Romney effectively quits the race... McCain will be the nominee

[jAZ]

Seems that he lost his largest contributor. Himself.

Sorry Patteeu. Maybe you could make up the difference?

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/romney_spokesperson_confirms_it_mitt_hasnt_bought_any_tv_ad_time_in_any_feb_5th_state.php

Romney Spokesperson Confirms it: Mitt Hasn't Bought Any TV Ad Time In Any Feb. 5th State
By Greg Sargent - January 31, 2008, 9:13AM

With five days to go until Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney's spokesperson is confirming that the Romney campaign has bought exactly zero TV ad time in any of the states that vote on Feb. 5.

"We currently haven't purchased any ad time yet," Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden confirmed to Election Central, when asked about Feb. 5th states.

The Associated Press, relying on anonymous officials, reported the lack of any ad buying on the Romney campaign's part. The Politico also confirmed this late yesterday evening.

Even more interesting, Madden also refused to say whether the campaign would be buying any ad time in any Feb. 5th state. Asked if Romney would buy any time, Madden said: "We don't telegraph strategic decisions like ad buying ahead of time."

This suggests the possibility that the campaign won't be buying any time in advance of the multi-state showdown that is likely to decided the race. At the least, this is a big boost for John McCain. At the most, it could amount to a possible admission that the Romney camp thinks the race is pretty much over.

Late Update: A Romney campaign official tells me that the campaign will be purchasing ad time today, though the official declined to specify how much and where.

[ENDelt260]

"We don't telegraph strategic decisions like ad buying ahead of time."

Well, you wouldn't want McCain lying in the weeds waiting.

[banyon]

Romney's been able to borrow tons of money for the campaign. I don't know why he couldn't borrow more. i'm sure his credit is better than mine.

I had some concerns about what this massive campaign borrowing might do to the integrity of our election process, but patteeu assured me that it would be okay.

[patteeu]

Well, you wouldn't want McCain lying in the weeds waiting.

LMAO

[patteeu]

Yeah, it sucks that Romney can't seem to get any real traction and that I'll have no options left but McCain, but it looks like that's where this is all headed.

[dirk digler]

Yeah, it sucks that Romney can't seem to get any real traction and that I'll have no options left but McCain, but it looks like that's where this is all headed.

You still can support Ron Paul :)

[eazyb81]

Yeah, it sucks that Romney can't seem to get any real traction and that I'll have no options left but McCain, but it looks like that's where this is all headed.

I'm still confused why Romney hasn't received more support from conservatives. He seems like more of a "true" republican than McCain.

[Radar Chief]

You still can support Ron Paul :)

Ya know, since it looks like my choices are going to be between crap (McCain) and loose, wet crap (Hillary), I may have to become a NeoPaulitan. ;)

[patteeu]

You still can support Ron Paul :)

I do. He's long been my favorite Congressman and I'd like to keep it that way.

[patteeu]

I'm still confused why Romney hasn't received more support from conservatives. He seems like more of a "true" republican than McCain.

According to exit polling he does win pretty consistently and pretty convincingly among conservatives.

[SBK]

Until this year I didn't realize that democrats could win both nominations.....

[eazyb81]

According to exit polling he does win pretty consistently and pretty convincingly among conservatives.

So who is voting for McCain? I thought these were only open to registered republicans? Are independents also allowed to vote in these? (It should be obvious by now that I don't follow politics much)

[jAZ]

Who would have thought even after NH that the Republicans would have their nominee picked before Super Tuesday and the Dems would be the one headed to a brokered convention.

Amazing, and even more good news for what is new likely to be the frontrunning party in November. The sooner your party can start to focus on the general election and raising money, the better.

[jAZ]

So who is voting for McCain? I thought these were only open to registered republicans? Are independents also allowed to vote in these? (It should be obvious by now that I don't follow politics much)
Conservative <> Republican in all cases.

Huckabee is pulling away about 1/2 the evangelical base support from Romney and that is the main reason why McCain was able to pull this off.

[Cochise]

I was scrolling down, going to post what jaz posted. Romney or Huckabee could have won, probably, but the presence of both derailed it all to McCain.

Hopefully, the conservative noises he's making now will come to pass once he's in office.

[patteeu]

So who is voting for McCain? I thought these were only open to registered republicans? Are independents also allowed to vote in these? (It should be obvious by now that I don't follow politics much)

Up until Florida, most of the contests (maybe all of them) have been open to non-Republicans. McCain has pulled in a lot of that support. In Florida, from what I understand, he got quite a bit of support from the latino community (presumably because of his less hard line position on immigration) and he won among moderates. Florida was a big test for McCain because up until Florida he'd failed to win among the Republican portion of the electorate in any state. He passed that test.

[patteeu]

McCain may well be the nominee, but rumors of Romney's capitulation appear to be premature.

Romney to run ads in California (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_el_pr/romney_1)

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 10 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney plans to run a "significant" level of television ads in California and other states that vote Tuesday in essentially a national primary, aides said Thursday, signaling a willingness to aggressively try to derail Republican front-runner John McCain.
ADVERTISEMENT

Since his defeat in Florida Tuesday, the former Massachusetts governor has been debating over just how much of an effort to make in which of the 21 states that hold primaries and caucuses Tuesday. Romney has tried to cast himself as more conservative than McCain.

