25 Dec 07
I was watching Dan Rather interview James Carville last night, and Carville said something interesting. He said that for the last 60 years the Republican Party had succeeded in identifying their presidential nominee by this time in the election cycle. So, why is it taking so long for the Republican Party to pick out their nominee this time around? Do you Republicans out there know who you want to the nominee to be? Are there deep devisions in the Republican Party that are preventing consensus? How many of you would vote for "None of the Above" if it was an option?
25 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThis is a very interesting race. You have Guiliani, America's Mayor who is on his third marriage. You have a Mormon. You have an aging senator (Thompson) married to someone just out of highschool. You have a Baptist preacher who plays the bass and really likes Keith Richards. And John McKain who is getting a "I told you so" boost with the war going better. I was sort of suspicious of him going to Falwell and getting his blessing, but I rethought that when I heard him talk about it in terms of his whole life being focused on forgiveness and reconciliation. He put it in the context of his being a prisoner of war and forgiving his captives.
I was watching Dan Rather interview James Carville last night, and Carville said something interesting. He said that for the last 60 years the Republican Party had succeeded in identifying their presidential nominee by this time in the election cycle. So, why is it taking so long for the Republican Party to pick out their nominee this time around? Do you Re ...[text shortened]... preventing consensus? How many of you would vote for "None of the Above" if it was an option?
I am interested in who the running mates will be. I am intrigued by the a McKain-Lieberman ticket. Both voted in favor of the war but have been highly critical of how it was handled.
What's your take on the Democratic side?
25 Dec 07
Originally posted by kirksey957My bet is that Hillary will get the nomination, but I think she has the worst shot of the top-tier candidates of actually getting elected. NPR conducted a poll a while back of a few thousand people, and asked them about the prospect of voting for a woman for president. Roughly 10 percent (a majority of these women themselves) claimed they would not vote for a woman, with similar patterns reported by a larger but slightly older CBS poll. This is 10 percent of liberals, mind you, the CBS poll was of Democrats. I bet the percentage is higher among Republicans. So, if independents swing Republican when faced with Hillary, we'll have another Republican president.
This is a very interesting race. You have Guiliani, America's Mayor who is on his third marriage. You have a Mormon. You have an aging senator (Thompson) married to someone just out of highschool. You have a Baptist preacher who plays the bass and really likes Keith Richards. And John McKain who is getting a "I told you so" boost with the war going b ...[text shortened]... ve been highly critical of how it was handled.
What's your take on the Democratic side?
26 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrInteresting thread. I think that I prefer Romney at this point. I don't think Rudy has what it takes morally. I truly believe the old shtick that if a man can't be honest to his family, he can't be honest. So there goes Fred too. And I can't stand the idea of preachers making money from their flocks ... because I can't separate flock from sheep and well, there goes the Huckster down the tubes. I kind of like Ron Paul ... except for the 19th century protectionism and the antebellum isolationism that kind of tends to encourage bad guys to do bad things... and oh yea... I kind of despise his support of the KKK and the Nazi's. Though I am an atheist, I greatly admire my Mormon heritage. We tend to work hard, take responsibility for our own lives and will give you the shirt off our backs if you will take responsibility for YOUR life.
I was watching Dan Rather interview James Carville last night, and Carville said something interesting. He said that for the last 60 years the Republican Party had succeeded in identifying their presidential nominee by this time in the election cycle. So, why is it taking so long for the Republican Party to pick out their nominee this time around? Do you Re ...[text shortened]... preventing consensus? How many of you would vote for "None of the Above" if it was an option?
And Romney is a free-market financial genius. We kind of need that with the national debt now pushing 1 full year of earnings... (12 trillions)
On the democrat side, I think that Clintons war machine has all the tricks and dirt. Nobody has ever yet explained the 400 FBI files on their political enemies that ended up in the White House... somehow. They were given a free ride by the media. Interestingly, I see that as being resurrected here shortly by the moveon side of the party... but it won't be enough to stop them.
I kind of like Obomber... but he has figured it all out and is a bit too slick for my tastes. He has ZERO experience and ZERO positions and ZERO policies. BUT!!! He can tell a good story and make us all feel good and that he understands us. I really, really would like to get him on a framing crew in august for a full month and see just how well he understands the working man... but that is just a fantasy.
26 Dec 07
Originally posted by kirksey957This is an interesting point on the selection. Is the marriage history or religious beliefs of the candidates really what qualifies or disqualifies them ?
