The 2008 Democratic and Republican Primaries [Archive] - Page 6

hippie_hunter

01-26-2008, 03:53 PM

McCain gets support from Florida politicians:

MIAMI - Florida Sen. Mel Martinez endorsed John McCain on Friday, a move likely to give the Republican presidential candidate a crucial boost with the state’s Cuban-Americans just days before the primary.

“I understand that he is ready on Day One to lead this nation, and I would trust the future and the security of this nation to this man,” Martinez said in his introduction of McCain at the Latin Builders Association.

He added: “I would not endorse someone that I didn’t have total confidence is going to be (Fidel) Castro’s worst nightmare,” repeating the sentence in Spanish.

The decision is a blow to Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor in a close fight with McCain for support of voters in the Cuban-American community — and to keep his candidacy alive. It also is a setback for Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor in a close race against McCain.

Martinez, a Republican who was born in Cuba, emigrated to the United States as a teenager and is popular in Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood. It remains to be seen whether Martinez’ endorsement will translate into votes given that a significant percentage of voters already have cast absentee and early ballots — many before Giuliani’s drop and McCain’s ascent in the state.

But the backing of Florida’s junior senator may help McCain, nonetheless, in huge population centers of Miami, where many Cuban-Americans live, and Martinez’ hometown of Orlando.

Florida’s primary is Tuesday, and polls show McCain in a close race with Romney while Giuliani trails in his must-win state.

Martinez and the four-term Arizona senator are longtime friends who worked closely together on among other issues, a bill that would have created an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

As recently as Thursday night, Martinez indicated he would remain neutral in the race despite his friendship with McCain. He decided to endorse the Arizona senator Friday morning after conversations with several McCain supporters and his wife, officials say. The move surprised even his closest advisers.

He plans to spend the three days before the primary campaigning for McCain.

Martinez is a first-term senator who served as President Bush’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 2001 until 2003. Last October, he stepped down as the general chairman of the Republican National Committee after serving only 10 months.

Martinez, who is up for re-election in 2010, said he was relinquishing the job to spend more time focusing on his Florida constituents. He also said the RNC had achieved the objective he set when he assumed the job. A Quinnipiac University poll in October showed that Martinez only had 35 percent approval rating, and only 48 percent among Republicans.

His role with the national Republican Party likely hurt him with Democrats and independents, while his push for an immigration bill probably undercut his support among some Republicans.

Three members of Miami-area members of Congress — Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen — previously have given McCain their support.

Movies205

01-26-2008, 05:59 PM

Here's hoping Edwards wins :yay:

souvlaki

01-26-2008, 06:06 PM

Wow, that was a fast projection. Obama declared winner by CNN literally the second the polls closed.

Anguissette1979

01-26-2008, 06:23 PM

How the heck does that work? There are 0% reporting???

souvlaki

01-26-2008, 06:26 PM

How the heck does that work? There are 0% reporting???

Exit polls. I'm assuming that Obama had a large enough lead that they felt comfortable making that call. I'm guessing this means Obama won by at least a 10% margin.

rdh007

01-26-2008, 06:40 PM

For Florida voters from crooksandliars.com:

McCain: “If we do what Senator Clinton said that she wanted to do night before last, and that’s wave the white flag of surrender and set a date for withdrawal, then we will have expenses, my friends, in American blood and treasure, because Al Qaida will then have won.”

Yet, when we had a Democrat in the White House McCain repeatedly argued for bringing the troops home regardless of the consequences:

1994 — “The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn’t mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn’t mean as soon as we’ve established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives.”

1993 — “Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What’s the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don’t do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible.”

There you have it. McCain’s newfound surrender-phobia is a partisan fabrication, or else it’s time to question his sanity, or possibly both.

cookiva

01-26-2008, 07:21 PM

Its not just him though. I have been screaming about this in all of my government/ politics courses. All republicans in the white house in the mid 90's wanted immediate withdrawal from Somalia and Bosnia. All of them. Now that they started this war, they want us to stay in no matter what. Its ridiculous.

souvlaki

01-26-2008, 07:23 PM

If I didn't know better I would swear Bill Clinton is giving a concession speech for South Carolina right now in place of Hillary (he's giving a speech on CNN right now conceding South Carolina). I like Bill, he was a great president, but what the hell? He is not running for president, why is he making this speech and not his wife? It's stuff like this that really grates on my nerves, and lowers my opinion of Hillary. I feel like no matter what she says to the contrary we are voting for her husband.

Anguissette1979

01-26-2008, 07:26 PM

This election scares me... :(

hippie_hunter

01-26-2008, 07:32 PM

McCain gets another prominent Florida endorsement:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist endorsed Sen. John McCain Saturday in his bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

"We have a lot of great people who are running for president this year who would all do well," Crist said at a dinner in Saint Petersburg, Florida with McCain.

"I don't think anybody would do better than the man who stands next to me, Sen. John McCain; that's an endorsement."

Florida voters go to the polls to cast their ballots for the Republican nomination on Tuesday.

Venom'sDad

01-26-2008, 07:56 PM

^^^ ...and you just now figuring that out. :rolleyes:

Arkady Rossovich

01-26-2008, 08:02 PM

Obama won.

Argyle of Sock

01-26-2008, 08:10 PM

So far 93% of precincts have reported:

Obama 55% (13 Delegates)
Clinton 27% (4 Delegates)
Edwards 18% (4 Delegates)

hippie_hunter

01-26-2008, 08:14 PM

No surprise there, this was expected. He still won't win the nomination. Hillary still holds comfortable leads in the polls in states such as California (370 delegates), New York (281), New Jersey (107), Massachusetts (93), etc.

Malice

01-26-2008, 08:19 PM

hippie_hunter

01-26-2008, 08:26 PM

Polls have turned out quite inneffective in many states

True but these are states with polls where Clinton has turned up in the lead of over 15% - 20%. More than Obama's less than 10% lead in New Hampshire. That's a rather comfortable lead plus they're states of the Democratic establishment, it's sorta expected for Clinton to win there anyways.

rdh007

01-26-2008, 08:27 PM

New Hampshire to start with. Plus momentum coming out of SC leaves this race, errrr, contest, still open.

rdh007

01-26-2008, 08:28 PM

True but these are states with polls where Clinton has turned up in the lead of over 15% - 20%. More than Obama's less than 10% lead in New Hampshire. That's a rather comfortable lead plus they're states of the Democratic establishment, it's sorta expected for Clinton to win there anyways.
I believe his lead was believed to be as high as 16-17%, but I could be wrong. It's happened once before.

hippie_hunter

01-26-2008, 08:32 PM

I believe his lead was believed to be as high as 16-17%, but I could be wrong. It's happened once before.
No on average it was less than 10. The highest poll I saw was 13%. Obama's RCP average was 38.3% to Clinton's 30%.

Ghostvirus

01-26-2008, 08:33 PM

So Obamanator takes South Carolina.:up:

The Senator

01-26-2008, 08:35 PM

On to New York, New Jersey, California, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Minnesota! (and all those other states, I guess)

hippie_hunter

01-26-2008, 08:39 PM

New Hampshire to start with. Plus momentum coming out of SC leaves this race, errrr, contest, still open.

Iowa gave Obama such great momentum that he lost the next two contests that he won in. Sure he'll win some Super Tuesday states like Illinois and Georgia but Clinton will win the large majority of Super Tuesday delegates and very likely seal her nomination.

The Senator

01-26-2008, 08:44 PM

New Hampshire to start with. Plus momentum coming out of SC leaves this race, errrr, contest, still open.

Certainly, he'll have momentum.

But what happens when a moving object slams into a concrete wall?

It loses its momentum.

Consider February 5th the Hoover Dam, and Obama as a fly moving at 500 miles per hour.

Matt

01-26-2008, 08:45 PM

Iowa gave Obama such great momentum that he lost the next two contests that he won in. Sure he'll win some Super Tuesday states like Illinois and Georgia but Clinton will win the large majority of Super Tuesday delegates and very likely seal her nomination.

Agreed. I imagine Obama will be conceding following Super Tuesday.

Kelly

01-26-2008, 08:46 PM

Well, Republicans sure as hell hope Hillary wins......lol

rdh007

01-26-2008, 08:56 PM

Well, Republicans sure as hell hope Hillary wins......lol
QFT.

I can't wait for Pastor Chuckleberry's swearing in. Will he bring a snake?

or

Will Romney win and fill the stage with his wives and the Osmonds?

or

Will McCain need a nap halfway through the ceremony? Will he live that long?

Matt

01-26-2008, 09:01 PM

I think the RNC no doubt wants McCain to win this election. He is the easiest to keep on a leash. 8 years ago, they would've hated the prospect...but he has in essence become their lap dog.

StorminNorman

01-26-2008, 09:06 PM

McCain gets another prominent Florida endorsement:

Crist has no sway with voters.

hippie_hunter

01-26-2008, 09:25 PM

Christ has no sway with voters.

Someone who has a 60% approval rating and is from what I read a "popular governor" is bound to have some sway. And the media has been stating that this will be important due to the endorsement will be on the front page of Florida newspapers.

And with a race this close both Romney and McCain are going to need as many Florida endorsements and coverage and advertising and pretty much everything as much as possible.

rdh007

01-26-2008, 10:09 PM

I think the RNC no doubt wants McCain to win this election. He is the easiest to keep on a leash. 8 years ago, they would've hated the prospect...but he has in essence become their lap dog.
Which is why he's changed. He knew what he had to do to get the nom in '08.

This is also the reason I'd place him behind Romney and probably Giuliani.

cookiva

01-27-2008, 12:30 AM

Which is why he's changed. He knew what he had to do to get the nom in '08.

This is also the reason I'd place him behind Romney and probably Giuliani.

True. I can't honestly stand any of the nominees for the republican side. I'm sorry guys, but I don't see how this country will improve with any of their candidates at the helm. Granted, I'm not too fond of the democrats either.

The Professor

01-27-2008, 12:35 AM

I think McCain will get it with Romney in a close second. The amount of retired military/veterans in Florida combined with his recent success seems to be his formula for victory in our Sunshine State.

However, Romney definitely stood out during the debate. That will benefit him, and perhaps he can dethrone McCain.

It'll be close.

SuperT

01-27-2008, 09:48 AM

Having Hillary as the nomination for the Dem's is only ensuring that we have four mores years of Republican rule! :(

She is just too polarizing and divisive not just among her own party but amongst Republicans as well, and to be president you have to be able to work with them as well.

Not to mention she can't even run her own presidential campaign w/o Bill sniping his nose in everywhere. And their campaign tactics throughout this thing have been absolutely DEPLORABLE! I wish Edwards would just concede already and back Obama so we can take down the Hillmonster.

Matt

01-27-2008, 10:09 AM

The Senator

01-27-2008, 12:40 PM

Having Hillary as the nomination for the Dem's is only ensuring that we have four mores years of Republican rule! :(

And that's why polls from individual states show her beating both Mitt Romney and John McCain in crucial swing states, right? Because she's going to lose?

She wins all of the Kerry states, minus New Hampshire. She also wins Missouri, Iowa and Arkansas against both McCain and Romney. Those states alone secure her a win. She also has less-than-comfortable leads in New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. If Evan Bayh is her running mate, she has a good chance of carrying Indiana, too.

And I'm not talking about a 35-34% match up, either. Both candidates are in the mid-to-high 40% range. That means that 5% of the voters are undecided. They know who Clinton, Romney and McCain are.

On the other hand... Obama loses Missouri and Arkansas. He loses Ohio to McCain, and both McCain and Romney edge him out in Virginia. The only extra state he manages to win is Iowa, and that's only 7 electoral votes, hence not enough to win the Presidency.

Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will have a good chance at winning the Presidency. Regardless of who it is, though, they'll have to put up a good fight.

SuperT

01-27-2008, 12:48 PM

When will people learn that you can't rely on polls?! They are useless. The American public are fickle bunch unfortunately that can change on the drop of hat.

If Hillbilly gets the nomination, the Repubs are gonna have a field day with her.

Excel

01-27-2008, 12:49 PM

And that's why polls from individual states show her beating both Mitt Romney and John McCain in crucial swing states, right? Because she's going to lose?

She wins all of the Kerry states, minus New Hampshire. She also wins Missouri, Iowa and Arkansas against both McCain and Romney. Those states alone secure her a win. She also has less-than-comfortable leads in New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. If Evan Bayh is her running mate, she has a good chance of carrying Indiana, too.

And I'm not talking about a 35-34% match up, either. Both candidates are in the mid-to-high 40% range. That means that 5% of the voters are undecided. They know who Clinton, Romney and McCain are.

On the other hand... Obama loses Missouri and Arkansas. He loses Ohio to McCain, and both McCain and Romney edge him out in Virginia. The only extra state he manages to win is Iowa, and that's only 7 electoral votes, hence not enough to win the Presidency.

Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will have a good chance at winning the Presidency. Regardless of who it is, though, they'll have to put up a good fight.

YES.

Her support will not get any bigger than it is right now, nomination or not.

The Senator

01-27-2008, 01:05 PM

YES.

Her support will not get any bigger than it is right now, nomination or not.

How will Obama's support get any bigger?

Are you talking about all those college kids who will go vote for him on election day? You know, the ones who didn't vote for him in New Hampshire and barely voted for him in Iowa?

Or are you talking about the dissatisfied Republicans? Because they're going to jump ship and vote for an ultra-liberal Senator with no real record on any of the issues they're concerned with?

Or are you talking about all the independents-- you know, the ones who didn't vote for Obama in New Hampshire? Or the independents who are typically divided right down the middle, no matter who the candidates are?

Obama's support isn't going to get any bigger than it is now. He has arguably overshadowed Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign. Those who are opposed to her candidacy have already shown their support for him. And according to an opinion poll released by Rasmussen last week, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the same undecided margin (4%) among ALL voters.

Also, if Obama or Hillary are up against McCain, the democrats had better forget any chances of winning the election altogether. Polls released this week show McCain trouncing both candidates in Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico (Similarly, if Romney is the nominee, Hillary Clinton apparently wins Kansas by eight points).

So, as you can see, support for both candidates will undoubtedly waiver depending upon who the Republican nominee is. Romney apparently adds voters to both Democrats' columns; McCain apparently subtracts voters from both Democrats' columns.

A Hillary or an Obama win depends on the Republican they face.

hippie_hunter

01-27-2008, 02:29 PM

How will Obama's support get any bigger?

Are you talking about all those college kids who will go vote for him on election day? You know, the ones who didn't vote for him in New Hampshire and barely voted for him in Iowa?

Or are you talking about the dissatisfied Republicans? Because they're going to jump ship and vote for an ultra-liberal Senator with no real record on any of the issues they're concerned with?

Or are you talking about all the independents-- you know, the ones who didn't vote for Obama in New Hampshire? Or the independents who are typically divided right down the middle, no matter who the candidates are?

Obama's support isn't going to get any bigger than it is now. He has arguably overshadowed Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign. Those who are opposed to her candidacy have already shown their support for him. And according to an opinion poll released by Rasmussen last week, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the same undecided margin (4%) among ALL voters.

Also, if Obama or Hillary are up against McCain, the democrats had better forget any chances of winning the election altogether. Polls released this week show McCain trouncing both candidates in Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico (Similarly, if Romney is the nominee, Hillary Clinton apparently wins Kansas by eight points).

So, as you can see, support for both candidates will undoubtedly waiver depending upon who the Republican nominee is. Romney apparently adds voters to both Democrats' columns; McCain apparently subtracts voters from both Democrats' columns.

A Hillary or an Obama win depends on the Republican they face.

McCain getting the nomination will be a bigger nightmare for Clinton than Obama. At least Obama can still do his change and hope motif if he got the nomination.

Clinton will absolutely have to drop her "experience" platform because McCain has 14 years more experience than her in the Senate. 10 more years than her in national politics in office. And has been involved with Washington politics in general since 1977. Plus he's served his country since 1958.

Iraq will most likely blow up in her face too since Clinton voted for it, defended her vote, and apparently opposes it. McCain supports it, but he opposed the way it was run under Rumsfeld and some successes in the surge will probably give him help to his campaign too.

