Guess the Caucus (Repub Edition)Follow

Depends on what you're trying to learn. You said that his politics were "paper thin" and lacking in "real substance". I think his positions disprove that. Probably not to you.

But I'm generally impressed when I hear him off the cuff as well, so *shrug*.That's nice, but meaningless until we can corner Obama and test it.You mean Romney and Huckabee can recite "We good! Immigrants bad!" from rote memory? Fascinating

Anyway, once again, not spending much time on it because -- let's be completely honest -- it wouldn't matter and you'd claim any Democrat was naive and foolish and missing the real issues.

Of course you are. Because he's hitting the talking points that you agree with. But it's when he tries to go deeper that he fails. You do recall his massive stumbling when asked about some pretty simplistic defense and foreign policy issues, don't you?

If you're impressed by "tax the rich, give to the poor", and "get our troops out of Iraq", then you'll be impressed with Obama. But once you dig deeper to ask "how" he'll impose those taxes, and "how" he'll get those troops out, he either fumbles, or he falls back to some pretty scary positions (scary to everyone except rank-and-file Liberals that is).





No. But they both have "new" solutions on the table (at least solutions that haven't been tried before).

Romney talks about some points that I've talked about regarding education. How we ought to fund "education" and not the "education system". School vouchers, home schooling. Less reliance on the classic "university or bust" approach to our education system.

I'll note for comparison that Obama's site spends a lot of time talking about funding for this program or that program. He actually sees the fact that not enough high school graduates are going on to 4 year universities as a problem, rather then an indication that the education system might be better served matching what the job market wants and needs instead of what the ivory tower academics think it should.

Huckabee talks about art and music programs. While he's not too precise on details, at least it looks like he grasps the concept that students need to be prepared for the job market, and that this ought to be what drives our education. That's a huge contrast (and is "new") to the status quo which seems to treat the education industry as a thing of value by itself.

I almost get the feeling like Dems believe that the job market should tailor itself to what they teach kids in school, and not the other way around. Certainly, within this context, nothing Obama lists on his site is "new" or "a change". He's basically parroting what the teacher's unions want. IMO, that's *not* what's in the best long term interest of students.


Oh. And that's before even starting on Huckabee's "fair tax". While I think he's horribly optimistic about the idea, at least is is a "new" one.

Care to find a new idea from Obama? Something that isn't just a stocking stuffer for some Liberal political activist group? Seriously. The man speaks well. But what he's saying isn't special at all. It really isn't...

Ah. So it doesn't matter how many others have proposed the same thing, it's "new" if it hasn't been implemented exactly how they say

Vouchers aren't new. Trying them isn't new. Conservative activist groups angling for them isn't new. Home schooling isn't new. Trying it isn't new. Conservative activist groups angling for them isn't new. Fair tax isn't new. Conservative activist groups angling for them isn't new. Granted it hasn't been tried yet but that's more a function of everyone else in government feeling that it's a flawed system, not because it hasn't been brought up a bajillion times before.Since it was never my argument, no.And the reverse. You disagree so you claim he's foolish and naive. *Shrug* As I've said a half dozen times now.I remember his stance on Pakistan was pretty much exactly the same as mine and, despite attempts from opponents on both sides of the aisle to paint it as foolish, not a single one was willing to claim that they'd do differently.

Edited, Jan 4th 2008 9:25pm by Jophiel

Frankly, I don't even understand why a moderate/non religious republican would support him

None of them do.

Oh wait, you weren't talking about GBAJI were you? Haha, moderate. Good one.

Hell, even many Republicans don't like Huckabee. I heard a couple radio pundits raking him over the coals yesterday and it you don't have to look far to see him panned in the blogs and columns either. His social conservatism is appealing to people who have been told the last few cycles that it's very, very important not to elect politicans who support gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. But some of his other platforms give the pundit conservatives the willies and they're fearing that the voters might have actually believed them when they harped on how important social issues were. So now they're working hard to harpoon their own candidate before the worst happens and he makes it to the general election.

His social conservatism is appealing to people who have been told the last few cycles that it's very, very important not to elect politicans who support gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. But some of his other platforms give the pundit conservatives the willies and they're fearing that the voters might have actually believed them when they harped on how important social issues were. So now they're working hard to harpoon their own candidate before the worst happens and he makes it to the general election.

