This entry was posted on Thursday, December 20th, 2007 at 8:26 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Good luck Tauhei, Hillary’s support for failed US foreign policies is why she’s lagging in the polls.
I’m surprised that the people on this blog who talk about freedom from nanny state, individual responsibility, constitutional protection etc seem never to talk about Ron Paul. He’s the only candidate who’s consistently espousing the values people on this blog talk about a lot.
“As a [10 term] congressman, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. He is not accepting a government pension. He returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. As a member of Congress, he has never voted a raise for himself. Do you know any other member of Congress that can make such a claim? Of course you don’t, because Ron Paul is truly one-of-a-kind.”
Former President Ronald Reagan said this about Ron Paul, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
Yeah, I’m a little disturbed by the endorsement there. I thought Farrar claimed to be from the libertarian leaning wing of the Nats. Guiliani is terrifying – the only reason he’s not the scariest of the candidates is that the Republicans have somehow managed to forage up every terrifying individual all at once. Romney’s probably the scariest, followed by Guiliani, followed by Huckabee…
Yeah I saw that among his top ten funders were the US Air Force, Navy and Army (thats THROUGH them, opposed FROM them). Probably cos it sounds like he doesn’t really want to use them.
The reason kiwibloggers don’t really talk about him is because this is a forum about New Zealand politics, not American. He would end the ‘war on drugs’ and dismantle most governments departments – probably not the forum for that sort of stuff, really.
actually its more that the media don’t want to advertise them, locally I’ve noticed that the NZ media mainly show the democratic side of the elections, probably shows how liberal biased the media is. But I think he’s getting noticed more now with the $6million in one day donations. the most exciting thing about this donation day was the amount of first time donators
Giuliani supports detention without trial and suspension of habeas corpus, supports torture of suspects, agrees with search and interception without warrants, and belives that presidential authority overides the courts, the Congress and the law. Giuliani claims he supports tax cuts (though his record is not as great as he claims), but he also supports big government.
I am rather suprised, given your conservatism with libertarian leanings, David, that you don’t support Ron Paul. Ron Paul stands for personal liberty, upholding the constitution, small government, free trade and a policy of non-intervention.
[DPF: Oh I love Ron Paul but he won’t win a single delegate]
Though it saddens me to say it, Obama as a democratic candidate is the best hope for the worst of the republican elements in the US.
Republicans know that Bush is extremely unpopular and that the republican following him to try and get to the oval office is going to have a hard time. Arnold Schwarzenegger made an open effort to distance himself from Bush and it paid off handsomely. Any GOP candidate is going to have to do the same.
The very fact that Obama is who he is will give pause to some voters. We know that he is charismatic and intelligent. He is also inexperienced and black. However enlightened we would wish the US to be, that will be an issue for some people.
The good thing is these people would probably vote republican anyway, regardless of who was running.
I notice some people in the states are saying
that Obama or Clinton should get James Webb as a running mate.
It would stop the chickenhawks like Giuliani
asking why Obama or Hillary were not in
What a scumbag Giuliani is, dodged the draft
then spent three years chasing other draft
dodgers for the US govt.
To paraphrase Senator Dodd, for Giuliani every sentence has a noun, a verb, and 9/11. If he is selected it may well completely alienate the religious right from the GOP.
The Republican candidates are completely unimpressive. Perhaps only McCain can stand up to the scrutiny of a presidential campaign. At present the Republican’s are eating their young.
Huckabee?? Hahahaha. Oh, man. That could be the funniest thing I’ve heard all week.
But in all likelihood it will come down to Clinton and Giuliani. They’re the biggest names, and they have the most money behind their respective campaigns. And as Tauhei Notts points out, bookies like to back the favourite: if money is on the line, all ideologies and politicking take a back seat. Unfortunate, but true. Personally, I think Obama is the only positive candidate. The rest are just the usual suspects. But as around 80% of America is white, slightyrighty has a good point (also unfortunate): many people will not be able to see beyond colour.
True, Obama has a few problems other than cultural incompatibility in the eyes of the majority US electorate.
