2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And the "you didn't build that" mentality is a mentality I oppose. Not on the pure theory behind the statement, because it's easy to argue that without our collective infrastructure and military and schools, it's hard to build anything. But because reminding us seems like an attack on the entrepreneurial spirit that also helped build this country.

Which is exactly what he preceded the statement with.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

He explicitly mentioned that individual initiative is a reason we succeed. It takes a narrow reading to say that is an attack on the entrepreneurial spirit.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Maybe 50 years ago, socialism is on the same level as fascism. I think we moved away from equating those two a long, long time ago. So, yes, putting the two on the same plane, IMO, is a massive overreach on your part (and basically invalidating any comparison as apples/oranges).

Heck, you have Republicans who refer to Bernie Sanders as a National Socialist. Some people haven't moved away from that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Heck, you have Republicans who refer to Bernie Sanders as a National Socialist. Some people haven't moved away from that.

And some Dems who call Bush a fascist apparently.

Product of the polarized world we currently live in unfortunately.

[NobodyHere]

Apparently the real winner in last night's debate was Fox News

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/medi...-news-ratings/

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well hell if you want to look at it like that public education began the slide to socialism.

That was a hot topic back in the day.

The point of contention is what is the role of government? We can go back to the Preamble of the Constitution and see how much has changed.

Every time we give up some of our freedoms and give that power to the government, we move farther down the path of socialism, in some way, shape, or form. Not all of these are bad, and some are essential, but to deny this is folly.

Some government is needed. I look at the role of government as an entity for the common good that cannot be provided by the individual. Settling legal disputes, that's a government function. Giving me a method to get to work? That's my job. Providing me roads to take to get there? Government. Health care? That is on me. Providing a means of communication? Government.

The sticky part about the Constitution is "promote the general welfare." We all have different ideas of what this means. Some want a larger role of government, the larger the role, the more socialized we are.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Dola,

I also find it amusing that the people that are most adverse to the term 'socialism' are also likely to be big supporters of the military, when the Department of Defense is one of the biggest examples of socialism in the US today. Military bases? Owned by the government. Soldiers and military personnel? Government employees. Military equipment? Government property.

You are completely misunderstanding why though. The military is explicitly provided for by the Constitution (common defense and all). For years we either had a militia system or a very small regular military (and frequently behind the times) because of how we viewed the military, what our nation's needs were, and our fear of the government. It was not until WWII that we realized as a nation we had to take a leadership role on the world stage to try and prevent another world war. A strong military helps get our point across. An individual cannot do this on their own. It is only by pooling our resources that we can do so.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You are completely misunderstanding why though. The military is explicitly provided for by the Constitution (common defense and all). For years we either had a militia system or a very small regular military (and frequently behind the times) because of how we viewed the military, what our nation's needs were, and our fear of the government. It was not until WWII that we realized as a nation we had to take a leadership role on the world stage to try and prevent another world war. A strong military helps get our point across. An individual cannot do this on their own. It is only by pooling our resources that we can do so.

But why shy away from the socialist label to describe the military, when that is a perfect example? That's what I mean about 'socialism' being used as a pejorative term. It was like those people protesting 'Keep the government out of my Medicare'.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Heck, you have Republicans who refer to Bernie Sanders as a National Socialist. Some people haven't moved away from that.

Wait, did you actually mean they called him a Nazi? Or was that an accident?

From a recent USA Today Q&A, the very first question was this

Q. You’ve described yourself as a socialist and as a democratic socialist. Can you tell us what that means?

A: A. “Democratic socialism is ...

He's a SELF-DESCRIBED Socialist. Anyone referring to him as such is effectively quoting him. Whether the term is pejorative or not (and it certainly is when I use it to describe the vile p.o.s., I'd just as soon see ISIS in the White House than his sorry ass) is up to the user.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wait, did you actually mean they called him a Nazi? Or was that an accident?

The National Review used that exact term, "National Socialist".

