The Current Crop of Candidates
After the fiasco of the last two elections, I have been holding out hope that the next election will be an 'issues' debate between two experienced and intelligent candidates with broad support within both parties. Instead of a 'lesser of two evils approach, to be presented with a difficult choice between two candidates, either of which I believed to be a suitable candidate.
I just seem to get the impression that the most substantive candidates seem to be the 2nd tier in both parties.
I think Hillary is smart, but I think she has a polarizing effect.
I really like Richardson on paper, and so far he has not disappointed me, but as with all 2nd tier candidates, the question becomes would he change if he moved up to the 1st tier.
Obama talks a great game, but so did GWB to his party faithful. I just would like to see a longer Obama resume.
McCain has been a disappointment ever since he derailed the 'straight talk express' and became another politician selling himself for the prize.
Romney and Guliani seem to be trying to reinvent themselves every minute.
Fred Thompson is wisely keeping his mouth shut, which automatically makes him a viable candidate. I heard that appearance aside, he was a "gentleman's C" kind of legislator, putting in a fair but unremarkable effort and carrying a light to modest workload.
Obama really does appear to be the 'take me as I am candidate'. My issue with him is the great unknown. He spoke out against the war, but he wasn't in Congress at the time and he was speaking as a private citizen, not as someone who had to make a real decision on incomplete (and now known to be faulty) information.
I'm hoping that the 2nd tier can hang around in reserve for a while.
If I could pick my own nominating debates, it would be Richardson against Hillary for the Democrats and between Ron Paul (or Tom Tancredo) against Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination.
I'm almost sorry Cheney isn't running. I'd like to see conservatives like Paul or Tancredo rip into him for pretty much everything he's done.
I personally would rather see Edwards or Obama than Hilary. The part that really scares me about her is the Universal Health Plan. Both Obama and Edwards says that we need to raise taxes for universal health care but Hilary says we don't. There are no secret operations so I really doubt Hilary is seeing something that the other two don't. That means one of four things:
[list]
[*]She is lying and will raise taxes
[*]Her plan will fall apart due to lack of funding
[*]She will take money from other places (social security for example)
[*]Her plan will not have the coverage as Edward's or Obama's
[/list]
I have not looked into all three plans that closely but unless I missed something, one of those four are going to happen and that type of incompetence is really starting to annoy me. We can see a problem beforehand but no one is willing to do anything about it.
Her attitude on the war in Iraq is also another thing. She keeps calling it "Bush's war" when she does nothing to stop it and when she even voted for it in the first place without researching it thoroughly.
This is a serious question. Why do people like Hilary? Besides experience, I haven't seen anything except deception and vote whoring.
I'm hoping that the 2nd tier can hang around in reserve for a while.
I agree with this on both sides.
After the fiasco of the last two elections, I have been holding out hope that the next election will be an 'issues' debate between two experienced and intelligent candidates with broad support within both parties. ~snip
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Good one, Rich. I can picture them trying to address issues, while pandering to everyone, on everything.
Further proof that hope springs eternal! I'm right there with you Rich, although a bit more skeptical.
After the fiasco of the last two elections, I have been holding out hope that the next election will be an 'issues' debate between two experienced and intelligent candidates with broad support within both parties. Instead of a 'lesser of two evils approach...
I would agree with that much. To bad, as much I don't like it, I don't think there is much that can stop Hitlery from becoming President. Obama is running a good show, in fact a model for what a campaign should look like, without all the partisan BS. To bad he is black, because this country is still radically polarized and to racist to vote for him. I like mostly second tier candidates as well.
I would agree with that much. To bad, as much I don't like it, I don't think there is much that can stop Hitlery from becoming President. Obama is running a good show, in fact a model for what a campaign should look like, without all the partisan BS. To bad he is black, because this country is still radically polarized and to racist to vote for him. I like mostly second tier candidates as well.
I would be curious to see how many people would not vote for Obama just because he is black and how many people would vote for him just because he is black.
I'd vote for him [Obama] but i think it would be useless due to the millions of Red Staters that would rather have a white devil in office than a black saint. Unless of course Dubya has actually left such a bad taste in their mouths as well, that they'll vote as far away from his type as possible. :fingerscrossed:
Seems like we all pretty much second your opinions Rich.
I would say the same things about the same canadates as you did. It's amazing the clarity regular american people come up with. What's wrong with politics these days?
The fact we chose someone we would like to go have a beer with is quite disturbing. No wait. Al Gore won the popular vote. I keep forgetting.
People better get out and vote to keep people like McCain,Rommney and Guliani out. Some of the lesser democrates don't even have a chance but the Rebublican spin machine is an evil tool.
Hitlery with Obama as the VP would be un-stoppable.... Right that down.
Hitlery with Obama as the VP would be un-stoppable.... Right that down.
:lol2:
Realistically, I wouldn't mind an Obama-Edwards duo since they seem to be at least on the same page.
But Merc, was that a joke or not? Can you explain?
Hitlery with Obama as the VP would be un-stoppable.... Right that down.
Merc, in response to this comment:
[youtube]bUWJ9LYir1w[/youtube]
Realistically, I wouldn't mind an Obama-Edwards duo since they seem to be at least on the same page.
But Merc, was that a joke or not? Can you explain?
It is my opinion that the popularity of these two people would be a force that could not be stopped in an election. Hitlery is already hugely popular, and Obama is running second, although not a close second, among many democratic voters.
So you think that those two can beat any two Republican candidates?
I'll agree that for overall popularity those two would make the strongest offense for the Democrats since most of the supporters I have seen seem to either be Hilary supporters, Obama supporters, or anti-Republicans and that team fits all three. Besides, Edwards is pretty close to Obama on issues so the Edwards supporters would most likely go with him.
While I agree that I think those two together would win the presidential election, assuming not much changes, because of the one-sidedness of the Republican party. Besides Ron Paul and a minute difference here or there, Giuliani’s social issues, they all seem to be on the exact same page and from what I have seen, their fan base isn't as split or determined as the Democrats.
I think it's far more important that the nation win the War than that any Democrat win any office whatsoever. They haven't been selling anything I want since 1992.
