[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

Kerrys wife forgot to Botox.



My point about the Senate is that its been about 50 years since one has been elected. They have a trail that is hammered.



Anything but Moveon.org or lets be softer with the enemy. One month ago the push was on the world is ending due to N Korea, Iran and IRaq. Now Iran is about to have a revolution, N Korea gave in for 10000 tons of food and Bagdad is improving. Notice I did not say IRAQ since 80% of it is doing very well.



Either way both parties are full of $hiT. They both play politics and really dont get much done. At the same time 8 years ago the borders were wide open, taxes were high and we were being attacked around the world. As our enemy grew we were more passive. This did not work and 9/11 was the point that forced change.



As for global warming and GORRRREEE. Well its nice that nothing was accomplished over their 8 year term. Now all the political morons say Nuclear. NO crap, why did you not take a stand 10 or 20 years ago.



God bless us… Mitt is the only light.

God bless us... Mitt is the only light.

[quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

[/quote]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

I’m sorry I meant Hillary.



She is such a great actor. Her speach about the southern gentleman was very inspiring. I am sure even Obama is going to play that a thousand times.



Go Brownback…



Its always a political hotspot here.

[quote=Bobby Hull][quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

[/quote]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

[/quote]

uuuurp!! I was eating breakfast. 

[quote=babbling looney][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

[/quote]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

[/quote]

uuuurp!! I was eating breakfast. 

AirForce,

Yeah yeah yeah, whatevs.

At this point we're more interested in the inside game of the political scene. We all know that politicians blah blah lies lies lies blah blah Democrats blah blah blah... We really don't need to be told (but thanks anyway).

The public will be swayed to any position their party wants them to be swayed. They'll convince themselves that their way is what's best for America, even if it does mean jettisoning those closely held beliefs of the last election cycle (especially if they didn't work).

Case in point. It was Nixon who said that in order to win the nomination you must run to the right (in the case of the Republicans, obviously, the left for the Dems) and then you must run to the center to get elected.

(The dreaded words!)

This time it's different!

The right has said that it's going to sit on its hands this time (its the conservative's favorite move and it used to be ineffectual until Reagan made "Liberal" a dirty word*) which means that the candidate must run away from the right into the "anti administration moderates" (With a 24%- approval rating and the Justice dept issue and Republicans of the stature of Chuck Hagel hinting at impeachment this is not the ranting of a left leaner) in order to win the nomination.++

This is a problem for Thompson in that he is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Neo Con think tank that thought up Neo Conservativism. It'll play poorly with the above group.

Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans seem to want to annoint a candidate before they hit the primary scene. The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy. Second problem being that it looks like a party in disarray and so political donations are going towards the winning party, and it looks more and moore like that's the case when the Republicans can't even get a candidate put together. (Again, I'm just talking about the politics of it, not the emotion.)

 * Reagan and Conservatives were witting recipients of the false logic of "A is equal to B, therefore NotA equals NotB", Which translates into "Liberal = Evil, therefore Conservative = Everything  Good"  the same "logic" appears here in these forums all the time. This "logic" almost always produces a false answer. 

 ++ This point somewhat discounts the tactic of single issuing the primaries. If the Republican leadership can find (or if the left hands to them on a silver platter) a single issue (like Gay marriage, or Abortion, or Flag Burning, or Terror, or lower taxes, or something new because those old ones are worn out) that can incite the righty right rights out of their pews and into the voting booth in numbers. problem with this being that the primary season is a bad time to divide up the party thusly.  

Chuck Hagel is an interesting selection.



The dems have Hillary. Do you think Obama or Edwards has a shot?



Leiberman stuck to his guns and won. He to me is someone who I respect. If you look at the rest of them all they do is point to Bush and talk crap. At the same time Hillary just said we will stay in IRAQ through 2009. Then the next day she says if you want two presidents in the office vote for me. Is that a leader?



I want someone like Mitt, but maybe not him, who has proven results inside and outside of politics. Someone who worked with both parties. Hillary has not even had a challenger in an election. Can you name the people she went against for Senate? She is not from NYC and talks a different speech for each group she addresses. Half the country can’t stand her and she is and has been the #1 2008 canidate for the dems since 2002. She also will have at least 2 times more money then all the other dems.



