Dan:

Yeah right. he didn't make reference to the Old Testament at all when he spoke of "Judea and Samaria" and how they were the homeland of the Israeli people. Sorry, but if you listened to all he said he used both security and ancient history.

It's interesting how explosive using the term Judea can be. Per Wikipedia on Judea:

Etymology

The name Judea is a Greek and Roman adaptation of the name "Judah", which originally encompassed the territory of the Israelite tribe of that name and later of the ancient Kingdom of Judah. It was the name in use in English throughout history until the Jordanian occupation of the area.[1] Judea was sometimes used as the name for the entire region, including parts beyond Jordan.[2]

Jordan renamed Judea and Samaria ad-difa’a al-gharbiya (translated into English as the "West Bank") after its conquest and occupation of the area in 1948.

Per Wikipedia on Samaria

Etymology

The name "Samaria" derives from an ancient city of the same name, which was located near the south of Samaria, and was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel. According to 1 Kings 16:24, it is derived from the individual [or clan] Shemer, from whom Omri purchased the site. The name was the only name used for this area from ancient times until the Jordanian conquest of 1948, at which point the Jordanian occupiers coined the term West Bank

I didn't read all of Netanyahu's speech. It certainly seems that he emphasized the security issues and did not at all emphasize the biblical ties.

Guapo wrote:Who was the more centrist candidate in 2008: McCain or Obama?
Who was the more centrist candidate in 2004: Bush or Kerry?
How did centrists do in Congress in 2006?
How did they do in 2010.

Well, I would argue that in the two Presidential contest they were both centrist, the difference was one is center right and the other is center left.

As for the Congressional elections, the difference is that centrist Republicans were replaced by centrist Democrats in 2006 and then vice versus in 2010.

However, you are giving examples from general elections. I am talking about the primaries where Independents and conservative Democrats will be voting amongst far right Republicans, moderate right Republicans and centrist Republicans. Who do you think the I's and D's will vote for?


Guys, can we move the Isreal discussions to one of the other topics that actually deal with Isreal. Thank you.

A fair request but it's kind of related. Obama's ratings are relatively high right now and many are having a tough time seeing any Republican that could challenge Obama. I just heard someone a couple days ago on Charlie Rose state what I already said that Netanyahu could win as a Republican, something no Republican could do. So you've had a head of a foreign state speak before a joint session of Congress and tea bag the POTUS. One that is still expected to be a two term president. It's a strange goings on.

Neal Anderth wrote:A fair request but it's kind of related. Obama's ratings are relatively high right now and many are having a tough time seeing any Republican that could challenge Obama. I just heard someone a couple days ago on Charlie Rose state what I already said that Netanyahu could win as a Republican, something no Republican could do. So you've had a head of a foreign state speak before a joint session of Congress and tea bag the POTUS. One that is still expected to be a two term president. It's a strange goings on.

For all you Republican operatives and consultants out there, it may be a good time to offer a new product to potential candidates: the new Netanyahu makeover, complete with a slight Israeli accent.

Governor Perry of Texas now rumoured to be ready to jump in...
I guess he's given up on seccession from the Union.

Ray Jay wrote:For all you Republican operatives and consultants out there, it may be a good time to offer a new product to potential candidates: the new Netanyahu makeover, complete with a slight Israeli accent.

He's got this Telly Savalas magnetism to him.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Well, I would argue that in the two Presidential contest they were both centrist, the difference was one is center right and the other is center left.

That's not what I asked. You may say neither, but I asked who was more centrist. And sorry, Obama wasn't the most centrist Democrat on the table--not by a longshot.

Archduke Russell John wrote:As for the Congressional elections, the difference is that centrist Republicans were replaced by centrist Democrats in 2006 and then vice versus in 2010.

You're kidding, right? The tea party was centrist? I know, I know they had a 'low' success rate, but they were the main story of the election. In 2006, it was a reaction to GWB--the centrist. Granted, as in 2010, they got more centrists than they thought they elected, but the tables don't turn so suddenly when you're going for a "centrist".

In 2008, the mantra was "change". that's not a centrist mantra.

Archduke Russell John wrote:However, you are giving examples from general elections. I am talking about the primaries where Independents and conservative Democrats will be voting amongst far right Republicans, moderate right Republicans and centrist Republicans. Who do you think the I's and D's will vote for?

Again, it's no secret that primary season is the time you appeal to your base. In the general election, you tone it down. This is the worst time for centrists--unless they can prove that they are "true" Republicans. I think Gary Johnson will have a much better time doing that than Huntsman. But Ron Paul's devoted following (they've been working their way inside many state Republican parties) and name recognition will blow them both away.

