I really doubt he'd be in favor of it. But as a libertarian I think he'd kind of see it as none of the government's business at the same time.

I really doubt he'd be in favor of it. But as a libertarian I think he'd kind of see it as none of the government's business at the same time.

Exactly - I don't think any of them would (at least publicly) say they are in favor of discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that wasn't really the question asked.

Rudy Giuliani is not going to have an easy go of it, is he?

Mitt Romney looked like the winner to me last week.

Tommy Thompson was to the GOP debate as Bill Richardson was to the Democratic Party debate -- off the tracks and weird.

I don't think I want McCain's finger on the button.

30 percent of the announced GOP field does not believe in evolution. Um, wow.

Did anybody read Robert Novak's column today about Fred Thompson?
Man who would be Reagan doesn't wow 'em

I've been waiting for Fred to jump into the Republican fray and I've predicted his coming will upend the entire primary. Anyway apparently he bombed at a speech this weekend, which is fine, but it comes on the heels of another article in the L.A. Times a few days ago suggesting he's lazy.

This is either a rare case of me backing a bum horse or the clever, covert operations of Thomson's own team playing down expectaions for a dude who has been out of the game for a while. What say you?

JDanger wrote:Did anybody read Robert Novak's column today about Fred Thompson?
Man who would be Reagan doesn't wow 'em

I've been waiting for Fred to jump into the Republican fray and I've predicted his coming will upend the entire primary. Anyway apparently he bombed at a speech this weekend, which is fine, but it comes on the heels of another article in the L.A. Times a few days ago suggesting he's lazy.

This is either a rare case of me backing a bum horse or the clever, covert operations of Thomson's own team playing down expectaions for a dude who has been out of the game for a while. What say you?

I think Thompson's team is playing the media. If Thompson gets in the race, then he will be a legitimate contender because he has a legitimate conservative record and he is telegenic. McCain is a real conservative, but he comes off as forced, agitated, decaying, and crazy on television. Romney is telegenic, smooth, savvy, and smart on his feet, but he is subject to the charge that he is not really conservative. Thompson takes the best of McCain and Romney and puts it all in one package -- plus he's from Dixie. I wouldn't expect The L. A. Times to give Thompson favorable coverage.

Interesting thoughts on Fred Thompson.

I think that anyone who hasn't entered the race yet is probably doing themselves a favor. There's just so much time to screw something up.

drew patrick wrote:Rudy Giuliani is not going to have an easy go of it, is he?

Somehow I missed this post yesterday.(?) But yes, I saw this as well! There has been a steady stream of new information on Giulianu's liberal leanings since he's been considered presidential material. It hasn't seemed to phase him. I was certain that some of these revelations were going to be deal breakers with the social conservative base, "Once the base finds out the fantasy will come to an end." Yet to my dismay, he continued to lead in the polls.

Several months months ago I saw a convincing David Brooks say that he's spoken with social conservatives extensively about Rudy, (something I have not done) and that the base is actually aware of his liberal leanings on social issues, they just feel that the time is right for a competent hero-type. This kind of explained things to me. (Seriously, I was living in a confusing world there for a while. Black was white, up, down.)

This latest round of developments seems different, though. But they always seem different. And I've trained myself not to underestimate the former NY mayor. It might just be that conservatives are not paying that much attention this early, but come on! He Paid Planned Parenthood!

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/pau ... tinues.htm

Anyone care to prove this wrong? It seems way too much of a landslide to be true, and Infowars definitely manipulates information to make their points best. If it's anything like what this shows, though, that's amazing, and how blatantly the media ignores the wishes and interests of most people is more obvious and overt than I've ever seen it.

The ABC poll the article refers to was an interactive online poll. That Paul won this particular poll means absolutely nothing. I'll see if I can find some decent polling on the debates and post it here. Paul may have done well, but this particular poll was so 'unscientific' it makes sunday school look like the Fermi Lab.

Edit: Originally posted MSNBC.

Also heres a link to the interactive poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=3135373


At the very bottom appears these words:

Not a scientific survey.

Ok, quickly.
I checked Survey USA:
2% of respondents say Ron Paul won the debate. Click the link for the numbers.

Just How badly do we not like Ron Paul?
Rasmussen Reports, which does tele-automated polling I've found to be substantially accurate with national polling.

Congressman Ron Paul has the weakest ratings of any candidate participating in last week’s debate—14% favorable and 27% unfavorable.

And I've never read this infowars.com until today and um,
It is very silly. Walk softly.