BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton

Subject: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:01 PM

And what isn't good news for Dems--McCain pulled in the moderates, Latinos, and seniors. Romney the social conservatives. Guiliani & Huckbee may well drop out at this point.

So, Clinton, then Obama, then Edwards--who managed to pull around 15% of the vote--about as well as he does when he actually campaigns in a state. Mebbe he should just run them TV ads, and stay home in Raleigh.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:18 PM

McCain isn't just bad news for America. What is the chance of survival for the rest of the world if he'd the commander-in-chief?

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:28 PM

Shudder to think, eh?

And you can't write off the Florida results, which dwarf SC by comparison. Roughly a million & a half people voted in the Democratic primary in Florida today. And that was AFTER they were told their votes wouldn't count for squat.

Clinton 50%, Obama 33%, Edwards 15%.

No waxing poetic from the peanut gallery on it being A Brand New Day?

I'm telling you--it is going to be a Clinton-McCain race in November. So whatcha gonna do, whatcha really gonna do?

Me, I'll be ridin' the Wavy Gravy Train.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: MarkS
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:38 PM

"McCain isn't just bad news for America. What is the chance of survival for the rest of the world if he'd the commander-in-chief?"

For the rest of the world chances of survival ought to be better. Should he be elected, he will be the last president since JFK who has seen war up close and personal.

Probably take military action reeeeel seriously. It won't be an abstraction.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:44 PM

And as I recall, JFK was ready to nuke Cuba & the Soviets.

McCain as me C in C? No, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:49 PM

I honestly don't KNOW what I'm going to do since moving out country isn't really an option for me or millions of other people.

Ya think prayer would help? I rather doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:02 PM

McCain is not an idiot, and he is not (unless I learn otherwise) in any big money pockets yet.

But I am not persuaded you've seen the belwether, yet.

Florida has a LOT of old fogies who don't hear the word on change. They voted for Gary Hart and George Dukakis, too...


There's several quarters yet to play.


A

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:38 PM

The vote split in Florida is much more representative of what may be expected in the primaries and caucuses on the Fifth than South Carolina, especially on the Democratic side. Whether the other southern states with a large black vote will follow the SC lead is a question mark, but overall, the balance favors Clinton.

On the Republican side, looks like Romney will be in for the long haul. I dunno if McCain will stay strong or fade. I am afraid Huckabee will pull votes in the bible belt. Goodbye to Giuliani, no loss to the campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:16 AM

It is indeed not good news for the Democrats that McCain won. He always was the strongest Republican to face in the fall.   And the Republican nomination is now his. There is nothing Romney can do--especially with Giuliani endorsing him tomorrow. Any of the others would have been a cakewalk--they're all so far off the charts for even some Republicans, let alone the other voters.

This makes it clear that in order to win in the fall, the Democrats must be unified, and be able to attract independents and--yes--even Republicans.

Of the front-runners, one candidate has poisoned the well she plans to drink out of in the fall, will get precisely zero Republican votes, and very few independents. Her campaign has specialized in ethnic division--between Democrats, yet. She carries huge baggage from the 1960's -- (and has been foolish enough to hand McCain a wonderful reference to the 1960's--the proposed Woodstock museum.) And has even more baggage from the 1990's--which people are reminded of every time they see her husband, who campaigns with her.

The other believes in the "big tent"--the best possible approach to winning elections. He is a strong liberal--believing in the importance of preserving Roe v Wade, pulling troops out of Iraq, universal health care--which will not be achieved by a magic wand, environmental issues, etc. He has a soaring vision for the future, and has inspired huge numbers of young people. He also has absolutely no baggage from the 1990's. And his presence reminds people of the good things which were accomplished in the early 1960's--and in a way can be seen as the fruition of the good developments of the early 1960's. He has a wonderful wit, great ideas, and is smart as a whip. He can make the US respected for social progress--on a whole range of issues--rather than loathed for abuse of power.

It could not be clearer who has the best chance in the fall election against McCain.

And I suspect the Democrats will see this more and more.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:17 AM

"better chance"

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:53 AM

Isn't this the home of the Sour Cynics Club? Who would like to be first? Don't be shy.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: MarkS
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:41 AM

"And as I recall, JFK was ready to nuke Cuba & the Soviets."