The only people who will vote for Clinton will be mainstream Democrats. McCain will have the Republicans (the party as a whole will fearmonger those that hate McCain into voting for him and not running a third party by telling them that if McCain loses, we'll have another Clinton Presidency), the majority of independents, and several open-minded Democrats.

And he's a war hero to boot, he was almost killed in Vietnam, he has a Purple Heart from injuries that weren't inflicted upon himself (like a certain candidate from the last election), a POW who still suffers from the injuries inflicted upon him from his time as a prisoner.

And McCain is relatively cleaner than Clinton. McCain just has the Keating Five scandal which he got off rather clean. Clinton has to deal with the more recent Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, plus her husbands scandals in which she had no involvement in (Monica Lewinski and the pardons).

StorminNorman

01-27-2008, 03:37 PM

Its not going to come down to debates. Florida will be decided by senior citizens. And that means, essentially whoever is freshest in their mind is who they will vote for. That is why these polls are fluxuating so much. Whoever makes the best 11th hour push, will win.

This, of course, is to Romney's benefit given the fact that he has heads and tails the most money. He is the candidate in the best position to flood the media.

Kelly

01-27-2008, 04:33 PM

McCain is a nightmare for any of the Democratic candidates, but YES definitely more for Hillary.

Republicans around the country are praying that Hillary wins the nomination....lol

hippie_hunter

01-27-2008, 08:03 PM

This, of course, is to Romney's benefit given the fact that he has heads and tails the most money. He is the candidate in the best position to flood the media.

We've all seen Romney's money be put to good use in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney lost by a decent margin to a no name guy whom he overspent 20-1. And to a guy who's campaign was previously in shambles and had horrible money problems.

It's going to be down to money (Romney has the advantage), endorsements (McCain's advantage due to Martinez and Christ), the debates (Romney comes off better in the debate), impressions from the media (McCain is treated more favorably than Romney), flooding the media with advertisements (Romney has more money he can afford the better advertisements), and the people who actually go out and vote.

And here are some more recent Florida polls:

Rasmussen
Romney - 33%
McCain - 27%
Giuliani - 18%

Insider Advantage
Romney - 25%
McCain - 25%
Giuliani - 17%
Huckabee - 17%

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby
Romney - 30%
McCain - 30%
Huckabee - 14%
Giuliani - 13%

RCP Average
Romney - 27%
McCain - 26.9%
Giuliani -17.3%

Arkady Rossovich

01-27-2008, 08:45 PM

Giuliani will not have a campaign if he gets anything lower than first place.

I agree with that. He left the other states and immediately went to Florida,it's like saying "i don't care about those states. I'll focus here and jump along.",i think he should loose. Go to every state,and speak to the people.

hippie_hunter

01-27-2008, 09:03 PM

I'd agree he does deserve to lose for his stupid ass strategy of ignoring all the states except for Florida.

The Senator

01-27-2008, 09:07 PM

It's incredibly foolish that he decided to go for the big states, considering he was leading in New Hampshire until three weeks before the primary. Had he stayed in New Hampshire and actively campaigned there, he could have pulled of a second or third place finish, which would make him relevant everywhere else. But because he disappeared for a month, and the party has two frontrunners vying for the nomination, he screwed himself over.

But of course, he won't get out on Tuesday, because he probably still thinks he has a chance in California and New York-- where he's down by ten points in both states for a third-place finish.

His campaign, right along with Fred Thompson's, will go down as the worst campaign in the past fifty years of Presidential elections.

StorminNorman

01-27-2008, 10:13 PM

We've all seen Romney's money be put to good use in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney lost by a decent margin to a no name guy whom he overspent 20-1. And to a guy who's campaign was previously in shambles and had horrible money problems.

McCain wouldn't of won New Hampshire if it was a closed primary. :(

Rasmon Redux

01-27-2008, 10:36 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kn3w3W1dGy4

StorminNorman

01-27-2008, 11:35 PM

McCain is a nightmare for any of the Democratic candidates, but YES definitely more for Hillary.

Republicans around the country are praying that Hillary wins the nomination....lol

McCain appeals to the Indepedents - but he won't be able to rally and unite the GOP.

McCain is Bob Dole with less energy and more skeletons.

hippie_hunter

01-27-2008, 11:38 PM

McCain wouldn't of won New Hampshire if it was a closed primary. :(
True, but have you considered that Romney is just a horrible candidate :oldrazz:

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 12:23 AM

McCain appeals to the Indepedents - but he won't be able to rally and unite the GOP.

McCain is Bob Dole with less energy and more skeletons.

The GOP would likely fearmonger their followers into voting for McCain by telling them that they would be responsible for putting Hillary in office if they don't vote or sponsor a legitimate third party candidate.

If Clinton got the nomination, his skeletons really won't matter. The Clintons are filled with them.

Also independents and moderates form the majority of the voting populace.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 12:40 AM

Two well-timed endorsements could make the difference for Sen. John McCain prior to Tuesday's pivotal Florida primary.

With Florida Sen. Mel Martinez and Gov. Charlie Crist throwing him their support, the Arizona senator might be able to drive local coverage in the final hours and obscure the economic message rival Mitt Romney used to dominate last week.

A victory in the Republican-only Sunshine State primary would cement McCain's status as the GOP front-runner and put him in a commanding position to wrap up his party's nomination on Super Tuesday.

The late support for McCain sets up a contest that will pit momentum versus organization.

With Crist and Martinez on board, McCain seems to hold the hot hand.

But his organization here, basically nonexistent after his campaign implosion last summer, pales in comparison to Romney's well-tended grassroots operation, one set up by backers of former Gov. Jeb Bush.

Despite the 11th-hour moves by Crist and Martinez, Bush reiterated in an e-mail to Politico that he intends to stay on the sidelines.

"I really think that the Republican voters have a good grasp on who to support," he wrote.

"I committed to be neutral and intend to keep my word."

Martinez's endorsement of McCain had been rumored for a week when he announced it at a Latino business event in Miami on Friday.

But Crist's surprise decision Saturday night to wade into the race has game-changing potential.

McCain and his aides knew that the popular governor — his approval ratings are about 60 percent — would attend a St. Petersburg GOP dinner where the candidate was scheduled to speak.

And McCain campaign manager Rick Davis had assiduously lobbied the governor and his staff in recent days.

But until Crist aides informed the campaign that the governor wanted to meet with McCain in his hotel suite minutes before the event, they didn't know he would receive Crist's support from the dais downstairs in the ballroom.

National cable news stations were in full campaign coverage mode because of the Democratic primary in South Carolina.

So when Crist announced his support to a beaming McCain before a ballroom full of reporters, the endorsement went national and also dominated the local 11 o'clock news.

The news came too late to receive prominent play in the Sunday papers here, but, to ensure top play on Sunday night broadcasts and in Monday's papers, McCain and Crist visited a downtown diner here this morning in a made-for-media appearance, where they were met by over a dozen reporters and nearly as many cameras.

The Martinez and Crist one-two punch apparently was not an accident. Talking to reporters after the diner hit, Crist acknowledged he had talked to Martinez.

"We did discuss it," Crist said. "Sen. Martinez is a very dear friend. And I endorsed him and he endorsed me in our respective primaries."

Sources close to Crist say that before Martinez got behind McCain on Friday, the senator called the governor on his cell phone to share his plans.

And Crist said Sunday morning that he returned the favor by sharing with Martinez his own plans to endorse yesterday.

Paired together, Crist said he hopes the endorsements have "a compounding effect" for McCain.

Members of his own party sometimes view McCain with suspicion, so the high-profile endorsements could reassure Florida Republicans — who alone can participate in Tuesday's closed primary.

"McCain's biggest problem is doubts among conservatives and the party establishment about whether he really is, 'one of us,'" said political analyst Charlie Cook.

"Having two of the biggest establishment figures in the state laying their hands upon him—that's pretty good."

The impact of Martinez's endorsement will likely be felt in central Florida—he is an Orlando native—and among his fellow Cuban Americans in Miami-Dade County.

The heavily Republican exile community will likely comprise about 10 percent of the statewide GOP vote.

Picking up Crist, though, may seal it for McCain.

Although his approval ratings have slipped from last year's stratospheric levels, Crist remains popular.

"Gov. Crist is the big one," said University of South Florida political science professor Susan MacManus.

David Johnson, a former state GOP executive director who is unaligned in the race, said much the same.

"Charlie's endorsement could really make a difference in a race like this, where all the public polls show a coin toss right now."

With visions of a vice presidential nomination clearly part of the calculus, Crist's allies played up the governor's king-making role.

"The race was fluid up until Crist got in," said Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer of the man who tapped him to lead the party.

"Gov Crist's endorsement is going to play a major role in who wins nomination. He's going to be viewed as a national leader."

Crist, who repeatedly dodged and did nothing to dissuade questions about his vice presidential aspirations, appeared on national cable news shows Saturday night from the St. Petersburg event and did satellite interviews with all three major cable networks Sunday morning in Tampa.

He's also recording a series of automated calls for McCain to blast out to Floridians tomorrow and Tuesday.

He will join the candidate on the trail Monday.

It may be too late for Crist to cut a TV spot, but radio remains a possibility.

For the McCain team, the 1lth-hour decision by Crist culminates a courting process that began in the spring of 2006.

That was when McCain initially met with Crist, who was then locked in a fierce gubernatorial primary battle.

At the prodding of McCain's former chief strategist John Weaver, the senator waded into the intra-party contest later that year. "We endorsed him when nobody else [nationally] did," Weaver recalled.

And McCain didn't just endorse Crist on paper.

He stumped in Florida before the September primary and lent his name and image to a direct mail piece.

After Crist won the nomination, McCain again returned to the state to help.

On the Monday before the general election that year, the two barnstormed together — much to the consternation of President Bush and Gov. Jeb Bush, who held a Panhandle rally with the GOP's gubernatorial nominee conspicuously absent.

Now, with Martinez and Crist taking sides, only the former governor remains neutral among Republicans with the potential to significantly influence the primary.

For their part, McCain's rivals downplayed the Martinez and Crist endorsements.

"I don't think people make their decision based on any one endorsement," said Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

"They make their decision based on the issues."

As head of the Republican Governors Association in 2006, Romney gave the go-ahead for the RGA to contribute $1 million to the Florida GOP at a pivotal moment in Crist’s gubernatorial campaign.
But Crist's move must have stung even more for Giuliani.

His aides were hopeful and even expectant in recent months that the former New York City mayor would win the governor's backing.

"It is kind of surprising, frankly, considering the governor has said the [national catastrophic fund] was his top priority and Rudy is the only candidate who supports it," said a top Giuliani aide.

McCain has opposed the federal insurance backstop for hurricane-threatened Floridians.

Other Florida observers, partisan and neutral, point out that Martinez and Crist's approval ratings among core conservatives has slipped in recent months.

And some suggested that, by backing McCain, Crist was hoping for a fallback victory should the high-profile property tax amendment he has pushed not get the required 60 percent of the vote on Tuesday.

Still, as top McCain adviser Mark Salter points out, both Romney and Giuliani would gladly trade places with their rival.

"Every candidate in this race down here would've loved, loved, loved to have gotten that endorsement last night."

Matt

01-28-2008, 08:47 AM

At anyrate...I could see a Clinton vs McCain scenario getting incredibly dirty.

YsoSerious

01-28-2008, 08:51 AM

Hillary's fading fast. It's almost as if Bill wants her to lose so the divorce can be sooner.

Rated-X

01-28-2008, 10:17 AM

Unfortunately, I’ve seen it all before.
That picture of the seething, red-faced former president of the United States shaking his finger at members of the press who dare to question his wife’s slimy campaign tactics, is all too familiar to those who have worked closely with him in the past.

Like Janus, the two-faced Roman god, there are always been two distinct personalities in Bill Clinton. That charming, smiling gentleman seen in public is too often eclipsed in private by his negative twin evidenced in the eruption of a furious, unexpected, and uncontrollable rage, often accompanied by loud cursing and occasionally, even physical violence. It’s not a pretty picture.

I’ve been at the other end of that anger too many times and I was always amazed at the suddenness and intensity of his fury.
Early one Sunday morning, he woke me up at my Connecticut home screaming into the phone, “have you seen the Washington Post?” Blearily, I said no that I wasn’t in Washington (it was in the pre-Internet days). Apparently, the paper’s lead article had our poll and focus group questions about his character and image.

“Who did you tell?” “Who did you tell?” he shrieked. I assured him that I never spoke to the press. “Well, who DID you speak to?” he screeched.
“I only spoke to George [Stephanopopous] and Rahm [Emmanuel],” (his two closest aides). That set him off even more. He yelled even louder: “You ONLY told George and Rahm! You ONLY told George and Rahm! Why didn’t you just send out a f-ing press release. Don’t you understand that you can’t tell those two anything that you don’t want to see on the front page of the Washington Post? They leak everything!

He kept screaming about how he couldn’t keep anything confidential because everyone who worked for him leaked. Then he slammed the phone down. I was shaken. The phone conversation recalled an even more difficult encounter with his temper.

Many years earlier, in 1990, he seriously overstepped his boundaries with me during one of his blind rages and permanently changed our relationship.
It was during his last gubernatorial race and he was falling behind in the polls. When we met at the governor’s mansion, it was close to midnight. Hillary and Gloria Cabe, his campaign manager at the time, were at the meeting with Bill and me. I had left Connecticut after oral surgery that morning to arrive in time for a 6 p.m. meeting. My mouth was killing me, but I avoided taking any pain killers to be alert for the strategy session.

The meeting was changed several times because Bill had decided to do the Nightline Show. He finally arrived back to the mansion in a foul mood. Even though he was a teetotaler, I wondered if he had been drinking.
When he learned of his decline in the polls, he immediately blamed me, accusing me of spending too much time with other clients. Yelling and screaming, he escalated his charges, refusing to listen to me tell him that his latest ad had not been on television yet when the poll was completed. He kept ranting.

Finally, I had enough. I stood up and said I was leaving, quitting the campaign. I grabbed my coat and headed out of the mansion. As I crossed the foyer, I suddenly fell to the ground, tackled by Bill Clinton. I saw his large fist coming at me. Hillary was trying to get between us, yelling “Bill, Bill, stop it. Think about what you are doing. Bill, stop it!” Bill got up and I walked out the door. Hillary ran after me. She tried to calm me and asked me to walk around the grounds of the Mansion with her. “He only does this to people he loves,” she told me. (I’ll leave that one for the psychologists.)

When the story appeared in the media in 1992 , probably leaked by a fellow political consultant I had confided in that night, I called Hillary to warn her that the press was on to the fight. Her advice: Deny that it ever happened. I never did that, but I refused to comment.

Years later, when I was writing my book, Behind the Oval Office, I sent the galleys to Bill. He marked up a few areas where he had questions or comments. Then he called me and said “I never did actually hit you.” He asked me to change the text and tone down the story. At the request of the president of the United States, I did.

After that Sunday morning phone conversation about the Washington Post story, I wrote the president a letter telling him how upsetting I found his tantrums and saying that I couldn’t work with him any longer if that’s the way it was going to be. He seemed shocked that his volcanic outbursts caused personal pain. But he knew that I was serious and wrote me a nice note apologizing and the outbursts ceased.

Until, during the 1996 Republican convention, I called him in Wyoming, where he was on vacation. That was never his happiest time, and apparently, he was upset because his favorite golf driver, given him by the King of Morocco, had broken. (He once told me it took seven strokes off his game). He started screaming at me that he was on vacation and did not want to talk about the convention. Again, he was so loud that Eileen heard him across the room.

I hung up on him and went to sleep. A half hour later, Eileen answered a midnight call. A voice told her that the president of the United States was calling for Dick Morris. She told the caller that I was sleeping. Two minutes later, the phone rang again. “Miss, this is a call from the president of the United States.” Again, she told the caller that I was asleep. “The president wants to speak to Mr. Morris right now, please.” “I’m sorry, tell the president that he’s not available right now.” When the phone rang again a few minutes later, it woke me up. It was the president, calling to apologize and to talk about the convention.

