Republican Candidates

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http:///forum/post/2451916
The report one sited about McCain and one term I would bet came from a left wing liberal loon website...make a list and check them out...probably the usual suspects.
Did some research about the subject, and that seemed to be speculation from somewere, of course McCain denied that he was thinking about that.
I really don't know what I feel about this field, I've been bouncing around. Do I want a social conservative like Huckey, a strong military mind like McCain (but I have serious problem with his views on Guantanamo) or an economic conservative like Romney.
I play with the idea that McCain is going to streamline govt. But I really don't believe him.
Then the question I ask is whose policy would be the most likely to be implemented?
And I think economic conservatism might be the easiest to pass given that democrats are at least giving lip service to balancing the budget. I don't think socially conservative issues like abortion will change, nor do I think any of the candidates will apoint a liberal judge (mccain might). But I don't think there will be any serious change in social issues. I'm totally at a loss as to how I'm going to vote. I swore I'd never vote for a pro-baby killer. But it isn't as if anything is going to change more so that it already is in the next four years. So romney makes some sense. Especially considering I don't want to sit for another term watching someone sign bill after bill bloating our budget like Bush did, and huckey will do. Maybe I'll go vote libertarian.

 

[reefraff]

McCain has a voting as far as spending cuts. But you never know until they get in office how they will perform. Bush was a MAJOR disapointment, No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, Bridge to nowhere etc.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2451871
What is wrong with wondering if an 80 year old man can work a 14 hour day 7 days a week for 4 years?
btw they had a whole talk show on the subject this evening on some drive home talk show. I didn't listen to it, but that was going to be his main topic.
No, no.. don't get me wrong. I think age and health are both valid. My point is race/gender aren't. Some Libs out there will exclude a man for his age but vote for gender/race.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2451871
What is wrong with wondering if an 80 year old man can work a 14 hour day 7 days a week for 4 years?
btw they had a whole talk show on the subject this evening on some drive home talk show. I didn't listen to it, but that was going to be his main topic.
Then is not sufficient logic to assert that neither Obama or Hillary should be elected since they are far more likely to be assasinated then any of the other candidates?

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2451945
Did some research about the subject, and that seemed to be speculation from somewere, of course McCain denied that he was thinking about that.
I really don't know what I feel about this field, I've been bouncing around. Do I want a social conservative like Huckey, a strong military mind like McCain (but I have serious problem with his views on Guantanamo) or an economic conservative like Romney.
I play with the idea that McCain is going to streamline govt. But I really don't believe him.
Then the question I ask is whose policy would be the most likely to be implemented?
And I think economic conservatism might be the easiest to pass given that democrats are at least giving lip service to balancing the budget. I don't think socially conservative issues like abortion will change, nor do I think any of the candidates will apoint a liberal judge (mccain might). But I don't think there will be any serious change in social issues. I'm totally at a loss as to how I'm going to vote. I swore I'd never vote for a pro-baby killer. But it isn't as if anything is going to change more so that it already is in the next four years. So romney makes some sense. Especially considering I don't want to sit for another term watching someone sign bill after bill bloating our budget like Bush did, and huckey will do. Maybe I'll go vote libertarian.
SUGGEST? I don't see that with these comments.
January 2, 2008
McCain to serve only one term?
Posted: 01:08 PM ET
McCain is campaigning in New Hampshire.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Republican John McCain seemed to suggest Wednesday that if he wins the White House he may only serve one term.
According to the Boston Globe, the 71 year-old candidate was asked whether he will have the ability to serve a full eight years as president, while campaigning in New Hampshire.
"If I said I was running for eight years, I'm not sure that would be a vote getter," McCain responded.
McCain often jokes about his age on the campaign trail — he would be the nation’s oldest first-term president — but the Arizona senator points to his energetic 95-year-old mother as evidence his age is a non-factor.
According to the Globe, McCain later clarified his statement, saying, "I think the decision as to whether to run for re-election has to do with the circumstances at the time. I really do. You shouldn't run for eight years. Because then you think you've got eight years to get these things done."
A McCain spokesman said the Arizona senator was not suggesting he would not seek a second term.
"He was simply stating that on his first day in the Oval Office he will be focused on the big problems the country faces – not on re-election strategy sessions," she said

 

[1journeyman]

