Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSRomney to drop out of presidential race at CPAC today, ABC reports.
Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 12:46PM|#
I think I hear the sound of a weeping
Donderoooooooooo
everybody.
There...sniff, sniff...fixed...
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Sorry, to clarify my previous post: I don't care about Romney, but I despise McCain above all others.
|2.7.08 @ 12:47PM|#
So, can the Huckster mount a serious challenge?
Nope. Barring an interplanetary attack, it's McCain for the GOP. He
shouldn't spend another dollar on the primarys.
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Well there's always hillary or obama
*sound of gunshot, followed by loud thud*
GILMORE|2.7.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Oh, poor Donderooooooo. What about MONTANA??!! What about the
SURGE you saw! Oh lord, the horror.
I will gladly add you to my poker game if you are up. But then, you
probably dont have a job anymore so you're probably not even worth
milking.
|2.7.08 @ 12:51PM|#
So long phoney!
Boy does National Review, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. seem impotent and
stupid right now...
|2.7.08 @ 12:51PM|#
It is McCain now. The Huckster can't win outside the South. McCain now has three months to convince the conservative punditocracy that he didn't mean to be mean to them all of those years and that he is really not an agent of the Devil. It should go okay but be a hard sell to those clutching their bibles claiming the earth is 6000 years old and the grumpy old men standing in the back raving about the Gold Standard and how great Reagan was and mentioned ten things that Reagan never actually did as reasons why he was so great.
|2.7.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Gleen Beck already came out saying "I don't go to work trying to
influence people, so the very fact that Hannity, Limbaugh and I
didn't convince people not to vote for John McCain is no sign of
our impotence or the decline of conservative radio"
I'm paraphrasing
|2.7.08 @ 12:53PM|#
"Boy does National Review, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. seem impotent
and stupid right now..."
I think that is why they hate McCain so much. Honestly, McCain is
no farther from them than Romney was. Further, isn't the war the
most important thing? No one is stronger on the war than McCain.
Yet, McCain is the embodiment of evil.
They hate McCain because despite years of loathing the guy, the
voters had the nerve to elect him. If they can't influence a
Republican primary, what can they influence? Nothing and they know
it and they hate McCain because of it. That and the fact that he
doesn't kiss their ass sufficiently.
|2.7.08 @ 12:54PM|#
John,
Or maybe he'll see how big the independent group is, give a big
"fuck you" to the bible thumpers and libertarians and proceed to
have his ass handed to him by the democratic machine.
|2.7.08 @ 12:55PM|#
John-If Hillary is the candidate then McCain would do better
perhaps by telling the conservative punditoracy to go suck it. He's
won against them and won so far with Indie's a Dems voting for him
in GOP primary's no less, so he may loss more votes than gain by
sucking up to the conservative hacks.
If it's OBama though I can't see him taking many Indies and Dems
from him and he will have to kiss the butts of the hacks...
|2.7.08 @ 12:56PM|#
I think McCain will try and get an ex general, like Wes Clark or Scharzcoff(sp?)
|2.7.08 @ 12:56PM|#
I'm inclined to agree, J sub D, but for one two points; the
media like Huckabee just as much as they like McCain, and Huckabee
can actually give a speech, tell a joke, and banter in a
non-awkward manner.
He has vastly superior political skills. Sure, on paper, McCain is
the Patriots and Huckabee in the Giants.
|2.7.08 @ 12:57PM|#
oh, how sweet it would be if in one foul swoop, the entire George Bush coalition of conservatives and evangelicals fell to the wayside. Then the bible thumpers will again feel what libertarians have been feeling for the past 8 years.
|2.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
He's giving his concession speech right now:
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_org.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CSO
Ali|2.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
With Paul clearly not winning, so when will McCain and Huck suspend theirs, too? And Obama and Clinton? Wouldn't it be nice if they all suspend their campaigns and give us 4 years of a break? I mean, might just as well the other two branches of government function well without the third.
|2.7.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Huckabee may tell jokes, but he'll never convince anyone west of Kansas or north of West Virginia that he's anything but a bible thumping theocrat.
|2.7.08 @ 1:00PM|#
I predict big cash donations to the Huckabee campaign. I think the scary bastard will do better than we think.
|2.7.08 @ 1:01PM|#
John and Mr. Nice Guy,
I think this does show how little influence National Review and the
talk radio guys have, especially on people who are allowed to vote
in open primaries, but I don't think their affection for Romney nor
their hostility to McCain is irrational or stupid. Romney has an
impressive record of success as a manager, better than McCain's,
and McCain is committed to the campaign finance reforms many of us
find to be obviously unconstitutional; also he has been saying some
goofy anti-business things lately.
Stupid and irrational describes those conservatives who are talking
about voting for or even campaigning for Clinton or Obama. But I
think those people are just kidding.
|2.7.08 @ 1:01PM|#
From the CNN story:
"On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates is
left to the state parties"
Since the caucus states don't actually assign delegates until late
Feb, May or June , does this means that Ron Paul will probably get
the majority of delegates from Montana, Maine and a handful from
the other caucus states?
|2.7.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Interesting... Can we get that Rittberg character to support
McCain now? Seems he's got a great record for eliminating
candidates.
