I heart Huckabee...

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I think there are an AWFUL lot of stupid people out there and that America at this point really would be stupid enough to elect Hillary. Keep in mind that this is a nation addicted to "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars". Your average moron out there is going to go for CHARISMA, not for content. Hate to say it, but Hillary is quickly re-inventing herself to be a candidate that has the superficial appeal to get elected.

Oh God. Now I'm getting depressed. We're going from WWE Bush voters to DWtheS Hillary voters? I'm with George Clooney - I'm moving to Canada.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

this video really brings it home.

That pretty much sums it up. More depressed! Getting angry!!

[Jeff Higgins]

This election would be a slam dunk for the Democrats if they would simply come up with a "real" candidate. Some one they would run against strong Republican opposition. They have chosen instead to put up one of their darlings, who may just barely have a chance when the Republicans are at their lowest. Why would they do that? Why would they risk it? This election is theirs for the taking. Or theirs for the losing. What kind of sway does Hillary have within the Democratic Party to essentially force their hand like this? She is by far the highest risk Presidential candidate of my lifetime. She is simply far too polarizing. Why do they put her ahead of the good of the party? I don't understand it.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Why did the Republicans do the same thing with Bush?

Style over substance.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

This election would be a slam dunk for the Democrats if they would simply come up with a "real" candidate. Some one they would run against strong Republican opposition. They have chosen instead to put up one of their darlings, who may just barely have a chance when the Republicans are at their lowest. Why would they do that? Why would they risk it? This election is theirs for the taking. Or theirs for the losing. What kind of sway does Hillary have within the Democratic Party to essentially force their hand like this? She is by far the highest risk Presidential candidate of my lifetime. She is simply far too polarizing. Why do they put her ahead of the good of the party? I don't understand it.

Why? You know the answer. The Clintons run the DNC and they want power back. To the Clintons, the only thing in the world that matters is what's good for them. Now, they can't control the primary voters and legally they can't let the DNC appear to be supporting Hillary. But they've done an amazing job of keeping everyone but Hillary and Barack in second tier status. Edwards sure has helped here too. Why interefere when your foe is committing suicide? It's not like the wise old men get together and decide who the nomiee is gonna be. When I worked at the RNC, we were always accused of helping out Bob Dole in the primaries. But those phone calls stopped when Pat Buchanan won the NH primary. However, the day after Dole had the delegates locked up, his campaign folks came in kicked everyone at the RNC out of their plum offices and they took over the whole show from there. If Hillary wins the primary, she will have done it fair and square. If Obama wins it, he will have won it even more fair and square.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Why did the Republicans do the same thing with Bush?

Style over substance.

Wrong. Bush won the primaries fair and square too. McCain never had any real support among the GOP base. In fact, a lot of his primary voters were Dems who voted in the GOP primary because they thought McCain would be the weaker candidate in the general, precisely because he had no GOP base support.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

This election would be a slam dunk for the Democrats if they would simply come up with a "real" candidate. Some one they would run against strong Republican opposition. They have chosen instead to put up one of their darlings, who may just barely have a chance when the Republicans are at their lowest. Why would they do that? Why would they risk it? This election is theirs for the taking. Or theirs for the losing. What kind of sway does Hillary have within the Democratic Party to essentially force their hand like this? She is by far the highest risk Presidential candidate of my lifetime. She is simply far too polarizing. Why do they put her ahead of the good of the party? I don't understand it.

Gore.

[RoninLB]

good thread


Huckabee beats Romney in contest #1.

Rudy's just a background to ensure a Romney loss. Rudy is coming off as a hard assed Ny'er or as a prosecutor addressing a judge? Other outliers also add to Romney looking like a ass.

Now is only a beauty contest. The real action starts later against Hillary.

I read that Romney & Rudy are using different strategies for a primary win. They are the main players.

all above a rant

[jyl]

I've read a bit about Huckabee, and it makes me wonder how much substance his policy positions have.