McCain is strong on war, BUT... He wants to close Guantanomo and considers Waterboarding torture. I'm not sure what else he would do to Hinder our Intel services.
That scares me.
McCain also is directly responsible for dozens of Federal Judgeship benches sitting vacant right now. The Judicial branch is decending further into activism and he definitely shares the blame in this.
The closer it gets to being a reality, the more the thought of voting for him sickens me.
It didn't help that my Governor endorsed McCain today... His office will be getting a call tomorrow.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2449832
Think about it... It will be awhile before Iraq is stable. Look at the history of the country. Look at the groups of people and the violence associated with the groups. I think a counsel would possibably be the best solution.
Each day Iraq becomes more stable since the surge strategy. Reports are positive coming from iraq regarding progess.
I prefer to ride the tide of positive thinking.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2452145
It didn't help that my Governor endorsed McCain today... His office will be getting a call tomorrow.
Rick Perry has always been a blue blooded republican. I NEVER liked him. I ticked about his texas corridor, especially being a toll road. But whatever, I don't think he is running again.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2452145
McCain is strong on war, BUT... He wants to close Guantanomo and considers Waterboarding torture. I'm not sure what else he would do to Hinder our Intel services.
That scares me.
McCain also is directly responsible for dozens of Federal Judgeship benches sitting vacant right now. The Judicial branch is decending further into activism and he definitely shares the blame in this.
The closer it gets to being a reality, the more the thought of voting for him sickens me.
It didn't help that my Governor endorsed McCain today... His office will be getting a call tomorrow.

Got a like that shows how McCain is directly responsible for a bench being empty? Hadn't heard that before.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2452364
Got a like that shows how McCain is directly responsible for a bench being empty? Hadn't heard that before.
His formation of the "Gang of 14" in the Senate, cutting Frist off from ending the Democratic Filibuster of Conservative judges (dubbed the "nuclear option), allowed the Dems to continue to deny up/down votes in the Senate of appellate judges when the Republicans were in the majority.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2451666
I don't doubt that it will be picked up. I'm just pointing out yet another example of how Democrats are spreading the CDC termed stupidity-virus. This virus clouds Americans' minds forcing them to consider non-sequitur items such as age, before policy, and moral integrity.
Rylan, its becoming interesting to see what reasons you'll come up with to not vote for a Republican.
I usually don't vote republican because I differ on their views, but I do think age could be an issue especially when it comes to relatablity with young voters who appear to be participating at much higher levels than in previous elections. This is a very real issue... and as mentioned above it is probably more related to health than actual age. But blame in on the democrats...that seems to be all you want to do...which in my mind is stupid.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http:///forum/post/2451916
RYLAN>>>>There is also some reports CLinton also knew about what was about to happen in Rwanda and did nothing about it. The same thing you been stating about Bush regarding Africa and not doing anything.
All I am saying ...please include the members of your party when using your ethical microscope.
So, age for a president is a factor? I think Reagan proved that wrong.
Also, I could state how being a woman or black may make their presidency more difficult...and site some loon theory.
I'm glad the Clintons played the race card...shows the level they will sink to win.
The report one sited about McCain and one term I would bet came from a left wing liberal loon website...make a list and check them out...probably the usual suspects.
Weren't we in Rwanda? And either way its in my unacceptable and hypocritical of our foreign policy.
I think age should be a consideration for the presidency..just like you have to be of a minimum age to run. I am not saying that McCain can't do the job at his age, but with any interview process I think you have to consider if it is possible it could interfer with the job. I think many people will be able to overlook it, but lets be real. We know that he's had several health issues and the image of the president is very important in how the world views us (my opinion) ..... There have also been people who have said Reagan developed alzeheimer's while in office. ..Now I know that every older person doesn't get this... My grandfather for example is 82 and very active...still works..has a motorcycle..etc
Point is that it should be a consideration...if you don't think it would affect anything than fine...
As far as Obama... I think that he lacked support in the beginning from african americans because of 2 reasons.
1. They thought that white people would not support him so he had no chance.
2. They were fearful that he would be more likely to be assinated.
Now in the case for a black man and woman... I don't think these factors would make their presidency more difficult... I think different point of views would be a benefit... As far as assination...I think this would only effect their security...not the work they do.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2452625
Weren't we in Rwanda? And either way its in my unacceptable and hypocritical of our foreign policy.
I think age should be a consideration for the presidency..just like you have to be of a minimum age to run. I am not saying that McCain can't do the job at his age, but with any interview process I think you have to consider if it is possible it could interfer with the job. I think many people will be able to overlook it, but lets be real. We know that he's had several health issues and the image of the president is very important in how the world views us (my opinion) ..... There have also been people who have said Reagan developed alzeheimer's while in office. ..Now I know that every older person doesn't get this... My grandfather for example is 82 and very active...still works..has a motorcycle..etc
Point is that it should be a consideration...if you don't think it would affect anything than fine...
As far as Obama... I think that he lacked support in the beginning from african americans because of 2 reasons.
1. They thought that white people would not support him so he had no chance.
2. They were fearful that he would be more likely to be assinated.
Now in the case for a black man and woman... I don't think these factors would make their presidency more difficult... I think different point of views would be a benefit... As far as assination...I think this would only effect their security...not the work they do.
We were never in Rwanda. Nor does our absence there (or anywhere else in Africa) make our foreign policy hypocritical. The genocide there is completely internal, and does not affect our national security in any way. Arguing that Iraq will never be stable because of the different people groups fighting, then saying we should go into Africa conveniently forgets the history of unrest on that continent.... We have a national interest in the Middle East. In addition, the various nation's there have militaries capable of attacking us, and the terrorists based there must be eliminated.
Rylan, you seem to be forgetting how old Reagan was when he ran... and if he was sick while in office then I'm all for hiring more mentally ill people...
The racial "point of view" aspect once again screams discrimination. The President of the United States represents the United States, not a race. To vote for a man or woman because of their race is completely improper. If I said I was going to vote for a white candidate because of their race I'd be flogged

