Support




Contact
Powered by
Movable Type

Rasmussen: Huckabee (20%) Takes National Lead Over Giuliani (17%)

Disaster. Not because Giuliani may lose, but because now the Giuliani alternatives like Thompson and Romney have almost no growing room. Republicans seem to have chosen their alternative and it's the guy who can't win.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM



Comments

1 And once again, the evangelicals are getting ready to put our balls in a meat grinder.

Posted by: Mark V. at December 05, 2007 12:52 PM (dZ4mk)

2

Perhaps the abortion fetishizers will get their (apparent) wish after all....humiliating defeat.  Of course Duncan Hunter is a much more credible pro-life candidate and a great guy....heaven forbid any big name folks should get behind his candidacy. 

It's possible that this is going to be a very short-lived Huckabee fad.  Rick Warren is like the Oprah Winfrey of self-help, Prayer of Jabez type Christians.  His endorsement will get lots of folks to say they support Huckabee to a pollster without worrying much about the particulars yet.  Hopefully as more people learn actual facts about Huckabee and his record they will decide he's not so great after all.

Posted by: funky chicken at December 05, 2007 12:54 PM (I+jPP)

3 Totally wrong.

The Huckster will implode soon.  Rudy will get zapped by the fallout, as each half of the party realizes that pissing off the other isn't a good idea.

Bet on it.

Posted by: someone at December 05, 2007 12:58 PM (2z2WN)

Posted by: Tom at December 05, 2007 12:59 PM (1kwK7)

5 I'm really hoping that this is just a case of people becoming familiar with Huckabee, but not really knowing anything about him yet.


Once people start learning about his nanny-state policies in Arkansas, his Willy Horton-style parolee who went on to rape and murder in another state, and his lightweight Carter-style pontification on Gitmo, I'd hope they decide that he's not worth it and vote for someone else.


I'd even take McCain over him and that's saying a lot, considering my general distaste for the Senator.

Posted by: BrandonInBatonRouge at December 05, 2007 12:59 PM (13K4K)

6 I still think it's the media choosing this guy (Huck).  Or these polls are off.  Or something.  I hope.

Posted by: brak at December 05, 2007 12:59 PM (dWjrP)

7 Don't get your pants all in a knot. We haven't even had the Hawkeye Caukeye yet. Folks are gonna sober up soon.

Posted by: ricpic at December 05, 2007 01:01 PM (dvyRd)

8 There is absolutely now way these polls are accurate.

Giuliani is going to be the Republican nominee.

Take it to the bank.


Posted by: McLovin at December 05, 2007 01:02 PM (SAQWb)

9 Fred is still falling. 

Huckabee takes all the liberal positions of Rudy and Mitt that i hate, and combines them with a bunch of televangelist bullshit.

What a combination.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:02 PM (LHwbh)

10 Huck wins Iowa and then what? He's doing well there on a show string and like 6 months of non-stop effort.  He's no where in NH and last I saw he's not doing anything in SC, MI or FL either.

Can he take a win in Iowa and parlay it into success elsewhere that quickly? I doubt it. All a Huck win does is make Iowa irrelevant.

Posted by: Drew at December 05, 2007 01:02 PM (hlYel)

11 Er, that should have read...on a show shoe string. Cause "show string" just makes no damn sense.

Posted by: Drew at December 05, 2007 01:04 PM (hlYel)

12 That's the power of Chuck Norris.

Posted by: Infidelsalwayswin at December 05, 2007 01:05 PM (rtNEd)

13 I hate to be like the "Nobody I know voted for Nixon" chick, but who are these pollers talking to.  I'd fairly politically literate and I barely knew anything about Huckabee until 4-5 months ago.


A Huckabee vs. Obama main race would be a gigantic national pillowfight.

Posted by: Techie at December 05, 2007 01:07 PM (AV8Z6)

14 Drew, you've nailed it.  And let me put a finer point on what your implying:  Sorry, Iowa, your caucus is about to be exposed for all to see as the fraud it always has been.  I like your corn, the Amana Colonies are kind of cool, and lots of your women are babes, but politically?  You're useless.

Posted by: Rocketeer at December 05, 2007 01:08 PM (GFaLW)

15 It's not so much that I am afraid Huck can't win, it's that I am afraid he could. 

Posted by: benjamin at December 05, 2007 01:08 PM (HZeUC)

16 Either Rasmussen is polling the DNC or the GOP has decided it's a great time to commit hara-kiri. Or both.

I wonder how Obama will redecorate the West Wing?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 05, 2007 01:08 PM (Y0gTb)

17 My prediction:

Huckabee parlays a win in Iowa into a VP slot. 

Posted by: Techie at December 05, 2007 01:08 PM (AV8Z6)

18 Of all the candidates Huckabee has the potential to be the next Reagan. He projects an affability and generally positive attitude. You could have a beer(except he probably doesn't drink) with the guy.

Except, he has no Reaganite values or beliefs. As someone said he's a democrat who could run as a Dim because he pro-life. He would be a huge disaster in any election.

Posted by: rinseandspit at December 05, 2007 01:09 PM (aBMz2)

19 All that means is that Huckabee is the Media's candidate.  I would be very surprised if non political junkies even knew who Huckabee was.  Seriously.  Perhaps I'm naive, but is there anyone who can seriosly compete with Rudy when it comes to the ability to actually, you know, win?

Posted by: Terry at December 05, 2007 01:09 PM (W1mrP)

20

What would Jesus say about this?

As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman.

Confidential Arkansas state government records, including letters from these women, and revealed publicly for the first time, directly contradict the version of events now being put forward by Huckabee.

While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee’s intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond’s behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended. But the confidential files show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released.

Huckabee kept these and other documents secret because they were politically damaging, according to a former aide who worked for him in Arkansas. The aide has made the records available, deeply troubled by Huckabee’s repeated claims that he had no reason to believe Dumond would commit other violent crimes upon his release from prison. The aide also believes that Huckabee, for political reasons, has deliberately attempted to cover up his knowledge of Dumond’s other sexual assaults.

In 1996, as a newly elected governor who had received strong support from the Christian right, Huckabee was under intense pressure from conservative activists to pardon Dumond or commute his sentence. The activists claimed that Dumond’s initial imprisonment and various other travails were due to the fact that Ashley Stevens, the high school cheerleader he had raped, was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, and the daughter of a major Clinton campaign contributor.

Posted by: Tom at December 05, 2007 01:10 PM (1kwK7)

21 I still think it's the media choosing this guy (Huck).  Or these polls are off.  Or something.  I hope.

Heres a Youtube clip of Huckabee talking about the Theory of evolution.


It has over 750,000 views and has 60 pages of "We Love Jesus! Go Huck!"
comments.

He has done very well in the debates, and the media loves him...for now.

I dont think these polls are wrong.


Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:12 PM (LHwbh)

22 "And we're so gosh darned stubborn we can stand touchin' noses for a week at a time and never see eye to eye."

--Meredith Wilson's take on Iowans (and he was one).

Discount Iowa. They're impossible sumbitches.

Posted by: ricpic at December 05, 2007 01:15 PM (dvyRd)

23 Talk about being "informed"...

David Brooks conceded that Mike Huckabee's foreign policy thinking is rather...thin.

That would be an understatement based on this exchange:

Reporter: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday.

Huckabee: I’m sorry?

Reporter: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —

Huckabee: No.

Reporter: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.

The man can't pick up a newspaper?


Posted by: Tom at December 05, 2007 01:16 PM (1kwK7)

24

Whoa people, I am amazed at the attacks on Huckabee. While I am disappointed with his amnesty and occassional RINOness, I must ask: compared to whom? Giuliani? McCain?

I must say that anyone who makes comments like "spending like John Edwards at a beauty salon" can't be *that* bad...

Posted by: Nick Byram at December 05, 2007 01:16 PM (ujg0T)

25 Of all the candidates Huckabee has the potential to be the next Reagan Carter/Clinton.

He's a smooth talking lib from Arkansas whose well intentioned nanny state ideas will be a disaster for this country.


Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:16 PM (LHwbh)

26 Drew and Rocketeer are right - from Iowa, Huckabee has to go to New Hampshire and he'll find a pretty barren field there for his nanny-state, tax and spend beliefs.  NH doesn't have a state income tax and people there like the government to stay out of their affairs.

Iowa is Huckabee's high-water mark.

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 01:17 PM (R8+nJ)

27

From who is Huckabee now getting his votes? previously undecideds? I can't imagine him taking away any previous Rudy voters. Possibly Thompson voters. He could have only swayed people by his debate performance and I would assume that those Republican voters who watched the debate would be somewhat up on the issues.  That the Huckster was an advocate for in state tuition for illegal aliens certainly would not get him more voters. I would think it would lose voters.  That goes for his ban on legal vices also.  Either this poll is a crock or the previous polls were crocks or more likely, all polls are crocks used as propaganda tools.

Posted by: polynikes at December 05, 2007 01:18 PM (m2CN7)

28 Huck won't win -- plain and simple.  He will be slowly bled for what he is, an incompetent politician with a good heart that gets him in trouble.

Look for Romney or Thompson -- Guiliani's done too.

Posted by: Richard Romano at December 05, 2007 01:19 PM (GpwqX)

29 Amish,
He doesn't know for sure, because he wasn't there, 6,000 years ago, but he knows for sure that "he" (God) created heaven and earth.

I wonder which "he" it is that he's referring to?

Posted by: Tom at December 05, 2007 01:20 PM (1kwK7)

30 Possibly Thompson voters.

yep. i think Huckabee is taking all the "Im Not Mitt or Rudy" votes that Fred was supposed to get. i think if Fred had layed on the Jesus Talk a lot thicker he would be doing better. BUT that would doom him in the general election just like it will doom Huck if he gets the nomination.

Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:20 PM (LHwbh)

31 I think if Huckabee wins, the party splits.  The fiscal conservatives are fed up already with Congress' free-spending ways.  Nominating a fiscal liberal would be the nail in the coffin.

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 01:21 PM (R8+nJ)

32 I wonder which "he" it is that he's referring to?


you know who.

Posted by: Chuck Norris at December 05, 2007 01:22 PM (LHwbh)

33 Look for Romney or Thompson -- Guiliani's done too.

I think in the primary, it will come down between Huckabee and Romney.  I agree about Giuliani.  His social liberalism was enough to bring him down, but these recent ethics scandals are enough to sink him.

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 01:22 PM (R8+nJ)

34

Thank You Jesusland!

I am starting to think you actually want Hillary in the White House.

Let me put this in stark terms:

Nominating Huckabee means electing Hillary which means John Paul Stevens will retire and be replaced by another Ginsberg..

Nominating Rudy or Fred means at least a chance of a win AND a good shot of replacing JPS with a Scalia/Thomas clone.

 

 

Posted by: Liberrocky at December 05, 2007 01:23 PM (HR16A)

35

"A Huckabee vs. Obama main race would be a gigantic national pillowfight."

That's it, I've reached my funny quota for the day.

Posted by: Sobek at December 05, 2007 01:24 PM (6GK9U)

36 Huckabee would be a disaster, he's gotta be stopped.

Posted by: sinistar at December 05, 2007 01:25 PM (XjLbb)

37 "A Huckabee vs. Obama main race would be a gigantic national pillowfight."

Meh.  They'd probably end up as running mates.

UNITY TICKET!

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 01:25 PM (R8+nJ)

38

polynikes: From who is Huckabee now getting his votes? previously undecideds? I can't imagine him taking away any previous Rudy voters. Possibly Thompson voters.

 

Well, since it's Rasmussen who has Huck in the lead, take a look at the Rasmussen numbers: on 11/18 Rudy was at 27 and Huck at 10.

Since then, Huck's gained 10 and Rudy lost 10.  The rest (Fred, Mitt, McCain) just shifted a few points among them.

Huck's rise appears to be peeling Giuliani support.

Posted by: hit and run at December 05, 2007 01:26 PM (jjNS6)

39 I think it needs to be Fred or Romney, if its Huck or Giuliani, there will be fractures in the conservative coalition.

Posted by: sinistar at December 05, 2007 01:27 PM (XjLbb)

40

Who's running again? Huckleberry? Is there an election this year? No?!!

Maybe that's why we're eff'ing with the pollsters when they call. "Uhm, yeah, I'd vote for Huckabee, sure. Why?  I like saying the name..<eye roll>. Click."

I thought Iowa was just a big circle jerk for the Democrat party anyway. That's where they annoint their "Howard Dean" messiah. 24hr cable news needs to talk about something in January. YEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!!!

Posted by: roy at December 05, 2007 01:28 PM (QBYjk)

41 My will be done.

Posted by: Chuck Norris at December 05, 2007 01:28 PM (UeP9e)

42

Let me put this in stark terms:

Nominating Huckabee means electing Hillary which means John Paul Stevens will retire and be replaced by another Ginsberg..

