Jump to content

GOP Primaries/Candidates thread


NorthSideSox72

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 12:56 PM)
For being the guy who gets uppidty when people miss your posts, you might want to read up a little higher :lol:

I think Balta put me on ignore shortly after I said I thought Bush was a good choice for Time's Person of the Year in 2004. :lolhitting

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:39 PM)
More Ron Paul Ownage...

 

I thought it was particularly funny that if you look closely, you'll see that Fox News can't spell the the word "side" correctly.

 

I do agree with most of Paul's political agenda when it comes to how government should be managed and run.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 06:05 AM)
Tancredo to drop out of the race (thank God). Announcement scheduled for today. No word on if he might endorse any other specific candidate, who would then acquire the much-coveted psychotic militia vote.

Update: Tancredo officially drops out, and endorses Romney.

 

Not sure if that helps or hurts Mitt. Tancredo was getting 2-3% in Iowa, which is something I guess. But he is awfully divisive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 02:36 PM)
Update: Tancredo officially drops out, and endorses Romney.

 

Not sure if that helps or hurts Mitt. Tancredo was getting 2-3% in Iowa, which is something I guess. But he is awfully divisive.

 

Hmm, you always have to ask the question, is there a reason for this endorsement? Thinking out loud, he is uber-Christian and anti-immigrant, which are both problem spots for Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 12:36 PM)
Update: Tancredo officially drops out, and endorses Romney.

 

Not sure if that helps or hurts Mitt. Tancredo was getting 2-3% in Iowa, which is something I guess. But he is awfully divisive.

IMO, that absolutely helps Romney, especially right before the Holidays. Huckabee really was helped by the Brownback endorsement, which helped solidify him as the candidate of all the Christian folks. But Huckabee has been seen as vulnerable on immigration, especially in a Republican primary, and this reinforces that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 10:27 AM)
Here is one reason Ron Paul does so good on internet polls. They set up a page linking them all together, and run it thru an anonamizer site so the IP addresses don't all get tracked back to the same place.

http://ronpaulgw.googlepages.com/polls

 

It's not just polls. I've heard many people on TV talk about getting inundated with emails whenever they show anything. I'm not sure that you can base your statement on one, googlepages web page...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 03:16 PM)
It's not just polls. I've heard many people on TV talk about getting inundated with emails whenever they show anything. I'm not sure that you can base your statement on one, googlepages web page...

 

There has to be some organized movement going on over the Internet to explain this - he's a fringe candidate if you look at any poll yet he almost always wins any kind of debate on the news channel. I don't buy it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(spiderman @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 06:47 PM)
There has to be some organized movement going on over the Internet to explain this - he's a fringe candidate if you look at any poll yet he almost always wins any kind of debate on the news channel. I don't buy it.

 

 

I suppose I can offer a bit of an explanation. From what I understand, the majority of the major polls collect data from registered Republicans who have voted in past primaries, especially 2004 when Bush ran generally unopposed (yes, primaries were still held). However, at least from what I've experienced, most of Paul's support comes from those fed up with the status quo, those who would not have not have voted in the '04 primaries for no reason other than to symbolically show their support for Bush, who was a shoe-in regardless. Paul's base of support is a diverse group; you'll find traditional conservatives, libertarians, independents, former democrats, etc. But certainly not a whole lot of neo-cons who, due to the nature of the polls, get polled most regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/2007/12/c...rnor-graft.html

 

The Cooler has obtained documents that show Mike Huckabee received $378,000 in consulting fees during 2006, while he was still governor of Arkansas.

 

Most noteworthy, $35,000 came from Novo Nordisk, one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers. It seems that when money is at stake Huckabee may be able to look past his supposedly fervent opposition to this procedure

 

 

He also received speaking fees and honoraria from churches while Governor.

 

 

It is certainly calls into question whether or not it is appropriate for a Governor to be taking a consulting fee from interest groups, as Huckabee did, when issues surrounding that interest group could come across his desk.

 

 

The consulting money was funneled through an organization called 12 stops, a group created in 2004 to handle Gov. Huckabee's book deals. With all the attention Senator Obama received for running a separate PAC and potentially funnelling money from maxed out donors through that PAC, it calls into question whether Huckabee may have done the same.

