Romney loses in Florida to McCain...

[_karl61]

I'm not the brightest person but I can see a real winner in Romney. I guess florida could not - hopefully New York will go for Romney which would through everything up in the air again. Romeny may have also taken enough of Rudi's voters if he had bowed out earlier, so you never know - even if Rudi backs McCain, his supporters may say no to McCain.

Maybe the U.S will just sweat it out with McCain with a tanked economy so Mitt can come back and save the day in four years.

[_EAllusion]

I was disappointed tonight but I kinda knew McCain would win.

I have lived in Florida for many years and the state is slam packed with grumpy war veterans. My Dad is one of them. They gather at Elks Lodges, which are as common as 7-Elevens in central Florida. They root for McCain simply because he is a POW.

I'm hoping Romney will pull through. McCain can't beat the democratic candidate. The liberal media was wishing McCain would win because they know it would make for a smooth ride for Obama or Hillary, during the November elections.

McCain barely won the veteran vote. His major gains were in other demographics.

[_rcrocket]

I disagree with Clinton, Inc.'s politics. One thing that Romney has said that I agree with is that Washington is broken. It is full of lawyers, lawyers like you Crocky. We had 4 years of a Bush, 8 years of Clinton, Inc., then 8 more years of a Bush. That's twenty years of two family dynasties running America. And?, you want to sign on for 4 to 8 years more of this brokenness?

I don't work in Washington.

Your favorite candidate, McCain, surrounds himself with lawyers.

You buy into cliches. Washington is broken. Time for a change. Guess what -- that is the refrain heard every single election -- every. That is how Carter was elected. That is how Clinton was elected. That is how Reagan was elected.

But, now we're in a war and Americans are being killed. And, what are your Republican buds (except George Bush) focusing upon? Immigration -- building a mindless fence -- what idiocy.

Most of you have left the Church but have kept with you a mindless self-centered sexist and bigoted view of the world -- me first; get mine; protect the rich; keep the browns out (when, the Canadian border is WIDE open; you can walk across it with nothing hindering you if you walk a few feet around the checkpoints).

[_EAllusion]

I'm not the brightest person but I can see a real winner in Romney. I guess florida could not - hopefully New York will go for Romney which would through everything up in the air again. Romeny may have also taken enough of Rudi's voters if he had bowed out earlier, so you never know - even if Rudi backs McCain, his supporters may say no to McCain.

Maybe the U.S will just sweat it out with McCain with a tanked economy so Mitt can come back and save the day in four years.

In a general election, Romney was poised to get smoked, especially if he couldn't float ontop an anti-Clinton vote. The outgoing Republican administration is one of the least popular in American history. In an effort to win the Republican nomination, all the canidates save Ron Paul have adopted hawkish positions on Iraq and related matters to one extent or another that are drastically out of line with popular opinion. The Democratic nomination is between two excellent campaigners - albeit for very different reasons. Romney has little pull among independents and has a relatively recent history of adopting liberal positions along with a Mormon faith that are likely to cause apathy among the hardcore conservative/evangelical base in a general election. Romney would be looking at an awfully blue map.

[_rcrocket]

And her platform stinks. It basicaly consists of the same-old tired liberal views of tax and spend.

You worship the God of Talk Radio, obviously.

The Bush administration has done more to Spend (perhaps not tax) than any other president. Bill Clinton, by contrast, was one of the best fiscal presidents we have ever had -- reduced or eliminated agricultural subsidies; reduced welfare expense.

As far as taxing the rich -- who cares? Why shouldn't they pay? I say soak 'em, and soak 'em big.

rcrocket

[_Pokatator]

I disagree with Clinton, Inc.'s politics. One thing that Romney has said that I agree with is that Washington is broken. It is full of lawyers, lawyers like you Crocky. We had 4 years of a Bush, 8 years of Clinton, Inc., then 8 more years of a Bush. That's twenty years of two family dynasties running America. And?, you want to sign on for 4 to 8 years more of this brokenness?

I don't work in Washington.

Your favorite candidate, McCain, surrounds himself with lawyers.

You buy into cliches. Washington is broken. Time for a change. Guess what -- that is the refrain heard every single election -- every. That is how Carter was elected. That is how Clinton was elected. That is how Reagan was elected.

But, now we're in a war and Americans are being killed. And, what are your Republican buds (except George Bush) focusing upon? Immigration -- building a mindless fence -- what idiocy.

Please read my post, McCain is not my favorite. He is the most likely winner for the Reps though because he is a moderate which was my point. The cliches are an example of Washington's brokenness, very good Crocket you're thinking, kind of. I think you are mindless on illegal immigration.

Perhaps Bloomberg and his millions will enter the race blow all this speculation to hell.

[_dartagnan]

You've said enough for me to pigeonhole your abilities.

