I'll ask the question again. Who would rather have had in the White House on 9/10 Bush or Mc Cain?

Bush.  I don't trust McCain.

JOE, the Blue's for you, pal.

Allow me to correct myself, Bush wasn’t “foisted” on anyone.

Did I say he was "foisted" on anyone? No I did not.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

nor did I say foisted (although...). [/quote]

“Although…”

It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance.

Of course not, you're too busy trying to spin the conversation with your miscitations and your insistance on making partisan commentary derailing the conversation (because I'm polite enough to respond) repeatedly. Surely you see the difference.

You figure it’s my actions (mischaracterizing them as you have) that have cause the resistance to your theory that Newt is a “neo-lib” and can attract disaffected Democrats and N.E. Republicans?

Edwards doesn’t have an organization?

As compared to Hillary's? No, not much of one. As compared to Barak Obama's? Not much of one.

How about you quantify that? "Not much of one" isn't any more persuasive than your assertion that Newt's policies are "neo-lib". Dollars raised, staff size, etc..

Notice rubes wasn’t in quotes.

No, but you parenthetical comment made the same point, didn't it?

Notice rubes wasn't in quotes. It was my word for the kind of person you described in the passage about primary voters buying a "moron". I stand by the word.

If you say so.

Yeah, it must be just me.

Well, I didn’t want to be the one to mention it, but it sure seems that way.

It would be helpful if you could actually detail some positions that Newt’s taken that are “neo-lib” or cite some source of political thought that gives some credence to this theory. Every single bit of quantifiable evinced contradicts you.

How gracious of you to cede me the benefit of the doubt on an issue that is axiomatic in nature.

Just trying to be civil. You ignored the polls I gave you with the link that showed Obama and Hillary losing just about (if not every) face to face match up with GOP types. You ignored my numerous requests for details about Newt’s positions you felt might attract Democrats, and you ignored my questions about how this Senior Fellow at AEI and writer of the Contract For America had changed in his political philosophy. So, it seemed “if you say so” was the only polite response. IOW, we can agree to disagree.

I'll ask the question again. Who would rather have had in the White House on 9/10 Bush or Mc Cain?

Not that that question has anything to do with Newt as a neo-lib, the 2008 race (the point of this thread) or the issues involved in why GOP primary voters had reason to doubt McCain; on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. McCain would have worked out well, too.

"You figure it’s my actions (mischaracterizing them as you have) that have cause the resistance to your theory that Newt is a “neo-lib” and can attract disaffected Democrats and N.E. Republicans"

No no no no no! Can't you maintain the thread of a conversation?

"The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal." Me<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

"It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance. Surely you see the difference." You.

The discussion is about the process, about what it takes to become the nominee.

"How about you quantify that?"

Why? Is there a doubt? There isn't a doubt in anyone's mind (that knows anything about how politics gets done) that Hillary has a massive political lead over all the late comers. Why? How about this? She was so far aghead in her Senate race that she was able to travel the country and help other candidates raise money for their campaigns, these are now people and local organizations that now owe Hillary a favor in return. Kind of like when Newt became Speaker of the House because he had helped so many of the Freshman Class get elected.

"I stand by the word.[rubes]"

You can stand where ever you want, I don't care. I don't stand next to you.

 "

If you say so.

Yeah, it must be just me.

Well, I didn’t want to be the one to mention it, but it sure seems that way.

It would be helpful if you could actually detail some positions that Newt’s taken that are “neo-lib”Blah blah blah

What does Newt's Neo Lib position have to do with what we were talking about when you said "If you say so"? Nothing! We were talking about this: 

"You cannot ask for a more clearcut case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season." Me

"If you say so."You

Here's more of your miscitation misdirection:

"How gracious of you to cede me the benefit of the doubt on an issue that is axiomatic in nature." Me 

"Just trying to be civil. You ignored the polls I gave you with the link that showed Obama and Hillary losing just about (if not every) face to face match up with GOP types. You ignored my numerous requests for details ... blah blah blah" You

The point you ceded was the point that Bush had the endorsement of the power elite in the Republican party and had massive money tied up in his first campaign. It was in all of the papers! It's axiomatic (meaning it is an established, universally agreed upon truth, which does not need further explication)!

