspects of the Bush Presidency .