The Republican Totals after Nevada:

[BamaFanNKy]

The Only candidates to finish top 2 in any states are Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Paul.

1. Mitt Romney 438,794 40%
2. John McCain 346,826 31%
3. Mike Huckabee 121,429 11%
4. Ron Paul 96,384 9%
5. Fred Thompson 51,923 4.7%
6. Rudy Giuliani 49,403 4.5%

If Fred Doesn't win S.C. does anyone think he drops out? I hope not. He's kind of emerging as my second choice.

[BamaFanNKy]

ooops..... wrong forum.

[Tider27]

Did all these candidates join the SEC? :ph34r:

[Cockfan720]

After the South Carolina results tonight, I see Fred dropping out soon.

Huckabee has a very hard road ahead of him. SC was his big chance to pick up some momentum. Rudy HAS to win Florida or else he's done. Romney shares momentum with McCain, I think they will be the last ones standing...going till the end. What I'd like to see is a McCain-Huckabee ticket which is very possible.

On the Democratic side, if Obama loses to Hillary in SC next week, I think she'll become a pretty solid front runner, but truthfully, I think she'll be easier to beat than Obama...he has so much more excitement and "rock star appeal" around his campaign.

[Cockfan720]

Did all these candidates join the SEC? :ph34r:

Well, Mike Huckabee is a big Razorback fan and was at the South Carolina-Clemson game this year.

Fred is probably a Tennessee fan although I don't know for sure...

[Tider27]

Well, Mike Huckabee is a big Razorback fan and was at the South Carolina-Clemson game this year.

Fred is probably a Tennessee fan although I don't know for sure...

I heard Obama was a Barner. :blink:

[AUChamps]

Well, Mike Huckabee is a big Razorback fan and was at the South Carolina-Clemson game this year.

Fred is probably a Tennessee fan although I don't know for sure...
Fred went to Vandy, so call him a 'Dore.

[scfan5338]

I heard Obama was a Barner. :blink:

Lol, I dont know how that could be. He lives in Chicago, went to Harvard and Columbia. Maybe his wife went there? who knows

[CanineBacker]

Lol, I dont know how that could be. He lives in Chicago, went to Harvard and Columbia. Maybe his wife went there? who knows

I didn't know Cynthia Tucker was his wife.:smile:

[OleMissPike]

What I'd like to see is a McCain-Huckabee ticket which is very possible.

You are a man after my own heart. The 2000 election was the first time I could vote and I was McCain all the way. When he didn't win the Republican nomination, I was crushed (and have been ever since). I've been waiting 8 years now for the most deserving candidate for President to get his chance to lead.

[suedon70]

McCain will definitely get the nod - I can see him easily winning Fla. The question is if Rudy will win the coasts.....

[BamaFanNKy]

Really Rudy?!?!? He has only beaten Duncan Hunter. In fact the top 4 republicans are #1. Romney, #2. McCain, #3. Huckabee and #4. Paul.

[suedon70]

Really Rudy?!?!? He has only beaten Duncan Hunter. In fact the top 4 republicans are #1. Romney, #2. McCain, #3. Huckabee and #4. Paul.

When I wrote coasts I meant Cali & NY, which he could win if his gamble on Fla pays off, which I doubt will happen....

[BamaFanNKy]

Californian's Hate Rudy. The polls can't be trusted. The polls they quote also said Ron Paul would finish 5th in Nevada. He finished 2nd.

[dcbl]

Fred needs to drop out. He has been my 1st choice for some time, but put a fork in him now...

My bet is that he will endorse McCain, his good buddy. He basically ensured a McCain victory in SC.

I'm seeing a McCain/Huckabee ticket as the most likely scenario right now. If Fred had come out swinging when he entered the race (like he did in the last SC debate); he'd probably be the front runner right now.

As it stands, I can't help but think that his intention in joining the race was to sabotage the campaigns of Rudy & Mitt. Now that SC has played itself out, Fred can go & get that nap he seems to so desperately need...

[BamaFanNKy]

McCain and Huckabee.... Wow a second Democrat party option. The GOP is dead.

[dcbl]

Maybe, but the dems seem hell bent on nominating Hillary. She is polarizing enough that the repubs might win even with candidates that don't excite the base & that lean liberal on many issues.

