And the NRA craps its pants...

[Goofball]

According to the latest Newsweek poll, if the candidates were to be decided today, it would be a Clinton vs. Rudy election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20110840...wsweek/page/2/

Now, I realize a lot can happen before the nominations are final, but I have to tell you, I'm liking the way things look right now...

[Crazed Rabbit]

*shudders*

Still, I think Thompson has a very good chance.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Go Pual.

[Don Corleone]

According to the latest Newsweek poll, if the candidates were to be decided today, it would be a Clinton vs. Rudy election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20110840...wsweek/page/2/

Now, I realize a lot can happen before the nominations are final, but I have to tell you, I'm liking the way things look right now...

Yep, things would look really good in a race like that, if increased rapes, assaults and home invasions are your idea of the path forward.

Personally, I'm happy to see that at least Bill Richardson actually has more respect for the Constitution on this matter than either Rudy or McCain. Come on Fred, enough already.... throw your damned hat!

I mean, come on Goofy, are you really surprised that King Rudy doesn't want his serfs erh, citizens to be armed? And frankly, as a Canadian, I'm surprised to see you advocating for a such a megalamaniac. What do you think NAFTA would mean to a man that considers the Constitution to be a throwaway document?

[seireikhaan]

Go Mike Gravel!

[Lemur]

Clinton versus Giuliani. The lemur's nightmare ticket. It makes me feel kinda, oh, I don't know ...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

*shudders*

Still, I think Thompson has a very good chance.

CR

His chances would improve if he...well, you know....actually ran for the office.

Seriously, I'm aware that he's trying to sit out the early rounds and begin his campaign at a more traditional time. I don't know if that can work in the current funding context, however, and he needs pretty much all of the money he'll need to use to get nominated by this Christmas as the nomination is quite likely to be decided before St. Pats '08.

Lucky us, we all get to enjoy 8 full months of media coverage of the 2 major candidates. 8 full months of gotcha politics and congressional inertia as they all wait for the election of '08.

Of course once that's completed we have about 6 months max before it goes into '10 wait and gotcha mode.

If this trend continues, we'll achieve a Lemur-beloved acme of gridlock in Congress as the endless elections continue without pause for little annoying things like governing.

Heck, Congress' approval rating is down to 3%! If they continue current trends, they'll allow even more illegal immigrants in, give them the hope of citizenship, and drive their approval rating down to -7% by having more citizens disapproving of them then we actually have citizens.


This post is depressing me more with each sentence. Time for a shot of Irish and some sleep.

the whole lot of them.

Kukri or Banquo, if you would kindly add in a flower to the above phrase, I'm not sure which list its on.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I read that Fred Thompson's star was falling. According to analysts over here (like we count much, and most are pretty pro-Clinton) he's not been very successful at fund-raising at last report, some gossip about being lazy, and there seems to be some issue with a dominating wife and a rumpus about abortion voting which doesn't play well with his likely core vote.

Oh and the fact he's not running as yet.

Is this just flim-flam or is his "run" actually being affected by these stories? I must say, I haven't been able to find out what his platform is likely to be other than in a GOP field of some disappointment, he might be Reagan-lite. I'd appreciate some further information if anyone has it.

[Xiahou]

I did hear that Thompson's wife is a bit "pushy" and driving off some campaign staff. Apparently, she's a pretty experienced politico herself- but personality clashes are rarely beneficial to a campaign.

I'm certainly not making too much of it at this point- hopefully it doesn't get out of control though.

[KukriKhan]

Thompson's seeming reluctance to fully declare (note: under Fed Election Commission reg's, 'testing the waters' is more than just a phrase, it's a legal status, enabling a candidate to raise money, tho' less than a 'declared' candidate), IMO is a business decision.

His acting gig on Law and Order (tv show) would get in the way of the US's "equal time" election laws - NBC would have to grant the hu-u-uge field of candidates, individually, the same number of minutes, free, as Mr. Thompson's image appears on that show. The regular broadcast season ends soon, and rumor has it that NBC will not show repeats of episodes with Thompson in them. Potential impact on NBC: millions of $$; and they are his current employer.