Nominating Rudy or Fred means at least a chance of a win AND a good shot of replacing JPS with a Scalia/Thomas clone.

The only problem with this is that Rudy is scandal plagued and is no fiscal conservative either, and "Fred!" just isn't catching fire and seems doddering?

Are we left with Mitt, then?

Posted by: Nick Byram at December 05, 2007 01:28 PM (ujg0T)

43 I think if Huckabee wins, the party splits.  The fiscal conservatives are fed up already with Congress' free-spending ways.  Nominating a fiscal liberal would be the nail in the coffin.


 I think Huck is the natural reaction to someone like Rudy being in the lead. Rudy is very liberal for a Republican and has some moral problems. But he is a strong leader. He is the candidate for people like Allah. So how do you think that religious conservatives are going to react to seeing him potentially becoming the face of the party? They overreact in the opposite direction. They fall behind the guy who wears his Christianity on his sleeve, all of his other weaknesses be damned.

Instead of nominating someone who is between the religious right and socially liberal republicans, we seem to be left with two leading candidates who, if nominated, seem destined to splinter the party.


Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:28 PM (LHwbh)

44 Are we left with Mitt, then?

Seems that way.  We could always go with The Only Man Who Can Save America.

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 01:30 PM (R8+nJ)

45 Ya'll seewhudimean? If that dadgum gun-grabbin abortionist Rudy is the nominee, it's yer fault if the Dems win. 

So, we'll put up a Jaysus-fearin', pro -life man like Huckabee...his policies that have nothing to do with abortion may give us he vapors, but he never wore a DRESS!!!!!

And if you don't vote for him, it's yer fault if the Dems win!!


Posted by: Freeper at December 05, 2007 01:30 PM (YmPwQ)

46 Amish, that was pretty much the exact point of a piece I wrote yesterday.

Posted by: sinistar at December 05, 2007 01:30 PM (XjLbb)

47

Ace: Republicans seem to have chosen their alternative and it's the guy who can't win.

Eh, why now, would you assume those numbers to be frozen and final?  No one's chosen anything yet and these numbers will change.

Of course, for all we know, Huck may end up with 50% support in another week.

At which point I would advise everyone to "Stock Up On Canned Goods, Diamonds, Shotguns and Guard Dogs"

Posted by: hit and run at December 05, 2007 01:31 PM (jjNS6)

48 Right,
I never thought I would see the day people are yearning for John McCain to be the nominee.. with Fred a dud, Rudy and Mitt failing... sign me up for the straight talk express baby!

Posted by: Orator at December 05, 2007 01:31 PM (cbt1/)

49 I still don't see how Huckabee gets it done, but if he does, my politcal money is going to the Club For Growth and not his presidential campaign, and I say that as a fairly conservative Catholic.

Posted by: Harry Callahan at December 05, 2007 01:34 PM (Xroyb)

50

And once again, the evangelicals are getting ready to put our balls in a meat grinder.

How is that any different than the anti-immigration fetishists putting our balls in a meat grinder back in '06?  You can have ideological purity or you can have political power. You can't have both.

Ace-

How many times is it now (in 2007 alone) that you've cried "Disaster!" for the GOP? Six? I don't know, I've lost count. Remember last summer when you posted that pathetic tombstone picture? "The Republican Party, 1854-2007"  What's it like being such a drama queen?  Thank God you weren't born yet in '92 - you would have killed yourself.

Also: Does Rudy like it when you swallow or does he like to spray it all over your willing, upturned face?

 

Posted by: Beppo at December 05, 2007 01:34 PM (Ka5Jh)

51 20% in a national poll of tightly screen "likely voters" in a wide open five-person field doesn't tell you a lot except what you already knew:  that Huck's been the flavor of the month.  He's appealing to Christian conservatives in a way that none of the other candidates are or can be, and those of you who don't think that he could pick up Rudy voters don't understand Christian conservatives very well:  They're not all negativist single-issue voters who fear that voting for Rudy will send them to Hell.  A lot of them are very open to voting for Rudy and almost any other Republican, whatever the internet Rudy-haters may happen to say on comment boards.  BUT if they've been exposed to Huckabee at all, they probably like him a lot.  He positively expresses ideals and beliefs that are central to their lives:  He's not just ok with evangelicals on issues - like McCain, for instance - he EVANGELIZES, something that Christian conservatives think is not just a good thing, but a very important thing.  But they're also not simple-minded, most of them.  They understand all about rendering up to Caesar that which is Caesar's and so on.  So forgive them their infatuation.  A lot of them may even stick with Huck even after they've been exposed to his weaknesses, but once he's taken some "front-runner" pounding and someone else has become the media darling, his numbers will likely subside. 

