from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Mitt is the strongest candidate .

---

Mitt has always been the stronger candidate.
The Dems have always planned on running against Mitt from the beginning.

Yes, the Dems have had ads attacking both Newt and Rick too, so this is nothing new for them.

The idea that the Dems have is to make sure that Mitt is as weak as they can help make him.

Now this has come up with the Michigan primary only because Mitt is doing so poorly in the latest polling.
Mitt shows every sign of not being able to carry even his home state....this is like a gift that has fallen from heaven for the Dems.

The dems know that there is such discontent among the conservatives when it comes to Mitt, that now is the time to toss into the mix a few TV spots attacking Mitt.

It will help weaken Mitt coming out of this and heading into Super Tuesday.....the weaker Mitt becomes the more likely the Republican Leadership will change to a "Open Convention"

and the idea of the Republicans needing to switch to an Open Convention is the greatest news for Obama he could hope for...

For even the talk in the media now of an Open Convention is the same as admitting that the Republicans dont have anyone to go up against Obama that they will all support.


its the same as handing Obama a victory.....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...pen_convention


Rush is now reporting on what I also have been reading about for a while on some of the Republican Blogs i follow....

it's like I have been saying, there is now more and more open discussion of an "Open Convention" from the Leadership.

and lets be clear here.....the term "Open Convention" is a code word for "Get rid of Mitt"


The fact that the Leadership is now clearly dropping the hint to Mitt like this is a sign that the Leadership wants Mitt to believe that he has "nothing to lose" at this point, and so has to put all the chips he has to play into the game right now...or it's all over.

Mitt has to win in his home state primary...AND Mitt has to win big on Super Tuesday or the Party Leadership will come up with "Plan -B"


That means that I expect a different Mitt to hit the stage tonight in the debate.
Mitt has to be at his best, and then some tonight in the debate.

Mitt has to handle with ease every question, Mitt has to take the attack to Rick, and Mitt has to win every point he makes.

Mitt also needs Rick to stumble baddy over a question....

And as for Newt?...Mitt needs Newt to appear crazy or sleepy....it depends on how hyped up Newt is tonight....


it should be the best debate to watch and go over tomorrow ever....

Good news for Mitt appears.....

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...-super-tuesday


it seems to be a result of tracking Facebook and twitter, but still it does show some welcome news for supporters of Mitt...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-might-get-in/


The leadership of the Republican Party is no longer just whispering.....they are telling us flat out.

make no misunderstanding about it, this is all aimed at Mitt.
Mitt is being told clearly now that he has to win in his home State and on Super Tuesday, or it's game over....

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...pen_convention


Rush is now reporting on what I also have been reading about for a while on some of the Republican Blogs i follow....

---

Can I just tell you that I can't stomach listening to Rush anymore. I think it began when he was making excuses for Herman Cain.

So, a little background check---Rush went to college in Missouri but then flunked out. Well, the more and more I listen, the more I realize that he is good at spouting off at the mouth but his lack of education is becoming glaring. He seems more male chauvinistic then just about anything else. I keep trying to turn on the radio and listen to him while driving, but after a few minutes I just want to puck--so off the radio goes again.

such anger....

It's not healthy kid....

And it's not only you,,,,,I have noticed that from a lot of Mitt supporters during this election.

Its not really a good idea to make people in your own Party out to be the devil you know....because down the road you always find that guys on your team are always better than guys on the other.

But what I have noticed lately is that on call-in shows the supporters of Mitt are so angry, so mad at the other people in the race,,,so willing to paint them as the devil, that it will be impossible for them to find a way to vote for them later even against Obama.


The other day I listened to a Mitt supporter attack Rush and he was just yelling and spitting mad that Rush was not also a supporter of Mitt.

Rush was trying to point out that as a Republican he would support and vote for anyone in the race against Obama, but the Mitt supporter would have none of that!

There was such hate of Rick in the other guy's voice that it was clear he would never vote for Rick ever......



I have noticed that myself on this topic...

Remember I have never once said i have officially indorsed anyone for president.

I have said from the beginning I would gladly vote for anyone in the race against Obama...

yet you would not believe the personal attacks and how angry some people get because Im not in Mitt's camp.




Mitt people just come off as too angry to sit down at the table of reason....




