Have we found the bottom of the barrel yet? It's amazing to me the level of candidates for president of this country.
The tactics of Huckabee and McCain have been highly disappointing in my opinion, in regard to their race with Romney. Romney points out policies that they have espoused as governer and senator, while they complain of attack ads and then attack him personally.
Romney did not attack them personally, as far as I can tell, but instead contrasted their record on issues vs his, which is exactly what the voter needs to see and evaluate. Then Huckabee and McCain imply Romney is dishonest or a phony. That is not the way I see it, no way. I never knew much about Huckabee until recently, but he is not impressing me, and although my opinion of McCain had recently come up, he is back in the cellar with me again with his comments. Somehow, he doesn't seem to have a clue about issues and policies, and if anyone questions his record on issues, he attacks them personally. We don't need that kind of personality. Plus, I don't think he is that smart, although he might be a good ole boy and a patriot, we need more intelligence and consistency than what he can give us.
Adhominems are rampant in the world of politics.
okie wrote:The tactics of Huckabee and McCain have been highly disappointing in my opinion, in regard to their race with Romney. Romney points out policies that they have espoused as governer and senator, while they complain of attack ads and then attack him personally.
Romney did not attack them personally, as far as I can tell, but instead contrasted their record on issues vs his, which is exactly what the voter needs to see and evaluate. Then Huckabee and McCain imply Romney is dishonest or a phony. That is not the way I see it, no way. I never knew much about Huckabee until recently, but he is not impressing me, and although my opinion of McCain had recently come up, he is back in the cellar with me again with his comments. Somehow, he doesn't seem to have a clue about issues and policies, and if anyone questions his record on issues, he attacks them personally. We don't need that kind of personality. Plus, I don't think he is that smart, although he might be a good ole boy and a patriot, we need more intelligence and consistency than what he can give us.
Or, you could simply state that whoever Fox supports is who you will support and the reasons given there will be the reasons which you find compelling.
To put it another way, let's merely assume that if McCain manages to gain the nomination, anything the folks at Fox have said previously and anything you've just written will disappear into the ether.
Because consistency is so critically important as is evidenced by these Romney statements...
http://donklephant.com/2007/12/28/mccain-attacks-romney-with-his-own-words/
ci, do you agree with my assessment, that some candidates, or personalities, cannot seem to separate an "attack" or criticism of a policy or stance on an issue from an "attack" or criticism of them personally? That is one thing I liked about George Bush, he knew the difference. Hillary does not, and I'm not sure about Obama. I think Romney knows the difference, but there is evidence that McCain does not.
Some people demand everyone like not only them, but everything they want to do and think. That should not be the American way in my opinion, and never was intended to be. We should be capable of liking each other, without having to put our stamp of approval on everything each other does.
To me, this is an important thing to notice in the personalities of candidates. George Bush always liked to point out we can have a difference of opinion, but we can still get along.
One of the tragedies of modern politics has been the accusations of lying, when it is merely differences of opinions in regard to how things are judged and viewed. I have noticed this most notably out of the extreme left, and it seems to spring out of deep hatreds, or whatever.
okie: To me, this is an important thing to notice in the personalities of candidates. George Bush always liked to point out we can have a difference of opinion, but we can still get along.
Where have you been these past seven years? Have you learned nothing about the Bush administration?
blatham wrote:
Or, you could simply state that whoever Fox supports is who you will support and the reasons given there will be the reasons which you find compelling.
To put it another way, let's merely assume that if McCain manages to gain the nomination, anything the folks at Fox have said previously and anything you've just written will disappear into the ether.
Because consistency is so critically important as is evidenced by these Romney statements...
http://donklephant.com/2007/12/28/mccain-attacks-romney-with-his-own-words/
Actually, it does not appear to me that Fox is supporting Romney at all. In fact, if you go onto Fox.com, you will see the Romney ads characterized as "attacks," and does not point out prominently that McCain has in return called Romney "phony." In contrast, Romney labeled McCain an honorable man in his ad.
I am merely expressing my opinion here in regard to how I view McCain's recent policies and opinion. I am mainly assessing Romney according to his debate appearances, and I will admit to not knowing so much of his past politics. I do however see a big difference between changing an opinion over a period of years vs overnight, and overnight is what Kerry did as a flipflopper. Romney's change in views seems to have evolved over a period of years. I will be watching Romney of course in regard to this, but so far have not seen anything overnight.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie: To me, this is an important thing to notice in the personalities of candidates. George Bush always liked to point out we can have a difference of opinion, but we can still get along.
