Hillary Clinton won this one, barely. However, expect the MSM to report that New Hampshire is much more important than Iowa. Especially since it keeps Obama and Hillary in the top two spots.
New Hampsire, which voted for Kerry in the 04 Election, Clinton in 96 and has a history of going Democrat has Hillary Clinton come out on top by just a couple percent over Obama. Note that Hillary pushed very hard in NH, especially after the Iowa loss just a few days ago.
But, it is not the Democrat side that I want to focus on.
Senator McCain won on the Republican side. This should be no real suprise the state is pretty liberal, and he is also fairly liberal, but moreso that he has always had a bit of a popular base in that area. The important part, however, is not McCain. It is Rudy.
We have now gone through two major voting events (Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary) and Rudy has not exceeded 9% of the vote yet. In fact, in Iowa, he fared worse than Ron Paul. For the last year or so, he has been touted as not only the 'best' Republican by popularity, compared to Ronald Reagan even, but also was said to be the "only one" who could defeat Hillary. However, as he polls leave the New York area, they find that he is nowhere near as popular as the MSM (Mainstream Media) tries to suggest that he is. And, in truth, this election was originally shaping up to be New York vs New York, as though it were a Yankees/Mets ballgame.
Thankfully, the rest of the country gets to vote as well. Despite the desire the MSM has to ignore 'flyover country' and downgrade anyone who is from there, we do still get to vote, and it turns out that we're kind of important. Unfortunately for them, conservatives here are apparently not as liberal as conservatives there. We do not want a pro-gun control Republican who is soft on border security and illegal immigration.
The field is being narrowed to Huckabee and Romney, I believe. These two are more liberal than I would personally like, but they are more conservative than Rudy. And lightyears more conservative than Hillary or Obama, the socialist and quasi-socialist.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Huckabee and Romney scare me. Romney scares me because he's made out of plastic. Huckabee, I told you already, although he seems much more sincere than Romney.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Romney gives off a vibe to me that says "Republican Bill Clinton"
i'm no talking about any sexual issues, just that he always seems to have his finger in the air, testing public opinion before making a statement.
What we need is a leader. Someone who stands on his convictions and does not bend to the will of others.
Unfortunately, such people do not seem to exist in Government anymore.
by the way, more stuff coming out about Ron Paul and those newsletters. He's kind of turning out to be a bit of a David Duke kind of guy (not as extreme as Duke though)
I'm still wary about those letters. I'm not saying yes or no. I just find it interesting that they're coming out at a time when he's been doing much better than anyone suspected. And one of the comments in that first link you put up wasn't even racist.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
They've actually been out for a long time. Those newsletters are just now being released, that is true, but the questions about his racist nature have been out since he first announced running.
As I saw no specific evidence, and did not know anything about the guy, I just refused to comment on it.
However, the more I read, the more I am certain about it.
Yes, and Rudy's been a slime, but that fabricated story about misspending police money came out at a very inconvenient time for him. Whatever. We'll see.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't remember a story about misspending police money, but I do recall him passing off expenses he built up while having an affair to other city groups using shady accounting.
He did, indeed, offer to pay for it, but that shady work makes me question his character to be president.
Of course, having an affair is, to me, a character flaw that shows a lack of respect for others.
The story was that he was using police money to protect a woman he was having an affair with. It turned out to be bogus. Of course, I still think that he's a slime. If you want to attack a candidate, you go for something that people will be willing to believe. With Paul it would be racism, because of the stormfront deal.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I guess I didn't hear about that one. Just that he used shady accounting to move around debts involved in diddling a woman who was not his wife.
As for Paul, more and more comes out on him. he claimed to have not written those newsletters, but one specifically (where he called Martin Luther King, Jr. a homosexual pedophile) from 1990 has a personal note whishing the readers a merry christimas from a wife named carol, and children and grandchildren.
He says that isn't him. But his wife is named Carol, and he had children and grandchildren at the time.
Here's a link to a pdf of the section of the newsletter:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf
Remember, Ron Paul wrote these, but when this bit just broke a few days ago at The National Review, he claimed to not have any idea what they are.
I think it is just one of those "holy crap!" moments and he isn't sure what to do.
Interesting. Of course, what he said was that the FBI said that and I have a feeling that, at this point in time, that's not something the FBI would ever own up to saying, so it's sort of a moot point.
Even if that isn't the case, though, he is attacking Dr. King, not the race to which he belongs. It's one of things that you were talking about in another debate. People like King and Lincoln are immune to criticism because of the publics opinion of them. Even if you have nothing bad to say about them, it's still a shame that they have been put on so high a pedestal.
