9 Comments

Roger:
R.G makes an excellent point. I am convinced more then ever that he is the only Republican that stands a chance against the Clinton juggernaut. Hillary will be Nixon without the hostile press that Nixon had, therefore she will reign unchecked. I think she is a Euro-Socialist by instinct. I am afraid that the yahoo brigades of social cons in their zeal for ideological purity may sabotage him.

Which candidate is the least politically correct? This is perhaps the most important question. There is no reason to overcomplicate matters.

Rudy needs to diversify his 9/11 portfolio.

Rudy has to remind people what their own guts tells them.

Imagine Hilary Rangel and Pelosi with their paws on our pockets.

Keep pounding away at that until he’s blue in the face.

“Which candidate is the least politically correct? This is perhaps the most important question. There is no reason to overcomplicate matters.”

Mr. Thompson, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php

“Mr. Thompson, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.”

Ron Paul’s followers are politically correct! They subconsciously, if not even consciously, perceive the dark skin Palestinians as victims of white skinned Israeli oppression. Paul’s intense adherents are historical illiterates who look at the world in a very simplistic manner. Also, these fools are actually leftists who seem to possess a modest appreciation of capitalist economics. When push comes to shove, however, they have far more in common with the Daily Kos crowd than with typical Republicans.

Honestly, I think all the major Republican candidates “get it,” with regard to Iraq and the Long War, and I could comfortably vote for any of them on this issue alone (and, conversely, not a one of the Democrats). But Rudy, I think, states is most clearly, and I don’t have any doubt that he’d act decisively when needed. Thus, he’s my choice.

Impressions:

I was shocked to see how ill prepared Obama is.
A mishmash of liberal platitudes, not quick on his feet, falling back on short concepts without any depth of analysis or ability to wing it. Perhaps the most ill prepared candidate I have seen in a long time.

Hillary is offensive but good; she rattles off long responses which she has committed to memory; her comment about “35 years of helping people and working for America” is hilarious. No one challenges her, they treat her like a queen.

Dodd, full piss and vinegar, looks tired and Biden’s hair gives him away and his arrogance sinks him. Richardson is heft and weight, eats far too many burgers, presidential weight but not timber and Dennis. . . a cartoon menace.

Edwards is silky smooth but has been on stage too long to satisfy the American voter and panders shamelessly to the left.

The great enemy is not Iran or the terrorist … but “Bush and Cheney,” always pronounced as a duo as if on one of those dance programs, never “the president.”

Rudi, if nominated, will bring rational debate and a charismatic presence to a scrum of bombast and arrogance and pretension.

pls pls pls the phrase is

“talks the walk, walks the talk”

“talk the talk, walk the walk” makes no sense at all

to rephrase your statement

He’s not in a position to walk the talk yet, but Rudy Giuliani is talking the walk on the War on Terror better than anyone running for President at the moment

make sense?

No, pls, pls, pls – the phrase is “you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?”. Talk the talk means you say all the right things (boast), but walk the walk means that you can actually do what you say. It makes a lot of sense. “Walk the talk” is just some new age bastardized version of the original saying.

Example: I say “I am the best at what I do”. You say “oh, you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?”