One of the things I hear is, that a lot of Mitt's supporters are all mad that the Party has turned it's back on the most electable candidate.

But I got to ask....."Who says Mitt is any more electable than someone else?"


We dont know that at the start of the Primary season...
We have to find out during the primarys who is the most electable.
Thats what the Primarys tell us!

I think that right now it's Rick that has the best claim to being the most electable because he so far has carried the most States.

The truth is that mitt has turned out to be a very weak candidate, getting far less votes this time in the very same State he ran in last time and got more votes!


The facts say that Mitt was NEVER all that electable in the first place!

[QUOTE=BigJulie;116397]

Quote:

---

Can I just tell you that I can't stomach listening to Rush anymore. I think it began when he was making excuses for Herman Cain.
.

---

Rush correctly pointed out something that the media totally missed about Cain.

Remember how for a while there the media reports were adding yet another number to the women who were just about to step up and change Cain with doing something wrong?

Every day i would check the morning news and they would say the list of women stepping forward has risen to 2....to 4....to 6....to 8....i think it went all the way up to 12 near the end.

Rush points out..."Where are these 12?"

Who was doing the counting?

How were the women 'checking in' to be counted?


Ever notice that this whole topic dropped right off the radar?

The reason is that if you try to do research on how the numbers went up and up you cant find out how this was done.

The media was reporting comments made on Facebook and twitter?

The media needed a story, so "Add another number to list"...and you had today's story for the top of the news....




Now Im not saying there were 12 or not.
Im not saying that at all...

But what I am saying is that no one knows why we use the number '12"?

No one knows how that number kept going up and up?

It's like 6 months later, and the story seems to have totally disappeared.
When some people have tried to go back and ask the news reporters where they kept getting higher and higher numbers, they would just point to the reports of other news reporters as their source.

because I was at kendo during thie debate I have not had a chance yet to see any of it on the news.

I have checked a bunch of the political blogs and conservative websites and read the early reviews of the debate, and so far i see the following being talked about.


Mitt - did good....came out strong, and really took the fight to Rick.


Rick - did not stumble, and by some accounts did the best in the debate.


Ron - had some good moment, did no real harm to anyone or himself...


Newt got off the best line of the night...may have helped himself a lot because of it too.



It will be interesting to see how the TV news starts to sum up the debate...
Right now my gut feeling is that the debate might help Mitt the most even-up the polling numbers before the primary.

I will have to see if anyone in the race has to take most of today to fix any errors committed during the debate?....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

That means that I expect a different Mitt to hit the stage tonight in the debate.
Mitt has to be at his best, and then some tonight in the debate.

Mitt has to handle with ease every question, Mitt has to take the attack to Rick, and Mitt has to win every point he makes.

Mitt also needs Rick to stumble baddy over a question....
...

---

More reviews of this last debate are being posted on the political Blogs I follow, and it seems that all of the things I was talking about above were seen in how Mitt did in the debate.

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116408]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Rush correctly pointed out something that the media totally missed about Cain.

Remember how for a while there the media reports were adding yet another number to the women who were just about to step up and change Cain with doing something wrong?

Every day i would check the morning news and they would say the list of women stepping forward has risen to 2....to 4....to 6....to 8....i think it went all the way up to 12 near the end.

Rush points out..."Where are these 12?"

Who was doing the counting?

How were the women 'checking in' to be counted?


Ever notice that this whole topic dropped right off the radar?

The reason is that if you try to do research on how the numbers went up and up you cant find out how this was done.

The media was reporting comments made on Facebook and twitter?

The media needed a story, so "Add another number to list"...and you had today's story for the top of the news....




Now Im not saying there were 12 or not.
Im not saying that at all...

But what I am saying is that no one knows why we use the number '12"?

No one knows how that number kept going up and up?

It's like 6 months later, and the story seems to have totally disappeared.
When some people have tried to go back and ask the news reporters where they kept getting higher and higher numbers, they would just point to the reports of other news reporters as their source.

---

I only heard the number of 4. But, 4 is 4 too many. Rush got it wrong defending Cain---it made him look chauvinistic (which he is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

because I was at kendo during thie debate I have not had a chance yet to see any of it on the news.

I have checked a bunch of the political blogs and conservative websites and read the early reviews of the debate, and so far i see the following being talked about.


Mitt - did good....came out strong, and really took the fight to Rick.


