The 2008 Presidential Candidates in Less Than Five Minutes
The 2008 Presidential Candidates in Less Than Five Minutes
The 2008 presidential candidates in less than five minutes…
Hillary – The campaign of inevitability is over. She’s a woman, and she’s a socialist. There’s not a chance in hell that she will win a presidential election even if all the other candidates withdraw. And now she's crying about it.
Obama – Does anyone know what his policies are? Sure, he seems like a nice guy, but what are his intentions? Does anybody really know anything about his plans as president?
Edwards – He’s a lawyer…the type that chases ambulances. He also believes that there is a great disparity between rich elites and the poor. He is one of the rich elites but has done nothing to help the people he’s trying to reach out to.
Huckabee – I don’t trust this guy at all. He’s a populist in the worst sense. He’s a Clintonesque Republican…and he’s from Arkansas to boot.
McCain – He’s barely a Republican. He should probably have switched to the Democrat side of the aisle several years ago. By the way, you’re program IS amnesty, Mr. McCain.
Giuliani – Yes, he was the mayor of New York during 9-11, but that does not mean he will be a good president. Start using more of your record of cleaning up New York City if you want to convince people of your leadership in a national election.
Romney – He looks good, he sounds good, and he’s proven that he can succeed in a liberal state. Unfortunately, not many people are convinced that he’s really a conservative at heart. Work on your message, Mitt, and the nomination is practically yours.
Thompson – He’s probably the only real conservative in the race, but he seems to not be able to motivate the base. Is that a problem with him, or with conservatives? He may have gotten in too late, but there’s still ten months to go. Maybe he will awake from his coma before then.
Paul - The best conservative in the field...until you get to his foreign policy. The Libertarian Party would be an extremely viable third party if they didn't run with an antiquated isolationist foreign policy. That's what kills Ron Paul. It's a deal-breaker for most conservatives, especially in our modern world.
Submitted by - Login or register to post comments |
- 8 reads |
- Email this page |
- Printer-friendly version |
- Publius's Xombytes |
Ron Paul
You left out Ron Paul. Do you work for Fox News?
Click here if you have something to say and want to get paid to say it!
No...Ron Paul just isn't
No...Ron Paul just isn't relevant at this point. He can't carry any decent amount of support. I was just going with the main players. But just to humor you:
Paul - The best conservative in the field...until you get to his foreign policy. The Libertarian Party would be an extremely viable third party if they didn't run with an antiquated isolationist foreign policy. That's what kills Ron Paul. It's a deal-breaker for most conservatives, especially in the modern world.
If he's so irrelevant...
If he's so irrelevant, why is there a concerted effort to keep him out of every debate? He regularly polls ahead of any other Republican candidate (14% in New Hampshire compared to 4% for Thompson and 10% in Iowa to Rudy Julie Annie's 3%).
Dr. Paul also raised the most money of any candidate in one day. EVER! So, there is no way anyone can say with a straight face that he doesn't have popular support.
The trouble for the rest of the candidates is that Dr. Paul is a true conservative and the only candidate who will return our country to its Constitutional roots. The other candidates promise change, but Ron Paul is the only capable of making change. That's why I switched my voter registration from Independent to Republican for the California Primary. I'm not going to allow politicking keep me from being able to support him; once the primary is over, I'll switch back to Independent.
The more the media and inner party work to keep Ron Paul out of the news and out of the debates, despite his strong support, the more transparent their facade becomes. This is not a two-party, every-vote-counts Constitutional Republic--this is a controlled plutocracy where we are allowed the freedom of choice for anything, just so long as we choose what they want us to choose.
Click here if you have something to say and want to get paid to say it!
I say Ron Paul is not
I say Ron Paul is not relevant at this point because he came in fifth in Iowa and is currently fifth in polling in New Hampshire. He beat Giuliani in Iowa because Giuliani didn't play there. He did not bother to campaign in Iowa. He's currently in third in N.H., but it's practically a statistical dead-heat between himself and Romney. Both of them are not far behind McCain. Thompson was tied for third in Iowa. Paul was fifth and is fifth again in N.H. so far...it's not a big mystery that this guy won't win the nomination.
When it's obvious that somebody has no chance at winning a nomination, why keep them in a debate? Hunter, Kucinich, Tancredo, Gravel...they've all been essentially eliminated. Ron Paul will join their ranks after New Hampshire. That's why I did not include him. Like I said - I like Ron Paul's platform, except for his unwillingness to accept the threat of Islamic fascism and his insistence that the United States is to blame for the world's problems and their animosity toward us. It's not a concerted effort to keep him out, it's just common sense that he has no legitimate shot at the Republican nomination.
By the way...his impressive fundraising has not translated into real support in the polls, which tells me that there really isn't any substantial backing for him.
Obama I feel at least has a
Obama I feel at least has a fighting chance to win given that US' favorite lady Oprah Winfrey is lobbying for the man. Enlighten me if you guys feel that is utter balderdash!
Express yourself and make money.To join Xomba Click below
http://www.xomba.com/referral/7777e40d
↑ Grab this Headline Animator
He may have the charm to win
He may have the charm to win Democrat primaries, but when it comes to substance, he's a sure loser...especially in the general election. He'll need to really start getting his policies out there and become battle-tested in support of his ideas. It's not going to be a cake-walk facing a Republican running on substance rather than "change".
Oh, yeah...Oprah's a damn fool. I really hope women aren't that influenced by her. If they are, our future is not looking very bright.
You ignore the conspiracy to exclude him...
The New Hampshire GOP wants him to participate, but Fox is ignoring him. Not mentioning him. The anchors act as if he doesn't exist. This isn't them thinking he doesn't stand a chance so they are not giving him the same airtime as Rudy Julie Annie. This is them not giving him ANY airtime. Even some of those who have already dropped out get some mention in the press. Ron Paul? Not even a peep.
Despite the news blackout, Dr. Paul continues to be supported thanks to the Internet--the last bastion of free speech and free ideas, it seems.
You also cannot ignore the FACT that he has won or competed well in EVERY straw poll and every LEGITIMATE poll conducted. If you are going to watch Faux News and declare him a wasted vote because Faux News ignores him, then I don't know what to tell you.
His numbers even now are superior to some of the other dropouts, yet they've been allowed to participate in every debate whether someone has arbitrarily declared them electable or not. That's why there are supposed to be debates. So, the electorate (that's us) can hear the platform of each candidate who is running--not just those handpicked by party insiders to prop up before us so we have the illusion of choice.
If the man wasn't a threat to the status quo, he wouldn't be COMPLETELY IGNORED.
"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities."--Alan Bloom
Click here if you have something to say and want to get paid to say it!
O.K. - I added Ron Paul to
O.K. - I added Ron Paul to my list. Now I guess I'm no longer part of the "conspiracy".
I don't know what to tell you. I'm not going to argue about this. I will simply say that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. The Republican base does not support his foreign policy...and they will not give him their votes. It is a foregone conclusion and ought to be plainly obvious to anyone.
Well, thank you--thankyouverymuch
To clarify, I agree that the Republican Party does not support him as opposed to Republican voters not supporting him. I guess it depends on who you see as the "base" of the party--the voters who want real change or the party insiders who stand to lose if the voters see the charade of this so-called two-party system for what it really is.
The way they are dealing with a legitimate threat to their power is to pretend that the threat doesn't exist. That's not the way things are supposed to work in a Constitutional Republic or anywhere else in the real world for that matter. If there is an idea with which you don't agree, you engage it with a supported argument and debate it. You don't put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALALA--I can't hear you", which is what is happening right now within the inner party in Washington.
Click here if you have something to say and want to get paid to say it!