-jcr
Dr. Freud|2.7.08 @ 1:03PM|#
How long before Michael Young writes an article explaining why we must vote for McCain in November and the importance of starting new wars ?
anon.|2.7.08 @ 1:04PM|#
This just gives Romney more time to focus on his primary mission: finding and killing Sarah Connor.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Just a question for the entertainment value: Who will get Mitt's votes in Washington and the other remaining states? I have a feeling Paul could a little better numbers now, say 10% instead of 8%
|2.7.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
I think the conservative hacks are helping him. It is going to be
really hard for the Democratic nominee to run the usual Democratic
playbook against McCain claiming he is a rightwing nutjob when all
of the known rightwing nutjobs have said they won't vote for
him.
The problem that Limbaugh and Hannity and NRO have is that they
have started thinking that just because someone listens to them or
reads their magazine they agree with them about everything. The
internet really is an echo chamber. You go to the same websites and
comment on the same issues and you start thinking there are a lot
more of you than there really are. Most people are no on the
fringes and even if they are all of the fringes don't think the
same way. The number of Republicans who would actually refuse to
vote for McCain out of anger is pretty damn small. But for the
people who would, it looks really big because all they do is talk
to each other. The "conservative base" such as it is has really
jumped the shark on this one.
I understand why Reason doesn't like McCain. McCain is pro war and
the war and was behind McCain Feingold. The war is really important
to Reason so they don't like McCain. But the NRO people and those
like them are pro war themselves and have been claiming that the
war is the most important thing of this generation. But some of
them are threatening to sit out so a Democrat, whom they claim will
surrender in Iraq, will win rather than McCain. Basically, they are
saying they want to win the war but not if it involves voting for
someone they don't like. Yeah, that is a real spirit of sacrifice
for you. Lately, the alleged conservative base has taken to calling
themselves "suicide voters" who will write in or vote for Hillary.
Daily Kos couldn't have come up with a more flippant disrespectful
self absorbed term. They are turning into the flip side of the
Kosites and they don't even know it.
|2.7.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Well, Lost in Translation, I hope I'm wrong about a Huckabee surge. But let us not underestimate fear and stupidity as motivating factors. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for God, after all.
|2.7.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Or maybe he'll see how big the independent group is, give a
big "fuck you" to the bible thumpers and libertarians and proceed
to have his ass handed to him by the democratic machine.
B-I-N-G-O.
|2.7.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Ali,
At this point, it doesn't matter.
Pro Libertate,
I'm writing in Jack Bauer then
|2.7.08 @ 1:09PM|#
"Or maybe he'll see how big the independent group is, give a big
"fuck you" to the bible thumpers and libertarians and proceed to
have his ass handed to him by the democratic machine."
Yes because appelling to both the bible thumpers and the
libertarians at the same time is something anyone could acutally
do.
|2.7.08 @ 1:09PM|#
♬
Oh, DONDEROOOOOO!!!
No, don't you cry for me
'Cause I'm dropping out tomorrow
Like that fascist putz Rudy
♬
Click \'n\' Learn|2.7.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Ron Paul is speaking there at 4:30 eastern. Uh, where's Reason? Shouldn't they be covering that? Shouldn't they be at CPAC, asking the questions that MSM hacks and blogging hacks are afraid to ask? Wouldn't they do a public service by asking McCain this? Wouldn't asking McCain that reduce his popularity and help Ron Paul? So, where are they?
Ali|2.7.08 @ 1:10PM|#
LIT, yeah I know it doesn't matter, not only at this point, but many points ago.
|2.7.08 @ 1:11PM|#
"""Gleen Beck already came out saying "I don't go to work trying
to influence people, so the very fact that Hannity, Limbaugh and I
didn't convince people not to vote for John McCain is no sign of
our impotence or the decline of conservative radio""""
They are clearly acting as agents of influence. For any of them to
claim otherwise is BS. They didn't get into radio just to hear
themselves talk. Well, then again...
"""If they can't influence a Republican primary, what can they
influence? Nothing and they know it and they hate McCain because of
it. That and the fact that he doesn't kiss their ass
sufficiently."""
Bingo. And I add that if McCain took office and acted like a
liberal they wouldn't have a whipping dog. They don't really attack
republicans the same way they attack liberals. Probably in fear of
losing RNC connections. If a liberal did what Bush has done, they
would be calling for impeachment long ago. I firmly believe this is
why Colter claims she will support Hillary.
some dude|2.7.08 @ 1:12PM|#
A couple months ago, Limbaugh was going on about how the sound of his voice could annoint a Republican nominee.
|2.7.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Ali,
I was thinking the same thing. Being in a race that was tight
between two apparent frontrunners probably hurt Paul's numbers. Now
that Romney's out some folks might be more comfortable pulling the
lever for (or standing in the corner of) Pauly Paul.
|2.7.08 @ 1:14PM|#
John is right about this:
It is going to be really hard for the Democratic nominee to run
the usual Democratic playbook against McCain claiming he is a
rightwing nutjob when all of the known rightwing nutjobs have said
they won't vote for him.
Which makes the candidate running on a positive message and who can
demonstrate broad appeal beyond the Democratic base a better bet
than the polarizing figure who has trouble getting people to like
her.
The Iraq War, of course, is one area where McCain can be
effectively demonized as a right-winger...but once again, not as
effectively by Hillary as by Obama.
|2.7.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Smappy,
No, they'll do what they did before, vote for Obama. Paul had
crossover appeal, but not conservative base appeal.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 1:14PM|#
smappy- especially that they know that their vote won't matter anyways. Before, votes were taken from Paul just to stop someone else from winning, etc etc. Again, not that Paul has a chance, but my question was of the "just curious" variety.
|2.7.08 @ 1:15PM|#
It all depends on Iraq. If Americans stop getting killed by next November, I'd say McCain in a landslide. If not, Hillary in a squeaker.
|2.7.08 @ 1:15PM|#
"John,
Bush somehow did it in 2000 and Reagan did it in '80."