Rick - did not stumble, and by some accounts did the best in the debate.


Ron - had some good moment, did no real harm to anyone or himself...


Newt got off the best line of the night...may have helped himself a lot because of it too.



It will be interesting to see how the TV news starts to sum up the debate...
Right now my gut feeling is that the debate might help Mitt the most even-up the polling numbers before the primary.

I will have to see if anyone in the race has to take most of today to fix any errors committed during the debate?....

---

I didn't watch the debate, but I think Mitt did well by one account---my son said he was listening to Rush today and Rush was touting Newt---if that is the case, Rick has shot himself in the foot with all of his Satan, birth control stuff. I personally agree with Rick on most religious issues, but when you are talking about politics, you need to speak in ways that ALL can understand, not just the religious. I guess we will watch and see if Rick can resurrect himself :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I didn't watch the debate, but I think Mitt did well by one account---my son said he was listening to Rush today and Rush was touting Newt---if that is the case, Rick has shot himself in the foot with all of his Satan, birth control stuff. :)

---

Rick had 2 bad parts.

The first is that rick did not have more or less any of his supporters in the audience, and it showed.

Mitt had packed the place, as did Paul and Newt.

The 2nd place where Rick got into trouble is over his voting record.

The truth is, the social issues did not seem to have played the role that I had expected.




And I have had a chance now to go over a few clips and it does seem clear that Newt actually had a good time during this debate.

I think what Rush was talking about is that when Newt was higher in the polls he was too tense during the debate.
This time Newt knows he is out of the running and he really enjoyed himself and of the 4 guys, he was the most interesting to watch.

Rick and Mitt seemed to **** the whole debate fighting ..
They both were busy pointing out the flaws in each other.

There was never a real good statement about why the conservatives should support one guy over others.

it was more a debate to see who could make the other guy look the worst.

No one really looked that good by the end, except for Newt who did get off some good lines that are quoted today in the news.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Rick had 2 bad parts.

The first is that rick did not have more or less any of his supporters in the audience, and it showed.

Mitt had packed the place, as did Paul and Newt.

---

If you really believe this, then I am left to believe that Rick has no control over what happens while he is on the campaign trail. What will his excuse be for when he shows such lack of forsight if he should win the GOP.

Quote:

---

The 2nd place where Rick got into trouble is over his voting record.

The truth is, the social issues did not seem to have played the role that I had expected.

---

Because the economy is still having problems as much as Obama wants to pretend otherwise.

Quote:

---

And I have had a chance now to go over a few clips and it does seem clear that Newt actually had a good time during this debate.

I think what Rush was talking about is that when Newt was higher in the polls he was too tense during the debate.
This time Newt knows he is out of the running and he really enjoyed himself and of the 4 guys, he was the most interesting to watch.

---

Wait, isn't Newt the one who pronounced himself the GOP winner a couple of months back? The way that Rush backs Santorum, I think those 150 pastors have him in their back pocket.

[QUOTE=BigJulie;116446]

Quote:

---

If you really believe this, then I am left to believe that Rick has no control over what happens while he is on the campaign trail.

---

we shall have to see when they all write their books why Mitt was able to pack the seats as much as he did.

I think what we will find is that Mitt knows this is his last stand and so bussed in anyone who would care to go.

As i said on another post, I think the Party Leadership has let Mitt know very clearly that he has to carry his home State, and he has to end this on Super Tuesday, or its going to be hard not to open the convention and clear the current list of names off the stage.

Knowing this, Mitt has decided that there is no point is saving a lot of cash for later.

From what I understand, Mitt is out spending everyone combined in his home State......This is as I suggested .


I think from Rick's point of view, the debate was just one event on a road leading up to the convention.
At this point I believe Rick has to be thinking long-term, and saving his cash to carry the fight all the way to the convention floor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

....
Because the economy is still having problems as much as Obama wants to pretend otherwise.

---

As I said, and as I have learned Rush now has also come around to.....By the time we go to the voting booth in the fall i believe the media will be presenting this economy as being the "Obama Recovery"


I believe there will be the results of polls in the news leading up to election day that will show that most Americans are happy with the way the President has fixed things, and that the issue is off the table.


I believe that a war-time President will always have a built in advantage in an election, and that this fact is not lost on Obama.

