the person who promises to legalizes America’s largest cash crop will get my vote. the taxes collected alone will end the deficit in a couple of years. not to mention the freed prisoners that cost us next to $70,000 per person a year to keep in jail.

doggod on June 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM

There’s someone who would pull that lever for the Hunter Thompson ticket.

Even though he blew his own brains out months ago. Fear and loathing for the rubes.

And we all know internet polls can’t be influenced…

In context, the quote isn’t all that outrageous. “I am a gay woman and I have children. Your comment that you just made, it sort of invalidates my family,” said Cynthia Fish, a mother of a 6- and 8-year-old. “………

I purposely didn’t get into much detail analysis last night, nor did I declare who won and who lo…
……

the person who promises to legalizes America’s largest cash crop will get my vote.

But then everyone will be roaming around humming the tune to “Baby Bumblebee”.

otherwise Fred looks best to me so far.

Smokin that cash crop are we? ;-)

LakeRuins on June 6, 2007 at 4:40 PM

The problem with that is Newt and fred? are Washington insiders. Mitts! the only one who isn’t beholden to the Washington elite.

the person who promises to legalizes America’s largest cash crop will get my vote.

Me too. My family grew tobacco for 50 years.

IMHO, of course!

Amazingly few of the candidates, both democratic and republican have said much publicly regarding jihad.

here is a list of the republican candidates who do and do not discuss jihad:

McCain: just does not use the word, seems intent on fighting terrorists but does not address the underlying problem.

Guilianni: Same as McCain, shows no indication iof an understand of the root cause of terrorism, and how it has become a problem here on the home front

Huckabee: Cant find anything where he mentions jihad.

T. Thompson: Nada

Hunter: Strong support for Israel, but seems to go out of his way to avoid the subject of jihad.

Brownback: mentions jihad only in relation to the genocode in the Sudan.

Paul: Has mentioned jihad several times,calls it what it is, but also says it appears around the time we got involved in the middle east, suggesting that somehow, the U.S. is responsible for the current modern jihad.

Gilmore: no mention of his ever bringing up this subject that I can find.

Tancredo: Mentioned is directly in the first republican debate, shows a clear understanding of the relationship between jihad and terrorism around the world.

Romney: Has referred to “global jihad” in several speeches and appearances. Indicates the war on terror is indeed a war against radical jihadists. Has indicated he understands the domestic threat that jihad poses in the U.S. currently, and has noted recent challenges to impose sharia, and jihad in our courts.

F Thompson: Has not declared yet, but has spoken on jihad numerous times including a peice on you tube in which he discusses Ayan Hirsii Ali and islamic jihadists.

The bottom line is this, how can we expect to win the war on terror with a commander in chief who doesnt know or want to know who the terrorists are and why?

Guilianni seems to get a free pass on the war, and McCain also, I just dont get it. We must hold them accountable, and make sure they understand and adress this most important issue.

Mitt, I have no doubt has tremendous financial acumen, and a lot of his answers last night conveyed that message, however I don’t think we are looking for a CFO. I give him high marks for his work in getting the Olympics for Utah but a big minus for me was the medical insurance bill he enacted as governor.

Mitt for Treasuary Secratary!!

otherwise Fred looks best to me so far.

i would even consider accepting leaving Iraq if the soldiers where placed on the border with live ammo that did not need to be accounted for.

/I am soooooooo confused!

LakeRuins on June 6, 2007 at 4:40 PM

I may be the only one that feels this way, but I’m glad that I’m confused right now.

I’m confused because I’ve got options. And multiple options (thus far) seem good. I’m even excited about a couple of these guys. And some of them that I don’t know too much about (like Huckabee) have been able to surprise me and distinguish themselves in a game-show debate format.

I wanted to pick Huckabee up and swing him around for finally saying “I don’t see what that has to do with electing a president, but I’ll go ahead and answer it.” Finally, someone called these people on at least one of their idiot questions!

Unlike a lot of people here (at least, from many of the comments I’ve read, that’s the impression I’ve gotten), I’m excited about our crop of candidates. We’ve got a great mix of business experience, political experience, Washington old guard, new comers, principled conservatives, moderates, etc. Instead of choosing between candidate a.1, a.2, and a.3, we have everything from a-z.

My biggest issue at the moment is that, with so many candidates, the debates do not provide the opportunity to really dig deep into what a candidate believes and do follow-up question.

Someone here mentioned (a few weeks ago) that they’d like to see 2-4 person debates (with the people involved rotated in randomly). That’s something I’d tune in for (unless Wolf was just going to take the opportunity to ask more inane questions of the candidates – if that’s the case, they can all save their breath).

For Romney’s standards I really didn’t think he had that great of a night

I knew it! He’s chided for being “too perfect” and the first time he’s not…well, then, whatever you guys want to think.

As for the focus groups, believe me, I’ve sat in on the other side of the mirror of enough focus groups to recognize uninformed people. I bet that was the very first time most of them had ever heard of or seen MITT.

Besides Huckabee being a stand out as stated in another post on this site, I think Gilmore was good. Oh if it weren’t for that one word….”macaca”…it would be George Allen up there instead of him.

Mitt did just OK.

I didn’t think Romney did well either

For Romney’s standards I really didn’t think he had that great of a night

I knew it! He’s chided for being “too perfect” and the first time he’s not…well, then, whatever you guys want to think.

As for the focus groups, believe me, I’ve sat in on the other side of the mirror of enough focus groups to recognize uninformed people. I bet that was the very first time most of them had ever heard of or seen MITT.

Besides Huckabee being a stand out as stated in another post on this site, I think Gilmore was good. Oh if it weren’t for that one word….”macaca”…it would be George Allen up there instead of him.

I will give McCain a home run when he addressed the sister of the fallen soldier

Limerick on June 6, 2007 at 4:15 PM

I agree but no matter what that man says all I can hear are the words “Amnesty bill” over and over again in my head. He’s done.

I have more respect for Romney as time goes on as well. However, we have yet to see what Fred! can do when he and his exclamation point take the debate podium….

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM

If it makes you feel any better I have a family member who’s rubbed elbows with Mitt quite a bit in the venture capitalism world. His quote to me was, “Don’t let the smile fool you.” That amongst other things give me confidence that he will have no trouble pulling the trigger if necessary. I think those decisions come down to clarity of thought and intelligence more then anything else. Those are definitely Romney qualities.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM

While I think that ticket would clean up I think both are too strong a personalities for it to be a possibility.