There are so many reasons to love Fred. (Sigh)

I hope a lot of people come to feel like you do.

I think we're have reason to believe that Thompson could finish ahead of Huckabee in New Hampshire, but unfortunately, they will both finish behind McCain and Romney, I'm afraid.

I will vote for Fred in the Georgia primary, but I'm really hoping that Huckabee does something to make the evangelicals mad before Feb. 5th.

(or some skeleton in his closet is exposed. I'm not saying there is one, but I find him insincere and wouldn't be surprised to find some hypocrisy in his past. I mean, to some degree, we've all got them, but not everyone runs hyping Jesus. I want anything that might come out to come out while Fred can still pick up votes in the South.)

So, I have one week to decide what to do about this primary situation in Michigan. These are my options, as I see them:

1) Vote in the Democratic Primary for "uncommitted" since neither of my preferred candidates are on the ballot.

2) Vote in the Republican Primary for the candidate I could most tolerate as President.

3) Vote in the Republican Primary for the candidate that I think can't beat any of the Democrats to just skew it for them.

4) Don't vote at all.

I wouldn't really do 3 or 4, but the ideas cross my mind. So, it's 1 or 2. One week to decide... hmmm.

Is it right that Hillary is the only candidate on the Michigan ballot for the Democratic primary? I feel sorry for y'all!:p But at least you get to decide which primary to vote in... in SC, you must be a registered Republican or Democrat and then you are only allowed to vote in your party's primary. Sux.

It's true. I detailed why earlier in the thread. Bottom line, we don't have a say this year.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d4_1199722032&p=1

But then there are these guys...

Well, the democrats aren't counting the Michigan primary at all.

3 seems like it would be really hard to pull off effectively. I mean, you could obviously vote for one of the bottom vote getters in the earlier primaries, but then there's little danger that candidate would end up in the general anyway.

In the same situation, I'd probably go with option 4 but option 2 is probably the better choice as far as being a good citizen. You'd be using the political power you actually have to try to ensure better government.

Some of Paul's most vocal supporters (I don't mean you, SWTXBelle!) hurt his cause so much that I wonder if they could possibly really support him. Surely you couldn't be that committed to campaigning and also that clueless about the effect you were going to have on other voters.

(How could we regard the Paul signs going by the windows in the back of the stupid audience forum on Fox as anything other than ridiculous?)

I suppose one of the downsides to being a party about unfettered personal liberty is that you can't then spend your campaign micromanaging your supporters, alas.

Drole, I just have a yard sign and a bumper sticker. Have yet to feel the need to chase anyone - but I reserve the right to change my mind!:rolleyes:

And I think there is some frustration about him not being taken seriously by the mainstream media - not that that should be an excuse for stupid behavior.

DISCLAIMER: I was born and raised in Arkansas, and moved out of state in 2004.
I'm sure something will come out. Do you ever wonder how/why, with American politics being quite corrupt, underhanded, and scheming...why does Huckabee say that he was "called by God" to get into politics? Seems like a juxtaposition in there somewhere...

I like this quote from his website:
Under Huckabee’s direction, Arkansas has been recognized as having created one of the nation’s best school accountability programs. Huckabee pushed through reforms in Arkansas that have significantly increased the number of charter schools and established new approaches to workforce education.

So, lets talk about this for a second. Yep, there are more charter schools in Arkansas, but it's not obvious about how they've changed AR education overall. They aren't that big from what I understand. I do know that in AR school districts, if a child fails the requirements to pass a grade, the parents can override that and allow the child to be promoted. My sister, who is an elementary school teacher, had a child who could not even SPELL OR WRITE his name, and he was promoted to the next grade because his parents didn't want him to be stigmatized by being held back. I have other personal examples of parents who don't want their child to be in special education, so they are placed in regular classes. Someone who reads on a 3rd grade reading level got an A in high school journalism. How in the hell does that happen? Well, it's easier just to pass students along...less hassle from parents, less paperwork. Huckabee worked on a state law (this may be a federal law though, I'm not positive) that states that teacher salaries are directly related to their students' performance on standardized tests. We all know how unmotivated students can be to perform on those tests. So, a teacher's salary is somewhat out of her control. Not to mention how a teacher can get a classroom full of students who didn't learn anything in the second grade, so is there any hope for them to perform well on the third grade standardized test (for example)? And students aren't randomly assigned to the teachers...if you have pissed off the school principal, you get all of the "known bad kids" in your class, which puts you at a disadvantage. Teachers will teach the students answers to test questions, encourage the low performers to not come to school on test days, or will change test answers.

