This transcript is copyrighted by Tom Wright and Pankaj Saxena. All rights reserved. 1996. IRC log started Fri Feb 23 22:03 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Tonight's scheduled discussion is: "The GOP Primaries." Before we begin, I'd like to bring to your notice that: 1) Discussions on this channel are copyrighted by myself and Pankaj Saxena (Subetai). You may log the discussion for your own personal use, but you may not redistribute it in any form whatsoever without written permission from the channel owners. 2) The discussion will be held in keyword-mode. If there is someone you would like to invite to the channel (who in your judgement would not disrupt the channel), please message Subetai. All right, lets begin the discussion. For this conversation, I am assuming that everyone has a basic knowledge of the major GOP candidates and their positions. Let's start out by identifying the best candidate out of Alexander, Dole, and Forbes. Who is he, and why do you think he is the best candidate? hello betsy Forbes, for his economic positions. forbes..He's spending his own money Forbes! He wants to do away with Social Security, medicare and medicaid. Plus, I like the flat tax. Forbes, part of what is driving him is his own self interest but that is just picking the lesser of three evils:) I should hope so don't forget forbes wanting to reinstate the gold standard As I expected, Forbes seems to be the choice score one for Steve. I voted for him in the NH primary blspro: and defund the IMF paul :) Okay, any problems with Mr. Forbes? ideologically? Waffling on Abortion He panders to the god lovers, and he never mentions individual rights. Wright: his position on abortion. He's not clear about his stance on abortion though he seems to be against it. Forbes is the only one that you could actually admire. He is probabably not grounded very well philosophically He supports "moderate" gun control, whatever that might mean. or tolerate as the case may be No theatre nukes in the basement Sorry I'm late. I'd first like to say that I went on the record months ago as saying Buchanan has more support than the media gave him credit for. TomR: sad but true okay, what are the problems with the other ones, why are they worse choices I don't like Forbes being pro term limits and even making a major commercial about the. That's so non-essential. But I'm not the kind of person to say I told you so. ;) Wright:Lamar alexandar is a null the=them Others being Dole and Alerander Betsy: term limits are a bad idea anyway. and Dole is a complete idiot Alexander Dole - pragmatic power seeker Dole seems to compromise principles Neither Alexander nor Dole have any abstract principles Both pragmatists they preach practice Okay, so really Forbes is the obvious choice, correct? Alexander has waffled on his position on many issues since he was Governor of Tennessee. He doesn't seem to have much basis for his positions other than what the people want. Is Dole even running FOR anything (besides the presidency)? The big plank of his platform is that he "deserves the office." It is never stated explicitly but it's in the undercurrent. of the 4, yes right wright : gee that was a quick discussion ;) wright - of those running - I believe so :) It's not done yet :) As such, they are more dangerous than any ideologue since they will confuse the issue (remember Bush?) the dynamics of the republican party is a study on how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory Next issue: Bush is just basically a nastier Bush. He has no ideas and nothing to offer. Okay, now that we have established that, let's move on. The obvious next question is, does this man have a real chance of being nominated at this point? What are the chances? What has to happen in order for this person to win the nomination? er, Dole. Forbes, I mean alexander is for gun control Forbes, no he is fading fast wright - we need people with a better education ??? I'm speaking of terms of this election I don't think he has much chance unless he can win a race No chance at present, the Rep Party has too many religionists and pragmatists Forbes might win Arizona though, and it will be winner take all here. He has a real shot still in Arizona People to value a canditate that appeals to the intellect rather than emotion ? what is the signifigance of Arizona though? not with PB in the race, he doesn't really have a chance intellect? what percentage of the American electorate has cultivated an intellect? bls: It has a lot of delegates more that either Iowa or New Hamshire It was meant to be a showcase for Gramm. :) Hampshire Two of