Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[brownjenkins]

Historically, the economy has always done better under Democratic administrations.

It's interesting how Republicans often complain about taxation being a drain on economic growth when, in reality, all the money that is taken through taxation (and more! ) is immediately spent, with a vast majority being spent on big business, and thus goes back into the economic growth system. In addition, US tax dollars are much more likely to be spent within the US, as opposed to businesses which spend much more overseas.

[Nurvingiel]

So are we safe to reject the null hypothesis that Hillary Clinton would try to ban homeschooling if elected due to lack of evidence?

Also Hector, that homeschooling list was hilarious!

3. Quit interrupting my kid at her dance lesson, scout meeting, choir practice, baseball game, art class, field trip, park day, music class, 4H club, or soccer lesson to ask her if as a homeschooler she ever gets to socialize.

12. If my kid’s only six and you ask me with a straight face how I can possibly teach him what he’d learn in school, please understand that you’re calling me an idiot. Don’t act shocked if I decide to respond in kind.

[hectorberlioz]

Hillary's school plans will, in effect, put homeschooling out of business. You guys are right, she never said it directly, but she did lay out plans that pretty much would. Saying she'd ban homeschooling wouldn't be a viable position anyways...

Yeah Nurv, that list had me laughing pretty hard.

Now for my analysis of the Boca Raton GOP debate

Here's the link to the video[s] at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezwo_tKLI6Y

Overall I found it a much more interesting debate on issues. This despite the fact that Brian Williams and Tim Russert (CUT YOUR HAIR!!!!!) are absolutely unbearable as moderators. I preferred Charlie Gibson/ABC and Chris Wallace/FOX formats.

HUCKABEE: This was by far Huckabee's best night. Considering the fact that he's falling behind in FL polls, he managed to make himself relevant, and he did it with good humour, and with just the right bit of talking-over the moderator on the FairTax* issue. And on that issue, he corrected Brian Williams on a common misconception people have on a technical detail of the FairTax. Worst moment: when he did that lame "you should vote for me, Mitt, so your sons will have an inheritance".

*I don't know if I support it or not. On one hand, I've heard JD's arguments against it. One the other hand, a consumption tax is so much more fair than an income tax.

GIULIANI: A fine night, but he just didn't say anything that was different. He DID finally re-phrase the Saudi Prince money thing though. When one of the moderators asked him about his 3rd place in FL polls, his funny answer showed his nervousness and non-confidence about his strategy. His voice sounded genuinely nervous. He NEEDS to win FL. There's just no way around it. If he withdraws, that means most of his supporters go to McCain, putting Romney behind by quite a bit. I heard that when I heard Giuliani's answer about his strategy. That was also his worst moment.

ROMNEY: He did pretty good. Not quite as vibrant as he was several debates ago (think NH). Mitt is best when he's unhinged (the opposite of McCain, who is at his worst when he's unhinged). His answers on catastrophe insurance did Rudy and McCain one up, even though he had been "neutral" on the issue up till then. Worst moment: his rambling question posed to Rudy during the 'Candidates Ask Each Other' session.

McCAIN: Not a bad night for McCain. I'd put his performance rating above Romney, slightly. He looked a little stiffer, but he didn't stammer as much. He defended himself quite well on economic issues. Worst moment: his answer to Ron Paul's question. A total evasion of the issue.

RON PAUL: He seemed more like a Republican than on other nights. As usual, his way of talking about the economy was very eloquent, and he obviously knew what he was talking about. Best moment: when he made McCain look clueless with his question. And the nice tie he wore. Worst moment: saying that 9/11 wasn't connected to Iraq, therefore Iraq was a mistake. 9/11? That just isn't the biggest pro-Iraq War reason, though it certainly had a lot to do with Bush's "wakeup" from his previously non-interventionist stance (thus siding with his predecessor Bill Clinton).



Now for my opinion on what would be each candidate's best immediate political move...

McCain: should tell the New York Times that they can take their endorsement of him and use it as emergency toilet paper.