To muddy things up further, the FCC has before it, a case to decide whether 'equal time' provisions apply to cable channels as well as broadcast channels. Decision expected this fall.

So, at this point, he has to be cagey: jump in too soon, he hurts his current employer; too late, hurts his chances with his next employer (us).

[KafirChobee]

Er, I thought the "equal time" rule went south when the GOPists took over the House? I mean seriously, in Florida last elections we received little to no coverage of Kerry when he visited, but the Bush brothers were covered from the break of day before Dubya's plane landed to when it took off again.

The issue is moot - all Arnold's old movies ran 24/7 in Calif. when he ran for Governor, so there is no equal time any more. Especially, when there is no limit on the number of ads or times a candidate can run them. It's all based on money, nothing more. He with the most funding wins. As it has always been - since Ike anyway.

[KukriKhan]

You're thinking of the related Fairness Doctrine, which did indeed hit the skids under Reagan.

Equal Time rule still stands, although weakened by some court decisions. I'll try to re-find the article that cites some network guys worried about it viz a vis Thompson.

[English assassin]

And today's dumb question is... why would Giuliani be bad? (NB, that's an open question.) I don't know much about him but he seemed to do OK in NYC, he's a republican but as far as I know not a god botherer, Wiki doesn't seem to have any real dirt on him, on the face of it, you could do a lot worse?

[KukriKhan]

He's a "proven good" crisis manager, but folks are trying to sort out his everyday domestic agenda; once he firms that up, he'll likely appeal to the middle - where most of america sits, but who have only a scattered record of actually showing up at the polls.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In reality Kafir, I recall that Arnold's movies actually could not be shown in Cali while he was running for governator.

As for Guliani - well, he actually sued the gun companies, for one, a symptom of his lack of respect for the bill of rights, and puts public order above civil rights.

Still, he's better than the Ice Queen.

Crazed Rabbit

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Remember, citizens, a disarmed population is a happy population. Happiness is mandatory. The unhappy are recycled.

[Lemur]

And today's dumb question is... why would Giuliani be bad? (NB, that's an open question.) I don't know much about him but he seemed to do OK in NYC, he's a republican but as far as I know not a god botherer, Wiki doesn't seem to have any real dirt on him, on the face of it, you could do a lot worse?

You certainly could do a lot worse, but you could also do a lot better.

As mayor of NYC, Giuliani had a real problem with any limits on his power. The man never met an executive privilege he didn't like. He's also something of a one-man show; when the guy who got crime under control in NYC began to receive serious press coverage, he was promptly fired. Nobody puts baby in a corner!

"When Giuliani's famously successful police commissioner, William Bratton, resisted City Hall's tight rein and spoke freely to reporters, Giuliani booted him from office. The mayor's press secretary charged, characteristically, that Bratton and his lieutenants, who were decimating crime by historic proportions, were 'out of control.' " [Washington Post, 3/18/07]

The dude also seems to have some seriously autocratic tendencies. Any candidate who boasts that "freedom is about authority" leaves me nervous.

If it comes down to Rudy and Hil, we will have an unsavory choice. Do we elect another president with imperial tendencies, or do we elect another president addicted to executive secrecy and unaccountability?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Guliani: A few thoughts for EA

Foreign Policy:

As a mayor, he has little fopo experience, of course. Stated positions so far paint him as strongly supportive of the War on Terror. He agrees with Bush's stance on "keeping the fight overseas" but is less pleased with the tactics and execution of the Iraq conflict. Most of his foreign policy suggestions, so far, seem to be an outgrowth of his "law and order" stance as mayor coupled with his "stayed focused during a crisis" rep coming out of the WTC attack.

This will play well with the GOP mainstream, and tolerably well with the General Public.