Most of Bill’s tantrums were behind closed doors. But during Hillary’s presidential campaign, we’ve seen the real Bill boiling with rage.
But don’t think that he can’t stage blowing his top when he thinks it will be strategically useful. If you have any doubts, just remember another red-faced finger-pointing performance when he said “I want to say something to the American people. I want you to listen. I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

Bill’s tantrums are causing the press to focus on him and not Hillary. That’s what he wants. No more questions about her experience, her ethics, her flip-flops. Now it's all about Bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/bill_clinton_s_temper_negatively_affects_hillary_s _campaign

Matt

01-28-2008, 10:19 AM

cookiva

01-28-2008, 12:17 PM

I think the ammount of heat Bill is getting is unfair. Elizabeth Edwards campaigned for John, Barack Obama's wife has campaigned for him. Laura Bush for George Bush, etc. First ladies are always very vocal and very active in the campaign process. Clinton seems to be getting a bit more attention and heat because of his former position and the fact that he is a man.

I agree with this, however, I do think he has said some things that he shouldn't have. If any of the other first lady "candidates" have said some of these things, they would have been given similar treatment. Not as extremely covered, but still covered.

Matt

01-28-2008, 12:41 PM

I agree with this, however, I do think he has said some things that he shouldn't have. If any of the other first lady "candidates" have said some of these things, they would have been given similar treatment. Not as extremely covered, but still covered.

Well, fair enough. After all, I suppose Terresa Heinz Kerry is proof of that.

rdh007

01-28-2008, 01:38 PM

At anyrate...I could see a Clinton vs McCain scenario getting incredibly dirty.
Yeah, neither candidate nor their surrogates seems very, well, calm.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 02:23 PM

More polls:

Rasmussen
McCain: 31%
Romney: 31%
Giuliani: 16%

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby
McCain: 33%
Romney: 30%
Giuliani: 14%

Suffolk
McCain: 30%
Romney: 27%
Giuliani: 13%

Strategic Vision
McCain: 27%
Romney: 26%
Giuliani: 17%

Quinnipac
McCain: 32%
Romney: 31%
Giuliani: 14%

RCP Average
McCain: 29.3%
Romney: 28.5%
Giuliani: 15.9%

cookiva

01-28-2008, 02:34 PM

Yeah, neither candidate nor their surrogates seems very, well, calm.

The way the Obama and Clinton have run their campaigns, either one of them win and its a dirty final election. I think that this might be the first time in my life that I see a political ad for the presidency. Since I can remember, the DFW area has been pro-republican, yet outside of Huckabee, I don't see a republican candidate that this area would like.

Matt

01-28-2008, 02:53 PM

I would love to see Obama win the primary, simply to see who his supporters scape goat for his mudslinging then. Right now it is all Hillary's fault that Obama, a "fresh, young, idealistic outsider" has sunk to the level of Hillary and is fighting dirty. Will it be McCain or Romney's fault if he does it in the general election?

cookiva

01-28-2008, 02:56 PM

Chris B

01-28-2008, 03:48 PM

I'm thinking McCain will have a narrow victory.

Matt

01-28-2008, 03:50 PM

No, it will still be Clinton's fault. Those two will now always be linked politically. Good stuff.

If nothing else they will be renowned for having one of the most dirty fought primaries in recent history.

cookiva

01-28-2008, 03:52 PM

If nothing else they will be renowned for having one of the most dirty fought primaries in recent history.

I hope this isn't going to be a trend. At least I respect the republicans, outside of Romney, respect eachother.

cookiva

01-28-2008, 04:01 PM

StorminNorman

01-28-2008, 04:17 PM

cookiva

01-28-2008, 04:26 PM

McCain is a butt. I used to like him, but he is a total butt.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 04:38 PM

McCain has been attacking the airwaves with...well...flat out lies about Romney. Ads accusing Romney of wanting time tables in Iraq, of not supporting the troop surge last year and implying Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts.

All of which are completely false.

I though McCain didn't support ads like this?

Considering that all the other Republican candidates hate Romney, it's not surprising.

And Romney totally deserves it since he did the exact same thing against Huckabee and McCain in Iowa and New Hampshire. He would still be doing it if the attack ads didn't blow up in his face.

cookiva

01-28-2008, 04:41 PM

I'm not saying its not deserved. Just McCain has put himself on some pedestal about how he doesn't do this type of stuff.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 04:43 PM

I'm not saying its not deserved. Just McCain has put himself on some pedestal about how he doesn't do this type of stuff.

Obama has done the same thing. He claimed to be a politician that was above such stuff yet now he's down to the Clinton's level.

It's just something that's going to have to be looked over unfortunately.

cookiva

01-28-2008, 04:44 PM

Again, Obama deserves it. Clinton got worse when Obama sunk below her the first time. Its going to get worse and worse as we go on.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 04:50 PM

Again, Obama deserves it. Clinton got worse when Obama sunk below her the first time. Its going to get worse and worse as we go on.

My main point was that this is just something that will have to get looked over.

However, Clinton is going to get raped by McCain's attack ads. While he may make up stuff with Romney. Clinton has a lot of stuff that can be used against her and he'll force her to shut up as the experience candidate.

StorminNorman

01-28-2008, 05:15 PM

Considering that all the other Republican candidates hate Romney, it's not surprising.

And Romney totally deserves it since he did the exact same thing against Huckabee and McCain in Iowa and New Hampshire. He would still be doing it if the attack ads didn't blow up in his face.

His attacks in Iowa and New Hampshire weren't attack ads. They compared the records.

His ads also didn't, well...lie.

There is a HUGE difference.

cookiva

01-28-2008, 05:25 PM

My main point was that this is just something that will have to get looked over.

However, Clinton is going to get raped by McCain's attack ads. While he may make up stuff with Romney. Clinton has a lot of stuff that can be used against her and he'll force her to shut up as the experience candidate.

I really don't know why people want her nominated, though. She is the least electable candidate. She has the most polarizing effect on our nation. I mean, even before she announced that she was running, there were facebook groups about leaving the country if she was elected.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 08:06 PM

His attacks in Iowa and New Hampshire weren't attack ads. They compared the records.

His ads also didn't, well...lie.

There is a HUGE difference.

You're Romney bias has horribly blinded you about this man

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two negative ads recently launched by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has spent more on advertising than any other candidate, either misrepresent his rival's records or include distortions, according to a CNN analysis of the commercials.

The ads come as the Republican air war has erupted into a series of attacks ads, just days before the Iowa caucuses on January 3, Wyoming caucuses on January 5, and the New Hampshire primary on January 8.
In one Romney television ad running in New Hampshire, the announcer calls rival Sen. John McCain "an honorable man" then goes on to ask "but is he the right Republican for the future?"

"McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently..." the announcer charges. "Even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security."

But the ad distorts the position of the Arizona Republican, who has narrowed Romney's lead in New Hampshire. McCain's compromise legislation introduced last summer, which was backed by President Bush, would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and pay a fine for breaking the law before applying for legal status.

McCain also voted to allow illegals to receive past Social Security benefits only after obtaining legal status.

Romney, for his part, ordered a police crackdown on illegal immigrants two weeks before he left the job of governor of Massachusetts.

While Romney is strafing McCain in New Hampshire, his target in Iowa is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

In the anti-Huckabee commercial, the announcer calls Romney and Huckabee "two good men," then asks "but who is ready to make tough decisions?"

"Mike Huckabee? Soft on government spending.... His foreign policy? 'Ludicrous,' says Condoleezza Rice," the announcer continues.

Secretary of State Rice, however, did not call Huckabee's foreign policy "ludicrous." Rice was responding to Huckabee's criticism of the Bush administration for what he called an "arrogant bunker mentality" on world affairs in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

McCain is fighting back by using criticism of Romney from editorial writers, which has the effect of making him seem less negative.

In the McCain ad, the announcer says, "As you hear Mitt Romney attack John McCain, consider these words from New Hampshire newspapers. The Union Leader says John McCain has 'conviction' and 'Granite Staters want a candidate who will look them in the eye and tell them the truth.' "
"John McCain has done that," the announcer continues, quoting the newspaper's editorial. "Mitt Romney has not."

While Romney's ads say a few nice words about Huckabee and McCain before ripping their records, the commercials could backfire on Romney. In races with crowded fields, negative ads have sparked voter backlash against squabbling politicians. The attacks wind up helping candidates who stick with a positive message.

That may be why Huckabee on Monday announced he had pulled a television ad his campaign had prepared to respond to Romney's criticism.

He said he called his staff Monday morning and told them he wanted it pulled.

"I just decided that's not the way we want to run it," the former pastor said. "It's never too late to do the right thing."

Huckabee acknowledged that he expected "cynicism" from those who believe that by showing the ad at the news conference he is still launching the attack while coming across as a candidate who wants to stay positive.

But, Huckabee said, he expects that if he had not shown the ad, reporters would have asked to see it.

"Conventional political wisdom is that when you're hit, and it's beginning to do damage, the smart play is to hit back," Huckabee said during an event in Des Moines, Iowa. But he said, "that's not the way we want to run it."
"We have to decide we can change the kind of politics and the level of discourse," Huckabee said. "We've got to start somewhere, so we might as well start here and might as well start with me."

Huckabee said the commercial was sent to Iowa television stations and may air for a day before being pulled out of rotation. Huckabee also said he would not be surprised if the commercial was posted on YouTube.
Romney launched a television ad in Iowa Monday, titled "Everywhere," that emphasizes a positive message.

In that commercial, Romney says, "Everywhere my family and I go we hear that America's challenges are simply too big for Washington politicians. I've spent my life tackling big problems -- helping turn around business, the Olympics, and state government."

"Together we can grow our economy, stop illegal immigration, defend life and preserve the values that make America the hope of the Earth," Romney says. "It's time to turn around Washington."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/romney.ads/

Romney didn't lie my ass. He downright started it. The Republican race would be 100% civil if it weren't for Romney's presence in it. The attack ads are the very reason why not just McCain and Huckabee hate the guy, but all of the Republican candidates hate the guy.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 08:09 PM

The Union Leader on Mitt Romney:

ONE of the reasons this newspaper has endorsed U.S. Sen. John McCain over former Gov. Mitt Romney has become clearer in recent days: When the campaigning gets serious and the gloves come off, McCain sticks to the facts; Romney plays loose with them.

We don't mind what some deride as "negative'' campaigning, if the negatives are merely a true look at a candidate's record. Romney obviously senses that New Hampshire Republicans are looking at McCain and therefore he is spending his millions to plaster the TV with anti-McCain messages.

Fair enough. Politics isn't beanbag.

But Romney is apparently so desperate that he has chosen distortion over facts. He is claiming on TV that Sen. McCain supports Social Security for illegal immigrants. That is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, McCain wants to make sure that LEGAL immigrants have their Social Security taxes properly accounted for so that the rest of U.S. taxpayers aren't footing that bill, too. Anyone who cares for the details can find them at factcheck.org. That respected nonprofit Web site, in an unusually harsh criticism, dubbed Romney's claims "Mitt Malarkey."

The last time Social Security was so blatantly misused in a Presidential Primary race, the victim was Barry Goldwater. That senator from Arizona wasn't able to fend off the distortion in time to win that primary. This time, we think the voters of New Hampshire will catch on.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=With+gloves+off%2c+Romney+di storts&articleId=6e26e86a-c3b9-4770-abd4-add48c279c42

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 08:13 PM

Concord Monitor on Mitt Romney

you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.

Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.

Romney's main business experience is as a management consultant, a field in which smart, fast-moving specialists often advise corporations on how to reinvent themselves. His memoir is called Turnaround - the story of his successful rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City - but the most stunning turnaround he has engineered is his own political career.

If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption.

There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter.

The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.

There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.

People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.

In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it.

When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINION/712230301

Arkady Rossovich

01-28-2008, 08:26 PM

I don't like McCain..but his name sounds very impressive.."President John McCain"..it sounds pretty good.

hippie_hunter

01-28-2008, 08:33 PM

I don't like McCain..but his name sounds very impressive.."President John McCain"..it sounds pretty good.

Just what's so bad about McCain?

He's proven that he's willing to work with the Democrats. He has appeal to moderates and independents. He firmly believes in protecting the enviroment. He wants to cut government spending which will help with America's deficit problems. And he's probably the only candidate that can competently run Iraq.

Matt

01-28-2008, 09:34 PM

Just what's so bad about McCain?

He's proven that he's willing to work with the Democrats. He has appeal to moderates and independents. He firmly believes in protecting the enviroment. He wants to cut government spending which will help with America's deficit problems. And he's probably the only candidate that can competently run Iraq.

Whats wrong with McCain? He has proven that he is nothing more than a party lackey. Back in 2000, McCain was this cool outsider who didn't take **** from anyone. Which is exactly why the GOP destroyed his candidacy. They ran ads claiming he was the father of illigitiment children and went crazy during his time in POW camps and still is. Those attacks in 2000 were ridiculously below the belt. Yet he stayed loyal. That is what concerns me about McCain. Instead of rebelling against the party who did that to him, he bends over and continues to take it from them. He conformed to be what they wanted. He let them win and became their lap dog. I don't want a man like that as my President.

StorminNorman

01-28-2008, 09:35 PM

You're Romney bias has horribly blinded you about this man

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/romney.ads/

Romney didn't lie my ass. He downright started it. The Republican race would be 100% civil if it weren't for Romney's presence in it. The attack ads are the very reason why not just McCain and Huckabee hate the guy, but all of the Republican candidates hate the guy.

McCain HAS supported Amnesty. That was his position. Romney brought it up - because it is an area where McCain differs greatly from the rest of the GOP. Its not a lie.

Rice was also responding to Huckabee's view on Foreign Relations as "Ludicrous".

I am failing to see how these are "lies".

Matt

01-28-2008, 09:37 PM

I dislike every candidate running so much...that if Bloomberg does not enter the race as an independent, I would seriously consider voting Romney...strictly on the grounds that we have not hand a Northeastern President since JFK.

Matt

01-28-2008, 09:38 PM

Hippie_Hunter, quick question, btw. Just out of curiousity:

Romney vs Clinton or Obama. Who do you vote for?

cookiva

01-29-2008, 12:11 AM

No 3rd party options, matt?

The Senator

01-29-2008, 12:14 AM

Clinton vs. McCain vs. Bloomberg would be interesting. Clinton would probably come out the winner, if you ask me. Bloomberg would draw that independent support away from McCain, and probably some Republicans who would vote for Bloomberg out of spite for McCain. Whereas Clinton would retain most of her Democratic base, plus the few independents who would float to her...

1992 redux, anyone?

cookiva

01-29-2008, 12:19 AM

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 12:49 AM

McCain HAS supported Amnesty. That was his position. Romney brought it up - because it is an area where McCain differs greatly from the rest of the GOP. Its not a lie.

Did you completely ignore the article I posted, they downright exposed that Romney lied and distorted information:

But the ad distorts the position of the Arizona Republican, who has narrowed Romney's lead in New Hampshire. McCain's compromise legislation introduced last summer, which was backed by President Bush, would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and pay a fine for breaking the law before applying for legal status.

McCain also voted to allow illegals to receive past Social Security benefits only after obtaining legal status.

Romney's ad stated:

"McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently..." the announcer charges. "Even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security."

It is a LIE.

Rice was also responding to Huckabee's view on Foreign Relations as "Ludicrous".

Romney's ad stated that Rice said that Huckabee's foreign policy was ludicrous, not his article. Again Romney LIED.

I am failing to see how these are "lies".

If you fail to see Romney's lies then you have to be blind to McCain's lies, because it would be completely hypocritical if you ignore one over the other.

Romney is a lying douchebag and completely deserves the treatment he's getting from the other Republican nominees. As I said about Barack Obama:

**** Mitt Romney.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 01:01 AM

Hippie_Hunter, quick question, btw. Just out of curiousity:

Romney vs Clinton or Obama. Who do you vote for?

