|
|
January 9, 2008, Matthew Cochrane, Friday Political Roundup VI: Thoughts on New Hampshire's Primary (Special Wednesday Edition)
Well, I definitely do not have another epic Iowa post in me right now. However, I would like to share a few quick thoughts I had as tonight’s events in New Hampshire unfolded:
Hillary’s Improbable Victory – In the days leading up to New Hampshire’s over-hyped primary, numerous polls had Barack Obama winning by large margins; some even pointed to a double digit victory for the rookie senator from Illinois. After the caucuses were over in Iowa, I wrote, “The message out of the Democratic camp this year appears to be change trumps experience. And Barack Obama is their clear choice to voice that desire for change. In my opinion, he has now emerged as the clear frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination and he starts off 2008 as the early favorite to be the next President of the United States.” Well, I might have spoken a bit too soon. The Clinton political machine is not going to cede the Democratic nomination without a fight. How do we account, then, for Hillary’s come-from-behind primary win? I have three lines of thought:
1) Bill Clinton’s tireless campaigning for his wife in the days leading up to the “Live Free or Die” state’s primary. After last night’s surprise win by Hillary, the Lizard Master concluded, “ At any rate, Bill Clinton has come more center stage for Hillary in her time of need and it appears to have worked.” I agree. By letting her still-popular-former-president husband attack Barack Obama, Hillary was able to steer clear from being labeled with the stigma of resorting to negative campaigning. Instead, she was able to emphasize her strengths (i.e. her experience) with Obama’s main weakness, his inexperience (just two years removed from serving on Illinois’s state legislature).
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was busy traveling the circuit attacking Barack Obama more directly. By campaigning and traveling separately, the Clinton duo was able to cover twice the ground and gave the impression that Bill was campaigning “on his own” and “just speaking his mind” when leveling attacks against Obama.
For all their faults, the Clintons are political masterminds - especially Bill. Having him campaign for her is a huge asset for Hillary. Bill Clinton’s political ingenuity was constantly underestimated while he served as the president in the nineties and it appears that several political pundits (including myself) may have made that mistake again.
Here’s a clip of Bill Clinton hyping his wife and simultaneously tearing down Barack Obama in the days leading up to New Hampshire’s primary:
2) Skewed pre-primary polling in New Hampshire. I don’t have anything to back this up; just a gut feeling. There’s no single, plausible explanation as to how Hillary could have overcome a double digit deficit on the last day of the campaign. None.
There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.
But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened - about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen - a convenient foil for pollsters who'd rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.
I think we can safely conclude that something went very wrong in the polls conducted during the days following Iowa’s caucus and continued right up until the hours before the New Hampshire elections opened. Finding out what went wrong, though, will probably remain a mystery for some time.
3) Hillary’s show of emotion on the eve of the election. The women in Iowa voted overwhelmingly for Obama. In New Hampshire, the female demographic shifted back to Hillary and she emerged victorious. What changed? In Iowa she attempted to bowl over her opponents by presenting herself as the “inevitable” candidate. In New Hampshire, she showed vulnerability. In short, she went for the pity vote – and it worked. For those who were camping in a cave Monday, here’s what happened:
To an extent, all three of these dynamics probably came into play to make Hillary Clinton’s surprise win possible in New Hampshire yesterday.
He was supposed to die last summer after a brutal staff shakeup and spending almost all the money he'd raised. To revive himself, he rented a cheaper, smellier bus than he'd driven around when he was the high-flying front-runner. He returned to New Hampshire for an endless round of town halls of the kind that had led to his surprise victory in 2000. "We sure showed them what a comeback looks like," said McCain in his acceptance speech.
Conventional wisdom was wrong. McCain did not lose a big share of independents to Barack Obama. As many independents voted in the GOP primary as did in 2000. McCain led his rivals with more than one-third of their backing. Proving he hasn't lost his appeal to middle-of-the-road voters will help his argument that he's the most electable Republican in November. He also won Republican voters. Winning in the GOP—particularly in the face of Romney's attacks on his immigration and tax-cut positions—will help McCain argue that he is also a party favorite.
Many Republicans are giving McCain a second look this election cycle. After alienating the conservative base for years with his stances on immigration and campaign finance reform, McCain is emerging as “Plan B” for several voters. My dad, who has long considered McCain a RINO (Republican in Name Only) is even considering him a viable candidate now. I nearly fell out of my chair last night when he informed me McCain was now his second choice (after Huckabee, of course) amongst the Republican nominees. For someone like my dad to say that shows how much ground McCain has gained among the conservative base the past few months. He has impressed in debates and is deemed the strongest candidate on foreign policy by many conservatives (including me).
Indeed, in several polls McCains shows up as the most “electable” of the GOP candidates. Such polling means little before the head-to-head campaigns leading up to the general election but McCain will probably use them as evidence to sell himself as the only candidate who can beat the Democrats this November. With an impressive victory under his belt like this one, that shouldn’t be too hard a sell.
Barack Obama’s Bad Day – I don’t even know where to begin. This was bad, though, for the party’s golden boy. How bad? Well, it wasn’t fatal but I would rate it somewhere between heartrending and devastating. While Clinton gets to accept the “Comeback Kid” mantle from her husband, Obama will do well to avoid being labeled a choke artist along the likes of Gary Hart. His campaign was simply outmaneuvered by a superior political organization.
And what of the Obama wave? Clinton strategists say it crested and has turned. They believe if they had more time after Iowa, Clinton's slender margin of victory in New Hampshire would have been even much wider.
That might be wishful thinking on the Clintons’ part but often these stories can turn into self-fulfilling prophecies in the political world.
In short, I have no idea now what the future holds for the remainder of the Democratic race. I only know that it is a two-horse race between Clinton and Obama and that it’s probably going to get downright nasty before a clear winner finally emerges. This race could even potentially extend beyond Super Duper Tuesday in February.
Mitt Romney, the Silver Medal champion – Once again Mitt Romney used the Olympic metaphor to describe his finish in a meaningful early state primary. The Romney campaign now limps to Michigan with two costly defeats in its wake. Romney’s strategy from the beginning was to position himself as the inevitable Republican nominee by investing heavily in both time and money in New Hampshire and Iowa. Just a month ago losing just one of those states seemed unthinkable. To have lost both could very well mean the end of Romney’s chances to win the nomination.
Romney will make one last stand in Michigan but, his negative campaigns against Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire, has left a bad taste in too many conservatives’ mouths. Two weeks ago, my dad, a lifelong conservative and political activist, considered Romney an attractive second choice to Huckabee. Now my dad prefers McCain to Romney, someone who he is at odds with on immigration and several other issues. This growing resentment against Romney among the conservative base is what will ultimately cost him his chance to win the nomination - not consecutive second place finishes.
