Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

Okay, let me rephrase.  Any Judio-Christian religion is NOT the deciding issue.

How you stand on Illegal Immigration is a deciding issue.  McCain is pro-Illegal Immigrants as his amnesty bills display.

How you stand on keeping the radio waves free is going to be an issue.  McCain is pro gagging political commentators through the (un) fairness dotrine.

Being a Mormon means squat to just about everyone.  Mormons still abide by a certain set of morality and ethics codes, which is all the “religious reich” wants.  Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Jew, Luthren, whatever, as long as you have faith that there’s someone more powerful then you are and you believe that you must abide by certain ethics and morals, you will satisfy the religious needs of the Republican party.

Sure, there’s going to be a few whackos that won’t accept it.  One is the guy who killed FDR because he was Catholic.  But that didn’t stop FDR from getting elected!

Anyone who thinks McCain’s going to win this decisively is living in a dream world.  Actually, I bet that McCain will not only lose, but lose BIG just like every other attempt he has made for the Republican Nomination.  (1996, 2000 and now 2008.)

i did not know mcCain was pro fairness doctrine.  :cry:  but he would see it as then the news media should be less liberal, which it wont be.  while he wants fairness on radio also.  in all actuality, the news on tv would stay the same while the radio would be evicerated of conservative thought.

he means well in this, b/c he wants fairness on both sides, he just doesnt see that he’s being duped b/c it will only be implemented against conservatives.  or maybe just maybe, hopefully, he’s lulling some to sleep until wham-o, he’s elected and doesnt care about placating the other side anymore.  remember bush was the unity guy, he couldnt care less about democratic wants.

kennedy was not killed for being catholic…… :roll:    i take it you mean JFK b/c FDR wasnt catholic.

i know some people didnt like the fact of him being catholic and president but that cant be why he was killed.  way to many other big reasons that matter to the nation.

The only reason I know of for his assassination was because he was catholic and the anarchist did not want the Pope to be running the country.  It’s the same thing that was brought up throughout his entire election.

And yes, McCain is duped often.  He thinks Amnesty will stop illegal immigration.  He thinks fairness doctrines will free up speech (which is already very free, the liberals own the broadcast news and the papers and most periodicals, the conservatives own the radio.)

I will lay a significant bet that Mitt loses in South Carolina.

Those are hard-core Southern Baptists and Pentecostal Holiness in that state, and they won;t vote for a Mormon that they think is a Satan influenced religion (sorry, that is their Dogma).

McCain wins SC.  Republican race even muddier than it is now.

If Mitt does NOT win in SC, it will be Huckabee and only because he’s Baptist too.  McCain loses in SC and NC and Texas and Mississippi and Alabama and every other traditionally conservative state in the union only winning in states that are blue or purple.

Sounds like we have a bet there Jen…

There is no “Whisper Campaign” against McCain in SC this time, and many folks who were caught up in the last one, are NOT happy about being suckered in by it.

McCain by 5% in SC.

@balungaloaf:

i know some people didnt like the fact of him being catholic and president but that cant be why he was killed.  way to many other big reasons that matter to the nation.

i know this is slightly off topic but as far as i know Keneddy was the only catholic president of USA

and if Jen strongly stands for the theory he was assasinated from that or mostly over that reason than…

why i say Jen, beacuse in the arguments we had before she didnt showed much simpaty towards Vatican to put it like that

nevermind, as from what i hear from you Mccain is in some issues more conservative then other Republican candidates are but in some his is more liberal than Democrat candidates

i ll repeat what i ve writen earlier

from my ( poor ) knowledge and my intuition i would say he will win this elections

he can take 1 mandate, he doesnt have to have 2
but the man is the most qualified for the task

and Obama is young…his time will come, or maybe i am wrong, and already has

Thompson is the only true conservative candidate, the others all lean moderate in one way or another.

The whole popularity contest is frustrating to me and disheartens me.  It’s a shame the candidates can’t just clearly state their positions and then we all vote.  I will be voting for Thompson on Super Duper Tuesday, even though he won’t get the nomination.  The whole process reminds me of a statement I heard a guy make back in the 90s

Him “I voted for Clinton.”

I said, “Why the hell would you do that?!”

He said “Well I knew he was going to win anyway.”

I had no response…

It’s too bad so many people would rather be on the winning team than vote their consciences.  :-(

@dezrtfish:

Him “I voted for Clinton.”

I said, “Why the hell would you do that?!”

He said “Well I knew he was going to win anyway.”

I had no response…

It’s too bad so many people would rather be on the winning team than vote their consciences.  :-(

thats why i don’t like this system for the primaries. you have too many people who are swayed to vote not for who they like or think is best, but for the guy (or girl) they think will win.

i like Thompson too, he has good plans but the problem with him is that he has had trouble spreading his message and that is a killer for him IMHO. Bush may or may not be a bad president in some areas, but there is no deniying that the man has trouble telling the people in a way they understand “what” he is doing or planning. for example Iraq, it is unpopular for 2 reasons, 1 is we have a vary large anti war group in the US; 2 the media propetuates it. the president (Bush) should be working hard to stop #2’s effect, not by steping on the constatution but by having his own reasons come out and be understood. he hasn’t so the two punch strat is working against him and the war is unpopular. now the relavence is that Thompson i see as being the same as Bush in this regard… though i think he would be a better conservative president, it dosn’t change that he would be un popular and be painted by the left as incompident and in effect give the Demicrats more power come the next election cycle in congres.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3207017.ece

good article.  from the uk no less.

