If Hilary wins who will be umm..the first lady ?

[hjmick]

Most people have no idea yet who Thompson is. That he polls as high as he does is quite astounding actually.

Imagine how well Fred will do when people get to know more about him. < insert music and dream sequence here >

 

[no1tovote4]

Imagine how well Fred will do when people get to know more about him. < insert music and dream sequence here >

Well, I do like that he supported and voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment while he was a Senator. And most of his other votes fall pretty much in line with my opinion. So far I think the guy has a shot. Remember nobody thought Bush had a shot when the primaries started last time.

That being stated, I think the Rs have very little chance at the WH.

 

[mattskramer]

Most people have no idea yet who Thompson is. That he polls as high as he does is quite astounding actually.

I recognized him form one of the “Die Hard” movies. His image always struck me as that of a tough government agent, bureaucrat, or politician. I didn’t know that he would become one.

 

[no1tovote4]

I recognized him form one of the “Die Hard” movies. His image always struck me as that of a tough government agent, bureaucrat, or politician. I didn’t know that he would become one.

Actually he was a Senator before he was an actor.

 

[mattskramer]

That being stated, I think the Rs have very little chance at the WH.

Unless the public has a short attention span, I think that Republicans will lose the White House. The R’s blew it when Bush called for more troops when, in my opinion, people said in the off-year election that they wanted soldiers to come home. It seems as though Bush does not care what the people want. Perhaps the people are foolish if they want us to “cut and run” as people say. Still, I think that this is what the people want and that Bush is not following the public’s desire. Bush might be doing the right thing by escalating the war but I doubt that his stubbornness will help Republicans come Election Day.

 

[hjmick]

Actually he was a Senator before he was an actor.

I recognized him form one of the “Die Hard” movies. His image always struck me as that of a tough government agent, bureaucrat, or politician. I didn’t know that he would become one.

He was in the movie Hunt for Red October, that's the first place I remember seeing him. I started watching him in the senate, always struck me as reasonable and pragmatic. One of the reasons he gives for not seeking re-election: he was tired of the way things worked on the Hill.

Well, I do like that he supported and voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment while he was a Senator. And most of his other votes fall pretty much in line with my opinion. So far I think the guy has a shot. Remember nobody thought Bush had a shot when the primaries started last time.

That being stated, I think the Rs have very little chance at the WH.

I think he has a shot as well, especially when you look at the field the Republicans are offering. He'll need to overcome a hurdle or two, starting this late means he will have to work harder to raise money, most of the big donors have made their commitments.

As for the White House, things do look bleak for Republicans, the country is ready for a new look and it would take a candidate who looks much different from Bush to win. The Democrat candidates don't do anything for me. As far as I can tell, the most they have offered so far is, they're not Bush. Who knows, I think Thompson has the best chance of all the Republicans. I know I'd never vote for Giuliani.

 

[Care4all]

Resign as speaker? Wow, quite the punishment. Then later he got a standing-O. Fantastic. And here I am not Damo.

Look, to say that the one is better than the other is rubbish. "He was caught earlier and we reacted... then later welcomed him with open arms and a special clapterfest." And the kid was also underage and a Page.

Seriously, Care. If you can't see the hypocrisy it is partisan blinders. I can see it with Rs and Foley.

Anybody preaching that the one did a bad thing but willing to forgive the clapterfest for another who did the same thing is pretty fricking hypocritical.

But No1,

this Studds thing took place near decades ago.... most of these people imo were not even around in the message board arena at the time and probably don't know much about the whole fiasco with Studds...

and I do not believe it is, (as you say), partisan rhetoric for me to believe that the way the Republican leadership handled this situation with Congressman Foley was worse than the way the Democratic Leadership handle Studs at the time of his incident.

I think it is "partisan" for you to suggest that it is "partisan" on the Democrats part! hahahaha!

Someone on this board had mentioned that if the Republicans had not taken such a strong stance on the Democrats being the hand of the Devil, and the Republicans being the TRUE guiding hand party of God's, then the Dems would probably not be so gleeful every time a Republican falls from Grace...

And I think that this could be part of what you are viewing...?