What I object to, in the letter, is not necessarily the content (something which will probably never be verified), but the way in which it is stated.
What I think is that his opinions of a lot of people that are widely liked by the American public, like King, Lincoln, FDR and the like are bound to get a lot of people mad at him and when people like King and Lincoln are on that list, people are bound to start saying racist. The thing is that all of these so-called racist remarks have been about people, not the race in general.
What I will say is that it does seem, based on what I've heard him say, like it is his style of speaking and it probably was one of those holy crap moments and, as most politicians do in that situation, they make the mistake of denial instead of owning up and explaining, which is always a better idea.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
Romney is actually as dangerous as Hillary if you honestly look at the flip flop lying factor.
Plus Governor plus businessman does not equal leader.
Huckabee is scary as well.
Governor and baptist minister does not equal world leader..
Just like governor plus evangelical did not equal leader in the case of Jimmy Carter.
Rest in peace,
Your Funeral Guy
Just for the record NH is traditionally a red state. They've nominated a few democrats over the years and that's why they call themselves an "independent state" but historically they go red.
Just look at their state level politics, in 2006 it was the first time in 100 YEARS that the democrats controlled both House and Senate(again at the state level.) And b/c of their slightly weird laws, NH has the largest number of state represenatives in the country, and therefore in the world....ya NH, weird right.
Anyways they are traditionally a red state and now people are looking for a reason that they switched to blue.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
They did support both Reagan and President Bush Sr.
But, in recent history, I don't think we can consider NH to be a conservative state.
I refer to states like that as 'Purple"
Ok well I refer to states that have elected their represenatives on the conservative side of things for the last 100 years as a conservative state.
Just the small things make sense to me.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
Then Oklahoma would be a liberal state.
Democrats control the state congress and we have a democrat governor.
Yet look at who we support for federal congressional elections and presidential elections.
night and day.
Have you done that for the last 100 years. I'm not saying one time makes you liberal or conservative...but for 100 years of no democrat controlled house or senate....ya that's conservative.
Pre-Clinton I think they voted for a Democrat twice for President.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
We've gone back and forth on the state level, but for at least the past few elections, it has been a Dem at the helm.
When talking about Presidential elections, I look at presidential elections. I guess that's my primary point.
I don't think that it is quite fair to infer liberalism or conservatism from voting for one party or the other. You have to look at the individuals that New Hampshire has nominated and voted for. There is actually a bloc of the Democratic Party that calls themselves Conservative Democrats, or some such thing. Besides, trends are often different in state and federal elections, for some reason.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
None of the republican candidates have a conservative record Lance. Now we have to choose from their present platform. That's why I like Mike Huckabee. He seems like the strongest on immigration and I can't say how much I favor the fair tax.
Well, there is a candidate with a conservative record: Duncan Hunter.
However, the MSM largely made sure that he received NO press, even when he was directly involved in something they were discussing.
You are correct, and I have said for a while that the 08 election will be between a socialist and a liberal.
My issues with Huckabee were that he signed on to, and defended, in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, saying that we shouldn't punish the children for the crimes of the parents, even though such action was the reward that the illegal immigrants come here for.
Though I did read some story yesterday where he said that he supports the idea of amending the requirements to be a citizen in cases of birth, so as to require at that the parents be here legally. (To avoid the 'Anchor baby" issue)
I do like the idea of changing our tax laws so as to not tax income (productivity) but sales (spending) in stead. This would not only provide less loopholes to avoid paying taxes (which results in more income at lower tax rates, which benefits us ALL), but also encourages people to save up for retirement, reducing the burden on Social Security.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com
A consumption tax would slim down the IRS.
Our Government's budget would be reduced through an IRS shake down.
I agree with lancekates statements on this Huckabee proposal.
Rest in Peace
I don't know if you've seen this yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY
Rudy never stood a chance because a) he is a former mayor and b) he has one issue: fear.
As for Romney and Teddybear. Romney seems like he does the semi-intelligent thing: figuring out what works, why it works and changing his stance accordingly. However, his first political ads scare the shit out of me. Stuff about increasing our military to be the most powerful in the world. I'm just waiting for the part about the trains running on time.
As for Teddybear, I actually wouldn't mind a Huckabee presidency. If it comes down to Obama v. Huckabee (which I kind of hope it does, unless Ron Paul makes the comeback to end all comebacks), I wouldn't be especially upset with either as president. The thing I like about him is that he has the general conservative principles, but he seems thankfully benign. There wouldn't be any massive turns for the worst because he doesn't seem to embody that type of radical change. Sometimes another Coolidge is a good thing.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic