I cannot imagine how dreadful it would be to have another Clinton regime.
So, this is my question,, Of all the options.... Of all the people in the US running for office, or considering it, no matter what political affiliation they represent, WHO has what it is going to take to BEAT Billary, Chillary, ... wait... Hillary. ???
This post was modified from its original form on 21 Mar, 0:37
As long as the influence of the Hollywood nut-jobs doesn't sway votes, I think we're safe. I also believe that it's important to reach out to fellow Christians to support Republicans. This country is becoming a little too faithless in my opinion.
I am a little worried about 2008. Seems all I hear is the Democrats campaigning hard and nothing really much from the Republican side. Most of that's probably due to which way most of the media leans but a lot of people like Hillary and just adore Bill! I really think Giuliani stands the best chance against Hillary. Is Newt running?
As I've previously mentioned, Ms. Clinton is too wishy-washy. She can't seem to make up her mind as to what she believes. Plus, many people will question whether this is the right time for a woman president.
Guiliani, on the other hand, has good credibility, he turned New York into the safest big city in the US, and he is loved for what he'd done during the 9/11 attacks. He is pro-choice, which doesn't please me, but I think the good outweighs the bad here.
Sandra, I think Thompson will be a long shot. Romney has a better shot, but I'll still go with Giuliani.
To be honest, as long as it's a Republican, I'm happy. I can't bear the thought of a Democrat, especially Ms. Clinton, getting in office. That would mean we'd have Bill as First Man - no-o-o-o-o-o!!!
http://www.frontpag emag.com/ Articles/ ReadArticle. asp?ID=27433
This post was modified from its original form on 22 Mar, 16:07
The fact that Obama has Hollywood support might just cost him a good run for 08. Michael Moore tried this with the last election and he found out quick most Americans don't respect Hollywood!
Obama should be truthful about his background! His background is very easy to dig up as well with any politician!
I appreciate all the input, I will respond further when I have more time!
http://news. bostonherald. com/editorial/ view.bg?articlei d=189809& srvc=home
Here is a site I found that we should access if we want to encourage his candidacy: http://www.grassrootsvoter.com/?gclid=CKGon5PvnYsCFRfOggodsmwPkA
with all of the debates and stuff lately why is nobody talking here?
From what I see, nobody is really talking in any of the groups. But to the question of this thread, the two polls released last week (Foxnews/Opinion Dynamics and USAToday/Gallup) both showed Giuliani beating her, although the margin was tight.
It's still early, and Fred Thompson hasn't really started campaigning yet. He could also be a strong candidate, but I think Giuliani would be a much safer bet to retain the White House.
I think Mike and me finally exposed his copy and paste method LOL! He must of packed up and moved on. Or either his jacket is too tight to type....
I think Giuliani will be the best bet up against Hillary. McCain has lost it with conservatives and his immigration policy.
I saw that. You and Mike had trounced him so badly there wasn't anything left for me to add to the thread. I hope he comes back.
Yeah, McCain lost whatever chance he had with that immigration bill. He's done, and rightfully so.
I looked and he is still here so you might get a chance sooner or later! Is this the record for how long you've made it on the website?
Poor McCaine. I actually feel a little sorry for him. He means well but he just can't seem to pull it off. I also like Romny and think one day he will be pres!
I heard it through the grapevine (my husband who is VERY well informed) that Fred will announce next month, if he plans to run. He is my first choice and a definite win over that @*&$# communist Hillary.
This post was modified from its original form on 11 Jun, 17:20
According to the latest LA Times poll just about everybody beats her now. Giuliani by 10 points, McCain by 4, and Romney by 2. The more people hear her tax and spend collectivism the more they dislike her.
This post was modified from its original form on 12 Jun, 16:00
You have to admit it's hilarious that the neocons, having co-opted the religious right for the purpose of obtaining easy (mindless) votes, must now pander ever more to the religious right just to remain viable. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani both have to defend perfectly acceptable records of voting pro-choice and even, in the case of Mitt, pretend not to have had that record.