"Not that that question has anything to do with Newt as a neo-lib, the 2008 race (the point of this thread) "

It has everything to do with showing that it is organzation that pushes politicians through, not talent or zeal or even popularity. And THAT, my esteemed adversary, is what this thread is all about.

That you can't or won't grasp the concept is a handicap that apparently is beyond my powers to help you with.

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

(snicker snicker snort snort)

"You figure it’s my actions (mischaracterizing them as you have) that have cause the resistance to your theory that Newt is a “neo-lib” and can attract disaffected Democrats and N.E. Republicans"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No no no no no! Can't you maintain the thread of a conversation?

Read the thread title, “2008 elections”.  My questions to you  in that vein have centered on your assertion that he’s some sort of neo-lib.

"The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal." Me

That’s been your point, within a thread about the 2008 election, it hasn’t been well-received.

"It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance. Surely you see the difference."

The discussion is about the process, about what it takes to become the nominee.

Again, reread the thread title. You claim the “process” is about organization.  I'm of the opinion that the process centers on ideas and appeal to the voters on that front. I even explain how that was played out in the 2000 primary.

"How about you quantify that?"

Why? Is there a doubt?

Yes, to  “not much of an organization”, there’s much doubt. The lastest polls have him in the lead and his organization looks as substantial as Obama’s and Clinton’s. Please quantify it.

"I stand by the word.[rubes]"

You can stand where ever you want, I don't care. I don't stand next to you.

Cute.

What does Newt's Neo Lib position have to do with what we were talking about when you said "If you say so"? Nothing! We were talking about this: 

-----------

The point you ceded was the point that Bush had the endorsement of the power elite in the Republican party and had massive money tied up in his first campaign. It was in all of the papers! It's axiomatic (meaning it is an established, universally agreed upon truth, which does not need further explication)!

I think you misunderstood my “if you say so”. Here it is again;

[quote=mikebutler222]

case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season.

If you say so. I already detailed the issues McCain faced with conservatives, and surely you realize they make up the vast majority of the GOP primary voting base. You never do seem to get specific on issues, it's almost like a pattern with you. Rest assured, most primary voters are issues voters.

I’m still interested in specifics about Newt’s “neo-liberal” polices you say he espouses.

In the mean time, it’s always the same sort of  experience chatting with you, regardless of the subject  [/quote]

I think it’s pretty clear in the first paragraph I’m saying I disagree you (Bush had the "party elite", but McCain could have overcome that with primary voters), I’ve laid out how Bush won, and it wasn’t money talking, it was doubts about McCain.

In the second paragraph I’ve moved back to your assertion about Newt, and how I’m interested in hearing you flesh it out.

"Not that that question has anything to do with Newt as a neo-lib, the 2008 race (the point of this thread) "

It has everything to do with showing that it is organzation that pushes politicians through, not talent or zeal or even popularity. And THAT, my esteemed adversary, is what this thread is all about.

Again, I laid out my opinion, as a participant, why McCain lost. If you see it differently, fine. See: “if you say so”. It wasn't "organization", it was questions about McCain. Again, I was IN the process, I watched it close up, I saw how McCain lost me and many others.

This thread is about the 2008 election, as the title says. You’ve made an assertion that organization is paramount, and I’ve disagreed with you and attempted to return to a broad look at the race, period.

You continue to claim I’ve tried to make this about political spin (as in “my guy, and why he should win”, but I haven’t.

In fact, I haven’t made up my mind among the candidates, other than knowing there isn’t a Democrat in the race I could vote for. 

