The results of romneys possible nomination

[_Coggins7]

The roster of canditates for 08 looks dismal so far. Romney would make a fair candidate from my perspective, but only modest. McCain is a poster child for everything wrong with modern American politics and politicians, and his utter comtempt for the constitution will scrap his credibility with the Repbulican base before the horse is ever out of the gate. Gingrich is a distinct possibilty, and has a solid classical liberal program, but he's not running, as of yet.

I'd really like to see Dr. Allan Keys run again, and really shake up the proceedings. Steve Forbes would also make a great President, but, again, not running, and neither world have a snowball's chance in modern institutional politics.

Depressing, all the way around, so far.

[_harmony]

The roster of canditates for 08 looks dismal so far. Romney would make a fair candidate from my perspective, but only modest. McCain is a poster child for everything wrong with modern American politics and politicians, and his utter comtempt for the constitution will scrap his credibility with the Repbulican base before the horse is ever out of the gate. Gingrich is a distinct possibilty, and has a solid classical liberal program, but he's not running, as of yet.

I'd really like to see Dr. Allan Keys run again, and really shake up the proceedings. Steve Forbes would also make a great President, but, again, not running, and neither world have a snowball's chance in modern institutional politics.

Depressing, all the way around, so far.

That was a roster of failures, false starts, and did not enters, Loran. Who do you like for the nominations in either or both parties?

[_guy sajer]

The press is going to go after Romney for his religious beliefs, and for his nominal conservatism. I also agree that Romney will likely not get the nomination, which is fine with me. I disagree about conservative;s irrational hatred of Hillery. There is nothing irrational about it.

Hillery Clinton is an extremely dangerous ideologue and has a deep and pervasive thirst for power (perhaps even outdoing Al Gore's), and both those attributes make her unfit for office.

Yes, after 6+ years of a dangerous ideologue in office, heaven knows we do not want another one.

I do agree that Hillary does have a pervasive thirst for power, but so do, apparently, most of the presidential wanna-bees.

I used to be a rabid right winger, and I've listened to thousands of hours of conservative talk programming, and, yes, I'd conclude that much of the hatred toward Hillary is absolutely irrational (not all, but much of it).

[_Mercury]

The press is going to go after Romney for his religious beliefs, and for his nominal conservatism. I also agree that Romney will likely not get the nomination, which is fine with me. I disagree about conservative;s irrational hatred of Hillery. There is nothing irrational about it.

Hillery Clinton is an extremely dangerous ideologue and has a deep and pervasive thirst for power (perhaps even outdoing Al Gore's), and both those attributes make her unfit for office.

Yes, after 6+ years of a dangerous ideologue in office, heaven knows we do not want another one.

I do agree that Hillary does have a pervasive thirst for power, but so do, apparently, most of the presidential wanna-bees.

I used to be a rabid right winger, and I've listened to thousands of hours of conservative talk programming, and, yes, I'd conclude that much of the hatred toward Hillary is absolutely irrational (not all, but much of it).

Did you know Hillary was a Goldwater campaigner?

[_Coggins7]

The only possibilities left in the Democrat Party that would have any intellectual or moral credibility as Presidential candidates have either left the party or been effectively ostracized. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman come to mind.

The Democratic Party has become an indigenous Fabian or Democratic Socialist party (as it would be known on the Continent) and has moved so far away from the principles and documents of the Founding that there is presently nobody...nobody in that party who has any chance of nomination that is fit for office in this country, as far as I am concerned.

The Democratic Party is presently a gourp of authoritarian welfare state socialists and in some cases, Neo-Communists, for whom the constitution is nothing but a impediment to the kind of society and the kind of political system they would like to have in place. Hillery Clinton, an ideological disciple of Saul Alinski, is a standard example of what lies within the rank and file, and, in particular, the leadership of that party, ideologically and philosophically. And, not to coin any terms, it ain't pretty.

Don't get my wrong, the Republican Party is corrupt, but the Democratic Party has, as a party, completely left the American founding for an alternative Franco/Germanic ideological patrimony of very different cast.

