OT: Osama & Huckleberry win?

[still just me]

Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!

 

[Jay]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!
>
>
Only the hard core of both parties are involved at this early stage. Iowa
caucus even more so, because it is so quirky.

Just tune in to Uncle Bill - he tells the truth - http://billoreilly.com/ .

J.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 3, 10:02 pm, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!

maybe it's the other way around

 

[Mike Schway]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Only the hard core of both parties are involved at this early stage. Iowa
> caucus even more so, because it is so quirky.

Y'mean a process where you actually have to THINK before voting?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Quirky. :-/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here]
[email protected] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[still just me]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:36:17 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>On Jan 3, 10:02 pm, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!
>
>maybe it's the other way around

OK, "Huckleberry & Osama" it is!

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Gary]

Please, no results in headers.

still just me wrote:
> Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!
>
>

 

[SMS 斯蒂文• 夏]

still just me wrote:
> Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!

Huckabee is setting the GOP up for a defeat of Goldwater versus Johnson
proportions. He has the right-wing Christian vote, but not much else,
and he's turned off many Republicans with his stands on illegal
immigration. He has zero cross-party appeal. But he does believe that
g-d wants him to be president, and that's an endorsement that's not easy
to get.

Obama polls better than Clinton against Huckabee (or against all
Republicans for that matter), but even Hillary could beat him.

The only Republican running that is polling better or even with Obama
and Clinton is McCain, because he has some cross party appeal because
he's not perceived as an ultra-right-wing or ultra-religious candidate.

"http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/cnn-national-matchups-john-edwards-most-electable-121207001.html"


I hope the Republicans nominate Huckabee, but in reality he'll probably
fizzle out, and McCain will end up with the nomination. McCain is the
only viable Republican without significant baggage.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 4, 7:20 am, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <[email protected]> wrote:
> still just me wrote:
> ...
> without significant baggage.

I used to view McCain as a real standout; almost a viable third party
guy. Would've voted for him. But within the last four years or so he's
become little more than a Republican lapdog, spouting the Party Line.
The RNC didn't hesitate to savage him when he stepped out of line
before and now he's a good little obedient boy. His fall was so fast I
think the party has something on him; something big. He's as much a
puppet now as is GB2. Had his chance in Vermont years ago but now he's
washed up. And should be.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 4, 7:20 am, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> still just me wrote:
>> ...
>> without significant baggage.
>
> I used to view McCain as a real standout; almost a viable third party
> guy. Would've voted for him. But within the last four years or so he's
> become little more than a Republican lapdog, spouting the Party Line.

You're flat wrong. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, votes against the tax
cuts, and on and on.

> The RNC didn't hesitate to savage him when he stepped out of line
> before and now he's a good little obedient boy. His fall was so fast I
> think the party has something on him; something big. He's as much a
> puppet now as is GB2. Had his chance in Vermont years ago but now he's
> washed up. And should be.

Other than on military matters, he's simply not a conservative. That's all.

 

[Pat]

>>
> Only the hard core of both parties are involved at this early stage. Iowa
> caucus even more so, because it is so quirky.
>
> Just tune in to Uncle Bill - he tells the truth - http://billoreilly.com/
> .

Oh, Jay! "Uncle Bill's" schtick is that he supposedly does not spin the
news. In fact, he is spinning like a top to help the republican party.

 

[SMS 斯蒂文• 夏]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 4, 7:20 am, SMS 斯蒂文* 夏 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> still just me wrote:
>> ...
>> without significant baggage.
>
> I used to view McCain as a real standout; almost a viable third party
> guy. Would've voted for him. But within the last four years or so he's
> become little more than a Republican lapdog, spouting the Party Line.
> The RNC didn't hesitate to savage him when he stepped out of line
> before and now he's a good little obedient boy. His fall was so fast I
> think the party has something on him; something big. He's as much a
> puppet now as is GB2. Had his chance in Vermont years ago but now he's
> washed up. And should be.

I wouldn't vote for him based on his Iraq stance, as well as his
position in "Intelligent Design" (creationism). I heard him interviewed
once on the radio by a local radio talk show host, who was dumbfounded
at McCain's statements on "Intelligent Design." It was a local show (San
Francisco), and there was no need to pander to the lunatics promoting
this ****, though I suppose whatever he said could be used against him.
I'm pretty sure he didn't actually believe what he was saying, but the
pandering is sickening.