Does anyone know what is up with McCain? He seemed to be one of the top Republicans out there too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?hp
On Tuesday morning, as Mr. McCain stood on the Senate floor opposing a withdrawal from Iraq, his campaign announced that the two men were departing, a development that left his team gutted, transfixed both parties and raised new doubts about his ability to continue in the race.
I am assuming it could just be pointless gossip but if McCain drops out it will be either Romney or Giuliani on top.
Does anyone know what is up with McCain? He seemed to be one of the top Republicans out there too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?hp
I am assuming it could just be pointless gossip but if McCain drops out it will be either Romney or Giuliani on top.
People no longer believe his "straight talk," since he tied his fortunes to Bush's. He is also old and insane, but that wouldn't normally bother voters.
Fred Thompson is good at acting conservative, he'll be in the mix.
McCain built his reputation on seeming to be a maverick who wasn't apron-stringed to the party line. It seems like losing twice to Bush in elections, and who knows how many times behind the scenes, convinced him that Bush and his type were ascendant, just in time for them to topple, taking him with them.
McCain is done. His money is drying up.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, as you know if you read/viewed my thread.
Everything Hillary says is a lie. Even if it happens to be accurate.
She only says what she thinks people want to hear, so it is dishonest. If it happens to be accurate it is only a coincidence.
The same is true of Rudy.
Unfortunately, those two have a chance to be running against each other...
Unfortunately, those two have a chance to be running against each other...
*
cold chill down spine*
Just wondering, I don't know much about politics, candidates or anything really. But I'm 19, haven't registered to vote, don't really plan to anytime soon. Is there an age or a specific event that will trigger my partisan to overcome my indifference?
I'd vote for Obama if I was registered because he's from Illinois (w00t) and the things I've heard about him seem pretty good. But I'm not well informed at all.
Is there an age or a specific event that will trigger my partisan to overcome my indifference?
Yes, the realization that Mom & Dad don't control your entire world anymore, any if you don't want strangers to take over that role you have to do it yourself.
It ain't easy either, it's a lot of damn work trying to figure it out, and you'll probably never be 100% sure you've got it right.... unless you're a red state sheep.[
cheap shot intended as humor and not an indictment of people who are actually voting their conscience]
Fresh, I have a list of basically every current candidate's views so just ask and I can get it for you.
I can post all of it here if everyone wants it too.
Just wondering, I don't know much about politics, candidates or anything really. But I'm 19, haven't registered to vote, don't really plan to anytime soon. Is there an age or a specific event that will trigger my partisan to overcome my indifference?
I'd vote for Obama if I was registered because he's from Illinois (w00t) and the things I've heard about him seem pretty good. But I'm not well informed at all.
What is stopping you from going out and registering now? Going to the candidate's websites and reading about what their stances on the issues are?
Fresh, I have a list of basically every current candidate's views so just ask and I can get it for you.
I can post all of it here if everyone wants it too.
I think that would be great - we can monitor how things change over time till the elections and beyond...
Just wondering, I don't know much about politics, candidates or anything really. But I'm 19, haven't registered to vote, don't really plan to anytime soon. Is there an age or a specific event that will trigger my partisan to overcome my indifference?
Register to vote. It's part of being a responsible adult. Voting is the moment, just for a fleeting instant, that you truly share in the power of government and the sovereignty of your nation.
I think that would be great - we can monitor how things change over time till the elections and beyond...
I will make a new thread.
What is stopping you from going out and registering now? Going to the candidate's websites and reading about what their stances on the issues are?
I dunno, indifference? I don't even know any of my friends who are registered.
Then you have no right to complain when it comes to what happens around you.
I dunno, indifference? I don't even know any of my friends who are registered.
I thought you were already registered because you go to UI? I know that is what happened with me at UMN.
I dunno, indifference? I don't even know any of my friends who are registered.
Be a leader.
Don't take it for granted.
I dunno, indifference? I don't even know any of my friends who are registered.
Therein lies the problem with most young people who bitch, complain, protest, and have the loudest mouths on issues in our country today.
What...that they are actually indifferent?
How are they insignificant?
(I don't understand the connection between fresh's comment and your reply to his comment.)
Not significant: as a : lacking meaning or import : INCONSEQUENTIAL b : not worth considering : UNIMPORTANT c : lacking weight, position, or influence.
I see now. There was no connection.
I see now. There was no connection.
Why of course you can't see anything with blinders on.
oooh, snap!
:rolleyes:
Is that the sound of your mind closing?
Nope, I'm not coming over to your side.
What's the deal with you, anyway? I asked very nicely for you to explain your comment, and you not only avoided answering but turned completely sarcastic. Aren't you interested in contributing to Cellar discussions in a productive way? If not, what are you still doing here?
turned completely sarcastic.
Oh, like this:
"I see now. There was no connection."
or
"oooh, snap!"
I have plenty of productive discussions here, I'm not coming over to your side.;)
Right. Those were my replies following your sarcastic comments.
When I asked my honest question about what the connection was between fresh's comment and your reply to it, you replied sarcastically to me with a definition of 'insignificant:'
Not significant: as a : lacking meaning or import : INCONSEQUENTIAL b : not worth considering : UNIMPORTANT c : lacking weight, position, or influence.
Since you didn't answer my question, I concluded that you didn't intend a connection.
If I'm wrong, and there is indeed a connection, then explain it to me.
But if you just continue to be sarcastic, then I'll continue to think that you don't want to participate in a productive discussion. And frankly, I haven't seen a whole lot evidence of productive participation in discussions on your part--mostly insults and sarcasm.
Right. Those were my replies following your sarcastic comments.
When I asked my honest question about what the connection was between fresh's comment and your reply to it, you replied sarcastically to me with a definition of 'insignificant:'
Since you didn't answer my question, I concluded that you didn't intend a connection.
If I'm wrong, and there is indeed a connection, then explain it to me.
But if you just continue to be sarcastic, then I'll continue to think that you don't want to participate in a productive discussion. And frankly, I haven't seen a whole lot evidence of productive participation in discussions on your part--mostly insults and sarcasm.
I just reserve that for you.
No, you don't.
You are right. You and a few small select others. You're in the club.
Not significant: as a : lacking meaning or import : INCONSEQUENTIAL b : not worth considering : UNIMPORTANT c : lacking weight, position, or influence.