By your own logic, you must dislike O'Reiley because he is an Irish Catholic. I'm not a particular fan of O'Reiley, but he did make a good point when he said he couldn't get her positions on much of anything, and this was like two years ago. And no Don, I am not looking to O'Reiley to find out what Hillary believes. Don't even think about starting on me with that kind of crap straw man.

Umm -- one only has to examine her vote record and the influence she wields in Washington to know that that isn't true.

Oh wow, you mean she has a voting record as a Senator? Color me impressed. Isn't that what senators are supposed to do? If this is her experience, then where is the influence? Her own are turning against her already.

I've dealt with her with clients; she is probably one of the most powerful if not the most powerful person in the Senate.

Apparently not.

I think that Bill got where he was with the support of his wife.

This is a popular theory that is now belied by the fact that she runs to him to help her in her own campaign. She was a nothing when he was running for President, so I don't see how one can argue that she was behind his victory. Ross Perot was the key player behind his victory because he took so many votes that would have otherwise gone to Bush senior. Hillary was just a loud mouthed hippy along for the ride, and people assumed "strength" was an attribute of hers just because she had to deal with his adultery. Others might call it stupidity instead of strength. You seem to have intelligence and ambition confused. Hillary has yet to win a single debate. Where's the intelligence? And where is her success? She has failed at virtually everything she has tried to forward.

As far as "immigrant drivers licenses," I just don't get the hostility to this -- unless you are a bigot.

To illegal aliens that is. She supports giving government issued ID to people who are here illegally. Obama nailed her on it and she was left bumbling and seeking for the right words.

I have cited her platform. I have offered substance.

You just dished out the typical talking points but nothing changes the fact that she is a failure and a liberal socialist. She rode the coat tails of her husband. That is what history is showing us.

[_why me]

I am of the "anybody but Hillary" crowd.

That woman just opens her mouth and in 30 seconds all I can see is my ex-wife nagging.

Sorry for the sexist and narrow minded remark but I can't help it, I would vote for the wicked witch of the west before I would vote for Hillary.

I agree with you. I can't stand her and Bill. Too hungry for power and she is a turn off.

Both of you exemplify what is wrong with Mormon prejudice and intelligence. Yes, both of you are hostile to the Church but outsiders would see you both as Mormons if they visited your home on Sundays, I imagine. You probably live in Mormon communities and if you don't your families probably attend church. How can you justify judging a person for her gender -- the "nagging" "ex-wife?" And, nobody on this Board calls you into account for that?

Hillary Clinton is the most experienced person to lead this country. She is probably, as well, the most intelligent. McCain is an idiot compared to her. Romney is not experienced.

Hillary will likely have the most reasoned approach to immigration, the most reasoned approach to the war and civil rights.

rcrocket

Well, I have to admit it is a personal thing for me. I just can't stand her for her behavior in the White House with her husband Bill. I did not like that they sold out the Lincoln bedroom for whoppie sessions by Hollywood personalities. I do not like the greed for power that they both have. I am not alone in this. I believe that there are books about this aspect of the Clintons. Plus, I don't think that I can stand Bill and Hill talking like Charley McCarthey and Mortimer.

So yes, it is personal.

[_EAllusion]

Federal outlays - including non-defense related spending - has increased during the Bush administration more than any presidency since FDR. This occurred while cutting taxes, leading to massive budget deficits. And that's not including the upcoming structural problems in entitlement programs for the elderly vs. the tax base. He literally has been one of the least fiscally conservative presidents in US history. He was enabled by a Republican congress for almost the entire course of his administration. To criticize Democrats as the "tax and spend" party seems shortsighted at this point. It's better than "Spend, spend some more and worry about the funds later" approach. The Republicans should have squandered away whatever reputation for fiscal responsibility they once enjoyed. At this point, talking about those crazy tax and spend liberals sounds more like a bumper-sticker slogan than something someone can say having given the matter a modicum of thought.

[_Pokatator]

And her platform stinks. It basicaly consists of the same-old tired liberal views of tax and spend.

You worship the God of Talk Radio, obviously.

The Bush administration has done more to Spend (perhaps not tax) than any other president. Bill Clinton, by contrast, was one of the best fiscal presidents we have ever had -- reduced or eliminated agricultural subsidies; reduced welfare expense.

As far as taxing the rich -- who cares? Why shouldn't they pay? I say soak 'em, and soak 'em big.

rcrocket

My points exactly in a previous post. The only difference is that Clinton had all that fiscal responsibility forced on him by Newt and a Republican congress. Clinton took credit for it. Now what is Bush's excuse, none, and congress didn't care because they were in power. And Bob, you don't think that Washington is broken?

I say soak 'em, and soak 'em big.

Are you a tax attorney by any chance?