<p>I think a problem in primary politics here on CC is that once a poster decides they ‘support’ a candidate (let alone the support is usually just in the form of chatting) they refuse to hear any criticism of that candidate (no matter how true it is) and BLINDLY support them. I won’t mention any names, but you know who I am talking about. I support Edwards, but if you see my descrption of him on the first page of the thread you see it was less than a blind positive.</p>
<p>Yeah, I didn’t read your intro which would account for that but it just seemed you tried to pass off opinion as fact. </p>
<p>ANYWAY, I agree with your opinion regarding Biden. I’ve been a real supporter of Obama, but more recently I have kept up with Biden and really like him. Is there any reason he isn’t really doing well in the polls? I haven’t really been that up to date with politics today.</p>
<p>Here’s a challenging exercise for everyone who has posted so far: So how would rate the strength of the Republican candidates. Who has the best chance? What make them the best candidate?</p>
<p>Leal, no need for u to answer, except who do you think is a viable REPUBLICAN to be RP’s VP?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do not believe what the mass media is feeding you. They have a bias against Ron Paul, even though he has consistently raised more $$ and won more polls than other candidates that the media say have more chance to win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well to get any information on and be able to form an opinion on anyone but the “top 3” candidates you really have to watch the debates and not just the news…and alot of people don’t do that…mostly because they dont care and just want things handed to them in 30 second news stories</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ummmmm <em>draws blank</em> …i don’t think i have an answer to that and its probably because i know TOO much about them…i was ok with Mitt until his religion speech where in essence he said we should force people to believe in god and where he showed that he’ll sell out his religion in order to pander to evangelicals. I think maybe mccain is alright…but seriously when the only reason a republcian candidate is good is because he doesn’t support torture then the party’s in trouble! </p>
<p>EDIT: oh and ron paul is ok because he doesn’t support the war but i think his domestic policies would destroy america</p>
<p>You can’t base support of a candidate on the fact that some of his supporters may be offensive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pat Buchanan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not about whether huckabee’s raising taxes was a good thing or not. It’s about him claiming to be a conservative when some of his actions may indicate otherwise. Many of his followers may not know this about him.</p>
<p>Huckabee seems to follow the “compassionate conservative” route GW claimed to enspouse but never followed. However, I can never forget that his hand was raised when they asked who didn’t believe in evolution. Scary.</p>
<p>PRIMER of Republicans this time: Keep in mind I am NOT a Republican</p>
<p>Hunter: He knows he isn’t a serious contender, reprsents the Buchanan wing of the Republican Party with his firm line on immigration and NAFTA. He doesn’t fall into the Tancredo trap of being a one issue candidate but doesn’t have a firm appeal to evangelical Republicans and definitely doesn’t appeal to Wall Street Republicans because of his free trade stand. He could be bargaining for a post in a Republican administration.</p>
<p>Tancredo- Single issue immigration rhetoric although he also takes tough foreign policy stand. His function is to make immigration an important topic in the primary , something Zoosermom may like. His own stand on immigration is too hard for I think even Zooser to stomache though. The emphasis on immigration hurts McCain and Huckabee. It hurts Guiliani and Romney to a lesser extent. Only Thompson benefits because he hasn’t been attacked by the anti-immigration crowd. I think Tancredo may serve to hurt Republicans in the long run , alienating Hispanic voters. Less Hispanic voters support Republicans than they did under Bush according to Pew.</p>
<p>Paul- Appeals to anti-war Republicans. Believe me there are a small number. Most his support seems to come from libertarians which aren’t a strong enough presence in the party. Won’t talk much about him because of a fear of other posters who will sabotage the thread if I do.