Ron Paul? I mean, what good was it to raise all that $$ if he isn't going to spend it on a good campaign manager & a bunch of effective ads?

[BamaFanNKy]

I agree about the utter joke of a campaign Ron Paul has run. This isn't running for Congress in Texas. I think his ideas deserve a better campaign. This monday his supporters are doing another Money Bomb. But for what? To waste on crap TV ads? He needs to hire some freakin' pros for once.

[zorak34]

What do you mean the GOP is dead Old Mitt got right in there with Huckabee and McCain. Its just the start of the primaries. Go Mitt your the most Conservative of the three! Don't care if he is Mormon!

[BamaFanNKy]

Yeah..... Mitt is just a regular ole conservative. Like I said the GOP is dead.

[D^3]

How is Ron Paul a joke? It would be a joke if nobody was voting for him, but he's getting a decent percentage, and thats because people are sick of BOTH parties domestic policies. If the stupid asshats running for President would take up some more of Paul's ideas, a lot more people would be excited about them.

McCain? What the hell is he offering? Color me uninterested.
Giuliani? This guy never had a chance.. he's a joke anyway.
Paul? Domestic policy gift from God. It's a shame that he won't budge on his unrealistic foreign policy stance.
Thompson? Never had a chance.
Huckabee? Solid platform, and he's a good debater, but he's made the mistake of focusing too much on the Christian vote and not appealing to others as well. This is why he won't be the nominee.

Romney? Heavy hitter, this guy IMO is the ONLY one who has a chance of winning the election and beating either Hillary or Obama. He's a republican Bill Clinton. Great speaker, and that goes a long way.


I'm going to go ahead and say who I think it will be.

Romney/Huckabee vs. Clinton/Edwards.

[D^3]

What do you mean the GOP is dead Old Mitt got right in there with Huckabee and McCain. Its just the start of the primaries. Go Mitt your the most Conservative of the three! Don't care if he is Mormon!


I like Mitt Romney because to me, he is who I want representing our country abroad. As I've said before, he's a republican Bill Clinton, a fantastic speaker and I think once he gets the nomination, he will really shine and take over the election.

The reason its hard to see a frontrunner right now is because there are so many GOP candidates still in it. None of them are getting much media attention because they are trying to focus on all of them.

[BamaFanNKy]

How is Ron Paul a joke? It would be a joke if nobody was voting for him, but he's getting a decent percentage, and thats because people are sick of BOTH parties domestic policies. If the stupid asshats running for President would take up some more of Paul's ideas, a lot more people would be excited about them.

McCain? What the hell is he offering? Color me uninterested.
Giuliani? This guy never had a chance.. he's a joke anyway.
Paul? Domestic policy gift from God. It's a shame that he won't budge on his unrealistic foreign policy stance.
Thompson? Never had a chance.
Huckabee? Solid platform, and he's a good debater, but he's made the mistake of focusing too much on the Christian vote and not appealing to others as well. This is why he won't be the nominee.

Romney? Heavy hitter, this guy IMO is the ONLY one who has a chance of winning the election and beating either Hillary or Obama. He's a republican Bill Clinton. Great speaker, and that goes a long way.


I'm going to go ahead and say who I think it will be.

Romney/Huckabee vs. Clinton/Edwards.

His campaign is a joke. Not him. I am a Paul guy. Problem is he has a weak plan of getting elected. A guy like Paul would help this country in so many ways. He has great support on the grass roots level. The only problem is that they act like Nader supporters screaming and picking fights with media types. Your supposed to convince them to take you serious not get in fights.

Also, his message is wrong on the TV commercials. He needs to nail each one of them on their wavering views (Mitt), Liberal Stances (Huckabee and McCain) and lack of knowledge (Rudy).

Your right Romney is like Clinton. He's a spin artist. A good one at that. Honestly, I just can't see either of your V.P. guys making the cut.

[D^3]

His campaign is a joke. Not him. I am a Paul guy. Problem is he has a weak plan of getting elected. A guy like Paul would help this country in so many ways. He has great support on the grass roots level. The only problem is that they act like Nader supporters screaming and picking fights with media types. Your supposed to convince them to take you serious not get in fights.

Also, his message is wrong on the TV commercials. He needs to nail each one of them on their wavering views (Mitt), Liberal Stances (Huckabee and McCain) and lack of knowledge (Rudy).