Care

 

[no1tovote4]

But No1,

this Studds thing took place near decades ago.... most of these people imo were not even around in the message board arena at the time and probably don't know much about the whole fiasco with Studds...

and I do not believe it is, (as you say), partisan rhetoric for me to believe that the way the Republican leadership handled this situation with Congressman Foley was worse than the way the Democratic Leadership handle Studs at the time of his incident.

I think it is "partisan" for you to suggest that it is "partisan" on the Democrats part! hahahaha!

Someone on this board had mentioned that if the Republicans had not taken such a strong stance on the Democrats being the hand of the Devil, and the Republicans being the TRUE guiding hand party of God's, then the Dems would probably not be so gleeful every time a Republican falss from Grace...

And I think that this could be part of what you are viewing...?

Care

I am viewing a party who says that violating a child is one of the worst crimes on the planet, but giving one who did so a standing ovation. I am viewing that same party years later saying that a man who did not actually violate that child who resigned his position was in some way worse.

Both are atrocious, but to say that there is nothing in objecting to the way your party recognized him with a standing ovation on the floor of our capital building is petty partisanship.

Now, I'd agree if I thought Foley had no issues whatsoever and that the R's leadership were flawless in their handling of that perv that I was being partisanly selective in my morality. But I have made no such assertion. Certainly you can see how a person can view both of the parties reaction to these perv men who violated pages to be disgusting, but especially so when one of them stands to honor one of them on the floor of our nation's capital building.

 

[Care4all]

I am viewing a party who says that violating a child is one of the worst crimes on the planet, but giving one who did so a standing ovation. I am viewing that same party years later saying that a man who did not actually violate that child who resigned his position was in some way worse.

Both are atrocious, but to say that there is nothing in objecting to the way your party recognized him with a standing ovation on the floor of our capital building is petty partisanship.

Now, I'd agree if I thought Foley had no issues whatsoever and that the R's leadership were flawless in their handling of that perv that I was being partisanly selective in my morality. But I have made no such assertion. Certainly you can see how a person can view both of the parties reaction to these perv men who violated pages to be disgusting, but especially so when one of them stands to honor one of them on the floor of our nation's capital building.

10 years later...that is a long time No1, and views of people, based on the actions of Studds the next 10 years, forgave him I guess...because he did end up having a serious relationship with this 17 year old for a long period of time well in to his adulthood, and perhaps was not really this "Gay whore dog" abusing his power to get in to all boy page's pants that we thought he was at the time of the incident, and at the time he was censored by the Democrats.

People change and people forgive indescretions, stranger things have happened in 10 years time.....

And perhaps the same may be told of Foley 10 years from now, ya never know?

care

 

[hjmick]

Actually, I believe the Studds incident took place in 1973, it came out and he was censured in 1980, so it's been 27 years. I use the Studds incident to demonstrate the disparity in they way the two (Foley/Studds) incidents were handled.

Think about it. Studds had a sexual affair with a 17 year old kid, not illegal in DC based on the age of consent, but certainly unseemly, especially when you consider the kid was a page. Not illegal, but some would say it was inappropriate. Studds was censured, refused to resign, and recieved a standing ovation on the floor of the Senate, then he was re-elected. This was 27 years ago.

Foley, on the other hand, had no known sexual relations (though I'm sure he had hopes), sent distasteful e-mails filled with sexual innuendo to a 16 year old page, again, the age of consent in DC (something I find disturbing and may be a topic of discussion for another time) and not illegal. Definately inappropriate. Foley was forced to resign. By members of his own party as well as by Democrats. He was disgraced and fled DC.

What's the difference? Twenty seven plus years, one year in age, and penetration?

Would Foley have been better of if he had had sex with the page? Would he still have his job? Mind you I am not defending Foley nor am I condemning Studds, as far as I'm concerned anything under the age of 18 should be off limits everywhere. My issue is with the way the incidents were handled and their respective outcomes.

Is it just because Foley is a Republican that he was forced to resign? Because many Republicans try to claim the high moral ground he had to go?

