Comments On Super Tuesday In Delaware
February 6th, 2008 by Dan GaffneyObama wins the First State. Hillary only wins Sussex County.
McCain wins Delaware, and all three counties.
Nationally, Obama wins more states, Hillary more delegates. This IS a race!
Big wins for McCain, but what a night for Huckabee, winning 5 states and staying in. Romney wins 6, but a disappointing night. He’s still in.
CLINTON: AR, AZ, CA, MA, NY, NJ, OK, TN
OBAMA: AK, AL, CT, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, MO, ND, UT
HUCKABEE: AL, AR, GA, TN, WV
MCCAIN: AZ, CA, CT, DE, IL, MO, NJ, NY, OK
ROMNEY: CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, UT
PLEASE JOIN THE CONVERSATION, WE WOULD LOVE TO READ YOUR COMMENTS!
February 6th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Not surprised with Senator Obama wimming the majority for the Dems. He’s charismatic, and that’s the only difference between the two. Black, white, man, woman…it doesn’t matter with the Dems-they’re all the same. Senator Obama is just better at spewing out the rhetoric than Senator Clinton.
Now on the Republican side…I don’t like Senator McCain for President. I feel as though he will be only slightly better than a Libocrite. But he’s still better. If Senator McCain gets the nomination, and we’re forced to pick between a Dem and McCain, then I’ll pick McCain. We’ll just have to see if a real conservative gets in the race.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:05 am
The Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency, and what did they accomplish? Not a whole lot. About the only real long-term success was the appointment of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court…they failed to address the proliferation of soft-porn on network television programming, the impending collapse of Social Security, the insane tax structure, the horrific state of the ‘public’ schools….and so on. They’ve already lost the Congress, and now, with John McCain, they’ll surely lose the White House.
In a perverse way, this is a good thing. The Socialist-Democrats are dedicated to the Marxist presumption that it is the duty of the productive members of society to hand-over the fruits of their labor to the inept. Today, the top 10% of income-earners are responsible for about 65% of federal tax revenues collected. But, the Socialist-Democrats will want more…a lot more. It has never occured to them that the producers may eventually tire of bearing this financial burden….that with expanding world markets, they could just take their business elsewhere. If only 30% of the top 10% of income-earners dropped out of the system, the federal government would collapse without drastically increasing taxes on the masses. How would the lower 50% of income-earners, who pay virtually no income tax, enjoy paying the five or ten-grand a year in taxes needed to offset the loss?
The Socialist future envisioned by Hillary and Obama must be funded by the productive minority….if they leave, then what?
Let the Socialist-Democrats run the county into the ground….eventually, a pre-FDR and LBJ America will arise from the ashes.
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”….Karl Marx (and the Socialist-Democrats)
February 6th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And what did they accomplish? Not much, other than get Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. They failed to address the proliferation of soft-porn on network television programming, the impending collapse of Social ‘Security,’ the pathetic state of our ‘public’ schools, illegal immigration, our insane tax structure, and so on. Now, with the McCain candidacy, the fall is complete…and deservedly so.
The Socialist-Democrats (Hillary or Obama, it doesn’t matter) are dedicated to the Marxist proposition that the productive members of society must hand-over the fruits of their labor to the inept. Today, the top 10% of income-earners are responsible for 68% of all federal tax revenues collected. I can assure you that this will not be enough for the Socialist-Democrats….they will demand more, lots more.
What would happen if thirty-percent of the top ten-percent of income-earners decided to take their business elsewhere (not hard to do in todays world of emerging markets)? How would the bottom fifty-percent of income earners, who pay virtually no income tax, react to having to finally pay their fair share? My guess is that they would quickly re-access their position on Socialist-Democrats’ pie-in-the-sky entitlements.
