Lds President?

[JcDean78]

Speaking of Mitt, he wrote a rather good article today. Here is a link to it. The article is on the 1st Amendment.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MittRom...78-971e0e67a15a

[FrankJL]

Sorry for the late answer just looking through some of the posts on here.

As of right now, Romney is among the 3 top tier Republican candidates. He is the lowest of the three, but still in there none the less. Fred Thompson could be number 4, but has yet to formally enter the race. His early polling numbers look good, and of the 4 he would be the only true conservative in the group.

His weak point seems to be his flip flop on his abortion views, while he was gov of mass he was pro-choice, and his explanation of he was in such a liberal dominated state is why he held that belief seems rather lame. It makes him appear that instead of standing on principle, he was just saying and acting in a way that would get him elected. He also claims that cloning is what changed his views on abortion, but thats a whole separate issue.

I know a lot of liberals are attacking him on the basis of his religion, saying things like we don't need another "fundamentalist Christian" running the country. I love to point out the irony of this because of the democratic leader of the senate is. fyi....Its Harry Reid of NV, who is also LDS.

His good points... Campaign financing, Romney has raised a lot of money early on, despite his lack of name recognition. He has received the most money (per capita, not gross) from Utah...go figure. He did look very good in both debates, and he gave a great answer to the moronic "what do you dislike most about America" question.

The other two main guys...

McCain...IMO doesn't have a chance, I think he committed political suicide today, with his strong support of the amnesty immigration bill that the senate passed today. His strong points seem to be Iraq, and his appeal to moderates. This is a primary, you don't win by appealing to moderates, you win by appealing to the conservative base of the party, and that conservative base despises McCain. His role in the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance reform act, will not be forgotten by conservatives either. This act in part created a lot of the liberal 527, 401-3C groups that skirt modern campaign spending laws, and its restriction on ads 30 days before an election seemed to be a clear violation of the the 1st amendment.

A lot of McCain's support comes from the fact they think he is the only one that could beat Clinton in the general election. The same could be said for Guiliani though. I don't really think that is the case, I think any one of the top 3 republicans could beat her. I'm not even sure she will win the dem primary, Obama is making huge strides, and has a very very loyal and hardworking grassroots base.

Guiliani...Looks right now to be the clear front runner. He is getting hit hard for his pro-choice views but is sticking with it. Unlike Romney who is seen to be flip flopping on the issue, at least Guiliani is taking a firm view, even if its something most republicans will not agree with. He's a great speaker, and great at raising money. He's got the views on most other fiscal issues that conservatives like. His strong leadership style is something that a lot of people can admire, esp relating to his handling of NYC after 9/11. Besides abortion though, he has a pretty liberal view on gun rights and gay marriage, though I don't think this is hurting him too much.

Though in the end his moderate to liberal republican views may greatly help him in the general election. He's the kind of republican that could be very popular in new england states, where republicans tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If Guiliani can win one or a small handful of new england swing states (such as my home state of PA), the general election would be over. The south is still going to be a reliable republican pickup, esp if Hillary is running. Her approval numbers in southern states are in the low to mid teens, and they will vote for Guiliani just because he has an "R" after his name.

I think I'll stop here, this is enough to digest....I could write on and on about politics.

[CrimsonKairos]

I tire of hearing about how great Giulianni was with handling 9/11.

Sure it was difficult, but should it really be a litmus test for who would be a good CinC?

How did being mayor of one city--even amid a catastrophe--demonstrate understanding of world politics, foreign finance, budget prudence, tax reforming, military superiority, et al?

He's a good guy, and he did a hard job, but I get tired of him and others using his handling of 9/11 in New York as his "I'd be a stellar CinC" bona fides.

[FrankJL]

How does being the governor of a state deal with world politics, foreign finance, or military superiority?

What does this have to do with anything? 5 out of our last 6 presidents ascended to the office, from serving as the governor of a state, Bush 41 being the exception. The main reason people cite for this is that a governor is an executive level position, unlike that of a member of congress. A governor, has experience dealing with the style of leadership, and working with a legislature (on a state lvl) to accomplish goals for that state.

The same thing can be said for a mayor. He is the executive at the city level. As mayor of NYC, he was responsible for more people then governors of many states, simply in terms of population NYC is lager then the combined populations of many smaller states combined.

He can't just use 9/11, as a platform, but his handling of the city it self. He significantly lowered crime in the city, redeveloped Time Square from a garbage filled, drug dealing area, to an area with family shopping malls, and brought in major business to the area, bringing in many new higher paying jobs.

