About the Iowa caucuses.
Yes, Fred’s still alive in the race. Yes, Huckabee won it. Yes, Romney is extremely disappointed. Yes, Ron Paul actually does have a solid supporter base that’s not all Ronbots or Paulites. Yes, the media is playing favorites.
For the Thompson(my choice) crew, people are volunteering all over the place for calling and working on the campaign as volunteers. Money is being donated in small denominations on a regular basis. I’m afraid to volunteer for calling and speaking, lol. I’ve never been a very good salesperson. I’m afraid I would cost him more votes than I would win for him. But I can keep donating those small increments until I hit that $2300 limit, right?
I expect for others it’s much the same.
So, what’s new? Not a thing. At the end, we’ll have two nominees, one for the Republicans, one for the Democrats. We just have to keep plodding along until then for our chosen candidate. When the actual nominees are in place, we’ll all have a better idea of what the future will bring and plan accordingly but just in case the Iowa caucuses are true indications of the things to come:
My advice for this coming year is: Get rid of any debts you can, credit cards, auto loans, and basically everything. If you have a mortgage not at a subprime rate, you’ll probably be okay. If you have a subprime rate and are still holding on, clean up your credit fast and refinance… as quickly as possible. Even a higher set rate is better than continuing with A.R.M.s. Get freezers and buy foodstuffs in bulk to get the lowest possible price to stretch your dollars further. We’re in for a wild economic ride. The price of food is rising at a swift pace and is likely to remain on the rise unchecked.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I linked here through redstate which I go to just to see what the phony conservatives are up to(unless todays conservatism means to conserve Truman, FDR, LBJ, Clinton etc), the hatred for Ron Paul is a sight to behold. J. Madison said, “if tyranny and oppression come here it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” Our leaders both dems and repubs both love big government and the control they have of the money but it is becoming obvious to many that something is seriously wrong and sites like redstate, townhall, littlegreenfootballs, etc are there to keep conservatives on the plantation until there ain’t much left to do about it. All the dems and all the repubs except RP are globalists and represent business as usual, I think this is irrefutable. They are all for the LOSTreaty, more spending, they encourage illegal immigration, more government etc and they defend reflexively Repubs who are statists, it reminds of 1984 when Winston realizes that he loves big brother. You do realize that Fred may be a somewhat reluctant globalist, but a one worlder he is.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Mr. Hillbilly,
I didn’t mean to imply that you are a phony conservative just the people at the websites I mentioned, I linked over because I liked what you posted.
Thoreau
January 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Happy holidays!
I think another good tip would be to stop sending money to Fred Thompson. Seriously, I don’t see how he can get through the primaries with his nonchalant attitude. Some of it is certainly media bias, but he sure isn’t helping his cause.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
AC, he made third in Iowa with that nonchalant attitude. Don’t underestimate Senator Thompson just because the media says”____________.” The media has outright lied this last week or so to keep Thompson down.
welcome, Thoreau. You and I will probably disagree a lot about Ron Paul and Thompson. I don’t believe Thompson is for one world government and his record is sound and just what I’d expect of a federalist. Tell me, if you are for limited federal government, what kind of legislation, exactly, would you support. The neocons complain because Thompson’s name isn’t on any legislation and that he often voted against the status quo, and on and on…
I had the honor of having Thompson represent my state in the Senate, so I know his record fairly well. I doubt he would be for LOST although I don’t believe it’s come up in discussions with him at this point. McCain, however, in the interest of bipartisanship would sign it in a heartbeat… without ever realizing what he signed over.