Lost in the mix is Edwards – again. Oh, he will continue to limp to third place finishes, placing in the 15-20% range, until after the Florida or South Carolina primary when he will, at last, conclude enough is enough.
How did he do? With 91% of the precincts reporting, Edwards was at 17%, right in the middle of that fifteen to twenty percent range I predicted. There he will continue to languish until awkwardly bowing out after South Carolina.
Mike Huckabee, Third Place Winner – Same third place finish as Edwards, but it holds a completely different meaning for Huckabee. A few weeks ago he was a distant fifth in polls here, but a surge in his popularity has seen him climb and place an impressive third in the evangelical-light New England state. John Ellis, a Real Clear Politics analyst, stated:
Iowa was grand for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, but New Hampshire was a bonanza. He cast his bread upon the waters there and though he finished a distant third, it was returned manifold. The one thing that Huckabee cannot afford, at this stage of the race, is head-to-head defeat. He needs at least two "strong" candidates in the field while he puts together the pieces of his Republican proletariat coalition…
In case you hadn't noticed, click your mouse around this website until you get to National GOP Presidential Polls. Guess who's tied for the lead or leading now in virtually every national poll. He may have finished third in New Hampshire, but he took a large step forward tonight. If he keeps it up, and things keep breaking his way, there will be no one left to stop him.
As he did before Iowa’s caucus, Huckabee once again made an appearance on the late night talk show circuit on the eve of New Hampshire’s primary election. This time David Letterman was the one who invited him on his show:
Consider this your Friday Political Roundup for this week. These were just a few thoughts I wanted to share on the ongoing primary elections. This election cycle is proving to be wild and unpredictable. Stay tuned as in the upcoming weeks to see what transpires...
|
| Comments |
| Ya know, I hadn't seen that clip on Hillary's choke-up, but I have to say I liked her there. She almost became a real person to me. Now, having watched her for several years, I tend to think this is not the real Hillary. Too bad for her that she hasn't shown this side of herself over the many years. Just to clarify, I am definitely not a Hillary fan and this clip did not in any way change my mind. I'm just saying she appeared to be real, sincere and concerned for our country. - cheerleader |
|
| o come on. anybody can vote in new hampshire. you don't even have to be a citizen of new hampshire and you can vote more than once. you don't think this has anything to do with her unpredictable victory? nothing is a coincidence with hillary rodham clinton. i'm just sayin - D. A. |
|
| i mean is anybody else wondering why they ran out of ballots? - D. A. |
|
| and don't forget about the democrats that assumed obama had this win in the bag and went to the b allot box to show their support for mccain - D. A. |
|
| besides how can you explain that all the polling was dead on when it came to the republican vote but was off by monumental proportions on the democrat side if there wasn't some kind of fraud. just saying - D. A. |
|
| there's no way to poll people in massachusetts, maine, or vermont to find out how those residents will vote in new hampshire. there just isn't. no wonder the polls were off - D. A. |
|
| "besides how can you explain that all the polling was dead on when it came to the republican vote but was off by monumental proportions on the democrat side if there wasn't some kind of fraud. just saying - D. A. " Why in the world would you say there could be fraud on the part of the Clintons? They're way too establishment-oriented to ever involve themselves in scandal or fraud of any kind and this is big-time politics. Come on, seriously, can you name even one time that the Clintons have been involved in a scandal . . ? . . . what? ok, then, can you name even one time the Clintons have been involved in a scandal besides Whitewater . . .? Huh? ok, besides Whitewater and Monica Lewinski . . .? Sigh, ok, I mean besides Whitewater and Monica and Vince Foster's missing papers . . .? Ok, ok, . . . I mean besides Whitewater and Monica and the Foster papers and the federal felony conviction of perjury. Yeah, I thought so. See? It just couldn't be any fraud there in New Hampshire, could it? It's obvious they would never stoop to that level, right? - Bubba |
|
| Apparently Rush Limbaugh's talking points are easy to recite. First of all, there's no way that many people were bussed in from nearby states by the Clinton campaign to overcome a double digit deficit. It's just not possible. Also, I didn't mention it in the article above but the Fox News Poll showed the Democratic race too close to call on the night before the election. It was obviously a closer race than the rest of the polls were indicating. Obama was acting cocky - way too cocky for an inexperienced senator upstart - and he relaxed. Most reports out of NH say he was playing it safe in New Hampshire making quick speeches and refusing to take any questions afterwards. Meanwhile the Clintons worked their butts off in the days preceding the election. Barack's campaign was outhustled and outmaneuvered. There's no need to make this into a big mystery or claim fraud. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| It is kind of stupid that people started talking about Hillary dropping out just because she lost one race. An article on the Drudge Report about a week ago called this the nobody knows election because nobody really knows who is going to win for either party. I also wouldn't count Mitt Romney out just yet. He has the most delegates out of any of the Republicans right now. He may prove to be tougher competition for Huckabee right now than McCain. We'll see though. Right now nobody knows. - Stephen |
|
| umm, the a.p. did a story back in november that basically said if anyone wanted to vote in nh then all they have to do is lie about who they are and their current residential status. id and proof of residency are not required. so tell me something. cause you seem to think this is one giant coincidence. a hell of a coincidence if it is. but if moveon.org or any of those other hillary front groups wanted to charter planes or buses to nh then what's to stop them from doing so. you're quick to say this isn't a fraud, yet if someone wanted to commit such a thing there'd be no way to stop them from doing it and, if they did do it, nothing to prove that they did. in the end, my argument is its own worst enemy because i nor anyone else would be able to prove there is a fraud. but that's the scary part. no seriously. - D. A. |
|
| Unfortunately, as much as I would like to bury Hillary once and for all (politically) I don't think there was any grand conspiracy either. The logistics of moving that many people in and out of New Hampshire is just to tough to work out in front of that many news media types. It's not that I would put it past her, I just don't think it could be done. What I do think is that if Obama works as hard as Clinton then he will more than likely show that she is actually beatable. Still, he's going to have to work very hard to do it. Hillary has a lot of negatives out thee and I think Obama is the one that could beat her if anyone in the Democratic Party can.