Your right Romney is like Clinton. He's a spin artist. A good one at that. Honestly, I just can't see either of your V.P. guys making the cut.


Edwards is almost a lock as a VP candidate. Who else would it be? I guarantee you neither Obama or Hillary will run as VP, and Kucinich sure as hell ain't going to be it.

Huckabee might not be the Republican VP candidate, but its not going to be McCain, and there aren't any serious candidates after him except Huckabee.

[BamaFanNKy]

Well, not to be contrary.... but you don't have to run for president to be chosen as V.P.

I think Hillary will actually choose Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. As for the Republicans I am leaning toward a McCain victory in the long run. It would not shock me to see Brownback of Kansas. I know I know..... but he ran for President waaaay early. The reason McCain and Clinton choose both of these guys are their conservative nature in red states.

[CanineBacker]

I too like Ron Paul a lot, and will be voting for him in the primary. He is the only candidate in the race that is willing to tell folks what they need to hear, and not what they want to hear. He is the only one who seems to understand that all this material prosperity that we've experienced in the last 25 or so years has been due not to a corresponding creation of wealth, but instead is based on a mountain of debt and currency inflation by the Fed. It's a rather complicated issue, and people don't want to hear about it, but they will hear about it sooner rather than later when the bills come due. Just look at the record number of mortgage foreclosures in the last year or so, and it's only gonna get worse. Yea, taxes are too high, but also, both government and the average sap need to quit spending money they don't have and pay their bills.

As for Paul's foreign policy positions, I don't necessarily agree with specifics, but I'm with him completely in spirit. Going to Afganistan to hunt down Al Queida and Ben Ladin was both desirable and necessary. However, this entire Iraq adventure was and is both unecessary and butt stupid. We will all be paying for it in more ways than one for a long time to come. And why do we still have a military presence in Europe? Europeans need to pay for their own security, not the American taxpayer. There is no more Soviet Union. NATO in its present form serves no constructive prupose whatsoever.

As for Ron Paul's campaign, yea, he needs more professional management for sure. However, I fear that anyone that could actually help in a meaningful manner would be so heavily invested in the status quo that they would just undermine Ron Paul in the end. When you are Ron Paul and you start talking about doing away with the Fed, the WTO, NAFTA, and such things as this you gonna have some mighty powerful enemies immediately aray themselves against you.

God help us.

[D^3]

As for Paul's foreign policy positions, I don't necessarily agree with specifics, but I'm with him completely in spirit. Going to Afganistan to hunt down Al Queida and Ben Ladin was both desirable and necessary. However, this entire Iraq adventure was and is both unecessary and butt stupid. We will all be paying for it in more ways than one for a long time to come. And why do we still have a military presence in Europe? Europeans need to pay for their own security, not the American taxpayer. There is no more Soviet Union. NATO in its present form serves no constructive prupose whatsoever.

.



Well I agree partially with you about Iraq, in that there was no planning on what to do AFTER the invasion. The operation itself was a great success. Necessary? Arguments can be made both ways. I strongly disagree that NATO serves no purpose. NATO is the only international organization that has ever benefited us. You can't put a price on allies, and all of ours are great assets. Pulling out of NATO would be a stupid mistake.

No, there is no more Soviet Union, but that only means that the world has become MORE complex. We can't implement isolationist policy... it simply will not work if we wish to remain on top.

[CanineBacker]

Well I agree partially with you about Iraq, in that there was no planning on what to do AFTER the invasion. The operation itself was a great success. Necessary? Arguments can be made both ways. I strongly disagree that NATO serves no purpose. NATO is the only international organization that has ever benefited us. You can't put a price on allies, and all of ours are great assets. Pulling out of NATO would be a stupid mistake.

No, there is no more Soviet Union, but that only means that the world has become MORE complex. We can't implement isolationist policy... it simply will not work if we wish to remain on top.

Well, I understand where you are coming from, and I do think one of Paul's biggest mistakes has been to overstate his case about immediately pulling our military assets out of Iraq as soon as possible when he becomes prez. It's not that simple, and I think he knows this. After all, he did say "as soon as possible." Rare weasel words from him for sure. But our main objective right now should be getting out of there as soon as the right conditions exist. It's just going to have to be an evolutionary process.

