Politics is a Sport: Pre-Caucus Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Last night was a bad one for anybody invested in deep-fried partisan politics.

---

I'd say it was just plain bad for everyone. Can you imagine the horror of a Huckabee nomination. You already claim to lament elections being about wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion. What the hell will there be left to talk about if it's Huckabee vs. another Democrat? :no:

I don't care for Romney, but at least if he had won, it would've deflated the "Huckaboom". Now Romney's all but finished after investing so much in Iowa and failing and Huckabee's stock is rising even higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I read this over at NRO, and found myself in deep agreement:

Romney's loss is basically irrecoverable after spending so much and getting beaten by an under-funded candidate who was an unknown not too long ago by nine points. In the end, the devastating Huckabee line was the one about voting for the candidate who seems like someone you work with rather than someone who laid you off. Both he and Obama rejected their party's establishments and old-style politics. Obama rejected Clintonian triangulation and Edwards-style netroots rage. Huckabee rejected (at least notionally) Rovian zero-sum politics and the Washington GOP establishment. My friend thinks Huckabee has staying power and is going to be strong in South Carolina and Florida. Evangelicals are now fully vested in him, so he has a strong base going forward. Thompson stays in, but is going to have trouble ever eclipsing Huckabee. Rudy is going to have real trouble making the case he can unite the party in general as a pro-choicer after the rise of Huckabee. The advantage McCain has is that he is naturally suited to tap into the Huckabee change message—the call for cross-partisan cooperation and the distaste for the Washington establishment. This is a case where something old can perhaps become new again. But McCain has to make himself acceptable to conservatives and attack Romney from the right. If he makes the kind of mistakes he did in 2000, he creates the possibility of Huckabee winning the nomination. Another problem for Giuliani is that through his ferocious attacks on Hillary, which seemed so shrewd all year long, he has made himself a partisan figure in a way that Huckabee and McCain aren't and roughly identified himself with the Bush-Clinton politics of the past.

Last night was a bad one for anybody invested in deep-fried partisan politics.

---

Romney rules. I'm still buying his t-shirt. I hope that he runs for the senate of some state. I want to work for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'd say it was just plain bad for everyone. Can you imagine the horror of a Huckabee nomination. You already claim to lament elections being about wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion. What the hell will there be left to talk about if it's Huckabee vs. another Democrat?

---

Disagree. On the Dem side, would you have preferred to see Clinton win? No, wait, don't answer that, you probably would have, if only for the unrestrained joy you could take in slamming her.

On the Republican side I can see your point, but I still disagree. Huckabee's win means that McCain becomes a viable choice. If the Repub establishment wants to put Huckabee down, they're going to have to get behind a different horse. This is a good thing.

And I'm still chuffed that the leadership of both parties got their backsides handed to them. I chortled with glee when I saw the NY Post's headline this morning online: "Clintons No Longer Life of the Party." Heh.

I think you guys are too ready to crown Huckabee the nominee. New Hampshire COULD be a big turning point for McCain or Romney. If Romney can not just win, but win big, he will have legitimate consideration as the centrist, but he really does have to win big, and then follow it up with a big win in a southern state.

That being said, Fred's lackluster campaign is clearly costing him votes. I may just have to bite the bullet and go McCain, if only to see to it that we don't wind up with Huckabee. I agree with NRO's assessment that while Rudy may play well in the general election, he cannot win the nomination.

God help us all if Huckabee gets the Republican nomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Disagree. On the Dem side, would you have preferred to see Clinton win? No, wait, don't answer that, you probably would have, if only for the unrestrained joy you could take in slamming her.

On the Republican side I can see your point, but I still disagree. Huckabee's win means that McCain becomes a viable choice. If the Repub establishment wants to put Huckabee down, they're going to have to get behind a different horse. This is a good thing.

And I'm still chuffed that the leadership of both parties got their backsides handed to them. I chortled with glee when I saw the NY Post's headline this morning online: "Clintons No Longer Life of the Party." Heh.

---

I don't care if democrats win this one. They are probably going to anyway and I just don't want to see Hillary as the winner.

