(07-05-2011 01:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-18-2011 08:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I could very easily see Michael Williams as the republican senate candidate [in Texas]. I think senate makes more sense than governor for him. Oh, those racist TEA Partiers.

Since that post, Williams has decided to run instead for Congress in an open district (#33) based in/around Fort Worth. I am not up-to-speed on developments within that district, but I get the impression that the GOP's organization -- both statewide and in the Fort Worth area -- are clearing the field so Williams can have a free shot in the primary. If that is the case, then I would say he is virtually guaranteed of winning that seat.
The Senate nomination is not going to be settled right now, but most conservatives and Tea-Party-types seem to be lining up behind Ted Cruz for that slot. If Cruz actually does become the next Senator from Texas, he would be a huge improvement over KBH.

That's pretty much my understanding at this point, too. I have heard that district 33 was pretty much carved out by the legislature to entice Williams out of the senate race.

(07-05-2011 01:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-18-2011 08:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I could very easily see Michael Williams as the republican senate candidate [in Texas]. I think senate makes more sense than governor for him. Oh, those racist TEA Partiers.

Since that post, Williams has decided to run instead for Congress in an open district (#33) based in/around Fort Worth. I am not up-to-speed on developments within that district, but I get the impression that the GOP's organization -- both statewide and in the Fort Worth area -- are clearing the field so Williams can have a free shot in the primary. If that is the case, then I would say he is virtually guaranteed of winning that seat.

The Senate nomination is not going to be settled right now, but most conservatives and Tea-Party-types seem to be lining up behind Ted Cruz for that slot. If Cruz actually does become the next Senator from Texas, he would be a huge improvement over KBH.

Don't be shocked if Mike McCaul decides to run for the nomination. A Cruz/McCaul primary would be brutal.

Polls still show Obama winning.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...dates.html

Romney is the only candidate that comes remotely close to Obama in head-to-head polls and Obama beats him too.

(07-05-2011 05:49 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 04:29 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Don't be shocked if Mike McCaul decides to run for the nomination. A Cruz/McCaul primary would be brutal.

Does Texas still have those really early primaries? I would think -- for a statewide race -- the window-of-opportunity is closing in terms of staff, fundraising, endorsements, etc.

Cruz is pretty much already in. McCaul could pull staff and resources fairly quickly. The primary isnt that early. It's just after Super Tuesday. Still, McCaul would need to be in by the end of August/early September due to the amount of money this primary is gonna take to win.

(07-03-2011 12:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-21-2011 02:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-15-2011 09:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I could care less if Israel existed or not. It is not my country.

I think this attitude is becoming more and more common among Democrats at the grass-roots level. I fully expect -- at some point in the next few years -- for some Democrat that holds elective office to let loose with a similar comment. It will be interesting to watch the reaction, both among other Democrats, the media, and the public at large.

Good. I hope it is becoming more and more common. I am sick and tired of defending Israel. THey have enough weaponry to take care of themselves(including nukes). They really need to start defending themselves and stop "stealing" tax payer money. If they want to buy weaponry from us, fine. Use THEIR own money to do so.

It isn't about anti-semitism, it is about MY tax dollars and what is the best use of those dollars. I think helping people(through services, improved infrastructure etc) in THIS country should be a priority over a foreign country.

I fully support the state of Israel and its sovereignty. However..I oppose my stolen wages being used to pay for the defense of ANY nation other than USA. I fully support humanitarian aid anywhere on the globe it is requested.

(06-27-2011 09:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I think most of us political junkies had heard at least something about the possibility of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords running for Arizona's open-seat in the US Senate next year, if her injuries have healed enough for her to campaign. I hope she will be able to make that decision on her own terms and in her own time, but it is not yet clear if that will happen or not. Anyway, I mention it now because there is apparently some political-gossip that her husband -- Mark Kelly, the space shuttle Commander -- is considering such a campaign himself, or at least some other interested parties are considering it for him.

I think that particulae race has to begin as "Leans Republican" but it is early on yet, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Giffords still has communications issues. That is going to take time and lots more rehab. As for her Husband, if he thinks he can win a seat in the Senate as a political novice. Good luck

(07-24-2011 08:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 04:29 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Don't be shocked if Mike McCaul decides to run for the nomination. A Cruz/McCaul primary would be brutal.

McCaul could pull staff and resources fairly quickly. The primary isnt that early. It's just after Super Tuesday. Still, McCaul would need to be in by the end of August/early September due to the amount of money this primary is gonna take to win.

