Thank you for you input Anju Chandel. That's what these people need to here. The Republicans are not living in reality. There are now two americas. The people on this post need to here from outside voices. Yesterday someone from Austrailia came in and said the same. This is what WE need to hear, as opposed to only watching fox and getting NONE of the real current news

Whosoever becomes the next President of the US, he or she should NOT have any of the traits displayed shamelessly by the current incumbent of the White House.

vp. richardson of biden. On point. Unless Gore enters.

Go GOre Obama 08

Nissl: what about Obama-Graham? That'd deliver FL to the D's and perhaps blunt the redneck vote in the South.

Alan,

Sorry for the delay in responding - work got the better of me. I suspect this will get buried but I might as well respond anyway.

I don't disagree with all that you say; I would prefer that the democrats not nominate Hillary though there was a period last month where she was doing fairly well in head-to-heads. The question is whether she would motivate the base and turn off enough moderates to lose OH/CO/IA/NM. She'd have to erase what looks like a 6% dem advantage in OH. I'm not sure it's case closed that she has that kind of impact.

Obama is back to generally leading Giuliani and McCain by a couple of points in head-to-heads despite lower name recognition. He has the best favorable/unfavorable split, just ahead of Giuliani, and the highest solid general election support. As far as the race issue, it's my understanding that Ford Jr. neither underperformed nor overperformed the polls. He was shown losing by about 3% and he did. He also neither underperformed nor overperformed the national swing (which was about 5% away from R and to D relative to 2004). Although he was probably above average in terms of campaigning skill, he also had his incredibly corrupt family dragging him down.

I think Obama with a heavyweight foreign policy VP (Biden, Clark, Richardson?) would be a very hard ticket to handle. The only republican who can *really* hammer Obama on inexperience is McCain, and McCain risks being cast as old and too much "stay the course" in a change election.

if they were telling their listeners to read more, watch varying news, love theri neighbor and be good christians (which they "claim to be') we wouldn't have a rpoblem. They are doing that are tehy?

then we are at an impasse tG. Rush has 10 million listeners. O'REilly has almost 5 million. That is a day. That is 15 millions dittoheads doing the bidding of two people. Add in Hannity abut 2-3 million

That's almost 20 million "dittohead". Followers doing the bidding of three men. And your going to say Franken is equal to that "propoganda." I don't think he is a propogandist. With that being said I doubt if he has 1 million listeners. Liberlas don't do that. Giving up my idendity to be a dittohead is a starnge concept to me. You give up yourself, so someone else can make a forutne, and you live through them? They are your avatar? I can't understand teh pack follower mentallity. Espiecally from people who claim to love this country

Rufus - if you honestly believe that the Franken's of the world are not the liberal equivalent of the ones you are decrying as progandists then I am not sure we should waste time trying to convince each other of anything. I suppose Michael Moore is another pure truth teller and doesn't fall into that category too?

Ron Paul.
My vote.
the rest are posers.

Well, JimD, I was only half joking about Madonna and Michael Moore -I continued to support Clark after those fluff items, but I knew he was collecting baggage.

Alan, beyond the credentials you just mentioned, one of my friends in State who was assigned to the various Yugoslav crises had much contact with Clark, and says he was a very quick study on the diplomacy side of the issues.

Bokonon, for the record, I voted for Bush for Gov. in '98 but thought he was too short on analytical skills and FP background for Pres in 2000. I voted for Gore, and when GWB won I was relieved by the selection of Powell, especially, and I hoped we could avoid foreign entanglements for four years. Actually, all three of my long time State Dept. hand friends think he was among the best they ever served under.

Maybe some of us could get Powell-Clark for our dream unity ticket.

JD, I agree with your recitation of prior pres. qualifications on fp, and I do not mean to overlook issues like character and dedication to the Constitution which I always hope will go "without saying". But as I would say to Blarg, whose point about the field being narrowed if FP is a primary issue, I think it would be OK to narrow the field this time.

Anonymous, Tommy Thompson could have been wearing a diaper. I'm just sayin'...

Al Franken is the counter balance to Rush/O'Reilly'Hannity? WOW. What a strange world you live in. Franken is irrelevant. But He speaks truth. He's not a propogater. My question is, the right has propogaters all day long. The LEFT HAS NO PROPOGATERS. Freedom fighters. Truth seekers. :)

It's not that I want a counter balance to Rush'O'REilly. THERE SHOULD BE NO LIARS AND PROPOGANDIST posing as newsman or journalists

JD,
Thanks for the compliment. But I'm not sure why you think my point about Wes Clark was getting off track, since I'm using him as an example of a Democratic candidate more likely to have crossover appeal than the current Democratic primary leaders. I put Webb in the same category because neither of these are guys are career politicians. They have built real, successful , nonpartisan careers outside of politics. What other Democrat do you think could have won Virginia from Allen? I happen to think Clark is eminently more qualified by experience and intellect than any of the current candidates from either party to extract us from Iraq (#1 in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar to Oxford, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, etc. etc..) and could not be typecast as a "moonbat liberal". He also would have significant appeal outside of the hardcore Democratic party faithful. Giuliani and McCain have some crossover appeal to Democrats, but I don't personally believe any Democrats have measurable crossover appeal to Republicans. With which part of this obeservation do you disagree, or see as getting off track?

