T1B

Realistic Democratic pres candidates Clinton and Obama.
Realiistic Repub candidates McCain and Romney.

You have to count Gravel, Paul, and Huckabee among the wanna bes. No way they get a party nomination for pres.

SO THAT'S IT?

THOSE ARE OUR CHOICES?

Does anyone have anything positive to say about any of them? Does anyone here honestly feel confident voting for anyone in that group?

This is like a really bad draft year, and the possibilities for third party candidates is not much better, not that they'd have a chance in hell anyway.

Damn. And I though Bush / Kerry was a shitty choice.

If by "viable" you mean "a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election", I'm with you there.

You don't actually believe a 3rd party would be allowed by either ruling party to get within sniffing distance, do you?

Agreed. Paul wouldn't win as a third-party, but would definitely put up a decent showing.

With the complete assclowns the Two Evil Entity system is putting out there, the Paulistanians are going to vore for him regardless.


Then again, the Doctor shot himself in the foot by claiming he was 99% sure he wouldn't run as an independent, although I suppose running under the Libertarian ticket wouldn't be "independent."


Sure, people having been laughing at Paul's campaign, but with the Dyke/Nog combo on one side, and the mentally addled/religeous zealots on the other, the Good Doctor all of a sudden doesn't sound so bad, eh?


A vote for Ron Paul is the ONLY vote against communism.

You are all welcome in Canada.

Martyred wrote:You are all welcome in Canada.

You're welcome to all of the above nitwits. And Vermont.

Ron Paul has already done the third party thing with the Losertarians (1988). He wouldn't/wont acomplish shit this time either. Plus he's a fucking nutjob.

Romney is the only candidate with the character, experience and temperment to make a good CinC. Hitlery's evil, McRINO's insane, and Osama's a twinkie.

Deal with it, losers.

How many Auschwitz victims did Romney "baptize"?

Gotcha, bitch.

A mormon in the white house? Riight. That will happen.

And all the other non mormons running for office will be polite enough to avoid bringing up THAT topic in order to avoid scaring off middle America from voting for a guy from a fake religion that sends lost soul white shirted black pantsed pimply faced talking heads door to door to recruit members.

Mormonism. The OTHER white religion.

methinks yer fergettin there's a rather large bloc of christian conservative republicans who, given the choice, would choose the lesser of what they see as two evils: an empty headed uptight conchrister moron like Bush over a reasonably intelligent neochrister mormon like Romney.

Get real.

Diogenes wrote:Romney is the only candidate with the character, experience and temperment to make a good CinC. Hitlery's evil, McRINO's insane, and Osama's a twinkie.

Deal with it, losers.

Romney won't win. Deal with it.

Mister Bushice wrote:A mormon in the white house? Riight. That will happen.

I'm sure a fundie athiest like you knows all about how people of faith think.

Not really.

Romney is polling ahead of McRINO amoung both evangelicals and conservatives. The only reason he's currently in second is the Huckster siphoning off votes. The fact is most people of faith would prefer someone who is pro-family, sincere in his faith, and in favor of traditional values over someone who stands for nothing.

Now if he3 was a Mohammadean, it might be different.

Diogenes wrote:Of course, if you're saying that a large percentage of Dems are too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, you may have a point.

They won't get that chance. Mr. "Straight Talk Express" is about to stomp a mudhole in Willard's backside.

Diogenes wrote:Of course, if you're saying that a large percentage of Dems are too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, you may have a point.

I don’t know. Last time around we voted in a Moron.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Of course, if you're saying that a large percentage of Dems are too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, you may have a point.

I don’t know. Last time around we voted in a Moron.

You certainly tried. The last two times, actually.

BSmack wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Of course, if you're saying that a large percentage of Dems are too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, you may have a point.

Mr. "Straight Talk Express" ...

Speaking of which...

GOP to Edwards: How Much For That Concession Speech?
by Ann Coulter

The Democrats are trying to give away an election they should win in a walk by nominating someone with real problems -- like, for example, a first-term senator with a 100 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and whose middle name is "Hussein."

