TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Inevitability of Hillary and Rudy?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
The Inevitability of Hillary and Rudy?
This thread probably won't get any responses since it is about the US Presidential election and doesn't mention Ron Paul, but here goes.
I don't know how many of you regularly read the NYTimes op-eds (probably nobody), but it's been interesting to see a few themes that have developed over the past months. In particular, Maureen Dowd, probably as influential a journalist in liberal circles as Bill Kristol is in conservative ones, has been launching a personal crusade against Hillary Clinton of late, devoting her bi-weekly submissions to more and more vicious criticisms of the Clinton campaign.
And it seems that she is succeeding in touching the nerves that Edwards and Obama can't seem to find. When Dowd drives home a point, she drives it home hard. And with Hillary floundering in Iowa, where Obama has seized a small lead, one has to wonder whether Hillary is really inevitable at all.
The latest from Dowd:
| quote: |
| November 21, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist She�s No Morgenthau MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON Most of the time, Barack Obama seems like he�s boxing in the wrong weight class. But Monday in Fort Dodge, Iowa, he delivered an unscripted jab that was a beaut. At a news conference, the Illinois senator was asked about Hillary Clinton�s attack on his qualifications. Making an economic speech in Knoxville, Iowa, earlier that day, the New York senator had touted her own know-how, saying that �there is one job we can�t afford on-the-job training for � that�s the job of our next president.� Her aides confirmed that she was referring to Obama. Pressed to respond, Obama offered a zinger feathered with amused disdain: �My understanding was that she wasn�t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don�t know exactly what experiences she�s claiming.� Everybody laughed, including Obama. It took him nine months, but he finally found the perfect pitch to make a trenchant point. Her Democratic rivals had meekly gone along, accepting her self-portrait as a former co-president who gets to take credit for everything important Bill Clinton did in the �90s. But she was not elected or appointed to a position that needed Senate confirmation. And the part of the Clinton administration that worked best � the economy, stupid � was run by Robert Rubin. Hillary did not show good judgment in her areas of influence � the legal fiefdom, health care and running oppo-campaigns against Bill�s galpals. She went on some first lady jaunts and made a good speech at a U.N. women�s conference in Beijing. But she was certainly not, as her top Iowa supporter, former governor Tom Vilsack claimed yesterday on MSNBC, �the face of the administration in foreign affairs.� She was a top adviser who had a Nixonian bent for secrecy and a knack for hard-core politicking. But if running a great war room qualified you for president, Carville and Stephanopoulos would be leading the pack. Obama�s one-liner evoked something that rubs some people the wrong way about Hillary. Getting ahead through connections is common in life. But Hillary cloaks her nepotism in feminism. �She hasn�t accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law,� wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: �She isn�t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that.� The Clinton campaign in Iowa is in a panic. Obama has been closing the gap with women and her ginning up of gender has lost her male votes. Speaking around Iowa this week, Obama made the point that his exotic upbringing, family in Kenya and years as an outsider allow him to see the world with more understanding, and helped form his judgment about resisting the Iraq war. �I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia,� he said. �If you don�t understand these cultures then it�s very hard for you to make good foreign policy decisions. Foreign policy is all about judgment.� President Bush is not so enamored of Obama�s foreign policy judgment. He gave a plug to Hillary on ABC News last night, calling her a �formidable candidate,� even under pressure, who �understands the klieg lights.� Asked by Charles Gibson about Obama�s offer to meet without preconditions with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, W. declared it �odd foreign policy.� Laura Bush also gave Hillary a sisterly � and dynastic � plug when she told the anchor that living in the White House and meeting people everywhere would be �very helpful� to a first lady trading up. Though he did not mention the quick �color me experienced� trip Hillary took with some Senate colleagues to Iraq and Afghanistan just before she started running, Obama might have been thinking of it when he mocked Kabuki Congressional junkets: �You get picked up at the airport by a state convoy and a security detail. They drive you over to the ambassador�s house and you get lunch. Then you go take a tour of some factory or some school. Children do a native dance.� Hillary pounced, knowing that her chief rival�s foreign policy r�sum� is as slender as his physique, once more conjuring a childish Obama. She brazenly borrowed Republican talking points, even though she accused John Edwards of �throwing mud� that was �right out of the Republican playbook.� �With all due respect,� she told a crowd in Iowa. �I don�t think living in a foreign country between the ages of 6 and 10 is foreign policy experience.� But is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience? |
| quote: |
| On the heels of yesterday's poll showing Obama edging into a lead in Iowa come these new numbers from CNN showing Hillary's support dropping among likely Dem voters in New Hampshire |
If Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat. He is better than any of the alternatives. We really need some fresh blood and new ideas in Washington.
