2008 Presidential Primaries

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thompson is an open question. I sure hope we can find out where he stands soon.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why don't you ask Mr. Pappas to ask Sen. D'Amato to ask Sen. Thompson and relay the findings?

[/ QUOTE ] I'd love for Fred to come out 100% live or die for poker, but if you were in his position facing the primary fight he will would you?

If we had shown the muscle by now that we could counter act in some part the organized groups against us in some meaningful way by now this might be worth doing. IMO, we haven't shown that with any confidence to a nominee worth having.

I've been a Rebublican all my life. I have serious concerns about the parties near term future in the up comming cycle. Other than Hillary, who I wouldn't vote for if she made on-line poker her signature issue and helped pass a constituational ammendment making poker the national past-time. But other than her, if another Dem were to take a significant stand on the issue and the Republican took a stand against I'd hold my nose and vote poker.

I guess it's having been in D.C. too long, I'm begining to think in at least the recent past there isn't a c-hair's difference between them.

D$D

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Emperor et al.,

Why don't you just sum up Ron Paul's views as "gold standard isolationist" to save space?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all he was, he might even be electable in some alternate universe. But on top of that, he is a religious conservative (don't ask me how this meshes with libertarianism, because I don't know), wants to abolish the FDA (but check out his fight to protect the herbal supplement industry), has allowed a newsletter written in his name to call blacks "fleet footed", and his campaign policy director sent out an email that called the Darfur situation a "genocide"...including the quotes. Oh, and he recently sent out a presidential campaign newsletter to a particular white supremacist site (think of thunder clouds) before anybody else so they could go through it.

I strongly urge the PPA leadership not to be marginalized along with him. I haven't been posting here because I don't have much to say, but you are doing a great job. Please do not now associate yourselves with a particular ideology, especially not a fringe movement; we need support from moderates of both parties, and the last thing in the world that would be useful right now is to throw time and resources away on Ron Paul.

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly urge the PPA leadership not to be marginalized along with him. I haven't been posting here because I don't have much to say, but you are doing a great job. Please do not now associate yourselves with a particular ideology, especially not a fringe movement; we need support from moderates of both parties, and the last thing in the world that would be useful right now is to throw time and resources away on Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I watched the NH debate on Fox News and when RP spoke he was openly laughed at and ridiculed by other candidates as well as the crowd. Their "superiority" and "contempt" reminded me of the bully at the beach kicking sand in the face of the 98-pound weakling. While I despise their behavior, if we lump ourselves in with RP then I fear we will be marginalized with him.

IIRC, he "won" the debate according to the viewer votes, but I strongly suspect those were from dem viewers who will not be voting for a republican come election day. Just my $0.02, but I tend to agree with the "lesser evil" idea above.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If that's all he was, he might even be electable in some alternate universe. But on top of that, he is a religious conservative (don't ask me how this meshes with libertarianism, because I don't know), wants to abolish the FDA (but check out his fight to protect the herbal supplement industry), has allowed a newsletter written in his name to call blacks "fleet footed", and his campaign policy director sent out an email that called the Darfur situation a "genocide"...including the quotes. Oh, and he recently sent out a presidential campaign newsletter to a particular white supremacist site (think of thunder clouds) before anybody else so they could go through it.

I strongly urge the PPA leadership not to be marginalized along with him. I haven't been posting here because I don't have much to say, but you are doing a great job. Please do not now associate yourselves with a particular ideology, especially not a fringe movement; we need support from moderates of both parties, and the last thing in the world that would be useful right now is to throw time and resources away on Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA hasn't endorsed politicians in the past, and I don't see it happeneing now. PPA isn't even officially endorsing Beshear over KY Gov. Fletcher.

What I did here (which has nothing to do with PPA, of course) was attempt to identify where each candidate is. I think the main value (that no one has mentioned yet) is how bad things look on the Republican side, as 5 of 9 are firmly against us, only 1 is with us, and three are unknowns.

I think we'll have a lot more data on the Republicans by the end of the year and will be able to choose wisely. We'll see how Paul is polling and we'll also see if FoF types hate Giuliani. We'll also hopefully hear a little more about Thompson (I really, really hope he's with us).

For the Democrats, I don't think we'll know where Clinton stands on any of this any day soon (unless we get some legislation into the Senate soon). Obama may give us a clue as to where he stands. I hope we find out something soon.

I believe we'll have one clear path for the primaries by Jan. 1 (and after Iowa and New Hampshire for sure). I also think we'll have a clear candidate next Election Day.

[TheEngineer]

Quote from article on Thompson:

[ QUOTE ]
Thompson launches into his belief in federalism, characterized by limited government, lower taxes, and more individual freedom. "A government that is big enough to do everything for you is powerful enough to take everything away from you," Thompson warns, adding that he believes the power of the federal government should be weakened in many areas but still remain strong enough to perform its primary function of protecting the public. All of this draws approving head nods and applause from those who've come out to see him.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's saying the right stuff, and he's always been a limited government guy (which should be good for us). I don't know where he'll actually be for us, of course. I hope we'll find out before the primary.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]

If Obama comes out for poker, and adds Iran to the bombing list, he's got this repub's vote for sure if he gets the dem nod.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it's just my opinion mind you, but when I see you make a statement like the one above, it makes me question your opinion on every subject.