Romney is trying to get back on track after two straight losses to McCain — in South Carolina on Jan. 19 and more recently in the winner-take-all state of Florida. That victory gave McCain the advantage in the all-important delegate count as well as the momentum in the GOP race.

[jAZ]

McCain may well be the nominee, but rumors of Romney's capitulation appear to be premature.
Wait and see. I'm betting he's just spending what's left of the bank account and won't be putting in any more of his own money.

Could be wrong. I'm hoping the GOP race goes on for a lot longer. Don't like having you guys get a head start. That's bad news for us.

[patteeu]

Wait and see. I'm betting he's just spending what's left of the bank account and won't be putting in any more of his own money.

Could be wrong. I'm hoping the GOP race goes on for a lot longer. Don't like having you guys get a head start. That's bad news for us.

If he were getting out, why wouldn't he use what's left in the bank account to repay some of the loans he made to his campaign? In essence, this is him spending his own money at this point if he's actually already given up.

[jAZ]

If he were getting out, why wouldn't he use what's left in the bank account to repay some of the loans he made to his campaign? In essence, this is him spending his own money at this point if he's actually already given up.
Fair enough, well see how much he spends. His entire campaign is built on TV ads. Maybe he's giving up the only strategy that's carried him this far. Or maybe hell spend, spend, spend. But he's already lost 2 days of air-time and he's down to just 4.5 days (Tuesday is kind of a wash).

[patteeu]

I think there's a good chance that he'll fall short next Tuesday no matter how much he spends, but I'll be happy if he at least gives it a reasonable effort.

[Cochise]

I keep thinking I'm going to make a run at liking McCain, but I just can't make myself get psyched up about it.

Basically, combining him or his opponent with congress, unless it's taken back sometime in the near future, eliminates any possibility of meaningful reform on a whole host of conservative issues for 8 years.

Bites. I don't know if I would actually do it, but I think I will end up considering going third party.

[patteeu]

I keep thinking I'm going to make a run at liking McCain, but I just can't make myself get psyched up about it.

Basically, combining him or his opponent with congress, unless it's taken back sometime in the near future, eliminates any possibility of meaningful reform on a whole host of conservative issues for 8 years.

Bites. I don't know if I would actually do it, but I think I will end up considering going third party.

I can certainly understand that pov.

[BigCatDaddy]

Conservative <> Republican in all cases.

Huckabee is pulling away about 1/2 the evangelical base support from Romney and that is the main reason why McCain was able to pull this off.

I don't see why the "evangelical base" would vote for someone who IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. That's why I chose McCain over Romney. The first thing I look at in a candidate is faith, then go down the line on the issues, number 1 being abortion.

[Cochise]

I don't see why the "evangelical base" would vote for someone who IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. That's why I chose McCain over Romney. The first thing I look at in a candidate is faith, then go down the line on the issues, number 1 being abortion.

They don't have to BE one. They just want their views represented.

I supported Fred Thompson, and is he religious? I don't know. He was right on my issues so that's fine with me.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Huckabee needs to fuc**ing quit and let Romney use his share of conservatives to beat Mccain.

This angers me.

[jAZ]

Huckabee needs to fuc**ing quit and let Romney use his share of conservatives to beat Mccain.

This angers me.
How is it that anyone can pretend that Romney is a conservative. He's a panderer.

And from what I've read, NONE of the other candidates have any respect for the guy and they've all but united to defeat him.

[alnorth]

This has got to be one of the most unlikely, incredible comebacks I've ever seen in my life. Even more unbelievable than Bill Clinton's primary victory.

I had pretty much written off McCain last summer, and if you would have told me McCain would be nominated as late as mid-December I would have assumed you were ignorant of politics, a hopelessly optimistic McCain fanboy, or on drugs. What happened was basically a perfect storm of several unlikely events all coming together all necessary for McCain to win.

McCain being written off as dead all last year definitely helped him, his opponents paid no attention to him, no real ads were made against him (except NH), you dont win many votes by kicking a man who is down, you go after the leaders. So the window of opportunity to attack his political vulnerabilities was limited.

Then, incredibly no clear front-runner comes into Iowa. Guiliani gets the national vote, but is going nowhere in the early states, Fred Thompson attracts some attention, Ron Paul sucks up all the anti-war voters, Huckabee gets all the evangelicals and Romney is left to scavenge around for the rest. Romney probably wins if he takes Iowa, but a guy who has no real shot at all wins Iowa, so now he has no incentive to quit, and his voters are excited and not thinking about backing a 2nd or 3rd choice.

Romney stumbles into NH wounded, and McCain is lurking and waiting in ambush to score his long-awaited and basically expected victory there.

From there it easily could have gone 2000 where Bush dismissed NH and swept to victory, except now for the first time in forever the Democrats have a very exciting charismatic candidate and there is real fear of a loss, so people are more willing to compromise for victory at almost any cost. McCain remains competitive, then springs his January surprise to win over older military voters and pretty much land the knockout punch on Romney.

Meanwhile, Guiliani quits so his voters naturally go to their 2nd choice, but the Huckaboom stubbornly soldiers on, and his devoted followers, probably not excited about Mormons anyway, follow him to fracture the hard-right social conservative vote leaving McCain to sweep up the pieces on the strength of the more Libertarian and fiscal wing of the party.