- Verbatim |
|
| D.A: 1) Move On is not supporting Hillary over Obama. Barack Obama is far more liberal than Hillary and if Move On was to pick a candidate it would probably be him not her. Case in point: Barack voted with the Democratic party 97% of the time in 2007, more than twenty points higher than Hillary; 2) If it's legal by NH primary laws than its NOT fraud. In fact, it would be nothing more than a shrewd political move. Fraud is cheating and illegal. We should not be so fast as to throw out misleading terms to describe a legal action. Either way blame NH for having stupid election laws, not Hillary for taking advantage of them; 3) Finally, there's no way Hillary could bus in tens of thousands of people without it being reported. New Hampshire was crawling with reporters and to suggest that nobody saw hundreds of buses (and that's how many it would have taken) and thought it was fishy is simply not feasible. Basically it would not have been financially or logistically viable for Hillary to pull something of that magnitude off without it being reported by every media outlet in the country. Again, Obama got outhustled and outsmarted. Its as simple as that. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| DA has a good point which you are ignoring...how in the world could they run out of ballots?? I am sure they had enough for the amount of qualified voters to use if they all came out. Something was fishy right there.
As far as how could that happen and the media not report it? You are talking about the liberal mainstream media? They won't throw dirt on any democrat if they don't have to.
As far as its not "fraud" and therefore its "legal". Well, I don't know the laws intimately, and assuming you do, (do you?) I can't believe the INTENT of the law is to let people vote and then get in the line again and vote again, and keep doing that all day? I doubt it. If its not specifically against the law itself, it is certainly unethical and goes against the intent of our voting system.
And could this happen? Could you get buses of people there to do this? Of course you could. They could go from county to county around the state, let alone from other states. It's not like its impossible. In politics, anything is possible. Obviously. - McGee |
|
| your "legal therefore not fraud" argument is bogus. just because it's my right as a resident of nh to not be carded when i vote, doesn't mean it isn't totally illegal to vote more than once and totally illlegal to drive to another state and vote. like i said. i can't prove she did it. i'm not even really saying that "she" did it. but it is plausible people drove to nh to vote for her. it is plausible that a group like moveon is corrupt. and it is plausible that corrupt groups and corrupt people do corrupt things. btw, hillary clinton started moveon so yeah i think they might be a little biased toward her instead of barack. but even if they did back obama you get my point. there are other front groups like that that are just as corrupt - D. A. |
|
| Joan Blades and Wes Boyd founded Move On, not Hillary. Please try to do a minimal amount of research before posting drivel like that. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| always stumbling over a pebble. or are you denying that hillary has front groups? there was a group that she claimed to be a part of the founding of a while back. i don't know if it was moveon or media matters but either way, other people got my point. moveon.org was used as an example but there are other groups like that that do the same thing. sheesh final point: liberals lie, hillary is evil, and this smells like smoke! - D. A. |
|
| D.A., examples only work if they're true. When they're not true they're usually not that effective. You're also proving my point in the post: that the Clintons were constantly underestimated as political masterminds throughout their presidency - especially by conservatives. If its easier for you to believe in a massive Hillary operation that involved hundreds of buses and thousands of voters from out of state than the fact that the Clintons worked hard and won by outhustling and outsmarting Obama, well, I don't know what to tell you. I'm done trying to convinvce you though. I have better things to do then explaining away far-fetched conspiracy theories that don't take into account logistics, finances, and common sense. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| fine. but you must have not read what i said. i said, "i'm not even really saying that "she" did it" you know it is possible that people just drove to nh on their own. i said nothing about a conspiracy or thousands of buses. those are your words not mine. i just said if people wanted to go there and vote for her or vote more than once then there would be nothing stopping them. and what i said is true. you're also proving my point. by making it so that i can't prove it you are proving my point because there would be no way to prove this kind of fraud. that's why it would work. duh. and i would think that if you had better things to do then you would work on disproving my point instead of trying to trip me up over fine details like who started what foundation. if that was your point then yeah i'd say you have better things to do. thanks for proving my point . . . again. - D. A. |
|
| D.A. you said, "but if moveon.org or any of those other hillary front groups wanted to charter planes or buses to nh then what's to stop them from doing so." If I somehow misinterpreted that forgive my stupidity. As for your argument it is even more unfeasible than your first such theory. The fact that thousands of people, independent of any formal organization or motivation, would decide to drive to New Hampshire, to vote in an election that was supposedly a lost cause (for Hillary supporters) is nothing less than incredulous. If anything the preprimary polls would make it even more unlikely that that would happen. Why would people take time off from work and drive to another state to vote in an election in which their candidate of choice was supposed to lose by a wide margin? Just because its theoretically possible doesn't make it logical, feasible or likely. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| 1. not that many people live in new hampshire. some towns don't have a population higher than 25. so it wouldn't take as many people as you think to drive five minutes over the border and cast a vote by lying who they are. 2. my argument may be flawed but you're resting one of your only arguments on a "gut feeling" that the polls were wrong. are gut feelings typically "logical, feasible, or likely?" - D. A. |
|
| Yeah, but that gut feeling was backed up by the testimony of polling experts. It also wasn't my main argument nor the argument I've cited here in the comments numerous times: that Obama was outhustled and outmaneuvered by Clinton's campaign. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record I fear. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| It's true NH is mostly rural areas with small towns. It's also true that the surrounding regions is the same - mostly rural with a few small towns. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| it needn't have been people traveling from place to place to cheat on this election. It could have been crooked poll workers stuffing the ballot boxes, or whatever they have. Politics can be dirty, and the Clintons are the mastermnds of dirty politics. and no, you don't sound like a broken record, but you do sound defemsive and spend too much time on drivel like who founded moveon. it doesn't matter who, but the fact is they got their start by jumping in when Bill was getting impeached. They are definitely clintonites. Did the clintons out manueveur obama? who knows. Did dirty tricks come in to this? who knows. but you keep getting hung up on some sort of caravan traveling from precinct to precinct. How about someone just stuffed the ballot boxes in her favor? could happen, you know. And you never addressed the question of why weren't there enough ballots. Why? I was hoping to hear an answer to that rather than a nitpicking statement about who founded move on. Stick to the meat of the argument, and don't sidetrack the issue with nitpicking. - Robert M. G. |
|
| One pof the thing that irritates me the most about liberals is that they're inherently whiny. When they lose an election they immediately claim the "right wing conspiracy" must have cheated their way to victory. A brief listen to Air America, the liberal radio network, will reveal this. I refuse to imitate them in that regard and I refuse to recklessly speculate and throw serious charges around. There is no such evidence that they cheated - yet. If such evidence comes to light then I'll address it and be the first to denounce it. However, I'm not going to whine and engage in such behavior. Why did they run out fo ballots? I don't know. Maybe they didn't print enough. Maybe a worker spilled coffee on a stack of them and then they couldn't use them. Maybe they delivered a batch to the wrong precinct or a precinct ordered a wrong quantity. I don't know. I do know that there are a million more plausible and likely scenarios than a poll worker risking years in a federal prison to try to sway a small state primary election. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I also caught Rush Limbaugh's program yesterday and I wonder if anyone else caught what I caught. He said that Romney was ahead in the race with 24 delegates and Huckabee was in second with 18 delegates. At first I thought nothing of this until I went to the delegate count at foxnews.com and learned that Huckabee is really in the lead with 31 delegates and it is Romney who is in second with 29 delegates. Is there a third party that can settle which one is more accurate? I tend to think Fox News has it more accurate on their website and that Rush Limbaugh was going off of memory when he gave his monologue, but what does that say about Rush? Was this a disinformation tactic or was he really that off? Either way, I have a bad "gut feeling" about this. - Stephen |
|
| http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/national-delegate-count-tally/ and http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010908/content/01125106.member.html - Stephen |
|
| "At first I thought nothing of this until I went to the delegate count at foxnews.com and learned that Huckabee is really in the lead with 31 delegates and it is Romney who is in second with 29 delegates. Is there a third party that can settle which one is more accurate? I tend to think Fox News has it more accurate on their website and that Rush Limbaugh was going off of memory when he gave his monologue, but what does that say about Rush? Was this a disinformation tactic or was he really that off?"
