|
Post by joew on Jun 6, 2007 20:07:15 GMT -5
I guess this means Ron Paul has one or more cats. Good man!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 6, 2007 22:37:41 GMT -5
I haven't found the cat info yet, Joe, but I hope for your sake you're right. Apparently you like Ron Paul (I think I saw a clip of something pretty smart from him). There is always the possibility that he has something gross - a tarantula or python - or cold and remote like fish. But let's hope he has a cat or, as you say, several.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 7, 2007 9:45:27 GMT -5
Talking to myself here, I am determined to hold the fort till reinforcements arrive. Are most of the Chatterers in quarantine???
I took this info from a blog, and sadly, she didn't include Ron Paul. But here's what we know of the rest of the story:
Among the field of fourteen dogs, six cats, 14 fish, two turtles named Cuff and Link, three birds and a ferret, John McCain leads the pack (literally) with 22 pets.
DEMOCRATS - Delaware Senator Joe Biden: 1 cat.
- New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "Seamus, our Lab."
- Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd: None, because of family's allergies. Would like a dog.
- Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards: Golden retriever and chocolate Lab.
- Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich: Pound-rescues Harry the beagle-basset, Lucie the beagle and George the cocker spaniel.
- New Mexico Governor. Bill Richardson: Cats Jake and Squeaky.
REPUBLICANS - Kansas Senator Sam Brownback: Two dogs, two cats and a fish.
- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani: None.
- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: Jet the 9-year-old black Lab, Sonic the 1 1/2-year-old Shih Tzu. (Here the blogger interjected a protest, saying she would never vote for anyone who has a Shih Tzu.) -
California Representative Duncan Hunter: Two black Labs, Boo and Hunter.
- Arizona Sen. John McCain: Sam the English springer spaniel, Coco the mutt, turtles Cuff and Link, Oreo the black and white cat, a ferret, three parakeets and 13 saltwater fish.
- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney: Family recently lost Marley, a Weimaraner.
- Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: No longer has a pet.
I excuse Dodd, as allergies really can be unbearable. But Giuliani is manifestly unfit for office. Tancredo never was, deserves no comment. Oh, and Brownback's one fish looks suspicious to me. No one gets one fish. Did he kill the rest? Did he get only one in order not to be faced with the moral dilemma of runaway procreation?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 7, 2007 15:04:11 GMT -5
Well the one fish does nothing for me, but with two dogs and two cats, Brownback sounds pretty good to me. I always kind of liked Biden; now I know why. And Richardson can't be all bad either. But McCain seems over the top. I wonder if he has "issues" of some sort which lie behind this menagerie.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 7, 2007 15:06:19 GMT -5
And apparently the MSLM aresuppressing awareness of Ron Paul.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jun 7, 2007 21:02:18 GMT -5
Dems: None, quite naturally.
Repubs: Giuliani is looking better than a few months ago when he seemed to support Bush at every turn. Of particular note is the fact that he's dead set against the immigration reform set forth by the Senate. BTW, the Senate met with a dead end this evening after exhaustive debate. Giuliani does not want felons (including child molesters) able to gain tentative citizenship, simply by virtue of the fact that said felons have been in the U.S. for a year or more. He must have heard that this legislation, if passed and signed by Bush, will allow a convicted child molester citizenship if, in fact, the criminal report in the hands of the INS doesn't state the age of the victim. Debates subsequently conducted closed this loophole and won't allow for this provision regarding new illegal alien child molesters after the bill is signed. Whew.
Romney: Unsure.
Fred Thompson: A fresh face. Many good conservative ideas. Can he beat Hillary? No one knows. I'm unfamiliar with any polls in this regard.
Quite certainly, we need someone who can win out over this fellow from Illinois and, of course, Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 7, 2007 21:23:42 GMT -5
Somebody who can beat Obama or Clinton is a pretty tall order.
Would Romney be an appealing fresh face, or would he seem a bit plastic?
Thompson might seem a bit old and tired next to the youthful appearance of O or C.
I'm still not sure I want to trust Giuliani wth the Supreme Court.
Can Brownback build enough support to win the nomination? If so, he might be able to ride that momentum into the White House.
