@stuka:
To me, it is of most importance that our nation at war should be what we should be voting about.
I was trying my best not jump into this rather sensitive thread… but I have to say I absolutely agree.
I think it’s really sad to see the (voting) pubic become complacant with this war just continuing apparently “off in the background”. The whole situation just lends itself to no one coming up with a plan or conditions for withdrawal, ever.
And now just days ago McCain is quoted as saying we’ll be in Iraq “maybe 100 years”. Those words should be the death knoll for any perspective candidate. And yet amazingly… apparently they aren’t.
Perhaps to many the '08 elections are nothing more than a glorified version of American Idol. They no longer even begin to realize what’s at stake: the uncertain future of a nation at war. ~ZP
After Bush leaves the war will be ended by 2010. that is just the sad reality. hopefully we will be able to stablize it enough so iraq can prosper under freedom and be an american ally. I thinlk the economy should be the most important issue right now. it just seems that all the democrats want to socialize us while the republicans want to form a state run by a few corporations and monopilies. thats why I just don’t like any of the canidates.
you’re both wrong.
doesnt matter who ends up being elected. even obama himself will renege on his promise to withdraw. he or anybody else does not want to be responsible for the outright carnage that will ensue and the drastic rise in oil that will shatter the economy. when people cant work, or fill up their tank or pay bills and the economy sucks b/c of that decision, everyone with a brain wont do it b/c its political suicide. thats the reality. democrats always SAY one thing, but do another. anyone remember the dems first 100 days promises. or there promises for the entire year, all BS. its just the dupe trick over and over.
obama, the leader of the primaries, if elected, will not bring all troops home by 2010, we have created lasting bases there and i shit you not, every president for the next 20 years will use them. its all about iran people, thats why the troops wont leave, the damn isreali influenece wouldnt let us if we want too. they’d be staring at the beast all alone.
and for statements for being at war……well we are at war, a war declared on us some time ago by bad guys one president didnt do a damn thing about until our citizens one day had to chose to either burn to death or hold hands and jump together to their own deaths. yeah that right, i went there. we can say we arent at war if we dont have troops somewhere, but they will still be at war with us, and ever since we have been in their backyard, how many attacks have we had… thats right this policy has a good track record.
and back to the primaries…is the new hampshire vote today?
The only guy you can be sure will get you out of the war is Ron Paul. All others, like Bungaloaf said, are set on staying the course.
No Bung, they are tomorrow… Start at Midnight…
GG
Huckabee has an Achilles heel…
He is just about out of cash.
Once South Carolina rolls around, he is spent. He will be 90% reliant on “free” media (from news coverage) to carry him through the drop-dead nomination date of 5 FEB.
He DID get lucky with the accelerated primaries this year. Had he had to do the more drawn out 2 months with “locking up” the nomination sometime in March, he would have never had the cash to make it.
But, this is a SHORT season… 34 days from Iowa to Super Duper Tuesday (what is it, 30 primaries on 5 FEB?).
Huckabee is starting to get some cash infusion from Fair Tax supporters (now that Tancredo is out of it, since Thompson retreated from his pre-candidacy support of it, and since Ron Paul is just not getting any traction). He also has Fundamentalist cash pouring in… He is the Evangelical/Fundamentalist candidate now… someone that does not have Guilianni’s moderate/liberal social values, and also is not a Mormon (sorry, but in places like SC… the next primary after NH… Mormon is only SLIGHTLY ahead of Islam in terms of how people feel about it… I think the Southern Baptist Convention still sends Missionaries to Utah :-P )
Guiliani’s only chance is on Super Duper Tuesday… if he can last that long. If he does not, then Romney is the only one that can break Huckabee’s thunder.
Truth be told though… Huckabee is a very weak candidate, and would be hard pressed to beat any of the 3 leading Democrats…
Oh, and the first vote is in just under 3 hours…
Yea, I’m rather miffed they moved Illinois’ primary date to Feb 5. We are usually like the second to last state to have a primary, thus, no candidate even bothers to campaign here leaving us in relative peace and quite. :P
Anyway, remember that the definition of a good politician is a politician that STAYS bought. Can Obama stay bought? Well, he can’t stay a congressman for even one term of office from start to end obviously.
NC has the same problem with Edwards. He has among the worst attendance and voting records of any Senator in the modern era…
:lol:
@Cmdr:
Yea, I’m rather miffed they moved Illinois’ primary date to Feb 5. We are usually like the second to last state to have a primary, thus, no candidate even bothers to campaign here leaving us in relative peace and quite. :P
Brought up another thing that pisses me off. What makes Iowa and NH so damn special?
Other states gets the shaft by these guys. Ever seen California, NY or Texas caucus? NO. And we never will. It’s like these Iowans get to dictate who runs based on the winner’s headlines. Pure bullsh!t.
Here is my hope and funny it’s something I find in common with the forum pessimist, Bung: I really hope it is Obama vs McCain. And if it happens that way, I will listen closely for I see potential in both of them.
Wow this thread is flowing fast…
@Pervavita:
i’m not an expert on how Caucus’ work, i’m sure most people arn’t, so with out knowing how they work exactly it looks like what you said was politically backed. now if what you say is true (i have no reason to doupt you, i’m just saying) then it’s not political in the way i thought it sounded before. but it dosn’t change that with out knowing how caucus’ work accuratlly it did look that way, and with that it did look wrong that you were asking another to tread carfully when it looked like you your self did other wise.
