1
   

Iowa doesn't matter

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 10:52 pm
flaja wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Maybe Thompson. Tough not to like the guy.


Ever heard of the S&L crisis? Thompson was the main industry lobbyist behind the laws that deregulated the industry thus allowing the crisis to happen.

He also left his first wife and is now married to a woman young enough to be his daughter.

He was also one of the 10 Republican senators that voted to acquit Clinton in the impeachment trial.


If leaving one's spouse made a difference in this day and age, there would not be a whole lot of people left to like.

Marrying a younger woman or man is hardly, on the face of it, a sign of a flawed character. His wife, while having the physical atrributes to attract the moniker of "trophy wife," is a highly intelligent, politically savvy, and quite well spoken individual. That she is good looking makes her an even better catch.

I would have voted to acquit Clinton in the impeachment trial, so that's hardly something I would hold against him.

I don't know whether or not your are correct in your claim about his lobbying efforts on behalf of S&L's but blaming lobbyists for the S&L crisis is like blaming whores for aides - they are a vector, not a cause. If this is his greatest political or policy sin, I like him even more.

Regardless, if you sit and listen to him, it's tough not to like him.

If you don't - so be it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 11:20 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Thanks Bill, Nice to see you back.
Thanks.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's hard to imagine Clinton or Obama winning the general election, unless Republicans nominate Huckabee, Rommney, or Paul.
It's hard for me to imagine Obama not winning against anyone not named Giuliani or McCain.


Maybe Thompson. Tough not to like the guy.


Factually, many of us don't find it tough at all.


Well, I would expect you to allow partisan ideology to interfere with your perception of someone's affability. You don't have to want him to be president to find him likeable.

I would never vote for Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Max Cleland, or Ed Rendell, among others, but I find them likeable and would be happy to have them over for dinner.

You don't like him. Factually, that's just fine.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 06:57 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Despite the all too prevalent opinion of Conservatives on A2K, we are not, at all, a majority of bible thumpers. Huckabee can tap into those who are, but they are his only entre to the conservative base.


Explain the conservative base. The Likes of Rush Limbaugh and National Review are libertarians, not conservatives.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:03 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If leaving one's spouse made a difference in this day and age, there would not be a whole lot of people left to like.


It doesn't make any difference in this day and age and that's why the country is in such poor shape. The dissolution of the proper family structure is a direct contributing cause for things like drug abuse, juvenile delinquency and failing schools.

Quote:
I would have voted to acquit Clinton in the impeachment trial


Why when he was guilty? Have you no respect for the rule of law?

Quote:
I don't know whether or not your are correct in your claim about his lobbying efforts on behalf of S&L's but blaming lobbyists for the S&L crisis is like blaming whores for aides - they are a vector, not a cause. If this is his greatest political or policy sin, I like him even more.


Would there have been a vector if there had been no deregulation?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:08 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I would never vote for Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Max Cleland, or Ed Rendell, among others, but I find them likeable and would be happy to have them over for dinner.


Ronald Reagan felt the same way about Tip O'Neil and Reagan often saw his policy goals stymied by liberals like O'Neil in Congress. If you lay down with dog, you get fleas. If you insist on fraternizing with your enemy, you will simply prolong the trench warfare you are engaged in.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:26 pm
flaja wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Despite the all too prevalent opinion of Conservatives on A2K, we are not, at all, a majority of bible thumpers. Huckabee can tap into those who are, but they are his only entre to the conservative base.


Explain the conservative base. The Likes of Rush Limbaugh and National Review are libertarians, not conservatives.

Not Rush at least, you are off on that one. Rush is not libertarian.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:38 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Thanks Bill, Nice to see you back.
Thanks.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's hard to imagine Clinton or Obama winning the general election, unless Republicans nominate Huckabee, Rommney, or Paul.
It's hard for me to imagine Obama not winning against anyone not named Giuliani or McCain.


Maybe Thompson. Tough not to like the guy.


Factually, many of us don't find it tough at all.


Ditto
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 06:19 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Maybe Thompson. Tough not to like the guy.


Factually, many of us don't find it tough at all.


Ditto

Ditto.

Hell, us three are all liberals of course, but I doubt you'll find anyone much who's not actually conservative (eg moderates, independents) who part who likes him. His appeal has really been limited to conservative base voters only, at least ever since he actually formally got in the race and promptly nosedived.

As for thinking Rudy is in good shape, dude... he's toast. Coming in last in Iowa does not need to be such a problem - if you never campaigned there in the first place. Up till about a month ago, Rudy really tried there though - but it just seems that the more they heard of him, the more they disliked him. And even after that he stopped visiting himself and didnt run TV ads, but did pursue a "covert" campaign intended to at least secure third or a reasonable fourth, with lots of mailers and radio ads that the mainstream media wouldnt pick up on but still have impact. They didnt, none.

Same story in New Hampshire. He was setting his eyes on victory in the state until just three weeks ago or so, putting a lot of effort and money in the state, yet all his numbers did in the last couple months is fall. Again, it seems like the more the locals saw of him, the less they liked him. Finally he just stopped going there altogether, and now he's destined to become a distant third at best, and more likely fourth or even fifth.