I will downright refuse to vote for any of them. Romney, Clinton, and Obama are the candidates that I absolutely cannot stand.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 01:04 AM

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 01:06 AM

Whats wrong with McCain? He has proven that he is nothing more than a party lackey. Back in 2000, McCain was this cool outsider who didn't take **** from anyone. Which is exactly why the GOP destroyed his candidacy. They ran ads claiming he was the father of illigitiment children and went crazy during his time in POW camps and still is. Those attacks in 2000 were ridiculously below the belt. Yet he stayed loyal. That is what concerns me about McCain. Instead of rebelling against the party who did that to him, he bends over and continues to take it from them. He conformed to be what they wanted. He let them win and became their lap dog. I don't want a man like that as my President.

George W. Bush f**ked McCain over, the GOP just simply allowed it. McCain likely stayed loyal to the Republican Party because he still had Presidential aspirations and simple fact that McCain would just not fit in with the Democrats.

While McCain is a loyal Republican he's still willing to work with the Democrats and supports "liberal" positions on the enviroment, campaign finance reform, immigration, etc.

LuiECuomo

01-29-2008, 01:16 AM

I will downright refuse to vote for any of them. Romney, Clinton, and Obama are the candidates that I absolutely cannot stand.

Agreed. It's pretty sad that THEY are the best this country has to offer. I wouldn't vote for any of them if you paid me.

cookiva

01-29-2008, 01:57 AM

Agreed. It's pretty sad that THEY are the best this country has to offer. I wouldn't vote for any of them if you paid me.

So if someone gave you one million bucks, you wouldn't vote for one of them?

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 02:04 AM

I'd vote for Romney in a heartbeat if he offered me $1 million.

That or if he offered me tips on his hairdo.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 02:10 AM

Survey USA
McCain: 32%
Romney: 31%
Giulilani: 15%

RCP Average
McCain: 29.9%
Romney: 29.1%
Giuliani: 15.4%

cookiva

01-29-2008, 02:10 AM

Exactly.

Granted, you living in NY and me living in Texas means our states have already been decided. Cuomo, however, lives in Illinois, so his vote means more.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 02:25 AM

Exactly.

Granted, you living in NY and me living in Texas means our states have already been decided. Cuomo, however, lives in Illinois, so his vote means more.

Meh, I consider my vote to count since I live in the region of New York is a Republican stronghold.

I come from a Republican family who have Republican friends and the people who I hang out the most are Republican.

cookiva

01-29-2008, 02:35 AM

Alright.

Now, im sure your family is, but are your friends the old school type of republican, or the new breed?

StorminNorman

01-29-2008, 05:15 AM

Did you completely ignore the article I posted, they downright exposed that Romney lied and distorted information:

But the ad distorts the position of the Arizona Republican, who has narrowed Romney's lead in New Hampshire. McCain's compromise legislation introduced last summer, which was backed by President Bush, would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and pay a fine for breaking the law before applying for legal status.

McCain also voted to allow illegals to receive past Social Security benefits only after obtaining legal status.

Romney's ad stated:

It is a LIE.

Romney's ad stated that Rice said that Huckabee's foreign policy was ludicrous, not his article. Again Romney LIED.

I read the article completely. I think, however, that the article also doesn't view the situation fairly.

McCain has supported amnesty - just as the ad said. The article only brings up the McCain-Kennedy bill that imposes a small fine on illegals (which some could see as all but amnesty as is), but fails to look back at McCain's record and comments.

Also, Huckabee's article was about Foreign Policy and what he would do as President. For Secretary Rice to call it "ludicrous" is, in affect, calling Huckabee's views ludicrous.

If you fail to see Romney's lies then you have to be blind to McCain's lies, because it would be completely hypocritical if you ignore one over the other.

Romney is a lying douchebag and completely deserves the treatment he's getting from the other Republican nominees. As I said about Barack Obama:

**** Mitt Romney.

For McCain to try to claim that Romney supported deadlines in Iraq is a completely lie. Something that doesn't at all have a single iota of support by reality. You will not find a single story about Romney at all supporting such a proposal.

Also, while I may be blind to Romney, you are equally bias against him. For you to characterize Romney as a "lying douchebag" yet have no negative comment on McCain is even more hypocritical than I sense at least you acknowledge the fact that McCain is lying.

rdh007

01-29-2008, 07:10 AM

From crooksandliars.com McCain fumbles an education question:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/25773/2/McCain-Florida-Stump.mov

He has to bring in Lieberman to help him answer the question. And Lieberman doesn't even bother to address it.

McCain sucks. Romney FTW.

Kitsune

01-29-2008, 08:16 AM

The Senator

01-29-2008, 08:31 AM

Meh, I consider my vote to count since I live in the region of New York is a Republican stronghold.

I come from a Republican family who have Republican friends and the people who I hang out the most are Republican.

And that's why the City and Long Island are amazing.

Darthphere

01-29-2008, 08:50 AM

I voted. :up:

rdh007

01-29-2008, 08:53 AM

Congrats. Now you get to complain.

Darthphere

01-29-2008, 08:54 AM

They keep running this commerical for Romney down here with a quote that states "Romney is best when in crisis" or something to that effect. I was like wha?

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 09:30 AM

Alright.

Now, im sure your family is, but are your friends the old school type of republican, or the new breed?

I'm one of the more liberal people that I know.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 09:39 AM

I read the article completely. I think, however, that the article also doesn't view the situation fairly.

McCain has supported amnesty - just as the ad said. The article only brings up the McCain-Kennedy bill that imposes a small fine on illegals (which some could see as all but amnesty as is), but fails to look back at McCain's record and comments.

Also, Huckabee's article was about Foreign Policy and what he would do as President. For Secretary Rice to call it "ludicrous" is, in affect, calling Huckabee's views ludicrous.
WHAT! The article doesn't view the situation fairly? Are you that freaking biased towards Romney? Romney downright lied about McCain's position on immigration which he does not and distorted information about Huckabee.

For McCain to try to claim that Romney supported deadlines in Iraq is a completely lie. Something that doesn't at all have a single iota of support by reality. You will not find a single story about Romney at all supporting such a proposal.
McCain lied and distorted the facts just like Romney did. We're not arguing about that. And yes I have found articles that say what McCain said is true, but they're complete bull.

Also, while I may be blind to Romney, you are equally bias against him. For you to characterize Romney as a "lying douchebag" yet have no negative comment on McCain is even more hypocritical than I sense at least you acknowledge the fact that McCain is lying.
Yes I am biased against Romney, just as I'm biased against Clinton and Obama. But that's because Romney's a sleezeball. The reason why I'm not negative against McCain's lies and distortions against Romney is because the doucebag completely deserves it for his behavior in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's the only reason why the Republican primaries are not 100% civil. If McCain did this to another candidate I would criticize him for it.

Matt

01-29-2008, 09:57 AM

If Bloomberg runs, and anyone other than McCain is the nominee, he takes votes away from Clinton, and the democrats lose.

Wow, Biden is praising Obama on MSNBC right now. This is weird. Didn't think he would be this happy for him. Wow. He is really hyping him up[.

I don't think Bloomberg will run if McCain gets the nomination though. :csad: What makes Bloomberg such an interesting third party, though...is the fact that he can take away votes from both sides (he is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative). Not to mention his campaign would have literally limitless resources. I'm not saying he will win, because he won't...but imagine if he could pull in 20 % of the vote or so. He could redefine American politics.

Matt

01-29-2008, 10:00 AM

I will downright refuse to vote for any of them. Romney, Clinton, and Obama are the candidates that I absolutely cannot stand.

Bloomberg '08! :woot:

I'd vote for Romney simply because even though he comes off as an unbearable douche...I don't think he'd mess things up too much. And I think he'd be an easy candidate for someone like Mark Warner or Sherrod Brown to beat.

Matt

01-29-2008, 10:03 AM

George W. Bush f**ked McCain over, the GOP just simply allowed it. McCain likely stayed loyal to the Republican Party because he still had Presidential aspirations and simple fact that McCain would just not fit in with the Democrats.

While McCain is a loyal Republican he's still willing to work with the Democrats and supports "liberal" positions on the enviroment, campaign finance reform, immigration, etc.

The GOP allowing it is just as bad as doing it. Not to mention, yeah, George W. Bush ****ed him over, and yet there he was in 2004, campaigning for the guy and since he entered the presidential race, he has become one of his biggest supporters in order to appease the base. There is a very very thin line between loyalty and being the friend who everyone keeps around just because you are their *****. McCain has been the latter for the past 6 years and that has caused me to lose all respect for him. Plus, I don't think the GOP will allow him to select Lieberman as a running mate...but even if he does, Lieberman is a pro-censorship nut job. Still, I think he will pick some George Bush-esque Neo-Con to balance his ticket...and to be quite frank, he is not getting any younger and frankly his health does not inspire me to think he will make it past his first term. And Lieberman or a GOP selected Neo-Con scares the hell out of me.

Matt

01-29-2008, 10:05 AM

Agreed. It's pretty sad that THEY are the best this country has to offer. I wouldn't vote for any of them if you paid me.

They aren't the best the country has to offer. They are just the ones who ran :csad:

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 10:58 AM

You too can have Romney's awesome hair (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/video/?bcpid=988092818&bclid=978961437&bctid=987399674)

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 11:45 AM

FactCheck.org on Romney's attacks on McCain:

- Claims McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security." That's untrue. Nobody who is in the country illegally could be paid any Social Security benefits under McCain's immigration bill.

- Implies McCain supported "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. That word isn't accurate. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have received a blanket pardon under McCain's bill. Instead, they would have had to pay thousands in penalties and fees to gain legal status. In fact, in 2005 Romney called McCain’s proposal “reasonable” and said it wasn’t amnesty.

- The ad says Romney "cut taxes" in Massachusetts. While he did cut some taxes – for example, enacting business tax credits – tax rates remained unchanged. Plus, Romney raised state revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year by increasing fees and closing corporate tax loopholes.

Analysis
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced his ad attacking Arizona Sen. John McCain Dec. 28. It is set to run in New Hampshire, where the two face each other in the Republican presidential primary scheduled for Jan. 8.

Social Security for Illegal Aliens
In contrasting supposed differences between the two men, the ad's announcer falsely states that McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security." This tired and misleading claim was used by several Republicans against Democrats in the 2006 elections. We debunked it then, and it is no more true now that it is being used to attack a Republican.

The claim is based on the immigration bill that McCain cosponsored in 2005 and 2006. The bill died, but as we said before, the measure did not propose to pay Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants, not until and unless they become U.S. citizens or are granted legal status. Under current law, illegal immigrants who work and pay Social Security taxes may later receive credit toward future benefits for the amounts they have paid, if they become legal residents or citizens. The McCain measure wouldn't have changed that.

During the immigration fight Republicans proposed an amendment that would have prevented anyone who became a legal immigrant under the McCain bill from receiving credit toward future Social Security benefits for the taxes they paid and the time they had worked while in the U.S. without legal permission. McCain was one of 11 Republicans who voted to kill that amendment.

Thus, the statement that McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security" is false. Nobody proposed to pay benefits to anyone who is in the U.S. illegally. To be accurate, the ad might have said that McCain "voted against a measure that would have denied illegal immigrants Social Security credit for their work once they gain legal status." But such a truthful statement might not strike New Hampshire voters as so damaging.

"Amnesty" Again
The Romney ad also misleads by using the inaccurate and emotionally laden term "amnesty" to describe what the immigration bill would have offered illegal immigrants. As we've said any number of times, the dictionary definition of "amnesty" is a pardon for past offenses, and the McCain bill did not offer a simple pardon. Rather, it would have imposed thousands of dollars in penalties and fees on any illegal immigrant wishing to gain legal status.

The ad's wording is technically accurate on this score. It says, "He [Romney] opposes amnesty for illegals." What's misleading is the suggestion that McCain embraces "amnesty," when he doesn't. Romney's ad might truthfully have said he currently takes a tougher line on illegal immigrants than does McCain, but characterizing his opponent as favoring "amnesty" isn't accurate.

Also, while the former governor has hardened his stance on immigration, it's worth noting that he once called the legislation for which he now attacks McCain a "reasonable" proposal. In a 2005 interview with the Boston Globe after McCain's bill was introduced, Romney also said he didn't believe the legislation granted "amnesty."

Boston Globe (March 2007): In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

McCain's Position
McCain issued a response to the Romney attack, alluding to the somewhat tougher stand on immigration that the senator has embraced since the defeat of his immigration plans. He said he now favors securing U.S. borders and instituting a "temporary worker program" before attempting to deal "comprehensively" with immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally.

John McCain: I'm familiar with tailspins and I think he's [Romney is] in one. Look, on the issue of immigration, my position is clear: We have to secure the borders, the borders have to be secured first. As president I would have the governors in the border states certify that the borders are secure. We learned a lesson and the message is they want the borders secured first. Then we go on to a temporary worker program and addressing the issue
comprehensively.

A Misleading Claim About Taxes
We also find the ad's claim that "Romney cut taxes" to be misleading. It is true that Romney proposed some income tax cuts that the Democratic-controlled Massachusetts Legislature rejected. And he did succeed in cutting some taxes – for example, he enacted property tax relief for seniors and approved business tax credits – but overall tax rates remained the same. The conservative Club for Growth said his term included “some solid efforts” but that “overall, Romney's record on tax policy is mixed.” Indeed, he increased state revenues significantly.

Technically, Romney's often-repeated boast that he didn't raise taxes is true, but it's also misleading, as we discussed in our critique of the second Republican presidential debate back in May. In 2003, to help close a big budget gap, he pushed through a number of increased state fees that brought in $400 million in their first year. For example, he doubled fees for marriage licenses and other court filings. He also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline (money that is supposed to be for cleaning up any leaks from underground fuel tanks). Romney also “closed loopholes” in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue.

Romney also shifted some of the state tax burden down to the local level, by cutting local aid revenues. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state's cities and towns, said Romney's cut "forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees." The exact amount of the local increases hasn't been determined, but Romney at least partly avoided increasing state taxes by forcing Massachusetts cities and towns to raise theirs.

http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_malarkey.html

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 11:53 AM

FactCheck.org on Romney's attacks on Huckabee

- Both Romney and Huckabee are "pro-life," which is true now but glosses over Romney's recent conversion.

- Says "the difference" between the two is that Romney "vetoed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants" while Huckabee supported it. But Romney's immigrant-bashing stance is also recent. In 2004 he said, "I hate the idea" of making college unaffordable for children of illegal immigrants.

- Romney "got tough on drugs like meth" while governor of Massachusetts, but the legislation he supported never passed, and his state's laws are much weaker than Arkansas'. Convicted meth dealers face both minimum and maximum prison terms in Arkansas that are four times longer than those in Massachusetts.

- Misrepresents news articles, implying that they supported Romney's actions as governor when that's not what the news organizations said. One article, in fact, gave critical views of Romney's refusal to issue a pardon.

Analysis I
The ad began airing throughout Iowa this week. In form it is a straightforward "comparative" ad, focusing on the two candidates' stands on the issues. But the picture it presents is the result of some political Photoshopping. The result: an ad whose contrasts are far sharper than we see in real life.

In it, an announcer lauds former Massachusetts Gov. Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee as "two good family men" who are "both pro-life" and oppose same-sex marriage. It says "the difference" between the two is on immigration, reminding voters that Huckabee supported in-state tuition rates for children of undocumented immigrants, and stating that Romney vetoed a similar bill in Massachusetts.

The Minister and the Convert
The ad presents a too-sharp focus at the start when it implies that Romney and Huckabee have identical records on abortion.

Announcer: Two former governors … two good family men … Both pro-life.

It’s true that both Huckabee and Romney oppose abortion – now. But Huckabee was pro-life while he was governor. Romney, not so much. Don’t take our word for it. Here’s Romney at a September debate in Iowa:

Romney: I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I’ve said that time and time again. I’ve changed my position.

We don’t begrudge Romney the right to change his mind, and he's been open about the fact that his position has changed. But many Iowa voters may still be unaware of that, and this ad implies that there's no difference between these two candidates on abortion. That's a stretch.

