This is a Rep primary contest. Moderates and independents for the most part sit the primaries out. The base votes.

Rudy knew he's a loser with social conservatives in Iowa. They control who wins in their state. The point is to ensure a Romney loss. Romney lost votes overall in the debate imo. Whether it's Huckabbee or Thompson who wins round #1 doesn't matter as long as Romney loses. Social conservatives wouldn't vote for Rudy unless they had to.

If Romney loses then the aura that he may be the Rep's one trick pony in the primaries is broken.

I still say the primary is a Romney vs Rudy rumble. The only thing the other outliers are good for is to keep some Rep issues alive.




The Economist does have a leftist tilt. The only people who don't recognize it are lefties or the economic tourist. It's not as bad as BusinessWeek, but it's a given. That doesn't mean either is not worth reading.

And jyl consistently views politics objectively around here. That may not appeal to the leftie or rightie or better still he may disturb either side. Going after him in a desperate attempt to derail him overall is a waste of time.

The Bush haters should consider that their energy might be more productive if they can make issue with the 100,000 US deaths per year caused by hospital contamination. Before I get slammed for that the Center for Disease Control posts those numbers.

;)

afai know anyone can sneak on to this "professional" offer :D





You received this e-mail because you are signed-up to receive
information from BusinessWeek.
************************************************** **********************

BusinessWeek Professional Discount Offer

Cover Price: $129.74
Discount: -$109.74
YOUR RATE: $20.00
GET 4 FREE TRIAL ISSUES AND SAVE 84% OFF THE COVER PRICE!

You're invited to take advantage of this Professional Discount Offer.
For a limited time only, get 26 issues of BusinessWeek for only $20.00.
That's 84% off the cover price!

Visit http://bwso.businessweek.com/c.asp?683996&7636b1f0be6da13b&1
to subscribe.

SUBSCRIPTION BENEFITS
26 issues of BusinessWeek including these special issues*:
BW 50
Future of Technology
Best Global Brands
Hot Growth Companies
Retirement Guide
Mutual Fund Report
Investment Outlook

All for just $20.00!

Visit http://bwso.businessweek.com/c.asp?683996&7636b1f0be6da13b&1
to subscribe.

* You will receive 4 out of the 7 issues listed above depending on your subscription start date.

************************************************** **************************
If you would prefer not to receive e-mail from BusinessWeek in the future,
simply visit our preference page
http://bwso.businessweek.com/r/bwo_o.asp?g=1&id=683996&c=7636b1f0be6da13b&t=t
and make the appropriate selections.

If you need other assistance, please contact Customer Service or contact:

Wanda Cooper
BusinessWeek Customer Service
Communications Data Services
1995 G Avenue
Red Oak, IA 51566
Phone: 1-800-635-1200

View our corporate privacy policy at http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/privacy.html
To learn more about how BusinessWeek Online applies this policy,
you can contact mailto:Courtney_Martens@businessweek.com

Copyright 2007, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use: http://www.businessweek.com/copyrt.htm
Privacy Notice: http://www.businessweek.com/privacy.htm

I've been adamantly against this fiasco from the beginning, but have no doubt that things are "trending positive" with additional troops in Baghdad. If we sent a couple of hundred thousand more, we could probably REALLY get control of the whole country. IMO, the situation had gotten so bad the past couple of years that "trending positive" was inevitable, but still a far cry from "winning" (which I simply do not believe is possible). No matter what happens while our military is occupying Iraq, the true test is when we leave, and what happens next. I have no doubt that some form of government that will be sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists will remain, and will be much more aligned with their brethren in Iran than with the US. I hope I'm wrong on this one...

Desperate? Derail? I simply disagree with his opinion, which was backed up and/or formed by the "Economist", which imo has a slanted view, which you yourself said in the above post. Is it really objectivity if your source isn't objective?

We're arguing over semantics. He says .02% is miniscule and I say $2 billion is a lot - who could argue with either? My point is it's a trend that will soon follow our manufacturing numbers- is it really that hard to believe that will happen? We laughed when they rolled the little Hondas off the boats in the 60s. Look at us now. We need to be aware of it and stop it before it goes that far again. I wouldn't belittle a candidate who wants to do just that. Will he actually do it once in office? Whole different debate.

Back to the topic - Guilliani is just not credible anymore and imo. There's just too much sewage swirling around him. I would really like to have a less questionable candidate. Frankly, he looks like a liar to me.

If you disagree with our policy - you're a communist.

;)

Moderates and independents generally sit the primaries out.

Not in every case. Here in AZ, a registered Independent can vote in primaries, but only for one party's lineup. Kind of levels the playing field.

Granted that when you've dug yourself a 10 foot hole, being only 9 feet deep is "trending positive" from being 10 feet deep

Dottore is definitely NOT a communist.