I'd say Merc is right, but not for the reasons he thinks.
It's because of their apathy.
I dunno, indifference? I don't even know any of my friends who are registered.
It's their choice.... you know, that thing Americans are so proud of having.
But in this case xoB, its a very dangerous one. Their apathy allows others to make decisions for them and yet they still have the right to complain. Yet when the time comes to vote or have input they don't . . . and so on.
I know, I know, but I think when they get out of school, start working, get married, buy property and #1 on the hit parade PAY TAXES, things will change quickly for most of them.
I remember way back in the dark ages, the 60s, when political activism seemed to be much higher among college age kids. But you know what, the majority, although reasonably aware, were still more interested in getting drunk/high, laid and good enough grades to stay out of the draft. For the girls, substitute pregnant for drafted.
I have faith they'll come around and grow up to be opinionated old farts like us.
People who don't vote are insignificant.
That is a fact.
Well, thanks to Bruce and blue.
Sorry for being "insignificant."
And by Rk's logic, babies are insignificant.
And I honestly can't even follow what Merc meant to say, not trying to degrade his comment at all it is just way over my head. My insignificant head.
Well, babies are not immediately politically significant.
From age 18 according to this nation's law, you can share in the collective political significance.
Most people, however, take but little interest in local or national politics until they are over thirty. If I'm any example, politics becomes rather more interesting after forty. Politics seems a game favored in the most part by the over-forty set.
This is where one usually finds the greatest number and greatest degree of those actualizing their greatest political significance.
Voting feels good, though -- you get a nice, civic-minded glow out of actualizing yourself within the electorate, and to do voting doesn't take a lot out of your life unless you get so interested in some issue that you train yourself into wonkhood.
I should point out that from what I see day to day and year to year, the "red staters" are wiser than the "blue staters" could ever believe. They like, start by reading National Review.
The Left is failing to adapt to this development, and in the clamor they make you can discern their bewilderment.
Meanwhile one can seek what wisdom may be panned from the gravel in observations like this one, paraphrased from Heinlein because it'll take more time than I have this session to chase it down on the net or in my dead-tree format:
"Democracy is based on the assumption that many men are smarter than one man.
How's that again?
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is smarter than many men.
Wait a second..."
Most people, however, take but little interest in local or national politics until they are over thirty. If I'm any example, politics becomes rather more interesting after forty. Politics seems a game favored in the most part by the over-forty set.
This is where one usually finds the greatest number and greatest degree of those actualizing their greatest political significance.
Thank you! You actually realize the youth are people too. Merc and Rk are just too condemning of us, I mean come on, don't label us insignificant because seriously, when you guys toked up in your youth of the 60s, didn't the political people want to be rid of people like
you too? The system is looping itself....
Keep in mind though fresh, since the average political mindset of college students is siginificantly more liberal than UG's personal views, it's in his best interest for the youth to remain indifferent. People like rk and Bruce are more likely to be bitter because you probably agree with many of their ideas, but are allowing people like Bush to stay in power by not voting.
Bitter? No baby, sweet... like sweet, sweeeet, lovin'.
Well, thanks to Bruce and blue.
Sorry for being "insignificant."
And by Rk's logic, babies are insignificant.
And I honestly can't even follow what Merc meant to say, not trying to degrade his comment at all it is just way over my head. My insignificant head.
You make yourself insignificant by your failure to participate fully in the political process that poeple would die for, and have died for to give you that right. Instead you bitch and moan and end up squandering your opportunity to participate in the Republic. Your choice. I have no problem with your choice, but I believe that you make yourself insignificant by that choice.
I know, I know, but I think when they get out of school, start working, get married, buy property and #1 on the hit parade PAY TAXES, things will change quickly for most of them.
I remember way back in the dark ages, the 60s, when political activism seemed to be much higher among college age kids. But you know what, the majority, although reasonably aware, were still more interested in getting drunk/high, laid and good enough grades to stay out of the draft. For the girls, substitute pregnant for drafted.
I have faith they'll come around and grow up to be opinionated old farts like us.
That pretty much nails it... and you for got to add that hopefully you pay taxes because of your prosperity in gaining income. Your views on much will change as you move through the various stages of life.
I'd say Merc is right, but not for the reasons he thinks.
It's because of their apathy.
However, Merc wasn't referring to apathetic youth, quite the opposite by his own description:
[QUOTE=freshnesschronic]I dunno, indifference? I don't even know any of my friends who are registered.
Therein lies the problem with most young people who bitch, complain, protest, and have the loudest mouths on issues in our country today.[/QUOTE]
The contradiction didn't make sense at the time...
But now I see that apparently, Merc assumes that 'most young people who bitch, complain, protest, and have the loudest mouths on issues in our country today' are not registered to vote, just because he perceives a single young person who does not vote (fresh) to be a bitcher, complainer, etc.
So fresh, you must be the ambassador of 'most young people' who bitch, protest or whatever in our country. ;)
He'll get no diplomatic immunity from Merc.
Wait, I want no part in this.
Hence, my indifference to voting.
Full circle, yay!
He'll get no diplomatic immunity from Merc.
Even if he's the one who appointed him...
A lot of people voted at UMN in 2006 but we were automatically registered and I don't know if IU has that.
The New Yorks Times digital archives first mention of Obama.
The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School. The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. “The fact that I’ve been elected shows a lot of progress,” Mr. Obama said today in an interview. “It’s encouraging.”
And we all know
Kenya is better than Norway.He'll get no diplomatic immunity from Merc.
No one gets immunity.
People may not like Bush, I certainly don't. But after his term is up we're all screwed.
Atleast we're not in a Socialist state rightnow.
Hello Squid Operator. Welcome to the Cellar!
But after his term is up we're all screwed.
Please explain your thoughts here - and hello/welcome.
I don't know how well any of the candidates are going to be able to keep us alive here in the US.
Are you really that paranoid? Do you think when Bush retires in regal splendor, the government will just pack up and go home leaving you to fight the terrorists naked?
Let me assure you the US Government, juggernaut that it is, will be chugging along when you and Bush are dust.
Are you really that paranoid? Do you think when Bush retires in regal splendor, the government will just pack up and go home leaving you to fight the terrorists naked?
What a fantastic image!