 

[red states rule]

I see what RSR means. Someone could become president and not get 50 percent of the popular vote. He is correct in that respect. I still think that his argument is lost if he really examines your link: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

According to the top of the page, according to the “NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll” Clinton wold get 46 percent to Thompson’s 40 percent. Neither candidate gets 50 percent but Hillary wins – Hillary would be more popular than Thompson.

In the “Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 5-9, 2007. Registered voters nationwide” Hillary beats every Republican candidate except Giuliani (and that defeat is only by 6 percent) but still she never gets 50 percent.

Anyway, RSR is technically correct in that 50 percent might not vote for Hillary but that seems to be a red herring. It does not mean that she would be less popular than any Republican contender come Election Day.

Hillary is dead meat. If she goes up against Rudy if will be 1984 all over again

The Dems will crash and burn

 

[Care4all]

Hillary is dead meat. If she goes up against Rudy if will be 1984 all over again

The Dems will crash and burn

no, no, no RSR, if it becomes Hillary against Rudy, then the Religious Right will sit out on the election because they "think" that both Rudy and Hillary and her husband, are immoral people.

They would never accept voting for Rudy with his personal baggage imho...3 mariages, cross dressing for fun, and opinion on the right to choose, and who could blame them? Nor Hillary's baggage... so imo, the RR will sit OUT, and if they do, IF Hillary is the candidate, she MAY very well WIN....

So, I think it needs to be someone else, other than Rudy, in order to win against Hillary...not sure who yet.

But THAT is if Hillary EVEN gets the nomination and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, as the story goes....

Care

 

[red states rule]

no, no, no RSR, if it becomes Hillary against Rudy, then the Religious Right will sit out on the election because they "think" that both Rudy and Hillary and her husband, are immoral people.

They would never accept voting for Rudy with his personal baggage imho...3 mariages, cross dressing for fun, and opinion on the right to choose, and who could blame them? Nor Hillary's baggage... so imo, the RR will sit OUT, and if they do, IF Hillary is the candidate, she MAY very well WIN....

So, I think it needs to be someone else, other than Rudy, in order to win against Hillary...not sure who yet.

But THAT is if Hillary EVEN gets the nomination and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, as the story goes....

Care

Libs wish that was true

Rudy is beating her in many key states

50&#37; say they will not vote for Hillary - and everytime she opens her mouth the gap between Rudy and Hillary will grow

Rudy is not the lib the left would have us to believe

 

[red states rule]

f course the libs could go with Obama

Right now, Rudy wins 49 states

Obama does carry IL

 

[Care4all]

Libs wish that was true

Rudy is beating her in many key states

50&#37; say they will not vote for Hillary - and everytime she opens her mouth the gap between Rudy and Hillary will grow

Rudy is not the lib the left would have us to believe

Oh! I agree!

He is "Liberal, so to say, on some social isuues", but he is not a liberal and is MOST CERTAINLY conservative in his governing imo.

Care

 

[Care4all]

but I still think that the RR will "Sit out" if it is Rudy verses Hillary....and that's a hunk of votes.

 

[red states rule]

It will be the Dems worst nightmare if it is Hillary VS Rudy

For the Republicans it will be 1984 all over again

 

[Gunny]

Hillary is dead meat. If she goes up against Rudy if will be 1984 all over again

The Dems will crash and burn

Actually, that would just about shoe in Hillary. COnservatives across the board won't support Guilliani.

 

[red states rule]

Actually, that would just about shoe in Hillary. COnservatives across the board won't support Guilliani.

Now that funny

Hillary will drive most conservatives to the Republican candidate

Look how Dems are screwing things up now. if they hopd onto Congress - do you think any conservative would allow Hillary to have a shot at the Oval offcie

Beside the next President wil have perhaps two slots on the SC to fill. Do you want more Ginsburgs on the court?

 

[hjmick]

As a guy who voted for Reagan, Bush the elder, didn't mind Clinton, and have been let down by Junior, let me say that I will never vote for Giuliani. Of course I won't vote for Hellary either. Giuliani is just like Schwarzenegger, a RINO, and while that may work for me on the state level, I don't see it working for me on a federal level. Fred Thompson is perhaps the closest thing to a Reagan Republican we've got these days. I just hope he runs for and wins the Republican nomination.