What if one roots for a brutal convention showdown--the presidential equivalent of a scoreless tie?

Well, of course. I'm rooting for that too. But ultimately, I want us to run against Obama. I really believe McCain crushes him while Hil may actually be our next pres.

A prolonged fight is good for us either way.

I think Hill is only the next Pres if she wins more pledged delegates. Superdelegates or other convention shenanigans decide this, all hell's going to break loose on the Dem side.

I'm thinking that McCain just might pull this off regardless now. Clinton has seen that the negativity works so she's going to keep bringing the poison. Obama has not demonstrated any ability to respond with sharp elbows so he's going to take a beating until he develops the ability to counterpunch. However, thanks to the Dems truly idiotic rules, I doubt he fades bad enough to allow Hill to close the gap.

Once again, the analogy is Hamlet with Obama playing the Danish prince and Hill playing his older, treacherous enemy...and we all know how that little swordfight turned out, don't we?

The thought has already been raised, but if this keeps up all the way to Denver, folks are going to blame some of this on the hybrid primary/caucus system in Texas.

I wanted Hillary at first to be the nominee, but I think I'm coming around to your view of things. However, I do think a prologed fight between the two is the best outcome.

You are all evil.

Of course we're evil. The seeds of such are sent to us with the VRWC membership cards.

Though I think some of us were evil before that.

Why thank you, Dawn, thank you. :)

Evil is the media and the right wing conspiracy against the Huckster.

Huck 2012!!!!

Yes, let's have a guy who disputes science! Maybe call him the Ayahtolah at the same time.

Typical response from a Huck hater....but that's what the media did to him....when he actually got questions in the debates it would be on evolution and Jesus.

instead of him discussing his immigration plan; which is the most comprehensive of any candidate or having a real debate on the fair tax; he was asked questions that had nothing to do with being a president.

Um, like that question on giving the same benefits to veterans' children as to illegal immigrants'?

Looking for Jesus or evolution in that question...but having more trouble finding it than I would a Bible in Saudi Arabia.

I have no problem with his stance on giving tuition breaks to children of illegals if they were in the school system their entire life....and as part of those tuition breaks; they would have to become citizens.

yea, I'm sure it's better we have a nominee that was a co-sponsor of an amnesty bill.

by the way, he was asked more about religon then he was on immigration...or any other subject.

Hey, I didn't say McCain was the optimal solution here--I'm just responding to your statement that Huck was better on immigration.

Which, btw, I'd say you pretty much imploded by saying, "Well, sure, we'll just let those immigrant kids have a pass on their parents' illegal activities. Heck, we'll make it _better_ for them to be illegals than legal."

When you're running around saying you didn't major in math but in miracles it's kinda hard to cry foul on getting religious questions. Just sayin'.

However, he gave a real rockin' answer to that NIE question too--or are you going to tell me that there's some great conspiracy as to why he messed that up also?

Huck in 2012 is going to end up about the same as Huck in 2008 unless he spends this next four years contemplating the job he's running for. As Bambi's finding out, being a good speaker doesn't last long once the press turns up the heat.

It is estimated that keeping Hillbilly alive in the primaries will burn up $300 million in left-wing money between now and the convention.

This is a good thing.

Huck is better on immigration...that's why someone like duncan hunter is supporting him.

your statement on making things better for illegals then legals is a ridiculous exaggeration.

I have no problem with the "majored in miracles not math" comment...it was witty...and he said that after the race was over.

I agree with you on the NIE stuff...he should have been better informed...I blame his staff for that.

Huck in 2012 will start off with more money, more name recognition and the media won't be able to marginalize him in the debates

Oh and by the way, had Fred Thompson not done McCain's work in south carolina, Huck would be the nominee.

I don't go with who endorses who for my decisions on which politician is better, as I think the decision making process is somewhat similar to that used in choosing a disreputable massage parlor. Outside of Tom Tancredo (and not even him every day), I don't rely on many politician's "credentials" with immigration.

It's sort of how Bush was a conservative by association and endorsement...until he started spending like a drunken sailor.

What is ridiculous is that a serious presidential candidate let the words, "Give illegal aliens' children in-state tuition..." come out of his mouth. I'm sorry you seem to think that this doesn't give them a leg up on legal aliens. After that statement, I'd be surprised if you've ever had an immediate family member go through _legal_ immigration.

The NIE question isn't a staffer--it only required so much as having read the paper that morning. Some of our best Presidents (FDR comes to mind) did prep time in the morning. Someone who is not familiar with the front page news is not the person I want in the Oval Office when the fecal matter hits the rotating wind device. Maybe I have too high of a standard...or maybe after an irresponsible frat boy and an immature sex fiend I'm about ready for an adult to be back in charge.

Finally, if you're blaming Fred "It's better to flameout than fade away..." Thompson for Huck's repeated a**-whuppin's, I'm afraid the bartender needs to cut you off.

James,

1) my entire family, including myself are legal immigrants.

2) call me a compassionate conservative, but I understand where Huck was coming from regarding children of illegals...and for anyone to say that his position is comparable to mccain is ridiculous.....and there are criteria for those kids to get the tuition breaks.

3) Huck needs to be better on foreign affairs...I don't argue...that's what he'll brush up on these next few years.

I'm blaming Fred for Huck's loss in South Carolina...Huck wins in SC w/out Fred...that means mccain would have been out and it would have come down to the fraud romney and huck.

Larry,

1. & 2.) Then, yeah, you're a far more compassionate person than I am. Sorry, but having been through the immigration process with my wife, I got nothing but warm spit and bubblegum for the "rights" of illegals...and I'm fresh out of bazooka. As someone who got told, "Well, yes, you were off defending our country overseas but, sorry, that means you still have to wait a year to get in-state tuition..." I might be just a bit tender on this topic.

2.) The problem with Huck and foreign policy is that he should have been prepared _this_ time. Sort of like Obama not being prepared to publicly fire anyone who got off message, there are some things you should be ready to do on Day 1 if you're running for President. Huck has adequate knowledge and ideas for a governor--but that wasn't the job he was applying for.

3.) I'm failing to see how Huck wins S/C without Fred, especially since everyone thought Fred was going to _win_ S/C. I think hearing for eight years about what ignorant bastards they were in 2000 might've worn on the population of S/C a bit. Your mileage may vary, but I'm not sure that Fred's vote necessarily goes straight to Huck.

James,

I can understand the opposing view on the tuition issue....I just feel that punishing kids for sins of parents is unfair...but like I said, I can understand the opposing view.

Huck lost by 3 points in SC...Fred got 20% of the vote...most of his vote came from Huck's territory...add to the fact that Fred went off on Huck in the debate a few days earlier and it was obvious what was happening...Fred knew he wasn't going to win, but he wanted to help his buddy mccain.

Larry, for the record I'm not a Huck hater, but I do hate evangelicals trying to force their perverse version of their holy book down my throat, be they muslim, christian, jewish, hindu or sikh. The laws of any land should IMO, when questioned, have that "It's right" or "The people chose this" about them, and not "It's in a book of questionable origin, written by people who predate the production of steel (scientology does not get a pass =:). In other words, I feel that one's moral compass can do without ones religion.

Bryan, I agree with you...I'm not religous at all...I wouldn't even call myself a social conservative...I support huck for his stance on other issues, including the fair tax...I also think our president should be a great communicator...nobody is better then huck in that department...Including obama.