Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe new CNN/WMUR-TV poll of likely GOP Presidential primary voters in New Hampshire has former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney retaining his from-the-neighborhood lead.
Arizona Senator John McCain continues to run second in the first primary state, with his numbers unchanged since the last CNN/WMUR survey was completed in September.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is in third place, and slipping fast -- down eight points since September.
So who is in fourth place and rising? Who is displaying the most momentum? It's not media-darling Fred Thompson, nor the more genuinely interesting Mike Huckabee.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the anti-war renegade, has displaced the two more mainstream contenders to take the No. 4 position.
It's Romney at 33 percent, McCain at 18 percent, Giuliani at 16 percent, Paul at 8 percent, former Arkansas Governor Huckabee at 5 percent, former Tennessee Senator Thompson at 4 percent -- with Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo taking one percent and California Congressman Duncan Hunter at his usual zero.
Paul doubled his support from September to November.
During the same period, Paul's sparring partner on foreign affairs issues, Giuliani, lost fully one-third of his support. And Thompson lost a remarkable two thirds of his support.
So here's a question: When is the Washington press corps going to start treating Ron Paul as seriously as it does Fred Thompson?
The likely answer is "not soon." And that's the most frustrating thing about the way in which the GOP race is being covered by major media. After all, Ron Paul has more to say -- and says it better -- than any of the other Republicans. With a fair shake from the media, he'd be rising even faster in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Of course, one of the reasons Paul's on the rise now is the fact that he is not the kind of contender who tailors his message or his campaign to meet media expectations. And in this volatile year, that may yet prove to be a smart strategy. At the very least, it is starting to pay off in the "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Of course, one of the reasons Paul's on the rise now is the fact that he is not the kind of contender who tailors his message or his campaign to meet media expectations."
And he doesn't "play ball" like All those other jerkoffs, and that inclides Hillary Clinton. Good for Paul. I'd rather listen to his messages in the coming year than any of them.
Not so keen on his domestic policy though.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/20/2007 @ 01:04am
NICHOLS's question: When is the Washington press corps going to start treating Ron Paul as seriously as it does Fred Thompson?
John, I'd say, as soon as the Washington press corps start treating Fred Thompson seriously......I don't spend THAT much of my time on politics but other than when Fred first entered the race, Thompson hasn't garnered serious attention.
Posted by Happy at 11/20/2007 @ 01:10am
I absolutely agree that if Ron Paul had equal media attention, he would be more popular. His support base seems to be legitimate. There's no question the man is a straight-talker. Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not (I recommend doing your own research on him), he adds real issues to the political discourse.
Posted by rawkd at 11/20/2007 @ 01:30am
He's certainly right about the war.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/20/2007 @ 01:43am
The media will keep up their bias until it looked like Paul was going to beat Obama or Hillary.
Posted by silqworm at 11/20/2007 @ 02:26am
I truly believe that Ron Paul is the only hope for America right now , period .
He is the only candidate on both sides of the aisles speaking pure undoctored truth . .
And that is what we as Americans need , enough of the same ole same ole . . . Ron Paul is our guy .
We run a very serious risk of losing all of our internal freedoms if we elect any of the other candidates , thats right , any of them . Regardless of your feelings on the war , we have a very serious problem as a nation coming up around the bend with the national I.D. cards and a serious immigration problem and noone is addressing this but Ron Paul .
Our Liberty is like a muscle if we don't exercise it , it will become weak and powerless - - You have to vote for Ron Paul
Posted by Juice at 11/20/2007 @ 02:41am
He's certainly right about the war.
Posted by MATTMAN 11/20/2007 @ 01:43am
Ya, it's bad when even the dems are wishing for an old time republican like Ron Paul over the other drivel that party has to offer. He's a conservative, but not a neocon nutcase ready to shove his religion down peoples' throats like Thompson and the Huskter. I figure there isn't much difference between Ron Paul and Hillary.
I do find it interesting that the two guys who stand in opposition to the Iraq War (Kucinich and Paul) have had next to zero media coverage. Could it be that those controlling the media wish to keep the war going???? It's news when people get blown up.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2007 @ 06:56am
Okay, Kucinich fans...explain it again.
Why can Ron Paul do what Dennis can't? All the excuses for why Dennis isn't higher in the Dem polling are the same criteria for Paul...and as Mr Nichols says "Paul is rising".
Okay...why can't Dennis?
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 07:32am
This is thrilling news indeed and I cannot wait for the pollsters to be proven completely WRONG. They are not polling the democrats and independents who are flocking to the Ron Paul campaign...you think the GOP would be embracing someone who is actually growing the party.
This MSM attention on Huckabee all of a sudden is a bit too suspicious! Give me a break! He cannot raise any money and they are calling him a dark horse...UGH!
BIG plus: Ron Paul supporters WILL actually vote- we know just how important it is.
Now to just get rid of those darn electronic voting machines!
Posted by motherofsix at 11/20/2007 @ 07:51am
Could it be that the "liberal" media isn't so liberal after all? Kucinich is doing better, and, as I recall, even won an online poll of potential Democratic voters- big news? Apparently not for the "liberal" media.
Posted by Turk33 at 11/20/2007 @ 08:19am
Sorry, my post was in response to Mask's question -
...and as Mr Nichols says "Paul is rising".
Okay...why can't Dennis?
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 07:32am
Posted by Turk33 at 11/20/2007 @ 08:21am
Posted by TURK33 11/20/2007 @ 08:21am |
Well, TURK, while Kucinich wins online "polls" (on DFA and other left-wing sites)....Ron is in 4th place in New Hampshire, in an ACTUAL poll and brings in $4.5 million in a single day online donations record.
Does Dennis?
As for "The Media"...seems if they were as "anti-Dennis" and "silencing him" or "not letting him get his message out", as the Kucinichites claim, they'd be JUST as "anti-Ron" and Paul would be doing just as badly as Kucinich?
Maybe a new theory should be considered, huh?
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 08:39am
As for "The Media"...seems if they were as "anti-Dennis" and "silencing him" or "not letting him get his message out", as the Kucinichites claim, they'd be JUST as "anti-Ron" and Paul would be doing just as badly as Kucinich?
Maybe a new theory should be considered, huh?
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 08:39am
Mask, how about this for thought .... those putting the money into the candidates campaign war chests are investing in Paul because Paul is more to their advantage than Dennis.....
Kucinich is a liberal anti-war candidate, where Paul is a true conservative anti-war candidate.
Make no mistake. Paul will still see to it the big business wins out, where Kucinich will be more on the side of your average workers. That's where I don't see much difference between Paul or Hillary. Hillary is also a true conservative, but she won't get us out of Iraq. That's where Paul would beat her head to head with me, but Kucinich is the only candidate backing workers and not large corporations besides Edwards.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2007 @ 08:56am
The polls have become an insidious cancer eating away at our republic. It's amazing that so many of us look at the results of these so-called "scientific" polls and put so much blind trust in them.
Posted by thirty3na3rd at 11/20/2007 @ 09:07am
those putting the money into the candidates campaign war chests are investing in Paul because Paul is more to their advantage than Dennis..... Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/20/2007 @ 08:56am
I'm sorry, so you think Paul's fund-raising is coming from...."Big Corporations"?!???!? Nuh-huh---
www.abcnews.go.com
By JAKE TAPPER and Z. BYRON WOLF Oct. 3, 2007
".....Paul's supporters are often young and raucous and emanate from college campuses. Their presence on the Internet is undeniable.
"The organization of the campaign popped up spontaneously on the Internet with these meet-up groups," Paul told ABC News. "It's natural that they would donate the money. So in many ways, the campaign has found me as much as I have found them. It's not a top-down organization. It's sort of bottom up. All we have done at the campaign is provide the message, and the message turns out to be popular."
Paul said the crowds are excited about his "message of limited government and following the Constitution." He wants to do away with much of the bureaucracy in the federal government. If it is not spelled out in the Constitution, Paul probably does not support it. Take the Department of Education. President Paul would get rid of it. Same with the IRS. In the House, the former obstetrician votes against so many spending and government bills he's called "Dr. No." ........
Another Paul constituency, interestingly enough, comes from the military. A study by the Center for Responsive Politics found Paul received more campaign cash from members of the military than any other Republican presidential candidate.
The study of contributions of $200 and more during the first two quarters shows that Paul has raised three times as much from members of the military as what's been raised by GOP fundraising front-runner Romney, and four times what Giuliani garnered."
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 09:07am
People, in general, are tired of the BS-- all of the BS: BS from the hsuB/cHeney dic'tator admin, BS from the non-anti-dic'tatorship congress, BS from taxation w/out representation, BS from the dumb-down nonews sensationalismedia, BS from souless religion, BS from commercial/consummerism; finally all the BS from a job and/or family that doesn't make all the other BS worth the BS one tells oneself to live with all the other BS.
But then , I think that's all just BS. People just fear freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. All Paul is saying is-- take f'ing responsibility for one's freedom, but then the people attracted to Paul are the people that only wish that 'Paul' take the responsibility for them, which kinda takes all the umph out of the message.
If people really want to take responsibility for their own freedom and not simply defer it or even fear it, they'd be marching on D.C. by the millions and taking it back...
NOT.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 09:24am
As for "The Media"...seems if they were as "anti-Dennis" and "silencing him" or "not letting him get his message out", as the Kucinichites claim, they'd be JUST as "anti-Ron" and Paul would be doing just as badly as Kucinich?
Maybe a new theory should be considered, huh?
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 08:39am
I haven't seen too much on Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich on the mainstream "liberal" media. But here is an article about Ro0n Paul in the "ultra-liberal" magazine "The Nation" - seems odd, unless true liberals are able to judge issues liberally (you know, in the original spirit of the word instead of what's become an invective).
And as for Ron Paul, there are some ideas that I totally support (anti-war, environment) and others that I totally disagree with (pro-life, pro-vouchers, pro-gun lobby).
That being said, I don't know that I wouldn't vote for him - he and Kucinich seem like the only two running who aren't corporate whores. I like what I've read about Kucinich (great article in last month's Esquire), but because of his honesty and integrity, he has no chance. What a f***ed up country this is when a man who has spent his life working for the common man and standing up to the oligarchy can be dismissed because he has the guts to admit that he saw something that looked like a UFO - kind of like Dean's "scream" last time around.
Until we take money out of the campaign equation, there will be no integrity or substance in American politics.
Posted by Turk33 at 11/20/2007 @ 09:31am
That being said, I don't know that I wouldn't vote for him - he and Kucinich seem like the only two running who aren't corporate whores. I like what I've read about Kucinich (great article in last month's Esquire), but because of his honesty and integrity, he has no chance. What a f***ed up country this is when a man who has spent his life working for the common man and standing up to the oligarchy can be dismissed because he has the guts to admit that he saw something that looked like a UFO - kind of like Dean's "scream" last time around.
Until we take money out of the campaign equation, there will be no integrity or substance in American politics.
Posted by TURK33 11/20/2007 @ 09:31am
Well said Turk. They should dump all the B.S. as HUSUBFOOLs pointed out and run on the real issues, not this trumped up wedge issue crap. I could give a rats ass if some idiot wants to burn the flag or have his kids pray in school or not. If gays want to marry each other, who gives a shit.
It's supposed to be a free country, as long as they aren't hurting someone else, who the hell cares one way or the other. The problem is that these are the issues that seem to catch the attention of the media instead of war, poverty, education, health care, border security etc.
Things that effect us as a nation are what elections should be about, not a God damned fashion B.S. show to cater to the outter fringes who can't spell their own names without help.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2007 @ 09:42am
Posted by TURK33 11/20/2007 @ 09:31am
Two points....
1. "I haven't seen too much on Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich on the mainstream "liberal" media."
Exactly. Yet Paul is polling 4th in New Hampshire and garnered $4.5 Million in donations in a new record for a single day. So...again....why can't Dennis Kucinich do that?
Maybe the reason is #2...
2. "can be dismissed because he has the guts to admit that he saw something that looked like a UFO - kind of like Dean's "scream" last time around."----Posted by TURK33 11/20/2007 @ 09:31am
Or be dismissed because he THINKS he did see a UFO. Seriously...and honestly....if some Republican admitted that, would the dismissal of the Left (or anybody) be any less justified?
Plus, as I noted on another thread, Kucinich wasn't completely honest about that sighting. Shirley Maclaine claimed that it was a "giant, floating triangle" and that Dennis said his "10 minute encounter" with it "changed his heart and spoke to him".
When asked in the debate, he merely said "I saw something unidentifible". Why no complete denial of Maclaine's account? Or why no COMPLETE acceptance of the account?
The answer is simple. Deny it and he puts at odds his account with his friend...which means he's calling HER the nut. Admit to the WHOLE thing....and he makes Fox Mulder look like J. Allen Hynek and TOTALLY crushes his reputation.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 10:14am
http://www.presidentialufo.com/ronald_reagan's_ufo_sightings.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 10:32am
Kucinich and Paul are the only candidates not serving us the standard 'tuna-casserole-to-the-accompanyment-of-elevator-music' campaign, which has a lot to do with why they're catching the attention of quasi/political people.
That said, who's the idiot who convinced another idiot to televise hours of babbling candidates and call them 'debates.' Debates deal with one issue, a pro side, a con side and a moderator. Each side has the same amount of time to present his case. So none of the rules that apply to a real debate bear any resemblance to the travesty we're subjected to by the brilliant television industry.
Posted by felicity at 11/20/2007 @ 10:59am
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 07:32am
Here's the standard question for you, whenever you want to ask this jackass question for yet another time:
What evidence do you have to support your implied premise that people are repudiating Dennis' politics rather than some other reason?
Since you have a hard time thinking of possible alternative explanations, here's a couple for you to reflect upon.
1. How many would be supporters engage in Frank-style jump on the Hillary bandwagon because they don't see he has a chance?
2. How many are put off by the man - think of it as the Ralph Nader problem?
3. How many like his politics but are so tired of being sold one bill of goods and then have another delivered that they don't trust electoral politics at all - especially since, as you frequently point out, even a Democratic-controlled Congress would hamstring his ability to deliver on his promises because of who (read corporate, elite interests) they are beholden to in order to win office in the first place.
Let's see - not going to get elected, a dork, and even if he could get elected, won't deliver. Yeah, that's a compelling candidate.
The genius of Ron Paul is all he has to do is get into the White House and veto everything. He has a record of doing just that and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do to stop it once he is in - other than put together veto overriding majorities.
Dennis doesn't have that luxury. But this is politics 101, and most of these are arguments that you, yourself, have offered at one time or another. You could answer your own question if you bothered to think about it for five minutes. Instead, you just repeat it over and over here ad nausam.
