Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Matt Towery :: Townhall.com Columnist
GOP Presidential Race: If You Want To Look Thin, Hang Out With Fat People
by Matt Towery
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The line about looking thin by hanging out with fat people is Rodney Dangerfield's. To apply his comic wisdom to the presidential race, just look at the fat guys as the ones who started their campaigns too soon, and their skinny compatriots as those who waited until America started giving a hoot about presidential politics.

The Republicans remain the underdog in the 2008 White House sweepstakes, but not by a lot. A new InsiderAdvantage national survey of over 1000 registered voters found that Americans want for their next president "a Democrat" more than "a Republican," but only by 45 percent to 43 percent. (No candidates' names were offered; only generic party identification.) Details of the poll can be found at www.insideradvantage.com.

That's the surprising good news for the GOP. The bad news is that some of the party's big-name candidates may have goofed by jumping so early into a crowded field of Republican candidates. Money is the main reason.

John McCain was down to just a couple of million dollars cash-on-hand in his latest campaign finance disclosure. That's peanuts these days. Mitt Romney is said to be planning to dip into his own vast wealth to subsidize his campaign.

McCain, Romney and other candidates sprinted out of the gate of this presidential marathon based on the traditional notion that winning early caucuses and primaries in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina would be the key to victory.

Now they're realizing their task is much bigger -- and more expensive. They've got to try to win big blocs of delegates in 20 or so sizable states, and all by Valentine's Day. That means a broken heart for more than one Republican seeking to court the American voter.

Months ago I said Newt Gingrich must jump into the race by midsummer -- about now -- if he wanted to have a chance to win the Republican nomination. Now former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson may have already filled the void among the GOP field that Gingrich could have.

But credit Gingrich with having seen as early as last year that too many candidates would start campaigning too quickly, and that they would hemorrhage big money just as quickly.

So now it's a question of the practicalities of sustaining a campaign, rather than of splitting hairs over policy differences among the Republican candidates. Who can actually win election primaries?

For now, it's Thompson who appears to be the man who looks "thin" by hanging out with "fat people." Thompson is expected to officially launch his campaign next week with big fundraisers in key cities.

If Thompson catches on, he might start raising serious money just as his competition is running out of it. And where the money goes, more money follows, not to mention campaign volunteers who can smell a winner.

If Thompson somehow falters, Gingrich still waits backstage. Expect him to seize the opportunity if there is one. Has Gingrich outsmarted them all? We can't know yet.

By the way, the "hanging out with fat people" approach doesn't just apply to presidential candidates. The Republican immigration-reform fiasco makes the point, too.

The fat guys, so to speak, included Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mel Martinez of Florida. They gorged too long on that immigration bill, even as other senators correctly saw that the Republican voting base had no stomach for it.

The chances for the bill's passage started to unravel when Georgia Republican Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss made it clear to the White House that they could no longer support any immigration bill that didn't prominently allocate specific funding to build a border fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The White House said no. That signaled an about-face retreat from the bill by a slew of "red state" senators.

Isakson, Chambliss and others backed off the bill soon enough to escape most of the public wrath that could cause long-term political damage. Others joined them, making this group look attractively "thin" up against the political obesity of Graham, Martinez and others.

Politics, like most everything else, is mostly about timing. One day you're slender and have the world by the tail. The next day you've gained weight, and maybe a few facial lines on top of it.

All the more reason to hang out with people who make you look good.s

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Matt Towery is a former National Republican legislator of the year and author of Powerchicks: How Women Will Dominate America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Matt Towery's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
McCain should drop out
At this point, all McCain can be is a spoiler. Every dollar anyone contributes to his campaign is a wasted dollar, if he drops out anyway. And that goes double for the minor candidates like Tancredo and Huckabee and all the rest--all they're doing is dissipating scarce GOP campaign contributions at a time when the GOP is having trouble raising as much money as the Democrats.

They should all drop out and throw their support to the various front-runners. Fred Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani offer sufficient variety. The rest are superfluous and a waste of money since they have no chance anyway.

StevelL
"They should all drop out and throw their support to the various front-runners. Fred Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani offer sufficient variety. The rest are superfluous and a waste of money since they have no chance anyway."

Geez, I wonder what you would have suggested to our Founding Fathers back in the day. To just give up "since they have no chance anyway"?

On this July 4, I'm pretty darn glad they didn't, aren't you? Perhaps today of all days, we should give some thought, hard and long, about what they and so many others sacrificed to give us in this country and decide if we want to continue to sleep while it is all being dismantled in front of our eyes.

R E I N S T A T E . T H E . C O N S T I T U T I O N

Conservative Values & Electablility!

Towery was absolutely correct.

I suspect those numbers will change as soon as Thompson is a formal candidate...






next Prez
in this order:
1.hunter
2. Tancredo
3. Paul

Gingrich is too shopworn
Newt is carrying too much baggage, not the least of which is leaving his wife who was suffering from cancer for a younger woman. This is the sort of thing people don't forget, especially women. And he seems, like Hubert Humphrey, to talk too much.

thinker: RE "next Prez"

1. Hunter:
The more I read about Hunter, the more I like him... but Towery makes a good point. And, he doesn't, so far, have exciting numbers.

2. Tancredo:
I've always liked Tancredo, but as above, he's in the same campt as Hunter with regard to numbers.

3. Paul:
NO CHANCE! ZERO! NADA! JOKE!





A Newt Candidacy = Ego vs GOP
I do not understand how anyone who truly understands Presidential electoral politics could even suggest Newt as a viable candidate.

Newt stands third in line to Clinton and Guiliani with politically deadly skeletons. The Clintons only survive theirs because the majority leftist media covers up for them -- not so for *any* Republican.

Newt was driven from elected office and leadership because of his own poor choices.

Newt has since admitted additional errors of judgment.

There is an embedded animus vs Gingrich established in his political past.

If Newt gets into the GOP race he only muddies the waters, makes the nomination of a candidate who will be unacceptable to conservatives more probable, and harms the cause of conservatives and the GOP.

There is no benefit to a Newt candidacy other than to feed his already overfed ego.

dmc

Newt
has too much baggage that'd be exploited by the left. He's got great ideas, but he could never be elected at the national level.

edoc & right_wing2: I've been saying

exactly the same thing all along!

But interesting, there have been a few TH Republicans who have responded that Newt is certainly brilliant and would do an excellent job, and that hopefully Americans would overlook his past indiscretions.

Ummm? I'm thinking NOT! Not given his particular circumstance... and the same holds true with Rudy.

I do, however, believe that Newt would be an excellent Sec. State. The question I've been mulling over is, will the same issues that would most likely keep him from being elected POTUS, also be a negative to being appointed Sec. State?


Liberty:
Well said.

Folks, please don't support a candidate because
he's a front-runner. Support the candidate you
think will make the best president. That's how
candidates become front-runners, isn't it?

Check out the positions of all the candidates
at http://www.ontheissues.org and see if you agree with
me that Duncan Hunter is by far the best man in
the race.

My money and efforts go to Hunter as long as
he's in.

bullgod: "please don't support a

candidate because he's a front-runner. Support the candidate you think will make the best president."

Hopefully, that will be one in the same!

But, ELECTABILITY is also a key factor... As long as VALUES are in place, the KEY is ultimately WIN the general election against (most likely) Obama or Hitlary.

This is not rocket science!



Early
McCain has raised decent amounts of money and will raise more. His big problem is budgeting. He is burning it faster than he is raising it and most of it is going to raise more money or on administrative costs.

He is a highly inefficient candidate with great name recognition. He had to get in early, he was at 60% support in late 2005. He had to protect his lead and instead repeatedly shot his own campaign. Compare McCain to Edwards, same amount of money but Edwards is leading in early states.

Romney was a virtual unknown nationally and had to move when he did in order to have time to get known and also over come his repositioning and negatives. He over comes his negatives with enough good press and a solid campaign. So far he has made the right moves at the right time and is doing very well in spite of his negatives. He has to spend a lot of time and money and seems to be spending it wisely.

Rudy had to move when he did to offset McCain's front runner status and to keep Romney from grabbing the NE.

The only opening for Thompson and Gingrich developed when the big 3 did not set the world on fire. It has only been after Rudy has drifted downward that Thompson even became a possibility. So far Thompson is proving to be mostly image and hype. He looks ok on paper but can't campaign effectively on live TV.

Gingrich is a formidable candidate but he has higher negatives than Hillary. At least he can do live TV and does not look 80. Gingrich is well known to the electorate, he can come in late as Thompson falters and reposition. He does not have to come in early. Further, if it is obvious that it will be a brokered convention (clearer later), Gingrich will come in to be one of the brokers.

Both Gingrich and Thompson split the conservative vote and help Rudy.


BG: "as Thompson falters and reposition"


What kind of an assumption would that be...?

And, based on what?





House and sample effects
The LA Times poll that Matt compares his poll to has a liberal bias.

Having said that, the Insider Advantage poll has used weighting to correct for problems with it's sample. The raw sample numbers indicate it has way over sampled women, older voters and has very few minorities. However, the right weighting scheme can correct for that to a large extent.

I suspect that the excessive number or women is because the data was primarily collected during the day time. That creates lifestyle biases.

Either this poll is really good news or it is a bit of an anomaly. It has more Reps and fewer Indies than most national polls. It is not clear if this poll used RDD and then ask if the people were registered or if it polled known registered voters.

Keep in mind that most national polls over state Dems and Indies who can't or won't vote.

Thompson is not going to catch on
He is the one who looks fat compared to the skinny guys. He is not measuring up to his hype. He looks and sounds old, he is not enthusiastic or energetic, he has not been able to articulate his policies very well yet, and he's turning out to be not as conservative as everyone hoped. Look for more disappointment as the next few weeks unfold.

Romney and Guilliani will have no trouble sustaining their campaigns. I like Hunter, but he is a little lite on experience and I don't see how he can raise enough money. The other lower tier should bow out now.

Fred/Newt/Mitt (any combination) are going to split the conservative vote and that really does help Rudy.

Anne:
"As long as VALUES are in place..."

Well, there's the rub. Some of the putative
front-runners don't have their values in the
same place as most conservatives; neither
McCain nor Giuliani, for instance, seem to
hold conservative values, IMO.

As to electability: I would never ask a lady
her age, but if you're as old as me, you will
remember when conventional wisdom held that
Ronald Reagan was "too conservative" to win a
national election - better to play it safe and
nominate a "moderate". Not!

I think conservatives should be working to get
a true conservative like Duncan Hunter the nom-
ination. If we can manage that, we'll do very
well in the general election.

Better to give voters a real choice, instead of
trying to explain the subtle differences between
say, Rudy and Hillary.

Initially I supported Gingritch
but he has signed up with the AGW crowd. What I would prefer now is a Thompson/Gingrich ticket.

At the primary stage I too believe you should support who you truly like regardless of "electability". Once the primaries have been held and the ticket is determined, you can then evaluate whether the candidate in your nominal Party is worthy of support.

Unlike times in the past, I will no longer vote for a the candidate with the (R) after his/her name because the (D) is more odious. If someone like McShame is nominated I will vote for a 3rd party candidate or do a write-in.

bullgod: "As long as VALUES are in place

"Some of the putative front-runners don't have their values in the same place as most conservatives..." AGREED!

And I especially agree re: McCain nor Giuliani.

Excellent point, "trying to explain the subtle differences between say, Rudy and Hillary."

And, bless your heart, yes I am old enough to remember, and voted for Ronald Reagan.

But, it seemed to me (even back then) that
"too conservative" vs "moderate" doesn't really compare to "moderate" or "too conservative" vs "values."

As I said above, the more I read and know about Duncan Hunter the more I like him, and I've always like Tancredo...

But my question was more about "Thompson falters and reposition." I'm not sure how BG figured that Thompson WOULD falter...




periwinkle: "Thompson is not going

to catch on." ?????

Appears that you haven't checked the polls lately. Seems that Thompson has already "caught on" even though he's not yet formally announced.






I am surprised
Two or three months ago on this TH thread, all I could see is Run Fred, run. Now after the MSM has begun to put out a bunch of stuff, like they do anyone they get scared of, people are turning away.