Rufus,

I am sure you have heard of Al Franken, and Arianna Huffington to name two. They are the counterpoint to the Rush's and Coulter's of the world - as is Air America. I guess because nobody listens to them they are not as popular. But listen, I don't like Anne Coulter and I don't listen to Limbaugh. I do think that Coulter in particular is a destructive force. However, I wouldn't sensor any of them including Weird Al Franken.

Don't be mad because the republicans have FINALLY rolled over on your president TG. This has been long over due. If the right would have kicked Bush to the curb 3 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation. Fox lied and propogated, not to mention used fear tactics against not only media but ordinary citizens. The sooner the republicans all denouce this president the sooner they will have a 10% chance of winning. Keep backing him and they have a 0% chance. Either way. I don't like your and zouks odds

You just mentioned Rurdoch's plan TG. Why do most republicans "only watch Fox"? Is that a good way to get all the news. We know Fox has been a major reason so many people follow this president (still). Dittoheads. Brainless followers. We need that off the air. Their is no Rush of the left. NO hannity. No COulter. All these lying propoganda facists are on the right

Rufus - while we are at it. Let's let Chavez take over all of our TV stations so there is a uniformity of view points out there. That's the ticket.

I think McCain is cooked. I was watching the C-Span coverage post debate and just about everyone that called in was fired up about immigration and piping mad at McCain.

The sad thing is, I think McCain is doing what he thinks is right and I think it will cost him his chance. Immigration is a huge issue (warning to dems: it may swing the general election in key states to the republicans) and I don't think McCain will overcome his position.

Aside from that - the red meat republicans seem to love Tancredo and Ron Paul. I think the poster that says we should simply discard the also rans is completely off base. This should be a diverse process for all parties. Does anyone really think business as usual on either side is what this country needs right now?

The right is putting our children in danger. In many ways they don't know. Phyiscally, mentally, economically. I fear for the future. Bad news is not better than no news, always. We need FOx "News" and Limbaugh off the air

I actually would enjoy it if college graduates ran for all of the seats and replaced them all. The members of congress have had a free pass for so long, they are calling us "their people". Those jobs are for The People to be represented, not for those jug heads to give our country away with these bills, Trade Agreements, and to the Chamber of Commerce. Why can't we just take our country back while we can still do it with a vote? Those senators like Kennedy and Specter are over estimating their value to all of us as though they own their seats and have nothing to do with the people who used to believe in them.

Alan, your earlier post and analysis was very well thought out and interesting (until you went off the tracks at the end talking about Wes Clark, but, whatver...)

Mark, you're right, if McCain somehow gets the immigration bill passed, he's out in my book. As for foreign policy, for the most part, unless we're going to elect a General or GHW Bush, CIA leader, etc, most of the time presidents are governors, and lack the foreign policy experience. HRC has done a couple years on armed svcs committee, and that's something, but Obama? or haircut-boy? Much of the time, it's OTJ (Clinton, Carter, Reagan, even JFK - our only recent Foreign policy studs pre-prez were Ike, Nixon, LBJ and GHW)

Wolf Blitzer did something of a good job in the after debate comments. But the other two .. whatever they were... did not have one single bit of knowledge about the Immigration Issue.

In the debate, all of the canidates agreed that there were significant problems that needed to be addressed and now. Most of them agreed that the current Amnesty/Immigration Bill was a mess. Some of the Canidates finally agreed that the swindle of the anchor babies had to be dealt with.

Immigration, finally, has been acknowledged as a critical element of American Security and boy, it is about time.

Mark

I am also a past and present Wesley Clark fan. I do not see why Madonna endorsing him is a disqualifier. I do not give a rat's a## what she does or says. Many Democrats far to the left of Clark endorsed him because they believed he could deliver the presidency and because he was one of the most credible opponents of the war in Iraq from the start. As for Clark not disavowing Michael Moore, I am disappointed that he did not but do you hold Republicans to the same standard (i.e., disavowing Rush and the talk radio noise machine)? Bush would not even disavow Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell when they blamed 9/11 on liberals and Hollywood - pretty much the same line as Osama was taking. He disagreed but would not allow administration officials to criticize them.