Let Them Pick Lettuce
The second half of the ad contrasts the positions of the two on immigration:

Announcer: Mitt Romney stood up, and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens … opposed driver’s licenses for illegals. Mike Huckabee? Supported in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Huckabee even supported taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal aliens.

It's true, as we pointed out previously, that a plan Huckabee supported would have granted in-state tuition rates and eligibility for scholarships to any student who had attended an Arkansas public high school for at least three years, regardless of immigration status. It's also true that Romney vetoed a similar bill in 2004. But Romney’s illegal immigrant bashing is of fairly recent vintage.

In 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was reluctant to veto the tuition proposal – and not at all the certain, sure-footed decision maker portrayed in the ad. At the time, Romney said:

Romney (June 2004): I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state. But equally, perhaps a little more than equally, I do not want to create an incentive to do something which is illegal.

Romney wasn't a hardliner on immigration until late in his tenure as governor. As we have written, he took no action to punish the "sanctuary cities" that he now rails against. And while he boasts that he authorized state troopers to enforce federal immigration law, that order came at the end of his term, never went into effect and was overturned by his successor.

None of the specifics presented here are false, but the ad presents a black-and-white contrast that doesn't exist in reality.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/romney_on_huckabee.html

Analysis II
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced that the ad would begin airing in Iowa Dec. 17. It's a sequel to an earlier Romney attack on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee that we reviewed here, and it begins with the same misleading description of similarities between the two before going on the attack with new material.

Injecting Meth into the Campaign
The ad says Romney "got tough on drugs like meth" while Huckabee "even reduced penalties for manufacturing methamphetamine." But wait: While Romney did submit legislation in 2005 that would have broadened state laws against meth production, such as setting sentencing guidelines for possessing various methamphetamine precursor ingredients, this effort to get "tough" failed. That bill died in committee in Jan. 2007.

The legislation Huckabee supported, meanwhile, did shorten the amount of time a convict would have to serve before being eligible for parole from 70 percent of the sentence to 50 percent. But Arkansas has strict meth laws that remain on the books, and they are far tougher than those in Massachusetts. A convicted meth dealer can be sentenced to 40 years in Arkansas, but in Massachusetts the maximum term is 10 years. The mandatory minimum in Arkansas is 10 years in prison, but it's only a two-and-a-half-year state prison term in Massachusetts. And, in fact, the bill this ad criticizes was drafted with the help of Arkansas state prosecutors to help alleviate overcrowding problems in the state penal system.

Here are the details of the state laws: In Arkansas, offenders found guilty of intent to distribute or manufacture while in possession of less than an ounce of meth face a minimum sentence of "not less than ten (10) years nor more than forty (40) years, or life" and a fine "not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)." In Massachusetts, the penalty for a person convicted of manufacturing, distributing or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute a substance that contains any quantity of methamphetamine is "a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half nor more than ten years." A fine of no more than $10,000 may be imposed as well. The legislation Romney backed would not have increased the mandatory minimum, even if it had passed.

One possible reason that Arkansas has far tougher meth laws than Massachusetts is that it has a far larger meth problem: The federal Drug Enforcement Agency counts 407 methamphetamine "lab incidents" in Arkansas in 2006, compared with only one in Massachusetts. The DEA says methamphetamine is Arkansas' "primary drug of concern," while in Massachusetts the drug is "available in limited quantities" and "rarely abused." However, meth is a huge problem in Iowa, where this ad is airing. In 2006, there were 318 meth lab incidents, according to the DEA, down from a high of 1,370 in 2004. Iowa enacted a tough law in 2005 that made it illegal to sell non-prescription pseudoephedrine to a minor or to keep it anywhere but behind a pharmacy counter. Pseudophedrine is found in common over-the-counter medications such as Sudafed and has been widely used to make meth.

Print Your Own Newspaper!
The ad uses news clippings to borrow the independent credibility of newspapers and bolster Romney's claims. However, in several instances, the ad reconstructs the words of the newspapers to distort the original reporting. For instance, it lists the Berkshire Eagle as saying "tough on drugs like meth" on Aug. 15, 2005. But the paper didn't exactly say that. What the paper did say was:

Berkshire Eagle: Legislation filed by Gov. Mitt Romney would heighten the penalties for the possession of methamphetamine as well as toughen penalties for the possession of the chemicals used to produce it.

The newspaper is clearly reporting on the legislation filed. Romney's ad changes the words to make it appear the newspaper is endorsing his effort. Filching the credibility of news organizations is an old trick we've found in past elections here, here and here.

Pardonable Offenses
In another example of skewing the news in his favor, the ad shows a June 12, 2007, Associated Press tagline under the headline "never pardoned a criminal." But the closest the AP article comes to saying that is this:

AP: During the four years Romney was in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.

The language from the ad appears nowhere in the news article, which is certainly no endorsement of Romney's policies. It actually portrays the governor as unreasonably stubborn. The article focuses primarily on Romney's refusal to pardon National Guard Lt. Anthony Circosta, who had been convicted of assault at age 13 for "shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun, a shot that didn't break the skin," according to the AP. After returning from duty in Iraq, Circosta wanted to become a police officer but needed to have his childhood charge pardoned first. Romney refused twice, despite the recommendations of the state Board of Pardons.

We're not passing judgment on either governors' record on clemencies, but we take issue with Romney's misleading attempt to claim this news article endorsed his actions. It didn't.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/romney_on_huckabee_ii.html

Matt

01-29-2008, 11:57 AM

Romney would win everything if he started getting Bruce Campbell to campaign as his twin and changed his campaign slogan from "Its time for action" to "Hail to the king, baby!"

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Bruce%20Campbell-1.jpg

http://www.thelugeman.com/Mitt%20Romney%202.jpg

Uncanny! :wow:

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 11:58 AM

Now for the sake of fairness, McCain's lies about Romney:

- Says Romney's health care program in Massachusetts is "not very good" and "is failing." But official figures indicate that roughly 200,000 previously uninsured residents have gained health coverage, and those persons might disagree.

- Says the Romney plan is costing $400 million more than expected. That's because more people are benefiting than were expected.

- Accuses Romney of proposing $20 billion to Detroit "to bail out the auto industry." Romney actually proposed a $16 billion increase in federal research into "energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology."

Analysis
In the past few days, Sen. John McCain's campaign released two ads, one on the Internet and another on the radio in Florida. Both are harshly critical of his rival, Mitt Romney, attacking the health care plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts and his economic record. The latest polls show the two Republican presidential candidates in a close battle for GOP voters in Florida, which holds its primary Jan. 29.

'Not Very Good' For Whom?
The Web ad, released Jan. 25, begins by saying it's a "Mitt Romney issue alert," and then disparages the Massachusetts universal health insurance plan, charging that it's "a big government mandate." The McCain camp wraps up its assessment of the plan by saying, quite simply, it's "not very good."

McCain's ad is misleading when it states that "hundreds of thousands of people are uninsured" despite Romney's changes to health care in the state. In fact, hundreds of thousands have gained insurance, too.

Just how many is not certain. There are 300,000 residents who have signed up for health insurance since the plan was put into place in mid-2006. That includes both persons who were previously uninsured and those who may have dropped their coverage in favor of a more desirable plan.

The Commonwealth Connector, an independent entity that was established to implement the state health plan, estimates that "over half" of those who were uninsured before the state plan was launched have gained coverage. That works out to be about 200,000 people, since the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance Policy said that 395,000 were uninsured before the plan was put into place. (A more concrete estimate from that state agency should be released in late summer.)

So while McCain is entitled to his opinion when he says the Romney plan is "not very good," we suspect a lot of newly covered residents disagree.

A Health Plan Half-Full
Much of the McCain ad is pure opinion – and there is plenty of that to go around regarding the Massachusetts health care reform. The ad flatly states that the health care plan is "failing," but it seems it's too soon to reach a verdict on the changes Massachusetts has put into place. The plan has been in effect only since June 2006, and details such as the amount of penalty for those who fail to sign up for coverage are still in flux.

Opinion varies widely on the plan's virtues, even among conservatives. The Cato Institute considers it too costly and unlikely to work, and Cato Director of Health Policy Michael F. Cannon frequently criticizes the program on the Cato Institute blog. Meanwhile, the equally conservative Heritage Foundation portrays the Massachusetts plan as a valuable prototype for consumer-driven insurance, citing a 45 percent drop in minimum premium costs and a 34 percent reduction in the uninsured. On the other end of the political spectrum, some universal health care proponents think the plan doesn't go far enough: David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, cofounders of Physicians for a National Health Program, called Massachusetts' and similar plans "economic nonsense" in a New York Times op-ed.

All sides are free to state their opinions, but they remain opinions. At this stage, it's simply too early to tell who is right. McCain's ad implies that a consensus has already declared that the Romney-backed plan "is failing."

$400 Million Over Budget?
The McCain ad also says that the Massachusetts plan is "$400 million over budget" and that "taxes will be raised in the future to pay for it." McCain's budget figure is correct – and the state would have to come up with the money some way, taxes being a strong possibility. However, one reason the plan has cost more than expected is that many more state residents have signed up for insurance than originally anticipated. "Officials had projected that about 140,000 would enroll in the new state-financed insurance plan ... which provides full or partial subsidies," according to the Boston Globe. "[T]he state is now estimating enrollment will reach 225,000 by June 2009."

One Man's Bail Out...
The McCain campaign is also airing a radio ad in Florida, which says, "Here are some numbers that should scare every Florida Republican" and then lists several Romney-related statistics.

A few of them, however, are misleading or require context. The announcer in the ad says that Romney promised $20 billion to Detroit "to bail out the auto industry on the back of taxpayers." But that $20 billion was what Romney proposed as a "national investment in energy research." Here’s Romney at a Jan. 14 speech to the Detroit Economic Club:

Romney (Jan. 14, 2008): If we're going to be the world's greatest economic power, we also have to invest in the future. It's time for us to be bold. I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion to $20 billion – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology. Let's invest in our future.

Perhaps to McCain’s ears that’s a bail out. But the senator has been a strong proponent of pursuing alternative energies in the past – so strong that he proposed the improbable goal of making the country "oil independent" within five years. We didn't let that claim go unchecked, either.

Sticking It to Him
The radio ad also says, "700 million … a tax increase Romney stuck to the people of Massachusetts." We’ve quibbled with this one before. Technically, most of what Romney raised was in the form of fees, not taxes, such as court filings and firearm licensing fees. But he also closed loopholes on corporate taxes. There is disagreement on the total amount as well, with the state Department of Administration and Finance putting the fee total at $260 million a year and the corporate tax change at $174 million a year, and the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation saying both fees and taxes totaled $740 million to $750 million a year.

This point has been grist for both campaigns, as Romney uses the fact that most of the state revenue increases came from "fees" to make the misleading claim that he never raised "taxes."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain_ads_attack_romney.html

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 11:59 AM

Matt

01-29-2008, 12:01 PM

The resemblance is scary

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/f/200521111.jpg

I personally am unsure you can NOT support Romney when it increases the odds of Bruce Campbell playing a President in a movie by 85 %. That is the sole reason I am considering supporting Romney.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 12:03 PM

Matt

01-29-2008, 12:06 PM

That's like Excel's support for Obama because he's black :csad:

Well, if Obama were an older black man, I could understand that...as it would mean that Morgan Freeman play him in a movie. As it is, we are probably going to get Jamie Fox or Eddie Murphy...and I'll be damned if I'll support that :cmad: :cwink:

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 12:08 PM

Wow....Lieberman just stated that he'll continue to endorse McCain if he wins the nomination and will campaign against the Democratic candidate.

Matt

01-29-2008, 12:13 PM

Wow....Lieberman just stated that he'll continue to endorse McCain if he wins the nomination and will campaign against the Democratic candidate.

Lieberman is doing it because he can. The Democrats can't say a word to him, because if he decides to jump ship...The Republicans will control Senate. Now if he does get the VP nomination, I expect him to change parties. If he does...then that gives Bush a Republican controlled senate for his last 6 months or so. :wow:

Matt

01-29-2008, 12:18 PM

In all honesty, now that I think on it, Lieberman is probably the most powerful man in the Senate. Both parties are kissing his ass like there is no tomorrow as whichever one he caucuses with controls everything. He can pretty much get anything he wants at this moment and neither party would have the balls to tell him no.

Sloth7d

01-29-2008, 12:23 PM

Well, if Obama were an older black man, I could understand that...as it would mean that Morgan Freeman play him in a movie. As it is, we are probably going to get Jamie Fox or Eddie Murphy...and I'll be damned if I'll support that :cmad: :cwink:

Didn't Chris Rock already play the President in a movie?

Matt

01-29-2008, 12:24 PM

Didn't Chris Rock already play the President in a movie?

Dear Lord...we must vote against Obama to avert such a disaster from ever occuring again!

Kitsune

01-29-2008, 12:48 PM

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 12:49 PM

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 12:54 PM

Well since Florida is ending tonight, it's time to move on the next contests: Maine for the Republicans and Super Tuesday!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Republican_GOP_Primary_Results.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Democratic_Primary_Results.png

Alabama Republican Primary
Mike Huckabee - 230,608 - 41% - 20 delegates
John McCain - 210,989 - 37% - 16 delegates
Mitt Romney - 103,295 - 18%
Ron Paul - 15,454 - 3%
Rudy Giuliani - 2,224 - 1%
Uncommitted - 1,252 - 0%

Alabama Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 302,684 - 56% - 20 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 226,454 - 42% - 21 delegates
John Edwards - 7,933 - 1%
Uncommitted - 2,672 - 1%

Alaska Republican Caucuses
Mitt Romney - 5,126 - 44% - 12 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 2,548 - 22% - 6 delegates
Ron Paul - 1,955 - 17% - 5 delegates
John McCain - 1,804 - 15% - 3 delegates
Uncommitted - 187 - 2%

Alaska Democratic Caucuses
Barack Obama - 302 - 75% - 9 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 103 - 25% 4 delegates
Uncommitted - 1 - 0%
John Edwards - 0 - 0%

Arizona Republican Primary
John McCain - 233,299 - 48% - 50 delegates
Mitt Romney - 169,006 - 34%
Mike Huckabee - 44,520 - 9%
Rudy Giuliani - 20,750 - 4%
Ron Paul - 12,776 - 3%

Arizona Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 204,930 - 51% - 30 delegates
Barack Obama - 171,368 - 42% - 25 delegates
John Edwards

Arkansas Republican Primary
Mike Huckabee - 132,538 - 60% - 29 delegates
John McCain - 44,608 - 20% - 1 delegate
Mitt Romney - 29,608 - 14% - 1 delegate
Ron Paul - 10,568 - 5%
Uncommitted - 944 - 1%
Rudy Giuliani - 631 - 0%

Arkansas Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 209,968 - 70% - 27 delegates
Barack Obama - 79,411 - 27% - 8 delegates
John Edwards - 5,662 - 2%
Uncommitted - 3,297 - 1%

California Republican Primary
John McCain - 994,262 - 42% - 149 delegates
Mitt Romney - 807,914 - 34% - 6 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 274,479 - 12%
Rudy Giuliani - 116,118 - 5%
Ron Paul - 100,439 - 4%

California Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 2,144,251 -52% - 195 delegates
Barack Obama - 1,746,013 - 42% - 152 delegates
John Edwards - 170,467 - 4%

Colorado Republican Caucuses
Mitt Romney - 33,288 - 60% - 43 delegates
John McCain - 10,621 - 19%
Mike Huckabee - 7,266 - 13%
Ron Paul - 4,670 - 8%

Colorado Democratic Caucuses
Barack Obama - 79,344 - 67% - 13 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 38,587 - 32% - 6 delegates
Uncommitted - 1,253 - 1%

Conneticut Republican Primary
John McCain - 78,741 - 52% - 27 delegates
Mitt Romney - 49,851 - 33%
Mike Huckabee - 10,591 - 7%
Ron Paul - 6,092 - 4%
Uncommitted - 2,470 - 2%
Rudy Giuliani - 2,414 - 2%

