GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[BigSqwert]

If Romney can' t win Michigan, he needs to hang it up, regardless of how many delegates he has, and go back to selling used cars or something.

If he keeps going after a loss there we'll all what an ego-maniac he is. He'd have zero chance after a Michigan loss.

[kapkomet]

If he keeps going after a loss there we'll all what an ego-maniac he is. He'd have zero chance after a Michigan loss.

Good. Maybe him and Edwards can start a flop company together.

[southsider2k5]

Well guess who wasn't running, but all of the sudden is thinking about it again... I still think he is in bed with the Unity Party.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/blo...ref=mpstoryview

 

Source: Bloomberg research effort assessing presidential run Story Highlights

New York mayor has not yet begun analyzing data being gathered, source says

 

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has launched a research effort to assess his chances in a potential bid for the presidency, a source close to the mayor told CNN.

 

 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said repeatedly he is not a candidate for president.

 

The source said data is being gathered but that the mayor -- who has been widely speculated as being interested in running for the White House as an independent -- has not yet begun analyzing that data, the source said.

 

The source, who is intimately familiar with the mayor's deliberations, said Bloomberg has set early March as a timetable for making a decision.

 

Bloomberg, a former Democrat who was elected to the mayor's office as a Republican, joined a panel of moderate current and former lawmakers earlier this week at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

 

The group, made up of both Democrats and Republicans, called for a return to bipartisanship in government.

 

"What has changed is that people have stopped working together," Bloomberg said at the Monday gathering.

 

"Government is dysfunctional. There is no collaboration and congeniality. There is no working together and 'Let's do what's right for the country.' There is no accountability today ... no willingness to focus on big ideas."

 

 

Bloomberg, 65, was elected mayor of New York in 2001, two months after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, and re-elected in 2005.

 

A native of Medford, Massachusetts, with an MBA from Harvard Business School, Bloomberg made his fortune first working with Wall Street securities bank Salomon Brothers, then as founder of Bloomberg LP, a financial news and information

[BigSqwert]

It seems pretty obvious that he will be running. At least in my opinion.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, which party would Bloomberg get more votes from? I think it may be pretty close to even.

 

[southsider2k5]

We'll have to wait and see if he runs as his independant self, or if he undergoes a Romney/Edwards makeover to run on a national stage. I'd love to see someone run as an economic conservative, and mostly as a hands-off social on positions.

[Balta1701]

[EvilMonkey]

The Paul-bots have been pretty quiet the last week or so. I wonder why?

[BigSqwert]

The Paul-bots have been pretty quiet the last week or so. I wonder why?

They're trying to save enough money to rent hot a air balloon with his name on it.

[Texsox]

So, which party would Bloomberg get more votes from? I think it may be pretty close to even.

flip flopper

I think he would pull votes from both. But it will depend on which nominee from each party. For example Dems that just could not pull the handle for Clinton, but who would shudder at voting for say Thompson, would be more willing. Same thing, a GOP who just could not stand to vote for Giulianni, but would gag at a Clinton vote, would. Compared to say myself who would not vote for Clinton, but would vote for McCain. Another GOPer and I would look at Bloomberg

[Balta1701]

I think he would pull votes from both. But it will depend on which nominee from each party. For example Dems that just could not pull the handle for Clinton, but who would shudder at voting for say Thompson, would be more willing. Same thing, a GOP who just could not stand to vote for Giulianni, but would gag at a Clinton vote, would. Compared to say myself who would not vote for Clinton, but would vote for McCain. Another GOPer and I would look at Bloomberg[/color]

[/color]

I hate to say it, but if the Dem nominee wound up being Hillary...I'd wind up considering myself undecided in that 3 way race. I'm just so sick of voting for people who voted for this damn war...

[vandy125]

The Paul-bots have been pretty quiet the last week or so. I wonder why?

 

As far as my viewpoint, I gave it a shot with the candidate that I believed in the most, and will see where it goes from there. Not much to it. I already casted my vote in the caucus and will be a delegate at the county convention.

Edited January 10, 2008 by vandy125

[Texsox]

I hate to say it, but if the Dem nominee wound up being Hillary...I'd wind up considering myself undecided in that 3 way race. I'm just so sick of voting for people who voted for this damn war...

I give everyone a pass on that war vote. First off, the underlaying evidence was faulty.

[NorthSideSox72]

I give everyone a pass on that war vote. First off, the underlaying evidence was faulty.

Sorry Tex, but... B.S.

 

[Balta1701]

I give everyone a pass on that war vote. First off, the underlaying evidence was faulty.

If I could get it right...

[Controlled Chaos]

If I could get it right...

To you and NSSox...you didn't know anything. You guessed.

[NorthSideSox72]

To you and NSSox...you didn't know anything. You guessed.