You know what Squid looks like naked??
Actually, if I'm honest in my mind's eye, it was UG, naked and fighting terrorists and undemocrats with his teeth.
If I'm president, this is what I do:
Jan 20, 2009, 1201 hours: After swearing in, tear up the inaugural address. Instead immediately order all the troops, all of them, to leave Iraq for the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
1202: Tell Musharraf that Pakistan has 6 hours to clean up the western border of al-Qaeda or America troops will.
1800: Have the troops target and destroy an al-Qaeda haven in Pakistan soil to show Pakistan America is not bluffing.
A candidate who proposes this will get my vote.
Yeah. That's smart. It's hard to see what could possibly go wrong with that plan.
So you're not voting, db? ;)
Why can't we get an interesting candidate like
Ufuk Uras.
If I'm president, this is what I do:
Jan 20, 2009, 1201 hours: After swearing in, tear up the inaugural address. Instead immediately order all the troops, all of them, to leave Iraq for the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
1202: Tell Musharraf that Pakistan has 6 hours to clean up the western border of al-Qaeda or America troops will.
1800: Have the troops target and destroy an al-Qaeda haven in Pakistan soil to show Pakistan America is not bluffing.
A candidate who proposes this will get my vote.
This, and prosecuting BushCo. for their crimes, as well as restoring the Constitution and Bill of rights to their states before the idiots took office.
"You know what Squid looks like naked??"
Sorry man, that's only for the women.
Um, I'm not a man.
Post pics
here.:( Sorry, I'm not used to a message board where there are no avatars to remember who's who.
People may not like Bush, I certainly don't. But after his term is up we're all screwed.
Atleast we're not in a Socialist state rightnow.
We are not necessarily screwed. In terms of "Good Cop/Bad Cop", Bush was the worst of both worlds. He didn't know how to play "Good Cop" and basically sucked at "Bad Cop". Any of the top three candidates in either party will get a tremendous amount of goodwill by simply not being GWB, similar to the goodwill GWB received post-9/11. And whether they decide to play Good Cop. Bad Cop, or a combination, will definitely do better than Bush.
The can of whoopass unleashed on the GWB appointees in State, Justice, and Defense will be phenomenal. All presidents clean house to some degree. Everyone acknowledged that GWB technically had the right to fire all of the attorneys. Still, many administrations keep some individuals in place, if only to provide continuity.
In this case, I think even if a Republican wins there will be almost as much of a housecleaning as if Hillary had won.
Actually, if I'm honest in my mind's eye, it was UG, naked and fighting terrorists and undemocrats with his teeth.
Yep; pork 'em 'til they look like unicorns -- pink ones -- and squeal like a piggie, eee, eee.
I can definitely reduce some fatuity-mongers around here to squealing.
You overestimate your prowess, shorty.
You're on. Show us you can do what you've failed so miserably to do thus far. Make a unicorn, Merlin.
Are you really that paranoid? Do you think when Bush retires in regal splendor, the government will just pack up and go home leaving you to fight the terrorists naked?
Let me assure you the US Government, juggernaut that it is, will be chugging along when you and Bush are dust.
nah, they'll just leave the troops overseas to do it for them.
So does anyone really believe in one particular candidate out there? and why?
So does anyone really [COLOR=Red]believe[/COLOR] in one particular [COLOR=Red]candidate[/COLOR] out there? and why?
those 2 words are in the same sentence.
I'll make you a deal... like any other candidate
we'll pretend we're walking home cause our future's at stake
my set is amazing, it even smells like street
there's a bar at the end where i can meet you and your friends...
I'll make you a deal... like any other candidate
we'll pretend we're walking home cause our future's at stake
my set is amazing, it even smells like street
there's a bar at the end where i can meet you and your friends...
What the ____ is that supposed to mean?
What the ____ is that supposed to mean?
I'll make you a deal, like any other candidate
We'll pretend we're walking home 'cause your future's at stake
My set is amazing, it even smells like a street
There's a bar at the end where I can meet you and your
friend
Someone scrawled on the wall "I smell the blood of les tricoteuses"
Who wrote up scandals in other bars
I'm having so much fun with the poisonous people
Spreading rumours and lies and stories they made up
Some make you sing and some make you scream
One makes you wish that you'd never been seen
But there's a shop on the corner that's selling papier
mache
Making bullet-proof faces, Charlie Manson, Cassius Clay
If you want it, boys, get it here, thing
So you scream out of line
"I want you! I need you! Anyone out there? Any time?"
Tres butch little number whines "Hey dirty, I want you
When it's good, it's really good, and when it's bad I go to pieces"
If you want it, boys, get it here, thing
Well, on the street where you live I could not hold up my head
For I put all I have in another bed
On another floor, in the back of a car
In the cellar like a church with the door ajar
Well, I guess we've must be looking for a different kind
But we can't stop trying 'till we break up our minds
'Til the sun drips blood on the seedy young knights
Who press you on the ground while shaking in fright
I guess we could cruise down one more time
With you by my side, it should be fine
We'll buy some drugs and watch a band
Then jump in the river holding hands
Ibby - what does that have to do with the thread or the question at hand?
the name of the song is 'candidate'?
Soooo??????? Shall we all just post stuff about candidates or perhaps add something potentially meaningful - Aw what the hell...
No. Will I ever believe in a candidate as long as I live, probably not.
You're on. Show us you can do what you've failed so miserably to do thus far. Make a unicorn, Merlin.
Failed? Ho ho ho -- and just where is your response to my question to you in another thread: just why do you find my political ideas re the global body politic "repulsive?" I asked you why that was, and your silence echoed, and echoes now.
I don't think you can tell me why, it's been so long. I'd say it's time for you to respond coherently. In fact, it's time for you to respond at all.
While it is clear
that you do, you've made no attempt to explain to a democratic partisan
why you do. Frankly, it's not at all obvious, nor self-evident why you should take an anti-democratic-advances point of view. You are not in any other sense a Fascist, large F or small, and you have some demonstrated regard for the fundamentals of human rights -- so why not support a chance at having a people no longer suffer bad government?
