Want to see the political equivalent of a cage match? Watch the race in Florida the next ten days.
Here's a candidate-by-candidate breakdown:
Fred Thompson - he's functionally out of the race at this point after finishing 3rd in South Carolina. If he lingers on and who he endorses when he withdraws, plus what he says while doing either, will be closely watched. In all likelihood, however, his supporters are going to keep bleeding off to other candidates.
Mike Huckabee - his 2nd place showing last night and continued inability to do well with non-Evangelical voters essentially consigns him to the niche candidate in the race. Moreover, his glowing remarks about John McCain while conceding the race in South Carolina will only fuel the "he wants to be VP" talk. Expect Huckabee to stay in for quite a while given his core support, ability to live of the land as a campaigner, and the fact his candidacy helps keep the anti-McCain vote divided.
Rudy Giuliani - his campaign has long since devoted all its remaining resources to Florida. Will it work? Many analysts will say "no," based on the reverse momentum of his continued poor showings in earlier contests.
But I think the real issue might his actual campaign ability. His autumn slide in the national polls coincided with a jarring inability to keep himself relevant as the campaign season intensified. And before his disappointing showing in New Hampshire, Giuliani spent millions and significant time on the ground, all to have his support actually recede a bit. In short, Giuilani has yet to demonstrate the ability to actually increase his level of support anywhere he has campaigned in this race. Either that changes in Florida or he's essentially done.
Mitt Romney - On one hand he can point to a delegate lead plus wins in three of the six GOP nominating contests thus far. On the other, detractors can point to painful, expensive losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, plus a narrow 4th place showing in South Carolina that doesn't help him, even after publicly down-playing campaign efforts in that crowded contest.
All that said, Romney is the only realistic, anti-McCain candidate left standing for many conservatives to rally around. Whether they do that is an open question, but an important one given McCain's lackluster showing with conservatives in the primaries and caucuses thus far.
John McCain - he's the current front-runner, as far as that term can be applied in this topsy turvy Republican race. If nothing else he earns the title because the media will frame him as such unless he loses Florida. How he handles the role the next ten days is critical.
Why? He has to have a message that resonates. Giuliani is finally starting to draw contrasts with the Arizona Senator. Romney is going to latch on to the economy issue which served him so well against McCain in Michigan and which now leads a lot of national news. What will McCain's message be, especially to the conservative voters he has long annoyed but who he needs to clinch the nomination?
Conclusion: talking to a young, smart politico recently, I realized just how much depends on the campaigns themselves. With the bulk of public polling showing the race in Florida incredibly congested, the race comes down in large part to who has the better message in the state, who communicates that message most effectively, and who succeeds in capturing the attention of the Florida media that will do much to provide voters with information.
No pressure. Florida is only the most important prize heading into delegate rich February 5th.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 20, 2008 09:22 AM | Email ThisYou needed to "talk" to someone to figure this out? Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: Hinton on January 20, 2008 09:56 AMGiuliani - In my view the only candidate that can beat Hillary. I think he will get the votes of traditional conservatives and will also attract enough "moderates" and "independents" that he has a chance. I don't see any other candidate with the potential to reach a broad enough spectrum of voters needed to win in November.
McCain - The liberal media's favorite Republican. May be winning primaries with the help of Democrats. McCain-Feingold has not been forgotten, nor has his opposition to tax cuts. "Moderates" and "independents" go for Hillary. Disgusted with McCain's liberal tendencies and unpredictability some conservatives vote third party. Republicans lose the White House. The liberal media dances a victory jig.
Huckabee - Purely unelectable due to his gaffe about wanting the Constitution to reflect Christianity. He lost every athiest in the country, including many "moderates" and "independents". He's a nanny stater as well which turns off conservatives. His "oops I actually revealed who I really am" moment regarding a national smoking ban this week was telling.
Romney - Personally I like and admire Romney. He has very solid conservative values. If he gets the nomination I think we all know what will happen. He won't stand a chance. The so-called enlightened, "progressive" liberals will savage him endlessly in the media for his religion. A sad commentary on how far we really haven't come. Liberals are never afraid to play the race card. They are even less afraid to play the Mormon card. Remind me again, is it the left or the right that is filled with bigots?
Fred Thompson - His straight talking conservatism has impressed me of late. I think he is perhaps the only Republican other than Rudy that might also stand some chance of beating Hillary. Barring some kind of miracle however he will probably have to drop out of the race.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 20, 2008 10:14 AMAnd Ron Paul is the only candidate other than Romney who has money in the bank. About $8 million in cash on hand, last I heard. And Ron Paul has another "money bomb" scheduled for tomorrow, MLK day! Who knows how many millions he will bring in? I doubt he will break his $6 million all time one-day record, but I wouldn't be surprised if he took in about $4 million.
Ron Paul will be in the race all the way to the convention. Hunter just bowed out, and Thompson will be next. The effect of Ron Paul's candidacy will be to strengthen the limited government wing of the Republican party, and to get more people, especially young people (!) to call themselves small "l" libertarians. This will strengthen the Libertarian Party as well, even if Ron Paul never runs again as a Libertarian. By the way, Ron Paul is overwhealmingly UNlikely to ever run as a Libertarian again.
If McCain or Romney get the Republican nomination, I will be voting Libertarian in November.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 10:23 AMSee my comments above.
I understand not voting for McCain. But Romney? Do tell, Bruce.
But Giuliani can not beat Hillary in November. The war is unpopular. Republicans learned that back in November of 2006.
That is why the eventual Republican nominee, even if that is Giuliani, knows that he must "come to the center" on Iraq after winning the nomination. McCain and Giuliani have no credible way of doing this. This is why they are doomed.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 10:30 AMLet's be clear, he is only "out of the race" for winning the most delegates before convention. He is FAR from out of the race for the nomination. We have five other candidates, ALL of whom have alienated HUGE segments of the Republican base: Paul, Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney.
It is utterly inconceivable that a majority of delegates would agree to Paul, Giuliani, or Huckabee at convention. It will not happen, and I don't need to belabor the point, since you know why as well as I.
It is possible that a majority would agree to Romney or McCain, but also easy to see how a majority would not. Many Republicans hate one or both of them. Whether that amounts to a majority of delegates, such that neither of them could win the nomination, we don't yet know. We can't know.
But this is not at all unprecedented. Abraham Lincoln won the nomination in 1860 -- despite coming in third in delegate count -- simply because he wasn't hated by a majority of his own party, like his rivals were. Thompson could be in the same boat in 2008.
This is plenty realistic. Indeed, it is far more realistic than Giuliani or Huckabee winning the nomination. There's really only three candidates left who have a realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination, and Thompson's the third. The math just doesn't add up for the others.
And that is why it would be utterly foolish for Thompson to drop out (unless he -- we haven't done this in a long time, remember -- somehow does a "provisional drop out," saying he won't contest any more primaries, but is going all the way to the convention if no one wins beforehand, but that seems foolish too, since he'd still want to pick up as many delegates as he can).
Indeed, if I were Thompson, that might be my message right now: don't give up hope, even if we can't win it outright, we can still tru to win in September. Though a lot of Republicans might consider that divisive and harmful to the party, so there's reason NOT to do that, too.
Finally, calling McCain a front-runner makes no sense to me. Romney is, in fact, actually winning. Sure, he probably won't be after Florida, but only by a small amount, and then we head straight into Feb. 5 where no one knows what will happen. It is a tie for first right now, no matter how I can look at it, unless I try to guess who will win on Feb. 5, which is just silly.
Posted by: pudge on January 20, 2008 10:30 AMIf McCain can drop the war mantra and renew Corporate attacks particularly against Big Oil,and pharmacueticals he is the only one that could get my vote now that he is picking up on Pauls spending mantra.The others have no chance of getting my vote.I will more than likely vote Obama or write in Paul
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 20, 2008 10:56 AMAs far as the general election, it's a bit different than it was during the summer. I really think Rudy, McCain and Fred can beat Hillary - at least they have a reasonable chance, with Rudy and McCain the possibility of blowing her out. I think Romney still has an electoral college defeat and Huckabee might as well, but I wouldn't count on it. The RNC is loaded with money, so that won't be an issue and for some reason Huckabee does fabulous with the female vote.
As for Obama I don't think that at this point Romney, Huckabee or Fred can beat him. McCain would have the best chance, and Rudy might not be able to beat him as well.
As for Bloomberg. If he gets in the race, the Democrat will win, but he would only consider getting in the race if Hillary looks to be the nominee.
If Rudy and Huckabee or McCain and Huckabee announced early that Huckabee would be VP, the nomination would be over. But has that ever happened before?
Posted by: Doug on January 20, 2008 10:58 AMThis is from an article by Jay Cost at Looking ahead to the Republican Convention
"Out of the 2,380 delegates sent to Minneapolis St. Paul - 1,729 of them will be bound in some formal way (this figure excludes Ohio, Washington, North Carolina, and the Virgin Islands, whose delegates are "morally bound," "unofficially bound," or "requested" to vote for their candidate). These break down in the following way:
- 463 delegates will be bound through the convention.
- 565 delegates will be bound through one ballot. That is, they have to follow the results of the state election on the first ballot. After that, if no candidate has a majority of delegates, they are free to vote as they please.
- 383 will be bound through two ballots.
- 318 will be bound through three ballots.
The remaining 651 are not bound in a formal way. They can vote however they want from the first ballot."
I generally agree with the terms of the debate you lay out for Fred Thompson. He's out in terms of a viable candidate to win enough delegates prior to the convention, but all bets are off if no one wins a majority before then. Also, as I indicated, I'm calling McCain the front-runner because that's how he's going to be treated in the press...and quite frankly already is in the hours after his SC win. That, like it or not (and I certainly don't), will influence how voters view him.
Doug -
I believe once delegates are pledged, they are obligated to vote for their candidate on the 1st ballot at the convention. If no one wins a majority then they're free to go elsewhere. Yes, a candidate can encourage his delegates to go with a certain other candidate, but I don't believe the delegates are obligated to follow after the 1st ballot. pudge might be able to provide some clarity or correction on this since I believe he's more aware of the related procedures on this topic. I'm open to the fact I might be totally wrong on this one.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 20, 2008 11:41 AMThanks for the link that was a good read. I think his points are more likely than Pudge's then. If a brokered convention comes about, chances are it's taken care of on a second ballot with a VP slot offered - depending on which state's delegates goes to whom so they have that opportunity. Beyond that, the chances are very slim that an outsider (one without many delegates) such as Newt or Thompson can put together a two candidate solution to put them in the Presidency and say a Romney in a VP and a McCain in a Secretary of State. I don't see it going there.
