The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

Let's be clear, Obama Has experience, it's just not Washington experience. What they fear is Barack Obama's Vision— a vision to empower people and to put people first again and they fear his power to inspire and ennoble men to have hope again — to believe again. They know that Barack offers real change (that means change from GOP domination and manipulation) and he offers forward thinking and progressive ideas and solutions to Really solve the current problems facing us today. One of Barrack's greatest assets is that he is unmired [sic] by the trappings of wealth and power that means big oil, as it is imperative that we find an alternative solution to oil, if the United States is to continue to be prosperous and to thrive. All of these attributes are which makes Barack a truly great leader of men, needed for these times! Some men are born for a holy mission, like the young King David who was made king over his older brothers. Their experience or annointing [sic] comes from God, such a man is Barack

 

 

 

Drink some Kool-Aid.

Where did you pull the quote from - need to cite it.

 

[Cknolls]

This from Peggy Noonan:

 

As he speaks, as he goes on and on and spins his long statements, hypotheticals, and free associations—as he demonstrates yet again . . . that he is incapable of staying on the river of a thought, and is constantly lured down tributaries from which he can never quite work his way back—you can see him batting the little paddles of his mind against the weeds, trying desperately to return to the river but not remembering where it is, or where it was going.

 

Amen!

[Cknolls]

Where did you pull the quote from - need to cite it.

 

 

It was an e-mail from a Messiah supporter to Jim Geraghty in National Review Online Saturday.

[mr_genius]

Anyone have a McCain VP prediction?

[Cknolls]

Anyone have a McCain VP prediction?

 

 

Newt Gingrich.

[southsider2k5]

Anyone have a McCain VP prediction?

 

Sadly Mitt Romney makes the most sense. He would be the only one of the 4 who has real life economic experience. I am not sure who it will be. Like I said before, I wish he would get Alan Greenspan to run with him.

[mr_genius]

I predict Sarah Palin or Kay Bailey Hutchinson

[kapkomet]

Sadly Mitt Romney makes the most sense. He would be the only one of the 4 who has real life economic experience. I am not sure who it will be. Like I said before, I wish he would get Alan Greenspan to run with him.

Mitt Romney about makes me want to puke.

[Balta1701]

Mitt Romney about makes me want to puke.

Who out of the Republican VP field doesn't?

[EvilMonkey]

Who out of the Republican VP field doesn't?

What's wrong with Palin or Pawlenty?

[lostfan]

Mitt Romney about makes me want to puke.

You know, I watched his concession speech. He did a complete 180 from how he conducted his campaign. If he had not acted like such a self-serving slimeball he could've won the nomination.

[Balta1701]

You know, I watched his concession speech. He did a complete 180 from how he conducted his campaign. If he had not acted like such a self-serving slimeball he could've won the nomination.

Slightly OT...when is the last time someone didn't come out looking better after a concession speech than they did before?

[lostfan]

Slightly OT...when is the last time someone didn't come out looking better after a concession speech than they did before?

I can't figure the direction of your post here... are you pushing to or away from my post?

[Balta1701]

I can't figure the direction of your post here... are you pushing to or away from my post?

I'm just thinking...it seems like every time there's an even remotely close race, I hear "If only they'd been like they were during the concession speech" in the campaign part they might have won. We heard it with Hilrod's speech in early June, we heard it a ton with Gore in 2000, you just gave it to Romney, etc.

[lostfan]

Oh, away from I see. You're probably right.

[StrangeSox]

You know, I watched his concession speech. He did a complete 180 from how he conducted his campaign. If he had not acted like such a self-serving slimeball he could've won the nomination.

 

 

Slightly OT...when is the last time someone didn't come out looking better after a concession speech than they did before?

 

Seriously? I thought his speech was awful. It was full of every conservative's stereotypical/ shallow/ dumb criticisms of liberals. It was so over the top and corny.

 

Then again, maybe that would have won the nomination...

[lostfan]

Seriously? I thought his speech was awful. It was full of every conservative's stereotypical/ shallow/ dumb criticisms of liberals. It was so over the top and corny.

 

Then again, maybe that would have won the nomination...

If you're speaking to Republicans then it makes no difference. That's how you'd rally your base.

 

The "surrender to terror" line was over the top for me though.

Edited August 26, 2008 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

Seriously? I thought his speech was awful. It was full of every conservative's stereotypical/ shallow/ dumb criticisms of liberals. It was so over the top and corny.

 

Then again, maybe that would have won the nomination...

 

I agree with you. He came off like a pouty brat in his concession. Actually it reminds me a lot of Hillary's concession. They both sounded resentful that they had to do it.

[EvilMonkey]

I agree with you. He came off like a pouty brat in his concession. Actually it reminds me a lot of Hillary's concession. They both sounded resentful that they had to do it.

I'll third that. it reminded me of when you make a kid tell someone he just hit that he is 'sorry', even though he really isn't.

[lostfan]

I agree with you. He came off like a pouty brat in his concession. Actually it reminds me a lot of Hillary's concession. They both sounded resentful that they had to do it.

What exactly didn't you like about Romney? I wasn't active on here back then.

[southsider2k5]

What exactly didn't you like about Romney? I wasn't active on here back then.

 

He is one of those guys who became "conserative" over night. He was fairly centrist when he was the governor of a liberal NE state, but when he wanted to go national he sold all of that out. I hate that. It was the same problem I had with John Edwards, except he went the other way on the scale. Its too bad, because Mitt't economic and financial credentials are second to none in the field, but his lack of spine is also second only to Edwards.

