I can't believe McCain actually won Florida. This sucks. If it comes down to McCain v/s Hillary, they might as well just go back to the old system and make whoever comes in second the VP.
Sen. John McCain won a breakthrough triumph in the Florida primary Tuesday night, gaining the upper hand in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination ahead of next week's contests across 21 states. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared ready to quit the race.

"It shows one thing. I'm the conservative leader who can unite the party," McCain said in a brief interview with The Associated Press.

"It's a very significant boost, but I think we've got a tough week ahead and a lot of states to come."

The victory was worth 57 national convention delegates for McCain, a winner-take-all haul that catapulted him ahead of Romney for the overall delegate lead. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080130/D8UFUGV80.html

It was obvious either McCain or Romney would take it. I found it interesting that the majority of voters who said the economy was the number one issue to them voted for McCain, despite how much he was criticized by Romney for being inept in that department.

I can't confirm this but I think it's been mentioned on CNN that Giuliani is dropping out and endorsing McCain tomorrow. This should mean he won't be in the debate tomorrow. I wonder if it also means Paul will actually get some decent time.

McCain brought in his big Hispanic guns, pandered to the Hispanic voters, and got 55% of them. He brought in Juan Hernendez, Al Martinez, and other FL Hispanic leaders. They delivered.

Romney would NEVER pander to the FL Hispanic voters. It cost him. By about 4%. :(

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/28/mccains-campaign-boasts-another-open-borders-zealot/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/27/audio-mccain-asked-about-juan-hernandez-at-florida-campaign-event/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/dr-juan-hernandez-has-joined-the-mccain-campaign/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/score-one-more-for-mccain-mel-amnesty-martinez-to-endorse-this-afternoon/

Score one for John McShamnesty. :mad:

Romney would NEVER pander to the FL Hispanic voters. It cost him. By about 4%. :(

No, but he panders to blacks. Did you catch the segment of this on the Daily Show?

Score one for John McShamnesty. :mad:

That's about as funny as a root canal.

No, but he panders to blacks. Did you catch the segment of this on the Daily Show?... That's about as funny as a root canal.

Did you miss the McCain-Kennedy shamnesty bill that would have given citizenship to 20+ million criminal aliens?:confused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301483.html

:mad:

I really think McCain and Hillary would be quite similiar as presidents. But I'd hold my nose and vote McCain because

McCain would be better on the war.

McCain would, occasionally, pander to the Republican base and do something good. Whereas Hillary would, occasionally, pander to the Democratic base and do something more horrible than usual.

McCain would probably appoint better people to the Supreme Court.

I really think McCain and Hillary would be quite similiar as presidents. But I'd hold my nose and vote McCain because

McCain would be better on the war.
McCain would, occasionally, pander to the Republican base and do something good. Whereas Hillary would, occasionally, pander to the Democratic base and do something more horrible than usual.
McCain would probably appoint better people to the Supreme Court.


They're gonna have to drag me in kicking and screaming to vote for McCain if he gets the nom. I will never forgive him for his shamnesty bill. Plus he's too old and sick for the job. :(

He does have a hot daughter though. The boys around here will probably like her.
http://www.threadless.com/profile/209003/starr226/blog/303332/whoa_meghan_mccain_is_a_hottie

Did you miss the McCain-Kennedy shamnesty bill that would have given citizenship to 20+ million criminal aliens?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301483.html



http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/romney_flier_pride_weekend.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/gringo_de_mexico_r.jpg

McCain brought in his big Hispanic guns, pandered to the Hispanic voters, and got 55% of them. He brought in Juan Hernendez, Al Martinez, and other FL Hispanic leaders. They delivered.

