Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Dare to Vote
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=7704
Page 3 of 4

Author:  Dick Unger [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:57 am ]
Post subject: 

Scott Hughes wrote:
jdege wrote:
The only message the RNC will pay attention to is losing.


I don't know my friend, maybe or maybe not, hard to tell after the '06 election. But I can't help but think the one thing they may understand; MONEY - OR EVEN MORE - NO MONEY :!: :!: :!:

I really believe that's the ticket :twisted: :wink:


Unfortunately, you have to give gobs of money all the time for a cut-back to be noticed.

Most of the money is soft money from corporate organizations. If these organizations have support and access, they don't care what candidates are currently promising voters.

That said, Republican money is supposed to be way off this year, and the Dems are getting more.

I think Bush has postured as a "conservative" for the last 7 years, because it was very popular to be a "conservative", and his administration, along with some loudmouths on radio and Fox, have made the "conservative" label, less popular this year.

It is hillarious that Limbaugh and Coulter are saying they would rather vote for some of the Dems than McCain, that sort of tells me that the tempermental McCain has commented on their behavior.

Good for him.

Author:  Scott Hughes [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree Dick that most of the money is soft money. I don't think its right that it is though. That said if I remember correctly Howard Dean was amongst the first to take advantage of the internet to raise funds (Jesse Ventura also used this tool). Small donations that grew very large with volume. All the candidates today reach out for those contributions. Ron Paul is still making the rounds and getting his message out reportedly funded by small dollar internet donations. That's where the impact can be if the candidates stance/message on issues does not inspire people to contribute their money. A small ripple can become a big wave.

Here's another reach, if corporations (and their soft money) are not in tune with someones idealogical philosophy you can always not do business with them. It's still about money.

Just my thoughts. Never give up, never give in.

Author:  1911fan [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok, Lets put this out where it belongs,

POLITICS SUCK,


There I said it, but its the way the world goes, to get something you often if not always have to give something.

There are also ways to really rip up a politician based on his voting record.

When I was working in the construction business world, I was involved with a trade group trying to sponsor some legislation that would really help Legitimate contractors when faced with problems 15-twenty years after they had completed the work in accordance to code at the time. It was to deal with lawsuits over what was code compliant at the time and was now found to be "dangerous". For example, you hired a painter in 1968 to paint your house and he used paint with lead in it. The law we were working on was to prevent people from coming back and suing you for painting the house with lead based paint 10 years before it was known and banned as a safety issue.

When this bill came up, it was thought to be a slam dunk, which everyone else involved thought so too, however, as soon as it reached the floor, amendments and riders started popping up which ranged from everything to abortion notifications to farm subsidies. In the end, even the sponsoring reps voted against the bill because of the abortion issue.

Now a smart politcian could go back and point fingers at all those people and say Joe Shmoe voted against protecting little kids from lead based paint, they could also say he voted against protecting america's family farms, and against telling parents their little girl was having an abortion. or any number of little things that show up from time to time.




When you look at the current politicians running for office you have to realize that McCain has been a senator for a LONG time. He has 25 years of US national office experience, which means he has had to vote for and against some things we may not like in order to get things he felt were important done.

He has worked hard to get the only comprehensive campaign finance reform passed. Which is an attempt to even the playing ground between all candidates, making incumbency less of an overwhelming tool in reelection.

He worked on comprehensive immigration reform, and is trying to get something done on that. He understood that this was touch stone of democrats and that to get it done it would require some alliances most of us would rather fall on a sword than make. I think his movements there made a strong move at removing the immigrant as an instant democrat.

In his biggest favor is that he wore the uniform. He is a grad, though just barely, from the US Naval Academy. which pus him miles ahead of the other candidates in my book.

I like Ron paul's views, but until he starts to poll at 20 % or more, he is a diversion vote and a tool of the democrats to split the right.

I get tired of people saying a Republican can not win Minnesota, we elected several to state wide and national offices in the recent past, and I think McCain could win those same votes as Norm and Tim and Boschwitz.

I fell Romney is a tool. ANY politician from Massachusetts can not be trusted. PERIOD


I was looking at this and found this to be a pretty unbiased Bio on JM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain it shows him warts and all, and yet you get the idea he does have some serious iron in his backbone.