the other candidates have to back out, leaving Forbes in sharp contrast to who is left. Forbes vs. Buchanan? So what has to happen before Forbes has a serious chance as the GOP candidate? Glenn: and those are? Wright - it has more delegates - but does it have greater media clout - which is what seems to be driving all this Forbes lacks the eloquence necessary to make his point. That is probably due to his unwillingness to speak of the concept of rights Buchanan and Alexander have unfortunate but fatal accidents Frankly, at this point, you wouldn't be any worse off voting for Pat Paulsen. :P Forbes has to win the media Forbes does have the money to keep going.. npandya: he did pretty good on property rights at the debate last nite as does Dole. npand - I have actually liked what I have seen of Forbes speaking Alexander has big money problems I'd rather see Forbes against Dole or Alexander. Forbes is also a business man. Will he throw good money after bad money? It doesn't matter. Clinton will beat any of them. and Buchanan has a steady stream of cash from the numbskulls Forbes could be the beneficiary if the others gang up on Buchannan Do I hear wishful thinking? yup :) Troy: Maybe so. I think it all hinges on Arizona Forbes has to win there I think last I saw tonite, Forbes was in third with 19% If Forbes blows his chance in Arizon, I think he will fold within 30 days thereafter Long term, if Forbes keeps on going to the end, there is a gain if whoever the alternative candidate loses to Clinton. paulf: Dole is trying to co-opt Buchannan now. they don't want to offend Buchannon's voters. Someone summarize all this - you're saying that Forbes has no chance unless the others seriously goof up. The only thing going for him is his money, and it's doubtful that'll be important. We would guess that in order for Forbes to win.. the people that back forbes have to begin and susatin a steady word of mouth campaing.. stating publicly and often that they back forbes and WHY. he needs the appearance of a grassroots type groundswell wright - does Arizona have a big "media" footprint on the other primaries the way iowa and NW have? won't say who he voted for in the Arizona primary. ;) oops. :) Sub: you just summarized it Rush LImbaughs support of him wont hurt either Arizona will, IF Forbes upsets that will be big news blspro: Arizona will have negative significance to Forbes Arizona is important, and Dole did screw up by skipping an Arizona debate last night Ghaki: true, but the religious right may see that as what it is Wright: Yep. Is the transcript of the Arizona Debate available on the internet? Does anyone know? I haven't come across it, but lets stay on topic wright - truly? Im not so sure - I am afraid Forbes may have peaked too early in exposure and Arizona would be seen as fluke of sorts - something to be explained away as opposed to be worried about by the media and the other candidates <> TomR didn't bother watching it, even though it was being held five miles away from where he lives. I don't know if things will last until the California Primary in March, but I hope so. The way I see it: In order for Forbes to get back into the race, he has to do well in Arizona Betsy: yeah, me too betsy: me too Tom: Be sure to vote Forbes :) Wright: correct. And further success is not guaranteed Wright - I agree - for him to have a chance he has to do VERY well in Arizona Wright: I already did. ;) Wright: if he wins Delaware on Sat. will that help? Troy: Yes I simply don't know if that is enough to get him up in the ranks of the others nationally I just hope that republicans who support Forbes don't panic and start voting for Dole and Alexander out of fear of loosing to Buchanan. Betsy: how the mighty have fallen: the "revolution" of 94 and the ascendancy of the Newties may come to naught paul: perhaps, but Delaware is rather insignificant, and Dole is favored there JimN: Your point is very good. That is precisely the threat. Okay to sum up this point Things look grim folks Perhaps we should make the point, Dole and Alexander may be GREATER threats than Buchanan. anybody think they'll have a brokered convention? Forbes still has a slim chance, but in order to get back into things, he needs an Arizona victory, or some big screwup by one of the top three Troy: People bought the right product (less govt), but the Republicans didn't delivier it. Ghaki: doubtful okay time for the next point Troy: The "customers" are now REALLY hungry for the product. Wasn't there ever a time when we had good people running for president? :/ Betsy: the Repubs always manage to disappoint Now, for purposes of