I seem to recall some rather serious provocation in that affair.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 06:56 AM

Another out of touch old man who sleeps through cabinet meetings. sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:33 AM

There is absolutely no reason for despair. McCain will be able to appeal to moderates on a wide variety of issues, and may get some independent votes, though he will get none from any voters strongly against the war.

However since he will be appealing to moderates and independents, it is absolutely vital that the Democrats have a "big tent", and make a vigorous and credible attempt to appeal to independents and others, as well as shunning any ethnically divisive approach within the Democratic party.

Obama embodies the perfect candidate to do this. Hillary is emphatically the wrong one, as she has proven untold numbers of times already in the campaign.

Obviously McCain will be emphasizing national security issues and "experience". But Hillary's "experience" is a house of cards against that of McCain. Obviously Obama's lack of experience would be a liability in such a campaign, but Hillary does not have one iota more of credible experience in a contest against McCain.

Therefore the best approach by far for the Democrats is to make the election about "change" and the necessity for the US to put vicious partisanship--which has stymied the country for so long-- behind us in order to accomplish the huge number of tasks which face us.

The bogeyman of al-Qaeda in Iraq can be pointed out as just that--a bogeyman. At this point, since al-Qaeda has alienated all factions in Iraq, there is no chance that it can take over in Iraq. This will neutralize McCain's strong suit, to a large degree.

With Obama the election against McCain should be a Democratic victory. With Hillary it is likely to be a loss.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:53 AM

I just heard on the radio that Romney spent 5 times what McCain spent, and that McCain hadn't been in FL much--even closed all his FL offices & didn't reopen them until Jan 20th because he was so short on money.

Romney apparently is blowing through his kids' inheritance pretty well. If Guiliani throws his votes to McCain I don't think it will much matter though. McCain/Guiliani voters aren't the same voters as the Romney/Huckabee voters.

I honestly expected to see a lot more politico endorsements from prominent Dems for Obama this week. Uncle Teddy is pretty much it. Daschle was campaigning in MN yesterday for Obama--there aren't any prominent MN Dems who are doing so at this point. Edwards was in MN last night. It seems the only prominent Dems who have endorsed Obama are those who are electorally safe, or like Daschle and Caroline Kennedy, not seeking public office.

Our weasel governor of MN is a McCain campaign co-chair. And we'll be waving to y'all while we're storming the castle come convention time here in beeeeeaaaauuuuuful downtown St Paul. It is a balmy 14 below zero this morning, with a toasty 34 below wind chill. We're still pretty gung ho FOR global warming around here.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 08:23 AM

It would be funny if he puts a recording system in the oval office like Nixon did, and twenty years later, when the Freedom of Information Act releases the tapes, all you can hear is snoring.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 08:51 AM

And his trophy wife shows cleavage!

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 09:36 AM

I'd druther by far have McCain than ANY of the other Republicans. Frankly, I don't see how he stomachs the GOP anymore, after what Rove & Co. did to him in 2000.

Depending upon who he's matched against I could seriously consider voting for McCain. If it came down to McCain/Clinton it would be no contest; a McCain/Obama ticket would be a no brainer as well.

And if you DO know history, you'll remember that JFK had reason for the Cuban Missile Crisis and that he inherited the Bay of Pigs fiasco from Eisenhower/Nixon. "The Russians tried, the Russians failed/Right back home those missiles sailed..." as Phil Ochs wrote.

Still, having lived through it I also agree with Phil that I would much rather have been someplace else.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:07 AM

'"And as I recall, JFK was ready to nuke Cuba & the Soviets."

I seem to recall some rather serious provocation in that affair.'

That was one of the few successes the CIA ever had. Reporting that the USSR was not prepared for war. That's why the 'bluff' worked. The CIA then went on to screw up at the Bay of Pigs. Sigh . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:11 AM

Regardless of which Republican wins where, there is no way America will elect a Republican president this time 'round. Won't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:19 AM

Roughly a million & a half people voted in the Democratic primary in Florida today. And that was AFTER they were told their votes wouldn't count for squat.

