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

Just to point out something important to this debate here, if I was in Venezuela, I would not be proud of being in the mainstream, if it was the mainstream that elected Hugo Chavez. I would not have wanted to be in the mainstream of Germany in the late 30's. I would not want to be in the mainstream, if the mainstream is flowing off course. I am not comparing America to those two examples, but we need to remind ourselves that worshiping at the alter of "the mainstream" is not always the best course.

Quote:

Romney's hair-brained hypocrisy.When media reports revealed that former senator John Edwards had paid $400 for his haircuts, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney stated that "he pays $50 for a hair cut including the tip" [..]

Today, Politico reports:

Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services."

Links at the source

Romney is the biggest flaming hypocrite and panderer in the whole damn field. He really will say anything, to anyone, to get elected. It's almost caricatural - in that sense he's much worse than any of the other Republican candidates too.

nimh wrote:

Romney is the biggest flaming hypocrite and panderer in the whole damn field. He really will say anything, to anyone, to get elected. It's almost caricatural - in that sense he's much worse than any of the other Republican candidates too.

Nonsense. It is axiomatic that ALL of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, will say almost anything to get elected. This observation applies equally to those whose political trajectories have permitted them to be relatively consistent in their "messages" as to those who have altered them in different situations. Alterations of this kind over emotional issues such as abortion are often entirely reasonable behavior on the part of a principled leader.

President Lincoln carefully avoided any reference to action to abolish slavery in the early years of his presidency, and instead focused on the preservation of the union (knowing that without the union slavery in the South would certainly continue). Indeed he repeatedly denied any intent for abolition, even though that was certainly his ultimate intent. Tghis is the art and fact of politics.

nimh wrote:

Romney is the biggest flaming hypocrite and panderer in the whole damn field. He really will say anything, to anyone, to get elected. It's almost caricatural - in that sense he's much worse than any of the other Republican candidates too.

Nonsense. It is axiomatic that ALL of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, will say almost anything to get elected. This observation applies equally to those whose political trajectories have permitted them to be relatively consistent in their "messages" as to those who have altered them in different situations. Alterations of this kind over emotional issues such as abortion are often entirely reasonable behavior on the part of a principled leader.

President Lincoln carefully avoided any reference to action to abolish slavery in the early years of his presidency, and instead focused on the preservation of the union (knowing that without the union slavery in the South would certainly continue). Indeed he repeatedly denied any intent for abolition, even though that was certainly his ultimate intent. Tghis is the art and fact of politics.

georgeob1 wrote:

nimh wrote:

Romney is the biggest flaming hypocrite and panderer in the whole damn field. He really will say anything, to anyone, to get elected. It's almost caricatural - in that sense he's much worse than any of the other Republican candidates too.

Nonsense. It is axiomatic that ALL of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, will say almost anything to get elected. This observation applies equally to those whose political trajectories have permitted them to be relatively consistent in their "messages" as to those who have altered them in different situations. Alterations of this kind over emotional issues such as abortion are often entirely reasonable behavior on the part of a principled leader.

President Lincoln carefully avoided any reference to action to abolish slavery in the early years of his presidency, and instead focused on the preservation of the union (knowing that without the union slavery in the South would certainly continue). Indeed he repeatedly denied any intent for abolition, even though that was certainly his ultimate intent. Tghis is the art and fact of politics.

You entirely missed the point. Romney made the crack about Edwards haircuts cost all the while spending $300 (excuse me $150 for each session and one session he missed) on make-up. Where's occom bill (whatever) going on about this? Is it more manly to spend 150 on make-up than just haircuts?

plus Cyclop's point too about all the flack Kerry got for his so called flip flops from these very same people defending Romney's flip flops.

revel wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

nimh wrote:

Romney is the biggest flaming hypocrite and panderer in the whole damn field. He really will say anything, to anyone, to get elected. It's almost caricatural - in that sense he's much worse than any of the other Republican candidates too.

Nonsense. It is axiomatic that ALL of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, will say almost anything to get elected. This observation applies equally to those whose political trajectories have permitted them to be relatively consistent in their "messages" as to those who have altered them in different situations. Alterations of this kind over emotional issues such as abortion are often entirely reasonable behavior on the part of a principled leader.

President Lincoln carefully avoided any reference to action to abolish slavery in the early years of his presidency, and instead focused on the preservation of the union (knowing that without the union slavery in the South would certainly continue). Indeed he repeatedly denied any intent for abolition, even though that was certainly his ultimate intent. Tghis is the art and fact of politics.

You entirely missed the point. Romney made the crack about Edwards haircuts cost all the while spending $300 (excuse me $150 for each session and one session he missed) on make-up. Where's occom bill (whatever) going on about this? Is it more manly to spend 150 on make-up than just haircuts?

plus Cyclop's point too about all the flack Kerry got for his so called flip flops from these very same people defending Romney's flip flops.

Did Romney charge it to his campaign?

It's like you guys completely miss certain points, or they go over your head or something...

It's not that Edwards spent a lot of money on a haircut, he has the money and is supporting a free-market economy. It's that he charged his campaign for it.

It's not that Clinton got a blow job, it's that he lied before the grand jury about his relationship with that whore, I mean woman, Monica Lewinski.

Yet all we hear from some of you is Well Romney got a $300 haircut! Or, Clinton just got a blowjob!

How droll.

Did Romney charge it to his campaign?

"We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time," said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as "communications consulting" because it was paid from the communications division's budget.

Romney's makeup payment is just one example of the interesting nuggets that await those willing to dig through the thousands of entries in campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

McGentrix, the Democrats will pull whatever they have out of their bag of tricks that are aimed at the candidate they think might have the most potential. If Romney emerges as the candidate of choice, I hope they have more than expensive haircuts in their bag of tricks.

Are you going to vote for Hillary, cyclops, perish the thought?

Not to mention that it was the Politico which brought up this whole brouhaha, and they aren't exactly a Dem site.

okie wrote:

Are you going to vote for Hillary, cyclops, perish the thought?

Only if it's my only option. I'd rather see her in office then any of the Republicans.

Did you see the other day that 'none of the above' is currently leading the nomination race for the Republican party? Face it, your candidates all suck.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Are you going to vote for Hillary, cyclops, perish the thought?

Only if it's my only option. I'd rather see her in office then any of the Republicans.

Did you see the other day that 'none of the above' is currently leading the nomination race for the Republican party? Face it, your candidates all suck.

Cycloptichorn

Any one of ours have so much more credentials, accomplishments, and experience compared to yours, its not even close, cyclops. Your best ones are the ones that get no help from your party, the Bill Richardsons of the world. The do nothings and the one person with nothing much to show for her experience and the most corrupt history is being pushed by the party machinery, that person being Hillary. What does that tell you about your party, cyclops? When are you going to wake up? Can't your party find somebody, anybody, better than Hillary Clinton? There are 300 million people in this country, and many million Democrats, and surely you could find somebody better than that?

Any one of ours have so much more credentials, accomplishments, and experience compared to yours, its not even close,

And the leading Republican U.S. presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 Republican nomination fight.

"The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent cannnot or will not say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted by telephone July 9-11 with 1,004 adults, including 346 Republicans and 477 Democrats. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points, plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for Republicans and 4.5 percentage points for Democrats. For the combined June and July samples, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for Republicans and plus or minus 3 percentage points for Democrats.