I agree that Clark could be a transformational candidate if he could somehow get the nomination. He is a good shot for VP on a ticket headed by Obama or Hillary. Should Edwards get the nomination (one Dem I would NEVER voter for) he would probably go for a woman or minority - Governor Sibelius of Kansas or Richardson (if he manages to start coming off better in debates).

They should call these Repub debates "the let's nuke Iran gang." McCain scored talking about the "unnecessary" deaths in Iraq due to the bungled postwar occupation. Bushie's not gonna like that. He did well enough to keep in the game a while longer. Rudy lost me at the start when he tried to link the aborted attacks against Fort Dix and the JFK airport to Iran. Then he was slobbering over poor Scooter Libby. Tommy Thompson was a winner too: he didn't pee his pants.

We've spent most of the past four years wondering what would happen if the warmongering idiots holding office in Iran or the USA shut the Strait of Hormuz. That narrow body of water - only 70m deep in the shipping channel - is the artery for 40 percent of the world's exported oil supply.

Wonder no more. God is in the game, and he's showing us how it's done with a storm more destructive than any in the historical record for the region.

As of this morning Oman is taking a pounding from Gonu. Although Gonu has weakened in intensity overnight, the Category 1 storm has also shifted direction so that it looks like running along the coast of Oman, headed for the Strait of Hormuz. Oil and natural gas shipments will be severely disrupted.

I agree that in 2000, Bush did not appear to be nearly as bad as he turned out. He seemed almost moderate.But that was before the position of president made him meglomaniac.

Cheney and Rumsfled, on the other hand, have only one agenda, really: privatization. Of the military, of the government, of other countries' resources. That's really their sole obssession--using taxpayer money to benefit transnational corporations.

And I think every single other candidate has the same agenda--certainly Rudy does. Nobody has capitialized more on the 'war on terror' than he has. Except possibly McCain. I do have some respect for the man -- but I think his idea about Iraq--that we should just stay there indefinitely and exhaust our military is completely wrong, which is what our generals think too.

"How convenient. Mixing taxpayer-paid travel with campaign finance efforts is wrong"

Glad you agree that Bush's shameless use of AF1 for this purpose (which cost a heck of lot more) during the 2006 campaign was far beyond the pale. Can you reproduce your posts stating your outrage during that time? Didn't think so.

Mark in Austin, to answer your last question, yes I am probably voting for the Democrat. (If I find that I just can't, I may not vote for president.) However, if I were to choose a Republican from the current group:
McCain, despite his a$$-kissing of the religious right, seems the most human of all of them.
I am unimpressed by Giuliani - sure he was good as NY mayor on 09.11, although my friends from NYC say that he was an egotist and an autocrat. I have also heard it said that much of what he has taken credit for was begun under David Dinkins (the previous mayor.)
Romney has no business being on that stage. His campaign is a self-funded ego trip, during which he takes credit not due him (he did NOT balance the MA budget, and vetoed the health care bill before he signed it), inflates his experience as head of the Salt Lake Olympics (you'd think he was an athlete!) - which does not say much about his potential as president anyway, and fervently embraces the social agenda of the Christian right. No deal.
Don't know that much about the rest, but a few final things:
If Thompson and / or Gingrich get in, all bets are off. Fred Thompson is the GOP establishment candidate in waiting - they hope to run on "Law + Order," slickly packaged with high production values. Thing is, Thompson was not particularly impressive as a legislator and he's a bit of a playboy, which says to me that the GOP capi are looking for a figurehead. Thing is, it might work in this poor benighted country of ours.
Of all of the "field horses," I have been most impressed with Ron Paul. He seems the most honest and reflective, and the least scripted. Of course, he has no chance, and some of what he says makes me sit up and say "WHAT?"
So if I had to pick a Republican, like you, it would be McCain. But if we had him, we would have to have also a Democratic Congress with real cojones to keep him on a short leash.

But I can't see myself voting Republican this year. I'm still hoping Gore will get in.

"Two subcommittees attached to the House Homeland Security committee will have members in New Orleans on Tuesday for a tour of levees and pumps to help assess the area's ability to deal with a hurricane. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, will take advantage of the panel's "fact finding" visit to push the case for his re-election campaign with a fund-raising dinner at the Lowes Hotel on Monday night. Tickets are $2,300 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees."

How convenient. Mixing taxpayer-paid travel with campaign finance efforts is wrong.

Here are the results of letter scrambling --

R:
Tancredo = den actor
Ron Paul = our plan
Mitt Romney = Mity-Mentor

D:
John Edwards = Jaw; shred; nod.

There must be better and other ones.

Personally, I think experience in foreign affairs isn't a necessary qualification for a president. It's true that foreign affairs is a significant part of a president's job. But the problem with requiring foreign policy experience is that you disqualify most of the candidates immediately.