Reagan did it but the evangelicals weren't much of a power back
then and that was 30 years ago. I don't think Bush garnered much
Libertarian support in 2000. Maybe they did but I would be shocked
if Reason endorsed him in 2000 or in anyway didn't cheerlead for
Gore. If you have the links proving otherwise, I would be curious
to see them.
|2.7.08 @ 1:15PM|#
It is going to be really hard for the Democratic nominee to
run the usual Democratic playbook against McCain claiming he is a
rightwing nutjob when all of the known rightwing nutjobs have said
they won't vote for him.
Not with his stance on the war (100 years anyone?), he's got too
much of an unsavory flavor to motivate the GOP base and he's to
stubborn on the one issue that turns the Dems off more than any
other. With a choice of Obama or Clinton against McCain, the Dems
run away with it, yuo can win an election by appealing to the other
side, but not while dismissing your own. He'll get some Dems( not
many) some Independents and most of the GOP base. Meanwhile the Dem
candidate will get the Dem base in droves (look at the numbers
showing up for primaries), anti-war independents, few if any
GOPers. They voted for McCain in the open primaries so they can
beat him in the general...
|2.7.08 @ 1:18PM|#
McCain could easily blow a gasket and kick between now and November, so the position of GOP "reserve candidate" is very important.
|2.7.08 @ 1:19PM|#
This is going to be a painful general election. I suppose I'll
be voting LP again, and praying that the joker who actually wins
isn't as bad as he or she appears to be. Little hope of that this
time. Maybe McCain will be better when he's the top dog? One can
only hope, because I think he's going to win it all. We generally
balk at putting inexperienced people in the White House (even Bush
the Younger had been a governor), so I see little chance of either
Democrat beating McCain. The war is disappearing as an election
issue, mostly because of the fears of an economic downturn.
Guess we'll be doing war for a little longer. NPR this morning said
that the budget proposes 1/2 a trillion dollars for the Pentagon
this year. According to NPR, that's more than the rest of the
planet's military budgets. Combined. Guess we're ready to take on
Earth.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Am I the ony one to think that an independent run by Paul may now be more legitimate than ever before? Not that he'll win, but only because he may actually get a substantial (say 10%) protest votes this way?
|2.7.08 @ 1:22PM|#
The war is disappearing as an election issue, mostly because
of the fears of an economic downturn.
um, because an economic downturn favors the party that has been in
the White House for the last 8 years and talks about cutting
spending and extended tax cuts(for the rich the Dem candidate will
harp)?
Kolohe|2.7.08 @ 1:23PM|#
It all depends on Iraq. If Americans stop getting killed by
next November, I'd say McCain in a landslide. If not, Hillary in a
squeaker
switch locations of landslide and squeaker, and I agree
|2.7.08 @ 1:23PM|#
"""Reagan did it but the evangelicals weren't much of a power
back then and that was 30 years ago."""
Didn't Jerry Falwell's organization play a big role in Reagan get
elected?
|2.7.08 @ 1:24PM|#
This is from Romney's concession speach:
If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I
would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more
likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of
war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a
surrender to terror
What a putz. Every time a GOP candidate drops out America dodges
another bullet. Trouble is, at least one of them won't drop
out.
|2.7.08 @ 1:26PM|#
As the election nears and we have a year to think about
(Obama|Clinton) vs. McCain I think a lot of those suicide voters
will start to turn around. I think right now it's like a child
throwing a tantrum - they're just trying to maximize their effect
via emotional bargaining tactics.
Any chance McCain could resurrect Colin Powell for his veep slot?
It would buy him some 'blackness' and maybe pull a few moderates
his way. Even after his terrible performance in front of the U.N. I
think Powell is pretty well liked although his true stance on the
war seems to put him at odds to McCain's hawkishness.
I still think McCain would benefit most from a Clinton victory in
the primaries. I know my friends aren't very representative of the
US but I've talked with a fair amount of people who would vote
against her but would vote for Obama.
Franklin Harris|2.7.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Mormonism is what ultimately did Romney in. That's the dirty
little not-so-secret secret that somehow went unmentioned during
the post-mortems Tuesday night.
Huckabee was able to surge in the South simply because those
evangelical voters were never going to vote for a Mormon. Period.
Had Hucakabee not been in the race, the evangelicals would have
gone to McCain before they would have gone to Romney because McCain
is anti-abortion and pro-killing-actual-people, which are the two
litmus test issues for the evangelical right.
Plus McCain isn't a Mormon.
|2.7.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Pro Liberate,
I think you get it about right. McCain has another advantage which
is that is not dragged down by a Republican Congress. I think
people are loath to turn the government over to one party right
now. The chances are overwhelming that Democrats will retain
Congress. A lot of independents are going to look at the Nancy
Pelosi Congress and wonder if they really want them in power with a
Democratic President. The divided government and the experience
factors go heavily towards McCain. This summer the US troop level
in Iraq will go below pre-surge levels. If the violence doesn't go
up after that, Iraq will not be a major issue in the
election.