Here is an article that is available online. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10179986&CFID=2035848&CFTOKEN=b8a6802c3fd08c12-8E544AFF-B27C-BB00-01275A0F280469B9

Basically, it seems to me that Republicans are so unhappy with the choices they have, that they go rushing around trying to find someone new to save them. Remember when all the Republicans on this board were gaga over Fred Thompson? He got a pop in the polls, 15 minutes later he is languishing somewhere in 4 or 5 or 6th place. I guess Ron Paul will have his 15 minutes of fame soon. Mike Huckabee's 15 minutes is now.

Here is an excerpt from the article, but I can't post the whole thing, it is longish.

Take trade. Mr Huckabee calls himself a free-trader, but on the stump he does not sound like one. He rouses nativist crowds by fretting that America cannot be secure unless it is self-sufficient in food, energy and military hardware. “I don't want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia,” he says. “There is so much foolishness in that one sentence it is hard to unpack,” comments Rich Lowry, a conservative columnist. America hardly imports any food from China. Mr Huckabee's promise of energy independence within 10 years is impossible. And cheap imports benefit precisely the cash-strapped folk Mr Huckabee purports to champion.

Mr Huckabee's tax plan is as radical as it is ill-thought out. To achieve a populist goal—abolishing income tax—he proposes a federal sales tax. To make up for lost revenue, it would have to be a stiff one, and levied on practically everything. Mr Huckabee says a rate of 23% would suffice, but this is a sleight of hand. Calculated the way sales taxes usually are, the rate would have to be at least 30% and possibly much higher. This would be horribly regressive. Mr Huckabee says he can solve that problem by giving monthly rebate cheques to those who need them. But to track Americans' income month by month would require a bureaucracy nearly as intrusive as the one Mr Huckabee hopes to abolish by repealing the income tax. The plan is a non-starter.

On green issues, he is all mood and little substance. He says God wants us to look after the earth, and touts his own use of a flex-fuel car. But he has no serious plan to reduce greenhouse gases. A carbon tax, he claims, sounds too much like a tax. And a cap-and-trade system sounds “a bit like buying indulgences from the ancient church,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

Mr Huckabee's ideas on health care are considerably sounder, and he sells them deftly. He understands that costs are out of control. “We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot,” he says. He warns, wisely, of the looming budgetary calamity when baby-boomers start claiming Medicare (public health care for the elderly). Or as he puts it: when “all the old hippies find out that they get free drugs.” He touts the benefits of prevention, citing his own life-saving weight loss as an example.

Overall, though, Mr Huckabee is a less rounded candidate than his chief rivals. He has little or no experience of foreign policy. His support among self-described moderate Republican voters in Iowa is negligible. He was not a bad governor of Arkansas—he fixed up the state's roads and schools. But his success was hardly as dramatic as Mr Giuliani's in New York, nor has he anything like Mr Romney's breadth of executive experience. The website for the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based think-tank, lists the various candidates' positions on a range of foreign-policy areas: on an embarrassing number of them, including defence, North Korea, Africa and India, Mr Huckabee's position is listed as “unknown”.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by jyl

“There is so much foolishness in that one sentence it is hard to unpack,” comments Rich Lowry, a conservative columnist. America hardly imports any food from China. ”.[/i]

"America hardly imports any food from China."

?????????????????

I'll use Rich's own words against him - There is so much foolishness in that one sentence it is hard to unpack. It's so false that it negates any truth he might have to offer elsewhere and it places him in one of two catagories: Moron or Liar. Where do they get these guys?

As far as Huckabee - I know a little about him. The pundits have their favorites (Mr Lowery seems to like Gulliani) and they will try to swing the vote despite their vehement assertions that they are impartial.

In other words - don't believe everything you read.

Also, just because a concept may lack practical application right here and now, should we give up on the ideal? It sounds like Mr Lowery feels we should just roll over and give up. I'm with Huckabee or anyone else that is looking for ways to gain independance from foriegn oil, imports, and labor.