The General Primary in Texas is set for Tuesday, March 6th -- a little more than seven months away from right now. There are already 10 GOP candidates for the Hutchison Senate seat, including Ted Cruz, plus a former Mayor of Dallas, and at least two others who have been elected statewide in the past (Lieutenant Gov. Dewhurst and Railroad Commissioner Jones). A third statewide elected-official (Michael Williams, also a Railroad Commissioner) was actually nudged out of the race and is instead running for Congress around Ft. Worth.

All of this makes it seem very unlikely to me that any other candidates who have not, so far, given any public indication of running for the seat, are going to try and start a campaign now. Especially candidates like McCaul who have never even run -- let alone won -- statewide in Texas before.

I think Houston State Senator/ KSEV Radio Gadfly Dan Patrick will run against Dewhurst. Dewhurst does have a big advantage in money over any challenger. But Patrick seems to know how to make just a little money go a long way

(07-24-2011 08:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-22-2011 02:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 04:29 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Don't be shocked if Mike McCaul decides to run for the nomination. A Cruz/McCaul primary would be brutal.

McCaul could pull staff and resources fairly quickly. The primary isnt that early. It's just after Super Tuesday. Still, McCaul would need to be in by the end of August/early September due to the amount of money this primary is gonna take to win.

The General Primary in Texas is set for Tuesday, March 6th -- a little more than seven months away from right now. There are already 10 GOP candidates for the Hutchison Senate seat, including Ted Cruz, plus a former Mayor of Dallas, and at least two others who have been elected statewide in the past (Lieutenant Gov. Dewhurst and Railroad Commissioner Jones). A third statewide elected-official (Michael Williams, also a Railroad Commissioner) was actually nudged out of the race and is instead running for Congress around Ft. Worth.

All of this makes it seem very unlikely to me that any other candidates who have not, so far, given any public indication of running for the seat, are going to try and start a campaign now. Especially candidates like McCaul who have never even run -- let alone won -- statewide in Texas before.

Dewhurst hasnt announced yet either and hasnt been in fundraising mode for the past 2 years in the same way McCaul has. I dont know if McCaul will get in, but if he gets in the race sometime in August he has a shot.

I though Donna was threatening to withhold sex from Eric.

(08-01-2011 07:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The mistake I think a lot of people made was to assume that Obama was issuing some sort of warning or ultimatum to the House Majority Leader when he said those words a few days ago. Such an interpretation obviously mangled the rules of poker (players don't openly declare their bluffs to their opponents), but still I thought that's the basic point Obama was trying to get across. Now, I am beginning to think that it was actually a subliminal plea for mercy ("Please don't call my bluff, and force me to sign a deal that will demoralize my political base.")

At any rate, I wonder if President Obama will use that line again the next time he's in some difficult negotiations with Congress.

It's become plainly obvious that Obama is the wrong president at the wrong time....especially for his own party. I don't think the man has an ideological bone in his body. I think he has ideological notions that he leans towards that he is willing to leave on the curb just to make everyone happy. What ends up happening is that he has no message discipline, no clue about negotiation, and therefore garners no respect from the media or those across the table from him. His weakness will make October(budget battle) and December(Commission report) pure chaos because he now has no way to control his party's congressional caucus no matter what the deals are.

(08-01-2011 10:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-01-2011 07:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The mistake I think a lot of people made was to assume that Obama was issuing some sort of warning or ultimatum to the House Majority Leader when he said those words a few days ago. Such an interpretation obviously mangled the rules of poker (players don't openly declare their bluffs to their opponents), but still I thought that's the basic point Obama was trying to get across. Now, I am beginning to think that it was actually a subliminal plea for mercy ("Please don't call my bluff, and force me to sign a deal that will demoralize my political base.")

At any rate, I wonder if President Obama will use that line again the next time he's in some difficult negotiations with Congress.

It's become plainly obvious that Obama is the wrong president at the wrong time....especially for his own party. I don't think the man has an ideological bone in his body. I think he has ideological notions that he leans towards that he is willing to leave on the curb just to make everyone happy. What ends up happening is that he has no message discipline, no clue about negotiation, and therefore garners no respect from the media or those across the table from him. His weakness will make October(budget battle) and December(Commission report) pure chaos because he now has no way to control his party's congressional caucus no matter what the deals are.

It does seem to be messy. Neither side has strong leadership. Of course neither side has many principles. There may be a connection.

