see and hear

http://www.kut.org/items/show/11318

Mark, Jim - Thanks for your thoughts on health care - I posted some comments on the other line. I expect this issue to heat up in the general, unless crises in Iraq and the economy drown out everything else.

I have now read your comment and either we have acute insight into the obvious or our imaginations exceed reality in some way invisible to us.

I prefer to think the first alternative applies.

Yes, Jim, I saw it in the Austin and Houston papers. Funny.

I am going to backtrack to the other thread and see what else came in.

Mark,

Have you seen this. Is this guy trying to emulate Huckabee's weight loss the easy way?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/doctored.photo.ap/index.html

Robocall trashes "Barack Hussein Obama"

The Obama campaign has released a recording (mp3) it says came from a Nevadan's answering machine of an anonymous robocall that criticizes Obama for taking money from special interests while repeating, four times, his rarely used middle name: "Hussein."

"I'm calling with some important information about Barack Hussein Obama," the call begins, before saying that "Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups but the record is clear that he does."

After mentioning his full name once more, the call concludes:

"You just can't take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama."

Click here to listen to the campaign's recording of the call.

Mike,

I would say that post is a tad simplistic. As someone with family in Massachusetts, I can tell you that there is an awful lot of truth to the flip-flopper charges. I have seen video of Romney trying to get to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights and vowing to keep abortions safe and legal in Mass. He became a social conservative precisely when he started planning his run for the presidency. That just seems a little too convenient to be plausible.

I really think the notion that the media hates Republicans is childish and grossly over-simplified. The media likes to hang a story line on public figures - it's like shorthand and I have seen them do it to politicians of all stripes. Look at the "I invented the internet" line they hung on Gore - he never actually said that, he said he was instrumental in the legislation that started the project that developed the internet - which is true.

I doubt Giuliani can get to 30% of the delegates unless something drastic happens. The latest Florida Times Union poll has McCain ahead by more than the margin of error. Romney is far behind.

It appears that all 3 of Romney's major rivals really don't like him. It could well come to a deadlocked convention and ROmney could have a plurality but not close to a majority. Game theory has consistently shown that in those situations, number 2 and number 3 tend to unite to defeat number 1. I would not be surprised to see a McCain-Huckabee or McCain-Giuliani ticket emerge from a deal among the other 3 in that case. McCain would probably be a one term president so the VP nomination would give that person a big leg up on 2012. Do not underestimate the appeal of McCain as a compromise among the major candidates simply because of the unlikelihood that he would run for a second term at 76.

I think Romney is about the least electable of the major contenders with the possible exception of Huckabee. I know McCain could beat Hillary Clinton. I am not sure about Giuliani.

Before I go,

Claudia said this on an ealier thread and I just wanted to say something about it:

"And so do the shareholders. However, they get a financial return on their investment, and I don't."

Yes my dear but we all get the equal benefit of our tax dollars from the B-2.

You didn't make any ADDITIONAL investment in Boeing, so you're not entitled to the additional return of the success of the company.

It's actually more fair that you get nothing but I, a stockholder, do, because I actually put up money -- and you didn't.

You don't get something for nothing.

Will the MSM finally make the story of Bill Clinton's lies the major story that it should be. Why is he allowed to state easily proven false claims about the value of the votes at the casinos, radio ads that didn't run, and voter supression. He needs to be called on this.

And as to Hillary's win she wasm until the last few days, expected to carry NH big so winning by only 2% should have been seeb for what is was=, a crushing loss. And she has been in the lead in Nevada, more often then not by double digits, so her 5 - 6% win there is actually a poor showing.

I must add that I'm more of a Huck man than a Romney man.

But the MSM's hatred/dismissal of Romney is obvious, at least to me.

Romney's war of attrition strategy will work.

He will end up with about 40% of the delegates at the convention.

Rudy will have about 30%

McCain/Huckabee will have the rest.

NV has more delegates than SC, but less of a 'historical boost'. Romney is playing for the long haul.

Naturally, the media *hates* Romney:
-He is a Republican (duh).
-He is a religious man
-He has lived his entire life by principle
-He is smart, educated, and successful in ReAL LIFE
-His large, good-looking family loves and supprots him
-He looks and sounds the part

The MSM has already made their trite 'flip-flop' accusations, which will have little effect in the general election.