The point is; think very hard before you pretend to support something you really don't. You either get deeper and deeper into the deceptions needed to maintain the pretense, or you get found out and really piss off those who thought you supported them.
I dream of the day the religious right finally wises up and realizes they have been pawns of the neocons. I doubt it will bring them to the left, but it will at least force them to abandon the right.
Let's see how our guest did. The way I eveluate mindless cant from the looney left is to check how many of the empty slogans and phrases echoing about the internet the looney leftist works into the post. Here's how he did:
Misuse of the word neocon: check
Oversimplify Republicans as the religious right and neocons: check
Avoid presenting anything close to a rational argument: check
Call Bush a liar: NO
Decry US imperialism: NO
Call for impeachment: NO
I'm sorry, but this just wasn't a very good effort. You worked a few of the more obvious mindless utterences into your post, but not nearly enough. You just aren't ready for this yet, but here's a site that will help. If you read all the discussions on this site, within just a few short hours you too will be able to rant as well as the best clueless looney leftists anywhere:
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Jun, 15:29
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Jun, 15:29
I have not yet met a Lefty that uses the word NEOCON, that can actually tell me what a NEOCON is. Its just a word the brain-dead loonys like to throw around cause it sounds scary, Like Neo-Nazi. OHHHHHH
I have heard Mitt Romneys explanation of his change and how it came about and it sounds sincere to me.
Okay so here's my take. Chillary scares the CRAP out of me, but a friend of mine says, she's just not "voteable".. For the average American voter, she won't get the vote. #1 because she's a woman. I personally have no trouble with a woman president, I'm simply saying that I'm not sure mainstream America is ready for a woman president. #2.. The Clintons are far too fanatical for a lot of Americans, so given the choice, if she does win the Democratic nomination, I don't think she'd be electable because of her far left stance.
Also, Obama may have a better chance at the nomination because he is more down to earth than the other 2. He doesn't care about his hair as much as Edwards does, and I haven't heard of him throwing any lamps at his spouse like Chillary has. Plus, you could pretty much count on him winning the African-American sect of votes whether they like him or not, he's an African-American himself, so they'll vote for him.
IN terms of the Republican peeps, Guliani NOOOOO NO NO! He's So PRO-Abortion it's pathetic! He would reverse all the good that Bush has done in the war on baby deaths in this country and that's just unacceptable. I've met the guy in person and gotten his autograph, very nice guy. But VERY screwed up when it comes to whether a baby has the right to live in the US or not. So in my book, he's completely out.
I think McCain has what it takes. He was a military member who became a POW and survived the horrors of war, and he'll win the vet votes. Plus, he deserves to be president after all he went through during the war. I think we owe it to him. Besides, he's a pretty straight up guy, don't ya think?
I could go on, but I won't. LOL! But then, couldn't we all?.. giggle
The problem is McCain has killed any chance he had for the nomination with his involvement with the immigration bill. He's dead.
I completely agree with your stance on abortion, but I don't think Giuliani will have the effect you claim. First of all, there is really nothing a President can do to impact abortion other than nominate Supreme Court justices who oppose Roe v Wade. Giuliani has vowed to nominate justices in the Scalia/Thomas mold. For me, that would suffice.
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Jun, 16:22
You have some good points, buuuuut I don't think we can count McCain totally out yet. I agree it hurt him, but I still think he would be the best bet. Now granted Guliani has face recognition, and the very thought of 9/11 upsets most normal Americans, and since he is associated with lifting New York out of the ashes after that, he probably would win a lot of votes.
Now in terms of a president not being able to do a whole lot, look at all the damage Billary did while he was president! He managed to up the numbers in the slaughter all by himself, and yes of course, he had the Democratic congress to help him along, but nevertheless.
Hopefully if Guliani DID become president, he would not make abortion "rights" a top priority and he would listen to his party over his own ideals.
According to the debates (from what I caught of them), Thompson was the only strong Republican candidate there.
Rudy's a good guy, but he's a bit too moderate for my taste.
Romney, who I'd initially thought of voting for, is also wishy-washy. He flip-flopped almost as much as Kerry did at the last election .