Now on the Republican front I think there are question marks on who it will be.



I think we both agree both parties need to change, but I hope this past election woke up the republicans.

Best thing about this site is you guys/ladies make me think.



I am surpised that people need more information to vote on. Like what is Billary or anyone else going to promise that will change ones mind.



I see it is now best to just adjust as you go. Like Senators like McCain and Billery do. This way instead of leading you can just go by public opinion. I guess that is politics 101. Screw the facts and just blame the other party or president, while you switch sides on your positions.

Like what is Billary or anyone else going to promise that will change ones mind.

Good question (because it is one that I happen to have an answer to.)!

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks!

The banks bought the Republican party and they are squeezing the life'sblood out of this economy. Nobody, and I mean NO BODY loves banks.

The "credit score" issue is a very sore point to many many Americans. Not only northerners, but guys with Union Jacks and shotgun racks in their pickup trucks are getting tagged daily by banks charging interest rates that would make Tony Soprano blush.

Banks spend 7/8s of their advertising budget on bashing other banks over fees and poor service etc etc... They have done most of the work convincing people that this is a rigged game.

Dems can make it a "People versus the corporations" issue. And they should.

If the Dems took that play from the Ronald Reagan playbook and, nationwide, ran on the issue of taking the country back from the bankers. They'd ride in on the crest of a mandate they haven't seen since Roosevelt.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks! [/quote]

Standard Democrat playbook; play on the economic illiteracy of the average voter, put the word "BIG" before "banking" (see oil and tobacco examples), and roll on from there....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The right has said that it's going to sit on its hands this time (its the conservative's favorite move and it used to be ineffectual until Reagan made "Liberal" a dirty word*) which means that the candidate must run away from the right into the "anti administration moderates" (With a 24%- approval rating and the Justice dept issue and Republicans of the stature of Chuck Hagel hinting at impeachment this is not the ranting of a left leaner) in order to win the nomination.++

[/quote]

A couple of points, no particular order;

Conservatives who might have considered "sitting on their hands" have been moved to act by the train wreck which is the Democrat Congress. This explains strong showings by people like Guiliani even among social conservatives.

Speaking of trainwrecks and polls, as bad as Bush's numbers are, Pelosi and Reid would gladly swap W for them.

In both parties the candidates cater to the base (right for the GOP, left for the Democrats), nothing new there. However, someone like McCain, Guliani or Thompson wouldn't have as far a path back to the middle as prior GOP candidates because the are, for whatever reason, being given a pass by the party's most conservative rank and file.

Hagel is a loon that no one, no one outside those whose favorite Republicans are those that speak the loudest about Bush, care about. His  recent "I've yet to decide" press conference showed what a loon this guy is.

 Oh, and Reagan didn’t make “liberal” a dirty word, liberal excesses did that, Reagan just pointed them out.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

This is a problem for Thompson in that he is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Neo Con think tank that thought up Neo Conservativism. It'll play poorly with the above group. [/quote]

You have got to be joking....AEI, "neo-con"? “Neo-Con” has become the catch-all it would seem.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans seem to want to annoint a candidate before they hit the primary scene. [/quote]

Huh? Hillary's whole campaign is based on "inevitability" and nothing more. You've got a strange stereotype at work there.

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer]The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy. [/quote]

Name them.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Second problem being that it looks like a party in disarray … [/quote]

Eh, have you been watching the Democrat Congress? Disarray?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] …and so political donations are going towards the winning party, …[/quote]

I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital.

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer] * Reagan and Conservatives were witting recipients of the false logic of "A is equal to B, therefore NotA equals NotB", Which translates into "Liberal = Evil, therefore Conservative = Everything  Good"  …[/quote]

See above. Reagan were the witting recipients of Liberal excesses. See Carter, Mondale and Dukakis. See generally weak on foreign policy. See caretakers of an all-too-expansive welfare state. Reagan pointing that out struck a cord with the public.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

... but guys with Union Jacks and shotgun racks in their pickup trucks ...[/quote]

There's a voting block I've never heard of. Anglophiles with shotgun racks and pick-up trucks...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks! [/quote]

Standard Democrat playbook; play on the economic illiteracy of the average voter, put the word "BIG" before "banking" (see oil and tobacco examples), and roll on from there....