Where have you been these past seven years? Have you learned nothing about the Bush administration?
ci, I just don't agree with you, get over it. If anyone has been vindictive, it has been Democrats trying to get Bush ever since 2000. Some still say he stole the election, but evidence says otherwise. Your opinion is not always right and your opinion of Bush isn't always right, get over it, ci.
realjohnboy wrote:Most if not all of the candidates had some comments on the assassination of Bhutto and the resulting increased tension in that country.
Mike Huckabee, who's a bit lacking in foreign policy experience, had this jaw-dropping response, paraphrased here:
In light of the events in Pakistan yesterday, I find it interesting that we have more illegal immigrants from that country than any other except for countries to our south. 660 illegal imigrants from Pakistan last year, which is why I should be elected; to secure our borders from illegal immigrants.
He also said the Pakistani government "does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists." (Eastern?) And of course this is the guy who didn't know what the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was earlier this month - two days after it had been splashed all over the TV news and newspaper front pages. When confronted about it, he called it a "gotcha question".
As Steve Benen
wrote, "Got that? If a reporter asks a leading presidential candidate about a massive intelligence report about nuclear weapons and a leading U.S. foe, it's a "gotcha question."' Benen
now: "We're less than a week from the Iowa caucuses, and Huckabee has taken the lead in some national polls. Is it too much to ask that he, I don't know, start reading the newspaper in the morning?"
ci, I think history will judge George Bush much kinder than you would hope. Of course, this depends upon how Iraq and other things play out, but I know you guys just hate it when history vindicates people you hate, such as the great Ronald Reagan. Now again, its George Bush, whose foreign policies may prove to have been the correct ones much of the time. In contrast, as much as Clinton is attempting to gloss over and build upon his legacy even today, I think his is destined to be forever pathetic.
It's usually difficult to rate presidents while they are in office, but with Bush, he's done too many things wrong. Just because violence has been reduced in Iraq is not a plus for Bush who should not have gone in to Iraq in the first place. It's already a lose-lose issue for Bush.
Bush spoke from his ranch in Texas today, and spoke about improving our economy for the middle class and the poor. What has he been doing the past seven years when over seven million more Americans lost their health insurance, and millions are now losing their homes?
Not many Americans trust Bush and his rhetoric any more. Burn me once....
nimster or el nimerino if you aren't into the whole brevity thing...
The possibility of Bloomburg running as an independent seems to be increasing
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=108327&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
If it happens, the consequences are not at all clear.
Huckabee is quite a guy. He gets all the press together to tell them he is not going to run an attack ad, then to prove he actually had an ad, he shows the press the ad so they can run it I guess. Hows that for getting a free attack ad instead of paying for it? This guy is really innovative, I will give him that.
"To say one thing one minute and then turn around and show an attack ad to reporters the next will, obviously, leave folks with a very cynical view of Mike Huckabee and his message. Mike Huckabee has turned from nice to very hot-tempered now that his record has been examined by voters," said Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2007/12/31/huckabee-holds-fire-on-attack-ad-or-does-he/
This is almost too funny: Romney is telling voters that he and his wife will not embarrass the country like the Clintons'. They ignore the Bush embarrassment not only to our country but the world. Without the ability to prioritize what is important to our country, Romney is singing Dixie at a time when our country needs a real leader that knows what's important. That he's even running for president is the real embarrassment.
cicerone imposter wrote:This is almost too funny: Romney is telling voters that he and his wife will not embarrass the country like the Clintons'. They ignore the Bush embarrassment not only to our country but the world. Without the ability to prioritize what is important to our country, Romney is singing Dixie at a time when our country needs a real leader that knows what's important. That he's even running for president is the real embarrassment.
Entirely predictable, ci. Find
any common rightwing talking point and you will find it being parroted now by Romney. If there has ever been a shallower and less sincere candidacy, it has somehow escaped my experience.
blatham wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:This is almost too funny: Romney is telling voters that he and his wife will not embarrass the country like the Clintons'. They ignore the Bush embarrassment not only to our country but the world. Without the ability to prioritize what is important to our country, Romney is singing Dixie at a time when our country needs a real leader that knows what's important. That he's even running for president is the real embarrassment.
Entirely predictable, ci. Find
any common rightwing talking point and you will find it being parroted now by Romney. If there has ever been a shallower and less sincere candidacy, it has somehow escaped my experience.
Really? Let me refresh your memory... Here's a shot of the "I'm not Bush" candidate.
How shallow and insincere do you suppose he had to come off in order to lose to George Bush?
Hell, for that matter, right this minute; you have a baby-channeling ambulance chaser, setting aside his lucrative career (screwing baby-Doctors) to
end poverty.