i'd like to see hillary win, if only to see Q5 fume on here during her presidency 
I think you make some good arguments, and I share your feelings on nearly all of them. I agree with what you said about Hillary and why she's so stinkin' popular right now, and I think that while her biggest weakness is her equivocating answers to direct questions, for some reason it's portrayed as her greatest strength. Of course politicians won't often give direct answers at times, but dammit she does this ALL the freakin' time!
I will give her credit where she's due, however - her campaign is one seriously well-oiled machine. Again what folks like you and myself see as equivocating and dodging answers, others have perceived it as she is staying "on message" (whatever the hell that means), and her machine rolls on. And I will hand it to her on the last debate - she shook off the feminist jabs well from CNN and immediately made that an issue for the other candidates to quickly avoid. And she has held herself very well throughout the debates over all, at least that's where the dumbshit pundits continue to credit her for on a daily basis.
But I really would hope that no man or woman would vote her in simply because she's a woman. Unfortunately, I think there will be a healthy percentage of twits that will do just that without examination of her merits.
As for Republicans, again I agree with you about Giuliani and Romney. Both to me are very vulnerable. What scares the crap outa me with Giuliani is that once again the dumbshit pundits are creating a false image of some "moderate" candidate simply because he's been about pro-gay marriage and pro-choice in the past. Not only is it impossible to predict that he will remain as such should he become president, but he has specifically stated without equivocation what kind of judges he wants in our courts and for SCOTUS, and they're not terribly friendly to the pro-gay, pro-choice idea:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...id=sec-politics
And furthermore, he is by far the most extreme neoconservative candidate out there, one that is more to the extreme than even Dick Cheney. When one hires someone like Norman Podheretz on your squad, a man who's prayed that we go to war with Iran, it tells the world all you need to know where he stands with foreign policy:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...ext-decide.html
Again, that little nutbag is anything but "moderate":
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...iani/index.html
As for Romney, the guy has flipflopped more than Kerry did back in '04. I don't perceive him being the strongest of the candidates either, plus there's still a number of folks in the Conservative fundie base that have issues with him being a Morman, and will steadfastly refuse to vote for him as a consequence (probably a smaller number than the pundits purport, but it's there nonetheless).
Of all the Conservative candidates that I think have the most consistent record and answers in debates, it's Huckabee. I would never vote for him, of course, but in terms of Conservative policies and stances, he's been the most consistent. The fact that he doesn't understand or believe in evolutionary principles really doesn't speak well for him intellectually, but then again he's not alone in that regard with Conservatives and even a few of the other candidates.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Of allthe Conservative candidates that I think have the most consistent record and answers in debates, it's Huckabee. |
| quote: |
| Huckabee Gaining Ground in Iowa By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, November 21, 2007; A01 Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, buoyed by strong support from Christian conservatives, has surged past three of his better-known presidential rivals and is now challenging former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the lead in the Iowa Republican caucuses, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll. Huckabee has tripled his support in Iowa since late July, eclipsing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Huckabee now runs nearly evenly with Romney, the longtime Iowa front-runner. Huckabee's rise from dark horse to contender in Iowa is one more unexpected twist in a race that has remained fluid throughout the year and adds another unpredictable element to the competition for the GOP nomination. His support in Iowa appears stronger and more enthusiastic than that of his rivals. Still, there are other signs in the poll suggesting that Romney remains the candidate to beat in the state and that gains for Huckabee may be harder to achieve in the next 43 days than they were over the past four months. Romney outperforms Huckabee and other Republicans on key attributes, with two notable exceptions -- perceptions of which candidate best understands people's problems and which candidate is the most honest and trustworthy. On both, Romney and Huckabee are tied. At the same time, Iowa Republicans see the former Arkansas governor as less credible than Romney, Giuliani or McCain on some top issues. The poll found that overall, 28 