Give up this stupid question about Dennis for awhile and stop playing the troll.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 10:59am
"".....Paul's supporters are often young and raucous and emanate from college campuses. Their presence on the Internet is undeniable." ::: its pathetic and shameful. you think they even know his voting record? no, they just thought it was "cool" that on nov 5th a bunch of supporters dressed in V costumes and acted all anti-establishment. is that all it takes to drum up $4 million? the amount of "liberals" falling into the paul trap is very alarming. so what if he's not a corporate puppet?? he's talking about banishing federalism! last time the confederacy tried that it didn't work out too well. and he is not without his contradictions: he claims he is for abortion being settled on a state by state basis, but his sponsorship of HR 1904 (that declares life beginning at conception, introduced at the FEDERAL level)suggest otherwise.
Posted by jro555 at 11/20/2007 @ 11:16am
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 10:59am
Okay, SRJ...let's consider those "alternative theories"--
1. How many would be supporters engage in Frank-style jump on the Hillary bandwagon because they don't see he has a chance?
-----Okay, then again, why are Repubs (maybe others, maybe DEMS) jumping on the RON PAUL bandwagon (to a greater degree than Kucinich)? Paul, according to the conventional wisdom, has no MORE of a shot against Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson than Dennis does against Her Nibs, Obama, Edwards, even Dodd or Biden? Why aren't they simply jumping on the "Rudy", "Mitt" or "Fred" bandwagons? Or does the Right "jump on the bandwagon" less than the Left???
2. How many are put off by the man - think of it as the Ralph Nader problem?
-----"put off"...how? His appearance? If so, why is Giuliani up? He's not the prettiest guy in the room (especially in drag). Nor is Thompson.
-----Again, seems a shot at the Left. You seem to be saying that the Left is MORE SUPERFICIAL than the Right.
3. How many like his politics but are so tired of being sold one bill of goods and then have another delivered that they don't trust electoral politics at all - especially since, as you frequently point out, even a Democratic-controlled Congress would hamstring his ability to deliver on his promises because of who (read corporate, elite interests) they are beholden to in order to win office in the first place.
-------So they like Dennis' politics....but think he's going to "sell them out"?!?!?!?!?
And the Right has been "burned by their leaders" just as much....see any "Right to Life Amendments" out of Bush and the GOP Congress? Yet, THEY seemingly aren't so cynical.
So ultimately, your "explanation" for why the Right (and others) are supporting Paul....and why the Left/Dems are NOT supporting Dennis is...
that the Left is "bandwagon-led"...superficial...and cynical...
and the Right isn't.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 12:03pm
Posted by JRO555 11/20/2007 @ 11:16am
ROFLMAO....that's rich.
Not a few months go by when Ari Melber or Peter Rothberg aren't telling us how "the kids on campus are starting to get involved again" and "the youth vote may turn the tide THIS election"...
yet when they don't follow the liberal paradigm of "college kids have to be more 'progressive'"....you call them stupid and "wanting to be cool" for becoming more active....for the "wrong side"!
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 12:05pm
Posted by JRO555 11/20/2007 @ 11:16a
You state that he wishes to abolish federalism. Then, you argue that he is not consistent in this position because he supports HR 1904 - which is actually 1094 Sanctity of Life Act.
The contradiction comes from your understanding that he is "against" federalism. He's not.
Now, I agree that the Sanctity of Life Act, in fact, seems to contradict a state's rights position. It cuts judicial oversight so the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts cannot review abortion related cases - which does support a state's position. However, the questionable part is what happens when the federal government defines "person" in this way.
If you look at the murder statute of U.S. Code, it states "unlawful killing". Could the states have laws for the "lawful killing" of fetuses? Perhaps. It's clearly trying to frame the discussion however.
Now, if you want to attack Ron Paul. Why not talk about his support anti-immigrant stances, his ideas about opting out of Social Security, his economic policies, etc.? There's plenty of things to criticize without making stuff up.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 12:30pm
1. "I haven't seen too much on Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich on the mainstream "liberal" media."
Exactly. Yet Paul is polling 4th in New Hampshire and garnered $4.5 Million in donations in a new record for a single day. So...again....why can't Dennis Kucinich do that?
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 10:14am | ignore this person
Apparently, he IS doing that:
The UNH Survey Center has been tracking levels of public support for the Democratic candidates for president since February of 2005. The trends revealed by this data show that support for most of the Democratic candidates peaked among New Hampshire voters likely to vote in Democratic Presidential Primary. Two exceptions stand out: Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich. Support for Hillary Clinton has now reached a new height in New Hampshire, according to the poll. The same is true for Kucinich, who was polling at 1 percent earlier in the year. Support for Kucinich has tripled since June of this year.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/425679/hillary_clinton_de nnis_kucinich_gaining.html"
2. "can be dismissed because he has the guts to admit that he saw something that looked like a UFO - kind of like Dean's "scream" last time around."----Posted by TURK33 11/20/2007 @ 09:31am
Or be dismissed because he THINKS he did see a UFO. Seriously...and honestly....if some Republican admitted that, would the dismissal of the Left (or anybody) be any less justified?
I've never seen a UFO, and apparently neither have you, but that isn't proof positive that Dennis Kucinich didn't. It may have been a political misstep to admit that he did, but it would be nice if it was his honesty that was being admired, not his lack of political savvy. Isn't one of the main arguments about the frontrunners that they're too savvy?
And if admitting to seeing a UFO is enough to disqualify someone from being president, then a lack of belief in the theory of evolution has got to be a no-brainer for an immediate ticket to the back of the line.
Posted by Turk33 at 11/20/2007 @ 12:38pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 12:03pm
1. Already covered. Ron Paul can deliver. Further, are you suggesting the Republican field has a clear "front-runner" like HRC? Could you put him out to me because I must have missed it.
2. Dennis is a dork. It's not superficial. If you are going to lead, you have to have some charisma and he has none.
3. Simply saying he needs to enact legislation to move his agenda forward. He needs the Democratic party to deliver - and they won't. It's not a question of selling out. It's a question of can he make it happen. Any honest evaluation has to come to the conclusion that he has a snowball's chance.
My explanation is simple. Ron Paul is more likely to deliver on what he is promising - because he doesn't need his party to do it. I essentially made this point in my last post.
Yet you want to give me a position I never assumed, ascribe to me quotes such as "band-wagon led" (you are aware that you should only "quote" things that people actually say/write and not "quote" things they never said/wrote?) and so forth.
Are you really confused why someone like KVH made the comments she did - given the fact that you habitually engage in this kind of behavior?
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 12:49pm
Ron Paul is the only candidate I can tolerate listening to... and when he speaks I want to cheer.
Posted by robin Nelson at 11/20/2007 @ 1:16pm
Rio-Whose votes will Ron Paul siphon off in a Republican primary?
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/20/2007 @ 1:22pm
Ron Paul exhibits the kind of "I'm not playing the Game" mentality I've been fruitlessly looking for in this campaign. He appears to have integrity since he practices what he preaches, although its a libertarian philosophy which will never count much with libs, I guess. For example, The Almanac of American Politics (2008 Ed) states that Paul voted against a constitutional ban on gay marrige, because he's opposed to Gov telling people what they should do. He also voted against Federal hurricane relief after Rita hit his own district, also because he believes the Fed Gov shouldn't be involved in your life. So he's got balls and is philosophically consistant even if it crosses current sectional lines. (Voting against hurricane relief in your own district is either very ballsy or very stupid, but with the current crop of politicos out there as an alternative, I'll take a chance that Pauls the former, not the latter).
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/20/2007 @ 1:26pm
TURK,
I often engage in the Diogenesian quest for an honest man...so here goes-
If a REPUBLICAN, especially a conservative one, had said they saw a UFO (and their friend claim even further that it was literally something "out of this world" that "changed ****'s heart and mind")....
same benefit of the doubt from you?
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 12:49pm
SRJ, you just changed your "explanation".
Re-read those questions, that I addressed and answered, and gleaned the only logical conclusion of your opinion from them....
1. YOU used "bandwagon" for Hillary supporters. And I asked, then why hasn't that applied to Giuliani and/or Romney and Paul's numbers as static as Kucinich? (BTW, TURK, going from 1 to 3% sounds great if you say "gone up THREE TIMES"...but it's still...3%)
2. You just AGAIN said "Dennis is a dork" (quote there). No "dorks" on the GOP side? So why are liberals/Democrats more superficial than Republicans?
3. Okay, say it's not cynicism about Dennis...but about the Democratic Party in general. Fine. Then Dennis ...is stupid.
Because apparently HE believes he can pass all that legislation...or is he promising something he KNOWS he can't deliver.
Has to be one or the other, right? Dennis is either hopelessly naive...or being disengenuous. If we are "generous" and say naive, then maybe you have "Reason #4"....the Dems have figured that out and don't want a naive person as President?
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 1:37pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 12:05pm :: well, coming from the demographic in discussion here, I assure you that college kids aren't getting anymore involved. and when they do get involved, such as the November fifth fundraising campaign, its for all the wrong reasons!! go ahead and find a college student thats a Paul supporter, and ask them why. I've yet to get any response beyond "because he's frigging awesome!". I don't advocate for a "right" or "wrong" side, I advocate for students my age voting for sound reasons and being able to eloquently state who they are voting for and why.
Posted by jro555 at 11/20/2007 @ 1:38pm
MASK, I could be wrong, but I think JR might have returned. Check out post at 11:16.
In the meantime,have a good thanksgiving if I don't talk to you:)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/20/2007 @ 1:44pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 12:30pm |:: well worded and duly noted. as you say he isn't "against" federalism...but he is all for reducing it to a point where it becomes very very insignificant. this country is so fractured already, do we really want to continue the drift with statehood rights trumping federal rights? I don't think I'm making it up.
Posted by jro555 at 11/20/2007 @ 1:49pm
If one has all powerful corporations ruling the day - no weakly state/federal government is going to keep them from making the rest of us (not already in the corporate ruling class), merely slaves. First take the rights of a 'person' away from 'corporations', then a weaker government, by and for the people, makes sense.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 2:33pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/20/2007 @ 2:33pm | :: great point. a fractured, state-ruled union cannot face down huge international conglomerates.
Posted by jro555 at 11/20/2007 @ 2:45pm
Deconstructing Ron Paul -
Aura Bogado for Z Net:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=14282
Posted by grizzledanold at 11/20/2007 @ 2:57pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 1:37pm
Why do you not only misunderstand simple English, but also insist on asking the same questions over and over again? The only logical conclusion I can come to is you are afflicted with a keyboard-variety of Tourette syndrome.
Let's review shall we?
1. Do a compare and contrast between the front-runners of the two parties and explain how they are analogous. Short answer: they aren't.
2. Plenty of dorks GOP side. Easier to hide in that company. Reflect again on point 1.
3. I don't think he is stupid. I think he is bringing issues the Democratic party - if he wasn't in the race - would leave off the table. By taking up these issues, he has to run the risk on the execution front and see if he could at least get them on the agenda (first by running - more seriously if he were to be selected), and hope that he could get something done by hook or by crook. Niavete, optimistic...sometime that line is a fine one.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 3:08pm
Posted by JRO555 11/20/2007 @ 1:49pm
I see state rights approaches as exactly what is needed. Sure, the Dakotas, Kansas and other places can institute their anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-intelligence/pro-intelligent design agenda. But that also means that other states can pass their gay marriage laws, pro-choice, intelligent agendas without federal interference either. Then, people can vote with their feet. When people start to learn what this kind of stupid policies cost them, they'll start realizing they need to wake up out of that dream they are in.
Posted by JRO555 11/20/2007 @ 2:45pm
The inverse may also be true - huge international conglomerates cannot face down fractured, state-ruled unions. It's much easier to get their way when they can bribe one guy - like Bush - and make it happen everywhere. Ever wonder why the U.S. has such a love affair with dictatorships? This is why.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 3:19pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/20/2007 @ 2:33pm | :: great point. a fractured, state-ruled union cannot face down huge international conglomerates.
Posted by JRO555 11/20/2007 @ 2:45pm
Isn't that where we are already?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2007 @ 3:20pm
USA Today/Gallup Poll.
"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them."
Candidate__________Date___Favorable___Unfavorable___Never Heard of/Unsure
Al Gore________10/12-14/07____58__________37_____________5
Rudy Giuliani____11/2-4/07 _____55__________32____________13
Barak Obama ___11/2-4/07 _____52__________30____________18
Hillary Clinton___ 11/2-4/07 _____52__________45_____________3
John Edwards___ 11/2-4/07 _____50__________31____________19
John McCain____ 11/2-4/07 _____47__________34____________19
Fred Thompson__ 11/2-4/07_____29__________28____________43
Mike Huckabee__ 11/2-4/07_____18__________18____________64
**************
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept. 7-9, 2007. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson."
Date________Favorable__Unfavorable__Never Heard of/Unsure
9/7-9/07______23__________20_______________57
*******************
Gallup Poll. Oct. 4-7, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about Ron Paul?"
Date________Favorable__Unfavorable__Never Heard of/Unsure
10/4-7/07______12_________13_______________75
*******************
CBS News Poll. Jan. 1-3, 2007. N=993 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Is your opinion of Dennis Kucinich favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Dennis Kucinich yet to have an opinion?"
Date________Favorable__Not Favorable__Undecided/Haven't Heard
1/1-3/07_______4__________11_______________85
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 3:08pm
1. Obama is catching up to Her Nibs in Iowa. Edwards still in it.===Giuliani losing to Romney in Iowa. Thompson/Huckabee still in it. Sure it's a BIT tighter among the GOP, but not that much more to explain why the "FRANKGRITS bandwagon effect" would help Hillary more than Romney or Giuliani. No excuse for liberals not to support Kucinich, if libertarians/conservatives can support Paul.
2. So Dennis is THE "dorkiest" candidate out there? "Too many dorks among the GOP for it to matter"? You're reaching, SRJ. Paul is no more charismatic our UN-charismatic than Kucinich. Again, no excuse.
3. Dennis is naive? Okay, fine. Now, go tell that to a bunch (if you can call them a "bunch") of his supporters and how he's NAIVELY promising a lot of stuff that he'll NEVER get passed if by some stroke of lightning he became President.
Oh, and by the way, tell them you can't support Dennis...because you don't want a naive person as President in a dangerous world.
