January 29, 2007
Re: Giuliani is looking interesting

It just wouldn't be right of me to ignore the chance to follow-up to Stefan's Giuliani-related post below by noting a bloggers poll or two that my man Mitt Romney has done well in also (see more results from the latter site here) .

Sure, early '08 chatter isn't typical fare for Sound Politics but is there going to be a bigger political story in '07 than the wide-open race for both parties' Presidential nominations? I don't think so.

It seems at least to me that despite lingering doubts about Giuliani's seriousness about the race, he does seem likely to jump in. At the same time, he seems poised to run a campaign similar to McCain's in 2000. Heavy on the media and star power, less on the organizational strength that kept Bush in the game through early primary struggles, and which McCain and Romney are besting Giuliani at now.

Which reminds me, all this early chatter is endlessly fun for political geeks yet not definitively instructive as to where the race is actually heading. What this Romney backer finds interesting is that both the DNC and non-front running GOPers have their guns currently blazing at Mitt, not McCain and Giuliani.

What does all this mean for the race itself? Who knows. There are so many variables right now the contests on both sides of the aisle are wildly unpredictable. But it sure is great political sport, isn't it?

****

Footnote: For those who haven't picked it up from the links yet, the Politico is one of my new favorite sites for political news. I particularly enjoy the reporting of Jonathan Martin.

****

UPDATE: Here's some more news of interest:

A Surprise Hit Candidate in Iowa.

GOP Right Sees Lemons in White House Race.

Posted by Eric Earling at January 29, 2007 10:02 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Romney is an idiot. Aint no way this country will elect a MORMON.

He is pro life, pro choice, pro gun, anti gun, pro gay, anti gay, all wrapped in one!!

Posted by: B on January 29, 2007 09:55 PM
2. Please no! We don't need any anti second amendment Republicans, the Democrats are bad enough. Any candidate who would sign a phony "assault weapons ban" should be out of consideration.

Posted by: ben on January 29, 2007 10:38 PM
3. B: "Romney is an idiot. Aint no way this country will elect a MORMON."

I'm sure there are many here who would be interested in the basis for your rather emphatic assertion. Care to elaborate?

Posted by: Patrick on January 29, 2007 11:10 PM
4. I think Mitt Romney is by far the smartest candidate out there. He will win in a landslide, you mark my words.

Posted by: Rod on January 29, 2007 11:12 PM
5. Mitt Romney is the far most succesfull politician, businessman, and family man of the group. Romney has 7 kids who he raised well Mormon or not. He built up his own 100 million dollar business. When the 2002 winter olympics were failing tremendously Romney's genious turned that into a profitable event that portrayed America beauitifully. Romney balanced a budget in a liberal spending state. Romney created education funding for college students that i envy as a student at Central Washington University. This man found a way to force a vote on same sex marriages when the massachusets courts made it seem all but impossible to overturn their decision. Romney created universal healthcare in the common wealth of Massachucets with out raising taxes. Romney is the man that i want to teach students about as a future history teacher. Guiliani has had 3 marriages????? is that something thats going to win???? McCain is unsucesfull in my book only passing leglistion that will make him better not the Americans.

Posted by: Andre on January 29, 2007 11:22 PM
6. I don't know about a landslide unless you think 51% is such an occurance. I agree with Eric that this is wildly fun for us geeks at this point. I think once Romney can articulate his positions in the debates and his organization continues with it's lightening responses to news, he'll achieve the name recognition he needs and run a very successful campaign.

Posted by: Nathan W. on January 29, 2007 11:25 PM
7. Ironic, the Mormon is the only major R candidate with only one wife.

Don't mind "B," she's under the delusion that the country is going to elect Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, president.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 29, 2007 11:31 PM
8. Andre,

A couple of nit-pick thoughts:

1. Romney does not have 7 kids. Governor Romney, 59, and his wife, Ann, have been married for 37 years. They have five sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben, and Craig), five daughters-in-law (Jen, Laurie, Jen, Mary, and Andelyne) and nine grandchildren

2. Personally, I would not call Romney's health plan Universal Healthcare. That is the name of Hillary Clinton's failed plan. Mitt's plan is "Market-based Healthcare" that does cover everyone and did not raise taxes as you said

3. Best wishes on your History teaching plans. Note, you can use a spell checker in Word and copy the text to post. Your future students will appreciate it. I need to do the same with my posts, I messed up 'occurrence' above ;-)

Posted by: Nathan W. on January 29, 2007 11:46 PM
9. The concept that the next Presidential election in America might be between a Mormon and a muslim is bizarre.