When you go from a guy so broke that he basically fires all his staff, the media has no time to bother covering him, he rides busses and carries his own luggage to economy class on discount airlines, to now, all the events described above are like a fragile tapestry. Each little thread, each unlikely in themselves, would have made the whole thing fall apart if pulled. What happened here is not quite like the Royals getting enough breaks to make the playoffs this year, but it was still pretty damned unlikely.

[alnorth]

I thought this story also did a nice job of the unlikely rise of McCain

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3274579.ece

[BucEyedPea]

When you go from a guy so broke that he basically fires all his staff, the media has no time to bother5 covering him, he rides busses and carries his own luggage to economy class on discount airlines, to now, all the events described above are like a fragile tapestry. Each little thread, each unlikely in themselves, would have made the whole thing fall apart if pulled. What happened here is not quite like the Royals getting enough breaks to make the playoffs this year, but it was still pretty damned unlikely.

The polls were just so wrong apparently. IMO McCain surviving long enough means he recived all the institutional support, including lots of free press, he needed to make it in FL. Now there will be more of this and more money coming.

[Cochise]

If primaries weren't open, he wouldn't have ever sniffed the nomination, he obviously does poorly among conservatives. I hope more states close the primaries in the future.

[Pitt Gorilla]

How is it that anyone can pretend that Romney is a conservative. He's a panderer.

And from what I've read, NONE of the other candidates have any respect for the guy and they've all but united to defeat him.Republicans like a panderer (see W).

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

How is it that anyone can pretend that Romney is a conservative. He's a panderer.

And from what I've read, NONE of the other candidates have any respect for the guy and they've all but united to defeat him.

Endorsed by Limbaugh and conservative publication

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Jaz is a Mccain Man.

Mccain = George Bush & Jr.

Insider. No change.

[jAZ]

Endorsed by Limbaugh and conservative publication

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1
Both of those things would occur as long as he's a panderer and irrespective of whether he was a conservative.

[Cochise]

Endorsed by Limbaugh

He most certainly is not.

[jAZ]

Jaz is a Mccain Man.

Mccain = George Bush & Jr.

Insider. No change.
jAZ is an Obama man. But McCain isn't a terrible alternative. I'm also from Arizona, and I've voted for McCain for Senate repeatedly.

He's different from Bush is so many ways that are important to me, that I would be OK with him in the WH. Our differences are pretty major though. Iraq is the main area of difference. I also wonder about his judges. But I think they would be far more Reagan-esque than Bush's Alito-type radicals.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Jaz. Reagan was not a compromiser. John Mccain is. His voting record is not good from everything i read.

[Radar Chief]

He most certainly is not.

Right. He’s been very adamant about not endorsing anyone.

[BucEyedPea]

This just in: Statist Nancy Reagan, who was a bad influence on her husband is supporting McKiller privately.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Limbaugh praise for Romney.

http://boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/18/limbaughs_praise_for_romneys_run_heard_loud_and_clear/

[Cochise]

Romney to reach into pocket, make 'significant' Feb. 5 buy

Mitt Romney has decided to pour more of his own fortune into his presidential campaign and will go up on TV in California and other Super Tuesday states.

"Romney for President will be making a significant ad buy in California and other Feb. 5 states," spokesman Matt Rhoades said this morning.

Rhoades, however, wouldn't say exactly where the campaign would be making most of its purchases.

Given how expensive some of the larger markets are in California and how that the state's delegates are apportioned by congressional district, the campaign could be selective about where it wants to go up here.

As for the other states, Romney is likely to focus on the heartland contests that will be filled with conservative voters. Places like Missouri, Minnesota and Illinois. Look for him also to make a strong effort in Colorado.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/Romney_to_reach_into_pocket_make_significant_Feb_5_buy_.html

[Cochise]

Limbaugh praise for Romney.

http://boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/18/limbaughs_praise_for_romneys_run_heard_loud_and_clear/

Shocking, that he would identify more often in topical discussion with a conservative than with McCain? Not really.

[BucEyedPea]

Well, I think Romney is the lesser of two evils out of him and McKiller MadNavyBomber!!!

[ChiefsCountry]

Huckabee needs to fuc**ing quit and let Romney use his share of conservatives to beat Mccain.

This angers me.

Too bad most of the people who would vote for Huckabee would vote for McCain over Romeny.

[jAZ]

Romney to reach into pocket, make 'significant' Feb. 5 buy

Mitt Romney has decided to pour more of his own fortune into his presidential campaign and will go up on TV in California and other Super Tuesday states.

"Romney for President will be making a significant ad buy in California and other Feb. 5 states," spokesman Matt Rhoades said this morning.

Rhoades, however, wouldn't say exactly where the campaign would be making most of its purchases.

Given how expensive some of the larger markets are in California and how that the state's delegates are apportioned by congressional district, the campaign could be selective about where it wants to go up here.

As for the other states, Romney is likely to focus on the heartland contests that will be filled with conservative voters. Places like Missouri, Minnesota and Illinois. Look for him also to make a strong effort in Colorado.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/Romney_to_reach_into_pocket_make_significant_Feb_5_buy_.html
Seems like a rewriting of the same quotes as above.

Not sure that there is any new info from the campaign there.