[QUOTE=BigJulie;116446]

Quote:

---

.....

Wait, isn't Newt the one who pronounced himself the GOP winner a couple of months back? .......

---

If you remember, 2 weeks before Iowa Newt seemed to take charge of the election and was sitting good.

Then this election changed , and the results of that change are still with us.

It was the willingness of Mitt's camp to go after newt in Iowa that so ticked-off Newt that changed.

before this year, the rule was the 11th Commandment.

The 11th Commandmentt so ruled the way people acted that while there were attacks ads, they were always seen as almost "offensive" in the eyes of the party.

This year attack ads are the rule....the party is still in a bit of shock at the way supports of one Republican are treating others in the same Party.

This came up the other day when on his show Rush received a call from a Mitt supporter that showed just how truly evil some Mitt supporters think that non-Mitt supporters are.

----------------------


Anyway, back to Iowa and Newt>

Because of the attack ads in Iowa we saw Newt fall right off the radar and that is when Newt decided that he would stay in this race to cause Mitt the most harm he could.

Now the way it has worked out, Newt by staying in actually caused more harm to Rick than to Mitt, but thats ok to Newt because Newt never considered Rick to be worth the worry.


Newt had a great night in this last debate because Newt could be Newt.

Newt knows he was never going to gain much in the debate, so he didnt have much to lose too.
Thus a more relaxed Newt was able to handle every question better and spoke from his heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

.....I think those 150 pastors have ......

---

You list the Texas evangelical endorsement a lot...it seems to be on your mind a lot...

Let us remember the context of what you are remembering.
The endorsement you speak of simply reflected the push of the pro-Life cause.

It came after the 4 major pro-life election forums that all the candidates attended..

Ummm...all except for One Guy, that is...

Yes, at each of the 4 major Pro-life election forums where all the candidates were invited to come and answer questions , we saw one candidate represented each time by an "Empty Chair"


Mitt never showed up.

Mitt has made his feeling very clear about the Pro-Life cause because of this .

Well under the rules of the way they were indorsing people , you had to also show up and be willing to talk to people about issues in-order to be considered.

Mitt never made it to Texas to be on the list to be considered.

This failure of Mitt to sit down and talk to the pro-Live cause at the beginning of this Primary season is very much reflected in how the conservatives in the Party have rejected Mitt now later.


If you want to know why this election has turned out to be a nightmare for Mitt?....it is simply the result of the way Mitt has acted in connection to the issue of ABORTION.

Thats why the election is in the mess it is.


If you look at the way Mitt has run his election, it is very clear that Mitt does not want to be ***ociated with the pro-Life cause, nor the Pro-Live movement.
Now the Pro-Life cause cuts across religions and Christian denominations...but it is very much connected to the Christian church.

When Mitt makes it very clear to the pro-Life cause that "He is not interested"...he is also addressing this lack of interest to a lot of Christians from all parts of the body of Christ.

This is yet another wall that Mitt has constructed between himself and the very conservative base that he needs to beat Obama later.
Mitt has in effect, pushed away the very people he would need to be elected president.





Let me explain one thing that I think a lot of "middle of the road" (economic) Republicans misunderstand.

A lot of them guys are under the idea that Mitt can beat Obama by appealing to the undecided voter.
This is the reason the Mitt / McCain / Bob Dole have all run elections that they aimed at appealing to the none-church going, middle of the road, independent voter.

Mitt thinks that if he attracts the independent voter, and gets the support of the conservative voter, that this will give him enough to beat Obama.

Mitt is wrong.

But then again, this same thinking was behind Bob Dole and Mccain too.
they all appeal to the independents by pushing away the conservatives, with the hope the conservatives will come back because "Who else can they vote for?"


Mitt just does not understand that Republicans win the White House by firing up the Conservative base of the party.....NOT by appealing to independents!

I don't agree with you....I think the main predictor of whether an incumbant will win lies in the economy. It didn't matter what Republican won last time, the economy was in the tubes and therefore, Obama was going to win, no question.