Romney would NEVER pander to the FL Hispanic voters. It cost him. By about 4%. :(

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/28/mccains-campaign-boasts-another-open-borders-zealot/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/27/audio-mccain-asked-about-juan-hernandez-at-florida-campaign-event/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/dr-juan-hernandez-has-joined-the-mccain-campaign/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/score-one-more-for-mccain-mel-amnesty-martinez-to-endorse-this-afternoon/

Score one for John McShamnesty. :mad:

Didn't you claim that "McCain wouldn't win..." this and that? Now you're making excuses! C'mon. The guy's gonna get the nom, and no matter what we're going to be cursed with at LEAST four years of Billary.

~String

Maybe it's the wrong time to make the point, String, but I really do think she's just pouting at this point. I mean, really, Democratic supporters do it, too. The bad news (e.g, a Bush presidency) first met a fairly impressive wave of scorn, followed by bitter resignation, and eventually apathy. Unfortunately, 9/11 happened, and few if any liberals—myself included—did much of anything to stop the Dems from rolling. At least, during the first Clinton era, the Republicans never gave over to bitter resignation, and instead kept up their childish tantrums throughout. If liberals were actually playing high-road politics, I wouldn't mind the lack of street-level activism. But they're not, so it's a disgraceful performance on our part.

To the other, though, conservative efforts to break our spirit might bring one tremendous irony: the lack of genuine and useful liberal zeal over the last years and into the next might well be what pushes Hillary over the top insofar as we're not about to deliver the nomination to Edwards, and February 5 might—might, I say, and cautiously at that—mark Obama's undoing. I mean, you'd think the least we could do is deliver Obama.

My advice to my conservative neighbors is to not imitate our example. As long as they're disgusting for their childish zeal, and not bitter apathy, well, that's something. Learn from our mistakes, for once.

He does have a hot daughter though. The boys around here will probably like her.
http://www.threadless.com/profile/209003/starr226/blog/303332/whoa_meghan_mccain_is_a_hottie

What the hell?:bugeye: What does his daughter have to do with it?

You're trying to pander her to the males on this site now?:bugeye:

I guess Rudy is done then huh?

Took him long enough. I thought the whole "I lived through 11/9 thing" was enough to get him booted out of the race by the first ballot. Apparently not.

Took him long enough. I thought the whole "I lived through 11/9 thing" was enough to get him booted out of the race by the first ballot. Apparently not.

Giuliani tried a bizarre strategy. He wasn't polling well in Iowa or New Hampshire, so he decided to essentially skip out on the early primaries and caucuses, and aim for a win in Florida. Unable to secure that, he really doesn't have any other options than to step aside and let McCain have his moment in the sun.

We might actually be seeing a repeat of the last time a Clinton was elected to the White House. The GOP put Dole forward in '96. He'd run before, and was the venerable face of the Party. Everyone knew he would be done in the Senate, soon. The Republicans had almost no chance of beating Bill, so they gave Dole his run.

Republicans this year recognize that none of their candidates are polling well against Clinton or Obama. Even if some disaster were to remove them both from the race, Edwards is strong enough to win the general. Sending McCain is, in large part, an act of respect and a defense of the GOP. A Romney run might actually hurt the Party in the long run. McCain, barring drastic and unforeseen changes in the political climate, can't win. But, in losing, he won't diminish the Party any, and might actually augment its reputation.

The drive-by media LOVES McCain and has been pushing him for weeks. They KNOW that ANY liberal candidate can beat him--even Edwards. McCain is an old fart with cancer, a golfball on his cheek, and a pathetic liberal history. He pandered to Hispanics to win FL.Ugh..:puke:

How can any of these candidates who will allow criminal aliens to stay by not enforcing our laws (AND give them driver's licenses) --even be considered as a viable candidate? If a POTUS won't enforce our laws, who will? :confused::(

As soon as I saw "McCain takes Florida" my first reaction was...

PUT IT BACK!!!


:D

The future is becoming more clear - McCain WILL be the republican nominee and he will face Clinton or Obama. The democratic ticket will most likely be Obama for president and Hillary as VP.

The dust will all be settled by this time next week. Then you'll see the REAL competition start.

The future is becoming more clear - McCain WILL be the republican nominee and he will face Clinton or Obama. The democratic ticket will most likely be Obama for president and Hillary as VP.

