View Full Version : Presidential Primaries
Roguish Lawyer
01-02-2008, 18:06
Iowa is tomorrow. Who's going to win? Who are you guys supporting? I haven't been paying much attention. I'll go look at the Thompson thread a bit more, but I thought we should start fresh here. :munchin
Thompson is out of it...
Stay safe.
The Reaper
01-02-2008, 18:13
I just want to know why the 30th and 40th smallest states in the union get to pick the Presidential candidates for the rest of us?
Why not hold all primaries on the same day, just like the general election?
TR
Roguish Lawyer
01-02-2008, 18:18
I just want to know why the 30th and 40th smallest states in the union get to pick the Presidential candidates for the rest of us?
Why not hold all primaries on the same day, just like the general election?
TR
If you did that, you would make it even harder to be a viable candidate. Fundraising ability already is probably the most important thing in Presidential politics -- take away the ability to win some early victories and build momentum, and you'll deter even more good people from running because they can't afford nationwide media.
Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
You still like Thompson best? What do you guys think about Huckabee?
The Reaper
01-02-2008, 18:26
You still like Thompson best? What do you guys think about Huckabee?
I track with Thompson's positions better than anyone else's, and think that he is genuine about them. My belief is that the media has prosecuted an agenda to eliminate Thompson, though he could have worked harder earlier to dispel those myths.
My personal opinion is that Rudy, Huckabee, and especially Romney are running from their past and hold views that are opposed to the Republican base.
I understand the need to court moderates and independents.
For my taste, Huckabee is too liberal on social issues (especially illegal immigration, criminals, etc.) and is way to much into nambyism and big government. Not a Reagan Republican at all.
On the other hand, Rudy and Romney are even worse.:rolleyes:
TR
Roguish Lawyer
01-02-2008, 18:34
I'd like to see a debate. Have not seen any yet, and perhaps that would help. I am not excited by any of the candidates so far.
rubberneck
01-02-2008, 18:42
Rudy has too much baggage. Mitt has flipped flopped all over the place. Fred doesn't seem to have his heart in it. Ron Paul is a little too far off the reservation for my tastes. Huckabee's only credential thus far is that he is more Christian than the other guys, which leaves McCain. I don't like a number of his positions but at this point he is the only republican candidate that I could see beating Hillary or Obama in a general election and the only candidate, other than Rudy, that really seems to understand the importance of having success in Iraq.
This election season reminds me of the 1996 election when our choices were bad and worse. As such I will hold my nose and vote for McCain as there isn't a true Reagan Republican in the group and I can't imagine how badly we'd be screwed with Hillary or that lightweight Obama calling the shots.
incommin
01-02-2008, 18:54
I'd like to see a debate. Have not seen any yet, and perhaps that would help. I am not excited by any of the candidates so far.
I doubt that we will ever again see a real debate among candidates.
Jim
bricklayer
01-02-2008, 19:02
I think Romney is gonna take the trophy, but any wich way it goes, were all screwed! :eek:
I like Thompson, but considering the lack of media coverage, and his polling, I don't think he's going to make it past the primaries. Huckabee strikes me as a southern Democrat posing as a Republican. Romney may be a flip-flopper, but he was a successful businessman prior to entering politics, which leads me to believe he is a genuine fiscal conservative. Giuliani is pretty much out of the election, too much baggage, and realistically, he doesn't look "Presidential" ( >90% of CEOs are over 6' tall, as stupid as it may be, looks do matter, particularly in the current mass media environment). I don't think McCain is a viable candidate, he's made too many concessions to the libs.
As an aside, does anybody else think the MSM is building up Huckabee because they see him as the Republican candidate that can most easily be defeated in the general election? (I may have heard this on the Rush Limbaugh Program)
bricklayer
01-02-2008, 19:18
As an aside, does anybody else think the MSM is building up Huckabee because they see him as the Republican candidate that can most easily be defeated in the general election?
I would agree with that statement.
Peregrino
01-02-2008, 19:32
As an aside, does anybody else think the MSM is building up Huckabee because they see him as the Republican candidate that can most easily be defeated in the general election?
A pretty astute guess. I'm leaning that way myself. Huckabee is not my idea of a Republican; he's certainly not the man we need to lead us back to Constitutional principles and a federalist government. Thompson has disappointed me; his "non-traditional" campaign amounts to "no-campaign". Once again we get to choose between bad and worse.
GratefulCitizen
01-02-2008, 20:22
My belief is that the media has prosecuted an agenda to eliminate Thompson, though he could have worked harder earlier to dispel those myths.
TR
The media have a vested interest in eliminating Thompson.
He won't play their game.
If Thompson is successful, other politicians will follow his lead and the media will lose significant power and influence.
Boy, do I miss the old days.
I wish Pat Paulsen would run for President again, but I think we'd have to dig him up, to get him to run again. :D
http://www.paulsen.com/pat/
Frankly, I don't give a damn about Iowa or their opinions. The fact that candidates will decide to run or not based of 1/50th of the information is pathetic.
(No offense to CPTAUSRET and his lovely missus, of course)
GratefulCitizen
01-02-2008, 21:01
Here's a demonstration of the mild antipathy between Fred and the media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrD6Dedwjz0
Fred's dislike of the process is evidence of his sanity.
Ambush Master
01-02-2008, 21:22
At the increasing rate that Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani are hammering each other, Mr T could rise to the top in short order!!! He has not received nearly the amount of "Bad Press" for weeks and the others are taking it on like Staples to a Magnet!!!
The Reaper
01-02-2008, 21:27
Unfortunately, the screwed up system that we have means that if Iowans do not like Fred, the rest of us may not get a chance to vote for him in the primaries.
This is a ridiculous system.:rolleyes:
TR
Roguish Lawyer
01-02-2008, 21:29
Unfortuantely, the screwed up system that we have means that if Iowans do not like Fred, the rest of us may not get a chance to vote for him in the primaries.
This is a ridiculous system.:rolleyes:
TR
I think you are overstating things a bit, but I do agree that the early primary states get more say than they deserve.
longrange1947
01-02-2008, 21:31
Only the media feels that you must win Iowa and NH to get a nomination. I hate to admit it but look at where Clinton was after IA and NH. That should put some of that to rest.