This is a very interesting race. You have Guiliani, America's Mayor who is on his third marriage. You have a Mormon. You have an aging senator (Thompson) married to someone just out of highschool. You have a Baptist preacher who plays the bass and really likes Keith Richards. And John McKain who is getting a "I told you so" boost with the war going b ...[text shortened]... ve been highly critical of how it was handled.
What's your take on the Democratic side?
Are there any of the candidates that have a vision for america (or maybe even the world) that you particularly buy in to ?
26 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNobody has ever yet explained the 400 FBI files on their political enemies that ended up in the White House... somehow.
Interesting thread. I think that I prefer Romney at this point. I don't think Rudy has what it takes morally. I truly believe the old shtick that if a man can't be honest to his family, he can't be honest. So there goes Fred too. And I can't stand the idea of preachers making money from their flocks ... because I can't separate flock from sheep and well month and see just how well he understands the working man... but that is just a fantasy.
Would you give me more information on this?
I kind of despise his support of the KKK and the Nazi's
This too.
26 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere are thousands of hits on either subject. Be careful of the sources. I trust these two, and I don't hesitate to use them or recommend them to you. But do a lot of follow-up. It is too easy to just read enough to become opinionated and not enough to become educated.
[b] Nobody has ever yet explained the 400 FBI files on their political enemies that ended up in the White House... somehow.
Would you give me more information on this?
I kind of despise his support of the KKK and the Nazi's
This too.[/b]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_odd_alliance_supporting_ro.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/travel_office/travel_office_6-14.html
You will have to do some followup research to find the kkk organization that donates to Paul and his refusal to return their money or condemn them in any way... under the guise of "libertarianism". He is one dangerous dude. But so are the Clinton mob.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by ScheelI don't care about their religion or their marriage history, but Republicans tend to focus on that kind of stuff.
This is an interesting point on the selection. Is the marriage history or religious beliefs of the candidates really what qualifies or disqualifies them ?
Are there any of the candidates that have a vision for america (or maybe even the world) that you particularly buy in to ?
In my opinion there is only one issue that should be paramount in this election. All other issues stem from this one issue (except maybe gay marriage) and that is energy independence and creating new forms of energy that are clean and cheap. That will create jobs, boost our competitive edge in the world, make us less dependent on Mideast energy and conflicts and help us balance our budget.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by lovechiefsHe's OK, but the ony way he stands a snowball chance in hell of winning is if his wife follows him around everywhere and is bare-ass naked.
I am a Fred Thompson supporter and volunteer.
I believe Fred Thompson will be the nominee.
I will post a new thread about Fred Thompson explaining, giving links and such. I hope some of you will consider donating, volunteering and voting for Senator Thompson.
30 Dec 07
I would appreciate if you would keep the tone respectful.
The only thing all the critics have to say about Fred Thompson is that he is supposedly "lazy" and has a "trophy" wife. No one has ever challenged him on issues. As far as i am concerned, the "lazy" is a preconception and the "trophy" wife is crap.
People say he is lazy because he doesn't kiss the MSM behind(mainstream media) and he does the campaign his way,which no journalists like because they have nothing to report.
As far as his wife, why would you care if his wife is younger or older than him?That is none of yours or anyone's business. That is Fred Thompson's business.
What you and anyone else should care about are the issues,experience,leadership.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by lovechiefsI hope that wasn't meant for me, I like Thompson. I was merely pointing out the inaccurate statement that his wife was "just out of high school".
I would appreciate if you would keep the tone respectful.
The only thing all the critics have to say about Fred Thompson is that he is supposedly "lazy" and has a "trophy" wife. No one has ever challenged him on issues. As far as i am concerned, the "lazy" is a preconception and the "trophy" wife is crap.
People say he is lazy because he doesn't kiss th ...[text shortened]... s.
What you and anyone else should care about are the issues,experience,leadership.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNot at all Sam
I hope that wasn't meant for me, I like Thompson. I was merely pointing out the inaccurate statement that his wife was "just out of high school".
My apologies if you took it the wrong way. It is one of the first times I post on these forums, so I am not used to the setup of posts,quotes and such. My apologies.
My statement is for the person that wrote" just out of high school".
I should have made it clear with a quote,but like I said, just getting started on these forums.
My apologies
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrI am disgusted with all of the candidates. It will be my first time since 1970 that I will not vote. None of them, Democrat or Republican are wirth a damn.
I was watching Dan Rather interview James Carville last night, and Carville said something interesting. He said that for the last 60 years the Republican Party had succeeded in identifying their presidential nominee by this time in the election cycle. So, why is it taking so long for the Republican Party to pick out their nominee this time around? Do you Re ...[text shortened]... preventing consensus? How many of you would vote for "None of the Above" if it was an option?