I seriously doubt Obama-Clinton ticket will ever be a reality. They despise each other too much for that. Do you honestly think Obama would let Clinton be his VP knowing how much she covets the POTUS position? She thinks she's entitled to it/earned it. :rolleyes: Do you think Clinton would ever let Obama be her VP knowing how much he wants POTUS?:confused:

I wouldn't count Romney out yet. Losing FL sucked but who knew McCain would pander to the Hispanics and get them to get his extra 5%? :(

I think a Clinton VP would hurt Obama's campaign more than help it. Even though he's got lots of B. Clinton's old people on his team, his public image is one of change and so he needs someone fresh or new to the White House limelight for the VP spot.

I LOVED Ann Coulter's column on McCain. She says he "enthusiastically promoted amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.
He opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska. He called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable." :mad:

http://www.anncoulter.com/

McCain sucks. :(

I think a Clinton VP would hurt Obama's campaign more than help it. Even though he's got lots of B. Clinton's old people on his team, his public image is one of change and so he needs someone fresh or new to the White House limelight for the VP spot.

EVERYTHING is going to be a change for Obama since he's an empty suit who has NO IDEA what he's doing. God help us if he wins. :(

I seriously doubt Obama-Clinton ticket will ever be a reality. They despise each other too much for that. Do you honestly think Obama would let Clinton be his VP knowing how much she covets the POTUS position? She thinks she's entitled to it/earned it. :rolleyes: Do you think Clinton would ever let Obama be her VP knowing how much he wants POTUS?:confused:
(

Heh! You're only fooling yourself. :D

Their "personal" feelings for/against each other is nothing more than campaign rhetoric. When it actually comes to a showdown against the republicans, they will kiss and make up and either will be happy to play second fiddle JUST to win the White House for the democrats.

Mark my words well - I've watched the political scene for over 50 years - and remember that you heard it here first. It WILL happen!

Heh! You're only fooling yourself. :D

Their "personal" feelings for/against each other is nothing more than campaign rhetoric. When it actually comes to a showdown against the republicans, they will kiss and make up and either will be happy to play second fiddle JUST to win the White House for the democrats.

Mark my words well - I've watched the political scene for over 50 years - and remember that you heard it here first. It WILL happen!

I'll be betting against you on this one. :)

I just feel there's too much anti-Clinton resentment that'll keep her from getting the Veep spot.

I'll be betting against you on this one. :)

I just feel there's too much anti-Clinton resentment that'll keep her from getting the Veep spot.

I would agree with that excpet for one glaring fact - who else IS there besides Obama and her? Would he pick a dark horse (NO racial pun intended!!) rather than Clinton who has already shown that she does have a fair amount of support from the deluded crowd out there?

If Clinton gets the nomination, I think she'll definitely go with Obama for VP. Obama would probably go with Clinton too. Personal feelings don't mean crap. Do you think Kennedy and LBJ liked each other?

I'm really wondering if I can vote for McCain. We might be better off with a democrat president and congress than an extremely liberal Republican like McCain.

I'm thinking that, if the Democrats controlled the congress and the presidency, congress would likely flip at the 2 year mark as it did in the first Clinton presidency (how it pains me to speak of The first Clinton Presidency).

But if we have McCain as President, he'll probably go along with everything the libs in congress want and the Republicans would then share the blame for the disaster that inevitably follows liberal policies. So we then might not flip the congress. So the damage would just go on and on.

This could be my first election not voting Republican.

You honestly might as well not bother to vote. It's definitely starting to look like that might be my course of action.

You honestly might as well not bother to vote. It's definitely starting to look like that might be my course of action.
McCain doesn't have the nomination yet. Get out there and vote in the primary. Maybe we can still stop him. Otherwise, maybe Paul could run as a third party candidate?

McCain doesn't have the nomination yet. Get out there and vote in the primary. Maybe we can still stop him. Otherwise, maybe Paul could run as a third party candidate?

