I'm going to have a problem voting for Romney because of his 2nd Amendment views. Remove that, and one of my prime reasons for voting Republican is gone. Thats why Allen looks better - if you want to carry the south and the west.
You want to carry the south and the west right?
Same goes for Steele and for Rudy.
Posted by: Kahn at October 22, 2006 07:13 PM
Kahn,
Romney is in favor of gun control?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 22, 2006 07:45 PM
Judging from the laws my brother has to suffer in Massachusetts - he must be. This includes, I believe some passed since he's been in office.
I've read where he helped on some laws - but he DID sign an "assault weapons" ban. I beleive that these bans are particularly stupid.
So - I'm inclined to believe he would not be good for my rights. But if I'm wrong, I'd welcome hearing about it.
Posted by: Kahn at October 22, 2006 08:47 PM
Besides telegenic, articulate and black, what has Obama accomplished in government? He has not authored any significant legislation, has never had any executive level experience, or any foreign policy experience. But of course that won't stop the dems.
He better hope there are no skeletons in the closet or the Clinton Machine will do him in.
I'm betting that Clinton makes some kind of deal putting him second on the ticket, by guarunteeing him some high profile assignment as VP and grooming him for President in 2016.
A Hillary/Obama ticket would be hard to beat...
disasterous for the country...but hard to beat.
Posted by: phnxbmed at October 22, 2006 09:05 PM
Kahn,
Just doesn't seem right that a Mormon would be a gun controller...but, then again, it is Massachusetts...might be that he had to trim his gun rights sails from time to time. We'll let Matt clue us in on that as he lives in Massachusetts and has been following Romney's career for a while.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 22, 2006 09:11 PM
Obama was and continues to be, a creation of the MSM. He was just another Illinois State Senator with a lackluster record who got the nomination for the US Senate when the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets got hold of the divorce records of the Democrat Party frontrunner.
Then the MSM was able to get a friendly judge to order the child custody court records of the GOP candidate, Jack Ryan, opened up. There were charges of a nature which I'm not going to bother to repeat, but the Illinois GOP leadership abandoned Ryan before he could make a response, and the Trbune ran with it in bold-face, front-page stories. Ryan was forced to withdraw.
The Illinois GOP then abandoned all pretense of wanting to replace Ryan with a viable candidate from the ranks of the Illinois party, who for the most part were conservative or conservative-leaning. Instead, they imported Alan Keyes, who had no real ties to the state, no real understanding of Illinois issues, and could not connect with the voters.
Obama has marched in lockstep with the liberals in Congress. He supported the attempt to filibuster Alito, and has remaned silent when Durbin made slanderous remarks against the military, and Hillary made her 'plantation' remarks. He has publically supported Robert 'KKK' Byrd, while siding with Dems who claim that Bush's SCOTUS picks were not sensitive enough to minorities.
He has been the face on the Sunday morning shows and has been the 'well-spoken black man' to go to for soundbites.
In 2008, he will have had 4 years of experience as a US Senator. He has no significant legislation to claim as his, no positions that anyone can pin him down on, and no committees that he has gad any major influence over. In short, he is the perfect MSM/Dem 'slealth candidate'.
Posted by: Hermie at October 22, 2006 10:00 PM
So a person who was a little known state senator in a solid blue state, wins the Senate seat over a hapless GOP, and serves a few unremarkable years in the Senate is the next best bet for President in '08? Please.
Posted by: AWW at October 22, 2006 10:01 PM
AWW,
Not for the Presidency - personally, I think that no matter whom the Democrats nominate in 2008, we're gonna beat him like a drum...but if he runs, the Democratic left will have no choice but to nominate him...they've been playing identity politics for so long, they've actually come to believe it. In their minds, it will be a "because Obama is black, he is the best candidate".
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 22, 2006 10:25 PM
Too bad that every each party can't nominate and each person can't vote for the best and most qualified candidates (assuming that they're the same) irrespective of race, gender, etc.