I agree with Len - Romney is eye candy pandering to the audience. I would add that he makes Kerry look like a flip-flopping amateur.

While I'm not wild about the selection, I'm happier now than I have been for the last 8 years. Maybe with the exception of Romney, I would be okay with any of them as Prez. Certainly more so than anything the Dems are offering. I agree with Jeff that it's amazing that the Dems could screw this up. Bush lobbed it over the plate for them, and The Dems blinked by playing Hillary. UNbelievable!

[jyl]

The US does, in fact, import only a miniscule part of its food from China. If you disagree, do the research and report back. You'll see.

The Economist is a British news magazine, the best and most thoughtful news weekly in the world (in English). It has no particular bias for or against the Democrats or the Republicans, and has been tough on Giuliani too.

[techweenie]

The worst Democratic candidate rates higher than 6 of the Republicans IMO.

Huckabee is expert at seeming sincere. He appears to me to be the only likely Christian in a party where that seems to be the most important criterion. Ron Paul is the only one who has positions that touch reality on a consistent basis.

The RNC and DNC control "debates" in a way that's far more constricting than when the League of Women Voters conducted real debates.

As a consequence, the party-approved front runners get more time to talk. Use your stopwatch to see how long it was before Ron Paul was able to answer a question in the last debate. Same thing happens to Biden in the Democratic 'debates.'

Can't say anyone is overwhelmingly impressive on the Democratic side, but at least none of them are timidly struggling to support the most disastrous foreign and domestic economic policies in history.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by jyl

The US does, in fact, import only a miniscule part of its food from China. If you disagree, do the research and report back. You'll see.

I did the research. You may want to follow your own advice. One could look at it as a percentage of the total, which might indicate a "miniscule" amount to some. Miniscule is a subjective term and I'll cut you some slack on that. But to say America imports "hardly any" is totally false. A lot of fish, poultry, beef, mushrooms, and fruit juice is from China. Not to mention food additives such as wheat gluten and ascorbic acid, of which 80% of the worlds supply comes from China. All told, it's about $2 billion in Chinese imports this year. Anyone with common sense has to wonder what the number will be in 2008? I wager quite a bit higher. If we keep burying our heads in the dirt, in 10 years it will be as hard to find food from the U.S. as it is a shirt. The fact that much of these Chinese goods are tainted adds insult to injury.

We can turn a blind eye to these and other issues, but imo, that's how we got where we are. I believe we can do better and it has to start somewhere. Making excuses and poo-pooing efforts to fix the problem will not fix the problem.

The "Economist" along with most other "news" entities have an agenda and are best viewed as entertainment. There are those that swear Fox news is a reputable news source to this day.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Ron Paul is the only one who has positions that touch reality on a consistent basis.

Please tell me your kidding. Unless, of course, by touching reality you mean going back to the Gold Standard, abolishing the Federal Reserve, abolishing the Dept of Education, pulling out of the U.N., etc., etc. That guy is a crackpot. As soon as he gets flushed from the Republican party he'll crawl out from under the Libertarian rock.

[ianc]

I dunno. I really think a lot of people equate "Republican" with "Bush" and "War on Iraq". People gave the (R) party a chance in 2004 and from what I can tell, feel like they were swindled with "four more years" of the same old B.S., double-speak, deceit and incompetence.

Haha! As if the first four years weren't enough? Anyone with enough wit to tie their own shoes could see the man was earth-shatteringly incompetent, yet what did they do? They voted his dumb ass in again.

Like you said, there's a lot of stupid people out there, and that won't change, so brace yourself for the worst in 2008.

ianc

[the]

One thing, the Rep race does seem wide open.

I thought the funniest moment of the debate was when Rudy tried to slam Romney with "Romney isn't tough on immigration . . . HE HIRED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO WORK AT HIS MANSION!!!!!"

