28 Comments

• 1. John Nickelsen  |  December 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

  bill may be right; on the other hand, hillary is no where near “ready”.

• 2. neocon  |  December 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

  In my opinion, Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all not ready for the Presidency. Neither one has the experience necessary, nor the courage needed to lead the free world.

  I am leaning towards Romney.

• 3. David/California  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:10 pm

  Obama clearly has too little experience to be President - he’s never been First Lady!!!

  Of course, the jobs a former First Lady is qualified for, other than restaurant hostess or head housekeeper, is another question…

• 4. sleepygene  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

  Neocon-

  What courage has Romney exhibited? To get elected to the govenorship of MA he was a moderate republican and now trying to get the gop nomination he has changed his position on central issues to win favor with the base. Not very courageous in my book.

• 5. Ricorun  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

  Charlie Rose’s interview with Clinton was a veritable train wreck when it came to the Obama question (it’s posted on http://www.charlierose.com, by the way). Rose stuck the knife in and kept twisting. I’ve never seen Clinton so flummoxed. The Clinton campaign is clearly worried about Obama. But more importantly, their mistakes in the past couple of weeks have a stink about them reminiscent of a rotting carcass. And the timing couldn’t be worse. Too bad, so sad.

• 6. neocon  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

  sleepy,

  The only “position” Romney has flipped on is abortion. And what’s wrong with re-thinking that moral issue?

  Romney has terrific executive experience has a Governor and as the head of the USOC. He is pragmatist that gets results. Look what he did with healthcare in Mass.

• 7. Ricorun  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

  neocon: Look what he did with healthcare in Mass.

  Could you expound on that thought? In other words, could you explain both the law and why you think it was a good thing?

• 8. NeoClown  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

  No American President has ever worn a dress. Sorry Rudy and Hillary.

  No American President has ever been a member of a religious cult. Sorry Mitt.

  No American President has ever, or will ever be a black man. Sorry Obama.

  Ya’ll better get used to the sound of President McCain.

• 9. liberalT  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

  of course the Democrats are a bunch of losers. The only thing is that the Republicans are also a bunch of losers as well.

• 10. sleepygene  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

  Neocon-

  He flip flopped on immigration, gun control and gay rights. Are those issues that are important to gop voters? I have no problem with Romney changing his positions, that is fine, but don’t call him courageous. I agree though that his business accumen is superior to any of the other candidates. But being president is much different than running a corporation. By the by Romney’s medical plan forced catholic hospitals to provide morning after pills, (an abortifacient).

• 11. neocon  |  December 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  Rico,

  Romney found a sensible way to combine a free market approach with some government subsidy to provide health insurance to many that hadn’t had it. By requiring individual contribution he is able to get the most out of the subsidized money while keeping premiums affordable to most income levels. I feel it’s the best approach yet.

  NeoClown,

  Mormons do not belong to a “cult”

  And I am offended by your racism.

• 12. neocon  |  December 16th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

  Romney has not flipped on immigration, if anything he has been too vague on the issue. And likewise, he has not flipped on Gun control. He is, and always has an ardent supporter of the second ammendment, but like many GOPers including me, he supports a ban on assault weapons. Also as Governor of a liberal state, he did not move to abolish any of the states gun restrictions. That does not make him a flipper on the issue.

  And if you think that conservatives need candidate perfection in order to support that candidate, then you’re ignorantly informed on conservatism.

  We play the hands were dealt, and we usually win.

• 13. Ricorun  |  December 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pm

  neocon: Romney found a sensible way to combine a free market approach with some government subsidy to provide health insurance to many that hadn’t had it. By requiring individual contribution he is able to get the most out of the subsidized money while keeping premiums affordable to most income levels. I feel it’s the best approach yet.

  It might surprise you that I largely agree with you. The MA health plan is still in its infancy, but it has many of the components that I think are the right way to go — subsidies for those in need, sliding scales so there isn’t a huge artificial wall between those that qualify and those that don’t (which allows easier transition between one and the other), and a government oversight role on private enterprise rather than a replacement role. So it appears to me the fundamentals are in place. But the devil is always in the details. So we’ll see. Nonetheless, it seems to me the MA plan is quite similar to the Japan solution which, so far, seems to be working out reasonably well.

• 14. phnx  |  December 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

  Romney’s executive credentials and fiscal responsibility are very well established, by his successful business, and political career to date.

  He took over the Salt Lake Olympics when it was $400 million in the hole, and turned it around to a $100 million profit. When he entered the Governorship of Mass. he faced a deficit of $1.2 billion. By tax REDUCTIONS and spending CUTS he left the taxpayers with a $700 million surplus when he left four years later. It might be noted that the Mass legistlature and Deval Patrick, the new Dem Governor, have returned to fiscal irresponisibility, and Mass is now running a deficit again. None of the other candidates Republican or Democrat even come close.

  Given the financial crisis that we are facing with the deficit, healthcare, and social security, he may be the right man at the right time for those problems.

  But before he has my vote, I need to know more about his position on immigration and foreign policy.

  He seems to be a more of a technocrat that the standard politician.

• 15. neocon  |  December 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

  That’s why I lean towards Romney; his pragmatism and results oriented approach to issues. As with phnx, I want him to clarify his immigration position and even though he has little foreign policy experience, I feel very comfortable with him in that arena considering his ability and successes in other areas.

  If I voted today, I’d vote Romney.

