I missed it. I heard the Democrats actually ran into Fred Thompson at it. Did he kill them all, or did he leave one alive to tell the tale to others?
UPDATE:
I watched it off the DVR (yes, I have too much of a life to watch a debate live on Saturday night but not so much as to avoid recording it for later), and Fred Thompson was freaking awesome. I officially hate everyone not voting for him.
The dems’ predator/prey instincts kicked in, and they timidly stayed well out of his way. He actually let them live because their pathetic presence on his stage seemed to somehow magnify his awesomeness beyond its normally awesome levels.
BTW, did you see the expression on McCain’s face when Hillary leaned forward to talk to him? I think she needed a breath mint.
“BTW, did you see the expression on McCain’s face when Hillary leaned forward to talk to him? I think she needed a breath mint.”
I think he just detected the faint waft of Marxism underneath her perfume. Those years spent in a hanoi hilton would have made him a very capable detector of Communist bullsh**
When Hillary starts screeching, does everyone’s balls hurt as much as mine?
Watching all that handshaking reminded me of a Ned Flanders quote
“Note to self: Have hand re-blessed.”
I can’t wait to see Fred Thompson’s finishing move. I am sure it is going to blow away that spine ripping thing from mortal kombat.
Frank, we discovered why the Democrats support cloning. Fred killed them all in a wild series of leaping, spinning kicks. He finished with an awesome guitar solo after which he smashed his guitar into Hillary’s lifeless body until it was a fine paste. They were mopping up the blood for at least an hour. The dead “candidates” were replaced by their clones and the debate went on.
#6 — yes, and to answer Frank’s question — he killed them ALL but inflicted enough pain on the LOUDEST of them to alert the others.
There is some really excellent analysis on a blog called Crooked Timber. It explains that the reason for Huckabee’s surprising success is none other than Karl Rove. Rove used the evangelical church network to get George W. Bush re-elected – Bush would have lost without them. However, this is totally backfiring in 2008 because Huckabee has taken over the networks that Rove established. It is Karl Rove’s fault that Huckabee is having so much success.
The big problem is that Huckabee is getting all the evangelical votes and the other candidates are all splitting the votes of the other typical GOP votes. The scary thing is Huckabee could take this all the way because none of the candidates McCain, Romney, Thompson, Paul or Giuliani are quiting — this is allowing the vote to continue being split and it is almost gauranting that Huckabee becomes the nominee. People who are not doing well like Fred Thompson need to drop out of the race immediately otherwise Huckabee is going to win. Fred really can’t win and the saner GOP candidates need his votes. If Huck wins it is going to be Fred Thompson’s fault. Do you really want to be responsible for electing Huckabee? Tell your candidate he has done a good job but it is really time for him to exit. Give McCain, Romney, or Giuliani a chance to win before it is too late and Fred Thompson – who is not polling well anywhere – is personally responsible for making Huckabee the GOP nominee.
If Huckabee wins the nomination, it is not because of Fred, but because Republicans are idiots. It’ll be time to start a new Bull Moose Party.
If every single candidate stays in, then nobody gets a majority and we get a brokered convention.
While this has the possibility of leading to Huckabee, it also has the possibility of giving us a candidate we actually like, so I say it’s a toss up.
Actually, blaming Rove for the Evangelical movement that has propelled Huckabee is looking for a scapegoat.
Evangelicals have been supporting the GOP, carrying it, actually, since 1980. Had Evangelicals not abandoned Jimmy Carter (who had their support in 1976), and supported Reagan, the GOP would be a historical footnote after Watergate.
The problem with the traditional alliance between non-religious conservatives, who aren’t a very large group by themselves, and religious ones is that the economic conservatives have gotten everything they’ve wanted – Free Trade, Deregulation, tax breaks for the rich, etc, but the religious conservatives have little or nothing to show for 30 years of supporting the GOP. In short, people have voted against their economic interest for moral principles, only to see those principles short-shrifted.
The only reason Bush is President right now is because the state of Ohio had a initiative on the ballot to protect marriage. That brought out enough social conservatives to carry him over the top. Yet a federal amendment to protect marriage was almost immediately dropped after the election, and not surprisingly, the next election, Democrats ran the board in Ohio, picking up the Governorship, a Senate seat and several house seats.