I have to admit to a bit of confusion, myself, over the delegate count. I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday about the count and, using the Fox News figures, I said that Huckabee was ahead. He contradicted my figures and pulled up different numbers from CNN. I noticed, by the way, that Fox was using the Associated Press for its figures. As we looked further we found several different counts from several different sources. Frankly, I have no idea why it should be so fluid or why the numbers shouldn't be pretty much cut and dried. So, as before, I remain somewhat confused on the issue. - Steamboat Willie |
|
| The predictions were correct. There evidences of irregularities that might have led to the result we all saw. It was due to vote counting fraud for which there is evidence right there in Sutton precinct, NH. I think that New Hampshire resident supporters of Ron Paul and Barack Obama should make an official complaint with the NH Secretary of State so the fraud could be investigated. - F.Igwealor |
|
| You might be inherently whiney too if you felt the elections were being rigged and our country was being flushed down the drain. - Alex G. |
|
| Dems always commit voter fraud. It's part of their mentality. Look at the last minute vote counting (box stuffing) in South Dakota, look at Chicago with the Daily machine, Detroit with more votes than registered voters.... They really do have a long history of this sort of thing and Hillary is the newest interation of this. I wouldn't put it past her at all. She is a consumate fraudster ... just look at her cattle futures, Rose law firm billing records, etc. - remay1 |
|
| "You might be inherently whiney too if you felt the elections were being rigged and our country was being flushed down the drain." - This is hilarious and what I was talking about. Funny thing is, though, that liberals only believe the elections they lose are rigged. The elections they win? They always conclude were run fairly. Notice he never denies that the're inherently whiny though. I love it. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| It's a deceptive strategy that's tearing this country apart along political partisan lines. If the Democrats they'r ehappy and say they finally beat the "evil Republicans." When they lose they conclude cheating must have been involved. Using this strategy conservatives don't get credit for having better policies, working hard in campaigns, or for making principled stands. Itd disingenuous and deceitful. And has the effect of making them sound like whiny crybabies and sore losers. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| i think democrats are a lot like my mother-in-law. they accuse conservatives of things that only they themselves are guilty of. - D. A. |
|
| i'd also like to point out that there's nothing whiney about conservatives suggesting fraud in a race that they have no stake in. republicans didn't lose to hillary in nh. and even though we should be happy she won, we still speculate and may go as far as accusing her or other liberals of fraud. so i think it was good of matthew to point out that even liberals don't deny being whiney. i'd also like to see a valid argument that conservatives are just as big of cry babies. - D. A. |
|
| Hillary's the biggest though. "They" are always a/picking on her or b/or plotting a conspiracy against her. It's our fault because we don't bow down to her "world class genius." - cdl |
|
| Huckabee, "Huckabee responded: “The Air Force has a saying that says that if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target. I’m catching the flak; I must be over the target.” Therefore, Hillary will be over the target if and when Huckabee targets her.
- cdl |
|
| CDL, Huckabee has run a pretty straight campaign to this point and has purposely avoided running attack ads and targeting his oponents. In my opinion, once he wins the nomination, the conservative media is going to have a hard time endorsing him after beating him up for so long so instead of praising Huckabee they'll probably be the ones to attack hillary (or whoever wins the democrat nomination). - Stephen |
|
| If Huckabee won't attack Hillary he definitely should not be nominated, but I don't think anyone is so naive to think he wouldn't attack the dem's nominee if the time comes. I need to get some of that water you guys have. - cdl |
|
| Actually, Huckabee did run an attack. or, he made one, called everyone in to see it, then changed his mind about actually running it, even though he knew it would be run and get more attention by this move. He called in ed rollins, the attack king, to help run his campaign. if he is telling the truth about thats how it went down, then he is naieve. if hes not telling the truth, hes being disingenuous, not "straight". I think he's a straight guy for the most part, but not entirely. don't mean to be cynical, but you don't be in politics all these years by being one hundred percent straight and honest. many EC (evangelical Christians) want him to be president for the simple fact that he is an EC and he is getting the benefit of the doubt in every case possible on this message boards. I don't see the same things Stephen sees, such as the conservative media " beatding him up". The only one I see in attack mode is Rush Limbaugh, and someone from Huckabee's campaign started that little war, which was a bad error in judgement. Real bad judgement. (a president needs good judgement, don't forget) Nobody else is "beating him up" Politics is a game not for wimps. You have to be able to take the hits and not take them personally. Huck seems to take them better than a lot of his supporters (some of the posters here, for example) Huckabee is funny, has a tax plan he spells out in detail, which has been pointed out by the conservative media everyone is attacking all of a sudden, but has other views that are not in the best interest of our country. Immigration for one. how naieve is it to think he will get the illegal immigrants to turn themselves in, go home, get in back of the line, and wait their turn to get back here. Someone asked him "how is the government goign to round up these illegal immigrants to send them home, and he actually said something about "why do you think we will have to round them up? They will come in on their own". Now, is that not naieve or what? Someone mentioned that hs has the endorsement of the minute men as if that's that. However, endorsements from groups are political in nature and dn't mean "that's it" he's the one now that so and so has endorsed him. Thre are other cases of legitiamte groups endorsing candidates and you just blow it off instead of taking it like you took the endorsement of the mm for Huckabee. (example: Human Events endorsing THomposon for one, but there was at least one other example on this board) Huckabee is also dangerously and annoyingly naieve in his foreign policy statements that we were directed to on this board. Its too much trouble for me to go back and get you quotes but since Mathew sent me to those links, he must be aware of them. I think Mathew said Huck and Guiliani's views were the same, which is totally not true. Huckabee said that the Bush adm has a "bunker mentality" and that feeds in to the blame America first thinking which he has been accused of. Huckabee said in that foreign affairs paper he wrote that we should help them (people in