–Candidates that Matter</p>
<p>Thompson- Really surprised me. He recieved a lot of attention BEFORE he got in and was going to represent social conservatives and be an all around conservative that would unite the base. He was such a powerful presence that he was even a topic of a question in a debate he wasn’t in. HOWEVER, he seems to be a bad (read: lazy campaigner). The pro-choice lobbying and then telling reporters he only goes to church when he visits his mom hurt him with the rank and file evangelicals. Comes as off was way too old and unexciting. However, he has no chances to win unless Romney and Huckabee take major dives.</p>
<p>McCain- A decided maverick, he benefited in 2000 from Dems and Independents who changed registration to vote for him in NH, never appealed to the evangelical base because of strong comments. Turned into a Bushie over 8 years. He seems to have *<strong><em>ed off too many people in the base to count. *</em></strong>ed off the anti-immigration crowd with his support for comprehensive immigration. ****ed off lobbying groups (the ones who he would need money from now) because of Campaign Finance Reform. His hope is that Romney falls and he upsets in NH because of no chance in Iowa. That could give him a running shot in early states, but his only appeal would be to national security and military Republicans because of his service. Prospects look too dim for him.</p>
<p>Romney- His campaign would be best described as I’ll say anything to please the base. He basically pulled a total 180 and he reversed his support for things he supported as governor of Mass. He has a lot of money for ads which he poured into early states. He benefited from the fact that there was no powerful conservative in the race. He’s hindered by Mormonism (which has been discussed at lengths before so I won’t get into it) and his previous social liberalism. If he can take Iowa or New Hampshire he has a good shot since his daddy was governor of Michigan (an early state for Republicans). He’s a favorite of Wall Street Republicans, no doubt. He doesn’t appeal to defense or social conservatives.</p>
<p>Guiliani- A shocker to me that he’s even relevant to Republican politics because of his pro-abortion and pro-gun control topics Hoping to make the 9-11, national security bid for the Republican presidency. Appeals to defense conservatives, no doubt. He hasn’t made in roads with ANY of the other constituencies in the Republican Party. Only early states that he even has a small chance in are Nevada, NH, and Michigan. Is hoping he can stay relevant to Feb. 5 when big states like NY and Cali will give him the nomination. However even in the states mentioned above he isn’t doing that great. He’s mostly a media invention that will fizzle unless Romney collapses. </p>
<p>HuckaBOOM?- Although some evangelical leaders don’t like him he has a strong appeal , his candor and speaking ability have made him popular with their rank and file and with the media. Doesn’t appeal to Wall Street Republicans because of his tax issues and support of FairTax. Immigration has been pesky for him too. Defense conservatives aren’t particularly enthuasistic about him, they more likely prefer mcCain or Guiliani. He’s doing well in Iowa and SC, but can a self-proclaimed Christian leader do well come Feb. 5 in states that aren’t dominated by evangelical voters. Missteps like the Dumond case, his opinion on quarintining gays, and the minister of "death’ are comming to haunt him.</p>
<p>I won’t give preferences since I ain’t a Republican but i’ll say the race is really between Romney and Huckabee. Kind of a McKinley/Jennings Bryan battle if you will.</p>
<p>All those asterisks on the McCain part I never knew that other word for urination that starts with a P would count as a cuss word to the mods.</p>
<p>GottaloveUCLA, All I can say is “Wow”, I guess you proved my point about doing your homework. Unlike others who post, you actually can take a step back and give a fair assessment, even if you don’t agree with the politics. Your efforts to review and understand both sides is refreshing in the internet forum age. The sign of a true intellectual.</p>
<p>Remind me to check for your posts 6-8 months from now, when things will get reeeaaal intersting…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Watching everything from Olbermann to Tucker to O’Reilly to Hardball to Hannity has to have its benefits. I could go into more details, but I think I gave a pretty fair assessment. Oh, and THANKS :).</p>
<p>Guess I need to turn off ESPN and “Dancing with the Stars” :)</p>
<p>call me crazy but i don’t really see “past his time” as a fair assessment or doing your homework…not to mention categorizing candidates as those who “matter” and those who don’t shows that you’d rather have the media do the first run through the candidates for you and then you’ll pick from the ones who they tell you you should be picking from. </p>
<p>Keith Olbermann is a god among men</p>
<p>Watching those shows really won’t give you a better idea of the candidates…maybe hardball and olbermann do the best job of being inclusive of all the candidates but still, if you really want to be informed you have to get away from CNN/MSNBC/FOX and either watch the debates or look through the internet to really get a grasp of where people stand on the issues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We know you don’t like it because you like Biden and that’s why you started the thread. Maybe the title of the thread should have been changed from “Let’s Talk Presidential Politics” to “Biden 2008” to be more accurate as to your intentions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was trying to give a primer of reality and only looking at candidates who have even a remote chance of winning (Hence those that matter). You can blame Biden’s 0 % chance of winning on the media or me or whatever, but that doesn’t change the truth on the ground. I am trying to be realistic. My first choice is Edwards and I was pretty hard on him in my primer of the Dems. I wasn’t trying to spread pro-Edwards propaganda or pro-anyone propaganda.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve watched all the debates, but the fact is most Americans don’t and it won’t be relevant in voting. Especially not when there are 8 people on the stage and the debates are pretty brief when you divide that time among 20 issues and 8 candidates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was trying to look to see who would win the Presidency, I didn’t claim to say I was going to TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES anywhere. And in respect to winning the Presidency or playing a factor in the nomination Biden doesn’t matter whether or not you like it.</p>