I meant not voting in the general if it became McCain vs whoever. My primary vote is definitely going to Paul. If he does run third party, which I consider to be a waste of time, he'll get my vote as it wouldn't have gone anywhere else anyway.

i don't know why he can be considered a good candidate do you really want to vote for someone who is willing to pander to a sect of his party that in a previous primary election slandered him

I would agree with that excpet for one glaring fact - who else IS there besides Obama and her? Would he pick a dark horse (NO racial pun intended!!) rather than Clinton who has already shown that she does have a fair amount of support from the deluded crowd out there?

I think a democratic state governor of too-close-to-call "Purple" State would net him a lot more than Hillary.

I would expect Tim Kaine (or, better, Mark Warner) of Virginia, if I had to guess.

But if we have McCain as President, he'll probably go along with everything the libs in congress want and the Republicans would then share the blame for the disaster that inevitably follows liberal policies. Y'know, I'm beginning to believe that the disaster snowballing around the corner from these past fourteen years of "conservative" policies, and past eight years of unadulterated righty whackjob policies, is actually going to be hung on the "liberal" policies of - - - wait for it - - - John McCain ! or Hillary Clinton! or Mitt Romney! Or Barack Obama !

The mind boggles.

Anybody notice the setup of the latest war funding bill from Fearless Leader ? - covers the Iraq War until February of next year (instead of the whole fiscal year, as is customary and honest), after which the new President is going to be stuck with the consequences of immediate emergency funding of tens of billions for a military stuck in the field overseas. In a tanking economy.

This is the worst governance the US has ever had. No one associated with this executive administration, by Party or person, should be allowed to hold public office ever again.

Y'know, I'm beginning to believe that the disaster snowballing around the corner from these past fourteen years of "conservative" policies, and past eight years of unadulterated righty whackjob policies, is actually going to be hung on the "liberal" policies of - - - wait for it - - - John McCain ! or Hillary Clinton! or Mitt Romney! Or Barack Obama !Sure, there's a certain element of "hot potato" involved in the situation. But the policies being recommended by the Democratic candidates (primarily raising taxes) will only exacerbate the situation.

this pisses me off about people everyone seems to think raising taxes is always bad guess what its not get over it

It's not. For people who don't pay any or pay little.

But the policies being recommended by the Democratic candidates (primarily raising taxes) will only exacerbate the situation. Tax cuts have certainly made an unholy mess. Maybe tax hikes will help get things back to their former, better, state.

Do you anticipate paying off a three trillion dollar war debt without raising taxes ?

It's not. For people who don't pay any or pay little.

i am also a fan of progressive taxing

this pisses me off about people everyone seems to think raising taxes is always bad guess what its not get over it
Ok. I'll grant you that raising taxes is not always bad.

But let's consider our specific situation. We have an economy tetering on the brink of collapse. In such a situation, is it a good idea to remove income from the private sector?

Ok. I'll grant you that raising taxes is not always bad.

But let's consider our specific situation. We have an economy tetering on the brink of collapse. In such a situation, is it a good idea to remove income from the private sector?

no but it is also not a good idea to cut government spending if it were not for the debt i would say it would be the perfect time to spend money improving the aging infastructure. the problem currently is one that is rectafied by spending

Tax cuts have certainly made an unholy mess. Maybe tax hikes will help get things back to their former, better, state.

Do you anticipate paying off a three trillion dollar war debt without raising taxes ?
Yes. Simply freeze spending at current levels and sell off some federal land. (hell, sell it all off. But a little at a time so we'll get a decent price for it).

Ron Paul has pointed out that if our current spending had been held to the level of spending in 1998, we would not require any income tax to fund the government.

mad inflation means that if you freaze spending you will have to be cutting services every year.

Yes. Simply freeze spending at current levels and sell off some federal land. (hell, sell it all off. But a little at a time so we'll get a decent price for it). Sell to whom ? The Saudis ? Chinese ? The people we just gave huge tax breaks to, thereby creating this debt ? Nice deal for them: basically free land from the Feds in a two step process.