My efforts have centered on getting you to explain this Newt phenomena, how his stripes have changed and how he has new appeal. In those exchanges about Newt I’ve tried to explain how he couldn’t possibly win the GOP, from an insider’s perspective. It isn’t as if I disagree with the man about much, so I’m not casting him off based on who I might vote for policy-wise or out of a lack of objectivity on my part.

That you can't or won't grasp the concept is a handicap that apparently is beyond my powers to help you with.

You seem to find it incomprehensible that someone could understand your assertion AND disagree with it.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

snicker snicker snort snort)

[/quote]

You asked, I answered, I gave specific reasons, BL agreed with me. Go figure.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

snicker snicker snort snort)

[/quote]

You asked, I answered, I gave specific reasons, BL agreed with me. Go figure.

[/quote]

And I agreed. What's the problem?

You're free to believe any idiotic thing you want to believe. So am I.

I will say this is different from other conversations you and I have had. In past conversations I let you slide on this misstatement and then on that one and then by the time I knew it we were so far from reality that trying to get back would have taken too much time.

In this discussion, I'm calling you on your little twists of the facts as they occur, I'm avoiding some of your tangential deadends that you'd like us to go down. I've gotten past the point where I care if you're being opaque or obdurate, intentionally or by defect of nature or nurture. OTOH, I'm also past giving you the benefit of great wisdom, doesn't really matter if you're smart or not I'm not answering the man, I'm answering the question.

The subject of the forum is indeed election 2008. But we're using the lessons of primary seasons past to try to explain to the skeptical what is happening in this primary season.

Amazingly! We have to demonstrate the power of the party elite to the satisfaction of those skeptics. here are some contemporaneous notes from 1999. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/06/14/bush.html  Granted, they are from the Evil CNN, but they do remind the Goldfishian members of the skeptic class that George had it sewed up, it was all over but the trashing of good Americans like John McCain.

That Mc Cain followers became Bush devotees is not surprising or unique in any degree. In politics, it's about the bandwagon! it's about 'Us' v. 'Them'.

The whole "Issues McCain faced with the Conservatives" line is simple denial. The rank and file can and are convinced to back any POS that gets the party nod.  "He's a POS, but he's OUR POS!" You can't ask for better proof of this than the MORON that your party convinced you was the best man for the job.

Come on now! http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

He hasn't had disapproval ratings less bad than 47% since before 9/05! the latest FOX has him at 61 to 33 disapprove to approve. Yet your STILL insisting that he was the best choice in the entire Conservative nation in 1999? Come now! There's a difference between being skeptical and being boneheaded.

Contrapositively, they can be convinced to vilify any one that gets the thumbs down. Clinton was actually a pretty good friend to the conservatives (and not just because he helped them raise money he was fairly socially conservative and very fiscally conservative). Likewise, Nixon was actually quite liberal, but the liberals convinced the hoi poloi of his demonosity. 

You were sold a package of goods. And how did that come to happen? Bush Inc. had the organization! Mc Cain did not. The Bush team had the money, the Mc Cain team had less. Perhaps Mc Cain deserved to lose, too.

The first Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey involving Thompson shows the former Senator from Tennessee essentially tied with the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton. It’s Thompson 44% Clinton 43%. (More Below)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Preside ntial%20Match-Ups/March%202007/Thompsonvs.ObamaClinton200703 23.htm

According to the telephone poll, which was conducted Friday through Sunday, 38 percent of voters who identify themselves as Republicans or independents leaning Republican, said they are most likely to support Mr. Giuliani, and 18 percent selected Mr. McCain.

But 17 percent said they had no opinion, and two-thirds of those who did choose a candidate said they could change their mind.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/new-cnn-poll/

Disclaimer: I think polls are pretty stupid in the first place because they are so subject to statistical manipulation.

But.... what I discern from the last poll is the 17% of the Republicans polled are waiting for a candidate they want, and 2/3 of the 56% who did commit to either Guilliani or McCain are ready to jump ship as soon as someone puts his hat in the ring.  I believe that the Allen supporters will definitely switch should he get in the race.

In addition Fred Thomposn is out polling Hillary, even with the Clinton machine behind her.