If the Democrats DO win, We will be more likely to see a resurgence in congress of Republicans in the years to come. People saw what a bad idea it was to have no balance in government. Hopefully they won't make consecutive mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

God help us all if Huckabee gets the Republican nomination.

---

Well, if Huckabee becomes President...at least you'll have proved that anyone can be elected President in America.

That counts for something, right ~;)

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."

Lebanon: "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."

I'm sure more will come as the day progresses. Dismiss it if you like, but the election of a dark-skinned man with the middle name "Hussein" would make a colossal impression on people all over the world. Soft power, anyone? (And lordy, we could use some right now ...)

All of that said, I'd still prefer McCain. But if Obama is merely the Dem nominee for '08, it will send a message that the jihadis will find hard to counter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."

Lebanon: "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."

I'm sure more will come as the day progresses. Dismiss it if you like, but the election of a dark-skinned man with the middle name "Hussein" would make a colossal impression on people all over the world. Soft power, anyone? (And lordy, we could use some right now ...)

All of that said, I'd still prefer McCain. But if Obama is merely the Dem nominee for '08, it will send a message that the jihadis will find hard to counter.

---

Everybody loves that the a "black" guy has a good chance of winning the presidency. Especially one who is really white. I just wish that Republicans had done it first. If Keyes wasn't insane, maybe we could have. Maybe Republicans can put the first female president in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."

Lebanon: "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."

I'm sure more will come as the day progresses. Dismiss it if you like, but the election of a dark-skinned man with the middle name "Hussein" would make a colossal impression on people all over the world. Soft power, anyone? (And lordy, we could use some right now ...)

All of that said, I'd still prefer McCain. But if Obama is merely the Dem nominee for '08, it will send a message that the jihadis will find hard to counter.

---

Fair points lemur with supporting links, but lets not put the cart before the horse.

2 months ago Fred Thompson and Hilary were all but ordained by the media and now where the hell are they?

There is a 5 day window until NH primary, no 4 weeks to retool and get a new message out. And on the flip side the arc of the bump recieved from winning Iowa is shorter too.

Barak might grab NH, but Huckabee looks to be a 3rd place finisher In my view. There are far more center/non religion voting republicans (see Don Corleone) up there.

Barak represents change, but am I the only one who finds his lack of expirence a touch disconcerting? How long has he been in the senate now, a year or two? Once we get past the primaries he has a hard sell, change only takes you so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."

---

This is sick (Charlene Smith's blog)! :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Lebanon: "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."

---

Vote Barack Obama, a global candidate for a global age - Much more realistic at least in header. The rest is mostly bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Maybe Republicans can put the first female president in.

---

I would bet any sum of money that the first female president will be Republican. I could go into the reasons, but I can't do it in a short post, and you can probably work them out for yourself.

Odin, I'm not crowning anyone or proclaiming anyone. I'm just working out some possibilities and their repercussions.

Duke of Serbia, I'll repeat two things that have already been in wide circulation: Lincoln was also a first-term Senator who proved somewhat effective, and nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, two men who proved to be 100% wrong about everything involving Iraq.

Attack Obama for being a liberal, and I'll gladly listen in. The experience canard, however, is as nebulous as the "fake" label pinned to poor Mitt Romney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Odin, I'm not crowning anyone or proclaiming anyone. I'm just working out some possibilities and their repercussions.

---

I understand, my comments were not directed at you per se rather in general to the conversation, but since I did quote you I understand your reply. :medievalcheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Duke of Serbia, I'll repeat two things that have already been in wide circulation: Lincoln was also a first-term Senator who proved somewhat effective, and nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, two men who proved to be 100% wrong about everything involving Iraq.

---

I admit I don't understand your point about comparing Lincoln and Rumsfeld & Cheney. :no:

For anyone who's interested in digging into Obama's legislative record, WaPo has a good piece this morning. Not many places are covering his work in Illinois, so please post any more articles you come across.

Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)

-edit-

Sorry Duke of Serbia, my bad. I was responding to something Odin said, and I mistakenly attributed it to you. Apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Attack Obama for being a liberal, and I'll gladly listen in. The experience canard, however, is as nebulous as the "fake" label pinned to poor Mitt Romney.

