Yea, a week or two ago in NH (the news got kind of stomped on by Palin showing up in the same state to do whatever it is that Palin is rolling around the country doing).
The weird pussyfooting around announcing has been really weird. I don’t recall anything similar from past primaries. Especaially Bachmann announcing she’s running at a Presidential Primary debate.
He’s announced that he’s announcing. Or something.
The candidates usually delay announcing as long as they can. I don’t know if it’s because they want to practice and get everything up and running first or because they want to campaign and raise money for as long as they can without the scrutiny that comes with being a declared candidate. In the last few cycles, the announcements had moved earlier and earlier. I think Clinton declared in January 2007, and by then there had been pressure on her to declare for some time because everyone knew she was going to be a candidate. I remember her complaining about that a little bit. Anyway that trend has been reversed this year. Some of the Republicans still haven’t declared, and some of the official declarations are pretty recent. But there’s an incumbent this year and they’re being more cautious.
There is some sense in delaying an announcement. When a candidate announces, that’s one headline, and it’s settled. When a candidate hasn’t, though, they can stake claim to column-inches speculating about when and whether they’ll announce. Though obviously you can only delay so long, before the answer to that speculation becomes “no”.
No cite and someone can correct me, but I think there’s also significant changes on what you can and can’t spend your PAC money on depending on if you’re a declared candidate or not.
You can file your papers online and he checked the box marked “In Perpetuity”.
Looks like Huntsman is in and possibly Perry.
Huntsman is the most qualified candidate for the Republican nomination. It will be interesting to see how well he fares in a field of clowns. This may be more a test of the electorate than of the candidates.
Crane
I think what Ron Paul is trying to say is enough of government meddling in our lives. It is not fair for the government to give one group a helping hand & not another.
How, exactly, does guaranteeing certain rights to everyone constitute “a helping hand” to one group?
Huntsman is being dismayed by many repubs because he was Obama’s ambassador. But I agree that Huntsman is the most qualified out there. As for Perry? I am not sure we are ready for another Governor from Texas.
By everyone being on the same level playing field. You are given one group precedent over another…how is that fair?
I probably be labeled a racist for this but…Affirmative action quite honestly is for all intensive purposes wrong, you are giving priority to another group of people over another. How is that fair?
My point is this we are all Americans treat us like such, instead of putting us into classes to fight each other. Break the class warfare. JMO
I agree with first half of that statement. Unfortunately there are too many partisans in the Republican Party for him to actually think he could get the nomination. I do not know of his qualifications, will have to do my homework.
As far as Perry, well I believe you are partly right on that one. Yes, some are weary of another Texan. But on the plus side Texas is doing better than most of the United States. Only time will tell.
Firstly, you earn a place in Grammar Hell for saying “for all intensive purposes”. The phrase is “for all intents and purposes”. Repent!
Secondly, and more seriously, the point of AA is that the playing field isn’t level - or rather, the playing field may well now be level but one team has had its legs broken repeatedly in the past and needs a little help until it gets back to full health. I’m not a particular fan of the policy but I understand why it exists.
Hey, the rich white guys started it.
:smack: I beg your forgiveness!
I stand by my statement, I think to move on we have to (re) level the playing field. Yes, I understand what took place in the past but, I think it is time to reverse Affirmative action. I think all it is doing is causing more racial tensions than helping.
In relation to the rich white guys started it…Two wrongs don’t make a right 
Paul was talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not affirmative action. While affirmative action based programs have occasionally been used by states and federal agencies to comply with CRA mandates, the two are not otherwise related.
Having a problem with affirmative action doesn’t mean you have a problem with the Civil Rights Act.
In any case, you’re not giving one group “precedent” over another. You’re giving several groups favorable treatment over one which has continued to receive favorable treatment otherwise right up to the present.
For example, the American Bar Association didn’t admit its first black member* until 1948, and didn’t admit its tenth black member until 1966. Partly that was because the ABA didn’t want negroes joining, and partly it was because blacks weren’t admitted to law schools in many states. Arizona had five black licensed attorneys in 1977.
I assume I don’t need to explain what was going on in 1964. Bear in mind that most people who were alive then are still alive now.
I understand where we came from. I also know the forward strides we have made as a country. I still think we need to re-access the need for the (Affirmative Action) law. I personally think any preferential treatment over another group is wrong. JMHO
That’s nice. It still has very little to do with the Civil Rights Act.
What part of I was talking about Affirmative action & not the Civil Rights Act don’t you understand?
The part where you were responding to posts regarding Paul’s view of the Civil Rights Act. If you want to just riff on unrelated laws you don’t like, you should probably get a blog instead of pretending to be conversing with other people.
The part where you weren’t: