World Forums

I am torn between two candidates in the upcoming (Jan. 29) Florida Primary, Kucinich and Edwards.

Kucinich's platform best represents my own political leanings, yet he has no chance in hell. Edwards' chances are slowly eroding. He's my choice number two and he needs all the help he can get to stay in the race. My third choice, Biden, already bolted.

Well, my first choice liberated slaves and was assassinated. My second choice was almost assassinated. He's dead anyway and what's even worse, wouldn't be eligible. My third choice didn't bother to register. So my party went esoteric and offered me a libertarian, a baptist minister/rock guitarist, a Mormon, a war veteran, a former prosecutor - none of them conservative.

HILLARIous:)

A couple of years ago I thought Giuliani could win, but my god what a clown. "This doesn't worry me, 9/11 worried me", christ...

Angry White Man
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

surely he's got palo's vote now....

Looks like the pundits got it wrong again. Hillary was dead. Now she made a remarkable comeback. And once again, remarkable history has been made. What are these guys going to say when remarkable history will actually be made? The primaries should not be decided by the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. And thank God that it hasn't.

I think the whole primary campaign got a new life. I am in a way, happy for Hillary. He's still a significant part of the process and I would be quite happy if she won, just as happy as I would be with every single one of the Democrats in the field.

They all pass my litmus test. Of the Republicans only one does but he's too slimy for my tastes. As far as candidates' strengths are concerned they're all, in both parties, quite average. But I do like the new philosophy employed on the Democrat side.

P.S. A curious question to Leonid: What do you think about the concept of the Fair Tax. Would you be a proponent? Opponent? On the fence?

The interesting story is that of the GOP winner. Now, that's a comeback kid.


I can guarantee you that the Reagan Democrats will flock to him. But will the neorightwingers support his bid?

The GOP is at a crossroads. If they change course and walk down the middle of the isle with a socially compassionate agenda.

WQhatever the outcome, our politics will surely become less radical. The GOP knows that the morality card is played.

Eugene

There is nothing fair about it. Fair taxes don't exist. It's a snake oil.

Well, Hillary has come back from the dead, according to our most accurate media. It is amazing how the pundits speak with such determinism, as if they had foreseen all of this.

Last time it was supposed to be Howard Dean.

mate wrote:Well, Hillary has come back from the dead, according to our most accurate media. It is amazing how the pundits speak with such determinism, as if they had foreseen all of this.

Last time it was supposed to be Howard Dean.

And it should have been. Why Iowa primary is so freaking important? because in this country we're too impatient to have a political drama play out. As soon as one candidate wins the very first significant vote, he is pronounced an eventual winner and every effort is put into attacking his opponents who were left standing.

Dean had a much closer New Hampshire primary than an iowa caucus in 2004. I wonder if the media did not make such a huge deal of the Dean Scream, would he not have won New Hampshire?

Dean basically put himself out of the race with his annoying personality. Even Pabs could have beaten Bush in 2004.

I think Howard Dean scared his party establishment a lot, so they substituted John Kerry for him. They thought Johnny was electable. He's as electable as Brooklyn Bridge is saleable, but what do I know about salesmanship:)

Anyway, will James Carville hack Obama to pieces? Opinions?

Will Mitt Romney recover?

Well, New Mexico nad Ohio were a question to the end. Just like Florida was in 2000.

If John Kerry had a brother ruinning Ohio, he surely would have won those 20 votes.

Eugene Berkovich wrote:

mate wrote:Well, Hillary has come back from the dead, according to our most accurate media. It is amazing how the pundits speak with such determinism, as if they had foreseen all of this.

Last time it was supposed to be Howard Dean.

And it should have been. Why Iowa primary is so freaking important? because in this country we're too impatient to have a political drama play out. As soon as one candidate wins the very first significant vote, he is pronounced an eventual winner and every effort is put into attacking his opponents who were left standing.

Dean had a much closer New Hampshire primary than an iowa caucus in 2004. I wonder if the media did not make such a huge deal of the Dean Scream, would he not have won New Hampshire?

Dude, it was that scream. I still laugh whenever I think about that.



He destroyed himself in a singular moment of foolishness. In the best of times and worst of time, image simply matters.

