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

That was my whole point on the divorce schtick, Lash. At no time did I say the accusations weren't true. All I did was say that the recollection of the criticism I think may have been overblown and that there are almost always two sides to every story. And I spent the rest of my day fending off ad hominem posts from people who couldn't accept that point of view and distorted what I said. I'll accept that I usually write to Conservative intelligence and don't always allow for Liberalspeak which may make me an ineffective communicator. But I still think it was a reasonable observation, and I won't apologize for it.

Thanks for chiming in. Sometimes we all need a friendly face. You and I don't always agree, but you're always fair, up front, and can argue a point of view on its own merits.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I would suggest people not believe everything they hear in the tabloids. How on earth would one know who did what to whom in a divorce where they didn't personally know either of the people involved?

...and my blurb about Obama is on par with Mussolini et al... It gets stupid--Those who are taking it there should prepare to be met there...

It's really a waste.

Maybe, but we would be talking about the only election, hmm, ever, that didn't get personal. Not good odds.

The perception of what happened to Guliani's marriage is actually far more important than what actually happened - at least in terms of electibility of a candidate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lash wrote:
I would suggest people not believe everything they hear in the tabloids. How on earth would one know who did what to whom in a divorce where they didn't personally know either of the people involved?

...and my blurb about Obama is on par with Mussolini et al... It gets stupid--Those who are taking it there should prepare to be met there...

It's really a waste.

Maybe, but we would be talking about the only election, hmm, ever, that didn't get personal. Not good odds.

The perception of what happened to Guliani's marriage is actually far more important than what actually happened - at least in terms of electibility of a candidate.

Cycloptichorn

...like madrassas and coke...and Chicago corruption... I was just hoping that during this cycle, we could speak dispassionately of the circus and not be sucked in to it.

But, que sera....

I do like talking to you without being all pissed, cyclo... Laughing

And, thanks fox. I know we've moved a bit farther apart "ideologically" --if I can make myself refer to it as such--but I'm fond of you--and respect a lot of your political savvy.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lash wrote:
I would suggest people not believe everything they hear in the tabloids. How on earth would one know who did what to whom in a divorce where they didn't personally know either of the people involved?

...and my blurb about Obama is on par with Mussolini et al... It gets stupid--Those who are taking it there should prepare to be met there...

It's really a waste.

Maybe, but we would be talking about the only election, hmm, ever, that didn't get personal. Not good odds.

The perception of what happened to Guliani's marriage is actually far more important than what actually happened - at least in terms of electibility of a candidate.

Cycloptichorn

...like madrassas and coke...and Chicago corruption... I was just hoping that during this cycle, we could speak dispassionately of the circus and not be sucked in to it.

But, que sera....

I do like talking to you without being all pissed, cyclo...

And, thanks fox. I know we've moved a bit farther apart "ideologically" --if I can make myself refer to it as such--but I'm fond of you--and respect a lot of your political savvy.

Hahah, as I said before: Guiliani is my #3 guy. It doesn't bother me at all that he has personal life problems; I don't give a fig if he gets four hummers a day in the oval office from a tranny named Francis as long as he leads the country competently.

I fear that others won't see it that way, though. Unlike the rest of you apparently, I remember quite well how angry many people were over Clinton's infidelity - not the lie, but the low morals. I just can't bring myself to believe that these same people are going to vote in a guy who did arguably far worse things while holding a major elected position.

But, what do I know? If things in Iraq don't get better, there easily could be no other issue come '08.

You still in school?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I would suggest people not believe everything they hear in the tabloids.

The whole point -- or my whole point anyway, for the limited time I weighed in on this one -- is that it WASN'T just the tabloids. There are all kinds of facts out there about what Rudy actually did. He actually informed his wife that he was going to separate from her via a press conference. He actually cheated on that wife. He actually had his "friend" Judith Nathan act as a "second first lady," when he was still married -- marching next to him in parades and such. This stuff is a matter of public record, and easily found (linked to a few times so far).

Do I particularly care? No.

Is it easily dismissed as tabloid fantasias? Also no.

0 Replies

How much do you know about what Hanover did to him BEFORE he did those things? Interested in the whole story???

