Allen wins Wisconsin straw poll.

[Moooooo]

1. Allen 61 (votes)
2. Rudy Giuliani 60
3. Newt Gingrich 53
4. Condi Rice 50

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=62647

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, that's not hard.  Gingrich isn't happening, and Guilani and Rice don't have much of a shot at the nomination.

[Gabu]

What the hell is Newt Gingrich doing on there?

These results are meaningless.

[Governor PiT]

So, do you think the nomination will be between Rudy and Allen, with the other getting the VP nomination?

[Keystone Phil]

What the hell is Newt Gingrich doing on there?

Maybe you're the only one not aware that he has said that he's considering a run.

[Gabu]

What the hell is Newt Gingrich doing on there?

Maybe you're the only one not aware that he has said that he's considering a run.

Oh, really?

That would be interesting.

[adam]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

[Keystone Phil]

What the hell is Newt Gingrich doing on there?

Maybe you're the only one not aware that he has said that he's considering a run.

Oh, really?

That would be interesting.

I guess. He won't go far in the primaries though.

[skybridge]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

And before Allen was even considered a mainstream candidate, Rudy was usually one of the frontrunners with McCain. It's doubtful he'll win the nomination, though, unless the Republicans want to appeal more strongly to social moderates.

[kashifsakhan]

So, do you think the nomination will be between Rudy and Allen, with the other getting the VP nomination?

i would love it if that happens. democrats would take the elections by storm!

[MasterJedi]

As the campaign kicks up Allen will probably pull ahead by a little more.

[adam]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

And before Allen was even considered a mainstream candidate, Rudy was usually one of the frontrunners with McCain. It's doubtful he'll win the nomination, though, unless the Republicans want to appeal more strongly to social moderates.

I honestly don't think the Republicans are as focused on social issues as they were in 2000 and 2004. Most of them want tougher immigration policies and fiscal responsiblity. Seeing as how Rudy offers both, I think they will over look his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stances.

McCain is dead though, he is to the left of Bush on immigration and has a very fuzzy fiscal policy. No chance for him.

[Nym90]

Allen "won" with 61 votes.

That should tell you all you need to know about how important this is.

[George W. Hobbes]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

And before Allen was even considered a mainstream candidate, Rudy was usually one of the frontrunners with McCain. It's doubtful he'll win the nomination, though, unless the Republicans want to appeal more strongly to social moderates.

I honestly don't think the Republicans are as focused on social issues as they were in 2000 and 2004. Most of them want tougher immigration policies and fiscal responsiblity. Seeing as how Rudy offers both, I think they will over look his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stances.

McCain is dead though, he is to the left of Bush on immigration and has a very fuzzy fiscal policy. No chance for him.

Wrong-o.  McCain will do much better because for all his cloaking of it, he's actually a conservative.  Rudy will be dead because he's pro-choice, period.  There's no way in hell that we nominate a pro-choice candidate, only in John Wellsland does that ever happen.

[jerusalemcar5]

Newt Gingrich for president. *snort* Like that'll ever happen.  No way he gets republican nomination.

[adam]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

And before Allen was even considered a mainstream candidate, Rudy was usually one of the frontrunners with McCain. It's doubtful he'll win the nomination, though, unless the Republicans want to appeal more strongly to social moderates.

I honestly don't think the Republicans are as focused on social issues as they were in 2000 and 2004. Most of them want tougher immigration policies and fiscal responsiblity. Seeing as how Rudy offers both, I think they will over look his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stances.

McCain is dead though, he is to the left of Bush on immigration and has a very fuzzy fiscal policy. No chance for him.

Wrong-o.  McCain will do much better because for all his cloaking of it, he's actually a conservative.  Rudy will be dead because he's pro-choice, period.  There's no way in hell that we nominate a pro-choice candidate, only in John Wellsland does that ever happen.

Than it's fair to say that the Republicans are morons. If they would pass up a likeable candidate with leadership qualities over a pathetic nothing issue like abortion than they don't deserve to be in office.

[George W. Hobbes]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

[skybridge]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

But at the same time neither war nor the death penalty are murder?

[MasterJedi]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

But at the same time neither war nor the death penalty are murder?

War is not murder if you get attacked or are liberating an oppressive dictator. And the death penalty isn't murder if that other person has killed someone and the jury decides that death is the proper penalty.

[kashifsakhan]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

But at the same time neither war nor the death penalty are murder?

War is not murder if you get attacked or are liberating an oppressive dictator. And the death penalty isn't murder if that other person has killed someone and the jury decides that death is the proper penalty.

what about when u liberate the opressive dictator, but still stay in the country and kill innocent men women and children, and then try to frame them as being potential suicide bombers. is that not murder?

