I'm glad these candidates of the people and protectors of the environment were able to get to the debate safely in their private jets.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-campaign-planes,0,4666247,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

4/27/2007 10:13:49 AM

Quote :

"Was Clinton the only one that did not have a gun in the house?"

does clinton have secret service protection?

4/27/2007 10:26:33 AM

4/27/2007 10:28:56 AM

I'd rather see Richardson win than any of the other ones


sadly that means he doesn't stand a chance

4/27/2007 11:27:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm glad these candidates of the people and protectors of the environment were able to get to the debate safely in their private jets. http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-campaign-planes,0,4666247,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines"

Like the Republicans do anything different , did you even read the article?

At least Obama and McCain have avoided the corporate jets and pay full rates, thats respectable. I also like how Obama has limited his fund raising and not taken a bunch of bs money so he can avoid that whole deal.

4/27/2007 3:20:14 PM

I don't recall the republicans making a big POLITICAL stink about global warming either

4/27/2007 6:35:54 PM

richardson had a chance to make it a 4 person race. he completely failed, and did horribly. He had the most to gain, and ended up losing the most.

4/28/2007 12:42:46 AM

^^Repuiblicans dont make a big political stink about global warming becase:

A. A lot of them still have their head in their ass and don't think its real
OR
B. They know its real but do nothing because they care more about relaxing regulations for their friends at the big corporations so that they can contribute to global warming than they do about protecting the environment that supports all life on this earth, including the one they dont deserve to have.

4/28/2007 9:05:13 PM

A bunch of interviews done by a New Hampshire TV station with various presidential candidates. Mainly a get to know you, what do you stand for, and a couple questions from a live audience. It's in progress so not everyone is on yet.

Republican-

Sam Brownback, Kansas Senator: http://www.wmur.com/politics/11552231/detail.html

Mike Huckabee, Former Arkansas Governor: http://www.wmur.com/politics/11348999/detail.html

Duncan Hunter, California Representative: http://www.wmur.com/politics/11847228/detail.html

John McCain, Arizona Senator: http://www.wmur.com/politics/11457178/detail.html

Ron Paul, Texas Representative: http://www.wmur.com/politics/13212896/detail.html

Tom Tancredo, Colorado Representative: http://www.wmur.com/politics/11266030/detail.html

Democrat-

Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Senator: http://www.wmur.com/politics/11156082/detail.html

John Edwards, Former North Carolina Senator: http://www.wmur.com/politics/11213876/detail.html

Mike Gravel, Former Alaska Senator: http://www.wmur.com/politics/12632738/detail.html

4/30/2007 8:33:19 PM

Republicans debate tonight at 8:00 on MSNBC from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Moderator is Chris Matthews.

5/3/2007 5:26:31 PM

wonder if we'll see some relative-unknown break through kind of like Gravel did last week

5/3/2007 5:27:43 PM

Ronald Reagan has a bigass Soviet flag in his presidential library.

5/3/2007 7:08:33 PM

^^

Keep your eye on the wiley and wascally Ron Paul!

5/3/2007 7:27:06 PM

^ How you think he'll do tonight?

I don't think he'll be as explosive as Gravel, he doesn't have that kind of temperament. I'm wondering how the Republican rank-and-file take to his anti-war views.

I just hope he does a good job laying down libertarian principles.

Pat Buchanan just said that Ron Paul represents his view of the classical conservative, for better or worse. (note: Buchanan hates neoconservatives)

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 7:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2007 7:29:54 PM

some of these questions are just ridiculous, what do you dislike most about America? and tonight will be the highest ratings MSNBC has gotten in five years...

5/3/2007 8:38:15 PM

Was Brian Williams as tough with the Democratic candidates as Chris Matthews is being with the Republican candidates?

And who is this "Paul" guy? He's a Republican?

So far, Governor Romney is sounding more Presidential than anyone.

5/3/2007 8:46:08 PM

^ According to Democrats, Williams was too hard. According to Republicans, Williams was too soft.

Depends on what party you're a member of.

Paul's a diehard libertarian. He's been a Republican congressman from Texas for 10 terms.

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2007 8:48:11 PM

Quote :

"And who is this "Paul" guy? "

Dr. Paul is basically a libertarian..or a Goldwater Conservative. Smaller gov't, more freedom. etc.

5/3/2007 8:48:56 PM

i spoke too soon, the questions only got worse...

5/3/2007 9:29:38 PM

^ They covered a lot more material than the Democrats did. I think Matthews did a good job trying to keep the candidates inside their time limits and moving on.

5/3/2007 9:43:23 PM

Paul, with his limited mic-time, did OK. He's not good at sound-biting.

And Yeah to Huckabee for supporting the FairTax.

5/3/2007 9:46:25 PM

Dr. Paul freakin' rocks. I love that guy.

5/3/2007 9:49:19 PM

I thought Mit and Rudy did very well. I also think Huckabee?, actually scored some points, esp coming from the "who is this guy". I thought tancredo had some great points, but looked the most uncomfortable and seemed awkward. As for the most a awkward, I think mccain looked the worst, or was most difficult to watch.

I actually feel better for the republicans chances after tonight. I actually heard IDEAS!!!. On iraq, people actually gave EXAMPLES of what they would try to accomplish. Not the usual, we need to do better, I would have done it differently and better BS.

If they run on a flat tax, or comsumption tax and do away with the income tax, I think repubs roll.

5/3/2007 10:31:17 PM

they can say that in debates, but presidents would have very little to do with a change in the way that our tax system works in this country, that would have to be a congressional thing.

5/3/2007 10:36:51 PM

Anyone else catch the shot Romney took at Guiliani on the religion question? Very stuble, but nicely played.

Quote :

"Romney: Of course everyone who's a person of faith has values that are deeply held in their heart, and they include the value of the relationship they have with their spouse and their children, the value that they place with their country and with their community."

5/3/2007 10:40:52 PM

^you are correct sir. You see that thing I added to the end of repub? Its a S. It makes the word plural. Meaning more than one.




Just messin with ya. I do feel the the party can run and win on that. I also think they can actually get it done. Having the presidency is key to passing it, as recently witnessed, a veto is hard to overcome.

5/3/2007 10:40:55 PM

i don't know. anything piece of legislation that has the word "fair" in it would make me uncomfortable (if i knew nothing more about it).

5/3/2007 10:48:00 PM

Quote :

"that would have to be a congressional thing."

Yes but the congress is a big dumb beast that can easily be led by a strong president who has the backing of the people.

The GOP needs a strong contrast to Bush. They need a great communicator who can wrap up the Iraq situation. Someone who runs on the strengths of the party... low tax, less gov't. Someone who can draw the contrast between them and the statist, cradle to grave, tax-crazy, weak-kneed liberals.

5/3/2007 10:55:31 PM

just stirring the pot a little

5/3/2007 11:13:30 PM

it reminded me of last week's debate, except this time instead of everybody bashing bush, they were bashing the clintons

5/3/2007 11:41:20 PM

My jaw dropped when the one guy said he believed it was okay for workplaces to discriminate based on sexual preference.

Also yea, the Clinton bashing was /old especially since he had consistently higher approval ratings than their guy. haha

5/4/2007 7:34:31 AM

^Why? Business owners own their property, and just the same as any private homeowner, should be allowed to decide who gets to come on his property under what conditions, and who does not, based on any reasoning he likes.

I never have a right to be allowed onto someone else's land, nor to demand an explanation for why I'm not hired to do something.

5/4/2007 10:00:59 AM

5/4/2007 10:04:46 AM

So it's okay to not hire someone because of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity etc?

5/4/2007 10:07:07 AM

I thought people from Spain were white?

5/4/2007 10:08:15 AM

Quote :

"So it's okay to not hire someone because of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity etc?"

You have to draw a distinction. The gov't shouldn't discriminate because it can use its police power to enforce that discrimination. If the state decides that Jews are bad, it can do a lot of damage.

