MItt?

JonathanBennett

I'll be there today.

K2L

After watching the news decided I would not go because Romney said you could ask him anything. Anything could get you tasered like the student journalist in Gainesville. So you watch out for yourself Jonathan. Clay County has been known to be a little trigger happy with those tasers.

Nope. I am opting out. This country will never elect anyone named Mitt. We tend to opt for normal names. That doesn't insure the owners are normal but the hope is always there. Besides that, I will never step foot into that place until they remove Thrasher's name from it and put him in prison.

Of all God's creatures, there is only one that cannot be made slave of the leash.  That one is the cat.  If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve the man, but it would deteriorate the cat. -- Mark Twain

Lily - I agree.   I wouldn't walk across the street to see Mitt, but not because he has a strange name - I think he's a "waffler" and possibly is saying things people want to hear just to get their support! (ya think?).  I do believe Clay County indeed has voted for people with 'abnormal' names/handles, such as JEB.  

I too cannot support the Performing Arts Center until it is no longer connected to Thrasher. 

Jonathan - please give us a full report and don't ask any questions after they call "time". 

"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now".  Bob Dylan

Sunflower - have I missed something or do you know of any politician who doesn't say what the people want to hear?  :)

MeMaw - that was a "tongue in cheek" statement.  Of course they all say what they THINK we want to hear!  Sometimes, they slip up and say MORE than we care to hear. 

 Wow-wee! ALL the local poiliticos and political wanna-bees (candidates) were all getting face time in the VIP section at the Thrasher-Horne tonight. Wouldn't ya think it is a bit premature to hitch your wagon to any star just yet? 

First and foremost, no one was tazed at Mitt Romney's event in OP. Everyone participated in the spirit of the event. Go Clay County!

I thoroughly enjoyed Mitt Romney's "Kitchen Table" forum this evening. He is a very dynamic candidate and well spoken. I liked that he recognized there are strong single parents in the U.S. That impressed me. He could have taken the low road and instead he recognized there are people who provide strong guidance without the benefit of a partner in raising children. That hits home.

I loved his position on immigration. He said he would secure our borders. (Anybody read Ted Bell's "Spy" novel)?

He is the only candidate - on either side - who understands supply-and-demand economics having spent 25 years in private industry. Of all the candidates, I trust that experience most. And it is the single-most important reason I'll support him.

He wants a strong military. He supports strong families. These are not just ideas, there are substantive plans to achieve these goals.

I'm not so much concerned with who you support as much as I am driven to ask that you support someone who represents the ideals which will move America forward over the next four years.

Romney does that for me...And he's the only one who will probably appear in Clay County.

The message is: find someone who floats your boat. Get behind them and be part of the political process.

More than anything, that's what America needs.

Sorry to say, I missed Mitt because of a previous commitment.  I would have liked to be there because I had some questions for him.

If elected president, what would you do to insure that our country would no longer illegally  torture people while telling the world that we don't?

If elected, what would you do to stop the illegal practise of wire tapping innocent Americans?

If elected President, how would you convince the American people that you would not follow in the footsteps of the Bush administration by assuming more centralised power for the presidency?

If elected President, would you use "signing statements," to by pass the laws of the land?

If elected President, how would you convince the American people that, unlike the current administration, you would actually adhere to the oath you take & the laws of the country in situations such as the illegal practise of faith based initiatives?

Given more time, I'm sure we could come up with more questions, but for me, this would be a good start.  But Mitt?  No way!

RichK

It is way too early to choose any of the candidates and support them.  So far, I'm not impressed with any of them...on either side.

Just how does Mr. Romney plan to secure our borders?  They all SAY they want to do that, but few if any have a plan that will work.  And what about our ports - does he have a plan to secure them?

What is a strong family and how does the leader of a country create strong families?  By outlawing divorce? By creating more laws against certain groups of people because now that Mitt is running for president he no longer supports their human rights?

Check Mr. Romney's history on issues.  Which way will he be leaning if he's actually elected?  Many people are 'dynamic and well spoken' and although that would be a welcome change from the current occupant of the WH, that will not determine who gets MY vote.  And, just because Mitt might be the only candidate to visit Clay County doesn't qualify him to EVER get my vote.

RIch - you asked many pertinent questions.  I would like to hear the answers from all presidential candidates from both parties.

 If I could ask Mitt some questions:

 I would ask him if he would introduce us to the likes of Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick.  

I would ask him if he planned on teaching 8 year olds about oral sex and the definition of words like "it" and "is."  