Posted by: Walters on January 30, 2007 05:49 AM
10. Let's not do the Clinton machine's work for them as Republicans are wont to do. Let them do it themselves.

In other words, there are all lot of good men out there who have announced for president (no women to my knowledge) on the R side. Please don't eat your own!!!

B's comment at number 1 is a case in point but she is a D plant- probably paid, too.

Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2007 06:47 AM
11. If i knew i was going to be graded i would of taken advantage of spell check thanks nathan. : ) Well 7 kids 5 kids big wooohhhaaa he has alot of kids no matter what. Maybe i got confused with my own family for a second i have am from a family of 7 children and no im not mormon or catholic. Was your post intended to rip me because you didnt say anything that produced a good arguement for anything other than that.

Posted by: andre on January 30, 2007 08:13 AM
12. Republicans and Conservatives,

Your best bet for 2008 is Giuliani. Just pray that the Democrats will actually nominate Hillary in 2008, and then the Republicans will maintain control of the White House.

From our standpoint (that of Libertarians) if the government is divided, it's a good thing. It can do less harm then. So, having a Republican prez with a Democratic House & Senate will be OK with us.

Posted by: Libertarian on January 30, 2007 08:32 AM
13. Just to clear up any misrepresentations: Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He is a member of the United Church of Christ.

But one of Mitt' Romney's sons IS named Tagg.

Now that's weird.

Posted by: Rey Smith on January 30, 2007 08:36 AM
14. Rey, what you say about Obama being a member of the United Church of Christ is true. However, when his parents enrolled him in that school in Indonesia that was called a madrassa in the Insight Magazine article, they had the choice of six religions on the enrollment form, and they checked the Muslim box, not Christian.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 30, 2007 08:54 AM
15. Rudy Giuliani was an EXCELLENT candidate against Hillary Clinton when she ran for U.S. Senator in 2000. (Giuliani dropped out like a wuss in May 2000, when unflattering revelations came out about his personal and financial life.)

Therefore, Giuliani will make an EXCELLENT candidate for President against Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.

Another wuss candidate would be Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich would be more of a wuss than Giuliani. The voters of his north Georgia district elected Gingrich to serve a two year term in Congress in 1998. After the House GOP decided they didn't want Gingrich to continue as Speaker, Gingrich resigned from the House and refused to be sworn in to an eleventh term in January 1999, for the seat to which he had just been re-elected.

Why are Republicans seriously considering QUITTERS like Giuliani or Gingrich for President?

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2007 08:59 AM
16. Please, Mr. Pope. Get your facts together. Giuliani was getting hammered by his personal foibles at the time. Couple that with your unmentioned prostrate cancer (all cancers zap your energy and rearrange priorities) and you have a reason for him dropping out.

And Gingrich "quitting (your words, not mine)", he was also getting hammered and hammered by the media. Because we convincingly state the MSM is liberal biased towards the Ds, maybe he stepped down for the sake of the party and the message. You say he threw a fit, but I don't have knowledge of that which you seem to. Also, the liberals and media were hammering him on his personal foibles at the time.

I notice you didn't mention DeLay who also stepped down. I don't think anyone can say the "Hammer" is a 'quitter'.

Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2007 09:40 AM
17. Keep in mind, that this far away from the last presidential race, Liddy Dole was at the top in the polls. Anything can happen.

Posted by: Michelle on January 30, 2007 09:54 AM
18. As a Conservative Republican, I'd vote for a muslim Democrat with the middle name Hussein before I voted for a Mormon.

Mormon's are cultish, weird, and should not be trusted for positions of leadership. Bigamy, incest, etc. No THANKS! Check out the fundamentalist Mormons on Wikipedia, you'll know these comments are justified

Posted by: B on January 30, 2007 10:26 AM
19. I think a lot of conservatives are starting to get cold feet about Romney. His road to Damascus conversion to the Right is leaving a lot of people cold--including, not least of all, Rich Lowry of National Review, who was deeply disappointed in Romney's recent pitch to the NR Institute. Apparently, Romney didn't even mention Iraq once! Even Romney-lover Kathryn Lopez is having second thoughts after this weekend.

The problem, I think, is that Romney has a great resume and a great look and great policies, but he's not GENUINE enough for conservatives. True-blue conservatives can sniff-out a wannabe in a minute, and Romney (at least in some corners) isn't passing the test. He seems to be trying too hard to make his case.

