[Purple Haize]

Ok so I edited my Pro Life phrase. It must have been the stress from having no more fried chicken at the buffet table.

SCORCHO - You actually make my point. The president can't appoint judges that would be in a position to oppose abortion legislation. RG has already said he would appoint a Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito type judge. What more could you ask for? Plus he FAVORS the Partial Birth ban AND parental notification> Think how many abortions that alone will stop! It does not have to be "a lesser of two evils" choice.
As for the example of Saul, not sure I would use that one, for several reasons. Say what you will about David but he wasn't exactly a "saint". What would Dobson say about someone who slept with another mans wife THEN had him "eliminated" while he was President?
This IS a power play. Now that the "Big Fella" is gone evangelicals are jockeying to stay relevant and take the leadership mantle. Unfortunately their decisions may result in a Hillary presidency. What would THAT do to their plans.
Here is a question that I would love to see posed to them. "Can you explain how a Hillary Clinton presidency will be beneficial to the unborn? Can you explain how a RG presidency would be beneficial to the unborn?" If they TRUYL are concerned about the unborn the answer and the candidate should be clear.

[phoenix]

"Sir, why do you feel you should be the next president of the United States?"

"9/11!"

"Sir, what did you have for dinner before the debate tonight?"

"9/11!"

"If you could ask a genie for just one wish, what would it be?"

"9/11!"

Reminds me of a Capitol Steps song. http://www.myspace.com/capitolstepscomedy then click on Relying on 9-11

[paradox]

Romney is still very much in contention and he's unequivocally pro-life. Fred Thompson has the potential to make it a three man race and he's decidedly pro-life as well.

Most conservative religous leaders are going to support a pro-lifer at this point in the process. To do otherwise now, would be the same as a self-inflicted wound with a long recovery time.

If Rudy ends up as the GOP canidate, then religious conservatives can push for a pro-life VP, and then the majority of religious conservative leaders will probably line up behind Rudy with some reservation -- but I think that he'll get enough conservative evangelical support in the end to win.

[Ed Dantes]

"Sir, why do you feel you should be the next president of the United States?"

"9/11!"

"Sir, what did you have for dinner before the debate tonight?"

"9/11!"

"If you could ask a genie for just one wish, what would it be?"

"9/11!"

Reminds me of a Capitol Steps song. http://www.myspace.com/capitolstepscomedy then click on Relying on 9-11

Last I heard he was talking about taxes and Hillary's disastrous trial balloon to give every baby $5,000.

[hoopsmalone]

mark it down- you will see a rudy/huckabee GOP ticket for good balance

[flameshaw]

Ok so I edited my Pro Life phrase. It must have been the stress from having no more fried chicken at the buffet table.

SCORCHO - You actually make my point. The president can't appoint judges that would be in a position to oppose abortion legislation. RG has already said he would appoint a Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito type judge. What more could you ask for? Plus he FAVORS the Partial Birth ban AND parental notification> Think how many abortions that alone will stop! It does not have to be "a lesser of two evils" choice.
As for the example of Saul, not sure I would use that one, for several reasons. Say what you will about David but he wasn't exactly a "saint". What would Dobson say about someone who slept with another mans wife THEN had him "eliminated" while he was President?
This IS a power play. Now that the "Big Fella" is gone evangelicals are jockeying to stay relevant and take the leadership mantle. Unfortunately their decisions may result in a Hillary presidency. What would THAT do to their plans.
Here is a question that I would love to see posed to them. "Can you explain how a Hillary Clinton presidency will be beneficial to the unborn? Can you explain how a RG presidency would be beneficial to the unborn?" If they TRUYL are concerned about the unborn the answer and the candidate should be clear.

I am a lot more concerned about what a Hillary presidency would do TO the already born. Abortion will never be done away with regardless of a GOP president congress and Supreme Court, too many other things going on, ie. war, health care situation/mess, perscription drugs, SS, etc .

Dobson is a flea on the back of the GOP elephant, looked very ignorant last week on H&C in my opinion. You HAVE to choose what is the best available and unfortunately sometimes you must do it with held nose.