Again and again, the Occam's Razor answer is just too much for you to consider....that the policies and ideas of Dennis Kucinich are NOT the majority view among Democrats, much less the general public. If it was....all the "bandwagons"..."dorkiness"....and "naivete" wouldn't matter.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 3:53pm
MASK, I could be wrong, but I think JR might have returned. Check out post at 11:16.---Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/20/2007 @ 1:
Naw, CHIP. "Professor" JOHANNESROLF is a man of his word, and if he said he was "leaving for good", I'm sure he wouldn't do something as dopey and teenager as to get a new nick and show back up here so that he could once again "enlighten us with his superior intellect".
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 3:56pm
So the moral of the story concerning the favorability polls up above, is to win the popular vote for president, win two more for VP, win a few more for congress, win a Nobel Peace Prize, win an Outstanding Creative Achievement in Interactive Television for Current TV, win a Primetime Emmy Award, win some Quill Awards, win a Prince of Asturias Award in Spain, win a Sir David Attenborough Award for Excellence in Nature Filmmaking, win a Honorary Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, win a Webby Award, etc., and then your favorability poll numbers will go up!
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 4:05pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 3:19pm |:: yes people will vote with their feet...and overburden and over-populate the more desirable states. is that really an improvement? and corporations don't just "buy one guy like Bush"...they buy out our legislative branch, thats a lot more than just "one guy". corporations will buy out states just as easily as they bought out our congress.
Posted by jro555 at 11/20/2007 @ 4:07pm
I hear alot from Republican Christians on this so called immigration issue, yet non of which that adresses the the current and future cause. The article by Tom Engelhardt poses an enormously critical question, If this draught does not end soon we will be seeing mass migrations within our borders. Who will get left behind when this nitemare scenario takes place? War within our borders over resources? Large groups of immigrants are crossing our borders to escape the poverty created by lack of rain, and now the very cities they have flocked to are in a severe drought, LA, San Diego, Pheonix, Atlanta. It is proposed that the water supply in ATL could dry up in as little as 85 days. As a staunch supporter of John Edwards, environmental reperations must come first, there are laws on the books for immigration that should be enforced. Secure the border useing these laws then get a record of who is still in the country with a DL. criminals go and hard working families get an opportunity to contribute. When you redeploy 160,000 troops not only can you secure a nation but you show them you are more than just a ribbon on an SUV. In order to make a fundamental change we must make good decisions based on sound information. Moveing to solar, wind , and bio will start takeing jobs away from the oil and coal industry, yet no-one wants to recognize that new industry and new technology create jobs. Education, environment, infrastructure all create new and exciteing jobs. If you are able to make a living wage on 1 household salary, your children benefit, your health benefits, and your general state of happiness increases. Jobs are lost crime jumps, poverty increases crime jumps, pollution causes disease, stress kills. I want to work one 40 hour a week job like my granfather did and raise my own kids, I promise to teach them respect, honor (some of you may need to look this word up), and that life is a precious gift. I will teach them that everyone has the right to his own beliefs and that no-one has the right to force theirs on you. Take a look at world history folks, pay special attetion to areas where fascist govmnts. sprang from and how. I fear that if the current trend in what passes for media coverage and education continue, another corporate politician will take the oval office and by 2012 it will be to late to make a smooth transition to a self sustaining nation.
Posted by BlindBob at 11/20/2007 @ 4:09pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/20/2007 @ 4:05pm
11 months and counting folks.
11 months of "Gore will be a write-in candidate and knock both Hillary/Obama and Giuliani/Romney off the map!"
Fortunately by October 20th, 2008...even the ever-hopeful (or ever-delusional) HSUB will give up on "Gore in '08"!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 4:22pm
I won't vote anyone that doesn't believe in science-- that includes evolution.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 4:22pm
er, I won't vote 'for' anyone that doesn't believe in science and that includes -- evolution.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 4:25pm
11 months of "Gore will be a write-in candidate and knock both Hillary/Obama and Giuliani/Romney off the map!"
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 4:22pm
Write-on Frita.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 4:27pm
Lets see some deeds.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 4:28pm
And more proof the media is a rigged system via a dic'tatorship:
EXCLUSIVE: Daniel Ellsberg Says Sibel Edmonds Case 'Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers' 'Gagged' FBI Whistleblower, Risking Jail, Says American Media Have Refused Her Offer to Disclose Classified Information, Including Criminal Allegations, Information Concerning 'Security of Americans'
Charges Several Mainstream Publications Have Been Informed of 'Full Story' by Other FBI Leakers Nearly a Year Ago, Have Remained Mum...
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5260
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 4:55pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 3:53pm
I don't support Kucinich or Paul - but both are closer to me than the front-runners of either party. If I had to choose between Kucinich and Paul, I'd go with Kucinich. If it were HRC and Ron Paul, Ron Paul.
But the bottom line is once everyone is done with HRC, Obama and to some degree Edwards, there's not much air left for Kucinich, and he needs his party to get his ideas of the ground - and that's his trouble.
The Republicans, on the other hand, is just one vast candidate waste land. All of them are duller than dishwater, duller than Bob Dole in his worst third-person referring moment. Anyone even remotely interesting would be able to fill that void in a second - Ron Paul can be considered remotely interesting.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 5:10pm
Posted by JRO555 11/20/2007 @ 4:07pm
Yes, it is an improvement. You also seem to be forgetting that there would be no corporations without federal law backing up their personhood and what not. Take that away...and we might very well see a different picture.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 5:13pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/20/2007 @ 4:55pm
My blockbuster is bigger than yours, lol.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/20/2007 @ 4:57pm
Nope mine is bigger because 'all' the MSM is scared to cover or rather uncover mine... not just the faux noise or Durgery.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 5:40pm
Wow, what a difference a few days make!
"Yesterday, Zogby released the results of their Democratic "blind bio" poll, showing that Al Gore is, hands down, in front of the pack with 35% support. His closest rival was Hillary Clinton at 24%.
Also in the poll, 60% of Dem voters would consider voting for someone other than the current slate of candidates, based on dissatisfaction with the positions on the Iraq War by the current official crop. 65% said they'd be open to supporting a new candidate based on the current candidates' global climate change positions..."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5236
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 6:58pm
"Gore's bio was the top choice of both men (39%) and women (31%), and also most favored by younger voters. Self-described liberal Democrats strongly favored Gore's bio (43%) over Clinton (21%), Edwards (17%) and Obama (12%). The bio selections of moderate Democrats closely mirror the choices of likely Democratic voters overall, with 36% giving the greatest preference to Gore's bio."
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/20/2007 @ 7:00pm
Currently I live in New Hampshire and for the first time in my life registered as a Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul.
The Democratic Party had a chance to end the Iraq War and impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.
They have done neither.
In short, America, the cradle of modern liberty needs less government and more freedom.
Posted by Tom Paine Jr at 11/20/2007 @ 8:09pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 5:10pm
SRJ...here's my point. Dennis is stuck in the "lower than Dodd & Biden" slot. Yet Ron Paul is rising and RAISING money.
Will Paul get the GOP nomination?....10% at best. Will Kucinich get the Dem nomination?...5% at best.
Now SOMETHING is preventing the one staunch anti-war candidate (DK) from taking off in the nominally anti-war party (the Dems)...where as the staunch anti-war candidate among the Repubs, is picking up 8% in NH and nearly 5 mill in a day.
And continually, even the THOUGHT that it might be because Dennis' OTHER ideas ARE understood and AREN'T popular...gets rejected. Why?
I think because the people who support those ideas don't have the intellectual honesty to consider that maybe the country isn't "where they're at" (and I'll be generous and add "...yet").