This man isn't even running yet, and has so far kept a pretty low profile. What I see is a strong man, who quietly demands, and gets what he wants. He isn't pretty, but neither was Abe Lincoln. I just ask that you wait and see what is going to happen. I think Duncan Hunter would make a good running mate, but I don't think he has the clout to win the nomination.

So far everything I've seen in Fred Thompson, is good. I've certainly been wrong before, but I think right now, he is the best chance of defeating the democrats. And if so, he will put in more conservative judges in the system, especially in the Supreme court, should the occation arrise.

I still like
Newt. I love a lot of his ideas. I will probably support Fred if he gets in. Newt is still my first, tho.

nanna, "Run Fred Run...?"

I suspect that you're not seeing it so often now because he's already SAID he would be throwing his hat into the ring mid July.

No need for "Run Fred Run" he's running!






copper: There is no question that Newt

is brilliant... and has a lot to offer.

But, somehow I just cannot get beyond that fact that he could actually walk into his wife's hospital room and hand her divorce papers the night before cancer surgery.

As I said above, same thing with Rudy... over and above his very liberal leanings, which puts him out of the ballpark for me, there is some kind of character flaw that would make a man move his mistress into his house (Mayoral Mansion) before he was even divorced.

I guess, it's character issues... which is what we endured with clinton...


Copper!
I'm with you. Newt is my first choice. He may have baggage, (who doesn't if you dig deep enough), but more importantly he has ideas.

Like many that have posted before me, I will not vote for McCain, nor do I like Romney or Rudy. I could support Fred, Hunter or Tancredo if they get the nod, but would prefer NEWT by a wide margin.

dce5mc

Anne
You're right of course. I was just noticing those that were writing against him all of a sudden, when he had been so popular before.

I still like him.

About that lower tier and Newt
I note that no one even mentions the names of Brownback and Tommy Thompson, they are so far down the food chain. Brownback just fried himself in the immigration issue. If they care at all about the country, they should drop out and let those funds go to others. Hunter is great, as is Huckabee. Love Tancredo for his one issue; but no way will he get the nomination.

But about Newt- I am repelled not only by his treatment of his wife, but at the same time sleeping with the clerk in the office, whom he married after dumping the wife. His brain and patriotism are valuable anywhere except the Presidency.

And Guiliani- yeah, moving your mistress into the mansion while the wife and kids lived there is the limit. I won't vote to put in the White House the tramps who married Newt or Rudy. First Ladies??? That'll be the day!

Fred Thompson appears the tops for me, paired with Hunter or Huckabee.

nanna; :-)
.

Marcita: Yup.

And to make matters even worse with Rudy, he's actually a liberal pretending to be a RINO...




One of Towery's points
was electability: "Who can actually win election primaries?" he asked.

This is an important question. It influences the larger question, "who can actually win in a national election against Hillary or Obama?" The first tier is quickly looking like Rudy, Fred and Mitt. McCain seems to have fallen out already. Like many here, I think Newt's ideas are great but that running him for Prez is guaranteed failure to put a conservative in the White House. I don't think he would ever take the election nationally.

Personally, I really like Duncan Hunter but I don't think he is close enought to Tier 1 to get the Republican nod. But wouldn't he make a brilliant running mate for Rudy (the perfect balance or complement) or Fred (like minds). We can only hope.

Hey Arby: Bingo! Electability!

As I said above, the more I read about Hunter the more I like him.

But you're right, I believe, he isn't close enought to Tier 1 (at least not now) to get the Republican nod.

Excellent possible choice as running mate for Fred, as is Tancredo. But, we're still pretty far ahead of the primaries and the general election, so who knows.







I am with Thinker
In this Order
1. Hunter
2. Tancredo
3. Paul
If none of the above
4. Thompson and one of the above, like Hunter.

99. A Democrat, as presently represented..

Yep, years ago we were Demos, but Ronnie had it right, they left me..(as in went to the left)..

Poll is accurate
Finally a national poll that tells us an unbiased truth. I have worked in campaigns and I know a bit about polling. What this poll did was to adjust for all of the standard "weights" such as age, race, and gender--in otherwords, if the sample got way too many women or whatever, it would be adjusted to reflect the actual percent who normally vote. But what this poll did not do--and it is why it is more accurate (in my opinion( is it id not "weight" or adjust from some preconceived notion of percentage who identify with a certain party. That was smart and it is why the poll is probably more reflective of where America is today. Obviously if you are asking will you vote Democrat or Republican you can't then adjust the numbers to some preconceived percent of Democrat and Republican voters. That's why the LA Times poll was off base and it is why this poll is more accurate.

What America Needs---The Complete Man!
Why do so many get so confused and fight the firefighters instead of the fire?
The fire is burning all around us: Iraq, Iran, Korea, Nuclear proliferation, impossible gas prices and the monopoly in the oil industry, illegal immigration and the sickening spectacle of it being supported by a majority of the people's representatives, the China trade imbalance, taxes being sky-high, the need to appoint true conservatives to the Supreme Court and related Federal Courts, the necessity to solidly support the pro-life position and other family value issues, to have someone who the world can look up to as a person of integrity and virtue, a person that can be looked up to by our children and grandchildren as a role model, a person who has the humility to call upon the God of ua all for direction in these critical times, a person who will be a statesman and not a politician, etc., etc.
Enough already with persons who can deal with only one or two issues. We need a person who can and will address the entire spectrum of problems America faces and always do the right thing, a person who will admit when he makes a mistake and correct it, who will pull together a body of men and women that will do what America needs, not what a political party dictates.
There are only three, four or five persons running that meet these criteria with the integrity to go against the grain with the moxey to outwit the leftist media and withstand the lies that will be leveled against them by the ignorant and the enemies of America in the media. It will take a lot of money to do it because its like David v.s Goliath.
Romney, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo, stand out. Of these Paul with ten terms in Congress is outstanding but is considered so much on the fringe and with so little money, he can't do it. Tancredo has addressed the immigration issue courageously and has been listed as a one-issue candidate. Without a major infusion of money which he will not get, he cannot make it. Hunter is such a wonderful candidate but he too is limited by lack of funds to fight the gigantic torrent of leftist and Democratic money supporting the lies of the left that he will be hard pressed to come close. This leaves Mitt Romney as the only candidate who meets the criteria America needs. He's persuasive, decent Presidential looking, has the money needed, is a true conservative willing to go against leftist positions in social, economic and family areas---as proved many times over in his tenure as Governor of Massachusettes, and a proven tax-cutter and problem solver.
I would love to see a Romney/Hunter ticket with Paul and Tancredo and Brownback and others in key Cabinet positions. We need a problem solver; we need someone who will cut taxes and keep the Bush tax cuts; we need someone who will stand up to Al queda and the Jihadist movement; we need someone who will cut spending and overhaul government; we need someone who will appoint conservative judges; we need someone who will support family values across the board. That someone is Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul is the thin (small gov't) guy
He's hard for some to see now because the fat (i.e., big government CINOs) candidates are blocking our view, but he's never looked thinner in comparison to this crowd!


Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich
are playing from the same CFR Dr Richard Land game book. They both figure they know how to corner the WASP vote.

However, the cat is already out of the bag and most Christian Evangelicals already have both their numbers.

The emerging winners are the Triumvirate: Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ron Paul and Congressman Duncan Hunter.

All of the other so called top five are nothing more than CFR Rockefeller Front men. Two of them are in cohoots with Fellow CFR Dr Richard Land...trying to Bird Dog the WASP vote.

CFR Dr Richard Land and CFR Rick Warren are Wolves in Sheeps Clothing!

The Engineer...Funny Thing about it!?
Congressman Ron Paul does not have to hang out with fat people to look thin because he is already that way! LOL....i.e. THIN

All of the others look like they have been fed real good at the Government Trough!

Towery's math is a little FUZZY!
Matt-Your boys Newt and Fred...always took the NEOCON position on everything up until about a year ago and then they limited their comments.

Why did they limit their comments on things like securing our borders when Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo were speaking up on securing our borders? Because their hero who by the way Dick Cheney's folks...Mary Matlin and Liz Cheney are now working for Fred Thompson..anyhow...both Newt and Fred are always Johnny come latelys...they wait til the last minute then put their finger in the wind and WOW..now they are all of a sudden for Border Security and against the Immigration Bill.

I now give you one of the biggest alleged Presidential Republican Candidate jokers in American History next to CFR Fred Thompson!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og0HqSZVKqA

Towery--where do you get this...?
Towery says:

"McCain, Romney and other candidates sprinted out of the gate of this presidential marathon based on the traditional notion that winning early caucuses and primaries in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina would be the key to victory.

Now they're realizing their task is much bigger -- and more expensive."

Maybe other candidates took a while to realize how big their task was, but I suspect Romney knew all along. That's one of the reasons he started early. Take a look at:

http://www.pollster.com/08presidentialprimary.php

for an interesting look at how Romney's overall poll numbers have risen steadily. It remains to be seen how FT's numbers will change when he enters the race. Some people are saying they'll be the highest the day he enters and then go down from there. I tend to agree.

There are only three
republicans that can win the natonal election. Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul. The other, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, etc will lose Colorado and Iowa, states that Bush won in '04 and without either you would have President Kerry. Look at the electorate of the "swing states" and how many stayed home in '06 and have left the republican party.

Those who left the republican party would get out and vote for a strong conservative. They left the party because it has become a liberal safeheaven. They will vote for Hunter, Tancredo, or Paul. They will be at the gun range if the candidate is Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson.

Thompson sided with McCain on almost everything while in DC. He's not a true conservative. Giuliani can't wait to finish the gun grab that Clinton couldn't and wants amnesty for illigals. Romney wants national health care. McCain wants to grant amnesty! The only one that you can argue as a good man is Romney, and that he is, but his politics are wrong even for a family man that the best dirt the left can dig up is letting the dog ride on the top of the car on a family vacation.

stang200s6
Paul or Tancredo can win a national election in what world? I feel bad lumping poor Tancredo in with Paul. He at least has a little credibility. Paul is a joke and is so far right he looks left. I like Hunter, but my question is whether he can raise the money and does he have enough experience.

I haven't read where Romney is advocating a national healhcare system. He does not want gov control of healthcare.

Newt
for those who keep trashing Newt over his break up with his wife...How exactly do you know what went down there? The MSM? Get Real. Newt was trashed from the very first day he became speaker. So if you are going totally by the media you might be putting your eggs into the wrong basket. However, after saying that, I think Newt could actually get alot more accomplished out of office than in office. The Constitution is designed to hamstring the govt. to give people more freedom. It is purposely self limiting. That is why the govt. cannot ever do anything efficiently. It is not designed to do so. I would like to see Newt stay an activist, he could accomplish much more there. If he ran though I would consider him equally with all other candidates.

Periwinkle
Tancredo would carry the same states Bush did, and most with a wider margin. Romney wants to implement the health care system he did in Mass nationally. It's not socialized medicine in the same sense as Hillary's and Obama's plans are but it's not good.

The plan leaves the insurance companies in control and requires you to either buy a policy through privite industry or the state. Personally, I have no health insurance because I have no need for it. I'd much rather invest that money for my future in 10 years or so when I might have a need look into heath insurance. If something comes up I have to dip into my savings but since the odds are against it I don't worry about it. I haven't been to a doctor in over a decade, since I was in high school. That's not to say I never get sick, but when I catch the flu I take care of it the old fashioned way not with a trip to the doctor.

Those who want to go to the doctor everytime they sneeze obviously need health insurance, ofcourse I'd argue they also need a clue. However, I don't think we should make ignorance illegal, although we should encourage real education and not that no child left behind crap that Romney is in love with and wants to expand.

All of you folks seem totally convinced
that the only way to elect a Conservative President is to choose a Republican. Exactly how would another GOP President (or Democrat for that matter) be anything other than the same old lesser of two evils?

We need a choice beyond that one. An elite from either party will be beholden to the party machine, PACs, and lobbyists that would get him elected. In every case, they all seem to be offering up more ways for government to insinuate itself into our private lives.

A recent poll done for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. showed that many Americans believe that an Independent elected as President would be good for the country. In fact, it would be the perfect way to begin a real restoration of the basic Constitutional principles that we need to have occur if we are to continue as a free people.