A private citizen does not have that police power. If I decide not to hire you because of your skin color, you simply move on to another employer who sees the value of your labor over race.

The job I offer is my property. I get to fill it using whatever criteria I want. Just as your labor is your property. You decide what employment to seek.

Gov't is force. And we should not be forced into associations with others if we do not desire it.

And the fact that Tommy Thompson looked like a shambling corpse when he stated this doesn't mean it was wrong. Zombies need representation too.

5/4/2007 10:24:29 AM

Quote :

"So it's okay to not hire someone because of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity etc?"

This is not the question I answered. I said that the government should not enforce an answer to this, and if it does, it violates someone's property rights and freedom of association in the process.

Whether it is morally acceptable or not is not the question. Not all vices are crimes.

[Edited on May 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM. Reason : a]

5/4/2007 10:39:13 AM

I understand where you're coming from but I don't feel it should be legal for american citizens to be discriminated against inside the country. Allowing discrimination just perpetuates discrimination.

I guess it's mainly because I think part of a modern governments job is to assure the safety and raise the quality of life (within reason) for its citizens as opposed to the hands off approach.

5/4/2007 10:51:35 AM

Quote :

"An Incomplete Field First impressions of the GOP's 2008 candidates. Peggy Noonan, Friday, May 4, 2007 They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest. But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson. ...but first I would like to note that the media's fixation with which Republican is the most like Reagan, and who is the next Reagan, and who parts his hair like Reagan, is absurd, and subtly undermining of Republicans, which is why they do it. Reagan was Reagan, a particular man at a particular point in history. What is to be desired now is a new greatness. Another way of saying this is that in 1960, John F. Kennedy wasn't trying to be the next FDR, and didn't feel forced to be. FDR was the great, looming president of Democratic Party history, and there hadn't been anyone as big or successful since 1945, but JFK thought it was good enough to be the best JFK. And the press wasn't always sitting around saying he was no FDR. Oddly enough, they didn't consider that an interesting theme. They should stop it already, and Republicans should stop playing along. They should try instead a pleasant. "You know I don't think I'm Reagan, but I do think John Edwards may be Jimmy Carter, and I'm fairly certain Hillary is Walter Mondale." It was an incomplete field that made its debut, but not an unimpressive one. For the first time, as I watched, I thought: Fred Thompson shouldn't take forever to get in. History moves. The three front-runners had and have different challenges, long-term ones that can't be resolved with a single debate. John McCain has to make himself new again, not just an old warrior working out old dreams but a fresh and meaningful choice. Rudy Giuliani has to make himself serious. America's mayor needs ballast. What does he know? Is there wisdom there or only instinct? Mitt Romney has to show he is not just an intelligent and articulate operator who is chasing the next and logical résumé point for no particular reason beyond that it's next, and logical. The rest of the candidates had to show they're here, and potentially a force. Here's how I saw it: All the candidates save one, the obscure but intellectually serious Ron Paul, seemed to be trying to show they will not break with the Bush administration on the war, but that, at the same time, they each know a heck of a lot more than President Bush. If we view the proceedings in vulgar and reductive Who Won, Who Lost terms, and let's, Mitt Romney won, Rudy Giuliani lost, and John McCain is still in. The moderator, Chris Matthews, seemed to think he was on "Hardball" and had to keep the pups, punks and rubes--that would be the candidates--in line. He cut them off--"Congressman, that's time!"--and occasionally hectored. One of the stars was the buzzing clock. It interrupted all thought. Mr. McCain seemed alert, and full of effort. Somehow he seemed both high-energy and creaky. He uncompromisingly supported fighting it out in Iraq. He also had the best line of the night. When Mitt Romney was tagged for saying catching Osama is not of pre-eminent importance--"It's more than Osama bin Laden"--Mr. McCain quickly pounced. "I'll follow him to the gates of hell." Go, baby. Mr. Giuliani seemed unsure at first, and was badly lit, or badly made up since he had the same lighting as everyone else. He did not make a strong impression until he spoke on abortion, and then it was a bad one. The statuesque Mr. Romney had a certain good-natured command, a presidential voice, and a surprising wiliness. He seemed happy to be there, and in the mysterious way that some people seem to dominate, he dominated. He had a quick witted answer when Mr. Mathews asked him if the Roman Catholic Church should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. What, said, Matthews, would he say to the bishops? "I don't say anything to Roman Catholic Bishops," he said. "They can do whatever the heck they want!" He deftly flipped it into a church-state issue. He did some light-handed and audience-pleasing Clinton bashing, and was confident on stem-cell research. But he was weak on Iraq, predictable, like someone who knows the answer that polls right with the base. How can you be utterly banal about a war, and such a controversial one? Each had flubs and false moves. Something tells me it will all get more interesting, and not only because Fred Thompson will get in."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010023