As for NATO, we'll just have to disagree about that. The only big thing they have done in a while is the Kosovo operation, and our allies in that fiasco are our old "friends," Bin Laden and Al Queida. All these so called "Kosovars" are nothing more than illegal aliens from Albania that have illegitimately taken over a province of Serbia. Yea, I know it was the Clinton administration that initiated it, but Bush has continued it in spades. Not saying the Serbs were angels, but it's is none of our affair.

These terms like "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" are rather ambiguous and mean different things to different people. Makes it easy to misconstrue intentions.

As for the world being more complex, could be true. However, it's not anything unique from the past. My thoughts are that the world is about at the same point as it was when Alexander the Great died. He had conquered nearly the entire known world, but had irreprably impoverished the source of his power, the Greek world, in order to do it.

I've given an incomplete answer to your post I know, but I feel kind of guilty about taking up bandwith on a football board.

[AUChamps]

So let's talk John Edwards.

Is his "class warfare" argument something that holds water, and should we listen to a trial lawyer that's owned part and parcel by the organized labor movement?

There's absolutely nothing authentic about the man and I have to wonder why anyone would buy into what he's saying. America is not as bad as he paints us as being.

[CanineBacker]

So let's talk John Edwards.

Is his "class warfare" argument something that holds water, and should we listen to a trial lawyer that's owned part and parcel by the organized labor movement?

There's absolutely nothing authentic about the man and I have to wonder why anyone would buy into what he's saying. America is not as bad as he paints us as being.

I agree that everything Edwards says is contrived to win the votes of say........75% of the American masses who I describe with the term "sheeple." But he is no more or less authentic than any of the rest of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul.

[D^3]

As for NATO, we'll just have to disagree about that. The only big thing they have done in a while is the Kosovo operation, and our allies in that fiasco are our old "friends," Bin Laden and Al Queida. All these so called "Kosovars" are nothing more than illegal aliens from Albania that have illegitimately taken over a province of Serbia. Yea, I know it was the Clinton administration that initiated it, but Bush has continued it in spades. Not saying the Serbs were angels, but it's is none of our affair.



Now the Balkans happens to be one of my areas of specialty... I've spent many hours and hours studying, reading and researching the conflict in that region. *rubbing hands together*

First of all, Al qaeda and Bin Laden had no involvement in the Balkans, I'm not sure where you got that. Second of all, the Serbs have been the main cause of both major conflicts in that region, and the "illegal alien Albanians" as you have so labeled them were present in that region for centuries, since the Ottomans conquered the region in the late 1300's. They didn't just show up in the last 20 years. The ethnic cleansing was Milosevic's sick way of returning Serbia to the medieval land that it was over 7 centuries ago. By the way, the Serbs were only settlers to the region, not even native. The area used to be a part of the Eastern Roman empire before it became part of the Byzantine empire. So the Serbs had no more right to Kosovo than the Albanians did.

Just to set the record straight.


As far as it being none of our affair; being the superpower in the world brings certain responsibilities along with it. One of those being to help maintain peace and stability in the world. The Balkan conflicts were more than an isolated problem; they created a massive refugee problem for the surrounding European countries, and provided a haven for drug/weapons trafficking, Eastern bloc weapons that end up in the hands of terrorists.

Some people might think we can sit back and let the other parts of the world go to hell in a handbasket, but its only a matter of time before the fallout from these conflicts reaches us. We already received a massive influx of refugees from the Balkan region, and who knows how many weapons were dealt to terrorist groups during that time. So don't think its just an Eastern European problem.

[CanineBacker]

Now the Balkans happens to be one of my areas of specialty... I've spent many hours and hours studying, reading and researching the conflict in that region. *rubbing hands together*

First of all, Al qaeda and Bin Laden had no involvement in the Balkans, I'm not sure where you got that. Second of all, the Serbs have been the main cause of both major conflicts in that region, and the "illegal alien Albanians" as you have so labeled them were present in that region for centuries, since the Ottomans conquered the region in the late 1300's. They didn't just show up in the last 20 years. The ethnic cleansing was Milosevic's sick way of returning Serbia to the medieval land that it was over 7 centuries ago. By the way, the Serbs were only settlers to the region, not even native. The area used to be a part of the Eastern Roman empire before it became part of the Byzantine empire. So the Serbs had no more right to Kosovo than the Albanians did.

Just to set the record straight.