I don't know how any of that increases school accountability.

As Huckabee was leaving the Governor's office, he used the last bit of money in the "Governors Emergency Fund" (whatever that is) to destroy all of the computer hard drives and electronic storage that he and his staff members used. No good reason from him, other than "It is within the rights of the Governor to do so." Makes you wonder what was really on those hard drives.
He says on his website: "My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives. What part of his faith directed him to do that? (story about the drives here: http://www.computerworlduk.com/techn...fm?newsid=1356
An ethics committee determined that he did nothing wrong or against the law, but you have to wonder what was up with that little decision he made.

So yeah, based on a few little things, I'll bet someone will find something. The media seems so in love with Huckabee leading into the primaries, but honestly he's not that impressive to me. He's just not "all that" in my mind.

(and yes, anyone who paid attention in Little Rock when Clinton was governor knew that he had all sorts of little trysts. Monica Lewinsky wasn't surprising, but his stupidity about it was.)

PsychTau

I have mixed feelings about the computer drive thing. On one hand, it seems creepy and like he's hiding something; on the other, even though I don't feel like I have anything to hide really, I'd want to wipe anything off a computer that I had used before it went to another user. And if I served in a leadership capacity and everything my subordinates did could also reflect on me, I'd want to clear theirs even more since I'd have no idea what they had posted on GC, er, I mean used them for.

About the educational reform, there's a big difference between governors doing it and the federal government doing it. And as much as everyone is angry about NCLB, I think it's been good for a lot of students in terms of getting greater numbers to a basic level of proficiency, particular in the sub groups that used to get less attention. It just wasn't something that a conservative should have used the federal government to do.

fox just announced that mccain has won the n.h. primary

have any of you tried the candidate calculator? they were talking about it on tv so i googled "candidate calculator" and several sites came up. i could not open the first listing, so went to the 2nd one listed-it did not work properly-it got all my answers wrong when i compared my answers to the candidate it was telling me i most nearly matched in philosophy. if you use any of these, be sure to closely check the answers they are listing as your own.

Does it seem to anyone else that TV channels calling the race with about 15% of the vote counted should have gone out with the 2000 presidential election?

Seriously, why not continue to post the updates and have the talking heads but not call it until it's all actually counted?

(If anything calling the race encourages people to watch something else.)

I'm happy about McCain and Romney results so far, but even though I knew he hadn't campaigned in the state, I was still dreaming that Thompson would statistically show up. Oh, well. If someone will get on that Huckabee scandal for me, I look forward to South Carolina.

I kind of think it's fun that in three states (Iowa, Wyoming, and NH) we're getting three different winners. Wouldn't it be great to take it to four with Fred winning SC? (yeah, I know it's pretty delusional, but it's a happy thought for me.)

I understand their frustration to some extent. But the idea that it's some vast conspiracy (something I've seen suggested repeatedly)... not so much. I don't see crazy as much as annoying, online particularly. Some of RP's ideas, now those are a bit out there.

You sure I didn't see you in that video? :p

HA! It'd be great to get out of the house, but alas no.

Wow! Now it's McCain and Clinton winning in N.H. Interesting!!!

Interesting about the charter schools. In Washington, we've voted down charter schools a couple of times now...Huckabee's bragging about that would actually bring him harm here, not kudos.

Does anyone else think Mitt Romney seems like a tool? IMO, he comes off looking like a jerk in every interview or debate.

Well, the trees shook and look at the leafs that fell out here!:D

Amazing how some are invited to debates and who are not?:(

A female customer was unhappy as she stated, "how is going to look when and if we get a President whose name is Barak Heussain Obaman a early on Musilum?"

Hillary wept and swept by a slim margerine in N H!

Mitt, the money candidate is a tool, a screw driver and what do you do with that tool, screw! People maybe.;)

New ball game now folks!:D

Boy do I dislike Mitt! Then, I work with the surrogates for McCain's campaign, spent a week and a half in NH for him and about to head down to SC... sure hope he gets the GOP nomination. I can hardly imagine any of the other GOPers get it. Not so much that I can't imagine them getting it, but I'd rather not have to...