Ron Paul says a lot that I like, but realistically, he is the Alan Keyes of 2008.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 8, 2007 13:07:58 GMT -5
Now there's a name to pull out of the mists of time. Good old Alan Keyes.
I simply do not understand the appeal of Giuliani. He wasn't a particularly great mayor. He comported himself well in a dreadful time, but it was the heroism of the police and firefighters that spoke well for New York. What really qualifies him to be president?
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jun 8, 2007 15:38:28 GMT -5
I've read bits and pieces about him in the New Yorker and the New York Times, and the citizens of that city don't seem to have much good to report. I heard Al Gore on NPR the other day and didn't even know it was him until the end of the interview. He was so much more personable and likeable! I must admit that I voted for him and liked him a lot but found him very difficult to listen to. Maybe he'll come back! Re-elect Gore in 2008!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 8, 2007 15:41:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 8, 2007 17:32:08 GMT -5
FAIR is a valuable resource, perhaps only of interest to wonky types. Joe, see the reference to Ron Paul.Media Advisory Romney's Iraq Gaffe Ignored GOP contender's bizarre pre-war history
6/8/07
At the Republican candidates' debate on June 5, White House contender Mitt Romney remarkably claimed that weapons inspectors were barred from entering Iraq before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. But Romney's error was little noted by the mainstream media.
Asked if he thought it was "a mistake for us to invade Iraq," Romney declared the question a "null set," and explained:
"If you're saying let's turn back the clock, and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in. But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in."
Romney's suggestion that weapons inspectors were not permitted into Iraq before the war started is, of course, incorrect. Weapons inspectors from UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors spent months in Iraq, issuing reports on Iraqi compliance that were a crucial part of the debate over whether to invade Iraq.
In previous debates, media have demonstrated a keen interest in maligning candidates they considered unworthy. For example, GOP candidate Ron Paul's comments about Al Qaeda's motivations in attacking the United States were seen as proof that he was not to be taken seriously?despite the fact that his comments were basically accurate (FAIR Media Advisory, 5/31/07). In the Democratic contest, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Sen. Mike Gravel were widely criticized for providing "a counterpoint of left-wing ideas that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness" (David Broder, Washington Post, 4/27/07; FAIR Media Advisory, 5/8/07).
Romney's false statement, though, was barely mentioned in the press. During a post-debate discussion on CNN (6/5/07), Democratic strategist Paul Begala called it a "huge mistake.... like saying the Mexicans bombed Pearl Harbor." But Begala's co-panelists, Republican strategist Mike Murphy and conservative pundit Amy Holmes, challenged Begala's facts. The bizarre discussion closed with host Anderson Cooper saying, "We're not going to get this resolved tonight."
(Unfortunately, Begala accepted another piece of historical revisionism; when Murphy asserted that Iraq threw out inspectors in 1998, Begala agreed with him. The idea that Saddam Hussein expelled those inspectors is a long-running media myth; in fact, the inspectors were withdrawn under pressure in advance of a U.S bombing campaign. See Extra! Update, 10/02.)
Beyond Begala's CNN comments, media have shown little interest in correcting Romney's error. As Media Matters noted (6/6/07), the Washington Post had a "Gaffe of the Night" feature, but that honor went to candidate Mike Huckabee for getting Ronald Reagan's birthday wrong. The New York Times' Paul Krugman (6/8/07) cited the Washington Post's ignoring Romney's clear lack of understanding of the events that led us into the Iraq War in favor of the birthday goof as evidence that "the bad media habits that helped install the worst president ever in the White House haven't changed a bit."
A caller to NPR's Talk of the Nation (6/6/07) brought up Romney's "embarrassing gaffe" and asked NPR political editor Ken Rudin, "I'm just wondering, is he going to pay a price for this? Is anybody going to call him out?" Rudin's response was typical of the elite press?he referred to Romney's disappointing showing in the polls, noted that he's "getting more and more support," before finally declaring, "I'm wondering if it does hurt him down the line because, again, he looks very good, he gives a strong confident presence, but, again, on some basic facts, he may not have all the stuff with him."