I would ask if he planned on reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie "Wag the Dog" could be plausible after all.  

I would ask if he anticipated having 73 House and Senate witnesses plead the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses flee the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.  

I would ask what he would do to top the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonments from the Whitewater "mess."

 I might even ask if he planned on repeating a previous president’s forcing Israel to let somebody like Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It seems to have been conveniently forgotten in the US in most later reports.  

And I might just ask if his wife planned on buying a multimillion dollar home in <pick the state>, run for the senate, and then run for president?  Just out of curiosity of course.

CCC,

That's right.  It's your most favorite, bestest blog buddy & biggest pain in the rumpus maximus.  We've had much in the way of differences on these blogs.  Much in the way of opposing points of view.  But through it all, we've done it our way & decided to take the high road & NOT print what we actually thought of each other.  But now I must depart from that genteel form of thought.

I must say that you are, indeed, a curmdgeon of the first & highest order.  But I must also admit that you are most inspirational.  So I must say, here & now, that I come not to bury my blog opponent, CCC, but to praise him.  Go ahead, take a breath, get a drink or cookie or something, 'cause this is going to be good.

Since this topic is our flavor of the week on a rainy day, (el yucko mundo) you have no doubt noticed that once again, our bloggers have come up with great comments & questions.  Like, what else is new?  Fer sure.  Well, because of you, I had an (gasp) idea.  Now don't get your knickers in a knot.  I am fully cognizant that when I have an idea, spanish speaking people around the globe shake their collective heads & say, "Muy peligroso para hombre loco."  But hear me out.

We all have at our fingertips, the greatest source for getting to the world's largest body of information.  Facts, figures, polls, stats & the always popular, ever present, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Why not put it to some really good use?

Check out every president we've ever had.  See what he was accused of, charged with, convicted of or suspected of, as it relates to the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.  Couldn't be that hard, especially with the current administration of miscreants.  Organise those little historical nuggets & put THOSE to the candidates.  Ask them how they would convince us, their prospective employers, that they would not repeat the crimes of the past.  Let us judge them on their answers & have them recorded for future accuracy and the possibility of pinning their tushies to the wall, should they stray.  You know what a stickler I am on accuracy.

Honestly, I don't know how this would physically done.  But we do have some very savvy people here who know their way around a computer much better than I.

Come back at me with your comments.  Not only you.  We have too many fine minds out there.  I'm looking forward to hearing from all of you.  Hey!  It's a rainy day today & by all reports, this will be with us for a few more.  Opinions are always welcome.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

After a couple days off, I am pleased to see CCC and UR back at it again.  Curmudge - welcome back.  Hats off to a strong comeback.  But you better keep eatin' your Wheaties.  UR is a tough foe when it comes to Demo-Repub battles.  You got in a few great jabs, and frankly, I think you rocked the Dems head with a couple of those zingers.  Even UR gave you some props.

I thought about dropping by to see who was at the Who's-Who show, but opted to go home after work instead.  Being at the THC, I figured Mr. Thrasher would be in attendance, and I saw on the news, he was indeed.  I wondered when I saw him, if Thrasher's endorsement would help or hurt here in Clay County.  I've got a funny feeling it was polarizing for some observers.  Both ways.

I'm counting on getting a lot of feedback via this blog site re the presidential election (and all others too), so I'm still trying to make my mind up.  I haven't really ruled anyone in or out.  My heart bleeds Republican, and Mitt has a great physical image.  But then again, so does Paris Hilton, and I sure as heck wouldn't vote for her.  Well, maybe.

Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat.  Eenie, meeney, miney, moe,   my   mother   said   to   pick   the   very   best   one,   and   it   is . . . who?

Thanks for the welcome back Baxley, I really didn't go anywhere - just busy with family and the job, the priorities in life.  And UR and I really don't spar, we just present opposing views - keep the blogs Fair and Balanced if you will. 

It did give me the idea we should have candidate celebrity boxing matches though, pity the poor soul who draws Fred Thompson in the first round.

Hard as I try, I just can't sit back and watch one side criticized (nice word for some of UR's comments about our current administration) when the other side is just as guilty.  I guess the price you pay for being on the throne - it makes the easiest target of opportunity. 

I didn't even pull out the latest Dem scandal involving the King and Queen - our good friend from China who raises all kinds of money for the Empire formerly known as Arkansas, OR their lust for money from the likes of MoveOn.org OR the Queen's inability to denounce that organization when they call one of the most courageous men in the country a liar.  