[adam]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

Do you consider the evaporating of fetal matter to be more of a pressing issue than balancing the budget, national security, and border control? I understand how social right-wingers feel on the issue - I disagree, but I understand. The truth is that I don't care. Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion...if you hold such a miniscule issue in higher regard to the economy and national security than you are an imbecile.

[Lincoln Republican]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

Do you consider the evaporating of fetal matter to be more of a pressing issue than balancing the budget, national security, and border control? I understand how social right-wingers feel on the issue - I disagree, but I understand. The truth is that I don't care. Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion...if you hold such a miniscule issue in higher regard to the economy and national security than you are an imbecile.

Your statement, "The truth is that I don't care,"  is clear.  You obviously don't. 

However, your statement, "the evaporating of fetal matter," belies your statement, "I disagree, but I understand."  Your own words show you don't understand at all.  If you did understand, you would not be so callous.

And referring to anyone else as an "imbecile," as you have, demonstrates a total lack of respect, tolerance, and understanding of the views of others.

George W. Hobbes was simply expressing a valid point, and that should be treated with respect, not derision.

Everyone understands that any one particular issue is only part of a much larger picture.     

[Alcon]

Murder means "unlawfully taking someone's life."  It is true that the death penalty isn't murder, because it's not unlawful.  Then again, neither is abortion.

I do not see how a jury deciding on something makes it not murder.  If a jury decided to sentence a parking ticket violator to being stoned to death, would that be not murder?  That's ridiculous.

[adam]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

Do you consider the evaporating of fetal matter to be more of a pressing issue than balancing the budget, national security, and border control? I understand how social right-wingers feel on the issue - I disagree, but I understand. The truth is that I don't care. Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion...if you hold such a miniscule issue in higher regard to the economy and national security than you are an imbecile.

Your statement, "The truth is that I don't care,"  is clear.  You obviously don't. 

However, your statement, "the evaporating of fetal matter," belies your statement, "I disagree, but I understand."  Your own words show you don't understand at all.  If you did understand, you would not be so callous.

And referring to anyone else as an "imbecile," as you have, demonstrates a total lack of respect, tolerance, and understanding of the views of others.

George W. Hobbes was simply expressing a valid point, and that should be treated with respect, not derision.

Everyone understands that any one particular issue is only part of a much larger picture.     

I didn't call anyone particular  an imbecile, it was a generalization of all "social voters" whether they be pro-choice or not. No direct connection to Hobbes there. I think it's a fair claim to say that people who vote on a social basis are imbeciles (which by the way - by modern usage is closer to goof than idiot). The economy should never take a back seat to the economy and security and I find it hard to take anyone seriously that would imply otherwise.

And yes I do understand, they believe it's murder. I happen to disagree and believe that it's the evaporation of a blotch of fetal matter. I can understand how they would believe otherwise...but I don't agree. So I'm not going wishy wash my stance to be nice.

[Gustaf]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

Do you consider the evaporating of fetal matter to be more of a pressing issue than balancing the budget, national security, and border control? I understand how social right-wingers feel on the issue - I disagree, but I understand. The truth is that I don't care. Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion...if you hold such a miniscule issue in higher regard to the economy and national security than you are an imbecile.

Your statement, "The truth is that I don't care,"  is clear.  You obviously don't. 

However, your statement, "the evaporating of fetal matter," belies your statement, "I disagree, but I understand."  Your own words show you don't understand at all.  If you did understand, you would not be so callous.

And referring to anyone else as an "imbecile," as you have, demonstrates a total lack of respect, tolerance, and understanding of the views of others.

George W. Hobbes was simply expressing a valid point, and that should be treated with respect, not derision.

Everyone understands that any one particular issue is only part of a much larger picture.     

I didn't call anyone particular  an imbecile, it was a generalization of all "social voters" whether they be pro-choice or not. No direct connection to Hobbes there. I think it's a fair claim to say that people who vote on a social basis are imbeciles (which by the way - by modern usage is closer to goof than idiot). The economy should never take a back seat to the economy and security and I find it hard to take anyone seriously that would imply otherwise.

And yes I do understand, they believe it's murder. I happen to disagree and believe that it's the evaporation of a blotch of fetal matter. I can understand how they would believe otherwise...but I don't agree. So I'm not going wishy wash my stance to be nice.

It is somewhat arrogant to believe that you are the only one capable of deciding which issues are important and which aren't. It's not "obvious".