Romney's error was serious?as Begala said on CNN, "If this were a general election debate, [it] would be a disqualifier." But if the press were to admit that rewriting of recent history was cause for alarm, they might have to acknowledge that George W. Bush has done the same thing. On July 14, 2003, Bush declared of Saddam Hussein, "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." The comment received little media attention, with the Washington Post (7/15/03) saying only that his assertion "appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring." If the current occupant of the White House is given such a pass, perhaps it's no surprise that the same treatment is given to Republican candidates looking to succeed him.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jun 8, 2007 18:08:39 GMT -5
I've admitted that I am a poor student of history, and I would certainly be hard-pressed to recall the dates and sequence of what weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq, pulled back, and forced out.
Is such detailed knowledge, on stage and under the gun, a legitimate expectation of dozens of candidates, many with no experience in foreign affairs, 17 months before the election and more than 20 months before one would take office? It might be more characteristic of professional actors who have learned their lines well. I haven't watched the debates, and I wouldn't necessarily consider such a "misspeak" a fatal flaw. I wish they would all go away until next spring.
I was offended to learn that Senator Clinton did not bother to read the 90 page national intelligence report on Iraq before she voted in favor of the war. Were I in her place, I'd have studied it carefully before putting our armed forces' lives at stake.
I'd look favorably upon cat owning candidates, and wonder how they all do in caring for their houseplants and gardens.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 8, 2007 23:59:50 GMT -5
What Romney actually said was, "If you're saying let's turn back the clock, and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, …" according to the article quoted above. I call your attention to the phrase "opened up his country to IAEA inspectors." That is what Romney said Saddam did not do. And he is right. Even when he let them into the country, he never opened up the country to them. There were always restrictions on where they could go and when they could. So they never had a free hand in deciding what they would inspect and when. Therefore, there was always the possibility that things were being moved around in a countrywide shell game. Under those circumstances it was never possible for the inspectors to find "that there were no weapons of mass destruction, " nor would it ever have been. The systematic hindering of the inspections may have been part of Saddam's badly miscalculated attempt to protect himself by making the world fear he had WMD. Intended or not, it had the effect of lending a high degree of apparent probability to the idea that he had WMD.
Romney was right.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jun 9, 2007 8:52:39 GMT -5
Maybe there was no "misspeak" if one has the time to read a transcript and consider the nuances. The format of the debates - 90 minutes for 8 or 10 candidates to respond to numerous questions - allows for little more than sound bites, not much detail.
I suppose this is how we winnow the field, by sound bites and dollars raised.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 9, 2007 11:11:54 GMT -5
'Fraid so.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 1, 2007 14:52:16 GMT -5
I saw Carl Bernstein's bio of Hillary today in a bookstore. Has anyone read it?
Just reading the end-flaps a surprising thing happened to me: my mind opened to the possibility of voting for her.
I want to read this book.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 2, 2007 9:30:07 GMT -5
I'm feeling that way, too, BL, though I haven't yet seen his book. It would be instructive to analyze all our impressions of Hillary, because they were all formed pretty much by the media.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 2, 2007 10:39:23 GMT -5
My impressions of Hilary are from meeting her (in a one-hour meeting she held with our board when I worked for a different organization), and from several friends of mine who have worked with her. These impressions have been reinforced by media reports.
My impression is that she is very intelligent, very arrogant, and very certain that she knows all the answers while others do not. She can initially appear sincere and engaging, which one then notices she turns on and off at will, suggesting it's a mechanical conditioned response, rather than an honest feeling. When she left the room, I felt that I'd been sucked in by the "charm," but there wasn't anything left there when she departed.
Her bungled attempt to reform healthcare, through "Clinton Care" in 1993-1994, was a travesty and a tragedy. A travesty due to all the secret meetings of her select 500 Ivory tower and Beltway experts (to me, reminiscent of VP Cheney's secret meetings with his energy experts/cronies), with physicians and nurses largely excluded because they represented "special interests." The fact that those people are the frontlines who know about providing healthcare was lost on her. A tragedy because healthcare was broken then and is more so now; an opportunity for just reform before catastrophic meltdown was lost due to her arrogance and clumsiness, which provided the opportunity for clever true specialist interests (big business pharmaceuticals and insurers) to squash the effort with propaganda.
I admit to bias because I interact daily with those who suffer from that failure to create meaningful healthcare reform when it could have been a manageable endeavor. I tried for 12 years to work for federal/national level change, but now I am re-focusing my efforts at the state level where there is hope still.