Let the Socialist-Democrats run the country into the ground….perhaps the old America, where the freedom and responsibility of the individual is paramount, will emerge from the ashes.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”….Karl Marx (and the Socialist-Democrats)
February 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I was hoping Huckabee would get the nod. I think he is the only one left that isn’t a fake hiding behind a teleprompted speech written by someone else. He and McCain are the only one’s who can understand the poor and working class. Romney is just a spoiled rich punk. I think Huckabee represents the most drastic change in Washington with policies far different than any candidate. I think him being an open Christian and preacher was his downfall in an American that frowns upon that. A country that once was started because man wanted to be outspoken about his religion and practice it how he wanted is now a country that is in religious hiding. I also think Huckabee is down to earth on the same level as the average American. Lastly, he has Chuck Norris who could end the US with one round house kick.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Well, Well, Well; I’m hearing that, “John McCain is too-old to run for president” - BULL!!! I got message for Chuck Norris & the traditional mainstream republicans: RONALD REAGAN WAS ELECTED FOR PRESIDENT IN 1980 AT 69 YEARS OLD & RELECTED FOR PRESIDENT IN 1984 AT 73 YEARS OLD. You don’t think that was old back then you need to have your heads examined. Reagan in his older years, open the door for candidates like McCain to run. Reagan got the democract & republicans votes in both of his elections. He united the country. I got a message for traditional republicans: don’t being so rigid of your views of what a “TRUE REPUBLICAN” is. I believe in situations you need to work together with your rivals to get the job done. The mainstream conservative republicans threatened to leave their own party & starting possible 3rd party. Pleazzze! that type of attitude turns your party into a bunch of Jurrasic Park dinosaurs & babies who stay in soiled diapers - too long - to change. The true outcome : Mike Huckabee & Mitt Romney has already cancelled each other because of their religions. I believe critizing McCain’s not being republican enough, “insult” to republicans, or threatened to stay home will make either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton the president of United States on 1/20/09..
February 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I doubt Chuck Norris could burst a paper bag these days…without a stunt man. Given that one could ONLY vote as registered to, yesterday, I think discussion at this point is moot. The election, itself, will be the only telling point this time around, I think. And I wouldn’t give tuppence for any of them.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I say ALFRED E NEWMAN for president–better than any of the other ones !!!!!
February 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Well, that got me thinking, bucksmom…(and I never thought I’d say this!)…why don’t we just get the law changed rapido and just keep GW for another four years? As the saying goes, “better the de’il ye know than the de’il ye don’t…” and at this point, he might be the best choice.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Gingrich ‘08!
February 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am
You’ve got that right Nancy–would love to keep him. All of the other ones are scaring me. Especially the 2 dems. Perhaps the law should be changed to just keep the person in office forever. If he/she messes up, then a special election would be scheduled asap to get rid of them or keep them. That would never happen, but it is worth pondering over, ya thank?
February 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Rick says: “Today, the top 10% of income-earners are responsible for 68% of all federal tax revenues collected.”
This, in spite of the fact that the Bush led GOP reduced their taxes (the 10%). Therefore, the unescapable conclusion is that the rich got richer under this tax policy.
I challenge Rick or anyone to list the improvements that the GOP has made in the last seven years of their power. Seriously, I cannot think of one thing, but I could create a long list of problems not solved and new problems created.
This is why there is a huge populist movement astir for change. Look at the unprecedented turnouts in the primaries.
In spite of this, Rick feels compelled to say: “The Socialist-Democrats (Hillary or Obama, it doesn’t matter) are dedicated to the Marxist proposition that the productive members of society must hand-over the fruits of their labor to the inept.”
That’s classic Rick: All his negative labels are there. Most importantly, Rick assumes that the “productive members of society” are the wealthy! What about the millions of the rest of us, Rick, who have and continue to work very hard? Your statement is grossly inaccurate and cannot stand unchallenged by the facts in contrast to your propagandistic fanaticism.!!!
February 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Well, Well, I know this wouldn’t WGMD bloggers day: MITT ROMNEY DROPPED OUT FOR ‘08 RACE PRESIDENCY. I believe he losted the last man standing against Mike Huckabee due to religious values.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I got my taxes reduced under Bush and I am not rich. I remember when Clinton raised taxes retroactively and depleted my small bank account balance.
Bush has restored dignity to the office. He is a president, not a celebrity.
Although the press hates to admit it, Bush has shown the way worldwide, hence the elections of pro western governments in Germany and France.
In addition, even though sharia law is being touted now in Great Britian, the Brits cautiously stay by the side of the US.