The only way to get foreign affairs experience is to be a Congressman on a foreign affairs committee, a diplomat, or a vice-president. That rules out much of Congress and all governors. So I think it's too restrictive as a prerequisite. I'd rather have a candidate with a strong domestic policy background. The VP, national security advisor, etc., can bring the foreign policy experience. It's true that this model didn't work well for Bush, but I think he was an anomaly.

It is time to winnow the field. Get rid of Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, Gilmore, Hunter, T. Thompson, etc. Then, let McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson speak at precisely the same moment, because their positions are identical on most issues. After they finish their posturing and pandering, let Ron Paul speak for what the Republican Party used to stand for and should still stand for. That is to say, nonintervention in the affairs of other nations and the defense of the Constitution. People who think he is a crank and a loon should take a close look at his many speeches and statements archived at his Congressional website, www.house.paul/gov. His cogent and reasoned arguments against meddling in the Middle East are most illuminating. To the eternal sorrow of this country, his wise counsel was ignored, hence we find ourselves involved in yet another no-win war, this time in Iraq with another one on the way in Iran.

Mark in Austin, I also donated to Clark in 2004 (only time ever donating to a politician's campaign!). Sadly, voters seem to treat elections more like "American Idol" than an actual job application for President of the US. I had no major problem with Kerry in 2004, other than I thoght his record in the Senate was somewhat undistinguished and I suspected it would be difficult in the general election for ANYONE who could be typecast as a "Massachusetts liberal". Frankly, I think Kerry was better qualified than ANY of the Democrats 2008 top 3. On the GOP side, I like McCain's experience best but completely disagree with his position on the surge. I admire some of the principled positions he's taken in the past (Bob Jones U, torture). Something needs to be done about immigration, and as a senator in a border state I think McCain understands the issue. Right now, he looks like the best candidate to me. I want a Democrat to win at least to keep the Supreme Court balanced, but if they give us Hillary, Obama, or Edwards--I think we're going to get at least 4 more years of Republican White House.

Mark in Austin, you make a good point. However, Cheney and Rumsfeld have nowhere near the credential of Powell. Their advantage was that they were willing and able to manipulate a vain, intellectually incurious man, whereas Powell was not. You and a great many others cast an understandable vote in 2000, but no one could predict the degree to which Bush would ignore the good advice while seeking out the bad.

my last post til 1p -

|, of the Rs, who do you think has the most competency for foreign affairs?

Bokonon, I hear your frustration with McCain's "positioning" - I share it - but who of the Rs do you think has the most competency for foreign affairs?

If you are surely voting D, tell me who you would find to be the best R Pres, and why...

I want to offer an example of my own mistakes and/or ignorance. I knew that my former Governor had no actual foreign policy experience or skill, but I knew that he was taking tutelage from George Schulz, who had been a successful SOS. I thought choosing Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfield would give him reliable old hands with scope.

I did not know as much about Cheney and Rumsfield as I thought I did. I did not know that GWB would follow Cheney and Rumsfield against Powell - he had worked well with Bullock and Laney as Gov., which made him look like he could discern good advice from recklessness.

For me, the lesson is that the Pres. him[her]self must have the track record in foreign policy. s/he must be very discerning.

Mark in Austin, I don't necessarily think McCain has the chops you think he does. Sure he's tough, and a hawk, but his stroll through the Baghdad marketplace and subsequent comments on it - although I understand he has since revised so as to be closer to reality - would say that he's as much a political animal as any of them. For foreign policy, Wes Clark is good, Biden is good, some others, too... and McCain a few years ago I would have put on that list too, but since he went in the tank for Bush, I have reservations.

The LAT fronts a must-read first-person column by Megan Stack, who was, until recently, the paper's Cairo bureau chief and frequently made reporting trips to Saudi Arabia. Of course, it's widely known that the sexes in Saudi Arabia are segregated, but reading Stack's experiences of how she felt when she was kicked out of a Satrbucks, or was yelled at by a security guard for standing on the street, is a powerful reminder of how women are constantly treated as second-class citizens. "I spent my days in Saudi Arabia struggling unhappily between a lifetime of being taught to respect foreign cultures and the realization that this culture judged me a lesser being."

The fact that many of the Republican candidates were openly disdainful of Bush II shows Ron Paul's impact on the race. Only he was that way at the beginning of the year, now the others are follwing his lead (love the Tancredo line about "not darkening the White House." Yet they still can't bring themsleves to attack Bush's war, which will be to Rep. Paul's advantage. 10 candidates support the war, one opposed. You do the math.

Mitt is a Nitt Witt.

'Libby now faces the prospect of becoming the first high-level White House official to go to prison since Watergate. The threat became even more real when Walton said he was not inclined to allow Libby to remain free on bail during any appeals because his conviction is unlikely to be overturned, but the final decision will be made next week.

