Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Dropping Like Flies

John Edwards is ending his bid for the presidency.

So will the boys gang up on the girl?

Like it matters anyway.

It's interesting to see though - the Democrats in such a quandary as to who to support - the woman or the black man. Their collective guilt and angst over race and gender is somewhat entertaining to observe.


gary said...

Too bad Condi Rice wouldn't consider running on the Republican side. All the Democrats could assuage their guilt and get a good president to boot.

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...


Honestly, on the democratic side it looks like it will Hillary against Obama. And I hope it's Obama. The further the Clintons are from the white house, the better IMHO.

Looks like for the Republicans, it's shaping up to be McCain and Romhey, as far as the media is concerned. Of the two, I guess I'd rather have McCain--not because of policy, but because he tells the truth as he sees it. And he also respects it when the American people tell him he's wrong. "But" Yoda said...

... "there is another."

He's flying under the media radar.

The Republican campaign might be very interesting in this year when people are getting sick of being lied to.

By the way, I am an independent, so I have no party ax to grind.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully Romney doesn't get in seeing he stated "We test our kids" regarding the state he was in prior to his running for president. He is not for homeschoolers rights.

The King said...

Yes, but I prefer Mitt over McCain on three dozen nationally important issues that impact all of us - taxes, immigration, national security, economic leadership.

Judy Aron said...

Mitt has raised taxes in Massachusetts, will be as tough on immigration as Bush has been (because his business friends will want to continue having access to cheap labor), he'll bankrupt us in this war by continuing the practice of interfering in other countries civil wars, and continue the practice of eroding our liberty "to keep us safe". Good choice that.

The King said...

Judy, again your comments are not true. The Bush administration's policies (or lack of them) on illegal immigration has been the single WORST and most damanging by any GOP President in the history of our Country.

Mitt is on record for turning back the tide on illegal immigration. John McCain is for amnesty. And since this is a two person race (Huckebee is on his way out, and Ron Paul is never going to get the delegate count needed to win), we have to be practical and reasonable and focus on what is in front of us, not in fantasy.

You seem to forget what Massachusett is - the most liberal state in the union. So what was he supposed to do - veto everything that came across his desk? Be real for a minute. He did a darn good job for the kind of madness he had to deal with out of the Mass Legislature.

Judy Aron said...

First off - Romney comes off as being tough on illegal immigration - but has not offered specific plans. What he says he will do and what he does are two different things. He's on the record as saying he'd let the legislators and lawyers come up with specific language, so he's got no real ideas. As to McCain Kennedy - Romney has not said how he'd change that proposal either. He's got to lead on this one King.

While it is true Romney "has made his immigration priorities clear: Secure the borders, implement an employee verification program with a tamper-proof biometric card, and no special pathway towards citizenship for those who broke immigration laws", he hasn't said HOW he'd secure the borders, he hasn't come out and said he'd outright deport illegals and he hasn't said businesses would be severely punished for hiring illegals, on top of that, he is obviously for a National ID card which will not do anything.

Romney did nothing to punish sanctuary cities in his state - that's how tough he is on illegal immigration. All talk and no action is what I see.

If you want to give him a pass because he was a Republican governor in a Liberal state - go ahead.. but yeah - he could veto everything that comes across his desk - and I would expect him to do that as President.

The King said...

Yes, well let's keep in mind that the option of securing borders appears to be off the table from a McCain standpoint. Further, McCain has vowed amnesty to illegals.

If Romney vowed either of these things your argument would have merit. Your point is that his plan isn't clear. Ok. But that beats McCain's stated positions, doesn't it?

I concede that McCain and the Dems sound much alike on this issue. I hope border states make some hey about it. So far they've been mum.

And yes the Mass legislature is much like the Hartford City Council on Immigration - against local authorities helping the Feds determine status. Romney was Governor, not King. You couldn't have expected a great deal from him.

Romney isn't perfect, but I'm selecting from what's out there. And as I've stated before Ron Paul is unelectable particularly due to his stance on National Security. His positions give terrorists hope, much like the Democrats do. Isolation doesn't work. Remember that we were attacked, largely unprovoked. This is the future, I'm afraid.

Judy Aron said...

Yeah, let's vote for the unclear plan - choice behind curtain number two.

Look - if Romney couldn't handle a Democratic controlled Massachusetts legislature - what hope does he have dealing with Congress? Same church different pew.

I disagree - Ron Paul's stance on national security is strong - that is why the military supports him hands down - He wants to use the military as is was intended - not send them to be policemen all around the globe. His position doesn't give terrorists hope at all - it would take away their one reason to get recruits in Iraq and elsewhere, and that reason is that we are meddling in their country's affairs.

You really do not get the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism do you?

You think we were attacked unprovoked? You truly need to look at a time line of what really led to 9-11. Go back a decade or two.

Consider the absurd policies of funding and training and building up Saddam Hussein (and some say even bin Laden). It was only because George H. W. Bush chose to pick a fight with them by lying to Saddam, creating an excuse for us to set up a military foothold in Middle Eastern countries other than Israel, that we have had to fight two Iraq wars, suffer 9/11, and fight this War On Terror.

As we speak we have been funding Musharref in Pakistan, a military dictator who ousted elected officials. How's that for us helping democracy grow elsewhere?

No - King - the time has changed for us to all say "NO More" to interventionist politics - because that is precisely why we are suffering this war today. Romney and McCain will not change that.
I believe we need a Ron Paul to do that, and believe me this is way more about what Ron Paul stands for then about Ron Paul himself.