[lostfan]

He is one of those guys who became "conserative" over night. He was fairly centrist when he was the governor of a liberal NE state, but when he wanted to go national he sold all of that out. I hate that. It was the same problem I had with John Edwards, except he went the other way on the scale. Its too bad, because Mitt't economic and financial credentials are second to none in the field, but his lack of spine is also second only to Edwards.

He seemed to me to be a solid candidate who just came across as a slimeball, and turned me off.

[Cknolls]

Who out of the Republican VP field doesn't?

 

 

Alan Keyes

[southsider2k5]

He seemed to me to be a solid candidate who just came across as a slimeball, and turned me off.

 

To me, compromising your morals for votes is pretty slimeballish. Either he did when he was Gov, or he did while he was running for Pres.

[southsider2k5]

Interesing perspective piece that looks back at the revealation that Liz Edwards knowingly participated in John's campaign lies.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/0...=rss_topstories

 

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- Two weeks after a devastating revelation sent her husband into political exile, Elizabeth Edwards isn't getting the steady sympathy usually afforded to a woman scorned.

 

 

Elizabeth Edwards, pictured with John Edwards in May, has been criticized for the way she handled his affair.

 

Instead, she's faced criticism from dedicated Democrats who think she was too willing to keep the affair a secret to help John Edwards' political ambitions, as well as her own.

 

At a time when she was expected to hold a prominent role in pushing an agenda of improved health care for Americans, she stands silent. While fellow Democrats converge in Denver, Colorado, to nominate Barack Obama for president, Edwards remains in seclusion in North Carolina.

 

It seems an odd way to treat a woman with incurable cancer wronged by a cheating husband, the latest in a series of deep hardships in life that includes the death of a teenage son.

 

But some former followers have questioned the recklessness of keeping the affair under wraps even though her husband -- a former U.S. senator, two-time presidential candidate and the 2004 vice presidential nominee -- said he confessed the affair in 2006, before the campaign began in earnest the next year.

 

"I think she's complicit," said Brad Crone, a Raleigh-based Democratic consultant. "Obviously, she knew. While she's the victim, she clearly didn't stand in the way of the cover-up."

 

It wasn't until earlier this month that John Edwards acknowledged publicly he'd had an affair with Rielle Hunter, a rookie filmmaker hired by his political action committee.

 

On a liberal blog that Elizabeth Edwards frequents, she explained why she stayed silent after her husband told her of the affair: "This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well."

 

Many people have come to know Elizabeth Edwards, 59, as a more forthright, revealing woman.

 

She wrote a memoir in 2007 that brought readers into the most wrenching moments of her life -- the death of the couple's 16-year-old son and her 2004 breast cancer diagnosis. An attorney who worked in private practice and also taught at the University of North Carolina's law school, she first found out about the cancer the day after her husband and John Kerry lost their bid for the White House four years ago.

 

She has always had a passion for politics. Known for routinely writing about health care policy on the Internet, she has served as a visiting fellow at Harvard, where she held discussions with students and gave a speech after her husband dropped from the presidential race earlier this year. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said in June he would be "partnering" with her on health care policy, and she was expected to serve as a campaign voice to challenge Republican candidate John McCain on the issue.

 

Yet during a visit to North Carolina two weeks after Edwards admitted to cheating on his wife, Obama didn't mention Elizabeth Edwards -- or her husband.

 

"It's a setback for both of them," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant who helped President Clinton through his cheating scandal. "The question for her -- as well as for him -- is what is their foundation? What gives them a platform to engage in public issues?

 

"Their big challenge is convincing people that they will continue to be active in politics and they're going to continue to have a voice."

 

In a post on the liberal blog Daily Kos, where Edwards has her own diary, she pleaded for privacy and later seemed to explain why she stuck by her spouse and his presidential ambitions.

 

"An imperfect man with a truly progressive vision who spoke to and for those whom others ignored? Yes, that is who I supported," she wrote. "An imperfect man who had come to face his own imperfections and was seeking to redeem himself to those closest to him? Yes, that is who I supported."

 

Some responded to the affair with words of kindness, while others angrily suggested that keeping the secret was no less a sin that the one committed by her philandering husband.

 

"She knew president with this bomb waiting to go off. She did. She kinda loses my sympathy," wrote one poster.

 

"I believe we are all owed a huge apology, not self-serving claims for pity by both John and Elizabeth Edwards, who both knew about the affair and both decided to go forward and seek the Democratic candidacy, regardless of the Titanic risk," wrote another.

 

Elizabeth Edwards is famously a denizen of the Internet. But she has not posted under her own name at Daily Kos since that day, nor has she posted anything on the Web site of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington where she writes about health care.

 

A spokeswoman for the center, Andrea Purse, said Elizabeth Edwards still has a job there, but declined to comment further about her future role. Both Elizabeth and John Edwards have refused several requests for an interview.

 

Since her husband's admission, the only window into what Elizabeth Edwards has been thinking came from a People magazine interview with her brother and a close friend. They said she decided not to leave her husband, in part, because she is a mother of two young children fighting a cancer that has spread to her bone and cannot be cured.

 

"There was anguish -- excruciating anguish -- for her in dealing with this," Hargrave McElroy, a friend, told the magazine. "She was angry and furious and everything, but at one point she had to make a choice: Do I kick him out, or do we have a 30-year marriage that can be rebuilt."

 

If the story was engineered to defend Edwards' decision, it has failed to create an outpouring of understanding.

 

"I thought it was very naive on both their parts," said Betsy Wells, who was an Edwards delegate at the Democratic convention four years ago and worked for each of his three campaigns for office. "It would be very sad if he were the nominee of our party right now."