terrorist countries) with their sanitation,health care, education and I don't knwo what else. If anyone wants to help them, fine, but its not the job of our government to do it at the taxpayer's expense, and the lives of our troops who would have to be over there in some capacity. That is the job for a missionary entity, not the governmnent. How annoying it was to read that. We should help them with sanitation? Everyone else in the world knows how to have sanitation if they want it, if they can't stand up and fight for their own country, and can't stand up and fight for their women's rights and basic human deceny issues, that last thing I want to engage our gov in is helping them learn how to wipe their rear ends and how to have running water and bathrooms. If a terrorist country is a threat to us, then eliminate them off the face of this earth. Or, bomb them from the air, and just put our boys on the ground to clean up what's left over. Huck has a good heart but it isn't a tough one with criminals or bad guys like I said before. His record with pardoning so many bad guys is not what we need in the oval office. I heard him defend that by saying he was helping people who committed crimes like writing a bad check when they were young and that conviction would keep them from getting good jobs later on in life. Well, first of all I say too bad that's just consequences" which we all live with, and second of all I say that is a dishonest answer cause he pardoned murderes and violent criminals. Theres' always that case that might deserve clemency, but hundreds and hundreds of them? I think Huckabee has a good heart, but I think he is NAIEVE. He's funny and nice and has some good points adn ideas, but he's just not tough enough. Now is the time for a tough guy in the oval office and it doesnt' matter what religion he is or isn't. Also, don't defend Huck by telling me "how about Romeny" or "how about guiliani"...don't defend one person's bad behaviour or ideas by bringing up someone else. I am only talking about Huckabee. if you ask me "well then who is the right guy" I will have to answer honestly there are no "stars" out there in this field of candidates. That's the sad thing. And cdl is right, if huck won't attack Hillary he is not tough enough to be in office. You have to attack your opponent. It doesn't have to be personal, and it shouldn't be, but if you don't attack their record and their actions what the heck are you doing in politics? Why are you running and why shouldn't people vote for your opponent. - H.A.W. |
|
| A lot there HAW, but, you obviously didn't read Giuliani's and Huckabee's articles. There is not one major difference in their proposed foreign policies and/or stances when it comes to Iraq, Iran, PAkistan, and the war on terror. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| After World War II, U.S gained allies in western Europe by helping them rebuild. Under the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine we gave BILLIONS of dollars to Europe. Historians widely credit these programs as being smart, effective, and successful. They saved lives and gained us invaluable allies during the Caold War in a time when we desperately needed them. A missionary entity, as you put it HAW, could not come close to accomplishing these things and that is naive and rather simple-minded. Huckabee proposes a similar strategy in the Middle East - gain allies by helping them with their economies and infrastructures. Giuliani has proposed a similar model, as would any competent leader. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I had a really astute and pithy comment but I got "The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error. Please contact the website administrator." Why does that happen? And so often
- cdl |
|
| But if Huckabee and Giuliani are similar in policies then nominate the guy more likely to get 'er done, ie Giuliani. Someone who could do in NYC what Rudy did has a much higher probability of success. Which isn't necessarily proportional to the probability of winning the nomination from a bunch of single issue extremists with more influence than they might deserve but fully support and defend the constitution and their right to ignore it unless they violate it - cdl |
|
| "I don't see the same things Stephen sees, such as the conservative media " beatding him up". The only one I see in attack mode is Rush Limbaugh, and someone from Huckabee's campaign started that little war, which was a bad error in judgement. Real bad judgement. (a president needs good judgement, don't forget) Nobody else is "beating him up" Politics is a game not for wimps. You have to be able to take the hits and not take them personally." Dude, seriously? Rush Limbaugh is the only one attacking him? No one else? What about ann coulter who said he was a stupid evangelical? What about Glenn Beck and Rusty Humphrey who make you feel like a stupid EC for even considering him. Michelle Malkin? Peggy Noonan? David Limbaugh? Michael Savage? Laura Ingraham who even though she's a total babe has made it clear she wants a commander in chief not an entertainer in chief, referring to huckabee appearing on the late night shows. These are not just conservative media types, most of them are ECs. And by the way, what do you mean by "you have to take the hits?" Are you saying Huckabee hasn't taken the hits? Or are you saying he takes them too personally? Huckabee has said many times that "it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but it's the size of the fight in the dog. There's a lot of fight in this dog." He has also said, "If you can't stand the sight of your own blood, don't get in the fight." Those quotes are just the ones I've found on this blog. But I think he's taken the hits better than anyone else. Because unlike everyone else, he's taking the hits from his own side of the aisle. He's being betrayed by his team members. Did he start the fight with Rush Limbaugh? According to Rush it was someone from the Huckabee camp but not huckabee himself. According to Huckabee he doesn't even know who Rush is talking about and Rush never really cleared up who exactly it was and on what blog it was on. And when Huckabee wanted to talk to Rush Limbaugh one-on-one to clear up some of the record it was Rush Limbaugh who turned him down. One wonders what he's afraid of. So it really depends on who you ask. But if you ask me, Rush was cynical of Huckabee long before that thing ever came down going all the way back to the youtube debate, when people really started noticing who Huckabee is. And since Huckabee has been able to over come all of this criticism from his own team and still take the lead shows enormous strength and will to win. A Huck I bee all the way! - Stephen |
|
| Stephen, you listed all those talkers agin' Huck. Sounds mysteriously like a consensus of non one issue types singing a chorus of criticality. Talk show hosses that you might tend to agree with otherwise. Hmmmmm. And Laura is neither a total nor a righteous babe. Eeeeehhhhwwww. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but compared to what I shudder to think upon such things. Brrrr. Any warm body will do in a cold fighting position. I guess. - cdl |
|
| Mathew. Yes I read their articles and don't see the identical ideas you see. Strange. Neither did Foreign Affairs see it as their summary of each article described different posttions.
