<p>“Reagan was more noted for his leadership and vision. If McCain were astute, he would point out that just as with Reagan, leadership and vision trumps managerial/executive savvy.”</p>
<p>Hummm…where have I heard that before…? Oh yeah… whenever people trash Obama about his mere leadership and vision. What is one candidate’s brilliant asset is another’s fatal liability:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Actually, I thought that both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee made more sense during the debate than either of the first two front runners, which is sad indeed. But that’s politics, isn’t it? The best of the Democrats were made to drop out before the primaries, too.</p>
<p>“He has elaborated a number of time what he means by that.”</p>
<p>I heard the elaboration, and I believe I have characterized the nutjob accurately. </p>
<p>(The Thousand-Year Reich would also be a time of peace and prosperity.) </p>
<p>As for Albright, she was just an apologist, doing what apologists do. Nothing she can say will bring a half a million dead children back to life.</p>
<p>United Nations Resolution #260, Article II, c, ratified 1948.</p>
<p>“Hummm…where have I heard that before…? Oh yeah… whenever people trash Obama about his mere leadership and vision. What is one candidate’s brilliant asset is another’s fatal liability”</p>
<p>You haven’t heard that from me. That is the one slim hope that I cling to if Obama is ultimately elected.</p>
<p>I agree. There would have been more substance if the debate had been between Ron Paul and huckabee. Although, huckabee does take jabs - he just does so in a much more discreet way (like when he showed the negative ad about Romney to reporters, while telling them he’d decided not to run it. how clever!). Have you noticed how huckabee has been stealing Ron Paul’s key issues and proclaiming them as if they’re his own? 2 months ago he wasn’t mentioning certain issues, and now he is mentioning them and using Ron Paul’s lines.</p>
<p>The guy’s slick, no doubt about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really wonder why people put so much stock in campaign promises. I once saw a documentary about candidates’ campaign promises and which promises actually got kept. VERY few promises ever got kept! This was true of nearly all presidents, in both parties.</p>
<p>That’s why I support someone based on his integrity. I would trust Ron Paul to make the best possible decision in any situation, but his voting record is without question, even if there might be some issues I don’t totally agree on. Whereas, one might agree with another candidate on a key issue, but what good is it if that candidate doesn’t keep his campaign promises anyway?</p>
<p>Oh FF, I wasn’t accusing you of ever having uttered those words. I know you’re not invested enough in any of the Democratic candidates to give a rat’s rosy rear end. I was actually directing those words into the ether, figuring they are bound to waft past the ears of someone who has uttered them before—one of Hillary’s kookAid drinkers, actually.</p>
<p>Still a long way to go and USA is fortunate to have candidates from both 3 parties (Paul is Libertarian) to be interesting. Possibly we can be lucky where no candidate will win decidedly on super Tuesday. </p>
<p>I would still like to hear more about favorite son Huck.</p>
<p>What do you want to hear about huck? I’ve personally heard quite enough about huck. He completely creeps me out. It would be a tossup who would be at the BOTTOM of my list: huckabee, giuliani (no longer relevant) or, now, McCain.</p>
<p>I don’t take believe in correct political thought from CC. I especially don’t give much value in flippant comments. Since I haven’t heard or read anything on Huck (no effort on my part) a can’t make a qualified decision. The same for Hil, and O. I have caught John, McC, Rom, RP, on Sunday interviews or Charlie Rose. </p>
<p>I am pleased to hear that all of the candidates know the stuff, speak and present themselves well, and have enough experience to do the job. In contrast to the situation we have now, I wonder if we can make it to next Jan 20th. How could we be so stupid and allow things to happen the way the did? W, his advisers and followers were just in over their heads. We as a nation have given this group only life preservers-Hope they maintain buoyancy .</p>
<p>Why does W want to spend $2 Bill to control, investigate, greenhouse gases?</p>
<p>Huckabee is no doubt the best speaker of all of them. However, he has already lost and there isn’t any way he can get the nomination. The problem is however, is that he has a deal going with McCain. That is why Huckabee is still in the race. It has already been said on the media a number of times that if it was just McCain against Romney, that McCain would have one hell of a time winning. Matter of fact, most say that there’s no way he could win. Unfortunately, Romney can’t win against 3 people. Most people who support Huckabee and Paul would lean more towards Romney than McCain. Romney, Huckabee, and Paul definitely cater more towards the conservative side. McCain is a liberal republican. He’s past moderate. So basically, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul are going after the same voters. McCain’s supporters are not conservative republicans. Hell, his endorsers are Gulianni and Arnold. Both are pretty liberal.</p>
<p>So, as long as Huckabee stays in, McCain will in fact win the nomination. If he stays in past super Tuesday, then McCain has a very good chance of winning. If he gets out before Tuesday, Romney has a good chance of winning. Unfortunately, the Huckabee and Paul supporters aren’t looking at it logically and will still vote for them believe that it will make a difference. It won’t. Just like Ross Perot going independent got Clinton elected in 1992 and Nader got GW Bush elected, Huckabee running will get McCain the nomination. They definitely have a deal going.</p>
<p>Now, half the media thinks McCain can beat Hillary and Obama. I don’t think so. I think Romney will rally the conservatives and the Republicans. If McCain is the nominee, many republicans will figure that McCain and Hillary are pretty close to the same thing; except for Iraq: so it doesn’t matter which one is elected. Oh well, we’ll see.</p>
<p>^^^ Not sure I agree with this analysis. There is a reason that Rush Limbaugh includes Huckabee in the mix with McCain as destroyers of the conservative Republican party. I think much of Huck’s support would find its way to McCain.</p>
<p>Yeah. It’s all that preaching practice. He reminds me of a slicked up bush with a brain and a vocabulary. Lots of platitudes but served on a nicer platter. Will the people be fooled again?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>non-Paul supporters just don’t understand that the Ron Paul Revolution is much bigger than Ron Paul. And his support is much bigger and broad spectrum (politically) than Nader’s or Perot’s.</p>
<p>Ron Paul’s message may indeed be profound and broad spectrum. The fact is however that he can’t, under any circumstances, win the nomination. Voting for him or huckabee means a win for McCain.</p>
<p>Now, if John McCain is who you want to go up against Hillary or Obama, then no problem. Vote for Paul or Huckabee and stand on a principle. If however you would prefer that Romney be the one who goes up against Hillary or Obama, then you should be voting for Romney instead of waisting your vote on Paul or Huckabee. That’s just the facts.</p>
<p>Personally, I feel that Romney is better for our country than Hillary or Obama, and that he can indeed beat them both. If McCain is the nominee, I don’t think he can win, and even if he did, he is so far left that except for the war in the middle east, nothing would be different between him and Hillary or Obama. Unfortunately, the way it looks, Huckabee and Paul will stay in the race past Super-Tuesday and therefor McCain will get the majority of the delegates. Unfortunately, the majority of the Republican voters are split between Romney, Huckabee, and Paul. Those that go for McCain wouldn’t normally go for those 3. However, if it is McCain, the supporters of the other 3 would only support McCain, if they vote at all, as a negative vote against Hillary or Obama. Indeed, time will tell.</p>
<p>"If McCain is the nominee, I don’t think he can win, and even if he did, he is so far left that except for the war in the middle east, nothing would be different between him and Hillary or Obama. "</p>
<p>I think FF is right. McCain is not the same as Clinton or Obama, particularly on national security. That said, I do think that concerns about his temperment are legitimate. I wish he’d at least feign some understanding re immigration.</p>
I was actually directing those words into the ether, figuring they are bound to waft past the ears of someone who has uttered them before—one of Hillary’s kookAid drinkers, actually.</p>