Clinton got 3% in IA and came in second in NH. The media played him up big and that gave him the boast that was needed. Not the IA caucus nor the NH Primary decided it, only the media and they are at it again.
No one if forced out, they drop out because they are marginalized by the press.
Roguish Lawyer
01-02-2008, 21:41
Only the media feels that you must win Iowa and NH to get a nomination. I hate to admit it but look at where Clinton was after IA and NH. That should put some of that to rest.
Clinton got 3% in IA and came in second in NH. The media played him up big and that gave him the boast that was needed. Not the IA caucus nor the NH Primary decided it, only the media and they are at it again.
No one if forced out, they drop out because they are marginalized by the press.
Finishing second in NH is actually a big deal, I think. With lots of guys still in the race, it's like an Olympic medal. ;)
I think you're right about no one being forced out, but it's not just the press -- it's also the perceptions of the volunteers, endorsers and campaign contributors. Most people want to support someone who has a chance to win, and every time you do poorly in a primary you shed doubt on your prospects.
Finishing second in NH is actually a big deal, I think. With lots of guys still in the race, it's like an Olympic medal. ;)
I don't know about that R.L.
In the link I put up about Pat Paulsen earlier, he finished 2nd to Clinton, in NH in '96.
In 1996 Paulsen placed second, behind President Bill Clinton, among the 23 candidates running in the New Hampshire Democrat Party primary election.
Do people really think he would have made a good President, or were they voting for him just to say, they were tired of the BS?
IMO, the press wants a certain Presidential candidate to win, and will push for that person, because they know, if that person DOES win, they'll get more use out of them, for stories and such.
I think the MSM is afraid of Fred T. because of the fact he IS a no-nonsense candidate, and will get stuff done, with help from both sides of the isle, and that just doesn't make good press.
GratefulCitizen
01-02-2008, 22:40
Forgive my ignorance, but what does the word "nambyism" mean? I did a Google search and the first thing to come up were some other threads on PS.com. Some other sites had threads in which the word was used, but none specifying the meaning. I checked dictionary.com and it wasn't there either; it's like the word is exclusive to PS.com :confused:
Probably referring to the term "namby-pamby":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/namby-pamby
-ism:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ism
Nambyism: the doctrine of being a namby-pamby.
Maybe TR just invented a new word.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does the word "nambyism" mean? I did a Google search and the first thing to come up were some other threads on PS.com. Some other sites had threads in which the word was used, but none specifying the meaning. I checked dictionary.com and it wasn't there either; it's like the word is exclusive to PS.com :confused:
TR is obviously the expert, but after reading the posts in which it is used, one could infer that it refers to government acting as a babysitter, encouraging weakness in individuals.
Maybe TR just invented a new word.
Too bad words of 2007 already came out, maybe for 2008?
Hijack over
Goggles Pizano
01-03-2008, 08:50
I still believe counting out Thompson this early is a mistake. Iowa and NH will not set his fate as much as super Tuesday. After Fred I don't really have a fall back position for many reasons already stated. Rudy could surprise leaning on "America's mayor" national appeal but I doubt it. Romney may be a proven businessman and governor but everytime I look at him, or hear him speak, the first word that comes to mind is condescension. McCain shut the door with his immigration stance. He may not realize how deeply wounded his political career was by that. The base will never forget-at least this voter will not!
Here's a demonstration of the mild antipathy between Fred and the media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrD6Dedwjz0
"I'm sorry I didn't run that by you guys for approval..."
"There's a lot more stark contrast between John Edwards and me than our schedules..."
"You may have remembered about 30 seconds ago I mentioned the fact..."
Classic! Straight talk from someone that doesn't suffer fools gladly, even fools from FOXNews.
It should be obvious to all as far as the candidate that I am praying for.:)
The Reaper
01-03-2008, 18:34
It should be obvious to all as far as the candidate that I am praying for.:)
Hillary?
TR
dmgedgoods
01-03-2008, 19:03
#
yeap just checked cnn and headlines read cnn projects huckabee for reps...kinda nice, considering he doesn't go for same sex marriage and doesn't support abortion...unlike guilliani...and approves the war and supports bush's efforts...He's my man :)
The Reaper
01-03-2008, 20:32
yeap just checked cnn and headlines read cnn projects huckabee for reps...kinda nice, considering he doesn't go for same sex marriage and doesn't support abortion...unlike guilliani...and approves the war and supports bush's efforts...He's my man :)
Yep, if you like bigger government, higher taxes, new laws, paroled murderers, more benefits for illegal aliens, and lighter sentences for criminals, Huck's your man!
You might do some reading on the candidates here and some independent research before posting again.:rolleyes:
TR
Looks like NBC is reporting that Obama won the Iowa Caucus...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/ts_nm/usa_politics_iowa_democrats_winner_dc_1
but isn't that the american way?
"Yep, if you like bigger government, higher taxes, new laws, paroled murderers, more benefits for illegal aliens, and lighter sentences for criminals, Huck's your man!"
Bigger government (okay I'm 22, but I don't really know what you mean by bigger government sir.) *note: i used google and found a pretty good site explaining it.
Higher taxes, well If the funds were used correctly to help american people instead of sent to nations we're trying to coo into being our friends :) Also straight from Huckabee's website : "Our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but to the government's over-spending. "
new laws are fine as long as they aren't for gun control LOL and don't legalize any illegal substances such as pot, pills, etc.
Paroled murderers are fine, I have one in my family that I'd like to have paroled, served 20 out of 40 so far has 4 more to go before they'll give him parole the board said. I truly believe ther are some who reform.
I'll give you the illegal aliens one sir as well as the lighter sentences BUT you can't win them all...I think we should hold a harder stance on drug offenses, especially in rural areas such as mine. They are the "elite" group of people that are immune to punishment, who the local law fear, and who the general populus are afraid to rock their boats. Don't have much on the illegal aliens as in my area, there are none...coal town.