Giuliani: the best way for him to be relevant and not look like an idiot continuing his campaign: withdraw before or after Florida primary and endorse McCain. Preferrably before. McCain isn't exactly going to be thrilled by an endorsement AFTER his loss in Florida (which looks likely, but not certain).

Romney: he really would like a Jeb Bush endorsement, but the best he can do is continue his present path: a lot of scheduled events, muss up the hair maybe.

Huckabee: talk economics in GA and other places. He can win some more states, but it'll be crucial to talk more specifically on economics where Republicans obviously distrust him.

Ron Paul: what can I say...he's not going to get the nomination, but he's run a very significant campaign. Unfortunately, his image has been marred by well-meaning but misguided college students who think he is their "man" on conspiracy theories. That obstructs the real Ron Paul, who has very important things to say on a lot of issues. He can't go anywhere though, so there's nothing for him to do.

The final three GOP are going to be McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. And finally down to McCain, Romney.

Interesting to think that just last year, summertime, nobody had any idea of who the next nominees for president could possibly be on the Republican side. And Hillary looked inevitable. But Barack Obama is on a roll now: he's picking up one of the biggest endorsements a Democrat can get. Ted Kennedy.

It could be that we'll see a Hillary/Obama ticket VS. a McCain/Romney ticket.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Ron Paul: what can I say...he's not going to get the nomination, but he's run a very significant campaign. Unfortunately, his image has been marred by well-meaning but misguided college students who think he is their "man" on conspiracy theories. That obstructs the real Ron Paul, who has very important things to say on a lot of issues. He can't go anywhere though, so there's nothing for him to do.

The final three GOP are going to be McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. And finally down to McCain, Romney.

The final 3 is going to be who?

Presidential candidate Ron Paul has finished second in yet another state caucus this week yet there has barely been a murmur from the mainstream media once again.

The Louisiana Republican Party announced the preliminary results yesterday in a press release that was roundly ignored by the corporate media:

Delegate candidates endorsed by US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) appear to have won more state convention delegate positions than any other presidential slate at the Louisiana Caucuses.

Supporters of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) appear to have captured the next highest number of delegate positions.

"I applaud the supporters of Congressman Paul for their enthusiasm and superior organizational ability," Chairman Roger F. Villere, Jr. said. "Our Party needs the infusion of new activists who have both political skill and a passion for protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution," he said. "I left the caucus with a renewed commitment to promote our core Republican principles of limited government and individual freedom, thanks to the zeal displayed by Congressman Paul's Louisiana supporters," Villere said.

Mitt Romney came in third, and no mention was made of Huckabee or Giuliani in the LAGOP's press release.

Listen if Ron Paul is not in the final 3, you know there is no more democracy in this country; if you don't know already.

He consistnely comes in second yet they ignore him totally in the news, if you are not an informed person you will not know anything about the man. Luckily, the majority of people donot vote in this country, only those that are very into politics do (which means they tend to be informed) so the positive results still show in the poles, the general public however are in general ignorant since the media continues to behave as if Dr Paul does not exist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's interesting how Republicans often complain about taxation being a drain on economic growth when, in reality, all the money that is taken through taxation (and more! ) is immediately spent, with a vast majority being spent on big business

Grr...big business...all the more reason to lower taxes.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Presidential candidate Ron Paul has finished second in yet another state caucus this week yet there has barely been a murmur from the mainstream media once again.

He gets plenty of attention in the "blogosphere". Mainstream media attention doesn't matter as much as it used to. And you're wrong about the attention given to him. He's been on a lot of TV shows.

The Louisiana Republican Party announced the preliminary results yesterday in a press release that was roundly ignored by the corporate media:

He also got 2nd place in Nevada. I don't know how close he finished to McCain in LA, but it wasn't exactly the most contested state. Romney won Wyoming and nobody even blinked.

Listen if Ron Paul is not in the final 3, you know there is no more democracy in this country; if you don't know already.