[LUconn]

the next president will have the opportunity to set the tone of America for a generation.

This has been said for every election I've ever voted in. Although that is only the last 2. Is that always the case?

[Fumblerooskies]

Yes...it is.

Carter was going to curb inflation and rid the country of the bad feelings from the Nixon era...
...we all know how that worked out.

Reagan was going to restore the USA to its rightful place as a world leader and defeat the evil empire in the cold war...
...yeah, that DID work out.

Bush 1 was going to maintain the Reagan policies and not raise taxes...
...OOPS!

Clinton "Its just the economy stupid" and "don't stop believing about tomorrow."
...Well, he DID balance the budget...but how did that Health Care Reform thing workout? In retrospect, perhaps his theme song should have been from The Righteous Brothers..."Baby baby, I get down on my knees for you..."

Bush 2. Values. Education. Tax cuts. I'm not sure Gore would not have been a better alternative.
...A good man who surrounded himself with idiots.

[RagingTireFire]

the next president will have the opportunity to set the tone of America for a generation.

This has been said for every election I've ever voted in. Although that is only the last 2. Is that always the case?

Yes. Somebody says that every year. Usually from a pulpit.

[LUconn]

In that case, I would like to add this to the thread

[Ed Dantes]

Yes...it is.

Carter was going to curb inflation and rid the country of the bad feelings from the Nixon era...
...we all know how that worked out.

Reagan was going to restore the USA to its rightful place as a world leader and defeat the evil empire in the cold war...
...yeah, that DID work out.

Bush 1 was going to maintain the Reagan policies and not raise taxes...
...OOPS!

Clinton "Its just the economy stupid" and "don't stop believing about tomorrow."
...Well, he DID balance the budget...but how did that Health Care Reform thing workout? In retrospect, perhaps his theme song should have been from The Righteous Brothers..."Baby baby, I get down on my knees for you..."

Bush 2. Values. Education. Tax cuts. I'm not sure Gore would not have been a better alternative.
...A good man who surrounded himself with idiots.

What you have to take into consideration as well is the fact that the decisions made by each respective commander-in-chief are ones that will have consequences for future leaders. I suppose the most obvious one is the terror threat that escalated under President Clinton's watch helped lead to 9/11 (it's true, but that doesn't mean President Bush isn't partially culpable as well).

But perhaps the most pressing one, in terms of foreign relations, would probably be Jimmy Carter's inability to handle Iran properly. His failure to support the Shah ultimately led to the rise of the Ayatollah, which led to the rise of mainstream Islamic fundamentalism.

[Purple Haize]

Romney is still very much in contention and he's unequivocally pro-life. Fred Thompson has the potential to make it a three man race and he's decidedly pro-life as well.

Most conservative religous leaders are going to support a pro-lifer at this point in the process. To do otherwise now, would be the same as a self-inflicted wound with a long recovery time.

If Rudy ends up as the GOP canidate, then religious conservatives can push for a pro-life VP, and then the majority of religious conservative leaders will probably line up behind Rudy with some reservation -- but I think that he'll get enough conservative evangelical support in the end to win.

According to the rhetoric coming out of these embicile's Fred Thompson (put your D&*% hands together people) is a no go because he is on his second wife, who is MUCH younger. Romney would be out b/c he is a Mormon, and most evangelicals look at that as a cult and there is video of him SUPPORTING the Right to Chose. SO was he lying then or lying now?

Huckabee is a nice option, but can he beat Hillary?

[El Scorcho]

Huckabee is a nice option, but can he beat Hillary?

Obviously some here disagree, but I do not believe it is possible for a Republican candidate* to win the next election. I think too much damage has been done, and a corner was turned in this country in the process.

*Except for my guy, of course. But I know how everyone feels about him, so you ignore this disclaimer.

[paradox]

Thompson is probably the least polarizing of the three. If Reagan's divorce was overlooked, then Thompson's will be as well. If he gets the GOP nod, he would fare well against Hillary too.

Romney comes off very presidential, and in some ways he may be the best of the three, however, the country in general is probably not comfortable enough with the whole Morman idea.