I'm calling it today, Romney will get the nomination - for better or for worse.

mark

I joined in the discussion too.

POLITICO declares Clinton Winner in Nevada.

claudialong,

If Mitt manages to win the nomination, wouldn't you want that kind of tenacity in the White House?

I would.

uofmdgrad,

Consider Clinton over Obama in Nevada a done deal. She has been leading in the polls for the last five days.

I wanted to add one point to my above comments. John Edwards won the Culinary Union support in Nevada in 2004 and it had very little impact. He lost in a big way to Kerry. So if the media tries to play up the importance of this union too much, they will look silly. It is good to have, but certainly not a "kingmaker," as evidenced by the 2004 results. Again I hope Obama can pull out a win, but I know that as late as today the Nevada polls showed Hillary with a ten point lead.

should have noted numbers i posted with with only small percentage of returns in. pattern still holing, pretty much, only romney's lead growing...

the thing about the commentary re mitt -- that his win was atributable to the sinking ecomomy--isn't romney exactly the kind of guy who got us into this mess to begin with? why would we expect him then to get us out?

A new direction now that recession is looming, its become front and center. This plays out well for Romney if people can overcome the Mormon issue.

The Economy Stupid, Again & Again, Do you believe Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination based on Economy?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1586

.

I've heard some in the media say that if Hillary wins in Nevada it will be a huge upset win!

Just wanted to point out that Hillary has always been leading in the polls in Nevada. She had a 20 point lead until just about a month ago, and even today, after the culinary union endorsement of Obama, she is still leading in the polls by about ten points. So if the media tries to spin a win by Hillary as a huge comeback or upset, that would just not be accurate or fair. (I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that Obama will turn the polls upside down and somehow pull out a victory!)

_pamela, I wrote a series of replies to you
relating to the interesting exchanges you had with jim and I think, dave, on the "Friday Line" thread.

They were prompted by your reasonable willingness to discuss other-than-federal solutions, and your honorable request to not hear a simplistic "let the market do it" as a responsible reply.

I regret that I was unable to join that conversation in a timely fashion.

The republicans have a LOT to think about this campaign. For more info, I found an awesome article called "Reagan Babies" at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. Here is an excerpt:

""A baby is an alimentary canal with a laud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other" Ronald Reagan

Last Tuesday was a big day for Republican Candidate Mitt Romney for he came out ahead of all others in Michigan's Primary election. To many this was not a surprise since his father was elected thrice Governor of Michigan in the 60's and, by many citizens' standards, was good for the State. This of course creates a very interesting power struggle within the Grand Old Party since Huckabee and McCain had already won their own primaries, making this race, as of Today, a three-way race. Of course, we have Thompson looking to catch South Carolina's ticket and Rudy Giuliani aiming to do the same in Florida. This last candidate has basically bet all his chips on winning Florida, if he does not win said State, he might as well never had run for the nomination. For many conservatives, this situation within the Republican pool of candidates is both embarrassing and aggravating. Here we have a process which basically tends to eliminate their most ideologically consonant candidates right from the beginning, since they depend on primaries and caucuses in predominantly "blue" states which, to make matters even worse, usually allow independents to participate. In this year's election though, it seems that all this does not matter since none of the participants seems to fulfill their base's expectations. Can any of these candidates face off against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards in a general election?

Since the birth of the Reagan Coalition, the era which brought to the Republican Party the juncture of both Social Conservatism and Economic Conservatism, the Grand Old Party has been unable to keep track of their own ideology, usually loosing itself to divergent group interests and in the process becoming a massive political tent that caters to both corporate and institutional fluctuations. Instead of assuming the responsibility of admitting to itself that Economic Conservatism, a belief..."

Find the rest of the article at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com

fascinating stuff here: Guilaini 3%, Huck 10%, Hunter 2%, McCain 15%, Paul 14%, Romney 46%, Thompson 9%.

Romney, overwhelming win, Paul barely below McCain for 2nd, and Huck essentially tied with Thompson for 3rd, and Guiliani in Hunter territory -- ouch!

votes
Giuliani 50
3%

Huckabee
141
10%

Hunter
25
2%

McCain 225
15%

Paul
208
14%

Romney 681
46%

Thompson 136
9%