GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[southsider2k5]

Ugh. Its pretty depressing to see the polls pretty much inverse to who I like. We are either going to end up with a guy who is too far to the right, or a guy who is a scumbag. Blech.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ugh. Its pretty depressing to see the polls pretty much inverse to who I like. We are either going to end up with a guy who is too far to the right, or a guy who is a scumbag. Blech.

You think Romney is too far to the right? Or is he the scumbag?

 

[southsider2k5]

You think Romney is too far to the right? Or is he the scumbag?

 

I guess I should have left a category open for those without a spine too...

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess I should have left a category open for those without a spine too...

Yeah, I think that's going to be one of the two major problems for Romney - flip-flopping, kind of like John Kerry in '04. I wonder if that's a Massachusetts thing. The other is the one no one wants to go after in the open, but will still be an issue for a lot of people - his religion.

 

[southsider2k5]

Maybe it is my maturation as a voter, but I could care less about Romney's religion, Obama/Richardson's race, Hillary's gender, or any of the other potential "firsts" held in this Presidential election. I have been trying to strip away all of the superficial stuff, the media portrayals, and the other stupid stuff, and dig right into what the candidates are running as. I have spent a lot of time already looking at platforms and positions. I really don't like that two of the top guys in the race, have seemingly switched opinions on key issues, such as abortion (which isn't as big of a deal to me) and immigration (big deal to me).

 

If I had to rank people right now it would probably look like this.

 

Thompson

 

McCain

Paul

 

 

Huckabee

 

Guiliani

Romney

 

The rest of the field.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alan Keyes

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe it is my maturation as a voter, but I could care less about Romney's religion, Obama/Richardson's race, Hillary's gender, or any of the other potential "firsts" held in this Presidential election. I have been trying to strip away all of the superficial stuff, the media portrayals, and the other stupid stuff, and dig right into what the candidates are running as. I have spent a lot of time already looking at platforms and positions. I really don't like that two of the top guys in the race, have seemingly switched opinions on key issues, such as abortion (which isn't as big of a deal to me) and immigration (big deal to me).

 

If I had to rank people right now it would probably look like this.

 

Thompson

 

McCain

Paul

Huckabee

 

Guiliani

Romney

 

The rest of the field.

Alan Keyes

I should have clarified - I could care less about Romney's religion, same with Obama/Richardson's race and Clinton's gender. I was saying that some people will care.

 

Alan Keyes. LOL. OK, here is my GOP field, spaced appropriately...

 

McCain

 

Paul

Huckabee

 

Thompson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Romney

 

 

 

Giuliani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hunter

Tancredo

 

 

Keyes

 

[longshot7]

Best campaign ad ever?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

More on the questioners and their questions...

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...DU1ZGE4NjVkY2Q=

 

One Guy Asked a Question At Both Parties' YouTube Debates?

 

My hat is off to Michelle Malkin and all of the conservative bloggers who have uncovered all kinds of fascinating information about last night's YouTube questioners, using that remarkable, mysterious investigative technique called "Googling."

 

To refresh:

 

1. The retired brigadier general is on Hillary Clinton's gay and lesbian steering committee.

 

2. The young woman who asked about jailing women who get abortions has stated on her YouTube profile page that she backs John Edwards.

 

3. The "Log Cabin Republican" has written on the web about "why I'm supporting Barack Obama."

 

4. The guy who asked Ron Paul if he would run as an independent also asked a question at the Democratic debate and has told reporters that he "likes Bill Richardson."

 

Is America such a small country that Mark Strauss of Davenport, Iowa gets to ask two questions of candidates?

 

Those are the worst; here are the gray areas.

 

5. The mom who asked about toys with lead paint from China is an assistant to the American Steel Workers union, which has endorsed Edwards. This doesn't necessarily mean that this woman has endorsed Edwards or even likes him, but it would have been better if CNN had identified her with that affiliation than portraying her as just another concerned undecided voter.

 

6. The young man who asked about corn subsidies interned for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman back in 2004. I'm not going to go bonkers about that; maybe he just wanted experience working on the Hill. But amongst all the others, it's just one more log on the fire.

 

7. The Powerline guys note that the guy who asked about Social Security reform "is working with a member of [illinois Democratic Sen. Dick] Durbin's staff, helping him develop his proposal to submit to the Congressional Budget Office." However, the same article also noted that he "met with aides of Speaker Dennis Hastert." Maybe Durbin's just more helpful to the guy, but again, in light of everybody else, CNN not being able to find this out, much less mention it, doesn't reflect well on them.