But we won't let them.

The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats.

Recently, McCain responded to Mitt Romney's statement that he understood the economy based on his many years in the private sector by claiming Romney had said a military career is not a "real job."

McCain's neurotic boast that he is the only Republican who supported the surge is beginning to sound as insane as Bill Clinton's claim to being the "first black president" -- although less insulting to blacks. As with the Clintons, you find yourself looking up such tedious facts as this, which ran a week after Bush announced the surge:

"On the morning of Bush's address, Romney endorsed a troop surge." -- The National Journal, Jan. 13, 2007

And yet for the 4 billionth time, at the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, McCain bragged about his own raw courage in supporting the surge despite (apocryphal) Republican attacks, saying: "I said at the time that Gen. Petraeus and his strategy must be employed, and I was criticized by Republicans at that time. And that was a low point, but I stuck to it. I didn't change."

A review of contemporaneous news stories about the surge clearly demonstrates that the only Republicans who were so much as "skeptical" of the surge consisted of a few oddball liberal Republicans such as Sens. Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Olympia Snowe.

They certainly weren't attacking McCain, their standard-bearer in liberal Republicanism. But even if they were, it was a "low point" for McCain being "criticized" by the likes of Olympia Snowe?

In point of fact, McCain didn't even stand up to the milquetoasts. In April 2007, when Democrats in the Senate passed a bill funding the troops but also requiring a rapid withdrawal, "moderate" Republicans Smith and Chuck Hagel voted with the Democrats. McCain and Lindsey Graham skipped the vote.

But like the Democrats, McCain thinks if he simply says something over and over again, he can make people believe it's true. Thus again at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, McCain was proclaiming that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge.

Since he would deny it about two minutes later, here is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk said about the surge: "I supported that; I argued for it. I'm the only one on this stage that did. And I condemneded the Rumsfeld strategy before that."

The next question went to Giuliani and -- amid great flattery -- Giuliani noted that he also supported Bush's surge "the night of the president's speech."

Mr. Straight Talk contradicted Giuliani, saying: "Not at the time."

Again, Giuliani said: "The night of the president's speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I've supported it throughout."

To which McCain finally said he didn't mean that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge. So by "the only one on this stage," McCain really meant, "one of several people on this stage." OK, great. Now tell us your definition of the word "is," Senator.

I know Republicans have been trained not to go prostrate at Ivy League degrees, but do we have to admire stupidity?

Mr. Straight Talk also announced at that same debate: "One of the reasons why I won in New Hampshire is because I went there and told them the truth." That and the fact that Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.

Even in the Florida primary, allegedly limited to Republicans, McCain lost among Republicans. (Seventeen percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida called themselves "Independents.")

That helps, but why would any Republican vote for McCain?

At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.

You need little flags like that for Republicans since, as we know from the recent unpleasantness in Florida, Republicans are unalterably stupid.

Republicans who vote for McCain are trying to be cute, like the Democrats were four years ago by voting for the "pragmatic" candidate, Vietnam vet John Kerry. This will turn out to be precisely as clever a gambit as nominating Kerry was, the brilliance of which was revealed on Election Day 2004.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24752" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ann Coulter is doing fact checking?

Since when?

BSmack wrote:Ann Coulter is doing fact checking?

Since when?

Since always.

Diaphanous wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Diaphanous wrote:Of course, if you're saying that a large percentage of Dems are too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, you may have a point.

I don’t know. Last time around we voted in a Moron.

You certainly tried. The last two times, actually.

And we (the US) succeeded, you pathetic chucklehead.

Diogenes wrote:

BSmack wrote:Ann Coulter is doing fact checking?

Since when?

Since always.

Like when she called Gordon Smith a "liberal republican"?

Laughing over here.

Gordon Smith is a Bush lock-stepper if ever there was one. He also has an election to win, and the only time he hasn't lock-stepped with the White House is when his constituents threaten to string him from a tree. And his constituents were about 90% anti-surge, and very vocal about it.


Laughing at Coulter, again.

Diogenes wrote:

BSmack wrote:Ann Coulter is doing fact checking?