In either case, I might be wrong to have said "he lost his largest contributor. Himself". Though the commentary about digging into his own pockets is not a statement attributed to anyone but Politico. And could easliy be complete conjecture on their part. And the only specific quote only mentions California.

[patteeu]

How is it that anyone can pretend that Romney is a conservative. He's a panderer.

And from what I've read, NONE of the other candidates have any respect for the guy and they've all but united to defeat him.

Uh, because he espouses a conservative agenda? You may not believe in his sincerity, but that doesn't change the fact that the positions he takes are generally conservative ones. Not as conservative as Ron Paul's (except when it comes to foreign policy), but conservative by the standards of mainstream American politics. Low taxes, limited government, market oriented solutions, conservative judicial nominations, pro-life, strong defense, opposition to gay marriage and ESCR.

I don't agree that he's the extraordinary panderer that you and other critics try to make him out to be, but even a panderer can be conservative or liberal. He's not Barry Goldwater, but he's the most conservative candidate left with a reasonable shot at becoming President in November.

[Calcountry]

Conservative <> Republican in all cases.

Huckabee is pulling away about 1/2 the evangelical base support from Romney and that is the main reason why McCain was able to pull this off.If McCain wins the nomination, you guys win, congratulations.

[Calcountry]

Uh, because he espouses a conservative agenda? You may not believe in his sincerity, but that doesn't change the fact that the positions he takes are generally conservative ones. Not as conservative as Ron Paul's (except when it comes to foreign policy), but conservative by the standards of mainstream American politics. Low taxes, limited government, market oriented solutions, conservative judicial nominations, pro-life, strong defense, opposition to gay marriage and ESCR.

I don't agree that he's the extraordinary panderer that you and other critics try to make him out to be, but even a panderer can be conservative or liberal. He's not Barry Goldwater, but he's the most conservative candidate left with a reasonable shot at becoming President in November.I want McCain to lose so badly, that I will vote Democrat in the general if he is the nominee.

Heck, If I am going to have to have a Liberal for President, it might as well be one from the opposition party.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

It's funny how big government foreign policy is now considered conservative(minimal).

Ron Paul does educate people that the framers didn't want the USA all over the world creating colonies.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

I want McCain to lose so badly, that I will vote Democrat in the general if he is the nominee.

Heck, If I am going to have to have a Liberal for President, it might as well be one from the opposition party.

Yep. SAD.


:doh!:

[patteeu]

It's funny how big government foreign policy is now considered conservative(minimal).

Ron Paul does educate people that the framers didn't want the USA all over the world creating colonies.

It's funny how you failed to notice that conservative has meant a non-minimal strong national defense for decades now.

The framers were also for open immigration, tolerance of state religions, and preventing women from voting. Times change. The framers recognized that, too, and created an amendment process just so our constitution could be modified to meet changing circumstances.

P.S. We aren't creating colonies.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

You can have a strong national defense but it should be based the USA like Ron paul says. All that money would stay in the USA too.

South Korea must learn to defend itself. The occupation of Saudi Arabia is stupid. And Iraq needs another strong military leader who can calm those people down. Turkey is an example of military control and democratic government working together. Iraq is a pisshole we are not good nation building.

[patteeu]

You can have a strong national defense but it should be based the USA like Ron paul says. All that money would stay in the USA too.

South Korea must learn to defend itself. The occupation of Saudi Arabia is stupid. And Iraq needs another strong military leader who can calm those people down. Turkey is an example of military control and democratic government working together. Iraq is a pisshole we are not good nation building.

It's fine that you feel that way (and we can disagree on it), but let's not pretend that that's what has passed for conservatism for the past several decades.

And we aren't occupying Saudi Arabia. We don't even have troops there.

[chagrin]

You can have a strong national defense but it should be based the USA like Ron paul says. All that money would stay in the USA too.

LOL!
Ron Paul is a fuggin lunatic, haven't you people learned anything yet?


South Korea must learn to defend itself. The occupation of Saudi Arabia is stupid. And Iraq needs another strong military leader who can calm those people down. Turkey is an example of military control and democratic government working together.


go back and read this statement again, it's incredible how silly it is.

[JohnnyV13]

I don't see why the "evangelical base" would vote for someone who IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. That's why I chose McCain over Romney. The first thing I look at in a candidate is faith, then go down the line on the issues, number 1 being abortion.

You are a scary individual. I suppose your favorite was Mike "make the bible the constitution" Huckabee

[Adept Havelock]

You are a scary individual. I suppose your favorite was Mike "make the bible the constitution" Huckabee

Sure sounds like a Nehemiah Scudder or Berzelius Windrip supporter to me. ;)

[Cochise]

Seems that he lost his largest contributor. Himself.

Sorry Patteeu. Maybe you could make up the difference?

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/romney_spokesperson_confirms_it_mitt_hasnt_bought_any_tv_ad_time_in_any_feb_5th_state.php


Just saw a Romney ad on tv. :Poke:

[penchief]

It's funny how big government foreign policy is now considered conservative(minimal).

Ron Paul does educate people that the framers didn't want the USA all over the world creating colonies.

That much is true. Unfortunately what the Ron Paul supporters don't understand is that restricting the excessive use of coercion should also apply to the domestic economy and social justice. You can't have liberty without social justice, IMO.