Conneticut Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 179,349 - 51% - 26 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 164,831 - 47% - 22 delegates
John Edwards - 3,408 - 1%
Uncommitted - 3,007 - 1%

Delaware Republican Primary
John McCain - 22,626 - 45% - 18 delegates
Mitt Romney - 16,344 - 33%
Mike Huckabee - 7,706 - 15%
Ron Paul - 2,131 - 4%
Rudy Giuliani - 1,255 - 3%

Delaware Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 51,124 - 53% - 9 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 40,751 - 43% - 6 delegates
Joe Biden - 2,863 - 3%
John Edwards - 1,241 - 1%

Florida Republican Primary (Delegates Cut in Half)
John McCain - 693,508 - 36% - 57 delegates
Mitt Romney - 598,188 - 31%
Rudy Giuliani - 281,781 - 15%
Mike Huckabee - 259,735 - 14%
Ron Paul - 62,063 - 3%
Fred Thompson - 22,288 - 1%
Duncan Hunter - 2,787 - 0%

Florida Democratic Primary (No Delegates)
Hillary Clinton - 857,208 - 50%
Barack Obama - 569,041 - 33%
John Edwards - 248,604 - 14%
Dennis Kucinich - 9,537 - 1%

Georgia Republican Primary
Mike Huckabee - 326,069 - 34% - 45 delegates
John McCain - 303,639 - 32% - 3 delegates
Mitt Romney - 289,737 - 30%
Ron Paul - 27,978 - 3%
Rudy Giuliani - 7,039 - 1%

Georgia Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 700,366 - 67% - 39 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 328,129 - 31% - 21 delegates
John Edwards - 17,990 - 2%

Idaho Democratic Caucuses
Barack Obama - 16,880 - 79% - 15 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 3,655 - 17% - 3 delegates
Uncommitted - 552 - 3%
John Edwards - 137 - 1%

Illinois Republican Primary
John McCain - 54 delegates
Mitt Romney - 2 delegates
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Rudy Giuliani

Illinois Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 72 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 37 delegates
John Edwards

Iowa Republican Caucuses
Mike Huckabee - 40,841 - 34% - 17 delegates
Mitt Romney - 29,949 - 25% - 12 delegates
Fred Thompson - 15,904 - 13% - 3 delegates
John McCain - 15,559 - 13% - 3 delegates
Ron Paul - 11,817 - 10% - 2 delegates
Rudy Giuliani - 4,097 - 4%
Duncan Hunter - 524 - 1%
Tom Tancredo - 5 - 0%

Iowa Democratic Caucuses
Barack Obama - 940 - 38% - 16 delegates
John Edwards - 744 - 30% - 14 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 737 - 29% - 15 delegates
Bill Richardson - 53 - 2%
Joe Biden - 23 - 1%
Uncommitted - 3 - 0%
Chris Dodd - 1 - 0%
Mike Gravel - 0 - 0%
Dennis Kucinich - 0 - 0%

Kansas Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 27,172 - 74% - 23 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 9,462 - 26% - 9 delegates
John Edwards - 53 - 0%
Uncommitted - 8 - 0%

Maine Republican Caucuses
Mitt Romney - 2,362 - 52% - 18 delegates
John McCain - 958 - 21%
Ron Paul - 851 - 19%
Mike Huckabee - 268 - 6%
Undecided - 94 - 2%
Fred Thompson - 4 - 0%
Rudy Giuliani - 2 - 0%
Duncan Hunter - 0 - 0%

Massachusetts Republican Primary
Mitt Romney - 255,248 - 51% - 22 delegates
John McCain - 204,027 - 41% - 18 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 19,168 - 4%
Ron Paul - 13,210 - 3%
Rudy Giuliani - 2,643 - 1%
No Preference - 1,875 - 0%

Massachusetts Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 704,591 - 56% - 54 delegates
Barack Obama - 511,887 - 41% - 37 delegates
John Edwards - 19,889 - 2%
No Preference - 7,766 - 1%

Michigan Republican Primary (Delegates Cut in Half)
Mitt Romney - 337,847 - 39% - 24 delegates
John McCain - 257,521 - 30% - 5 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 139,699 - 16% - 1 delegate
Ron Paul - 54,434 - 6%
Fred Thompson - 32,135 - 4%
Rudy Giuliani - 24,706 - 3%
Uncommitted - 18,106 - 2%
Duncan Hunter - 2,823 - 0%

Michigan Democratic Primary (No Delegates)
Hillary Clinton - 328,151 - 55%
Uncommitted - 237,762 - 40%
Dennis Kucinich - 21,708 - 4%
Chris Dodd - 3,853 - 1%
Mike Gravel - 2,363 - 0%

Minnesota Republican Caucuses
Mitt Romney - 36 delegates
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Rudy Giuliani

Minnesota Democratic Caucuses
Barack Obama - 48 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 24 delegates
Uncommitted
John Edwards

Missouri Republican Primary
John McCain - 194,304 - 33% - 58 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 185,627 - 32%
Mitt Romney - 172,564 - 29%
Ron Paul - 26,445 - 4%
Rudy Giuliani - 3,595 - 1%
Uncommitted - 2,083 - 0%

Missouri Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 405,284 - 49% - 30 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 395,287 - 48% - 30 delegates
John Edwards - 16,747 - 2%
Uncommitted - 3,135 - 1%

Montana Republican Caucuses
Mitt Romney - 625 - 38% - 25 delegates
Ron Paul - 400 - 25%
John McCain - 358 - 22%
Mike Huckabee - 245 - 15%

Nevada Republican Caucuses
Mitt Romney - 22,649 - 51% - 18 delegates
Ron Paul - 6,087 - 14% - 4 delegates
John McCain - 5,651 - 13% - 4 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 3,616 - 8% - 2 delegates
Fred Thompson - 3,521 - 8%
Rudy Giuliani - 1,910 - 4%
Duncan Hunter - 890 - 2%

Nevada Democratic Caucuses
Hillary Clinton - 5,355 - 51% - 12 delegates
Barack Obama - 4,773 - 45% - 13 delegates
John Edwards - 396 - 4%
Uncommitted - 31 - 0%
Dennis Kucinich - 5% - 0%
Bill Richardson - 0 - 0%

New Hampshire Republican Primary
John McCain - 88,466 - 37% - 7 delegates
Mitt Romney - 75,343 - 32% - 4 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 26,768 - 11% - 1 delegate
Rudy Giuliani - 20,395 - 9%
Ron Paul - 18,303 - 8%
Fred Thompson - 2,886 - 1%
Duncan Hunter - 1,220 - 0%

New Hampshire Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 112,251 - 39% - 9 delegates
Barack Obama - 104,772 - 37% - 9 delegates
John Edwards - 48,681 - 17% - 4 delegates
Bill Richardson - 13,249 - 5%
Dennis Kucinich - 3,919 - 1%
Joe Biden - 628 - 0%
Mike Gravel - 402 - 0%
Chris Dodd - 202 - 0%

New Jersey Republican Primary
John McCain - 52 delegates
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Rudy Giuliani

New Jersey Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 51 delegates
Barack Obama - 37 delegates
John Edwards

New York Republican Primary
John McCain - 101 delegates
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Rudy Giuliani

New York Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 127 delegates
Barack Obama - 87 delegates
John Edwards

North Dakota Republican Caucuses
Mitt Romney - 3,490 - 36% - 8 delegates
John McCain - 2,224 - 23% - 5 delegates
Ron Paul - 2,082 - 21% - 5 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 1,947 - 20% - 5 delegates

North Dakota Democratic Caucuses
Barack Obama - 11,625 - 61% - 8 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 6,948 - 37% - 5 delegates
John Edwards - 283 - 2%

Oklahoma Republican Primary
John McCain - 122,748 - 37% - 32 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 110,486 - 33% - 6 delegates
Mitt Romney - 83,018 - 25%
Ron Paul - 11,179 - 3%
Rudy Giuliani - 2,412 - 1%

Oklahoma Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 228,425 - 55% - 24 delegates
Barack Obama - 130,087 - 31% - 14 delegates
John Edwards - 42,718 - 10%

South Carolina Republican Primary (Delegates Cut in Half)
John McCain - 147,283 - 33% - 19 delegates
Mike Huckabee - 132,440 - 30% - 5 delegates
Fred Thompson - 69,467 - 16%
Mitt Romney - 67,132 - 15%
Ron Paul - 16,054 - 4%
Rudy Giuliani - 9,494 - 2%
Duncan Hunter - 1,048 - 0%

South Carolina Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 295,091 - 55% - 25 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 141,128 - 27% - 12 delegates
John Edwards - 93,552 - 18% - 8 delegates
Dennis Kucinich - 551 - 0%

Tennesse Republican Primary
Mike Huckabee - 189,443 - 34% - 21 delegates
John McCain - 174,763 - 32% - 14 delegates
Mitt Romney - 129,722 - 24% - 9 delegates
Ron Paul - 30,730 - 6%
Fred Thompson - 16,044 - 3%
Rudy Giuliani - 5,100 - 1%
Uncommitted - 1,812 - 0%

Tennesee Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton - 332,599 - 54% - 34 delegates
Barack Obama - 250,730 - 41% - 21 delegates
John Edwards - 27,644 - 4%
Uncommitted - 3,123 - 1%

Utah Republican Primary
Mitt Romney - 36 delegates
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mike Huckabee
Rudy Giuliani

Utah Democratic Primary
Barack Obama - 14 delegates
Hillary Clinton - 9 delegates
John Edwards

West Virginia Republican Convention
Mike Huckabee - 567 - 52% - 18 delegates
Mitt Romney - 521 - 47%
John McCain - 12 - 1%
Rudy Giuliani - 0 - 0%
Ron Paul - 0 - 0%

Wyoming Republican County Conventions (Delegates Cut in Half)
Mitt Romney - 8 - 67% - 8 delegates
Fred Thompson - 3 - 25% - 3 delegates
Duncan Hunter - 1 - 8% - 1 delegate
Rudy Giuliani - 0 - 0%
Mike Huckabee - 0 - 0%
John McCain - 0 - 0%
Ron Paul - 0 - 0%
Uncommitted - 0 - 0%

The Senator

01-29-2008, 01:41 PM

DEMOCRATS

Clinton wins California, New York, and New Jersey, Minnesota and Tennessee for sure. She'll possibly win in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Kansas and Arizona.

Obama wins Illinois and Georgia for sure. He may possibly win Colorado, Connecticut and Massachusetts (the latter depend on whether Kennedy's endorsement really matters).

Edwards wins nothing.

REPUBLICANS

John McCain wins Arizona and California (though CA is not a winner-take-all primary). Possible wins include Colorado, New York and New Jersey, though the latter victories depend on how he does tonight in Florida.

Mitt Romney wins Massachusetts, Illinois and Idaho for sure. Possible wins include Colorado, New York, and New Jersey, depending on the outcome of Florida. Because California awards its delegates by Congressional district instead of the usual winner-take-all system, Romney could still win 100 or so delegates and stay far ahead of McCain.

Mike Huckabee wins Kansas and Tennessee-- if he wins anything.

Rudy: He won't make it past tomorrow.

On a side note: Why are Alan Keyes and Mike Gravel even on that map?

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 01:51 PM

On a side note: Why are Alan Keyes and Mike Gravel even on that map?
Because they're still formally in the race.

The Senator

01-29-2008, 01:56 PM

Because they're still formally in the race.

Well, so are Democrats Henry Hewes and Lyndon LaRouche, and Republicans Hugh Cort and Dan Gilbert.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 02:05 PM

I didn't make the map okay so lay off my back :cmad:

The Senator

01-29-2008, 02:15 PM

I didn't make the map okay so lay off my back :cmad:

:csad:

Matt

01-29-2008, 03:09 PM

Since Florida is voting now, I think that this will pretty much be the last poll post:

Insider Advantage
McCain: 31%
Romney: 30%

Survey USA
McCain: 32%
Romney: 31%

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby
McCain: 35%
Romney: 31%

Mitchell Research
Romney: 34%
McCain: 32%

RCP Average
McCain: 30.7%
Romney: 30.1%

Looks like it could really go either way. Reuters/C-Span/Zogby are the only ones who have McCain with a dominant lead (and Zogby is overrated. He got lucky once and suddenly thinks he is God's gift to pollsters :cmad:) Its gonna be fun to watch how it unfolds.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 07:13 PM

Current Results

Republican Party - 76% reporting
John McCain - 36% PROJECTED WINNER!
Mitt Romney - 31%
Rudy Giuliani - 15%
Mike Huckabee - 14%
Ron Paul - 3%
Fred Thompson - 1%
Duncan Hunter - 0%

Democratic Party - 76% reporting
Hillary Clinton - 50% PROJECTED WINNER!
Barack Obama - 33%
John Edwards - 14%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 07:15 PM

Also Giuliani's campaign is officially finished. CNN has projected that he will NOT win and that he was a horrible candidate.

The Senator

01-29-2008, 07:23 PM

*Prays for a Romney win*

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:01 PM

For some reason I picture Norman being at a Romney rally :(

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:05 PM

Reports are now coming in the Giuliani is expected to drop out and endorse McCain.

Arkady Rossovich

01-29-2008, 08:08 PM

Just what's so bad about McCain?

He's proven that he's willing to work with the Democrats. He has appeal to moderates and independents. He firmly believes in protecting the enviroment. He wants to cut government spending which will help with America's deficit problems. And he's probably the only candidate that can competently run Iraq.

He feels like another Bush,and will destory America even further.

Whats wrong with McCain? He has proven that he is nothing more than a party lackey. Back in 2000, McCain was this cool outsider who didn't take **** from anyone. Which is exactly why the GOP destroyed his candidacy. They ran ads claiming he was the father of illigitiment children and went crazy during his time in POW camps and still is. Those attacks in 2000 were ridiculously below the belt. Yet he stayed loyal. That is what concerns me about McCain. Instead of rebelling against the party who did that to him, he bends over and continues to take it from them. He conformed to be what they wanted. He let them win and became their lap dog. I don't want a man like that as my President.

Fantastic post.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:11 PM

*Prays for a Romney win*

It's looking very doubtful now. McCain's lead is growing now and over half the vote is in.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:13 PM

CNN has projected that John McCain as the winner of the Florida primary.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:15 PM

He feels like another Bush,and will destory America even further.

Fantastic post.

Oh please. You have this pathetic bias that all Republicans are evil and will "destroy" America.

Even though he sucked up to the GOP to try and get the nomination in 2008 he still proved that he's willing to work with the Democrats, still supports efforts to protect the enviroment, criticized the failures of Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq, supports reasonable and fair immigration reform, supports campaign finance reform, etc.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:18 PM

NBC News has projected John McCain as the winner of the Florida Primary.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:22 PM

CBS News has projected John McCain as the winner of the Florida Primary.

Matt

01-29-2008, 08:23 PM

CNN has projected that John McCain as the winner of the Florida primary.

Big loss for Romney.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:23 PM

ABC News and Fox News have projected John McCain as the winner.

The Senator

01-29-2008, 08:27 PM

Lieberman is doing it because he can. The Democrats can't say a word to him, because if he decides to jump ship...The Republicans will control Senate. Now if he does get the VP nomination, I expect him to change parties. If he does...then that gives Bush a Republican controlled senate for his last 6 months or so. :wow:

Lieberman said today that he won't accept the VP offer from McCain, and that he plans to remain a Democrat through the remainder of his term in the Senate.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/joey.html

Matt

01-29-2008, 08:30 PM

Lieberman said today that he won't accept the VP offer from McCain, and that he plans to remain a Democrat through the remainder of his term in the Senate.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/joey.html

Hmm, interesting. Still, I wonder if he will actually turn it down if it is offered to him. Its ones thing to say no in a hypothetical. Quite another to say no when you are face to face with it. As for staying Democrat...I imagine he will as long as they tread a fine line around him. But if they piss him off.....

Kelly

01-29-2008, 08:32 PM

CNN just projected McCain to win........Guiliani is out I suspect......damn spent all that money in one state to come in a very distant 3rd.....wow.