Furthermore, Newt doesn't have a chance no matter what kind of fancy labels you want to assign him.  Go ahead and use your "towering intellect" to analyze it all you want.  Newt is DOA.  The second place winner for most polarizing and disliked is Hillary.

If former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is on the 2008 ballot for President, 50% of that nation’s Likely Voters way they will definitely vote against him. That’s the highest total for any Presidential candidate. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats would definitely vote against Gingrich along with 51% of unaffiliated voters and 23% of Republicans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies /March%202007/Foragainstother20070319.htm

Furthermore, Newt doesn't have a chance no matter what kind of fancy labels you want to assign him.  Go ahead and use your "towering intellect" to analyze it all you want.  Newt is DOA.  The second place winner for most polarizing and disliked is Hillary.

If former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is on the 2008 ballot for President, 50% of that nation’s Likely Voters way they will definitely vote against him. That’s the highest total for any Presidential candidate. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats would definitely vote against Gingrich along with 51% of unaffiliated voters and 23% of Republicans.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

snicker snicker snort snort)

[/quote]

You asked, I answered, I gave specific reasons, BL agreed with me. Go figure.

[/quote]

And I agreed. What's the problem?

There isn't one...and I never suggested one.

IIn past conversations I let you slide on this misstatement and then on that one ....

This from the guy who claimed I had said that neo-con "didn't exist", and a string of other things,  when I'd said nothing of the sort.

OTOH, I'm also past giving you the benefit of great wisdom,

I really couldn't give a fat rat's foot about what you grant.

The subject of the forum is indeed election 2008.

As I've reminded you...

But we're using the lessons of primary seasons past to try to explain to the skeptical what is happening in this primary season.

“We’re”? You can do that if you like, I pointed out where I disagree with you about the 2000 season.

 I'll also ask you to detail claims like you've made about Newt the neo-lib.

Amazingly! We have to demonstrate the power of the party elite to the satisfaction of those skeptics. here are some contemporaneous notes from 1999.

Here we go again. You provide an opinion piece from Time Mag, via CNN, that includes this sort of agenda language;"It is hard to watch the Bush anointment and not be shocked by the sheer, almost undemocratic nerve of it, and the risk that this could all blow up and leave the party with a choice among broken and, other than Steve Forbes, penniless understudies. ".

What escaped your attention, however,  is the fact the article was written in June 1999, before McCain won the New Hampshire vote in Feb of 2000. Some much for an annoitment…

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/06/14/bush.html Granted, they are from the Evil CNN, but they do remind the Goldfishian members of the skeptic class that George had it sewed up, it was all over but the trashing of good Americans like John McCain.

See above, New Hampshire, McCain won, the "party elite" whom you're certain have more power than the actual voters in the primaries, lost. Certainly having the party institution behind you is an advantage. OTOH, it isn’t enough to drive the voters, they have the final word.

That Mc Cain followers became Bush devotees is not surprising or unique in any degree. In politics, it's about the bandwagon! it's about 'Us' v. 'Them'.

Uh, the problem with your theory is that it should have worked the other way, with Bush supporters leaving him to join McCain after New Hampshire.

Now, when all's said and done, and the primaries are over, you can be assured that the party (either party) closes ranks and supports the selectee over the other party.

The whole "Issues McCain faced with the Conservatives" line is simple denial. The rank and file can and are convinced to back any POS that gets the party nod. "He's a POS, but he's OUR POS!" You can't ask for better proof of this than the MORON that your party convinced you was the best man for the job.

Obviously you're unable to separate your point of view from an attempt at an objective review. You're certain Bush is a moron, you're certain that this was obvious in 2000, and by that logic none of the faults of McCain, like his support for "Campaign Finance Reform" (a weight still hanging around his neck in conservative circles) and his part in the theater of "get big tobacco" matter. 

Now, since McCain is running again, and conservitives are asking the very same "is he one of us" questions, you may want to reconsider.

