Cynical Nation

I think DBK is right. Rudy will be relatively easy to defeat. He lacks substance and he has been too much pro-Iraq war to win a national election. Although McCain is more associated with the Iraq war, he will compete better because he has wider appeal and more democrats (wrongly) respect him. In any case, 2008 will be the year of the democrats. No matter who the republican candidate is, they will lose.

Wow, anybody who uses Alan Colmes to prove a point about anything worries me.

Colmes was selected for his weakness, to make an idiot like Hannity seem strong.

I love watching the show, just to watch Colmes meekly fade as he is shouted down by bully Hannity, cut off, belittled, and berated.

Colmes mutter helplessly as Hannity blasts out lie after lie, raising his hand for permission to speak, which Hannity never gives.

Alan Colmes can't possible have an IQ over 80, putting him barely 10 points over Hannity, who more than makes up for it in his energetic machine gun lying.

> Although McCain is more associated with the Iraq war, he will compete better because he has wider appeal and more democrats...

I think that was true even 6 months ago, but is less so now. McCain's proximity to the troop surge as well as his perceived frontrunner status has tempered his glowing image among the media and the Democrats.

"Alan Colmes can't possible have an IQ over 80, putting him barely 10 points over Hannity, who more than makes up for it in his energetic machine gun lying.

I agree. And the remarkable thing is that Hannity's IQ is several points above George W's.

First, the Hannity crowd are very influenced by Rush Limbaugh and Limbaugh HATES McCain. Which I think is a definite factor against McCain winning the Republican nomination, but I am not surprised that McCain has little support among Hannity's viewers.

Second.. have any of you spent time around Giulliani? I have met with him and spoken to him on a number of occasions and seen him on others. One moment he is gracious and charming, another moment he is paranoid and angry.

Look I voted for Guilliani because Dinkins was ineffectual and the city needed a strong mayor back then. That said, Guilliani is not what this country needs right now in a President. He is a very smart man with little self control and no patience working with opposing viewpoints.

If you nominate Guilliani, either Edwards, Obama or Hillary will beat him because he will beat himself.

I respect McCain's views, even when I disagree with them, on the Iraq War because he at least he engages reality and accepts reliable information from all sides. If McCain was President, he would not be just listening to the top generals, he would be finding out what is really going on from people who are not trying to suck up to him to advance their careers (ie., the top generals).

So while I believe that the Iraq War can not be won in the manner we are fighting, McCain I believe would deal with reality and adjust accordingly, rather than continue with a policy that was failing.

I have listened to McCain and Guilliani regarding the War on Terror and, while conservatives may like the fact that Guilliani stands with the President, I find that Guilliani talks in platitudes and tries to compare his experience with fighting the mafia with fighting terrorists when there is no comparison.

Guilliani is very smart, but he has more than one screw loose. He is a potential Nixon, for good and ill.

Anyone who can "respect" McCain is, well, forgetful, to be most charitable.

McCain's a veritable open borders guy - "Americans wouldn't do the work these people (illegal aliens) do, not for $10/hour, not for $25/hour, not for $50/hour....they couldn't do it!"

Next to the pan-Islamic threat to the West, our porous southern border is the next biggest issue, not just because of the national security issue, but because of the pernicious economic one.

I don't like Giuliani for President, but he is probably the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton.

"Guilliani is very smart, but he has more than one screw loose.

Yes, thats obvious. But I think McCain has too.

"I don't like Giuliani for President, but he is probably the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton.

He can not. The only democrat Giuliani can beat is Kucinich. And that would be a real close race.

I'm well aware of McCain's flaws. I know people who have worked as staffers in the US Senate and many do consider him to be an opportunist and a blowhard.

Still, he does engage problems and questions, tries to live in the real world. He gets respect from both sides because he does listen. I have listened to the man speak about Iraq many many many times and, while I don't agree with his conclusions, I respect his logic in getting there and I also respect that he would take responsiblitiy and adjust accordingly if he failed.