Matt

01-29-2008, 08:33 PM

Giuliani has been out for weeks. The biggest loss is for Romney. This could really hurt him for Super Tuesday and end his candidacy.

Kelly

01-29-2008, 08:35 PM

Yeah......but it was more of a have to win for McCain than Romney.....McCain had to win for the money.......Romney can still put out another 15 million of his own money before Super Tuesday and still be ok......

as for Guiliani, I meant as in "I'm out....." on his part.....not just in reality, but in his reality....

The Senator

01-29-2008, 08:37 PM

After his concession speech... I'm a bit more disgusted by Mr. Romney than I ever thought I could be. Except for the obvious jab at John McCain. He just came off really smarmy and fake fake fake.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:38 PM

Giuliani knows that he's out. His campaign is currently having discussions with the McCain campaign over him dropping out and giving him Giuliani's endorsement, which would certainly give him a good boost in New York and New Jersey.

The Senator

01-29-2008, 08:40 PM

Is Giuliani dropping out, or is he just reading his entire campaign platform verbatim?

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:40 PM

After his concession speech... I'm a bit more disgusted by Mr. Romney than I ever thought I could be.

Yeah, he looked like he was going to cry at one part, arrogantly says that before someone has babies they gotta get married, and just lists the stereotypical "change" message thats getting old and repetitive.

Oh well, his campaign is over now too. He no longer has the lead in delegates and he will lose to McCain in large delegate states California, New York, New Jersey, etc.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:42 PM

Is Giuliani dropping out, or is he just reading his entire campaign platform verbatim?

He's expected to drop out. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 08:46 PM

Hey, the new updated map got rid of Alan Keyes!

The Senator

01-29-2008, 09:05 PM

Yay!

The Senator

01-29-2008, 09:06 PM

He's expected to drop out. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

He's dropping out tomorrow and will endorse McCain at the Reagan Presidential Library in California.

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 09:10 PM

Here's the surprising thing. McCain won among voters who saw the economy as the #1 issue.

And I think that this proved just like in Iowa and New Hampshire that having the most money will not guarantee you a victory.

Purple Prancer

01-29-2008, 09:12 PM

I knew I forgot to do something today :csad:

Hippie fix your sig :cmad:

rdh007

01-29-2008, 09:24 PM

McCain sucks. He was a lot cooler in 2000.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/mccain_bush-hug-713122-1.jpg
Feel the love.

Shifty

01-29-2008, 09:47 PM

I personally am unsure you can NOT support Romney when it increases the odds of Bruce Campbell playing a President in a movie by 85 %. That is the sole reason I am considering supporting Romney.

Ooo I can't wait for the "Who Let The Dogs Out?" scene!

McCain sucks. He was a lot cooler in 2000.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/mccain_bush-hug-713122-1.jpg
Feel the love.

The TV Funhouse from 2004 (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://video.lisarein.com/tvfunhouse/tvfunhouse-1-sm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002211.php&h=240&w=320&sz=44&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=95naPCYs8df7XM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtv%2Bfunhouse%2Bmccain%26svnum%3D10%2 6hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official) with McCain losing his mind supporting Bush.

StorminNorman

01-29-2008, 09:50 PM

I have to ask...

How, in a CLOSED PRIMARY does a man score less of the Republican vote than another candidate and walk away with the nomination?

Its....mind boggling.

rdh007

01-29-2008, 09:51 PM

Katherine Harris is still in charge?

hippie_hunter

01-29-2008, 09:57 PM

I have to ask...

How, in a CLOSED PRIMARY does a man score less of the Republican vote than another candidate and walk away with the nomination?

Its....mind boggling.

Because the independent and moderate votes are the most powerful in this nation. McCain knows how to properly capture it. That's why he got the nomination, and that's why he'll win this election if Hillary Clinton gets nominated.

Matt

01-30-2008, 05:35 AM

The Senator

01-30-2008, 06:36 AM

Yeah, I'm expecting Walnuts McCain to keep his hold in California, New York and New Jersey. It'd take quite a miracle for Romney to steal his thunder at this point.

Arkady Rossovich

01-30-2008, 11:26 AM

Oh please. You have this pathetic bias that all Republicans are evil and will "destroy" America.

Even though he sucked up to the GOP to try and get the nomination in 2008 he still proved that he's willing to work with the Democrats, still supports efforts to protect the enviroment, criticized the failures of Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq, supports reasonable and fair immigration reform, supports campaign finance reform, etc.

They are,let's see...Republicans under Bush have...increased National Debt,destroyed America's global reputation,started the useless War in Iraq,denied a Universal Health Care system,and even with all this McCain wants to stay in Iraq. If this is not destroying,then tell me what is. Common sence,look around you. Or are you one of those who pretend everything is ok when your paying more for gas,or are worred about your house being taken away from you?

Kelly

01-30-2008, 12:03 PM

Because the independent and moderate votes are the most powerful in this nation. McCain knows how to properly capture it. That's why he got the nomination, and that's why he'll win this election if Hillary Clinton gets nominated.

Yes we are.....AND DAMN PROUD OF IT........:o :cwink: :woot:

hippie_hunter

01-30-2008, 01:08 PM

They are,let's see...Republicans under Bush have...increased National Debt,destroyed America's global reputation,started the useless War in Iraq,denied a Universal Health Care system,and even with all this McCain wants to stay in Iraq. If this is not destroying,then tell me what is. Common sence,look around you. Or are you one of those who pretend everything is ok when your paying more for gas,or are worred about your house being taken away from you?

The Republican Party is an organization. It doesn't have feelings or do horrible things. It's the people who happen to be Republicans that do it. The Democrats are just as responsible for our National Debt. George Bush's foreign policy was what damaged America's global reputation. George Bush started this pointless war in Iraq. Universal health care blows that was one of the things the Republicans are doing right.

I look around, but I don't blame the Republicans. I don't see everything as all honkey dorey and great because things need to get fixed. I blame George Bush for our foreign policy blunders and Iraq. I blame the greedy oil companies for the high gas prices. And it's the home owners own fault for the housing crisis for buying homes that they obviously could not afford.

McCain, while he supports the Iraq War which I do oppose, gives me the feeling that he could bring us victory in Iraq, which George Bush could not. He criticized the Bush Administration, particularly Donald Rumsfeld, for their faulty handling of it. He supported the surge because we went into Iraq with not enough men, and while it's not a huge success like McCain says it is, it certainly isn't a complete and total failure like some make it out to be and is somewhat working.

So how about you stop acting like an idiotic jackass with your pathetic "Republicans are teh evil' and see things for how they actually are. It's both the Republicans and Democrats fault for how things are in this nation. And it's not the party's fault, it's the idiots in charge.

kronos251

01-30-2008, 01:35 PM

... And it's the home owners own fault for the housing crisis for buying homes that they obviously could not afford.

That, and it is mostly Ben Bernanke's fault. He should not have abruptly raised the interest rates to an almost whopping 6 % a year ago. Interest rates are what caps the entire US economy, and unlike his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, he should have graduated the rate to stave off inflationary symptoms. If ever he might want to tackle the housing sector, limit the problem to the housing sector only. He has a point though - Real estate value has gone ridiculously far up on account of oil, labor wage hikes, and rising advertising costs. He must deal with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, as they are responsible for the lending and mortgage loans. The ongoing FBI investigation on fraudulent firms are imperative and should be done regularly. I do look forward to a rate cut as soon as possible, and should go down to a good 3 % to make up for losses.

As for McCain, I'm glad he won Florida, and yes, more work still has to be done.
As for Bush, I wouldn't want to blame him so much, as Id like to keep an open mind to all statesmen past and present, and what long-term impact they effect.

Malice

01-30-2008, 01:53 PM

I may refinance my house once the rate drops below what I am paying...
I am paying only 5.75%...lets see if I can get that even lower.

kronos251

01-30-2008, 02:11 PM

5.75 %.... :/ The rates should go lower.. Otherwise, there'll be an angry mob at his door, me included.

\S/JcDc\S/

02-01-2008, 01:52 PM

I would have to say so far what was expected has happened in sequence. I guess what we have to wonder now is when Huckabee might end his run in this race. Likeable guy so kind of sad to see him go.

The Joker_1000

02-01-2008, 07:07 PM

I'm hoping that Obama wins this come Tuesday. He's a very intelligent person & I would sleep much more safely at night knowing that he had moved on to the next stage of becoming President.

The Senator

02-01-2008, 08:27 PM

If McCain sweeps the Super Tuesday states, Romney or Huckabee could very well drop out.

Hillary and Obama will stay in until the very end, unless one of them is way far ahead in the delegate count and it therefore wouldn't be feasible to continue on. But I don't see that happening.

hippie_hunter

02-01-2008, 09:21 PM

I think Huckabee will be the next one to drop out followed by Romney. Paul will stay until the very end but it's not like he's going to really win anything. He'll stay in to promote his message to the American people.

Even though Gravel hasn't dropped out, does he really count as a candidate anymore?

Addendum

02-01-2008, 09:28 PM

No one below the Mendoza line counts

Chris B

02-01-2008, 09:40 PM

Hillary and Obama will stay in until the very end, unless one of them is way far ahead in the delegate count and it therefore wouldn't be feasible to continue on. But I don't see that happening.

I'm not so sure. I think that one of the two is going to come out with a clear lead in the delegate count after Feb. 5. And since I think McCain is going to emerge as the de facto Republican nominee on Tuesday, I think the party establishment is going to pressure the "loser" into dropping out.

The Joker_1000

02-01-2008, 10:05 PM

Hopefully Obama is the winner.

The Senator

02-01-2008, 10:12 PM

I'm not so sure. I think that one of the two is going to come out with a clear lead in the delegate count after Feb. 5. And since I think McCain is going to emerge as the de facto Republican nominee on Tuesday, I think the party establishment is going to pressure the "loser" into dropping out.

If Hillary leads substantially, I wouldn't be surprised if she announces a Clinton/ Obama ticket the next day. It would end the primary, unite the party, and would immediately place all press attention on the Democrats. But that's wishful thinking, I guess.

However, if neither one of them has a clear lead, then it will go on, and won't be over until the last of the big states are decided.

Matt

02-03-2008, 08:50 AM

sooo, if anyone cares, Romney won Maine. Think this changes anything?

The Senator

02-03-2008, 10:32 AM

sooo, if anyone cares, Romney won Maine. Think this changes anything?

Phew, Maine was such an important state this year. He's definitely got Super Tuesday in the bag now-- as if there was any doubt before.

Matt

02-03-2008, 10:46 AM

You're sarcasim is duly noted :cmad:

Venom'sDad

02-03-2008, 11:39 AM

Didn't know this thread existed... but anyhow....

Tim Russert of MSNBC reported on his show that, "hillary is indicating to the DNC, that the delegates of Michigan & Florida should count, should the candidates delegates go to the floor at the National Convention, if there is no clear majority . The DNC and the Candidates all agree that those states delegates would not count, because of those states moving up their primary. Also, there should not be any active campaigning there by any of the candidates campaigns." Russert also said, "There are beginning to be some rumblings about the possibility of the Party splitting if hillary press the issue."

Just like the Nevada Caucus, hillary & Co. are trying to change the rules, that everyone agreed to.

One of the panelist on Russert show said, "Top DNC officials have express serious disappointment with her holding a photo-op rally and giving the impression of a legitimate win, in Fort Lauderdale after the Florida Primary. There is feelings that the two candidates will split the delegates that are up for grab SuperTuesday, 60-40 hillary; but caution, Obama fast rise leading up to SuperTuesday may bring the percentage count much closer."

Why am I not surprise... her & Bill will do anything it to win. Complete disregards of the consequences, like fractioning the Party for an example... alienating Party Leaders. Any one who think Obama would ask her to be part of a Obama/Clinton ticket or vice-versa, is just.....

The Senator

02-03-2008, 11:57 AM

Jesus ****ing Christ....

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 12:52 PM

I don't know there are rumors floating that Huckabee is alligned with Mccain to stay in race longer than some expect to take votes away from Romney, and in return getting VP bid.

Lobster Charlie

02-03-2008, 01:19 PM

Huckabee is going to drop out next. Ron Paul (!) just beat his butt in Maine!

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 01:22 PM

LOL Ron Paul is a joke. He may be right on some things but he seems like a broken record on "VALUE OF THE DOLLAR!"

Kelly

02-03-2008, 01:31 PM

I don't know there are rumors floating that Huckabee is alligned with Mccain to stay in race longer than some expect to take votes away from Romney, and in return getting VP bid.

If McCain takes Huckabee as his running mate, he just lost a good number of the independent votes that have been going to McCain.......and in the end IMO, he'll lose the presidency....

The Senator

02-03-2008, 01:42 PM

If Huckabee becomes VP, I'm leaving the country! :cmad:

Matt

02-03-2008, 01:44 PM

Huckabee will drop out wednesday or thursday.

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 01:45 PM

So Matt did he stay in for Super Tuesday to take away votes from Romney?

hippie_hunter

02-03-2008, 01:46 PM

Huckabee's just staying in to hurt Romney. He most likely knows that he ain't going to win and would most likely prefer McCain over Romney.

Lobster Charlie

02-03-2008, 01:46 PM

LOL Ron Paul is a joke. He may be right on some things but he seems like a broken record on "VALUE OF THE DOLLAR!"

Haha, that may be true sometimes, but I find him to be the only interesting candidate up there. And hey, the dollar is dropping!

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 01:53 PM

Huckabee's just staying in to hurt Romney. He most likely knows that he ain't going to win and would most likely prefer McCain over Romney.

Most likely supports front runner to gain possibility of VP ;) Hmm Huckabee vs Thompson soon to emerge :D

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 01:55 PM

Haha, that may be true sometimes, but I find him to be the only interesting candidate up there. And hey, the dollar is dropping!

Funny thing is in most of the debates as he repeats himself and the moderators ends his comments the other candidates never go after Ron Paul. They kind of smile and treat him like a special kid from class. Ralph Wiggum for President ha ha.

hippie_hunter

02-03-2008, 04:29 PM

Most likely supports front runner to gain possibility of VP ;) Hmm Huckabee vs Thompson soon to emerge :D

I don't think it's to try and be the VP, I think it's out of spite because Huckabee doesn't like Romney.

SentinelMind

02-03-2008, 07:21 PM

hippie_hunter

02-03-2008, 07:23 PM

Huckabee would be a bad VP pick, I doubt it will happen. Huckabee can't control what he says...the Republican establishment won't allow it, McCain can do better and Romney would never choose him at this point.

The only problem with your statement is that Romney isn't going to get the nomination. McCain has it locked up now and he's never going to choose Romney.

SentinelMind

02-03-2008, 07:27 PM

?^I wasn't saying McCain would choose Romney or Romney will win, I was just saying neither McCain nor Romney would choose Huckabee.

strikezone89

02-03-2008, 07:30 PM

are only clinton and obama left in the democratic race?

The Senator

02-03-2008, 09:01 PM

are only clinton and obama left in the democratic race?

Gravel's still in the race, too :o

So yes, it's only Clinton and Obama at this point.

teseract

02-03-2008, 09:53 PM

Nominating the Huckleberry as VP could backfire heavily for McCain. He could scare away the moderates he needs to win. He would also deliver the Dems a fighting tactic on the silver plater, since all they would need to do is attack Huck's comments on the constitution and use his controversies as a lever against McCain. Guilty by association would be the motto.

hippie_hunter

02-03-2008, 11:23 PM

Huckabee also faces backlashes from conservatives. I think McCain is going to nominate Christ as his VP.

Lightning Strykez!

02-04-2008, 01:05 AM

Well, I'd say McCain vs. Hillary is a lock at this point. Hillary will win big on Super Tuesday and secure the nomination. After his win in Florida, McCain will do the same. Buckle up kids...if you thought Bush/Kerry got dirty...you ain't seen nothin' yet.