The bottomline is McCain as President with a Democratic Congress is
a lot of gridlock and some control on spending. Most people will
look at that as a pretty good outcome.
|2.7.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Ali,
If the Dems and GOPers hatred for each other weren't at an all-time
high, I would agree. But my guess is in general people will be more
interested in at least making sure that one of the candidates
don't win than registering their disgust with the whole
system by voting Paul.
|2.7.08 @ 1:27PM|#
OK, here's what I don't get. Why are Dems even considering
casting a primary vote for Hillary? Haven't any of them figured out
she is a truly polarizing figure who can draw out the GOP base in
record fashion, and many Dems don't even like her? Haven't they
figured this out? I truly do not understand why they don't ALL vote
for Obama.
Everyone that votes for Hillary would still vote for Obama but the
reverse is not true. Many people who are not Democrats like Obama
yet despise Hillary and McCain. Hell, even lots of libertarians
like Obama and we don't like anyone! If Hillary is the nominee they
turn a landslide Democratic victory (including congressional seats)
into a tight race that it really doesn't have to be.
Plus, Obama will get anti-war votes that McCain and Hillary will
not get.
|2.7.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Had Hucakabee not been in the race, the evangelicals would
have gone to McCain before they would have gone to
Romney
Then why was the conservative vote split between Romney and
Huckabee instead of McCain and Huckabee? If Huckabee had not been
in the race the evangicals would have went to Romney not McCain. I
don't think you people have a clue what you're talking about...
|2.7.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Paul as an independent would be interesting. He would draw some anti-war and disgruntled Obama supporters from Hillary and some of the conservative base from McCain, especially on immigration. This is a wierd year. He would never win, but it wouldn't shock me if he got 10%. That said, I take Paul at his word that he won't do it. Paul whatever his faults doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would lie about going third party.
|2.7.08 @ 1:34PM|#
To hell with Dondi. Lonewacko is who I want to hear from. I will
NOT visit your website. Post here.
Who is going to stop the NAFTA superhighway. Who will stand up to
the Coincil on Foreign Relations. What will the Euro/Amero exchange
rate be?
Lonewacko, bestow your wisdom upon us. We are lost and don't know
where to turn. Help us, Landru!
Ali|2.7.08 @ 1:34PM|#
John- I can't remember where I have seen it, but he actually once hinted that he'd do whatever his supporters wanted him to do.
|2.7.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Al, wouldn't they say that about whomever the Dem nominee is, and yet they still need to win for the goodies to get dispensed? Someone said a week or two ago they support her because they want to severely punish the GOP. I'm starting to think that is the reason...unless you're my wife's boss who says "I think we need a woman. We need a woman." Ugh.
|2.7.08 @ 1:34PM|#
"If Huckabee had not been in the race the evangicals would have
went to Romney not McCain."
No way. Evangelicals think Mormonism is a cult. They are really
prejudiced about it. They would have never voted for Romney. Also,
they would have never bought Romney's conversion to pro-life. I
think if Huckabe hasn't been in the race, Fred might have had a
chance but not Romney.
|2.7.08 @ 1:34PM|#
IMO a Paul third-party candidacy will guarantee a Hillary or
Obama win. Yes, he can try to appeal to anti-war leftists, but they
just will not accept his views on domestic issues. Those who cannot
swallow Hillary or Obama (and I think most would accept Obama in
any event) would sooner vote for Nader or McKinney than Paul.
By contrast, now that the Iraq war is no longer quite so big an
issue, I think Paul will draw a large protest vote from economic
conservatives.
Franklin Harris|2.7.08 @ 1:37PM|#
I truly do not understand why they don't ALL vote for Obama.
It's a combination of gender politics and what's left of Bill
Clinton's Svengali-like hold over the Democrats. Oh, and Hispanics
voting for Clinton just because they won't vote for a black man.
(The racial divide between blacks and Hispanics being one of those
things we're not supposed to talk about, of course, but it's right
there in the exit polls.)
|2.7.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Nick,
A lot people, especially women of baby-boom age and older, like
her.
Also, some people think she will bring us Term 3 and Term 4 of the
Clinton presidency, which was pretty good times for most
people.
|2.7.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Referring to my previous post -
Believe it or not, I passed typing in ninth grade. With a
gentleman's C.
|2.7.08 @ 1:41PM|#
It's so important that Ron Paul continues his campaign. Let's
help him out with more money.
McCain is a warmonger who also plans to use increased taxes and
regulations (trade caps) to limit the anthropogenic warming that he
believes in. His plan is on par with Hillary's. Obama is actually
more moderate than both of em on this issue. With McCain-Fiengold,
he is not trustable on civil liberties.
Huckabee is a big government type. That's the way he governed, and
his stimulus plan was a public works highway construction
project!
It's time for us to give more money to Ron Paul so that there can
be a pro-liberty advocacy on the Republican nomination front.
|2.7.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Joe, you may be right, but I must say that my wife is a baby-boomer liberal, and she hates Hillary. She's not even very fond of Bill, which is rather weird, as I thought he had all those chicks mesmerized.
Sam Grove|2.7.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Paul whatever his faults doesn't strike me as the kind of
person who would lie about going third party.
He also refused to categorically rule it out.
Attempts to get him to enunciate such a scenario were trying to
bust his GOP campaign.
svf|2.7.08 @ 1:43PM|#
why would Ron Paul launch a sure-to-lose 3rd party presidential
bid when it would mean giving up his sure-to-win House seat?
Sure he's a little "crazy" but not that kind of crazy...?
|2.7.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Wait a sec, Obama is black to Hispanics, but not to white people
or black people? How's that work?
Seriously, many black politicians have won substantial Latino
support.
Hillary is winning Hispanics because she, unlike Obama, campaigned
for them.