 

 

You can view a full list of Huckabee "donors" here.

 

 

Developing...

Update- We never claimed to be math majors. Huck took 2 payments of 17,500 from Novo bringing the year-end total to 35K. Nearly half his governor's salary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To further the post that Athomeboy made in the DEM candidate thread (ARG polls being bizarre), check out the most recent ARG poll for Iowa. Below are the results of that poll, and in (parens) is the range for that candidate for all other non-ARG polls in December...

 

Huckabee: 23% (other polls range from 28 to 39)

Romney: 21% (other polls range from 20 to 28)

McCain: 17% (other polls range from 5 to 9, with one outlier at 14)

Giuliani: 14% (other polls range from 5 to 12)

Paul: 10% (other polls range from 2 to 8)

Thompson: 3% (other polls range from 8 to 13, with one outlier at 16)

 

Basically, their results are outside the entire range of other polls for 5 of the 6 candidates, and barely in the range on the other (Romney). Further, notice something here - the ARG Iowa polls show leanings towards nationally recognized candidates - more for Thompson, Giuliani and McCain, less for Huckabee, Romney and Paul. Its almost like they are filling in the gaps with people from outside Iowa.

 

Basically, ARG is worthless. I think it safe to ignore they polls.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I posted the 3 Dems making use of the Pakistan issue today, I may as well do a bit of that for the other side. I'm nothing if not fair and balanced, right?

Republican John McCain told reporters that new unrest in Pakistan might serve to help his presidential campaign, given the national security credentials that have been a central theme of his White House run.

 

In response to a question from CNN's Dana Bash on whether the current situation helps his campaign, McCain responded: “I’m the one with the experience, the knowledge and the judgment, so perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials, or make people understand that I’ve been to Waziristan, I know Musharraf, I can pick up the phone and call him. I knew Benazir Bhutto, I know the area. But I hate for anything like this to be the cause of any political gain for anyone.”

 

In response to another question, the Arizona senator also suggested that Rudy Giuliani’s post-9/11 experience would not necessarily help him deal with the Pakistan crisis, if he were president. “I don’t know. I know he doesn’t have any experience there. I don’t know how he would handle it to tell you the truth,” said McCain. “He did a great job post-9/11 in handling a post-crisis situation, but I don’t know how that provides one the credentials to address national security issues. I think, as I say, he did a fine job. …

 

“But as far as I know Mayor Giuliani has never been to Iraq. I mean I don’t … I’m not saying he is without credentials. I’m just saying I’m the one with the most credentials, and experience, and the most judgment.”

McCain there.

 

Meanwhile, Huckabee with a slipup on this one it appears.

Mike Huckabee – whose foreign policy credentials have been under a microscope since he admitted to journalists that he was unaware of a major report on Iran’s nuclear weapons program – appeared to make another minor gaffe Thursday when he seemed to suggest incorrectly that Pakistan was currently under martial law.

 

At an Orlando press conference, the former Arkansas governor told reporters that the United States’ first priority should be to find the responsible parties. “But the most urgent thing to do is to offer our sincere sympathies and concerns to the family and to the people of Pakistan, and that’s the first thing we would be doing other than, again, trying to ascertain who’s behind it, and what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continued in Pakistan, suspension of the constitution,” said Huckabee. “Those are concerns that the United States certainly should have."

 

Conservative critics immediately pointed out that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf lifted the country’s state of martial law roughly two weeks ago. The slip "ought to be really bad news for Huckabee," said the National Review's Jim Geraghty, writing on the magazine's Web site. "…I'm not sure how big assassination-related news will play in the first primary states. Still, I think those misstatements will exacerbate the Huck/Not Huck divide in GOP circles."

Edited by Balta1701
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huckabee converts a press gaggle to gun control (and by that I mean taking the gun out of Huck's hands)

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/pol...trol_probl.html

 

Republican Mike Huckabee took his presidential campaign for a quick pheasant-hunting expedition in Iowa on Wednesday, and at one point, a reporter asked why he hadn’t invited sporting enthusiast Dick Cheney along. "Because I want to survive all the way through this," Huckabee replied, in a chuckling dig at the vice president’s accidental shooting of a quail-hunting partner last year.