The presidential primary wasn't the only thing on the ballot. There was also an important property tax proposal regarding increasing the homestead exemption for homeowners. The tax proposal alone would have been enough to get most of those 1.5 million Dems to vote. Voting for a presidenttial candidate, even if it turns out to have been a meaningless gesture, only entailed one additional pencil mark. If voting had been for presidential candidtate alone, who knows how many wouldn't have bothered?

Also, there's a good possibility that the stripping of Florida's delegates will wind up being, essentially, a bluff. If someone at the convention makes a motion that the Florida delegation be seated and the motion is approved by a majority of delegates, it will happen. The national Democratic leadership will play tough right up to the point where it's obvious that continuing to do so is only going to push pissed of Democrats into voting Republican. Once that point is reached, they'll back down and make nice.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:09 PM

Florida and Michigan are too important (18,000,000 citizens in Florida). The national Democratic leadership will have to back down, or, as Bee-... says, increase the Republican vote in these and other key states. Florida probably will vote Republican, but Clinton has the best chance of changing that.

Clinton was the obvious choice, just as McCain was the obvious choice for Republicans (was support from Crist essential?- dunno).

Hispanics (Cuban segment large in this case, the vote not representative of Hispanic preferences elsewhere), some 20%, supported Clinton 2-1 and on the Republican side, preferred McCain.
The Hispanic vote is more important than numbers indicate, since they own 17% of businesses, including a couple of large banks).
The black Demo vote was 70% for Obama, echoing SC, but their numbers (15%) and economic power (own only 6.6% of businesses) are too small to be reflected in any but a close vote.

The Florida tax cut proposal passed overwhelmingly, despite opposition from teachers, firefighters, and some economic groups (seventy percent home ownership in the State).
The 'portability' provision, allowing home owners to transfer the saving to a new house, is under attack, and a suit has been brought.

Miami Herald
Demographic information from US Census Bureau.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 09:04 PM

The local reasoning voters got off their behinds and went to vote are important, but they didn't have to vote in the Dem prez primary if they didn't want to. I think the turn out for their primary was, on the national level, intended to send a little message to the DNC, and well it should.

What's the difference between being told your vote doesn't count by the US Supreme Court and being told your vote doesn't county by the Democratic National Committee?

Answer: none.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 09:38 PM

I agree, Guest. In fact, I voted for Obama but didn't vote on the property tax issue.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:54 PM

Peace -- "there is no way America will elect a Republican president this time 'round."

Sorry, but with Edwards out, they will. A black man or a Clinton have NO chance here. Wish it was otherwise, but it ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:27 PM

I don't buy the idea that there was serious provocation in Cuba. I don't buy the idea that there was ANY provocation on the part of Russia or Cuba.

The USA had already financed and set up an invasion of Cuba. It was defeated. That's provocation.

The USA had already embargo'd Cuba. That's provocation.

The USA had sent operatives into Cuba to assassinate Castro and blow things up and destabilize the country. That's provocation.

The USA had repeatedly violated Cuban and Russian airspace with internationally illegal U2 spy flights over their territory. That's provocation.

Had any country in the world dared to do any of the above things to the USA, it would have meant war. Immediate war. the USA, however, feels free to do those things to other countries any time it wants to, apparently. THAT's provocation! It provokes the entire world.

For the Russians to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, a Russian ally, was a perfectly legal procedure. The USA has never been shy about placing nuclear missiles in its allies to encircle Russia. They had such missiles in Turkey, very close to Russia, ready to hit Russia at any time.

For the Russians to put missiles in Cuba was simply a perfectly normal chesslike countermove to achieve some sort of parity with the USA in early strike ability. That the USA could not tolerate, because the game is not played by Washington in a spirit of balance or fairness, or parity, it is played in order to maintain total dominance. Washington believes implicity that it is "good" and its enemies are "evil". Such primitive thinking can justify anything, including launching unprovoked invasions on sovereign nations and flying spy planes over other sovereign nations and bombing them. The USA, however, does not normally permit anyone else to do those things...except Israel and the UK, who are its allies, and who usually act in concert with the USA.