Even Bush managed to hide the truth for some 2 years.

Leonid wrote:Anyway, will James Carville hack Obama to pieces? Opinions?

Will Mitt Romney recover?

Well James Carville is good, real good. So is Paul Begala.

If they are working for Hillary now, she should win.

To answer your question about whether he would attack Obama, I'm not so sure. How do you "attack" Obama? He's done nothing and therefore has not screwed anything up. You "attack" by pointing out how your way of solving a problem is better than his way.

As for Mitt Romney, I still think this race on the republican side is wide open. I think Romney is doing well: he's finished second twice.

James Carville on Paula Jones: "If you drag a 100 dollar bill thru a trailer park you never know what you will get."

ROTFLMAO!!!

Leonid wrote:Angry White Man
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

Not good. I like Ron Paul. He has a lot of good ideas but if this is true, it's bad.

Why has this taken so long to be made public???

Markino

"Why has this taken so long to be made public???"

The usual. He's been nobody before. Now he's a contender, at least technically speaking.

You destroy your competition only when it matters, not when people ask you, Ron Paul who?

Just like the former president of Austria. Remeber how they out him for war crimes right before the election and he was still elected ?

Wasn't he already the president when the USA banned him from entering?

As for Mitt Romney, I still think this race on the republican side is wide open. I think Romney is doing well: he's finished second twice.

Is he the Holland of the Republican party? If the Republicans nominate him; they don't have a prayer. John McCain would give the Dems a hard time because of palo's Reagan democrats but he's no sure thing either.

Like Eugene, I can stomach the Dems.

BTW: LMAO @ Leo

Well, my first choice liberated slaves and was assassinated. My second choice was almost assassinated. He's dead anyway and what's even worse, wouldn't be eligible. My third choice didn't bother to register. So my party went esoteric and offered me a libertarian, a baptist minister/rock guitarist, a Mormon, a war veteran, a former prosecutor - none of them conservative.

HILLARIous:)

Markino

James Carville said that a long time ago. Since then the mighty dollar lost so much of its value, $100 bill wouldn't buy you even a Paul Jones, who has become Paula Jones -

Yesterday I was laughing when some pundit remarked he liked Mike Huckabee better before he lost weight.

I think Huckster went to the same Jenny Craig class as Kirstie Alley and Valerie Bertinelli. They'll soon be joined by Queen Latifah. She's some Mama -

The Obama camp keeps bringing up the Bradley factor. I hope it blows up in their face.

Dave Ross


"It will take more than a defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire to capsize the Clinton candidacy. It may take a wooden stake and a truckload of garlic. Meanwhile, my advice to Obama is: check your brakes. Don’t eat anything from sources you can’t vouch for. Avoid balconies. Watch the movie the Omen for other ways that you might come to grief."

LOL

palo is gay

EDIT TO ADD: I wrote that because I wanted to see what ad came up and yep sure enough "I make over $1000 an hour" came up.

does this mean palo is selling his ass ?

Falc

Re: Bradley Effect

The Jewish Bradley Effect
James Kirchick - 01.09.2008 - 15:00


Embarassed by its confident predictions of an Obama victory, the mainstream media these past few days has resurrected the supposed “Bradley Effect” as an explanation for why Barack Obama lost last night in New Hampshire. This political phenomenon is named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election despite a healthy lead (ranging from 9 to 22 percent in various polls) over his opponent. Some pundits have even argued that white voters told pollsters they were intent on supporting the black candidate but that deep-seated racism got the best of them upon pulling back the curtain.

A friend of mine has long been telling me that a similar sort of phenomenon occurs with Jewish voters. Being a Democrat is almost instinctive for American Jews; being a GOP supporter is akin to eating pastrami on white bread with mayonnaise. As Martin Peretz wrote in 2004, signaling his distaste for John Kerry:

Like many American Jews, I was brought up to believe that if I pulled the Republican lever on the election machine my right hand would wither and, as the Psalmist says, my tongue would cleave to the roof of my mouth.