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers support Romney, while 24 percent support Huckabee. Thompson ran third in the poll at 15 percent, with Giuliani at about the same level, with 13 percent. McCain, whose Iowa campaign appeared to derail earlier this year over his stance on immigration, had 6 percent and was tied with Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), who rose from 2 percent in July. Huckabee's gains were concentrated among the party's conservative core. He saw a 28-percentage-point jump in support from evangelical Protestants, to 44 percent, and a 19-point rise among conservatives, to 30 percent. Among previous caucus attendees, his support increased from 9 percent to 29 percent. Huckabee probably benefited from the decision of Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and others to quit the race. Brownback and Huckabee had been competing for many of the same religious and conservative voters. Moreover, Huckabee's gain in this poll does not come at the expense of those still running, all of whom are faring about the same as they were in July. But almost half of Huckabee's supporters (48 percent) said they would definitely vote for him in January and only a quarter said there was a good chance that they would change their minds before the caucuses. In contrast, just 29 percent of Romney's backers said they would definitely vote for him, while 42 percent said there was a good chance that they could vote for someone else at the caucuses. The enthusiasm among Huckabee supporters was striking, particularly in a year in which Republicans have been considerably dissatisfied with the field of candidates. Half of those who now back the former Arkansas governor said they are very enthusiastic about him, compared with 28 percent of Romney's backers. But despite these advantages, Huckabee's support comes almost exclusively from certain groups of voters. His challenge will be to expand his appeal. Nearly seven in 10 of his backers are evangelical Protestants, and nearly three-quarters attend religious services at least weekly. Just 5 percent of moderate and liberal GOP voters back his candidacy. Romney, by contrast, has wider support. It is also primarily social issues that galvanize Huckabee's backers. More than four in 10 Huckabee voters call abortion or broader moral or values issues the race's top one or two concerns. That is nearly double the number of Romney supporters to highlight these issues. Overall, three-quarters of likely GOP voters think that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, and among the 24 percent who want the procedure to be unlawful in every instance, 36 percent support Huckabee and 22 percent Romney. But a slew of issues drive likely GOP caucus-goers. A quarter of those surveyed said immigration is their biggest or second-biggest concern when considering whom to back on Jan. 3. The same percentage, 24 percent, highlighted the war in Iraq, and nearly as many, 21 percent, singled out terrorism and national security. Ten percent or more cited five other issues: the economy, health care, abortion, taxes, and morals and family values. Overall, eight issues ranked in the double digits, making the discussion in the Republican contest potentially more wide-ranging than that on the Democratic side. Among likely Democratic caucus-goers, only three issues reach 10 percent, and two -- Iraq and health care -- dominate voters' concerns. On immigration, Romney has an edge: 27 percent said the former Massachusetts governor is best on the issue, while Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) each received 13 percent. No candidate is clearly preferred on the other top issue, Iraq, with Giuliani, McCain and Romney each considered the best by about two in 10. Giuliani doubles up the competition, however, on handling the terrorism fight. Romney tops the field as the candidate most trusted to handle the economy and the federal budget deficit. He and Huckabee are preferred by about equal percentages on social issues, such as abortion and same-sex civil unions. Campaign activity on the GOP side appears to be more subdued than it is among Democrats, perhaps in part because national leaders Giuliani and McCain are not prioritizing Iowa's caucus. About six in 10 likely caucus-goers said they have been called by one of the campaigns. Twenty-nine percent have attended a campaign event, up six percentage points from July, but far less than the percentage of Democrats who have attended an event (52 percent). A third of GOP voters have visited one of the candidates' Web sites and 29 percent have received e-mail. About one in five has spoken with or shaken hands with one or more of the GOP candidates. Fifteen percent have contributed money. Romney, who has pinned his bid for the nomination on success in Iowa and New Hampshire, is widely seen as the candidate who has made the biggest effort in the Hawkeye state. More than six in 10 said that he has "campaigned the hardest in Iowa." That's up 14 percentage points from July, and no other candidate scored in the double digits on that question. Romney has an advantage on the question of who has the "best experience to be president," after