Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread

[verte76]

The right wing of the Republican Party will kill Giuliani. That's too bad, because he's the only Republican worth a damn in my book.

 

[INDY500]

The right wing of the Republican Party will kill Giuliani. That's too bad, because he's the only Republican worth a damn in my book.

Your book is one page longer than my book:

'Democrats Worth A Damn'
By Indy500

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

perhaps rudy won't need the republican party...

On paper, Rudy's unsure
Giuliani's government filings don't lend hints to his presidential run - he hasn't submitted a declaration form or checked the Republican box

BY CRAIG GORDON
NEWSDAY WASHINGTON BUREAU; Staff writer Tom Brune contributed to this story.

February 2, 2007

WASHINGTON - Republicans looking at Rudolph Giuliani's campaign for president always ask two questions - is he really running, and is he a "real Republican?"

They're probably not going to like the answers found by Newsday in Giuliani's government filings.

The ex-mayor still is holding back from submitting the simple one-page form declaring himself a possible candidate, despite raising $1.4 million to run. And asked what party he belongs to on a different form, Giuliani didn't say - he left the answer blank.

Not so for chief rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both have filed the candidacy paperwork, and both gave a straightforward answer when asked their party affiliation: "Rep," or Republican.

Giuliani's campaign insisted he isn't spending enough to file a statement of candidacy - a view one election-law expert disputed last night - and that leaving out his party was a meaningless omission.

"The mayor continues to be a proud member of the Republican Party, and we are extremely encouraged by the response from Republicans across the country to his potential run for president," Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson said.

The documents appear likely to fuel doubts among Republicans about whether Giuliani really wants to run. Many still remember his on-again, off-again interest in running for Senate in 2000, a campaign he ultimately quit after being diagnosed with prostate cancer.

The seeming dodge on his party affiliation, however, could make some Republicans see red.

It's no secret Giuliani would have a better shot at the White House if he didn't have to win the Republican nomination first. His views on social issues are out of step with his party.

And the omission raises the question of whether Giuliani is leaving the door open a crack to run not as a Republican at all, but as an independent.

Giuliani's campaign confirmed that leaving off the Republican designation wasn't a typo. It was the campaign's "judgment that we didn't have to fill in that box," said a campaign lawyer. The lawyer said an update filed Wednesday lists him as a Republican, though that form couldn't be found on the Federal Election Commission Web site.

The lawyer said Giuliani held back a statement of candidacy in November because he genuinely wasn't sure he'd run. He's still just "testing the waters," the lawyer said, on condition of anonymity.

Another election-law expert, Kenneth Gross, said Giuliani's spending exceeds the FEC cut-off for merely testing a possible race and that he now should file the added paperwork.

This isn't Giuliani's first unusual filing. In 1998, he filed a statement of candidacy - but put on the line for office sought "undecided." Responding to an FEC query, he replied, "I am as of now still undecided as to the federal office, if any, for which I may become a candidate."

a dream of rudy and mayor mike running a self financed independent ticket together just flashed through my head... surely to be crushed in due times.

 

[redhotswami]

perhaps rudy won't need the republican party...



a dream of rudy and mayor mike running a self financed independent ticket together just flashed through my head... surely to be crushed in due times.

i dunno...maybenot so soon to be crushed. a lot of people like him, i'm sure he'd do better in the polls than any of the past independent candidates.

i think this is the hottest stove i've ever experienced in any campaign during my lifetime.

 

[Varitek]

Hey that's my favorite Mellencamp song!


Aaaaaaanyway...I feel weird to not be backing anyone at this point. I keep waffling among several different candidates, but I haven't made up my mind.

Me too. Obama, Edwards, Gore...Richardson? Clark (VP)? I am so confused, especially by the fact that I don't have a strong opinion, or any opinion at this point.

 

[Varitek]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Comedian Al Franken has decided to run for U.S. Senate in Minnesota in challenging incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, a senior Democratic official told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The official, who requested anonymity because Franken has not made an announcement, said that the comedian and former star of NBC's "Saturday Night Live" told her of his decision recently.