He is obviously a traitor and giving aid to the enemy.<G>

Someone has to say it!!!!!!

(I could get to enjoy the logic of labelling!!)

Vote Rammstein. You know I'm better than anybody from either party. :D

And I have charisma, coming right out the yin yang!

You will henceforth be known as "Moneyguy the labelerer" if you keep that up...

I would then be a member of a most august group!!

Hey...it would simplify my outlook on life!!

Anton Szandor Lavey has a better chance of becoming President than any of these Republican jokers. He's probably got better morals than most of them too

The Economist has that reputation because, like the New Yorker, it USED to be that way. These days it is blatantly anti-American bombast, which would be tolerable were it supported by data, but it's just a collection of rants, a pastiche of its former self.

Resume the discussion, I'll see you in eleven months.

As a subscriber for the past few decades, this change is in editorial direction is clear. Perhaps research showed that it would and did increase their circulation.

Can anybody recommend any other newsweeklies that are still unbiased?

I missed this before because I was paying too much attention to your other points. If you want to be inflammatory, at least make sense. How is getting back our economy isolationism? That kind of logic is best left for TV and the debates where one candidate will take a pot shot at another hoping the American audience is too gullible to see the truth.

Trying to win votes by making people afraid that we import a miniscule part (0.2%) of our food from a foreign country is fear-mongering. Fear-mongering about global trade is isolationist. "Getting back our economy" is a silly slogan.

Welcome to politics. The candidates aren't going to win by saying everything is peachy. Exaggeration is common and in the scheme of things, rallying for the cause of self sufficiency is pretty tame. Would you prefer a candidate who screams WMD?

I really feel that you are way off on this, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

The Economist does have a certain point of view. It favors free markets, competition, global trade, and democratic political systems.

The magazine has no particular POV about religion or other "family values" issues, although it is interested in the political and cultural implications of these issues. It does not particularly favor Democrats or Republicans, but does report the political winds in the USA, including whether they are shifting to one party or the other.

On the Iraq war, the magazine supported President Bush and the invasion, has reported on the positives and negatives of the situation, and currently takes the view that the situation is not good but that the US must persevere; the editors supported the "surge".

The Economist does appear to have an anti-gun rights view, alas.

I have not found that the Economist has become meaningfully more liberal in recent years, although I can see that its reporting of the recent headwinds faced by the Republican party could make some people think that.

In any event, I am not that interested in the Economist's liberal or conservative leanings. The magazine has the most intelligent, factual, and thorough reporting of global economic topics that I have found in any English-language periodical - at least, any that I can read without being put to sleep. Foreign Affairs magazine puts me to sleep. Its coverage is far higher quality than Time, Newsweek, etc. It does not suffer from the persistently optimistic outlook of BusinessWeek.

Anyway, that is my take on the Economist. YMMV but it is worth a read if you haven't sampled this news source before.

Now why would you say that?

Is it because I think the POTUS shouldn't ask God to make foreign policy decisions for him? Help me out here Moneyguy.

Finally, my personal take on the candidates, just because I am in a posting mood.

Guiliani - I find him rather scary, frankly. I think he'd like to be Vladmir Putin. I don't see how a New Yorker with a long record of supporting gay rights, abortion rights, and gun control can be a good fit for Republican primary voters. If he is struggling in Iowa, what's it going to be like in the South?

Romney - I think he is a smart, thoughtful, analytical guy. His sudden conversion to a pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-mandatory health insurance platform - all things he actively opposed while governor of MA - is almost laughable. Regardless, I could vote for him. Being a Mormon appears to be a problem in the primaries.

Huckabee - a folksy common-man sort of image, and blatantly Christian. Otherwise, appears to have the standard populist schtick. Less qualified to be President than was George W.

Thompson - an accomplished actor.

McCain - I admire his courage, conviction, and independent stands. And his service. Not sure he knows how to play with others, and has little support in his own party. Probably should be running on a third-party ticket.

Obama - I think he is a shrewd guy and an excellent communicator. I don't know what he thinks about issues I care about - so far, he's been talking to the Democratic primary base, not so much to me. Experience is rather thin.

Edwards - see "Obama".

Clinton - this is a tough one. I agree with enough of her policy views, not all of them but I'm never going to get 100%. I think she is smart, tough, tenacious, calculating, controlled, and merciless - traits I would like in a President. I also think she is somewhat less liberal than she is letting on, but so far she is playing to the Democratic base. The thing that makes it tough is, something about her rubs me the wrong way, and I am still trying to figure out if it is her or me.

If the election came down to Romney vs Clinton, I would be quite torn.

(I am a registered Democrat who voted for Reagan and carries both ACLU and NRA cards. My position on moral and religious issues is that they are none of the government's business. I think the US military should be substantially larger, that we should be building both nuclear plants and wind/solar farms, and that the answer to foreign economic competition is to win.)