Being the CinC isn't exactly something someone can prepare for, short of prior high level military experience. Even when given the opportunity to have a prior military leader in the white house (speaking of former General Richard Clark here) he was vastly turned down by voters. Kerry tried to use his limited military experience to his advantage, and it became a liability to him, mainly from the swift boat vets campaign ads.

Look at who we have elected though: Clinton (draft doger), Bush 43 (joined TX air guard to avoid service in Vietnam)

In reality the vast majority of people don't look at a candidate's military leadership, because until recently it wasn't really that big of a deal, and even now its not something most people consider.

If you want someone that will bring some kind of real world experience the the CinC role of the president, then I'm not sure who will please you, on either the Democratic or Republic side of the current presidential candidates.

[JcDean78]

Rudy abortion, guns, and gays are 3 strikes for him and he has no chance IMO. Is really just a moderate liberal and should be on the Dem ticket, not the GOP.

McCain is HATED by most conservatives and with his Amnesty bill today along with his attacks against the 1st amendment, he can forget about it. Is really a moderate liberal and should be on the Dem ticket, not the GOP.

Mitt I just do not trust yet.

Fred I would vote for

Newt I would vote for.

Fred/Newt 2008 or Fred/Mitt 2008.

[FrankJL]

Gays, Guns, and Abortion...you sound like the stereotypical southern conservative voter..heh.. Fact is in this election cycle those are not important issues, outside of your particular geographic area. Most people are far more concerned with foreign policy (particularity Iraq) and national defense right now.

You mention Gingrich though.

another that hasn't announced but would have strong conservative support.

my prob with newt is his ethics, GOPAC, his affair, the government shutdown in 95 only made Clinton look good in his 96 election. He has far too much baggage to be considered a real contender....moveon.org would have a field day with making attack ads against him.

He also made a fool of himself last month in his global warming debate with Kerry. He sounded more like a liberal green party activist then a true conservative.

He became the speaker of the house in great fashion, did the party a great service by winning back the house in 1994, but he really failed the party, and the country by not following on with his promises he made in his "contract with America". He became a Ken Star clone, instead of doing the business of the house, and moving legislation forward, he was too busy vainly trying to impeach Clinton. --well I shouldn't say vainly, he did get Clinton impeached, but never did win senate support to actually get him removed from office.

[JcDean78]

Guns, Gays, and Abortion are huge all over the country. In the last election gay marraige was shot down almost at every turn by huge margins. Abortion is murder and is a huge issue everywhere. Guns is a national issue as well. If you go back to the 2000 election, Gore lost a ton of points when he started to go anti gun hard core and some speculate that it is the issue that cost him the election.

I disagree with your "facts" that those are not election cycle issues, especially guns and abortion.

[FrankJL]

That can be your opinion, but the facts and extensive polling data just don't hold that opinion up as factual.

Citing the 2000 election, isn't logical , we were attacked on September 11th 2001, and the ground war in Iraq began at 11:30 AM (local time) March 20th 2003 I know I was there Of course Iraq or domestic security wouldn't have be major issues then, they were not even on the radar at that point in time.

I could cite you a lot more polling data, but Rasmussen and Zogby poll internals are for members only, so I can't link them, or copy them due to copyright issues.

Poll 1

Fox News / Opinion Dynamics

13. What one issue will be the most important in deciding your vote for

Congress this fall? (DO NOT READ – ACCEPT ONLY ONE RESPONSE)

(Iraq) 23%

(Homeland/National Security/Terrorism – not Iraq) 11

(Economy/Jobs/Unemployment) 11

(Health care/Prescription drugs) 6

(Immigration/Border Security) 6

(Education/Schools) 3

(Family values/Morals) 2

(Ethics/Corruption in government) 2

(Social Security/Medicare) 2

(Domestic issues/Take care of U.S.) 2

(Taxes) 2

(Gas prices/Energy) 2

(Abortion) 1

(Balanced budget/Deficit) 1

(Environment/Energy) 1

(Gay marriage) 1

(Foreign affairs generally/Middle East - not Iraq) -

(Stem cell research) -

(Other) 5

(Don't know/Refused) 18

5. How important will each of the following issues be to your vote for President next year -- will it be

-- extremely important, very important, moderately important, or not that important?