discussion, assume that "our man" is not nominated? What then? Are there other candidates that you would consider? If so, name them, and your reasons for favoring this candidate. Since George Washington, that is. Betsy: I think it is time for a new party Troy: Demonstrates the importance of being for the right things -- for the right reasons. Wright: I came in late. Is "our man" Forbes? Jim: yes A new party will never gain a foothold here unless one of the other ones collapses. Betsy: A big amen to that Wright: Good. none of the ones currently running, maybe Jack Kemp or Gov Enler, but don't know much about them TomR: that is quite possible. Both parties are vulnerable. I don't know enough about Alexander - is he any better than Dole - meaning does he have any more passion for less govt? libertarian what about the governess of New Jersey. I don't recall here name I'd take Engler, with reservations, but I was referring to the current front runners We're not missing much by not having Jack Kemp. Troy: Chirstie Todd-Whitman After Forbes, I think I'd pick Alexander, because he seems less evil than Buchanan, and more effectual than Dole. Subt: you and I have no idea what Alexander is Subetai: I thought that, but the more I hear from Alexander, the more I think he's a new George Bush. He says some good principles, but then leaves a crack in the door for their violation. Let me make it more basic? Alexander or Dole? ?=. Subt: he is all things to all people Alexander does want to abolish the dept of ed.. that is a point in his favor Alexander has no idea of what Alexander is If Buchanan is nominated, I'm voting for Clinton. yeah, but I am uneasy with a new branch of the military for the borders Troy: Yes, he's waffled. But his present platform looks better than Dole's. as Tonto used to say: Not good kimosabe can anyone lay out the differences between dole and alexander? Wright: That's like choosing between arsenic and cyanide. Kemp is bad news. Is there a difference between Lamar and Bob? If Buchanan is nominated, I'm voting for Perot! also, I heard that Alexander wants to expand the military to patrol the border and carry on the "war on drugs" Subetai: yup. His pollsters have cooked up a recipe for him oy I am disturbed by Alexander's self-description as a "right-leaning pragmatist" damned out of his own mouth! Betsy: Unless a Clinton Buchanan race looked close, then I'd go for ack.. Clinton Betsy: I'd do that, but I'd want my vote to act AGAINST Buchanan, not just not for him. (The same premise Peikoff acted on against Bush.) clay - more disturbed than by Doles actions in govt ? :) think of Mr. Thompson in AS Dole is older, he may serve only one term if elected blspro, I know a little bit about Alexander's actions in gov't npandya: yeah, his VP could be critical but the Buchanan question is next tell us about Alexander I also think Alexander would stand a better chance than Dole, running against Clinton. If Forbes is not nominated for the Republican Party, can he run on Ross Perot's party? clay - and is it worse better or about the same as dole? blspro, Alexander is better than Dole in my view for a number of reasons bout the same Buchanan is Huey Long ressurected wright - why? If someone other than Buchanan or Forbes is nominated, I might take LP's advice from 1988 and write-in George Washington. :) lets hold Buchanan to the next question BUchannan is HITLER revisited ok Xenopus: I don't think Perot would ever allow it. Alexander implemented a big-gov't "solution" to TN's education problems when he was gov. right now, it's Alexander-Dole Wright: So, why do you think Alexander is any better than Dole? Both seem to lack a clear understanding of the principles they are trying to run on. Clay: Yes, but he later changed his mind. He says it was because he learned better. Wright: please explain why Alex. better than Dole One, Lamar advocates the reduction of the federal government, specifically, in ways Dole does not Sube, well, that's a positive thing I don't think Dole would do anything drastic. Alexander is one who likes change for the sake of change. He really screwed up the schools in Tennessee. He may be more dangerous than Dole. two, he is more likely to defeat Clinton Does anyone know how well Lamar follows thru on what he says he's going to get done? Wright: I might favor Alexander only because Dole feels like it's his turn, whether he does anything to earn it or not. Wright: True, Lamar wants to put more power back to the States and out of the Federal level. Alexander was in favor of TennCare, Tennessee's managed health care. clay - right now we KNOW dole can't be