A black candidate is at somewhat of a disadvantage among Hispanics,
but not as much as some people would have you believe.
Franklin Harris|2.7.08 @ 1:44PM|#
If Huckabee had not been in the race the evangicals would have went to Romney not McCain. I don't think you people have a clue what you're talking about...
Lots if evangelicals in the South think Mormonism is about one step
up from a Satanic cult. Most of them would not vote for Romney.
It'd be like voting for the anti-Christ.
|2.7.08 @ 1:44PM|#
No way. Evangelicals think Mormonism is a cult. They are
really prejudiced about it. They would have never voted for Romney.
Also, they would have never bought Romney's conversion to pro-life.
I think if Huckabe hasn't been in the race, Fred might have had a
chance but not Romney.
I got to disagree. Some evangicals are hardcore against mormonism
when it contrasts against their faith. But there are so many areas
where the LDS (as a conservative, family oriented, western civ
originated, popular close enough to christian religion) and the
fundies work side by side, among them being pro-lifers,
homeschoolers, and the threat(real or perceived) that secular
progressives pose to both faiths, not to mention the "muslim
menace". Romney didn't lose because he was LDS, he lost because
Huckabee is baptist, without Huckabee in the race Romney is close
enough to their kind of people they would have gone his way, just
as they did on tuesday. Evangicals fear muslims, secularists,
liberal christian churches and mormons in that order. Regarding
Romneys "flip-flop", most would rather do with a guy who at least
pretends to represent their values than one who makes it clear he
finds those values distasteful. Throw in immigration, solid-enough
stance on the war(for the GOPers, but not too hardcore for the
independents) and the economy and Romney had a chance of keeping
all 3 wings of his party happy.
Jon|2.7.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Four years of having to hear McCain say "my friends" or describe every issue as "transcendent" is a depressing prospect.
svf|2.7.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Four years of having to hear McCain say "my friends" or describe every issue as "transcendent" is a depressing prospect.
Follow me across the bridge to nowhere...
|2.7.08 @ 1:46PM|#
". . .which was pretty good times for most people." Yeah, it's
just love for the Clintons everywhere, and they were the ones that
gave us the economic boom. Heck, why not credit the GOP Congress?
Or grunge? Or Seinfeld? Though I do think you're correct
that some thoughtless voters think exactly that. I just disagree
that they are a major force, even among the Democrats. Post hoc
ergo propter hoc.
Do you remember those halcyon days when we said it would be Warner
vs. Warner in 2008? Ah, the brief six months lapse in the election
cycle--I miss it.
|2.7.08 @ 1:46PM|#
I think we can all agree that there are some Evangelicals who
are dowon on Mormonism. But those same people are also down on
Catholicism and Judaism.
It is even worse for Mormons, or about the same?
Kolohe|2.7.08 @ 1:47PM|#
The problem that Limbaugh and Hannity and NRO have is that
they have started thinking that just because someone listens to
them or reads their magazine they agree with them about
everything.
John-
Your not wrong about this, but you are neglecting the flip side:
there are a politicall significant amount of people who in fact get
there marching orders from the various hosts or other centers of
influence. (this is not exclusive to the right, either)
So what I think the trend is that at best lukewarm support by most
right wing centers of influence will just cause people to stay home
(as compared to how passion from the same COI's made people turn
out in record numbers in '04 to enable Bush's re-election) ->
gives either democrat candidate the victory.
The other side is not quite parallel. Despite the acrimonious
slugfest currently between Clinton and Obama, in the end, my
prediction is that everyone will bury the hatchet and come
together.
However, one of the few ways I see a debilitating split in the
democrats if the nomination is too close to call at the wire, and
Hill winds up winning by seating the FL/MI delagates. That's would
be a deal so slimy as to completely turn off Obama's supporters.
Anything short of that, even superdelegate shennigans, will more
than likely cause the looser and his/her posse to suck it up and
support the other.
kinnath|2.7.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Paul as an independent would be interesting. He would draw
some anti-war and disgruntled Obama supporters from Hillary and
some of the conservative base from McCain, especially on
immigration. This is a wierd year. He would never win, but it
wouldn't shock me if he got 10%. That said, I take Paul at his word
that he won't do it. Paul whatever his faults doesn't strike me as
the kind of person who would lie about going third
party.
I have already received emails from the Paul campaign asking for
donations to his congressional race. Texas law
allows someone to run for president/vice-president while
simultaneously running for congress. Remember Llyod Bentson?
I expect Ron to run as an independent/third-party candidate all the
way to November. And I expect he'll be re-elected to Congress.
Franklin Harris|2.7.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Wait a sec, Obama is black to Hispanics, but not to white people or black people? How's that work?
Obama is half white. That's something else that never comes up but
is probably more relevant than anyone would like to admit.
svf|2.7.08 @ 1:49PM|#
I have already received emails from the Paul campaign asking for donations to his congressional race. Texas law allows someone to run for president/vice-president while simultaneously running for congress. Remember Llyod Bentson?
Really? Even in another party?
Interesting.....
Curious|2.7.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Why would either a woman or a black man want to be president
from 2009 to 2013?
The economy is going down, the war is ongoing, things don't look
good in either Afganistan or Pakistan, and the foreclosures keep
increasing each month.
Won't any or all of these be blamed on the person's interest
group?
|2.7.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Joe, Evangelicals tend to hate anybody who isn't a "True Christian", that is to say anybody who doesn't attend their church...and they're even suspicious about some of them!