5/4/2007 10:55:27 AM

His 'flip-flop' was quick! http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/thompson-apologizes-for-comment-on-gay.html

Quote :

"LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson apologized Friday morning for saying in last evening's debate that private employers should be allowed to fire gay employees because of their sexual preference. Thompson was asked by the moderator: "If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?" The former Wisconsin governor answered: "I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be." The moderator appeared a bit startled: "OK, so the answer is yes?" Thompson replied, "Yes." In a telephone interview from O'Hare Airport, Thompson told "American Morning" that he "misinterpreted" the question and should have asked to have it repeated. "That's never been my position," Thompson said, said adding that discrimination isn't acceptable."

5/4/2007 3:23:51 PM

OMFFLIPFLOP!

5/4/2007 10:01:14 PM

I dont recall that question, but tommy tompson has about the same chance of being president as tommy chang does being the starter for the colts next season.

5/4/2007 11:20:25 PM

it's telling that the GOP candidates went and did a debate on MSNBC (with commentators like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman), but the Dems completely rejected doing a debate on Fox

5/5/2007 8:17:55 AM

That's not even remotely comparable...not even remotely.

Show me an instance where MSNBC has made up a story--literally, just fabricated a story--about any one of the Republican candidates...then you can compare the two.

5/5/2007 1:07:28 PM

fox news: fair and balanced

5/5/2007 2:28:16 PM

Quote :

"but the Dems completely rejected doing a debate on Fox"

Liberals can make al the excuses they want...but voters will notice that these dem. candidates are too scared to face critical questioning and will keep seeking shelter in safe-haven left-wing controlled debates.

5/5/2007 10:40:31 PM

^ Where have you been the past 7 years?

Bush and Co. are the king of avoiding critical questioning, and it took a miserable failure in Iraq for people to start disliking them.

5/5/2007 10:44:06 PM

^^ EarthDogg, here are highlights of a tape of Alberto Gonzales being questioned by Congress. Notice all his responses.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=85561

5/6/2007 1:22:51 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

Quote :

"CNN debunks false report about Obama Story Highlights• Report alleges Illinois senator attended radical Muslim school as a child • CNN reporter visits Indonesia school in question, sees no radicalism • Former classmate calls school "general," with multiple religions ... "It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school." The Obama aide described Fox News' broadcasting of the Insight story "appallingly irresponsible." "

Since fox did this story I've even recently still heard from fellow ncsu grads that while they are okay with this muslim pres candidate in theory & like Obama in general, they don't think america is ready for a muslim & so the dems shouldn't go for someone so unelectable.

When Fox will publish things like saying Obama is muslim to try to cost him votes, I think its fair for dems to avoid them.

5/6/2007 3:59:34 PM

^
Is this the same CNN that withheld stories of Saddam's atrocities and soft-sold his regime for all those years?

But OK, let's assume that FOX news is evil incarnate.
The GOP guys did go on a left-wing network and faced Chris Matthews et al. Let's see the Dem. candidates defend their ideas (?) before a right-wing questioner.

Your choice?

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2007 2:22:49 AM