I think that's setting your personal opinion as standard. (Am I starting to sound like BJ?!! )
The fact is that this campaign so far has been incredibly open, and the candidates who have put the most effort into their campaign have had staying power. McCain, Huckabee, Romney have put the most effort into their campaigns. They've done the most events, they've gone the extra mile. Giuliani has been flippant with his money, and Thompson was just plain lazy. Hunter and Tancredo were blunted because of name recognition and McCain-Feingold (which ironically has hurt McCain's money-wise).

Ron Paul has also run a fervent campaign, but there just aren't enough people buying into Ron Paul's message. Part of it is his stance on the war and foreign affairs, which obscure his far more important messages on the role of government as it relates to the states, and fiscal issues. The other part: his supporters. They're making Ron Paul look like George McGovern and Che Guevara mixed. If you've ever heard Ron Paul supporters; they're all over the map trying to say that he IS good on international terrorism, while others just try to argue the anti-war position. His supporters are sending mixed messages, and they're coming off bad.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

He gets plenty of attention in the "blogosphere". Mainstream media attention doesn't matter as much as it used to. And you're wrong about the attention given to him. He's been on a lot of TV shows.

Point is ever time I turn on the tv, there is a special on Romney, Mcain or Guilliani (nospheratu) and none on Paul. Bill Moyers interveiwed him, Jay leno likes him so he did, but if he is leading like that you should see him everywhere like the other, even trailing candidates.

Yeah you are right about the mainstream not mattering and it's because they keep pulling stunts like this, people just don't find them reliable anymore.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

He also got 2nd place in Nevada. I don't know how close he finished to McCain in LA, but it wasn't exactly the most contested state. Romney won Wyoming and nobody even blinked.

So as I was saying, it should not be "The final three GOP are going to be McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. And finally down to McCain, Romney."

Some of those guys have to ask there campaign staffers to work for free, come on. Dr. Paul got his founds from the peeps, grass roots; with those millions, he is not running out of money anytime soon.

"An MSNBC text message poll went to Mitt Romney with 41% of the vote, while Ron Paul was second with 40%. Update: Ron Paul won the text poll in the final tally, edging Romney 42 to 41%."

So, it will be widdled down to Romney and Ron Paul (should be, if our votes count) and then finally, 10 time republican congressman, "Dr. No" Dr...Ron...Paaauuulllll!!!!!! (the crowd goes wild)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Point is ever time I turn on the tv, there is a special on Romney, Mcain or Guilliani (nospheratu) and none on Paul. Bill Moyers interveiwed him, Jay leno likes him so he did, but if he is leading like that you should see him everywhere like the other, even trailing candidates.

I don't watch TV anyhow. I watch some important segments on Youtube, and of course TV appearances are always mentioned in the blogs and in the news (AP/Reuters...etc)

But just for the record, Bill Moyers is a crybaby.

Yeah you are right about the mainstream not mattering and it's because they keep pulling stunts like this, people just don't find them reliable anymore.

Well they've BEEN unreliable for a very long time. With the internet around (bloggers who go to the source, which is becoming more common), it's harder for them to spin news the way they want and keep it that way. Faster news cycle, faster discoveries on whether or not a story is true or untrue. An example of this: when Heath Ledger died, it somehow got around that he was at Mary Kate Olsen's apartment. Within half an hour that was corrected.

So as I was saying, it should not be "The final three GOP are going to be McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. And finally down to McCain, Romney."

Some of those guys have to ask there campaign staffers to work for free, come on. Dr. Paul got his founds from the peeps, grass roots; with those millions, he is not running out of money anytime soon.

Well that is how it's going to pan out. The only persons whose staff are working for free right now are Giuliani's. Perhaps Huckabee's. And you're right about Ron Paul's extraoridinary money-raising...but as I indicated before, he has other problems.

"An MSNBC text message poll went to Mitt Romney with 41% of the vote, while Ron Paul was second with 40%. Update: Ron Paul won the text poll in the final tally, edging Romney 42 to 41%."

Ron Paul wins every single random poll there is...internet polls, text-message polls...It's safe to say it's because his supporters are there to prop his numbers.