Posted by: Nate at October 22, 2006 11:16 PM
Where does Obama stand on reparations....that will seal the deal for him and there is no way he can win based on that answer...whichever answer he gives.
Posted by: Warriornation at October 22, 2006 11:39 PM
Mark Noonan is uncharacteristically right in his
opinion of Obama, but the Senator won't get the
nomination. Phnxbmed is right- he's too
inexperienced, but would be a good second
ticket on the Hillarymachine.
Hillary has the most skillful politician of the
past quarter century at her side. Also,despite
dogged attempts by the Right-Wingers to denigrate
the Clinton years, there is considerable
nostalgia for those peaceful,prosperous times.
Hillary represents the Clinton years, and I'm
sure that she would exploit that fact.
A Romney/Steele ticket would be ethical & strong.
From a Liberal viewpoint,McCain is too desperate,
an "I'll-do-anything-to win" guy,Rice has been
caught in lies and is barely competent,Blackwell
is an outright crook, and Powell still has some
credibility,even after his disaster at the U.N.
in 2003.In fact, a Romney/Powell ticket would
be,admitedly, a tough one to beat.
Posted by: PukeOrDie at October 23, 2006 12:27 AM
Ever since the first MSM story about Obama being a 'star', I thought that Hillary would choose him as VP because the Clintons have always depended on the black vote to get them through the primaries. If Obama ran for the top spot, Hillary would have no choice but to give him the VP position, since she could not afford to lose one black vote in the general election.
Ironically, the rejection of a black man in favor of a white woman for President, may make a number of black voters angry at the Dem party. Giving Obama the VP slot as a payoff would be another example of making minorities only 2nd class in the Dem power structure.
Powell damaged himself when it was discovered that he knew about Armitage and the Plame 'outing'. His deliberate silence about this faux scandal and the witch hunt that went on for years, makes him untrustworthy.
It would be interesting to see a Rice-Obama debate though.
Posted by: Hermie at October 23, 2006 08:19 AM
Powell has lost much creditability when he withheld information related to Libby’s innocence as Powell knew the person who leaked the Plame information and said NOTHING.
Posted by: DM at October 23, 2006 10:41 AM
While I am a Democrat here, I don't always, in fact sometime never, support those organizations that some attempt to attach to the democratic party. An example is PETA. But nevertheles I will enjoy seeing/hearing PETA get outraged at the republican party after Nov. 7th. Hell, how many crows must die just so all the republicans can eat them. PETA will be in such "state'!!!!!
Posted by: OhioGolfer at October 23, 2006 10:51 AM
Noonan -
"Telegenic, articulate and one of two or three Democratic leaders who aren't hacks and/or lunatics, Barak Obama is about the only hope Democrats have for 2008...The looney left won't actually like Obama because Obama is entirely too sensible to advocate looney left positions."
So are you admitting, Noonan, that being stridently against the war in Iraq is now "sensible." You do know that Obabma was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, even when speaking out against the mindless march to war was not in vogue. Unlike such "looney leftists" as Hillary and Kerry, Barack correctly spoke out against the hasty and disasterous push for war back in 2002. And on the day of the invasion, he attended an anti-war rally in Chicago.
Obama is an intelligent man of principle. I'm glad you recognize that.
Posted by: Aarontime at October 23, 2006 02:30 PM
pnxbmed -
"Besides telegenic, articulate and black, what has Obama accomplished in government? He has not authored any significant legislation, has never had any executive level experience, or any foreign policy experience."
Uh, as opposed the wealth of accomplishments and foreign policy experience the current occupant of the WH had in 2000?
Posted by: Aarontime at October 23, 2006 02:36 PM
Like being elected twice to Governor of Texas - a feat accomplished by no other person in the 20th century?
Posted by: Kahn at October 23, 2006 03:22 PM
Kahn -
"Like being elected twice to Governor of Texas - a feat accomplished by no other person in the 20th century?"