Amon,

Let me be clear.  I am not a catholic, I don’t believe that catholicism is running the world, nor do I fault Kennedy for being catholic.

However, it is clear from the record, during his run for the office of the presidency, that there were only two arguments against him:

1)  He was catholic.
2)  He was too young.

Since we have had young presidents and old presidents that have never been assassinated.  That leaves, by simple deductive reasoning, that the only problem he had that was worth assassinating him for was his catholic religion.

Or the “Zero Factor”… but that is off topic since this is an 08 election… and the Zero Factor was broken in 1980 :-)

please explain the zero factor.

also, more news on the primary race in S.carolina

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323790,00.html

McCains going up and Romney’s going down in polls, Huckabee is about the same but with a slight 1-2% bump.

and did anyone watch or read any of the democrat debate in nevada.

the whole Yucca mountain thing was absurd.  All 3 frontrunners said they’d shut down the site.  and none of them could answer what they would do about nuclear waste without the site.  sounds like a democrat, tell the people what they want to hear, even though they have no clue as to what to do. edwards said he would shut it down and was always against the site.  Alas, to open the site, he voted in favor of it twice.  the truth doesnt matter to some. he must have learned from his mentor kerry, “i’m actually against it even though i voted for it”, i’m sure this placates the braindead who will wait for stewart to tell them what to think.  and then you have obama, he’s against the site, but alas……he has helped illinois become the leading state of nuclear power plants.  he helped get them all started, but he’s somehow against any way of getting rid of the waste.  what sense does that make?

and the way the media treated the who race/gender battle b/w obama and clinton disgusted me.  they used feather gloves for these people.  trying to downplay it as much as  they could, basically the media was telling them to stop because it hurts their collective party.    WE all know what would of happened if it were a republican…man…24/7 shock treatment by the media.  and there are still people who “honestly” believe the media isnt massively biased.    geez.

Last I heard everyone was stalemated in S. Carolina EXCEPT Thompson who is gaining ground fast, really fast.

Maybe we will have 4 major states electing 4 different Republicans for the Nomination for President?

The “Zero Factor” is one of those now historical little tid-bits where the President that was elected in a year ending in 0 did not live through their term of office.  It started with Lincoln, and ended when Hinkley failed to kill Reagan.

JFK was the last “Zero Factor” assassination.

Well, if the “zero-factor” was to continue (because Hinkley tried), Bush woulda been NAILED!  Elected in a year ending in THREE zeros!

Of course, if you believe the far left, Bush was not actually elected, and is therefore immune :-P

OK, enough of my off topic stuff about the zero factor, my apologies for bringing it up.

Predictions:
Obama in Nevada
McCain 1st (by 5%) then Huckabee 2nd in SC.  Thompson withdraws from the race after coming in 4th, barely beating Ron Paul.

Longer Term:
Guiliani withdraws after losing in Florida.
Edwards throws his support to Obama and withdraws from the race after Super Tuesday.

My predictions:

Thompson 1st in SC
Romney 2nd
Huckabee 3rd
McCain drops out after losing SC again - he just doesn’t play well in the south, he never has.  Nor the majority of the conservative party.  A McCain nomination for president is a pipe dream of the liberal media.  Because a McCain bid for the White House would equate to a very poor showing of conservatives nationwide.

Nevada:

Obama HUGE
Clinton
Edwards

Anyone notice that in Michigan the results were Hillary 40%, Nobody 60%? (no one else was running against her, and she still only got 40%.)

I have got to say this…

The BEST hope that the Republican Party has this election with such a weak slate of candidates is that Obama get the nomination.

Once things settle in to a 1-on-1 race R v. D, Obama is toast.  Lack of record, lack of experience, and I hate to say it but the race card also…  Any of the top 4 Republicans (McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani) will beat Obama.  Certain of the top 3, iffy with Guiliani)

Hillary has HUGE negatives.  BUT, her negatives are not as great as the negatives that Obama will have brought forward in a 1-on-1 race for the White House.

Against Hillary…
Only McCain and Huckabee can beat her.  Guiliani already had “health issues” once in a race against Hillary and had to withdraw when it appeared he might lose.  Thompson just has been too much “nothing” since joining the race to be a factor.  McCain can appeal to the moderates and potentially draw off enough of the middle to win.  Huckabee as a Baptist Minister can potentially energize the Republican base enough to win.  Add in his Fair Tax support, and his whole “states rights” outlook (most recently voiced over the old Confederate Flag flap in SC) and he might edge out Hillary.

Sorry, but Thompson and Edwards are DRT (dead right there).  And the third tier candidates (folks like Kusinich and Paul) are out of this after Super Tuesday (unless they choose to become election footnotes as 3rd party candidates, and I am not sure the libertarians will accept Paul as their nominee).