Thompson's only hope it appears depends on who he wants to see as President. I always thought he liked McCain and would rather see him there (which is at odds with his supporters). If Thompson would rather see McCain as President than Romney, then Fred has a tough choice to make - either continue to work hard to take votes from Romney or attack Rudy to help McCain. I think his attacks in SC on Huckabee helped secure McCain the state, maybe that would work in some other southern states as well.
As it's going now, Thompson doesn't end up in third in delegates like Lincoln did, he likely will end up in fifth. And look how great it was for the country for the R's to put their third candidate at the head of the ticket back in 1860. Yeah, that was a wonderful Kumbayah time.
Posted by: Doug on January 20, 2008 11:54 AMAs for the rest of the pack, I'm not really leaning towards any particular candidate, but I darn sure wouldn't count Thompson out just yet.
Posted by: Independent Voter on January 20, 2008 12:06 PMYou forgot to mention Ron Paul, the candidate most likely to garner much of those Thompson supporters that are going to be searching for a new candidate.
What candidate is closest to Thompson on all the fiscal/economic issues? Paul of course!
I am sad to see Thompson leave since he was my solid second choice and in a league above all the other candidates, but was never quite in the league of Paul.
Travis
Posted by: Lysander on January 20, 2008 01:23 PMYou are wondering why Bruce would not vote for Romney? Well I can not speak for him but my answer is simply... Romneycare! Is socialized medicine any better when it is your team that proposes it? No.
The real question is why any small government supporter would vote FOR Romney rather than Thompson or Paul.
Posted by: Lysander on January 20, 2008 01:26 PMPaul has more delagats than many candidates ruitinely discussed and the vast majority of delegates are still up for grabs so it is not nuts to think that he can win the nomination.
But even if i thought he couldn't I would still support him because he is the only candidate speaking for smaller government that has shown he truly beleives it. I am thinking long term... Look at Goldwaters campaign and its long term effects (Reagan).
Posted by: Lysander on January 20, 2008 01:31 PMYou bring up a good point that Eric and most of the main stream media is ignoring... Paul just got 2nd place in NV. I expect as good or better in all the western states including this state where he has taken in more money than all the other GOP candidates in the last few months.
Posted by: Lysander on January 20, 2008 01:33 PMSure, Romney's praying that Thompson and Huckabee's people start migrating his way. But, predicting shifts that haven't shown any signs of starting is a questionable practice. Thompson wasn't doing well in the polls leading up to the SC primary yet Mitt didn't receive any noticeable shift of 'realistic' conservative voters after spending $4 million there. And this in a state with a high percent of conservatives. Apparently, conservatives didn't get the memo to migrate to 'realistic' Mitt's camp before the primary. Why should we imagine they will get the memo now?
Mitt's performance in S.C. could hardly be more pathetic; and it is a big let down heading into FLA where his hold is tenuous at best (of the six most recent polls, 3 show Romney close to McCain and Rudy, one shows him six pts behind McCain and one pt. behind Rudy and two show him 5-10 points behind both rivals).
Mitt can't survive a FLA loss and Rudy likely can't either. Both are working uphill in FLA but of the two Mitt has the harder road to hoe. At present, Mitt must be scored a likely death subject to a long-shot chance of resurrection.
Posted by: Not Declining on January 20, 2008 01:45 PM
And, if you arent' kidding, would that make you happy?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 20, 2008 02:25 PM"Those who refuse to learn from History are doomed to repeat it".
We got 8 years of Clinton because of vote splitting....as in Ross Perot!
Posted by: Susu on January 20, 2008 03:00 PMDoug: whom you have to vote for at convention has already been discussed by Bill H (I just knew the rules were different; that information he provided was very helpful).
As to a "VP slot offered," that all depends on the circumstances. I cannot see McCain accepting a VP slot at all -- from Romney or anyone else -- nor can I really see him offering one to Romney, since McCain probably needs a strong "lifetime" conservative as his running mate. Both are possible, but unlikely. So that's a tough one, because, as that author said, how else do you buy someone off these days?
You could buy Rudy off pretty easily -- VP or AG or something -- I think, so if he does well enough to put one of the other candidates over the top, then maybe.
Plus, as that author said, if it is split two or three ways, which candidate would allow himself to be bought off anyway?
Also, what is more likely is that in such an event, it would happen long before convention. Imagine March or so, McCain has 35 percent, Romney 25 percent, so Romney says, "I am dropping out, and I endorse McCain," and Romney is asked to be VP. No reason to wait until convention for that.
But anyway, I am not saying Fred is the most likely choice at a brokered convention. I am saying he is in the top three, and we have to wait and see.
What would happen in such a scenario is we'd have several ballots, and McCain and Romney would be virtually deadlocked, and then Thompson would get up and say, look, you can't agree on either one of them, but you can agree on me.
It's happened before, but yes, it only happens if there is a deadlock with the other candidates. Whether it is likely or unlikely to happen remains to be seen; we just don't know, because we don't know which delegates will be selected. It goes beyond pure numbers at that point, because each delegate will be making his own decision.
Posted by: pudge on January 20, 2008 03:21 PMRudy has declined because McCain has surged. If McCain declines, Rudy will reap his votes because they draw similar voters. However, Rudy is pro business while McCain is not. Rudy is a proven manager while McCain is not. Those things are important to Republican voters. If Rudy shows he can win in Florida, the race could still turn around.
Posted by: KW on January 20, 2008 04:48 PMI, like Bruce Guthrie above, will be voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write-in the name on the ballot. The Democrats and the Republicans are the problem, not the solution.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 20, 2008 05:14 PMAnd you are willing to sacrifice 4 to 8 years of socialism to prove your point?
I need a drink.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 20, 2008 05:27 PMWhy Vote For A Winner? Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
By Phillip Ellis Jackson
December 10, 2007
Too bad the arrogance of the Paulbearers will prevent them from reading it and their selfish, shortminded hubris will prevent them from understanding... too bad for the rest of us that is, who will have to endure 8 yr of Whorabillary and the innumerable years of damage her presidency and policies will spawn.
"Everything I've said above will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears of the true believers, who just know in their hearts that standing up for their principles and sending a message to Washington will transform American politics regardless of the reality of the political process. It's simply much too hard to work within the Republican party to change opinions, and much more fun to be a renegade patriot than an actual meaningful voter. "
"Of course, if you look at the rest of the lives these people lead, you'll see plenty of substantive compromises. They didn't marry the exact perfect spouse, but instead accepted certain basic flaws in that individual. The perfect spouse doesn't exist, and it's either accept a lonely life or marry someone who doesn't meet 100% of your criteria. I'm also willing to bet their jobs are less than ideal or desired. Yet rather than quit on principle they stay because they need the money to survive."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 20, 2008 06:05 PMRagnar you appear to be a very intelligent and rational human being; why would you reduce yourself to name-calling like that. That's a terrible thing to say especially about someone you don't even know and about someone who will be our next POTUS. I don't like President Bush but I would not 'reduce myself' to calling him vile names like that. I believe it's beneath you and you can do better. :)
One of your co-workers said you were in South America. Where were you and did you get to read anything about their politics there?
Posted by: WVH on January 20, 2008 06:22 PMI still say as a manager for environment and energy in an energy intensive manufacturing plant, the McCain- Lieberman global warming measure is a disaster for American industry. McCain's opposition to drilling in ANWR and elsewhere at a time when we are exporting our money to such a degree by buying $90 oil that we are facing a recession may please liberals, but it sure does not promote energy sufficiency, or promote our economy.
If John wins and puts his anti-business agenda in place, I may be pleased that we won the Global War on Terror but I will likely be out of a job because my plant will close.
If John wins and puts his anti-business agenda in place, I may be pleased that we won the Global War on Terror but I will likely be out of a job because my plant will close.
I'm so sorry to offend your delicate sensibilites.
But gosh, you know, sometimes a name (even an ugly one) just totally conveys your opionion of someone.
1. She has proven herself to be a political whore who will do whatever it takes to get what she wants; the long 8 yrs of Clinton1 amply proved that;
2. The thought of her in power, promulgating her beloved Marxism and spewing socialism IS horrible and equally horribly frightening to contemplate;
3. She's running on her husbands presidency (because she has nothing of her own to run on... except perhaps trouble shooter and damage control of her husbands busy crotch) thereby making them 2 blood sucking amoeba's that have morphed into the nightmare we fondly call Billary.
political whore + horrible nightmare that's horribly frightening + 2 for 1 blood sucking amoeba named Billary = Whoribillary.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 20, 2008 07:24 PMYes, it SHOULD scare the hell out of you.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 20, 2008 07:31 PM
"...The bad news is this. Hillary is also a life-long career doormat. ... While she portrays herself as a strong survivor of infidelity who managed to keep her family together, she is in fact, just another doormat for just another serial cheater. We've all seen it many times in life; a woman too weak and too self loathing to think she deserves any better, who either lacks the strength to toss her abuser out on his ear, or will gravitate to the next abuser and the next, even once free from the first abuser. Meet Hillary Clinton."
Looking at the campaign in Nevada and recent events it seems like the Bill part of Billary has gone from being supportive spouse to actively campaigning for the job of president and he really is now campaigning for the job. I think Obama and Edwards should now challenge him to a debate and replay some of his memory lapses or lies about where he stood on issues. What do you think of that idea?
Posted by: WVH on January 20, 2008 07:41 PMPutting up with 4 years of socialism is a given unless Ron Paul wins.
Posted by: lysander on January 20, 2008 08:34 PMThe mathematical odds are against Paul even in a brokered convention. I am curious, Paul continues to raise money. I believe there is a fundraiser to celebrate Paul's civil rights legacy by tagging on to the legacy of Dr. King:
Believe in the dream!
Today is the day, now is the time.
and donate AS MUCH as you can.
(to donate type RonPaul2008.com in a new
browser window and click the "donate today"
Of course, they say this is a grassroots effort, but donate at the Paul site.
FreeAtLast2008.com - Ron Paul For PresidentOn January 21st, 2008.. Please join us this January 21st as we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by acting together to support Dr. Ron Paul, a new hero who ...
www.freeatlast2008.com/
My question to you is what does Paul do with the millions of dollars he has collected after the campaign is over. Does he give money to Duke supporters to get them elected?
Bill C @ 23: my guess is that it is a reference to Lysander Spooner. Google him, or "The Constitution of No Authority."
