Posted on 09/29/2007 11:06:18 PM PDT by Doofer
How can we bash teens for having babies???
Unprepared?
Tolerate people of retirement age having children?
Do you have any idea how stupid this agrument sounds.
Comparing inexperiance to experiance is dumb enough...but to say that someone in thier 60's cannot or should not raise a child is beyond the pale..
Thank you for confirming my suspicions...
FNC channel is coupling all Thompson reports with “Guiliani is expected to easily reprot 12 million” and Romeny is reported as having to write a check from his own accounts to be competative.
The FNC hair dos are now reporting this as a three way race between Thompson, Guiliani, and Romney based on money power.
(not appeal or viability)
Notice how Hillary Clinton is now always wearing beige or brown?
(and those damn perls.)
I do not support Guilliani !
The +5% is within stat errors, and it is sure better than the +13% against - Dead Fred !!!
Buzz off, lefty!
In a few days or weeks, your absurd poll will be show to be an anomaly.
Keep burying your head in the sand, there are plenty of Ostrich’s for Fred !
“RUDY IS A DEMOCRAT!!!”
That’s got a nice ring to it!
““RUDY IS A DEMOCRAT!!!”
I don’t care, I am not voting for him but, he probably is the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary.
I fail to see how Romney’s declining poll numbers in these early states months before the primaries establish that he will be one of the finalists for the nomination. The fact that he retains slim facial leads convinces me of nothing. As has been reported, he has been the only one advertising and has spent $8 million on 10,000 ads. Still his lead in New Hampshire is 4 points and declining, and his lead in Iowa is 9 points and declining. His national numbers are, and have been, in the toilet, and they are beginning to exercise significant gravitational pull on his state numbers. People are not going to go out and freeze their tails off in Iowa and New Hampshire in January to vote for someone who is in 4th place and in single digits nationally. And the internals of the Newsweek Iowa poll released last weekend are even more ominous. Thompson’s voters are far more committed, with 39% strongly backing him. Only 26% of Romney’s voters strongly back him.
Intensity of support is key in a primary and even more key in a caucus. So the 8 point lead which Romney now enjoys in Iowa may well be a dead heat with Thompson given the fact that his support is so much more intense(and therefore more likely to show up) than Romney’s. And bear in mind as well that no comparison ads highlighting Romney’s past liberal stands and flip flops have yet gone up. When that happens, his declining lead will erode further.
President of what? He is nowhere. BOR said they can’t reach him and Sabatto said he is DOA,
Way back at the beginning, before anyone said anything about him, I was wishing Fred Thompson would get in the race. He doesn't seem to me to be someone who has been lusting for power since his earliest years. That's a principal fault of Clinton, Kerry, and Gore. The Presidency defines their being. It was all about them.
I want someone who takes on the mantle reluctantly but who also will be able to make clear for people what the United States was supposed to be about: a land of liberty where the federal government protects the people from foreign enemies and the Constitution protects the people from the federal government, leaving everything else up to the ingenuity, hard work, and voluntary associations of the citizenry.
We have now reached a place where a major party claims there really is no foreign enemy that is not of our own making and that the federal government has to protect the individual from himself. They appear to believe that people will truly be free when the federal government has defined in law the specifics of how every aspect of everyone's life should be and has constructed an enforcement apparatus to make it happen.
The thought that there could be hundreds of millions living whose future rests completely upon their own shoulders and how they choose to provide for themselves and their families either scares or outrages them, depending on whether they believe those people to be either misguided or arrogant. Therefore, they believe that the federal government, with themselves in the driver's seat, should help plan for the fools who can't do it themselves or put in their places the reckless ones who think they can. They also appear to believe that anyone who opposes them, therefore, are the enemies of the people, and, because they have cast themselves as the voice of the people, enemies of themselves. You're either with them or you're an evil to be extirpated.
How in the world is this any different from the totalist politics of the Nazis or communists?
When I was in high school I read Jefferson's suggestion that a bloody rebellion every so often would be a good thing for the nation. My idea then was that he was saying, "Hey, if this whole Constitutional government idea we came up with doesn't work out, just toss it aside and try something else." I realize now, and I wish that more people did, that he meant, "If a system of government grows up that violates this Constitution and Declaration of Independence and starts to eat up the people's substance and to oppress the people, get rid of it, even if you have to use bloody force the same way we did against King George. You'll be doing it for the same reason. The federal government is not the United States. It's a means to an end and that end is liberty in peace. If the existing one can no longer serve as that means, scrap it and reconstitutionalize."
I'm hoping that Fred will be able to restore a little clarity to the historical perspective. For all those people in the past who yearned to be free, there are even more now, especially since the degree of oppression in the modern world far exceeds anything during the centuries that led to the American Revolution.
Your argument that Giuliani will carry the Rockefeller wing of the party has merit especially when considered in the context of his national name recognition and claim to fame from 9/11 and crime stopping in New York City. If you are right it means that the states that cannot possibly elect a Republican presidents including California and the Northeast, will nominate a candidate unsatisfactory to the bulk of the Republicans in the states responsible for electing Republican presidents because they're the only ones who have the power to do so. Nevertheless, you might be right.
Strangely, the MSM pundits seem to believe that we have both done it wrong when we say that Thompson will get the nomination. They don't believe he has the stuff on the campaign trail and they don't believe he has the organizational ability to put together the kind of campaign that can compete with the organizational skills of Romney and the charisma of Giuliani. They haven't said so, but it is clear they see him as a kind of a doofus.
These pundits seem to have inconsistent positions. They will be among the first to say that it is the leaders in the early caucus and primary states who will be in the best position to win as the nomination process rolls out after Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and into South Carolina. If Romney can hold his position in the first three states is momentum will be difficult to stop. Recent polls have shown that Thompson is slipping in ahead of or right behind Giuliani in these states. It appears that Giuliani is slipping in these critical areas and Fred Thompson is making headway as we both predict. I believe that Giuliani will slip away to below Thomson and Romney by the time the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries are held. We both believe that Thompson will be ahead of Romney by then.
The pundits will not acknowledge Thompson's advance in these states-at least on the Sunday talk shows-and seem fixated on their "doofus" template.
I don't believe that our differences are greater than our common differences with the mainstream media. In any event, our differences are not that great. I am merely looking at this from an analytical point of view and have not expressed much of the desire in this exchange about whom I would like to see elected. That is a different matter.
It will be interesting to see whether it plays out as you suggest. Iowa is make or break for Romney. If he loses it, he is done, I believe. And if he loses it, he will likely lose it to Thompson given the very conservative demographics in the Iowa GOP caucus. I do not believe there are enough liberals for Guiliani to sneak in with Romney and Thompson splitting the conservative vote. The way your scenario could play out is if Romney won Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson could derail him in South Carolina and Florida, then finish him off, for all practical purposes, on February 5.
I think the more likely scenarios are these. Thompson wins Iowa, then New Hampshire, in which case it is all over. He doesn’t lose any primaries. As A Fred supporter, this is what I would prefer.
The second scenario also calls for Thompson to win Iowa, but Guiliani wins New Hampshire because a lot of the Independents take Republican ballots and vote for him not in spite of but because of his liberal stands on social issues. Thompson defeats him in South Carolina, then finishes him off in Florida after which Rudy wins a few primaries but the nomination race is effectively over. It will be interesting to see which of these scenarios, or variations of them, actually occurs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.