That would match up nicely with the current slide toward feudalism - via the landed gentry, devoluting into various "corporate states" and personal fiefdoms. Interesting concept - no more public land. Texas, then, is your model, or Paraguay, rather than Canada or Denmark ?

At current spending and taxation levels we are going hundreds of billions further into debt every year.
Ron Paul has pointed out that if our current spending had been held to the level of spending in 1998, we would not require any income tax to fund the government. Unfortunately, we voted in different management. (One reason we did that is we listened to a bunch of people who claimed Republicans would cut our taxes). Now we have a debt to consider - and it's a lot bigger than just the dollars. There's a lot of deferred maintenance, in infrastructure and health care and so forth.

And the order of event is: cut spending, then reduce taxes. The other way around doesn't work.

Sell to whom ? The Saudis ? Chinese ? The people we just gave huge tax breaks to, thereby creating this debt ?.Whoever's buying. There's no good reason for the federal government to own the majority of the land in many states. Even if there was, when you're in debt, you sell stuff to pay it off.
Interesting concept - no more public land. Texas, then, is your model, or Paraguay, rather than Canada or Denmark ? Sure, we could keep what land we need for military bases or government buildings. But the feds don't need to own vast tracts of land.
At current spending and taxation levels we are going hundreds of billions further into debt every year. Freezing the budget would be way better than what we're doing now. and it would lead to a balanced budget. But if you want to cut, I'm all for that too. Let's just do it across the board. Cut the salaries of all government employees, cut the benefits of everyone on the government tit. Do it in one fell swoop by the amount needed to balance the budget. Even better. I like your aggressiveness.
Unfortunately, we voted in different management. (One reason we did that is we listened to a bunch of people who claimed Republicans would cut our taxes). Now we have a debt to consider Sure we do. But increasing taxes will kill the economy and turn the recession into a depression. The problem is spending, not taxes being too low.
- and it's a lot bigger than just the dollars. There's a lot of deferred maintenance, in infrastructure and health care and so forth.
And don't forget about benefits we've promised to pay. Throw in Medicare and Social Security and we're in for something like $50 trillion.

throw away defence and you would have 700 trillan. do you realise that the pentigon has more BANDS than the state department has total personal????

throw away defence and you would have 700 trillan. do you realise that the pentigon has more BANDS than the state department has total personal????
Sure, but defence is one of the few legitimate purposes of the federal government. I do think we should probably pull US troops out of countries like Korea and Germany and anywhere else where we're not fighting a war. We will probably need to maintain bases in Iraq and Afghanistan for a while, but I think Germany has been sufficiently pacified by now.

Freezing the budget would be way better than what we're doing now. and it would lead to a balanced budget. But if you want to cut, I'm all for that too. Let's just do it across the board. Cut the salaries of all government employees, cut the benefits of everyone on the government tit. Do it in one fell swoop by the amount needed to balance the budget. Even better. I like your aggressiveness. Not only aggressive, but arithmetically numerate: cutting all those government employees won't put a dent in the debt, or approach balancing the budget.

I'd be better off hiring a few more, and setting them to auditing tax scams and collecting taxes from the rich. That way I can pay what I already owe.

Sell to whom ? The Saudis ? Chinese ? The people we just gave huge tax breaks to, thereby creating this debt ?. ”

Whoever's buying. So Paraguay is the model, then, and wealthy Saudis or Chinese controlling the river drainage systems and natural resources of the American West is OK by you ?

It doesn't make you feel the least bit ripped off, having rich guys bribe tax breaks for the profits on their influence-peddled government contracting, and then using that taxpayers' money to buy estates and ranches and luxury surroundings from those same taxpayers, to cover the debt created by the tax breaks ?

What's wrong with just taxing rich people to pay for the economy that has done so well by them ?

I mean it's not like they have 3 mouths to feed and a mortgage is it?