So, it will be widdled down to Romney and Ron Paul (should be, if our votes count) and then finally, 10 time republican congressman, "Dr. No" Dr...Ron...Paaauuulllll!!!!!! (the crowd goes wild)

It's not that easy. Ron Paul can't count on Republicans even if he did win the nomination. Too many mainstream Republicans are wary of Ron Paul, and if the Iraq War was an important enough issue to them, they'd vote Hillary over Paul.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also Hector, that homeschooling list was hilarious!

This one:

15. Stop asking, "But what about the Prom?" Even if the idea that my kid might not be able to indulge in a night of over-hyped, over-priced revelry was enough to break my heart, plenty of kids who do go to school don’t get to go to the Prom. For all you know, I’m one of them. I might still be bitter about it. So go be shallow somewhere else.

[Lief Erikson]

I feel pretty sure Obama is going to win the presidency. I'm voting for McCain, though, so I'm feeling rather glum about this.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I feel pretty sure Obama is going to win the presidency. I'm voting for McCain, though, so I'm feeling rather glum about this.

Obama? Please don't believe the hype, he might be a good and engaging speaker, but he is not for you or me or anyone.

And why Mcain man, I don't get that one.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Historically, the economy has always done better under Democratic administrations..

You'd think the Dems would make more of that fact!

It's interesting how Republicans often complain about taxation being a drain on economic growth when, in reality, all the money that is taken through taxation (and more! ) is immediately spent, with a vast majority being spent on big business, and thus goes back into the economic growth system. In addition, US tax dollars are much more likely to be spent within the US, as opposed to businesses which spend much more overseas.

Another way of looking at it is that government spending is spending that is accountable to the public, whereas private spending is not.

Big business tends to favour tax cuts, which would seem to me to be a good reason to oppose them.

Hillary's school plans will, in effect, put homeschooling out of business. You guys are right, she never said it directly, but she did lay out plans that pretty much would.

How so?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You'd think the Dems would make more of that fact!

Eh, you'd think the democrats would make more of their majority in congress.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Eh, you'd think the democrats would make more of their majority in congress.

They can't really do anything. They have a an effective majority in the House, but they're slim majority in the Senate kills every bill they can try to pass. Besides that, there's the President's veto...which they have tried to override.

But we're definitely looking at a more Democrat-led congress by 2009. The GOP could take back the Governorships though, in 2011. There's already talk of either Bill Frist or Fred Thompson running for the Tenn. governor's mansion. Currently we have a good, moderate, Democrat governor that I'm proud of, with a few exceptions.

And Lief, I disagree...we're looking at a Hillary presidency, with Obama as VP. That's the deal at the Democrat Convention, my guess is.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Huckabee can't talk about economics in Georgia, because he's not crazy enough to appeal to conservative voters there. His economic policies are pretty moderate, for a republican.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Huckabee can't talk about economics in Georgia, because he's not crazy enough to appeal to conservative voters there. His economic policies are pretty moderate, for a republican.

He was and is pretty moderate onm economics...but I've heard him talk about it convincingly. You gotta make the best of your strengths and weaknesses.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

we're looking at a Hillary presidency, with Obama as VP. That's the deal at the Democrat Convention, my guess is.

Obama would have to swallow a lot after the Clinton's attempts at seperating voters based on race. Dont know if he could stomach it at this point. Things would need to settle down considerably by August and Clinton would have to back peddle on the whole "he doesnt represent white people" tactic they are taking now (which back fired in South Carolina by the way but may be more effective elsewhere). Willie Horton politics within the democratic ranks...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Obama would have to swallow a lot after the Clinton's attempts at seperating voters based on race. Dont know if he could stomach it at this point. Things would need to settle down considerably by August and Clinton would have to back peddle on the whole "he doesnt represent white people" tactic they are taking now (which back fired in South Carolina by the way but may be more effective elsewhere). Willie Horton politics within the democratic ranks...

Well the Clintons could reach out to him. You have a point though...he might be too bitter, it might be too late. I hadn't thought about it from his POV.

On the other hand, Kennedy and Johnson weren't exactly pals on the campaign trail. Nor were Reagan and Bush 41.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And Lief, I disagree...we're looking at a Hillary presidency, with Obama as VP. That's the deal at the Democrat Convention, my guess is.