Thus it was not apparently not okay for the Russians to legally arm an ally of theirs who was positioned near the USA, although the USA feels fully justified in arming any of its allies who are close to Russia...and in any manner.

Russia's major diplomatic and psychological error at the time was this: They kept it secret. They at first pretended that they had not put offensively-capable nuclear missile weapons in Cuba. They should have been totally open about it! They should have said, "Yes, of course we are putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Why shouldn't we? Cuba is our ally, and we have a right to arm any of our allies, just as you arm your allies. They've asked for the missiles. You've already staged one invasion attempt upon them, and they have a right to arm themselves as they see fit in order to prevent another. It is 100% legal for us to arm any ally of ours exactly as we choose to, just as you arm your Allies...such as Turkey for instance...with missiles which are aimed at us. We are doing it, it's totally legal for us to do it, and you have nothing whatever to say about it. If you don't like it, however, perhaps you would then be willing to negotiate removing some of your missiles which are quite near our borders?"

And that's exactly what was done. Kennedy secretly agreed to take the American missiles out of Turkey if the Russians took their missiles out of Cuba. That was the deal. It was kept secret in the western media at the time so that it could look like the Russians "lost" and thus make Kennedy look like a winner over the "evil" Soviets.

It was a draw, in strategic terms. Both sides removed some of their early strike capability on the other...tit for tat.

Whatever provocations had been offered around Cuba, they had come from one party only. The USA.

No one else launched an invasion, no one else brazenly carried out illegal spy flights over other nations, or in any other way violated international law in regards to Cuba. Only the USA did. The USA offered serious provocations at that time. Many provocations. And it is still doing so...but mostly in the Middle East at present.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:41 PM

Polls (too early to have any real validity) show McCain preferred over both Clinton and Obama (CNN tonight), but- I think it will hold.

michaelr, looks like McCain plus a Democrat-led Congress, and much stalemate for another four years. Not happy about it, but I think you have gauged the American temperament correctly.

With Swartzenegger's endorsement tomorrow, California becomes a McCain state.

If McCain does well next week, Texas and Pennsylvania could well add the whipped cream to his presidential run by putting him over the top in the Convention, and the federal election.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:01 AM

Just my two cents worth, mind you...

But I think all the polls putting McCain (dead man walking) over Obama are clearly wrong. DMW might beat Clinton, but only because certain people will go to the polls to defeat her, not elect DMW.

DMW has alienated the overwhelming majority of Reagan conservatives -those who feel like the fed is a 800 pound gorilla that destroys everything in its path. His cronyism with Kennedy and Lieberman goes beyond "crossing the aisle." McCain-Feingold is a travesty, and he knows it, but he had to put the screws to Bush because Bush outspent him. It was revenge, pure and simple. He might appeal to independents, but no cross-over democrat is going to vote for him.

The long and short of it - if its Obama v. DMW then Obama wins in an electoral college landslide. If its Clinton v. DMW, then it could be a squeaker either way, with a real possibility of another electoral college victory and a majority vote loss. Remember that Democrats have more registered voters nationwide by a large margin. For a Republican to win they must hold their base completely while being able to reach out and convince independents and disaffected Democrats. DMW cannot and will not hold his base. Just how many Democrats will pull away from Obama or Clinton?

(BTW - I refer to McCain as DMW because the more I look at him the more I think a Washington funeral home should check their inventory. The guy is pasty white, cannot smile to save his life and barely mumbles when asked a question. He must have a crash cart nearby everywhere he goes. I just don't think the American public (at large) will view him as a legitimate prospect to fill out a four year term.)

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:18 AM

I have also been thinking that he doesn't look too healthy at all. Being president ages people pretty fast, it's a high stress job. I don't think Mr McCain can stand much more aging at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: michaelr
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 01:53 AM

Freightdawg -- please explain a couple of your statements, if you will.

1. "McCain-Feingold is a travesty"
There's no need to keep candidates for high office from being bought wholesale?

2. "Democrats have more registered voters nationwide by a large margin"
Can you point to proof of this assertion?