 

UPDATE: 8. Jason Coleman notes the guy who asked why Republicans can't attract more African-American voters has made mocking YouTube videos about "the blind black Republican" and rather lauditory videos attending a John Edwards event.

 

CNN stepped in it badly. I don't know if firing the political director is the right solution; I'd rather the folks who made their mistakes this time learn from them and pledge to do better next time.

 

UPDATE: I notice MediaMatters complained about the questions at the Democrats' YouTube debate:

 

several questions asked during that debate could be described as Republican "gotchas," including one in which the questioner echoed the enduring Republican myth of Democrats as taxers and spenders:

 

(Some of us don't think that's a myth.) Anyway, I think there's a significant difference between an unaffiliated voter asking a question that "echoes a Republican" argument and using questions from folks who have already openly endorsed another candidate in the other party. If any of the YouTube questioners in the Democratic debate had already endorsed a Republican candidate, then Media Matters has good reason to complain. But as it is, they're saying that asking about raising taxes is ipso facto a "Republican gotcha."

[mr_genius]

Looking at the questions asked of the Dems, there were some conservative sounding questions there too.

 

So really, the only difference here is that the tough question was asked by someone who works for a Clinton-related organization, right? Look, I've been as critical of Clinton as anyone here, but my response is still... so what? I could care less if one of those questions asked of the Dems that was uncomfortable was asked by someone related to a GOP campaign. It makes no difference.

 

 

Actually, the question were much more lame for the GOP. What, because media matters (a Democrat political operatous formed by Hillary Clinton), says it was fair? They chose like 3 questions out of all of them to prove that the debate was unbiased. During the GOP debate on CNN there were multiple attempts at a 'gotcha' question. There Dems got issue questions. None if this slop the Democrat plants, which were solicited by CNN, asked. Obviously there is absolutely nothing CNN could ever do which would prove to you that they are pro-dem.. Because this stuff is blatant, Dan Rather forged documents, type stuff.

Edited November 30, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Actually, the question were much more lame for the GOP. What, because media matters (a Democrat political operatous formed by Hillary Clinton), says it was fair? They chose like 3 questions out of all of them to prove that the debate was unbiased. During the GOP debate on CNN there were multiple attempts at a 'gotcha' question. There Dems got issue questions. None if this slop the Democrat plants, which were solicited by CNN, asked. Obviously there is absolutely nothing CNN could ever do which would prove to you that they are pro-dem.. Because this stuff is blatant, Dan Rather forged documents, type stuff.

So, the one part of your claim that I haven't yet seen justified to my satisfaction is that the pro dem questions were specifically solicited by CNN. Granting you the whole General in the Audience thing, can you provide any other evidence to support this claim?

[mr_genius]

So, the one part of your claim that I haven't yet seen justified to my satisfaction is that the pro dem questions were specifically solicited by CNN. Granting you the whole General in the Audience thing, can you provide any other evidence to support this claim?

 

Well, I suppose any evidence would be considered circumstantial. They deny knowledge of the Gay General working for Clinton, even though he appeared on CNN before and they certainly know who he is and that he works on the Clinton steering committee. This shows a tendency for dishonest journalism, at best. Then it just happens that they select videos from people who work for the Dem candidates or are Democrat activists. It really points towards CNN going out of their way to get the Democrat strategists agenda to be main stage at the debates. It just seems like way to big of a coincidence to be a 'innocent mistake'. But, no, I don't have some top secret CNN memo or something that would be 100% proof they solicited the questions.

Edited December 1, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

I dunno, I just have no words. I think this short-circuited most of my thought processes.

Perhaps nothing better exemplifies the libertarian streak that runs through Nevada than the state's permissive policy on prostitution -- the ultimate expression of the live-and-let-live philosophy.

 

So, it should be no surprise that the presidential candidate with the purest libertarian bona fides picked up some X-rated support while campaigning in Reno last week.

 

To be more explicit, Nevada brothel owner Dennis Hof declared his support for Republican contender Ron Paul during Paul's campaign swing through the state.

 

The odd thing about it, however, is that it came about with the help of television news personality Tucker Carlson.

 

Carlson, who hosts the show "Tucker" on MSNBC, is traveling with Paul for a magazine article he is writing.

 

"Dennis Hof is a good friend of mine, so when we got to Nevada, I decided to call him up and see if he wanted to come check this guy out," Carlson said.

 

Paul spokesman Jeff Greenspan said Paul's campaign were surprised to see Carlson emerge from a limousine with Hof and two of his celebrity prostitutes to attend the morning's news conference at Lawlor Events Center.