Warrior-Mentor
01-03-2008, 21:11
No surprise Huck won. Chuck Norris killed everyone else.
rubberneck
01-03-2008, 21:42
Higher taxes, well If the funds were used correctly to help american people instead of sent to nations we're trying to coo into being our friends :) Also straight from Huckabee's website : "Our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but to the government's over-spending. "
That is a very myopic world view. We don't spend money over seas just for the hell of it. It serves to further our national interests. The problem with Huckabee's quote on his website is that he spent money like a drunken whore during his time as Governor of Arkansas, and he singed a number of tax increases into law for good measure.
Paroled murderers are fine, I have one in my family that I'd like to have paroled, served 20 out of 40 so far has 4 more to go before they'll give him parole the board said. I truly believe ther are some who reform.
Paroled murders are fine? You do realize that your family member not only killed another person but destroyed the victims family? Do they get a second chance? Some people can and do reform and some are low down dirty pieces of human filth who will kill again. I would rather see everyone of them rot in jail than to see another person die just so we can figure out who is and isn't really reformed. They don't deserve that type of consideration. They lost that when they committed their crimes.
GratefulCitizen
01-03-2008, 22:04
yeap just checked cnn and headlines read cnn projects huckabee for reps...kinda nice, considering he doesn't go for same sex marriage and doesn't support abortion...unlike guilliani...and approves the war and supports bush's efforts...He's my man :)
Huckabee: a mildy more conservative, Republican, 21st century version of the 1970's Jimmy Carter.
No thanks.
rubberneck, if we were to start becoming a self-sufficient country, as far as oil dependency goes we wouldn't have the need to send butt-loads of money overseas in our nations interests.
As for the paroled murderers go, as I stated I believe that there can be reform...I sleep good at night.
This is why I'm sure Sammy Kershaw sang the song, "politics, religion and her".
rubberneck
01-03-2008, 22:23
rubberneck, if we were to start becoming a self-sufficient country, as far as oil dependency goes we wouldn't have the need to send butt-loads of money overseas in our nations interests.
As for the paroled murderers go, as I stated I believe that there can be reform...I sleep good at night.
This is why I'm sure Sammy Kershaw sang the song, "politics, religion and her".
Look, I am a guest here and as such I won't get into it with you. Instead of bleating gibberish on a message board you would be better served by reading some books on US history. If I might be so bold as to suggest that you focus on the ones that cover the Isolationist period leading up to the first world war.
GratefulCitizen
01-03-2008, 22:27
rubberneck, if we were to start becoming a self-sufficient country, as far as oil dependency goes we wouldn't have the need to send butt-loads of money overseas in our nations interests.
As for the paroled murderers go, as I stated I believe that there can be reform...I sleep good at night.
This is why I'm sure Sammy Kershaw sang the song, "politics, religion and her".
Parole after some time served probably isn't much of a deterrent to someone who is on the edge of committing murder.
Life imprisonment or the death penalty might give that little nudge to prevent the next would-be murderer from acting.
(murderers not paroled also have a 0% recidivism rate)
It's not about the person who already committed murder. Let 'em rot.
It's not about you and whether you sleep good at night.
I sleep well at night, too. I am not a likely victim.
It is about protecting the weak among us.
brownapple
01-04-2008, 01:55
I wouldn't get too worked up over Iowa.
In the past 35 years, the Iowa primary results have accurately forecast the nomination (opposed primaries only) of 60% of the Republican candidates and 63% of the Democratic candidates.
Of those, only 1 of the 5 Republicans won the presidency and 0 of the 8 Democrats won the presidency.
If the trend holds true, if Huckabee gets nominated (and some other Democrat besides Obama is nominated), Huckabee loses.
And if Obama gets the Democratic nomination? He loses.
And I don't think there are any surprises in that.
Check this out
Iowa Primary Results (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206/)
Democrats
Barack Obama 940 38%
John Edwards 744 30%
Hillary Clinton 737 29%
Bill Richardson 53 2%
Joe Biden 23 1%
Uncommitted 3 0%
Chris Dodd 1 0%
Mike Gravel 0 0%
Dennis Kucinich 0 0%
100% of precincts reporting TOTAL VOTERS 2501
Republicans
Mike Huckabee 39,814 34%
Mitt Romney 29,405 25%
Fred Thompson 15,521 13%
John McCain 15,248 13%
Ron Paul 11,598 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4,013 3%
Duncan Hunter 515 0%
96% of precincts reporting TOTAL VOTERS 116114
What is wrong with this picture? There were only 2501 democrat voters in Iowa? And the press is making a big deal about who came in first, second, and third!
Hell Rudy (with his 3%) got more that all the Dems combined. I wonder who the one guy that voted for Chris Dodd is? At least he had a vote - see Mike Gravel & Dennis Kucinich.
I am sure the media will be going on for days about Obama's victory over Clinton and probably never mention the number of actual votes!
And the SPIN begins:
Referring to the "unprecedented turnout," Clinton declared: "We are sending a clear message that we are going to have change and that change will be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009."
Ret10Echo
01-04-2008, 06:50
Just finished watching all the news clips from last nights caucus.. (well, most of them, I can't get past Hillary's voice so I skipped that one)...
It will be interesting to see what NH brings. I was watching the News Hour last night and was interested to hear a NH Newspaper man mention that sometimes NH is determined to be the "Anti-Iowa".
I was also not so very surprised to see Joe Lieberman introduce John McCain at a town hall meeting last night. Those two seem to be spending a lot of time together. :munchin
What would the split be if McCain went Independent with Lieberman as a running mate? I think the tradition is that it hits the Republican candidate harder, but that combination might be different
....What is wrong with this picture? There were only 2501 democrat voters in Iowa? And the press is making a big deal about who came in first, second, and third!.....
I saw that also and was wondering about that. I've read that it was a record turnout with over 200,000 D's and around 116,000 R's. Somebody must have dropped a few zero's somewhere.
Edited to add link
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
This was the best I could find so far. Lists % for D's but #'s and % for R's. Hmmmm.