3. "Obama v. DMW then Obama wins in an electoral college landslide"
What country are you living in? A majority of Americans will not elect a non-white for another, oh, 8 to 12 years.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: michaelr
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:04 AM

Q -- California a McCain state??!!??


AAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:38 AM

I don't think Obama can win, and it isn't because of his race. It is because of his age, his lack of a track record anywhere, and because of his chameleon-like stand on issues. The guy is just plain slippery.

He hasn't demonstrated leadership one iota. He has demonstrated charisma, and an astounding ability to vacuum up money. This will make a good president because...?

Pretty soon, people are going to wake up from the Obama Kumbayah Kool Aid binge, realize with a bad hangover that they've just nominated yet another loser Democrat. They will all say it was because of his race, but it won't be. It will be because people who actually believe their votes should be cast for someone who might just know how to lead the country, instead of being really good at retail campaigning, won't vote for him. Sure for a lot of people it will be race, just like for a lot of people it would be Clinton's gender, and for others it will be McCain's age.

But that leaves us with Mitt Romney.

Don't tell anybody, but the skill sets for running for president and actually being the president aren't the same. Just look to the current White House, if you are having trouble figuring that out.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:52 AM

Only the dumbass Democrats could hand an election when the entire country loathed the current ruling party, to the loathed ruling party.

Only the Democrats are this stupid. Republicans and Reagan Democrats might be voting against their own self-interests, but Democrats manage to vote against the nation's best interests, every 4 years.

Which is worse? Maybe we can start voting for the worst of two evils, and see if maybe that turns things around for us.

Ya think?

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:17 AM

"I have also been thinking that he doesn't look too healthy at all. Being president ages people pretty fast, it's a high stress job. I don't think Mr McCain can stand much more aging at this point."


                   Which makes one consider, who would he pick for VP? Huckabee would get the non-thinking Right for him, but it McCain kicked the bucket, we'd be saddled with another president who doesn't believe in science, and thinks the world is only 6,000 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: freightdawg
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM

Gladly, Michael...

(1) The way you preserve candidates from being bought wholesale is to punish those who sell themselves like $10 whores. All McCain-Feingold did was to limit the constitutionally protected right of free speech. If I make widgets, and I need some political protection to make sure that no other person sells widgets cheaper than I can, and I go out and buy Sen. McCain who pushes through legislation that gives me preferential treatment in the production and sales of widgets, *then punish Sen. McCain for being a whore.* As I said before, McCain-Feingold did nothing to limit the wholesale purchase of congressmen/women and senators. All it did was force more creative loopholes (the now infamous 527 groups, etc). Money will always flow where influence will be sold. Get rid of the immoral influence peddlers, but don't destroy the constitution in order to do it.

(2) Not without doing a lot of research that I don't have a lot of time for currently, but I believe my assertion is correct with perhaps a correction of the adjective "wide." There is a big difference between "registered" and "active." It has long been my belief that if you went county by county and state by state you would come up with far more registered Democrats than you would registered Republicans. The difference on election days is that, on average, (and please understand I am speaking in broad terms) conservatives are more likely to vote than liberals. The reason being that people are more adamant about protecting something they believe does not need to be changed, rather than actively seeking to change something. (If you disagree with me, look at how many exercise machines end up in garage sales and garbage dumps.) This plays out quite frequently in relation to bad weather - in inclement weather only those voters who are truly devout tend to vote. In NM that typically bodes well for Republicans (who are greatly outnumbered except in a few counties). The exception to this scenario is when people are SERIOUSLY bent on change, and then political persusion means little. Reference the huge victories that Reagan orchestrated - the first being a call for change from the Carter policies, the second being a call to "stay the course."

(3) I live in the United States in the year 2008. Prior to 1960 the pundits said the US would never elect a Catholic. Oops. The pundits said an actor could never be elected president. Oops. I live and work around people (mostly conservatives) who loathe McCain, and if he wins the Repub. nomination they will stay home and sip hot chocolate on election day. That is, unless Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, in which case they will get out and vote against Clinton, but they will NOT be voting in favor of McCain. If, and I emphasize IF, the Democrats close ranks and rally behind Obama they have a far greater chance of influencing independent voters than does McCain. McCain just has too long of a history. The Reagan conservatives will NOT support McCain.