Not only aggressive, but arithmetically numerate: cutting all those government employees won't put a dent in the debt, or approach balancing the budget.
Pay off the debt, no. But are you saying that the deficit is over 100%? Because if it's not, cutting the budget by whatever percentage we're over would balance it.
I'd be better off hiring a few more, and setting them to auditing tax scams and collecting taxes from the rich. That way I can pay what I already owe. You seem to think the rich are just going to sit there and let you take their money. They're not. They have the resources to move, or hide their assets, or flat out bribe the politicians to create loopholes especially for them. That's why I favor a flat tax. No deductions. One rate. No loopholes.
So Paraguay is the model, then, and wealthy Saudis or Chinese controlling the river drainage systems and natural resources of the American West is OK by you ? The government can still regulate them. I don't give a shit who owns what.
It doesn't make you feel the least bit ripped off, having rich guys bribe tax breaks for the profits on their influence-peddled government contracting, and then using that taxpayers' money to buy estates and ranches and luxury surroundings from those same taxpayers, to cover the debt created by the tax breaks ?
I don't see the debt as being a result of low taxes, but of overspending. The bridge to nowhere. Hundred million dollar bike trails. The list goes on.
What's wrong with just taxing rich people to pay for the economy that has done so well by them ?It doesn't work, that's what's wrong with it. Remember Clinton's "luxury tax"? He figured he'd make those rich bastards pay a little extra for their yachts and crap. What happened? They just didn't buy the damned yachts! A bunch of blue collar guys who made the boats lost their jobs.

No one likes to pay taxes. The evil rich you like to bash don't like it and have the means to avoid it. If you want to collect money from the rich, make the rates fair. The same for everyone. No more loopholes. No more "soak the rich" schemes.

But are you saying that the deficit is over 100%? Because if it's not, cutting the budget by whatever percentage we're over would balance it. Sure. But even firing all those employees wouldn't do that.
That's why I favor a flat tax. No deductions. One rate. No loopholes. Solves nothing. You still have the determination of the income, to begin with - that's where most of the problems are now. Althoug cutting all deductions would bring the housing market down another few pegs, which ought to be entertaining. No one likes to pay taxes. The evil rich you like to bash don't like it and have the means to avoid it. If the rich had the means to avoid all taxes, they wouldn't need all these tax cuts.

If taxing the rich doesn't work any more, the way it used to, why not? Something is broken, and we should fix it. Self defense requires being able to tax the rich.

Because if we don't tax the people who benefit from an economy, to support the governing of that economy, then we have destroyed the market connection that curbs what the rich will do with governmental power.

When the rich have to pay for wars, they start fewer of them, for example.

If taxing the rich doesn't work any more, the way it used to, why not? Something is broken, and we should fix it. Self defense requires being able to tax the rich.
It's a global economy, that's why it doesn't work. You can incorporate anywhere. If, for instance, the US raises corporate taxes (already among the highest in the world), the companies just relocate to a more friendly environment and we lose jobs and lose tax money as the corporation is now paying us squat.

We need to be attractive to corporations and fair to "the rich". Why should they pay a higher percentage than anyone else? Fair means we all pay the same rate.

All high taxes do is chase the money/businesses/jobs out of our country. Not a good strategy.

And the order of event is: cut spending, then reduce taxes. The other way around doesn't work.

Absolutely correct, and it's a shame that Republicans for the most part have forgotten this little gem of common sense.

throw away defence and you would have 700 trillan...

Throw away defense and we would have sharia law. :(

throw away defence and you would have 700 trillan.

Err... you mean billion right? I've heard that there might be a cultural switcheroo in this area of number-names between the USA and Australia/England. Is this the case?

700,000,000,000 = 700 billion here.
700,000,000,000,000 = 700 trillion here (note: the us economy is like 14 trillion and the world product is like 50 trillion)

~String

Maybe i missheard the artical but i was SURE they said TRILLAN, Could have been billon though. My mestake

Its still more than some country's entire economie and DEFINITLY more than most countries entire budget