I read this last night and just finally had to say something.

[omgwtf]

Great post adanthar! I've read your posts here for years. My hat's off to you, you've got class [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Here's my perspective. I'm a pot-smoking poker-playing republican who has at times been quite active in politics.

George Bush is an unmitigated disaster. I see him as a president who holds himself accountable only to his idea of "god" who makes a steady stream of bad decisions, followed by terrible (albeit faithful) execution. I can't defend much of what he's done even if I wanted to.

And today, I see the Republican party crumbling. But I don't mind it so much, because gone are the important virtues that once defined us: small and limited government, fiscal responsibility, safeguarding individual liberties, and the like. We are now little more than the party of "moderate christian theocracy" and that scares me. I don't say this lightly, but we may be near the end of any Republican relevance.

Online poker being legal is just a minor issue for me. I have no problem using offshore sites to circumvent US laws. It doesn't change my vote, but candidates who want to restrict it usually do so because of their theocratic leaning, which loses my vote.

Candidates who don't understand (as posted above by BluffThis) that "Peace is what happens when the good guys win" automatically lose my vote too. That includes Ron Paul. In fact, if you go beyond the war, pot, and poker, Ron Paul would be such a disaster on economic, national security, and government operational issues that we would yearn for the "good ol' days" of George W. Bush when we had a president who knew what he was doing.

My only hope for a decent president at this point is Fred Thompson. He's running out of a sense of service, not ambition, and doesn't like to be told what to do. He runs in liberal crowds, with liberal friends, yet still holds an overall conservative stance. Add that up, and it says "libertarian" to me. My guess is that he would find efforts to federally prohibit internet gambling offensive, but would avoid taking a stance pre-election if he could.

I'm not holding my breath on Thompson, just hopeful.

[TheEngineer]

Everyone,

Just to clarify, there are three Ron Pauls. There's the representative on the House Financial Services Committee, who has done us a great service more than once. Next, there's the Ron Paul who's a rallying cry for a return to limited government conservatism within the Republican Party; he serves a useful purpose as well. Finally, there's Ron Paul the presidential candidate, who's polling 1% nationally, 2% in Iowa, and 5% in New Hampshire. Just because someone enthusiastically supports Ron Paul the congressman doesn't mean he/she necessarily supports Ron Paul the presidential candidate without regard for political reality. As for Paul the candidate, I think he'll have to get to at least 10% before he'll really be a factor in determining a course of action. For the record, I hope he gets to 10%, but if he doesn't get there by Jan. 1, I think we'll be best served by looking at options that involve top-tier candidates.

As for the complaints about Paul, we all have varying political opinions. What one man sees as a problem another sees as a virtue. The polls will reflect how people feel about these non-poker issues.

Right now, the obvious take-away from all this is to oppose John McCain (after sending him a letter explaining that you're voting against him because you can't get to Sen. Kyl [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ), Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Chris Dodd. Do that, and get your friends to do that, and we'll be doing more than most.

Next, voting agaist Clinton to avoid hurting our chances in Congress is something to consider (I'm not recommending a course of action here...just throwing it out as something to discuss). If she looks to be the nominee, I think poker may be best with Giuliani as her opponent (for the same reason).

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone,

Just to clarify, there are three Ron Pauls. There's the representative on the House Financial Services Committee, who has done us a great service more than once. Next, there's the Ron Paul who's a rallying cry for a return to limited government conservatism within the Republican Party; he serves a useful purpose as well. Finally, there's Ron Paul the presidential candidate, who's polling 1% nationally, 2% in Iowa, and 5% in New Hampshire. Just because someone enthusiastically supports Ron Paul the congressman doesn't mean he/she necessarily supports Ron Paul the presidential candidate without regard for political reality. As for Paul the candidate, I think he'll have to get to at least 10% before he'll really be a factor in determining a course of action. For the record, I hope he gets to 10%, but if he doesn't get there by Jan. 1, I think we'll be best served by looking at options that involve top-tier candidates.

As for the complaints about Paul, we all have varying political opinions. What one man sees as a problem another sees as a virtue. The polls will reflect how people feel about these non-poker issues.

Right now, the obvious take-away from all this is to oppose John McCain (after sending him a letter explaining that you're voting against him because you can't get to Sen. Kyl [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ), Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Chris Dodd. Do that, and get your friends to do that, and we'll be doing more than most.

Next, voting agaist Clinton to avoid hurting our chances in Congress is something to consider (I'm not recommending a course of action here...just throwing it out as something to discuss). If she looks to be the nominee, I think poker may be best with Giuliani as her opponent (for the same reason).

[/ QUOTE ]

Giuliani vs Clinton I garuntee you we have a third candidate. They may win the nominations but they are tow of the most acerbic [censored] to ever run for elected office. 80-90% of people will have a negative opinion on one of them, and thats just too high to ignore for a mega-rcih individual who wants to be President.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Giuliani vs Clinton I garuntee you we have a third candidate. They may win the nominations but they are tow of the most acerbic [censored] to ever run for elected office. 80-90% of people will have a negative opinion on one of them, and thats just too high to ignore for a mega-rcih individual who wants to be President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giuliani vs. Clinton vs. Bloomberg? I like that. FoF wouldn't go near the polls.

Could someone from the religious right make a third party run? Nah. Much as I wish they'd try, they know where their bread is buttered.