Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Markie Markum — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:21:18 GMT

Guiliani is a jerk and those that live or lived in NY can tell you the "truth" about him. He lied and cheated on his wife, disgraced his family, especially his children and his partner was in bed with the mob and he did not know that. This shows his decision making abilities, which are at best, luke warm. He is not fit to be president

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:30:52 GMT

Good soundbite from Romney. However I don't see how he can present himself as a candidate of change. I remember reading a while back that the administration urged its fundraisers toward Romney. And conservatism isn't exactly a philosophy of change.

Is Huckabee gaining some traction? I thought there enough vulnerabilities with the top tier Republicans for a second tier guy to move up, but was thinking it would more likely be Hunter.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Yoda, New York, NY — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:52:08 GMT

The MSN has let Rudy get away with claiming the Fire Fighters are partisan Democrats. They ignore the fact that the NYC local endorsed Bush in 2004

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

EMJay, Murrieta, CA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:15:47 GMT

Romney's as the candidate of change is that he will bring a stop to the out of control spending in Washington--or at least bring conservatism back in that regard. He brings a management style that has proven successful to Washington that is based on results, that is a change as well. Just because the administration or Jeb Bush may favor Mitt does not mean he will be Bush 2. In fact the reasons most people do not like Bush are areas that Mitt excels in. He's competent, has significant management experience with results, he's well spoken, extremely organized and proficient and conveys a presedential image. I actually like the Repub candidates despite all the fault finding...I just think based on past experience and how he's running his campaign -- in Romney we'd be getting a more complete package.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:24:05 GMT

Hmmm Markie, sounds like the Female Democratic candidate for president's husband. I think Huckabee might make a good VP for either Rudy or Mitt.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:44:53 GMT

EmJay, that was a good response. I'll be watching for what Romney has to say on deficits and the debt. So far the one line I've heard hasn't been great (he won't allow any deficits bigger than we currently have), but then I'm not sure it was an accurate posting of his statement.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:58:42 GMT

A couple of random notes about the campaign to date (some of this can apply to both parties, by the way):

1--There is an obsession with banality at this juncture: Edwards' haircut, Giuliani's marital history, "flip-flopping," etc., with very little focus on substance (this is true not only of the candidates, but also the media). We cannot afford a "style-over-substance President at this point in our history, and yet that is what we're preoccupied with;

2--Business acumen doesn't transfer well to the political arena. The skills necessary to run a business aren't the same that are needed to run the U.S.;

3--Being a Governor of a State doesn't make for the best President either. Governors have to deal with different issues than a President does, and much of the trouble which we have with expansive government in the U.S. can be traced to trying to solve State problems on a national basis;

4--The preoccupation of all of the campaigns with raising money will rot any administration coming out of the current campaign. Many of the problems we see with the current Administration's policy-making (and this applies to those of prior Administrations as well) stem from the fact that it costs entirely too much to run for office today, and thus the candidates must either be extremely rich or beholden to their financiers. Either way, you don't get good government, and nobody seems to want to address this;

5--Anger with the current Administration policy/policies is not a substitute for good policy-making. Candidates (and commentators) need to learn how to propose constructive and workable alternatives to something they disapprove of rather than just condemning or ranting about it;

6--Insult, invective, excessive and obsessive partisanship and hyperbole are never good tools to use in political discourse. They tend to harden lines, raise the temper, and discourage any kind of constructive debate or resolutions;

7--While the interest in the campaign now is high (much of it brought on by media hype and the novelty of a woman and African-American candidate), it is still very early, and the events and ideas that will inevitably shape the campaign and the election are still very much unclear. It is dangerous (and perhaps critically so) to have so much riding on what happens now, some 17 months before the voting. It is equally dangerous to have the nominations decided (potentially, at least) so far in advance of the election;

8--Everyone, including the media, needs to get away from sound-bite campaigns and sloganeering. All of the candidates need to be questioned critically on the issues, and their positions on the issues. "Why" questions need to be asked as well as "what" and "how" questions (example: why should the country undertake ______, as well as; what would you do about_______, and how would you do it?). When a candidate dodges a question, or answers with a misdirected answer, or reverts to a sound bite or talking point, he or she needs to be called to account about it, and either PUSHED to answer, or at least have the non-answer noted;

9--Iraq (and the war) may be at the top of some people's minds (and their anger and frustration seems to know no rational boundaries on this), but there ARE other matters a President needs to be concerned with, and harping on a candidate's position (or lack of one), or on whether a position was "wrong" or not, or whether a candidate "apologizes" for taking a position (or having taken one) is fundamentally a waste of effort. We may not know for 25 or 50 years whether Iraq was a "right" decision or not (history can't seem to decide objectively what to make of the Kennedy Administration 40+ years after the fact), so as a country we need to get beyond the genesis of Iraq and have our candidates focus on these matters:
a--assuming you believe the war is a mistake, how do we extricate from it; b--how do we deal with the inevitable propwash which will flow from our extrication; c--how does our experience in Iraq color or affect your approach to the possibility of a similar problem erupting somewhere else, and how will you deal with it; d--if you think extricating us from Iraq is a wrong move, why, and how would you 'fix' the situation there. In other words: stop obsessing over what President Bush (or candidate X)has done "wrong", and concentrate on the candidate's plan for going forward (Iremember, much as some would like it to be so, President Bush is NOT on the ballot, and can't be. Neither is President Clinton).