The people's government was NOT designed to invade and occupy sovereign nations for the sake of Wall Street. It was intended to buffer the liberties of the common man from the intrusions of the greedy and the ideological, IMO. But when privilege corrupts the people's government, then democracy and liberty are both at a distinct disadvantage.

Beware the corporate media.

[jettio]

Yeah, it sucks that Romney can't seem to get any real traction and that I'll have no options left but McCain, but it looks like that's where this is all headed.

You might have more options if you got your head out of your *ss.

Ron Paul would seem to be a natural choice for someone that Bin Laden scared out of the Libertarian party.

[Taco John]

Uh, because he espouses a conservative agenda? You may not believe in his sincerity, but that doesn't change the fact that the positions he takes are generally conservative ones. Not as conservative as Ron Paul's (except when it comes to foreign policy)...


There's certainly nothing liberal about Ron Paul's foreign policy. The foreign policy that you support is historically a liberal one.

[penchief]

There's certainly nothing liberal about Ron Paul's foreign policy. The foreign policy that you support is historically a liberal one.

Bull-****ing-shit. I'm so tired of you blaming classical imperialism/fascism on liberals who believe in the exact opposite (universal justice). Please, just stop it. It's so dishonest it makes me want to kick your ass.

[Taco John]

Penchief, I have you on ignore... I just saw you posted in this thread after me... I thought I'd pop in and let you know that whatever you just said is some of the stupidest, most uneducated stuff that has ever been posted on this board, ever.

I'm sure of it.

[penchief]

Penchief, I have you on ignore... I just saw you posted in this thread after me... I thought I'd pop in and let you know that whatever you just said is some of the stupidest, most uneducated stuff that has ever been posted on this board, ever.

I'm sure of it.

You have me on ignore because you have a one-sided story to tell. You try to paint the people that disagree with you as the problem even though you ignore the root of the real problem. Which is, your own stupid ideology that peddles greed over humanity and economic oppression over individual liberty.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

LOL!
Ron Paul is a fuggin lunatic, haven't you people learned anything yet?




go back and read this statement again, it's incredible how silly it is.

Go into more detail. Why?

I guarantee he's smarter than you.

[penchief]

Go into more detail. Why?

I guarantee he's smarter than you.

Ron Paul is not a lunatic. I think he is a sincere freedom fighter with a gigantic hole in his vision.

[mikey23545]

You have me on ignore because you have a one-sided story to tell. You try to paint the people that disagree with you as the problem even though you ignore the root of the real problem. Which is, your own stupid ideology that peddles greed over humanity and economic oppression over individual liberty.

Greed is <i>not</i> wanting to succeed and keep the fruits of your labor.

Greed <i>is</i> wanting to take the wealth of those who earned it because you lack the drive or energy to earn your own.

Your mind is so twisted you cannot even understand this, the simplest of truths.

[penchief]

Greed is <i>not</i> wanting to succeed and keep the fruits of your labor.

IMO, greed is the act of using one's position to enhance one's own leverage unjustly by stealing the fruits of another person's labor, suppressing another person's income, or limiting another person's opportunity for the sake of one's own benefit.

Greed <i>is</i> wanting to take the wealth of those who earned it because you lack the drive or energy to earn your own.

Ingenuity and hard work are the keystones of the American work ethic. Any prosperity that is derived from those two virtues represents the best that America has to offer, IMO.

Your mind is so twisted you cannot even understand this, the simplest of truths.

You can't even see that the reason you call me twisted is because you are brainwashed.

[jettio]

Penchief, I have you on ignore... I just saw you posted in this thread after me... I thought I'd pop in and let you know that whatever you just said is some of the stupidest, most uneducated stuff that has ever been posted on this board, ever.

I'm sure of it.

Really? I could understand you having Jake Plummer on iggy, but penchief?

There has to be some story behind that.

[Cochise]

You guys should just make out.

[alnorth]

Just found another interesting little story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/01/politics/washingtonpost/main3778239.shtml

McCain was out of money in November, and had to borrow $3 Million from a bank to have any shot at all in the coming New Hampshire primaries. As collateral he offered up his fund-raising lists, but the bank had one more requirement before they would give him the loan: McCain had to buy a life insurance policy for the bank in case he did not survive the campaign.

[ClevelandBronco]

You have me on ignore because...you ignore the root of the real problem.

You finally said something that makes sense. He ignores you because you are the root of the real problem.

[stevieray]

You can't even see that the reason you call me twisted is because you are brainwashed.

LMAO

[stevieray]

You have me on ignore because you have a one-sided story to tell. You try to paint the people that disagree with you as the problem even though you ignore the root of the real problem. Which is, your own stupid ideology that peddles greed over humanity and economic oppression over individual liberty.


LMAO

[patteeu]

There's certainly nothing liberal about Ron Paul's foreign policy. The foreign policy that you support is historically a liberal one.

Whatever. All I know is that Ron Paul's foreign policy is idiotic, regardless of the label attached to it. And when you say "historically" you are really talking about a period before I was born. Barry Goldwater wasn't a liberal, but he wasn't a Ron Paul isolationist either.

[patteeu]

Bull-****ing-shit. I'm so tired of you blaming classical imperialism/fascism on liberals who believe in the exact opposite (universal justice). Please, just stop it. It's so dishonest it makes me want to kick your ass.

