I would fear for the future of America at this time but I know that there is no way on earth Huckleberry could win a popular vote. Republicans are doing themselves a world of hurt by standing behind a guy who is going to get run over by anyone the democrats put up. That's right, tonight democrats are celebrating because
1. Obama took the lead (Edwards beat Hillary? Now that is poetic!)
2. Republicans chose a nutcase.


Interestingly, I've seen reports that up to 60% of delegates at the Republican caucuses considered themselves evangelical (I told you this good vs. evil crap would bite the republicans in the can). I guess EvangelicalsforMitt has a LOT of work to do.


Also, take a look at the age demographics for caucus goers. Dems pulled in large numbers and a shockingly large number of the elusive 18-30 year olds (Obama specifically).


My apologies for all you Romney fans, but at least you can't tell me I didn't warn you. Americans, while citizens of the greatest country on the planet, can be a bunch of bonafide idiots. It's sad when Chuck Norris ends up having more pull than a candidate with real political viability. I really wanted Mitt to take the republican tide, but it didn't happen. Let us all hope that this isn't a death knell for his campaign and that people in other states have a bit more sense than those in Iowa.
And if they don't, you can always vote for Ron Paul.

I believe in a left-wing media conspiracy.......the so-called "regular people" YouTube debate was a joke, hoax, and disgrace.

I had no problem with the questions asked, but it was a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATE......save the planted questions for the general election.

The majority of the questions came from Obama, Clinton, and Edwards' supporters......none of them will vote in the primaries for any Republican.

Can you imagine the outcry if Fox News hosted a Dem debate and had it infiltrated with Right-wing nuts? Seriously.......the liberal media would jump all over that.

Stem Cells

Can we finally put aside the stem cell debate. I've been saying for a long time that embryos are not the only source for stem cells. Heck, I still have stem cells for everything (even muscles they're finding out) except nervous cells.

The Democrats are losing this stupid battle for embryonic stem cell research. Thanks to people like Mitt Romney, who have pushed for ethical and reasonable alternatives, stem cell research is able to progress without the use of embryos.

Can we finally stop equating stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research.......honestly?
This clip is from the May debate:

Huckabee

The only thing that I'm surprised about is that it has taken this long for people to pay attention to Huckabee. He's likeable and a great speaker that lights up a room with candid humor. I think he suffered from the packed field of candidates and has recently benefitted from Brownback's departure.

That said.......I can't stand him--he's less self-righteous than Brownback was, but the only thing he brings to the table is that he is a certified evangelical.

If I was only a social conservative, I'd consider him a good alternative to Mitt Romney, but seeing how much I love a strong economy and military too, I could never vote for Huckabee. Right now the only person I could vote for on the Republican side (besides Mitt) is John McCain, albeit grudgingly (not a fan of McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy). I'm prepared to research independant or libertarian candidates.

Besides standing up for family values, Huckabee is pretty liberal:

And coming from the land of Clintons, there seems to be some ethical issues as well.

You know, Mitt's going to win it all--today Mitt is leading in South Carolina (hey Josh, I thought evangelicals would never support Mitt?) and in Iowa, the only state that Huckabee has a shot in (tied there with Rudy in second place), Mitt is ahead by 20 points.

Lately and expecially after the last GOP debate, (which I admit are way too many) I am surprisingly impressed with Mike Huckabee. Though my ultimate choice for the nomination still lies with Romney, I see Huckabee as a very viable candidiate.

Coming from the Clinton political machine state of Arkansas, he seems to be one who could beat Clinton. We are going to have to face the reality that Clinton will get the democratic nod. So the question now becomes, who will be able to beat Hillary for the White House. Huckabee could do it. He comes from a Baptist background having been a Baptist minister. Though some of the Baptist views are different from mine, he isn't running with that as his mind set. He has very clear motives and reasons for his White House bid. He is not a one platform candidate. He is strong on immigration, healthcare, family values, and the detriment of big government. I think as the American people start to see and hear him a little more often, he will break into the top tier. He could have a little more popularity than Romney just becasue of the religion card. Baptist in the White House isn't nearly as scary as a Mormon in the White House, for whatever reason.
Huckabee was the Governor of Arkansas, as was a Clinton. But this Governor has a lot more to show for his stint in that seat than does Clinton. I have been really impressed with his responses in the debates. he had an interview recently with Glenn Beck and was amazing. Glenn actually said," I wanted this interview so that I could write you off as a candidate for the presidency, I cannot do that now." Youtube that interview and you will see what I mean. This thing ain't over till it's over...

Biased Media

The study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, to be released Monday, also portrays the political press as a hidebound institution out of touch with the desires of citizens.

Among the findings:

• Stories focused more on fundraising and polls than on where candidates stood on the issues, despite a public demand for more attention to the policies, views and records of the candidates.

• The public's attention to campaign news is higher now than it was at similar points in the past two elections, but that interest is only shared by less than one in four people.

• Five candidates — Democrats Clinton and Barack Obama and Republicans Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain — received more than half the coverage. Elizabeth Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of Democrat John Edwards, received almost as much media attention as her husband.

• Democrats, overall, got more coverage — and more positive ink and airtime — than Republicans.

• Obama enjoyed the friendliest coverage of the presidential field; McCain endured the most negative. That was due in part to the media's focus on fundraising; Obama raised more than expected and McCain raised less.

I'll Sue Ya'


 

Copyright 2007| No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.