Up comes South Carolina, where he's going to do lousily, and Michigan, where he's already down to third, and he'll have come at the end of the pack in states across the country, from midwest to New England to the South. His campaign will be either ridiculed or ignored in all media coverage, or both.

Nationally, he long led the polls - all the way from back in the days when the media stubbornly called McCain the frontrunner. This is what he's been counting on; that the early primary states wont matter as much because he has the national momentum, and will confirm that lead in Florida, then NY and CA etc. But in the national polls he has dropped starkly even before the Iowa caucuses, with barely a couple points lead left on the others, and Huckabee, Romney and McCain rising to basically turn it in a four-man race. Where will he go after three ignonimous defeats?

The one first primary state he's put everything on is Florida. But even the overpowering lead he had in Florida has melted away already. By mid-December he was just 4-9 points ahead on Huckabee and Romney in three polls, and actually behind one or both in two others. No polls have been done since but you can imagine what has happened, and will still happen after Giuliani ends a bad third at best in NH and SC and is wiped out in media coverage.

That leaves NY and CA as his big bets. But really, how impressed will the voters in all the red states of the heartland be by a Republican candidate who has to rely on the quintessentially liberal coastal urban states for his support?

Unless he performs some magic trick, Rudy's toast, and thank God for it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 06:20 am
flaja wrote:
If you insist on fraternizing with your enemy, you will simply prolong the trench warfare you are engaged in.

Wow, that must surely be the first time ever that Finn, of all people, is accused, even just by implication, of "fraternizing with the enemy" Razz
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:16 am
okie wrote:
flaja wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Despite the all too prevalent opinion of Conservatives on A2K, we are not, at all, a majority of bible thumpers. Huckabee can tap into those who are, but they are his only entre to the conservative base.


Explain the conservative base. The Likes of Rush Limbaugh and National Review are libertarians, not conservatives.

Not Rush at least, you are off on that one. Rush is not libertarian.


What isn't libertarian about Limbaugh? Is it his 3 wives? His drug use? His sleeping around? His maniacal devotion to the corporate interests?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 09:52 pm
His personal life is another subject. I think he is finding that fame and success is not bringing him happiness. But aside from that, libertarians have many views that Limbaugh does not espouse, one important one that comes to mind is the legalization of drugs. Rush's hero, and he mentions this often, was Ronald Reagan.

Back to whether Iowa matters, I think we are seeing it did matter greatly. It is now catapulting Obama to probably victory in New Hampshire, and it has also catapulted Huckabee into prominence and has dampened Romney's run in HH.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 07:17 am
okie wrote:
His personal life is another subject.


That's what libs all said about Clinton.

But public life is always a direct reflection of private life.

Quote:
I think he is finding that fame and success is not bringing him happiness. But aside from that, libertarians have many views that Limbaugh does not espouse, one important one that comes to mind is the legalization of drugs.


Limbaugh just doesn't want to be investigated (or punished) for his own prescription drug fraud.

Quote:
Rush's hero, and he mentions this often, was Ronald Reagan.


Regan was a lackey for the corporate interests- a key libertarian policy.

Several months back I read a review of a new Regan biography and Reagan came across very much as a libertarian. Libertarians, unlike conservatives, see the world through rose-colored classes. Libertarians have a very incorrect view of human nature. They believe that humans will freely compete with each other in order to maximize their individual self-interests without having anyone resort to fraud and deceit.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 08:48 am
flaja wrote:
okie wrote:
His personal life is another subject.


That's what libs all said about Clinton.

But public life is always a direct reflection of private life.

Limbaugh is not running for office. Comparing Limbaugh to Clinton is like comparing somebody that speeds on the highway to a hardened criminal.

Quote:
Quote:
I think he is finding that fame and success is not bringing him happiness. But aside from that, libertarians have many views that Limbaugh does not espouse, one important one that comes to mind is the legalization of drugs.


Limbaugh just doesn't want to be investigated (or punished) for his own prescription drug fraud.

He has already been investigated, he paid the piper, he went through rehab. If you listen to Limbaugh, you would know the guy is not a libertarian and never has been. Inasmuch as libertarian principles are incorporated into conservative principles, yes, he is libertarian, but he is a basically a conservative, not libertarian.

Quote:
Quote:
Rush's hero, and he mentions this often, was Ronald Reagan.


Regan was a lackey for the corporate interests- a key libertarian policy.

Several months back I read a review of a new Regan biography and Reagan came across very much as a libertarian. Libertarians, unlike conservatives, see the world through rose-colored classes. Libertarians have a very incorrect view of human nature. They believe that humans will freely compete with each other in order to maximize their individual self-interests without having anyone resort to fraud and deceit.

There are some elements of libertarian that agrees with conservatism, so sure, some things Reagan believed were libertarian, but to correct you, the foundational principles of America have alot of libertarian principles, that of believing in the individual, but we have the rule of law to restrict crime, good grief.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 09:41 am
okie wrote:
Limbaugh is not running for office. Comparing Limbaugh to Clinton is like comparing somebody that speeds on the highway to a hardened criminal.