(RANDOMIZE ORDER)

Extremely Very Moderately Not that No

Important Important I mportant Important Opinion

The situation in Iraq 51% 37% 9% 2% *

Terrorism 45% 35% 14% 6% *

Education 44% 37% 16% 3% *

Health care 43% 35% 18% 4% *

Gas prices 43% 31% 16% 10% 1%

Corruption and ethical standards

in government 41% 36% 17% 7% *

The situation in Iran 38% 39% 17% 5% 1%

Social Security and Medicare 38% 37% 20% 4% *

The economy 33% 46% 16% 4% *

Illegal immigration 31% 32% 26% 10% 1%

Taxes 30% 40% 23% 6% 1%

The federal budget deficit 30% 34% 26% 9% 2%

Global warming 27% 26% 27% 19% 1%

Abortion 27% 24% 24% 24% 1%

Gun policy 26% 26% 29% 17% 2%

Stem cell research 20% 28% 28% 21% 3%

Policies toward gays and lesbians 13% 15% 30% 41% 1%

There was another glaring example of this in my state (PA), in our last senate race. Bob Casey (the democrat), was a strong pro-life candidate, in this state where even most republicans are moderately pro-choice, Casey won the election 64-46. Not because of his pro-life views, but because of his strong opposition the the war in Iraq. Voters in this state didn't care about casey's abortion views, the only cared about getting Santorum out of office, and getting someone opposed to Bush in office.

In regards to the ballot initiatives regarding same sex marriage in the 2006 election. Same sex marriage, stem cell research, and abortion bans passed in many states, where the senate candidate supported the very same amendment failed, so obviously they cared about the issue when it was a single issue on a ballot referendum, but it wasn't the overriding thing they where looking for in a candidate.

Take your states for instance...TN and VA

Tenesse

same sex marriage ban passes: 81% to 21

yet..

Corker® defeats Ford jr.(D) 51% to 49% (senate race)

Pretty lopsided numbers huh?...

Internals of the exit poll for the refrendum showed that 66% of Ford's voters voted for the measure, yet they voted for Ford, who was a supporter of domestic partnerships, so his views on abortion did not effect the ammount of votes he recived in the general election.

Virginia

same sex marriage ban passes 57% to 43%

and

Webb(D) defeats Allen® 50% to 49%

These numbers are closer but still don't match. The internals of the exit poll in this state don't break the referendum choices by vote for senator, so I can't give you that data. Though Webb's defeat was most likely due to his "makaka" comment at one of his rallies.

I would still like to know why you support Gingrich...

[CrimsonKairos]

As an aside, I think gun control might receive more importance what with the proximity of the VA Tech shootings to the primaries.

Then again, America has a short memory sometimes...perhaps by the end of this year it'll have gone off the national radar.

[FrankJL]

I doubt it, the general election is 18 months away.

None of the Reps made any mention of it in their debates.

Obama made some references to it in the days following the event, as did Hillary, but neither one had made that big of a deal about it.

[Dr T]

I thought Obama was a stronger candidate. Opened my eyes when I saw him speak.

[FrankJL]

How do you mean that?

Most people's opinion of Obama goes up after seeing him speak, its supposed to be one of his stronger points.

[Dr T]

Because of all the hype and reports about what a strong candidate he is supposed to be for the Dems, I thought he would be a good speaker like Clinton was. He was not. He did not seem strong to me. I'm a Republican anyway but I still look to see what others have to say. He did not impress me that's all.

[FrankJL]

Would you say that he is better speaker then Hillary?

seeing as your a dr I'm assuming your older, I apologize if I'm stereotyping, but it seems Obama's appeal is really with younger people.

I can tell you that here at Penn State, the liberal kids (which is about 90%) here are almost orgasmic (for lack of a better term) over Obama.

[JcDean78]

@ FrankJL - There are lies, darn lies, and stats. Anybody can make any stats say what they want. I have seen stats that say those things are major issues. So I will reverse it and say yours opinion is just a matter of opinion and agree to disagree.

About Obama, he is a better speaker. HItlary is HATED by a lot of people but even though Obama is more left than Stalin, he can speak really well and because he is so new, most people have no clue what he stands for and what he means by a lot of things he says. Like most socialist ideas, they sound great in the idea but are devistating in practice.

For the Libs I know IRL, they want Gore to run. Obama is second and Hitlary is a distant 3rd.

[FrankJL]

Why do you want to be wrong?

I know what I'm talking about, when it come to politics. History is my major, and poly sci and econ are my minors. I read, study, and work with this stuff everyday.

The polls cited above are from opinion dynamics and AP/Ipso, both respected polling firms that work for fox news and cnn, respectively, and like I said I could have provided more info but that data is from paid registration sites, that I use for school work.