<p>well a couple weeks ago huckabee didn’t matter on the republican side and now he’s on the cover of newsweek and the frontrunner in iowa…</p>
<p>oh and lets not forget that John Kerry, the eventual democratic nominee in '04 was polling at 9%! That’s in Dec '03 …exactly 4 years ago. So if you were making your “informed” assessment back then you would’ve said John Kerry didn’t matter.</p>
<p>Shraf, and you prove my point form my earlier post. I was applauding gottaloveUCLA for her open review of the entire story; her willingness to look at all sides by reviewing all sources. The impression I get from your posts is that you only look where you like what you hear. A closeminded approach at best. Remember, a large percentage of this country doesn’t agree with opinions. Don’t care if their right or wrong, it’s just a fact. Trying to understand where they’re coming from is the intellectual thing to do.</p>
<p>Now got to go, highlights on ESPN…</p>
<p>As FF notes the Presidential marathon is getting murkier. Perhaps it is supposed to become murkier. When Charlie Rose was interviewing BC ( [Charlie</a> Rose](<a href=“http://www.charlierose.com/home]Charlie”>http://www.charlierose.com/home), 12/14/07 ) , BC said in so many words that the process is supposed to difficult. </p>
<p>I would add that short cuts, in the long haul, is dangerous. We have witness the shortcuts in W’s ascent to power. Not pretty in retrospect and exploding or imploding the Republican Party, and to some degree, The United States. If the GOP explodes, the parts will never again coalesce; Even now we see Republicans moving to the other side and the difference in GOP candidates. If the GOP implodes on itself, we may see a radical group that could later destablize the existing system; My way or No Way. </p>
<p>Again I reiterate, W could declare himself President-for-Life, on the pretext of preserving the Democracy. (didn’t Jose Farmer write a SF serial in 70’s)</p>
<p>B&P, here’s my take as posted in FF’s thread.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>The Republican field is a mystery to me, too, and normally I’m pretty good a scoping these things out well in advance. To a large degree, three of the Republican candidates each represent one of the critical constituencies that Bush & Rove melded together.</p>
<p>Rudy Giuliani is the jingoistic authoritarian thug, which explains why he even answers what flavor of ice cream he wants at 31 Flavors with the words “9/11.” He gets the 9/11 Neocon vote.</p>
<p>Mike Huckabee is the genial ayahtollah: doesn’t believe in abortion under any circumstances, doesn’t believe in evolution (it’d be nice to have someone with scientific literacy in the White House). He crosses the Club for Growth Republicans up because of some apostasies regarding taxes but the Dominionist wing of the party loves him.</p>
<p>Mitt Romney really doesn’t object to a religious test for the Republican nomination, he just wants it broad enough to include Mormons. He’s fervently done his best to appeal to the Dominionists over the past year while in pursuit of his main goal: making America safe for multi-millionaires. As such, he’s the fave of the Wall Street Republicans.</p>
<p>Fred Thomspon escaped from the experimental late night joke center and should be recaptured shortly after the New Hampshire primary. For those Republicans who surveyed the Giuliani/Romney/McCain field and thought that Thompson was the answer, I want to know what the question was.</p>
<p>And then there’s poor John McCain. Gets buggered by Bush & Rove using unconscionable smears (is anything really unconscionable to Bush or Rove?) in the 2000 primary elections then adopts a position with respect to Bush and the Republican establishment highly reminiscent of that taken by Monica Lewinsky with Bill Clinton, prostituting his character for the sake of his ambition. Not really trusted by much of the Republican establishment, due to McCain-Feingold campaign financing and reasonably sane stance on immigration that drives the hysterics all the way up the wall and half-way across the ceiling. Most likely to inherit Thompson’s support after Thompson drops out but only days before he himself is forced to drop out. My guess is that South Carolina is his last stand. Again.</p>
<p>Ron Paul, the guy in motley and bells. Giving one hell of an audition for the spot on the Libertarian ticket, upon which he previously ran for President in 1988. My guess is that he gets the same spot again but with much better funding. Go Ron, go!!! Time for the other side to have a Nader-style problem of its own.</p>
<p>Tom Tancredo is something of mystery to me. Not that he’s a whack job on the issue of immigration and has been for years but that he hasn’t been able to convert issue into a legion or three of fanatical supporters.</p>
<p>Duncan Hunter has little said about him. For good reason.</p>
<p>Alan Keyes…the Republican answer to the WGA strike, providing unscripted comedy “unreality” shows whenever he can squeeze himself into a venue. Even to Republicans, he’s a caricature, though not a terribly embarrassing one as far as they’re concerned.</p>
<p>Three months ago, I thought Giuliani had it wrapped up and now I’m pretty sure he doesn’t. As one whose degree is in Political Science, I’d like to see a brokered convention but push come to shove I don’t think it’ll happen, in part due to the GOP’s practice of running its primaries as winner-take-all. My guess is that Romney and Huckabee will duke it out for a couple of months, with Giuliani whining to the media, “But what about me?” (Rudy, you get to sit in the corner booth with John Edwards and talk about the structural pressures of the system that push towards two-candidate races and how awful it is to be the #3, odd man out and asphyxiated as all the media attention (not to mention money) is divvied up the top two. The last is interesting…I think Huckabee is pretty short on money now but I don’t think he will be after New Hampshire. Romney can write himself so that’s not a problem. Giuliani has a ton of cash but this evolving campaign isn’t the one he prepped for; see also, prepared to fight the wrong war.</p>