Bernie Sanders's Politics of National Socialism | National Review Online

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Grover

I would vote Kasich over Hillary.

I'm very liberal and a staunch Bernie supporter, but I cannot and will not bring myself to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.

I can, and it'll be easy: just nominate Scott Walker. I'll camp out in line, Black Friday style, to vote for Hillary at my precinct in the general.

I mean, no, I'm probably not voting for her if Scott Walker's not on the ticket, but if he is, and Hillary's his opponent? I wouldn't even have to think about it.

I still don't know if any of the Republicans named "Not Walker" will rise to the level of being someone I'd actually WANT to vote for in 2016 (I was impressed by some of what I heard from Rubio, but...it's early) but my rankings right now look kinda like "Not Walker" > "Not Hillary" > Hillary > the rancid poo from my toilet > (fill in the blank) > Scott Walker

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Now we may not be too far in that direction, but once the wall is broken, it is much easier to move that direction. Now there are a lot more opportunities for the government to interfere in our lives, all in the name of the public good.

The issue is this statement. You say that Obama has opened us up to socialism, but that opening goes back to the military and public education. You weren't initially having a theoretical discussion about what constitutes socialism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

The National Review used that exact term, "National Socialist".

Bernie Sanders's Politics of National Socialism | National Review Online

Fair enough. I've never used it, haven't consciously seen it used before. Pretty sure that's an outlier.

That said, this discussion did give me one of the better lines I've read in a while so it's got that going for it

He’s one of those rhetorical oafs whose only dynamic modulations are sudden shifts in volume — he’s the oratorical equivalent of every Nirvana song ever written

[molson]

Is this the thing that was popular here a few years ago where you're hypocrite if you're in favor of smaller government and lower taxes generally, but you're also okay with the concept of public roads?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by rowech

You won't want to vote for Kasich for the same reason you don't want to vote for Walker. Only one reason I wouldn't vote for Kasich had the truth is he's done a pretty good job. His thoughts on education leave a lot to be desired.

The difference between Kasich and Walker is that Kasich has shown he can take "no" for an answer. He holds a lot of the same positions and has done or has tried to do a lot of the same things, but when the voters repudiated him on his assault on the unions, he backed off on that. Walker would have doubled down and tried to find another way.

Not saying Kasich is my favorite non-Walker candidate but there's enough daylight between the two that Kasich doesn't cause the visceral reaction from me that Walker does.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The issue is this statement. You say that Obama has opened us up to socialism, but that opening goes back to the military and public education. You weren't initially having a theoretical discussion about what constitutes socialism.

And stuff likes this makes me wonder why I bother...

Military cannot be provided by an individual. An individual can provide for his own health care. The government stepping in and doing so is advancing socialism. Any government has some aspects of socialism in it. The question is how far you your advance in that spectrum.

Once the government steps in and provides health care insurance in any way, shape, or form, you introduce the potential for the government to intrude in our lives more in the name of the common good.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The difference between Kasich and Walker is that Kasich has shown he can take "no" for an answer. He holds a lot of the same positions and has done or has tried to do a lot of the same things, but when the voters repudiated him on his assault on the unions, he backed off on that. Walker would have doubled down and tried to find another way.

Not saying Kasich is my favorite non-Walker candidate but there's enough daylight between the two that Kasich doesn't cause the visceral reaction from me that Walker does.

Senate Bill Five failed only because they put police, fire, and teachers together. If they had just done teachers it would have passed.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by rowech

If they had just done teachers it would have passed.

Which is a sad commentary on the state of the nation, that teachers are completely devalued.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Maybe 50 years ago, socialism is on the same level as fascism. I think we moved away from equating those two a long, long time ago.

50 years?!! People have called Obama a socialist as a way of portraying him as evil or anti-American. It happens on a day to day basis, so no... its not moving away from equating those two a long, long time ago.

And down South at least, they are considered equally bad.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I would say he's many things, but not thin-skinned. Mocking him or yelling at him plays right into his wheelhouse. He can command a room when you play on his turf.