BTW - I believe the same dynamic applies to Clinton. Her negatives are just too great, even among Democrats. Or, maybe, especially among Democrats. Perhaps she can close ranks and rally the party behind her, but look what happened in SC. She pulled out Slick Willie and lost by 28 percentage points. Obama won predominately white Iowa, and predominately black SC. That to me is a fascinating fact.

I personally admire Obama because he is appealing to the higher angels of our country, much in the way Kennedy did and (although I am going to get creamed for this statement) much in the way Reagan did. Kennedy and Reagan wanted to be president because they wanted to lead the greatest nation on earth. Clinton I wanted to be president because he was a megalomaniac and the biggest prize is the oval office. (By the way, remember that more people voted against Clinton *twice* than voted for him. Its just that the Republicans and independents split their vote, therefore Clinton won the election.) His ineptitude in governing resulted in the Democrats losing the Senate and the House for the first time since dinosaurs walked on the earth. The current Bush wanted to be president to eliminate Hussein, which he did. His ineptitude will result in the Democrats retaking both Senate and House for the next millenium. Clinton II wants to be president to regain power of Clinton I and to punish a LONG list of enemies (she will just be Bush redivivus in that regard).

I think Obama wants to be president because he wants to lead a great nation and make it even better. After 8 years of Clinton I and 8 years of Bush II, I say that is a far nobler goal than we have seen in almost a quarter of a century.

Just my opinion, folks.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:08 PM

I highly doubt that he doesn't believe in science... ;-) I have never yet met anyone in this society who managed to pass Grade 4 who did not believe in science, regardless of their religious bent. Science and money ARE the ruling religions in North America and EVERYONE believes in them.

I don't, frankly, see how his silly belief that the world is only 6,000 years old....though it is a ridiculous belief...would interfere in his ability to make decisions about foreign or domestic policy at this time. It wouldn't make a particle of difference to any such decision. ;-)

It doesn't basically matter if he believes the world is 6,000 years old. It can't materially affect present decisions regarding present political issues.

I've seen Huckabee speak. He's not a stupid man. He's not a gibbering idiot or a drooling moron or a raving fanatic. He's probably about as intelligent and well-informed as most of the other people running for office right now...not necessarilly ALL of them...

This is not to say that I support his candidacy. I don't. But you cannot dismiss a man merely on the basis of his belief that the world is 6,000 years old.

Not unless it really pushes your buttons...!!! Eh, Rinslinger? LOL!

Look, I've met people who believe the world is only 6,000 years old...and without exception, they all BELIEVE in science. They just think that some of the present scientific theories and methods are in error regarding one matter: the age of the planet. In other words, they believe almost all the scientific thought that is presently out there, but they disagree with one or two specific tenets of the current scientific consensus, and that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:48 PM

Califoria a McCain state? I share your distaste but with Swartzenegger's backing and the failure of Feinstein et al. to make any serious comment on issues outside of troops in Iraq, I think is is a scenario worth taking seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:03 PM

"This is not to say that I support his candidacy. I don't. But you cannot dismiss a man merely on the basis of his belief that the world is 6,000 years old."
    "Not unless it really pushes your buttons...!!! Eh, Rinslinger? LOL!"


                      It does.
                      So that ancient city they found in Egypt the other day that was 7,000 years old. What does he do with that if he's president, invade Egypt?
                      What does he say about core samples of ice that have been recovered that are 10,000 years old.
                      At some point he'll be reduced to groveling around on his knees in the oval office, while mumbling to a god who isn't there. When he is, that's when Al-Queda will attack.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:18 PM

Yeah, GG...

Stupid Democrats... I think they have captured the market...

If it comes down to C 'n C, then I'll just vote for the local stuff and pass on that one, unless Nadar, 'er anyone else other McCain or Billary are on the ballot...

Donald Duck works for me...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:21 PM

Hey Bobert--how about Richard Pryor & "None of the Above"?