This is why Giuliani resonates for so many. He will not flip flop or claim to have had a conversion or anything like that. What you see is what you'll get. George W. Bush's initial appeal was the same, but, over time, he hasn't been glib or facile enough to seem to be anything more than stubborn and bull-headed. Giuliani is a lawyer, and he can make his case. And that's exactly what we need in this global war on terror: not just strength of purpose, but a persuasive leader who can win his arguments. Romney, I'm afraid, just isn't the right guy for our times.

Posted by: DJ on January 30, 2007 10:28 AM
20. I meant POLYGAMY, not bigamy!

Posted by: B on January 30, 2007 10:33 AM
21. No surprise that dems would prefer a fundamentalist Muslim over a fundamentalist Mormon. I mean to say, fundamentalist Mormons (who are few and far between) advocate polygamy. Whereas Muslims are only allowed four wives.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 30, 2007 11:07 AM
22. ... and just to top it off, Mormons believe in family values and families sticking togethere AND support each other. Muslims, at least the men, can dispose of a wife by repeating three times "I divorce you"

Those whacky Mormons!

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 30, 2007 11:09 AM
23. Fred, yes, only four wives, but as many concubines as they can afford.

Kinda reminds me of Bill Clinton....

Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 30, 2007 11:09 AM
24. Swatter @16

Amen. Gingrich will always be a bogeyman west of the Cascades. Another of the cast of characters in Spooky Stories For Libs To Tell Their Bed-Wetting Spawn. Now it looks like Romney is being added to that cast.

As far as Romney's fate in Metronatural Land looks like it's burkas Yes, Garments NO.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 30, 2007 11:10 AM
25. Mitt the Mormon versus Obama Ramma Bamma?

Dayum!

Who needs the Super Bowl?

Let's us heathen fire up the barby and open a couple of cold ones.

And watch the fun.

Posted by: Rey Smith on January 30, 2007 11:25 AM
26. Romney is the ONLY gop candidate I would NOT vote for. If given the choice between Hillary & Mitt, I would vote for Hillary. The guy is anti-gun, anti-life, anti-marriage. We need another great conservative leader in this country. Newt is the only one who's right on ALL the issues and can win.

Posted by: Mike on January 30, 2007 11:30 AM
27. Eric,

I'm seriously questing your judgement? Romney?

A.R.B.R. '08

Any Republican But Romney

Posted by: anonymous on January 30, 2007 11:40 AM
28. I'm sorry, Mike, but Newt is universally loathed by the media and virtually unelectable. Plus his nickname and the annoying cockney-accented (why?) Geico gecko are ineluctably intertwined in the public consciousness.

Also -- remember Newt confessing that (Bill) Clinton was irresistibly charming and persuasive in person, and that Bubba could make Newt do his bidding? What's he gonna do in the presidential debates when Hillary disagrees? And how surreal would that whole scenario be?

Newt would be a gawdawful choice. Forget him.

Posted by: Rey Smith on January 30, 2007 11:50 AM
29. Is that B aka Steve?

Mike, Romney is pro-life; he is sorry about his previous opinions. He showed that he can change.

And hey, it seems that the liberal blogs don't have anything going so we get their trolls. Postman, where are you?

Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2007 12:23 PM
30. Swatter @ 16

Tom DeLay was also a QUITTER. Not only that, but he quit at the WRONG time. AFTER he had won the GOP primary nomination, when it was too late for the Texas GOP to replace him on the ballot. He should have quit before the primary, so the Texas GOP could have nominated a willing candidate to appear on the ballot. The Texas GOP did run a write-in candidate for the next regular term -- who also ran for the unexpired term and appear only on that ballot. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs narrowly lost the general election as a write-in candidate, but received more votes on the ballot for the unexpired term than the Democrat received on the ballot for the general election. Due to DeLay QUITTING at the WRONG time, the GOP gave up a SAFE seat in Congress to the Democrats. Had DeLay QUIT earlier, the GOP would have been able to put its nominee on the BALLOT, and probably get an even stronger candidate than Sekula-Gibbs.

Newt Gingrich was also a QUITTER. You say it was okay for him to quit, because Republicans were getting "hammered" by the media. If the media "hammered" Republicans in 1998, they will "hammer" Republicans even more in 2008. Since Gingrich would be running for PRESIDENT, he would get "hammered" even more. Not to mention that the Democrats and all these 527 groups will also "hammer" Gingrich.