You seem to think that Obama can make this economy look like it is recovering from the stock market. There is a hole in his logic---inflation. Right now, the only reason that inflation looks okay is because the housing market is in the tubes. Why? Because of the Frank Dodd bill. The housing market will stay depressed until that bill gets changed. The other side of the coin is inflation which is occurring in the commodities market. Next you have gas prices---its a bad mix and people can feel it in their checkbooks. As always, the economy will be a huge predictor in who wins---which is why Obama is dumping in a much money as he can---going toward the middle on somem tax measures, why the s.s. tax (payroll tax) has been extended, and why Obama decided not to bring troops home this year, but will bring them home next year (personally it makes me sick that young mens lives are at stake so it makes the economy look better) and why the Obamacare taxes are not set to kick in until 2013. The biggest thing a candidate has to do is point to these things.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#...r-gop-race.cnn

What do you think about this video. It looks like Santorum may have not been so honest in the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You seem to think that Obama can make this economy look like it is recovering from the stock market. There is a hole in his logic---inflation. Right now, ......

---

a typical post from people who don't read what i say...

have I ever said squat about the stock market?

Nope.




But then I guess because you got something to say about that topic you wanted to work it into the conversation somehow and so you made up a false idea that I give a rip about the stock market...

And then attack that straw man.....


Well good ***.....

I'll tell you what, if I ever say one word in the future that leads you to believe I give a rip about the stock market, , "then" feel free to all your little stuff about that ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

What do you think about this video. .....

---

I think the idea that Senators don't cut deals with each other is silly.


We all know they cut deals.

We all know that the basic way anything gets p***ed in Washington is that you have to agree to support things you would not want to support in-order to get things p***ed you do support.

If you want to know when Ricks deal was paid off.....

here it is -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrG4eMOryuA

this argument came after the Robert's hearing where the same two guys got into the same basic argument, and their working relationship was never the same.
This is a deal being paid off.
This is what it looks like.

Finally we find a guy like Rick who has told us what goes on that we always knew was happening but no one ever had the guts to admit until now....

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I think the idea that Senators don't cut deals with each other is silly.


We all know they cut deals.

We all know that the basic way anything gets p***ed in Washington is that you have to agree to support things you would not want to support in-order to get things p***ed you do support.

---

But Spector makes a good logical point that why would he promise to give a blanket okay when he has no idea who is going to be appointed. And this looks bad for Santorum.

Quote:

---

If you want to know when Ricks deal was paid off.....

here it is -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrG4eMOryuA

this argument came after the Robert's hearing where the same two guys got into the same basic argument, and their working relationship was never the same.
This is a deal being paid off.
This is what it looks like.

Finally we find a guy like Rick who has told us what goes on that we always knew was happening but no one ever had the guts to admit until now....

---

It makes Rick look bad when he gives the one word to describe himself as "courage" and then goes on to explain that he fell prey to politics as usual in Washington even when it went against his principles (as he described it.)

[QUOTE=BigJulie;116462]

Quote:

---

But Spector ....

---

Spector chaired the committee that would decide Robert's fate.

Spector is pro-Abortion.

So the fate of any pro-Life judges would fall into Spector's hands...

Everyone knew this back in 2004.
You remember 2004 right, and Mitt actually supporting Abortion rights back then.

The fact that it actually did fall to Spector to get a pro-Life judge on the court was not lost on the pro-Life movement.

Spector got on the committee and became the chairman in order to control who would be named to the court.
Thats the reason he wanted that ***.
Spector was there to stop the very thing Rick and the pro-life movement were out to do.

So I am not surprised to see that some of the stronger Pro-Life voices in the Senate were thinking ahead and getting some ducks lined up..


As for what Spector is saying now?
Spector is clearly attempting to rewrite his own page in the history books...

You can see that Rick is telling the truth by the way things worked out, and how it all fit now.

Why else do you think a pro-Abortion Republican could year after year get so much support from a Pro-Life republican party?

We all knew that everyone was cutting deals.
now we have just heard about it out in the open for the first time from the lips of one of the guys who was cutting a deal with Spector to get a pro-Life judge on the court.


The results of Rick's deal was 2 more pro-Life judges on the court.

I know its a messy way to go about things in Washington, but this is the way the game is played if you want to get pro-Life men on the court....and clearly Rick did.


And Rick was successful.

So as a Pro-Life voter, I got to hand it to Rick for knowing how to get the *** done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

......when it went against his principles (as he described it.)

---

I live in North Dakota.

There are way fewer people that live in my State than in any other State in the country.