The Los Angeles Times says Walton's reluctance to let Libby go free on bail, "appeared to throw the defense team off guard." USA Today emphasizes that Libby and his attorneys now have to show there is at least a chance that an appeal would be succesful. If they don't, Libby will be heading to prison within the next 45 to 60 days. As the New York Times notes, Libby's supporters had hoped he could stay out of prison for more than a year during the appeals process because President Bush "might find it more palatable to issue a pardon down the road, perhaps just before leaving office."

--throw the book at the scumbag. he deserves to go to prison right now for obstructing justice and covering up for the vile traitor Cheney.

Duncan Hunter and foreign policy? Christ... what a terrifying thought. Guiliani is a complete nut -- he will go ballistc/melt down at some point, he always does. He hates the Constitution even more than Bush -- and if you want ANY allies in the world ever again, forget Rudy--he's just too nasty-tempered.

The elder Bush's skill? As what, consorting with our 9/11 enemies, the Saudis? That's all the entire bush family is good at -- being in bed with oil companies.

Alan, you make good points. But if Joe Biden cannot jump out of single digits among Ds, Gen. Clark would not be able to either. And I supported him in 2004. I sent him money. The second $200 I sent him was followed by Madonna endorsing him, and his failure to disavow Michael Moore,which was a double french-kiss-of-death.

I ask everyone to look for the candidates in both parties with the most foreign policy chops and all of us should hope or pray that each party goes with its most competent candidate, because there is a 50-50 chance we collectively will elect the candidate any single one of us votes against. we all better hope our second choice can do the job.

JD, it sounds like the flawed immigration bill just kills McCain for you. You know I disagree with him on all the devils in the details and I am skeptical of the "surge", but I still think he is competent. I suppose Hunter has the foreign policy experience for the job, but I need convincing on Giuliani. In my view, Pres. Clinton learned OJT and had a better second term in foreign policy than a first, but I want someone with the elder Bush's skill from the gitgo. If the Ds will not give me Biden, who else but McCain fits?

Are there going to be debates every 2-3 weeks for the rest of the primary season? Because that would be brutal.

Ames Tiedeman says: "From an intellectual standpoint, the Republicans far out do the 'tripple failure' that is Hillary, Edwards, Obama."

"Intellectual" --- "tripple."

Hee hee hee...

Nissl,
I appreciate your breakdown on this, and all things being equal I would probably agree. But no matter who the GOP nominates, Hillary will help mobilize the GOP base against her. Politically, she has all the perceived negatives of her husband and few of his political strengths. She holds her own in debates, but so did John Kerry. Likewise, people always claim they'll vote for black men in far higher percentages than they actully do (see Harold Ford, and L. Doug Wilder). I think Rudy has more crossover appeal than you're giving him credit for, and never underestimate the public's love for an actor/politician (see Schwarzenegger, Reagan). Those are the type of politicians that convert people to their party. Maybe the Dem candidates will find a way to mobilize the base (no guarantee there), but you can be assured the current leaders won't convert anybody who watches Fox News. Bottom line, Bush is probably in the bottom 5 presidents in US history. Yet, traditional Democrats struggled to break even with him in the past 2 general elections. No one that incompetent will on either ticket this time, so why don't the Democrats nominate a non-traditional politician who can actually convert people (like Webb did in Virgina) and grow the party? Remember, Reagan was a democrat who switched parties. So was Webb. I urge Democrats to look at the progressive positions of Wesley Clark in particular--a bona fide war hero, leader, and scholar (none of the current top Democratic candidates have any military service)--this vote will be partly about national security. No one will ever accuse someone like Webb or Clark of being soft on defense, or not knowing what they're talking about regarding military matters.

"From an intellectual standpoint" is an oxymoron when applied to a group of people who do not believe in evolution.

AU Law Student,

Well, one major difference is whether the candidate is changing positions because they have actually changed their mind, or whether the candidate is changing positions because it serves their political interests. Of course, this can be hard to determine since we cannot read people's mind, and politicians tend not to be honest about the fact that they are just saying things for political purposes.

But one useful circumstantial tool is to look at the political context in which the candidate stated differing positions to see if the candidate likely would have had different political motives at the different times which correspond with the different positions that the candidate took. So, for example, say you are running for office in a "liberal" state at one point in time, and at that point you express various "liberal" positions. Say at a later point in time you run for the nomination of a national party with more "conservative" views on those issues, and you conveniently express a change to those more "conservative" views. That would be strong circumstantial evidence that your change in stated positions was motivated by your political interests, and not an actual change of mind.

What, if any, is the difference between flip-flopping and a candidate changing their position over time b/c of experience and whatnot? For example, in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, should we want a President "who believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday (9/11)."

Well | , regarding the results of the debate: I don't want to say you're cynical or anything, but you don't seem to like anyone on either side. Still, this was a funny post for me to read this morning, thanks.