As for Giuliani, we all congratulate his recovery from prostate cancer. But he still has the same problems from his personal life. And I would say they are WORSE than Bill Clinton's problems with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was living with his wife when he committed adultery. But Clinton realized his adultery was wrong, stopped doing it, and begged for (and received) his wife's forgiveness. Giuliani was also living with his wife when he committed adultery, but left his wife because of the adultery, and married his partner in adultery. The media will play this story in spades in 2008 -- unrepetant adulterer versus loyal wife (Hillary Rodham Clinton) who forgave her husband for adultery.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2007 12:38 PM
31. Giuliani is married to Judith Nathan; this is his third marriage. He has two children, Andrew and Caroline, from his second marriage to television personality Donna Hanover, and one stepdaughter, Whitney, who is Nathan's daughter. Giuliani's first marriage, to Regina Peruggi, was annulled after fourteen years, according to Giuliani, because he discovered he and his wife were second cousins.[5] The couple did not have any children. In May of 2000, the New York Daily News broke news of his relationship to his now-third wife, and Giuliani then called a press conference to announce that he intended to separate from Donna Hanover.[6] [7] [8] Hanover, however, had apparently not been told about his plans before his press conference.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

My comment -- the reasons for annulling the second marriage also seem suspicious. Second cousins? That is a bit close, but marriage between second cousins has never been prohibited anywhere. Weren't they aware of this relationship? Wouldn't the appropriate parents of each of them have realized that they were themselves first cousins? I.e. that Giuliani's mother realised that Peruggi's father was the son of her father's sister? Even if Giuliani and Peruggi had eloped, someone in the family would have realized this second cousin relationship long before they were married for 14 years.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2007 12:50 PM
32. My support and my vote will go to the Republican candidated that means what he says and says what he means. It will NOT go to a candidate who has masterfully treaded the political waters by saying and doing what is needed to stay in power, someone who doesn't have a steady moral compass by which to guide him. A man can make mistakes by supporting the wrong things, then miraculously change his conscious when courting conservative votes, but I have a gut feeling that Romney is disingenuis at best, a true politician at worst.

Gingrich is looking good to me as someone I can trust as far as the conservative candidates go, and Rudy so far seems to be true to his past and word as far as the more left leaning candidates.
But as far as McCain and Romney go, they are pandering politicians and won't get my support.

Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2007 12:51 PM
33. Mike @ 26: "Romney is the ONLY gop candidate I would NOT vote for. If given the choice between Hillary & Mitt, I would vote for Hillary. The guy is anti-gun, anti-life, anti-marriage."

And Hillary is...what? Pro-gun, pro-life, pro-marriage? Why would you vote for someone who is at the far left of the spectrum on virtually all issues, rather than Romney? Why turn the White House back over to the liberals just because there isn't a "perfect" conservative running? An "all or nothing" approach accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Or is there something else about him that bothers you?

Posted by: Patrick on January 30, 2007 01:14 PM
34. Most posters on this site attempt to be thoughtful and accurate, even when they feel strongly about their political views. However, a few statements have been posted regarding Barack Obama and Mitt Romney that need to be tempered by some facts:

The record is pretty clear that Senator Obama was not raised as a practicing Muslim, nor was he educated in a fundamentalist madrassa. The Snopes Web site, which is noted for its accuracy and fairness, covers this in depth (see http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp).

Governor Romney's membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka "The Mormon Church" or "The LDS Church") has nothing whatsoever to do with so-called "fundamentalist Mormons" or polygamy. The Wikipedia article on "Mormon" makes this pretty clear, as does a review of the LDS Church Website (www.lds.org).

We like to think that the country "got over" the question of religion in presidential politics when we elected Kennedy. Some of the postings here make me wonder if we really did.... We can set the tone for 2008 by focusing on the candidates and their political philosophies, rather than their religious affiliations.

Posted by: Patrick on January 30, 2007 01:43 PM
35. Patrick @34:

Your 4th paragraph is wishful thinking. It is not realistic to take a measure of where we are on the basis of a "first" achieved over 40 years ago. Sorry.

Posted by: huckleberry on January 30, 2007 02:05 PM
36. @33 "The record is pretty clear that Senator Obama was not raised as a practicing Muslim, "

But he is STILL a cokehead and marijuana smoker, right?

And, for the record, I dont give a crap what branch of the Mormon Cult Romney is from. A cults, a cults, a cult.

Posted by: B on January 30, 2007 02:13 PM
37. Senator Barack Obama is not presently a Muslim, and appears to have been baptized as a Christian into the United Church of Christ in the late 1980's -- apparently 16 years prior to a April 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article quited in the Snopes piece:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Perhaps that is where the inquiry should end -- assuming that any inquiry into Senator Obama's religion should have been started in the first place.

