GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[mr_genius]

This guy is a dolt. I really dislike him.

 

he is very annoying

[Rex Kickass]

Fred Thompson in it to win it? Not so fast....

 

Sources close to the presumptive campaign tell NBC News that Fred Thompson's fundraising is down "markedly." One claimed it has "slowed down big-time." The pace is described as a consequence of the delayed announcement to enter the race."The Friends of Fred, Inc." will report to the IRS its revenue by July 31st. Sources reveal to NBC News that number will be in the range of about $3 million. Five million dollars had been the talked-about June goal. Sources describe an early burst of donations in June and say the summer fundraising has fallen off. While additional fundraisers are planned, sources say the scheduling of fundraisers was "frozen" for a time while the team was going through some internal strains.

[BigSqwert]

Fred Thompson in it to win it? Not so fast....

I thought republicans hated Hollywood types.

[Balta1701]

Well, at least it's better than the "Series of Tubes" remark by Stevens:

Romney earlier in the day said he would encourage computer manufacturers to install internet filtering software on computers sold at retail to help parents protect their children from pornography.

 

But Romney showed some unfamiliarity with the Internet when he discussed the problem of sexual predators and children.

 

"YouTube is a website that allows kids to network with one another and make friends and contact each other," Romney explained. "YouTube looked to see if they had any convicted sex offenders on their web site. They had 29,000."

 

Actually, YouTube is the popular site that allows Internet users to upload and watch a variety of videos. The web site, which is owned by search-engine behemoth Google, also was a co-sponsor of the Democratic presidential debate held on Monday night.

 

The web site MySpace is the one to which Romney actually was referring. MySpace, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said this week it had found 29,000 registered sex offenders who had submitted profiles to its site and removed them.

 

[Balta1701]

Fred Thompson plans to announce Tuesday that his committee to test the waters for a Republican presidential campaign raised slightly more than $3 million in June, substantially less than some backers had hoped, according to Republican sources.

 

Thompson plans to make the disclosure in a filing with the Internal Revenue Service, as he continues to operate his prospective campaign as a political organization that does not require disclosure to the Federal Election Commission.

 

Many Republicans had seen the “Law & Order” actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee as a potential savior in a tough election cycle.

 

He attracted support from such top-shelf party figures as Mary Matalin, Liz Cheney, George P. Bush and other GOP stalwarts who saw him as a potential Hillary Clinton slayer.

 

But many Republicans have turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September.

 

Some are already saying a prospective Thompson run is a flop. “I just don’t see it anymore,” said a key Republican who had been extremely enthusiastic about a Thompson candidacy.

 

"That number is really underwhelming. There were indications it could be double that. They've been saying that people were waiting for Fred, and the money was going to pour in. He looks like he's already losing momentum."

 

Thompson advisers are bracing for news coverage of the fundraising figure as a disappointment, but point out it covers only 26 days -- from June 4, when Friends of Fred Thompson Inc., was formed, to June 30, which the IRS specifies as the closing day for this report.

From Drudgico

[NorthSideSox72]

Gingrich now saying maybe he will.

 

[kapkomet]

:puke

 

I like Newt's views on things - to a point - but his smugness irritates me.

[Rex Kickass]

Newt Gingrich ensures a conservative would not get the nomination in 2008.

[NorthSideSox72]

Newt Gingrich ensures a conservative would not get the nomination in 2008.

Do you mean that Gingrich would spread the more conservative candidates too thin, or that his presence somehow changes the internal chemistry of the party, or that he would likely get the nomination and you don't see him as a conservative?

 

[Rex Kickass]

He'll split the conservative vote between Thompson, maybe Duncan Hunter and himself.

[kapkomet]

Newt's got a HUGE damn closet, bigger then just about any other candidate not named Guiliani.

 

I really loathe our "presidential material" these days... these candidates SUCK.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Newt's got a HUGE damn closet, bigger then just about any other candidate not named Guiliani.

 

I really loathe our "presidential material" these days... these candidates SUCK.

Eh, its a better field than I can remember seeing in my voting lifetime. Yeah, they are all flawed, and most are less than stellar. But I think we actually are taking a step forward this cycle in terms of available talent, compared to the last few cycles.