Now, as far as Ron Paul, I can see where he’s coming from to a point but he can’t follow through with his ideas and often goes off on tangents that don’t connect with his central ideology. So, while his ideas are decent, he’s not a candidate I could support wholeheartedly.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I like FDT’s federalist rhetoric and his calm demeanor,my problem with FDT is things such as his lobbying for abortion while a lawyer, his support of McCain-Feingold, the fact that he has consistently supported the welfare/state as a Senator he is your typical go along get along good ‘ol boy among other things. In a previous era he may have been a decent leader, but we are so far off the Constitutional path with the resultant problems of debt and taxes that it will take somebody that is considered radical to just slow down this train. FDT is just a kinder gentler version of business as usual. Is he better than McCain, Rudy, Mitt and Rev. Huck? Probably as they don’t even give lip service to small government ideas. But the only guy that is consistent is RP, in his public and private life. Off to a Friday night of mild debauchery, like your site.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Terrific post.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Honestly if one Republican is getting the short end of the stick it’s Ron Paul (particularly because he is excluded from the Fox debate). I don’t really have anything for or against Fred, but it seems to me that he is unlikely to get the nomination. The one thing I like about Fred is that unlike most Republican candidates he hasn’t painted himself in a corner.
Still, if I get to pick, I vote Huckabee because he will be the easiest to beat in a general election.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Good thing you don’t get to pick then, AC,
I have to agree with you about Ron Paul getting the shortest end of the stick as far as the media goes. He really does. Not that I think it would boost him any but, geeez, give the guy a break.
More on Huckabee: It’s people like him who give Christians a bad name… honestly… The negative ad that he wasn’t going to show but showed?
Yeah, people want him because he easiest to beat in a general election but let me ask you this: Is that all elections are supposed to be? Beating the other side? To what purpose?
thoreau, you have some facts mixed up. FDT billed a total of 12 hours advising an abortion group. That’s penny anty in the abortion game. As for the lobbying, FDT made slightly over $100k as a lobbyist. Now, lobbying is where the big bucks are and to make a sum that low is nothing to brag about… which is probably why they had to dig so hard to find it. I’d suggest you look closer at FDT’s record away from the MSM and oppositional sites before making a decision against Fred.
Thanks, Conservative Belle. Now that the holidays are over, I’ll get back into the swing of things and spend some time on your site, too.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Yeah the negative ad show but don’t show fiasco was simply astounding. His excuse: if we didn’t show it people wouldn’t have believed us… Say what? that’s a really lame excuse…
As for beating the other side, HELL YES. If the last 7 years have thought me anything, it is that the Republicans have no intention of working with Democrats. Plus, they have lost their bearings by overspending like there is no tomorrow. So yes, I want to see them lose this round so that they can come back with an alternative that makes sense for America and not simply for big corporations.
If we are to have a two party system, then I expect a lot more than what is currently being delivered by the Republicans (and to a lesser extend the Democrats).
January 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am
AC, you once stated that you are a law student… in Canada, but still… Have you even read any of the bills that Congress has tried to push through while the media spins the intentions?
While it pains me to resort to a cliche: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Good intentions often have unintended consequences when they are not thought through to their logical conclusions and create worse problems than there were before, which is where we find ourselves now.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Most of the laws we read are Canadian but it’s a very small subset of what we read. We often read US jurisprudence or law philosophers. Anyways, I agree with you that writing laws with clear meanings and little or no unwanted side effects is impossible, but I don’t think it should be an argument for not writing laws.
If we used that logic, we would never do anything because we can never predict these side effects. The same argument could be used in science, or in any field or situation. If I have a baby, the unintended consequence might be a broken window for my neighbor 6 years down the line when s/he starts to play with a ball, but it still wouldn’t be a reason not to have that baby.
We are always at that crossroad, with or without laws passed by Congress. And I don’t think our road is one that leads to Hell… I sure hope not!!!
Anyways, besides Ron Paul, expect all the other candidates to add more laws and regulations to the books!
On that note, ban me from the site for the next few hours, if I don’t do my readings for my classes I will be in trouble next week.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
AC you’re just going to have to practice some self restraint… won’t ban ya.
No, it shouldn’t be an argument for writing no laws but it should be an argument for treading carefully when writing them.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I have to find you a good source for that but there is an attempt in common law (UK, US, Canada) to move to a more civilist/Continental European approach when it comes to writing law. In the latter case, a lot less is said to try to keep the law more flexible, instead of trying to spell out every single little detail.