Well, I see what you are saying - but with that same logic, NO ONE KNEW whether or not Saddam had WMD for absolute certainty.

 

What I did know, and what I thought was quite clear, was....

 

1. The war was never, ever really about WMD

2. The evidence of WMD was incredibly weak

3. The UN effort was not very good, but was also not given any sort of chance to adjust

4. The excuse they most primarly relied on for WMD and the war was the combination of two "inside" sources who practically screamed "you cannot trust me"

 

Basically, the case for the war looked to me to be paper-thin and not even in the ballpark of enough to go to war.

 

ETA: Its up to you if that means I "KNEW", or "THOUGHT".

 

[StrangeSox]

Well, I see what you are saying - but with that same logic, NO ONE KNEW whether or not Saddam had WMD for absolute certainty.

 

What I did know, and what I thought was quite clear, was....

 

1. The war was never, ever really about WMD

2. The evidence of WMD was incredibly weak

3. The UN effort was not very good, but was also not given any sort of chance to adjust

4. The excuse they most primarly relied on for WMD and the war was the combination of two "inside" sources who practically screamed "you cannot trust me"

 

Basically, the case for the war looked to me to be paper-thin and not even in the ballpark of enough to go to war.

 

ETA: Its up to you if that means I "KNEW", or "THOUGHT".

 

We have a winna!

[kapkomet]

Well, I see what you are saying - but with that same logic, NO ONE KNEW whether or not Saddam had WMD for absolute certainty.

 

What I did know, and what I thought was quite clear, was....

 

1. The war was never, ever really about WMD

2. The evidence of WMD was incredibly weak

3. The UN effort was not very good, but was also not given any sort of chance to adjust

4. The excuse they most primarly relied on for WMD and the war was the combination of two "inside" sources who practically screamed "you cannot trust me"

 

Basically, the case for the war looked to me to be paper-thin and not even in the ballpark of enough to go to war.

 

ETA: Its up to you if that means I "KNEW", or "THOUGHT".

On this point, bulls***. They had 12 years to "adjust", but they were too busy getting money from the oil for food deal.

[Controlled Chaos]

Well, I see what you are saying - but with that same logic, NO ONE KNEW whether or not Saddam had WMD for absolute certainty.

 

What I did know, and what I thought was quite clear, was....

 

1. The war was never, ever really about WMD

2. The evidence of WMD was incredibly weak

3. The UN effort was not very good, but was also not given any sort of chance to adjust

4. The excuse they most primarly relied on for WMD and the war was the combination of two "inside" sources who practically screamed "you cannot trust me"

 

Basically, the case for the war looked to me to be paper-thin and not even in the ballpark of enough to go to war.

 

ETA: Its up to you if that means I "KNEW", or "THOUGHT".

I agree with whats below 100%(you and Balta can read the entire article and then tell me how it's all right wing BS)

 

You make your points above now, but if you want to tell me you were preaching that same list above back in March of 2003...sell it somewhere else. Maybe you were against the war, but you didnt know anything about the evidence of WMD's. The only thing we all knew was Saddam had chemical weapons in the past and he said he destroyed them. You believed Saddam...good for you.

 

I'll stop making my comments now in the GOP primary thread. I think we all know everyones sides on the issue.

 

 

The reason for war, in the first instance, was always the strategic threat posed by Saddam because of his proven record of aggression and barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the certain knowledge of his programs to build more. It was the threat he posed to his region, to our allies, and to core U.S. interests that justified going to war this past spring, just as it also would have justified a Clinton administration decision to go to war in 1998. It was why Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, and many other top officials had concluded in the late 1990s that Saddam Hussein was an intolerable menace to his neighbors, to American allies, and ultimately to the United States itself, and therefore had eventually to be removed. It was also why a large number of Democrats, including John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, expressed support for the war last year, before Howard Dean and his roaring left wing of the Democratic party made support for "Bush's war" untenable for Democratic candidates.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I agree with whats below 100%(you and Balta can read the entire article and then tell me how it's all right wing BS)

 

You make your points above now, but if you want to tell me you were preaching that same list above back in March of 2003...sell it somewhere else. Maybe you were against the war, but you didnt know anything about the evidence of WMD's. The only thing we all knew was Saddam had chemical weapons in the past and he said he destroyed them. You believed Saddam...good for you.

 

I'll stop making my comments now in the GOP primary thread. I think we all know everyones sides on the issue.