---

Canard meaning a baseless story? Sorry Lemur but Obama does not have a whole lot of expirence at the executive level (not to mention international level).

I'm all eyes though if you have links that might disprove this "canard" but I doubt you'll find much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Canard meaning a baseless story? Sorry Lemur but Obama does not have a whole lot of expirence at the executive level (not to mention international level).

I'm all eyes though if you have links that might disprove this "canard" but I doubt you'll find much.

---

Don't worry for Obama, he has a plenty of friends in CFR:
http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/barack_obama.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/

Quote:

---

Democracy Promotion in the Arab World
...
To this end, Obama said as president he would increase foreign aid funding to $50 billion by 2012 and demand reform of corrupt governments...

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Final bit of summing up for last night:

Huckabee's victory speech.

Obama's victory speech.

Odin, you're right of course, Obama does not have executive experience. Neither do Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ron Paul or John Edwards. For me it is not a deal-breaker.

His biggest plus, for me, is that he can beat Hillary Clinton. I'm prepared to view him warmly for this, if for nothing else.

Now if only McCain can pull off New Hampshire, and get some momentum in South Carolina ...

-edit-

An amusing moment of honesty from a National Review blogger:

Deep in my psyche, in the place that kind of misses the toothache I've been prodding at with my tongue, I am having a tiny little pang of missing Hillary. Not her, but hating her. Hating Hillary has been such a central political impulse for so long now — 15 years — and I have had to work so hard to keep it up as she became more appealing looking, less shrill, more human — I don't really know what I will do with that newly freed strand of energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Final bit of summing up for last night:

Huckabee's victory speech.

Obama's victory speech.

Odin, you're right of course, Obama does not have executive experience. Neither do Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ron Paul or John Edwards. For me it is not a deal-breaker.

His biggest plus, for me, is that he can beat Hillary Clinton. I'm prepared to view him warmly for this, if for nothing else.

Now if only McCain can pull off New Hampshire, and get some momentum in South Carolina ...

---

Your right Lemur, none of them do, his lack of expirence in general bothers me but your arguments and comparissons to the others is fair.

McCain will do well in NH, and my instincts tell me that a 2nd place finish for Obama in NH wont be a failure because he should carry Carolina.

Peggy Noonan has a very good opinion piece in the WSJ today. It's worthy enough that I'm reprinting it in full under the tag.

Out With the Old, In With the New

Obama and Huckabee rise; Mrs. Clinton falls.

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST

And so it begins.

We wanted exciting, we got exciting.

As this is written, late on the night of the caucuses, the outlines of the decisions seem clear: Barack Obama won.

Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost.

It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the ur-reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No.

She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost.

As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.

He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together.

He had a harder row to hoe than Mrs. Clinton did. He was lesser known, too young, lacked an establishment. He had to knock her down while building himself up. (She only had to build herself up until the end, when she went after his grade-school essays.) His takedown of Mrs. Clinton was the softest demolition in the history of falling buildings. I think we were there when it happened, in the debate in which he was questioned on why so many of Bill Clinton's aides were advising him. She laughed, and he said he was looking forward to her advising him, too. He took mama to school.

And so something new begins on the Democratic side.

Something new begins on the Republican side, too.

Everyone said Mike Huckabee was a big dope to leave Iowa Wednesday to fly to L.A. to be on Jay Leno, but did you see him on that thing? He got off a perfect line on why he's doing well against Romney: "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off." The studio audience loved him. And you know, in Iowa they watch "The Tonight Show" too.

Mr. Huckabee likes to head-fake people into thinking he's Gomer Pyle, but he's more like the barefoot boy of the green room. He's more James Carville than Jim Nabors.

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics. From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.

They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.

They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.

But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know. Second, I'm sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it. Clever fellow. To me, the tipoff was "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

My sense is that Mr. Huckabee's good supporters deserve a better leader.

His next problem may be not so much New Hampshire as Ed Rollins, the Reagan White House political aide who came in a week ago to manage his campaign. Mr. Rollins began his tenure announcing to respectful young reporters that he--"the grizzled veteran," the "old battler"--would like to sink to his knees and "shoot Romney in the groin" and "punch his teeth out." Such class is of course always welcome on the trail, but one senses the verbal ante will constantly be upped, and I'm not sure that will work well for Mr. Huckabee. Self inflated dirigibles, especially unmoored ones, can cast shadows on parades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I would bet any sum of money that the first female president will be Republican. I could go into the reasons, but I can't do it in a short post, and you can probably work them out for yourself.

---

What!? Are you denying that Hillary will be the next president? Or are you denying Hillary's womanhood?

I'm agreeing with Lemur. (I'm shocked too)

Obama has done what was impossible not thirty years ago. For me, he's what I guess JFK was for others. I can tell you now that Obama has my vote, always have, and probably always will.
It shows not only America, but the world, that democracy isn't some black corrupt system. It shows that the rich will not always win, the corrupt not always remain. Change can happen in America, we aren't just a bunch of rich, bigoted, and imperialistic warmongers. It shows that democracy means a better life and a chance to change the corrupt out for the system.
Experience is a non-issue for me. Andrew Jackson had little experience in politics, but was elected and made great changes in America. Pitt the Younger was the youngest Prime Minister who reformed and defined the Prime Minister position and who helped the UK with the American War debt.

I seriously wish I was Obama's speech writer.

I love how people are characterizing presidential candidates as "not the rich". Huckabee has his own personal campaign jet. What is rich again? I don't think it is purely about liquid assets in your own name.

More importantly, now that Obama has been endorsed by the Pirate Party and Tiger Beat, I think he's a lock for the Dem nomination.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ck-Obama_0.jpg

Barack Obama Tiger Beat Cover Clinches Slumber Party Vote

June 19, 2007 | Issue 43•25

WASHINGTON, DC—According to a poll released Monday by Teen Zogby!, both Barack Obama's approval and dreaminess ratings among slumber party–attending tweens have risen to 82 percent following last week's publication of the Tiger Beat cover pictorial "Hangin' With Barack!"

"Barack is sooooo hot!" said 12-year-old Tiger Beat subscriber Beth Majors upon reading the issue, which included a "supercute" poster of Obama leaning against the Lincoln Memorial and an interview in which he revealed that his most inspirational hero is "you." "He so totally has my support. Obama in '08!"

Obama is expected to remain a solid favorite with the giggling-and-talking-until-4 a.m. voting bloc, as hunky war hero John McCain, his closest contender, is widely considered by the slumber party demographic to be a gross dork.

Im going to go down to the polls and shoot myself:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

More importantly, now that Obama has been endorsed by the Pirate Party and Tiger Beat, I think he's a lock for the Dem nomination.
[CENTER]

---

The Onion has never failed me. Now I know who my sister will vote for. :laugh4:

I think I noticed a little jab at Times' recent choice of "Person of the Year" with that little snippet about how his hero is "you." Clever.

My dig on Obama is his lack of gravitas.

He is intelligent, charming, physically reflects the melting pot (ethnic stew) that is the USA, and he's running a relatively high-minded campaign. Nothing wrong with that.

I would probably oppose him because he represents an ideology with which I disagree. I cannot however, bring myself to loathe him or fear him. I think his prescription is wrong, but I don't think he is so concerned with power that nothing else matters, and that is a real plus. He would be political opposition, but not an enemy.

I just want a man with more experience of power before he steps into the office (actually, this is one of the things I liked least about W too). He's an experienced state legislator and rookie senator with a charming book on the best seller lists.

The last time we elected someone with those credentials, the fellow took more than a year and a half of OJT to get up to speed and convinced the opposition that we were ripe for the picking -- and we damn near ended up in a nuclear conflict. We'd have "won" that war, but yuck all around. Once up to speed, JFK actually did some good work to defuse Cuba and had started to push well on some important issues. We'd have had a darn good president by term two had it not been for Oswald.

Obama is that smart and that charming too -- but I'd rather he did a couple of terms as governor or Sec State first and skip the OJT requirement as much as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Obama is that smart and that charming too -- but I'd rather he did a couple of terms as governor or Sec State first and skip the OJT requirement as much as possible.

---

On the other hand, Seamus, leave the man alone in that den of wolves long enough and he'll turn out as corrupted as the rest of the lot. Inexperience may be a problem, but surely too much experience is far more serious of a crime?

Besides, JFK, for all his early shortcomings, was a far better President than many of the highly experienced guys who get to own the West Wing were. Experience isn't everything -- as long as Obama doesn't disregard advice from the guys who know their stuff.

As President leadership is a far higher benefit than experience, IMO. No President has ever been an expert on everything, and all have to rely on their subordinates to get the job done. May be one of Obama's charms is precisely his (relative) lack of baggage and by letting him rot on the sidelines for the next four or eight years it will ruin that point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

My dig on Obama is his lack of gravitas.

---

What about his lack of thanatos? Gravitas is in the eye of the beholder, by definition. Newscasters are supposedly promoted based on how much gravitas they can project at an audience. I'd say Obama has at least as much as Brian Williams, and rather more than Hillary Clinton. But really, if you're going to diss a man for a numinous quality, how can we possibly discuss it intelligently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Obama is that smart and that charming too -- but I'd rather he did a couple of terms as governor or Sec State first and skip the OJT requirement as much as possible.

---

Shall we apply the same job pre-requirements to Fred Thompson and John McCain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Disagree. On the Dem side, would you have preferred to see Clinton win? No, wait, don't answer that, you probably would have, if only for the unrestrained joy you could take in slamming her.

---

Well, all 3 Democrat candidates pretty much base their platforms on nebulous "change", but what's left are mostly the standard liberal big-government domestic policies that I'll always oppose. I don't see any significant differences between any of the top three in that regard. Of the top three, I think Edwards is far and away the biggest shyster. Obama is largely an unknown. He has a reliably liberal voting record, no foreign policy experience. Clinton also has a solidly liberal domestic policy background. But, she also has a reputation as a shewd, clever campaigner and is, imo, much more sensible and moderate than Obama in foreign policy.

I expect to be "slamming" their policies whoever the Democrat nominee is- when and if they ever make policy statements.... But of the three, I'd trust a Hillary more not to screw up in the snake pit that is international relations. :shrug:

Quote:

---

On the Republican side I can see your point, but I still disagree. Huckabee's win means that McCain becomes a viable choice. If the Repub establishment wants to put Huckabee down, they're going to have to get behind a different horse. This is a good thing.

---

So, Romney's the "establishment" choice in your view?

edit:

Quote:

---

Shall we apply the same job pre-requirements to Fred Thompson and John McCain?

---

You seem to think they don't, but both Thompson and McCain have far more foreign relations and executive branch experience than Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I expect to be "slamming" their policies whoever the Democrat nominee is- when and if they ever make policy statements.... But of the three, I'd trust a Hillary more not to screw up in the snake pit that is international relations.

---

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Hillary, for me, is a non-starter, for reasons I have enumerated many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So, Romney's the "establishment" choice in your view?

---

Romney would have been far more acceptable to Republican leadership and Republican talking heads than Huckabee. Face it, the Huckster's win was a very serious poke in the eye to the RNC, Rush Limbaugh, National Review, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You seem to think they don't, but both Thompson and McCain have far more foreign relations and executive branch experience than Obama.

---

And you are conflating foreign relations and executive branch as a single item when it suits your argument. Foreign relations I concede gladly.

"Executive branch experience"? Excuse me? Thompson did some time as a mole for Nixon, who declared him to be a complete idiot. That's it. McCain, whom I support, has never served in the executive branch. Your Google-fu is strong, so please feel free to correct me if I'm uninformed.

I just find it interesting that here we are, looking over a bunch of candidates, many of whom come from the legislative world, but only one is singled out for not having executive experience. I don't hear anyone harping on Edwards or Ron Paul for this, nor do I hear anyone carping on Thompson for never having served as a Governor, Mayor or SecDef.