Romney Wins Republican Debate Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Resident, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2008 at 8:40 am
Mitt Romney presented as Presidential, while John McCain continued to assert lies about Romney's position on the war in Iraq, even with Gov. Romney sitting right next to him at the Republican Debate last night. McCain's assertions looked petty and made the senator's performance less Presidential and more like a good-old-boy network of Washington insiders. While the usual Washington insiders clearly are backing McCain, the change portion of the Republican Party are overwhelmingly supporting Romney. Romney stated his position on all the issues clearly. McCain refused to answer specific questions about his position, now and in the past, on immigration.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2008 at 9:41 am
McCain demonstrates good sense in being reasonable and being willing to work across the aisle. For this he gets criticized by far-right extremists in the Republican party! Unbelievable.
If you think Romney would win the general election, you are dreaming, and it has nothing to do with his religion and everything to do with his ultra-conservative stands and condescending attitudes, there is NO chance of his appealing to the overall population of American voters.
Posted by perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2008 at 10:46 am
First of all: All I heard anywhere on radio were ads for CNNS Democrat debate...how did you know about the Republican one? (By the way, does anyone still have any doubts that CNN is the propoganda arm of the Democrats?)
Second of All: Honestly, either Republican candidate is so far to the left, that I will probably stay home and let the Democrat President take the blame for destroying our economy, our sovereignty, our free speech, our border plan and our security...at least we would finally put to rest the constant and unending mantra that America is racist/sexist ( depending on which identity politician wins).
I have read that McCain, at least, has some credibility with keeping taxes down, but frankly he is so anxious to please the left and the media that I have no doubt at all that he will roll over on that.
As for Iraq, it doesn't matter who gets in, we will simply keep drawing down at a safe and reasonable pace as Iraqis themselves keep drawing up. There is no other responsible choice.
I am readying myself for another bout of "Carter years"...hold on everyone, and prepare for inflation, regulation, higher unemployment, lower standard of living for the poor, and emboldening of fascists everywhere!
Posted by perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2008 at 10:49 am
Maybe after the country has its very liberal policies ..um...climax...and sees the effects, it will swing right again, like the post Carter era that brought in Reagan policies and a strong nation, in American idealism and exceptionalism, security and economically, again..
Posted by Danny, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I think Republicans would be happy if a rich, white man were in the Oval office for eternity. That's my big problem with the conservative base -- it's as though they can't see the value of diversity. To the Republicans, if you aren't a welathy, Caucasian, Chrisitian male, you have no business running for president.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm
"To the Republicans, if you aren't a welathy, Caucasian, Chrisitian male, you have no business running for president. "
All Democrat presidents have been been white males. Most of them have been wealthy or connected to wealth, through previous political connections. Most have been Christians, certainly the previous two.
It was the Dems that tried to lynch Clarence Thomas. A number of conservative black politicians have been quite popular with conservative white Republican males. Many of them loved Margaret Thatcher (The Iron Lady).
This is to say that policies matter much more than race/gender with Republicans. In fact, Edwards was very much in tune with policies that the Dems espouse, but his race and gender were held against him. The Dems are not the party of Lincoln.
If it turns out to be Obama vs. McCain, there will be a straight forward debate on Iraq: Continue the liberation, or cut and run. If Obabma prevails, he will break his promise, and stay, becasue the stakes are too high to do otherwise.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2011 at 11:22 am
Prescient, weren't we, Gary?
( or perhaps just able to connect the dots and predict results...nothing magic about it, just wise. I just wish I could have gotten out of the way of the train wreck so many of us predicted..but our feet were trapped on the tracks and down we went.
It has gotten to the point where I am not at all surprised that a "disbanded" and discredited and not-really-defunded by tax money group is somehow still functioning to destroy America. They helped bring about the mortgage crisis,( never forget Obama's signature as an attorney for ACORN suing Citibank to force it to make bad loans Web Link) and now are trying to complete the job of economic chaos so we throw ourselves onto government begging for mommy and daddy to save us in exchange for our liberty.
Posted by Robo Candidate Eaton, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:09 am
"If any of you read Gary's or my posts, you will see we were prescient about this Administration's TRAINWRECK"
Did read them, but it's obvious you knew the economy was in trouble no matter who won: "that I will probably stay home and let the Democrat President TAKE THE BLAME for destroying our economy, our sovereignty, our free speech, our border plan and our security.."
After all, Bush had this country losing half a million jobs a month when you made that post almost 4 years ago.
Security? Wrongo, bucko. Obama has been masterful in national security compared to Bush. Bin Ladin, Al Alaki, Gaddafi and so amny more.
Americans killed by terrorists under Bush - 3,000 at least. Soldiers killed under Bush in near useless wars - almost 10,000? Money borrowed from China to fight useless wars by Bush? a trillion plus.
American soldiesr killed to support the overthrow of Gaddafi? Zero. Cost? about 1/1000th of Iraq.
Remember that Bush said, just 6 months after 9/11, that he didn't think about Bin Ladin anymore, even though he promised him dead or alive. Then let him go at Tora Bora.
Posted by Robo Candidate Eaton, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2011 at 6:15 pm
You're concerned about a billion in Libya to help get rid of a tyrant, after spending over a trillion in Iraq?
$1 billion is chump change in Iraq. Someone even stole larger amounts than that in Iraq - "$6.6 billion may be "the largest theft of funds in national history."
"Pentagon officials determined that one giant C-130 Hercules cargo plane could carry $2.4 billion in shrink-wrapped bricks of $100 bills. They sent an initial full planeload of cash, followed by 20 other flights to Iraq by May 2004 in a $12-billion haul that U.S. officials believe to be the biggest international cash airlift of all time."
"For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said the missing $6.6 billion may be "the largest theft of funds in national history.""