Oh really?
- Dolph Briscoe, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1972. Re-elected 1974.
- Preston Smith, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1968. Re-elected 1972.
- John Connally Jr, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1962. Re-elected 1964. Re-elected again 1966.
- Price Daniel, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1956. Re-elected 1958. Re-elected again 1960.
- Alan Shivers, Democrat, succeeded as Governor of Texas, 1949. Elected 1950. Re-elected Governor 1952. Re-elected again 1954. Re-elected yet again 1956.
Khan - How does this kind of BS get spread? And how come you gulliable nimrods eagerly lap it up, unquestioningly? Maybe you should seek a few other sources of information besides powerline and free republic.
Posted by: Aarontime at October 23, 2006 04:47 PM
I don't know the history of the MA legislation on gun control, but I do have an opinion on the role of the governor of any state, and that is that he is not supposed to try to impose his own views over those of the representatives of the citizens.
Bush got slammed for allowing so many executions in Texas---as if he had the right, much less the authority, to simply override the jury system and the will of the people. That was not his job. If he had substative proof of the innocence of a condemned man, he had the authority and the moral imperative to give the man another chance. But lacking that, he was elected to serve the people of Texas, not to impose his personal views upon them.
And Romney is in the same position. As a Westerner, as a Mormon, he is likely to be a fairly strict Constitutional originalist, which would mean personally supporting the Constitution as written. But unles he was elected to impose his personal views on the populace of MA, I don't see how anyone could object to him signing into law a bill which was desired by the citizens of that state.
Posted by: Almiranta at October 23, 2006 08:59 PM
Mark Noonan,
Sensible post until (arrrgh!) the last sentence, namely the reference to Powell as worthy of consideration. Beyond name recognition, the guy's an empty suit.
Posted by: clark smith at October 23, 2006 10:48 PM
Mark -
Again, I'm glad you consider Obama an extremely sensible guy. Me too. For instance, yesterday he had excellent comments:
""This is the most ideologically driven administration in my memory, so obstinate in resisting facts, dissenting opinions ... [They entered the White House] with a set of preconcieved notions." Obama said. "I think this administration has done great damage to this country."
"I wouldn't fit in with this administration [because I think] actually being informed is a good basis for policy," Obama said to laughter.
Zing! If Obama runs, you guys are in a heap of trouble. But the nation sorely needs him.
Posted by: Aarontime at October 24, 2006 02:39 PM
I am just waiting to see the contorsions of the DEMS and Obama as he ties to reconcile his religious beliefs with the DEM positions on abortion and homosexuality. Its never been an issue in Il. It will be when he gets to the national stage.
In addition I agree that he lives and dies based on his position on reparations. In this case he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Its gonna be fun to watch.
Posted by: phnxbmed at October 25, 2006 08:05 PM
I'm going to have a problem voting for Romney because of his 2nd Amendment views. Remove that, and one of my prime reasons for voting Republican is gone. Thats why Allen looks better - if you want to carry the south and the west.
You want to carry the south and the west right?
Same goes for Steele and for Rudy.
Kahn,
Romney is in favor of gun control?
Judging from the laws my brother has to suffer in Massachusetts - he must be. This includes, I believe some passed since he's been in office.
I've read where he helped on some laws - but he DID sign an "assault weapons" ban. I beleive that these bans are particularly stupid.
So - I'm inclined to believe he would not be good for my rights. But if I'm wrong, I'd welcome hearing about it.
Besides telegenic, articulate and black, what has Obama accomplished in government? He has not authored any significant legislation, has never had any executive level experience, or any foreign policy experience. But of course that won't stop the dems.
He better hope there are no skeletons in the closet or the Clinton Machine will do him in.
I'm betting that Clinton makes some kind of deal putting him second on the ticket, by guarunteeing him some high profile assignment as VP and grooming him for President in 2016.
A Hillary/Obama ticket would be hard to beat...
disasterous for the country...but hard to beat.