I think "Lysander" has a really good point @ 19: Goldwater lead to Reagan. I wonder if Ron Paul will lead to the next Reagan conservative? We can hope.
Bill C. and Ragnar @ 29 and 30, your single vote will not determine the winner. It is pointless to vote for someone just because he or she is expected to win. If he or she is expected to win, then your vote will not change that. The reason to vote is to make yourself feel good. It is to let you defend your values, and to do the right thing. Voting for the lesser of two evils destroys the only real, good thing your vote can produce: your own good conscience.
I never vote for the least bad candidate. I only vote for candidates who rise to my standards. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what has given us the lousy bunch of candidates we now have. Remember, Ragnar, Ayn Rand, who invented your nom-de-keyboard, said that evil only exists through the sanction that you give it. Voting for the lesser of two evils is your sanction to evil. My vote makes me feel good. I never have to hold my nose when darkening the little circle. How 'bout you?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 09:44 PMThe first rule of politics is to follow the money. Paul is running continious fundraisers including the one today tagging on Dr. King's legacy. Unlike the Clintons who stay in luxury suites, Paul's accomodations and staff are spartan. He will have millions at the end of the campaign. The point is not winning, the point is running and collecting money.
It is interesting that one of Travis (Lysander Spooner and do google him) and Bruce's sisters in the cause on another thread when asked point blank do you disavow David Duke and the KKK last time I looked at the thread did not have an answer to that question.
There is an agenda for the millions he will have after the campaign, hope it doesn't end up under the control of David Duke. Follow the money.
Posted by: WVH on January 20, 2008 10:12 PMI suspect that you have turned the central idea of the Constitution on it's head. The Constitution does NOT say the President can do whatever he likes as long as the Constitution does not prohibit it. We have a Constitution of ENUMERATED powers. See the tenth amendment. The constitution grants specific, limited powers to each of the three branches of government. What is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is prohibited to the federal government. Limiting the power of government is the purpose of the Constitution, and the founders knew that this was the only way to preserve liberty from the most likely source of tyranny: our own government.
All of the powers delegated to the President, are found in Article 2, section 2. Nowhere does it allow the President to go to war, or use troops or any military action, without a declaration of war. The only way to use force, is through a declaration of war, though "letters of marque and reprisal" may be issued by Congress. The President is commander in chief of the armed forces, but only "when called in to the actual service of the United States" as by a declaration of war.
You may as well have said "Bruce - on the issue of marshmallows. Where in the constitution does it say the President cannot regulate or seize all marshmallows unless Congress DECLARE's that it is time to regulate or seize all marshmallows? Yeah, I didn't think it was in there."
If regulating or seizing marshmallows is not in there, then it is not allowed. Now, if Huckabee is elected, we may see cigarrettes seized, and given Huckabee's recent success with weight loss, perhaps he will "help" us all by seizing marshmallows, too. But none of that will be Constitutional.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 10:13 PMBruce, you may feel good by voting for a loser. RP won't be nominated and you are certainly entitled to vote for whomever you choose, including the Unabomber if that's your guy.
However, to the rest of us, your absolute intractability of your guy or no one is far too reminiscent of the spoiled kid who would rather break a toy than share it. Unfortunately, you will be destroying our country for years to come when you install Whorabillary with your tantrum. Your tantrum may indeed make you feel good... until the reality of what you've done slaps you ... and the rest of us, upside the head. You'll be able to pat yourself on the back because you didn't relent when "darkening the little circle", but how will you face yourself in the mirror at the consequences?
You see Bruce, somethings are bigger than our own little wants... especially when we have no means of attaining them.
Of course, your standard retort is "my one little vote" won't matter. But that's a straw dog because if you truly believed so, you wouldn't bother darkening the circle for the assured loser, now would you be sopolitically strident. Yuo can't have it both ways, kiddo. And neither can Paul. The fact that he won't pledge to support the winner of the party he purports to beleive in disgusts me.
Of course, if you look at the rest of the lives these people lead, you'll see plenty of substantive compromises. They didn't marry the exact perfect spouse, but instead accepted certain basic flaws in that individual. The perfect spouse doesn't exist, and it's either accept a lonely life or marry someone who doesn't meet 100% of your criteria. I'm also willing to bet their jobs are less than ideal or desired. Yet rather than quit on principle they stay because they need the money to survive.
But come November 2008, when your ideal candidate has been rejected as the Party's standard bearer, the nature of the game has changed. It's now down to just two people, the Republican or Democrat nominees for president. And here a simple fact trumps all others.
There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office. -Phillip Ellis Jackson
1) Whatever is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is prohibited to the federal government, and to the President.
2) Use of military force by the President without a declaration of war is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Therefore 3) Use of military force by the President without a declaration of war is prohibited to the federal government, and to the President.
I think this is a logical argument. It is both sound and valid. Can you tell me which (if any) of these three things is wrong (soundness)? Or, can you show me that my argument does not follow logically (validity)? If you can not, then my argument stands.
Let me flip it around the other way: can you tell me which article and section of the Constitution authorizes the President to use military force without a declaration of war from Congress? Because if you can't, then he can't.
We have a Constitution of enumerated powers. If it ain't enumerated, then it ain't constitutional. Usually, only liberals don't understand that.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 11:02 PMSo do I. They prevent me from such self-destructive acts as voting for McCain, Romney or Huckabee.
My argument about our one vote not changing the outcome is still true. Do you deny it? Do you seriously think that your one, popular vote in WA, given the electoral college, given that a Democrat will almost certainly win here, given that several million popular votes will be cast in the state, given that the margin of popular vote victory is almost guaranteed to be greater than 100 votes, do you really think your single vote has any significant chance to change the outcome?
But I did not say that our vote did not matter. It DOES matter: to US! I gave you the reason to vote above: to defend your values, and to give you the good feeling of knowing you did the right thing. This is FAR from saying that there is no reason to vote. Instead, I said just the opposite.
You seem to be saying that the ultimate evil is disloyalty to the GOP. This is, of course, what people like McCain, Romney and Chris Vance would LOVE you to believe! Why? Because as long as you believe that, then they can get away with ANYTHING. They do not have to have any principles. You are telling them that the only thing that is important is winning, and that all principles should be chucked out the window in order to gain power. They just have to be 1% better than the Democratic nominee. Talk about low standards.
Well, there is a time to walk out the door of any free association. Only the individual can say when an organization crosses the line. Some sell their loyalty cheap. Others have high standards, and strong principles. I'm the latter, and I think in spite of your statements above that you are too.
And yes, it does tick me off when I see comments that would leave Ayn Rand spinning in her grave coming out of one of her heroic characters mouths. I wish you would pick a character that is more consistent with your views, instead of an atheistic, capitalistic, rationalistic, objectivistic pirate like the "real" Ragnar Daneskjold in my favorite book: "Atlas Shrugged." You are none of the above, and it bugs me that you adopt the character. But I guess that is my problem to deal with on my own.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 11:22 PMBut we vote anyway. We vote to please ourselves, and to take a largeley symbolic action to defend our values. There is no other reason to vote. From a purely economic perspective, voting is irrational. But economics is only one way of thinking. Instead, we vote for emotional or moral reasons.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 11:28 PMRon Paul, aka RP, squeaky voiced little pip from Texas with a great big campaign chest full of money and no chance of winning; an election spoiler whose intractable supporters gave the US presidency to Clinton.
Grand cosmic joke?
Horrendous and terrifying coincidence?
Or something far more insidiously sinister at work?
CUE TWILIGHT ZONE MUSIC...
You be the judge.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 20, 2008 11:59 PMRon Paul will not be a spoiler. The odds are miniscule that he will run as a Libertarian or as an Independent. Therefore he can not be a spoiler in November.
Or are you saying that he is being a spoiler NOW in the primary by "taking" votes from one of the other GOP candidates?
That's crazy. Most Ron Paul supporters are new to the party.
You even sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist: "Or something far more insidiously sinister at work?"
Like that Ron Paul is funded by partisan Democrats or something? Puh-LEASE!
So your whole comment @ 55 makes sense only in...
the twilight zone.
You'll think a whole lot better after some sleep.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 12:16 AM
Republican Party, aka RP, squeaky voiced little pip from Texas with a great big campaign chest full of money and no chance of winning; an election spoiler whose intractable supporters gave the US presidency to Clinton.
1) Whatever is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is prohibited to the federal government, and to the President.
2) Use of military force by the President without a declaration of war is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Therefore 3) Use of military force by the President without a declaration of war is prohibited to the federal government, and to the President.
If we are to accept this, then we also have to say that ANY use of military force by the President is prohibited to the federal government, because NOTHING in the Constitution says that military force can be used under a declaration of war.
You could, of course, say that this is implied (as per the "necessary and proper" clause). But so too can I say that the use of force without a declaration is similarly implied. Which I do. Indeed, look at Article II: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." If it meant "when war is declared," it would have said so. It didn't, because that is left to the discretion of the legislature.
All of the Constitutional language on the calling of the military is inspecific, not tied to any political acts except for the discretion of the legislature, and the direction of executive. That's it.
I cannot recall anyone saying the use of the Navy in the Quasi-War with France was unconstitutional; can you? Just because war remained undeclared? Of course not. Declaring war with France would have been a grave error. That doesn't mean they couldn't use force.
Simply put: a war declaration is not a military act, but a political one. The two are separate. You can declare war without using the military, and use the military without declaring war. We have had many examples throughout our history of the former, and it is not unconstitutional.
or learn Chinese. You can rest assured that after the US is fractured the Chinese certainly won't bat a fracking eye at wiping out the entire Middle East.
I can't stand that tim is the only who sees the important issue. WE'RE AT WAR. I guess since you jack offs didn't buck up and pack in on day one, or your little bro (mom will never forgive me, but I blame TV) is gonna be shipping soon, you can forget all about the blood that had been shed and spilled in your name. The war ain't over but we are (FINALLY) getting it right with the new COIN strategy. Maybe since they dropped the coverage now that they don't have the daily influx of dead GIs (Brothers to some of us), it doesn't seem as important, but we must press on to victory.
McCain is our best bet. Business should be left to the private sector, military and nat sec should be left to those who have served under the flag.
Posted by: Aaron on January 21, 2008 12:31 AMNo one seems to want to touch the question of what Paul does with the millions he will have after he becomes a footnote to history. A little David Duke with the conspiracy theory. perhaps?
Anyhow, I admire Paul for his ingenuity. He got an Internet campaign going and managed to part millions of suckers from their money.