Domestic Issues:

Started out as a fairly pro-choice Liberal Republican on social issues; appearances and track record seem tolerant of gay rights etc. -- though he has come out in support of retaining "marriage" as a term applying only to heterosexual unions. Religious (Catholic), but does not have a reputation for religious references or bringing church morality directly into the political sphere. Has a strong Law and Order rep and made major advances in decreasing crime in New York City (somewhat) and Manhattan in particular (huge improvement). Part of this L&O effort was a fairly rigorous effort to enforce existing NYC gun control laws (2nd ammendment types don't like this) though he didn't advance a lot in the way of new restrictions. While his track record on these issues is mixed, as far as the GOP is concerned, but has promised to appoint constructionist judges to the SCOTUS.

Mixed results with GOP mainstream as he's lacklust for gun-rights and not a strong social conservative, but Law and order plays well and his SCOTUS promise is important to many. Still this is his weakest component for the GOP mainstream, though actually less problematic among the general population (who generally have few problems with enforcing EXISTING gun restrictions, prefer a traditional definition of marriage, but do not favor discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, and prefer to keep their religion traditional but fairly private).

Economy:

Reputation as a tax cutter and decent record in encouraging NYC economic growth -- in part as a benefit of the L&O improvements above. NYC economy is large, actually involving budget considerations larger than some of the 50 states.

This will play pretty well with the fiscal conservative side of the GOP and with the General population as well.

Personal:

Family and home life have NOT been trouble free (failed marriage, assertions of strain between Guliani and his children), though no suggestion of any problems with addiction or with his health have been made. Does not have a reputation for graft or favor-buying, though he clearly (as Dave notes above) has a reputation for a healthy ego. Clearly likes to view himself as a decisive executive (see Lemur's comments). Mostly, he has tried to keep his private life private.

So far, this has had little impact on GOP mainstreamers or on the general public. Some social conservatives still refuse to vote for a philanderer or divorcee arguing that it means the candidate has no character, but that segment is very small and will have little impact on either the nomination or the general election (barring a HUGE scandal).


Hope this helps.

[Kralizec]

[

The dude also seems to have some seriously autocratic tendencies. Any candidate who boasts that "freedom is about authority" leaves me nervous.

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

I don't see anything wrong with that- freedom without authority to back it up is just philosophical hot air. To make it substantial, society has to cede some of it to the government.

Other than the bit about that police commissioner (wich I haven't heard before) Giuliani looks like a good candidate to me, and easily the best one that's running now.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's actually a really creepy quote.

Might vote for the Hildabeast. If she's awful, there's more likely to be a GOP Congress takeover, ala Clinton I.

[Lemur]

Other than the bit about that police commissioner (wich I haven't heard before) Giuliani looks like a good candidate to me, and easily the best one that's running now.

The reason I find the episode with the police commissioner so disturbing is that Rude made his name by lowering crime in New York City. That was his main thing, pre-9/11. And the fact that he would fire the architect of that achievement for daring to get good press ... I just don't know. Bad sign.

If he does something clever in Afghanistan, will he demote any general who gets a write-up for his accomplishments? I just don't see how a prima donna attitude will work with the executive branch ...

[KafirChobee]

In reality Kafir, I recall that Arnold's movies actually could not be shown in Cali while he was running for governator.

As for Guliani - well, he actually sued the gun companies, for one, a symptom of his lack of respect for the bill of rights, and puts public order above civil rights.

Still, he's better than the Ice Queen.
nothing is worse than another 4 years of what the past 6 1/2 have been.Crazed Rabbit

Actually, CR, Arnold's movies were played 24/7 - and the Cailf. Supreme Court upheld it by proclaiming it a matter of freespeech by the media. That is, the natural programming of TV networks (that Arnold's movies happen to be playing on so many netwrorks) was a matter of uncontrolable enterprise. (Who'ld a guessed?) Cool, eh? Then again, you have to have liven there to grasp the concept (I did for +25 years - landed there after the Army). Personally, after (+15 yrs ago) living there - I understand how easily the populace there can be persuaded (one of the lowest voting ratios in America). These people have voted for one thing and gotten the other so many times - many have just given up. I mean, they think they have control by being able to create an election to vote out their Governor that doesn't conform to the the corporations that dislike him?