For those Democrats that aren't paying attention, he seems to garner
some support among both those that wouldn't vote for Obama based onr
race, and those that would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.
The only Democrat able to beat McCain is Edwards, according to the
latest polls, and Edwards is not doing well.

Look at it logically:

Giuliani is history. His entire campaign is based on the fact that he
was mayor of New York on September 11, 2001. In fact New York's FD and
PD are furious that his actions and inactions caused more fatalities
than necessary. The myth of his "strong leadership" will be his undoing.

Romney is history. The core Republican voters are not going to vote for
a Mormon.

Huckabee is the star right now, but when the contest moves to the more
populous states that don't have the large base of evangelicals, he'll
falter.

McCain, while his POW status is brought up too often, has a good chance.
He doesn't have the religious issues that mainstream Republicans want to
avoid. He doesn't have the ethical issues of Giuliani. He has the
experience in foreign policy that all the other Republican candidates
lack. Most important, he can take Democratic votes away from Hillary or
Obama, something none of the other Republicans can do.

Whether you like the three top Democrats or not, at least all of them
are qualified to be president.

 

[Pat]

> I used to view McCain as a real standout; almost a viable third party
> guy. Would've voted for him. But within the last four years or so he's
> become little more than a Republican lapdog, spouting the Party Line.
> The RNC didn't hesitate to savage him when he stepped out of line
> before and now he's a good little obedient boy. His fall was so fast I
> think the party has something on him; something big. He's as much a
> puppet now as is GB2. Had his chance in Vermont years ago but now he's
> washed up. And should be.

I agree with you totally. As an independent voter, I was ready to vote for
McCain. Sadly, he has decided to kiss up to the RNC and gave up his
principles. Really sad.

 

[SMS 斯蒂文• 夏]

Pat wrote:
>> I used to view McCain as a real standout; almost a viable third party
>> guy. Would've voted for him. But within the last four years or so he's
>> become little more than a Republican lapdog, spouting the Party Line.
>> The RNC didn't hesitate to savage him when he stepped out of line
>> before and now he's a good little obedient boy. His fall was so fast I
>> think the party has something on him; something big. He's as much a
>> puppet now as is GB2. Had his chance in Vermont years ago but now he's
>> washed up. And should be.
>
> I agree with you totally. As an independent voter, I was ready to vote for
> McCain. Sadly, he has decided to kiss up to the RNC and gave up his
> principles. Really sad.

It is sad. Unfortunately he had no choice. Unless you give up all your
principles, you won't be supported by the RNC.

 

[Lou Holtman]

still just me wrote:
> Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!
>
>


Despite of the OT announcement. Do you have no one else to discuss this
subject with? And do you believe that this starts a constructive discussion?

Lou

 

[Jay]

On Jan 4, 11:13 am, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Only the hard core of both parties are involved at this early stage. Iowa
> > caucus even more so, because it is so quirky.
>
> > Just tune in to Uncle Bill - he tells the truth -http://billoreilly.com/
> > .
>
> Oh, Jay! "Uncle Bill's" schtick is that he supposedly does not spin the
> news. In fact, he is spinning like a top to help the republican party.
>
Yeah, but I don't care if he is spinning, if I agree with his opinion,
which I often do.

I think mostly he is a shill for the religious right. I just don't
care about their issues, like abortion, school prayer, etc.

Before I started watching O'Reilly, I did not realize how left-leaning
the broadcast networks are, and mainstream print media, led by the
biggest offender, NY Times. Now it is so obvious, I don't know how I
missed it.

J.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:36:17 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On Jan 3, 10:02 pm, still just me <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!
> >
> >maybe it's the other way around
>
> OK, "Huckleberry & Osama" it is!
>
> Thanks for the heads up!

No,no. The other way around is "the clues in Iowa don't have any
voters."

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS éz‰⁄ï∂• ⃠<[email protected]> wrote:

> still just me wrote:
> > Positive proof that voters in Iowa don't have a clue!
>
> Huckabee is setting the GOP up for a defeat of Goldwater versus
> Johnson proportions. He has the right-wing Christian vote, but not
> much else, and he's turned off many Republicans with his stands on
> illegal immigration. He has zero cross-party appeal. But he does
> believe that g-d wants him to be president, and that's an endorsement
> that's not easy to get.