His surge does show how fluid the race is - as well as what a disaster FDT has been as a candidate, and how much the lower-order fisticuffs and pseudo-scandals have managed to tarnish Rudy and Mitt.  Every one of the five main candidates still has a plausible path to the nomination - though Huck's is IMO least likely. 

Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at December 05, 2007 01:35 PM (8aPVo)

52 Amish, that was pretty much the exact point of a piece I wrote yesterday.

Did i tell you i was guest posting over at the Seventh Son blog?

Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:35 PM (LHwbh)

53 Yeah, I never figured I'd be musing about looking at McCain again.  Thanks Huck!

Posted by: Harry Callahan at December 05, 2007 01:35 PM (Xroyb)

54 "Perhaps I'm naive, but is there anyone who can seriosly compete with Rudy when it comes to the ability to actually, you know, win?"

Actually, the Huckster's the only guy who can seriously compete with Rudy in the ability to actually LOSE.

Pissing off half the party = doom.

Posted by: someone at December 05, 2007 01:36 PM (2z2WN)

55 Yuckabee is the love child of Jimmy Carter and George Bush.

Posted by: Uniball at December 05, 2007 01:36 PM (27iEn)

56 "yep. i think Huckabee is taking all the "Im Not Mitt or Rudy" votes that Fred was supposed to get."

Except, you know, no one's voted yet.  These folks have to support someone else when the media bubble for the Huckster (an obvious attempt to kill the party, btw) pops.

Posted by: someone at December 05, 2007 01:37 PM (2z2WN)

57 The poll is meaningless.

And if Huck wins Iowa, it'll be the only state he'll ever win.

Posted by: OregonMuse at December 05, 2007 01:37 PM (uzP/l)

58 Pissing off half the party = doom.

Yeah, this has the potential to turn into a mutual assured destruction sort of thing.  Social cons won't vote for Giuliani, fiscal cons won't vote for Huckabee.  Leaves Romney and gulp McCain as the consensus candidates.

But even then, you've got the anti-Mormon nonsense with Romney, so between picking Huckabee and rejecting everyone else, evangelicals have pretty much put the screws to the party, haven't they?

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 01:38 PM (R8+nJ)

59

How is that any different than the anti-immigration fetishists putting our balls in a meat grinder back in '06?  You can have ideological purity or you can have political power. You can't have both.

If anyone put our balls in the grinder in 2006, it was the Hispandering immigration fetishists and the cheap labor Wall Street Journal greedheads, the latter epitomized everyone's worst stereotypes of Republicans. (Various scandals here and there and bridges to nowhere didn't help either).

Am I happy with the anti-abortion jihadists insisting on going down with the ship, even when such an issue just does not play in large parts of the country? No. But be honest about what lost the Republicans 2006.

Posted by: Nick Byram at December 05, 2007 01:40 PM (ujg0T)

60 "Anti-immigration fetishists" did what in 2006?

If any of these Pubs tried a new "fetish" such as that, they would become the prohibitive favorite.


Posted by: Freeper at December 05, 2007 01:40 PM (YmPwQ)

61

Huck's rise appears to be peeling Giuliani support.

That polling data is the exact reason I believe this poll is a crock.  It does not make sense that a voter would be undecided between Huckabee and Giuliani.  Unless of course those voters have split personalities.

Posted by: polynikes at December 05, 2007 01:41 PM (m2CN7)

62 Hispandering

Good word.

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 01:41 PM (R8+nJ)

63 But even then, you've got the anti-Mormon nonsense with Romney

Ive been anti Mitt from the start, i admit, but even without my bias i think he has done a very poor job lately. He was pretty bad in the debates IMO and this whole illegal alien gardener thing makes him look terrible. If your running for preisdent, and youve already taken slack for hiring illegals, wouldnt you be a little wary of a bunch of hispanic guys mowing your lawn? Wouldnt you at least ask the company for proof that they were legal?

It just seems careless.

Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:42 PM (LHwbh)

64 Hey...the NH chapter of the NEA is going to endorse.....Hillary and Huck.

Cause you know, teacher's unions love 'real' conservatives.

Posted by: Drew at December 05, 2007 01:44 PM (hlYel)

65

Well Tom (1kwK7) is linking to Huff on Huckabee, as well as his talking point.  I’m conviced!  I’m sending a Huckabee a check right away.  Woohooo! He’s got my vote.

 

Loved the part about “Ashley Stevens, the high school cheerleader he had raped, was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton,”  Yea...who’s that guy think he is raping Clinton’s Cousin, that Bill’s Job.

Posted by: Paladin at December 05, 2007 01:48 PM (AfORa)

66 We had a similar occurrence in Virginia some years back. During the caucus, the arch conservatives among us decided to nominate Oliver North who is, I have no doubt, a fine man. However, he was probably the only person that the state GOP could have nominated who couldn't possibly win against Chuck Robb, since North had more baggage than Robb. God help us all if Huckabee manages to pull this one out, because I can't in good conscience vote for that douche. Not because of his social views, which I more or less mirror. But I don't need another rightwing nanny-statist in the Whitehouse. Not that that's gonna happen though, because it won't. Even Silky would flatten Huck in the general.

Posted by: physics geek at December 05, 2007 01:49 PM (MT22W)

67

It does not make sense that a voter would be undecided between Huckabee and Giuliani.

Doesn't it?  I mean it has been gospel that Giuliani *couldn't* win the repub nomination because of his social positions.

But as long as Iraq was the number one issue -- a lot of social cons were probably willing to hold their nose and vote for him.

Could the success of the surge be causing those social cons to rethink their support of Giuliani?

Posted by: hit and run at December 05, 2007 01:49 PM (jjNS6)

68

How is that any different than the anti-immigration fetishists putting our balls in a meat grinder back in '06?

You fail at life.

Posted by: Entropy at December 05, 2007 01:54 PM (m6c4H)

69

If anyone put our balls in the grinder in 2006, it was the Hispandering immigration fetishists and the cheap labor Wall Street Journal greedheads,

Yeah, it's always somebody else's ideology that's the problem, isn't it? Never your own. Funny how that works.  The anti-abortion people (I guess they're "jihadists" now - way to dehumanize your political opponents) have to adapt to your ideology but you don't have to budge an inch on yours. And if (when, according to Ace) the GOP loses next year you're all going to be doing your best imitations of the Democrats in '04: pointing at each other and shrieking "It's your fault! It's your fault!"

Pathetic.

Posted by: Beppo at December 05, 2007 01:54 PM (Ka5Jh)

70 Did i tell you i was guest posting over at the Seventh Son blog?
Posted by: Amish at December 05, 2007 01:35 PM


HA!  Nah, you'd be lying anyway, that little fucker scrubbed his blog, I had to put up screenshots of the wankers site in my post.

Posted by: sinistar at December 05, 2007 02:00 PM (XjLbb)

71 The cruel Irony is than as much as people actually thoughfully beat about the pros and cons of the candidates here and on the blogs, out there in the real world were outnumbered. Let's not forget the Kos/Lamont kingmaker factor. We can influence but we better be wary of slitting our own throats.

Posted by: Rob B at December 05, 2007 02:00 PM (opyeT)

72 Beppo,
Don't put our balls in a meat grinder bro.  You are pretty much showing the weakness of the R party at this time. One side is willing to vote for a fiscal liberal just as long as he is against abortion.  Well we did that with W and it got us shit on the fiscal side.  You one issue fuckers should be happy with a promise to place judges who are conservative and that is all.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Uniball at December 05, 2007 02:00 PM (27iEn)

73

Could the success of the surge be causing those social cons to rethink their support of Giuliani?

No because we are talking about the primaries not the general election. Social cons had more than Rudy to pick from in regard to fighting the WOT.  His social con support in the primaries was and is minimal at best. Also I would give social cons more credit than thinking they believe the WOT is no longer a primary issue.

Posted by: polynikes at December 05, 2007 02:01 PM (m2CN7)

74 "Leaves Romney and gulp McCain as the consensus candidates."

Yeah, sure.  No agenda here.

Posted by: someone at December 05, 2007 02:01 PM (2z2WN)

75 Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Rodney King at December 05, 2007 02:01 PM (ecpMe)

76

How am I a one-issue fucker? Aren't I the guy who said, "You can have ideological purity or political power. You can't have both?"  That doesn't sound like a one-issue fucker to me. How about you fuckers whose one-issue is "Messicans! Messicans! Messicans!"