Neal Anderth wrote:A fair request but it's kind of related. Obama's ratings are relatively high right now and many are having a tough time seeing any Republican that could challenge Obama

One note on this. If you look at most of the polls, including one from CNN today that shows him at 54%, they are not only flawed, the fundamental problems for the President become clear.

For example the CNN poll was from "adults." As I've noted many times, that's not very valuable. Worse, however, are the indicators within the poll:

Economy — Obama dropped from 42/56 to 41/58
Health care — Was 41/58, now 40/57
Medicare – Was 47/48, now 44/53
Taxes – Was 46/52, now 46/53
Federal deficit – Was 35/61, now 34/64

CNN asked about Obama’s response to gas prices for the first time, but that didn’t give him any help; he only rated 25/73 on the issue.

So how did CNN get a rise in Obama’s approval rating? Considering that Obama’s overall approval rose while his approval dropped on every single issue, it’s a good question. An explanation of their sampling ratios between Democrats, Republicans, and independents might help, but CNN neglects to provide it. It’s not that they didn’t take the information, as CNN’s poll data breaks out approval ratings on demographic bases for each specific question. For instance, Obama’s overall approval rating among independents is 47/51, which certainly makes his overall among the general electorate at 54/45 look very, very suspicious.

Do I think he'll get defeated? I think the odds are decent. It won't be easy, but I don't think he's sitting as pretty as the fawning media would like us to believe.

Guapo wrote: And sorry, Obama wasn't the most centrist Democrat on the table--not by a longshot.

I agree completely. But I didn't say he was the most centrist Democrat. I just said they both campaigned as centrist.

Guapo wrote: You're kidding, right? The tea party was centrist? I know, I know they had a 'low' success rate, but they were the main story of the election. In 2006, it was a reaction to GWB--the centrist. Granted, as in 2010, they got more centrists than they thought they elected, but the tables don't turn so suddenly when you're going for a "centrist".

No I am not kidding. The Tea Party didn't really get all that many candidates on the ballot. Most of the Republicans that made it on the ballot and beat an incumbent Democrat was a centrist, always has been a centrist and has acted as a centrist upon election.

In 2008, the mantra was "change". that's not a centrist mantra.

Guapo wrote:Again, it's no secret that primary season is the time you appeal to your base. In the general election, you tone it down. This is the worst time for centrists--unless they can prove that they are "true" Republicans.

You are correct in normal primaries but this is not a normal primary. There is no Democratic primary. That means in 26 states, or more then 50% of them, will see a strong probability of having centrist voting in the primary.

However, this conversation is tiring. We have our bet. We'll see the how things turn out.

Apparently Gary Johnson was not invited to the upcoming candidates debate in New Hampshire. I believe it is being run by CNN and he was not invited because he doesn't poll even 1%. However, he is arguing and possible taking it to court.

There is also news that Gringrinch's entire top staff, campaign manager, spokesperson, 2 top strategist, and consultants in South Carolina and Iown, just quite enmass.

Taking bets (rhetorical) on how much longer he is in the race.

I heard about that too ... that seems so unusual this early in the race ... do you think there is something they know that the rest of us will be twittering about in a few days?

Ray Jay wrote:I heard about that too ... that seems so unusual this early in the race ... do you think there is something they know that the rest of us will be twittering about in a few days?

He stuck a fork in himself with his Meet the Press interview. He can dance all he wants, but his words sounded like a DNC ad against Paul Ryan. He was toast within a few days of entering. The only one who doesn't know it is Newt.

Ray Jay wrote:I heard about that too ... that seems so unusual this early in the race ... do you think there is something they know that the rest of us will be twittering about in a few days?

From what I have read it was a dispute on how to run the campaign. Newt wanted to run a modern hi-tech campaign focusing on things like Youtube, Twitter and the internet and his campaign staff felt he needed to run a more traditional grass roots campaign. Especailly after the foot in mouth disease he started the campaign with. The last straw was the fact that he took a weeks long vacation cruise to Greece. His staff took that as an indication of a lack of seriousness so the decided why waste their time.

From what I am reading, it looks like the big winner in this could be Perry. It looks like most of Gingrinch's senior staff are Perry advisors as well.

Steve has certainly been paying attention to the right wing media. They've been at Gingrich ever since. I mean, how dare he learn the lessons of the last special election in NY, where the Democrats were able to win partly because seniors (who vote) didn't like the Ryan plan (or the endorsement of it by the Republican) and voted against her.

I heard it was about 'direction' - The staff wanted him to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he wanted to head a few thousand miles East.

The Greek Isles are lovely this of year, but not many American voters out there.