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

While the Clintons have always had a genuine, if now faded, popularity with blacks, they have never been able to boast of a strong Latino base.

CNN is saying that both Edwards and Guliani are both dropping out of the race today.

mysteryman wrote:

CNN is saying that both Edwards and Guliani are both dropping out of the race today.

Last night, CNN said Giuliani would drop out today and endorse McCain. Didn't mention Edwards though. Hmmm. Wonder where Edwards' votes will go now? It has been widely speculated that he is maneuvering to be Obama's attorney general.

Dick Morris, Washington sleaze and political analyst plus a dedicated anti-Hillary person, both verbally and in print emphasizes that McCain has a chance to beat Hillary while Romney cannot.

Meanwhile Huckabee says he is staying in to the bitter end. It would not be the first time that the front runners eager to destroy each other opened the door for a dark horse.

For me it still comes down to who I want choosing the next Supreme Court Justice nominees. And that sure isn't Hillary or Obama. I would have to hold my nose to vote for McCain or Huckabee, but would do so if either are in fact the nominee.

Some comic relief...

Mitt Romney's idea of bonding with black kids on MLK Day is going, "Who let the dogs out, whoo whoo!"

Republicans seem to consider Obama a more formidable opponent than Hillary, too.

Cyclops, what do you think of the fact that both the Republican frontrunners are claiming to be conservatives? The other ones have either dropped out or are lagging behind.

And on the Democrat side, even Obama has invoked the name, "Ronald Reagan." What does that tell us about the people yearning for something not found in today's leadership?

okie wrote:

Cyclops, what do you think of the fact that both the Republican frontrunners are claiming to be conservatives? The other ones have either dropped out or are lagging behind.

And on the Democrat side, even Obama has invoked the name, "Ronald Reagan." What does that tell us about the people yearning for something not found in today's leadership?

It tells us that many Republicans put their conservatism first. Who is going to win as a Republican who doesn't claim to be Conservative?

I think you are making a mistake here.
Not every republican is a conservative, especially Bush.
And by the same token, not every conservative is a republican.
I am a conservative, and I don't consider McCain to be a conservative at all.
He is more of a moderate, imho.
I think the terms conservative and liberal are used not so much as a descriptive term as they are a perjorative among candidates.
McCain is more conservative then Olympia Snow (R-Maine), but he is not as conservative as I would like him to be.

So in the absence of a real conservative,McCain is the closest we will get to a real conservative.
I think its more a matter of there being no other choice, then it is that McCain is an actual conservative.

As for the second, it tells us that people are looking for leadership which doesn't demonize the words Conservative and Liberal. Our country needs both flavors in order to maintain the balance which moves us forwards.

I don't think the words conservative or liberal have become demonized by the politicians so much as they have been by the talking heads on both sides.
I think that most people, and I include myself in that, have become so accustomed to hearing those terms being used to vilify anyone that ddoesn'tagree with me.
As an example, Rush Limbaugh is hated and demonized by many on the left, the socalled liberals, because he supposedly represents everything they disagree with.
I cant help but wonder however if they would think that way about him if the words liberal or conservative wweren'tused.
I wonder the same thing about the people on AirAmerica, (if that radio group is still running), would those who call themselves conservatives vilify them so much.
Both sides have good ideas, yet because we have let the pundits and talking heads define the terms, none of us seem to want to even listen to the other side.

This is one reason why I'm against many Hillary supporters, who can't wait to get in with a Dem majority in both houses and cram as much down the Republicans' throats as possible. Look where it got the Republicans!

Cycloptichorn

I do agree with much of what you wrote in response to cyclops, but with one addition, Republicans seem to want the label of "conservative," while Democrats do not wish to claim to be liberals. ...

okie wrote:

I do agree with much of what you wrote in response to cyclops, but with one addition, Republicans seem to want the label of "conservative," while Democrats do not wish to claim to be liberals. ...

That's right ... by and large, Democrats seem to prefer the term, "progressive."

Ticomaya wrote:

okie wrote:

I do agree with much of what you wrote in response to cyclops, but with one addition, Republicans seem to want the label of "conservative," while Democrats do not wish to claim to be liberals. ...

That's right ... by and large, Democrats seem to prefer the term, "progressive."

Well, Republicans have been demonizing the word 'liberal' for 50 years. It has an effect after a while.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

okie wrote:

I do agree with much of what you wrote in response to cyclops, but with one addition, Republicans seem to want the label of "conservative," while Democrats do not wish to claim to be liberals. ...

That's right ... by and large, Democrats seem to prefer the term, "progressive."

Well, Republicans have been demonizing the word 'liberal' for 50 years. It has an effect after a while.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

okie wrote:

I do agree with much of what you wrote in response to cyclops, but with one addition, Republicans seem to want the label of "conservative," while Democrats do not wish to claim to be liberals. ...

That's right ... by and large, Democrats seem to prefer the term, "progressive."

Well, Republicans have been demonizing the word 'liberal' for 50 years. It has an effect after a while.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

okie wrote:

I do agree with much of what you wrote in response to cyclops, but with one addition, Republicans seem to want the label of "conservative," while Democrats do not wish to claim to be liberals. ...

That's right ... by and large, Democrats seem to prefer the term, "progressive."

Well, Republicans have been demonizing the word 'liberal' for 50 years. It has an effect after a while.

Cycloptichorn

Labels earn their reputations, cyclops. Its the stupid things given us by liberals that people know about, like the funny stuff on Paul Harvey where the ACLU defends a criminal's right to sue a landowner for not having a safe roof and caused him to fall through the roof while trying to rob the landowner. I don't have a specific example of that, but I recall hearing something like that, and it is just one of countless examples. Many liberal ideas are simply whacky, so liberalism has earned it's questionable reputation as a term. To me, liberalism has come to mean that you should have anything you want even without working for it or earning it, or even deserving it, and that includes money, rights, whatever. If you don't want to work, you still deserve it, and if you commit crimes, you aren't at fault, society is, and if you are here illegally, you should still have all the rights as a citizen, on and on, there is no end to the whacked out ideas of liberalism. Most people are not liberal and don't ever want to be. It isn't inspiring or something that can be defended.