The reason for war, in the first instance, was always the strategic threat posed by Saddam because of his proven record of aggression and barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the certain knowledge of his programs to build more. It was the threat he posed to his region, to our allies, and to core U.S. interests that justified going to war this past spring, just as it also would have justified a Clinton administration decision to go to war in 1998. It was why Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, and many other top officials had concluded in the late 1990s that Saddam Hussein was an intolerable menace to his neighbors, to American allies, and ultimately to the United States itself, and therefore had eventually to be removed. It was also why a large number of Democrats, including John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, expressed support for the war last year, before Howard Dean and his roaring left wing of the Democratic party made support for "Bush's war" untenable for Democratic candidates.

 

I was. Not here, but elsewhere. There were people back in September of 2002 or earlier that were calling the evidence into question, and rightfully so.

 

The Weekly Standard and Bilyl Kristol are, of course, unbiased sources

Edited January 11, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree with whats below 100%(you and Balta can read the entire article and then tell me how it's all right wing BS)

 

You make your points above now, but if you want to tell me you were preaching that same list above back in March of 2003...sell it somewhere else. Maybe you were against the war, but you didnt know anything about the evidence of WMD's. The only thing we all knew was Saddam had chemical weapons in the past and he said he destroyed them. You believed Saddam...good for you.

 

I'll stop making my comments now in the GOP primary thread. I think we all know everyones sides on the issue.

The reason for war, in the first instance, was always the strategic threat posed by Saddam because of his proven record of aggression and barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the certain knowledge of his programs to build more. It was the threat he posed to his region, to our allies, and to core U.S. interests that justified going to war this past spring, just as it also would have justified a Clinton administration decision to go to war in 1998. It was why Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, and many other top officials had concluded in the late 1990s that Saddam Hussein was an intolerable menace to his neighbors, to American allies, and ultimately to the United States itself, and therefore had eventually to be removed. It was also why a large number of Democrats, including John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, expressed support for the war last year, before Howard Dean and his roaring left wing of the Democratic party made support for "Bush's war" untenable for Democratic candidates.

You better believe I was preaching the same stuff in 2003. I called B.S. on all those points. I am not saying its not possible I could have been wrong - but don't go trying to paint this false picture that everyone was either for the war and its reasons or against it and guessing. There was plenty of information out there about what was going on. And it all said to me that it was a bad idea. I really don't appreciate being accused of "selling" it like I am some kind if revisionist - I was absolutely against this war, for the reasons I specified, from the beginning.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

On this point, bulls***. They had 12 years to "adjust", but they were too busy getting money from the oil for food deal.

12 years? They were inspecting for a period of weeks or months. I am not talking about the UN in general here, or oil-for-food, or any of that other stuff. The UN inspectors were gone for a while, came back and were trying to get their stuff done. And the worst part is, the US kept claiming they had intelligence the UN didn't... WHY?! Why not give it to them then? Arrogance is why, the hallmark of BushCo.

 

[Balta1701]

12 years? They were inspecting for a period of weeks or months. I am not talking about the UN in general here, or oil-for-food, or any of that other stuff. The UN inspectors were gone for a while, came back and were trying to get their stuff done. And the worst part is, the US kept claiming they had intelligence the UN didn't... WHY?! Why not give it to them then? Arrogance is why, the hallmark of BushCo.

Actually, we did. Repeatedly. The UNMOVIC team came back and said, in their words, it was "garbage after garbage after garbage." (The CBS article I linked there suggests that the source actually used the word Sh*t)

Edited January 11, 2008 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

The reason for war, in the first instance, was always the strategic threat posed by Saddam because of his proven record of aggression and barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the certain knowledge of his programs to build more. It was the threat he posed to his region, to our allies, and to core U.S. interests that justified going to war this past spring, just as it also would have justified a Clinton administration decision to go to war in 1998. It was why Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, and many other top officials had concluded in the late 1990s that Saddam Hussein was an intolerable menace to his neighbors, to American allies, and ultimately to the United States itself, and therefore had eventually to be removed. It was also why a large number of Democrats, including John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, expressed support for the war last year, before Howard Dean and his roaring left wing of the Democratic party made support for "Bush's war" untenable for Democratic candidates.

And one other thing. Saddam was not the reason for the war - never was. He was an excuse, as were WMD and a myriad of other reasons given when WMD showed to be false.

 

The Iraq war was an attempt at a neo-con revolution in the Middle East. They saw the ongoing clash with Islamic Fundamentalists, and decided the best approach to wipiing them out was to set up an anchorhead in the region. This base of operations could be used, not just militarily, but even more so politically, to spread democracy and capitalism, leading to an eventual demise of extremism by way of immersion into an American political schema. Right or wrong, that was clearly their motivation. And Iraq was the perfect target - oil, educated population, bordering many of the key countries in the region, sea port access, lots of open space if needed, a weakened leader (because the UN sanctions and no-fly zones were WORKING), a military in tatters, and some nearby countries willing to help. WMD, Saddam's dicatorship, AQ linkage... those were simply marketing efforts.