I want to run for President on the Internet. My campaign is about whatever you want it to be. I want to shrink government. I want to shrink Congress. If you are fat, I want to shrink you. I want everyone to read the Constitution. I believe everyone has rights including states and anyone people want to have rights, well you have rights.
Now, send me money. If they won't kick me off the site, I would probably give you an address so you could send me money.
Isn't that how it is done?
Posted by: WVH on January 21, 2008 12:35 AMYou are just trying to be my Veep candidate aren't you? Actually, that is not a bad idea since we would have pretty much all the bases covered including the nearly criminally insane.
Suckers out there, send me and Dog money as we have as much chance of winning as Paul and our campaign is whatever you want it to be.
In the interest of campaign disclosure it will be 60% for WVH and 40% for Dog since he is the Veep candidate, but I'll make sure Dog gets the help he needs.
Send us money now.
Posted by: WVH on January 21, 2008 09:41 AMYou are not holding up you part of the team. I know you an the rest of the atheists hate this, but to everything there is a season. Remember that TNR piece came out when you weren't expecting it.
Because you don't know which side your bread is buttered on, your cut is now only 25%. Keep talking and you'll be the first nobono Veep. No bones for you, Dog.
WVH for president and Dog for Veep.
Suckers, send us money and I'll make sure that Dog gets the help he needs.
Suckers, send us money now.
Posted by: WVH on January 21, 2008 09:56 AMActually you should probably be happy if the price of oil only doubles in the next 100 years. Today it's about 10 times what it was only 40 years ago. If we'd had the rate hikes you predict, we'd be paying about 50 cents a gallon today.
Posted by: RBW on January 21, 2008 09:59 AMThe ability of the states to engage in warfare is limited specifically in Article I and the power to use the military and raise the military and defend the states from invasion and defend the constitution (which happens to include 'provide for the common defence') is given to Congress and the President. Yes Article II specifically requires the President to Provide for the Common Defence of the states and gives him the command of the armed forces for that purpose. Therefore the 'enumerated powers' of the 10th amendment isn't applicable to defending the country or engaging in war.
That leaves the original articles - which clearly give the President the control of the military (and historically, all the way back to those who wrote the constitution) and the power to use it. The original articles gave Congress other powers as well. Obviously they didn't declare war back in the 1790s but allowed the President to commit acts of war......hmmmmmmm maybe those people who wrote and agreed to the constitution understood what it meant - the President is required specifically to provide for the common defence of it's citizens - and that requirement is there even if Congress does not Declare War.
The New Republic:
Reprints of his white supremaicist newsletters of the 1990's and earlier
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
Angry White Man
by James Kirchick
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
I'd argue McCain or Huckabee would do more damage to the country working with the Democrats than have the GOP in congress united against Hillary.
I am not voting for any Democrats whether it is Hillary, Obama, McCain, or Huckabee. I will not vote Democrat lite. I have had enough with the statist GOP. If the GOP wants to be statist lite, they will forever remain the minority party.
Posted by: AP on January 21, 2008 10:21 AMRon Paul will not be a spoiler. The odds are miniscule that he will run as a Libertarian or as an Independent. Therefore he can not be a spoiler in November.
Yet they are not so miniscule that he will publicly rule it out, nor has he committed to support whichever of his GOP brothers bests him... well they ALL best him, but only one can be the standard-bearer, and brother Paul won't support the home team.
There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office. -Phillip Ellis Jackson
Except perhaps, someone who denies that fact.
It just seems to me that we, as individuals do not have that power. It seems a bit megalomaniacal to think that we do.
Ron Paul will not rule anything out, but he has said that the odds were huge against an Indy or L run for President. Ron Paul has spent enough time in Congress to know that unpredictable things can happen. No one can predict the future. What do you want?
And there you go with your "my party right or wrong" thing. Don't you see that this totally destroys any political principle, including the oath of office, in support of party loyalty? It is the very thing the founders warned us against: the destructive power of faction.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 10:47 AMFirst, God was too mean so they had to create another one,Then we created a more forgiving God so we wouldn't kill anyone important with a witch hunt,and still control the masses.Then the other me too gods started and then the killing over which metoo God was best, then we started finding Fossils.You remember fossils don't you WVH,they are things we find in the ground or in the sea that prove the world was not created in 7 days.Anyway You can believe what you want and I won't send you to hitlers office with a blindfold and a cigarette,just dont force it on me.I have seen the light..of a fossil..and I aint buying the 7 day theory.I think it was all made up. I think the first God was too harsh and too many people started being killed for Buggar picking and they decided they had to change it so it would allow buggar picking without being burned at the stake.Then we started killing people of different faqith and we still do it to this day.Meanwhile evolution keeps marching along.Anyway what about your press conference.?
I want to hear you on the Dave Ross show with this stuff.Otherwise go look at some cats.
LOL
For once I agree with you Michael. Ron Paul is not only embarrasing, he attracts nutbirds and tin-foil hat wearers the way a magnet attracts iron.
The man is not a Republican. He only pretends to be one at primary time or when it can keep him in his Congressional seat. Is he a racist and an anti-semite? I don't know, but I certainly do wonder.
If Ron Paul is outed as a racist and an anti-semite how quickly do you imagine the media would embrace him as a model of "conservate Republican values".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 11:00 AMFor once I agree with you Michael. Ron Paul is not only embarrasing, he attracts nutbirds and tin-foil hat wearers the way a magnet attracts iron.
The man is not a Republican. He only pretends to be one at primary time or when it can keep him in his Congressional seat. Is he a racist and an anti-semite? I don't know, but I certainly do wonder.
If Ron Paul is outed as a racist and an anti-semite how quickly do you imagine the media would embrace him as a model of "conservative Republican values".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 11:01 AM" Our choice of candidate is divided by our divided individual agendas. The Republican Party was once the home of the conservative agenda. Republicans didn't always seek to cherry pick which items to be conservative about and which to be compassionate about. But today, the party has been cherry picked to pieces. " ...
" The driving question in the mind of voters behind these four candidates is, which can unite the most moderate cross section of voters in the general election to defeat the Democrat candidate. Of course, to a degree, the main purpose of the campaign is lost the minute this thought process begins, because one trying to appeal to all voters, must compromise all principles and values to do so. "
" In the end, even if they win, they lose. Even if they defeat the Democrat, but adopt Democratic Socialist policies in order to attract Independent and Democrat voters, what have they won? " ...
" Hillary was never going to win in 2008 without a divided conservative vote. Republicans are committing suicide in this regard. " ...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 11:03 AMDude, you need some heavy duty psycho help, you'd better hope that we win so I can check you into a really good rehab, like, you know the one where Lindsay Lohan went with rooms overlooking the Pacific and wine with meals.
So, suckers send money so we can get Dog into that Lindsay Lohan rehab thing, I think Britney went there too, if I am not mistaken. Anyhow, Dog should be able to pass all the tests.
Suckers, why give to Paul, give to Dog's rehab program.
Suckers, give early and give often.
Posted by: WVH on January 21, 2008 11:18 AMps, if he's not a Neutered Canine American, can we bid to do the honors?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 11:25 AMBoth Bushes bent like pathetic saplings in the wind to the left and their incessant media lackeys who want government to solve everyone's problems.
It's the politics of "gimmee". Students of history know it by another name. Socialism.
Democrats mastered "gimmee" socialism years ago. The result has been a disaster. They could care less. The families they've destroyed as a result of their "war on poverty" are one of their largest voting blocs. If those folks realized what the Democrats have done to them not a single one would ever vote for them again.
Instead of offering a conservative alternative Republicans since Reagan have offered "liberal lite". We'll "gimmee" too! We're "compassionate conservatives". The very term acknowledges how the media has painted conservatives. Why have we let this happen?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 11:43 AMI believe it is because of the "I'm ok, you're ok can't we all get along kumbaya" mindset left over from the 60's coupled with the toxic political correctness and redefining of words foisted on us by the left.
Go along to get along got us where we are now.
Does anyone have the courage to stop it? I think Fred Thompson might have, but he's probably wasted his opportunity. I think Newt Gingrich does, but so far, he's chosen another path.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 12:16 PMPaul is not going to get it done. (Thankfully) And no amount of spin will get this bigot past his bigotry.
Unfortunately, your position has devolved to the point that your pronouncements are worthless, given your inability to allow reality to have any place in your positions. Your delusion, given your bizarre pronouncements and political ignorance that enabled you to make outrageous and utterly untrue projections of how great Paul would do in the primaries we've had; when one views his abysmal results, proves you to be a cultist who knows nothing about politics.
You have a better chance of getting elected president then that whack job. Your inability to process that shows your complete lack of grasp on the issues, the situation and the possible outcomes. In short, you're just as wrong about Paul now as you've been about your predictions. What could possibly make even you think you've got a clue beyond your blinding bias?
A prior poster had it right: you need help. Fortunately, I'll be able to skip over anything you post in the future, since it lacks any coherence or relevance.
Have a nice day, and look back fondly on the reduction of Paul to the level of small footnote on the pimple of this election's ass.
Posted by: Hinton on January 21, 2008 12:24 PMhttp://www.electoral-vote.com
http://hominidviews.com
Of course, some would say it's better for the Republican Party to lose rather than put up McCain, but I'd rather win and watch the Democrat circular firing squad continue for 10 more years.
(Funny, the libs I know are despondent over the march of the Hillary machine, but are starting to take some comfort in the opposite view: that it'll be good for the Democrats to nominate Hillary and for her to lose, badly in order to bury the Clinton machine. I think they're optimists if they think the Clintonistas will ever go away.)
Posted by: ShillBull on January 21, 2008 12:31 PMOk, so the idea of working with other nations to defeat terrorism is not ok because it's the "can't we all get along kumbaya" mindset? Shouldn't we all get along to defeat the common enemy? I seriously doubt America will be perceived any weaker because if a GOP or a Dem wins.
If anything we're already economically weaker than we were four years ago. Our economic assets are available to the highest bidder, be they friend or foe. We can only guess what sort of leverage this will give the owners in the future.
Is anyone forcing you to speak PC Ragnar? Have the "jackbooted" PC Police raided your house? Is there an end to your nonsense?
Go along to get along got us where we are now."
Couldn't agree more Ragnar. I've said it before. We are all suffering from an incredible hangover from the '60's. An awful decade that left people unable do do something as basic to the advancement of civilization as being able to discern right from wrong.
