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

Depends what you mean by better. It may be better for some and not others.

Here's an example of global change happening now and we're going to have to adjust to it.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/84536

0 Replies

My God, God has turned his back on Rudy. There's no hope for him now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/06/god-said-ha-pat-roberts_n_80083.html

0 Replies

Panic in Camp Romney?

Quote:

Romney pulls ads in South Carolina, Florida

After second-place finishes in Iowa, N.H., GOP hopeful targets Mich. next

BOSTON - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has decided to pull his advertising from South Carolina, where he was hoping to take on Mike Huckabee and John McCain, and from Florida, where Rudy Giuliani has been spending time and money.

"We feel the best strategy is to focus our paid messaging in Michigan," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said Wednesday.

The decision comes on the heels of back-to-back second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney, a multimillionaire who had used some of his own cash, had invested heavily in both states, counting on the two to give him the momentum toward the nomination.

Earlier on Wednesday, Romney had assured his top financial backers that he will win the upcoming Michigan primary, as he and his staff worked to soothe supporters unsettled by his losses in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

"It's just getting started," the presidential contender told hundreds of supporters gathered at a convention center for a follow-up to the "National Call Day," which raised an unprecedented $6.5 million a year ago.

He promised to carry on to Michigan, which votes Jan. 15, as well as Nevada and South Carolina, which vote Jan. 19.

The public spectacle, a rarity for the normally tightly controlled Romney political operation, included appeals for calm from a top financial backer, eBay CEO Meg Whitman, and a top political supporter, former Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri.

"To a person, we remain incredibly optimistic that we still have a chance to win this thing," Whitman told the crowd, which included everyone from Fortune 500 executives to entrepreneurs.

Spencer Zwick, Romney's national finance director, told the phone bankers: "If for some reason he is not the nominee, all those funds will be returned to the donor himself."

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Panic in Camp Romney?

Sure looks that way. He looks ok in Michigan and Nevada, but McCain seems to own SC and FL looks like Giuliani. I think he's very nearly toast. Smile

0 Replies

Ron Paul the only sane Republican

0 Replies

stevewonder wrote:

Ron Paul the only sane Republican

But such a low standard.

0 Replies

And on the subject of low (really low) standards...from matt yglesias..

Quote:

Because God Hates Hiroshima

Rudy Giuliani's biggest fan, Pat Robertson, on the failure of his 2007 forecast of a nuclear attack on an American city to come true: ""So did I miss it? Possibly, or, on the other hand, did God avert it? Possibly. But whatever, it didn't happen, so I think we can all rejoice."

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

okie wrote:
There are lots of changes to America that I don't want.

You have to realize that change is a rule. The world always changes. It cannot be stopped. Better learn to adjust and live with it. You may not want it or like it but you will have to accept it. All your bellowing and hollering will not prevent it. This country changes as the world changes. And the world is a far bigger and more powerful force than America.

Only a dictator can prevent change, temporarily.

Think this country needs one? Someone like you?

How about changing the educational system and getting rid of the NEA control and creating school choice? I'm all for that? That is just one example of the kinds of change that would be helpful instead of the same old failed liberal policy of throwing more and more money at bureacrats to continue their same old failed policy.

I am actually very tired of Obama supporters chanting change. They either don't know what it is beyond being a slogan, or perhaps Obama doesn't want to spell it out completely?

Point is, change can be good or bad, depending on what it is, and as you say, things change constantly, but we should not be so shallow as to swallow slogans without explanations of what they mean. After all, we are hopefully somewhat intelligent voters for a potential president, not attendees of a multilevel marketing rally listening to buzzwords.

It dawned on me what Obama's speeches sound like the last couple of days. It greatly reminded me of some kind of sales rally, a multilevel marketing scheme rally, where everyone becomes worked up with slogans, buzzwords, and emotion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am actually very tired of Obama supporters chanting change. They either don't know what it is beyond being a slogan, or perhaps Obama doesn't want to spell it out completely?

Or maybe, just maybe, some people are just too damn dumb, or lazy, to simply look at his friggin website instead of talking completely out of their arses. Maybe.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.com

0 Replies

Bill
If you don't mind instead of going to his brain washing site I will look up his record on neutral sites. Most of what is wrong with our system is people going to sites that are biased. I haven't gone to a obama, clinton or edwards site since this cycle started.

0 Replies

Okay, Mr. bright bulb OB, educate me on what is so revolutionary in terms of change in Obama's platform. I don't hear anything new but the same old platitudes that I hear out of most politicians, and when you look at his website issue list, it is sort of a non starter to read through some of it.

Bottom line, listening to his speeches reveals more platitudes than substance, and that is what I was talking about. Most politicians speak in platitudes, but I find Obama being more into that than usual. Just something I noticed, thats all, don't get all defensive. If you can identify one huge reason why he represents change so drastically, more than anyone else, feel free to explain it.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Bill
If you don't mind instead of going to his brain washing site I will look up his record on neutral sites. Most of what is wrong with our system is people going to sites that are biased. I haven't gone to a obama, clinton or edwards site since this cycle started.

I don't mind at all. If fact; I couldn't care less. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to link one for Okie, because his ignorance doesn't bother me enough to spoon feed him.

0 Replies

If you want to know where the candidates stand try this site.

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

If you want to know where the candidates stand try this site.

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

Yes, this is an excellent site, and this is the site where I go to evaluate what they say versus how they vote.