 

[kapkomet]

Eh, its a better field than I can remember seeing in my voting lifetime. Yeah, they are all flawed, and most are less than stellar. But I think we actually are taking a step forward this cycle in terms of available talent, compared to the last few cycles.

Really? Who stands out, as far as talent? I think most of them are made from the same recycled idiots that we have grown to all *ahem* love over the last 20 years.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Really? Who stands out, as far as talent? I think most of them are made from the same recycled idiots that we have grown to all *ahem* love over the last 20 years.

Clinton, Edwards, McCain and Kucinich are all recycled. though I think that McCain and Kucinich both add some value.

 

Lots of new faces though - Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Gravel for the Dems, and Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Thompson 2, and Hunter for the GOP.

 

I think Obama is definitely talented, he's new and a fresh face, he has natural leadership skills... probably too inexperienced, but a good guy to have in the field. Richardson brings a real, serious resume for the job. Biden and Dodd are experienced Senators, and at least Biden has been willing to go out on a limb and suggest a pth for Iraq that isn't "stay the course" or "pull out". Giuliani brings a different flavor, being a mayor, businessman and social moderate, which is nice to see. Romney has executive experience. Thompson is definitely unique, and has some positives behind him. And I think there are a number of true believers in there - Hunter, Kucinich, Gravel.

 

And check this out - we have in this race the following firsts...

 

--First serious female contender ever

--First serious black contender ever

--First serious Hispanic contender ever

--First serious Mormon contender ever

--First serious contender from a mayoral background, that I can ever recall*

 

To me, that's pretty darn interesting, and I'm a lot happier than I was in any of the other cycles I have voted in (first prez vote: 1992).

 

[kapkomet]

I see your point... yet, there's just not a candidate that stands out. They all play the same parts in political theatre. It's just who says it a little different.

 

There's no "mainstream" message, one that can bring people together on common things to get things done. It's all pandering (read: acting) for the extremeists in each party. I do realize that the message becomes more centered after you get your party nomination, but who these people really are, IMO, is who they play for to get the nomination.

 

There's no "refreshing" candidate out there that says what most middle of the road Americans want.

 

-Fix Social Security - quit robbing Peter to pay Paul

-Fix healthcare, and not socialize it - there are tort reforms and other "caps" that can be implemented to lower and streamline health care costs

-Win the war in Iraq without fear of "political drama"

-Keep taxes low so reinvestments continue

-Get a real immigration bill out there without amnesty - you can have a worker program with those already here and not offer citizenship - or they have to apply just like everyone else

-Get government spending down by REAL fiscal conservatism

-Keep social programs from inflating said spending above, it's not the government's job to run everything

 

I would argue that most Americans would generally agree on these general ideas. But, each of these ideas above have to pander to the fringe elements of their party, which makes it virtually impossible to compromise down the road.

[Balta1701]

Newt?

[NorthSideSox72]

Newt?

If I click on that link, I get a page without any article. What is it about - more on him maybe running?

 

[Balta1701]

If I click on that link, I get a page without any article. What is it about - more on him maybe running?

@ Salon.com, you can get free access by watching an ad (it's sort of their way of making money from people without having them subscribe). Very interesting piece with Gingrich basically going totally off message during a speech. If you're using adblock or something like that on Firefox you might have difficulty viewing it.

[NorthSideSox72]

@ Salon.com, you can get free access by watching an ad (it's sort of their way of making money from people without having them subscribe). Very interesting piece with Gingrich basically going totally off message during a speech. If you're using adblock or something like that on Firefox you might have difficulty viewing it.

Just read it. Very interesting.

 

Funny thing about candidates who don't toe the party line. On the GOP side, you have two candidates who aren't good little soldiers - Giuliani and Gingrich*. Which normally should make me a supporter, but, as it turns out, they are both unbelievable assholes. On the Dem side, there are only two candidates I'd call politically moderate - Clinton and Richardson. And Clinton is just such a terrible leader for so many reasons, I can't support her. I like Richardson, but he does have a habit of making bizarre statements, and I don't think he has much of a shot.