Here’s a clue for you Economic Conservatives. You need us more than we need you. I know a lot of people who hate what the democratic party has become as much as I do, but they’ll never vote Republican because “Republicans are for rich people.”
If a divorce is coming, it might be a healthy one.
The problem with the traditional alliance between non-religious conservatives, who aren’t a very large group by themselves, and religious ones is that the economic conservatives have gotten everything they’ve wanted – Free Trade, Deregulation, tax breaks for the rich, etc, but the religious conservatives have little or nothing to show for 30 years of supporting the GOP. In short, people have voted against their economic interest for moral principles, only to see those principles short-shrifted.
Joe, I actually think people have been overdoing it in bashing you, but I really have no idea where you’re coming from in arguing this.
To the extent this was at all true earlier in the past 30 years ago, it sure as hell hasn’t been true lately and especially not with George Bush. The budget has been ballooning, the deficit has continued to increase, Social Security reform seems to be off the table right now, Sarbanes Oxley is still messing up our financial industry, and while some estate tax cuts were nice they haven’t been renewed and unless they are, all of that will evaporate in a couple years.
Meanwhile a pro-life and a wishy-washy Supreme Court Justice have been replaced by two solidly pro-life justices and attempts to institute gay marriage through state votes were stopped dead in their tracks in 2004 and outside of the occasional ruling have largely quieted down. Bush and the Republican Congress have been far more loyal to the cultural side of conservatism lately than the fiscal wing.
If anything, it’s the fiscal side that’s ready to bolt and honestly from someone who’s closer to that end (but has never had any animus towards your wing of the party), it seem like whining at this point to be saying that you guys will seek a divorce unless we do something else–Especially since estimates of Evangelicals range from only 0.5 to 3% of the population and even among that group a decent amount have always continued to vote Democrat even in our more favorable elections.
Exactly what measures are you seeking that the Republican Party hasn’t been instituting?
And when you use lines like “tax breaks for the rich” it really does sound like you’re just parroting Democratic talking points here. Please back that up and please explain why (if) you supported us in the past if you believe that’s the case.
That brought out enough social conservatives to carry him over the top. Yet a federal amendment to protect marriage was almost immediately dropped after the election, and not surprisingly, the next election, Democrats ran the board in Ohio, picking up the Governorship, a Senate seat and several house seats.
The Democrats won Ohio because our party in that state was corrupt as hell, had become involved in a lot of high profile scandals between 2004 and 2006, and anybody who had been following it really should know that.
We deserved to lose that one, but it had a far more to do with that than any cultural issues.
#11 – Posted by: JoeB131 on January 6, 2008 12:31 PM
Your a stupid troll repeating the things the Huckster has brainwashed you into believing. Also, your copy-and-paste arguments are annoying.
Huckabee supporters are just a bunch of cry babies. Economic Conservatives have gotten everything they wanted? Yah friggin right, in what universe do you live?
So, basically what I’m saying is, your a stupid troll, and should go away and tell the PaulBots to come back on your way out. At least their brain-washed copy-and-paste style arguments weren’t a bunch of cry babying BS.
How evangelicals size up the campaign:
McCain has been tarred for years by christian groups for McCain -Fiengold.
Rudy has been divorced twice, is iffy on abortion, and has 2nd amendment issues.
Romney wears funny underwear.
Huckabee is the guy that the MEDIA keeps portraying as the “Christian” candidate. The fact that Rolling Stone magazine trashed him is a bonus.
Fred is scary.
So, basically what I’m saying is, your a stupid troll, and should go away and tell the PaulBots to come back on your way out. At least their brain-washed copy-and-paste style arguments weren’t a bunch of cry babying BS.
Looks like Fred Thompson supporters are growing somewhat sympathetic now towards Ron Paul supporters now that both Fred Thompson and Ron Paul are losing. Misery loves company.
#16 – Posted by: TomL on January 6, 2008 02:21 PM
Actually I would be a Ron Paul Supporter if not for his foreign policy.
There are always going to be trolls, and apparently only one kind at a time, and Ron Paul Supporters are less annoying than Huckabee trolls and other liberal trolls.
There are always going to be trolls, and apparently only one kind at a time, and Ron Paul Supporters are less annoying than Huckabee trolls and other liberal trolls.