trusted to keep to what he says - at least ther's a 50-50 chance with Lamar :) Alexander has promised to cut the fed gov't, and with a GOP congress he would at least cut a little Wright: But would a President Alexander actually be better than Clinton? what about Pat who means exactly what he says gotta go blspro, lack of evidence does not equal a 50-50 chance With a GOP congress, definitely Wright: right, even if Alexander is not all that hot, there are Republican legislators who are and who could actually MOVE legislation. wright - what was Alexander's stance on the 94 congress positions? Alexander is for state rights to prison reform...for abolishment of the dept of ed...for wilfare, but on state levels...for a moment of silence in school for balanced bvudget for less gov't for nafta and gaft against legilzing drugs, against gun control against the history corriculam Look how ineffectual Clinton has been... He is in line with the whole "back to the states" theme that the congress was pushing] ok Tom: He has been effectual in stopping any real cutbacks I don't see how an Alexander or Dole presidency would have been much different, except on perhaps the budget battle. blspro: and last night he said he would have singed the repubs balanced budget Wright: He's just playing politics in an election year. That is the most crucial thing right now Tom: He would not veto GOP bills out of congress singed=signed no more than Clinton would veto the bills from his party just based on the info presented here - sounds like Alexander would at least be a move in the right direction - 3 steps forward - two stps back - still aheadby one In addition, a total defeat of the Democrats (Congress and Presidency) may bring some sense into that party, just as the Bush loss revitalized the Republicans to some extent Wright: would Dole veto republican bills? I really doubt either Alexander or Dole will result in any positive developments. This has really merged into my next question, so let's keep them together Tom: With a GOP congress, I think either would ghaki - he would certainly seek certain terms before the stuff arrived on his desk blspro: very true Dole basically supported the status quo in the Senate. you can't tell me that either would've stopped the tax cut, the elimination of commerce, the curtailing of the EPA. etc Dole helped build the welfare state. Dole is a pramatist, he will go along pragmatist Dole did reject some welfare bills, Medicare I believe given a GOP congress wright - generally - but it sounds as if he will not put as many stumbling blocks in the way he=lamar Given a GOP majority in the Congress, if that remains, I'd be less worried about Alexander compromising on his "priciples", as Bush did with the Democratic Congress. But, that's a tough question. And given Reagan's promise to eliminate the Education Department, I wouldn't trust someone like Alexander to act on it either. but Dole was quick to point out that the contract was a house thing, not a senate contract the fact that Dole did vote for 14 of 16 tax increases doesn't do anything to make him look good from where I'm sitting Jim: Actually, I'm confident that the GOP will retain control if the top of the ticket wins.. if Clinton does, who knows and I'm pretty sure Dole supported Medicare but we can do the congress another time :) This is all assuming that the Republicans will maintain control of Congress, you know... What is Alexander's record on tax increases? I believe he put one through in Tennessee Is the question here who is a better rebublican - or who can beat clinton? Both are factors to consider as long as you accept the person as better than Clinton blspro: The issue is, what to do if Forbes doesn't get the nomination. if you do not like any of the canidates of the two major parties, why is it considered throwing your vote away to vote for another party, such as independent or libertarian??You can't throw your vote away if you use it..no matter who you vote for Well, lets pose the latter, is any Republican better than Clinton? Does the current crop of candidates make you almost feel nostalgic for the Reagan years? :/ blspro: As for how the news is reporting voters decision making process, I hate that they are voting on who they believe can beat Clinton rather than who they think has the best ideas...treating them as seperate issues. Because, voting for a third party will usually just split one part of the electorate.. that's what got Clinton in with 43% with exceptions jim - yes - I was simply asking do you focus on who is better or who can get elected - who can get elected seems to be the greater