 

Its too bad that the few candidates who seem like people genuinely honest in their views and conduct - the Kucinich's and Hunters of the world - are just so politically out of line with the American public. And the ones closest to middle are such jerks.

 

[southsider2k5]

Clinton, Edwards, McCain and Kucinich are all recycled. though I think that McCain and Kucinich both add some value.

 

Lots of new faces though - Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Gravel for the Dems, and Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Thompson 2, and Hunter for the GOP.

 

I think Obama is definitely talented, he's new and a fresh face, he has natural leadership skills... probably too inexperienced, but a good guy to have in the field. Richardson brings a real, serious resume for the job. Biden and Dodd are experienced Senators, and at least Biden has been willing to go out on a limb and suggest a pth for Iraq that isn't "stay the course" or "pull out". Giuliani brings a different flavor, being a mayor, businessman and social moderate, which is nice to see. Romney has executive experience. Thompson is definitely unique, and has some positives behind him. And I think there are a number of true believers in there - Hunter, Kucinich, Gravel.

 

And check this out - we have in this race the following firsts...

 

--First serious female contender ever

--First serious black contender ever

--First serious Hispanic contender ever

--First serious Mormon contender ever

--First serious contender from a mayoral background, that I can ever recall*

 

To me, that's pretty darn interesting, and I'm a lot happier than I was in any of the other cycles I have voted in (first prez vote: 1992).

I know it is popular to look at things like that, but I could care less. I would really like to hear more about them and what they want to do, than to look at them by race/gender etc.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I know it is popular to look at things like that, but I could care less. I would really like to hear more about them and what they want to do, than to look at them by race/gender etc.

I agree with you 100%. I was responding to the idea that this was the "same old crowd", which it really isn't.

 

The fact that both fields are so big still, is making it difficult for messages to get through. And the ones we DO get are the top 2 or 3 in each party, because the media gets lazy. What would be great is if both parties' leadership would go in about find a way to get their fields narrowed - like down to maybe 5 in each party. Some of these candidates could be talked down with promises of contingent future government positions, etc. These debates would be a lot more interesting with 5 instead of 10.

 

Or, even better but not in the vicinity of realistic... we go to 100% public funding of campaigning, AND the press gets in the habit of trying to balance coverage of all the candidates regardless of pedigree.

 

[southsider2k5]

I agree with you 100%. I was responding to the idea that this was the "same old crowd", which it really isn't.

 

The fact that both fields are so big still, is making it difficult for messages to get through. And the ones we DO get are the top 2 or 3 in each party, because the media gets lazy. What would be great is if both parties' leadership would go in about find a way to get their fields narrowed - like down to maybe 5 in each party. Some of these candidates could be talked down with promises of contingent future government positions, etc. These debates would be a lot more interesting with 5 instead of 10.

 

Or, even better but not in the vicinity of realistic... we go to 100% public funding of campaigning, AND the press gets in the habit of trying to balance coverage of all the candidates regardless of pedigree.

 

Just because someone is a difference race or gender, doesn't mean they are a different candidate or politician. I still want to know what kind of President they would be. I could care less if the first Martian were running.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just because someone is a difference race or gender, doesn't mean they are a different candidate or politician. I still want to know what kind of President they would be. I could care less if the first Martian were running.

Yes I know. And I am in agreement. I was responding to a specific point about them being the same, when they are not. But because I agree with your point here, you will see I also discussed each candidate's unique characteristics as a candidate - political background, style, etc.

 

Regardless of race or gender, this is the most diverse field I can ever remember seeing... governors, senators, house reps, mayors, actors and talking heads... people from all over the spectrum on both sides of the aisle (though no true middle-of-the-road candidate)... people from all over the country... people of different generations. There really is a huge variety.

 

[CubsSuck1]

I think Paul and Huckabee were both impressive in this morning's debate. Giuliani.... made himself look like an idiot.

[vandy125]

I think Paul and Huckabee were both impressive in this morning's debate. Giuliani.... made himself look like an idiot.

Out in Iowa, Paul made quite the impression. He and his supporters were all over the local news. I've turned into a Paul fan so far. Looks like the first candidate I would actually like to support.