Obama: Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons
Daaaaaaaaammmn. Under WHAT Congressional power I wonder? Or, I guess if you're a big govt loving liberal [or conservative for that matter], that kind of 'technicality' just doesn't matter.
I suppose congratulations are in order for his amazing win in the Iowa caucuses.
940 Iowans voted for the fellow...that's Nine Hundred and Forty people.
Huckabee managed to eke out over 36 thousand votes.
Makes you wonder, huh?
And Fred didn't do to shabbily either, a comfortable third place without even breaking a sweat.
I think Fred should be embarrassed. He barely beat or will be tied with McCain, a guy who didn't even show up in Iowa. If he doesn't come in third in NH, he might give it up....at least that's what I am hearing.
Bilgeman, I think you are unfamiliar with the differences between the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus. For the Republicans, it is a straw poll-a straight head count. For the Democrats, they send delegates so the 940 are reps for the thousands that voted for him.
As far as the Obama-firearms things goes, I see a golden opportunity for all of you: convince him he is wrong. I think it would be a lot less difficult than you think.
I think Fred should be embarrassed. He barely beat or will be tied with McCain, a guy who didn't even show up in Iowa. If he doesn't come in third in NH, he might give it up....at least that's what I am hearing.
I'm not surprised that you're hearing that. There seems to be a serious bias against Thompson in the media.
I've got a post upcoming on the Thompson candidacy you might find interesting.
I understand the caucus mechanism, and the way the Dems do it in Iowa is basically an expanded version of "the smoke-filled room".
Which I distrust when anyone does it, but especially when Democrats practice it.
The delegates aren't beholden to one candidate. Once they're in caucus, they can vote for anyone they damned well please.
If Obama brought an honest 600 delegates going into the caucuses, he could have picked up defectors based on "Stop Hillary" and "John Edwards Makes My Skin Crawl" types. Or just plain old-fashioned Favors.
Pushing it a bit to make the point,it is quite possible that the only support Obama HAD in Iowa is those 940 delegates who voted for him,but under those rules, he's the winner.
Am I wrong?
The straw poll head-count is a far more honest means of going about it.
Maybe I've been involved in more Union elections than is healthy for me.
Fruit of a poisoned tree and all that.
True, let's see. If Hillary does not win New Hampshire, she might be done, especially if Obama wins it as convincingly. If Edwards wins, then she might still be able to do something.
I think a message was sent yesterday. The people don't want the same old faces of politics anymore. Is Iowa indicative of the country? Maybe. We are really going to see on Tuesday. If new voters turn out in NH like they did in Iowa, we could be in for big change. If I were an established US Congress member, I would feel a little uncomfortable right now.
Oh, and I wasn't getting my Thompson info from the media.
But if you are so pro-gun, how can you leave out the best supporter of it, even if you disagree with him on other issues? That just show blindness to me, that fighting illegal wars are more important than defending liberty in this country. Fred ain't going to win either- and Paul has a better shot than him anyway.
There is no better defending of the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment, than Ron Paul. He is the one you should be supporting.
And he can win. He got 10% in Iowa, more than Guilliani, a supposed "main stream, viable candidate" and only 3% less than Fred and McCain. Just wait until the momentum builds.
Not only is Paul not going to win, he can't. He's simply too far out there to connect with Middle America. See Tam's latest on this. You can "wait until the momentum builds" until Hell freezes over. Ten percent is about all he's ever going to get.
I probably shouldn't have put Richardson up, as he hasn't got a prayer, either.
I am a Thompson supporter because he's the closest to what I believe who can connect with voters. I have problems with several of his positions, but I believe that defeating any efforts he makes in those directions would not be difficult, especially if the Democrats maintain a majority in the Congress.
As I have said before, EVEN IF Ron Paul achieved the White House, HE COULD ACCOMPLISH NOTHING. Except making noise. And gridlock in wartime is NOT a good idea.
Further, the war was NOT "illegal," it was voted on and passed. Unless you believe that we need the approval of other nations, which I doubt Ron Paul would agree with, the war in Iraq is perfectly valid. If the Democrats really believed it was wrong, they have the power to end it. They have tried and failed repeatedly.
But mainly, Kevin's right. Ron Paul will not win the general election.
Cannot. Will Not. Period.
That's not to say that a lot of Paul's stands aren't popular! Hell, some of them are great.
But he's promising more than he could legally deliver. (As well as sticking the U.S.'s head in the sand internationally, with a host of issues that would cause.)