Seems like it's time to dust that baby off again.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:38 PM

After the debate tonight, a Clinton-Obama ticket is a possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:48 PM

Dream on. The debate gave no possible hint of a Clinton-Obama ticket. That idea must be wishful thinking. Obama-Clinton perhaps. But neither showed any inclination to be VP under the other. Obama has far better choices. And Hillary probably has other ideas also. But she will likely not get a chance to pick.

The Democrats know who has the best chance against McCain. And it sure ain't Hillary--for reasons we've gone into more than once.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:53 PM

Obama maybe in 8 years. If he gets the nomination, be prepared for a McCain win.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:16 PM

You have not convinced me, Rinslinger, that Huckabee's views about the age of the planet constitute a clear and present danger. ;-)

" So that ancient city they found in Egypt the other day that was 7,000 years old. What does he do with that if he's president, invade Egypt?"

No, he just no doubt would figure that they got the date wrong through a faulty procedure, that's all.

"What does he say about core samples of ice that have been recovered that are 10,000 years old."

Again, he figures that their method of determining the age of the ice samples is faulty. Big deal.

"At some point he'll be reduced to groveling around on his knees in the oval office, while mumbling to a god who isn't there. When he is, that's when Al-Queda will attack."

And how will Al-Queda know when that moment arrives? LOL! Al-Queda also believes in God, Rinslinger. Why do you not see them as being fatally crippled in their capabilities and effectiveness because of their belief? If it works for Huckabee, then why not Al-Queda? And what makes you think that people who believe in God are any less capable of dealing with any given emergency than people who don't? Most of the founding fathers of the USA believed in God, and it didn't prevent them from winning their revolution. Abraham Lincoln believed in God, and it didn't prevent him from leading the North to a victory in the Civil War. Gandhi believed in God and it didn't prevent him from leading a successful nonviolent revolution that freed India from foreign rule. Mother Teresa believed in God, and it didn't prevent her from saving many, many lives. Elizabeth the First believed in God, and it didn't prevent her from defeating the Spanish Empire (the superpower of that time).

Your kneejerk opinions regarding people who "believe in God"...(as if they were all identical to one another!)...are based on a false presumption, and they have no relevance as to whether someone can lead a country effectively or not in a time of crisis.

It's just as ridiculous as if you thought all atheists were child molesters or all Blacks were drug dealers or all women were stupid, weak, and hysterical.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:19 PM

Sorry, your far-sight glasses are a bit foggy.

Obama will unite the Democrats, get many independents, and even some Republicans. In addition he will get the enthusiastic support of legions of new voters. Hillary--uh, not so much.

Hillary has very effectively alienated the Democrats' most loyal constituency, and will get very few independents, and precisely zero Republicans.

And perhaps you've forgotten the 3 magic words guaranteed to unite all Republicans on election day, regardless of their protesting and squabbling now:: President Hillary Clinton.

If you disagree, exactly what is your logic?

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:04 AM

Weeeelll, just as a for instance Ron, the polls are showing Hilary ahead in a whole lot of places. That doesn't exactly show that she alienated everybody.

She also beat Obama in a state that allowed independents to vote in the Dem primary.

So, what exactly is your logic for saying Obama has this thing all sewn up?

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

It works like this:

subjectivity obfuscates communication

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:17 AM

:Your kneejerk opinions regarding people who "believe in God"...(as if they were all identical to one another!)...are based on a false presumption, and they have no relevance as to whether someone can lead a country effectively or not in a time of crisis."


                      Maybe, but we've got to fix the problem somehow!

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:29 AM

Okay, good. We can meet halfway on this.

I agree that there's a problem. No question about it. I don't think, however, that we'll ever be able to fix it. It's a problem that has been around ever since the cavemen. It will always be around. There will always be a lot of people who believe irrational things (whether in a religious sense, a political sense, a social sense, or any other sense). There will always be misunderstandings. One person's rationality will seem irrational to another person. That sort of thing has been going on forever, and it will be going on long after we are dead and gone.

So all you can really do, I think, is this. You can be reasonably kind, generous, helpful, constructive, and non-judgemental of others most of the time...as best you can manage. In other words, you are here to manage YOUR own behaviour, not that of the other people. You must yourself BE the change that you wish to see in the world, because you are the only person in the world whom you have any rightful jurisdication over (other than, to some extent, your children, while they need guidance).