focus since as you have pointed out - we are now focusing on the q what happens if forbes doesn't win I think Dole is a better man than Clinton, but he comes across so badly that I think Clinton would beat him. Buchanan is much worse than Clinton wright - pretty much no argument ther - but I couldn't vote for clinton no matter what almost no matter what :) Okay. Are we agreed that Alexander is marginally better than Dole? Okay, any further thoughts on Dole vs. Alexander? Buchanan makes me think of actually _campaigning_ for Clinton! sub - based on info provided here - yes I'll go for that, but as long as Forbes is in he has my vote in the primaries. <> blspro shudders at the thought Tom :) Alexander would have a better chance of winning against Clinton Okay, one last question before we move on to the Nazi... would anyone vote for Clinton over either Dole or Alexander, and why? npandya: Yes, I'm voting for Forbes when I get a chance. Just remember that Clinton is a big hypocrite. He hardly ever does anything he says he supports. Hello all. Glenn: The neighbor's dog is a better man than Clinton. Wright: Probably not...only over Buchanan. As I've said, I don't think Alexander is as big a threat with a GOP congress as Bush was with a Democratic congress. "Clinton reads the polls every morning to see where he stands on issues" Wright: no way, he would se re-election as a mandate to try his socialist policies wright - at the moment - no Wright: I would vote for Clinton over Dole. Dole gives capitalism a bad name. no, I could not vote for clinton.. I dont know enough about Lamar to make a decision on him what would happen if Alexander and Forbes teamed up? Clinton is obviously evil, so I could not vote for him. Dino: Even with a GOP congress? bls: wouldn't happen would that be enough to make things a more interesting race? blspro: I would accept Alexander as Forbes vice-president. :) Glenn: So is Buchanan. Right TomR wright - why? - not arguing - just want to know Wright: from what I know of US politics, the president always gets the blame for congresses mistakes, so yes, even with a GOP congress. blspro: Actually, I would also like Alexander a little better if Forbes was his vice-president, but I can't see that happenning. jim - again - why not? Dino: But what about Clinton...he's so wishy-washy that he makes a bad name for the US Because of the way VP's are chosen.. usually to balance out the ticket.. Forbes and Alexander attract the same type of voter blspro: Why not what? I didn't see your earlier "again" question. Dino: not always jim - not to you to wright - you expressed same sentiment as he did - sorry Persephon: true, but at least no one can call him a capitalist. alexander and keyes? augh!! but we can go into that later Wright: but, I think most of the time, no? Alexander won't win in Arizona. a lot of the time, I'll say Dino" I think it's more important what their policies *are* than their giving a bad name to something. Dino: Is that better than no one can call him a capitalist? I think it's worse that one could call him a socialist. He has no organization here. okay, last topic abc is doing a show on PB right now as we speak:( Finally, I think all here would have to agree that Pat Buchanan is the worst possible choice. Does he have a chance, even a slim one? And if so, what can *we* do to help derail his campaign? His strong showing early on was the result of putting all of his resources into Iowa and New Hampshire. Tom, that I know, Alexander has no organization here, either tanstaafl: Yes, I know. I turned the T.V. off when it came on. I already know enough about PB. don't vote for him, campaign against him more specifically? Wright: I agree, Pat is the worst choice. And I have been trying to explain that to people around the college that I attend... beyond that, I'm game for ideas. I think if the object is to make capitalism the ideal in American politics, then its a good idea to make sure it doesn't get a bad name. Wasn't that LP's reason for voting for Clinton over Bush? Buchanan has a pretty good chance of being the next president. there is not much else you can do...except use your web pages Persephon: that's one of the best ways Sube: What do you base that on? Dino: I see your point. Buchanan is good at selling himself to the religious right Subetai: I agree, he seems to put together the religious right with the unions The most left-leaning Republican candidate will wind up being a capitalist scapegoat. :/ wright - he is drawing from both sides of the collectivist deck PB almost always makes very altruistic statements, and you can't appeal to ego when it