As far as it being none of our affair; being the superpower in the world brings certain responsibilities along with it. One of those being to help maintain peace and stability in the world. The Balkan conflicts were more than an isolated problem; they created a massive refugee problem for the surrounding European countries, and provided a haven for drug/weapons trafficking, Eastern bloc weapons that end up in the hands of terrorists.

Some people might think we can sit back and let the other parts of the world go to hell in a handbasket, but its only a matter of time before the fallout from these conflicts reaches us. We already received a massive influx of refugees from the Balkan region, and who knows how many weapons were dealt to terrorist groups during that time. So don't think its just an Eastern European problem.

You know as well as I do that Al Qeida and all sorts of other Islamist operatives have been deeply involved in both Kosovo and Bosnia since Tito left power. The allusions to this have been manifold throughout the media, both status quo and here on the net. Heck I had someone in a position to have direct knowledge of it to tell me as much 12 or 13 years ago. And also, Kosovo was about 90% Serb up until the 1930s. Albanians, fleeing both economic and totalitarian tyrany gradually migrated illigally into Kosovo until they are about 90% of the population now. This is common knowledge to anyone who cares to look into it. As for ethnic cleansing on the part of the Serbs, there are many reports from various quarters that the "Kosovars" didn't start fleeing until the NATO bombs started dropping. Don't know if that is exactly true, but there is a parallell question concerning Kosovo to "where are the WMDs in Iraq?" which is "where are the mass graves of dead Kosovars?" They ain't found none yet.

As for drug and arms sumggling and such, that would be the Kosovars themselves that are doing that. They are the biggest drug dealers and pimps in Europe. Just ask Interpol about that. Besides, you just kind of made my point when you alluded to "weapons being delt to terrorists." How do you think those ties were made if terrorists weren't already active in the region?

Frankly, the whole region was better off with Tito in control. So much for "making the world safe for "democracy." I've read enough Plato and "the Founding Fathers" to know that "democracy" ain't so grand anyway unless you are a drone in the majority. Also, I don't give a damn about "the US being on top" or being the "world's lone super power," or the "policeman of the world." You seem equate America's place in world affairs with the Dawgs winning the MNC. I just want my Republic back, and my Constitution back, and a foreign policy where our best interests are the sole crietria for any descisions made. btw, the interests of multi-national corporations and NGOs are hardly ever in America's best interests as far as I'm concerned.

[D^3]

You know as well as I do that Al Qeida and all sorts of other Islamist operatives have been deeply involved in both Kosovo and Bosnia since Tito left power. The allusions to this have been manifold throughout the media, both status quo and here on the net. Heck I had someone in a position to have direct knowledge of it to tell me as much 12 or 13 years ago.

I've not seen one ounce of proof that Al-qaeda or Bin Laden ever even set foot in the region. And I don't know of any sources citing that, either.

And also, Kosovo was about 90% Serb up until the 1930s. Albanians, fleeing both economic and totalitarian tyrany gradually migrated illigally into Kosovo until they are about 90% of the population now. This is common knowledge to anyone who cares to look into it. As for ethnic cleansing on the part of the Serbs, there are many reports from various quarters that the "Kosovars" didn't start fleeing until the NATO bombs started dropping. Don't know if that is exactly true, but there is a parallell question concerning Kosovo to "where are the WMDs in Iraq?" which is "where are the mass graves of dead Kosovars?" They ain't found none yet.

It may have been 90% Serb in the 1930's, but all that changed during the Cold War, and under the rule of Tito and Yugoslavia. The demographics of the region have fluctuated consistently, one decade its mostly Albanians, another mostly Serbs. At least since the collapse of the Soviet Union it has been largely Albanian in population. On your last point; questioning the existence of the mass graves of kosovars is on par with denying that the holocaust occurred. If you doubt it, look up the UN reports. There are pictures of these graves. Hell, google it. I really don't need to substantiate that; the UN has already done it.



As for drug and arms sumggling and such, that would be the Kosovars themselves that are doing that. They are the biggest drug dealers and pimps in Europe. Just ask Interpol about that. Besides, you just kind of made my point when you alluded to "weapons being delt to terrorists." How do you think those ties were made if terrorists weren't already active in the region?