As a result, murderers and rapists that should never prey on the public again get three or four pampered years behind bars, complete with a free gym and the internet. Then they are released and kill more innocent people. We read these horrid stories all the time, but it wouldn't be considered "politically correct" to question the idiotic leftist policies that got us to this point.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 12:44 PMSheesh!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 12:49 PMThis is so typical of the politically myopic... EVERYTHING is read, heard and commented upon through the singular narrow lens of your own bias. RP in the SC debate was perfectly illustrative of that. Answering questions not asked in order to spew opinions just waiting to bust forth from his lips. I call it myopic vomitus.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 01:06 PMJust a thought, when you see a Clinton 2008 sticker, does anyone else think:
Fool me once (1992), shame on you.
Fool me twice (1996), shame on me.
Fool me thrice (2008), I am a retard.
Please don't procreate.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 01:21 PMPublicbulldog makes this claim at #90, "We could not keep the violent criminals in jail because we filled the system up with non violent criminals because of the agents of intolerance movement."
I ask for just one, one, factual statement or citation to back up such a ridiculous statement.
Where did all the 1960's burnt out druggies go?
They became fanatic Ron Paul supporters. The mystery is solved.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 01:26 PMHinton @ 83: I have another prediction: Ron Paul will raise more than $2 million today. It is a money-bomb event that Ron Paul's supporters planned (without coordination with the RP campaign) for MLK day called "Free at Last."
Here is another prediction: Ron Paul will still be in the race at the convention.
Yet another one: if the eventual Republican nominee doesn't "move to the center" on the Iraq war, and favor a time-scale for troop withdrawals, he will lose in November.
You call me a lot of names in your post, Hinton. Why don't you try some civility? I used to think that Republicans valued this more than Democrats did. Now I am not so sure.
PublicBulldog is right @ 74, 90 and 92. Even @ 86. Listen to him. His writing style makes him sound a little crazy, but his ideas are solid. Don't write him off because he is not a polished writer. He speaks in a dialect that many of us do not speak. I think he is saying wise things here if we can take the time to listen to him.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 01:40 PMThe voting public is always fooled by the politics of "gimmee" as pushed by the left. That is what socialism is all about. Make sure the public expects government to "gimmee" something, especially if you make dumb choices like single parenthood.
Ever notice that the left promotes single parenthood?
SO WHAT? All that proves is he has more gullible sheep than any other candidate.
$$$ does not translate to VOTES... just ask Perot and Romney.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 01:54 PMThat's right you idiot. Police just routinely round up people who are doing drugs innocently so they can put them in prison.
Good god, what a nitwit you are.
What you call "non-violent" drug offenders are the addicts that break into houses, steal from stores, and rob innocent people. I ought to know. I have a drug addicted relative that sits in prison. That is where he needs to be.
We all know that money drives politics. Who has money is FAR from irrelevant, my friend.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 01:57 PMBeats the two parent household run by religious nuts that the Right keeps promoting. Seriously if I had a dime for ever kid who went to Sunday School and who could not conceive a single independent thought, I'd be rich.
Seriously, please stop brainwashing your kids. Let them have normal lives with a functional thought process.
Hmm, I wonder how much the Bhagwan took in in a day?
But if these prisoners had stolen something, or hurt someone, then they should have been convicted of some violent act, not the non-violent act of buying or selling drugs that they got convicted for. Instead, they are putting away a lot of peaceful people. Our taxes support this injustice, so WE are responsible.
PublicBulldog was right. Imprisoning all these peaceful people has caused the early parole of lots of really violent criminals due to space pressure, or has caused the non-fiscally conservative result of building more prisons.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 02:04 PMThis religious blog is full of religious clowns
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdo99.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan08/ucr_statistics010708.html
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 21, 2008 02:05 PMI guess I have to ask. Show me any evidence whatsoever to back up that statement.
You folks on the left should realize that you border on hysteria. You know statements like the one above are nonsense. Yet you keep on making them. Is it not reasonable to assume you have a screw looose?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 02:22 PMDunno, maybe you should ask Benny Hinn and his nimwit crusades. He's got a shiny new Gulf Stream Jet to show for doing good work on God's behalf.
According to Wikipedia Jim Bakker was doing pretty well with his God racket...
"Contributions requested from viewers were estimated to exceed $1 million a week,"
Hey, my guy was Duncan Hunter; he only got a few less votes than your guy but you didn't see me hour by hour hammering for people to notice him, did you?
You now seem to be doing the same thing for legalizing drugs. I agree with the marijuana part, but I am not out there hammering to get it legal.
You have a lot to offer and offer a good debate.
Posted by: swatter on January 21, 2008 02:23 PMKeep on tilting, dudes.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 02:23 PMReading this classic leftist crap makes it impossible for me to not also ask Cato and the rest of the liberal puppets who post here to tell us how much wealth Al Gore has garnered in spreading his hysteric global warming fear campaign around the world.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 02:34 PMLets get back on track with this thread. The Rep race. Eric was pretty accurate I think, I still kind of think Thompson has a chance, slim but more than Eric gives him.
The voters are just waiting for him (or some real conservative) to stand up and start asserting himself.
I think with a stumble by one of the upper tier candidates, that Thompson could rise.
Newt would be very competent but he is unelectable, period. He was smart not to enter.
You know, that would make a great bumper sticker.
Cavuto was trying to get him to say who he was going to endorse, talking about Tancredo and the illegal immigration bit and wanted to know if Hunter could support Romney. Hunter said there's one issue alone that makes Romney a no-go for him and he went into this thing about Romney's Bain company trying to sell out a U.S. defense contractor to a Chinese company that supplied illegal anti-air defense to Saddam, and supposedly does nefarious blackmkt stuff. It was all about how it's a big national security risk and that alone would keep Hunter from supporting him.
Anyhow, Cavuto tried to cut him off (Cavuto likes Romney, if you don't see much Romney loving on the MSM you really need to turn to Fox, they prop him up all the time) by Hunter went on to give some props to Huckabee and McCain before his time was up. Wasn't ready to endorse yet, but seemed to be pleased that all the candidates remaining for the R's seem to be with him on the fence now.
Posted by: Doug on January 21, 2008 03:02 PMRomney is conservative. I wish he were electable but as I said earlier the media,(which fears his conservatism), will play the Mormon card without letup. We all know they will do it. And leftists wonder why we think they are a bunch of power hungry Hillary loving 1960's socialists.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 03:02 PMI can't resist.
You can't possibly be referring to the religion that makes their women wear headscarves and forces them into arranged marriages?
Oh silly me, of course not.
Hypocrites.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 03:18 PMIf you can't play with the big dogs here and really discuss ideas and opinions you should just stay on the porch. Or go back to HA where they embrace drivel.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 03:32 PMIf you can't play with the big dogs here and really discuss ideas and opinions you should just stay on the porch. Or go back to HA where they embrace drivel.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 03:32 PMYou are right Bill, this jackoff supports surrendering to the Muslim crazies, but then spews that nonsense.
Bruce and Travis, you must be proud to have this guy on your team.
No more for me. Not one word about Paul or his supporters. (I really hope no more.)
Posted by: thom on January 21, 2008 03:37 PMHowever, I can't really believe Hunter will endorse anyone except Thompson. All of the others have skeletons which are deal breakers for a guy of Hunter's convictions.
Cavuto is on at an odd hour to watch after work. My viewing times have the tailend of O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta. Needless to say, I don't watch Fox News much anymore since Tony, the gentle assassin, left.
Posted by: swatter on January 21, 2008 03:51 PMAs if we really needed to see another example of what these nutburgers really think.
Yikes!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 03:54 PMIs it possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone on the left? Not in my experience. See #130.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 04:00 PMQuite a lot I'd imagine. He got a cool 1.5 mil from Sweeden last year. He's rumored to get $100k a lecture. I'd imagine he's making several million a year scaring people with his message.
The difference between the two men is that Al Gore doesn't solicit donations from his followers. Most people pay him to speak at large halls and centers where a lot of people are expected to buy tickets to hear him speak. He does not claim to have the power to stop global warming, he just advocates changing behaviors. His income is taxed.
Benny Hinn on the other hand claims he can make your sick grandmother in a wheelchair dance a jig using the power of God. With a wave of a hand he can make hundreds of people fall to the ground and enter into seizures using his power handed down to him by the almighty. His income is provided to him via him ministry which likes to give him a large tax-free salary, a fancy jet, and a mansion on the hill.
Now how is this leftist crap with the current Senate Finance Investigation looking into Benny Hinn's faith healing business practices, led by a senior Republican from Iowa?
Why do Republicans lose every election in Washington State lately?
Posted by: Buck Owens on January 21, 2008 04:13 PMNo. But you bigoted leftists make that assumption along with assuming and promoting the bigoted notion that conservatives and Republicans want to turn the country into a theocracy.
Can we talk about which side is truly open-minded and un-biased? I don't imagine you would want to. Try me.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 04:17 PMMaybe you should listen to Mike Huckabee more carefully. There's a reason he's winning the hearts and minds of the Evangelical crowd. Heck, talk to Rangar. He's openly advocated the idea of a state endorsed religion (Christianity) to be taught in Public schools. I doubt there enough economic minded Republicans in this country to beat back the Huckabee types that seem to occupy the GOP.
Can we talk about which side is truly open-minded and un-biased?
Neither side is truly un-biased. I have my biases and fully admit having them. I'm in no way claiming to be open minded here.
I answered your question and gave you my Al Gore salary guesstimate, you should be happy.
I have no idea who "Rangar" is Cato.
For heaven's sake Cato, I can drink a fifth of Jack Daniels and make more sense than you made in this last post.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 05:26 PMMathematics have nothing to do with whether Paul can win or not. If it was up to mathematics Guiliani would have been our candidate about 12 months ago. The odds are against him but that does not mean I do not think he is still the best candidate and deserves my support, the odds have been wrong far too often to pay much creed to it.
As for the millions he is raising... He is spending it in multiple states. Unlike some he has not concentrated on just a few early states or just Florida. He will be in it till the end spending the money his supporters give him to spread a message of individual freedo & limited government.
I am not sure why you think he will end with millions in the bank and even more baffled why you would think he would donate it to david duke.
Posted by: lysander on January 21, 2008 06:03 PMI'm getting pretty damned tired of your bullsh*t lies cato. Either support your flipping claim or bug off, because I most certainly did NOT.
Does an HONEST, non-manipulative non-lying liberal exist in this miserable state?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 06:16 PMYou both complain that the republican party has become liberal "gimme" lite and search for a candidate that will return us from that deviance and yet you both not just ignore but disuade others from supporting the 10 term congressman with an impecible small government anti 'gimme' liberal record.