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 1:51PM|#
It's so important that Ron Paul continues his campaign.
Let's help him out with more money.
Not to get down on Paulites, but what is he planning to do with his
cash, seeing as he has no shot of winning?
Nephilium|2.7.08 @ 1:53PM|#
joe:
To my knowledge, the really out there Jesus-freaks hate all three.
But for different reasons.
IIRC:
Mormonism: Cult
Catholicism: Worship of Mary/Saints/Pope
Judaism: They killed Jesus
If you wish to subject yourself to more closer examination... you
can go look up the Jack Chick tracts...
Nephilium
|2.7.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Maybe you all know different evangicals than i, because the ones
i know support israel(full of jooos) against the "muslim menace",
work with the LDS on homeschooling, pro-life and other issues,
elect and support american catholic conservatives.
Are talking about the extremist bomb-the-clinics types or the more
mainstream GOP base?
|2.7.08 @ 1:56PM|#
"Obama is half white. That's something else that never comes up
but is probably more relevant than anyone would like to
admit."
He is an apostate Muslim to, which is very intresting. He was born
a Muslim but later converted to Christianity. To a hardcore Muslim,
an apostate is lower than even a Jew. One benefit of an Obama
Presidency would be seeing the Saudi Royal family have to kiss his
ass. It would kill them.
|2.7.08 @ 1:56PM|#
joe,
I've been wondering the same thing. Honestly, I think the truth is
that we don't really understand the evangelical mind. Or voter.
Nephilium|2.7.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Shane:
These are the bomb-the-clinics, preach on the street, hand out
tract, full bore Jesus-freaks.
Those evangelicals. The ones who won't let their children watch
things like the Muppet Show because talking animals is wrong.
Nephilium
|2.7.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Shane, I don't differentiate because all Evangelicals are working same scam, and are very disinclined to clean their own house.
Kolohe|2.7.08 @ 2:02PM|#
"born a muslim and converted"
My impression is that although his father and first step-father
were (non-practicing) muslims, his mother was an agnostic
christian, and he was baptised (i don't know exactly how early) by
his maternal grandparents. So he 'converted' to christianity as
part of his upbringing, not as a consious adult choice
|2.7.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Shane,
Just because they work with them and like them personally doesn't
mean they would vote for one for President. Kind of like the white
guy who will let a Mexican raise his kids for cheap money but never
let him join his country club. In evangelicals defense, the Mormons
no doubt think the same about the evangelicals.
Jon|2.7.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Everyday there are more and more articles on Lewrockwell.com
flagging up a third party run for Paul.
Also his website emphasizes his recruitment of precinct
leaders.
And from Paul's perspective, McCain must be the ideal candidate to
run against.
|2.7.08 @ 2:04PM|#
"So he 'converted' to christianity as part of his upbringing,
not as a consious adult choice"
I don't think that matters. He was born to Muslim parents so in the
strict Muslim view he is part of the Ummah, or greater Muslim
community. By strict teaching, you don't get to leave the Ummah
unless it is in a box.
|2.7.08 @ 2:04PM|#
No way. Evangelicals think Mormonism is a cult. They are
really prejudiced about it. They would have never voted for Romney.
Also, they would have never bought Romney's conversion to pro-life.
I think if Huckabe hasn't been in the race, Fred might have had a
chance but not Romney.
Evangelical Protestants are not a monolithic bloc of people all
thinking exactly the same way. Some think Mormons are a
devil-worshipping cult (my mother among them) who they would never
vote for, some only have a mild loathing of LDS folks. But
elections are decided at the margins. A few percentage points added
to Romney's totals in each state, and he'd have won a bunch of
those winner-take-all states. Being LDS was a non-starter from the
get-go in the South, and to a lesser extent to voters in other
states. Rerun this primary with someone identical to Romney except
he's an evangelical Protestant, and Mitt would likely be the
frontrunner now.
svf|2.7.08 @ 2:07PM|#
from Paul's perspective, McCain must be the ideal candidate to run against.
Paul vs. McCain/Hillary = good idea
Paul vs. McCain/Obama = not quite so good...?
|2.7.08 @ 2:09PM|#
John, have you ever had a Muslim express that thought to you
about Obama? Or seen a Muslim write something like that about
him?
Are you just guessing based on your understanding of Islam?
|2.7.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Third-party Paul would probably pull more
Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/liberals.
Because he's, you know, a Republican conservative.
And because the conservatives don't like McCain at all, while the
liberals like Obama and can live with Hillary.
|2.7.08 @ 2:11PM|#
"John, have you ever had a Muslim express that thought to you
about Obama? Or seen a Muslim write something like that about
him?
Are you just guessing based on your understanding of Islam?"
The Muslims I know are not radicals and could not care less that
Obama was born Muslim and is now a Christian. They do, however,
tell me that no everyone would view it that way. Honestly, I have
not personally met a Muslim who believes that, but I believe my
Muslim acquaintances who tell me such people do exist.
|2.7.08 @ 2:14PM|#
I don't think Obama is viewed by that many people as half-white
(even if it's true) because his wife is black. If she were white,
you'd be hearing different things about both of them with regards
to their respective races. As it stands now, only Hillary and Bill
are playing the race card and I'm not sure it's really
working.
Are Hispanics that against him, or that in favor of Hillary? Need
she play the race game? Doesn't that piss off progressives and
liberals more than anything?