[/quote]

Your point being?

Yeah! Pick an enemy, one that the most people can relate to in their day to day.  Then everybody sing from the same hymnal. That way each candidate is part of the greater whole.

Please don't pretend that the Republicans don't do the same thing when they all sing the "Keep America Safe" or when they sign the "Contract With America". 

It works, and the Dems should do it, if they want to win. 

A clasic example of what you describe, Whomit, happened a couple of years

ago. We had troops in the field on two different fronts, and what was

Congress debating and posturing about? Steroid use in college baseball.



Now THERE’S a controverial topic, requiring members of that august body to

dig deep and take a stand, huh?

oh man we’ve got a live one here…soon we’re going to start with the different colors I bet…

Neo con and the AEI... from Wikipedia (under neo con)

Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard along with the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administration of George W. Bush.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Look at the list of contributors, Coors and Scaife practically define the term "Neo Con." Sometimes words become catch alls, but sometimes they mean what they mean.

"Huh? Hillary's whole campaign is based on "inevitability" and nothing more. You've got a strange stereotype at work there."

Let's see, we have Hillary, Barak, Edwards, several with no chance whatsoever like Kuscinich(?) the idea floated that Gore might get in... Hillary might well be "inevitable" (I think she is.) but she hasn't the type of support that W had pre '99. She would much rather not have to slug it out with anyone in the primaries, but that's not likely to be the case (unless she's overpowering in the early races).

Meanwhile, the Republicans have zip! They're more notable for the people NOT running than the one's running. Frist was supposed to be the man, and when the balloon wouldn't rise (after Schiavo) he bowed out, because he didn't want to go against the party.

Again, it was the first rule of Reagan Republicanism, "We NEVER disagree in public!" this harkens back to the unified message (above) and it is what they would like to be in play for the primary season. 

Name them? Newt, Rudy, Mc Cain for three. Rudy would love to be annointed. He'd love to be president. If the party gets behind Thompson do you think Rudy will drop out?

Newt wants to be president, he has been quietly working on this for 8 years. Do you think he's going to take a back seat to Carl Rove?

McCain, he has Bob Dole's disease, he thinks he's due, it's time for the party to show him some love. He primaried Bush the first time, do you think he's going to roll over this time?

If you have a three way, that's a much wider field than even against Carter (when it basically came down to Reagan v. Bush)

"I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital".

You keep thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night. The philosophy of business is "don't let politics get in the way of making friends in high places."

Again, This is not about who's right and who's wrong, politically. We all know the whole right/left continuum. As far as the public is concerned, the congress is doing a lot. You may think they're in disarray, I may agree, but that's not really at issue at this point.

As to Reagan and THE WORD "Liberal". Please, try to understand the difference between a word and a concept. Reagan may have used the failings of liberalism to tar the word Liberal but the point is that Reagan made even Liberals want not to call themselves Liberal.

As to the Union Jack, you're right, I mean the Navy Jack.

Let try not to make this personal, ok folks? Let's try to keep this from becoming a gutter brawl. We all know that we can roll around in the mud, we all know that there are people who agree with the Republicans and their are people who agree with the Democrats (and we also all know that it's called the Democratic party and that when you callit the Democrat party you are either displaying ignorancy or disrespect, and neither belong in a discussion by adults). We all want the same things. A strong, safe, free country where everybody is rich, good looking and above average.

I wish us all Life Liberty and the pursuit of eudaionia  (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=eudaimonia)!

Eudaimonia… Dang an edit button would be nice.

That's it, you got your man, Carter. One termer and experienced and all.

His Alzheimer's and newfound but subconscious  and glaring hatred for the Jews can be manipulated to keep the economy stable.

Dump your stocks, buy those adjustable rate fixed annuities now, put on cruise control and join the golf club.

Salt peanuts.