Kahn,
Just doesn't seem right that a Mormon would be a gun controller...but, then again, it is Massachusetts...might be that he had to trim his gun rights sails from time to time. We'll let Matt clue us in on that as he lives in Massachusetts and has been following Romney's career for a while.
Obama was and continues to be, a creation of the MSM. He was just another Illinois State Senator with a lackluster record who got the nomination for the US Senate when the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets got hold of the divorce records of the Democrat Party frontrunner.
Then the MSM was able to get a friendly judge to order the child custody court records of the GOP candidate, Jack Ryan, opened up. There were charges of a nature which I'm not going to bother to repeat, but the Illinois GOP leadership abandoned Ryan before he could make a response, and the Trbune ran with it in bold-face, front-page stories. Ryan was forced to withdraw.
The Illinois GOP then abandoned all pretense of wanting to replace Ryan with a viable candidate from the ranks of the Illinois party, who for the most part were conservative or conservative-leaning. Instead, they imported Alan Keyes, who had no real ties to the state, no real understanding of Illinois issues, and could not connect with the voters.
Obama has marched in lockstep with the liberals in Congress. He supported the attempt to filibuster Alito, and has remaned silent when Durbin made slanderous remarks against the military, and Hillary made her 'plantation' remarks. He has publically supported Robert 'KKK' Byrd, while siding with Dems who claim that Bush's SCOTUS picks were not sensitive enough to minorities.
He has been the face on the Sunday morning shows and has been the 'well-spoken black man' to go to for soundbites.
In 2008, he will have had 4 years of experience as a US Senator. He has no significant legislation to claim as his, no positions that anyone can pin him down on, and no committees that he has gad any major influence over. In short, he is the perfect MSM/Dem 'slealth candidate'.
So a person who was a little known state senator in a solid blue state, wins the Senate seat over a hapless GOP, and serves a few unremarkable years in the Senate is the next best bet for President in '08? Please.
AWW,
Not for the Presidency - personally, I think that no matter whom the Democrats nominate in 2008, we're gonna beat him like a drum...but if he runs, the Democratic left will have no choice but to nominate him...they've been playing identity politics for so long, they've actually come to believe it. In their minds, it will be a "because Obama is black, he is the best candidate".
Too bad that every each party can't nominate and each person can't vote for the best and most qualified candidates (assuming that they're the same) irrespective of race, gender, etc.
Where does Obama stand on reparations....that will seal the deal for him and there is no way he can win based on that answer...whichever answer he gives.
Mark Noonan is uncharacteristically right in his
opinion of Obama, but the Senator won't get the
nomination. Phnxbmed is right- he's too
inexperienced, but would be a good second
ticket on the Hillarymachine.
Hillary has the most skillful politician of the
past quarter century at her side. Also,despite
dogged attempts by the Right-Wingers to denigrate
the Clinton years, there is considerable
nostalgia for those peaceful,prosperous times.
Hillary represents the Clinton years, and I'm
sure that she would exploit that fact.
A Romney/Steele ticket would be ethical & strong.
From a Liberal viewpoint,McCain is too desperate,
an "I'll-do-anything-to win" guy,Rice has been
caught in lies and is barely competent,Blackwell
is an outright crook, and Powell still has some
credibility,even after his disaster at the U.N.
in 2003.In fact, a Romney/Powell ticket would
be,admitedly, a tough one to beat.
Ever since the first MSM story about Obama being a 'star', I thought that Hillary would choose him as VP because the Clintons have always depended on the black vote to get them through the primaries. If Obama ran for the top spot, Hillary would have no choice but to give him the VP position, since she could not afford to lose one black vote in the general election.
Ironically, the rejection of a black man in favor of a white woman for President, may make a number of black voters angry at the Dem party. Giving Obama the VP slot as a payoff would be another example of making minorities only 2nd class in the Dem power structure.