A couple of years in the Senate means zero experience…his team of “who?” would run the US….you wouldn’t know if he is “positive or not.
Half of the US think there’s a chance Al Sharpton is going to get a gig.
Admitted serious drug use in the past….skeletons will need to stay buried.
This kid is going to run the US military?
And “Obama” is rather too close to Osama.
My theory is the bookies are shortening this fella to bring in the sucker money, if he get’s the nomination watch the overnight blow out.
Rudi is already dead in the water. He won’t place well in Iowa or New Hampshire, so nobody will be talking about him. Expecting him to pick up delegates in the big states later is a foolish strategy on his part. Events will have overtaken him by that stage.
Huckabee will win Iowa and Romney will win New Hampshire, and those two will be the ones duking it out.
I’m not quite so pessimistic about Ron Paul as others may be. He has bought a half-hour tv special in Iowa and all he needs to do is come third there to make people sit up and notice. If he maintains that through New Hampshire and beyond he could start seriously challenging the other two. I’m realistic about the chance of that happening, but I think it’s actually more likely than Giuliani getting anywhere. His campaign is stalled at the start-line.
“DPF: “Oh I love Ron Paul but he won’t win a single delegate”
But he’s an isolationist/pacifist, and you’re a rabid expansionist hawk who believes in white house’s fantasy/lie about a highly sophisticated and oraganised international network of terrorists who want to destroy the west no?
Anyway I’ve just been watching a brilliant video which exposes that lie. Not that you’ll have the intellectual courage to watch it.
Or is there anything in particular about Obama that endears him to Kiwis other than the fact that it gives us the warm fuzzies to think of a black president of the US? (Hinamanu above – and I got this way about Jesse Jackson when I was a teenager). What would it be about his POLICIES, and do Kiwis even know anything about this?
By the way I would like to see a President Condi Rice one day.
Rice has disappointed. Colin Powell was who I wanted, but when I went to hear him speak recently he was very clear on his lack of desire to be (further) in politics. Which is yet another qualification for being in politics…
As I said above Ron Paul would get my vote. However, if you want my prediction, it’s McCain with Hukkabe as his deputy.
Well done roger nome for linking to The Power of Nightmares. I do so myself on this blog whenever I get the chance which is rarely. It’s a great alternative perspective to the war on terror. You might not buy into it yourself, but you should at least watch it.
Sorry, was that “well done roger for trolling”? Or “well done roger for link whoring”? I generally try to discourage those behaviours – I feel that people should use their own blogs if they want to post things that they think other people should see, particularly when you are going to be all sanctimonious about it. If you want to post on someone else’s blog, I feel that you owe the courtesy to stay on the topics that they choose.
Fair comment PaulL, and that’s precisely why I don’t post the link myself unless it’s on the topic – and it rarely is. But since roger nome already did, I took the opportunity in my post, the first part of which was on topic, to endorse it, since it’s a valuable but little-known perspective into one of the most important issues we face today.
Since Roger lives in Dunedin and Reid (I think) lives in Chch the two of you should get together because, despite your political differences, you seem to have a lot in common.
Not that I want to encourage trolling BUT…. rather than than exhibiting …intellectual courage… perhaps you two could exercise some intellectual curiosity about the main man behind Nightmares.
Since I’m leaving to drive South now with my kids I do not have the time to go into more detail. However, other readers may wish to enquire further into previous efforts by Mr Paxman. I would recommend in particular A Higher Form of Killing, and especially the edition published in 2002.
Fascinating stuff, especially given the underlying messages being delivered here about intellects, propaganda and ‘the sheeple’.
I live in Eastbourne, Wgtn tom, and even though you don’t buy it, I’m glad you took the trouble to watch it. When you get the chance to reply, I’d be interested to discuss your specific objections to the material presented.
I read an earlier edition of A Higher Form Of Killing about 18 months ago, I’m mystified by your comment Tom, as you appear critical of the book. What I read was a politically neutral and straight forward history of the development and use of chemical and biological weapons.