As far as immigration goes, yeah those were stupid comments, JMK, but the questions in the immigration debate are both economics and homeland security. You might think, JMK, that this country would be a better place if this was a nation of 300 million JMKs, but thankfully, in my view, Americans don't all think like you.. so any immigration bill will have to be a compromise and, as far as I'm concerned, the key question has to be security.

I love the fact that you always set yourself up for severe disappointment BW.

It's a train-wreck waiting to happen.

Kucinich can't draw better than 5% in the DEMOCRATIC primary, he polls LESS than 1% in general polls.

Moreover, the Democrats are going to have a very rough time holding onto the Senate in 2008, let alone gain the WH.

There are four vulnerable Democratic seats up in '08 (led by Mary Landrieu's of LA, Montana's, South Dakota's and Arkansas'), while only retiring Wayne Allard's Colorado seat is really going to be "open," in '08.

The problem the Democrats have nationally is that they're seen as a Liberal Party in a country that is better than 2 to 1 Conservative.

Outside major urban areas, like NYC, LA, SF and Chicago, Liberal ideas don't resonate much at all.

Northeast Liberals are especially reviled (and for good reason) nationally.

The problem that Barry mentioned above with the Edwards campaign and Amanda Marcotte is an example of the problem that any Democrat running for national office faces - disappoint the "nutroots" (the Kos & MoveOn folks) and you lose traction early (needed for Primary wins), but any embrace of that "base" (such as it is) alienates that candidate from the rest of America...the bulk of America.

HRC has too many negatives, even within the Democratic Party, so that leaves the field kind of open - Edwards/Obama, Obama/Edwards, Gore/Obama or Gore/Clinton???

No matter what Democratic ticket it is, it's going to be an uphill battle, because thankfully the heartland of America votes virtually the opposite that New York City & San Fran do.

If only New York City's & San Fran's votes counted, we'd have a Liberal Democrat landslide...thankfully the rest of the country realizes that places like those are generally peopled with "dupes, dopes and EDPs," so they dutifully outvote them and to the greater good of us all.

I like your cockeyed optimism - "The only Democrat Giuliani can beat is Kucinich," implies that Kucinich could hold his own with any current Republican.

Now, that's funny!

Like that female executive at CBS that Bernie Goldberg recounts exclaiming after Nixon won in a landslide in 1972, "How could HE have won?! Why I don't know a single soul who voted for him."

Maybe you don't get out of Manhattan much either?

The ILLEGAL immigration issue is a military issue.

It has nothing to do with the issue of “immigration.”

Confusing illegal immigration with the immigration debate is like confusing rape with sexual attraction.

Just as rape is about violence and control, illegal immigration is about invasion, dominance and control. That’s why it’s a military issue. It requires a military response.

Those gunmen who killed those five illegal aliens in Arizona the other day, well that’s merely “a very good start,” or would be, if that had been a U.S. military maneuver.

Like terrorism, illegal immigration is not a mere crime and when a government (in this case Mexico) fully supports it, that is tantamount to an invasion, requiring a military response.

On the actual issue of immigration, I’m fairly confident that there isn’t another person on this board as in-touch and as supportive of legal immigration as I am.

My wife’s an immigrant and I went with her through that process every step of the way, right up through her swearing in a few years ago. She’s an accountant with an American CPA and a Chartered Accountancy in the English System.

While I believe that our immigration codes need a serious overhaul and more restrictions need to be put in place, for instance, I believe we can and should eradicate useless things like “family reunification waivers” and “anchor babies” (you have a child here while illegal, both you AND the child remain illegal), and replaced with a needs based (based solely on America’s needs) system – physicians, engineers, healthcare professional should all be welcome provided they can pass our standardized exams in those areas...otherwise, what good are they?!

When I hear people talking about illegal immigration as part of the overall immigration issue, I’m certain they don’t know what they’re talking about. One’s a legal matter (legal immigration and immigration law) and the other (illegal immigration) is a military problem – an invasion of soughts.

Of course this was me, I guess I didn't see that I had to resend my information on that one;

I love the fact that you always set yourself up for severe disappointment BW.