I think Huckabee did well, a couple more of those and he's legit running for VP. Gilmore, Paul, Brownback, Duncan - time to winnow the field I think, make room for Fred.

McCain still doesn't get it about the base and immigration. Plus he lied about illegals having to go to the back of the line, wait years, etc. and other BS. His bill grants something called z-Visas, which confers legal status (but not citizenship) the day Bush signs it.

I think Rudy did pretty good, and that was quick thinking about the lightning strike. Romney licked a big old stamp and mailed it in.

Oh, and can they find a darker suit for McCain to wear? Darth Vader had more color in his ensemble.

The Republican debate of June 4th was superb. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans actually speak their minds.
Hillary, Edwards, and Obama look like children compared to the Republican field. From an intellectual standpoint, the
Republicans far out do the "tripple failure" that is Hillary, Edwards, Obama.

Someone saidL "To say the Republicans stole the election in '00 and '04 might make you feel better, but the bigger issue is how the Democrats managed to lose despite having pretty much everything in their favor. The biggest reason for their lack of success was poor candidate selection and to think that might not happen again if another poor choice is put forward next year is very dangerous if you really want to defeat the GOP."

AND I MUST AGREE.

Huckabee is basically arguing that if you believe in evolution then you are an atheist. Nice.

Clearly, Ron Paul emerged as the real winner here. Though he wasn't given a lot of air time, he received applause after each of his very succinct responses. He was the only one who did. Surely the questions of health care, abortion and the moral issue of today would have been well-suited to the only medical doctor (obstetrician), on the stage. We are hearing the same old rhetoric from the others and it didn't get a few of them elected last time they ran, either. Real change and hope for America lies with Ron Paul in '08.

Alan, my thinking on this is that to assess the democrats' chances you have to look at individual states that were close last time.

Ohio was the deciding state, and was very close last time. 2006 was just a disaster for republicans in the state in every possible way. Solidly liberal, unimpressive dem candidate Brown won 56-44%., Blackwell lost the governor's race by a huge margin, etc.

New Mexico and Iowa were very close to even last time, and national opinion polls have moved enough to flip these states.

Colorado is rapidly turning blue. The dem governor won in 2006 by a big margin, the dem senator won an even matchup in republican-skewed 2004, and the next dem senate candidate is considered to have the best pickup opportunity around.

Ohio or CO, NM, and IA together is enough to win.

Stretches:

Missouri, Talent ran a very solid campaign and lost narrowly to Claire McCaskill.

Virginia, Webb over Allen.

Nevada, demographics are slowly shifting but Gibbons' governor win in the face of assault charges was demoralizing.

Florida seems to be moving right. Might still be close if Obama is running and prompts a big mobilization of the black vote.

As far as the democratic candidates and how they stack up, I think McCain will look old and dour next to them and Rudy will seem bald, slightly dim, angry, and lacking a coherent positive vision for the country. That's why I'm interested to see Fred Thompson - he might be conservative enough to unite the base and have the charisma to compete.

At the end of the day, I think the republicans will lose because enough moderates are tired of their prescriptions for the most pressing questions of our time: foreign policy, trade, the environment, the health care system.

"Here are the result"--Guy
I just saw this on another site:
I have no problem with Romney's faith whatsoever.
My problem with him is that he is a complete phony on virtually every major issue that is dear to conservatives. On abortion, gun control, traditional marriage, and health care, there is almost no difference between the Romney of just two years ago and the H. Clinton of today. Sure, there is a big difference now - on all of those issues - because Romney switched his position on every single one of them.
I think it's great that the man is loyal to his wife and family, but he's proven he can't be trusted on issues of public policy that matter to a lot of people.
Posted by: Nancy | June 5, 2007 09:55 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy
Why don't you do your homework before making accusations? If you are serious about wanting to be accurate, I suggest you go to http://myclob.pbwiki.com/, a website that has Mitt's positions and his history on those positions in an encyclopedic format. I have known Mitt very well for 42 years, and can tell you that in spite of your assertions, there is nothing "phony" about him. Have you met him? Do you know anything about how he deals with family, friends, business associates, and strangers? Do you know anything about his charitable service and giving? Why would a "complete phony" sacrifice huge income potential to leave home and business and do his best to save the Olympic games? Do you know how much he was paid for his years of service? Oh, that's right, he didn't accept any payment. And how much was this "phony" paid for his service as Governor? Right again--nothing. He used his salary to hire very capable people who could not otherwise afford to work in government.
Perhaps you don't know anything about the way he makes important decisions. Besides being a fanatic for collecting data on the issue at hand, he surrounds himself with the brightest people, and wants to have those with opposing views express and defend their views, as he does his own. What a phony!
If you speak with those who have worked closely with him in his business career, you'll hear them tell you that he bends over backwards to be sure that all transactions are done honestly and ethically, and that everything must be completely above board.
Now, for the issues:
• Abortion: He has always been personally opposed to abortion and has encouraged those he counseled to give a child up for adoption before considering this terrible option of ending a life. He has considered Roe v. Wade to be settled law. While speaking with Harvard researchers pushing human cloning, he maintained that position, but realized that Roe v. Wade had cheapened the value of human life. That is when he became openly pro-life. That is not a "flip-flop" (which implies going back and forth on a position), but is a maturation on a critical issue. There's nothing "phony" about that.
• Gun control--too much to cover, so go here: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/gun%20control%20policy
• Health Care--To compare the Massachusetts initiative with HillaryCare is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I suggest you do your homework at the Heritage Foundation site (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1414.cfm).
So, Nancy, if you want to be serious and credible in your postings, rather than throwing out wild accusations (sounds like you've been reading the DNC talking points memos), quit being so lazy and do some research. It's easy to accuse, but it takes work to support those accusations.
Posted by: Jim | June 6, 2007 01:30 AM