Obama gets some stuff right as they all do. But mostly he is a pure liberal with obvious socialist leanings, and he doesn't always vote as he talks. He promises to 'reinstate' (as if it ever existed) 'paygo' when he is President, and yet his voting record shows little conviction toward that end.

Still, he is certainly not more dishonest than any other candidates and therefore scores okay on the honesty meter. So if you lean far left and want a president who will support most modern liberal causes/issues, he could very well be your man.

Hillary by contrast seems to have no strong convictions about much of anything and I think will be whomever she thinks she needs to be to look good.

So if you don't lean so far left, but realize we are going to have a Democrat president, which do you choose? The one with no strength of conviction so you can't be sure what you'll get? Or the one with strength of conviction who supports a lot of things that you oppose?

McCain has abandoned the conservative ship too many times for me to fully trust him, but then so have Giuliani and Romney but at least they both were governing very liberal states at the time. Huckabee to me may be the most dangerous of the front runners so far as standing firm on issues important to me. Thompson's voting record is pretty good and he talks a good game, but I am not sure he is sufficiently personally appealing to beat either Obama or Clinton. Duncan Hunter, with solid gold conservative credentials, never had a chance.

Still it is turning out to be an interesting election, and overall we do seem to have a pretty good group to choose from. Since we can't have Superman, I hope we pick the best from the lot.

0 Replies

A look at strategic prospects and the way the different Republican candidates tackle them:

Quote:

Analysis: McCain and Huckabee now rivals

Thought it was a decent overview. One minor exception: the "end-the-income-tax proclamations [that] resonate with young, working class people"? Um, working class people against the income tax? What, they're supposed to like Huckabee's "Fair Tax," which would benefit the top 20% and hurt all the rest, better? Doesnt make sense.

But otherwise, pretty informative I thought for one of those run-of-the-mill stories.

0 Replies

God. Romney has to deserve some prize for being the biggest fake ever.

Quote:

Romney Squirts A Few

Not to be cynical, but post-Iowa, Mitt Romney seemed to be desperately trying to mimic Obama's call for change. Now, post-New Hampshire, is he retooling his campaign to mimic Hillary? From today's NYT article about Romney's day in Michigan:

"We're going to make sure this state gets on the move again," Mr. Romney said. "I care about Michigan. For me, it's personal. It's personal for me because it's where I was born and raised." Earlier in the day, after hearing from a voter who recalled his father, Mr. Romney choked up momentarily, according to a pool reporter who was present. "He was a great man, and I miss him dearly," Mr. Romney said.

0 Replies

Here's a question:

I don't understand why people would support a candidate who talks about "tax cuts" when it doesn't benefit the middle class? The only tax cuts that will help the majority is one that really reduces the taxes on the middle class and increases it for the wealthy.

Many conservatives say the rich already pay the biggest portion of income taxes, but they are also the ones who's income has incrased by double-digit rates while the middle income families hasn't even kept up with inflation. You would think that at a time when our economy is struggling, we have two wars that's costing taxpayers over 2.7 billion every week, and our federal deficit continues its upward spiral, that asking the wealthy to pay for some of it is the only reasonable alternative.

There is something drastically wrong with this picture.

0 Replies

Nimh,

I think you may lack some contextual understanding of Romney's father's role in Michigan politics. While there is little doubt that this political rhetoric is a bit embellished for effect - as is almost all of it from every candidate - the basis for his expressed sentiments is both real and relevant to the political situation in Michigan.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
Bill
If you don't mind instead of going to his brain washing site I will look up his record on neutral sites. Most of what is wrong with our system is people going to sites that are biased. I haven't gone to a obama, clinton or edwards site since this cycle started.
I don't mind at all. If fact; I couldn't care less. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to link one for Okie, because his ignorance doesn't bother me enough to spoon feed him.

So even rabel22 understands that even Obama's website gives you not much info about this nebulous term, "change," that is thrown around so freely. I have listened to Obama's speeches, and about all I hear are platitudes, not much substance about this wonderful vision called "change."

Bill, you can call me ignorant, fine, but in all your infinite wisdom, I would argue that a very large percentage of people know very little of the details of what Obama is talking about as part of his primary slogan and mantra concerning change. I believe Obama is still one of the more unknown quantities in terms of the voters knowing what he is really about. Part of this is because he simply does not have a very long record in national politics, and so the importance of him explaining his positions become even more important than perhaps a McCain for example. McCain is a known quantity. So for Obama, what we get is the mantra, change, well I am here to say it doesn't do much for me. As Foxfyre has rightly pointed out, he is a liberal, but I know that already, but what kind of liberal is he on all of the various points, and we have little track record in terms of his ability to lead or manage anything, let alone president.

I am willing to listen to Obama, but frankly in my opinion, he let a bunch of novice young libs that are tired of the Clintons talk him into running, when he simply does not have the experience or track record to deserve it. Who is this guy, really, that does not much more than talk about change. I think we all deserve more than that from a guy that wants to be president.

0 Replies

Comment on the Republican debate tonight, again, we see a group of politicians that all far exceed anything the Democrats have to offer. Even Ron Paul, although sort of a pipsqueak, speaks with honesty and offers many important points. He is isolationist, but he at least is consistent on this, and he did not vote for authorization for war and then later turn tail, waffle, and abandon his own commitment as other politicians have done.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know