 

Any good sportsman, though, couldn’t miss a distinctly Cheneyesque moment in the press accounts of the former Arkansas governor’s morning hunt: At one point, Huckabee’s party turned toward a cluster of reporters and cameramen and, when they kicked up a pheasant, fired shotgun blasts over the group’s heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there's a candidate out there who hasn't embarrassed himself/herself in some fashion in the Bhutto matter. Huckabee just seems to be making an art form of it.

Mike Huckabee used the volatile situation in Pakistan Friday to make an argument for building a fence on the American border with Mexico and found himself trying to explain a series of remarks about Pakistanis and their nation.

 

On Thursday night he told reporters in Orlando, Fla.: “We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

 

On Friday, in Pella, Iowa, he expanded on those remarks.

 

“When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,” he told reporters in Pella. “And in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders.”

 

In fact, far more illegal immigrants come from the Philippines, Korea, China and Vietnam, according to recent estimates from the Department of Homeland Security.

 

Asked how a border fence would help keep out Pakistani immigrants, Mr. Huckabee argued that airplane security was already strong, but that security at the southern United States border was dangerously weak.

 

“The fact is that the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds, it’s about someone coming with a shoulder-fired missile,” he said.

 

The sudden emergency in Pakistan and Mr. Huckabee’s response come at a time when he has come under increasing scrutiny from opponents for his lack of fluency in foreign policy issues, and the situation in Pakistan appeared to have challenged him.

 

“We have seen what happens in the Musharraf government,” Mr. Huckabee said on MSNBC. “He has told us he does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists. But on the other hand, did he not want us going in, so what do we do?” Those borders are actually on the west, not the east.

 

Further, he offered an Orlando crowd his “apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.” His aides said later that he meant to say “sympathies.” He also said he was worried about martial law “continuing” in Pakistan, although Mr. Musharraf lifted the state of emergency on Dec. 15. His campaign told CBS News that his statement was not a blunder.

 

Mr. Huckabee “firmly believes that emergency rule/martial law in Pakistan, as a practical matter, should not be viewed as having been completely lifted until the restrictions imposed during that period on the press and judges are removed,” adding that Mr. Musharraf’s “overall policy” is repressive.

The more I see of this guy, the more I'm hoping the other side picks him as the nominee. He's folksy and he's got the Colbert bump, but he seems to be worse than Dean or Bush ever were in saying stupid things that the media would go after.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 06:28 PM)
Anyone who DOES NOT go to your primary and vote Ron Paul is making an enormous mistake.

 

You want money? There will be no Federal Taxes. You want out of international disasters - he is 100% for neutrality. He is a Constitutionist. Electing Ron Paul would be the start of a golden age in America. Elect him for 8 years, and we'd reap the benefits for 30 years thereafter. Price of milk would be NEARLY the same in 8 years as it is now. Inflation would level off dramatically. The price of gas would drop SIGNIFICANTLY because there would be no Federal Tax placed on it?

 

Why does he not get more press? Because he's actually a Libertarian and god knows - Republicans & Democrats can't let another rooster in the hen house.

.

 

Okay I will bite. How exactly does a government function without tax revenue. Do we still have an FBI. Do we have a military.

 

The idea of isolationist is not something that I want to be part of. Do you really think that if we just sit here and stick our head in the sand that the bad guys are going to go away. It hasn't worked in the past with countries. Neutral countries have been invaded before, and some of them have been drawn into war no matter what they have tried.

 

Do you think that Paul and his isolationist theories will stop the chinese government from cyber attacks against our government and industrial companies. Do you think that the Islamic extremists will give us a pass because we have tucked tail and have run home. Unless Paul's plan involves the imposition of Sharia law and that every citizen converts to islam I still think a certain part of the world might want to hurt us.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 03:23 AM)
Did you know that Oil companies go TO the government and ask for more strict environment laws? Why? Because the oil companies WANT them to be more strict. Why? Because more strict laws make it HARDER for NEW companies to get started financially. Then the CURRENT companies can price-fix with OPEC, etc. There should be no FEDERAL government laws on the environment, etc. They help CREATE monopolies - the very thing they try to avoid.

 

That right there is ridiculous. Companies would absolutely destroy the environment if it weren't for environmental regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...