comes to christians Actually, I agree that the fundies and the union men are a nasty combo, and powerful paulf please! I'm southern...don't mention unions to me Buchanan may be able to get the nomination, he could not win the election. He would waste an election cycle but he may put the religious right and protectionists in their place. Wright: He's sone remarkably well in the primaries, despite people brushing him off as an unlikely winner. So far, everyone's been surprised by how well he's done. He has a avery committed following, and the other candidates are weak. TomR: Actually, Buchanan isn't being confused for a Capitalist, even by the press. They know he's a nationalist and against free trade. But, consdier that a *majority* of GOP voters dislike him consider A lot of people like Buchanon because he "stands for something" and will vote for him just like the voted for Clinton because he stood for "change". sub - and he speaks from the heart - he speaks from principle and with pasion Subetai: I was not surprised by his strong following, even though New Hampshire was a surprise to me. the worst thing now is that he may be getting a protest vote, if the media hate him so much, maybe he is alright npandya: I agree. I think that, given the choice between Clinton and Buchanan, the people would choose Clinton... merely for the fact that Buchanan sounds so much like a fascist. TomR: Actually, PB had a stronger following in NH in 92. Wright: A minority can prevail if they are united while the majority is fragmented. You can't rely on that to hold him back. If it turns out to be a race between him and Dole, I agree with Subetai. He just might get the nomination. Tom - and if he doesn't - he is forcing dole to compromise and accept some of his ideas to win (which suggests its a good idea to run even knowing you will lose, Forbes 2000) I don't think he's going to run out of money either. Sube: If things continue as they are now, you are looking at a brokered convention, and the convention would never niminate Buchanan He would have to win a majority of delegates nominate Hey, at least this convention would be fun for a change! :) Sube: I agree that he has enough money Wright: That's possible. Lots of things can happen between now and then. I'm just saying, he has a serious chance of winning. Don't underestimate that. Right, I was disgusted by Bob Dole lamenting corporate profits. Sube: I agree. The next few weeks will tell a lot let's see how he does with the GOP establishment mobilizing against him Sube, but would you agree that he has no chance of winning election? Okay, what can we do to derail his campaign? Also, what can we do if he wins? Buy a gun. Nitin: If he wins the nomination, he might win the election too. wright - yes - I want to see that - although didn't it start to mobilize against him BEFORE NH - and look what happened there That's no answer. Believe it or not, I kind of sympathize with Buchanan supporters in a way. sub - go into hiding if he wins :) How so, Tom? yep.. he starts out with the fundi south, and his protectionist crap might swing a few industrial states, enough to winb -b derail his campaign? talk against him to anyone who will listen...spend some money to support other canidated Look at the GOP establishment: how different are they from the Democrats? bls: they weren't tajking him as seriously before NH Maybe its me, but I just don't think that his sort of Fascism is acceptable to the people of the United States. If it is, we are lost. They're both in bed with business, and don't really seem interested in fundamental change. Hmm... two months at Nate's rates won't cover that... unless we have a machine lying about we can use...temporarily (rent one?) wright - I thought because of his much stronger than expected showing in Iowa that they WERE taking him seriously - That was the impression I got at least TomR: In bed with business? What do you mean? npandya, I felt the same way about clinton the troubling thing is that the Buchanan people seem to ignore or evade his anti-semitic statements Buchanan would be much worse than this, but he has them running scared. bls: not seriously enough Wright, what has PB said that was anti-semitic? Wright: I can't tell from the press. Has Buchanan actually said anti-semitic statements? npan - then we are lost - because I don't know too many people that argue with his economic ideas - it is simply his percieved racial views they object to :( wright - I hope that is true :) Jim: You know what I mean. They sell themselves to the highest bidder. of course they are..His people don't want to alianate there supporters