Since when?

Since always.

Try looking in the mirror someday and taking accountability for what a stupid fuck you are.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

BSmack wrote:Ann Coulter is doing fact checking?

Since when?

Since always.

Try looking in the mirror someday and taking accountability for what a stupid fuck you are.

That hurts. Especially coming from you...



Okay, maybe not.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Romney won't win. Deal with it.

Those southern fundies aren't going to vote for a Mormon any more than they're going to vote for a Coon.

And with Hitlary & Juan McCain both being so repugnant that they're unelectable.., there is the remote possibility that we could get lucky and end up with NO President.

Keep your fingers crosxed.

Cuda wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Romney won't win. Deal with it.

Those southern fundies aren't going to vote for a Mormon any more than they're going to vote for a Coon.

Actually Fredheads and Guilani voters both had Mitt as their second choice in exit pools. As well well as Huckster fans.

And then there's this...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... M2MWI3NGQ=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mvscal wrote:If he is a lock step Bushbot, that would make him a liberal Republican. Thanks for playing.

No, thank you for playing.

See, we're both right. I agree that Bush is right up there with the most liberal presidents to ever hold the office, without a doubt...


BUT... that's not the definition of "liberal" that tards like Coulter and Limbaugh spout to the soft-brained masses. Their use of "liberal" has two definitions --

A) Anyone who disagrees with Bush and the neocons about anything, and

B) Anyone who disagrees with them about anything

So, yes, anyone who locksteps with Bush whenever their constituents let them get away with it (and Smith knows he's reached the end of that rope, and is getting pounded on his homefront over it) is the textbook "liberal," however I was referring to the neocons' definition of "liberal," which they sling around like a generic insult rather than a political ideology.

Dinsdale wrote:Like when she called Gordon Smith a "liberal republican"?

The correct term would be a "flip flopper".

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ ... trists.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's smack dab in the middle of the fence. I wonder if that tears the magic underwear?

BSmack wrote:The correct term would be a "flip flopper".

Bingo.

Smith is a died-in-the-wool extreme righty.

Fish killer and forest trasher of the highest order.

But he also is trying to get reelected, in a state that leans left on a lot of issues. The guy gets just shredded by the media and everyone else in his home state, then he sucks up to Ron Wyden and makes some moves to appeal to the lefties.

He was radically pro-Iraq War, untill the largest cities in his state all passed city-resolutions denouncing the war -- then, he couldn't run and sing Kumbaya to the senate fast enough.


He really is that slimey. And has no problem flip flopping, which he's frequently called out for at home.

But as far as the traditional definitions, he's a big fan of free rides for large corporations, even if it means the Average Joe starves to death.

His popularity has taken a major nosedive, mostly due to talking out of both sides of his mouth... constantly. I have a hunch he won't be winning his seat back this fall, but with the douches that throw their hat into the ring in this state, you never know.

The winner this fall will be the private citizen that exercises their 2nd Amendment right and purchases a firearm.

Against all tyranny, folks.

Dinsdale wrote:
Fish killer and forest trasher of the highest order...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Cuda wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:
Fish killer and forest trasher of the highest order...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is. A horrible thing, actually.

Hostory has now shown us that the short-term gains of bad management aren't worth the long range value of sustainability.

If there was any doubt, Ronald Raygun showed the U&Lers in rather dramatic fashion. Still trying to recover from the Raygun years, and that's been quite some time ago.

But don't you claim to be a fish killer, Dins?

Salmonids, as I recall.

Me bonking the occasional nooker, many of which are reared in fish hatcheries funded by my tax dollars, has nothing to do with wholesale shitty land use/fishery management policies.

But Gordon Smith will kill every last fish out there (he has quite a track record, both personally and politically) if it means the timber industry that bought and paid for him can make a few extra bucks this week.


He's so indebted to one particular industry, he's blind to his constituents.

Dinsdale wrote: he's blind to his constituents.

The Salmonids? They don't even know what century they're in.

Cuda wrote:

The Salmonids?

I thought that was a constellation.

:?