Given that, I doubt there is anything that could convince me to vote for her. She remains the same prideful individual whose focus is all on her. The people of New York State seem to like her and feel she represents them well, which is what a good senator should do. Let her stay there.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 2, 2007 14:41:01 GMT -5
Her bungled attempt to reform healthcare, through "Clinton Care" in 1993-1994, was a travesty and a tragedy. A travesty due to all the secret meetings of her select 500 Ivory tower and Beltway experts (to me, reminiscent of VP Cheney's secret meetings with his energy experts/cronies), with physicians and nurses largely excluded because they represented "special interests." The fact that those people are the frontlines who know about providing healthcare was lost on her. A tragedy because healthcare was broken then and is more so now; an opportunity for just reform before catastrophic meltdown was lost due to her arrogance and clumsiness, which provided the opportunity for clever true specialist interests (big business pharmaceuticals and insurers) to squash the effort with propaganda.
This is an interesting take, DrK. I saw it as an instantaneous resentment of the 1st lady taking on IMPORTANT WORK, rather than starting a nice charitable endeavor as all the other wife-ies had done. I agree the big pharma/insurance powers set out to sabotage the effort, but from the very beginning, not after she screwed things up. I'm curious now and will go back to do some reading.
What struck me was both Clintons' naiveté. His clash with the military on gays made me wonder how he could not have been more savvy, and their expectation of "2 for 1" being readily accepted seemed as if they had no political sense - which shouldn't have been true. Maybe they operated with no opposition in Arkansas.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 3, 2007 10:37:33 GMT -5
gk, I suppose there were many who opposed the first lady doing important work, or were offended by the "2 for 1" (me too), but presidents appoint unqualified cronies all the time. Hilary's arrogance prevented her from recognizing her lack of qualifications, creating a colossal failure for which we still pay dearly. Ignorance too, for both of them to assume than one individual could "reform" one-seventh of our economy with impunity, no repercussions.
Ignorance too on Bill's part for not understanding the role of "commander in chief" re the way he addressed gays in the military.
Sometimes very intelligent people can be naive or stupid. She remains politically tone deaf, while Bill is more astute in that regard, being one of the most gifted politicians in history.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Jul 5, 2007 15:09:55 GMT -5
Elementary Question: Her bungled attempt to reform healthcare, through "Clinton Care" in 1993-1994, was a travesty and a tragedy. A travesty due to all the secret meetings of her select 500 Ivory tower and Beltway experts (to me, reminiscent of VP Cheney's secret meetings with his energy experts/cronies), with physicians and nurses largely excluded because they represented "special interests." The fact that those people are the frontlines who know about providing healthcare was lost on her. Reforming healthcare while excluding the frontline? So the REAL reason she wanted to "reform" healthcare was _________________.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 11, 2007 23:24:04 GMT -5
For Joe and any other Ron Paul fans, he will be interviewed tomorrow evening on the Lehrer news report.They've been covering the candidates one by one, doing a fairly in-depth piece. Mike Gravel was terrific - and very grateful to be given time on a serious program. I expect Paul will have a chance to pitch more of his ideas than most venues have offered him.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 7, 2007 13:23:14 GMT -5
This just in —
Sam Brownback has endorsed John McCain. So at this point, McCain's my preferred candidate.
BTW, despite my agreement with Ron Paul on a number of issues, he was never my first choice. I don't think there is any Republican candidate whom I would not vote for over any of the Democrats, if the election were being held today (although Biden vs. Thompson could be interesting).
Speaking of Biden there were a couple of interesting pieces about him in today's Boston Globe. One was a news article giving examples of Biden's practice of giving in-depth answers. One was on international trade. Biden said that a reason we have trouble selling products abroad is that porr infrastucture in our ports and highways drive the cost of exporting goods up and makes them less competitive on world markets. On continued imports from China even after the hazardous materials were found, he said, "They hold the mortgage on our house." He claimed that the tax cuts forced the government to borrow lots of money, and a lot of it came from China. If they were to back off, we'd be in big trouble, so we can't upset them too much and we need their economy to be viable. The other was an op-ed column in which some responses of Biden to Giuliani were given. Basically Biden said that on Iran and North Korea, Giuliani didn't know the basic facts of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 7, 2007 17:36:22 GMT -5
I think Biden makes valid points. He strikes me as very knowledgeable about foreign affairs and economics.I remember when I was in business school, mid-80's, the economics professor expressing horror that our balance of trade was negative $15 million (or is it billions, I'd have to check). That is our imports from abroad totalled $15 M more than our exports. Now the numbers are ten times that.