The problem with that, obviously, is that these things did matter to the GOP primary voting base. I was there, it mattered to me, and it mattered to the people I worked with.

Yet your STILL insisting that he was the best choice in the entire Conservative nation in 1999?

Again, you're inventing quotes and a point of view for me. I didn't have the choice of "the entire Conservative nation", I had the choice between Bush and a suspect McCain that crossed the line one too many times with his Bush=Clinton ad.

You don't have to agree with me, just don't twist what I've said and don't accuse me of lying.

Clinton was actually a pretty good friend to the conservatives....

"Pretty good friend"? I'll agree Clinton wasn't a raging liberal as he's often caricatured (nor is Bush a moron, but that's for another thread), however, the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) who talked about gays in the military, universal healthcare and his first act in office was a massive tax hike..later he blamed the OKC bombing on talk radio.

There were plenty of reasons for conservatives to overlook his vote (over the objections of his party) for welfare reform and see him as a hyper-partisan from the other side.

Likewise, Nixon was actually quite liberal, but the liberals convinced the hoi poloi of his demonosity…

Nixon was no doctrinaire conservative (see wage and price controls), but he's spinning in his grave as we hear your "quite liberal" line. Vietnam?

You were sold a package of goods. And how did that come to happen? Bush Inc. had the organization! Mc Cain did not. The Bush team had the money, the Mc Cain team had less.

You're free to believe whatever overarching theory you like that says big hands behind the screen control everything and the individual (aside from you, of course) moves like a robot at their control. I don't share your view.

Now, I’m much more interested in your theory about Newt the neo-lib. Can you flesh that out?

[quote=babbling looney]

If former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is on the 2008 ballot for President, 50% of that nation’s Likely Voters way they will definitely vote against him. That’s the highest total for any Presidential candidate. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats would definitely vote against Gingrich along with 51% of unaffiliated voters and 23% of Republicans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies /March%202007/Foragainstother20070319.htm

[/quote]

Whomit will find a way to push Newt around that, and he won't understand the significance of "would definitely vote against".

Newt's DOA, put what I find more interesting, and what Whomit doesn't seem to want to talk about, is just what policies make Newt a "neo-lib".

BTW, here's another line from that Time piece written in June 1999 that, I think, undermines the entire "annoitment" thing...

"If he does well, it's his. If he doesn't, he could fall so fast. You could have him on the cover in June--and never hear from him again," says Steve Merksamer, a top California strategist who is working for Forbes.

How could he fall if the party elite are all powerful?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]What would be nice though is if the L&O syndicators would release the earliest shows with Michael Moriority as the ADA, just because we haven't seen those eps in a very long time.[/quote]

We get 'em on Netflix.  At some point TV (sans commercials) began to be more appealing than film on the whole.

"Again, you're inventing quotes and a point of view for me. I didn't have the choice of "the entire Conservative nation", I had the choice between Bush and..."

And WHY didn't you have any other choice? You're "the people", why couldn't you stand up and say "HEY! This guy's a fricken ne'er do well MORON! Give us somebody who's good!"?

And once you resigned yourself to Bush being the one didn't you convince yourself that he was good enough (to say the least)?

 You can't have it both ways Mikebutler222. You can't say that it is not the party that chooses the candidate and say that you only had a choice between this one and that one. There were others who wanted to run in 1999, heck, everybody figured the White House was their's to lose in 1999. The country was so sick of the Clinton administration and the Republicans had run so strong in races up until then. PLEASE, your party screwed you by putting up the clearest class A jackass since Caligula made his horse a Senator of Rome! And why did they do that? Because they knew that he was dumb enough to think that he had come up with these ideas on his own!

"This from the guy who claimed I had said that neo-con "didn't exist", and a string of other things,"

To a guy who has repeatedly misquoted and misdirected and twisted and spun.

"I pointed out where I disagree with you about the 2000 season."

Again, if we're going to have to limit ourselves to what mikebutler222 knows we're going to be in for a mighty tiny world.

