Only Gingrich and Santorum have agreed to show up. I think we’re going to have settle for listening to Trump weasel his way out of it - which should be entertaining in its own right, just not gigantic train-wreck entertaining.
And all the candidates can arrive in the same car!
I am still trying to figure out how Gingrich will use his current debating tactic of scolding the moderator for asking “gotcha questions” like “what are you actually going to do as president , if elected?” rather than addressing the actual debate. Can he really accuse Trump of being a Liberal media shill trying to provoke a fight between the Republicans?
You’re kidding, right? He’s Newt the Magnificent! He can do anything he wants!!! HUZZAH!
Nah, if this thing comes off at all, it’ll just be a ballwashing session. Might as well be on Fox.
OK, then what was you piont? That a demographic that isn’t likely to line up very well with Perry supporters don’t like Rick Perry? Its like those call in polls they have on Fox or the Ed show.
Why do you have to [pick the whore presented to you by the Republican Party or the Democratic party? Why can’t I go with someome presented by a third party?
Well, you don’t have to pick the [D] whore or the [R] whore. You can pick the [G] whore, or even the [I] madonna (if that’s who’s available). It would probably be wise to do this with the understanding that it’s actually going to be the [D] whore or the [R] whore who wins the election regardless of what you do, though.
Given this stark slice of reality, counting the number of open sores is probably good advice…
I keep trying. He won’t let me.
If even a small portion of the Nader voters had voted for Gore, Gore would have won the election. Period. The question remains: Who would you have rather had as Pres: Bush or Gore? Nader voters are painfully unwilling to answer this question.
I find it easier to condemn Nader voters than the stay-at-homes. The latter may be uninformed or apathetic. The former tend to be informed, concerned, and progressive in politics yet acted foolishly in a way that did grave damage to America and the world.
Had the two major candidates each been sensible centrists, a vote for Nader would be defensible. But, instead, Gore should have been particularly appealing to “green” thinkers, while GWB turned out to be the worst President ever.
Yes, were it not for Gore’s foolish campaign, Gore would have won.
If not for Clinton’s foolish dalliance, Gore would have won.
If not for Starr’s vendetta, Gore would have won.
If not for Rush Limbaugh’s popularity, Gore would have won.
If not for hanky-panky in Florida, Gore would have won.
These are all true statements.
But the fact remains: If not for Nader votes, Gore would have won.
True, but these facts also remain:
If not for left-leaning non-voters, Gore would have won.
If not for Bush voters, Gore would have won.
If not for Florida, Gore would have won.
If not for any number of other factors which might have been different but weren’t, Gore would have won.
etc.
If you can show me logically why Nader voters are more to blame than another factor, go ahead. Otherwise, you’re just arguing from emotion.
Because of all those things (in both lists), the Nader vote is the one that the voter had control over.
I voted for Gore. I couldn’t help with the Clinton baggage (although I still think he was a great President). I didn’t vote for or campaign for Bush. I didn’t design the damn butterfly ballot. I couldn’t force left-leaning voters to vote (although I did encourage them). I couldn’t put a bullet in Rush’s head (well, I could have, but that would be bad).
What I could do, is pull the damn lever (color the bubble - whatever) for the candidate whose positions most closely matched mine that actually had a chance to win. Period. End of story.
Nader voters didn’t and while they certainly exercised their right to vote for the candidate of their choice, they did so in a (as it turned out) spectacularly counter-productive fashion.
Thus, regardless of all those other factors, based on their implementation of the single decision that they had at their disposal, the Nader voters must accept some responsibility for GW I.
You know the Nader voters suffered through GWB with the rest of us. This continued pile on of blame is ridiculous. If the Democrats were better organized and sold themselves and explained their actions better there wouldn’t have been room for a Nader Campaign. I don’t blame Nader voters for their vote, I blame democrats for there inability to connect with their own freaking base.
The Democratic Party’s base is further to the right than you think it is. 
Sorry if I gave a misimpression there. I don’t blame Nader voters for GW I and I certainly agree that the Democrats (and Gore) badly mishandled that election (although I would frankly question calling the far left the Democrat’s “base” - I don’t think that’s been true for 30 or more years). I was simply pointing out that, in the grand scheme of things, some responsbility for GW’s win must lie with the Nader voters - particularly those whose vote was some sort of protest against Gore and the party. The true Naderites (who wouldn’t have voted for Gore anyway) have no responsibility for the debacle.
I think they do accept some responsibility, just not the level that is being assigned to them by bitter Gore voters. You voted for Gore. Good for you. But you’re blaming Mr. NaderVoter for not doing that, which you had zero control over. Equally, the man in Florida who didn’t vote at all is someone you had zero control over. You had zero control over the Floridian who voted for Bush. If you want to blame someone, why is NaderVoter more to blame than NonVoter or BushVoter? The blame should be equally shared among all individuals who did not vote for Gore, no matter the reason. Cherry-picking a subset because you feel betrayed is illogical.
ETA: Never mind—your last post crept in there while I was writing, and I’d agree with that.
The irrational blame placed on Nader voters continues to amaze me. Nevermind the voters who were illegally disenfranchised. Nevermind the votes that were not counted or improperly counted. Nevermind the highly political assist from the US Supreme Court. No, what’s really heinous is that anyone had the audacity to vote for Nader. And let’s not mention the myriad problems with the Gore campaign or his (perceived) mediocre performance in the debates.
That’s not to say that Nader wasn’t a factor. But to focus on Nader voters is to gloss over some pretty major issues. Instead of slamming the Green Party and leaving it at that, Democrats should have been arguing for voting reform. But alas, it’s easier to simply blame others and shrug.
Oh no. Is this a passive-aggressive prediction for a GW II?
Cool. It always surprises me when people equate “responsibility” with “sole responsibility”.
Happy Lendervedder, oh no. GW II happened in 2004.
Adding to the hilarity of these clowns running out of all the candidates running only 2 managed to be on the Virginia ballot. Virgina does not allow write in campaigns.
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul can win Virgina now. Virgina’s 151 electoral voted are predicted to be a requirement to win the Presidency.
This shows how un-serious a candidate Newt Gingrich is. Newt is from Virgina and probably could have collected the 10,000 signatures needed by leaving a clipboard on his front door. He now claims the problem is Virginia’s laws, mainly them now allowing write in campaigns.
Do people really want to elect a guy who couldn’t possibly win his home state now?
You must have only skimmed the news. Romney and Paul are the only candidates on the Republican primary ballot.
Still doesn’t say anything good about the campaign organizations of the other six dwarves.