WhiskeyBoarder
01-04-2008, 09:31
Historically, the Democratic Party never releases raw numbers for their Iowa caucuses. CNN.com describes the individual tallies that you are referring to thusly:
"Instead of releasing caucus vote totals, the Iowa Democratic Party releases a total estimating the number of delegates to the state convention each candidate will receive." Iowa has a total of 2500 Democrat delegates.
Estimates show their voter turn out topped out over 200,000. Hope this helps.
Firearmz
01-04-2008, 11:06
I work in corrections and I can honestly say that all murders, rapist and child molesters should stay locked up under more austere conditions they are currently under. The death sentence would solve that and instead of sitting on death row for 30 years an express lane would be a good idea. Studies show you are always going to have about 7% of the population as violent criminals, in Georgia we run about 6% that are considered violent offenders, we also run a high recidivism rate for non-violent criminals.
I do not even dare to chose a winning candidate, my guy is basically done, (Fred). Regardless of who wins we will pay a price some where. The question is, where can we afford to pay at? Freedom, big government, taxes, gun control, the military, and immigration.
Where we should be more concerned (IMHO) is Congress. These people actually work in Washington about 70 days a year, add pork barrel spending, pet projects and just wistful frivolous spending to every bill that gets submitted.
Iowa just does not mean that much, I went to pick up 1000 rounds of ammo this morning and thats all the guy behind the counter could talk about.
NO, not Hillary TR!:rolleyes:
Mike Huckabee of course.:)
TR, I have read and re-read his issues on everything you stated negatively about him. Thus I didn't see anything like that on his home webpage and I will therefore have to disagree. I don't see were he is anything like that. Can you give me some info on that with sources?:confused:
The Reaper
01-04-2008, 12:14
NO, not Hillary TR!:rolleyes:
Mike Huckabee of course.:)
TR, I have read and re-read his issues on everything you stated negatively about him. Thus I didn't see anything like that on his home webpage and I will therefore have to disagree. I don't see were he is anything like that. Can you give me some info on that with sources?:confused:
Well of course he isn't going to mention any of that on his own website.
I think if you google him up, or just search here, you will find plenty on Huckabee and each of the issues I have mentioned. Suffice it to say that it has been well covered by his opponents.
Sorry, but I do not have the time to be your research assistant.
TR
Well from my perspective, any way you look at the results they are grim. I am pulling heavy for Thompson, he just is the only candidate in my short 4 years of being voting age that I feel is genuine and I seem to see eye to eye with on almost every issue. I swing right in my votes but in the past have always felt like I was just choosing the lesser of two disappointments.
Either way, thank christ Iowa's caucus are rarely/never an accurate representation of what's to come.
Edit: Grammar and clarification
rubberneck
01-04-2008, 12:37
TR, I have read and re-read his issues on everything you stated negatively about him. Thus I didn't see anything like that on his home webpage and I will therefore have to disagree. I don't see were he is anything like that. Can you give me some info on that with sources?:confused:
What would you expect to read from his website? If he is serious about winning the nomination he is going to down play or completely ignore the positions he has taken in that past that are at odds with the vast majority of the republican party.
Some highlights of positions that are at odds with most republicans:
On raising taxes in Arkansas,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DaJW7nXw30A
getting caught lying about raising taxes,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LYrGlfkvRV0&feature=related
giving instate tuition and financial aid to illegal aliens,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cNvuHw0ee7I
Huckabee opposing state mandated proof of citizenship for voting,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VHD8WZV0cw4
Huckabee in favor of cutting prison sentences for drug dealers,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wv648uLzKyo&feature=related
Huckabee all over the dish on illegal aliens
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gi2HCUM0pro
I came across this link on a different forum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee
rubberneck
01-04-2008, 13:12
I came across this link on a different forum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee
Anyone can alter a wikipedia entry which makes it a less than reliable source.
I was under the impression that articles of frequent or greater importance are monitored by actual Wikipedia staff to prevent defacement, vandalism or skewing of facts. I'm accustomed to using wikipedia for searching up biographies or a synopsis of an event as it is generally very thorough. If that article is inaccurate or a pile of far left rubbish you have my apologies.
rubberneck
01-04-2008, 13:53
I was under the impression that articles of frequent or greater importance are monitored by actual Wikipedia staff to prevent defacement, vandalism or skewing of facts. I'm accustomed to using wikipedia for searching up biographies or a synopsis of an event as it is generally very thorough. If that article is inaccurate or a pile of far left rubbish you have my apologies.
It is a common tactic for political campaigns or their surrogates to edit the wikipedia entry of their candidate. Sometimes it's to add flattering info and others to remove stuff they don't want you to see.
Based on the sites that "rubberneck" and "JCasp" showed me and the research I have done, yes TR I did do some on my own, is that Mike Huckabee is using the Bible as a means to solve some of our social issues.
Huckabee's principles alone put him in my category as the best choice. Also, IMHO, anyone who is elected leader of a country should have an excellent moral background founded upon Biblical principles (remember God, the creator of government). I wouldn't want another Clinton in the office who seemed to have NO morals and values, period.
There is an old saying in Law Enforcement when it comes to using deadly force: "Just because you can doesn't mean you always should." I believe Mike Huckabee thinks the same way on most of this country's issues. He knows he is not the smartest man in the world so he will rely on our Lord Jesus Christ of which I find no problems at all. At the very least he believes in God which I cannot say the same with any of the Democratic picks and most of the Republicans. What does this mean? It mean's that he will be held accountable by our Lord for everything he would do in office as President. Hell and the Lake of Fire scare me as it does with all Christians.
Bottom line though is this guys and girls, I have been a member of this site for almost four years now, my beliefs have not changed and neither will I. I also believe in my signature statement below. Read it once or twice.:)
dmgedgoods
01-04-2008, 15:40
#
I do not even dare to chose a winning candidate, my guy is basically done, (Fred).
You're throwing in the towel way too early. ;)
dmgedgoods,
Not for me there isn't.
Broadsword2004,
Let us agree to disagree.:)
Firearmz
01-04-2008, 17:02
Not throwing in the towel, I will still vote for Fred if he is on a ticket, other than Fred I have no idea who I would vote for at this point.
brownapple
01-04-2008, 20:16
God-believing or not, Creationist or not, I just want a President who will do their best to
1) Lower taxes
2) Prevent any tax increases
3) Have strong foreign policy
4) Keep the military strong
5) Do their best to reduce needless social programs
6) Protect the 2nd Amendment
7) Secure the borders
8) Promote free-markets and capitalism
9) Tell the rest of the world we can handle global warming (if it is a problem; I don't think it really is) through a strong economy, not a weak one (current Admin seems to be doing this, the next one I am afraid)
10) Free-market solutions to healthcare
11) Free-market solutions to education, or at least reduce government influence in education so much..
How many of those are actually areas of responsibility for the President?
One of my pet peeves is the importance that many voters seem to put on issues that are outside the AO of the President (in the save vein, blaming the President for things that he doesn't control).
Let's take your list, for example:
1) Lower taxes - The President can ask, but only Congress can lower taxes.
2) Prevent any tax increases - Veto means the President can do that (understanding that he can be overruled by Congress)
3) Have strong foreign policy - clearly Presidential responsibility
4) Keep the military strong - With the caveat that Congress controls the budget, clealy Presidential responsibility
5) Do their best to reduce needless social programs - "Do their best"? OK, however, the President is very limited in this regard (most of these programs are authorized by legislation)
6) Protect the 2nd Amendment - Not much the President can do there at all. The Courts and the Legislature have those powers.
7) Secure the borders - Within the responsibilities as CoC
8) Promote free-markets and capitalism - "Promote"? OK.
9) Tell the rest of the world we can handle global warming (if it is a problem; I don't think it really is) through a strong economy, not a weak one (current Admin seems to be doing this, the next one I am afraid) - OK
10) Free-market solutions to healthcare - All that requires is Congress not passing a national healthcare plan, correct?
11) Free-market solutions to education, or at least reduce government influence in education so much - Education is primarily a State issue. Remember when Reagan wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education, but Congress wouldn't? Any influence in that regard requires all three parts of the gov't to work together.
I have a much shorter list. I want:
A good Commander in Chief
A good head of State
A leader that Americans can look to
Someone who means it when they take the oath to defend the Constitution
hunteran
01-04-2008, 22:45
I'm really hoping that Fred Thompson makes it past the primaries. The only other candidate I really like is Hunter, but he doesn't have snowball's chance in hell at making it.
There are other more important factors to being POTUS than just putting faith in the Bible. No ideology is perfect, and for somebody to base their decision on who should be President solely on their ideological swing should reevaluate their situation. Look at the influence religion has had on some other countries besides the US (see Iran).
I am not a Christian bashing leftist; In God we all should trust. But let's not make it a deciding factor. Look at our current societal profile, and work with what you got. Politics are ugly these days...
Just my two cents...
Shawn
Please consider these words from the farewell speech of our first POTUS on 19 September 1796:
“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ? “
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion……however Mr Washington’s words seem to indicate that your view point does “attempt to shake the foundation of the fabric” as it were, and many do find it quite difficult to look with indifference!
dmgedgoods
01-05-2008, 01:42
#
Undisputed4
01-05-2008, 01:56
One fact that people are overlooking is the fact that Obama and Huckabee are spectacular speakers. They seem genuine when they talk, while Hilary and others seem almost scripted. Huckabee will have hard time if he wins the nomination. Americans will be afraid of his religous background.
McCain is the one I would personally want to fight terrorism. While he is off on some of his beliefs, he wont tell americans just want they want to hear. Plus he was right on Iraq from the beginning.
I am 20 years old, and I will admit Obama is captivating. If I really didnt follow politics closely, I would prolly be gravitating towards him. Its amazing a black man can go in to a 95% white state and win. I keep hearing this is like when Bobby Kennedy ran, any first hand accounts on here?
Historically, the Democratic Party never releases raw numbers for their Iowa caucuses.
Estimates show their voter turn out topped out over 200,000. Hope this helps.
Thanks, that clears that up!
The Reaper
01-05-2008, 08:50
I am 20 years old, and I will admit Obama is captivating. If I really didnt follow politics closely, I would prolly be gravitating towards him. Its amazing a black man can go in to a 95% white state and win. I keep hearing this is like when Bobby Kennedy ran, any first hand accounts on here?
Maybe Americans (even white ones) aren't as racist as some would have you believe?
Obama is no Bobby Kennedy.
TR
GratefulCitizen
01-05-2008, 20:12
Just caught part of the Republican half of the ABC debates.
Romney hurt himself there. Came across as whiney.
Giuliani seemed like he was sitting at the kids table at Thanksgiving.
I disagree with some of his positions, but Paul aquitted himself well.
Huckabee was likeable and probably was helped by this debate. He did seem to play too much "follow the leader" on some of his answers.
(I'll take that billion dollar prize, though. 100mpg car designs are already out there. Good luck finding a market.)
Thompson came across well. My prediction: the media will say he looked like he didn't want to be there.
Mccain did very well, especially in a head-to-head comparison with Romney.
Seemed like a bit of a bully at times. (Nothing wrong with that.:D)
That's my take.
What did everyone else think?
That's my take.
What did everyone else think?
McCain and Thompson did the best. Paul didn't take the offensive enough. Huckabee was just there, he really didn't take the initiative on any of the topics. Guiliani is getting tiresome to watch. Romney took a somewhat aggressive stance but he was eaten up by the more experienced McCain.
A friend said something I thought was interesting to consider, which is does anyone think Fred "knows" he doesn't have much of a chance to win, but just basically tells everything straight in the debates and states the plainly obvious that the others seem hesitant to speak about, to at least wake people up to the real issues, sort of doing like Ross Perot did...?
Senator Thompson has stated (I believe on the Glenn Beck Show), that he intends to win, but on his own terms.
Roguish Lawyer
01-07-2008, 11:37
I watched the ABC debate, and I thought Thompson was too passive. Liked his answers, but in that format he needed to be more aggressive. I'll bet his word count was half that of Romney, Huckabee or McCain.