a 10-point increase from July, when he was about even with Giuliani and McCain. Romney had held a marginally significant edge on "best understands problems of people like you," but while he has stayed at 21 percent on this question, Huckabee has soared from 10 percent to 25 percent. In July, Romney had the lead on "most honest and trustworthy" at 21 percent. He has risen to 25 percent, but Huckabee jumped from 10 percent to 26 percent. Romney and Giuliani share the top spot as the field's "strongest leader" and as the Republicans with the best shot at capturing the White House in November 2008. About one in eight said Huckabee is the most electable Republican, while 1 percent thought so in July. About a quarter of evangelical Protestants now think Huckabee is the GOP's top option; four months ago, that percentage was less than 1 percent. The poll was conducted by telephone Nov. 14 to 18 among a random sample of 400 likely GOP caucus-goers. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think you make some good arguments, and I share your feelings on nearly all of them. I agree with what you said about Hillary and why she's so stinkin' popular right now, and I think that while her biggest weakness is her equivocating answers to direct questions, for some reason it's portrayed as her greatest strength. Of course politicians won't often give direct answers at times, but dammit she does this ALL the freakin' time! |
| quote: |
| Bush: Clinton Understands White House Pressure Exclusive Interview Details President's Thoughts on 2008 Race, Last Year in Office By RICK KLEIN and ED O'KEEFE Nov. 20, 2007� President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's experience as first lady has prepared her to handle the "pressure" of a presidential race and the White House, and the president said he believes Clinton will win the Democratic nomination but lose the presidency next year. In an exclusive interview with Charles Gibson airing on Tuesday's World News, Bush acknowledged telling an author recently that he thinks Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the Democratic nominee in 2008 -- in part because of her experience living in the White House as first lady from 1993 through 2001. "I think she's a very formidable candidate, and one of the interesting things that she brings is that she has been under pressure. She understands the klieg lights," the president said, in a phrase he repeated twice in the interview. "No question, there is no question that Senator Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first --could see it first-hand," the president told ABC News' Charlie Gibson Tuesday afternoon at the presidential retreat at Camp David. Bush: Clinton Wins Nomination, Loses White House The president emphasized, "I do believe our candidate will beat her, if she happens to be the nominee," although he refused to speculate on the Republican presidential field, calling it a "wide-open" race. Numerous Bush associates -- including, most prominently, Karl Rove -- have said they expect Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. That prospect is greeted with mixed emotions among many Republicans, who relish the opportunity to run against a polarizing figure such as Sen. Clinton but also bear the scars of battles lost against the Clinton machine. Senator Barack Obama's campaign wasted no time in responding to the President. "I can't tell if Bush is endorsing Hillary, hoping she's the nominee, or thanking her for her votes on Iraq and Iran," Obama, D-Ill., spokesperson Bill Burton told ABC News. The President did allow one insight into Clinton's main nomination rival. Asked about Obama's statement that he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations without preconditions, the president called it an "odd foreign policy" and suggested that the statement stemmed from his lack of experience. "These candidates don't really understand is how complex the environment is inside the Oval Office," Bush said. "And how important it is to have a set of principles from which you will not deviate, and, so that you can make good sound decisions. It is impossible -- maybe not, but I think it's impossible for anybody to fully comprehend, you know, how much incoming there is into the Oval Office." First Lady to First Lady President? Mrs. Bush said that the experience of serving as first lady would be "very helpful" in preparing someone to become president -- "in the abstract." "You certainly know what it's like. I mean there's no doubt about it, you know, you know the pressure," she said. "I think it's very helpful. I mean I think it was very helpful for us to have been around the White House as much as we were when his parents served there." "I don't know who our nominee's gonna be from the Republican Party, and so we'll have a very interesting year watching from the sidelines -- and I'm glad we'll be on the sidelines this time," Mrs. Bush added. Reflecting on the obstacles facing any candidate for the White House, the First Lady said, "I think that what the American people don't know is how difficult it is to run for president, to run for office, and how much both emotional and physical stamina