[Ed Dantes]

Huckabee is a nice option, but can he beat Hillary?

Obviously some here disagree, but I do not believe it is possible for a Republican candidate* to win the next election. I think too much damage has been done, and a corner was turned in this country in the process.

*Except for my guy, of course. But I know how everyone feels about him, so you ignore this disclaimer.

While I think that there is a strong possibility for a Democrat occupying the White House, I don't think it's a done deal. You have to understand that half the country hates Hillary.

[mrmacphisto]

If Al Gore sweeps in with his Academy Award and Nobel Prize, I think he's a shoe-in. Which sucks, because he's basically a female version of Hillary.

You read it right.

[belcherboy]

Huckabee is a nice option, but can he beat Hillary?

Obviously some here disagree, but I do not believe it is possible for a Republican candidate* to win the next election. I think too much damage has been done, and a corner was turned in this country in the process.

*Except for my guy, of course. But I know how everyone feels about him, so you ignore this disclaimer.

While I think that there is a strong possibility for a Democrat occupying the White House, I don't think it's a done deal. You have to understand that half the country hates Hillary.

I was talking with one of my friends and he informed me of the fact that the Democrats have topped the 50 percent popular-vote threshold once in the past 10 presidential elections, Carter in 1976, and he didn't even make it to 51 percent.

The Republicans have topped 50 percent six times in the past 10 elections.

The percentage of presidential election voters who are willing to consider voting Democratic barely rises above 50 percent. The Democrats have to get pretty much all of them to have a chance. They're going to be attempting to do that with a nominee who will have possibly the highest negatives of any nominee they've ever had. I'm not sure if Gore is a whole lot better in terms of negativity. If he did run, I could see him having a meltdown if poll numbers changed, similar to Dean last primary.

For these reasons, I think the odds favor a Republican win.

[SumItUp]

I got generally tired of teh Republicans around the 04 election. I actually voted third party that year

Tired of the Republicans?

You can vote for a 3rd party, 4th party, 5th party or even a Democrat, but please do it because of positions on issues and leadership qualities of the candidates. Generally being tired of a party sounds like waffling to me.

[Ed Dantes]

I was talking with one of my friends and he informed me of the fact that the Democrats have topped the 50 percent popular-vote threshold once in the past 10 presidential elections, Carter in 1976, and he didn't even make it to 51 percent.

The Republicans have topped 50 percent six times in the past 10 elections.

The percentage of presidential election voters who are willing to consider voting Democratic barely rises above 50 percent. The Democrats have to get pretty much all of them to have a chance. They're going to be attempting to do that with a nominee who will have possibly the highest negatives of any nominee they've ever had. I'm not sure if Gore is a whole lot better in terms of negativity. If he did run, I could see him having a meltdown if poll numbers changed, similar to Dean last primary.

For these reasons, I think the odds favor a Republican win.

Well, look at each election individually. You had strong third-party support in three of those elections siphoning away votes, making a 50% plurality impossible (00, 92, 68, and you could argue 96).

In 1972, the Democrat party was in shambles and nominated a pure nut (McGovern), thus leading to Nixon's re-election.
In 1976, the Republican party was in shambles following Watergate, thus leading to Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency.
In 1980, everyone hated Carter so Reagan won.
In 1984, everyone loved Reagan, so he was re-elected.
In 1988, everyone loved Reagan, so they put in GHWBush.
In 1992, Ross Perot siphoned off votes from moderate Republicans, leading to Clinton's win.
In 1996, Dole was a pathetic candidate and Clinton was on the upswing of his popularity.
In 2000, Nader took votes from Gore, leading to George W. Bush's presidency.
In 2004, Kerry wasn't exactly a great candidate.

In 2008, you will be dealing with a republican candidate (Romney or Giuliani) who doesn't exactly thrill everyone, leading to a third-party candidate that will take votes from the G.O.P.

Furthermore, the democrats have a motivated base -- out of power for eight years, they're hungry to get a seat at the table and will mobilize their forces (in both legal and illegal manners).