Power has been concentrated in the hands of the elites for too long, and this has convinced them that they are invulnerable to the will of the people. Even though we defeated the immigration amnesty bill, the handwriting is on the wall. The elites have no intention of actually building the fence or enforcing the current laws. The Dems are anxiously awaiting victory in 2008 so that they can bring this monstrosity to life again. Meanwhile, illegals continue to pour into the country.

Only a severe shock to a system that is very sick can change the dynamics of American politics! The infection is now to the point that it requires such a response. A defeat of the elites in 2008 is our best chance to bring about an entirely new slate of possibilities other than the same old same old that never has and never will produce a different result.

To continue promoting one more elite candidate, including the GOP's newest darling Fred Thompson, is foolishness. It will not enable the rightful owners (that's we the people) of this great nation to reclaim their stolen birthright. On the contrary, it will further strenghthen both parties and consign the future of the country and our children to more big government, less personal freedom, and greater influence of the internationalists who hate America.

We need to stop believeing the lie that only these elites are capable of governing. Is it true because they say so? To continue to believe that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that we should destroy in this election. Failure to grasp the opportunity before us will be the biggest mistake we could make.

I urge you to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. It is the one place you will find out how we can restore our inheritance, reclaim our birthright, and open up an entirely new slate of possibilities that will not emerge with a Dem/GOP POTUS. Check it out and see for yourself why that is true. What's to lose, the elites have already stolen our inheritance, we only need to take it back! I propose a way to do exactly that. Thanks, Joe

How dare Ron Paul want smaller gov't!!!
"Paul or Tancredo can win a national election in what world? I feel bad lumping poor Tancredo in with Paul. He at least has a little credibility. Paul is a joke and is so far right he looks left."

Since when do those from the far left believe in SMALL GOVERNMENT? Ron Paul would destroy any of the dem. nominees in a debate. He would be more likely to tell it like it is then to give some political answer that says nothing. His biggest disadvantage is a lack of funding and support from those worth $100,000,000 or more, and his lack of mainstream media coverage. Of course, if the mainstream media wanted our opinion, they would have told us what it was.

stang200s6
Romney has said that he DID NOT want to implement the Mass. system, but that he wants solutions for healthcare that do not mandate a national program and that states should decide. Overall, the Mass plan is a step in the right direction, but not perfect. In the end, Romney was overruled by the liberal legislature but some good things, such as portability, came out of it.

I am also unisured by choice, and my family and I seldom need a doctor. We don't really like taking presecription meds, so we use vitamins and common sense. When we do need a doctor we simply pay the bill and in the end we are saving money.

I also agree that the fed shouold not be involved in education, but no child has actually made improvements.

Tancredo won't fight the war, he is an extremely one issue guy and has embarrassed himself, showing he is not quite ready for prime time.

Romney is not perfect, no candidate is, but he has more all-around qualifications and is more conservative than any top tier guy.

Someone said Fred is all hat and no cattle, I agree.

Moonkeeper
I was refering to the fact that there is no difference in what Paul is saying about the war and what the left says : 9-11 was our fault, we should leave Iraq, and there is no legitimate WOR.

Paul is not attracting supporters because he can't. It's not the MSM's fault.




periwinkle; Ron Paul attracts
"Paul is not attracting supporters because he can't. It's not the MSM's fault."

He just recently came in second in a Iowa real-life GOP straw poll and a Utah real-life GOP straw poll.

The polls that ask about the popularity of a candiate aren't adjusted for whther a person actually heard of them or not. The polls that measure such things show that Ron Paul is the most unheard of and unknown candidate in the real world. Despite this, he is leading the second-tier candidates. This shows that among those that actually follow politics beyond "well, gee Romney has a nice smile," Ron Paul is up there with the big guys.

As an example of his popularity among those that HAVE heard of him, check out his results in the congressional elections of his district. He normally gets a comfortable 60+% of the vote. This is despite the fact that his own party has spent money running against him.

"I was refering to the fact that there is no difference in what Paul is saying about the war and what the left says : 9-11 was our fault, we should leave Iraq, and there is no legitimate WOR."

As for the whole 9/11 thing Ron Paul never said that the US was at fault for 9/11. Lets use an example for illustrative purposes. Lets say that a bully beats up little Timmy every day. Twenty years later, if little Timmy's anger has festered to the point that he kills the ex-bully's kids, then little Timmy is wrong for doing so. IT IS NOT THE BULLY'S FAULT THAT LITTLE TIMMY KILLED THE BULLY'S KIDS. THE BULLY IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS. FURTHERMORE, THE KIDS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BULLYING. In this case, the bully's actions are the motive for little Timmy being anrgy. This does not however, make the bully's actions retroactively correct.

Claiming that Ron Paul blames the US for 9/11 is an attempt to avoid a debate over our awful foreign policy and, instead, attach Ron Paul's face to a straw man.

Saying "they hate us cause we're free" doesn't explain why Al-Quaeda never attacked Costa Rica, Switzerland, or Luxembourgh.


If you want to look maritally faithful
Hang out with Newt, Fred!, and Rudy.

More honor and dignity from the Family Values party!

Moonkeeper
In the debate Ron Paul associated our "being there" (Iraq) for so many years to 9-11. He was indeed saying that the US is responsible for 9-11. In your bully scenario, someone in the US made all those poor terrorists so darn mad they just had to attack us.

Paul has his head in the sand about global terrorism. He wants to close all the windows and lock the doors rather than go out and actively try to stamp out the bad guys. That is a terribly weak position to take considering the dangerous circumstances in which we now live. I agree that Bush's "they hate us because we're free" is lame, but I honestly think Bush is right about so much in the WOT. I'm very thankful that Gore was not prez on 9-11.

I can't imagine who is supporting Paul, I saw him in the debates and thought he was a joke.

Moonkeeper
I'm sorry - it may sound harsh, but I want our troops to;

KILL THE HEADCHOPPERS BEFORE THEY KILL US.

Does Paul want to do that? If not, he shouldn't be running.