Why? What is it about Dr Pauls anti liberal 'gimme' government positions that you oppose?
Posted by: lysander on January 21, 2008 06:29 PMComparing your opposition to nazis means you have lost the arguement. Sorry.
Posted by: lysander on January 21, 2008 06:30 PMRagnar, Rangar, whatever, the person whom (ab)uses the name from Ayn Rand's famous book.
Let's see what did I say in a nutshell...the Evangelical wing wing of the GOP openly talk about the return to biblical values in this country. Huckabee's comments about changing the Constitution to reflect God's law seem to reinforce this idea. While I imagine it's all talk, much like the KKK calling for a pure white state to call home, it's very unlikely to translate into a reality.
Still the threat of Theocracy is a much more visible and achievable goal than the KKK since the Evangelical wing holds great influence over the GOP electorate. While I have nothing against Evangelicals or their message, I feel that it is not the position of the Govt. to endorse their religion over another. Nor is it the role of the Govt. to teach religion or religious theories of the Earths beginnings in public school classrooms.
Hopefully the GOP base would come to it's senses and realize it's being led down a path to idiocy by the very voters it seeks support from. I have doubts that the fiscally conservative wing of the GOP holds enough sway or membership to stop America from going down this path.
Ragnar is a loon, may he keep his Religion in his home and in his church where it belongs. In the meantime I will be happy to vote for those who want to keep the state out of his churches, in return I would ask that he keep his religion out of my Govt. Let his religion guide him, but not encourage him to seek out and restrict the very freedoms that we all seek to enjoy.
I hope you find this a decent post-script to my statement above.
How about this for more accuracy...
Vote for a bush or clinton in 92 shame
Vote for a bush or clinton in 96 shame
Vote for a bush or clinton in 00 shame
Vote for a bush or clinton in 04 shame
Vote for any of those like bush or clinton (read all but Ron Paul) shame again.
Both the republicans and democrats have been giving us bigger and bigger government. The democrats are promising more this year. So are nearly all the Republicans. The one that is not is Ron Paul.
You can try and guess which one of the big government politicians will decrease government the least but voting for them and electing them will not get you what you want so why bother? Might as well vote for smaller government... aka Dr No Ron Paul.
1. Now I'm resenting Paul since Dog and I are out on the net attracting moolah for our campaign, Paul is cutting into our take. Dog really needs to go to rehab.
We want suckers to donate to us. I can go to the Golden Door Spa and Dog can go to rehab. Suckers send money now.
2. Mathematics has everything to do with it. Paul can't win the nomination, but he needs a financial base for the next stage which is to infiltrate legitimate party organizations:
Supporters Dominate Fort Worth Event
By James Buchanan -- EURO
James Kelso Reports
On-site reporter Jamie Kelso reports that Ron Paul supporters seem to be dominating the Republican Fort Worth event. About 700 to 900 people packed one meeting hall to listen to Ron Paul speak. Many of the competing candidates were notable by their absence. Hopefully the Texas delegates (who will be the ones voting in the straw poll) will take note of who made the effort to show up at their event and who attracted the most Texans.
Not only has Ron Paul demonstrated his popularity in yet another Republican event; a recent news article finally reports on the Ron Paul Revolution: "Passengers on a plane leaving New York could see three words in 4-foot block letters painted on an East Village rooftop terrace as they ascended: GOOGLE RON PAUL. The entreaty to search the Internet for news of the Republican congressman from rural Texas is one of the more visible signs of enthusiasm from a do-it-yourself base of Web fans. Their support doesn't show up in public opinion polls, but it's unmatched among presidential candidates in its passion. On their own, the fans have developed a Ron Paul Revolution logo, marketing the idea through YouTube. Message boards and websites debate his virtues. The Web fans for Paul's anti-establishment campaign run away with online polls and blanket websites with caps-locked, exclamation-point endorsements of the contrarian Republican..."
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?s=ron+paul+endorsement&submit=go
He needs money for the same reason you sought to be a PCO, the Duke supporters consider the republican party as their "host."
3. Hear David Duke Discuss What Ron Paul Must Do to Win! or Download
David Duke: What Ron Paul Must Do to Win
The first two Republican delegate contests are over and in spite of an unfair playing field created by the political and media establishment, Ron Paul's vote has been very disappointing. After all, as he himself has pointed out, no one, no Republican or even Democrat candidate has raised more money in the last quarter. Even more tellingly, Ron Paul's fund raising has been similar to my own major political races in that he had many more contributors than the other candidates, but like me, not as many big ones. Yet, his campaign has not nearly generated the much higher percentage of votes I received in my major races. More contributors generally mean more grass roots support and an army of committed volunteers. Yet, all of Ron Paul's support has resulted in far fewer votes for Congressman Paul than what one would expect.
Remember, that in Louisiana, outspent 50 to 1 in political advertising, and with a media establishment pulling out all stops to paint me as irredeemably evil, somewhere between public perceptions of Attila the Hun and Adolf Hitler, and after I endured the most vicious media attack campaign in American history, I still received over 60 percent of the White vote in elections for Louisiana's two highest elected offices, Governor and Senator. Although it might surprise many reading this, even before I began my political rise in Louisiana, I actually won the New Hampshire primary for Vice-President of the United States with over 65 percent of the vote. Here is a direct quote the January 8, 2008 Toronto Globe and Mail on my successful electoral foray into the far northern state of New Hampshire:
Voters not registered with any party can choose to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary, but not both.
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
New Hampshire is the only state that includes a choice for vice-president, though it has no bearing on anything... Usually, the winners are presidential hopefuls who get write-in votes as vice-president. Past winners include Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Colin Powell and David Duke.
Pat Buchanan with far less money than Ron Paul won the New Hampshire primary in 1996
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?s=presidential+election&submit=go
Your candidate and Duke seem to be birds of a feather who flock together.
Donate to me and dog, we are at least not harmful.
You are nuts, Cato. List for all of us the racists laws Republicans have enacted since the formation of the party in the 1850's.
Bet you can't.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 06:43 PMYou passed decency a long time ago cato. You just keep verifying it.
I wonder cato, do you murder? No? Guess what? THAT'S a "biblical value".
I wonder cato, do you cheat on your wife/boyfriend/lover? No? Guess what? THAT'S
a "biblical value".
I wonder cato, do you respect your parents? No? Guess what? THAT'S a "biblical value".
I wonder cato, are you a thief? No? Guess what? THAT'S a "biblical value".
I wonder cato, do try to be honorable? Yes? Guess what? THAT'S a "biblical value".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 06:55 PMAnybody that disagrees with you is a nutburger.
The back of your bus is jammed full of people you hate.
Your grandfathers world is crumbling because there is always some crusade to spend all your money on.
You are not content letting people live their life the way they want,and you prevent us from getting the basic needs.
You want God and the King back,despite fleeing from them to form this country.
You are religion and you still hold us back after all these years..
We are behind the infrastructure 8 ball thanks to religion.
we have no checks and balances thanks to religion.
Take a bow you religous fruit cakes.
Welcome to sound religion.
Anybody that disagrees with you is a nutburger.
The back of your bus is jammed full of people you hate.
Your grandfathers world is crumbling because there is always some crusade to spend all your money on.
You are not content letting people live their life the way they want,and you prevent us from getting the basic needs.
You want God and the King back,despite fleeing from them to form this country.
You are religion and you still hold us back after all these years..
We are behind the infrastructure 8 ball thanks to religion.
we have no checks and balances thanks to religion.
Take a bow you religous fruit cakes.
Welcome to sound religion.
I know Publicbulldog is a few cards short of a full deck. Any rational reader here knows it.
What disturbs me is the level of hatred and anger that is obvious in the above...and you can find it in any left wing blog.
We've got angry nuts on the right too. I hope we don't appear so frequently.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 21, 2008 07:17 PMI can't think of any off the top of my head. It does not really matter though, I used the KKK as a metaphor for a stupid idea that will never come to pass. Even your smart enough to see that.
As for your biblical values Ragnar, those ideas and values appear in a great number of cultures and civilizations. Many were not exposed to "biblical values" until Westerners arrived. Even with those values in place many high profile people who claim to follow these same values you list seem to stray from them.
I happen to like BBQ Pork, which sadly I would have to forgo if I were to follow your "biblical values".
Some people, it seems, get offended way too easily. I mean, isn't that what all this prayer hullabaloo is all about - people getting offended?.. .those of us in the majority are always tippy-toeing around, trying to make sure we don't step on the toes or hurt the feelings of the humorless. And you can bet there's a lawyer standing on every corner making sure we don't.
Take this prayer deal. It's absolutely ridiculous. Some atheist goes to a high school football game, hears a kid say a short prayer before the game and gets offended. So he hires a lawyer and goes to court and asks somebody to pay him a whole bunch of money for all the damage done to him. You would have thought the kid kicked him in the crotch. Damaged for life by a 30-second prayer? Am I missing something here?
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect - somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome...
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds.
If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. .. Call your lawyer.
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of our courts striping us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us just to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you well... just sue me.
***
What did our Founders have to say about the Bible?
"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God... Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." --John Jay (1784)
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." --Gouverneur Morris (1791)
"[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?" --George Washington (1796)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams (1798)
"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." --Benjamin Rush (1806)
***
March 30, 2007 - A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll's respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam. Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.
***
***
Yep, I pity you cato.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 07:48 PMSmatterchew!
Religion is needed because some people can't so no, so they need religion to say it for them.
Unfortunatly religious People can't just pan away from what they don't like,and have to impose their will upon others whom may not have the same view..I should be out enjoying my free ride on disability,but I feel the need to change things, so other people don't lose their house,and lose their hip running on the hamster wheel called small business.I blame Republicans for pumping up criminal justice costs and driving me from the BBQ business.Then I thought Driving would be worth a try,and was crippled by tin cup social engineering policies that took my money to maintain the public roads ,while they plotted to skirt my use of it,while I had a truck payment..as much of a nutburger you think I am ,I know more about the restaraunt business or transportation issues than anybody on this blog.
My goal is a simple one.
To Make small business profitable,make goods and services profitable,and ergonomically sound.
Thats it,that is my goal.
I put blame where it belongs,and I am not afraid to go to Olympia and stand for something.
I am not trying to sell you on being an atheist,I am simply trying to reframe the issue and demand that you look at it thru small business colored glasses.
That may be uncomfortable for some of you but I can't help that.
I don't care if you want to be religious just don't take away economic opportunities with sophist crusades.