I don't know enough about huckabee yet to put forth an opinion.
As far as the icy Ms. Clinton goes, she doesn't have a snowball's chance. Honestly. She's too militant for feminists, and too angry for most men.
Barack gets offended too easily, and he would be eaten alive if he were to be President.
If I had to say anyone of the Dems had a chance, it's be Edwards, because most Dem Women think he's "so attractive," and will vote for him purely on that. Does the name JFK ring a bell? He was "charming" and "charismatic" and "handsome."
Hopefully, Thompson will beat chhhhhillary with her own icy hands. That woman's scary...
I just got this in an e-mail.
A little something to help ease your stress...
Now that Thompson has put his hat into the ring, he's been saying things that actually have meat on them.
I'll be watching him closely, but so far I think he's the best choice.
Rudy has been saying a few things that he himself hasn't practiced in actual life. It's good that he can change, but on some major issues I find him lacking.
There are things about McCain that I like, but not enough to support him over either Rudy or Fred.
I think the Republican party will have a much harder time if Obama gets the Democratic vote, but I also think that the "open minded" front that is being put up by them will result in Clinton recieving the backing.
As far as Hillary, there's to much crap in her closet, enough in fact that she can't get the door shut long enough to act like it isn't there.
There's probably four Republican candidates who could beat her on the final stretch run to the Whitehouse..
I Still think Thompson needs more attention!
BTW, one thing I don't miss about Iowa are the political commercials this time of the election cycle!
I think Alan Keyes is the best candidate.
Check out Alan Keyes.com
Obama commited a liberal blunder, by verbalizing his admiration of Ronald Reagan..
I'm thinking that he just handed the Democratic nomination to Hillary, with only a small part of a larger speach....
That may actually help the Republicans, as most moderate liberals aren't taken with Hillary, and neither are the extremists.
Thompson may be dropping out soon. The last speach I heard from him, kind of sounds like he's leaning that way.. I imagine he'll throw his support to McCain..
Either combination should be able to beat Hillary... IMO.
If Hillary were to have Edwards as her running mate, then it's possible that it'd be close though.. I really don't see a Hillary/Obama ticket..
(What does Bill tell Hillary, after having sex??
I'll be home in thirty minutes...)
Aaron, to clarify, I have not in any way, decided on who to vote for yet.
This thread is kind of topic specific, therefore dictates on how I post my words..
Paul's ideals can be applied and melded to McCains, without to much problem.
Both are for smaller Government, and lower tax bases.
The only possible stumbling block would be on immigration..
I actually like Ron Paul so far. Of course, I like several other candidates as well, so I'm still doing my homework..
Well, there's the thing.
He's anti-war, but he's also stating that he'd not pull out all the troops. Humanitarium reasons would keep some troops in the area.
That's not that far off what McCain is saying.. IMO
One thing that he says and I like to hear is, he wouldn't "go to war", because the UN said to.. (Think, anti-world police..)
We should've never been percieved as the world police, and it'll keep getting us in trouble as long as it appears that way, and we keep doing things to support that idea..
Since McCain himself, a downed Navy pilot, was a prisoner in Hanoi for 5 1/2 years, his staunch resistance to laying open the POW/MIA records has baffled colleagues and others who have followed his career. Critics say his anti-disclosure campaign, in close cooperation with the Pentagon and the intelligence community, has been successful. Literally thousands of documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago have been legislated into secrecy.
For example, all the Pentagon debriefings of the prisoners who returned from Vietnam are now classified and closed to the public under a statute enacted in the 1990s with McCain's backing. He says this is to protect the privacy of former POWs and gives it as his reason for not making public his own debriefing.
But the law allows a returned prisoner to view his own file or to designate another person to view it. APBnews.com has repeatedly asked the senator for an interview for this article and for permission to view his debriefing documents. He has not responded. His office did recently send APBnews.com an e-mail, referring to a favorable article about the senator in the Jan. 1 issue of Newsweek. In the article, the reporter, Michael Isikoff, says that he was allowed to review McCain's debriefing report and that it contained "nothing incriminating" -- although in a phone interview Isikoff acknowledged that "there were redactions" in the document. Isikoff declined to say who showed him the document, but APBnews.com has learned it was McCain.