 

Following the news conference, Hof said he was so impressed that he wanted to start raising money for Paul.

 

"I'll do it today," he said. "I'll get all the Bunnies together, and we can raise him some money. I'll put up a collection box outside the door. They can drop in $1 dollar, $5 dollar contributions."

 

Hof's prostitutes, Air Force Amy and Brooke Taylor, said they liked Paul's message, but wanted to learn more about the other candidates before making a decision.

 

Paul is an ardent libertarian who believes in returning the purview of the federal government back to what is articulated in the U.S. Constitution. He's a diehard supporter of states 'rights.

 

He's also a devout Christian, who opposes abortion.

 

"On a personal basis, he doesn't condone those things," Greenspan said about prostitution. "At the same time, from his campaign perspective, it's not the role of federal government and it's not in the constitution for federal government to regulate these things. The Nevada voters and Legislature have decided it is a legal activity

[EvilMonkey]

Here's a Youtube question that should get asked at the next Democratic debate. Let's get a mother to do this and have them hold up a picture of an unborn baby and say, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So, the one part of your claim that I haven't yet seen justified to my satisfaction is that the pro dem questions were specifically solicited by CNN. Granting you the whole General in the Audience thing, can you provide any other evidence to support this claim?

 

 

The fact that they were allowed to vet the questions beforehand? Does that not count for anything? It's perfectly clear that CNN cherrypicked the questions in order to embarrass the GOP candidates and make a mockery of the whole thing. Objectivity my ass. The Republicans should tell CNN where they can stick it the next time they want to do a debate and go with Fox News instead.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Des Moines Register, highly respected when it comes to keeping accurate poll tabs in Iowa over the years, has a new poll out...

 

Huckabee: 29%

Romney: 24%

Giuliani: 13%

Thompson: 9%

McCain: 7%

Paul: 7%

 

[EvilMonkey]

You would think that right about now the people in Iowa would be sick of doing polls.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The Des Moines Register, highly respected when it comes to keeping accurate poll tabs in Iowa over the years, has a new poll out...

 

Huckabee: 29%

Romney: 24%

Giuliani: 13%

Thompson: 9%

McCain: 7%

Paul: 7%

 

 

It doesn't seem like Rudy even has any interest in these early states. He's getting his clock cleaned. If Huckabee can string together a few early wins he might just have a good shot, especially if the social conservatives turn out in large numbers. They don't want a Mormon with flip flopping views of abortion and they DEFENITELY don't want Rudy.

[vandy125]

You would think that right about now the people in Iowa would be sick of doing polls.

 

You would think so, but a imagine a lot of people like myself have not been polled. I always wonder who they are calling for these?

[Balta1701]

You would think so, but a imagine a lot of people like myself have not been polled. I always wonder who they are calling for these?

The population of Iowa is around 3 million, so if you assume 1.5 million potential voters, and you ask how many 700 person polling pools can you come up with, that's 2143 potential polling pools without repeating anyone.

[EvilMonkey]

You would think so, but a imagine a lot of people like myself have not been polled. I always wonder who they are calling for these?

Vandy, do you know anyone that HAS been polled?

[NorthSideSox72]

Vandy, do you know anyone that HAS been polled?

They've actually just been calling Heads.... over and over again.

 

[mr_genius]

For SHAME!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_...ation_in_debt_4

 

this debt is out of control and spending is horrible. and it looks like the GOP is about to nominate GW Bush II (Huckabee). i wish that one of these guys would think that Jesus told them to lower the debt. seems like that is the only way they would do anything about it.

 

 

[vandy125]

Vandy, do you know anyone that HAS been polled?

Not that I have heard of so far. But, I haven't been asking around at all.

 

I should add that I have been getting a whole bunch of hang up calls lately (the past month), but they have all been while I have been at work. Makes me wonder if they are just polling during the day. If so, that would seem to only catch certain types of people.

Edited December 4, 2007 by vandy125

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

For SHAME!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_...ation_in_debt_4

 

this debt is out of control and spending is horrible. and it looks like the GOP is about to nominate GW Bush II (Huckabee). i wish that one of these guys would think that Jesus told them to lower the debt. seems like that is the only way they would do anything about it.

 

 

That is one thing that really is bothering me is that none of the GOP candidates have a plan to even balance the budget let alone reduce the debt. How much debt do we have to be in before we get a sense of urgency on this issue?

[NorthSideSox72]

That is one thing that really is bothering me is that none of the GOP candidates have a plan to even balance the budget let alone reduce the debt. How much debt do we have to be in before we get a sense of urgency on this issue?

Sounds to me like Ron Paul might be your guy.