It's a train-wreck waiting to happen.

Kucinich can't draw better than 5% in the DEMOCRATIC primary, he polls LESS than 1% in general polls.

Moreover, the Democrats are going to have a very rough time holding onto the Senate in 2008, let alone gain the WH.

There are four vulnerable Democratic seats up in '08 (led by Mary Landrieu's of LA, Montana's, South Dakota's and Arkansas'), while only retiring Wayne Allard's Colorado seat is really going to be "open," in '08.

The problem the Democrats have nationally is that they're seen as a Liberal Party in a country that is better than 2 to 1 Conservative.

Outside major urban areas, like NYC, LA, SF and Chicago, Liberal ideas don't resonate much at all.

Northeast Liberals are especially reviled (and for good reason) nationally.

The problem that Barry mentioned above with the Edwards campaign and Amanda Marcotte is an example of the problem that any Democrat running for national office faces - disappoint the "nutroots" (the Kos & MoveOn folks) and you lose traction early (needed for Primary wins), but any embrace of that "base" (such as it is) alienates that candidate from the rest of America...the bulk of America.

HRC has too many negatives, even within the Democratic Party, so that leaves the field kind of open - Edwards/Obama, Obama/Edwards, Gore/Obama or Gore/Clinton???

No matter what Democratic ticket it is, it's going to be an uphill battle, because thankfully the heartland of America votes virtually the opposite that New York City & San Fran do.

If only New York City's & San Fran's votes counted, we'd have a Liberal Democrat landslide...thankfully the rest of the country realizes that places like those are generally peopled with "dupes, dopes and EDPs," so they dutifully outvote them and to the greater good of us all.

I like your cockeyed optimism - "The only Democrat Giuliani can beat is Kucinich," implies that Kucinich could hold his own with any current Republican.

Now, that's funny!

Like that female executive at CBS that Bernie Goldberg recounts exclaiming after Nixon won in a landslide in 1972, "How could HE have won?! Why I don't know a single soul who voted for him."

Maybe you don't get out of Manhattan much either?

I don't know about the Senate being so vulnerable for the Dems in 2008. On the GOP side, besides retiring Allard in increasingly less Republican Colorado, I see Norm (No, wait, I ain't a Bush robot!) Coleman in Minnesota, Elizabeth (I still cain't bee-leeve I'm a US Senator--and neither can anyone else) Dole in S.C, Gordon (Don't forget, I don't like this war!) Smith in not-so-Republican Oregon and John (Run away from the media) Sununu in not so-Republican New Hampshire.

21 GOP seats vs only 12 Democratic ones will be up in 2008.

"The problem the Democrats have nationally is that they're seen as a Liberal Party in a country that is better than 2 to 1 Conservative."
THEN WHY AREN'T GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS POPULATED 2-1 BY CONSERVATIVES?

Northeast Liberals are especially reviled (and for good reason) nationally.
THEM, AND SOUTHERN REDNECKS.

"No matter what Democratic ticket it is, it's going to be an uphill battle, because thankfully the heartland of America votes virtually the opposite that New York City & San Fran do."
THEN WHY DID SO MANY 'HEARTLAND' VALUES REPUBLICANS LOSE 3 MONTHS AGO?

If only New York City's & San Fran's votes counted, we'd have a Liberal Democrat landslide...thankfully the rest of the country realizes that places like those are generally peopled with "dupes, dopes and EDPs," so they dutifully outvote them and to the greater good of us all.
SEE ELECTION RESULTS, NOV 2006. SEE BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS, PRESENTLY. SEE GOP CONGRESS APPROVAL RATINGS, 2006.

I'm so glad you describe me as a "friend". I feel friendly towards you, in an entirely heterosexual, virile way, of course.

As for Rudy...GO RUDY!

Here's the fun thing about Rudy for me, and another reason why I support him getting the Republican nomination. His moderate position on abortion and his friendliness to gay rights make him a palatable Republican. I wouldn't support him in the election, but I wouldn't decry a victory by Giuliani as being such a terrible fate when compared to the rest of the Republican field. Of the Republicans currently showing any speed at all, Giuliani is the most acceptable.