You don't come from behind this way. I am concerned that he can't win the primary, so I am getting close to supporting Giuliani. Still listening, though. :munchin
The Reaper
01-07-2008, 11:48
I now believe that the media wants a Obama-Huckabee (a bad match-up for the Republicans) or an Obama-McCain race.
Between Giuliani's personal baggage and former liberal social positions, and a strong Dem field, all it will take is for a few percent of the Republican faithful to decide that there is insufficient real difference between the candidates to justify even bothering to vote to decide the election. Obama will turn out his supporters in droves.
If Huckabee were to get the nomination, the media will paint him as a religious nut, and eliminate almost any independent support for him. I see no way for him to win, especially with his own political history.
While McCain is not without his own problems from campaign reform, illegal immigration amnesty, etc., I believe that he would fare better against the Dems than any of the other Republican candidates.
I do not think that Romney can buy his way into the general election. His past is all over the place.
Still holding out hope for Fred in SC, but the odds are looking very long and he is out of money. If he loses, he would make a good VP candidate for the eventual nominee, especially any who lack real conservative creds (which is virtually all of the remaining Republican field).
TR
Rudy looked very tired to me, and his answers were uninspired. His claim that Mayor of NYC is the "second hardest job in the United States" made me chuckle.
I agree that FT was a bit too passive.
I remain impressed by Huckabee's ability to seem out of his depth, regardless of the setting. This is perhaps his only exceptional quality.
McCain was clearly enjoying himself and his time in New Hampshire, which has been good to him in the past. He should try not to move his arms on camera, because his stiffness there makes him look old.
While I am not a huge fan of Romney, he was clearly the winner of the debate. He is extremely articulate and very compelling when speaking on issues of business and the economy. Especially when compared to Huckabee, whose participation in the economy seems to be limited to the checkout line at the market. This may be enough to give him the edge, since voters seem to have a hard time differentiating between the candidates on the basis of foreign policy.
Undisputed4
01-07-2008, 16:09
Maybe Americans (even white ones) aren't as racist as some would have you believe?
Obama is no Bobby Kennedy.
TR
I agree. It seems to me that my generation doesnt give a crap about race. IDK about other places in the USA but here there seems to be no racism.
McCain missed a chance at the debates last night where he could of crushed Romney. Mitt Romney said something along the lines that the next President would need courage under fire, McCain should of jumped in and immediately said I am the only one here who has been under fire. Then Romney said Governors have more leaderships then Senators, McCain mentioned his Navy career, but he didnt drive it home. He should of went along the lines that I have made decisions with people lives, and I was an Officer and leader in the greatest Navy in the world. Along with the fact of his family's history of leadership. And reminded Romney more that the last two Presidents have been Governors, he mentioned it but didnt drive it home.
If McCain gets the nomintation of his party, he needs to use his military record as his trump card against the democrats on the Iraq issue. He was spot on from the beginning we didnt have enough troops in Iraq. If the President would of went with want McCain said, Iraq would be less of an issue right now.
I understand that McCain doesnt like to talk about his time in Vietnam, but he could use it by saying, I am fighter and will never quit. He also gets alot of respect for refusing to talk about his son in the USMC, rumor is he is in Iraq.
Does anyone else think Romney comes off as an arrogant guy? The way he smirks at the debates rubs me the wrong way.
Thompson also seems to be aligning with McCain at the debates.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
01-07-2008, 20:02
He should of went along the lines that I have made decisions with people lives, and I was an Officer and leader in the greatest Navy in the world. .
Yeah, and then he could have added that he has done everything he can to ignore the folks we left behind in VN. Read an Enormous Crime and then tell me what kind of a commander in chief leaves men behind. Officer is a title, leader is a skill developed and a recognition bestowed by those led upon those that would lead! In McCain's case, one out of three is not good enough for me-but then maybe I expect too much from those in whose hands I would place the lives of those that wear our country's uniform.
Snaquebite
01-07-2008, 20:37
Yeah, and then he could have added that he has done everything he can to ignore the folks we left behind in VN. Read an Enormous Crime and then tell me what kind of a commander in chief leaves men behind. Officer is a title, leader is a skill developed and a recognition bestowed by those led upon those that would lead! In McCain's case, one out of three is not good enough for me-but then maybe I expect too much from those in whose hands I would place the lives of those that wear our country's uniform.
Thank you Sir!
I don't trust the man. +10
He is not historically supportive of the military and his voting record shows it.
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment N
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment N
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment N
More here:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270
brownapple
01-08-2008, 03:51
I agree with the Colonel and Snaquebite. McCain made his political career on his military time and then proceeded to join with John Kerry and turn his back on those left behind in SE Asia.
This was sent to me on MSN by a friend earlier, a man at a Clinton rally in NH yelling "iron my shirt." At first glance I just got a light laugh out of it, then it occurred to me how staged this appears to really be. A man holding up a sign saying "Iron my shirt" yelling the phrase as well right before Hillary gets into the portion of her speech about breaking down the barriers of sexism and rallying up cheers from all the women in the audience.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/25784.html
Would it not be beyond her campaign staff to organize something like this? Again, to be fair I don't mean Hillary alone, but political campaigns in general? How does one get into a Hillary rally through the security carrying that sign in the first place?
It appears they were low level and low talent "shock jocks" from a Boston Radio Station.
While one "claimed" to be a Republican he supported "La Raza" at either his myspace site or a sticker on his bag. Not too many Republicans into La Raza.
Staged or stunt, but not real.
1. Obama & Edwards seem to be making a "joint" effort against Hillary.
2. I'm waiting for Colin Powell to chime in....:munchin
Stay safe.
Undisputed4
01-08-2008, 15:41
Yeah, and then he could have added that he has done everything he can to ignore the folks we left behind in VN. Read an Enormous Crime and then tell me what kind of a commander in chief leaves men behind. Officer is a title, leader is a skill developed and a recognition bestowed by those led upon those that would lead! In McCain's case, one out of three is not good enough for me-but then maybe I expect too much from those in whose hands I would place the lives of those that wear our country's uniform.