Well the jist is, I wasn’t sure how this thread would go over and I was tring to keep the political tone low. Jen is known for her political “out spokenness” and truth be told I am closely aligned with her politicaly :) Of course you are relatively new here and don’t know any of that…
true, i personaly didn’t see a problem with ether of what you said to begin with and sure don’t see a problem with it now as how this discusion has gone so far…. it seamed the more mild part of the discusion.
@Cmdr:
Good, then other then me, who else was utterly shocked that Hillary came in THIRD!?!? I mean, Obama in First or Hillary in First with the other in second I was expecting. But Hillary in Third? That was a major surprise and a huge upset for the Clintons.
It just means that while the US might not be as racist as it once was, it is still misogynistic.
i’ll chime in by saying this. i hope, i hope, i just freaking hope we have an election in
Nov 08 & a new president in Jan 09. thats not asking for too much is it?
Uh…how could we not?
other than this, why in the heck dont people like Mccain. he hasnt done anything bad….he’s a maverick in the senate, votes both ways, he isnt a loyal soldier for the republicans(IMHO a good thing), was right on the way all along(need more troops), has true social conservative values (not like romney the liar and guiliani the fake), and called southern evangelicals freakin’ nuts…what else to people want?
I like him, but he still has some strikes against him.
In the 80’s, he had his rep tarnished with his connections/behavior concerning the Savings and Loan catastrophe.
Some people see his bipartisanship as a turnoff because that want a team player.
Some still see him as a warhawk.
Maybe even some find him weak because he didn’t stand up to being shot in the back by other republicans.
Couldn’t tell you exactly.
@Guerrilla:
My 2 cents right off the bat: I think that Guiliani’s “9/11” buzz has finally worn off.
GG
Yet he continues to utter the phrase. Over and over.
BTW, sorry making so many individual posts…I’m catching up on this thread and posting as I read.
@Cmdr:
I would, honestly, recommend picking a candidate that agrees with your stance on those issues because, unless Iran fires off a nuclear weapon, or the terrorists strike us on our home soil again, I just don’t see any further discussion on Iraq and, by extension, Afghanistan. The Surge is working too well, so much so we don’t even here body counts anymore.
The wars are still being discussed. I just saw an article that we are approaching 4,000 casualties in Iraq.
The bigger story is that while Iraq has gotten better, Afghanistan (and neighbor Pakistan) has gotten worse.
and for statements for being at war……well we are at war, a war declared on us some time ago by bad guys one president didnt do a damn thing about until our citizens one day had to chose to either burn to death or hold hands and jump together to their own deaths. yeah that right, i went there. we can say we arent at war if we dont have troops somewhere, but they will still be at war with us, and ever since we have been in their backyard, how many attacks have we had… thats right this policy has a good track record.
Reagan?
accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
Yea, I’m rather miffed they moved Illinois’ primary date to Feb 5. We are usually like the second to last state to have a primary, thus, no candidate even bothers to campaign here leaving us in relative peace and quite. :P
Brought up another thing that pisses me off. What makes Iowa and NH so damn special?
Other states gets the shaft by these guys. Ever seen California, NY or Texas caucus? NO. And we never will. It’s like these Iowans get to dictate who runs based on the winner’s headlines. Pure bullsh!t.
You just need to read up on State primaries because you obviously don’t understand it. Many states have moved theirs up in recent years.
Also, California, NY, and Texas don’t use caucuses, so you will never hear of them (there is a Texas straw poll, but all of those states primaries come after Iowa). Iowa is basically a preview of what other states might do, and is the first to do it, so it gets a lot of attention.
IMO, they should all go at the same time, or atleast in stages where a few states go, then a week latter some more go ext. Iowa has a small population and yet it gets a huge % of the campaighn money dumped into it as it’s to important to do well there as the desision made there effects other states desisions.
accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.
Since Balung’s initial comment went unhindered, I will reply.
There is no way Clinton could know exactly what would happen 9 months after he left office. He knew of some intent to do SOMETHING, but why that blame goes to him and not Bush I’ll never understand (who received even more explicit & specific warnings months before 9/11), except that some people love to hate Clinton.
Clinton drove the antiterrorism initiatives like no other president had done before him. But it wasn’t reported except because people were focused on Monicagate, and dismissed them as “wag the dog” politics. He took all cues made by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to nab bin Laden and snub al Qaeda.
However, he was thwarted many times in being proactive on terrorism from a Republican controlled congress, but managed to push some things through.
Compare that to a reactive president who hasn’t done much of anything to thwart terrorism, created massive debt, and shows no interest in chasing the main perpetrator of 2001’s major event.
Lobbyists and the incoming administration also shot down many of the plans that were posed to go into effect that would have further stifled terrorist activity. Not to mention dismissed much of the info collected by the outgoing administration. But that’s all in the past now.
IMO, they should all go at the same time, or atleast in stages where a few states go, then a week latter some more go ext. Iowa has a small population and yet it gets a huge % of the campaighn money dumped into it as it’s to important to do well there as the desision made there effects other states desisions.
And how would you do that?
It’s a state’s right to decide how it proceeds, and when.
