Comments Posted By Dave Gordon
Displaying 1 To 4 Of 4 Comments
I love you Rick, but didn't you assure us that Obama wasn't a socialist? I think we only need to look back to the October archives (I think it was 10/8) of this blog to your story on how all the conservatives were overreacting to OHB's radical background and that he wasn't that radical.
Which is it, Rick? It's easy to change your tune after the fact, but I think you chastised a lot of us (at that time) for pointed out what you've just recently learned.
Maybe I've missed your point in either this or the October article. Any way, it's nice to have you back on the "right" side of the argument.
One last point, the worst part of this whole "socialism" problem is that Obama is 110% correct in stating that he is just following the playbook set out by Bush/Paulson throughout 2008. It will take years for Republicans to crawl out of that hole.
Comment Posted By Dave Gordon On 15.03.2009 @ 10:43
By no means am I ever going to "pull the switch" for Obama, but in regards to the tonight's debate, he is CLEANING HILLARY'S CLOCK. I kind of admire the guy for the way he takes her on. Thank God someone's willing to stand up to the Clintons.
I understand the appeal to Obama, he's a dynamic liberal socialist. I never did understand Bill's appeal (he reminded me of a used-car salesman) and as far as Hillary goes, what's up with her? She's the antithesis of excitement, but with no substance. I don't understand the attraction with her in the slightest. Really. She's monotone, she's can't get her story straight for more than three days straight and that voice could peel paint when she gets "excited." For all you socialists out there (not that there will be a lot on this website), please tell me what the draw is to Hillary, because I don't see it.
I swear, I must be going insane. If it's really a thing where "she's not Bush" there are a lot more qualified socialists than Hill (Rendell, Shumer, Feinstein, the list goes on).
Comment Posted By Dave Gordon On 21.01.2008 @ 21:14
I've been posting this the last couple days at other sites. Am I crazy or is this a possibility?
Here's the scenario:
We go to convention with no apparent leader. Delegates are split everywhere. There are anti-McCain people everywhere (even though he's the favorite, but not the clear majority), the conservatives will never support Rudy, and Mitt may put some Southern states at risk (although he has a shot to regain Michigan), so Mitt can't be the candidate. Huckabee's support from the social right weakens over the spring and he carries very strong support from a very small minority of delegates.
One other thing to consider is that the Rush Limbaugh's and Mark Levin's will beat the living daylights out of McCain over the next six months if he becomes the favorite. McCain will be a weakened candidate with his own base to the highest degree.
There's one person that most everyone likes (except maybe some Huckabee people), but he wasn't dynamic enough and he didn't campaign as hard as others. Fred comes back from the dead because he at least is someone every else can settle on and he's able to counter Hillary/Obama on every issue (as opposed to be on the same side of the Dems with immigration, abortion, etc.) and up to this point, he can handle debates better than the others. If he has stayed in through SupTues, he also may have been able to win a couple small Southern states.
I know this may sound like wishful thinking from a FredHead (which I am), but I also think it's a possible as anything else as I think a brokered convention is very, very possible (I was thinking this before Christmas, even if Fred had done well).
One other thing I think that no one else mentions is Bloomberg will probably run. I'd bet it's at least 50/50 if not closer to 75/25 he'll run. His ego is too big not for him to run and the last time I checked, he has a little bit of $$ to throw into a campaign. In doing this, he weakens the Democrat candidate severely (especially if it's Hill) and the Republicans aren't as weak as predicted.
Does anyone else think either of these are possible or am I whistling past the graveyard?
One thing I do know is that recent elections rarely finish the way they start and the races are very fluid. Conventional wisdom today will probably be completely different in six months. If that wasn't true, we'd already have settled on Hill vs. Rudy for the general.
Comment Posted By Dave Gordon On 20.01.2008 @ 22:35
FRED ON THE MOVE IN SC: IS IT ENOUGH?
I don't know if the question is whether or not Fred survives SC, but it's more of a question of how long he can stay in the race and how much money he can raise after SC.
If this becomes a marathon (and I think it will go to convention unsettled), he's better off than the other candidates because as I think the more he gets his message out, the better off he is. I think if he loses in SC, he plays "rope a dope" for the next few months and maybe takes a couple small states, but just manages to stay alive to get media coverage. I just don't see a lot of anti-Fred out there as I do with the other four candidates (some more than others). His style his built for the long-run.
I'm a FredHead, so maybe I'm too optimistic, but that's how I see it now. Then again, I don't think he'll do as poorly as predicted on Saturday.
Comment Posted By Dave Gordon On 17.01.2008 @ 22:51