Aw, this bums me out: Richardson drops out of race

I hope whoever does secure the nomination is smart enough to make him their VP candidate...

I agree, I liked him as well:(

I think he'd be an excellent Secretary of State.

Agree 100%!

Quoting just because I found this one especially funny. The last bit reminds me of a Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy quote.

And yes, he is a tool. He's widely regarded as being a jerk. And he has a way of saying things in very un-presidential ways. Example from late last week, after Obama won in Iowa: "Did you listen to Barack Obama? He is a new face, but gosh when you listen to what comes out of his mouth. It's like, 'We're going to just get our troops out of Iraq." The "did you listen to what comes out of his mouth?" and the tone of it just came off as very patronizing to me.

And just a couple of months ago, he confused Obama with Osama Bin Laden, saying that Barack Obama had called on jihadists to fight in his latest video. An excerpt from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...a-osama-gaffe/:

"But he paused to talk about the threat of radical Islam, taking John Edwards, one of his Democratic opponents, to task for comments he made several months ago that criticized the “global war on terror” as a bumper sticker for President Bush.

“I think that is a position which is not consistent with the fact,” Mr. Romney said. “Actually, just look at what Osam — uh — Barack Obama, said just yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. That is the central place, he said. Come join us under one banner.”

The comment set off some confusion among the press corps. Glen Johnson of the Associated Press was momentarily frantically searching for comments made by Mr. Obama, another Democratic presidential contender, about jihadism and Iraq.

It turns out, of course, Mr. Romney was talking about the new audiotape from bin Laden calling on insurgents in Iraq to unite.

Oops."

I really hope Hilary Clinton and John McCain get their respective party nominations. For me, it would finally be an election in which I could be content with either candidate...usually it's picking the lesser of two evils.

He looks like Nathan Petrelli. Once I saw that, I can't unsee it.

/Flying man!

And what to do IF Mayor Mike joins in the fun:confused:
Or even better, Hilary, Rudy, and Mike:eek:

I'm bummed too - Kerry just endorsed Obama - I heard a rumor he was waiting to see how Richardson did before endorsing anyone. I'm tempted to be an ass and caucus for Kucinich now but I'll probably end up going Edwards.

Also, the more Earp types, the more okay I am with Ron Paul wanting to abolish the federal Department of Education. It obviously has been failing for a long time. ;)

While this is pretty funny on its own, it's actually pretty true.

Ron Paul has said a lot of stuff that seems way off the reservation, but eliminating the Dept of Ed probably isn't one of them.

Are all GC posters Democrats now or what?

2006-2008 really is a depressing time for Republicans!

I liked Mitt Romney but his constant attacks on McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee are wearing thin (as much as I don't trust Huckabee). I guess I'll become a McCainiac and hope he can stop Senator Barack Rodham Obama-Clinton.

"Mac is Back!" lol

I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican, however no one in the GOP field is impressing me.

McCain used to be the guy you knew would stick to his guns but in the past year or so he went from being the "maverick" to being Bush's buddy. From criticizing the religious right, to essentially begging for their support. I can't back that.

Romney, eh. I don't like the negative campaign either, and I feel like I really don't know what he believes/stands for/ etc. He gets criticized for "flip-flopping" a term I despise, but I think that his message has been so focused on tearing others down that little of the "here's why you should vote for me" comes through. (Also that you can't have freedom w/o religion thing is off-putting)

Huckabee should NOT be president. This is not a man who will keep church and state separate. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. This is a man who doesn't know the difference between the two. Also, I'm not sure a "fair tax" is ever going to be possible, but if it is it doesn't need to be this guy who brings it about.

And Giuliani's a long shot. He's "waiting" til Florida and then hoping that everyone else votes for him on Super Tuesday. Good luck with that. In some ways he would be the most tolerable GOP, in others he'd be the least.

I don't know who I'll vote for on election day itself though, depends on my options.

Have you looked at Fred?

I've heard very little about Fred Thompson. I would love to hear why you like him so much!

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/Pri...iew=Principles

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

I think he recognizes that he has a much better chance of picking up Republican delegates in South Carolina than in Michigan (which I think is sort of seen as a McCain vs. Romney state as far as Rs are concerned), so I don't think he's been campaigning up there at all.