you need to run for office and I think that's what George is talking about." When asked by Gibson whether the candidates could ever know the psychological and physical burdens they might face in office, the President replied, "No, you can't& till you actually get in there, and understand the responsibilities that come with the office, you can't possibly, can't possibly comprehend it." "I'll tell you one thing that'll surprise 'em if they've got an open heart, is that the prayers of the people will affect 'em in a positive way. That has been one of the most surprising aspects of the presidency for me." Mrs. Bush admitted she could see the presidency "wearing" on her husband but she said, "He's doing great but, I mean, the seven years have flown by, they really have." Out of the Running, Still in the Race Bush family members and members of the president's inner circle have scattered their support among several Republican candidates, including former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, R-N.Y., former governor Mitt Romney, R-Mass., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former senator Fred Thompson, R-Tenn. The president joked that his mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, engineered the spreading around of the family's loyalties. "My mother wisely has said, 'Okay, you pick this camp, you pick that camp, you pick this camp,' " he said. Mrs. Bush jumped in to say that the family will line up behind the GOP nominee. "I'll tell you this, they will be united behind the Republican whoever it is when the nomination [battle] is finished," she said. See more of the president and first lady on "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline" this evening, and on Wednesday on "Good Morning America." |
If there turns out to be even a scrap of evidence that Romney's campaign commissioned the push-polling that was going on in New Hampshire, stick a fork in him. It's very fishy that the "random voters" targeted by the poll were mostly paid Romney staffers... surely they weren't picked because the poll would have no affect on their opinion... right, Mitt?
that's what neocons/zionists want , that's for sure and it could very well happen. The only hurdle being Ron Paul but his enemies are powerful and are known to play dirty and are very desperate
| quote: |
| Originally posted by erdega that's what neocons/zionists want , that's for sure and it could very well happen. |
As his profile rises, dirt is starting to come out on Huckabee:
| quote: |
| Huckabee rivals unearth ethics complaints By: Kenneth P. Vogel November 22, 2007 08:43 AM EST As Mike Huckabee gains ground on his rivals for the Republican nomination, opponents have quietly begun highlighting the slew of ethics issues the social conservative faced during his political career in Arkansas. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found Huckabee trailing only Mitt Romney � and by less than the margin of error � in Iowa, where the primary season kicks off with Jan. 3 caucuses. But opposition research files on Huckabee�s ethics stand at the ready, and their contents have begun seeping into press releases. An ordained Southern Baptist minister known for his charm, Huckabee rose swiftly through Arkansas politics, culminating with his decade-long stint as governor. But his career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor�s office. Some of the ethics complaints deal with fairly penny ante stuff, and most were dismissed. They did, however, yield five admonitions and $1,000 in fines from Arkansas' Ethics Commission and, perhaps more significantly, a pattern that strategists for two competing GOP campaigns privately predict could become fodder for attacks playing on the culture-of-corruption theme Democrats used to pound Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections. In fact, when Huckabee entered the presidential race in January, the Democratic National Committee was quick to highlight a couple of the ethics issues that have dogged him and urged him to �come clean about his � history of ethical lapses." Huckabee didn�t get many ethics questions � or many tough questions about anything � as he languished at the bottom of the polls and the fundraising race through the summer. But his surprising second-place finish in the influential August straw poll in Ames, Iowa, and strong debate performances have turned heads and started bringing more scrutiny. After Huckabee fielded ethics questions last weekend on �Fox News Sunday,� campaign aides for former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who�s competing with Huckabee for socially conservative voters, put out a statement accusing Huckabee of �repeatedly dodg[ing] questions about his ethical problems.� Huckabee�s campaign, in a statement to Politico, said it was �suspect� that the ethics issues are being raised as Huckabee surges in the polls and said Huckabee repeatedly addressed the issues during his time as governor. The campaign said the state ethics commission, which Huckabee sued twice, �has been misused as a weapon against Republicans� and that Huckabee �has been unfairly attacked regarding his ethics history while governor of Arkansas.