Even worse, not only are our exports tiny relative to imports, but in addition, a huge portion of our national debt is in the form of IOU's to the Chinese government, as well as a number of other not-so-friendlies. We are in no position to order them around or take punitive trade actions. The national debt now amounts to about $45,000 per person (again, I'm just thinking I recall the number correctly; I'm not an economist).
So joew, does your post indicate Brownback has folded his campaign for president?
I still like Ron Paul quite a bit, though I'm nowhere near deciding who would get my vote a year from now. I think at this point we need real change, and Paul offers that (as does Kucinich at the other end of the spectrum).
Ironic in a comment on international economics to note that the Republican Party of "smaller government" and "fiscal responsibility" has massively increased the national debt under the current administration. With the concurrence of the Republican and Democratic Congress of course.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 7, 2007 20:23:16 GMT -5
Here's the text of the letter from Brownback which was e-mailed by the McCain campaign. //This morning, I flew to Iowa to join and endorse my friend, John McCain, for President of the United States. John McCain is a true American hero and I'm proud to stand with him today. He is the only candidate who can rally the Reagan coalition of conservatives, Independents, and conservative Democrats needed to defeat Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat in the general election next year. While I respect all of the Republicans running for president this year, John McCain is the only choice to lead our country in the global fight against Islamic fundamentalism. He has the experience, the knowledge, and the courage for this fight. He alone among the candidates for President recognized years ago that our strategy in Iraq was failing and had the guts to call for change. We need that leadership in the White House. John McCain also represents the values that are the core of our Republican party. He has spent a lifetime standing up for human rights around the world, including a consistent 24 year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn. We do not have to abandon our principles of life, faith and family to defeat the Democrats next fall; we can stand with John McCain. With momentum growing, we need to rally around John McCain today. Please take the time to contribute to his campaign. With less than 60 days before voting begins, it is important that John have the resources to get his message out in the early primary states. I am standing strong with John and ask that you join me. Sincerely, Senator Sam Brownback// I can't imagine him saying all that unless he had dropped out of the race. Modified to add — Just checked Google (Brownback President) and found the following link with his withdrawal announncement: www.brownbacker.com
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 7, 2007 22:34:58 GMT -5
So many candidates, it's hard to keep up with them all. I wonder why Brownback didn't choose to endorse Mike Huckabee.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 8, 2007 0:04:18 GMT -5
Yes, he's definitely out, and his support will probably help McCain. Robertson is a whole 'nother thing. I doubt he'll persuade any conservatives to move toward Giuliani, and he may scare off moderates who were leaning Giuliani's way.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 8, 2007 1:22:30 GMT -5
So many candidates, it's hard to keep up with them all. I wonder why Brownback didn't choose to endorse Mike Huckabee. The Brownback blog has some pointed criticism of Huckabee on immigration and taxation.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 8, 2007 1:23:31 GMT -5
Yes, he's definitely out, and his support will probably help McCain. Robertson is a whole 'nother thing. I doubt he'll persuade any conservatives to move toward Giuliani, and he may scare off moderates who were leaning Giuliani's way. Could be. You don't suppose that is what he was hoping for? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 29, 2007 11:18:30 GMT -5
Well, I watched most of the debate last night (came in on it late). It strengthened my support for McCain. I think he was right on immigration, right on Iraq, and right on torture. I don't recall anyrhing where I thought he was wrong, although it was not a good idea to answer the "hearts and minds" question about the Arab and Muslim world with nothing but winning in Iraq. I also admired his willingness to stand up for what he believes in even if some people don't like it. Romney was too cautious in general, and I'm sorry he has decided to demagogue the immigration issue. Huckabee was better than I expected, but I think his tax plan is not a good one. Giuliani had gumption to stand up for some degree of gun control. The others don't have a chance, and it's just as well. I could cheerfully support any of the four I named, if he becomes the nominee. Dream ticket, as of now: McCain-Huckabee or McCain-Romney.
|
|