LMAO Go get him, pen! rochambeau

[Taco John]

Whatever. All I know is that Ron Paul's foreign policy is idiotic, regardless of the label attached to it. And when you say "historically" you are really talking about a period before I was born. Barry Goldwater wasn't a liberal, but he wasn't a Ron Paul isolationist either.



That's not what Barry Goldwater Jr. says...


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W7r27Az_Mns&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W7r27Az_Mns&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

Bull-****ing-shit. I'm so tired of you blaming classical imperialism/fascism on liberals who believe in the exact opposite (universal justice). Please, just stop it. It's so dishonest it makes me want to kick your ass.


Not that I honestly care what this doofus thinks... I just find it amusing that he doesn't know the actual word for this so-called "universal justice."

What a dope.

[patteeu]

That's not what Barry Goldwater Jr. says...

I wasted about half an hour of my life waiting for that to load. Needless to say, I was underwhelmed. BGJr didn't say anything about his father being a Ron Paul isolationist. He just repeated the same hollow, happy talk about Ron Paul being for a strong national defense and against policing the world that all Paul supporters chant. I've heard Ron Paul describe what he's for himself so I don't need anyone else to reframe it for me. Our argument though, is about whether Barry Goldwater was the same type of isolationist as Ron Paul. I think his American-interest-based interventionist opinions about the Cold War in general and Vietnam in particular belie that claim. Barry Goldwater may or may not have supported the war in Iraq, but I see no indication that he would have wanted to pull our troops home and cede the international strategic stage to foreign actors.

[penchief]

Not that I honestly care what this doofus thinks... I just find it amusing that he doesn't know the actual word for this so-called "universal justice."

What a dope.

It means the same thing as equal justice, pretender. Something you don't believe in. Which separates you from those who founded our country in the spirit of equal justice. Also, equal justice is not possible without equal opportunity (something else you don't understand).

So save your insults for yourself because you deserve them for being such a bandwagon believer and, therefore, being easily manipulated.

[ClevelandBronco]

It means the same thing as equal justice, pretender. Something you don't believe in. Which separates you from those who founded our country in the spirit of equal justice. Also, equal justice is not possible without equal opportunity (something else you don't understand).

So save your insults for yourself because you deserve them for being such a bandwagon believer and, therefore, being easily manipulated.

Equal justice, yes. Equal opportunity, yes.

But I think you're more concerned with equal outcome.

[penchief]

Equal justice, yes. Equal opportunity, yes.

But I think you're more concerned with equal outcome.

And that is exactly where you are wrong. Nothing I have ever advocated on this board has suggested what you are suggesting. And I think it is your own prejudices that have not allowed you to view my statements more objectively.

I find satisfaction that you would acknowledge equal opportunity as a virtue. Maybe I'm equally guilty of misreading your intentions, as well.

[ClevelandBronco]

And that is exactly where you are wrong. Nothing I have ever advocated on this board has suggested what you are suggesting. And I think it is your own prejudices that have not allowed you to view my statements more objectively.

I find satisfaction that you would acknowledge equal opportunity as a virtue. Maybe I'm equally guilty of misreading your intentions, as well.

I view nothing objectively. I don't believe that's possible for anyone.

[penchief]

I view nothing objectively. I don't believe that's possible for anyone.

Self-honesty is never fully achieved but I believe that it can be achieved on a case-by-case basis. The more we allow ourselves to be objective about fundamental things in which we formerly held prejudices, the more we can ultimately evolve into more objective persons, IMO.

[patteeu]

And that is exactly where you are wrong. Nothing I have ever advocated on this board has suggested what you are suggesting. And I think it is your own prejudices that have not allowed you to view my statements more objectively.

I find satisfaction that you would acknowledge equal opportunity as a virtue. Maybe I'm equally guilty of misreading your intentions, as well.

Maybe you aren't looking for equality all the way at the outcome point on the spectrum (i.e. the end of the race), but I think it's safe to say that your idea of equal opportunity is measured somewhere other than at the beginning of the race.

[penchief]

Maybe you aren't looking for equality all the way at the outcome point on the spectrum (i.e. the end of the race), but I think it's safe to say that your idea of equal opportunity is measured somewhere other than at the beginning of the race.

Not at all. I regret that so many people can't recognize how much equal opportunity (at the beginning of the race) is being suppressed in this country.

[ENDelt260]

I'm guessing this thread has veered somewhat off the original topic, but I saw a Mitt Romney ad on San Diego TV last night... so, I guess he's buying ads.

Course, I've yet to see a Ron Paul ad out here, though. He supposedly has millions of dollars in cash on hand.. but, he's not spending it on TV ads in California? What the **** is he saving it for?

[BucEyedPea]

I'm guessing this thread has veered somewhat off the original topic, but I saw a Mitt Romney ad on San Diego TV last night... so, I guess he's buying ads.

Course, I've yet to see a Ron Paul ad out here, though. He supposedly has millions of dollars in cash on hand.. but, he's not spending it on TV ads in California? What the **** is he saving it for?

I'm in Florida and I saw no tv ads the whole week, or a few days before our primary too. I heard no radio, I got no mailings despite being a donor. I said the same thing you're saying. To be fair I saw no Romney one's either. Or Rudy and Hucks. But then the latter two are out of money.I mean when you have a media blackout then I would think more advertising would be called for....but media coverage is just as vital too.