Yet since 9/11, I’m convinced that a far larger proportion of Jews than the reported 25 percent voted Republican in 2004. These Jews–perfectly happy calling themselves Bill Clinton Democrats but more hawkish than a party now headed by Nancy Pelosi–don’t want to admit to anyone that they supported a Republican because everyone in their social circle would call them meshugeh. I imagine this is a topic about which John Podhoretz probably has something to say.

Leo - Watching Hardball and the Obama camp is pulling out the race card. One thing I have to give credit so far to Obama is that he has not gone out to make himself the black candidate. But now a lot of black politicians are backing him up. Probably because they think he has a chance after Iowa. It will be a big mistake for his campaign to play the race card. It will really backfire.

One of the guests on Harball pointed out that pollsters are not very professional and that people from New Hampshire don't want anyone to know their business. She stated that there is only one true poll. Another guest stated that it is not illegal to lie to a pollster.

"Another guest stated that it is not illegal to lie to a pollster."

Precisely.

Olbermann is crunching the numbers. Looks like Obama pretty much got the numbers that were polling for him. He received 36% of the votes and that pretty much was what was predicted. The numbers that were wrong was for Hillary. And Edwards received less than predicted as well.

Obama did much better than Clinton among independents. It may spell trouble for Hillary, cause independents have always been her major (not just her of course) target group.

She got her votes mostly from the white grandmothers. Are they trying to compensate for the long hours spent in the kitchen 40 years ago? -

Leonid wrote:Falc

Re: Bradley Effect

The Jewish Bradley Effect
James Kirchick - 01.09.2008 - 15:00


Embarassed by its confident predictions of an Obama victory, the mainstream media these past few days has resurrected the supposed “Bradley Effect” as an explanation for why Barack Obama lost last night in New Hampshire. This political phenomenon is named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election despite a healthy lead (ranging from 9 to 22 percent in various polls) over his opponent. Some pundits have even argued that white voters told pollsters they were intent on supporting the black candidate but that deep-seated racism got the best of them upon pulling back the curtain.

A friend of mine has long been telling me that a similar sort of phenomenon occurs with Jewish voters. Being a Democrat is almost instinctive for American Jews; being a GOP supporter is akin to eating pastrami on white bread with mayonnaise. As Martin Peretz wrote in 2004, signaling his distaste for John Kerry:

Like many American Jews, I was brought up to believe that if I pulled the Republican lever on the election machine my right hand would wither and, as the Psalmist says, my tongue would cleave to the roof of my mouth.

Yet since 9/11, I’m convinced that a far larger proportion of Jews than the reported 25 percent voted Republican in 2004. These Jews–perfectly happy calling themselves Bill Clinton Democrats but more hawkish than a party now headed by Nancy Pelosi–don’t want to admit to anyone that they supported a Republican because everyone in their social circle would call them meshugeh. I imagine this is a topic about which John Podhoretz probably has something to say.

Leo, don't tell me you are subdued at family gatherings.

Well, Mate... Do you know what Italians and Jews have in common? They love their children and grandchildren dearly, especially boys. The only difference is that Italian women take orders from their men:)

Ha!

Kerry throws his support to Obama. Some think this is a blow for Edwards, who ran with him in 2004. I don't think Kerry pulls much weight anymore and may be a good thing for Edwards. Plus, does Kerry represent change? Hasn't he been part of the old Beltway establishment for a long time?

A Brilliant Rant Against Ron Paul and His Libertarian Apologists
John Podhoretz - 01.10.2008 - 12:09


The blogger Ace of Spades, who likes to use very foul language (so be warned), goes on a stunning tear about people — some of them involved with the very interesting Libertarian magazine Reason – who are still arguing that Ron Paul is not responsible for the contents of the racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay Ron Paul Political Report and other Ron Paul newsletters dug up by CONTENTIONS’s own Jamie Kirchick. Just a flavor of the Ace invective:

There’s a big difference between a real libertarian who joins the movement due to a belief in the power of freedom and someone using libertarianism as a flag of convenience to add respectability to retrograde and repugnant views. Ron Paul’s positions don’t indicate that he’s terribly interested in freedom so much as he’s interested in keeping the Jews from stealing his gold.

His goldbuggery? He’s trying to keep “international bankers” (wink, wink) from “manipulating” currencies to enrich themselves at the expense of normal, patriotic people. Normal, patriotic people who spin no dreidls and do not control the media. Savvy?

