|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 25 of 133:
| 
Feb 16 00:37 UTC 2006 |
Heh.
This is the inside of the sausage factory, here. It's always ugly.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 26 of 133:
|
Feb 16 00:46 UTC 2006 |
Who would have thought that someone trying to run for the Senate would end
up becoming mired in politics?
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 133:
|
Feb 16 00:55 UTC 2006 |
I know! I'm shocked, SHOCKED to learn that politics are going on
behind the scenes of political races!
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 133:
|
Feb 16 17:24 UTC 2006 |
McCain and Romney in 2008
Right?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 29 of 133:
|
Feb 16 17:30 UTC 2006 |
lol
|
richard
|
|
response 30 of 133:
|
Feb 16 20:54 UTC 2006 |
the gop will never nominate mccain, he's a maverick, they will nominate
someone who will do as they are told to do, someone like bush
|
nharmon
|
|
response 31 of 133:
|
Feb 16 20:59 UTC 2006 |
s/gop/dnc/;
s/mccain/richardson/;
s/bush/clinton/;
|
jep
|
|
response 32 of 133:
|
Feb 16 21:47 UTC 2006 |
I would never vote for McCain precisely because of his maverick past.
I would have no idea what he would do, once he got in office. Except I
am confident he would make a lot of speeches and keep his name in the
headlines at all times. That's been consistent in his history over the
last 10 years.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 133:
|
Feb 16 21:50 UTC 2006 |
I never knew he was a card player.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 34 of 133:
|
Feb 16 21:56 UTC 2006 |
I wonder what McCain's record on veteran issues is.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 133:
|
Feb 16 21:57 UTC 2006 |
I don't
|
nharmon
|
|
response 36 of 133:
|
Feb 16 21:58 UTC 2006 |
Could you enlighten us/me?
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 133:
|
Feb 16 22:46 UTC 2006 |
I could but I won't. McCain is just another crony.
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 133:
|
Feb 17 03:51 UTC 2006 |
If you look at McCain's record, he generally only acts as a maverick
when it's politically safe for him to do so. I think that aspect of his
politics is kind of overrated.
McCain is clearly the most appealing candidate the Republicans have
right now. That doesn't mean they'll nominate him, but I think he does
have the best chance of winning.
|
klg
|
|
response 39 of 133:
|
Feb 17 11:58 UTC 2006 |
2nd most appealing:
"I'm going to read you a list of names. For each one please tell me if
you think that person would make a good president or not. If you have
never heard of a person, please just say so . .
Would Would Not Unsure Never Heard of
% % % %
Rudy Giuliani 60 26 11 2
John McCain 55 30 13 2
|
jep
|
|
response 40 of 133:
|
Feb 17 14:36 UTC 2006 |
I think there are a lot of interesting names who might make good
Republican nominees, and who might be electable. Colin Powell is not
disqualified, in my opinion. Condoleeza Rice says she doesn't want the
job but it would be very interesting to have a black woman as the
Republican nominee. There are several governors and ex-governors who
could run, and several senators and congressmen who could run --
McCain, Bill Frist, I guess Tom DeLay is safely out of the race. I
don't think it's McCain or nobody for the Republicans.
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 133:
|
Feb 17 15:36 UTC 2006 |
guiliani won't get nominated, he's pro-choice. hell will freeze over before
the gop nominates a pro-choice presidential candidate.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 42 of 133:
|
Feb 17 15:38 UTC 2006 |
I guess the question is whether this person will run as the logical
successor to Bush who will reflect a continuation of what he's doing,
or as "his own man." I don't see how an outsider could credibly do
the latter.
|
richard
|
|
response 43 of 133:
|
Feb 17 15:56 UTC 2006 |
I'll tell you who is bush's logical succesor
jeb bush
|
nharmon
|
|
response 44 of 133:
|
Feb 17 16:51 UTC 2006 |
Does it make sense to blame the GOP for not being likely to nominate a
pro-choice candidate when the DNC will not nominate a pro-life candidate?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 45 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:06 UTC 2006 |
uh...what?
|
klg
|
|
response 46 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:14 UTC 2006 |
Once the Supreme Court takes the federal government out of the abortion
law business, it won't matter what Rudy thinks about it.
|
edina
|
|
response 47 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:14 UTC 2006 |
That's were you are mistaken. It will *always* matter.
|
richard
|
|
response 48 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:19 UTC 2006 |
rick santorum and newt gingrich are both big names and are running
|
klg
|
|
response 49 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:28 UTC 2006 |
If jurisdiction on abortion law is returned to the states, then why
will it matter to the vast majority what the president thinks about
it? (The problem will be at the state level, where legislators will
actually have to vote on the issue, rather than pontificating. It will
be an electoral disaster for Republicans who will end up alienating a
whole lot of their supporters. Fortunately, so far the Democrats
haven't figured this out.)
|