Monday’s political round-up

it appears that the Obama/Oprah show drew nearly 20,000 visitors in Des Moines, 10,000 in Cedar Rapids, nearly 10,000 in New Hampshire, and a jaw-dropping 30,000 yesterday in South Carolina.

That’s a lot of people. I think Hillary is toast, and good riddance to the DLC Triangulation Machine. I hope Obama is the real deal, but I guess we’ll have to take what we get. If he gets an endorsement from Gore he’s the man to beat.

According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, “one-in-five Democratic and Democrat leaning voters (21 percent) say Gore’s endorsement would make them more likely to support a candidate, while just 7 percent say his endorsement would drive them away.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/669969,CST-EDT-carol28.article

More likely they were anticipating getting a new president. I know that’s a selling point point for me. 🙂

If the Rethugs nominate Huckabee I will laugh and laugh.

tAiO

p.s. Nice one JRS jr. I know that anyone has the right to endorse whoever they want but every four years it seems like the Presidential election becomes a bit more of a beauty contest/parade of rich n’ famous friends.

Then I tried to think of someone else who could bring the sort of “buzz” O.W. carries and the only other person I could think of is Al Gore.

There’s also questions as to the legality of the fund raising methods used by those behind the Paul blimp:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2481

If it’s Trevor, then why the hesitation to invoke his name? Does something about the man and his background frighten you, j? And as Ron pointed out, there are legal questions surrounding your candidate’s money sources, and how they were raised—and your “Putinesque” waving off of those questions will not make them go away….

The irony in all of this, as I see it, is that in a situation where your candidate’s funding may be legally questionable, you would exhibit the audacity to hide behind the “neocon Imperialist” mantra—rather than wondering if Trevor’s actions might well inflict damage on the candidate’s credibility. If that should be the case—and your “scary-thing” caterwauling does absolutely nothing but increase speculation—how will your candidate proceed once the vast bulwark of his funding is lost? Networks won’t give him free air time; newspapers won’t give him free, full-page ad space; potential donors won’t dare contribute on the grounds that they might be putting their names—and their monies—into an illegal enterprise.

Personally, I think Paul’s a joke. He pontificates in the House about the evils of pork, yet he introduces an earmark granting millions upon millions of dollars to the Houston-area shrimping industry? Maybe you could help me out here, j—I just can’t seem to find the word “shrimp” anywhere in the Constitution.

Then there’s the $2 million for “refurbishing a trolley.” What’s the blasted thing built of—Liberty Dollars?

He’ll introduce the earmark, then vote against it. Isn’t that something like an executioner being “pro-life?”

Um…j, my “made-up theories” are from the Houston newspaper archives. That would be Paul’s home district. Take it up with them—but make sure you bring your “nap blankie” along—it could take you a long time to read through all the stuff.

Now it’s your turn. Name the credible, independent source claiming that more homes are cellular than land-line.

Oh, my bad—you can’t, now can you? Maybe you can cover up your candidate’s voting record in your mommy’s basement—but you can’t stop the world from seeing it. Your candidate piles project after project into the spending bills, knowing full well that they’ll always pass—and then votes against them. Perfume on the outside; cow-shit in the middle.

Two-faced. Hypocritical. Cowardly. Cow-shit.

Yep—that’s your “candidate” all over.

And the whole country’s going to know it, too. Won’t matter much what you say, or do, or spend—Paul is going down like a rock.

“Newt Gingrich isn’t running for president, but he was asked whether he’s consider joining the GOP ticket. Gingrich said, “You know, if drafted, I would run, and if nominated, I would serve.” He added, “I think it is sufficiently unlikely. We’re not making any plans to be writing an acceptance speech.”

Recall Newt said that if the Republican field were fractured in the fall, he would consider getting in. In the fall he took the lay of the land and apparently decided it was not fractured enough and said he would not run. Newt may be wrong. There was an article in the Washington Times the other day that talked about Newt in Iowa. He has said two things: First, he was quoted as saying he would accept a vice-presidential spot on the ticket. Second, he has previously indicated he would accept a draft presidential bid if there were genuine support. The fractured field and brokered convention talk makes the Draft-Newt option not so far-fetched. More here:

http://www.patriotroom.com

Steve,

So, you’re insinuating that the research conducted by Mediamark Research Inc, in is invalid because…you called the Heartland Institute a name? Or because the Heartland Institute has an agenda?

A classic ad hominem argument. You cannot refute the FACT that today’s REALITY is that there are more cell-phone only households than there are landline-only households so you attack the organization that reported on the research (not even the organization that conducted the research, Mediamark Research Inc.).

I have no interest in “Ron Paul Pork” as you put it, but I would read any relevant articles that you might cite. But apparently you’d rather throw rocks back and forth.

And you still have not supported any of the plethora of your Ron Paul smear conspiracy theories (I wasn’t referring to your accusation about pork), such as there is some ulterior motive or nefarious force behind ANY of the Ron Paul campaign’s fundraising or contributors (such as the discussion above about Trevor Lyman’s private efforts to help the Ron Paul campaign through the organization of supporters). And I seem to recall your boneheaded assertion that Ron Paul is really not against “the war” and American Imperialism, that he is merely lying or pandering to receive votes.

You’re a NeoCon’s best friend, you know that right?

But I can understand your emotional rancor. You probably support a Pro-Patriot Act candidate.

By the way Steve, here is the detailed analysis of the research from Mediamark Research Inc., concerning the volume of cell phone-only households surpassing landline-only households.

Maybe you can contact them and act like a six year old instead. Or is Mediamark Research Inc., “a front organization for the American Petroleum Institute” in your grand conspiracy theory as well?