Man, my Dad worshipped Barry Goldwater. Even went out and campaigned
for him door to door, the only time I ever saw my Dad do that.

> Obama polls better than Clinton against Huckabee (or against all
> Republicans for that matter), but even Hillary could beat him.
>
> The only Republican running that is polling better or even with Obama
> and Clinton is McCain, because he has some cross party appeal because
> he's not perceived as an ultra-right-wing or ultra-religious
> candidate.
>
> "http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/cnn-national-matc
> hups-joh n-edwards-most-electable-121207001.html"
>
> I hope the Republicans nominate Huckabee, but in reality he'll
> probably fizzle out, and McCain will end up with the nomination.
> McCain is the only viable Republican without significant baggage.

I initially thought Thompson would be the Republican nominee, but as
David Brooks pointed out "the idea of Fred Thompson's candidacy was
better than the reality of Fred Thompson's candidacy." But McCain has
baggage and lots of it. He has his history as a maverick with whom the
Republican Powers That Be are very uncomfortable, and which means he
will not get the wholehearted support of the party no matter how well he
does in polls and primaries. He might be able to overcome that by force
of personality, though. McCain also has his sort of deathbed conversion
to a rank and file Republican after being brokered out of the running in
2000. His crossover appeal is much less than it was as a result- heck,
in 2000 I probably would have voted for him over Kerry, but not now.
This also means that his candidacy lives or dies by events in Iraq.

The best Democrat in terms of probable competence for the job seems to
be Bill Richardson, but I don't see him being able to get the nod. It's
interesting that there are so many senators running, because senators
rarely win the White House. Having been a governor may stand Huckabee
or Romney in good stead in the general election, because the Democratic
nominee is almost guaranteed to be a senator- Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

I don't like any of the Republicans for inhabiting the Oval Office as it
stands. Huckabee's a nut, Romney is a weasel, Thompson is a zombie (and
bears an uncanny resemblance to The Gentlemen). McCain is probably the
most viable Republican candidate in a general election, but I no longer
trust him. But on the Democratic side, I don't really like any of the
likely nominees. Might be a tough choice come November.

 

[still just me]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:22:14 +0100, Lou Holtman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Despite of the OT announcement. Do you have no one else to discuss this
>subject with?

I like the opinions here!

>And do you believe that this starts a constructive discussion?

You bet! If you fail to see the depth of the simple original post, you
need to do more reading and thinking.

 

[still just me]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:55:28 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

>I don't like any of the Republicans for inhabiting the Oval Office as it
>stands. Huckabee's a nut, Romney is a weasel, Thompson is a zombie (and
>bears an uncanny resemblance to The Gentlemen). McCain is probably the
>most viable Republican candidate in a general election, but I no longer
>trust him. But on the Democratic side, I don't really like any of the
>likely nominees. Might be a tough choice come November.

McCain is still their best man, despite his wimping to the Party,
because he one had a soul and a character (once). He's still a
centrist who can play that record well to the general public.

Edwards is the only electable guy on the Democratic side, unless the
Rep's throw it by nominating a loser (usually a trick reserved for the
Democrats).

 

[Tom Sherman]

Jay Bollyn wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:13 am, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Only the hard core of both parties are involved at this early stage. Iowa
>>> caucus even more so, because it is so quirky.
>>> Just tune in to Uncle Bill - he tells the truth -http://billoreilly.com/
>>> .
>> Oh, Jay! "Uncle Bill's" schtick is that he supposedly does not spin the
>> news. In fact, he is spinning like a top to help the republican party.
>>
> Yeah, but I don't care if he is spinning, if I agree with his opinion,
> which I often do.
>
> I think mostly he is a shill for the religious right. I just don't
> care about their issues, like abortion, school prayer, etc.
>
> Before I started watching O'Reilly, I did not realize how left-leaning
> the broadcast networks are, and mainstream print media, led by the
> biggest offender, NY Times. Now it is so obvious, I don't know how I
> missed it.

The mainstream media is only "left" by the standards of the Heritage
Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and their ilk. Similarly, the
US Democratic Party is to the right of the mainstream "conservative"
parties in Europe.

As for the "biggest offender" the NY Times, that paper has been a
tireless advocate of the Cheney/Bush "War on Terra" (sic) and The
Conquest of Iraq. Hardly left-wing.

NB: The NY Times and practically every other daily newspaper in the
county have a "business" section, but how many have a "labor" section?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!