Many Vietnam veterans and former POWs have fumed at McCain for keeping these and other wartime files sealed up. His explanation, offered freely in Senate hearings and floor speeches, is that no one has been proven still alive and that releasing the files would revive painful memories and cause needless emotional stress to former prisoners, their families and the families of MIAs still unaccounted for. But what if some of these returned prisoners, as has always been the case at the conclusion of wars, reveal information to their debriefing officers about other prisoners believed still held in captivity? What justification is there for filtering such information through the Pentagon rather than allowing access to source materials? For instance, debriefings from returning Korean war POWs, available in full to the American public, have provided both citizens and government investigators with important information about other Americans who went missing in that conflict.
Would not most families of missing men, no matter how emotionally drained, want to know? And would they not also want to know what the government was doing to rescue their husbands and sons? Hundreds of MIA families have for years been questioning if concern for their feelings is the real reason for the secrecy.
Prisoners left behind
A smaller number of former POWs, MIA families and veterans have suggested there is something especially damning about McCain that the senator wants to keep hidden. Without release of the files, such accusations must be viewed as unsubstantiated speculation. The main reason, however, for seeking these files is to find out if there is any information in the debriefings, or in other MIA documents that McCain and the Pentagon have kept sealed, about how many prisoners were held back by North Vietnam after the Paris peace treaty was signed in January 1973. The defense and intelligence establishment has long resisted the declassification of critical records on this subject. McCain has been the main congressional force behind this effort.
The prisoner return in 1973 saw 591 Americans repatriated by North Vietnam. The problem was that the U.S. intelligence list of men believed to be alive at that time in captivity -- in Vietnam, Laos and possibly across the border in southern China and in the Soviet Union -- was much larger.
Possibly hundreds of men larger. The State Department stated publicly in 1973 that intelligence data showed the prisoner list to be starkly incomplete. For example, only nine of the 591 returnees came out of Laos, though experts in U.S. military intelligence listed 311 men as missing in that Hanoi-run country alone, and their field reports indicated that many of those men were probably still alive. Hanoi said it was returning all the prisoners it had. President Nixon, on March 29, 1973, seconded that claim, telling the nation on television: "All of our American POWs are on their way home." This discrepancy has never been acknowledged or explained by official Washington. Over the years in Washington, McCain, at times almost single-handedly, has pushed through Pentagon-desired legislation to make it impossible or much harder for the public to acquire POW/MIA information and much easier for the defense bureaucracy to keep it hidden.
Compare the above to Dr. Paul's record with veterans. McCain is far different than Paul on foreign policy, one realm where the president has real power. McCain also has not commited to reversing the damage done over the current and previous administrations to balance of powers. Another area that no candidate other than Ron Paul has addressed is that we have an inherently flawed monetary system, and the only way we are going to avoid a massive financial crisis is to revamp our paper-based currency. The only real reason we ever went off the gold standard is so that the people in power could spend more of our wealth. Not dollars per se, they just print more out of thin air, which devalues our savings. Basically they're stealing our labor. Again, you won't hear anyone other than Dr. Paul mention this (some candidates have been taking some of the things that Dr. Paul says that sound good: "stop printing so much money&
To clarify, Ron Paul claims to be "anti war", not McCain.. I guess I failed to clarify this in words..
They aren't however, really that far off with each other, they only try to be as they are running for the same office..
McCain deciding to hold his records closed there, should not make any difference to his campaign.. There are enough people who already have opened their own, to provide information for those who want to know...
My choice for republican candidate would be Michelle Bachman. My favorite description of her was given on Chris Mathews' show by Matt Taibbi, who said (when asked what he thought of M. Bachman), "On the way over here, I saw a homeless guy huffing glue in the subway, and he was making a lot more sense than Michelle Bachman.
Yeah. Run her.