"What escaped your attention, however,  is the fact the article was written in June 1999, before McCain won the New Hampshire vote in Feb of 2000. "

When I said it contemporaneous that meant that it was from the time of. So, yeah, I knew it was from 1999, and perhaps you noticed that Bush didn't bother campaing in either Iowa or New Hampshire so it was no major magilla that he lost NH. They know Bush in New England! Daddy Bush was at a state fair in Maine just a few years before and he was practically alone in the tent there. The Bushes are not particularly popular in New England. Here's 1992 http://www.historycentral.com/elections/1992state.html

1996

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/1996state.html

2000

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/2000state.html

You'll notice that George H Bush lost all of everything north of West Virginia. George W took New Hampshire by only 6ish thousand votes and he LOST Maine. It was better that Bush didn't run in New Hampshire, if he tried and lost he'd be a loser, since he didn't run and he didn't win it was no harm no foul.

It's how you play the game called politics my brother!

The reason for the citation was to remind the skeptics of the overpowering lead that Bush had as a result of his organization. It was to remind the skeptic WHY we say that it's axiomatic that Bush had the backing of the party elite. To argue against that fact set is naive in the extreme.

" See above, New Hampshire, McCain won, the "party elite" whom you're certain have more power than the actual voters in the primaries, lost. Certainly having the party institution behind you is an advantage. OTOH, it isn’t enough to drive the voters, they have the final word."

What was the final word? The final word was what the party elite wanted it to be from the start. How is it that you can think there is no "cause" to that "effect"?

"Uh, the problem with your theory is that it should have worked the other way, with Bush supporters leaving him to join McCain after New Hampshire."

Yeah because Republican rank and files never do what the monied tell them to do! Regardless of whether it's in their own best interests.

"Now, when all's said and done, and the primaries are over, you can be assured that the party (either party) closes ranks and supports the selectee over the other party."

Figured that out by yourself, didja?

"(nor is Bush a moron, but that's for another thread), "

Yes, he IS! You can have that thread all to yourself. If you aren't convinced by now there is NO reason to discuss that issue.

"the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) "

HAW HAW HAW HAW! You still think that you can hunt with that dog? The conservatives lost that "moral high ground" when they nominated a draft dodging, duty shirking booze hound cocaine snorting MORON. And vilified a man who volunteered (for all the wrong reasons) and served his country in Viet Nam! AND they nominated a man who took FIVE deferments to keep from serving in the military for VEEP! The very same MAN who was the architect of the dismantling of the military because we were never going to have to fight a ground war ever again.

It just goes to show again that you will believe whatever your leaders tell you to. You work for Merrill Lynch, don't you?

"later he blamed the OKC bombing on talk radio. "

He was right! When G Gordon tells his listeners "When the AFT comes, don't aim for the body, aim for the head, they wear vests!" and "I teach my kids to shoot rifles by having them shoot at targets with Bill and Hillary's pictures on them." There's blood on those hands!

"Vietnam?"

Viet Nam was "Nixon's war" now? Sweet! LBJ JFK and Ike all thank you for finally settling that hot "potatoe"!

"I don't share your view."

Claro que si!

[quote=babbling looney]In addition Fred Thomposn is out polling Hillary, even with the Clinton machine behind her.[/quote]

Not a chance

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]"the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) "

HAW HAW HAW HAW! You still think that you can hunt with that dog? The conservatives lost that "moral high ground" when they nominated a draft dodging, duty shirking booze hound cocaine snorting MORON. And vilified a man who volunteered (for all the wrong reasons) and served his country in Viet Nam! AND they nominated a man who took FIVE deferments to keep from serving in the military for VEEP! The very same MAN who was the architect of the dismantling of the military because we were never going to have to fight a ground war ever again.[/quote]

That's very good.  I didn't want to vote for Kerry, but when Rove's worker demons tried to make the man with (2?) purple hearts look like a whiny faker, while we all knew George was in the guard snorting lines........  Somewhere, there's a special, very uncomfortable place for Karl Rove.