I'm pulling for Fred here. He's got what strikes me as a good temperment, he's able to quickly handle idiots in a humorous way that I envy (as could be seen last night, I have much to learn from him.)
Paul could make a run. He could even - maybe - win a state or two. But there's nowayinhell that Paul could win the Presidency.
I'd hope that the other candidates would take note of what Paul *is* getting in terms of support, and think about what happened in '06 - the Republican's didn't lose power *by going in Paul's direction*.
Hey, Unix, we agree on something. Maybe if Paul does win a state or two he might be in line for a cabinet position.
I have to say that I disagree with some of the things Paul says but at least he is honest. He also strikes me as being highly intelligent. I think he should not be shut out of the debates.
Fred is the only one of the bunch I could vote for without holding my nose.
In fact, he's the only Republican canidate that I would vote FOR, as opposed to voting AGAINST Hillary, Edwards or Obama (in descending order of ghastliness.
As for Paul, I've said it before (maybe on this forum), I'd love to turn him lose on the IRS, BATF or some other _domestic_ cabinent position, but keep him the hell away from Defense or State. His cluelessness on foreign and military affairs makes Jimmy Carter seem almost intelligent by comparison.
Paul's not going to win? Got news for you: All but one of them ain't gonna win. Let's pretend the voters get to decide who, and mention everybody on the ballot.
Bilgerman, look at the end of the whole process. The President and Vice-President are elected by the votes of the 538 members of the Electoral College. Their votes aren't necessarily required to match the votes by which we peons elect them, and can even be opposite the overall national popular vote. It gives bookies nightmares and provides fodder for the endless blather of reporters and pundits.
Damn, but I do like some aspects of the English system. Schedule an election, campaign for six weeks, vote, and get back to rat killin'. Here, the campaigning never ends.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/cnn-most-trusted-name-in-news.html (22 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Obama: Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons
Daaaaaaaaammmn. Under WHAT Congressional power I wonder? Or, I guess if you're a big govt loving liberal [or conservative for that matter], that kind of 'technicality' just doesn't matter.
I suppose Obama's thing means active military personnel can't carry? Wow.
In regards Obama:
I suppose congratulations are in order for his amazing win in the Iowa caucuses.
940 Iowans voted for the fellow...that's Nine Hundred and Forty people.
Huckabee managed to eke out over 36 thousand votes.
Makes you wonder, huh?
And Fred didn't do to shabbily either, a comfortable third place without even breaking a sweat.
Interesting maps available at the FEC website:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do
I think Fred should be embarrassed. He barely beat or will be tied with McCain, a guy who didn't even show up in Iowa. If he doesn't come in third in NH, he might give it up....at least that's what I am hearing.
Bilgeman, I think you are unfamiliar with the differences between the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus. For the Republicans, it is a straw poll-a straight head count. For the Democrats, they send delegates so the 940 are reps for the thousands that voted for him.
As far as the Obama-firearms things goes, I see a golden opportunity for all of you: convince him he is wrong. I think it would be a lot less difficult than you think.
So I guess leaving out the author of the Second Amendment Restoration Act was an intentional oversight?
I think Fred should be embarrassed. He barely beat or will be tied with McCain, a guy who didn't even show up in Iowa. If he doesn't come in third in NH, he might give it up....at least that's what I am hearing.
I'm not surprised that you're hearing that. There seems to be a serious bias against Thompson in the media.
I've got a post upcoming on the Thompson candidacy you might find interesting.
And Bilgeman, Markadelphia is correct. About 220,000 Democrats and 115,000 Republicans turned out, which is quite high for the caucuses.
David:
Yes it was. He ain't gonna win.
Fellas:
I understand the caucus mechanism, and the way the Dems do it in Iowa is basically an expanded version of "the smoke-filled room".
Which I distrust when anyone does it, but especially when Democrats practice it.
The delegates aren't beholden to one candidate. Once they're in caucus, they can vote for anyone they damned well please.
If Obama brought an honest 600 delegates going into the caucuses, he could have picked up defectors based on "Stop Hillary" and "John Edwards Makes My Skin Crawl" types. Or just plain old-fashioned Favors.
Pushing it a bit to make the point,it is quite possible that the only support Obama HAD in Iowa is those 940 delegates who voted for him,but under those rules, he's the winner.
Am I wrong?
The straw poll head-count is a far more honest means of going about it.
Maybe I've been involved in more Union elections than is healthy for me.
Fruit of a poisoned tree and all that.
Let's see how the next five or six primaries go, shall we?