Or in Clinton speak, some gobblygook about "... suspension of willing disbelief..."  If you are going to call a General a liar, at least put on your big girl panties and call him a liar.  And remember, this is a General that Rumsfeld fired because he disagreed with him, and Bush brought back for his objectivity and no-BS approach. 

I really would have loved to see the General light into her on national TV, guess that is why I don't wear stars.  But you have to admit it would have been a hoot,  I guarantee they would not have tasered the General.

I digress and ramble. 

CCC,

Dog gone it CCC, you're right again.  How could I be so blind? 

Clinton did all those things, should get the blame & rightly so.

After all, he divided this country while lieing to the citizens.  He plunged us into debt that our grandchildren will still be paying.  He constantly violated the First Amendment.  He started an illegal war.  He kept the threat of OBL a secret. Protest rallies popped up all over the country to have him impeached which is why his polls were the lowest in history.  He.....

Wait a minute!  See?  I'm wrong again!  It was Bush who did those things.  Clinton handed Bush a budget surplus & warned him @ O bin Ladin.  Bush has been violating the 1st Amendment.  The only people who wanted to impeach Clinton were the Republicans in Congress.  Clinton's popularity % was in the what? high 60's, not the low 30's.  How could I be so confused.

But for the "high crime & misdemeanor," of having an illegal, immoral affair in the WH & trying to BS his way out of it, Republicans impeached him.  Whew!  That's a load off my mind.  I seemed to have forgotten that conservative Republicans are the "Family Values," people.  Yes, it's becoming all to clear to me to see where their priorities are.

Man, thanks for clearing that up for me.  I needed that!

RichK 

Glad I could be of service. 

Only area you still have fuzzy is that it was not only the Republicans in congress who wanted to impeach Clinton, it was the American public.  That and the last time I checked the only popularity contest that counts is the Emmy's. 

My only other advice is to take it easy on the coffee, your last couple of responses are getting a little excited, complete with capital letters, sarcasm, and exclamation marks. 

Just curious also, if you can just get W out of your head for a second - what do you think about Clinton's "questioning" of the General?  And really, lets just try to keep it focused on her questioning.  i.e. "suspension of willing disbelief" and insinuations that the General was only following orders from the President?   

CCC,

Tell you the truth, I didn't think that much of the questioning for some good reasons.  As the date for the report grew closer, pundits, people in gov. news people & the average man & womon in the street started making comments.  Some already had their minds made.  I am talking @ people on both sides of the issue.

So it came as no surprise at all that there would be divisions.  It was just a matter of what was going to be said.  I even saw a couple of stories that claimed the WH was "cool," to the conclusion of the report before it even came out.

As to questioning the Gen., I think any questioning is the responsibility of our elected leaders.  Anything else is an opinion that needs to be justified.  I won't comment on the character of the Gen. simply because I don't know enough @ him.  Some have said that because he "works," for Bush, he would color the report accordingly.  I am not ready to accept that.  Considering his educational credentials and service to his country, I am more than willing to give him the benefit of doubt & rely on his honor & commitment he has shown.

Yes, there were Americans who wanted to impeach Clinton.  But there were not the town meetings & protest marches that we have seen to have Bush & Cheney impeached. 

Curiouser & curiouser.  I do indeed, find it curious that no one, absolutely no one who supported Bush/Cheney prior to the war, showed the least hesitation is proclaiming just how "popular," they were to the people. Why, they even cited the polls.  But as the dynamic duo started to self destruct, somehow, polls & popularity suddenly became irrelevent, even superfluous, almost unmentionable.  Yes, mighty curious.

I cut down on coffee & caffeine years ago.  Shame on you.  We've been sparring long enough to know that I freely mix sarcasm & humor.  No excuse for the exclamation points.  I just found the darn thing @ a week ago.  Now, I'm working on finding out how to make italics, maybe some color & typing a little slower because there are some out there who seem to have a difficult time comprehending.  I might even find out how to put a smiley face on this thing.  One of these years, hopefully, I'll learn how to work this bloody thing.  For now, I just keep on keepin' on.  Sometimes I like the excitement.  It proves to me that I was right when I didn't see my name in the obits.  JATFUR.

RichK

Somehow, a blog that began as an announcement of a public appearance by a 2008 presidential hopeful devolved into a debate about whether Bill Clinton or George W. Bush have exhibited the lowest moral standards.

Whether your name is Mitt, George, Bill, Hillary or Obama, the chances of advancing to the presidential level of campaign fundraising makes debate about morality virtually moot.