� On �Fox News Sunday,� Huckabee called the ethics complaints �pure nonsense� � the product of rough-and-tumble Arkansas politics. And he said they�ll actually make him a stronger presidential candidate. �The one thing it proves is that I�m prepared for a presidential campaign. I�ve been through this stuff,� he told host Chris Wallace. �I don�t have a glass jaw.� That jaw will likely continue to be tested as opponents and the national media delve more deeply into these areas: Campaign cash The ethics commission fined Huckabee $1,000 for failing to report that he paid himself $14,000 from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign and $43,000 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign. The latter payment � for the use of his eight-seat, twin-engine plane � was reported in a cryptic way that didn�t identify Huckabee and his wife as the owners of the plane. Huckabee sued the commission, alleging its investigation into the campaign payments violated state rules and his due process rights. And he asked the judge to impose a statute of limitations on ethics complaints. The commission, whose director accused Huckabee of trying �to shut the commission down,� sued Huckabee for trying to quash its subpoenas, though both sides dropped their suits after reaching an out-of-court settlement. Action America The commission found Huckabee unintentionally failed to disclose $23,500 he received from a nonprofit organization set up to handle his speaking engagements and supplement his income before he became governor. The nonprofit, Action America, paid Huckabee a total of $41,500 in 1994 and 1995 but missed IRS filing deadlines for those years. Huckabee has repeatedly declined to disclose the handful of benefactors who financed the group. After Huckabee�s �Fox News Sunday� appearance, Thompson�s campaign accused the former governor of using Action America to �funnel his speaking fees through the organization and avoid disclosure requirements.� Gifts According to Huckabee�s disclosure reports, he accepted more than 300 gifts worth at least $130,000, ranging from $3,700 cowboy boots to a $600 chainsaw and $250 worth of dental care. Plenty of politicians accept gifts of all sorts, but Huckabee had problems with Arkansas gift rules that bar public officials from accepting rewards for official action and require them to report the value and source of gifts. He alleged in a second lawsuit against the commission that the rules were unconstitutionally vague. Meanwhile, commissioners were investigating a $500 canoe that Coca-Cola gave him and ultimately fined him $250 for accepting it because they said it rewarded him for doing his job. A judge later overturned the canoe decision but upheld an admonition for Huckabee�s failure to report receiving a $200 stadium blanket the same year. Governor�s mansion In 1998, a former governor�s mansion employee and others sued Huckabee over his assertion that $70,000 worth of furniture donated to the governor's mansion was his to keep, as well as his family�s use of a $60,000-a-year fund. The fund had been used to pay for pizza, a doghouse, a magazine subscription and pantyhose for Huckabee�s wife, Janet, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported. The suit was settled with Huckabee admitting no wrongdoing but acknowledging a "dispute regarding reimbursements� and making clear the furniture was for the mansion. 'Wedding' registry As the Huckabees prepared to leave the governor�s mansion last year for a private home in the Little Rock suburbs, Janet Huckabee�s friends set up registries on two stores' websites listing $7,000 worth of housewarming gifts, ranging from napkins to a $300 KitchenAid mixer. Arkansas newspapers quoted state lawmakers criticizing the registries, which were listed as �wedding� registries, even though the Huckabees have been married since 1974. Huckabee explained the only option other than weddings was baby showers. And the couple lashed out at Arkansas media for their coverage of the registries, which Janet Huckabee told the Democrat-Gazette did �permanent damage.� Computer drives Before leaving office Jan. 9, Huckabee spent $13,000 in state funds to destroy the hard drives of nearly 100 computers in the governor�s office. He pointed out that he had backed up the data and argued that the hard drive destruction was standard practice to prevent the dissemination of sensitive information related to employees or constituents. Critics suggested he was hiding something. But the ethics commission dismissed complaints alleging violations of record management rules. That might not be the end of the story, though. A lawyer is suing Huckabee, alleging that he misspent state money on the destruction. |
Sorry to ruin your party.... But come on Hillary is not going to win shit 
You might as well enjoy her while shes at it. I do think she will win the nomination for the Dems, even though in my opinion think that Biden is the best candidate, but when hillary faces on the GOP machine for the presidential race shes going to get crushed. At this moment while the Dems are taking shots at hillary republican strategist are written all that down in their notebook.
