Thompson's Going To Win South Carolina

[Moby]

I've always believed that Fred Thompson would win South Carolina and take most of the southern states in the primaries. I'm not sure that he can win in the Northern states where people read more but in the south he's the man.

1. He plays the president on TV. What more could TV viewers want?
2. He's actually fired a gun at something. Sure Hackabee can claim the same thing but Rudy and Mitt can't.
3. He's avoided the issues by not entering the race so while Rudy and Mitt attack each other he hasn't had to say a thing. (same strategy Bush used)
4. He's a smooth talker. Who cares WTF he says? Most people don't get it any way.
5. He looks Presidential. He probably doesn't give Bill O and Anne a boner like Mitt (have you heard Bill O talk about Mitt's look? gross) but he can play a leader on TV.
6. He's a lobbyist. Sure he's one of the architects of the S&L crisis that cost tax payers an estimated $150 Billion but people won't read about it. The special interest groups will love him because it's putting a fox in the hen house.

On the Republican side he has the least amount of experience, was the laziest when he was a Senator and is probably the only candidate that will waist more money on special interest then Bush.

He looks the part.

[moonman]

You might be right Sir Moby but I still think it's too close to call.

Huckabee has the big mo' going for him largely because the religious right seems to be coalescing around him. Rudy & Mitt are takin' in the shorts in part because they've led so long and in Rudy's case because he's getting hit with his own slime while Romney is the victim of religious bigotry.

I really see the mood of the nation is for change. Thompson, like Hillary Clinton is old school. You might be right that Thompson wins South Carolina. I don't see him winning the entire South or the nomination.

This groundswell for Huckabee has alot going for it. I think it's real. One he's a gubnor and Republicans like managers, two he's a Preacher and 30% of registered Republicans like preachers, three he's hip enough to appreciate Stevie Ray Vaughn and fourth and perhaps most important he has no ties to Bush/Cheney and fifth which is the closer argument for Huckabee is he has no skeletons in the closet, bimbos in the boardroom or any ethical/moral issues. If that ain't enough Huckabee is getting advice from Dick Morris, largely credited for rescuing the Clinton presidency.

Again the theme in this election is change, not stay the course.

[Moby]

I need to research Huckabee little more. I wrote him off when he declared that he doesn't believe in evolution. Although he has made believable statements that he will still support science and education, unlike the others that think the jury is still out on evolution.

I think he might be a good candidate. I think Rudy and Mitt will self destruct by attacking each other. The moral Christians of The South either have to admit that family values are NOT important (vote for Rudy) or vote for a Mormon. I don't think they can lie to themselves enough to justify a Rudy or Mitt vote.

[moonman]

:lmao2: :lmao2: Faith over science is not a negative in the Republican Party.

I admit I'm looking forward to a debate on the Republican side between Huckabee representing Keynesian economics and the corporatists espousing so-called free-market solutions.

[Moby]

I think that we've already implemented a form of Keynes liberal theory for economics.

1. The government is borrowing money like crazy.
2. The government is creating a huge amount of jobs in Homeland Security and in Iraq.
3. The government is creating 10 times more federally funded jobs at the state level by allowing ear marks to increase 10 fold over Clinton's period.
4. Almost all of our economic growth in 7 years has been based on borrowed money.

The government has been running a 20% to 30% spending deficit. Most of the economic growth has come from encouraging citizens to borrow. The government is responsible for a huge amount of the job growth. While the government jobs are very covert (as opposed to having huge building projects) they're still government sponsored jobs.

If I'm way off base feel free to enlighten me but go easy on me :)

[moonman]

Sir Moby, Keynes would be appalled and gently point out there's a humongous difference between running modest deficits IF the money is invested in infrastructure and spending the priorities of the Bush Administration. War is not an infrastructure investment. War consumes things. Defense spending generally is not an economic stimulant.

Examples of Keyensian infrastructure investments include Eisenhower's Highway Transportation Act of the 1950's. FDR's Tennesee Valley Authority investment during the 1930's. The Hoover Damn is another.

Investing in the infra-structure, 'structure' being the operative word part is an investment in the commonwealth. For example this internet we use to share idears is infratstructure developed by our defense department. The real reason ATT was broken up back in the 70's is that policy makers wanted the internet released to the public in conjunction with personal desktop computers but ATT was blocking it.

This is also why I posted that defense spending is generally not an infrastructure investment but some things do come out defense, albeit inadvertently, that are infrastructure.

The free marketers argue that all things developed with the people's money should be free to the people. Keynes would politely and gently disagree. Among Keynes main beefs is that we sell the commonwealth or infratstructure far too cheaply. We don't as The People even recoup our R&D costs except indirectly.

It is not as simple as 'if it works' it's Keynesian. Essentially infrastructure, you being an engineer or chemist IIRC would appreciate, are the ellements that provide the framework of a system or thing.

For example, telegraph then telephone and now full data transmission are ellements of communciation.

Now was that gentle enuf, you propellor-head wonk.