How about this. Why don't you list five positions Huckabee has clearly that makes you want him for president. Like immigration? taxes? position of Gitmo, etc. What exactly do you like that makes you want to vote for him. Give me hard facts that you have heard from his mouth. - H.A.W. |
|
| Steven..just cause those people don't like his positions doesn't mean they are beating up on him. They do it all the time about anyone and anyone's positions they don't like. To bring up Ann Coulter's remarks is silly cause she's half comedicnne, not total serious commentator. However if Michele Malkin doesn't like his position on immigration, I would lisen closely. She knows her stuff. And what I heard from him about illegals willingly going home to get in the back of the line so they can keep their head up is just plain crazy. And nobody soft on illegals is going to win the nomination. Plus, on one debate this last week there was an opening question where Romney and Huckabee got in to it with each other and Huck didn't handle it well at all. He looked and acted peevish. Three times Romney asked him a yes or no question (about raising taxes in his adm as gov) and Huck didn't (wouldn't) answer it, and he lost the debate from that moment on according to focus groups of undecided voters on one of the cable channels. (FOX)
And cdl is right, the people you listed are people you would normally agree with probably but you are defending huck to the detriment of your objectivity. Take a minute and really think about his positions. Do you want Gitmo closed up? Do you think the illegals will go home willingly? Do you think if we change their hearts and minds the terrotists will let up on us? I liked Huckabee at first glance also, but I can't live with those policies and that thinking. Do you think the Bush adm has a bunker mentality? If so, then yeah...I guess he's your guy. But I would keep an open mind if I were you as this next election is too important to let your vote be swayed by emotion rather than facts.
Also, can you list five positions of his that you are in agreement with? - H.A.W. |
|
| HAW, hold off on that question. We'll address that this coming week in a separate post specifically on that subject. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| But to at least satisfy your claim, HAW, I will give you five proposed policy points of Huckabee's that makes me want him as president. However, since that is far too easy I will give you five specific proposed policy stances of Huckabee's on dealing with Iran (these are all taken from the aforementioned article and are extremely similar to Giuliani's foreign policy - even though HAW somehow missed the similarities): 1) military option for dealing with Iran should not be taken off the table; 2) Iran is a nation that has to be contained, just as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. In order to contain Iran, it is essential to win in Iraq. We cannot allow Iran to push its theocracy into Iraq and then expand it further west; 3) Despite the protestations of Congressional Democrats, we should support and continue President Bush's new sanctions against Iran, his decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and the classifications of al Quds force as a supporter of terrorism. We must also encourage our state and private pension funds to divest themselves of Iran-related assets; 4)Despite the protestations of Russia, we should move forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles; 5) We should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran but only after the Iranians have made concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship. In fact I'll throw in a bonus policy stated by Huckabee on Iran: Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. However, a range of incentives (e.g., trade and economic assistance, full diplomatic relations, and security guarantees) should be offered before moving forward with military action. Before we put our troops at risk in Iran, we should exhaust all diplomatic and economic options. I hope that satisfies your request H.A.W. Now would you please explain to me how any of those policies differ much from Giuliani's proposed policies? Or, what do you object in those above mentioned policies? Again, I'll more specifically address exactly why I like Mike later this week though. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Good dodge, Matthew. I could go in to anyone's five to seven page article and probably find things I agree with on both sides of the aisle. Cherry picking they call it.. The "easy" thing is what you did. The hard thing is to find five positions Huck has taken that would make you want him for president. Why is it hard? Because the positions he has espoused on many things I doubt you would agree with if it came out of anyone else's mouth, and secondly he hasn't gone in to too much detail. You really like those foreigh affairs papers, don't you? I will point out the differences for you on a nother post. Too much trouble now, and I am surprised you keep saying they are the "same". I mean if you go with things like "military options shouldn't be taken off the table"...wow. Heavy stuff. My ten yr old could come up with that...and there are democrats that say that also, so you sort of lost me on the rest of the points. They sound like political talking points and I asked you five positions you like about Huck. You need a week to get that together? You can't just shoot them out of your mouth? You ought to think about that. I didn't want a big discourse from you, just a quick list....like " I like the fact that he wants to close Gitmo and bring the terrorists here and put them in the criminal system" and "I like how he has faith in the illegal immigrants and thinks they will go home willingly to stand in the back of the line"...just quick things like that. You can't do that? - H.A.W. |
|
| "The hard thing is to find five positions Huck has taken that would make you want him for president." - You asked for five postions and I gave you five positions on Iran, and you're still not happy??? H.A.W, there's a difference between having an honest discussion about policy differences and you telling me that Huckabee is akin to your ten year old. You obviously are the type who will adamantly refuse to acknowledge any points that are contrary to your spoon-fed "knowledge" - as you just demonstrated. I gave you five specific policies on Iran that Huckabee has taken which should have more than adequately covered your juvenile request. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| My ten yr old can tell that H.A.W.'s 10 y/o can come up with the sort of list that you, Mr. Cochrane came up with. He wasn't referring to a 10 y/o coming up with policies like those of candidate for POTUS. I think you, Mr. Cochrane should try again. Your reaction is understandable since, due to the nature of blogged comments, you misunderstand H.A.W.'s meaning, but it's despite the limitations of the internet, it is obvious to me that H.A.W.'s knowledge is not "spoon-fed." - cdl |
|
| My readers apparently have very smart ten year olds...Sorry, if I'm not into jumping through arbitrary hoops at the whims of my readers but HAW asked for any five policy stances - I gave him five on Iran! HAW then showed he had a hard time processing new information as he repeated his former argument and told me to come up with...wait for it...five positions of Huckabee's. I'm assuming he wants five more now? I also have a hrd time believing either on of your ten year olds understands the consequences (political and military) of placing missile interceptors in Poland or even knows and understands the varying viewpoints on al Quds - and why the Iranian guard should be classified as a terrorist force. But if they do please feel free tow rite a guest post about how to raise ten year olds who understand the intricacies of foreign policy better than most adult professionals on the field. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| BTW, when people show the complete and utter inability to think for themselves and process new information I will assume that they have been spoon-fed talking points and know little more than to just spit them back out. This is exactly what HAW has demonstrated in this comment thread. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| my 10 y/o can read this too: "The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error. Please contact the website administrator." Why does that happen? And so often - cdl; but my 10 y/o can't answer it. Can you or anyone else? (third time I've raised this issue--doesn't happen at TLM's site) - cdl |