Andy Barr, the political director of Franken's Midwest Values Political Action Committee, declined to comment.

The news was not unexpected. Franken has been calling members of the Minnesota congressional delegation to get their input on a run, and he announced this week that he would be leaving his show on Air America Radio on Feb. 14. He told listeners he would be making a decision on a race soon.

Should he win the Democratic primary in Minnesota, Franken would take on Coleman, a first-term senator who is among the Democrats' top targets.

Andy Barr went to my high school. He brought Franken to speak my last year of high school. Anyway, this will come as no surprise to anyone who has read his fantasy in Truth.

 

[all_i_want]

Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Edwards.

No one else could have the steamrolling effect her campaign will have.

 

[verte76]

Clinton is too divisive. I don't know who I'll support, but Hillary's too controversial to be electable. I don't know, alot of people are too controversial to be electable.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Your book is one page longer than my book:

'Democrats Worth A Damn'
By Indy500

That would be a short book; it would only have one page and 3 words:

Zell Miller, Retired.

 

[Irvine511]

That would be a short book; it would only have one page and 3 words:

Zell Miller, Retired.

do you really think Zell Miller is worth a damn?

come on -- i can think of some Replublicans worth a damn, are our conservatives in FYM so partisan that they can't find a single democrat they like?

 

[80sU2isBest]

do you really think Zell Miller is worth a damn?

come on -- i can think of some Replublicans worth a damn, are our conservatives in FYM so partisan that they can't find a single democrat they like?

I named Zell because he's my favorite.

There may indeed be other Democrats I like, but each and every one of them would be a conservative.

And that's the key for me; I'm conservative first, then Republican.

I do think that you calling the 3 or 4 of us conservatives "partisan" is kinda funny considering how many liberal free your minders are every bit as partisan.

Why don't you ask Verte that question; Verte was the one who said that Rudy was the only good Republican.

 

[INDY500]

do you really think Zell Miller is worth a damn?

come on -- i can think of some Replublicans worth a damn, are our conservatives in FYM so partisan that they can't find a single democrat they like?

Of coarse it's tongue in cheek. There are many retired or ex-Democrats like Zell Miller, David Boren and of coarse Ronald Ray-gun, as Bono called him. I've voted for Evan Bayh for Gov & the Senate. In addition, several of the new House and Senate members may prove to "be worth a damn."

Curious, why only question the conservatives about partisanship and not Verte76? After all, out of the thousands of elected Republicans, Verte76 finds but one "worth a damn." It's not like my name is U2Republican or something.

 

[INDY500]

I do think that you calling the 3 or 4 of us conservatives "partisan" is kinda funny considering how many liberal free your minders are every bit as partisan.

Why don't you ask Verte that question; Verte was the one who said that Rudy was the only good Republican.

I took so long fartin' around and typing you beat me to the question.

 

[deep]

That would be a short book; it would only have one page and 3 words:

Zell Miller, Retired.

If you can give me a liberal Republican that would go to the Democratic Nominating Convention
and rail and rant against the Republican nominee

than you may have a case
that Zell is worth a damn

but for now
he seems to be just a useless bag of sh*t

 

[redhotswami]

that just reminded be...wasn't there a democrat from a southern state, that went to the Republican National Convention? I can't remember his name, but I do remember fearing for my life. His speech scared the mess outta me. You'd think that Kerry had bullied him as a kid or something. he was bashing democrats too!

as for being partisan, one could say that i am, but i'm really not. i'm issue minded, and to be honest, neither party really gets it, IMHO. it just so happens i will usually vote democratic because i'm hoping for progress, and an evolution of thought that comes with change. and sometimes i feel even outcasted from the democratic party. there would be an even shorter book written by me entitled: Politicans Worth a Damn.

 

[najeena]

I just saw a blog titled 'Gorebama'. Dream ticket, anyone?

