WWTBAM Bored

No, I am not an alarmist - just a realist. All I can hope for is that Romney pulls off some kind of miracle with enough level-headed conservative votes to stay in the race. I shake my head at the sheer number of illiterate and ill-informed voters that McCain and the media have hoodwinked into believing that McCain is some kind of conservative. If he's a conservative then I really AM Sir Galahad.

At least with Hillary and Obama you know what you're getting. Not so much with Obama as I really have not heard him say much beyond his empty speeches. If I ever heard a case of "he speaks like a president, therefore he's got to be good" he's it.

Sir_Galahad wrote:No, I am not an alarmist - just a realist. All I can hope for is that Romney pulls off some kind of miracle with enough level-headed conservative votes to stay in the race. I shake my head at the sheer number of illiterate and ill-informed voters that McCain and the media have hoodwinked into believing that McCain is some kind of conservative. If he's a conservative then I really AM Sir Galahad.

Since the Republican process is "winner take all" it doesn't look good for Romney. I think the southern states will be unwilling to vote for Romney; however there could be a split between McCain and Huckabee that would work in Romney's favor. If Romney doesn't even cover his home state of Massachusetts, it will be a grim night for him, IMO.

earendel wrote:Since the Republican process is "winner take all" it doesn't look good for Romney. I think the southern states will be unwilling to vote for Romney; however there could be a split between McCain and Huckabee that would work in Romney's favor. If Romney doesn't even cover his home state of Massachusetts, it will be a grim night for him, IMO.

Agreed. O'Reilly had Huckabee on last night and he postulated to him that many have suggested that he was staying in the race just to siphon votes away from Romney. Huckabee shot back with something to the effect of "what makes you think that Romney is not staying in the race just to take votes away from me?" I had to laugh at that.

I'd really like to know why all of the Republican candidates dislike Romney so much. Is it because that he represents real change for Washington? Is it because he is not a Washington insider? Or is it because he is a mormon? Or is it because of all the negative / truthful ads he levied upon his opponents.

Romney definitely represents change...

Lots and lots of change...

Sir_Galahad wrote:I'd really like to know why all of the Republican candidates dislike Romney so much. Is it because that he represents real change for Washington? Is it because he is not a Washington insider? Or is it because he is a mormon? Or is it because of all the negative / truthful ads he levied upon his opponents.

From what I've heard among my Republican friends, their concern with Romney breaks down into two parts. First and foremost they're concerned about what they perceive as "flip-flopping" on issues such as the right to life, taxation, etc. Second, even in this enlightened ( ) era there are concerns about his Mormonism. Not because of his beliefs per se (although there are some strange ones) but because he hasn't exactly embraced his Mormonism (until the funeral of the leader of the church). The big speech he gave on religious beliefs only mentioned Mormonism once out of some 20 minutes.

Let's hear it for doomsday!

Hip Hip Hooray!

Actually, doomsday was supposed to be last Tuesday, but asteroid 2007 TU24 passed by harmlessly, just outside the orbit of the moon, just as astronomers had predicted.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080130.html

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Romney definitely represents change...

Lots and lots of change...

Do you perceive this as positive or negative?

If you're a Hillary or McClain lover, are you satisfied with the fact that if either of them get into the White House, the quo will remain status and it will be the same old ^%&* in Washington?

Sir_Galahad wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Romney definitely represents change...

Lots and lots of change...

Do you perceive this as positive or negative?

If you're a Hillary or McClain lover, are you satisfied with the fact that if either of them get into the White House, the quo will remain status and it will be the same old ^%&* in Washington?

Change would be nice, but not likely, no matter who gets elected. There is so much institutional inertia that things change very slowly. And it's my considered opinion that this is by design. Although the Framers of the Constitution didn't foresee political parties, they did set up a system that by its nature is slow to change (Senators with terms of 6 years). Partisanship doesn't make it any easier to effect change, no matter who may attempt to "reach across the aisle" (to use McCain's phrase) to the other party. Even if the Democrats retain control of Congress and win the presidency there is not going to be much really different.

I will never vote for Mitt Romney. I don't trust him, and if i don't trust you, I won't vote for you.

The idea that he is "the only Conservative left in the race" is laughable, and is actually contrary to the latest claim that Mike Huckabee is siphoning votes from him. I'm not thrilled about the prospect of John McCain being the Republican nominee, but I would vote for him any day over Mitt Romney.

I would object to the notion that I am illiterate or ill-informed, but I do believe that McCain is more of a Conservative than Romney.

Romney's attack ads were not truthful. They were full of truthiness.

earendel wrote:Since the Republican process is "winner take all" it doesn't look good for Romney. I think the southern states will be unwilling to vote for Romney; however there could be a split between McCain and Huckabee that would work in Romney's favor. If Romney doesn't even cover his home state of Massachusetts, it will be a grim night for him, IMO.

The Republican process is not Winner-Take-All. A few of the primaries use this system, but not many. New York is a significant state that does. Florida was another. But, most of the contests have some sort of proportionate allocation.

Sir_Galahad wrote: At least with Hillary and Obama you know what you're getting. Not so much with Obama as I really have not heard him say much beyond his empty speeches. If I ever heard a case of "he speaks like a president, therefore he's got to be good" he's it.

Wow, I really like what you have to say this morning.