While that may or may not be true, the average voter doesnt know anything about that. Its all about titles and common knowledge when it comes to prior experiences. The issue of POW's being left behind bothers me alot. What ever happened to that guy who shouted off on TV of how he was going to get the POW's? Also if you could give me the general points of the book, I would appreciate it.
Another reason I think that McCain doesnt do better is that the Vietnam War was so long ago. While the voters will give points for prior service, it wasnt a highly popular war. If it would of been a "succesful war", IMO he would be doing much better.
Snaquebite
01-08-2008, 15:46
2. I'm waiting for Colin Powell to chime in
I read somewhere today that he already has....for Obama
Jack Moroney (RIP)
01-08-2008, 16:04
While that may or may not be true,
Okay college boy, while you may feel that it is in your academic interest to question the integrity of your liberal college professors it really makes me smile to think you might have any basis to question mine. I do not write a precis for college kids, nor to I suffer fools lightly.
I read somewhere today that he already has....for Obama
Colin Powell pleased by Barack Obama's success
17 hours ago
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AFP) — Former US secretary of state Colin Powell said Monday he is pleased by African-American White House hopeful Barack Obama's success in the early presidential nominating contests.
On the eve of the crucial New Hampshire polls to nominate a Democratic and Republican candidate, Powell told public television PBS he is "taking joy" in success of the Illinois senator, who won the Democratic vote in last week's key first nominating contest in Iowa.
Powell also urged Americans to "enjoy this moment where a person like Barack Obama can knock down all of these old barriers that people thought existed with respect to the opportunities that are available to African-Americans."
Powell, who has declined to mount his own presidential bid despite being the first African-American to serve as national security advisor, secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs, said race should not be Obama's defining characteristic.
"This argument about him not being black enough, that?s just absolute nonsense," Powell said in excerpts of the interview released by PBS.
"He is putting himself forward not as a black man but as an American man who wants to be president of the United States of America. We should see Barack as a candidate for president who happens to be black, and not a black candidate for president."
Obama, a 46-year-old senator for the state of Illinois, is the son of a white American mother and Kenyan father. He has been endorsed by talk show superstar Oprah Winfrey, while civil rights leader John Lewis has expressed his support for Obama's Democratic rival, former first lady Hillary Clinton.
:munchin
Stay safe.
Maybe I'm just holding out a little too much hope here, but I don't read that article as saying Powell is endorsing Obama as much as him saying he's proud of what he's accomplished as a black man. No?
I guess I could say the same thing about Hilary - I could be proud of her breaking down barriers for woman. Except that most people don't really see her as much more than a cyborg and Elizabeth Dole did it eight years ago. My how time flies.
Edited to add:
I just looked this up because I wondered who else was out there and I was stunned to find out that Hilary isn't nearly the revolutionary the media and she thinks she is (except for the wife of the ex-President part... and well even then who doesn't think she is kind of channeling Eleanor Roosevelt?). I'm only listing these two because they made it as far as the convention and got a fair number of delegates. There are actually quite a few other woman out there of the Carol Moseley Braun (who was black - SHOCKING) variety. From http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/factoidarchive.html
Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (ME) became the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for president at a major party convention when Sen. George Aiken nominated her at the 1964 Republican national convention. Smith – also the first woman to serve in both the House and Senate – had campaigned briefly for the post when the Senate was not in session.
In 1972, Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-NY) ran for president in the Democratic primaries. At the party's national convention, she won 151.25 delegate votes before Sen. George McGovern clinched the nomination.
I guess I'm just saying that I agree with General Powell. We should see the candidate first as a candidate who happens to be something - not the other way around.
brownapple
01-08-2008, 20:12
While that may or may not be true,
Back when you were a toddler, John Kerry and John McCain were the key members of a Senate committee that investigated the POW/MIA issue. The report is available. They found that it was likely that POWs were left in SE Asia. And they recommended forgetting about them.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/pow/senate_house/investigation_S.html
If I was you? I wouldn't doubt one fucking thing the Colonel says. Consider that friendly advice.
The Reaper
01-08-2008, 20:37
While that may or may not be true, the average voter doesnt know anything about that. Its all about titles and common knowledge when it comes to prior experiences. The issue of POW's being left behind bothers me alot. What ever happened to that guy who shouted off on TV of how he was going to get the POW's? Also if you could give me the general points of the book, I would appreciate it.
Another reason I think that McCain doesnt do better is that the Vietnam War was so long ago. While the voters will give points for prior service, it wasnt a highly popular war. If it would of been a "succesful war", IMO he would be doing much better.
I don't think that at the ripe old age of 20, you have the knowledge or experience to comment intelligently on this topic, particularly with the people you are attempting to argue with.
Your information on the success or failure of the Vietnam war is tinted by the people who wrote about it or told you about it.
We left Vietnam 34 years ago. It isn't ancient history, and I suspect that the majority of the electorate was alive then.
I would stand down and spend some time reading and conducting critical analysis of the subject.
TR
Undisputed4
01-08-2008, 21:13
I said it may or may not be true because I simply dont know. I had never taken the time to look into it, so I didnt make a comment one way or another on the subject. I never even tried to counter your arguement
brownapple
01-08-2008, 21:19
I said it may or may not be true because I simply dont know. I had never taken the time to look into it, so I didnt make a comment one way or another on the subject. I never even tried to counter your arguement
You aren't making things better.
It's simple. You say:
"Sir, my apologies. I didn't mean to infer that your comments weren't correct. I will strive to me more precise in my communications."
Instead, you sound like you're making excuses.
Maybe I'm just holding out a little too much hope here, but I don't read that article as saying Powell is endorsing Obama as much as him saying he's proud of what he's accomplished as a black man. No?The presidential election should NOT be about, an individuals race or sex.:cool:
As far as my thoughts on Hillary...she ain't no Margaret Thatcher!:lifter
I guess I'm just saying that I agree with General Powell. We should see the candidate first as a candidate who happens to be something - not the other way around.I agree! That's why I took that article with a grain of salt.
Stay safe.
As far as my thoughts on Hillary...she ain't no Margaret Thatcher!:lifter
Amen to that.