I'll quote myself, because I sure missed on that comment.

Trump has spent the last 24 hours taking on Megyn Kelly and Fox News. His comment that perhaps blood was coming out of her whatever (I guess he was implying menstruation) got him un-invited from a Republican gathering in Atlanta tomorrow.

People may be drawn to someone who isn't politically correct. I certainly agree that Trump isn't politically correct, but this latest round basically confirms that Kelly was entirely justified in questioning his misogyny.

I don't know if he has the fortitude to make it to the Iowa Caucus, but he's destroying any chance he had of raising his ceiling of support.

Maybe Trump was aiming for an endorsement from Kiran Gandhi. Though I'm still not 100% convinced that isn't an Onion hoax.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

50 years?!! People have called Obama a socialist as a way of portraying him as evil or anti-American. It happens on a day to day basis, so no... its not moving away from equating those two a long, long time ago.

And down South at least, they are considered equally bad.

If you go with simply the dictionary definition of fascism
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

then I'll be the one to say that socialism is considered the worse of the two forms in no shortage of places in the South, and not really by a particularly narrow margin. Mostly depends upon who is in charge tbh.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

By liking him, I meant in the sit down and have a beer sense. He's intelligent and accomplished and has an interest in the country.

But his views on many issues mean that out of the 17, he's near the bottom as far as my own voting will go.

He didn't say that Obama was trying to destroy America, though. He said that if he were trying to destroy America, he would adopt many of Obama's policies.

Going back to this: Carson is gaining support with many of my strongly Christian friends, so I was interested in seeing him and learning more about him. He seemed fine to me in the debate, and learning about his background, I was like you thinking he was fascinating. That was until I read the Time magazine piece on him written right before he announced. He was sitting with one his political staffers watching Obama give a speech. In it, he called Obama a psychopath, that everything he says is a lie and he knows it. That Obama's chief's goal was to destroy America.

Is it really so hard to understand (especially from a very well educated man such as he) that it is possible that two people can disagree on what direction the country should go without one of them being a psychopath? That really is the poison that is pervasive in the political system now, that the opponent doesn't disagree with your positions, but they are insane and want to purposely end America.

Carson is just another spewer of poison. Not interested.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Going back to this: Carson is gaining support with many of my strongly Christian friends, so I was interested in seeing him and learning more about him. He seemed fine to me in the debate, and learning about his background, I was like you thinking he was fascinating. That was until I read the Time magazine piece on him written right before he announced. He was sitting with one his political staffers watching Obama give a speech. In it, he called Obama a psychopath, that everything he says is a lie and he knows it. That Obama's chief's goal was to destroy America.

Is it really so hard to understand (especially from a very well educated man such as he) that it is possible that two people can disagree on what direction the country should go without one of them being a psychopath? That really is the poison that is pervasive in the political system now, that the opponent doesn't disagree with your positions, but they are insane and want to purposely end America.

Carson is just another spewer of poison. Not interested.

This.

Jim's wrong on the merits as Carson ends his answer with, and that's what she's done. I'll admit it's a little confusing because Carson conflates Hillary and Obama, but the message is certainly there.

I'm fine with the standard hyperbolic rhetoric that policy x will destroy America. That's common on both sides. Questioning motives, though, should be called out. There's a big difference between candidate x loves America, but her policies will cripple... and candidate x wants to destroy America from the inside.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Military cannot be provided by an individual. An individual can provide for his own health care.

Well if this statement wasn't framing the debate in a biased fashion . An individual can provide for his own security. So in your words, the government stepping in and providing collective security in the form of a military is advancing socialism.

Recall that in the early years of the Republic many were against a standing army. They merely wanted to call on the state militias if there was an issue where collective defense was required.

[PilotMan]

You know, I could probably vote for the right republican candidate again, but as soon as they start talking about the moral high ground based on their religion I just turn off. It all seems so self aggrandizing, not that politics in general isn't.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't know if I will have as much fun doing anything this year as Trump has had running for President.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well if this statement wasn't framing the debate in a biased fashion . An individual can provide for his own security. So in your words, the government stepping in and providing collective security in the form of a military is advancing socialism.