Huckabee is the best chance of the Republicans winning, and it's not close at all. He's likeable. He's the kind of likable that the morons who decide elections will find appealing forgive him thinking Belgium is in Asia for.

I agree with Obama on energy. We have been on the oil nipple for far too long. We are talking about a dependency that has lasted over 70 years. We are talking the 1930's here. It's become rediculous. This is only compounded by the fact that Nintendoâ„¢ spends more in R&D than the US does in energy.


These Arabian Oil Kings have us by the nuts. If it isn't them, then it is someone else. At some point it is going to break, and then a change will have to happen. I'd sooner make that change at our convenience rather than when absolutely necessary. This goes beyond the environment. One of these days, sooner or later, oil wells are going to dry up, and when that happens, where the fuck are we going to be then? Problems today will kick us in the nuts 20 years from now. It's been shown before and it'll prove itself true once again.


This dependency must end. We have the computer technology, science, and resources to start making the change. Yeah sure, a few rich fuckers are going to get dicked, but you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Edited, Jan 5th 2008 10:21pm by Rimesume

And that was the 3rd worst example of corruption in Washington in 2007? Well, you're going to believe what you're going to believe and vice versa. The Rezko allegations went nowhere and came up and fizzled back in 2005/6. No investigations, no charges, no real interest by the people investigating Rezko to expand their inquiries. Strangely the list tries to lump it into its 2007 "problems". (Edited) Whoops, my mistake. They weren't trying to add that to 2007 but just using it as fluff to pad their text when discussing the 2007 complaints. The only 2007 complaints they has was the vague and uncited "more reports" and the biotech bit mentioned below.

The line "In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections" is meaningless because it gives no specifics of what was allegedly done, with whome, how and who was investigating.

The stocks issue was a dead one as well. The stocks were purchased by his broker as part of a blind trust. The biotech company in question never received any federal money as a result of the legislation that was passed (research for avian flu vaccines). Its stock values went up because of avain flu hysteria, not because of any legislation.

I have no idea about the campaigning charges and don't care enough to look since the list has already shown itself to be a joke and relying on obsolete and laughable claims. If using his office (even in violation) is the worst charge they can make stick then the man should probably be up for sainthood. Like I said, not even worrying about Obama, any list that would include Craig waving a card around and skip a federal investigation into a Senator including an FBI raid on his home is a pretty worthless list.

Edited, Jan 6th 2008 10:34am by Jophiel

Which is strange, given that my first post in this thread was to state that I didn't like Huckabee. For more or less the same reasons that have been hashed out here. He's got a pretty questionable agenda that's hidden behind a lot of rhetoric. And he's virtually a poster-child for the Left's vision of what a Religious Right Candidate would look like. Fact is that if you spent even a small amount of time calling GWB a bible thumper (and you all know that you did!), you're going to have a field day with Huckabee.


I would much much much rather see any/all of McCain, Guiliani, or Romney on the ticket ahead of Huckabee.

Let's also be clear that the earlier statement conflated "moderate" with "non-religious". I don't claim to be a "moderate conservative". However, I also don't believe that religion specifically has anything to do with being a conservative either.

I'm a non-religious conservative (just like about 75% of Republican voters). So yeah, I'm a little cautious towards Huckabee (and not just because of his religious positions). On his record, he's not the greatest conservative around, but he's nowhere near as bad as the best democrat, so that's not really such a shocker now is it? Oh no! He raised total tax burden on his state's citizens by something like .3% over 10 years!!!


I just don't have the same knee-jerk reaction (pro or con) to a candidate's religion as you do. That doesn't make me any more or less moderate. My positions on traditional Conservative ideology does. And I don't think I've failed to express my views in those areas, have I?

That doesn't make me any more or less moderate.

No the fact that you parrot GOP talking points endlessly makes you less of a moderate.

I do, however, claim not to blindly support or oppose a candidate based on his religion. You do see how those two are different, right?

Not particularly, no. Religion isn't somehow "special" to me. I won't support people who believe an invisible man in the sky tells them what to do. You won't support people who aren't supported by Fox News. Seems fairly similar. Oh wait, mine has a logical basis. That aside, though...

mean "non-religious" meaning "Not believing that their personal religious views should be imposed on the rest of the country"

Wow, an arbitrary definition for a term that's never been applied by anyone else. How novel.