Only kooks follow the Constitution
"In the debate Ron Paul associated our "being there" (Iraq) for so many years to 9-11. He was indeed saying that the US is responsible for 9-11. In your bully scenario, someone in the US made all those poor terrorists so darn mad they just had to attack us."

So because he thinks our foreign policy makes them angry, that automatically means that he thinks their response was justified?

"Paul has his head in the sand about global terrorism. He wants to close all the windows and lock the doors rather than go out and actively try to stamp out the bad guys."

He voted for Afghanistan......

"I'm very thankful that Gore was not prez on 9-11."

No arguement here.

"I can't imagine who is supporting Paul, I saw him in the debates and thought he was a joke."

AGH... name calling....can't handle the insults......left completely speechless.....

The primary reason Ron Paul has support is because his ideals go beyond a simple "the only issues are the war on terror, global warming and big-gov't medicine." Reasons I support him:

1. Wants to abolish the income tax
2. Wants to reverse kelo vs. New London
3. Wants to establish a legitimate gold standard
4. Doesn't believe in foreign subsidies
5. Doesn't believe in corporate subsidies
6. Actually votes *gasp* with the US Constitution.
7. Supports the second amendment
8. believes in DECREASING the size of the federal government

For all the talk about him being a nut, a joke and a kook, noone ever disputes that he votes with the Constitution more then any other candidate. If someone can dispute this, please do so. In fact, consider this a challenge to anyone supporting any other candidate, explain to me how they vote in line with the US Constitution more then Ron Paul.



Periwinke, your voting Manson?
"I'm sorry - it may sound harsh, but I want our troops to;

KILL THE HEADCHOPPERS BEFORE THEY KILL US.

Does Paul want to do that? If not, he shouldn't be running."

So I guess you're supporting some sort of Manson/Dahmer ticket? I'm pretty sure we can elect some serial killers to kill the rest of the world "BEFORE THEY KILL US."

Oh, and socialism will destroy this country from within faster and more thoroughly then a group of terrorists who would turn on and kill each other once we left left their country for good.


Moonkeeper
I agree on the creeping evil of socialism, but you're wrong on killing the bad guys. No wonder you support Paul, you also seem to want to pretend that islamic terrorism poses no threat. Got news for you, if we leave Iraq they will keep trying to kill us. They were blowing up innocents long before 9-11. Do you seriously believe that our foreign policy makes them angry? My gosh, man where have you been?

And you should be ashamed of yourself for equating our troops with mass murderers!

I repeat - in softer language for wimpy folks - I hope our troops kill as many bad guys as they can to prevent them from killing any more innocent people. If you're not for that then I cannot even begin to relate to you.

Moonkeeper
You're funny and disgusting all at the same time. The question is not whether Paul votes for the constitution more than anyone else (which is wonderful) but rather can he lead, are his policies (particularly foreign policy) right for America, will he defend the US, and is he the most credible and capable of all the candidates? The answer is a resounding "no".

Periwinkle ???????
"And you should be ashamed of yourself for equating our troops with mass murderers!"

This is known as a straw man. You said "KILL THE HEADCHOPPERS BEFORE THEY KILL US." I responded with, "So I guess you're supporting some sort of Manson/Dahmer ticket?" I was not in anyway implying that our soldiers are mass murderers (the fact that I even have to defend such an idea is absurd). In Iraq, the death rate of Iraqi civilians has dropped over 80% since we toppled Saddam. I'm fully aware that our soldiers are decent human beings. I was making a joke directed at your statement.

"I repeat - in softer language for wimpy folks - I hope our troops kill as many bad guys as they can to prevent them from killing any more innocent people. If you're not for that then I cannot even begin to relate to you."

LOL, wimply folks.....I'm sure we can relate on some things.....I want lower taxes, I want to decrease the size of the federal gov't.

Anyway, the following countries have bad guys that could kill Americans unless we kill them first: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Vietnam (PART 2, neo-cons rejoice!), Syria, Libya, Pakistan.....I'm guessing you get the point by now.





OF COURSE RONPAUL BLAMED THE US!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

"...they bombed us because we were over there... because we'd been bombing Iraq for ten years...."

Now, exactly what would you call that???

This is a NON-ISSUE! ronpaul is UNELECTABLE so it's a waste of time to even debate it!!!!!

Actually, ronpaul is the the Republican Party what Joe Biden is to the dumbocrat party.... a loser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

US Constitution = unimprotant; lets BOMB
"The question is not whether Paul votes for the constitution more than anyone else (which is wonderful) but rather can he lead, are his policies (particularly foreign policy) right for America, will he defend the US, and is he the most credible and capable of all the candidates? The answer is a resounding "no"."

He's definitely the most credible. As for whether he can "lead," the purpose of the government of a free society is to protect the freedom of the individual, not to rule them.

Yes, I watched the debate.....
Them being angry at us for bombing them goes back to my post above about the bully and little Timmy. Little Timmy killing the bully's kids is not the bully's fault. His bullying does, however, explain the motive, and was still wrong.

Moonkeeper: Are you living on the moon?

We were NOT bombing "them" for the past ten years!

THAT'S exactly how "out of touch" ronpaul is with foreign policy!

No Republican is ever going to support anyone who blames the US for something we're NOT repsonsible for!

9-11 happened because of Radical Islamic ideology!

ronpaul is UNELECTABLE!

It's a waste of time and energy to support ronpaul!


But, if you want to continue living on the moon, and continue to be a "moonbat" then it's your choice... But don't be surprised when you're crying in your beer...




The LIONS OF LIBERTY!
Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ron Paul and Congressman Duncan Hunter are the Triumvirate LIONS OF LIBERTY! They are the only ones who can defeat the Democrats.

The other five are fronts for the CFR Rockefeller
Republican crowd. These five so called front runners do not stand a chance because the American people already know who and what they are.

Conservative Republicans will not support George W. Bush Clones and that is what you get with these so called top five: Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson and Gingrich. The American people will not support them either.

Conservative Republicans will NOT

under any circumstances, support ronpaul...

Have you seen his numbers????

NO YOU HAVE NOT!

Why?

Because he has NO numbers because he has NO support!

Why?

For exactly the reason(s) I mentioned above.