We're going to have another Republican president. Red states stay will stay red, blue states will stay blue. Democrats won't win a presidential election unless they find a crossover candidate, like a Wesley Clark. Clark can flip some red states. Not the wife of an ex-president who excites the Republican base like only Ted Kennedy can. Not a 45 year old, inexperienced minority senator. Wise up, Democrats! In the general election, how do you think Hillary, Obama, or Edwards are going to look going against former Vietnam POW McCain or 9/11-hero Giuliani? Truth hurts.

This Democrat would give the debate to McCain. He was dynamite on the
immigration issue.

URGENT: Do NOT link or otherwise mention the MSNBC/CNN post-debate polls. If anyone discovers that Ron Paul won these debates, you will lose all credibility.

McCain may have one thing going for him, he is consistent in the short term. Giuliani maybe America's Mayor, but a president he is not. Mitt needs to figure out his positions and stick to them.

In the end, Fred Thompson will win because he is not getting any mud thrown on him. He is the most Reaganesque of the Republicans.

I thought most of the candidates did better than in the last debate.

McCain perhaps the strongest.
Romney got a bit nicked up.
Rudy doing his thing... is it just me or is he a dimmer bulb than the others?
Huckabee is a real lightweight.

Don't think anyone else matters.

Still looks like a pack of losers to me, though. It will be interesting to see how they measure up to F. Thompson on stage.

Here are the results of the debate

Tancredo = crackpot
Ron Paul = clown
T. Thompson = blowhard
Romney = phony
McCain = crazy
Giuliani = sleazy
Brownback = boring
Huckabee = useless
Duncan Hunter = nobody

Here are the results of the Democratic debate

H. Clinton = bitter
Edwards = see Romney
Obama = inexperienced
Dodd = see Brownback
Biden = see McCain
Richardson = bloated
Gravel = lunatic
Kucinich = freak

Yet another pathetic "debate" with puffball questions.

Compare the puffball questions Blitzer asked with those here:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/006678.html

If someone asked Edwards or another candidate those questions (and didn't allow them to change the subject) and then publicized their answers, their run would be severly impacted.

Instead, we get supposed "journalist" Wolf Blitzer asking for the most pressing moral issue in the U.S. Can't we find the answers to stupid questions like that on the candidates' websites? Does CNN think we're all fools?

As a black Democrat I plan to vote for Rommney and/or Tommy Thompson, because they seem to be the only 2 with a chance to win who do not support amnesty. 15-20 million uneducated unskilled amnesty grants equal 50-100 million uneducated unskilled relatives, while the border is also still wide open. Result, Third World status for the USA

As a black Democrat I have no current plan to vote for any of the Democratic candidates. The reason being, their stance on illegal immigration. Rommney seems to be the only candidate I'd vote for period. He's appears to be the only person with a chance to win who opposes amnesty to illegals. I cannot understand how anyone would favor taking in 15-20 million uneducated, unskilled individuals who drain so much from our society. Taking them in also opens the door to another 50-100 million uneducated/unskilled relatives. Result Third World status for the USA.

As a black Democrat I have no current plan to vote for any of the Democratic candidates. The reason being, their stance on illegal immigration. Rommney seems to be the only candidate I'd vote for period. He's appears to be the only person with a chance to win who opposes amnesty to illegals. I cannot understand how anyone would favor taking in 15-20 million uneducated, unskilled individuals who drain so much from our society. Taking them in also opens the door to another 50-100 million uneducated/unskilled relatives. Result Third World status for the USA.

Excuse me but here is what I take issue with. The reporter says 'check back tomorrow for the results of the winners and losers.' I watched the debates I can think for myself. I like the commenting dialogue here but why do I need a reporter to be a talking head to me? Is'nt the point about being able to watch it to form my own opinion? Maybe I have pms not sure LOL.