I did see a Romney one last night...but it was anti Hillary...not McCain.

[ENDelt260]

To be fair I saw no Romney one's either. Or Rudy and Hucks. But then the latter two are out of money.

If I hadn't seen the Romney one I probably would've just shrugged it off. I could've maybe been convinced that California airtime was just far too expensive, and he was airing ads elsewhere (though, I was starting to wonder just how much money the Indian tribes have that they can flood the CA airwaves every commercial break telling me to vote for props 94-97), but Paul's campaign supposedly has more COH than Romney, and I'm seeing Romney ads and not Paul ads...

I did see a Romney one last night...but it was anti Hillary...not McCain.

Probably the same one I saw last night.

[patteeu]

Not at all. I regret that so many people can't recognize how much equal opportunity (at the beginning of the race) is being suppressed in this country.

So are you telling me that you aren't in favor of doing anything to equalize the opportunity at the point where people enter college and then again at the point where they enter grad school or professional school and then again at the point where they are looking for their first job and then again at the point where they are trying to get through the "glass ceiling" to the top of their field?

[penchief]

So are you telling me that you aren't in favor of doing anything to equalize the opportunity at the point where people enter college and then again at the point where they enter grad school or professional school and then again at the point where they are looking for their first job and then again at the point where they are trying to get through the "glass ceiling" to the top of their field?

Although I believe that privilege entitles a person to the luxuries and material wealth that one chooses, I also believe that privilege does NOT authorize prejudice or greed. Human dignity (i.e. equal justice via equal opportunity) is achieved when wealth is removed as the deciding factor in determining future outcomes. IMO, prejudice and greed perpetuates prejudice and greed.

Equal health care, equal education, and equal representation are all fundamental to equal opportunity and equal justice. That is why the right wing power quo always goes out of its way to deride those ideals. Simply put, righties don't want equal justice.

Equal justice doesn't equal profit.

[patteeu]

Although I believe that privilege entitles a person to the luxuries and material wealth that one chooses, I also believe that privilege does NOT authorize prejudice or greed. Human dignity (i.e. equal justice via equal opportunity) is achieved when wealth is removed as the deciding factor in determining future outcomes. IMO, prejudice and greed perpetuates prejudice and greed.

Equal health care, equal education, and equal representation are all fundamental to equal opportunity and equal justice. That is why the right wing power quo always goes out of its way to deride those ideals. Simply put, righties don't want equal justice.

Equal justice doesn't equal profit.

I don't know what you just said, but I assume it translates into a "No".

[penchief]

I don't know what you just said, but I assume it translates into a "No".

You know exactly what I just said.

[patteeu]

You know exactly what I just said.

Taking that as confirmation of my assumption, I can tell you that you insist on equality alot further down the road toward outcome than those of us who believe in equality of opportunity.

[Cochise]

... privilege does NOT authorize prejudice or greed. ...equal justice....

When we state this all in moral terms, wouldn't it be vulnerable to the 'legislate morality' attack?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Taking that as confirmation of my assumption, I can tell you that you insist on equality alot further down the road toward outcome than those of us who believe in equality of opportunity.

That's a pathetic counterargument.

[patteeu]

That's a pathetic counterargument.

Do you think I'm wrong? If so, why?

[penchief]

Taking that as confirmation of my assumption, I can tell you that you insist on equality alot further down the road toward outcome than those of us who believe in equality of opportunity.

I would have been happy if the forces on the right had not tried to repudiate the progresses of the sixties and seventies. But since they have done so for the sole purpose of greed, and in the name of their savior (Maximus Profit), I have no choice but to object.

The ideals of funding public education, ensuring equal access to medical attention for all citizens, and providing grants and low interests loans for the less fortunate who have proven thier merit, is a pretty good idea, IMO.

But since the corporate right has decided to eliminate equal opportunity in the name of Maximus Profit, I can no longer oblige their selfish indulgencea. Eat shit George W. Bush, and your Czarist/elitist mentality.

[penchief]

When we state this all in moral terms, wouldn't it be vulnerable to the 'legislate morality' attack?

Yes, let me restate my concerns:

Wouldn't it be unwise for a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the poeple to betray the people's concerns in a way that is direcetly attributable to those who oppose the peoples best interests?

[alnorth]

The ideals of funding public education,

You say that as if there was a side which opposes good education. Both sides want good schools, but the left believes that if you just throw enough money at the problem, it will solve everything.

The right believes that public schools are a failure which will not be solved by an avalanche of money, because there is no consequence for failure. If your school sucks, then those in the crappy school will say "eh, I have tenure, and the state will keep funding me, so I dont care." The right wing believes the best solution is to introduce competition, and enable the poor to afford to pick a non-public school. Then the schools are made directly accountable for their crappy results by losing students and funding.

ensuring equal access to medical attention for all citizens,

couple problems. First, we have pretty much seen that when health care is given away for free, people lose respect for the value of health care and will start using emergency rooms as their by-monthly checkup ward for headaches and soreness. The left again believes that if we tax enough and throw money at the problem, everything will come up roses.

However, as we see in Canada, universal health care inevitably leads to lower-quality health care and stupidly-long waiting periods for what we would consider to be a trivial medical procedure.