Recall that in the early years of the Republic many were against a standing army. They merely wanted to call on the state militias if there was an issue where collective defense was required.

And I touched on that in an earlier response. Our standing military was extremely small until after WWII. We never truly realized how bad it was until the Civil War. Part of the reason why we fought the First Battle of Bull Run when we did was the term for the first batch of 90 day volunteers was almost up. It took us another 80 years to realize the value of a larger standing army.

My point is the more we rely on the government to provide for us, the more we become dependent upon it. There is a spectrum, the more we rely on government to provide services the further we move down that spectrum and we become more socialist.

The question is whether we believe this to be bad. Most on these boards have no problem with moving down the spectrum towards the socialist side. I prefer to be on the free enterprise side of the spectrum. I believe that individuals or businesses are better suited to provide solutions as compared to the government.

What is interesting to me, along the lines of cartman's question about the the military being a close to socialist ideal and the minimal government people such as myself being proponents of it, is that many minorities favor more government influence in their lives, but they tend to suffer more from that government. Look at the police brutality issues that have arisen recently. Why would I want more of that influence in my life, especially if I am a minority?

[Ben E Lou]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politi...one/index.html

Donald Trump's campaign said Saturday it has fired top political adviser Roger Stone.


"Mr. Trump fired Roger Stone last night. We have a tremendously successful campaign and Roger wanted to use the campaign for his own personal publicity. He has had a number of articles about him recently and Mr. Trump wants to keep the focus of the campaign on how to Make America Great Again," a campaign spokesperson told CNN.


Stone, however, told CNN that he quit, and provided what he said was his resignation letter.


"Unfortunately, the current controversies involving personalities and provocative media fights have reached such a high volume that it has distracted attention from your platform and overwhelmed your core message. With this current direction of the candidacy, I no longer can remain involved in your campaign," the letter says.


Stone added: "I care about you as a friend and wish you well. Be assured I will continue to be vocal and active in the national debate to ensure our nation does not again turn to the failed and distrusted Bush/Clinton families."

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My point is the more we rely on the government to provide for us, the more we become dependent upon it. There is a spectrum, the more we rely on government to provide services the further we move down that spectrum and we become more socialist.

The question is whether we believe this to be bad. Most on these boards have no problem with moving down the spectrum towards the socialist side. I prefer to be on the free enterprise side of the spectrum. I believe that individuals or businesses are better suited to provide solutions as compared to the government.

What is interesting to me, along the lines of cartman's question about the the military being a close to socialist ideal and the minimal government people such as myself being proponents of it, is that many minorities favor more government influence in their lives, but they tend to suffer more from that government. Look at the police brutality issues that have arisen recently. Why would I want more of that influence in my life, especially if I am a minority?

There needs to be both to check each other. "Government" should be the collective effort of the people. It's often portrayed as some faceless monolith, but it shouldn't be - it should be what the people as a whole came up with and shaped. This is why it is important for everybody to have a say, so you don't get a small interest making the rules for everybody else. It should be there though to keep a nation grounded and to provide a certain level of fairness.

But, industry and corporation has to be there too. It can be smaller and more specialized, and more exceptional. It can fail and succeed on its own merits, it's not going to be held back by a massive collective. It doesn't have to cater to the greater good (though it should not be allowed to actively damage it), it just has to focus on wants, and it can act in ways that benefits itself.

That's why minorities would favor more government - industry isn't going to do shit for them, at least not if they don't have money. Government in theory should because it should be doing something for everybody (the base level of which is debated, of course), looking out for everybody. The problem is when government isn't representing everyone or when it is controlled by the same forces that are running the industry side of things. Which is why we're seeing complaints against police, the judicial system, Congress, etc. People are saying hey, this isn't supposed to work like this. Government isn't supposed to be keeping anybody down, it's supposed to see that you get a fighting chance.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politi...one/index.html

Stone's been a first class rat fucker going all the way back to Nixon.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Stone's been a first class rat fucker going all the way back to Nixon.