His foreign policy? He just wants to keep “the Jewish lobby” — “the most powerful lobby in America,” he says — from getting the US to fight more wars on behalf of Israel.

Oh, and he wants to stop fighting in the Middle East and stop supporting foreign countries. Let me just postulate, based on Ron Paul’s long record on such issues, that he’s chiefly interested in ceasing animosity with Israel’s enemies and most passionate about ending support of Israel. The other countries are just added for consistency….He’s just “prone to nutty conspiracy theories,” eh? Let me paraphrase Umberto Eco by saying There is no conspiracy theory on the planet that does not, at some point, involve the Jews.

This is rather obvious. I can count on one hand the conspiracy theories I’ve heard that didn’t involve Jews, “international bankers,” Mossad, or Golda F—g Meir at the center of the web of manipulation.

Who the f— did Reason think Ron Paul had in mind for the ultimate malefactors of the Vast International Banker Conspiracy? The Knights F—-g Templar?

At the heart of every conspiracy theory is irrational hatred and scapegoating, boys. Not “Love,” not even the backwards kind of love in R3VO_|ution.

Was it really up to me to alert the brain trust at Reason of this fact? You guys didn’t sort of figure that out on your own?

No wonder you were so blindsided. Committed conspiracy-nut suspects International Jewry might be up to some malfeasance. Surely no one could have seen that surprise twist coming. It’s like the end of The Usual Suspects, except Keyser Sose turns out to be Rabbi Moishe Lefkowitz.

pramzan wrote:

Leonid wrote:Angry White Man
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

Not good. I like Ron Paul. He has a lot of good ideas but if this is true, it's bad.

Why has this taken so long to be made public???

Actually, the signs were there. He was a guest on the Bill Maher's show a year ago.

He actually managed to suggest that the Civil War should have never been fought. Everybody knows, Maher is sharp and quick with his tongue. But after Ron Paul said that, Bill Maher's face looked like he just swallowed his tongue. Chris Rock's jaw (he was a panellist on that show) audibly hit the table.

How can anyone care what Ron Paul has to say is beyond me.

Leonid wrote:Yet since 9/11, I’m convinced that a far larger proportion of Jews than the reported 25 percent voted Republican in 2004. These Jews–perfectly happy calling themselves Bill Clinton Democrats but more hawkish than a party now headed by Nancy Pelosi–don’t want to admit to anyone that they supported a Republican because everyone in their social circle would call them meshugeh. I imagine this is a topic about which John Podhoretz probably has something to say.

It's hard to say. Since GOP has been in bed with the Christian Coalition and the various evangelicals, I think that even the 21% of Jews who had voted for Dubya is way too much

There are many reasons why Jews do not vote Repuiblican. And very few have to do with the New Deal. Jews (in general, of course) have serious ideological differences with GOP. Schools, religious tolerance, attitudes towards hate crimes, abortion.

Leonid, if you have a spare hour, talk to a rabbi (any rabbi, of any branch of Judaism). You'd be surprised to know that Judaism DOES NOT outlaw abortion. Or that Judaism DOES NOT outlaw "the pill". Now contrast that with the evangelicals.

I believe, New Deal is just a straw man. Once upon a time, Jews were thenkful to Roosevelt for the New Deal. Today, reasons are far more different.

Eugene

Lemme put it this way: there are no rabbies among my friends. Not that there is anything wrong with...blah-blah -

Now, let's imagine (not too hard to imagine) there is a CEO of a private equity firm and he's Jewish....What makes him vote against Republicans?

What makes me vote Republican? I don't believe in Jesus Christ, I'm not even sure he ever existed and my common sense tells me, most of everything we know about him is a lie...

I cannot say I applaud abortions, but I would never make them illegal...

Any ideas?

If Leopold had been raised in the USA he would know that it was the so called liberal democrats that allowed the entry of so many Jews to the USA.

If Mexicans entered the United States legally and read books instead of joining gangs, they would know that most of the Jews from Europe came to the United States when Republicans were in the White House (c.1905)

Not that the KKKlanish Democrats of the era were exactly liberal. South of Richmond, VA anyway:)