However, Senator Obama has posted the following information on his official U.S. Senate government website:

"To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim ..."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070123-debunked_insight_magazine_and_fox_news_smear_campaign/index.html

So the TRUTH of Obama's official statement would be relevant to his fitness to be President, regardless of whether his actual RELIGIOUS HISTORY was otherwise relevant.

Was Obama being truthful? I honestly don't know. It is clear that Obama never attended an Islamic madrassa, but instead a public school in Jakarta that was open to all faiths.

But was Obama ever a Muslim? Was he ever raised as a Muslim? I honestly don't know.

From what I have read, Obama was registered at the public school in Jakarta as a Muslim, and received religious instruction at that school as a Muslim. (Had he registered as a Christian, he would have received Christian religious instruction instead.) And supposedly his "report card" discussed how he was not particularly an attentive student during his Koran classes. If true, would this count as being "raised a Muslim"?

What does it take to "be a Muslim"? Does sincere recitation of the shahadah -- أشهد أن] لا إله إلاَّ الله و [أشهد أن ] محمد رسول الله] ([ I testify that ] there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and [ I testify that ] Muhammad is the messenger of God.) -- suffice to be a Muslim?

"A single honest recitation of the shahādah in Arabic is all that is required for a person to become a Muslim according to most traditional schools."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahadah

So if Obama was registered at the public school as a Muslim, and took the religious instruction for Muslims, then he must have recited the shahadah. That would make Obama a Muslim, under the definition of faith adopted by Islam.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2007 02:18 PM
38. B,

You really do seem to get worked up over the Romney/Mormon question. Do you personally know any Mormons? If so, do they display the kinds of behavior you alluded to earlier in #18? If not, on what evidence do you base your opinions?

I haven't seen anything in Romney's past that suggests he is "weird" or "cultish." Not have I seen anything about Obama that suggests he would have any sympathy for Islamic fundamentalists. (Not that I agree with his politics, mind you). These cartoon caricatures are being focused on at the expense of informed political discourse. Sadly, that's all many people will base their choices on....

Posted by: Patrick on January 30, 2007 03:07 PM
39. Patrick, B is baiting you. He doesn't believe what he is stating. He is pretending to be the worst stereotype of a Republican or conservative. Or what he thinks they are.

Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2007 03:19 PM
40. Richard,

In Saudi Arabia a non-Muslim who wishes to convert to Islam appears before the Sharia Court and makes a declaration in front of witnesses. The court first questions the prospective convert to ensure that the declaration is being made voluntarily, with no duress, because the obligation once made is considered irrevocable. (A coworker of mine in Saudi Arabia went through this process.)

I doubt a child of non-Muslim heritage would be considered bound by simply reciting the Shahada, without evidence that he understood the meaning of the declaration and its implications. I think this is what is alluded to by "a single honest recitation." The box Obama's parents may have checked on an enrollment form doesn't strike me as saying much about his personal faith.

Posted by: patrick on January 30, 2007 03:24 PM
41. Senator Barack Obama is not presently a Muslim, and appears to have been baptized as a Christian

If I recall Judas was a Christian.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 30, 2007 03:30 PM
42. My conclusion; Whoever the nominees for president are will have plenty of baggage. Romney, Clinton, Guilliani, Obama or the Manchurian Candidate; McCain - the most likely suspects. Unless there is one who emerges as a surprise - that is what Presidential politics has come down today. Sad state of affairs and we only have ourselves to blame for this embarassing situation.

We can thank the latest campaign finance reform and 527 groups, which McCain was partly responsible for and the vultures in the media that forgot what responsible reporting is. Cultural decay is a by-product in the name of narcissism. We seem to be going the way of the Roman Empire - but does anyone really give a rat's a** ? It will take decisive action to turn that tide.

Posted by: KS on January 30, 2007 04:09 PM
43. Patrick @ 40

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was NOT a child of "non-Muslim" heritage. His father was a Muslim. I believe that a child of a Muslim father is considered to be a Muslim at birth.

If not, how would a nation like Saudi Arabia remain 100% Muslim (insofar as their citizens are concerned)? Is every Muslim required to make a profession of faith before Islamic judges, and released from the Islamic faith if they elect to never do so? Somehow I doubt that.

Unlike Muslim religious leaders, I respect Mr. Obama's rights to renounce Islam and adopt Christianity (or any other faith, or no faith at all). But somehow I think Obama would have been considered a Moslem under Indonesian law.