The thread I'm thinking of has run two more pages without you addressing this fundamental matter, raised in posts 55 and 56, one of mine and one of yours:
Politics ad Absurdam, page 4.Talk about an utterly inadequate response! Go do something to your credit, Bruce! Only a kindergartener expects to get anywhere sticking his tongue out and flapping his hands with his thumbs in his ears.
Yep; pork 'em 'til they look like unicorns -- pink ones -- and squeal like a piggie, eee, eee.
I can definitely reduce some fatuity-mongers around here to squealing.
Try me.
You're on. Show us you can do what you've failed so miserably to do thus far. Make a unicorn, Merlin.
Is it in yet, shorty?
Meanwhile back on the election trail,
Guilianni endorses perpetual war.
Interesting to note how many blacks I have spoken with are just absolutely convinced that Obama is going to win the nomination and get into the White House. NPR did a great piece the other day how when polled many blacks, and a majority in some states, say they are most likely voting for Hillary Clinton.
Interesting to note how many blacks I have spoken with are just absolutely convinced that Obama is going to win the nomination and get into the White House. NPR did a great piece the other day how when polled many blacks, and a majority in some states, say they are most likely voting for Hillary Clinton.
I've not spoken top one person who is "absolutely convinced" of that. I have talked to many who would love that and are hopeful, but thats totally different.
You know, Bruce, there are times when a signal-to-noise ratio gets too low. "Squealing like a piggie, eee, eee" is a fair example of not much signal and plenty noise. So are inadequate, childish responses like the above.
Yes, my fuhrer.
Yo Wolf, live one in post #110... better bring the jacket and dart gun.
So when Bruce doesn't want to answer a "Why are you thinking that way again?" question, somehow I'm the one who's ... off? Sorry, Bruce: I can see you fudging.
UG, I think just about everyone here, with the probable exception of Merc, agrees with Bruce here.
Merc, while definitely a backer of the military, is at least basically reasonable and rational. UG, on the other hand, wants to make men "squeal like a pig". Cue banjos.
I feel sorta bad for McCain. I think the last election broke him, after years as a POW didn't.
Ibbie, if you're trying to evoke George Orwell's
1984, why not quote George directly? He did write out the false-logic sentence about whether majoritarianism determines right or wrong. I'm sure you can find it, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it.
The fatuous, Bruce, are in effect already just squealing, for all the worth their ideas have. Me, I just give pain to the stupid. The wise generally do not suffer.
Hey, this is handy:
1984 is an ebook. I'd have to give it more than the quick skim I gave it to find the thing I'm looking for, but that's where to look.
Meanwhile back on the election trail, Guilianni endorses perpetual war.
lol
...and yes Guilianni scares me.
I feel sorta bad for McCain. I think the last election broke him, after years as a POW didn't.
I would have voted for him at the time but now he is but a shadow of what he portrayed before. He seems to be towing the party line and I hope this is strategy on his part.
Ibbie, if you're trying to evoke George Orwell's 1984, why not quote George directly? He did write out the false-logic sentence about whether majoritarianism determines right or wrong. I'm sure you can find it, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it.
The fatuous, Bruce, are in effect already just squealing, for all the worth their ideas have. Me, I just give pain to the stupid. The wise generally do not suffer.
Sanity is not statistical. I know it well.
But policy, within reasonable constitutional limits,
should be statistical. Not to mention reasonable and rational. None of which has anything to do with
your position.
Sanity is not statistical. I know it well.
But policy, within reasonable constitutional limits, should be statistical. Not to mention reasonable and rational. None of which has anything to do with your position.
And by you, what's rational?
I say that rational is "reduce the Gap." I think Thomas Barnett has that one right. This is exactly what the Bush Administration is trying to do, and what the Clinton Administration never saw how to do, nor, I suppose, that it should.
Please, get Barnett on here to argue with us.
[youtube]kvgBBKIQ_a8[/youtube]
[youtube]yCM_wQy4YVg[/youtube]
[youtube]tzZl8xyxzIE[/youtube]
Thomas P.M. Barnett is a blogger, and quite a busy one.
Is the AARP still excluding Gravel and Kucinich from the Dem's Iowa debate?
Ron Paul is participating in the televised GOP Debate this evening on FOX News at 8:00 PM - 9:30 PM Eastern Time. Check your local news schedules.
If you are West Coast, the debate begins at 5PM with a 4:30 PreShow.
Please tell all of your friends to watch it :)
Best Regards,
Greg Chamberlain
MySpace Moderator for RonPaul2008.Com
Just thought we might revive this with a lil update
Obama, Huckabee lead new Iowa poll
Who'd a thunk it?
What Thomas P.M. Barnett thinks future Presidents should be doing:
Recasting the Long War as a Joint Sino-American Venture.
Exerpted:
In this so-called long war against the global jihadist movement, the Bush administration’s greatest failure has been its lack of strategic imagination. It has added the right enemies to our to-do list, but failed to enlist the necessary new allies, giving our people the misperception that it’s America against the world.
This need not be the case. Our natural allies are now located on the frontiers of globalization, or among the three billion-plus new capitalists who joined global markets over the last generation, chiefly among them the Chinese.
The integrating core of globalization—namely the old West plus the emerging markets of the East and South—have effectively outsourced the global policing function to the United States by refusing to balance our immense warfighting and power projection capabilities with their own. Instead, Western Europe focuses on economically integrating the former Soviet bloc, while rising titans like China and India, for reasons of rising energy requirements, focus overwhelmingly on integrating—on relatively narrow terms—resource providers located in those regions least connected to the global economy, or what I call globalization’s non-integrating gap (e.g., the Caribbean rim, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the southeast Asian littoral states).
Not surprisingly, the Pentagon’s new map in this long war corresponds greatly to those gap regions, for there we find the preponderance of “moderate” dictators, rogue regimes, and failed states, all of whom either attract the attention of transnational terrorists or support their activities for their own nefarious reasons. Viewed in this light, our victory is logically defined as the successful building out of globalization’s core and the simultaneous shrinking—or successful economic integration—of those gap regions. As we’ve seen in Afghanistan
and Iraq, this is no mean task and one that generates significant labor requirements.
So I say, locate the labor where the problem is.
This isn't new stuff from Barnett, but the whole article is a concise summing up.
Viewed in this light, [SIZE=1]our victory is logically defined as the successful building out of globalization’s core and the simultaneous shrinking—or successful economic integration—of those gap regions.