Posted by: Beppo at December 05, 2007 02:03 PM (Ka5Jh)

77 Not getting it. 

At.  All.

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at December 05, 2007 02:03 PM (Lz6uE)

78
And once again, the evangelicals are getting ready to put our balls in a meat grinder.


You're making it sound like that's a bad thing.

Posted by: Andi Sullivan at December 05, 2007 02:09 PM (uzP/l)

79

Oh, yes I get it. I'm a one-issue fucker for suggesting that maybe some of the more extreme-minded people around here need to be a little flexible on their beliefs for the greater good of the party.

What that one issue that I'm a fucker on (as I have never indicated a belief for or against abortion) escapes me.

Posted by: Beppo at December 05, 2007 02:09 PM (Ka5Jh)

80

I'm not freaked out about Huckabee.  Even if he does well in Iowa (like Pat Robertson in 198, he will almost immediately thereafter get trounced in New Hampshire where southerners don't do well.  He also has no campaign infrastructure behind him.

"Hit and run" had a good point about the surge affecting social con support for Rudy.  The same thing is probably happening with Obama and Hillary on the other side (with Iraq less important, Hillary's establishment cred is less important).  But Iraq or Iran could flare up next Wednesday afternoon for all we know.

Right now, only the political junkies know all the dirt about Huckabee.  Now that he's making the break to the top tier, there's a big target on his back and he's going to be slimed.

Turn off the sirens.  Crisis averted.

Posted by: Matt at December 05, 2007 02:10 PM (ecpMe)

81 hit and run: "Could the success of the surge be causing those social cons to rethink their support of Giuliani?"

That's possible but I hope they realize what that portends. Giuliani against Her Inevitableness cannot play up the ethics card (their supposed trump for selecting their candidate) against her... and one of her most glaring weaknesses. So, piqued by Huckabee's Evangelicalism, they select someone who is weak in so many other arenas that he sabotages the GOP and gets creamed when the entire nation votes. They'll get nuthin'. Principles are important and I understand backing someone for something that is your raison d’être, but this is a guaranteed loser. Doesn't anyone remember Jimmy Carter? Do evangelicals really want the return of the catastrophe? And if it's just an anti-abortion they're after, they should be flocking to Tancredo and Hunter. Maybe they could set aside reading the Bible for a moment  and focus on the candidates' platforms a bit more.

Giuliani wouldn't be the best choice, but Huckabee would be a Democrat disaster.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 05, 2007 02:10 PM (Y0gTb)

82

Beppo, the Mexicans I can live with.  It's the Irish I hate.

P.S. - Just kidding, Irish.

Posted by: Rocketeer at December 05, 2007 02:12 PM (GFaLW)

83

How did this even happen?  We're talking about Huckabee, for cryin' out loud. 

I agree with whoever pointed out that Huckabee can't make it past Iowa.  He's spent all his time and money there, and he doesn't have enough time or resources to roll an Iowa win into a decent showing in any later state.  I have serious doubts about Romney's ability to do so, and Romney already dominates the early states (other than Iowa, ahem).

So the only effect of a Huck win in Iowa is to deflate Romney, make it even harder for him to gain the momentum he needs to pick up later states where his numbers are way down, and toss the nomination to the name-recognition guys like Giuliani and McCain.  I think Giuliani has no more room to grow, so that leaves us with the Maverick.

Again, how did this even happen?

Posted by: Sobek at December 05, 2007 02:14 PM (6GK9U)

84 By the way, to clear my reputation, which has been sullied by the sunglass wearing smiley face that appeared in my last post.  Let the record reflect that I have never used a smiley face emoticon in my life.  I also don't listen to ABBA records (anymore).  I'm willing to take a polygraph on that.   

Posted by: Matt at December 05, 2007 02:15 PM (ecpMe)

85

Yeah, it's always somebody else's ideology that's the problem, isn't it? Never your own. Funny how that works.  The anti-abortion people (I guess they're "jihadists" now - way to dehumanize your political opponents) have to adapt to your ideology but you don't have to budge an inch on yours. And if (when, according to Ace) the GOP loses next year you're all going to be doing your best imitations of the Democrats in '04: pointing at each other and shrieking "It's your fault! It's your fault!"