But how do you really feel?

[JPhillips]

He was perfect for Trump, but it's no surprise that those two personalities can't coexist long term. Read up on Stone, the guy's a legend.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Going back to this: Carson is gaining support with many of my strongly Christian friends, so I was interested in seeing him and learning more about him. He seemed fine to me in the debate, and learning about his background, I was like you thinking he was fascinating. That was until I read the Time magazine piece on him written right before he announced. He was sitting with one his political staffers watching Obama give a speech. In it, he called Obama a psychopath, that everything he says is a lie and he knows it. That Obama's chief's goal was to destroy America.

Is it really so hard to understand (especially from a very well educated man such as he) that it is possible that two people can disagree on what direction the country should go without one of them being a psychopath? That really is the poison that is pervasive in the political system now, that the opponent doesn't disagree with your positions, but they are insane and want to purposely end America.

Carson is just another spewer of poison. Not interested.

So you don't like him because he uses Obama's strategy against him?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

he called Obama a psychopath, that everything he says is a lie and he knows it. That Obama's chief's goal was to destroy America.

So you're pissed 'cause he told the truth about the bastard?

Obama isn't the disease, he's just a symptom. That's about the only place the "poison" analogy fails afaic.

[JPhillips]

Post-Debate Poll (NBC) Trump 23% Cruz 13% Carson 11% Fiorina 8% Rubio 8% Bush 7% Walker 7%

[NobodyHere]

Got a link to that poll by any chance?

[JPhillips]

No, I just saw the screenshot from Meet the Press.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Got a link to that poll by any chance?

don't worry too much about it... it was just an online poll done with SurveyMonkey.

No, I'm not kidding.

NBC’s Debate POLL says FIORINA, Trump won debates, CRUZ and Carson JUMP in general race » The Right Scoop -

edit to add: Despite the headline, both the debate outcome & the "new standings" are covered in the article.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I thought we could use items dedicated to the primary issues. Candidacies, polls, issues, attitudes.

As always, let's try to keep these items pleasant.

I feel like we have veered off this intention.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

that many minorities favor more government influence in their lives, but they tend to suffer more from that government. Look at the police brutality issues that have arisen recently. Why would I want more of that influence in my life, especially if I am a minority?

If it wasn't for the federal government, they wouldn't have gotten out from Jim Crow. They wouldn't have equal rights in hiring decisions. If you talk to minorities, you'll find that they are not fond of local governments or businesses, but they do trust the federal government to help them because that has been the only group that has done so. You'll note a lot of minorities prefer the federal government to take power from states for just that reason.

[Solecismic]

The first post-debate poll from Iowa done by a major polling firm is out.

We're dealing with tiny sample sizes, but, taken for what it's worth, it suggests Trump has lost a third of the support he had a week ago. Fiorina appears to the major beneficiary, and Carson, Cruz and Rubio had significant gains. Walker's also down.

I have to admit that I have no idea why there's such a perception that Fiorina dominated the JV debate. I found her far too religious for my tastes, and mostly playing the attack Hillary role. But there have been so many positive stories, and now this poll, to conclude anything other than she's one of the top tier candidates for the moment.

As we know, the next moment could be entirely different.

I still wouldn't worry about Trump. The more he talks, the less people like him.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I feel like we have veered off this intention.

Thank you for that reminder. It's inevitable that issues discussions veer into the general red/blue debates that never produce anything meaningful.

Heavy moderation (not that I could do it even if I wanted to do it) tends to shut down debate rather than focus it. So I think a gentle reminder from time to time does a lot of good.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have to admit that I have no idea why there's such a perception that Fiorina dominated the JV debate. I found her far too religious for my tastes, and mostly playing the attack Hillary role.