(08-02-2011 12:44 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-01-2011 10:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-01-2011 07:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The mistake I think a lot of people made was to assume that Obama was issuing some sort of warning or ultimatum to the House Majority Leader when he said those words a few days ago. Such an interpretation obviously mangled the rules of poker (players don't openly declare their bluffs to their opponents), but still I thought that's the basic point Obama was trying to get across. Now, I am beginning to think that it was actually a subliminal plea for mercy ("Please don't call my bluff, and force me to sign a deal that will demoralize my political base.")

At any rate, I wonder if President Obama will use that line again the next time he's in some difficult negotiations with Congress.

It's become plainly obvious that Obama is the wrong president at the wrong time....especially for his own party. I don't think the man has an ideological bone in his body. I think he has ideological notions that he leans towards that he is willing to leave on the curb just to make everyone happy. What ends up happening is that he has no message discipline, no clue about negotiation, and therefore garners no respect from the media or those across the table from him. His weakness will make October(budget battle) and December(Commission report) pure chaos because he now has no way to control his party's congressional caucus no matter what the deals are.

It does seem to be messy. Neither side has strong leadership. Of course neither side has many principles. There may be a connection.

They're more worried about being reelected than doing what is right and what is necessary. I have no faith in either party.

(08-02-2011 12:57 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  They're more worried about being reelected than doing what is right and what is necessary. I have no faith in either party.

Yes. The non-existent work after the 2004 elections proved that. The GOP could have done something profound. Instead they just looked at how to get re-elected.

They were shamed and embarassed.

Unfortunately, no-one learned anything.

I'll play too.

Romney----40%
Perry-----20%
Bachmann---10%
The field(Cain,Gingrich,Huntsman,Johnson)---10%
undeclared candidate---10%
Paul----7%
Santorum---2%
a man dressed as Jesus---1%

(08-18-2011 12:56 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 12:54 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I'll play too.

Romney----40%
Perry-----20%
Bachmann---10%
The field(Cain,Gingrich,Huntsman,Johnson)---10%
undeclared candidate---10%
Paul----7%
Santorum---2%
a man dressed as Jesus---1%

You're in a generous mood towards Santorum today.

Any word yet on the McCaul-for-Senate kickoff fundraiser?
;-)

Word is he is backing off now that Perry has declared for President and eyeing a possible gubernatorial run in a few years.

(08-18-2011 12:56 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 12:54 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I'll play too.

Romney----40%
Perry-----20%
Bachmann---10%
The field(Cain,Gingrich,Huntsman,Johnson)---10%
undeclared candidate---10%
Paul----7%
Santorum---2%
a man dressed as Jesus---1%

You're in a generous mood towards Santorum today.

Any word yet on the McCaul-for-Senate kickoff fundraiser?
;-)

I am generous towards Santorum because I can see a situation where Perry and Bachmann completely self destruct before Iowa and Santorum sweeps their supporters. Unlikely but possible.

No way is Huntsman and Johnson even comparable to Cain.

(08-18-2011 01:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  No way is Huntsman and Johnson even comparable to Cain.

I think Cain's window has closed to be honest. About 2 months ago he had his opportunity but just couldnt raise the money to get it done for whatever reason. Johnson has no shot but I put him in their so the Libertarians wouldnt give me ****. Huntsman doesnt have much of a shot either but their are scenarios where it could happen....like something happens to Romney.

(08-18-2011 02:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 01:07 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I am generous towards Santorum because I can see a situation where Perry and Bachmann completely self destruct before Iowa and Santorum sweeps their supporters. Unlikely but possible.

Hmmmmm.... I guess so.

In the event that Perry and Bachmann both do a crash-and-burn, I sort of think the organization-types will simply collapse into Romney and try to make the best of it, no matter how weak of a nominee he turns out to be. Even if the field were (say) Santorum, Romney, Huntsman, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson... I still think Santorum would be a severe underdog to Romney. But anyway, we'll see.

That's why I have him as a 50-1 shot.

(08-18-2011 02:05 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 01:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  No way is Huntsman and Johnson even comparable to Cain.

Not in terms of governing philosophy, personal backgrond/experience, or political style. But in terms of the probability of winning the nomination, I think Huntsman and Cain are actually quite close, indeed.

I ain't worried about a f'n poll or a straw poll. Where is Huntsman or Johnson's grass roots base? Where is their grass roots campaign?

Herman has a large grass roots base and it's constantly growing.

http://www.facebook.com/THEHermanCain

as opposed to:

http://www.facebook.com/RickSantorum

http://www.facebook.com/jonhuntsmanjr

http://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson (the potheads)


Granted, Paul is bigger than Cain, but Paul's base probably has more youth that are involved with FB.

http://www.facebook.com/ronpaul