Geez, I have a life size, hand carved and painted tucan that has at least as good a chance, and maybe BETTER of winning the Republican primaries....







Yes Mary, there is a Santa but his name?
is not Uncle Sam!

Its amazing to think that we once called Osama Bin Laden and his mighty Mujahadeen..Freedom fighters when the Russians were fighting in Afghanistan and the CIA was financing Islamic Madrasah Schools to turn out assassins amongst the Moslem youth who were paid by the Neocons to fight the Russians.

However, when the United States went into Afghanistan..what made the NEOCONS think that just because they had gotten cozy with these so called "Freedom Fighters" that they would not dare attack Americans too? I guess they just didnt want anybody over there? They did not want the British there in the days of Lawrence of Arabia, they did not want the Russians there and they did not and do not want the United States there either.

Of course today, most everyone is in denial and the former "Freedom Fighters" are now called "Islamo-Fascists"........yep, the good guys all of a sudden became the bad guys and they saw us as a threat just like they did the Russians.

Then we come to Sadaam Hussein who was our ally once and was actually paid with American Taxpayers dollars to fight the Iranians. Sadaam was the only thug at the time who prevented a vacuum from occurring in Iraq as well as an extreme Islamic Theocratic State. Also, I understand that the United States provided weapons for Sadaam while he was fighting the Iranians...and he did manage to defeat their Army too.

Unfortunately, the United States provided the Gas that was used to kill the Kurds when Sadaam decided to emulate his Turkish neighbors with a little ethnic cleansing of his own.

Basically, we have undone ourselves because we just didnt understand the history and culture of the region. Now we will be stuck in a position that is even worse than when Sadaam was running Iraq. By the Way, It looks like Communist China has been awarded the development of the al-AHDAB
Iraqi oil fields. My how quickly things change!?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4daykIY-mo

Conservative Republicans will support:
The Lions of Liberty! The winning Triumvirate...
Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ron Paul and Congressman Duncan Hunter.

"All for One, and One for All!"

Conservative Republicans will not
support Rockefeller Front men for President who belong to the CFR or to the Neocon AEI.

Conservatives will not support George W. Bush Clones!

Anne - Ron paul is Howard Roark
Ron Paul would trounce any democrat in a debate because he wouldn't have to rely on rehearsed answers. As for the statement that conservatives wouldn't support Ron paul, you forgot to put "neo-" in front of that word. True conservatives love Ron Paul. Its the neo-cons that have been going for Rudy McRomneyson.

"Because he has NO numbers because he has NO support!"

Lets see, he came in second in an Iowa GOP straw poll and a Utah GOP straw poll (of course thats because of those legendary spammers of real life polls!!!). His last Zogby number was at 3%, which I believe put him fifth behind Rudy McRomneyson. Pretty impressive considering he has less then 5% of their resources.

The biggest number Ron Paul is putting up right now is that @ 80% of likely voters in the primary have never heard of him. Pointing out his electibility based on lack of media coverage is like pointing out the lack of popular support to oppositionists of Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin. The only reason why Chavez and Putin keep winning elections is because the media refuses to even cover their opponents positively or negatively. His lack of support isn't because people disagree with him, but because they don't know who he is. Among those that actually know who he is, he's polling just as well as the big guys.

When Howard Dean had only a fraction of the grassroots support that Ron Paul currently has, the media began covering him as some sort of grassroots miracle ,but, of course, he GOT donations from those worth 9 figures or more.

Ron Paul is Howard Roark.

Moonkeeper
I say old man! Brilliant, absolutely Brilliant!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

Anne -- RON PAUL
"3. Paul:
NO CHANCE! ZERO! NADA! JOKE!"

Only you would call the constitutionalist and the true conservative in the race, a "joke".

It appears that a lot of patriotic Americans do not agree with you, Anne. Here is his latest speech in Iowa. It was to a packed crowd of over 1000 people. Note: The event right across the hall with SIX candidates had anywhere from 600-800 people. Wha' happened?

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#iowaanthem

R E I N S T A T E . T H E . C O N S T I T U T I O N

Ron Paul comes in 2nd in 7/4 straw poll
A Fourth of July straw poll for Republicans
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2007/07/05/a_fourth_of_july_straw_poll_fo.html

Fred Thompson: 30 percent;

Ron Paul: 17 percent

Mitt Romney: 15 percent

Mike Huckabee: 13 percent

Newt Gingrich: 12 percent

Rudy Giuliani: 10 percent

John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore: 1 percent

Last time I checked,
I was still tied in the polls with Ron Paul. I always thought I should wait before starting my fund raising and that decision has proven to be prescient.

Anne

Anne:
"We were NOT bombing "them" for the past ten years!"

Liberty:
Oh yes we were!

"The pro and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children." -- Congressman Ron Paul, 3/1/02
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul16.html

Lynne:
"THAT'S exactly how "out of touch" ronpaul is with foreign policy!"

Liberty:
No, that's how out of touch, YOU are.

Lynne:
"No Republican is ever going to support anyone who blames the US for something we're NOT repsonsible for!"

Liberty:
That's good, Anne, because he did not blame the U.S., as you already know. He said our foreign policy over the last 50 years had led to anti-Americanism. What's more, his statements were supported by Michael Scheuer, the CIA's Chief of the bin Laden unit, Paul Wolfowitz, foreign policy experts and none other than the 911 Commission report. Here are a few quotes for you:

"Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

"In an interview on May 18, Michael Scheuer defended Paul, stating: "I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."

"One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe -- at the urging of senior U.S. leaders -- that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 8

"We assume, moreover, that bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms, and democracy -- not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. military now has a ten-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 165

"An attempt to transform Muslim societies through regime change is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face. The root cause of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation and the threat that foreign military presence poses to the local community's way of life. ... Even if our intentions are good, anti-American terrorism would likely grow, and grow rapidly."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 245

"The term 'blowback,' which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of 'terrorists' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states' or 'illegal arms merchants' often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page 8

"There are a lot of things that are different now [after the invasion of Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the US and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so- called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, May 2003

Here is the reading list that Dr. Paul gave to Rudy.... He clearly has some reading to do.

“Dying to Win”
“Blowback”
“Imperial Hubris”
9-11 Commission Report


"9-11 happened because of Radical Islamic ideology!"