This is a political blog not a religious one,never the less I always end up starting a political point only to be drug into a religious one.
I would love to see you Katomar or you Ragnar ,or any of you religious righters with your house on the line signed up to a triple net lease watching the govement overhead flow in,and raising your prices,losing your sales,losing your business, and then your house,or have a truck payment shifting your left leg to the bone inching along at a ramp meter designed to skirt the SOV's into the HOV'S while you pay 18,000 a yaer in taxes to use the roads.
Those are the glasses I look thru.
ATLANTA (AP) - Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee paid tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. at a lengthy memorial service Monday at King's old church and was endorsed by several black religious leaders....
....Huckabee's strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage matches the "high moral values" of many black Americans, said William Owens, founder of a group called the Coalition of African American Pastors."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UAI7FO0&show_article=1
It is my understanding that many Black ex-service personnel support Mc Cain. Obama is able to take care of himself, perhaps the best news is the way Bubba is going after him. Many Blacks are getting turned off. Great. What this country really needs is 25 to 30 percent of the Black vote to truly be in play and willing to vote for either party.
Hope this stimulates discussion.
Posted by: WVH on January 21, 2008 08:03 PMI read two editorials today, both by black conservative writers. One will be especially disturbing (if it is even read by liberals) and one just heart breaking.
'Black Democrats and Battered Wife Syndrome' by Ellis Washington
Aborted America by Star Parker -Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 19, 2008 11:24 AM
I too hope it stimulates discussion, among the black population. We all need to understand why they, as a group, so willingly follow (politically) the very people who ultimately do them them most harm
Your problem, pubbie, is that you are a failure and you want to blame everyone else up to and including God, instead of blaming the one person responsible: YOU.
Look at that post.... "driving you from the BBQ business" "crippled by tin cup social engineering policies that took my money to maintain the public roads"... boo flippin hoo.
Off the top of my head I can name 3 wildly SUCCESSFULL bbq businesses within 20 miles of my house... how is it those God-loving Christian crazy republicans didn't manage to drive THEM from business.
How about you wake yp and smell the pok, pubbie, your rapidly failing state is toxic to business and deadly to lousy businessmen such as you appear. QUIT WHINING.
Besides, who the hell would want to buy BBQ from an insane dog? Muzzles and leashes dude, you'll make your fortune.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 08:36 PMHow about you wake yp and smell the pok, pubbie, your rapidly failing state is toxic to business and deadly to lousy businessmen such as you appear. QUIT WHINING.
How about you wake UP and smell the PORK, pubbie, your rapidly failing state is toxic to business and deadly to lousy businessmen such as you appear TO BE.
The difference between the newer generation of leaders is values. Many of the newer leaders follow people like TD Jakes who has a different take on what is necessary to move low-income communities into the mainstream. Just as your party is a mosaic of conservatives, moderates, right wing wackos, and libertarians, so communities of color are not monolitic as well. The media would like you to believe that Sharpton/Jackson is the sum total of the Black community. They are not.
Posted by: WVH on January 21, 2008 08:56 PM
The problem WVH, is that you are singing to the choir. We DO realize that. The question you have to ask is why so many in the black community don't, especially in light of their history of deep faithfullness and family.
Small business has no incentive anymore..
The R's share the blame with the D's.
So I have failed with a proven concept that lost its profitability to operate anywhere but in high income area's.
I wear that failure proudly and will continue to fight for profitability thank you very much.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 21, 2008 09:17 PMYou are an idiot.
Lets go to those BBQ joints and talk about govement overhead.
Lets see what they think about it.
You represent why the Republicans will never win here for the next 10 years.You are in denial.
I am enjoying the fact that I can sit back and let an idiot like you tow my cart.
LOL LOL LOL.
Who needs a career.
LOL LOL LOL
I have nothing else better to do then let dorks like you pay for my exsistance.
The check is in the mail.
Now that is a genuine opportunity.
Thanks ragnar.
I helped run a bbq chain that sold half a million dollars worth of BBQ sandwhiches in one year.
Yet the concept was a failure.
Imagine that while you tow my cart dork....
1. It begins and ends with education. Many of all colors are so poorly educated when it comes to critical thinking skills that they are willing to follow any leader who promises to be the messiah.
Just like many young are led astray by phony idols like Britney, Madonna, name your hip hop jerk because the media plays these crazies up. So, part of it is media.
2. The Great Society programs which first destroyed the Black family and if you read Star Parker, she describes an almost crack like dependency on government programs fostered by pols that continously mine Black votes for THEIR advantage. Unfortunately, this fractured family situation is spreading throughout the society as more kids are born to single parents.
3. The lack of a middle class tends to produce more loyalty to dems. Although, many middle class Blacks are suspicious of republicans because they see "republican" and think Thurmond or Jesse Helms. This is beginning to change. Whether or not your party endorses either Huckabee or Mc Cain, there is a significant portion of the Black population that could see themselves voting for either an Evangelical or ex-military man because they see traits common to themselves. I think ultimately people have to see candidates they feel they can identify with.
4. If you know Star Parker's story, then you know that she is an ex-welfare recipient who woke-up to the fact that secular progressive policies were keeping her down.
5. The real key is the media because just as a significant number of young people get their news from the Daily Show, a significant number of Black people get their information from media that supports and is aligned with old rights leaders.
Posted by: WVH on January 21, 2008 09:36 PM" It was sold to others and remained because Bellevue can afford to eat 7 dollar sandwhich. "
" So I have failed with a proven concept that lost its profitability to operate anywhere but in high income area's. " - Publicbulldog at January 21, 2008 09:17 PM
So let's see if we have this straight: your business was in Bellevue, you failed at said business because it could only succeed in a "high income" area, but it remains in business in Bellevue because "Bellevue can afford to eat 7 dollar sandwhich".
No wonder you failed. I don't imagine being perpetually lost helped you in the trucking business either.
BTW, as one who knows first hand... the trucking business is doing GREAT. Trucks are being built (thank you, God) and sold. Hmmm, I guess not everyone fails at trucking... OR BBQ.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 21, 2008 11:05 PMYou are an ignorant man.
What you don't know will kill others.
The 3-pigs chain was started by my father.
It was a spin off from his southern BBQ chain in South Carolina during the 50's and 60's called hoof and horns which used a wood pit and had a higher labor cost because it was a traditional table service operation.
He tried to duplicate this again in Sequim in the 70's when he opened the first 3-pigs in Washington State using the same wood pit and table service operation,which ran great but failed because of a nasty divorce.Then in the early 80's my father found an electric cookshack smoker at a Seattle trade show which he put in a failed sub shop in Burien and opened what was the second 3-pigs in Washington State.
He worked out a deal with some investors to open 6 stores in the puget sound region,and opened up all 6 within a short period.most did very well until the prices went up because of government overhead to prices most people could not afford to pay anymore and the sales dropped.That is just a fact.Being from a restaraunt Family I thought I could make it work somehow.Where I failed was thinking I could run the business off of the sales which were dropping off everywhere except Bellevue.The culture of running a restaraunt was changing to a profit and loss game where you ran your business at a loss but got the money back on your taxes,Which requires more capital than what you have off of the sales.
This is why a lot of restaraunts fail.
I simply did not have the capital to play the profit and loss game.Now John the Bellevue store owner could expand if he wanted to,Or one of the family members could if they wanted to,but nobody wants to because their is no incentive.
Most of the family is out of the business having seen the light. now they could actually play the profit and loss game.I broke down on the hamster wheel having failed to manage running a small business with the proper capital to play the profit and loss game.It is nothing but a hamster wheel.You need the capital.If you don't have it,You cant do it.
I failed to have the operating capital to play the profit and loss game.
Now there was a day when you could make it work running a business by the seat of your pants,without the savings capital,But those days are long gone.I tried to put all of my knowledge on Helium.com so people could learn what took me years to find out.
Basically running a business is not a mom and pops thing anymore it is a profit and loss opportunity for the wealthy.With employee theft it can be a sure way to lose more profit than you can write off.
The Bottom line is fewer and fewer people are willing to do it anymore. Even the people that have done it all their lives are turning to other opportunities.Myself I will go back to school and get the goat skin and do something else that does not require so much savings and start up capital.
Spending my disability on civic promotions that I send to olympia ,that advocate asking for less and getting more is what I do now.
Lucky for me my brother makes 6 figures so I can do that.It beats watching springer and the price is right.
As far as Trucking you must have been hit in the head.That happens to people like you .Gas prices,maintanance,productivity make profitability at an all time low.Now the trick is to have contractors run on the hamster wheel,while the company makes all the dough.
Again not the opportunity for me, been there done that ,its a hamster wheel.
So I have run on two hamster wheels, now it is time to educate myself and move on.
Ragnar,
You are nothing more than a religious dork that will say its white if I say its black, because I don't want small business to pay for stupid moral crusades.
You will put more on the cart than the D's.Between the both of you you have ruined small Business for the Mom and Pops, and turned business into an opportunity strictly for the rich to play the profit and loss game.
That is not how it was,and not how it should be.
I am fighting a one man battle to take stuff off the cart, while the two major parties hire Bekins to put more on.
I have failed and I am failing,but I will not stop you hearing me ragmatic.
Good night.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 22, 2008 12:24 AMhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/mike-huckabees-white-sup_b_82263.html
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 22, 2008 03:17 AMYou are acting more like a Veep candidate and we should be able to get enough money for your rehab and my spa treatments. Suckers, send money to us, not Paul.
1. This is what Dog is referring to and what happens depends upon how he responds. Does he respond like Bush 41 and Obama which is:
a. Acknowledge the incident
b. Repudiate the message and messanger
c. Return any money
d. Repudiate any future support
If he doesn't he is like Paul and will be toast
The Huffington Post
Mike Huckabee's White Supremacist Links
Posted January 18, 2008 | 06:23 PM (EST)
Read More: Huckabee Confederate Flag, Huckabee Council Of Conservative Citizens, Huckabee White Supremacists, Mike Huckabee, Mike Huckabee South Carolina, Breaking Politics News
As South Carolina's Republican primary election draws nearer, Mike Huckabee has ratcheted up his appeals to the racial nationalism of white evangelicals. "You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," the former Arkansas governor told a Myrtle Beach crowd on January 17, referring to the Confederate flag. "If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole. That's what we'd do."
Making coded appeals to white racism is nothing new for Huckabee. Indeed, well before he was a nationally known political star, Huckabee nurtured a relationship with America's largest white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens. The extent of Huckabee's interaction with the racist group is unclear, but this much is known: he accepted an invitation to speak at the group's annual conference in 1993 and ultimately delivered a videotaped address that was "extremely well received by the audience."