We do not have a significant problem now. The poor already have access to free emergency medical care, which is indirectly paid for by those able to have insurance.

and providing grants and low interests loans for the less fortunate who have proven thier merit

Loans for what? We have plenty of educational and college programs now, so no problems there. We also have government programs for the poor that subsidize the interest rate for mortgages lower than banks could afford to give without government support. (Government accepts risk of default, so banks can afford to lend no- or bad-credit better rates)

But since the corporate right has decided to eliminate equal opportunity in the name of Maximus Profit, I can no longer oblige their selfish indulgencea. Eat shit George W. Bush, and your Czarist/elitist mentality.

That same pursuit of profit has led the USA to become the greatest economic engine in the world, allowing the whole country to benefit. If you compare the standard of living of our "poor" to most of Europe's "poor", its night and day. If you want a socialist state and all the misery it entails, its already waiting for you across the ocean.

[penchief]

You say that as if there was a side which opposes good education. Both sides want good schools, but the left believes that if you just throw enough money at the problem, it will solve everything.

Compe-fuching-tition? Are you serious? That's what we've had for the last seven years and the "rich keep getting richer" while equal opportunity gets farther and farther out of reach for equally qualified Americans. When it comes to schooling, the corporate right's idea of competition is to turn history over to the people who represent brainwashing and greed-mongering instead of educational development and historical fact.

Your so-called competition in schools does nothing but bring us the hollow elitist mantra of private vouchers and corporately influenced text books. You've done zero to explain how vouchers will encourage equal opportunity, let alone, equal education. The corporate right-wing's ideal of competition brings us Taco Bell in elementary schools instead of sound nutrition for those who are most vulnerable to bad diets. How does that mentality lend itself to an honest education?

Is that what you call a solution? Good God, you might as well be Ronald Reagan when he tried to impose Ketchup as the nutritional vegetable requirement for school lunch programs. Is that where you are coming from?

I came from public schools and I'm proud of my education. Now I know that you (and others like you) want to deprive people like me of an education that has taught me to think for myself. You wish to impose the type of educational system that divides us and brainwashes us rather than encourages sincerity and open-mindedness.

The right believes that public schools are a failure which will not be solved by an avalanche of money, because there is no consequence for failure. If your school sucks, then those in the crappy school will say "eh, I have tenure, and the state will keep funding me, so I dont care." The right wing believes the best solution is to introduce competition, and enable the poor to afford to pick a non-public school. Then the schools are made directly accountable for their crappy results by losing students and funding.

I came from a graduating class of 63 students. Yet, I went on to college via low interest loans and government grants due to my high school performance and also a system that recognized merit over privilege. My parents never spent a dime on my college education because they could barely afford to feed my other five brothers and sisters. Yet, I graduated from school with a 4.0 GPA.

Are you saying that I, or anyone else in this country who has proven themselves, doesn't deserve the opportunity to achieve a 4.0 in college?

couple problems. First, we have pretty much seen that when health care is given away for free, people lose respect for the value of health care and will start using emergency rooms as their by-monthly checkup ward for headaches and soreness. The left again believes that if we tax enough and throw money at the problem, everything will come up roses.

Again, health care (like formal education) is not a privilege or gift that should be withheld from those who who merit it for lack of money. It is an issue of human dignity, not of ability to pay. To deny that is to be an asshole in the same degree as those who have seen fit to destroy the vision of this country.

However, as we see in Canada, universal health care inevitably leads to lower-quality health care and stupidly-long waiting periods for what we would consider to be a trivial medical procedure.

It's amazing to see how many people jump on the corporate bandwagon when talking about Canadian health care. Why is it that we never hear from Canadians themselves how horrible their health care system is? Anyone with a brain of their own would recognize that we don't hear the Canadians complaining. Those whom we hear complaining are the righties in this country who want to protect the greedy interests of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and HMOs.

Why is it always the amateur righties in this country who are dissing Canadian health care instead of actual Canadians? Could it be that you listen way too much Rush Limbaugh?

Loans for what? We have plenty of educational and college programs now, so no problems there. We also have government programs for the poor that subsidize the interest rate for mortgages lower than banks could afford to give without government support. (Government accepts risk of default, so banks can afford to lend no- or bad-credit better rates).

We used to have a lot of good programs. But lately, under Bush (your working man hero) many of those programs have been eliminated and reduced. Many of the same programs that I went to college under are not there anymore. And many of the ones that are still there are intended to benefit the lenders and not the students. And let's not forget that average tuition is about 1.5 times higher than it was when Bush came into office.

That same pursuit of profit has led the USA to become the greatest economic engine in the world, allowing the whole country to benefit. If you compare the standard of living of our "poor" to most of Europe's "poor", its night and day. If you want a socialist state and all the misery it entails, its already waiting for you across the ocean.

NO, it was economic justice that led to this country becoming the greatest economic engine in the world, which allowed the whole world to benefit and which also inspired hope. What you don't realize is that unions and the middle class in this country empowered Americans and people all over the world. It wasn't the result of Wall Street investment, speculation, or even the speculator's greed-induced lies that ultimately inspired us, it was hope AND the fruits of our own labor that inspired us. To not recognize that which has made this country special is a shame, IMO.

I can only assume that your final argument is, "Corporate America, love it or leave it?" Is that accurate?