[/SIZE]
This is where the problem begins. nothing after that initial comma matters.
Actually, I see the fined print as the part that matters.
Don A. Rich (M.A. SAIS 1987) ABD Political Science and Economics UCI
Instructor of Poltical Science
Montgomery County Community College
I enjoyed your book, and your blog, even though I now realize that you are dead wrong. Was too, so don't take it personally. You will not listen for the same reason no one else does, namely the Commuinity College label, the degree, style vs substance. But I am never wrong about macro calls. Not once. I don't buy conventional wisdom.
I write because those in power listen to you, which makes you responsible to a certain extent for what they do.
Thucydides told us the reality of things, as a warning.
As it stands right now, if the United States does not dramtically change course, it is going to provoke a general system war by aligning Russia and China together against us, and it will be our own arrogance of power in the wake of the "victory" in the Cold War that will be the cause. The decline in the national savings rate from 1985 marked the beginning of the fall of U.S. power. The 1991-2007 period was a chimera based on monetary policy. That chimera is no coming to an end with the housing Bubble and the loss of dynamic price stability. Beranke will take rates down, generate a hyperinflation, then take them back up, creating a depression.
We "won" the Cold War because we created a military industrial complex somewhat more efficient than the Russians, but we only barely won, and won in the context of the decline of European civilization per Spengler. This analysis is based on study of cycles, in particular Kondratieff wave theory and the Long War cycle. If the military industrial classes do not turn back, they are blundering ever more rapidly into a general system war. Watch stocks and see when they retrace DOW 7000 within one year. we have been borrowing money to conceal our decline, and the bill is coming due and it is immoral to wage war to preserve the elites power, in which you would become an accoplice to mass murder. No offense. And you are good writer.
I found this response to the article you posted UG - I think its a rather well written and insightful reply. Says some things much better than l could.
Just thought we might revive this with a lil update
Obama, Huckabee lead new Iowa poll
Who'd a thunk it?
It would be an interesting matchup. When they brought in Alan Keyes, Obama said "[SIZE=-1]I'm not running to be minister of Illinois". For all of his denials, it appears that Huckabee is running for "minister of the US" to at least a portion of the Republican party.
I can guarantee that there would be at least one quote from the bible from each of them in any one-on-one debate. Personally, I think Obama is just as articulate as Huckabee and a bit smarter. I'd give him the odds in any debate since Huckabee would be loath to drop his 'nice guy' image and go for a kill. This would make it an issues debate which I think Obama would win.
Of course there would be 'swift-boaters' from all sides and you never know what will stick.
[/SIZE]
I suppose the disadvantage of Swift-boats is they make the water all foamy.
annywaaaaayyyy - Anybody excited about Hillary? Or any other candidate for that matter? I am so undecided...
I like Edwards. Shame he doesn't stand much of a chance (unless I misunderstand your system).
figures one of the few who isn't from/in the us has an opinion.:cool:
I'm beginning to wonder if its a grand conspiracy to get her elected. At least this has been an historic election year so far. With O8ama and Hillary both winning the first two primaries
I have finally made an initial decision (subject to change, void where prohibited). John Edwards espouses the values that I hold dear. He endorses ideas that will help THE MIDDLE CLASS. Let's face it - the rich are in a good position these days (thanks in part to Bush's tax cuts), and there are already programs in place that help the poor. It's we middle class folks who are getting pinched. The pinch is mainly coming from the high costs of energy and health care. Edwards has come out strongly that he will side with the middle class in this conflict. He has my vote.
We should do a cellar poll!
I want Obama v Paul. It'd get my whole scizoid thing out in the open for honest debate.
I adore Edwards still, but hes starting to look like a longer and longer longshot, so... I'm gonna say Obama with Edwards as veep
I'll vote for Edwards, not that it'll make much difference, in DC a week after super Tuesday.
Edwards is history, thank fucking God!
figures one of the few who isn't from/in the us has an opinion.
Well, if you want this to be an American only thread, mark it out as such and I'll be happy to ignore that.
no not at all, Dana - I just found it interesting.
Edwards is history, thank fucking God!
TheMerc is happy about this because if Edwards is out, it means his sweetie, Hillary, is more likely to be on the final ticket. He
looooves her.
I'm torn between Edwards and Obama. I was disappointed to see Biden drop out. Not necessarily because he was my favorite, but because he had the strongest foreign policy experience of the Dems.
Obama's talks are inspirational, but I think Edwards has more of a track record of standing up for the little guy and opposing the corporations that are running this country. I'm leaning towards Obama. It's nice to be hearing that he would be more welcome by the rest of the world. We need all we can get in the PR department.
On the Republican side, I think McCain would be my top choice. I think there might still be some maverick left in him. He's pretty damn old though. The rest of that pack is pretty unappealing to me though.
TheMerc is happy about this because if Edwards is out, it means his sweetie, Hillary, is more likely to be on the final ticket. He looooves her.
That, and he likes the high healthcare and fuel costs. But you're right - it's the three-way with Bill and Hillary that has his engine revved.
I'm torn between Edwards and Obama. I was disappointed to see Biden drop out...
Same here. I took one of those "which candidate's positions most closely align with yours?" tests, and the results were that I should vote for Biden.
On the Republican side, I think McCain would be my top choice. I think there might still be some maverick left in him. He's pretty damn old though. The rest of that pack is pretty unappealing to me though.
McCain has the experience, but Giuliani is more scoially moderate/liberal. It would take alot for me to vote repubican, though.
Edwards is unfortunately the second place candidate (and I don't mean statistically) . He doesn't have the charisma of Obama, and lacks the experience and exposure of Clinton. It does not mean he's not a viable candidate... and he may have the more complete package of the 3. I think Clinton and Edwards as the final ticket.
I unfortunately think the people currently supporting Obama are not thinking of his electibility as President against a viable Republican candidate. Like it or not, many won't vote for him for President because he is 'black', and many aren't convinced he does not have Muslim ties. And he won't necessarily get the black vote because... he's not really black. He isn't a product of slavery, and had a priveleged international upbringing. I think more people would vote for Clinton as President than Obama. And even more for Edwards.