Gotta agree with fred there. 2008 will be all uphill for the GOP in the Senate. That'll be two in a row in which the Republicans are defending the majority of the seats up for grabs. I guess 2010 will be the year that all the Democrats are running for re-election.

"The problem the Democrats have nationally is that they're seen as a Liberal Party in a country that is better than 2 to 1 Conservative."
THEN WHY AREN'T GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS POPULATED 2-1 BY CONSERVATIVES?

Northeast Liberals are especially reviled (and for good reason) nationally.
THEM, AND SOUTHERN REDNECKS.

"No matter what Democratic ticket it is, it's going to be an uphill battle, because thankfully the heartland of America votes virtually the opposite that New York City & San Fran do."
THEN WHY DID SO MANY 'HEARTLAND' VALUES REPUBLICANS LOSE 3 MONTHS AGO?

If only New York City's & San Fran's votes counted, we'd have a Liberal Democrat landslide...thankfully the rest of the country realizes that places like those are generally peopled with "dupes, dopes and EDPs," so they dutifully outvote them and to the greater good of us all.
SEE ELECTION RESULTS, NOV 2006. SEE BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS, PRESENTLY. SEE GOP CONGRESS APPROVAL RATINGS, 2006.

And where are these surveys with people by a MORE THAN 2-to-1 margin, ID'ing themselves as conservative vs. liberal?

"The problem the Democrats have nationally is that they're seen as a Liberal Party in a country that is better than 2 to 1 Conservative." (JMK)


THEN WHY AREN'T GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS POPULATED 2-1 BY CONSERVATIVES?

And where are these surveys with people by a MORE THAN 2-to-1 margin, ID'ing themselves as conservative vs. liberal? (Fred)


I’m glad you asked that last question;

Twice As Many Conservatives as Liberals in America

“A 2005 nationwide survey by pollsters Penn, Schoen, and Berland -- who represent Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, among other clients -- found that self-described liberals make up only 16 percent of the population, compared with 36 percent who call themselves conservatives and 47 percent who say they are moderates.”

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2536-Emboldened-Democrats-Court-Partys-Left-Wing.html


Northeast Liberals are especially reviled (and for good reason) nationally. (JMK)


THEM, AND SOUTHERN REDNECKS. (Fred)


There hasn’t been a northeasterner in the WH since Rockefeller was Ford’s VP, on the other hand, those Southern Rednecks can claim Carter (GA), Clinton (AK), Gore (TN), Bush Jr (TX) (JMK)


"No matter what Democratic ticket it is, it's going to be an uphill battle, because thankfully the heartland of America votes virtually the opposite that New York City & San Fran do." (JMK)


THEN WHY DID SO MANY 'HEARTLAND' VALUES REPUBLICANS LOSE 3 MONTHS AGO? (Fred)


Not a one lost to a Liberal Democrat, you can look that up.

The great Jim Ryun (one of my all time favorite politicians and not just because he spoke in tongues) was defeated by a Conservative Democrat Kansan, which is what I am – a Conservative Democrat. I remain a registered Democrat. I believe that folks like myself and Jared Taylor (author of Paved With Good Intentions and http://www.amren.com) are the future of that Party.

Kentucky and Indian’s Democratic delegation – Blue dogs, and North Carolina’s Heath Shuler – an Evangelical Christian who sees his mission as “bringing a Religious Right presence and influence to the Democratic Party.” (JMK)


“If only New York City's & San Fran's votes counted, we'd have a Liberal Democrat landslide...thankfully the rest of the country realizes that places like those are generally peopled with "dupes, dopes and EDPs," so they dutifully outvote them and to the greater good of us all.” (JMK)


SEE ELECTION RESULTS, NOV 2006. SEE BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS, PRESENTLY. SEE GOP CONGRESS APPROVAL RATINGS, 2006. (Fred)


There wasn’t a single rebuke of the Conservative ideology in the last election.