At one point in time, I saw McCain as a moderate and I liked him. Then I felt that he started tilting to the far right and I didn't like him at all. He used to be pro-choice and he changed his position on the issue and that was it for me.

In the past, I had even donated to his campaign. I asked to be taken off all of his mailing lists and I still get crap from him.

I do like this picture of him though.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:At one point in time, I saw McCain as a moderate and I liked him. Then I felt that he started tilting to the far right and I didn't like him at all. He used to be pro-choice and he changed his position on the issue and that was it for me.

Funny, he claims that he has always been pro-life.

I have never before heard anyone suggest that McCain was ever pro-abortion, and trust me, if there was any validity to it, the Conservative media right now would be beating that drum loud and long.

earendel wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:At one point in time, I saw McCain as a moderate and I liked him. Then I felt that he started tilting to the far right and I didn't like him at all. He used to be pro-choice and he changed his position on the issue and that was it for me.

Funny, he claims that he has always been pro-life.

He personally may have pro-life, but he didn't want to repeal Roe vs. Wade.

I've already voted. It was a hard choice, even as to which party's primary to vote in. Finally decided that while I liked the idea of voting for McCain to stick it to Romney in his home state, I couldn't really vote for either one. Romney is and has always been "Slick Willard". I can't forgive McCain for seeming to be a change agent in 2000, then sucking up to the Republican PTB again after W got in. Huckabee just outright scares me.

As for the Democrats: While I like Obama and what he says, I am not convinced that this is the time for inexperience and OJT in the leader of the free world. I'm not that fond of Hillary, either, and came very close to voting for Edwards or Richardson, who are still on the ballot. I just held my nose and voted for Hill. I predict a close vote between the two in MA.

Fifteen minutes after polling opened, I was voter #19 in my precinct. We have five in a town of ~28,000. Our Secretary of State's office is predicting a 33% turnout of registered voters, and calling it "substantial". That's sad.

Can't prove it is super Tuesday by me. While I have seen a few Hilary ads
(specially tailored for New York, I have yet to see an ad for any othe candidate, be they Republican or Democrat. As for signage, Obama & clinton are running about even. a stray McCain sign here & there and quite a few Ron Pauls. Not a Huck or slick sign in sight.

As usual, my choice is gone by primary time. I will probably force myself to vote for Hillary (shudder) because Obama says as much as the Wizard of Oz's floating green head. i.e. nothing of substance. Since NY is a closed primary state, the GOP choices are not an option. Of course, last poll had McCain getting 2/3 of the total vote, so it isn't much of a contest.

McCain's is another campaign that seems to have risen solely on hot air.

What is it with Americans that they let a few people in Dixville Notch, Ceder Rapids, or Greenwood decide they like a candidate, and then blindly make that person a prohibitive favorite. Are we really that afraid to take responsibility in choosing our leader??

eyégor wrote:What is it with Americans that they let a few people in Dixville Notch, Ceder Rapids, or Greenwood decide they like a candidate, and then blindly make that person a prohibitive favorite. Are we really that afraid to take responsibility in choosing our leader??

Unfortunately, yes. Hence the low turnout of the registered voters and the tuning out by an increasingly embittered populace (embittered by partisan politics and the inability to finance serious change in the system).

eyégor wrote: As usual, my choice is gone by primary time. I will probably force myself to vote for Hillary (shudder) because Obama says as much as the Wizard of Oz's floating green head. i.e. nothing of substance.

Thank you for voting for Hillary.

The girls and I are all wearing Hillary shirts today.

I am also going to see if I can carve out some time to make phone callsl for her campaign today. As argumentative as I am though, I am not sure if it will hurt her or not.

eyégor wrote:Can't prove it is super Tuesday by me. While I have seen a few Hilary ads (specially tailored for New York, I have yet to see an ad for any othe candidate, be they Republican or Democrat.

Same here, so far as the presidential candidates go, but there's a state senate race in Syracuse that has brought in a flood of mudslinging ads, from both candidates. I watch and just scratch my head, "Who are these people?"

eyégor wrote: McCain's is another campaign that seems to have risen solely on hot air.

What is it with Americans that they let a few people in Dixville Notch, Ceder Rapids, or Greenwood decide they like a candidate, and then blindly make that person a prohibitive favorite. Are we really that afraid to take responsibility in choosing our leader??

There is so much wrong with this year's presidential election, it's not funny. From the media to the candidates themselves, it's just a big circus. It's sad that we have really been reduced to selecting the lesser of evils as opposed to someone that we can put our faith and trust in that they are looking out for the best interest of The People and not for their own damn careers. If McClain gets the nomination I am going to submit a write-in vote for Newt.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
Thank you for voting for Hillary.

The girls and I are all wearing Hillary shirts today.

I am also going to see if I can carve out some time to make phone callsl for her campaign today. As argumentative as I am though, I am not sure if it will hurt her or not.

OK, I'm curious. What is it that you find so compelling about her that you would entrust the future of our country with her and Bill (you know that he will be just as much a part of her decisions as she is)? Can you define for me one thing that she has accomplished as Senator?

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I have never before heard anyone suggest that McCain was ever pro-abortion, and trust me, if there was any validity to it, the Conservative media right now would be beating that drum loud and long.

I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion.

I have met a whole lot of people.

I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion.

Nor have I Pea.

I also feel that no one born without a uterus should have a say in anti-abortion legislation. But, that's just me.