|
| HAW, do you mean, like, in order? 1. Abortion 2. War on Terror 3. Fair Tax 4. Illegal Immigration 5. Same Sex Marriage (federal marriage amendment) Is that what you wanted? I don't have the time to sit down and argue each one point-by-point but you said to list 5 I agree with. None of your arguments are anywhere near legitimate. For starters, to say the conservative media elites do it all the time to people whose positions they disagree with so therefore they’re not really beating up on Huckabee is a bogus argument. They do do it all the time – to liberals. And these people are constantly beating the liberals to a bloody pulp, at least in the arena of ideas. The fact that they would do it to one of their own by giving such a cowardly misrepresentation of where Huckabee truly stands is beyond me. I’m baffled. They take everything he says, put their own twist on it, rebuttal it, and make people feel stupid for liking him. If that’s not beating up on him, I don’t know what is. Another argument that isn’t legitimate to begin with: to say Ann Coulter is funny and therefore not a serious commentator. Almost all the people I mentioned are funny. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in tears because of how hard I was laughing while listening to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Are they not serious commentators? Glenn Beck’s new book takes this country’s worst problems and shows how bad they are by laughing at them. I think it’s naive to think he made number one on the new york times list by not being a serious commentator though. You say you listen to Michelle Malkin because she knows her stuff. Believe me, Ann Coulter makes a lot of jokes (some that are funny and some that are not) but she definitely knows her stuff. Gleen Beck too. Rush Limbaugh too. Another bad argument – you say you agree with CDL that since I would normally otherwise agree with these commentators I must therefore be wrong if I ever disagree with them. Really? So these people are always right now? Are they perfect? I’d like to point out that I also generally agree with Joe Carter, James Dobson, Rick Scarborough, and Chuck Norris. Your argument implies that if someone is usually right, they must be right all the time, but I bet you would object to the same logic if I said CDL is usually wrong, so therefore he must be wrong about this too. “But I would keep an open mind if I were you as this next election is too important to let your vote be swayed by emotion rather than facts.” The reality is, it was my emotions and gut feelings that told me not to like Huckabee. You can go back to earlier posts made on this blog and see where I told people they should vote for Romney instead of Huckabee (http://www.notconformedthoughts.com/displayone.cfm?docid=3046). But after looking at the facts for several months now I am convinced Huckabee is the best candidate up there. He definitely isn’t perfect. But he is the best one to lead our country. I hate it when Beck or Limbaugh sit behind their microphones and accuse us ECs of only liking Huckabee because we’re emotional and not looking at the facts. They are the ones who have somewhere along the way dropped the ball on looking at the facts. - Stephen |
|
| "'The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error. Please contact the website administrator.' Why does that happen? And so often" - CDL, my crack team of IT troubleshooters have been fervishly working around the clock to address this problem since it was first brought to our attention. They now assure me it is fixed but want to know if it happens again. Sorry for any inconveniences that it caused. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| thanks; I'll keep you posted - cdl |
|
| ABC: "we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis" translation -- we don't want to know what (unpollable) vote rigging took place until after next November; Krauthammer (my hero) say B.O. lost ground because of his unkind "Hillary, you're likeable...enough" comment coupled with tone and look of sarcasm and superiority. - cdl |
|
| And I agree about that comment. Karl Rove called the comment snarky...and it was. I think the more we see of Obama the more we'll learn he's not quite the cheery, optimist, nice guy that he's portrayed himself as. Its interesting to note the great racial divide separating the Democratic party right now. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| As seen in these new Rasmussen polls: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/2008_democratic_presidential_primary
- Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Mathew - I asked you for five quick policies that make YOU want HUCK for president based on what you have heard come out of his mouth. I didn't want in depth analysis from you on five positions of his on one subject (IRAN) taken from a paper in a websire. There's a difference. One is five REASONS YOU want Huck for Pres, you gave me five POSITIONS Huck has on Iran. Surely you see the difference in what I asked for and what you gave me. Then I tried to tell you that the five positions you came up with were weak anyway because all the candidates have "similarities" in those papers. As soon as I read the first one (options not taken off table) you "lost" me as even Hillary has that in her positions. Most if not all the candidates say that. Then at the end you threw in a "bonus" about not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons? That's a bonus? Is that "breaking news" that you just uncovered?? Who DOES want Iran to have them? So thanks for that fascinating discourse on Iran, but I didn't ask for it. My question was a simple little question that you might ask a coworker, or anyone who says they like a candidate..."why?". Why do you like then? SIMPLE QUESTION. You were showing indications of desperation. I was getting the run around from you, so I said Okay just give me five reasons you want him for Pres. I figured you could just do what Stephen did. (He "got" it). I don't know why you got defensive and thought I was trying to make you jump thru hoops. That was silly to say when you take great pleasure in writing your thoughts and positions, all of a sudden you are jumping thru hoops to say why you support someone for pres? That just sounds defensive. Also, you jumped to the conclusion that because I said my ten yr old could have gone thru those papers and pulled out similarities you say I said "Huck is akin to a ten yr old". Then you carried that theme on and on ending with me thinking my ten yr old knows foreign policy intricacies etc. That's the kind of jumping to conclusions that make people not take your writings as seriously as you might want them to. So that was wrong and I did not say Huck was like a ten yr old. You just showed people you must be "watched" and double checked on anything you say. You should be more trustworthy with your words when you are relaying what someone said. I tried to be soft on you, but apparently I must be more blunt with you...If anyone was compared to a ten yr old, it was you! YOU are the one that found those "amazing" similarites and I said a ten yr old could have doen that also. But how could you interpret what I wrote into saying I compared HUCK to a TEN YR OLD. You lose credibility with these little verbal excursions into fantasyland. Tell it like it is, or leave it like it was, but don't change words/thoughts/intentions around to suit your current argument. You also lose credibility when you call my request "juvenile". It is juvenile to ask you why you want someone for president? Wow. Who knew. Actually it is juvenile to attack people who don't agree with you by calling them juvenile. I don't even know where you came up with your spoonfed comments. I guess you thought it was some sort of a good comeback...but to what? I suggest you take a deep breath and stick to facts all around you and stop cherry picking the sources you use. You have beaten those foreign affairs papers to death. Each candidate wrote one (or more accurately someone in their campaign wrote it with the approval of the candidate) but I like to hear what comes right out of the mouth of someone without time to think and research and rehearse. Huck as failed a couple times with that. And if I liked Huck and was trying to promote him, I wouldn't keep saying well he is thinking the same way as Rudy. Tht would be an answer that ...hmmmm...oh, I know...that's an answer my ten yr old could come up with. A version of "Dad...everyone else is doing it too!"!!