I would love to see Obama vs McCain in a debate. Political
positions aside, I'm thinking it will be like Kennedy vs Nixon in
how it is viewed by the public.
|2.7.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Just because they work with them and like them personally
doesn't mean they would vote for one for President. Kind of like
the white guy who will let a Mexican raise his kids for cheap money
but never let him join his country club. In evangelicals defense,
the Mormons no doubt think the same about the
evangelicals.
No, as a recently ex-Mormon, I can attest that most Mormons don't
hold contemptuous views of evangelicals (and Catholics, and ...).
They think the evangelicals are on the right track but just don't
have the WHOLE truth, and are prepared to go to great lengths to
tell them about those additional "truths". Whereas most
evangelicals think Mormons have committed blasphemy by calling the
Book of Mormon (and the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price)
scripture, holding up someone they consider a charlatan as a
prophet and the near-equal to Jesus, and that whole dispute about
the Trinity. And other stuff.
|2.7.08 @ 2:15PM|#
"Rerun this primary with someone identical to Romney except he's
an evangelical Protestant, and Mitt would likely be the frontrunner
now."
I think that is right. If Romney had been an evangelical or even a
mainline protestant, Huckabe never gets anywhere because
evangelicals wouldn't have been looking for a candidate.
Jon|2.7.08 @ 2:18PM|#
"Paul vs. McCain/Hillary = good idea
Paul vs. McCain/Obama = not quite so good...?"
In terms of maximizing Paul's vote I think you're correct. But if
by running Paul prevents McCain from winning, then I'd rather Obama
was the Democratic candidate.
|2.7.08 @ 2:18PM|#
According to the pew survey about 1/3 of evangicals had a
problem with Romney's mormonism:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=267
I still believe his problems had less to do with bigotry aimed at
his faith and more to do with his perceived inconsistent stance on
important issues, being governor of the bluest state in the
country, and Huckabee's presence.
Doesn't matter now anyway. the GOPers are stuck with McCain.
I'll probably be voting LP or another 3rd party.
I could stomach Romney, i can't stand McCain or Huckabee.
Ruth|2.7.08 @ 2:20PM|#
It is really interesting to many of your comments on "evangelicals." Evangelical Christians are individuals who have differing views on many things, including politics. It sounds like you guys are talking about cartoon characters who bomb abortion clinics and freak out over muppets instead of real people. It's like you've found a group you can be prejudiced about without risking your image of yourselves as tolerant.
|2.7.08 @ 2:22PM|#
It's like you've found a group you can be prejudiced about
without risking your image of yourselves as tolerant.
my thoughts exactly. Most evangicals i know are normal people, not
extremists.
|2.7.08 @ 2:27PM|#
joe:
Third-party Paul would probably pull more
Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/liberals.
I think he'd pull more Democrats/liberals if the Dem opponent is
Clinton than he would if the Dem opponent is Obama cuz of the war
issue.
Nephilium|2.7.08 @ 2:27PM|#
I've been pretty clear that I'm talking only about the
extremists...
You know, the Jack Chick people.
Nephilium
|2.7.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Certainly, Rick. I thought I wrote that.
Ruth, is is possible for 1/3 of a group to be extremists?
|2.7.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Which makes the candidate running on a positive message and
who can demonstrate broad appeal beyond the Democratic base a
better bet than the polarizing figure who has trouble getting
people to like her.
I agree 100%. Today, February 07, 2008, I concurred with joe on
preferring a candidate.
To say I'm dumbstruck is an egregious understatement.
|2.7.08 @ 2:33PM|#
I've been pretty clear that I'm talking only about the
extremists...
Yes, but do they make up a sizable portion of the voters we're
discussing, do the extremists like Jack Chick even have
influence?
|2.7.08 @ 2:34PM|#
I'll probably be voting LP or another 3rd party.
I could stomach Romney, i can't stand McCain or
Huckabee.
Ditto.
|2.7.08 @ 2:36PM|#
I wonder who Eric is backing now? Surely Paul is now the most libertarian candidate. Unless Osamaphobia trumps all other libertarian issues.
|2.7.08 @ 2:38PM|#
I wonder who Eric is backing now?
Well with Guiliani and Romney now backing McCain that's probably
how he'll lean. How he'll justify it from a libertarian
stance(you know cause Dondero is the decider on all things
libertarian) i have no idea, should be humorous though.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 2:46PM|#
I wonder who Eric is backing now? Surely Paul is now the
most libertarian candidate. Unless Osamaphobia trumps all other
libertarian issues.
If OBL and Paul were the only two human beings remaining on earth,
Eric would go for OBL.
|2.7.08 @ 3:05PM|#
@ John,
"So he 'converted' to christianity as part of his upbringing, not as a consious adult choice"
I don't think that matters. He was born to Muslim parents so in the strict Muslim view he is part of the Ummah, or greater Muslim community. By strict teaching, you don't get to leave the Ummah unless it is in a box.
I've read that same line of reasoning somewhere, too, but I don't
remember where. Anyway, I wonder if there would be danger of a
Muslim contract being put out on him?
|2.7.08 @ 3:12PM|#
If OBL and Paul were the only two human beings remaining on
earth, Eric would go for OBL.
Ali -- Technically, if OBL and Paul were the only two remaining
human beings, then Dondero would be dead and not likely to voice an
opinion -- unless he'd written his opinion on that specific
scenario into his will.
Unless you're implying Dondero isn't human, in which case your
gentle chastisement yesterday for us all to be more civil just ran
into an irony alert.
|2.7.08 @ 3:22PM|#
@ Ruth
I'm only intolerant of people who are first intolerant of me.