Most Islamic countries don't allow conversions from Islam, unless a Sharia court approves -- which as a practical matter doesn't happen. More likely, the Sharia court will condemn the prospective convert to death (assuming it is granted that power) and will not approve conversion from Islam in any event.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2007 05:17 PM
44. I was just a bit curious about one aspect of this Obama thing and I was hoping someone would help me out. I read the news article about the people that went to the so-called Islamic madrassa and they found that it isn't so. There was a big deal about how the school was open and everything, but nowhere in the article did they talk about the history of it, whether it was a madrassa back in 1970.

I was just wondering what the history of the school was and what it was like during the time Obama was there, I really don't care what it's like right now.

Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2007 05:29 PM
45. I wouldn't worry too much about "B"...he/she has posted before from that email address but varies between self-describing as a "liberal Republican" and a "conservative Republican." So other than being sure "B" doesn't like Mormons, was a Roulstone fan, and doesn't like the Earling clan I'd say he/she seems generally full of it.

Posted by: Eric Earling on January 30, 2007 06:08 PM
46. Richard Pope @ 30:
Regardless of anything else, Tom DeLay not only quit at the wrong time, it was probably the WORST time; i.e.: Either earlier (best) or later would have been a better choice.

Richard Pope @ 31:
Again regardless of anything else, seems like any objective analysis would have to conclude that Giuliani's treatment of his 1st two wives was pretty shabby; and especially because it appeared to be UNNECESSARILY so. Whether or not when weighed in the balance it reaches the level of disqualification as an acceptable candidate is something each voter will have to decide. It is certainly NOT the only consideration; not even close. But it IS a factor.

Patrick @ 33 asks the correct and key question:
''Why turn the White House back over to the liberals just because there isn't a 'perfect' conservative running?''

Voting for Hillary would IMO be the ultimate act of cutting off your (R) nose to spite your nose:
Has anyone making ''I'd vote for Hillary'' statement actually considered what it would mean to have the (D)s in full control of ALL branches of the Federal Government (and Hillary appointing Federal judges ?? (think about THAT for a bit) ).

Patrick again @ 34 said:
''The record is pretty clear that Senator Obama was not raised as a practicing Muslim, nor was he educated in a fundamentalist madrassa.''

CNN sent a camera crew and a reporter to investigate. They interviewed the current headmaster and gave some background. If the segment was accurate, it is more confirmation that Patrick's above is fundamentally correct.
Although:
That does not necessarily negate some of what Richard Pope said in his follow-ons @ 37 and 43.

Posted by: Methow Ken on January 30, 2007 09:11 PM
47. I think that all of your prejudice's are becoming discrimination when you say you wont vote for a "muslim named" person woman or mormon. Look at the people for their accomlishments and stands on issues. Romney is an achieved venture capitalist he is not a life long lawyer, politician, relgious figure, or activist. Romney is a great American and to assume that "morminism" has control over him is a sad statement. Modern Mormonism is soooo not what you guys are making it out to be.

Posted by: Andre on January 30, 2007 10:35 PM
48. Hey Andre, unlike KS, I am a Romney fan, as well as a McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, Tancredo, and whoever I missed fan. The only baggage any of them have is what you let the MSM let them have. You seem to want the Rs to self-destruct and play into the Clinton's playbook. Hang firm and committed and we will win. Follow the 11th Commandment and we will win.

Don't let Clinton off the hook and give her a free ride by discounting your own people. She will do the job for you. Build your own people up.

Posted by: swatter on January 31, 2007 09:40 AM
49. Best info I have read is that Obama's school is not, and has never been a madrassa. But he was registered as a Muslim, and in one of his books he says that he got into trouble at school for goofing off during Koranic studies. That makes him a Muslim at that point in his life.

Now, if he did convert to Christianity, he's marked for death - as are all converts - by Isalmic fundamentalists. Does that mean if he's elected POTUS that he won't be able to visit a Muslim country?

Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 31, 2007 01:07 PM
50. Forget Rudy McRomney. It's time for a real conservative : Duncan Hunter

Posted by: Ron on January 31, 2007 10:19 PM
51. Sorry for forgetting him Ron. Duncan Hunter fits my criteria probably better than any of the others; plus, no potential baggage, except getting money for his district.

In 2000, Ron, my guy was Kasich, but I didn't dwell on it when he didn't get traction. I don't think Hunter will either, but he will keep the discussion focused.

Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2007 08:10 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?