I love how the headline on MSNBC right now is "Women Return to Clinton". She got 46% of the female vote to 34% going to Obama. That doesn't seem like a landslide to me.
One of the sub-articles is "Did the tears help?" I sure hope that didn't do it. I'll be awfully disappointed in my gender. But my guess is that the media is blowing this out of proportion.
GratefulCitizen
01-09-2008, 17:01
I doubt you'll see this perspective shown on the evening news:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190668.php
The graph at the bottom is definitely a picture worth a thousand words.
Amen to that.
I love how the headline on MSNBC right now is "Women Return to Clinton". She got 46% of the female vote to 34% going to Obama. That doesn't seem like a landslide to me.
One of the sub-articles is "Did the tears help?" I sure hope that didn't do it. I'll be awfully disappointed in my gender. But my guess is that the media is blowing this out of proportion.
I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night and they were discussing this with pundits from the left and the right. The left of course said that it made her seem more human and she will make gains from that (example New Hampshire). The right came back with Hillary has always been an ultra feminist, who is now using her gender (boo hoo I am just a poor woman getting picked on by all these mean men) and tears to gain the Presidency. I have a feeling this is going to come back and bite her in the ass. It proves what a real phoney she is and to what lengths she is willing to give up on her own principles to get what she wants. That is definitly the person I want running this country!! LOL
It proves what a real phoney she is and to what lengths she is willing to give up on her own principles to get what she wants.
Except that she's done it before and she knows she can do it again.
Talk about flip-flopping:
During 1992 Presidential Campaign she maligned Tammy Wynette saying she wasn't a "stand by your man", cookie-baking kind of gal in response to the Flowers affair.
After the Lewinsky business she DID end up "standing by her man"
She also released a number of cookie recipes throughout her career as a political wife, most notably whenever she was being criticized for not being ladylike enough. http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/cookies.html
She's pulled this "tea and cookie" thing off and on for years. It all depends on the way the wind is blowing whether she's a pants or skirt kind of gal. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but look at Nancy Pelosi or Geraldine Ferraro, they aren't/weren't playing games with their gender - they just are who they are (or CRAZY Ann Richards!). For the record, I do much prefer to look to the Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole models in politics - but even on the Dem side, the women don't have to play the game she's been playing.
Matta mile
01-10-2008, 19:58
No love of Hillary here either but after being "asleep at the wheel" for more years than I care to mention on the subject of national elections this Ron Paul guy seems to meet the sincerity, issues, and ability to get things done criteria that I have in my head. I have expected so little of the Federal Government's ability to manage that this old, Barney Fife type of character infact has got me excited in comparison to all other delegates. I for one like his message and believe it be resposible at last.
MM
brownapple
01-10-2008, 22:26
Some of you may know the author of this bit. He's a retired SF Major with the nickname "Zippo".
We may be veterans but we are Americans first.The defeatist rhetoric of Ron Paul totally overcomes any other positions he may hold and brings into question his entire agenda.I can think of no candidate I more vehemently disagree with on foreign policy.America should have learned from Vietnam and from 11 September 2001 that we cannot ignore the festering sores of terrorism and totalitarian Islam or communism. They may appear to be at odds but they are brought together by a common enemy,US! Communism uses the readily available money from the Islamic extremists to survive and the terrorists operate with impunity based on a wrongheaded western philosophy that communism is anathema to Islamic terrorism.No past history indicates this and only in Afghanistan did they come to fight each other.This was but a speed bump on the way to, especially Asian communists, grasping the lucrative brass ring of global terrorism.Ron Paul is a fool and QUITTER!Thus he fits well into the plans of the left and isolationist right.
Greenhat,
Couldn't agree more with the SF Major. Paul is frankly a bad dream, period.
Matta mile
01-11-2008, 08:24
Sounds like some varying opinions on Paul. Good stuff- Thanks!
MM
Ret10Echo
01-11-2008, 10:03
I'm still waiting to see where things go leading up to Super (duper?) Tuesday.
What I find myself working on is not getting into supporting N.E. Bodybut....because it turns out poorly if the motivation to vote for an individual is based on the fact that the person is NOT someone else.
Maryland decided that due to the MSM rhetoric that they would vote in a Democrat govenor because he was NOT a Republican. Now I get to listen to all the stories of regret from Maryland Democrats for voting for this guy because taxes are going through the roof....well duh! no surprises there.
If I watch a debate there are some candidates that give me that sort of "Used Car salesman" tingle up my neck. (No offense to the used car salesmen intended). If the candidate is doing well but I see a budget that is totally ludicrous I have to ask myself if this cat doing well based on a capability or stuffing money (through advertising etc) into peoples pockets.
Trying to glean the facts from the available sources is difficult at best.
warrottjr
01-13-2008, 00:32
So you think you know your candidate? (http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Default.htm)
Ret10Echo
01-17-2008, 10:20
Strange the choice of beret color the reporter used....:munchin
Vets not a sure thing for McCain in SC By SUSANNE M. SCHAFER, Associated Press Writer
48 minutes ago
John McCain seems like a natural presidential pick for veterans in South Carolina, a decorated POW of the Vietnam War in a military-friendly state.
The Republican senator has been running campaign ads that touch on his war record. His "No Surrender" tour spent days here in the fall as he focused on the Iraq war. And many veterans are in his corner.
But, in keeping with the volatile primary season, the veteran vote is just not that simple. The economy and health care are factors for military retirees, and most say they vote for a person — not a uniform. Plus, and hold on to your green berets, some are Democrats
"Veterans have a lot in common with other voters in this state and that makes it hard to pigeonhole them," said Danielle Vinson, a political science professor at Furman University. "In the past, the veterans have not been a consistent voting bloc."
The Sept. 11 attacks have made national security more of a worry for people than it was eight years ago, which could help McCain, Vinson said. Polls taken by The Associated Press and a consortium of television networks of people who voted in the 2000 GOP primary showed veterans split their votes about equally between McCain, an Arizona senator, and George W. Bush, who won here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_el_pr/south_carolina_veterans&printer=1;_ylt=Av5.MV7a3g7cbA4TOiHIKJ1h24cA