Then I showed your a brief comparison between the results of the senate races, and the ballot measures in your own states you list as where you live. I'm not exactly sure how you can call this information wrong, the links are in the post. Unless you are saying there was some kind of voter fraud, those are the actual returns for those elections.

If you have some solid proof to back up what your saying show me, link it here. I would honestly like to see it.

You show even more of your misunderstanding, by comparing Obama to Stalin. Their ideals are nothing alike , but you just seem to parrot the cliches of so many right wing talking heads. One Stalinism's primary goals was the establishment of a larger more modernized military. I don't see where Obama is supporting any massive up tick in our military. Also of all the attempts at soviet communism at the time, Stalin's vision, was by far the most economically open, compared the the economic polices of Lenin, and Marx, Stalin's New Economic Plan didn't even have a socialist goal.

People seem to have such a misunderstanding of communism and socialism (they are not the same thing). You can identify aspects of both movements, in both modern conservative and liberal political philosophies, comparing modern American political movements, to the development of political systems in Europe and Asia during the early 1900's isn't real applicable.

Marx and Lenin both despised homosexuality. Marx and Engels (a communist philosopher that co-wrote Marx's "Communist Manifesto") saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by communism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality — for the man as well,"

Quotes from Engels's book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State", which is a very interesting read, if you want to know the real ideals and beliefs of Communism, as Marx saw it.

Comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler is such an ignorant statement, it doesn't deserve a response.

[JcDean78]

Like I said we can agree to disagree. I think all the current liberals have very much in common with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Does that mean they are exact copies? Do they have differences? Sure they do and no one person is the same. But for a system as a whole and their goals, they are very similar.

They all push for socialized programs and centrally planned economics. Hitlary and her Health care plans forcing a person in med school to become the type of Dr. of the governments choosing. How about the push for less mass farming? In the 1970's we were being told that the population would be starving by the 1990's but that was not the case at all. So now what do they do? They try and take away the ability to farm at those rates so we would starve much like Mao did in China when he forced the farmers to do other things and abandoned the effective way to do things and they starved to death.

With Hitlary in particular I see a lot of parals. Looking at her history she has been involved in shady deals and some of those people ended up dead before they could testify against her and put her away. She not only will set out to destroy a person politically and personallyif you get in her way but you might have an "accident" and wind up dead as well. Hitlar and Stalin both were natorious for killing off anybody who got in their way on the road to claiming power. If Obama has a little "accident" then I guess nobody should be surprised.

[CrimsonKairos]

Ben Afleck displays his political bias and religious ignorance wonderfully in this clip. Read the write-up below the clip...makes a good point.

[prisonchaplain]

I tire of hearing about how great Giulianni was with handling 9/11.

Sure it was difficult, but should it really be a litmus test for who would be a good CinC?

How did being mayor of one city--even amid a catastrophe--demonstrate understanding of world politics, foreign finance, budget prudence, tax reforming, military superiority, et al?

He's a good guy, and he did a hard job, but I get tired of him and others using his handling of 9/11 in New York as his "I'd be a stellar CinC" bona fides.

Why Guillioni's performance @ 9/11 matters: He actually shined under pressure. We seldom get resumes that include experience under international terrorist pressure--but this guy has it. And, there is no denying he did well.

Also, ironically, being commander in chief of a city--especially a big, diverse one like NYC, is better preparation for the presidency than either congressional or senatorial experience--because he not only got laws past--he led a public administration.

So far, I still prefer Romney. I disagree with Guillioni on many issues. However, simply based on his experience as mayor, we know more about how he'll perform than we do about most of the other candidates.

[Dr T]

Many have been using the "@" recently in their posts. I wanted to see what it felt like. See you all @ my next post.

[LukeAir2006]

Many have been using the "@" recently in their posts. I wanted to see what it felt like. See you all @ my next post.

Would your next post be about giving milk before me@?

[prisonchaplain]

Many have been using the "@" recently in their posts. I wanted to see what it felt like. See you all @ my next post.

So, how is @ working out for you?

[Guest mamacat]

@ Dr. T:

[Dr T]

LOL. Thank you for those. They were fun @ my expense but fun nonetheless.

[CrimsonKairos]

Romney says that if he's elected President, he'll likely donate his $400,000 annual salary to charity.

Romney declined his $135,000 annual salary as Governor of Massachusetts.

I don't recall hearing any other candidate ever make such an offer. Interesting.