Why even bother denouncing Huckabee when you are helping Huckabee soar to victory with your dumb Fred blog? You know by continuing to drum up support for Fred it is only going to drain votes from the other GOP candidates and help Huckabee. Pretty lame to do that and then bash Huckabee supporters at the same time. Especially when you are partly responsible for Huckabee’s success. When Huckabee wins he should give a big “Thank You Fredheads” shout out.
If you want to know who is helping Huckabee get elected you idiots just need to look in the mirror.
Looks like Fred Thompson supporters are growing somewhat sympathetic now towards Ron Paul supporters now that both Fred Thompson and Ron Paul are losing.
For the record, I still hate you.
Both McCain and Giuliani were clearly exposed for the Amnesty true-believers that they are. That was the most positive result of the debate. Huckabee was not properly exposed because his record was addressed. Romney who will say anything at least did something useful by drawing out McCain’s true believes for all to see. Fred as always was just great.
To the extent this was at all true earlier in the past 30 years ago, it sure as hell hasn’t been true lately and especially not with George Bush. The budget has been ballooning, the deficit has continued to increase, Social Security reform seems to be off the table right now, Sarbanes Oxley is still messing up our financial industry, and while some estate tax cuts were nice they haven’t been renewed and unless they are, all of that will evaporate in a couple years.
If anything, it’s the fiscal side that’s ready to bolt and honestly from someone who’s closer to that end (but has never had any animus towards your wing of the party), it seem like whining at this point to be saying that you guys will seek a divorce unless we do something else–Especially since estimates of Evangelicals range from only 0.5 to 3% of the population and even among that group a decent amount have always continued to vote Democrat even in our more favorable elections.
Exactly what measures are you seeking that the Republican Party hasn’t been instituting?
And when you use lines like “tax breaks for the rich” it really does sound like you’re just parroting Democratic talking points here. Please back that up and please explain why (if) you supported us in the past if you believe that’s the case.
#12 – Posted by: WAL
The fact is that most people haven’t seen huge tax cuts, but the wealthy have. And the estate tax? Seriously, do you really care if Paris Hilton gets half the family fortune or all of it? It doesn’t affect me.
Then you get the biggest giveaways of all, like the Bankruptcy bill, which doesn’t stop big corporations from seeking bankruptcy protection, it just screws the little guy who had a bad year with medical bills. Yup, got to protect Citibank’s obscene profit margin, those fetuses are on their own.
Meanwhile, Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is becoming legal, and if you question it, you’ll join Isaiah Washington and Ann Coulter at the Death Camp of Tolerance. School Choice went nowhere, kids are still being taught Darwinism without a counterbalancing view, right after they get a bag of rubbers. In short, the country is still sliding towards Gomorrah.
It is estimated that there are 70 million evangelicals in this country. That doesn’t include fundementalists and conservative Catholics like myself who find a lot of appeal in Huckabee’s message.
And all of that said, I would probably vote for Fred if he were the nominee. I would hold my nose, and I could maybe vote for McCain, despite some of the really stupid things he’s said in the past. Giuliani is a non-starter for me. Romney I just don’t trust. But you know what, they are all politicians at the end of the day.
Just pointing out a truth. People vote their pocketbooks.
Don’t you think that contradicts
The problem with the traditional alliance between non-religious conservatives, who aren’t a very large group by themselves
You’re saying fiscal conservative aren’t a big wing of the party, but that most people vote their pocketbooks?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re familiar with why Republicans believe tax cuts help everybody and why we believe the measures Democrats advocate to help your relatives, whether it be unions, government handouts, tax increases, regulations on business, and (lately) seeking trade restrictions actually hurt an economy, destroy you’re relatives’ jobs and put their employers out of business. When you write stuff like:
In short, people have voted against their economic interest for moral principles, only to see those principles short-shrifted.
It really sounds like a Democratic who’s merely read “What’s a Matter with Kansas?” and is just trying to impersonate a righty.
tonight’s debate should be amazing since they won’t have to spend a quarter of the time rebutting ronpaul’s blaming america for everything.
The idea that Huckabee will win if Thompson doesn’t drop out is about as preposterous as saying we should fight a forest fire by withdrawing water to combat it.