So they put it all down to "He's not getting enough air-time" and "It's 'bandwagonning' to Hillary" and "He's not charismatic".
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 8:19pm
HSUB....
you're a nut. You were a nut when it was impeachment...you're a nut when it comes to Gore running in '08.
Proof? You can't lay out any scenario by which Gore can win the Dem nomination, which WILL be decided in atleast 70 days, if not 50 days from now. You can't lay out how Gore won't cost Hillary (or whatever Dem) votes...much less win as a 3rd party candidate. And you can't explain how he becomes a "write-in" and wins enough electoral college votes to get the Presidency.
And ultimately, you can't explain when Gore's "secret plan" to run for President becomes public knowledge and not the fantasy of a blogger....especially after HIS OWN SPOKESPEOPLE told the guys at Daily Kos to stop gathering signatures.
I said it before...say it again. You're too deep into this crap to come out of it SANE at the end (cuz "the end"...was back in October when Al Gore 3.0 won his Nobel)
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 8:23pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 8:19pm
Yeah, who likes peace? Constitutional democracy? Ethical trade that deals with issues of child and slave labor, off-shoring jobs, etc.? Acknowledging the link between poverty and terrorism? Sustainability?
Because all of these issues are really....so hard to get behind. Yeah, why don't we spend some time talking about intellectual honesty because this ideas are so hard to dislike - you'd have to be completely fooling yourself to pretend its a minority point of view.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 8:53pm
Yeah, who likes peace? Constitutional democracy? Ethical trade that deals with issues of child and slave labor, off-shoring jobs, etc.? Acknowledging the link between poverty and terrorism? Sustainability? ----Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 8:53pm
2-4% of DEMOCRATS.
The rest of America? Obviously less.
Or maybe they don't like a certain POLITICIAN's solutions to those problems.
Nawwwwwww....that's just crazy talk. It must be that 98% of us don't care!
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 10:27pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 10:27pm
actually, that level of apathy isn't that quite far off.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/20/2007 @ 10:30pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/20/2007 @ 10:30pm
And back to my point, FZ....it ISN'T to that point when it comes to Ron Paul, atleast compared to Kucinich. Despite insults and "mitigating factors", here's an anti-war candidate that's moving up in the polls (popular support) and raising MILLIONS in a day (and not from "Big Corp").
Seems a degree of non-apathy....the problem is, that some here, don't like the target of that activism...and can't reconcile why it isn't going to THEIR target of support.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2007 @ 10:52pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 10:52pm
i like dr. paul (well, what i've seen and read).
but i wouldn't vote for him (get him to be secretary of state, maybe)
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/20/2007 @ 11:08pm
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 10:27pm
Using those numbers, we could say the same of Ron Paul. So what are you going on about again? A little Guy Fawkes money making? So what?
You neglect to mention he recieved more money this quarter than his entire contributions previous - off a gimmick. And you want to look at one data point and make it a trend.
Further, your efforts to somehow claim that people, in general, don't support the kinds of things Dennis is talking about based on his electoral numbers is fundamentally flawed - two reasons among many, likely voters aren't the general population and their support of a particular candidate doesn't indicate their issue preferences.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/20/2007 @ 11:28pm
HSUB....
you're a nut.
Posted by MASK 11/20/2007 @ 8:23pm
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH
Frita calling anyone else a nut-- is like a 'mask' wearer telling someone else-- to 'FACE' the facts...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:09am
Frita can't 'face' the facts.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:20am
Frita can't 'face' up.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:29am
Frita had to 'face' the music when her Frito got the boot, because she said that he wouldn't and that Pelosi would never put impeachment on the table, but Pelosi did put impeachment on the table and Frita's Frito did get the boot.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:34am
Frita will never be able to have a 'face' off.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:35am
Frita, on the 'face' of it, will never come 'face' to 'face', and confront anyone straight in the 'face'.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:38am
Frita's long 'face', at 'face' value, can't put on a brave 'face', when she gets egg on her 'face'..., but is even unable to do an about 'face'. Frita just can't see anything as plainly as the nose on her 'face'.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:50am
Frita, perhaps that's why you try to throw stuff in people's 'face', 'til you're blue in the 'face', because as hard as you try to be two 'faced', it'll always be known-- that you've lost 'face'.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 01:58am
"A man's 'face' is his autobiography. A woman's mask is her work of fiction."
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 02:01am
"God had given you one face, and you made yourself another..."
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 02:03am
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/20/2007 @ 11:28pm
So the deal with Dennis is...it's like the old paraphrased Yogi Berra line about a restaurant?
"It's so crowded, nobody goes there anymore!"?
EVERYBODY loves Dennis' ideas, they just don't think supporting him will get them implemented?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 09:38am
HSUB....when does Gore announce?
(or is it going to be a secret right upto the morning of November 7th?...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 09:38am
Frita, the same old question, the same old answer-- Al Gore is the only person with the status to decide when and how he'll enter the race; he can pretty much enter whenever he chooses to-- and win.
So why does that drive you nuts?
BTW, Frita, this is the last thing Al Gore said on the subject:
"I have not made a Sherman statement."
"I have talked to all the major candidates in my party, and a couple in the other party, about the climate crisis. I have given advice and answered their questions and will continue to do so."
"None of the [candidates] have proposed what I think we should propose..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21759787/
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 10:50am
"he can pretty much enter whenever he chooses to-- and win."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 10:50am |
Election Day is November 7th, 2008....so Gore could announce early THAT morning "-- and win.", right?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 10:52am
BTW, back to more sane topics....since there was an update....
It'd be HI-larious to see Romney win the GOP nomination.
I gotta figure there are more than just LVLIB on the Religious Right side who are going to have "trouble" with "Temple Morman" Mitt and stay home on November 7th next year. He might not vote for Hillary, but how can he bring himself to vote for a "heretic"!
(Hey, maybe LVLIB can vote for Al Gore when he announces!...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 10:54am
Interesting note on Gore, I was listing to Limbaugh yesterday afternoon (yes, I was that bored at lunch) and a caller was very concerned that Al Gore might enter the race and blow the Repubs away. Limbaugh, of course, pooh poohed the idea and rambled on about Gore's earning potential and how money would be a driving factor that keeps him from the race. Limbaugh then stated that Gore isn't losing weight so he wouldn't look presidential.
I thought it was funny and immediately thought, "I wonder if Bushfools is hearing this?"
I have mixed emotions about Gore but I do feel that he wouldn't be a "saviour" for the Democratic party. Personally, I like several who are running and I can't figure out why Dennis isn't getting more popular. At least at the last "debate" he was thrown a couple of real, honest to goodness questions.
Posted by FritztheCat at 11/21/2007 @ 11:14am
So there are some good points here about Paul v. Dennis. Paul has some good points but frankly, the man is scary. I don't like his stance on the right to choose (although most call this abortion rights, I'd prefer no one have an abortion but at least give women the right to choose!) and some of his other ideas are way out there. But then there's Dennis who has some nifty ideas as well but sometimes he seems "out there" as well.
Posted by FritztheCat at 11/21/2007 @ 11:17am
Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 10:52am
BWahahahahahah
It is driving you nuts!
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 11:17am
Bet Frita can't wait to see this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21821879/
Al Gore on the stage with all the other presidential candidates...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 11:21am
No, HSUB, certainly the sane position is that "Gore can pretty much enter whenever he chooses to-- and win."....with no caveats.
