Which Republican Presidential candidate is receiving the most donations from members of the military?

[billvon 3,132]

Sorry, Kelpdiver's words.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

which tells me he doesn't know how to play DC games yet. I'd actually prefer a president like that.

It's fun to route for the underdog, but realistically most underdog success stories are in the movies; a small percentage of those being "based on true stories".

There's a reason experience--whether one likes the game or not--is needed. It usually helps when you know what to expect and how to expect it; i.e. how the game is played. One doesn't have to play the same way, but it's extremely beneficial to understand how others play it.

I don't pay much attention to mudslinging from either side, but lack of DC experience is a valid point. And not necessarily one he can't overcome, but it's like anything else.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,132]

>There's a reason experience--whether one likes the game or not--is needed.

I think it's less needed in a role like the presidency, where the person cannot get any firsthand experience with the job (second term presidents excepted) and where more value is placed on one's ability to make good judgments, rather than on whether you can find a specific office in the Rayburn building.

But you may be right. If that's the case, then Hilary is the clear winner. She's been a senator for several years and has more experience in how the White House works, by far, than any of the other candidates. I hope that doesn't tip the balance in her favor.

[PLFXpert 0]

Bill, Billy, Willy--you crack me up.

I said experience was a valid point.

I never supported insanity.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,132]

>I never supported insanity.

Unfortunately, some people don't really care. If it's experience they're looking for, and nothing else, she has it. If not, Obama's a reasonable choice.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Clinton won handily over Dole.

Well, there was no presidential election in 1994, which is the first date you asked about. In the House the GOP gained 54 seats. That would qualify as the democrats being "in trouble" in anyone's book.

In 1996, a democrat won the presidency, and the

rest is not relevent to a discussion about 2008 White House hopefuls. Other than the entertainment presented by Perot, the election was a slam dunk for Clinton, despite the 1994 recession and the tax hikes.

For a war cheerleader like McCain, 2006 should be a warning. But for the others, it has little bearing on the outcome.

Quote

Exactly! Why, I bet he doesn't even know how to get to all the parties on K street yet without an aide! For shame. (Because after all, finding an office in a hallway is much more important than knowing what language Mexico speaks, or what carbon dioxide is.)

Clinton entered the White House in 1993 with grand ideas, 57 Senators, an eternal majority in the House, and what did he accomplish? Health care reform - still nada. Gay rights - "don't ask, don't tell" A president may have the ideals you support, but if he can't get Congress to do it, he won't be very effective. Obama would be worse than Clinton was. He probably would be worse than Carter, a smart man who killed the Democratic Party until Clinton could shed the mantle of failure.

You don't like what Bush is doing on policy, but on matters of effecting his wishes he's been very successful. He got the Patriot Act, his tax cuts, overwhelming support for his wars. Same would be said for Reagan.

Would Obama be better than Bush? That's not the choice you have next year. Its him versus Clinton or Edwards or Biden or some other stiff, and then against one of the NYC mayors. So it's a silly comparison to make.

[billvon 3,132]

>est is not relevent to a discussion about 2008 White House hopefuls.

Sorry, I assumed you were talking about people who could be elected in 1994 when you mentioned that year as an example.

>For a war cheerleader like McCain, 2006 should be a warning. But for
> the others, it has little bearing on the outcome.

Provided they take care to distance themselves from Bush and his war plans - agreed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

USA elections polls (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/)are now listing Ron Paul among the Top Tier Republican candidates.

From the website:

Top Tier Republicans

Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Ron Paul *
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson


Top Tier Democrats

Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Al Gore
Barack Obama *
Bill Richardson
* - won straw poll

-----

Now if someone would just notify the media to stop marginalizing Ron Paul as a "longshot candidate."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------