At this point, McCain, Paul and Giuliani should stop their campaigns because their transparency becomes too conspicuous when they speak. That is no way to run a campaign; a candidate should be transparent from the start in the regards to him not saying one thing while intending another. I sat the others become conspicuously transparent because their words contradict their intentions & history.
I agree that Huck has the Evangelical vote, not because Rove paved the way, but because he is playing them like a violin and although I am a Christian & believe that one nation under God ought to be lead by a genuine believer, I find it shallow for politicians to appeal to them in that manner & that the Evangelicals seem to blindly follow any guy who’s playing the God card.
However, that’s how the game is played. Obama, a life-long Muslim who was sworn in on a koran, knows this & that’s why the phony joined the Church of Christ. Like Huck, Paul, Giuliani & McCain, he just wants the power. All the same, if we were a nation under Allah, Huck just might be a Sunni.
The reason I like Thompson is that he’s not trying to be all things to all people while being everything to each group. And no, he does not have the “perfect record”, but if you look at it, It’s pretty damn good, a helluva lot better that the rest of these so-called conservatives.
Of course, it’s not all spotless & perfect, like Ron Paul’s… LOL!
The fact is that most people haven’t seen huge tax cuts, but the wealthy have. And the estate tax? Seriously, do you really care if Paris Hilton gets half the family fortune or all of it? It doesn’t affect me.
The estate tax affects any estates worth over $2 million. That affects a lot more people than Paris Hilton. That includes the values of houses, small businesses, and farms – if you want to complain about any of those are disappearing and want to find the root of it, that’s Exhibit A. (and that’s just the exemption at the federal level, in many states it’s less)
Then you get the biggest giveaways of all, like the Bankruptcy bill, which doesn’t stop big corporations from seeking bankruptcy protection, it just screws the little guy who had a bad year with medical bills. Yup, got to protect Citibank’s obscene profit margin, those fetuses are on their own.
Citibank has had an obscene profit margin?
Joe, pardon my French, but wtf are you talking about?
They’ve lost billions of dollars, their stock has been languishing for years and has lately lost 50% of its value.
Any big guy that bet on Citibank is getting his ass kicked – The only way the little guy gets hurt is if it goes out of business and the federal government isn’t protecting them, then anybody who had small accounts with them loses their money.
Meanwhile, Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is becoming legal, and if you question it, you’ll join Isaiah Washington and Ann Coulter at the Death Camp of Tolerance.
Isaiah Washington did not join the Death Camp of Tolerance for questioning gay marriage. He joined it because he went around calling people a faggot.
I’m happy to join you with culture war stuff, but that can be fought without being a jackass and the inability to do that is what got the guy trouble, tough shit.
As far as abortion, we’ve just put two solidly conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and if you have a way to stop outside of us getting 67 votes in the Senate, please let us know. If you want to enlist the help of Democrats in opposing it, again, be my guest.
kids are still being taught Darwinism
As they damn well should be – (sorry I know I’m enlisting the wrath of a boatload of people here, but this is where I jump off the culture war bandwagon)
right after they get a bag of rubbers. In short, the country is still sliding towards Gomorrah.
Which sucks – The President is supposed to do what about it?
It is estimated that there are 70 million evangelicals in this country.
Look, I have nothing against evangelicals, but there are nowhere even vaguely within the ballpark of 70 million in this country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States At the high estimate, it’s a little over 10 million and at the low it’s about 0.5%, a great well-meaning and perfectly good 0.5-3%, but still 0.5-3%.
“Saying” you oppose abortion doesn’t make you a social conservative and more than having a stock portfolio makes you an economic conservative.
WTF ever happened to separation of powers and states rights? If Kansas wants to “teach” Creationism and Kalifornia wants to kill fetuses that’s supposed to be their call. If you don’t like your state’s take on an issue get the laws changed or move.
The presidency isn’t about abortion or education or welfare. The presidency is about keeping government small and smacking down 7th century goat fers who want to impose their F‘d up code of morality on us.
If Mike Chuklesbee is a conservative of any stripe than Fred! dresses in Tie-dye and smells of patcholie
Fred was so freaking great!!! Now with out Ron Paul sucking up airtime on the Fox Debate watch Fred clean the floor with the rest of them…using Chuck Norris as the mop!!