I am personally for Clinton. She has experience. She has the wisdom to know when to compromise. She has the courage to back down. And the commitment to follow through when she knows shes right.
I see the media bash her for 'crying' - she didn't cry first of all, and other politicians/candidates/Presidents have shown emotion, and cried, so why say its fine for a man but not a woman? I see the media claim she's playing the female card (referring to her reference of boys club in most cases), yet no one dares to claim Obama's playing the race card, even his speeches sound MLKish, and wanting to "unify" the nation has a subtler context of unifying the races. So yes, he is playing the race card. Heck, Edwards plays the "I'm not black and not a woman" card.
No, I'm not racist. I'm not against a black President. But I honestly don't think the U.S. has progressed far enough that a black man will be elected President. And although I'll probably vote for Clinton, I'm not sure the nation has progressed far enough to elect a woman.
I read an interesting column yesterday...
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
Published: January 8, 2008
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
......
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
The full article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?ex=1357448400&en=54624bbbe9f535f8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssI like McCain for the experience. And I can't vote for Giuliani - the names just to funny. lol I think Giuliani's over use of 9/11 is really hurting him.
If McCain gets the nomination, he won't be President because he doesn't support troop withdraw. Giuliani... maybe. He does not carry the far right Christian coalition, and they may elect not to vote without a conservative candidate on the ticket. But he will get some democratic votes since he favors abortion and has other liberal stances. Romney can't make it because he's Mormon and definitely won't get the Christian coalition vote (most far right Christians do not believe Mormonism is a Christian religion) but he won't get democratic votes because he's not liberal. That leaves... Huckabee, and honestly, do we want a President Huckabee?
I don't know anything about Ron Paul. I had never heard of him before, and when I first heard Ron Paul was running, I thought "the transvestite is running? And he's got support? What a joke!" Then I was corrected - not Ru Paul, Ron Paul. So my next question was "the guy that owns the hair salon chain?" I was corrected again. I have no clue who the Ron Paul running for President is, although I've been told several times.
Even if Ron Paul had a chance of making it on a ticket - his blatantly racist statements from the past would shoot him down.
Huckabee is the D's wet dream because he is completely unelectable. He is like a really poor man's version of slick willy with his attempts to be all things to all people and his long record of saying "i wasn't aware..." in answer to tough questions. R's that need a break from strong visible Christianity in the white house will stay home. R's that are fiscal conservatives will stay home. He just won't be able to motivate anyone in a general election.
Giuliani is a goner. He was interesting but never really stood a chance - he's the R's version of Lieberman. "not one of us, but not one of them".
Romney may get the nomination but isn't really electable - not because he's mormon, but because he seems about as sincere as Hillary. His record will be trotted out and words like flip-flop and poll-driven will be used, a la Kerry.
McCain is electable if he can get the nomination, which I'm not sure of. Huckabee and Romney are each stronger in different areas that McCain supporters like, so they'll pull enough into their camps to squeeze McCain out I think. I've never been a huge McCain supporter because I can't stand his media whoring tendencies but I like that he doesn't just take the party line on every issue. He is older than we'd prefer, but I think that will cause him to be more concerned about his legacy from day one, knowing that a second term is quite unlikely. I do think that, if and when he's elected he would be pragmatic about his approach to Iraq and the border issue.
Thompson doesn't stand a chance in hell, but I would like to see him involved in some way, possibly as a VP. Regardless of whether I agree with all of his positions or not he is the only candidate (or politician, really) in years who has put out position pieces which clearly identify an issue and give at least a sketch of his solution. Even if the solution isn't one I agree with I'd like to see someone who is willing to say "This is what I believe!" without consulting the polls first.
It has about a .00000000012% chance of happening but I'd actually like to see a McCain/Thompson ticket. Going in it would be obvious that they are one term guys who have been around long enough to know how the system works and have done their share of maneuvering, both are realist enough to know that they only have a short time to get something done, and because of their age neither is beholden to the party line for fear of future elections.
The D side is harder for me.
Edwards should have skipped this cycle IMO. It was too soon for him to jump back in after the Kerry/Edwards debacle. I honestly believe that if he had taken the cycle off, gone into private sector and just left the limelight for awhile and re-emerged in '12 as either D or Indendent he would have had a great shot at the oval office. A lot of people like his youth (relative) and enthusiasm. They like his down-homey persona. They want to equate him with JFK. I think the guy should have drifted away for a little "seasoning". Hopefully he is smart enough not to accept a VP nod again.
Hillary... I'll freely admit it, I don't like her. I've never liked her, I never will. Is she all bad? No. Is she the anti-Christ? No. Will our nation implode if she is elected? No. I didn't hate Bill Clinton, he had his good/bad just like any other modern president, so that isn't it. I just don't think she has a sincere bone in her body. She has always been for/against whatever the polls suggested was "right" at the time. I don't support a universal health care system. I don't support higher taxes. I don't believe that the government should have any larger role in life that in does right now - I'd prefer to see that role decrease in fact. But from a strictly D point of view, if the R's put up a halfway palatable ticket Hillary cannot win. Every single R mouthpiece would slip into turbo to defeat Hillary. Hannity/Limbaugh/? would work to convince everyone she was growing horns, conspiring with France, and planning to enforce the metric switchover. And it would work. The far right is terrified of the name Clinton. The moderately right are terrified of higher taxes and higher spending (Eff'in joke if you look at the last 7 years, but...). They'd mobilize the nutjobs that don't believe a woman can do the job. They would get every single slightly R leaning person to the polls on election day even if they had to go door to door and drive them. I believe there is exactly 0.0000001% chance of Hillary winning the general election.
Obama. He is the candidate that can win. He's black. So what? That might cost him one or two states that would never vote for a D anyway. He speaks with passion and conviction in words that we all understand. He has "a plan" and unlike Kerry - he might tell us what his plan is before the election. The media will support him. They will play his good soundbytes, not just his flubs. I think he is intelligent and well coached enough to not make the type of flubs Kerry did in the first place. He's been in office long enough that he's not "inexperienced", but not so long that he can't campaign as an outsider.