Terrorists deal in regions like this, that doesn't make them active. Can you name a single incident in which an Arabic terrorist network operated in the Balkans? You stated that the US supported Bin Laden and Al-qaeda in the Balkans which is an outrageous statement.




Frankly, the whole region was better off with Tito in control. So much for "making the world safe for "democracy." I've read enough Plato and "the Founding Fathers" to know that "democracy" ain't so grand anyway unless you are a drone in the majority.

Yugoslavia fell because the USSR fell. The increase in conflict post-Cold War is something that has been the subject of study for years, but never once has it been attributed to "democracy." Globalization, modernization, ethnic competition, nationalism... all these are cited as reasons but democracy certainly isn't the cause.


Also, I don't give a damn about "the US being on top" or being the "world's lone super power," or the "policeman of the world." You seem equate America's place in world affairs with the Dawgs winning the MNC. I just want my Republic back, and my Constitution back, and a foreign policy where our best interests are the sole crietria for any descisions made. btw, the interests of multi-national corporations and NGOs are hardly ever in America's best interests as far as I'm concerned.

Well we just have basic idealogical differences there.

[OleMissPike]

McCain and Huckabee.... Wow a second Democrat party option. The GOP is dead.

Yeah..... Mitt is just a regular ole conservative. Like I said the GOP is dead.

McCain represents the new GOP (surprising, considering he's 1,000 years old). It will be McCain-Huckabee guaranteed. Romney will get crushed on Super Tuesday simply because he is a Mormon; similar to how Obama will take backseat to Hillary because he's a Muslim (not really, but that's a stigma he won't shake). The election will boil down to Maverick/Hbee and Hillary/?; but she will not choose Edwards as a mate, he has attacked her on many occasions. Once the GOP chooses a candidate (McCain), all resources will be pooled behind him. Hillary is an anti GOP candidate more than a Democrat; anti-anything never wins opposed to pro-insert ideals. Kerry was an anti-Bush candidate, not a Democratic reality; he lost because he couldn't separate himself by differentiating from Bush's current ideals.

[WarEagler]

Please god don't let Mitt Romney become president. That guy is as fake as a 37 dollar bill. Even SNL couldn't come up with a parody as comical as this guy. He should be running for local weatherman not President of the USA.

[Cockfan720]

Please god don't let Mitt Romney become president. That guy is as fake as a 37 dollar bill. Even SNL couldn't come up with a parody as comical as this guy. He should be running for local weatherman not President of the USA.

I completely agree!!!

[LSUisLIFE611]

I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. I met him Monday in Baton Rouge when he had a rally here and anyone from LA will agree that Paul has a great standing in Louisiana.
I respect his views, since I am a Libertarian at heart. I may disagree with his pulling out of iraq ASAP policy, but I do believe his reasoning that our foreign policy regarding the middle east since WWII did have something to do with 9/11. My favorite quote from his has to be when he said,"We act like the bully and policeman of the world. If countries don't do what we want we bomb them and if they do we give them money."
His economic stance is the best out of any of the canidates. This welfare state is going out of control, we borrow billions from the Chinese. The dollar is going down the toilet and we wonder why. Our currency has to be backed by something, we need to return to the gold standard.
I also like his respect for civil liberties and the Constitution. It seems like we forgot about the peice of paper that binds our government together. And for once can we please look at the 10th amendment???

If he doesnt make the nomination, I have no idea who I will vote for.
Huckabee ran ark. like a liberal
McCain votes like a liberal
Romney is a liberal
Guilliani cant even spell liberal because it doesnt have 9/11 in it.
Then Thompson, the only person who I liked besides Paul, drops out.
:brick::brick::brick:

[BamaFanNKy]

If Paul drops out I am all about Huckabee..... because that means Bloomberg will jump in to take him out!

[AUChamps]

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian, like Ron Paul.

But Boortz himself stated that the threat against Radical Islam toward the West trumps even his die-hard Libertarian stance and won't support Ron Paul due to his foreign policy stance.

Boortz is big on Huckabee with his tax plan, and he'll have some teeth to deal with Radical Islam.

Take that for what it's worth.

[Williams-Brice]

Please god don't let Mitt Romney become president. Even SNL couldn't come up with a parody as comical as this guy. He should be running for local weatherman not President of the USA.

It's a shame Phil Hartman is dead. He would have done a great Mitt Romney.

(I know that wasn't the context of your post.)