If we as a country can refocus the campaign a little bit, maybe this marathon can bring something good for the country. If we can't refocus things, we're in for a long, angry, partisan and unedifying couple of years.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

CJ — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:01:39 GMT

I know some guys here have issues with Huckabee, but I think the he's turning out to be a rather interesting candidate. If McCain drops out completely he coud potentially be a good running mate for a Romney or Thompson..given they survive. I don't know about Rudy, I think he likes the spotlight too much, he'd rather have someone completely deferential to him.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

CJ — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:03:42 GMT

Richard Fifield, I hope you are right..with cable new's focus with style over substance it has really lead to an uninformed public. Cable news is slowly beginning to subplant the main networks so it is critical they mature and learn this lesson. IMO the tabloid mentality of one in particular(Faux) has greatly contributed to it the degredation(they have had to make numerous corrections in the past) and other networks need to resist the urge to do the same. MSNBC has seemed to make strides in those efforts as of late, even amoung their pundits.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

JIrby, Colorado — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:20:28 GMT

So far, Brownback has been to Iowa thirty times. Two more times will qualify him to run for dog catcher there, a job which would suit his talents more than running the country. The job of president is having Bush for lunch. It would have Brounback for a late night snack.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

HMT — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:51:06 GMT

Romney would be a good choice then we could see his 5 cowardly sons explain why they are not in some kind of public service.And ZI do not mean knocking on doors for 2 years for the Mormon religion.Romney claimed his 5 sons were performing the same as if they were in the military.Good grief----

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:00:45 GMT

Personally, I think Romney is just another slick, pre-packaged, good-looking candidate; something this country can't afford to continue to have. This style-over-substance campaign needs to change. I don't care if a candidate looks good, I just care that he believes in what he says and is man (or woman) enough to admit when they've made mistakes or missteps, instead of excusing them with BS and/or non-denial denials. We are all better people when we admit our mistakes and learn from them. We cheapen ourselves as thinking human beings when we stick to our beliefs and ideas even when we know they are flawed or past their time. We should expect as much from our leaders. Voting for Romney would be like eating Cocoa Puffs after your doctor has made you aware you need to lose weight and are in danger of becoming diabetic. Please, vote for someone with subtance, clarity of vision and the ability to alter that vision if need be for reasons other than getting elected.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:10:54 GMT

Richard F.-You had good points;however; in regards to Iraq should never have been invaded PERIOD. The U.S has reverted back to the old colonialist of England, France, Portugal,Spain and U.S i.e (Platt Amenmant)forced on Cuba to win its independance in 1898. We will never ACHIEVE democratic plurality in Iraq with or w/o purple fingers. Historically, they have been ruled by tribal leaders, religious sects, family traditions that have nothing to do with our own Judaic/ Christian and Protestant traditions and way of life. Finally, lets get RID of the electorial college so we can be a true one person democracy, shortening the campaign season, and allow for more choices.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:05:08 GMT

To juan, ft lauderdale, fl: At this point, arguing over whether we were "right" to invade Iraq in the first place is somewhat counterproductive, except to the very limited extent of ascertaining from our candidates under what circumstances each might be inclined to initiate hostilities with another country. What we need to do, as noted above, is to decide where to go from where we are now, having initiated those hostilities. What I find tedious and totally unproductive is the ranting and raving over what is, at this point, essentially spilled milk--we cannot undo the hostilities and restore any part of the status quo ante in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter--I'm sure most of us would undo what happened on September 11, 2001, if we could).

I believe you are essentially correct concerning the attempt to "plant" Western republican government (I hate the term 'democracy' because it implies absolute rule by the majority with limited or no rights for the minority [which is what Iraq is close to now]). That type of government and society is not going to take hold where there are no institutions or infrastructure to support it, and that's unfortunately true in much of the world today (hence the appeal for authoritarian, socialist governments in those societies). I might disagree that we are acting in a colonialist fashion in Iraq, though--I don't think we want to colonize or annex Iraq, but I do think we are acting there in what was intended to be the best Wilsonian tradition of "exporting democracy" or perhaps "making the world safe for democracy."

Lastly, I totally disagree with you in your assertion that the Electoral College should be abolished. That will serve only to marginalize more of the country in favor of the major media markets and population centers. We have to remember that the U.S. was never designed to be a democracy or even fundamentally "democratic"--it was designed as a republic where minority interests were protected and all parts of the country were to be given a voice in the processes (note that the Senate, the House of the States, is not apportioned on the basis of population). A better solution would be to require the States to split their electoral votes by allocating two to each State, and one to each congressional district. This would in effect give each voter the right to choose three electors, and would probably make the presidential elections more competitive and more reflective of national political divisions. This was proposed some years ago by Karl Mundt, a Senator from South Dakota, but the idea never got traction because larrger States feared losing their advantage under a "winner-take-all" system (although Maine and Nebraska do require their electoral votes to be divided in this fashion). Also, I don't see how a direct popular election for President and Vice-President would produce more options (in fact, I think it might actually produce fewer).

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

keno — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:01:37 GMT

Richard what dellusion of a country do you live in the minority has never been looked out for the founding fathers all had slaves .Gays are constantly diciminated against dont tell me minorities are protected by the great white father look back with open eyes and change your future by being honest about you past

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

CJ — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:14:23 GMT

Good post Richard.

Oh-eight (R): Non-denial denial

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:04:36 GMT

keno--Nobody ever said that this country's institutions functioned perfectly. They do, however, function better than just about anywhere else. we are the freest people on the globe. And, unless the government-can-do anything crowd gets its way, we may just be able to stay that way. At least I hope so.