I mean this is why Republicans are so obsessed with hillary. Because 1. they know she will be the candidate for the dems 2. they have more to attack her on than any other candidate
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover Sorry to ruin your party.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm sorry, what's what they want? Obama and Huckabee? Because I'm hard-pressed to see the neo-cons (of whom there are very few these days) push for either one. Most of the leading neo-con founders have ditched the ideology - or at least vastly changed it's direction. Francis Fukuyama, for instance, has been very vocal about his disagreements with the White House, etc. But anyway, I hardly think that the current batch in the White House would be supportive of either an Obama or a Huckabee administration. After all, Bush implicitly endorsed Clinton on the democratic side. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by erdega Neocons jumping ship ? Excuse me but that happened before , all the neocons used to be liberals in their early years , just search for some of the (in)famous names and what they did in their youth . Then they claimed to be (neo)conservative even though there is little to nothing conservative about them . They compensated for that with a totalitarian attitude to american foreign policy based on a huge army that would be used as a tool for their ethnic, economic and overly liberal ideology So some of them do jump ship out of necessity and neocons never announce their true motives in public so they shouldn't be trusted on their mere words, maybe they call themselves in the future neo progressive or some other fancy name, it matters little, what matters is their ideology and their ultimate accountability. I am not surprised that Bush supports Clinton, I am sure he likes her more than Ron Paul, there is a hell of a lot of neocons in the democratic party such as clinton, lieberman, lantos, biden and dozens more and all seem to be holding high positions |
Many people seem to be under that impression but neocons are basically liberals with guns not literally but figurativelly if you know what I mean. Or put it simply neocons are ex trotskyist in their political ideology, all of them being liberals early on
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
or see here in person
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
and more
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html
something about christopher hitchens when he was admirig saddam hussein
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082602.html
http://anglonoelnatter.blogspot.com...tes-saddam.html
Since you talk about Reagan, let's just say that by far closest to him is Ron Paul and since Ron stands are completelly opposed to neocons, you should not compare Reagan with neocons
here is a good youtube clip
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg
| quote: |
| Originally posted by erdega Many people seem to be under that impression but neocons are basically liberals with guns not literally but figurativelly if you know what I mean. Or put it simply neocons are ex trotskyist in their political ideology, all of them being liberals early on http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html or see here in person http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html and more http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html something about christopher hitchens when he was admirig saddam hussein http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082602.html http://anglonoelnatter.blogspot.com...tes-saddam.html |
| quote: |
| The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans. |
| quote: |
| Since you talk about Reagan, let's just say that by far closest to him is Ron Paul and since Ron stands are completelly opposed to neocons, you should not compare Reagan with neocons here is a good youtube clip http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg |
| quote: |
| By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the roots of neo-conservatism. The "liberals" who broke to form the neo-conservative movement were disenchanted by liberalism, not adherents to it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov As for the second article you posted, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Kristol, Bolten and the like are indeed the true neo-conservatives, and it is undeniable that they are declining in influence and respect. Furthermore, none of them are, or ever have been, liberals. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov As far as Christopher Hitchens is concerned, he's just a nutjob that nobody really takes seriously. He doesn't have any ties to Joe Biden or the other liberals you tried to paint with a neo-con brush. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This just prompts a huge Ronald Reagan provided over the largest expansion of federal government since FDR! He was hardly isolationist, or for that matter non-interventionist, invading Grenada, getting involved in shady deals with Iran and Nicaragua, and drastically increasing American military expenditures at a time when they were already the highest in the world. Of all the comparisons I have ever read, this one is the most insane. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov From the article that you linked to me in the first place, once again: If you need another clue as to how the neo-cons were birthed by Ronald Reagan, just count the number of times Rudy Giuliani mentions Reagan's name at the next Republican debate. |
I will agree with you that the Blue Dog Dems (Feinstein, Emanuel, Schumer, and the like) leave a lot to be desired, but I wouldn't compare them to the neo-cons. They aren't talking about using American military influence to thrust democracy upon other countries despite the consequences to security and human rights. They're just spineless and afraid to get in a dogfight.