So again, Al 3.0 can announce the morning of November 7th, 2008...and win....
right?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 12:04pm
Frita, can't wait to see?
See what happens when Al (in his strong suit) and Arnold are on stage with all the current candidates running for president. See what happens when the masses are exposed to that comparison template: both not running, but both highly popular in their own respective camps and preferable to the current lot-- one could run, the other can't even, and the one that can becomes even more preferable; seen as in control of the others that are seen as not as experienced, not as farsighted, not being constantly awarded for their accomplishments, not inoculated from the current mess, not a wish fulfillment for a do-over, a 'global' do-over-- even !?!?!?!
You'll just have to wait and see like everyone else.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 12:35pm
You'll just have to wait and see like everyone else.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 12:35pm
Yep...we'll wait....and wait....and wait....and wait....and wait, HSUB.
Until November EIGHTH, 2009, the day AFTER the Election...which will be the day you switch from "Gore can announce any day and win it" posts to..."Gore will run in 2012 and (A) beat the GOP President or (B) take the nomination from the Dem President" posts.
But like impeachment predictions from you (over a year old now)....
I can wait!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 12:55pm
But like impeachment predictions from you (over a year old now)....
I can wait!
Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 12:55pm
That's because Frita is a secret new con supporter, servicer to dic'tator philosophy.
But Pelosi couldn't wait to put impeachment back on the table for Frita's Frito.
Didn't you say that it wouldn't happen-- but it sure did.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 1:09pm
Wonder what Pelosii is saying right about now concerning McClellan's kiss and tell book allegations. And she's sure to be sitting at the table.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 1:42pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 1:09pm
Ooh, almost forgot...
We're T-minus 11 months, 15 days until the launch of the "GORE-II" vehicle....no lights are green, no systems are go.
BTW...always a classic--
"(Only Al will decide whether he'll run or not and I say he decides to run by October same as I've said for a year or longer like I said hsuB would not finish his term-- impeachment will happen.)" ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/20/2007 @ 11:00am
BLOG | Posted 08/16/2007 @ 12:53am Kucinich Sounds the Alarm John Nichols
Now, in fairness, you TECHNICALLY didn't say WHICH specific "October", so you're still good for 10 1/2 months!
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 1:48pm
Frita believes that if I want Al to announce on a certain day/time and he decides he doesn't want to, that it's a big deal. Poor Frita, she has such a dull life.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 1:58pm
No, HSUB...I believe....that you're a nutty as a fruitcake....or just plain dishonest....or both.
See, you won't give a "Okay it's too late after THIS point" deadline for Gore's "imminent" announcement that he's running because either...
(A) It'll come and pass...and you'll have to be more dishonest and set another date.
or (B) After the "Gore in '08" thing is finally and truly over...you've got nothing left to talk about.
or (C) Both.
Hence MY prediction that you will go right upto midnight on November 6th, 2008 with "Gore could announce TONIGHT and win in a huge write-in tomorrow morning!" posts.
And for proof that you're dishonest...let's remember THIS--
"If Al doesn't announce by the 30th of this month then I'm wrong."---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/22/2007 @ 12:53am
THE UNDER-RATED BILL RICHARDSON...Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 10/19/2007 @ 5:33pm
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 2:07pm
Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 2:07pm
BWhahahahahah
It's like I can see Frita literally bouncing off the walls spouting-- "coocoo, coocoo I'm coocoo for cocopops"
Poor Frita she's gone totally nuts on this Gore thing...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 2:17pm
Time warp:
Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 2:07pm
BWhahahahahah
It's like I can see Frita literally bouncing off the walls spouting-- "coocoo, coocoo I'm coocoo for cocopops"
Poor Frita she's gone totally nuts on this Gore thing...
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 2:17pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 2:19pm
This is not an endorsement, but I think is a more accurate reflection of the mean (average) attitude of Americans today; anti-war, but not quite warm to the liberal wing of the liberals. I attribute this to the residual, anti-liberal, anti-intellectual attitude from the cold war era. It was McCarthyism and communism then, it's neoconism and terrorism today. This anti-war movement's market is no longer cornered by the lefties, and the increasing non-liberal-but-anti-war group that is willing to disregard their personal partisan impulse is personified in Ron Paul
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 2:19pm
T-minus 11 months, 15 days and counting....
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:17pm
T-minus 11 months, 15 days and counting....
heheh
Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 3:17pm
I once more apologize for the noise made when pulling the little chain attached to a small flat clock-like object I keep in my vest pocket.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 3:29pm
Why is "The Nation" gaga over Ron Paul? Ron Paul believes the free market will sort out our health-care crisis; he does not believe in gay marriage; and he does not believe women should have the right to chose abortion.
Posted by mdt187 at 11/21/2007 @ 3:32pm
Posted by MDT187 11/21/2007 @ 3:32pm
probably because they want to see an election debated on ideas and not haircuts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by MDT187 11/21/2007 @ 3:32pm
The honest answer is...they're hoping for a split in the GOP, with Paulites breaking off for a 3rd party run that would draw libertarian/anti-war guys from the GOP.
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:42pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 3:29pm
BTW, HSUB...you know the one clicher that Gore isn't running in '08?
he hasn't gone on a DIET! With the TV cams adding 10 pounds, Al Gore the White would look like Eric Cartman!
"Screw you guys, I'm saving the Earth!"...heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:44pm
Ah, scientists that don't believe in science and politicians that don't believe in evolution, ala ¬v¬, one that advocates for depleted uranium...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 4:16pm
go ron paul! the educated populous has exposed the false left-right paradigm and now we want answers and change. ron paul is willing to take on the unenviable task of righting the wrongs that have been done to us by our traitorous leaders for the last 100+ years.
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." -- Samuel Adams- (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
WE ARE TIRED OF FALSE AND DESIGNING MEN AND WE ARE TIRED OF THE WAR RACKET!!!
I say, TO HELL WITH WAR!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm
Posted by fu66352 at 11/21/2007 @ 5:03pm
in re:Why is "The Nation" gaga over Ron Paul? Ron Paul believes the free market will sort out our health-care crisis; he does not believe in gay marriage; and he does not believe women should have the right to chose abortion.
Posted by MDT187 11/21/2007 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person
Put another way, Ron Paul doesnt think its the governments job to do everything (in fact they prove they just mess things up worse), thinks marriage is a relationship between a man and a women (pretty far out there) and doesnt believe in executing babies.
wow...i dont want my country running my life, acknowledging hedonism or executing babies either.
I guess im for RONPAUL!!!!
Posted by fu66352 at 11/21/2007 @ 5:07pm
Mitt Romney just seems like he'll be a lot of fun to root against.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 5:54pm
Hey Frita, if there's no possibility of a Gore comeback why the media attack on the ready with all the outdate and disproven BS:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711210004?f=h_latest
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 6:24pm
er, outdated
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 6:25pm
LIVE FREE OR DYE?...
That's Drag Queen Rudia's slogan for the NH primary....
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/21/2007 @ 6:29pm
HSUB....Al Gore is not running for President in 2008.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/13/02538/096
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 7:23pm
Tues., Nov. 13, 2007
But when asked by the Financial Times last week, he warned: "I have not made a Sherman statement."
"I have talked to all the major candidates in my party, and a couple in the other party, about the climate crisis. I have given advice and answered their questions and will continue to do so."