Wow!  What started out was a topic about potential presidential candidates ended up between a cross between a pssing contest and a chess game…conclusion:  it’s a tie!..but as yoda says, he who drinketh more liquids will outpss the other and he who makes last move and isn’t caught cheating --winner, he is.  It’s a tie; but both a winner in their own mind. <>

"Again, you're inventing quotes and a point of view for me. I didn't have the choice of "the entire Conservative nation", I had the choice between Bush and..."

And WHY didn't you have any other choice? You're "the people", why couldn't you stand up and say "HEY! This guy's a fricken ne'er do well MORON! Give us somebody who's good!"?

First believe it or not, not everyone shares your view that he's a moron. Many of us feel that label says more about the person saying it than it does about Bush. Seceondly, people run voluntarily, the party doesn't drag them against their will to run. Third, there WERE other choices. And finally, your attempt to change the subject from the fact that you invented a pov and a quote for me is just another example of your usual pattern.

And once you resigned yourself to Bush being the one didn't you convince yourself that he was good enough (to say the least)?

You continue to miss the point that I didn't resign myself, I chose him over the others in the field. I never asked you to agree with me, I simply gave you the facts behind my decision.

Notice how quickly you drop the objective routine to get to calling Bush a moron and saying people who chose him were duped.

You can't have it both ways Mikebutler222. You can't say that it is not the party that chooses the candidate and say that you only had a choice between this one and that one.

You've created a false choice. Just because the party doesn't chose the winner doesn't mean the individual voter, or even a block of them, can force people not in the contest to run.

There were others who wanted to run in 1999, heck, everybody figured the White House was their's to lose in 1999.

Name the people that wanted to run and didn't.

Also, do you have a link to a poll that says the Whitehouse was the GOP's to lose? When you asked me for a link to a poll that said Hillary and Obama trail most every GOPer in a head to head, I provided it and you dropped the subject.

PLEASE, your party screwed you by putting up the clearest class A jackass since Caligula ....

Very objective....

"This from the guy who claimed I had said that neo-con "didn't exist", and a string of other things,"

To a guy who has repeatedly misquoted and misdirected and twisted and spun.

Show me where that's so.

The best you have is "forced" which wasn't intended to be a quote to begin with, and for which I apologized. You’re repeatedly invented quotes and attributed points of view to me that I don’t hold.

"I pointed out where I disagree with you about the 2000 season."

Again, if we're going to have to limit ourselves to what mikebutler222 knows we're going to be in for a mighty tiny world.

What I "know"? We're talking opinion, and my opinion as a participant, something you weren't should surely count as much as your theorizing. “Know” assumes your opinion is somehow “fact”. You couldn’t possibly believe that, could you?

You know, on second thought, you're such a calls A horse's ass, you can continue this without me. I've had enough of your lunacy;

Newt could attract liberal voters....

AEI is a neo-con cross Thompson will have to bear but not one Sr. Fellow Newt has....

Edwards doesn’t have an organization…

And enough of you dodging the question of just what policies Newt supports that makes him a "neo-lib"..

Every time you’re asked to support these assertions you twist, shout, change the subject or just become even more of a horse’s @ss.

"What escaped your attention, however, is the fact the article was written in June 1999, before McCain won the New Hampshire vote in Feb of 2000. "

When I said it contemporaneous that meant that it was from the time of.

It was before the time of, and that doesn't change the fact that it was an opinion piece, and it was written before Bush lost N.H., thus ending the "anointment" fable.

So, yeah, I knew it was from 1999, and perhaps you noticed that Bush didn't bother campaing in either Iowa or New Hampshire so it was no major magilla that he lost NH.

I'm glad this is ending, because it's tiresome watching you just make up things where you're cornered.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/28/sunun u.cnn/index.html

Sununu said Bush is attempting to reach every New Hampshire voter. "This is the 'see me, touch me, feel me' campaigning at its best," he said.