[azamugg]

Phil Hartman was only a comedic genius............i.e. Caveman Lawyer

[the Paradox]

Phil Hartman was only a comedic genius............i.e. Caveman Lawyer

How about a bowl of Colon Blow?

RTR

[BamaFanNKy]

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian, like Ron Paul.

But Boortz himself stated that the threat against Radical Islam toward the West trumps even his die-hard Libertarian stance and won't support Ron Paul due to his foreign policy stance.

Boortz is big on Huckabee with his tax plan, and he'll have some teeth to deal with Radical Islam.

Take that for what it's worth.

I like Boortz. He is doing the right thing..... trying to keep his ratings up. It's very unpopular on radio to endorse Paul. So he goes with the Huckabee to satisfy his listeners.

[D^3]

I like Boortz. He is doing the right thing..... trying to keep his ratings up. It's very unpopular on radio to endorse Paul. So he goes with the Huckabee to satisfy his listeners.


You obviously do not know Neil Boortz. He doesn't give two sh**s if its unpopular or not. He endorsed Harry Brown last time around, and that sure as sh** wasn't popular. He doesn't endorse Paul because he doesn't agree with him. Its as simple as that. Boortz is probably the only guy on the radio that says what he believes. The listeners will continue listening regardless of whether they agree with him or not; thats why half his calls are people ranting at him.

[BamaFanNKy]

Your right. He doesn't care about ratings. What was I thinking. If he pisses off Paul's people they would never listen and call in :) and if he endorses Paul he wouldn't look like a crack pot.

Man I'm wrong. I should take everything in the media at face value.

[D^3]

Your right. He doesn't care about ratings. What was I thinking. If he pisses off Paul's people they would never listen and call in :) and if he endorses Paul he wouldn't look like a crack pot.

Man I'm wrong. I should take everything in the media at face value.



Do you listen at all? He pisses everybody off, he doesn't care if somebody gets their panties in a wad. And people continue to listen...

[BamaFanNKy]

Danny, I will yield to you on foreign policy. I have spent 12 of my 30 years on this planet in Television and Radio. Trusting talk show hosts at face value is a bad policy. Pissing off people and taking out there stands is your job on talk radio.

Exhibit A:
http://www.al.com/images/columnists/mobileregister/col_paul_finebaum.gif

Exhibit B:
http://members.aol.com/GeneTracy2/PHIL_HENDRIE_3.JPG

Exhibit C:
http://cityrag.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/24/stern.jpg

Exhibit D:
http://www.morningshowcentral.com/joomla/images/bubba.jpg

Exhibit E:
http://citybeat.com/archives/1996/issue216/images/cover-cunninghamCLR.gif
Bill Cunningham

Yes I've heard Boortz. I've read Boortz. I'm a Libertarian. But I am a Capitalist first! Ratings are king in that biz. I've also heard him try to say Paul was supported by the Green Party as well. That was B.S. to stir it up.

[D^3]

Danny, I will yield to you on foreign policy. I have spent 12 of my 30 years on this planet in Television and Radio. Trusting talk show hosts at face value is a bad policy. Pissing off people and taking out there stands is your job on talk radio.



I'm not contesting that.... but if you think that ratings are the reason he isn't supporting Paul and he IS supporting Huckabee, you're sorely mistaken. As far as his political stance goes, he doesn't endorse candidates for ratings. He's very serious about that.

By the way, I've also heard him speak twice in person, once here at UGA, and his message remains the same.

[BamaFanNKy]

He may really feel that way. I just don't take it at face value. He may be sincere..... but working in this biz long enough..... makes you doubt the validity of how people feel. I'll say this about Neal, he worries more about Islam than the economy. I am more worried about the economy.

[adamsputnik]

Do you listen at all? He pisses everybody off, he doesn't care if somebody gets their panties in a wad. And people continue to listen...

I'm with you there. People aren't going to turn Boortz off because he endorses an unpopular candidate. People will tune in anyway because he's one-part loon, one-part comedian and two-parts smart bugger.

[BamaFanNKy]

Pissing off people is part of their stick though. If you piss enough people off your show will be big. We always did that when programming sports talk. If you don't carry a teams games you always go against them and pick them apart. You will always get higher ratings than the guys kissing the teams a**. They won't talk straight like the fans want.