[_Polygamy Porter]

How soon before Hinckley wacks Mitt's peepee with his cane and tells him to step down?

The statisticians at LDS Inc must be looking at the convert and member fallout due to Mormon Mitt.

[_harmony]

The only possibilities left in the Democrat Party that would have any intellectual or moral credibility as Presidential candidates have either left the party or been effectively ostracized. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman come to mind.

The Democratic Party has become an indigenous Fabian or Democratic Socialist party (as it would be known on the Continent) and has moved so far away from the principles and documents of the Founding that there is presently nobody...nobody in that party who has any chance of nomination that is fit for office in this country, as far as I am concerned.

The Democratic Party is presently a gourp of authoritarian welfare state socialists and in some cases, Neo-Communists, for whom the constitution is nothing but a impediment to the kind of society and the kind of political system they would like to have in place. Hillery Clinton, an ideological disciple of Saul Alinski, is a standard example of what lies within the rank and file, and, in particular, the leadership of that party, ideologically and philosophically. And, not to coin any terms, it ain't pretty.

Don't get my wrong, the Republican Party is corrupt, but the Democratic Party has, as a party, completely left the American founding for an alternative Franco/Germanic ideological patrimony of very different cast.

Okay, let me rephrase: who do you think will get the nomination of both parties?

[_guy sajer]

The press is going to go after Romney for his religious beliefs, and for his nominal conservatism. I also agree that Romney will likely not get the nomination, which is fine with me. I disagree about conservative;s irrational hatred of Hillery. There is nothing irrational about it.

Hillery Clinton is an extremely dangerous ideologue and has a deep and pervasive thirst for power (perhaps even outdoing Al Gore's), and both those attributes make her unfit for office.

Yes, after 6+ years of a dangerous ideologue in office, heaven knows we do not want another one.

I do agree that Hillary does have a pervasive thirst for power, but so do, apparently, most of the presidential wanna-bees.

I used to be a rabid right winger, and I've listened to thousands of hours of conservative talk programming, and, yes, I'd conclude that much of the hatred toward Hillary is absolutely irrational (not all, but much of it).

Did you know Hillary was a Goldwater campaigner?

People change. I wrote my dissertation listening to Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy on my Sony Walkman. Now, I can stomache about 5 minutes of conservative talk radio before I feel like puking.

It never ceases to amaze me how something as complex as the world, human society, systems of government and economics can all be explained so handily by right-wing (or left-wing) dogma.

Social scientists create complex models with hundreds of variables to explain all sorts of phenomena and, at the end of the day can, if they are lucky, they manage explain 20% of total variation (with 80% as random noise), yet any schmo calling into conservative (or liberal) talk radio can explain the whole shebang in two sentences or less.

[_Coggins7]

George Bush is an ideologue? Uh huh. Right. Would that this were true. Bush is much closer to a traditional Rockefeller Republican manageial eltie than an ideologue, much like his Father. Bush's conservatism is modest, at best, and is well embedded in the RNC culture of big government Republicanism.

[_Coggins7]

Whatever you may think of talk radio (which I think, despite its limitations, is a wonderful democratization of free speech that revolutionized modern politics (followed by the Internet)). it isn't meant to be, and shouldn't be thought of a a substitute for serious, sustatined reading and study.

The brevity of talk radio, while much less severe than the factoid talking head world of TV, is time limited and time sensitive. Conservative radio dominates the AM band because there is a huge market for it. Liberal talk radio is almost nonexistent because of the opposite dynamic. Hence, the Left wants to ressurrect the "Fairness Doctrine" for the same reason McCain and the Democrats wanted "campaign finance reform", to shut off the vastly democratized spigot of speech they don't like, don't want you and me to hear, and return the monopoly on the creation and dissemination of information to a small oligarchy of mainstream media talkingheads.

Talk radio is a valuable cultural rescource (as is the conservative blogosphere, which has caught the mainstream media redhanded on a number of occasions over the last few years when otherwise they would have gotton away with flagrant mendacities and distortions of events) but its no subsitute for hitting the books and learning at length.