A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Actor, Union leader and Governor of a large state.

Perhaps you forgot.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thanks for the defense, george.

I personally believe this country's government was more intended for people that made an honest living doing something else other than government to donate a few years to go to Washington and conduct the minimim amount of business necessary to keep the essential services of government running. I don't think we are best served by career politicians and bureaucrats in Washington making policies for all the activities and businesses that they know absolutely nothing about. Sadly, that is why lobbyists are so necessary to educate these people that are literally in over their heads when they try to write laws.

Therefore, I much prefer someone that knows something about business before he gets there. That is why I have said many times I would be most happy if people like Bill or Hillary would go back to Arkansas and for once in their entire life get an honest job, then come back a few years later and tell us what they learned.

We now have a couple of guys in Washington that know a little about the oil business, but from liberals all they get is constant grief and accusations. Meanwhile it is obvious that liberal lawyers in Congress are in never never land in regard to business and energy. Idealistic plans are nice, but just a little realism is needed once in a while.

Just to be sure - you're supporting the idea that Bush is running the country well due to his experience in the Oil Industry? That Cheney is somehow steering us in the correct direction, thanks to his former business experience?

I want to be real clear that's the position you are taking before I lay into ya.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Actor, Union leader and Governor of a large state.

Perhaps you forgot.

A background like Ronny will be hard to come by whether in the current stable or in the future. He may have loved his jelly beans and slept during meetings, but he knew how to communicate and make some good decisions.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just to be sure - you're supporting the idea that Bush is running the country well due to his experience in the Oil Industry? That Cheney is somehow steering us in the correct direction, thanks to his former business experience?

I want to be real clear that's the position you are taking before I lay into ya.

Cycloptichorn

They could if Congress would allow it, such as open up more areas for exploration. They at least understand that you have to drill to find and produce oil, something the Democrats seem to be clueless about. The Democrats have nothing more than pie in the sky rhetoric about weaning off of oil, but they offer nothing, but another government boondoggle, such as what Carter did in the late 70s. In other words, Democrats think government can solve the energy problem, but Bush-Cheney at least understand that business is important to solve the problem. But Congress has stymied the potential solutions.

Same with Social Security. We continue towards a train wreck with it, because Democrats blocked any reform, along the lines of a business like solution.

0 Replies

Actually Cheney's experience was all in government (the White House and Congress) - except for a relatively brief three year hiatus at Halliburton.

0 Replies

I'm doing housekeeping.. posting various snippets I still had in some Notepad file.

This is on Mike Huckabee and where he's coming from; women, be prepared to head on back home to the stove.

Quote:

Huck's helpful primer on gender roles

Let me see if I've got this straight. In 1998, Mike Huckabee signed onto a full-page ad in USA Today supporting the Southern Baptists' position that:

A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.

0 Replies

You'll scream! You'll shiver! You'll never turn the lights off again!

THE INVASION OF THE HOME SCHOOLERS!!!

0 Replies

You haven't noticed the home schoolers have been winning the geography contests and spelling bees, huh blatham? Perhaps a better education at a fraction of the cost?

0 Replies

Just heard Novak on Hannity, his assessment of presidential primary races, according to my interpretation of what he said.

Democrats - Obama must win Iowa to have a chance, if he doesn't, it may be over. If he does win, he then needs to win the next one, and then it could become interesting. Clinton still the favorite.

Republicans - Huckabee has too many negatives and not a sufficient organization to sustain his surge, but he remains a longshot. Romney must win Iowa and New Hampshire, and if he does, he then becomes the favorite. If he doesn't, it opens up the possibility of McCain's rediscovered footing to have a reasonable chance. Thompson is probably not going anywhere. If Romney does not win both Iowa and New Hampshire, Giuliani may still have a chance, but Novak is not real optimistic of Giuliani's overall chances.

Novak pointed out that the Republican Party likes to pre-designate the likely winner, and the Party wanted McCain, but the voters have not cooperated, so this is one of the most interesting races in recent history.

I think I agree mostly with that, but I would give Huckabee a larger chance if he wins Iowa and is able to convert his victory there into support in future states. The following seems to indicate Romney has countered Huckabee's surge in Iowa and may reverse the role of favorite there again. Romney's organization and money may take its toll on Huckabee, it remains to be seen.

I know somebody, perhaps ci, will say, who cares what Novak thinks? Laughing

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

0 Replies

Clinton used to have a huge lead in California, but she's losing steam. It's still too early to call, but I'm expecting Clinton's favorable ratings to drop further in the next 12-months.

0 Replies

Huckabee is just a cornball huckster from Hope Alabama - just like the other one. The only difference is that Clinton had a better education.

I believe the Republican race is between Romney and McCain and the Democrat one between Clinton and Obama. Easy to speculate who might win the various parings in the final election, but hard to forecast the winners of the primaries.

0 Replies

Interesting George, that is pretty close to Novak's assessment, its between Romney and McCain.

But I don't know if Alabama would want to claim Hope, Arkansas?

0 Replies

Well you beat me to it - I meant Arkansas. Stupid error.

0 Replies

It is frustrating when somebody posts before an error is corrected isn't it?

"Cornball Huckster", did you make that one up? I always think of President "Huckleberry Finn" when I think of the idea of President Huckabee.

0 Replies

I have a higher regard for Huckleberry Finn than perhaps you do.

0 Replies

I enjoyed what Novak said about Huckabee's chances. He basically said, in my words of how I remember it, not very likely at all but he guessed it was possible, because stranger things have happened, because after all - Jimmy Carter was elected.

0 Replies

I see Huckabee mostly as a Gomer Pyle, very likable but dumb as a rock. Rudy I see mostly as just another NYC corrupt politico that NYC is used to and pays little heed to (they're all corrupt, it's their nature) but he is now playing in a bigger sand-lot and the rules of engagement have changed. Mitt, well what can I can, he can't possibly get past that he is a mormon. McCain, is a Willy's in 4-wheel drive running against Hummers; the american electorate has passed him by. Tancredo is a one mule team pulling a 20 team load of Borax (in the wrong direction) The only strength the dem candidates is their anti-Bush platform.

0 Replies

Well, if Rudy is a NYC politico, Hillary is also part and parcel of that genre.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, if Rudy is a NYC politico, Hillary is also part and parcel of that genre.

possibly so, to what do you owe your description? I haven't seen much evidence that she is well anchored in NYC (city) politics. Doesn't mean she isn't, I just haven't seen it.

0 Replies

I'm probably relying on very old news, like the following one:

Free Republic

Hillary Clinton's Popularity Up in State, Even Among Republicans
NY Times ^ | 2/22/05 | RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

Posted on 02/21/2005 8:32:45 PM PST by Libloather

Clinton's Popularity Up in State, Even Among Republicans
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: February 22, 2005

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know