, and rightly so.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2452609
I usually don't vote republican because I differ on their views, but I do think age could be an issue especially when it comes to relatablity with young voters who appear to be participating at much higher levels than in previous elections. This is a very real issue... and as mentioned above it is probably more related to health than actual age. But blame in on the democrats...that seems to be all you want to do...which in my mind is stupid.
lol, they "courted" the young vote every election this millenium (sounds like alot doesn't it), and NONE of them show up. It is quite funny. I doubt this time will be any different. What is funny, (at school) they will approach you try to get you to sign up and register for a party, and hand you dummycrat literature. So I laugh and ask for republican lit. Then they look at you like you are a space alien. That is one thing I'll give the dems they are almost cultish about their "beliefs" and and very baptist with their recruiting efforts.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2452625
As far as Obama... I think that he lacked support in the beginning from african americans because of 2 reasons.
1. They thought that white people would not support him so he had no chance.
2. They were fearful that he would be more likely to be assinated.
Now in the case for a black man and woman... I don't think these factors would make their presidency more difficult... I think different point of views would be a benefit... As far as assination...I think this would only effect their security...not the work they do.
LOL, you do know it is illeagal to take into consideration age if the age is over 45 in consideration of a job position. At least in texas, I thought it was federal.
What the crap, scared he would be assasinated? Seriously? That is a real concern of black people? It would be a serious stretch but I guess I could see historical fear, lincoln, MLK. But what about your "leaders" now? No one has gone after Jackson, Harrykon, and who ever else and shot em. Jackson ran for president and was doing good till he called some jews something stupid.

 

[1journeyman]

As a Baptist I resent that comparison...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2452449
His formation of the "Gang of 14" in the Senate, cutting Frist off from ending the Democratic Filibuster of Conservative judges (dubbed the "nuclear option), allowed the Dems to continue to deny up/down votes in the Senate of appellate judges when the Republicans were in the majority.

So you see getting Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court as a negative? Thats is what that compromise acheived. Bush has done a crappy job keeping the obstruction of his nominees in the light. He should be bringing that up every time he speaks. I don't see how thats McCain's fault

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2452666
As a Baptist I resent that comparison...

lol, why, Baptists are the KINGS of recruiting, the Amy should hire them.
They are organized (dems news talking points the same on every channel)
They are everywere (from college campus's to, to MTV you see "get out the dem vote")
They have apostolize (The dems follows hold onto their flawed ideologies religiously) (not that the baptists are flawed they have some excellent apologetists in their following)

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2452676
So you see getting Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court as a negative? Thats is what that compromise acheived. Bush has done a crappy job keeping the obstruction of his nominees in the light. He should be bringing that up every time he speaks. I don't see how thats McCain's fault
Had Frist been allowed to use the "nuclear option" and close filibusters on judges (which appears to me to be unconstitutional) Alito, Roberts and many more would have gone through. McCain points to those examples of "success" when the reality is those 2 and more should have gone through.
Critics of the nuclear option believe the Dems will not use the "nuclear option" themselves if they win in 2008....

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2452698
lol, why, Baptists are the KINGS of recruiting, the Amy should hire them.
They are organized (dems news talking points the same on every channel)
They are everywere (from college campus's to, to MTV you see "get out the dem vote")
They have apostolize (The dems follows hold onto their flawed ideologies religiously) (not that the baptists are flawed they have some excellent apologetists in their following)

The only thing I'm willing to share with a Democrat is oxygen consumption...