Author:  DeanC [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

If the past is any indication, either Romney will be President or we'll have broken a long streak of unelected Senators and Representatives. It would be like an NFL team winning the Superbowl with an unbeaten record. It just doesn't happen very often.

Americans don't like to elect senators and congressmen to the Presidency. Surprisingly insightful, the American electorate likes to elect people to the supreme executive position who actually have management experience.

There has only been one congressmen elected President directly out of the House (Garfield) and there have only been 2 senators elected directly out of the senate: JFK and Harding, all three of whom died in office. Hmm... maybe Ann Coulter is onto something and we should be rooting for Hilary after all.

(I have already counted Huckabee out. Maybe I shouldn't because I consider him part of the Clinton machine)

Author:  Scott Hughes [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

In talking to people I remind them that prior U.S. Senators have not prevailed in the quest for the presidency since Kennedy.

Goldwater, Humphrey (although V.P. at election time), Mondale (although former V.P.at election time), Dole, Gore, Kerry. Thats 6 attempts in the last 40 or so years. Interesting at a minimum.

Author:  mostlylurkin [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

I saw the actual numbers on this recently:

16 current US senators have run for the presidency while they were senators (and I think a couple more who weren't senators when they ran);

47 senators have run for the presidency since 1960. I believe that's people who were sitting senators at the time, and doesn't count HHH, LBJ, etc, who were former senators at the time.

Apparently it's a disease for which there is no cure, not even the near-certainty of losing.

Most predictions are that Romney will be handed his head today. If so, the three remaining viable candidates will all be sitting US senators, thus breaking a 44-year losing streak.

ETA:

Here's the list of 16 or so:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/ ... s_have.php

Author:  mnglocker [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Here's a quick question, do the poles open or close at 7:30pm today?

Author:  Tex [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Here's a quick question, do the poles open or close at 7:30pm today?


This being my first caucus I wondered the same thing, but I decided I will be there at 5:30 just to witness the entire event.

Author:  mnglocker [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

http://www.mngop.com/caucus2008/

Here's what I found.

Author:  mostlylurkin [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Precinct caucuses start at 7pm for DFL and GOP (and probably IP, but I didn't check).
It's generally a good idea to show up early, though 5:30 will probably be too early, unless you want to help set up.

Author:  mnglocker [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

mostlylurkin wrote:
It's generally a good idea to show up early, though 5:30 will probably be too early, unless you want to help set up.


It would bea great time to start the slow-roll talk and get the die hards up-to-date on the topic, so you'll have more understanding in teh group at 7pm when the big discussion starts.

Author:  HappyJim [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

1911Fan commented, "I like Ron paul's views, but until he starts to poll at 20 % or more, he is a diversion vote and a tool of the democrats to split the right. "

I think Ron Paul's views are the best in the bunch (the rest are all subject to the corp. gobal empire)...and if we are not willing to vote on principle, how then do we ever expect the only real one (or future ones) who believes in the Constitution to ever get to 20%? Maybe people Need a real wake-up call to see what happens to their very deminished Creator given rights by the people who are placed into office by the Big Corps. and the vote of the sheeple.

Author:  jdege [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

1911fan wrote:
He has worked hard to get the only comprehensive campaign finance reform passed. Which is an attempt to even the playing ground between all candidates, making incumbency less of an overwhelming tool in reelection.

Sorry, but no, it was not an attempt to even the playing ground, removing the advantage of incumbency. It was an attempt to make challenges to incumbents more difficult. To silence independent voices, and to make sure that only the "authorized" voices were heard, during the critical days immediately prior to an election.

Author:  Burnsville Guy [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

jdege wrote:
1911fan wrote:
He has worked hard to get the only comprehensive campaign finance reform passed. Which is an attempt to even the playing ground between all candidates, making incumbency less of an overwhelming tool in reelection.

Sorry, but no, it was not an attempt to even the playing ground, removing the advantage of incumbency. It was an attempt to make challenges to incumbents more difficult. To silence independent voices, and to make sure that only the "authorized" voices were heard, during the critical days immediately prior to an election.


Not to mention the fact that this law hurt his own party the worst! :evil:

Author:  Aquaholic [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Burnsville Guy wrote:
Not to mention the fact that this law hurt his own party the worst! :evil:


Oh I don't know, the Democrats seem to be doing just fine.

Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/