• 16. phnx  |  December 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  What courage has Romney exhibited? Sleepygene

  Other than Mc Cain, what courage have any of the candidates demonstrated? So what’s your point?

• 17. sleepygene  |  December 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

  I was asking the question because neocon said Romney was courageous enough to be a good president. I disagreed. That was my point. I thought that was obvious.

  I know you won’t agree with this but I think Obama was courageous back in 2002 by being against the invasion of Iraq. At the time almost everyone was pro-war and Obama was not. In my opinion his courage to be against the war was correct.

  But that is politcal courage, which is important. McCain’s courage is exponentially more difficult and impressive.

• 18. neocon  |  December 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

  sleepy,

  I was speaking to Romneys courage to use force if necessary, which I believe he has.

  I don’t believe any of the Democrats have the cajones necessary for an effective foreign policy.

• 19. phnx  |  December 16th, 2007 at 5:19 pm

  In my opinion his courage to be against the war was correct. Sleepygene

  I suppose your correct if your definition of courageous is having a secure seat and voting the way your constituents want you to vote.

• 20. Mark Noonan  |  December 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pm

  Gene,

  I wouldn’t call it courageous - after all, he was an obscure, Illinois lawmaker at that point. Also, he was wrong then - and he’s wrong now.

• 21. sleepygene  |  December 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

  Phnx-

  I think you are mistaken. Obama was a state rep. in 2002 when he articulately voiced his oppsition to the Iraq war. At that point he clearly had his eyes on the 2004 senatorial election. Not many people in Illinois in 2002 were against the impending war and as I recall most everyone was buying the Iraq war sales pitch. I live in Chicago.

  Anyway, if the war had been the cake walk that was predicited I am sure Obama would have had a more difficult time winning his senate seat in 2004. His opposition was politcally courageous because he spoke his mind when it was not necessary and when it was not the conventional wisdom.

  Here is the speech wherein he voiced his opposition.

  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama’s_Iraq_Speech

• 22. Joe  |  December 16th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

  neocon,
  you should read up on the MA health plan. It does not do much to make healthcare available to a lot of people. Yes, it requires everyone to have it, and it subsidizes a fraction, but by no means does it make it affordable for a LOT of people. Making it illegal is NOT a way to have healthcare for all.
  It is still in its infancy, but right off the bat, it doesn’t come close to being a success.

  Also, were you one of those that were laughing and arguing that Kerry was such a flip-flopper in 2004??? If so, then you really sound a bit odd backing Romney.

  NeoCON, I can say that we finally agree with one thing…. NeoCLOWN’s racism is disgusting and just flat out stupid. Good for you in stating that fact.

• 23. Mark Noonan  |  December 16th, 2007 at 11:19 pm

  gene,

  Funny, I don’t recall a “sales pitch” for the liberation of Iraq…must be some weird, paranoid, leftwing things, I guess…

• 24. phnx  |  December 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

  Sleepy, Your kidding right? Any Dem funning for Senate in Ill. would be elected. Heck Pete Fitzgerald, the Republican who held the seat, barely beat Caol Mosley Braun despite all of her corruption scandals. When he dropped out of the race at the last minute, the race was guarunteed for Obama. If memory serves he defeated Alan Keyes by a 70% to 30% margin. It took absolutely no courage on his part.

• 25. Jeremiah  |  December 16th, 2007 at 11:51 pm

  Nancy Pelosi’s ready to lead!!

  Bwahahaha

  ~ Jeremiah

• 26. lilly06  |  December 17th, 2007 at 6:09 am

  Mark,

  As much as I disagree with you on many things, I have always respected your ability to be extreme with your feelings and not disrespectful.

  This ability has been diminished with this segment of your website and it is disappointing.

  Fact is, Bill Clinton has had his indiscretions but look at the current president, not only does he have his personal indiscretions but he has many professional ones too. I’m just going to mention 2 to get to the point but the drinking and the Justice Department is enough for you to understand that this president has his downfalls.

  If you are going to mention Clinton’s professional downfalls or his inability as a president fine but don’t stoop to this level, its low.

  As a president, Clinton left office with the economy in a surplus and good relations with most of the international body.

  On a professional level only, I do not think George Bush is competent or capable of running the greatest economy in the world and he has failed on uniting the country, uniting the international body, social security, the deficit etc etc.

  In the end, stick to the political issues.

  I’d rather have a president who cheated on this wife and resolved his issues and is competent than a president who has always been faithful and isn’t.

  On Obama: Bill is married to Hiliary, what do you expect him to say.

• 27. neocon  |  December 17th, 2007 at 7:27 am

  lily06,

  You (a liberal) are “disappointed” with Marks rhetoric as it relates to Bill Clinton?

  That’s priceless.

  And Bush is not capable of of “running” the economy? Despite a more robust economy today than in the 90’s?

  I also am amused by your assertion that the “international body” was united under Clinton. You are definitely a good little, indoctrinated minion of left.

  And I find it extremely interesting that you, as a woman I suppose, overlook infidelity.

  A strong woman indeed. NOW must be very proud of you. I guess all liberal men have a license to cheat as long as they’re competent and make friends with the neighbors.

• 28. Xango Annie  |  December 17th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

  lilly,lilly,lilly………How does it feel to be a female Charlie McCarthy, with your little DNC talking points…The President’s personal indescretion re stopping drinking..oh, 20+ years ago..yeah, that measures up all right to the crapweasel Clinton’s….the Grifter’s of all time…