What a great system, eh? The people are in total control - but, led by the corporations that support them (pay their wages).

yes, in deed, yet another proclamation for capiatlistic-democracy. Or, as most of us know it - slavery.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Right - coming from you, who supports Marxism, which is of course not slavery. Maybe you should check out the backroom book club.

CR

[KukriKhan]

The wires are reporting (hey, it's August, slow-news time in the US) that Guliani's daughter is an Obama girl .

edit: actually, in the 2003 California recall election, Arnold's movies were not shown on broadcast TV networks - ABC, CBS, NBC & Fox (neither were reruns of Gary Coleman's "Different Strokes" TV show) pdf link of advisory to Broadcasters, but he was all over the (much more numerous) Cable channels.

[drone]

edit: actually, in the 2003 California recall election, Arnold's movies were not shown on broadcast TV networks - ABC, CBS, NBC & Fox (neither were reruns of Gary Coleman's "Different Strokes" TV show) pdf link of advisory to Broadcasters, but he was all over the (much more numerous) Cable channels.

But did they take Mary Carey's movies off the Spice Channel?

[Blodrast]

The wires are reporting (hey, it's August, slow-news time in the US) that Guliani's daughter is an Obama girl .

edit: actually, in the 2003 California recall election, Arnold's movies were not shown on broadcast TV networks - ABC, CBS, NBC & Fox (neither were reruns of Gary Coleman's "Different Strokes" TV show) pdf link of advisory to Broadcasters, but he was all over the (much more numerous) Cable channels.

Whew, thanks for saving the day, Kukri!
Now, Rabbit and Kafir, you were both right, so now kiss and make up!

[Goofball]

Yep, things would look really good in a race like that, if increased rapes, assaults and home invasions are your idea of the path forward.

If I'm not mistaken (and I admit that I might be), crime decreased under Rudy's watch in the Big Apple.

Personally, I'm happy to see that at least Bill Richardson actually has more respect for the Constitution on this matter than either Rudy or McCain. Come on Fred, enough already.... throw your damned hat!

Well, we differ in our interpretation of the specific amendment you are referring to. In my view, being in favor of gun control doesn't make a politician guilty of not respecting the Constitution. Quite the opposite: I believe that those saying the Constitution specifically permits private, unregulated gun ownership as broadly as they do are guilty of abusing the Constitution.

I mean, come on Goofy, are you really surprised that King Rudy doesn't want his serfs erh, citizens to be armed? And frankly, as a Canadian, I'm surprised to see you advocating for a such a megalamaniac. What do you think NAFTA would mean to a man that considers the Constitution to be a throwaway document?

Probably neither more nor less than any of your other leaders since NAFTA came in. Just about all of your politicians, Democrat or Republican, have shown themselves to be quite willing to wipe their arses with NAFTA in order to pander to U.S. industry's whining, to the detriment of the U.S. consumer.

But at least I know Rudy wouldn't carry on with trying to make Jesus the biggest national export of the U.S.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

But at least I know Rudy wouldn't carry on with trying to make Jesus the biggest national export of the U.S.

And which candidate is?

[Goofball]

And which candidate is?

Sorry, that was a rather tongue in cheek line. My point is that Rudy seems to be one of the few candidates who doesn't spout off about his religious beliefs or try to lever his piety to benefit his campaign. He keeps it private, as it should be kept, and as far as I can see seems to be the candidate least likely (with the exception of Clinton) to allow his religious beliefs to dictate social policy.

In short, he is not a social conservative.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Quite the opposite: I believe that those saying the Constitution specifically permits private, unregulated gun ownership as broadly as they do are guilty of abusing the Constitution.

That makes no sense. What does 'shall not be infringed' mean? Also, the amendments are in the bill of rights and don't permit anything - they enshrine the rights of man. Would you also say a candidate saying the bill of rights guarantees private and public free speech, unregulated and free to all to engage in at any time is 'abusing' the constitution?

Bah!

Now, if only Ron Paul wasn't an isolationist with a cross of gold...

Crazed Rabbit