 

[Irvine511]

Of coarse it's tongue in cheek. There are many retired or ex-Democrats like Zell Miller, David Boren and of coarse Ronald Ray-gun, as Bono called him. I've voted for Evan Bayh for Gov & the Senate. In addition, several of the new House and Senate members may prove to "be worth a damn."

Curious, why only question the conservatives about partisanship and not Verte76? After all, out of the thousands of elected Republicans, Verte76 finds but one "worth a damn." It's not like my name is U2Republican or something.

because, by definition, liberals are capable of nuanced and sophisticated thinking, so i thusly took verte76's comments as mildly in jest; with a conservative, and their biologically-based inabilities to deal with complexity and ambiguity, one must verify their abilities to handle nuance and subtlety, as well as humor.

 

[Irvine511]

I do think that you calling the 3 or 4 of us conservatives "partisan" is kinda funny considering how many liberal free your minders are every bit as partisan.

why are there only 3 or 4 of you?

there used to be more. where have they gone? why don't they stick around to make arguments? why do they flee when challenged?

is it harder to be a conservative in 2007 than it was in 2004? have the arguments been disproved? are the conservatives in disarray? has Bush destroyed their credibility? do conservatives need to, "go away and dream it all up again?"

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

What the?

 

[INDY500]

because, by definition, liberals are capable of nuanced and sophisticated thinking, so i thusly took verte76's comments as mildly in jest; with a conservative, and their biologically-based inabilities to deal with complexity and ambiguity, one must verify their abilities to handle nuance and subtlety, as well as humor.

Dayum, them thar's some might fancy big wurds.

 

[Irvine511]

Dayum, them thar's some might fancy big wurds.

 

[80sU2isBest]

why are there only 3 or 4 of you?

there used to be more. where have they gone? why don't they stick around to make arguments? why do they flee when challenged?

is it harder to be a conservative in 2007 than it was in 2004? have the arguments been disproved? are the conservatives in disarray? has Bush destroyed their credibility? do conservatives need to, "go away and dream it all up again?"

I don't think the reason is any of that.

The truth is that many liberals in this forum have a superiority complex; they consistently imply that if someone doesn't agree with the left, that person is intellectually inferior.

Or maybe it's the whole "safety in numbers" thing. Go and try to participate in a forum in which 98 percent of the members are conservatives, and you'll know how it feels. Of course, nothing made us go into the FYM forum; at the beginning we think our opinions actually matter and will make an impact. But that's not the case at all, and it never will be. After a few years, it becomes an albatross around our necks. It's very heavy to be so outnumbered for oh-so-long.

Or maybe it's because all the arguing gets to a person and makes him feel, well, what's the word - ugghhh.

All those things combine to make up my reason for maintaining a much lower profile than I used to, and not getting involved in heavy discussions anymore.

I don't know why I'm still around. I keep thinking I'll quit; if Indy and the other 2 or 3 would agree to quit, I would also.

 

[80sU2isBest]

because, by definition, liberals are capable of nuanced and sophisticated thinking, so i thusly took verte76's comments as mildly in jest; with a conservative, and their biologically-based inabilities to deal with complexity and ambiguity, one must verify their abilities to handle nuance and subtlety, as well as humor.

What a crock of crap. A funny crock of crap, but a crock of crap nevertheless.

You see, I do understand humor.

 

[BVS]

The truth is that many liberals in this forum have a superiority complex; they consistently imply that if someone doesn't agree with the left, that person is intellectually inferior.

Or maybe it's the whole "safety in numbers" thing. Go and try to participate in a forum in which 98 percent of the members are conservatives, and you'll know how it feels.

I think there is a victim mentality by some in here, and I think it comes from being outnumbered rather than superiority complexes. I am the minority in many places, I actually find it more stimulating.