And yet when you check on what State gets the most money from Washington per-person, North Dakota always leads the list!


Now ask yourself, "Why would little ND get so much more Washington money compared to the bigger more powerful States?"



The answer is found in the way your State hung on to that air base...how it paid for the new bridge....how it got that new housing grant program...

Your Senator had to find the votes to get your States requests p***ed.

and so they knocked on the doors of the Senators from ND, who were more than happy to support your senator's projects......"if"....




and that "if" is a game the two ND Senators play well.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

fell prey to politics ....

---

"politicas is one word of it...

or, horse trading...

or Negotiating.

or finding a compromise.

This is how two people, be they a car salesman and a person with a trade-in,
or be they two senators who disagree on Abortion -
or be they a husband and wife who simply disagree on something important,
are able to work out an agreement they both can live with and move on.

It is the 'art of the deal'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

"politicas is one word of it...

or, horse trading...

or Negotiating.

or finding a compromise.

This is how two people, be they a car salesman and a person with a trade-in,
or be they two senators who disagree on Abortion -
or be they a husband and wife who simply disagree on something important,
are able to work out an agreement they both can live with and move on.

It is the 'art of the deal'

---

That people are clearly sick of when it comes to Washington because the deal always means more debt and more taxes. It is what Santorum did when he dealt and what we don't any more of.

Everyone always objects to the other guy's deal....

What I notice is that it all is a matter of point of view.
Had Rick not been able to get a deal with key Senators we would be looking at a totally Liberal court right now.

But some will say that Rick is guilty of being a hypocrite, and selling out for political gain.
And from their point of view perhaps thats what it looks like.

On the other hand, if all you care about it getting a Pro-Life judge on the court because it may lead to millions of saved lives?....Then the idea that you got to risk having ObamaCare to deal with looks like a fair trade.

Oh brother Alan---when the only way you can promote the person you like best is to give excuses for their bad behavior, you know things are not going to go well for you.

The more time Santorum has a chance to spout his views, the more fanatical he appears.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ge-enrollment/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Oh brother Alan---when the only way you can promote the person you like best is to give excuses l]

---

Its not an excuse, its what he did.

and it was not an error on his part, it was a judgement call he made...

and the result is that we got to pro-Life judges on the court, while at the same time guy's like Mitt were not even sure what position to take on abortion.

Rick knows what he believes, and he took action to save children.

I got to hand it to Rick for not being shy about making a deal to save children.

currently Im reading the Mitt is out spending Rick and Newt and Paul about 4 or 5 to 1.

At this rate he better win his home State or there is going to be a lot of screaming at him by the Party Leadership before Super Tuesday....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The more time Santorum has a chance to spout his views, .....

---

Rush seems to be saying that Rick is doing better now with the ladies than he was before people started trying to dig up dirt on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Rush seems to be saying that Rick is doing better now with the ladies than he was before people started trying to dig up dirt on him.

---

Rush seems to be in the pocket of those 150 pastors. He is making himself look s.tupid. This lady is not impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Its not an excuse, its what he did.

and it was not an error on his part, it was a judgement call he made...

and the result is that we got to pro-Life judges on the court, while at the same time guy's like Mitt were not even sure what position to take on abortion.

Rick knows what he believes, and he took action to save children.

I got to hand it to Rick for not being shy about making a deal to save children.

---

Its an excuse. And you only mentioned one bill of the many big money bills he voted yes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Its an excuse. And you only mentioned one bill of the many big money bills he voted yes on.

---

oh I think that looking at a guy's voting record is fine...

It is correct to go over the way congressmen vote and have them talk about why they voted the way they did.

That would be a correct means to judge their *** performance by.


Im just saying that Rick did what he felt was the right call to make to help put strong pro-life judges on the high court.
Rick made a judgement call to try to save lives of kids while in other parts of the country there were other people doing the old flip-flop not knowing what position to take on the issue.

Rick knew what he was aiming at ...he knew that he needed to try to convince a known Pro-Abortion Senator to help approve a Pro-Life judge.
I think that Rick made a hard call, but it was the right call too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

oh I think that looking at a guy's voting record is fine...

It is correct to go over the way congressmen vote and have them talk about why they voted the way they did.

That would be a correct means to judge their *** performance by.