Cyclo--

I'm in school--doing great--you'll be happy to know I am no longer a 4.0

Laughing

0 Replies

Sure, I'm interested. As much as I'm interested in the whole thing... again, it's just not that important to me.

But did it happen? Sure. Not just tabloid fantasias.

0 Replies

Cyclops; do you really think Obama and Giuliani are merely the best of two bad lots? Confused

Not that it ever surprises me when your opinion is the polar opposite of mine; but I think they are the very best each party has looked like they might offer in a very long time. Never before did I see a realistic shot at two men I respect vying for the Presidency.

0 Replies

OBill, We agree again! Something strange is in the air! LOL

0 Replies

You're really starting to freak me out, C.I. Are you feeling ok? Razz

0 Replies

Here's a very interesting factor...

Quote:

The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to ensure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.

Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1172830013-HWIRFOxasQ1FXkVjbuDnEA

0 Replies

In the same poll however

Quote:

Less than one in three, however, say the government would do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Forty-four percent said the government would be worse as a health care provider than private companies.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In the same poll however

Quote:
Less than one in three, however, say the government would do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Forty-four percent said the government would be worse as a health care provider than private companies.

That might be reasoned because ..

Quote:

0 Replies

And you point in that is what, Walter?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And you point in that is what, Walter?

Naturally, that people don't trust the current leadership to get the job done - on a whole host of issues. Health care is only one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one. Now admittedly, if we can trust CNN to run an honest poll, if a majority of Americans do want government to take over more of the health care, which I personally doubt, and they do trust the Democrats to do that better than Republicans would, which I don't doubt in the least, then of course they'll vote Democrat if that is their #1 interest in the next election.

It will depend on how it's done though. Hillary's universal health program was a huge factor and maybe even the most important factor in giving control of Congress to the GOP in 1994. It scared the peewaddin' out of a whole lot of the American public.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one. Now admittedly, if we can trust CNN to run an honest poll, if a majority of Americans do want government to take over more of the health care, which I personally doubt, and they do trust the Democrats to do that better than Republicans would, which I don't doubt in the least, then of course they'll vote Democrat if that is their #1 interest in the next election.

It will depend on how it's done though. Hillary's universal health program was a huge factor and maybe even the most important factor in giving control of Congress to the GOP in 1994. It scared the peewaddin' out of a whole lot of the American public.

I think it was her personal, acidic touch which scared America then.

I also think that the health care situation wasn't as bad in the early nineties as it is now, for a lot of American families.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Insurance companies are middlemen (baggage), but still infinitely more efficient than government bureaucracy. The shitty part about Federal Health Care is we'll probably end up paying both. Sad

Foxfyre wrote:

But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one. Now admittedly, if we can trust CNN to run an honest poll, if a majority of Americans do want government to take over more of the health care, which I personally doubt...

Stop doubting; it isn't just CNN.
http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm

0 Replies

According to the rhetoric back then, health care was worse. And it wasn't Hillary so much trying to sell the program back then. It was Bill. And Hillary enjoyed a high personal approval rating at that time also.

No, it was the idea of the US government taking over 13% of the US economy and the tremendous restrictions it would have put on health care that scared everybody. And if they try to do anything similar this time, it will meet with the same resistance for the same reasons.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Insurance companies are middlemen (baggage), but still infinitely more efficient than government bureaucracy. The shitty part about Federal Health Care is we'll probably end up paying both.

Foxfyre wrote:
But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one. Now admittedly, if we can trust CNN to run an honest poll, if a majority of Americans do want government to take over more of the health care, which I personally doubt...
Stop doubting; it isn't just CNN.
http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm

And maybe the polls are right. I mean some bloke calls you up and asks if you would be willing to pay a bit more for poor kids to have health care, what are you going to say?

But then later when you see what the price tag will be and that you'll have to give up stuff to accomplish the stated goal, etc. etc. etc., then how will you vote? When you find out that those 'rich' folks they were talking about are the $30k or $40k income families, would that change your opinion? And when the opposition starts putting out the illustrations in how inefficient government is in administering some of this stuff, would they then rethink it?

Snood once pointed out that few Americans are going to say they wouldn't vote for a black man for President. But in the secrecy of the voting booth, would that still hold true? We won't know until we have the chance to find out.

I think that's true on the issue of universal health care and all other subjective issues that are more based on feelings than anything else too.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know