The old communists countries know that the US is their only hope while the NATO countries, who have had a free pass since the “Wall” fell, are so taxed to pay for their cradle to grave society that the thought of having to spend a penny to pay for their own national defense dumbfounds them.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Well, Well, I believe we 2 duck & cover bloggers in this arena: Nancy & Bucksmom. Nancy wanted GW in there another 4 years & Bucksmom is afraid of the other candidates & wanted to change the law; to keep the same candidate office forever. I got answer for that: TILL THE EARTH FREEZES OVER!!! Hmm; does the liberal presidentical candidates’ platforms make republican conservative voters - INFERIOR OR SECOND CLASS CITIZENS? I know one way how to end this war of terror? Capture or kill Osama BinLaden; I don’t see any”REAL REPUBLICANS” coming up any ideas; how to accomplish that. Republicans want to keep the war going because that’s their strength. Domestic policies? the republicans’ biggest weakness. They try to talk tough about closing the borders;therefore, republicans don’t have the guts to pull it off. Republicans, don’t want go after big businesses who employee illegals, because big businesses will cut off contributions to republican candidates. I believe giving rebate checks help the recessioned economy but that’s short-termed fix. Capturing or Killing BinLaden will be only way that enconomy will return to normal.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
End the war on terror? Kill BinLaden? Ever play wack-a-mole, wildcard? By taking out on man, you kill one man. Terriorism is a idea. It has no weapons, no face, no body that you can hang or waterboard.
Let’s invite terriorism to the Whitehouse to discuss it’s surrender. Who will show up once we win the war on terror?
Just as we said with Bush one. It’s the economy, stupid!
With GW ” its not a winnable war, stupid”
As for these dumb economy enhancer checks, we are getting money now that we will pay tenfold later. Our kids and grandkids have to pay the band for our dancing today. Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Reminds me of payday loans.
Fix the big problems, GW. When you drink to forget your problems, you just wake up tommorrow with the same problems and a headache to boot. Recession is on it’s way, and all we can do, as in after 9-11, is
“go shopping”. I’m so greatful to have such a knowledgable leader.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Nope, Wildcard1966…speaking only for myself, the only reason I suggest GW stay where he is, is because (other than Iran) he’s done about all the damage he can, now. Among the rest we have people “not for war…oh, yes…let’s; oh, no…stop it…wait, not yet…” and, as a pacifist, I’m sick of them all…and I don’t trust a one of them any more than I’ve trusted GW. Like I said (and this time I’ll translate) “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t…” Do we know any of the candicates will be better? No. Do we know any of them will be worse? No…but highly possible because being a President for sure whomever will be pressed to make his/her mark in the history book, if nothing else.
In fact, though a pacifist, I am totally with you and always have been. We didn’t need to invade Iraq…we needed to expend our total energy in finding the mastermind behind Sept. 11 and if that was Bin Laden, exhaust all possible means to get him. Not necessarily kill him but get him and bring him to trial, jail him for life…whatever necessary if guilty. And frankly, I don’t see that we’ve done anything like that…we made a show but not a great one and I haven’t heard any of the current candidates say they would do different. You may think what you like about my level of citizenship but I can tell you what you don’t know. I may not be the patriot others claim to be but I am one, nonetheless. I have been, in a way, actively involved with the defense of this country for over 20 years; I have been a supporter of our military men and women…still am. I’ve defended this country and it’s people countless times and taken many verbal potshots for both…including from my own countrymen and women. This is a good country with good people but it is being destroyed as is it’s past, fine reputation. We’ve been turned to being more aggressive, offensive…in word and deed…and bullies and it is not only unbecoming it’s a tragedy. And that’s why I advocate leaving GW where he is…we know what we have in him. The next could well be worse, regardless of name or party.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
P, er, Perry wrote;
“Most importantly, Rick assumes that the “productive members of society†are the wealthy! What about the millions of the rest of us, Rick, who have and continue to work very hard?”
No, I said that the ‘wealthy’ 10% pay 68% of taxes collected. Apparantly, to Socialist-Democrats, this doesn’t constitute a ‘fair share’ (Marx would agree).
“Millions of us” (the top 50% of income-earners) pay 96% of income taxes collected. Let’s reverse the tired old class-envy ‘fair share’ question. The bottom 50% recieve all of the benefits of citizenship, yet pay little or no taxes (4%)……..is 4% a ‘fair share?’
Charity should be a choice, not a demand. Socialist-Democrats who support radical income-redistribution should open-up their own checkbooks, and leave the rest of us alone.