Powell damaged himself when it was discovered that he knew about Armitage and the Plame 'outing'. His deliberate silence about this faux scandal and the witch hunt that went on for years, makes him untrustworthy.
It would be interesting to see a Rice-Obama debate though.
Powell has lost much creditability when he withheld information related to Libby’s innocence as Powell knew the person who leaked the Plame information and said NOTHING.
While I am a Democrat here, I don't always, in fact sometime never, support those organizations that some attempt to attach to the democratic party. An example is PETA. But nevertheles I will enjoy seeing/hearing PETA get outraged at the republican party after Nov. 7th. Hell, how many crows must die just so all the republicans can eat them. PETA will be in such "state'!!!!!
Noonan -
"Telegenic, articulate and one of two or three Democratic leaders who aren't hacks and/or lunatics, Barak Obama is about the only hope Democrats have for 2008...The looney left won't actually like Obama because Obama is entirely too sensible to advocate looney left positions."
So are you admitting, Noonan, that being stridently against the war in Iraq is now "sensible." You do know that Obabma was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, even when speaking out against the mindless march to war was not in vogue. Unlike such "looney leftists" as Hillary and Kerry, Barack correctly spoke out against the hasty and disasterous push for war back in 2002. And on the day of the invasion, he attended an anti-war rally in Chicago.
Obama is an intelligent man of principle. I'm glad you recognize that.
pnxbmed -
"Besides telegenic, articulate and black, what has Obama accomplished in government? He has not authored any significant legislation, has never had any executive level experience, or any foreign policy experience."
Uh, as opposed the wealth of accomplishments and foreign policy experience the current occupant of the WH had in 2000?
Like being elected twice to Governor of Texas - a feat accomplished by no other person in the 20th century?
Kahn -
"Like being elected twice to Governor of Texas - a feat accomplished by no other person in the 20th century?"
Oh really?
- Dolph Briscoe, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1972. Re-elected 1974.
- Preston Smith, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1968. Re-elected 1972.
- John Connally Jr, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1962. Re-elected 1964. Re-elected again 1966.
- Price Daniel, Democrat, elected Governor of Texas 1956. Re-elected 1958. Re-elected again 1960.
- Alan Shivers, Democrat, succeeded as Governor of Texas, 1949. Elected 1950. Re-elected Governor 1952. Re-elected again 1954. Re-elected yet again 1956.
Khan - How does this kind of BS get spread? And how come you gulliable nimrods eagerly lap it up, unquestioningly? Maybe you should seek a few other sources of information besides powerline and free republic.
I don't know the history of the MA legislation on gun control, but I do have an opinion on the role of the governor of any state, and that is that he is not supposed to try to impose his own views over those of the representatives of the citizens.
Bush got slammed for allowing so many executions in Texas---as if he had the right, much less the authority, to simply override the jury system and the will of the people. That was not his job. If he had substative proof of the innocence of a condemned man, he had the authority and the moral imperative to give the man another chance. But lacking that, he was elected to serve the people of Texas, not to impose his personal views upon them.
And Romney is in the same position. As a Westerner, as a Mormon, he is likely to be a fairly strict Constitutional originalist, which would mean personally supporting the Constitution as written. But unles he was elected to impose his personal views on the populace of MA, I don't see how anyone could object to him signing into law a bill which was desired by the citizens of that state.
Mark Noonan,
Sensible post until (arrrgh!) the last sentence, namely the reference to Powell as worthy of consideration. Beyond name recognition, the guy's an empty suit.
Mark -
Again, I'm glad you consider Obama an extremely sensible guy. Me too. For instance, yesterday he had excellent comments:
Zing! If Obama runs, you guys are in a heap of trouble. But the nation sorely needs him.
I am just waiting to see the contorsions of the DEMS and Obama as he ties to reconcile his religious beliefs with the DEM positions on abortion and homosexuality. Its never been an issue in Il. It will be when he gets to the national stage.
In addition I agree that he lives and dies based on his position on reparations. In this case he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Its gonna be fun to watch.