AlanABQ, what a good post. Indeed, the RINOs and nuts (that includes everyone but Fred, and the evil McCain is both) have to drop out to make it easier for Fred to win. There is no evidence that Huckabee is worse than McCain, Giuliani, and Paul. At least he tries to lie his way out of his Amnesty and Iraq postions, whereas the other three tell the truth and leave no ambiguity about how flawed they are. Romney is better than the other RINO/nut contingent because he has lived a good life, at least studied something about the Islamic threat in serious fashion (and for that matter so has Huck), and says the right things about immigration demonstrating at least the understanding of the problem. He of course will say anything at all. But the moral of the story is that there is no real evidence that anybody other than Fred is even an acceptable choice. Therefore, Fred should stay until the end.
Only FRED! is worth a flying tinkers damn. Paul is a toon, and all the others are, at BEST, old fashioned southern demoncraps. All but FRED! are RINOs, or toons. Let that sink in, folks. He is the ONLY hope we’ve got to get away from the left lean or hard left break. And don’t forget the congressional seats we need to take back. The POTUS can do but so much without backup.
Therefore, Fred should stay until the end.
If he does that Igor and you keep supporting him you’ll be able to look in the mirror and say I helped get Huckabee nominated by urging Fred to continue and having loser Fred gobble up votes that could have gone to other candidates that could have beaten Huck. Fred is doing the worst – he’s polling the worst. Fred should be the one to go.
Wal, to address your points.
I’d have no problem with lifting the limit on the inheritence tax to cover small farms, etc. (actually, I think the current law has exemptions). To abolish it completely is foolish. More importantly, it doesn’t affect me! I’m never going to be rich enough to worry about it, and even if I do, I’ll be freaking DEAD, so I won’t care. Yet the GOP has put this on the top of the priorities list?
I’m sure the guy who bought citibank stocks is taking it in the shorts, but do you think they are giving up their lobster lunches or their eight figure salaries? Hell, no. And if the government authorizes another big bailout, who do you think is going to benefit. It isn’t going to be Joe Sixpack who’s teetering on bankruptcy because his wife got cancer. Our party has lost its connection with Joe Sixpack, and that’s why we are suffering now.
my problem with Isaiah Washington is not that I thought it was cool he said the word he said. I have friends who are gay, and really, whatever they do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. My problem was that he was treated like he just been caught turning puppies into sausage. Ann Coulter was treated the same for just joking about it. An apology should have been sufficient. Instead the guy got sent to councelling and STILL lost his job. That’s just nuts, but it’s Political Correctness.
On Darwinism, you left off my qualifier, without being taught a balancing point of view. I don’t think Darwinism should be banned, but I think the objections that a lot of have about its deficiencies should also be taught. I think the Biblical Account isnt’ entirely accurate, but the Darwinist theory has holes in it. Have the discussion.
As far as how many “evangelicals” there are, I think that the problem is the definition is so nebulous that it would be impossible to nail down a real number. I’m not. I’m a Catholic. Don’t go to church very often, but I read the bible and have very strong opinions on moral issues. Yet, looking at the candidates, I would say Huckabee is the one I most connect with.
When you write stuff like:
In short, people have voted against their economic interest for moral principles, only to see those principles short-shrifted.
It really sounds like a Democratic who’s merely read “What’s a Matter with Kansas?” and is just trying to impersonate a righty.>>>
I’ve always wondered why that is such an anger point amongst so many conservatives? Maybe because the author had a point?
One of the titans of the Democratic party was a man named William Jenning Bryan. He is remembered best today because of the way he has been maligned for his role in the Scopes “Monkey Trial”, but in reality he was a man of great conviction with a great sense of social justice. He had a keen sense of religious conviction, but also realized there was a role of government to protect the common man. Somewhere along the line, the GOP forgot its role to protect the common man, and the Democrats forgot Jesus. The person who gets it right first is the party that will dominate for the last few decades I expect to live. The Democrats are more likely to get it right with Jesus than the GOP is to get it right on Corporate America. Hell, Obama is halfway there now.
As far as trade restrictions, today i bought a new DVD player, and was informed by the clerk that ‘nothing in this store is made in America’. Now, please, explain to me what fair trade is going to do that is any freakin’ worse than that? We are bleeding money in trade at a rate of 500 billion a year or more. That can’t be sustained without us being reduced to a poor country.