Again, the D ticket I'd like to see has no possibility whatsoever of happening, but I think it would make a good, electable ticket. Obama/Lieberman. Hannity/Limbaugh and their ilk will still get fired up to defeat the evil democrats but they just can't seem to get as passionate about Obama. They don't hate him the way they hate Hillary. He's not as easy to pick apart as Edwards. He's not a caricature like Kerry. The D's will support and love his anti-war stance and his social ideas as well. The key to this ticket is that Lieberman is a regular guest and friend of the Hannity circuit. A lot of D's would be unhappy with his inclusion but they'd be confident because they'd like Obama and Lieberman is only the silent VP. The right and right leaning R's may fear Obama, but they've been exposed to Lieberman as "a great American" for years now. They've heard him speak in support and disagreement of conservative/liberal policies for years. They like him because he's "one of the good ones". Even the indie's/R's that aren't drawn to the polls in support won't be rabid in their opposition knowing that Lieberman is on the ticket. Hannity will oppose the ticket but he'll have to be careful about his approach and he'll have a harder time playing the fear card to mobilize voters because he has spent so much time praising Lieberman.
Anyway, that is my view on things. Like I said, it won't happen like that, but I think those would be the winning tickets for each party.
Good analysis.
If Obama has the ticket I think he will have a good chance even though there is a lack of experience. Also, college kids and people that have been strongly anti-Bush but didn't vote last election will vote for Obama because he is strongly anti-Bush and that he is black (notice how is biggest fan base are white-liberals).
If we get two good tickets, the number of voters might be decently high this year.
If we get two good tickets, the number of voters might be decently high this year.
Unlikely. Candidates have to move to their extremes to get the nomination so it makes it more difficult to get the best candidates. IMO.
Candidates have to move to their extremes to get the nomination so it makes it more difficult to get the best candidates.
That's a major flaw in the system. You end up with extremist candidates from both sides.
I'd be very pleased to see an Obama/Leiberman v. McCain/Thompson race.
Also, college kids and people that have been strongly anti-Bush but didn't vote last election will vote for Obama because he is strongly anti-Bush and that he is black (notice how is biggest fan base are white-liberals).
College kids have a loud voice, but weak voting record. They make a lot of noise right now and turn out for some primaries, but when it comes November, they'll be low voter turn out... as usual.
As far as Bush-haters that didn't vote last time... it doesn't matter who wins because it won't be Bush. So there is no reason for them to vote this year either.
A news program was saying the other day that Obama has the wine drinkers (liberal elite) and Clinton has the beer drinkers (working class), and there are far more beer drinkers than wine drinkers in this nation.
I'd like to see Clinton/ Edwards and McCain/Huckabee ticket. Or maybe a Clinton/Giuliani ticket... lol That would truly be interesting! He's liberal enough to be a democrat!
As far as the 'system', the candidates pander to the extremes during the primary, and then moderate for the general election. They all do it.
yes, but that is the problem. the actual moderates are squeezed out during the primary process.
I'd be very pleased to see an Obama/Leiberman v. McCain/Thompson race.
Ohhhh, I like that one!
then vote.
whatever happened to the neat little button that would let me enter words so the address didn't show, just the link?
If we get two good tickets, the number of voters might be decently high this year.
You've got that backwards. If we get two reasonable sets of candidates, people will stay home out of indifference. It's only when one or both tickets are very, very bad that people turn out in record numbers to make sure "the other guy" doesn't win.
That makes sense, it might just be my biased atmosphere right now.
POLL: Transformed by Iowa and N.H., '08 Kicks Off as a Free-for-All
McCain's victory in New Hampshire has sharply boosted views of his qualifications and abilities alike: His rating within his party as its most electable contender has tripled; as strongest leader, it's doubled; and he's scored double-digit gains in trust to handle Iraq and terrorism. He's climbed into the lead in overall vote preference for the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls in the 2008 campaign.
Obama likewise is reaping benefits from winning the Iowa caucuses and coming within two points of Clinton in New Hampshire. He now challenges her as the most electable candidate. He's severely eroded her reputation as its strongest leader and sharply improved his trust to handle key issues. And in overall preference Clinton and Obama now are all but tied, 42-37 percent among likely voters, a dramatic tightening.
But he's also soared in a key Democratic group -- African-Americans, who've switched from favoring Clinton by 52-39 percent a month ago to an even larger preference for Obama, 60-32 percent, today. While Obama also has drawn much closer among whites, preferences of blacks are highly significant in some upcoming races; in the past blacks have accounted for 47 percent of Democratic voters in South Carolina (Jan. 26) and Georgia (Feb. 5), 46 percent in Louisiana (Feb. 9) and more than a third in Virginia and Maryland (Feb. 12).
Clinton's 5-point advantage over Obama is not statistically significant at the customary 95 percent confidence level; it's 75 percent likely to be a real lead. She still leads among women, but now by 11 points, vs. a vast 39 points last month. And Obama now leads nationally among men, 9 points ahead of Clinton.
In the Republican contest, McCain does have a significant lead, with 28 percent support among likely Republican primary voters, more than double his 12 percent a month ago. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are little changed, at 20 percent and 19 percent respectively. But Giuliani's lost 10 points, dropping to 15 percent support, and Thompson's down to 8 percent -- for both, their lowest of the campaign so far.
Things are getting most interesting. There is a lot more info on the link.
ELECTILE Dysfunction:
The inability to become aroused over any of the choices
for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.
is there a pill we can take for this ED issue?
Anyone heard or seen this? I just got it in an email today....
[youtube]sVeFVtcdSYY[/youtube]
The time is exactly, precisely right for the Clinton bombshell attack and it is increasingly critical that it come from neither Hillary nor Bill.
They play hardball, and they are extremely good at it.
Well, it couldn't be on youtube if it wasn't true, right?
Allegations of blowjobs from strange men in the back of limousines? If word of this gets out, he's going to have to run as a Republican:lol2:
:lol2: @ Rich
Myeh, looked like BS to me. Did that guy look like he'd have a limo to you? And why publicly fess up to cocaine possession?
Probably just some attention whore put up to it by some political interests, maybe the Clinton faction, maybe the Republicans...
If he were a republican, he'd already have been removed from office.
If he were a republican, he'd already have been removed from office.
On the unsubstantiated word of one guy?
Heck, even Larry Craig is still in office and his accuser is a cop.