I don't expect to see any of these problems solved...but I do hope to be part of the ongoing solution, in my own small way.

And for that reason, I try not to prejudge people on the basis of whether they are "religious" or "atheist". I've known excellent people in both camps...not to mention scoundrels too.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:05 PM

Well, getting back to the issue of cavemen, the problem I have with it is electing a caveman to serve as Vice President, when the president himself is 72 years old at the time he takes the oath of office.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:16 PM

Ron Davies, your predudice against women is showing. Be careful, your women-folks might poleax you.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:15 AM

I thought Ron's aversion to Hillary seemed a little to venomous to simply be political.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:27 PM

Ron's aversion to anyone he disagrees with is a little too venomous to simply be political. ;-)

I think he needs a few in depth sessions with the good Herr Doctor Liebenscheiss to defuse whatever deeply hidden anger and trauma lies behind his penchant for launching these vicious personal diatribes.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 01:08 PM

"Prejudice against women". Right. Anything you say. Not caring for Hillary's style-- "subtle" race-baiting, divisive politics etc.-- is not "prejudice against women". I think the Speaker of the House is doing a fine job. There is a sizable list of good women politicians--including Clare McCaskill, McKulski (sp) in Maryland and overseas obviously, Bhutto in Pakistan--it's a huge tragedy for the whole world that she is gone.

I note with interest that nobody has come up with any counterargument to my assessment of the likely appeal of Hillary and Obama respectively in the general election.

It would be nice to hear some logic, rather than assessment of the poster's personality. If it's not too much to ask. Even though Smears R US seems to be opening new branches every day.

Now, as to the assertion of all the places Hillary is ahead of Obama according to polls, it seems that allegation is seriously out of date---- the race is tightening dramatically.

Perhaps the Democrats are finally realizing that Obama will actually be far stronger in the general election than Hillary--for the reasons I cited.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 01:29 PM

Also, Patty Murray, Diane Feinstein, and Olympia Snowe are all Senators doing a fine job, in my estimation. And as I said, Nancy Peloski is doing a magnificent job, in a very demanding position--trying to keep all sorts of competing factions in the Democratic party from tearing the party apart. She's balancing the various groups with great skill and keeping the troops moving together. My hat is definitely off to her.


You're welcome to return to the actual topic any time you'd like.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 02:05 PM

Actual topic? FL is so last month.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM

Obama is Oprah's kind of guy-
(Waiting for Letterman's endorsement)

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM

"It would be nice to hear some logic, rather than assessment of the poster's personality."

Boy, wouldn't it, though! Even better would it be to hear some logic on its own, unaccompanied by waspish personal attacks on the poster's character, intelligence, honesty, ethics, and social morality.   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 02:26 PM

I just heard a rumour that Ralph Nader is considering running again! I hope to God he doesn't, because it will just help put John McCain in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 02:33 PM

Here's some stuff on Nader:

Ralph Nader will run again?

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 03:09 PM

So will the rest of the country.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 04:11 PM

Nader belongs in a museum.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:09 PM

If Nader belongs in a museum, McCain should be mummified.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM

Shadows on the walls...

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 08:51 PM

McCain doesn't appear to need Nader's help getting to the White House at this moment.

Check back later.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM

I'd say that pointing out that the race has dramatically tightened is actually more germane to the situation than absurd allegations of "predudice" (sic) against women. By the way, it might be interesting to hear from some of the frequent posters here as to which US women politicians they consider are doing a good job-- and why they feel that way--since I have done so. It might have the salutary effect of pointing out which of the said frequent posters here have the faintest clue what they are talking about--and which just like to run off at the mouth.

Looking forward to the answers.

(Yes, I am aware it's Nancy Pelosi, not Nancy Peloski.)

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:31 PM

So were you just trying to move her north, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:33 PM

Regardless, what people are failing to see, imo, is that the country will NOT elect another Republican executive this time 'round. So what happens regarding McCain is basically moot.

Subject: RE: BS: FLA called for McCain and Clinton
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 07:29 AM

I thought that last time. I couldn't believe people would elect GWB for a second term.