he comes really close to it many times.. like flirting with the "Holocaust was exaggerated" people blspro: According to the news today on the net, CNN, the whole world is aware that Buchanan is a Nationalist economically, and Europe is pretty upset about it. tanstaafl: not the same, with Clinton the opposition was Bush. In addition Clinton pretended to be a "new" Democrat (lying through his teeth of course) Buchanan is different. He never says it directly jim - Europe may be upset about it - but we were talking about american voters jim - and the ones I talk with - repubs - think buch ideas economically are not that bad TomR: Selling yourself to the highest bidder isn't being in bed with Business. Non-businesses have money too. Don jim - they are worried more about his cultural views But see how people are running scared? He's probably the only one people think will do what he actually says he will do. TomR: Don't categorize lack of principles as somehow related to "business." blspro: The news was reporting both concernes. His nationalism, and his racism. TomR: you hit it on the head Tom: I have no doubt that he would do that and more He's a catholic, and he MEANS it unlike JFK :) blspro: I know we are not concerned with Europe as such, but you said nobody is arguing with his economics, and I was pointing out that our allies are. jim - yes - I was simply responding to npan's statement that american's probably don't go for this sort of fascism - I was pointing out that they DO seem to go for it :( oh, I assumed Bucannon was Protestant. jim - you missed the context of my statement Hmm.. always thought he was catholic.. Wright: he is a catholic blspro: Okay, in any event, he is only getting percentages of the Republican vote. Not all American's are buying into his economics; evidence is that most are not. Limbaugh has been spending alot of time on his show bashing Buchannon's economics. He's also started calling him a Populist, and slamming Buchannon for playing on ignorant people's fears. Jim: Essentially that is right. But business and any other organization with money, whether they are the NRA or AARP, heaps huge sums of money on both parties. <> npandya surprised at saying this but "Go Limbaugh!" jim - but the evidence I have seen - anecdotal as it is - says that it is not his economics that americans - especially repubs - are having a problem with - it is his social agenda that they are repulsed by I think we have to be careful, many of the big time repubs (limbaugh, bennett) don't have the influence they used to TomR: Businesses have a lot at stake in an election. If the candidate has no integrity, that's bad. If some businesses want to get the government to enact laws that help them win over their competition, that's bad. But business puting money into campaigns, as such, is not bad. Jim: And while these organizations want to influence legislation, they are not ones to rock the boat. Buchanan is different. jim - if you have better sources on why they are voting against him - I would love to hear them hey Phil Hiya Phil Hi blspro: I think it is both. However, it's hard to say. The press isn't reporting things objectively. jim - exactly - that is why I base my info on those I talk with - and I rarely get a discussion about how bad his economics are - i get - oh he is too extreme socially blspro: I can tell you this. I'm against Buchanan on both counts. I hate is economics, and I hate his social agenda. blspro: Good. :) wright - wish That makes me wonder... Buchanan might do well in the South... The big question has to be...is PB electable? siera - if it is him and Clinton - NO way clinton loses He probably will do well in the south I'm afraid it's possible.. I didn't think so a few weeks ago, but now I see a chance Agreed, blspro I hear David Duke is going to try running for the Senate. ghaki - heheheeh It may be the only time I'd ever vote for Clinton. PB is just too far right. blspro: By the way, I heard on the news today that Colin Powell is against Buchanan on his economic policty of closing off the country. jim - good :) Jim_N - that's a good sign! blspro: unfortunetly, I was serious. :^( oh, one of Pat's state campaign heads had to resign b/c it was discovered that he had worked on Duke's campaign ghaki - its still funny just heard that that right altraconservative russian guy is all for PB ghaki - pitifully funny tanstaafl: yeah, he said they were similar, I think hold on.. I saw that in the WSJ I like Lamar Alexander....How 'bout anyone else? saw what wright? :) Alexander's mostly fluff. He'll fade in the next month anyway. IRC log ended Fri Feb 23 23:16