 

[Irvine511]

Or maybe it's the whole "safety in numbers" thing. Go and try to participate in a forum in which 98 percent of the members are conservatives, and you'll know how it feels.

to be totally honest, i sometimes pick positions, or particular points within a position, that are unpopular so i can feel more engaged rather than one of many voices (see the HIV/condom thread). i find that the less disagreement there is in here, the less likely i am to post, so if this were a 50/50 forum, i'd probably be here more often.

that, and the fact that my job has been kicking my arse since October.

and i will stick to the caveat that, in many ways, this is a conservative forum. economically, it is generally conservative (socialists are mocked in here), and religiously it is quite conservative (i'd say the majority of posters in here are self-identified Christians and Muslims are routinely mocked).

which is pretty much what U2 is as band, and thusly reflected in their fans: religious social justice crusaders.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think there is a victim mentality by some in here, and I think it comes from being outnumbered rather than superiority complexes. I am the minority in many places, I actually find it more stimulating.

I've seen so many examples of "I can't believe someone would be stupid enough to believe that", I couldn't even begin to count them.

Heck, we see at least one example of the superiority complex in this thread.

 

[Irvine511]

What a crock of crap. A funny crock of crap, but a crock of crap nevertheless.

You see, I do understand humor.

okay, i was joking, but on a serious note ...

one thing that strikes me about a genuine thought difference between liberals and conservatives is how they process information. bear with me here. for example, in my experience, a conservative is more likely to accept something as a source of truth and then see how information measures up to the pre-selected source. so, if you believe the Bible as a source of inerrant truth, most issues/information are processed through that filter. for a conservative, tradition and authority -- from whever you might find it -- matter. traditional values are what's known, so they must be adhered to.

for a liberal, not so much. opinions are derived through comparisons, how is one thing like another or how is one thing different from another. there isn't as much of a central organizing principle. and this is reflected in political discourse -- George Bush had "convictions" whereas Kerry was a "flip-flopper."

does that seem fair to say?

note that none of this is predicated upon intelligence, or saying that it's better to see ambiguity than it is to stick to convictions.

 

[80sU2isBest]

okay, i was joking, but on a serious note ...

one thing that strikes me about a genuine thought difference between liberals and conservatives is how they process information. bear with me here. for example, in my experience, a conservative is more likely to accept something as a source of truth and then see how information measures up to the pre-selected source. so, if you believe the Bible as a source of inerrant truth, most issues/information are processed through that filter.

I would agree with that for the most part.

for a conservative, tradition and authority -- from whever you might find it -- matter. traditional values are what's known, so they must be adhered to.

That's not always the case. For example, yes, I do place no authority higher than God as revealed in the Bible. But it really has nothing to do with tradition. There are some "traditions" within the church that I very much take opposition to because I feel it doesn't line up with scripture. So, this stance of mine is a perfect example of the fact that in my life, your first point (filter) trumps your second point (tradition).

note that none of this is predicated upon intelligence, or saying that it's better to see ambiguity than it is to stick to convictions.

That's how you approach it. Of the many times I've argued with you, I don't know that I've ever felt that you were calling me stupid. However, many of the people in this forum do not view things that way. To them, the conservative is an idiot.

 

[BVS]

I've seen so many examples of "I can't believe someone would be stupid enough to believe that", I couldn't even begin to count them.

Heck, we see at least one example of the superiority complex in this thread.

There are times where I'm like "I can't imagine someone believing that" as are you and everyone else. That's just fact.

Have I ever called anyone stupid? Have I ever said their view isn't valid? No, for we don't all fit in the box to which you throw us.

I for the most part won't cross any of those lines unless I see someone constantly posting without some kind of facts, evidence, etc to back up their claim or opinion.

 

[80sU2isBest]

There are times where I'm like "I can't imagine someone believing that" as are you and everyone else. That's just fact.

That's not the attitude I am describing. What I said was:

I've seen so many examples of "I can't believe someone would be stupid enough to believe that", I couldn't even begin to count them.

The "stupid" part is where the superiority complex comes into play. I can't imagine why anyone would believe in abortion rights, but I don't think it makes someone
stupid" for disagreeing with me.

Have I ever called anyone stupid? Have I ever said their view isn't valid?

I don't know if you've ever called anyone stupid. I don't think you've ever called me stupid.

No, for we don't all fit in the box to which you throw us.

I didn't throw all of you into any box. I specifically said "many".