| Jul 15, 2007 @ 9:20 AM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
There are no longer ten Republican candidates for President. Jim Gilmore, former VA governor, has announced he is dropping out.
Here's the link to the story: Who's Next?
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 15, 2007 @ 2:29 PM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
steveemac
Posts: 2,336
|
Jim Gilmore, former VA governor, has announced he is dropping out.
Who's he?
And as far as who's next: McCain-stick a fork in him; he's done.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15, 2007 @ 5:22 PM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
thegoodideaman
Posts: 1,915
|
I thought there was only one Republican candidate? 
http://info.detnews.com/pix/photogalleries/newsgallery/12072007_prescandidates/index12.htm
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15, 2007 @ 6:21 PM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
It's a tie between McCain and Tommy Thompson.
|
| |
|
| Jul 16, 2007 @ 1:10 AM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
steveemac
Posts: 2,336
|
It's a tie between McCain and Tommy Thompson.
No tie, Eastham- McCain will be the next to step off; the Man from Elroy is too egotistical to fade away yet. Remember: this is the guy that showed up slurring drunk at Lambeau Field and expected 20,000 fans not to notice!
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 16, 2007 @ 4:29 PM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
Very interesting about Tancredo. I wasn't aware of that. One would certainly not expect that.
I think Gilmore being gone is probably a good thing. There are a couple of others who should probably step down too, although as stated elsewhere, nobody should be forced out. The names escape me at the moment, but besides them, I believe Tommy Thompson should pack it in, and probably McCain as well. I believe McCain means well, but he's just dead-wrong on so many levels.
I, for one, hope to see Tancredo, Paul and Hunter remain in the race, at least for a time. They have things to say that need to be heard by America.
-MM 
|
| |
|
| Jul 16, 2007 @ 5:55 PM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
Neither Tancredo, Paul and Hunter have enough money to mount an effort. Despite Paul's attraction to the Internet community, we found in the last election that interest doesn't always translate into votes.
The McCain campaign announced another series of departures today in Iowa and South Carolina and the Senator has announced he will focus on New Hampshire. In otherwords...he's done.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 1:14 AM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,066
|
Neither Fred Thompson nor Newt Gingrich have officially entered the presidential race, even though both of these guys could conceivably obtain the Republican nomination and become running mates.
I wish you well my friends.
The "Utopia-American" viewpoint. Good night and good luck.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 9:18 AM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
kjac
Posts: 5,484
|
I don't see Newt being a real factor, but as unqualified as Freddie is, he still has the Hollywood thing going for him. I don't see any one or two clear front runners on the republican side. It's really anyone's to grab.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 10:10 AM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
Fred Thompson had quite a reputation on the Hill, and it wasn't as a hard worker. Never took an appointment past 2pm, not alot to show for his years in Congress and didn't stay through his full term.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 12:19 PM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
If the Republicans actually nominate Gingrich, it will be as divisive for the country as Clinton was/is.
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. [from the Washington Post]
He will be under criticism and investigation from day one.
We need to do the impossible, and find a candidate who actually has served with honor, and who has the best interests of the country in mind. Wake me up when we find one.
Rip Van Nightowl
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 12:33 PM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
kjac
Posts: 5,484
|
If such a candidate existed, he wouldn't be interested in politics.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 1:51 PM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
If Jesus ran for POTUSA, would he get elected?
The Republicans would condemn him for being a liberal, and the Democrats wouldn't vote for him because of his stance on homesexuality, drunkeness, and stating that there is right and wrong  .
Tricky Dick Nixon could beat Jesus in any election any day of the week and twice on Sunday. 
Face it, only the biggest sonuvabitch becomes POTUSA.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 2:18 PM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
Uab, what if we were to try to find someone who was moderate? Someone not of either extreme, sort of like... oh.. I don't know... MOST of US?! Very few of the people I know are actually vehemently for either extreme as represented by the vocal minorities and the party spokespeople.
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 2:29 PM |
And Then There Were Nine....
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
Nightowl,
The think is that politocal candidates like to polarize people with hard isssues. Like with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, I know many people with hard opinions either way on them, but few that don't care one way or the other.
Abortion, gun control, the death penaltty, take your pick are also polarizing issues.
Yes, most of of us really deep down don't care because most big issues don't effect us diretly. I.e. I don't have a wife or ever plan to get a wife an abortion, so why should I care. I don't know any Iraqis or vets.
But the politocos what to polarize us into thinking that those are the big deals and skirt by the important ones.
Am I going to get Social Security when I hit 65 like I thought the government promised? Will traffic 280 improve? Will the cost of living be higher next year than last? Will I be better off if I vote for so and so?
Americans typically vote their wallet. That's why Clinton, despite his impeachment and sex scandals, will be considered a strong president. The economy tanked under Bush I, so that's why he didn't getr reelected.
BTW the Dow hitting 14000 is hocus pocus inflation. Has anyone compared the cost of hamburger to two years ago prices?
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 20, 2007 @ 3:32 PM |
And Then There Were Nine.... |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
I have to admit, they've got me buffaloed on the Markets. Some years ago, when it first topped 10,000 (a sight I never believed I'd see in my lifetime when I was younger), I tried to point out that the stock market was no longer the indicator of what it once was. At one time, the stock marked reflected the viability of a company with regards to its products, services, inventory, etc. That is no longer the case. Nowadays, a company can actually be losing money, yet the stock can be artificially inflated by demand for the stock. And the majority of stocks pricings are based on a combination of wheter or not target earnings were hit as opposed to not (and target earnings may be 2% higher than the last quarter, yet you see a 6%-10% rise in the stock price!), and on how in demand the stocks are. Investors do not buy for long term interest yields or dividends, but buy because of speculation on the stock prices alone. This is a shaky way to purchase stocks and one reason so many people lost money in it. I remember the crash some years back, and had to point out to many, many nervous friends that the largest single day drop in the stock market was followed on Monday by the largest single day rise in stock prices. And that just emphasized how little any of it was based on real-world valuation. We have so much foreign money in our markets now, I seriously expect the whole house of cards to be tumbled by some foreign government pulling out. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, and even though I've not had any real money to invest in the market, the truth is I consider the majority of it much too risky TO invest in.
I'm also suprised by the number of people who can claim great worth because their paper money has made more paper money, and they look rich On paper, but they cannot liquidate without greatly devaluing that, and as long as it is tied up in illiquid assets, they don't have anything they can actually use. The whole system scares me because of the way people respond to it without really understanding it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|