Which actually did sound kinda bad, it was said in a way that suggested he hired illegal immigrants as house staff members or something.

Then when Romney pointed out that all he did was hire a company to do work on his house, and that company sent workers who turned out to be illegal, Rudy really was caught flat-footed. Very awkward for him, he had no response, and it made Rudy look bad.

Romney - I thought he did pretty well. He does come across as a moderate, reasonable, level-headed guy, IMO. And he looks right out of central casting (which is a double edged sword, IMO). I still think the Mormon thing is going to kill his chances - that's just the way the country is at this point.

McCain - This guy doesn't even seem like he wants to be there anymore.

Fred Thompson - He does seem folksy and likeable, but he seems dead in the water.

Rudy - I thought he was the front runner after getting Pat Robertson's endorsement. He didn't seem to do great in the debate, to me. He seemed overly defensive at times. I don't know how strong a candidate he is going to be in the primaries.

Ron Paul - Doesn't present himself well, he has no chance.

Huckabee - I thought he did pretty well. I hadn't paid much attention to him. But after the debate and looking at his background, I think he would easily beat Hillary. Southern governor, that's good (no record in congress). Seems very moderate, against Hillary, that's good. Good, calm, well-prepared debater.

[jyl]

The total value of food sales in the US, retail plus grocery, is over $1 trillion dollars. So your $2 billion of imports from China is a whopping 0.2% of the US food market. Very impressive. Do you really have the slightest doubt that food imports from China are a "miniscule" portion of US food consumption?

Maybe Huckabee thinks that for the US to import even 0.2% of its food from China is too much. Or that 1% (a 5X increase from today) would be too much? Perhaps he should come right out and say what other US imports he wants to cut off. Perhaps he should say plainly that he is an isolationist.

Originally Posted by SLO-BOB

I did the research. You may want to follow your own advice. One could look at it as a percentage of the total, which might indicate a "miniscule" amount to some. Miniscule is a subjective term and I'll cut you some slack on that. But to say America imports "hardly any" is totally false. A lot of fish, poultry, beef, mushrooms, and fruit juice is from China. Not to mention food additives such as wheat gluten and ascorbic acid, of which 80% of the worlds supply comes from China. All told, it's about $2 billion in Chinese imports this year. Anyone with common sense has to wonder what the number will be in 2008? I wager quite a bit higher. If we keep burying our heads in the dirt, in 10 years it will be as hard to find food from the U.S. as it is a shirt. The fact that much of these Chinese goods are tainted adds insult to injury.

We can turn a blind eye to these and other issues, but imo, that's how we got where we are. I believe we can do better and it has to start somewhere. Making excuses and poo-pooing efforts to fix the problem will not fix the problem.

The "Economist" along with most other "news" entities have an agenda and are best viewed as entertainment. There are those that swear Fox news is a reputable news source to this day.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Can't say anyone is overwhelmingly impressive on the Democratic side, but at least none of them are timidly struggling to support the most disastrous foreign and domestic economic policies in history.

In your opinion, are things trending positive in Iraq?
(Hint: Even John Murtha is changing his tune since returning from Iraq last week)

Or are you, to paraphrase Hillary, performing a willing suspension of disbelief and sticking with the narrative that Iraq is lost?

For you BDS-deranged, have you ever questioned your morality for rooting against a free, peaceful, prosperous Iraq just to see your political opponents get a bloody nose? Seems like a high price for millions to pay to satisfy your ego...

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by SLO-BOB

The "Economist" along with most other "news" entities have an agenda and are best viewed as entertainment. There are those that swear Fox news is a reputable news source to this day.

"The Economist" has blatantly moved to the left in the past few years. Fox News, to their credit, admit their bias.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Rearden

"The Economist" has blatantly moved to the left in the past few years. Fox News, to their credit, admit their bias.

The Economist has hardly moved to the left. It has become increasingly critical of the current US administration. But that is not moving to the left. That is just good common sense.