I had a great history teacher in high school who I think was smarter than any of the professors I had in college. One of the things he said to me was that “Money knows no flag”. As long as the big corporations can make a profit, they don’t care if the average American lives in poverty or wealth. They just don’t have the long view of things.
This is why I like Huckabee. He at least realizes there is a problem.
I’d have no problem with lifting the limit on the inheritence tax to cover small farms, etc. (actually, I think the current law has exemptions). To abolish it completely is foolish. More importantly, it doesn’t affect me! I’m never going to be rich enough to worry about it, and even if I do, I’ll be freaking DEAD, so I won’t care. Yet the GOP has put this on the top of the priorities list?
Joe, 1. I missed where the GOP has put this on the top of their priority list – it hasn’t even been renewed, but – 2. if you’re only going to be concerned only about issues that affect you, why should anybody else act any differently? Why should people on our end care about yours?
It does affect you, just like all the other policies do ultimately – rich people don’t sit on their ass and let the government tax them and that at it’s root is the key problem with every Democratic policy to take money from them to help the poor. They’re perfectly capable of moving their assets overseas or just moving themselves overseas completely. Instead of getting a less amount than you want through taxes, if you try to soak the super-rich, they’ll just bail on you completely and you wind up with nothing–meaning you get less money to spend on these programs to help the poor.
I’m sure the guy who bought citibank stocks is taking it in the shorts, but do you think they are giving up their lobster lunches or their eight figure salaries? Hell, no.
No – they’re firing them. The CEO resigned and mass lay-offs are expected. That’s common on Wall Street, you can make a good salary, but if you cease churning out profits for your employer, you get fired at the drop of a hat.
Some people, like the CEO got a good exit package, but the company is paying for what it did – it’s losing a shitload.
And if the government authorizes another big bailout, who do you think is going to benefit.
When it does, feel free to come back here – but the banks have already been declaring huge write-downs for months and nothing’s happened, so this isn’t the best argument that the Republicans are sucking up to fat-cats. They’ve already diluted the value of their current shares in order to get inflows of cash to stay afloat, so a bail-out now would already be a little late.
They’ve also lost money through sub-prime loans. Progressives have complained about red-lining and the lack of the ability of poor people to get loans. So now that banks have engaged in this, and are about to lose a ton of money off it, you want to soak them?
On Darwinism, you left off my qualifier, without being taught a balancing point of view.
Yeah, I did. Sorry, I know I’m stoking a fight with this – but I don’t think it should be taught with a qualifier (at least not with creationism as the qualifier). If you want to make the case that it should allowed to be there because local parents should be allowed to make the ultimate decisions on what to teach their kids and they should have the final say, I might be able to go with that, but on an overall level on just what my opinion is of what should be taught: evolution happened, it has implications I don’t like, it’s been used as an excuse for some bad things over the past hundred years, but it happened. Yeah, it’s a still classified as a theory, the bulk of science involves stuff that’s still classified as a theory, I don’t enjoy arguing about this stuff and atheists who do bug the hell out of me, but it still happened.
As far as how many “evangelicals” there are, I think that the problem is the definition is so nebulous that it would be impossible to nail down a real number. I’m not. I’m a Catholic.
Now that’s a different thing for me – you want to say there are a bunch of religious conservatives in this country, I won’t argue; I consider Evangelicals a specific type of protestant and that’s what I’m arguing.
I’ve always wondered why that is such an anger point amongst so many conservatives? Maybe because the author had a point?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the main problem I have is that the assumption here is that a bunch of Democrats insisting (even sincerely) that their actions are intended means that these are the steps that actually would help and not hurt the poor.
Unions and the minimum wage are part of that. Sure companies could manufacture goods like the DVD player you mentioned in the U.S. If they do, because of unions, because of wage laws, because of taxes, and numerous other things, it would cost much more to do it – the end result is the company would have to charge you much more to earn the same amount of profit.
You might say: there are ways around it – If you force them not to sell it for less and just earn less profit (and really, they’ll have to because people aren’t going to pay more just for the ability to buy America–it’s been tried), foreign companies will then be more profitable, though, they’ll develop better products and they’ll put our companies out of business.
If you put tariffs or other trade restrictions, you won’t have a choice – you’ll be forced to pay more. And this is discounting what happens when the companies try to sell the more expensive goods overseas (where buy American means nothing).