Why don't you think these two things would be selling points for Republican voters? I also heard she came across as very competent.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The first post-debate poll from Iowa done by a major polling firm is out.

We're dealing with tiny sample sizes, but, taken for what it's worth, it suggests Trump has lost a third of the support he had a week ago. Fiorina appears to the major beneficiary, and Carson, Cruz and Rubio had significant gains. Walker's also down.

I don't think you can make sure a strong statement. This is PPP's first Iowa poll and you can't necessarily compare it's results to other polls. There was also only one Iowa poll showing Trump with a +30% result, so we don't know if that was accurate or an outlier. We can pretty safely say Trump leads, but whether he's gained or lost or stayed the same is more of an unknown.

[Solecismic]

Yeah, isn't that what I said - taken for what it's worth, other appropriate hedging? It's early and the situation is fluid.

We could add a disclaimer to pretty much any poll discussion: "valid reasoning exists to suggest this isn't even remotely accurate."

I could also suggest that the news channels all gain from artificially pumping up Trump's chances. There's a narrative there - it's not like CNN's desperate search for Malaysian airplanes, not knowing whether or if Al Capone's treasures lie at the end of their travails.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have to admit that I have no idea why there's such a perception that Fiorina dominated the JV debate.

She appeared to have a pulse. Pretty much everything I've seen about the JV game indicates that alone would have put her in the top two of that prelim.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why don't you think these two things would be selling points for Republican voters?

Yeah, that's about the least surprising thing ever.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why don't you think these two things would be selling points for Republican primary voters? I also heard she came across as very competent.

Almost certainly what you meant anyway, but I thought I'd tweak that for context. There are certainly Republican voters for whom social issues and RAWR CLINTON DESTROY aren't at the beating heart of their party affiliation, but many of them are less likely to be primary voters in the first place.

[Abe Sargent]

I think she gets several points:

There were low expectations coming into the race. She didn't have to do well to improve. She had lower threshold, especially in the junior debate.

She had some major Repub folks helping her along. She is here, in part, to play a strong anti-Hillary role. Which she did to a tee. She can go after Clinton without appearing sexist, and they are made of similar stuff. Carly, for example, was the first CEO of a top 20 company in America. She has that going for her.

I also think that Fiorina and Carson are the beneficiaries of being outsiders. People who gravitated to Trump in part because they liked his anti-politics stuff may be sliding to the other too as Trump falls. In fact, in Iowa, to cite the survey that was done by a Policy Institute, Carly right now has the most 2nd choices of any Republication. Again, she has positioned herself.

She has some deadweight. She lost an election, the whole Demon Sheep advertisement from CA, her HP resume isn't airtight, etc. But she definitely is strong. For example, her siting specific cases in the Katie Couric interview of where the Obama administration went wrong in foreign policy, and how she would do better was really strong. She cited four things we should have done to help Ukraine: Arm them, rearm the 6th fleet, do training exercises in the Batlic, and I can't remember the 4th off the top of my head, and I actually agreed with her dead straight, I think we just let that one go when we shouldn't Ukraine should have been the line in the sand for Russia after Ossetia, in my opinion.

So as long as she doesn't blow things up, like Michelle Bachman, and as long as other major contenders are knowing themselves silly (Rand Paul) she could realistically be in the top for or five when the polls and caucuses start, and could rack up some delegates.

[Abe Sargent]

Oh, and in case they forgot, or were never familiar with it, here's the demon sheep add she ran in 2010.

[Solecismic]

That's tremendous. Not even SNL could have pulled that off. And yet she still beat Campbell by 30 points and had a respectable showing in the general.

I know I should give her another look. For me, as an independent who has never voted for a Republican for president, I'm a little European when it comes to mixing religion and politics. It makes me uncomfortable when candidates throw the G-word around.

She seems to be solidly still in the race, so we'll have more opportunities to see her (hopefully she has fired her commercial-making team). I know what's wrong with Hillary. I want to see someone who has a strong idea of what to do next.