Limbaugh, like Clinton, is a public figure and Limbaugh prides himself with being a mover and shaker in conservatism. Remember that after the 1994 elections Newt Gingrich called Limbaugh the majority maker.

Quote:
He has already been investigated,


And he objected to the process every step of the way. In other words Limbaugh wants us to do as he says, not as he does. He wanted to violate drug laws and be immune from investigation.

Quote:
he paid the piper,


He copped a plea and then violated his part of the bargain when he got a hold of another man's prescription for Viagara.

Quote:
he went through rehab.


At least twice.

Quote:
If you listen to Limbaugh, you would know the guy is not a libertarian and never has been.


I used to listen to Limbaugh on a regular basis. He is not a conservative.

Quote:
but to correct you, the foundational principles of America have alot of libertarian principles, that of believing in the individual, but we have the rule of law to restrict crime, good grief.


Nope. The framers of the Constitution all generally had a dim view of human nature. They all generally insisted that a strong government is needed to keep human nature in check.

In a letter written on October 31, 1786 George Washington wrote, "Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government."

In a February 7, 1788 letter to Lafayette George Washington wrote, "We are not to expect perfection in this world; but mankind, in modern times, have apparently made some progress in the science of government."

In The Federalist, February 6, 1788 James Madison wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Alexander Hamilton, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 12:27 am
Government is necessary, but the framers also understood the dangers of government. Thats why it is balanced with the rights of individuals, not the rights of government. Fact is, what entity has generated more genocide in the past century, I would submit to you that has been the governments as ruled by despots and dictators.

One of the basic principles of conservatism is the rights and responsibilities of individuals, not government. What liberals now espouse is the responsibility of government to right all the wrongs, but sorry, that is not what America is about.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 06:54 am
okie wrote:
One of the basic principles of conservatism is the rights and responsibilities of individuals, not government.


This is based on what? Which "conservative" originally came up with this? If individuals didn't have a responsibility to society, government wouldn't be necessary. Individuals and government have a mutual obligation to control each other. Otherwise the strong will be able to exploit the weak.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 09:53 pm
Laws are made for the lawless.

The Bill of Rights addresses the rights of individuals, as a protection from government overstepping its bounds. And it specifically protects those functions of the states from the federal government, which I think has been severely infringed upon.

Conservatism emphasizes individual rights and responsibilities, whereas liberalism (the current definition of liberalism in the U.S.) emphasizes the responsibility of government to solve all problems, including taking over the responsibilities previously thought of as individual responsibilities, which in most cases requires government to infringe upon the rights of individuals or the minority to satisfy the majority. The founders of this country feared government and fully recognized the possibility of chaos that can be caused by the rule of the majority. That is why the rights of individuals are so clearly protected in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2008 04:42 pm
okie wrote:
Laws are made for the lawless.

The Bill of Rights addresses the rights of individuals, as a protection from government overstepping its bounds. And it specifically protects those functions of the states from the federal government, which I think has been severely infringed upon.

Conservatism emphasizes individual rights and responsibilities, whereas liberalism (the current definition of liberalism in the U.S.) emphasizes the responsibility of government to solve all problems, including taking over the responsibilities previously thought of as individual responsibilities, which in most cases requires government to infringe upon the rights of individuals or the minority to satisfy the majority. The founders of this country feared government and fully recognized the possibility of chaos that can be caused by the rule of the majority. That is why the rights of individuals are so clearly protected in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.


What has any of this do with Limbaugh's hypocrisy or his law-breaking activities? I gather that you favor legalization of all drugs.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2008 09:17 pm
flaja wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Despite the all too prevalent opinion of Conservatives on A2K, we are not, at all, a majority of bible thumpers. Huckabee can tap into those who are, but they are his only entre to the conservative base.


Explain the conservative base. The Likes of Rush Limbaugh and National Review are libertarians, not conservatives.


Easily.

The conservative base consists of the following

1) Social Conservatives
2) Fiscal Conservatives
3) Foreign Policy Hawks
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2008 09:24 pm
flaja wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If leaving one's spouse made a difference in this day and age, there would not be a whole lot of people left to like.


It doesn't't make any difference in this day and age and that's why the country is in such poor shape. The dissolution of the proper family structure is a direct contributing cause for things like drug abuse, juvenile delinquency and failing schools.

Divorce is too readily sought as a solution to superficial concerns, but it should not be prohibited. Because someone leaves a marriage doesn't automatically make them a villain.

Quote:
I would have voted to acquit Clinton in the impeachment trial


Why when he was guilty? Have you no respect for the rule of law?

I guess not.

The effort to impeach Clinton was entirely politically motivated. It was unseemly and did not serve the country.


Quote:
I don't know whether or not your are correct in your claim about his lobbying efforts on behalf of S&L's but blaming lobbyists for the S&L crisis is like blaming whores for aides - they are a vector, not a cause. If this is his greatest political or policy sin, I like him even more.


Would there have been a vector if there had been no deregulation?

Now you are arguing against deregulation?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 04:35:08