Eminent Domain, lauded by even many moderate Liberals and reviled by even moderate Conservatives, was reined in on 9 of 11 Ballot initiatives! Gay Marriage went down in 8 of 9 such initiatives, with the vote across those states running over 2 to 1 opposed. AZ passed an “English as the official state language" referendum, and passed others that deny illegal aliens punitive damages in Civil Suits, even when they win and deny them all sorts of state funded social programs. Very BLUE Michigan voted down race/gender preferences by a landslide 60/40 and Conservative Dems now account for over 20% of the Democrat’s Congressional seats!


P.S. There were no “GOP Congress ratings” taken, merely an overall “Congressional rating” and they were and REMAIN very low. In fact, BOTH major Parties and the career “politician” poll at near the lowest numbers ever.

I got hammered awhile back in the S&L scandal and the guy involved in the one that bit me was a Republican (Keating) – anyway, even losing a fair amount of money isn’t going to change my ideology any.

I still vote for “the most Conservative candidate.”

If the guy once held the world record for the mile – that’s a plus. If he has spoken in tongues while attending a religious service – that’s a HUGE plus. (JMK)

I'll agree--tongues ARE good, especially if their attached to a girl.

I beg to differ on rebukes to conservative ideology last November- check out some of the state referendums:
Raising minimum wage (hardly a conservative notion) pssed in Montana, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado, and Arizona.
Banning same-sex marraige failed in Arizona.
Parental notification efforts failed in California, and Oregon.
Abortion ban failed in South Dakota.
Stem cell research passed in Missouri.

And you of course forgot to note that nearly half of Americans in that poll you cited say they are moderates--thats where the bulk of America is, not the the third who call themselves conservative. Cite the full results next time, or else I'll assume that next time, your poll, accordingto you, will say it was a 10-to-1 conservative-to-liberal majority (but that 89% called themselves moderates).

I beg to differ on rebukes to conservative ideology last November- check out some of the state referendums: (Fred)


Fred, you're trying to make lemonade out of a bunch of lemons.


Raising minimum wage (hardly a conservative notion) pssed in Montana, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado, and Arizona.


Raising the minimum wage is always popular because 90% of the public don't understand why it, like rent control are bad public policy.

Fast food workers, even fifty miles outside NYC (up in Sussex NJ) make well above the new minimum wage ($8/hr to start)...many restaurant and agricultural workers are exempted from that law, as firefighters are exempted from the forty-hour work-week law.

The Min Wage effects primarily old geezers and HS teens living at home working for some extra cash.


Banning same-sex marraige failed in Arizona.


I mentioned THIS!

Like I said "Gay Marriage went down in 8 of 9 such initiatives, with the vote across those states running over 2 to 1 opposed, I didn't think it was right to embarrass the great state of Arizona, especially since they did right on so many other initiatives - making English the official state language and denying punitive damages to illegals even when they win Civil Suits, etc.

The gay marriage deal was a HUGE loss for Libs this past November. So much so that Democrats in Massachussetts refused to allow it to be voted on in an upcoming referendum - preferring to wait for "a better time."

I'd say, "a time that may never come."


"Parental notification efforts failed in California, and Oregon."


The same two states that failed to rein in Eminent Domain...enough said.


"Abortion ban failed in South Dakota.

South Dakota remains a very Conservative state, by better than 2 to 1, but that ban went way too far.

No "rape or life of the mother exceptions." While 2/3s of Americans support first trimester abortion on demand the same ratiuon 2/3s support things like parental notification laws and support banning "partial birth" or third trimester abortions.

Me?

I not only support abortion, I would mandate birth control and when necessary abortion for ALL those who are wards of the state - incarcerated felons, people dependent on public assitance, etc.

A person who can't provide for their own basic needs is in my view, by definition, an unfit parent.


"Stem cell research passed in Missouri.


Again, neither a Liberal nor Conservative issue.

I'm rock-ribbed Conservative and support it and Heath Shuler is a "New Democrat" and opposes it.