The links above will take you to the issues section of his website if you REALLY want to know what he thinks. They're pretty thorough.

I like him because he seems to recognize that everything we'd like in life is not the responsibility of the Federal government but that there are key issues like immigration* and national defense where we really need to be paying attention.

I don't think that Fred thinks these are the only issues important in our lives, but that reducing the scale and cost of the Federal gov't in other areas will allow state and local governments (and individuals) to retain more power and resources to take care of other needs more effectively. Basically and constitutionally, a lot of other things that might be swell aren't the job of the Federal government.

(I'm not anti-immigrant but concerned about uncontrolled illegal immigration.)

Honestly, AGDee, I think you and I are pretty far apart politically just based on discussions on GC, and I'm not sure much of what Fred is about will appeal to you.

I think you are optimistic about the government being able provide additional services to people who need them, but I'm more cynical about what it can actually accomplish and more concerned about keeping most things as local as we can, so that the Federal government is there to protect our constitutionally granted Civil Rights and provide for a common defense but not much else.

ETA: There are, of course, other areas where I think that we need the federal gov't, but they are far fewer than most Presidential candidates are indicating they are interested in.

Fred hasn't convinced me he's actually running, much like Giuliani he's been kind of coasting along on name recognition.

That's certainly been the media take, but maybe they don't want to own up to not covering him more. He was all over Iowa and is presently all over South Carolina. He finished third in Iowa and second in Wyoming, which means he actually won some delegates, and at this point only has four fewer than McCain, who seems like he's actually in the race to most people. (Fred has six, Paul two, Rudy and Hunter one).

You can go to the section of Fred's website and see his photos of events of where he has been. He's definitely out there meeting, greeting and selling his ideas.

He participates in the debates as much as the moderators let him.

He is really out there campaigning, but he's had to be more conservative about how he spends his money, I think, because he didn't have as much of it.

Now, I know that he is on record talking about not really liking campaigning, but he made clear in the very same answer that distaste for campaigning is not the same as not really wanting to serve in the job.

The way we expect it on the national level, campaigning is superficial, often insincere, and includes somewhat hypocritical platitudes from most of them. I don't blame someone for not being into that.

But I acknowledge that for a long time, I've been automatically skeptical about anyone willing to run, and so Fred's seeming reluctance to fully engage in BS is actually a bonus for me.

What is driving me crazy is the number of people I know who are approaching primary voting like they are betting on a race horse rather than trying to nominate the candidate who really reflects what they want. I hear a lot of, "Oh yeah, I really like what Fred stands for but I think Huckabee is more likely to win." Uh, maybe not if every conservative who actually preferred Fred voted for him but certainly if they don't.

It's like people learned nothing from the Democrats nominating Kerry. If you kind of abandoned some principles to nominate an insubstantial centrist candidate, don't be surprised when you lose votes in the general election to the more appealing candidate from the other party who is selling himself as a centrist.

Thanks UGAalum. We are pretty different on most issues, but I like to hear people discuss their ideas even when they are different than mine, when they can do so in an intelligent way without lambasting, personal attacks, etc. :) I think that you are able to do that. I think it is good to have our belief systems challenged.

My ex-husband and I had this discussion at my daughter's birthday dinner last night. He and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum. He thinks I'm a total bleeding heart but I think I'm more moderate than people give me credit for. I tend to more bleeding heart on social issues but not as much on economic. I also don't believe in just giving handouts to everybody all the time and ascribe to the "teach a man to fish" philosophy, not the "give a man a fish". Conversely, I think health care is a right (which someone on this board argued in the past). My beliefs are kind of all over the map. But, I think that social spending needs to be done efficiently not haphazardly. An example: Providing inexpensive day care for single moms so that they can work at lower income jobs without leaving their kids home alone before they are old enough (yes) vs. Provide single moms with enough money to raise the kids without ever working or learning new skills (no).

Believe it or not, in my very first presidential election, I voted for Reagan. I voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000. I'm not opposed to all Republicans all the time. I also recognize that people have differences in their belief systems because of their personal life experiences. Like, my ex-husband has been an accountant for major corporations and is an extremist Christian whereas I have worked in health care and have a strong faith but not necessarily a firm belief in anyone denomination. These experiences shape our ideas and opinions. The only way to understand why others believe what they do is to listen to them, and I am always open to that.