Obama has charisma that Clinton doesn't have. I suspect that Clinton is better qualified, but I don't think most voters have enough sense to think that way. Obama has youth, flash, charm, and empty promises of wonderful "change" that are very appealing to a we-want-everything-for-us-NOW America.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Obama would have to swallow a lot after the Clinton's attempts at seperating voters based on race. Dont know if he could stomach it at this point.

He probably looked at those comments and thought to himself, "What an excellent opportunity to dent Clinton's campaign!" You know how Shilpa Shetty's approval ratings skyrocketed after it came to be believed that she had endured racist abuse. I think that in a modern political climate, Obama's race might well prove to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Which is okay, I guess, though I wish it was neither.

It's hard to know how much politicians will take insults from other candidates personally. I expect that there's very much a, "that's to be expected," perspective amongst campaign staff about mudslinging and dirty tactics.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Eh, you'd think the democrats would make more of their majority in congress.

Their ability to do much has been squashed by the Republican presidency and Congressional minority. They've really got their hands tied. Mercifully for the country, IMO.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

And why Mcain man, I don't get that one.

Because he not only, IMO, has political stances that I am closer to agreeing with than those of most other candidates, but he also has great integrity of character. He has the strength of will not to be determined by the swinging tides of popular opinion. He fought in Vietnam and was tortured in a prisoner of war camp. He then refused to agree to the Bush Administration's new counterterrorism interrogation manual until revisions in it had been made, a stance that placed him as a maverick among Republicans and cost him political points, but which shows strength of character, in my view. His position on immigration, agreeing with President Bush's bill on guest border passes that the Republican Congress killed, also cost him political points in the Republican Party. He knew that before taking that stance, and he took it anyway. His current position on the Iraq War is also unpopular.

Most of these things he did and said were unpopular and costly, and he knew they would be before he did them. He isn't a stupid campaigner, unless holding to one's convictions in spite of pressure is "stupid." His record strongly indicates to me that he is genuine, and it wins him my trust and great respect.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Obama has charisma that Clinton doesn't have. I suspect that Clinton is better qualified, but I don't think most voters have enough sense to think that way. Obama has youth, flash, charm, and empty promises of wonderful "change" that are very appealing to a we-want-everything-for-us-NOW America.

He probably looked at those comments and thought to himself, "What an excellent opportunity to dent Clinton's campaign!" You know how Shilpa Shetty's approval ratings skyrocketed after it came to be believed that she had endured racist abuse. I think that in a modern political climate, Obama's race might well prove to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Which is okay, I guess, though I wish it was neither.

It's hard to know how much politicians will take insults from other candidates personally. I expect that there's very much a, "that's to be expected," perspective amongst campaign staff about mudslinging and dirty tactics.

Their ability to do much has been squashed by the Republican presidency and Congressional minority. They've really got their hands tied. Mercifully for the country, IMO.

Because he not only, IMO, has political stances that I am closer to agreeing with than those of most other candidates, but he also has great integrity of character. He has the strength of will not to be determined by the swinging tides of popular opinion. He fought in Vietnam and was tortured in a prisoner of war camp. He then refused to agree to the Bush Administration's new counterterrorism interrogation manual until revisions in it had been made, a stance that placed him as a maverick among Republicans and cost him political points, but which shows strength of character, in my view. His position on immigration, agreeing with President Bush's bill on guest border passes that the Republican Congress killed, also cost him political points in the Republican Party. He knew that before taking that stance, and he took it anyway. His current position on the Iraq War is also unpopular.

Most of these things he did and said were unpopular and costly, and he knew they would be before he did them. He isn't a stupid campaigner, unless holding to one's convictions in spite of pressure is "stupid." His record strongly indicates to me that he is genuine, and it wins him my trust and great respect.

Well, McCain's character comes and goes, with me. For darn sure he's anti-torture, and good. I can't get past the business with his first wife, though. It matters how people treat their nearest and dearest, kwim?