Im just saying that Rick did what he felt was the right call to make to help put strong pro-life judges on the high court.
Rick made a judgement call to try to save lives of kids while in other parts of the country there were other people doing the old flip-flop not knowing what position to take on the issue.

Rick knew what he was aiming at ...he knew that he needed to try to convince a known Pro-Abortion Senator to help approve a Pro-Life judge.
I think that Rick made a hard call, but it was the right call too.

---

Did you miss in the debate where Rick said he went against his beliefs to be a team player (his words)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Did you miss in the debate where Rick said he went against his beliefs to be a team player (his words)?

---

yes...and it is fine to go over how a congreessman votes and have them tell you why they voted the way they did.


again, that it how we should judge the *** performance of congressman in office.

Not according to their marriage.
Not according to their religion
and not according to their personal life.

What Im saying is that I really find no fault in RicK supporting a Pro-Abortion senator if part of that deal is in return that Important Senator supports stongly Pro-Life judges to the high court.

Rick did support the guy.
The Guy did support the pro-Life judges.

Yes, this means that you may have to come out looking bad in some people's minds, but that it just part of the deal too....the being willing to suffer so that the cause you fight for gets an important victory..


As for the comment "Take one for the team" I believe that came up in the debate in connection with the vote to let a few schools off the hook with the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND requirements.
And i actually dont have a problem with that vote.
I know that this vote also was a part of a bigger deal that got the Republicans part of what they were seeking too.

and that the reason this all is in the news today is the problem poor States like North Dakota have at keeping good teachers in the very smaller towns that lack enough taxes to stay even with the larger metro areas of this country.

One of the things written-in to the NCLB rules is if a school under-performs that it should be closed and the students moved to better schools.

That is a great idea if the other school is just up the street,
but how do you do that if the next High School is a 2 or 3 hours bus ride away?
Who picks up that gas bill?
Who wants their kids out in that type of winter driving conditions?

and in some cases in western ND there simply are no means to bring all the students of a whole High school to other counties...simply no way to do it.
There is no sense talking about closing down poorer schools in North Dakota because they cant equal the same high standards of New York, if the ND High School is the only one in a 3 or 4 country area.

Thus I see the point of the Republican and Dem Parties working out a deal with Obama to allow some schools off the hook.

Yes, this means that to get the vote you have to do a bit of arm-twisting of members of your Party to make a vote that will look like it's going against this key Republican/President Bush plan to make schools better..

But sometimes you have to face the reality that not every good idea in Washington works out evenly all over.

The cornerstone of President Bush's effort to help schools was the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND law.

The idea was to hold all kids to the same standard, and to pump money into schools that did not test even with others.

the problem is that in States where schools are far from each other you really cant say that if a school is constantly under-performing that the students should be transferred and the poor school closed.

There just are not other schools to bring kids to in vast sections of North Dakota.

The idea that if a school tests poorly out on the vast open sections of this country and cant equal the same test scores as in the highest taxed areas with the greatest populations would automatically cause the school to close?.....
That idea nuts.


Thus the reason that there has been a lot of arm-twisting and horse trading in order to allow some schools to not have to be held to standards that they simply will never be able to reach.

Yes, this means that for some congressmen, they are going to have to 'take one for the team" and vote to allow schools to not meet standards that 8 years ago seemed like it was the only way to make schools accountable.

Yes, it's likely handing an issue to members of the opposition.

All i can say about this issue is that:
Some times what appears to be a great idea in Washington DC, turns out not work all that well in real life.

Okay, you go ahead and support the guy that went against his convictions (politically, not religiously) to support the team (Santorum) and I will vote for the guy who, after learning more about an issue (abortion) changed his mind and voted with his convictions against his team (Romney).

You go with the guy who, when he lost his position, went on to lobby for millions of dollars (Santorum) and I'll go with the guy who charged his state one dollar for his services while in government (Romney).

You go with the guy who sees education as a way to brainwash people (Santorum) and I will go with the guy who sees education as a way to prosper (Romney).

You go with the guy that went along with the team so much that it threw our country into further debt and obligation (Santorum) and I will go with the guy who took his state's credit rating and improved it (Romney).

I will go with the guy who I think gives the best voice to the views that I hold to.


(as I have always said I would...)

What do you think about Rick robo-calling democratics to get them to vote for him? What excuse do you think Rush will come up for this bad behavior?