BTW, Bush won the Iowa caucus in 2000. Sounds like he campaigned there enough.

" See above, New Hampshire, McCain won, the "party elite" whom you're certain have more power than the actual voters in the primaries, lost. Certainly having the party institution behind you is an advantage. OTOH, it isn’t enough to drive the voters, they have the final word."

What was the final word?

The final word was McCain blew it. He made the Bush = Clinton ad. He worked too hard to get the votes of non-Republicans at the open primaries. His burdens, the twins of supporting the Clinton administration’s opportunist attack on “big tobacco” and the 1st Amendment attack of “campaign finance reform” because too much baggage.

"Uh, the problem with your theory is that it should have worked the other way, with Bush supporters leaving him to join McCain after New Hampshire."

Yeah because Republican rank and files never do what the monied tell them to do! Regardless of whether it's in their own best interests.

Ahhhh, your objectivity shines through again...

"Now, when all's said and done, and the primaries are over, you can be assured that the party (either party) closes ranks and supports the selectee over the other party."

Figured that out by yourself, didja?

You really are a piece of work...

"(nor is Bush a moron, but that's for another thread), "

Yes, he IS! You can have that thread all to yourself. If you aren't convinced by now there is NO reason to discuss that issue.

I see, I have to be convinced. It isn't as if you start with an agenda or anything....

"the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) "

HAW HAW HAW HAW! You still think that you can hunt with that dog?

Well, facts have a way of winning out, and I've accurately described the view of Clinton that conservatives had/have.

The conservatives lost that "moral high ground" when….

More of your famous objectivity. Here's a line conservatives will never forget.... "I loath the military"....it was a rallying cry in 1992 and 1996.

And vilified a man who volunteered (for all the wrong reasons) and served his country in Viet Nam!

Just who vilified whom? Never mind, I won't be responding....

The very same MAN who was the architect of the dismantling of the military because we were never going to have to fight a ground war ever again.

You still dragging up that lie? The Berlin wall, the military downsized. They cut back. Clinton came into office and dismembered what was left.

It just goes to show again that you will believe whatever your leaders tell you to. You work for Merrill Lynch, don't you?

Let's see, we disagree about the 2000 primary, I was there, you weren't. We disagree about the downsizing of the military, I was there, you weren't. Yeah, that's it, I simply believe what I've been told by my "leaders".

Is it lonely being the only person on the planet that thinks for themselves?

"later he blamed the OKC bombing on talk radio. "

He was right!

Yeah, Liddy told people to bomb the OKC government building. That's the ticket...

"Vietnam?"

Viet Nam was "Nixon's war" now? Sweet! LBJ JFK and Ike all thank you for finally settling that hot "potatoe"!

If you're going to call Nixon a liberal, you'll have to explain why he continued the war LBJ handed him. Surely a liberal would have ended it immediately

I guess that fact escaped you.

"I don't share your view."

Claro que si!

You are not only a loon, you're a genuinely unpleasant person. There’s just no reason to continue to make the effort this requires.

Sorry, Joe, probably no more colors from me...

[quote=Big Taco][That's very good.  I didn't want to vote for Kerry, but when Rove's worker demons tried to make the man with (2?) purple hearts look like a whiny faker, while we all knew George was in the guard snorting lines........  Somewhere, there's a special, very uncomfortable place for Karl Rove.[/quote]

You can pretend these guys were in Rove's employ, but that ignores the fact that they as a group, had a beef with John (Christmas in Chambodia) Kerry dating back to activities with the anti-war movement.

They felt he slurring US troops in Vietnam. John O'Neill, the guy that started the group, had been debating Kerry on the subject as far back as the 1970s. Hard to tie Rove into that.

[quote=Big Taco]

[quote=babbling looney]In addition Fred Thomposn is out polling Hillary, even with the Clinton machine behind her.[/quote]

Not a chance

[/quote]

What do you mean? Not a chance that the polls say that now, or not a chance that will be the case in 2008?