True, let's see. If Hillary does not win New Hampshire, she might be done, especially if Obama wins it as convincingly. If Edwards wins, then she might still be able to do something.
I think a message was sent yesterday. The people don't want the same old faces of politics anymore. Is Iowa indicative of the country? Maybe. We are really going to see on Tuesday. If new voters turn out in NH like they did in Iowa, we could be in for big change. If I were an established US Congress member, I would feel a little uncomfortable right now.
Oh, and I wasn't getting my Thompson info from the media.
But if you are so pro-gun, how can you leave out the best supporter of it, even if you disagree with him on other issues? That just show blindness to me, that fighting illegal wars are more important than defending liberty in this country. Fred ain't going to win either- and Paul has a better shot than him anyway.
There is no better defending of the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment, than Ron Paul. He is the one you should be supporting.
And he can win. He got 10% in Iowa, more than Guilliani, a supposed "main stream, viable candidate" and only 3% less than Fred and McCain. Just wait until the momentum builds.
Matt, and all other Ron Paul supporters:
Not only is Paul not going to win, he can't. He's simply too far out there to connect with Middle America. See Tam's latest on this. You can "wait until the momentum builds" until Hell freezes over. Ten percent is about all he's ever going to get.
I probably shouldn't have put Richardson up, as he hasn't got a prayer, either.
I am a Thompson supporter because he's the closest to what I believe who can connect with voters. I have problems with several of his positions, but I believe that defeating any efforts he makes in those directions would not be difficult, especially if the Democrats maintain a majority in the Congress.
As I have said before, EVEN IF Ron Paul achieved the White House, HE COULD ACCOMPLISH NOTHING. Except making noise. And gridlock in wartime is NOT a good idea.
Further, the war was NOT "illegal," it was voted on and passed. Unless you believe that we need the approval of other nations, which I doubt Ron Paul would agree with, the war in Iraq is perfectly valid. If the Democrats really believed it was wrong, they have the power to end it. They have tried and failed repeatedly.
I'm of several minds about this...
But mainly, Kevin's right. Ron Paul will not win the general election.
Cannot. Will Not. Period.
That's not to say that a lot of Paul's stands aren't popular! Hell, some of them are great.
But he's promising more than he could legally deliver. (As well as sticking the U.S.'s head in the sand internationally, with a host of issues that would cause.)
I'm pulling for Fred here. He's got what strikes me as a good temperment, he's able to quickly handle idiots in a humorous way that I envy (as could be seen last night, I have much to learn from him.)
Paul could make a run. He could even - maybe - win a state or two. But there's nowayinhell that Paul could win the Presidency.
I'd hope that the other candidates would take note of what Paul *is* getting in terms of support, and think about what happened in '06 - the Republican's didn't lose power *by going in Paul's direction*.
Hey, Unix, we agree on something. Maybe if Paul does win a state or two he might be in line for a cabinet position.
I have to say that I disagree with some of the things Paul says but at least he is honest. He also strikes me as being highly intelligent. I think he should not be shut out of the debates.
Fred is the only one of the bunch I could vote for without holding my nose.
In fact, he's the only Republican canidate that I would vote FOR, as opposed to voting AGAINST Hillary, Edwards or Obama (in descending order of ghastliness.
As for Paul, I've said it before (maybe on this forum), I'd love to turn him lose on the IRS, BATF or some other _domestic_ cabinent position, but keep him the hell away from Defense or State. His cluelessness on foreign and military affairs makes Jimmy Carter seem almost intelligent by comparison.
Paul's not going to win? Got news for you: All but one of them ain't gonna win. Let's pretend the voters get to decide who, and mention everybody on the ballot.
Brett:
My blog. My rules. The link mentioned everybody running.
Ron Paul is a former OB/GYN. He has my vote!!!
Bilgerman, look at the end of the whole process. The President and Vice-President are elected by the votes of the 538 members of the Electoral College. Their votes aren't necessarily required to match the votes by which we peons elect them, and can even be opposite the overall national popular vote. It gives bookies nightmares and provides fodder for the endless blather of reporters and pundits.
Damn, but I do like some aspects of the English system. Schedule an election, campaign for six weeks, vote, and get back to rat killin'. Here, the campaigning never ends.
DJ:
Drop me an email, please!
Thanks!
Kevin:
http://www.attackcartoons.com/images/articles/20080102155802312_1.gif
*snicker, snicker*
Ooh, this is a good one, too.
(Mark will approve, too.)
http://www.attackcartoons.com/images/articles/20071214075559663_1.gif
(Hadn't checked him out in a few weeks.)
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>