- HAW |
|
| Ooookay. There are times when arguing with people is simply too exhausting. Contrary to popular belief I don't have unlimited amounts of time to answer comments... I did say I would get to it next week. I mean, you did see that comment, right? Seeing as how that was the first thing I wrote in response to your question...Anywho, I have written several posts as to why I like Huckabee - several. I then stated I would further address your questions later this week. I'm sorry that didn't satisfy your arbitrary demands on my time and effort, but I'm beginning to wonder if you would ever be satisfied with anything I wrote. You stated it was simple question, and you're right. It's also one that's been answered several times on my blog. So, until I get to it later this week, use the conveniently located search bar on the top right hand side of this web site. You will find several articles on Huckabee. Given my propensity for writing wordy articles, I'm sure you will find enough articles to satisfy your questions for the next couple of days. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| And, yes, the five reasons I gave on Huckabee's stances on Iran, are still five of the reasons I want Huckabee to be president. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "I don't know why you got defensive and thought I was trying to make you jump thru hoops. That was silly to say when you take great pleasure in writing your thoughts and positions, all of a sudden you are jumping thru hoops to say why you support someone for pres?" - I take some pleasure from writing on thoughts and ideas THAT I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT. Writing whole posts on subjects I'm being ordered to write about (an extremely lengthy process, I assure you) for free, on subjects I've written about repeatedly over the past several months, is not exactly something I "take great pleasure" from. Apparently this will come as a great surprise to you so I thought I would try to clear that up. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| H.A.W stated, "So that was wrong and I did not say Huck was like a ten yr old." I apologize. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| H.A.W. also stated, " You just showed people you must be "watched" and double checked on anything you say. You should be more trustworthy with your words when you are relaying what someone said." - H.A.W. it is my belief that EVERYONE should be double-checked, triple-checked, and watched on everything they say. This would especially include me. The Bereans were commended for continually checking Paul's teachings with Scripture. We would be wise to do the same. This means when we hear sermons from our preachers, read books (or blogs), listen to politicians, etc. we should always be comparing what we hear with Biblical truths and teachings. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| H.A.W. also stated, "You have beaten those foreign affairs papers to death. Each candidate wrote one..." Yes, HAW, the articles published in Foreign Affairs are the most thorough treatises (and most specific) publications of the candidates' positions. I believe foreign policy to be crucial to the presidency and therefore have found much information in these articles that are not always easily found elsewhere. I'm sorry you have a problem with that. BTW, not each candidate has written one. Not even every major GOP candidate has written one. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| H.A.W. also stated, "I like to hear what comes right out of the mouth of someone without time to think and research and rehearse." See, I'm the opposite HAw. What you just explained is that you like to hear uninformed, hastily-prepared opinions. I, on the other hand, like to hear educated thoughts, not ignorant ones. That might be why we see things so differently. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Then H.A.W. stated, "Huck as failed a couple times with that." That might be why I like him and you don't. Apparently Huckabee does a bad job of stating things that are hastily-prepared, ignorant, and uninformed. That is one of things that attracted him to me (there's one of your five reasons H.A.W!). - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "And if I liked Huck and was trying to promote him, I wouldn't keep saying well he is thinking the same way as Rudy." Well, agree to disagree. Like CDL, I really like Giuliani. When I hear him speak on anything other than abortion and gay marriage, I really like him. In fact, if he had a true, genuine conversion to being pro-life, I would probably vote for him over Huckabee. Probably. It would be close, put it that way. On foreign policy and terrorism I think Giuliani is right-on-target, as do many others, including one of my most faithful readers, CDL. I was just pointing out, though, that Giuliani and Huckabee virtually agree on every major foreign policy issue. Thus I was especially trying to promote him to CDL. I am still hoping by the time CDL votes in a primary election to change his mind. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| All that to say, I will answer your "simple question" later this week, like I first said I would...about 100 comments ago or so. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Also, just wondering HAW, if you noticed that the post I wrote right after this one was pretty much completely about one reason I really liked Huckabee compared to the other GOP candidates? - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I thought I'd be voting for Romney but I realized early on he is all about happy talk. I really liked McCain in 2000 until he self destructed in So. Carolina. So if it's not Rudy, it's McCain for me. My big problem (sorry to repeat) with Huck is that many of the things he might try to do as prez would be logjammed by dems. They need only say, "Huck is trying to shove his religion down our throats," and nothing would get done. Abortion will be slowed incrementally and by conservative judges showing the unconstitutionality of it not how the Bible can be used to show that God (as some understand Him) is probably not in favor of it. RUdy showed in NYC that he can get results...conservative results. McCain has shown that he can win voters and office holders over with straight talk (cliche that it is). Only a prez that can drop kick congress in the derriere will get 'er done in this decade and the next. Waxing congresses collective backside won't make their collective smelly poop less smelly. I base my first and second choice on a variety of factors but a major concern is which candidate do I think will be able to get his supreme court nominee through congress. Not a given even for Rudy. But any of the republican candidates is better than any democrat. - cdl |
|
| "My big problem (sorry to repeat) with Huck is that many of the things he might try to do as prez would be logjammed by dems." - CDL, with all due respect, don't you think they will do this no matter what as long as there's a Republican in the White House? - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "I base my first and second choice on a variety of factors but a major concern is which candidate do I think will be able to get his supreme court nominee through congress. Not a given even for Rudy." - cdl |
|
| Take that wilberforce analogy another step. THe crucial scene when the MPs passed law regulating flagging of merships (I think), it was done by cunning. The opposition party was not there because they had been given free tickets (to a horse race I think). And an extremist in the balcony almost scotched the deal by merely being there. Many, most (whatever) then agreed that the slave trade was foul and so today with abortion. But recognizing something is a moral outrage is not enough. The constitution in this country is what allows it and there are economic rewards gained by doctors and organizations and politicians by keeping it legal. Wilberforce, like ECs, was not the cunning one. His cohort --his allies -- was. "I hate abortion. I would encourage someone to not take that option," the former mayor said last week during the first Republican presidential debate. "But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman's right to make a different choice." We need to be allied with people like Rudy. He is our friend; not our enemy. But no politician is our savior. Jesus is. - cdl |
|
| Another analogy. In the movie, they showed Wilberforce slice up his opposition with wit. Huck is good but Rudy is better in that dept. - cdl |
|
|
|
|
| |
©2009 Matthew Cochrane
| |
|
Recent Activity:
Top 5 Posts of the Month:
Recently Viewed Posts:
Top Ten Most Commented
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies (378)
Roe v. Wade: The 35th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion (147)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: A Followup (108)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (106)
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 3: The Proper Mode of Baptism (79)
Friday Political Roundup VI: Thoughts on New Hampshire's Primary (Special Wednesday Edition) (78)
Why I Like Mike, Part 2: Responding to the Conservative Establishment's Attacks (75)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: Congregational Meeting Announcement (69)
From the Depths of the Web 2, June 2008 (65)
Can the Church Compromise on Baptism? Part 1 (60)
Top Ten Hits All-Time
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 4: Defining Personhood
- Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 7: The Sign of the Covenant
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies
- Mentorship Program for Incarcerated Young Men Gives Christians Opportunity to Witness, Offer Guidance
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 3: The Beginning of Life
- Book Review: Love and Respect
- Book Review: Velvet Elvis
- The True Meaning of Christmas: Wrath, Judgment, Hope, and Grace
- In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
Add your Feeds:
Blogs I read:
Fave Five
Religious and Cultural
Friends and Family
See what my readers are saying…
“this website should be named NotConsistentThought or NotCompleteThought”
“I would say you are too sensitive”
“you just twist and spin”
“you just bloviate and pontificate”
“you are legalistic”
|
|