Unions have their benefits when dealing with monopolies – but overall, what these measures did wasn’t help the little guy, they just made these jobs illegal.
The same thing happens with taxes, we’ve tried it and the consequence has just been causing companies to go out of business or move overseas. The end result is we both have fewer entities to tax and have less jobs that would have been available to Americans.
Now, beyond whether any of these policies are good or not, it is possible that the people a guy like Thomas Frank is discussing in that book might disagree with the Democrats on whether these policies are good — when you talk to average liberal, this just doesn’t enter their heads (and this is where I agree with you, the whole “Democrats are the ones that care about the poor” thing comes up) and that’s what’s at one level entertaining and at another, so f’g annoying.
Typo: “You might say: there are ways around it – If you force them not to sell it for more and just earn less profit . . .”
Qwai Chang McCain (I respect his sacrifice in Vietnam and he was a Hero, but so was Benedict Arnold)is a Conservative Democrat at best and is more than ready to partner with Kennedy and Schummer on a number of issues from Open Borders to Liberal Judges and tons of anti 2nd Amendment laws. Rudy is the same and will play ball with his Dem allies on borders, guns and judges.
I will be the GOP candidate before Fred Thompson! He SUCKS as a candidate and his rallies attack a few dozen supporters on a GOOD day.
Ron Paul is the GOP’s version of Denis Kucinich. They can go hold hands in a field and wait for the Mother Ship to give them a ride home.
The GOP establishment has decided that they hate Mitt Romney more than they hate the Dems and want him out.
I agree that Huckabee is a scary figure but I might be more willing to gamble on his fiscal issues because I think he is a safer bet on the cultural issues. Having heard him in NH on Saturday, it seems he has heard the choir on teh border issue and will put his personal feelings aside and follow the will of the people.
He is a safer bet for getting real conservative judges and blocking any anti 2nd legislation.
I am personally opposed to homosexual marriage and have worked against it here in Mass, but I do not want a Constitutional Amendment against it. It should be a States issue and what we need is a way to stop activist Courts from blocking State laws banning it or the recognition of marriages from other States if they want.
I was in NH this weekend and saw Huckabee, Obama (be afraid, be VERY afraid!!) and Clinton (I imagine it was like it would feel being close to pure evil).
Huckabee scares me the least.
BTW, Obama has been an active member of the Church of Christ for 16 years and was sworn into all offices, Local State and Federal, on the Holy Bible.
His early religious life was a blend of Muslim and Catholic.
16 years is a long time to wear a mask. If his phony-ass was so Catholic, why the swear in on the li’l book of Mohammed’s musings? Unless it was a publicity stunt, and that’s just what America needs; more Hollywood-esque drama from liberal gas bags.
What’s he going to do next, defiantly hold his weenie as the national anthem is playing? Wait, he did that. How about he refuse to display the flag of the country he wants so desperately to run? Oops; does that, too. Maybe if he gets elected, he’ll appoint Louis Farrakhan as his national security adviser- y’know, just to be different & shake things up a bit.
If that’s the type of leader he wants to be, fine; then he should be the president… of Iraq. At least there he can show his disdain for the USA openly for once & ditch that pesky ol’ Christian stuff he’s been milking all this time. After all Matthew 6:24 says, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”
In this context, either he’s a Muslim or he is not. That little book- the same one he chose to be sworn in on- will say the same, but in much less kindly terms.
“What’s he going to do next, defiantly hold his weenie as the national anthem is playing? Wait, he did that. How about he refuse to display the flag of the country he wants so desperately to run? Oops; does that, too. Maybe if he gets elected, he’ll appoint Louis Farrakhan as his national security adviser- y’know, just to be different & shake things up a bit.”
Just as much as I figure he would fail to retaliate after an attack against us.
TomL, two points: I fear McCain more than Huckabee because McCain is a true believer in amnesty, and Huckabee is just a shifty politician. Therefore I don’t see that I need to make life easier for McCain.
Second point: polls are influenced by the media and recent primary results. All these can change. There is also a tendency to focus on the issues rather than personalities more the later it is in the campaign. I can estimate chances under many circumstances with complete detachment from my preferences, and while Fred could certainly be in a better position (who couldn’t?) his cause isn’t a lost one by any measure.