It is clear that there are indeed some islamo-crazies that want to kill us. While we are hunting these people down, why on earth would we want to continue with a foreign policy that is creating more and more people that want to kill us and is a direct threat to our national security.

"ronpaul is UNELECTABLE!

It's a waste of time and energy to support ronpaul! But, if you want to continue living on the moon, and continue to be a "moonbat" then it's your choice... But don't be surprised when you're crying in your beer...""

Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano recently called Ron Paul the "Thomas Jefferson of our day".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

I agree wholeheartedly with him. Given what our Founding Fathers risked to give us this Republic and our Constitution, and all the men and women who have fought and died through the years to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION and our liberty, yes Anne, I think it's worth my time to stand up as an American and try with all my heart and soul to get this great man elected. Our country is worth it!


Misinformation Re: Romney Healthcare
There seems to be a poster intent on explaining the mythical proposition that Romney wants to implement healthcare laws nationally like were implemented in Massachusetts. That's simply false, and Romney has said such many times.

Whether it's another hysterical loon who thinks our current system of mandating that doctors and nurses work for free, passing on whatever costs they can to those "more able" (or at least dumb enough to pay) for their healthcare is somehow conservative or not, it doesn't matter.

Romney has proposed that individual states come up with their own solutions to the healthcare crisis and that with time, some models will fair better than others. Imagine that? A man who believes in competition subscribes to an idea like that!

As for Mitt's plan in Mass, aside from the amendments (which Romney vetoed, only to have that veto overturned by the 85% Mass liberal legislature) tacked on, I like it. It forces everyone to buy into a plan, or at least prove they have the funds to pay for healthcare in the instance of a catastrophic incident. No more freeloading. No more forcing others to pick up the slack. No more enslaving of healthcare providers to provide uncompensated services.

Yeah, I'm biased. I think Mitt is our guy. There's not a more proven, successful, conservative executive in the bunch. He's an excellent salesman, a magnificent speaker, charismatic, and can speak on his feet. He doesn't resemble Bush in the slightest, speaks quickly, and is on top of things.

Let's be honest, people. Thompson is 4 years older than Romney. He looks 15 to 20 years older. His interviews on television leave much to be desired. He's got an accent that just begs to be compared to Bush's. He's not it. He'd be #2 on my list, but he's just not going to fair well in a grueling national election. Perhaps part of the reason he's refusing to commit to anything now.

Stang200s6
You really need to work on your fact-checking, buddy. First, I have no idea how you conclude that Republicans would lose Iowa or Colorado by nominating Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, or Romney.

Regardless, you said that without either Iowa or Colorado, Bush would have lost. That's just not true at all. Bush won by 34 electoral votes. Iowa only has 7 electoral votes. Colorado has 9. So no, losing one of those states would not have cost Bush a victory in 2004. In fact, he could have lost both of them. Not that I'd like going down that road, but you're swinging a little wildly and these facts discredit your arguments.

Second, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Romney does NOT support national healthcare. He takes a federalist stance on the matter and always has.

NEOCONS ARE PRO WAR!
Neocons are for Nation building and spreading what they believe Democracy is. In reality the five Neocon Bush clone candidates will eventually get us into a Nuclear war. Even Reagan said the no one wins in a nuclear war!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BldWP-V2ve8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

Pas Phil: "Last time I checked"

You were still tied in the polls with Ron Paul.

And, think of all the money you've saved by not entering the race too early... good call, Phil.

Yup, you and Fred! Excellent fiscal responsibility! :-)


aslan: "NEOCONS ARE PRO WAR!"


Can't say that your statement is THE STUPIDEST statement a ronpaul fanatic has made in the past several months... Heaven knows, there have been MANY!

But, I will give you credit... It certainly ranks right up there among the top 35-50!!!!!!!



HalO: "The terrorism threat to America

is ridiculously exaggerated."

Another stunningly STUPID, UNINFORMED comment!

How do you folks breathe with your collective heads in the sand?


Oh wait..... I have it now! Not ONLY do you have no clue as to what's ACTUALLY going on in the world, you've had your collective heads in the sand for so long, you're oxygen deprived!



Anne or Mary
You and your Bush Neocon friends seem to know more than anyone else when it comes to NEOCONS so maybe you should enlighten us!?

I am sorry that some of us have crashed your party to expose you evil Neocon ways but someone has to set the record straight and point out the difference between the false NEOCON CONSERVATIVES
and the true CONSERVATIVE heirs of Goldwater and
Reagan.

The NEOCONS might have highjacked the Reagan Presidency but some of us can still stop them from highjacking the name..CONSERVATIVE. LOL

HALO...IF Terrorism is such a threat?
Then why is it that our President and all of his Neocon friends like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson don't fuss about our borders being open so some terrorists can come into this country and start killing Americans.

I tell you that George Bush and all of the Neocons who refuse to build that fence and secure our borders are placing the lives of Americans in harms way and if something happens in this country they will be held responsible.

Also, why do we never hear of the thousands of illegal middle easterners and communist chinese who have been caught trying to cross over at our borders........here are some demographics on OTM'S Other Than Mexicans.



http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=135001

Nanna -- on Abe Lincoln
quoth nanna: "He isn't pretty, but neither was Abe Lincoln."

Lincoln wasn't running in the TV age. These days you have to *look* and *sound* like a president.

Unca Alby's GQ PRESIDENT?
You are right! You have to look like a President. A President who can get up in Front of a crowd of People and who knows the Constitution inside out and can tell you in one heart beat whether something is consistent with the Constitution within the framework of Federalism. Also, he should be able to stand on his record! Hopefully, its not McCain Feingold?

Secondly, one must sound presidential...in other words...be able to speak to the common man and explain why many of the things our Congress has tolerated for our country like Foreign Aid and planting Democracies and Nation Building are unconstitutional. In short, if you are gonna sound like a President then you should at least know what you are talking about and not just talk about talking points.

Of Course if your idea of a President is all looks and sounds then maybe we should give Charlton Heston a call. But at least Charlton Heston knows a little about the things he talks about.

911 Commission Expounds and Rebuffs?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.