Wow, you managed to mention Duncan Hunter but artfully avoided mentioning the only TRUE Republican in the debate. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican running for President that has any chance of winning an honest election.
Of course I don't think there's much chance of having an honest election in this country today.

Try to think about the next President as a "foreign policy" President, because that is what s/he will have to be. Ironically, I think Rudy Giuliani would be a very strong choice if we needed a "domestic policy" President. And one could consider Romney's experience as relevant to domestic policy, too.

When GW Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" that was more than a slogan. He wanted to be a "domestic policy" President. I have good reason to believe
that; I am not just making this up.

Events turned. GWB required OTJ training.

I become more convinced that Sen. McCain is the R who would need no long painful introduction to the world stage. I want my next President to be a success, regardless of which party he represents.

The racist Tancredo says bi-lingual countries don't work.
Tell the Canadians. They already hate us because of Bush. I'm sure they'll appreciate this. Tancredo needs to change some names in his state if wants English only. The state needs to become Red Color, the city of Puebla needs to be changed to Town, Salida needs to be changed to Exit, etc. One can only hope the Republicans will nominate this moron.

The racist Tancredo says bi-lingual countries don't work.
Tell the Canadians. They already hate us because of Bush. I'm sure they'll appreciate this. Tancredo needs to change some names in his state if wants English only. The state needs to become Red Color, the city of Puebla needs to be changed to Town, Salida needs to be changed to Exit, etc. What an idiot.

Huckabee is awesome. But although I disagree with all the candidates on some issues, the ones on which I disagree with Huckabee might be deal breakers...

Beam me up. Please. I am in fear of the thunderbolts.

I found it interesting when CNN Joe Johns had the segment where they had a group of Independents and Republicans using those dial things to show reaction to the candidates as they were speaking.When Mccaine was defending his amnesty bill the lines went straight down.

We are Democrats who were watching the debate looking for a presidential candiate since our party has left us totaly against them on the immigration issue!Another amnesty will just bring the same result as in 1986.

WHO do the Fundamentalist Christians in the debate think threw the numerous lightning strikes that occured near the debate, and why do they think HE threw them?

DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

-- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

WHO do the Fundamentalist Christians in the debate think threw the numerous lightning strikes that occured near the debate, and why do they think HE threw them?

So you're saying there was a grand conspiracy by the exit pollsters to rig the exit polls for Kerry?

Shocking and horrific. This must be investigated immediately. Make sure you get your fellow delegates to the Star Trek convention to pass a resolution in this regard as soon as possible

2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities

* Exit Polls: The November 3rd 12:23 am election-day exit poll results conducted for the National Election Pool (NEP) by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International [2] predicted John Kerry winning the popular vote by 5 million, while the official results gave George W. Bush the win with a popular margin of 3 million, an 8 million vote (6.5%) difference.

To say the Republicans stole the election in '00 and '04 might make you feel better, but the bigger issue is how the Democrats managed to lose despite having pretty much everything in their favor. The biggest reason for their lack of success was poor candidate selection and to think that might not happen again if another poor choice is put forward next year is very dangerous if you really want to defeat the GOP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
Exit Polls: The November 3rd 12:23 am election-day exit poll results conducted for the National Election Pool (NEP) by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International [2] predicted John Kerry winning the popular vote by 5 million, while the official results gave George W. Bush the win with a popular margin of 3 million, an 8 million vote (6.5%) difference.

che lives

In my opinion Huckabee won the debate followed by McCain.

What a boring evening! McCain's definitely the winner. Good stuff from JMac.

Here's some good post-debate analysis (besides CC's!)
http://political-buzz.com/?p=218

Why can't we get that "Che" person in here to post his hundreds of irrelevant paragraphs of delusional drivel like he usually does on this site?

Who cares Chris. A republican will never be elected president again unless they steal it like they did in 2000 and 2004. Embarrassing isn't.

The Brownback Iraq solution is the same as the Biden Iraq solution.

People aren't talking much about it on CNN and MSNBC now, but I think Romney is in big trouble. His response to the question about his Spanish language campaign ads was devastating to his campaign.

Ron Paul's libertarian conservatism will play quite well in New Hampshire. Could he actually leapfrog half of the candidates overnight in that state?

Tancredo did not do the GOP any favors with minority voters. Does he really expect immigrants to "sever their ties to the past?" It's one thing to encourage everyone to speak English, but telling them to abandon their homeland's traditions is a bit extreme.

McCain is the Hillary of the GOP. He was poised and did exactly what he was supposed to do. He's flying high.

The bloom is off of Giuliani's rose.

There's not enough room for Huckabee and Brownback to coexist. Huckabee brings more to the table, so perhaps Brownback should consider dropping out.

Gilmore is irrelevant.

http://theseventen.blogspot.com