Third -- people are leaving blue states and going to red states. That's actually bad for red stater's, because those people leaving the blue states are taking their values with them. In 1996, it was said that New Jersey could go either way. Now, they are solidly blue because people are moving in from New York, and also, an influx of immigrants. The same thing is happening to Virginia -- people are moving from D.C. to northern virginia and are voting democrat.

With that knowledge, take a look at the 2004 Presidential Election map:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image ... 04_map.svg

And tell me which states you think will flip from red-to-blue or vice-versa... Let's simply it, actually. Here are the list of states in which one candidate was within five points of the other.

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New hampshire, New mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.

If everything else remains the same, you will see that the GOP has 208 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win at this point, and the Dems have 200.

Now, using the 2006 elections as a bench, you can see that Colorado is leaning democrat (D candidate won by 17%), Florida probably will stay GOP. Iowa will slip to the dems because they're plowing A LOT more money there for the primaries. Minnesota might flip to GOP (better Senate candidate), Wisconsin will go to the dems, as will Oregon and New Hampshire. John McCain's last useful job for the Republicans will be to deliver Arizona... leaving three states. Nevada doesn't matter one way or the other. That leaves Penn and Ohio.

If the GOP wins one, they win. If they can't, they lose. Well, as it turns out, both held Senate elections in 2004... and the Democrats won by 12 and 17 percent, respectively.

...

This is a nation getting bluer.

[Purple Haize]

Thompson is probably the least polarizing of the three. If Reagan's divorce was overlooked, then Thompson's will be as well. If he gets the GOP nod, he would fare well against Hillary too.

Romney comes off very presidential, and in some ways he may be the best of the three, however, the country in general is probably not comfortable enough with the whole Morman idea.

And this helps make my point. Those NOT willing to overlook Rudy's divorces will be more than HAPPY to overlook FT's divorce. I don't know exactly how to spell hypocracy but that is what it is!

Again, to turn the argument around: Who will be better for the unborn?

[Hold My Own]

I honestly didnt read everything that everyone posted...the whole FF experience for me is all the mindless chatter


BUT here's my take....


Bush 2 would have gone down as one of our better presidents in a LONG time but then the war on Iraq just wouldnt end and America did not like that...take a look at your investments, real estate, unemployment rate, etc times arent that bad


As far as the healthcare issue...I go to BWW at nights sometimes...mostly to watch the UFC b/c they pay for it not me...and I see people there drinking like prohibition starts tomorrow and smoking like cigs have the cure for aids and girls leaving with guys who they just met....I dont want to pay for their health care while I'm taking care of myself...I understand it's a much deeper issue, and there are unlimited options but sometimes we all over complicate everything


Keep the posts short people....please I really dont want to have to start paying a lot of attention

[Ed Dantes]

I honestly didnt read everything that everyone posted...the whole FF experience for me is all the mindless chatter

BUT here's my take....

Bush 2 would have gone down as one of our better presidents in a LONG time but then the war on Iraq just wouldnt end and America did not like that...take a look at your investments, real estate, unemployment rate, etc times arent that bad

As far as the healthcare issue...I go to BWW at nights sometimes...mostly to watch the UFC b/c they pay for it not me...and I see people there drinking like prohibition starts tomorrow and smoking like cigs have the cure for aids and girls leaving with guys who they just met....I dont want to pay for their health care while I'm taking care of myself...I understand it's a much deeper issue, and there are unlimited options but sometimes we all over complicate everything

Keep the posts short people....please I really dont want to have to start paying a lot of attention

Before you think about President Bush going down in history as a great president if it weren't for Iraq...

Take into consideration that during two of his three greatest domestic achievements (tax cuts, medicare reform, no child left behind), he had Ted Kennedy -- TED KENNEDY sitting behind him, applauding when he signed those bills.

Bush has allowed government spending to skyrocket (even taking away defense appropriation) -- overall, nearly doubling the size of the government.

And he has failed to protect our borders.

Face it, Bush is a lousy president. And honestly -- Iraq is the best thing he has going for him.

[phoenix]

Curious about everyone's thoughts on this.

[LUconn]

Ted was behind the tax cuts, or just the other 2?

[Fumblerooskies]

My head is still spinning over the dancer/brain side post.