A lock? I don't think so. Everything is waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to call at this point. The numbers alone show Billary and Obama in a dead heat, and he's actually 4 points ahead of her in California at this moment. He's within a 2-6 point striking distance in the other states, and ahead in Georgia and Illionis. Now of course, all of this is subject to change at any moment, but I don't believe the country will have a clear frontrunner come Tuesday.

Besides, it's not about votes at this point anyway--it's about delegates. And the Dem party is clearly split right now....and I kid you not!

StorminNorman

02-04-2008, 02:37 AM

Romney is surging in California. Now has a lead on McCain according to Zogby.

Malice

02-04-2008, 05:05 AM

I think Romney is behind, but I think he will do ok.
How far, I really no idea, I just have a sinking feeling it will not be as good as is needed.

The Senator

02-04-2008, 06:35 AM

I hope Romney can surge late in the game. The anti-McCain sentiments from the right are growing louder each day, so it's entirely possible. And as a Dem, McCain seems like the most threating Republican at this point. Romney wouldn't be an easy candidate to defeat, but I think it would be easier to win against him than McCain.

Captain Planet!

02-04-2008, 10:18 AM

Ron Paul, then Huckabee.

Rated-X

02-04-2008, 10:24 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Terrence McAuliffe, the multimillionaire wheeler-dealer imposed by the Clintons on the Democratic National Committee as its chairman after the 2000 election, quickly paid back his benefactors. He designed a front-loaded primary system intended to confirm Sen. Hillary Clinton as presidential nominee by Feb. 5. Contrary to expectations, however, no choice will be made for months and perhaps not until the national convention at Denver in late August.

There is no mathematical possibility of Mega Tuesday balloting in 22 states tomorrow for 1,681 delegates -- labeled the first "national" primary -- giving either Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama close to the 2,025 delegates necessary for nomination. That unexpected reality is produced by Obama's appeal, Clinton fatigue and extreme proportional representation adopted by the Democratic Party.

The nation's two political parties have reverted to form after appearing to have exchanged identities. Democrats a year ago seemed to be emulating Republican practice in settling for an early anointed candidate, Sen. Clinton, while the divided GOP field resembled historic Democratic practice in the absence of an incumbent president. Republicans, who traditionally abhor competition, are ready tomorrow to crown Sen. John McCain as their nominee. Democrats will still be battling.

The full consequences of adopting proportional representation three decades ago finally will be realized by the Democratic Party. In 1972, supporters of Hubert Humphrey protested George McGovern's winner-take-all capture of the huge California delegation that clinched the presidential nomination. Appalled at being called majoritarians, McGovernite liberals adopted proportional representation. For the next seven presidential elections, Democrats have avoided its impact creating a stalemate, in the absence of a prolonged two-candidate contest.

Under proportional representation, a candidate collects delegates by achieving the 15 percent viability level either statewide or in a congressional district. In a four-delegate district, Clinton could win 59 percent of the vote and still split the delegates with Obama, two to two. The impact of California consequently is dissipated in view of polls showing Clinton's former double-digit lead cut in half. Although she can win handily in New York and New Jersey, Obama will be first in Illinois and smaller states, and is strong in barometric Missouri. So, the supposed national primary will settle nothing.

Nor, because of delegate division, is it guaranteed that a nominee would be selected by March 4, in the Texas and Ohio primaries, or even by April 22, when Pennsylvania votes. Many of the 796 "super delegates" (unelected prominent Democrats) can remain undecided. Finally, Clinton will try to restore Florida and Michigan delegates purged from convention rolls for scheduling their primaries too early -- primaries that she won virtually uncontested. That raises the specter of rival delegations from those two states arriving in Denver, prompting an old-fashioned credentials fight.

Before that happens, the issue may be settled by either Clinton or Obama emerging as the clear popular vote winner in the primaries and clinching the nomination while short of a majority of delegates. But that begs the question of why the issue is still in doubt. McAuliffe, now the Clinton campaign's national chairman, calculated that front-loading would make his candidate the de facto nominee by now so that full time could be devoted to attacking the Republicans and raising funds against them.

The answer can be found in the surprising list of senators who endorsed Obama after Clinton won the New Hampshire primary: Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. McCaskill is the least prominent of the group as a freshman, but she has attracted favorable attention during her first year in the Senate as a principled independent. She was campaigning hard last week for Obama in Missouri against her sister senator.

Senatorial support of Obama helps explain why the McAuliffe plan failed. In addition to habitual Democratic resistance to being controlled, many colleagues simply do not trust Clinton. They complain that in Thursday's debate from Los Angeles she repeated that she opposed the Levin amendment to the 2003 Iraq war resolution because it would "subordinate" U.S. decision-making to the United Nations. It did not, and Clinton made no such claim until her presidential campaign. That kind of performance has helped build the stalemate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_robert_d_novak/democratic_stalemate

VD might be right about Hillary in Michigan & Florida.

souvlaki

02-04-2008, 12:41 PM

Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut

by Jason George

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

Clinton is holding a roundtable discussion with Connecticut women to talk about childcare and healthcare.

When Clinton got misty-eyed at an event in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, politicos and pundits filled hours discussing if it helped her, and Clinton eventually pointed to the moment as when she "found her voice" and turned the corner in the Granite State.

At the time, there was much debate if the candidate's emotional response to a question -- "How do you do it?"" -- was genuine or calculated.

Let the conversation begin again...

Knowing the stupidity of American voters, this probably won her the primary.

Damiean Dark

02-04-2008, 02:14 PM

Ron Paul says some very home truths americans hate to hear so they portray him as a loon if he could debate in a political manner not in his soap box in times square method he would be more popular in my opinion.

Venom'sDad

02-04-2008, 02:16 PM

Huckabee also faces backlashes from conservatives. I think McCain is going to nominate Christ as his VP.

McCain is not going to ask Huck to be his VP.... lol, that wont happen.

Damiean Dark... you are right about Ron Paul, he does speak alot of truth the media and most American ignore.

The Senator

02-04-2008, 05:17 PM

Malice

02-04-2008, 05:19 PM

Not again....
WAHHHHHH

I want to prove I have feelings!
WAHHHHHH

The Senator

02-04-2008, 05:20 PM

Rumor has it, if Obama fails to win the nomination, he's not only dropping out of the Presidential race... he's leaving the Senate, too. That's just a rumor I heard from someone who knows a guy who knows one of Obama's Senate office employees... but if it has any truth to it, I think that would be interesting none the less.

Malice

02-04-2008, 05:28 PM

I doubt he would leave...noone just leaves loosing the presidency..and leave politics all together, unless they have been in office for 20 years already.

He will stay....because he sees himself as another person for 2012 if he does not make it this time.

souvlaki

02-04-2008, 05:49 PM

She sheds a few tears in Connecticut after a friend gave an emotional introduction, and suddenly she's public enemy number one. Regardless of what happened in New Hampshire, I doubt this incident was calculated. She also made light of the incident in her speech, so I'm under the impression this was legitimate.

And if it wins her the primary... that's just further evidence that Barack Obama couldn't run a solid enough campaign.

I saw her mentioning it as a sign that she was not being genuine. "Hey guys, incase it wasn't apparent a few seconds ago, I wanted to remind you that I was just crying. See, I do have feelings!" It just feels way too calculated, especially the day before Super Tuesday.

And that is ridiculous to blame Obama losing on not running a solid enough campaign. Clinton has name recognition, and was the clear frontrunner the second this race started. By all accounts, she had this election in the bag. Even if Obama does not end up winning the nomination Obama completely demolished all expectations. He has ran an amazing campaign, and if you cant see that you are blind. I am actually shocked how well he has held up against the Clintons'.

The Senator

02-04-2008, 06:00 PM

I guess he wants to seek a life in public service, ala Al Gore, because he won't go anywhere in the Senate.

Venom'sDad

02-04-2008, 06:07 PM

I saw her mentioning it as a sign that she was not being genuine. "Hey guys, incase it wasn't apparent a few seconds ago, I wanted to remind you that I was just crying. See, I do have feelings!" It just feels way too calculated, especially the day before Super Tuesday.

And that is ridiculous to blame Obama losing on not running a solid enough campaign. Clinton has name recognition, and was the clear frontrunner the second this race started. By all accounts, she had this election in the bag. Even if Obama does not end up winning the nomination Obama completely demolished all expectations. He has ran an amazing campaign, and if you cant see that you are blind. I am actually shocked how well he has held up against the Clintons'.

That was very well said. :up:

Look, most hillary supporters make outrageous claims and questionable comments. The fact of the matter, and it has been reported by CNN & FoxNews recently, the reason why hillary won NH, Nev, MI & FL(uncontested), and what they suspect in CA, AZ, NJ, MO, and TN is because of "Early Voting". Voting cast long before Obama's momentum, when she was considered "Inevitable".

That's the downside of voting early, before fully being informed about a candidate positions and what they say and how they say it in debates.

The Senator

02-04-2008, 06:20 PM

That was very well said. :up:

Look, most hillary supporters make outrageous claims and questionable comments. The fact of the matter, and it has been reported by CNN & FoxNews recently, the reason why hillary won NH, Nev, MI & FL(uncontested), and what they suspect in CA, AZ, NJ, MO, and TN is because of "Early Voting". Voting cast long before Obama's momentum, when she was considered "Inevitable".

That's the downside of voting early, before fully being informed about a candidate positions and what they say and how they say it in debates.

How horrible! People actually voted for who they wanted to vote for three weeks ago, without jumping ship because the media told them to.

This election has been going on for a full year now. If members of the Democratic Party in those states didn't read up on the candidates before they cast their ballot, then it's their own damn fault. Besides, people who have the initiative to apply for an early voting ballot, fill it out and send it in obviously did so for a reason. They didn't vote for someone on a lark; they knew who they were voting for from the get-go and most likely did so with very little regret.

The Senator

02-04-2008, 06:26 PM

I saw her mentioning it as a sign that she was not being genuine. "Hey guys, incase it wasn't apparent a few seconds ago, I wanted to remind you that I was just crying. See, I do have feelings!" It just feels way too calculated, especially the day before Super Tuesday.

And that is ridiculous to blame Obama losing on not running a solid enough campaign. Clinton has name recognition, and was the clear frontrunner the second this race started. By all accounts, she had this election in the bag. Even if Obama does not end up winning the nomination Obama completely demolished all expectations. He has ran an amazing campaign, and if you cant see that you are blind. I am actually shocked how well he has held up against the Clintons'.

I agree that he managed to mobilize his supporters like no other candidate. But to say that Hillary won New Hampshire because she cried, or that she's going to win Super Tuesday because she cried, is plain silly. If voters were truly disgusted, if they truly found it fake and insincere, they wouldn't vote for her. But voters most likely don't care one way or another, and the ones who do care aren't planning on voting for her to begin with. If Obama and his supporters are going to blame Clinton's win on a few tears, then they're the ones who are blind to the world. The Obama camp obviously didn't run a good enough campaign, if that's the case.

Arkady Rossovich

02-04-2008, 08:28 PM

Ron Paul should have went out already,it's clear that he will never be a contender. But if i was to say something serious..it would be Huckabee followed by Romney.

The Senator

02-04-2008, 08:44 PM

Ron Paul will probably launch a third party bid.

Lightning Strykez!

02-04-2008, 09:46 PM

And if it wins her the primary... that's just further evidence that Barack Obama couldn't run a solid enough campaign.

Are you...serious? $32 million funds raised in a 30-day time period doesn't translate to a "solid" campaign? What about the incredible senate and star power that has coalesced behind him? I've never seen support like that for past presidential hopefuls. And God knows Hillary doesn't have that kind of momentum behind her--they (the Dem party) DO NOT LIKE HER. :p

Whether he wins or not, it is clear that Mr. Obama has eclipsed Team Billary--and gave her a seeerrrrious run for her money. No one can deny that. :whatever:

Lightning Strykez!

02-04-2008, 09:53 PM

I agree that he managed to mobilize his supporters like no other candidate. But to say that Hillary won New Hampshire because she cried, or that she's going to win Super Tuesday because she cried, is plain silly.

You overestimate people in this world Jman. People really are that gullible--and yes, their votes will reflect that. Everyone knows that it was women that carried Hillary in N.H.--the same gender group that abandoned her just a week earlier in Iowa. When polled, those women said they found her cold, unrelatable and polarizing. Hillary's advisors told her she needed to warm up. So just a day before the next primary she just happened to shed a few tears in a cafe full of women? Something she's NEVER done before on national TV?

C'mon man, do the math. She did it to provide fodder for the media.

If voters were truly disgusted, if they truly found it fake and insincere, they wouldn't vote for her.

Trust me, there are many who didn't...and just because of that. Shallow? Perhaps, but again, people today are just that--shallow. However, they also have the power to cast a ballot.

But voters most likely don't care one way or another, and the ones who do care aren't planning on voting for her to begin with. If Obama and his supporters are going to blame Clinton's win on a few tears, then they're the ones who are blind to the world. The Obama camp obviously didn't run a good enough campaign, if that's the case.

And what if Obama had the head start that she had? You seem to be forgetting that she's had a "build-up" for well over a year now. She's deeply entrenched in the minds of the American public. Up until now, she was the "definite"--and now, within just a matter of MONTHS that has changed. Now she's in the battle of her life to get this nom.

And you say he didn't run a "good enough campaign"? :indy:

The Senator

02-04-2008, 10:55 PM

You overestimate people in this world Jman. People really are that gullible--and yes, their votes will reflect that. Everyone knows that it was women that carried Hillary in N.H.--the same gender group that abandoned her just a week earlier in Iowa. When polled, those women said they found her cold, unrelatable and polarizing. Hillary's advisors told her she needed to warm up. So just a day before the next primary she just happened to shed a few tears in a cafe full of women? Something she's NEVER done before on national TV?

She led New Hampshire by 15-20% before Obama won Iowa. Then, he got the typical post-Iowa bump in the polls, and the media rode her off. Yeah, she cried in between the contests, but I highly doubt she won because she shed a few tears. Obama's strengths were with independents, which the stats say flocked to McCain by a 2-1 margin. Therefore, Obama lost the independent vote, and ultimately the primary in New Hampshire. The people who supported him most already hated Hillary, so the tears had nothing to do with it. The open primary did.

C'mon man, do the math. She did it to provide fodder for the media.

Already did. Look at every poll before January 3... she led him between 4-20 points between November and Iowa, with a few slight leads by Obama in between.

And what if Obama had the head start that she had? You seem to be forgetting that she's had a "build-up" for well over a year now. She's deeply entrenched in the minds of the American public. Up until now, she was the "definite"--and now, within just a matter of MONTHS that has changed. Now she's in the battle of her life to get this nom.

Obama immediately jumped to second place after he even flirted with the idea of running in October 2006. He wasn't expected to run. The general consensus was it would Hillary, Warner, Feingold, Edwards, Bayh, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Vilsack and possibly Gore duking it out... with Obama as an after thought. So, yes, her support was there. But Obama built his support fast, and immediately emerged as the anti-Hillary contender. So he very well could have overtaken her in the process. He had great grassroots support, and excellent youth coalition behind him. Hell, the media painted him in more of a positive light every chance they got... not to mention that he's raised the most money of any candidate in the history of U.S. presidential elections.

All of that should have made him inevitable, right? Well, he didn't do enough to overtake her early enough, when he could have-- and should have-- been able to. Up until October, he wasn't sure what kind of campaign he was running. So he had organization among his supporters... but he couldn't organize his campaign into what it should have been, and that hurt him early on, and ultimately hurt him in New Hampshire and Nevada.

Can he overtake her tomorrow? I would be surprised if he wins big, but I'll be even more surprised if he comes belly up.

And you say he didn't run a "good enough campaign"? :indy:

Up until late December, he didn't run a good enough campaign. And if he doesn't win the nomination, it's because he didn't make his campaign what it should have and could have been from the start. Simple as that. You don't win an election hoping you'll win. You win an election through organization, mobilization and building support through coalitions of active members within your party. He's had the mobilization, been lax on organization, and up until recently, barely had a sizable coalition among politicians within his own party. He hasn't run a good campaign until late in the game, and historically speaking, that has never boded well for a Democratic candidate.