Evangelical Christians, for example.
|2.7.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Technically, if OBL and Paul were the only two remaining human beings, then Dondero would be dead and not likely to voice an opinion -- unless he'd written his opinion on that specific scenario into his will.
Or he could be absentee-voting from his Secret Mainstream
Libertarian Moon Base.
|2.7.08 @ 3:27PM|#
I'm only intolerant of people who are first intolerant of
me.
i now have a picture in my head of crowds of homosexuals beating up
straight couples and waving signs that read "breeders go
away"...
thinking about it.
nope, sorry, bigotry is still uncool.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Ali -- Technically, if OBL and Paul were the only two
remaining human beings, then Dondero would be dead and not likely
to voice an opinion -- unless he'd written his opinion on that
specific scenario into his will.
Yeah, I considered that technical difficulty, but I brushed it
aside since the implication is that there are only 3 human beings
left: OBL, Paul, and Dondero. Not that that is the only legitimate
technicality either!
Unless you're implying Dondero isn't human, in which case your
gentle chastisement yesterday for us all to be more civil just ran
into an irony alert.
No, he's human. Quite an adorable one at that, too.
|2.7.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Unless you're implying Dondero isn't human,
I think you are on to something there.
|2.7.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Unless you're implying Dondero isn't human,
I think you are on to something there.
I heard that rattlesnakes won't bite him - something about
professional courtesy. :-)
Robert|2.7.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Oh, and Hispanics voting for Clinton just because they won't vote for a black man.
Will black Hispanics vote for a black man? Will Hispanics vote for
a black Hispanic?
|2.7.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Oh, my head!
Anyway, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the population of
Muslims who would hate Barack Obama for "converting" to
Chrisitanity when he was 4 would be pretty much coterminus with the
population of Muslims who would hate him for being the President of
the United States.
|2.7.08 @ 4:06PM|#
would be pretty much coterminus with the population of
Muslims who would hate him for being the President of the United
States.
Joe,
What do you mean? I could not find coterminus in the
online dictionary.
|2.7.08 @ 4:20PM|#
@ Shane -
The very essence of Evangelical Christianity is their certainty
that all other beliefs are inferior. Plus, they think they have a
mandate from God to convert everyone to their way of
thinking.
Tell me how cool that is.
|2.7.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Thanks, Pro Libertate, but I'm still not certain what he meant - unless he was trying to say they would likely be the same group. Oh well.
|2.7.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Yes, that's what he meant--the same that hate Obama for the one reason will hate him for the other. joe also is secretly a fan of all New York sports teams and is an arch-capitalist. He enjoys long walks and reading Ulysses.
|2.7.08 @ 4:29PM|#
"Anyway, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the population
of Muslims who would hate Barack Obama for "converting" to
Chrisitanity when he was 4 would be pretty much coterminus with the
population of Muslims who would hate him for being the President of
the United States."
That is true and that is not going to many American Muslims. I am
talking about radicals in places like Europe and Saudi Arabia. Like
I said, a serious bonus to an Obama Presidency is watching the
Saudi Royals have to kiss his ass. I don't think they are going to
like it very much.
|2.7.08 @ 4:34PM|#
It's not cool or uncool, it's just their faith. every religion
thinks it has it right otherwise they wouldn't bother being a
religion and distinguishing themselves from the other religions.
You use the word "convert" as if they are sticking a gun to your
head. sorry i can't hate on various family members, neighbors,
co-workers, ect because they like jebus and want me to like jebus
too. i hate it if they use law to force jebus on me, but i'm not
going to lump them all into a puritan-authoritarian-redneck-idiot
group. Everybody is guided in their political views by an
underlying philosophy and/or worldview, conservative protestant
christians are no different and shouldn't be looked down upon for
a)acknowledging that their underlying philosophy/worldview shapes
their political leanings and b)being involved in the politcal arena
in a democratic society.
I might have a problem with specific evangelicals because of their
word or actions, but to prejudice against people because of you
dislike what they religious faith(even if part of their belief is
to convince you to believe it as well) or because you dislike that
they acknowledge their religious faith is just ignorant and only
serves to reinforce the belief that they should be on the defensive
and are being "attacked" by secularists.
I don't have a problem with people using their faith as a political
guide, i have a problem with authoritarians, they are not always
the same so i try not to generalize.
|2.7.08 @ 4:56PM|#
@ Shane -
I guess if I don't sin, I have nothing to worry about from the
Evangelical movement.
GILMORE|2.7.08 @ 6:15PM|#
only 3 human beings left: OBL, Paul, and Dondero.
Result = Dr. Paul cryogenically freezes himself until humans again
emerge from primordial slime, osama and donderoo share a cave and
have a sort of "odd couple" love/hate replationship that would make
a great sitcom if anyone was alive to watch it. Osama eventually
decides to move out because he can't take it anymore. Donderoo
stays up late nights trolling dead Blogs wondering why no one calls
him a douche anymore.
|2.7.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Yeah, I never liked Romney, always struck me as a fake.
The icing on the cake is what this means to Dondero.
Franklin Harris|2.7.08 @ 8:18PM|#
Libertarian Wayne Root has now been cursed with Dondero's support.
I can only assume this means there is something horribly wrong with
Wayne Root.
Scooby|2.8.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Franklin,
I don't know jack about Wayne Alyn Root's politics- I only know his
name because of the tons of commercials on sports talk radio for
his scam tout service.
Donderoo probably supports him because his initials spell WAR.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245