"None of the [candidates] have proposed what I think we should propose."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21759787/
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 8:33pm
And yet another award:
Gore to receive International Emmy
NEW YORK -- Actor/director Robert De Niro will be on hand to give former Vice President Al Gore the Founders Award at the 35th annual International Emmys on Monday night in New York.
http://tinyurl.com/2nvqxj
Nov 16, 2007
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 8:36pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/21/2007 @ 8:13pm
You only sound bitter and jealous. Do you gang out a lot with Frita?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 8:40pm
Al Gore will not run for President in 2008.
His spokespeople said so.
Of course, as HSUB will tell you, they're either "in on Al's secret plan" and crush the hopes of the Draft Gore folks (temporarily of course) by going on Kos and saying "stop it"...or woefully out-of-the-loop from the Secret Gore Cabal.
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 8:54pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/21/2007 @ 8:54pm
MAASCH....HSUB is slowly but surely.....going insane.
First no impeachment, and now in less than a year, no Al Gore becoming Prez.
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 8:57pm
Hey Frita,
I just read Aussies4Gore, blogger, state that Gore doesn't have to be on the primary ballotss since Obama already is-- if there's a Gore/Obama ticket; something about Obama's delegates simply being able to move over in the early states. Granted there has to be a Gore/Obama for it to work...
Geese, just leave it to those down-under types to come up with fun ideas.
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support/index.php?showtopic=8063
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 9:03pm
Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 8:57pm
Frita is now working on mega-projection rather than mega-denial...
Yes Frita, Frito did get the boot after you said he wouldn't and Pelosi put impeachment back on the table just for him when you said she wouldn't, but boot hsuB did.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 9:09pm
as for the country...I really don't see them get to excited by anything Gore...sure, the usual suspects, but the real meat of the land?
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/21/2007 @ 8:54p
I'll assume you missed this post:
USA Today/Gallup Poll.
"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them."
Candidate__________Date___Favorable___Unfavorable___Never Heard of/Unsure
Al Gore________10/12-14/07____58__________37_____________5
Rudy Giuliani____11/2-4/07 _____55__________32____________13
Barak Obama ___11/2-4/07 _____52__________30____________18
Hillary Clinton___ 11/2-4/07 _____52__________45_____________3
John Edwards___ 11/2-4/07 _____50__________31____________19
John McCain____ 11/2-4/07 _____47__________34____________19
Fred Thompson__ 11/2-4/07_____29__________28____________43
Mike Huckabee__ 11/2-4/07_____18__________18____________64
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 9:18pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 9:03pm--- Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 9:09pm
Wait a minute. So Obama's delegates are going to abandon him at the announcment by Gore that he wants Obama for his Veep.
But the delegates vote by a majority vote at the Convention...so if Obama doesn't have the majority, Hillary or Edwards gets the nomination.
If Obama DOES have the majority of delegates, why does he "trade down" and become Gore's Veep...instead of keeping the nomination for himself...after all, HE (not Gore) WORKED FOR IT. Doesn't Obama deserve to keep what he earned?
Or do you think (and think others think) that Gore just DESERVES to be the Dem nominee, and doesn't have to work for it....just let Obama work for it during the primaries and then TAKE IT from him.
Yeah, HSUB, I'M the one in "mega-denial"!
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 9:21pm
Frita Frita Frita, it's not friday yet, why did you put on your blond wig?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 9:24pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/21/2007 @ 8:54pm
perhaps it's time you stop worrying about mr. gore and start doing something to help your children's (and mine's) future.
c'mon, j. maasch please read before you dismiss. [royalsoc.ac.uk]
these folks are scientists (the same society as newton and darwin), not jewellery makers.
and they are scared.............
really scared.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 9:28pm
Frita I didn't ever say that Gore would never enter the race-- you say that, kinda like you said Frito wouldn't ever get hsuB booted or Pelosi would never put impeachment on the table... she did and your Frito got booted by hsuB.
So as the Aussies4Gore theory goes, Obama is competitive in the early primary states that Gore didn't meet the deadlines for, but it's a toss up delegate wise. Then later, for whatever reason, Gore enters the race and wins most of the remaining states, but again no one has a majority. Gore has a lot, but then so does Clinton, Obama fewer than a third. If asked by Clinton or Gore, which would Obama likely wish to aline with? So with a Gre/Obama alinement Obama asks his delegates to move over to Gores-- thus creating a majority...
Farfetched? Sure, but not an impossibility.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 9:38pm
er, alignment
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 9:49pm
Farfetched? Sure, but not an impossibility.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 9:38pm
Here's where it is the latter, not former. "Gore enters the race and wins most of the remaining states."
That would mean California....and the filing deadline for CA is in two weeks (Dec 7th).
Hillary wins California, it's over. Gore would have to sweep so many other states, that it would be fantastical to imagine that Hillary (winning CA) wouldn't win atleast some of them.
But frankly, I think you're getting loopy. You accuse me of denial, when YOU are dealing with SELF-ADMITTED "farfetched" scenarios.
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 10:07pm
Frita always forgets stuff-- like where did Obama go in all her poopooing? She really needs to take off the blond wig. It aparently stops the blood flow to her brain, what little there is of it. Poor girl.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 10:42pm
Gore/Obama-- remember the Aussies4Gore premise-- aye Frita, the blond.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 10:45pm
But it really doesn't matter when providing Frita with a valid argument. With Frita, she never could follow a logical train of thought for too long, well, not without going all psycho that is. Making shit up or forgetting what the whole premise was to begin with... Frita is such a mess.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/21/2007 @ 10:52pm
I have already done something to protect my childrens future.
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/22/2007 @ 12:10am
you just don't understand.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/22/2007 @ 09:35am
But it really doesn't matter when providing Frita with a valid argument.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/21/2007 @ 10:52pm
I'm sorry...Gore jumps in well after the deadline to be on the California primary and still wins "some states", and then Obama gives his HARD-EARNED delegates to Gore to become his Veep, and they beat Hillary for the nomination...
is a "valid argument"!?!??!
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 11/22/2007 @ 4:01pm
Ron Paul, if you're a good person, then dis-associate yourselves from the Authoritarian Party!! They don't like you!!
Posted by conshame at 11/23/2007 @ 11:46am
Republicans are obsessed with trivialities, they talk about a Republic vs. a Democracy - a Republic is better. They cannot distinguish sherry from amontillado. While they obsess over their nonsense they willfully avoid the real facts. How about a Republic vs. an Empire?? Republicans are obsessed that th lazy might get a free lunch, while Bush gives out free lunches to the fat. Republicans talk about how Big Government is bad, yet they want the government to have the power to search, detain, and torture without due process. Republicans go ballistic over every penny that gets spent here at home, while billions for war profiteers go un-accounted. None of them believe in God anymore apparently - they just want to force other people to believe in Him. They talk about supporting the troops, but they equate that with sending the troops a cake - not with sending them on an honest mission.
Posted by conshame at 11/23/2007 @ 11:52am
A thrice married cross-dressing closet Nazi with mob ties is leading the polls. A corrupt preacher that wants a nationwide ban on smoking in public and whose campaign rallies feature a cheer, "All for Jesus!" A millionaire Mormon who flipflopped on every issue, but has nice hair. All of whom have never served in the military, but are pro-war. Sounds like a Kurt Vonnegut novel, but it's the GOP.
Posted by gao xia en at 11/24/2007 @ 09:58am
I'm sorry...
Posted by MASK 11/22/2007 @ 4:01pm
Apology accepted, Frita.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2007 @ 6:10pm