And I'd be a little bit more nuanced about incorporating Zionism into the neo-conservative agenda. A lot has been made of the current Middle East peace talk rounds and how it's the first time that the US hasn't opened them by criticizing Palestine. I'm not saying that the US isn't more or less pro-Israel, but I don't know if the connection is as clear as you're making it seem.
You and I share a deep-seated worry about Hillary... but I don't think we share the same view that Bill's administration was corrupted by the neo-con agenda. If anything, the neo-conservative revival of 1996/1997 was a product of how much they despised Clinton and wanted a reversion to the Reagan years. Reagan may not have considered himself a neo-conservative, persay (he was much more wont to give himself the neo-liberal misnomer), but he has been christened something of a godfather of the intellectual neo-conservative movement - Podhoretz, Kagan, and Kristol all alude to Reagan on a regular basis and pine for the years where we "had the courage" to stand up militarily to "the evil empire" - which they now see manifest in political Islam.
And to clear Biden's name - he may be a bit soft on Israel, but he is no neo-con, or a hawk for that matter. He's leading the Senate charge for a new political strategy in Iraq that takes the focus of military.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov *sigh* Latin, Please read at least the first post in this thread before you respond. Thanks. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov *sigh* Latin, Please read at least the first post in this thread before you respond. Thanks. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Reading what others write has never quite been our statistics instructor's strong point, so don't expect him to start anytime soon. |
You really should come down to Miami and take one of my courses. So for the first time you can learn something Youll be very lucky if you get me as your professor
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover Dont forget that I also teach history You really should come down to Miami and take one of my courses. So for the first time you can learn something Youll be very lucky if you get me as your professor |
| quote: |
| what is the best test to determine the differences between more than 1 independ. variable but with no repeated measures? IOW, to determine the impact of more than 1 independ. variable on a depend. variable? |
Re: The Inevitability of Hillary and Rudy?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover Dont forget that I also teach history You really should come down to Miami and take one of my courses. So for the first time you can learn something Youll be very lucky if you get me as your professor |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Obama has been playing up his cultural sensibilities towards Islam |
Statistics professor eh? Well perhaps you could explain to us how you would take the second central moment of a Gaussian distribution.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I will agree with you that the Blue Dog Dems (Feinstein, Emanuel, Schumer, and the like) leave a lot to be desired, but I wouldn't compare them to the neo-cons. They aren't talking about using American military influence to thrust democracy upon other countries despite the consequences to security and human rights. They're just spineless and afraid to get in a dogfight. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And I'd be a little bit more nuanced about incorporating Zionism into the neo-conservative agenda. A lot has been made of the current Middle East peace talk rounds and how it's the first time that the US hasn't opened them by criticizing Palestine. I'm not saying that the US isn't more or less pro-Israel, but I don't know if the connection is as clear as you're making it seem. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You and I share a deep-seated worry about Hillary... but I don't think we share the same view that Bill's administration was corrupted by the neo-con agenda. If anything, the neo-conservative revival of 1996/1997 was a product of how much they despised Clinton and wanted a reversion to the Reagan years. Reagan may not have considered himself a neo-conservative, persay (he was much more wont to give himself the neo-liberal misnomer), but he has been christened something of a godfather of the intellectual neo-conservative movement - Podhoretz, Kagan, and Kristol all alude to Reagan on a regular basis and pine for the years where we "had the courage" to stand up militarily to "the evil empire" - which they now see manifest in political Islam. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And to clear Biden's name - he may be a bit soft on Israel, but he is no neo-con, or a hawk for that matter. He's leading the Senate charge for a new political strategy in Iraq that takes the focus of military. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.