Descended from the White Citizens Councils that battled integration in the Jim Crow South, including at Arkansas' Little Rock High School, the Council (or CofCC) has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In its "Statement of Principles," the CofCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
The CofCC has hosted several conservative Republican legislators at its conferences, including former Representative Bob Barr of Georgia and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. But mostly it has been a source of embarrassment to Republicans hoping to move their party beyond its race-baiting image. Former Reagan speechwriter and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan pithily declared that anyone involved with the CofCC "does not deserve to be in a leadership position in America."
During a lengthy phone conversation in 2006, CofCC founder and former White Citizens Council organizer Gordon Lee Baum detailed for me Huckabee's dalliances with his group. Baum told me that Huckabee eagerly accepted his invitation to speak at the CofCC's 1993 national convention in Memphis, Tennessee....
But Baum refused to remove his friend Lyons from the bill. Huckabee, who was more concerned about receiving bad publicity than by the racist underpinnings of the CofCC, withdrew his promise to speak. The CofCC replaced him this time with former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson, a White Citizens Council founder who organized the mob that rioted against the integration of Little Rock High School and later served as the star narrator of Rev. Jerry Falwell's discredited film, "The Clinton Chronicles."
In the end, Huckabee's aborted relationship with the CofCC benefited the group. "We had the biggest crowd in our history because of the publicity" surrounding Huckabee's planned appearance, Baum said of his 1994 conference.
The CofCC has since rebuked Huckabee for his insufficiently intolerant political behavior. Unfortunately, Huckabee has never rebuked the CofCC. Instead he embraced the group, ignoring its well known legacy of promoting racism and only severing ties when his political ambitions were threatened by bad publicity.
Now here is a question for the Huckabee campaign: Will you release the full transcript of Huckabee's "extremely well received" videotaped address to the CofCC?
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
2. Now, Dog, in order for you to stay on the ticket and share in the booty from suckers who donate on the web, same questions I asked your sister in the cause, Michelle:
a. Do you personally disavow David Duke and individuals like him?
b. Do you personally disavow the KKK and groups like them?
Anyone who can't answer yes to those questions is like Paul and Duke simply a bigot slug, and yes that would include Huckabee. Dog, if you can't answer yes, your lame a$$ is off the ticket and you have to fund your own rehab.
Posted by: WVH on January 22, 2008 09:46 AMThree Pigs BBQ is excellent BBQ. Thank your father for bringing such a great establishment to the Eastside. I have eaten there numerous times and the food has always been top quality.
Problem with expanding is locations with good foot/car traffic in Bellevue are hard to find. Anyway hope they stay in business for many more years.
After a certain point liberals always blow their little stacks when their beliefs are questioned.
Liberals are at their root childish, selfish people. Liberalism, which seeks to control other people attracts these types. Look at how Hillary acted last night at the Dems debate.
Any further questions?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 22, 2008 11:02 AMShe acted childish for sure, but no more than your buddy Thompson who's campaign is a lost cause. He's playing the childish 'I'm saving the party from itself' line to keep people like Ragnar from electing the true face of the party (Hukabee). Again, I doubt there's enough sensible people in the GOP to fend off the moral opportunists. Breaking News: Thompson has dropped out, guess he got wise.
I lost faith in the party in 1988 when I caucused for Reagan in my Dist. only to be outnumbered by the Robertson nutzos. They didn't have the first clue about the economy or anything else. The nutzos (much like Ragnar) turned out in force and managed to secure the caucus' in this state. The Grand Old Party has never recovered.
Unfortunately, he can't win in Nov. at the head of the ticket but should be the VP if Newt isn't available. Now, it appears there is a chance the Paulian Nutzo's marginalize the R's even more than Robertson did - I'll show up at the caucus to insure that doesn't happen.
Read somewhere that McCain and Romney are the metrosexuals - metro-republicans, while Huckabee and Thompson were the rural-republicans. Just think for a minute about the debate the R's throw on this website - they talk rural, but then vote urban - it's a clash of cultures rural vs. urban and lots of Republicans on this site are on the urban democratic side.
Posted by: Doug on January 22, 2008 11:24 AMHuckabee is a nutzo who attracts the likes of people like Ragnar. The nutzos are not the sort of people I want running my country.
Newt is out of the picture, that guy has more skeletons in his closet than Guiliani. It's one thing to be divorced, but to hand her the papers on her deathbed is just plain cold.
Huckabee is no Reagan, he's a nutzo plain and simple. Even his tax plan, while nice in theory, really only hurts the people he aims to help. That pretty much sums up his whole campaign.
You aren't in any way biased are you?
As I said the other day to a long-time friend who is an atheist, "who are you going to vote for? There isn't a single candidate except perhaps Kucinich who does not profess to be a Christian." I didn't get an answer.
I don't care for Huckabee, but it's not because he's a Christian. He's too liberal for my taste as I outlined in my first post in this thread,(#2).
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 22, 2008 12:18 PMNo, I believe those who live in their small world in which magical beings create life by blowing air from their nostrils need not be elected as President (anyone is free to run for the office regardless of their beliefs, so says the law).
I have no problems with Christianity in general. Everyone is welcome to believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth was made in 7 days, and that eating BBQ Pork is a sin. That's their personal choice. It's when that view gets endorsed and promoted by the state is when I have a problem. The people who believe that State endorsed religion is the way to save America from it's transgressions are nutzos.
Cato says at#178, "No, I believe those who live in their small world in which magical beings create life by blowing air from their nostrils need not be elected as President (anyone is free to run for the office regardless of their beliefs, so says the law).
I have no problems with Christianity in general. Everyone is welcome to believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth was made in 7 days, and that eating BBQ Pork is a sin. That's their personal choice. It's when that view gets endorsed and promoted by the state is when I have a problem. The people who believe that State endorsed religion is the way to save America from it's transgressions are nutzos."
I've asked this question before but I'll do it again in another way just for fun.
Who exactly Cato is promoting "state endorsed religion"? Yeah I know Huckabee made a stupid comment about having the Constitution reflect Christianity. That is not the same thing as state endorsed religion. I want some actual quotes from those you are so terrified of. Or I might be tempted to think you are just paranoid and make things up.
For nearly 8-years I've listened to kooks claim that Bush was going to "impose a theocracy" on the country. Of course it hasn't happened. This silly junk makes my head hurt.
True, but the man does not accept basic scientific theories that seem to conclusively prove otherwise. Thats his choice, but I refuse to vote for someone who seems to want this info taught to children in public school.
Ragnar has stated in a prior thread that he believes the Bible and the Theory of Creationism should be taught as fact in Public School classrooms. The Kansas school board once voted to redefine science to include the theory of creationism.
I do not agree with these views. Science is the examination and re-examination of measurable evidence to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It should not be hijacked by a bunch of nutzos who hold some 8,000 year old mythical creation story as evidence.
We did the Scopes Monkey Trial thing back in 1925, I like to think we as a society have evolved since then to a more rational and scientific form of thought. Science and scientific theory marches on even if Ragnar does not or cannot.
I also disagree with Ragnar's belief that the Ten Commandments should be prominently displayed inside every courtroom and schoolhouse across America. "God's Law" has a place, in church and in the home. To place religious items in these publicly funded locations would imply to me a Govt. endorsement of a particular religion.
"Who exactly Cato is promoting "state endorsed religion"?
I perhaps should have been more specific. Which political figure, exactly?
You make this referrence, in which I assume you mean Huckabee,
"True, but the man does not accept basic scientific theories that seem to conclusively prove otherwise. Thats his choice, but I refuse to vote for someone who seems to want this info taught to children in public school."
Did I say something earlier about you being paranoid, Cato?
I don't care for Huckabee but I don't think you can come up with even the tiniest bit of evidence to bolster your claim about his supposed desire to teach the Bible's version of creation in public schools. Only in your paranoid, liberal brain.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 22, 2008 03:03 PMIt truly amazes me how liberals believe that the presidency has powers far beyond what is constitutionally allowed. They love to promote the insane notion that Bush will impose a religious theocracy on the nation, or manufacture a crisis in which he can impose martial law.
Their lack of understanding about how our form of government works is tragic. I don't know what is taught about our government is schools these days.
Leftists appear to believe that the President has dictatorial powers. The Founding Fathers assured that is not possible.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 22, 2008 03:43 PMWhile I agree there are many points of view, religious ones do not belong alongside scientifically based ones. Those alternate points of view can be taught in the home by Mom & Dad or in Church by the Pastor.
I also read an article stating that he was comfortable with a display of the Ten Commandments in the White House, but I don't have a direct quote from him. Huckabee's website is not very helpful with specifics.
I am not comfortable with his faith based dementia and I will not support him in any way shape or form. Keep Ragnar, Huckabee, and the rest of the Nutzos religious myths out of the public classrooms. Thank you.
So sad, pity cato.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 22, 2008 04:23 PMSee my post above at #182 Cato. You seem to have either entirely missed my point, or to have proven it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 22, 2008 04:33 PM2. I stated before I didn't think a Theocracy was possible. It was a dumb idea that would never come to pass. My belief is that Theocracy will never see fruition but I do believe the nutzos are the future face of the GOP.
3. My whole point was that God & State should be separate. Having a Creation story taught alongside real science in Public School to me would constitute a Govt. endorsement of a specific religion.
4. You just make stuff up as you go along don't you Bill. You attributed me to some leftist conspiracy theorist back in comment 136 and never let go. If you actually bothered to read my posts I've said nothing of the sort.
" Those who pile remorseless fact on remorseless fact in the name of rational science usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless; that is their right and choice, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them? "
" For all their stated objections to the abuse of religion, these atheists seem more interested in destroying any faith that violates their own sacramental unbelief. They are quick to indict the religious for every heinous crime committed in the name of faith, but in doing so they embrace the same absolutism they condemn in the religious zealot. They ask the faithful to own every sin committed in the name of God, but they will not shoulder a solitary sin committed in the name of science or atheism. "
Show me, Cato any "stuff" I've made up. I've asked you honest questions and you dodge them time and time again. You are a good liberal, I've got to say that.
In this single statement you state I'm a biggoted leftist and think the GOP is heading towards a theocracy.
Yet I only made fun of Benny Hinn and pointed out how he was different from Al Gore. I think you have Public Bulldog and myself confused.
Maybe you are right, Cato. I give up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 22, 2008 05:17 PM