Pathetic.

Sad, sad, sad, Beppo, you just don't get it. All we ask for is a border wall and to stop government giveaways to illegals--something one would think fiscal and social conservatives could actually AGREE on.

And what did the WSJ cheap labor greedheads, the phony conservatives like Linda Chavez and the Bushyrovies do? They smeared us straight out of the leftist Commeicrat playbook, race cards and all.

I agree that "rounding 'em all up" is unrealistic--without a controlled border, they would be back next week. Let alone all the bleeding heartstring tugging crap the media would go on abut ad nauseum.

As for abortion, the best we can do is appoint real judges who overturn the Roe monstrosity and introduce a real Constitutional three foot yardstick as opposed to the "living breathing" Al Goreon yardstick that is two feet one day and four feet the next. A Human Life Amendment isn't going to fly in more than half of the states, and California and the Northeast will be abortion on demand until the end of time.

So who is really being ideologically fanatical here? Or should I say who in the elite wants cheap gardeners and maids at all costs, damn the middle class?

Posted by: Nick Byram at December 05, 2007 02:15 PM (ujg0T)

86

And once again, the evangelicals are getting ready to put our balls in a meat grinder

Oh, you mean like they did with Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush?

Get a grip. We wouldn't have had those Presidents without the evangelical vote.

Huckabee might win in Iowa and like Techie said, he might parlay it into a V.P. spot.

Rudy's too liberal, Huckabee's too religious, Fred is boring, and Mitt is Mormon.

Which leaves us the only one who can beat Hillary anyway. McCain.

But then, you knew I would say that.  But I'm no longer the only one.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at December 05, 2007 02:15 PM (5gLS7)

87 Oops. "And if it's just an anti-abortion political plank..."

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 05, 2007 02:15 PM (Y0gTb)

88 Rocketeer, I don't want to see you disparaging ethinicities on this blog, if you aren't even going to mention the Scandis.  Also, frickin' Spudders.

Posted by: Sobek at December 05, 2007 02:17 PM (6GK9U)

89 It's always nice when we eat our own.  It's even nicer when I find out what my partners in the conservative block feel about me as an evangelical. 

Posted by: Education Guy at December 05, 2007 02:17 PM (TBf8o)

90 "Again, how did this even happen?"

If it happens, it'll be because you clowns were too cowardly to stand up for the only actual conservative in the race because the media told you you couldn't.

But it won't, so...

Posted by: someone at December 05, 2007 02:20 PM (2z2WN)

91

No because we are talking about the primaries not the general election. Social cons had more than Rudy to pick from in regard to fighting the WOT. 

I'm thinking along the lines of Pat Robertson.  Not because I think he influenced a great number of social cons, I don't, but because he may represent similar thinking...Pat had more than Rudy to pick from, but he didn't.

So, piqued by Huckabee's Evangelicalism, they select someone who is weak in so many other arenas that he sabotages the GOP and gets creamed when the entire nation votes.

Just to be clear, "they" answered a poll.  Doesn't require much thinking, evaluation, consideration and carries zero consequences.

Posted by: hit and run at December 05, 2007 02:20 PM (JlBSZ)

92

For the record, I think Huckabee's a retard.

But, like Rightwingsparkle said, we can't win without the social cons, so all this talk about "Let's jettison the evangelicals from the party!" isn't helping much. The GOP without social conservativism is the Libertarian party and they can't even squeak 5% in national elections.

Posted by: Beppo at December 05, 2007 02:21 PM (Ka5Jh)

93 Beppo, the Mexicans I can live with.  It's the Irish I hate.

We're not too found of you either, chum.

Posted by: Paddy O'Kick Yer Ass at December 05, 2007 02:26 PM (hlYel)

94 Which leaves us the only one who can beat Hillary anyway. McCain.

But guys like Dobson have already said no way to him, either.  Leaving Huckabee as the only alternative.

Posted by: Slublog at December 05, 2007 02:26 PM (R8+nJ)

95

I agree with whoever pointed out that Huckabee can't make it past Iowa.

Not, let's all be honest.  Whatever degree of certainty you are willing to ascribe to this view -- you would have been equally willing to ascribe to the view that "Huckabee will never catch Giuliani in a national poll" a month ago.

Yikes.

That said, I too agree with the statement.  But I have to admit, it's a prediction worth the price you paid for it.

Posted by: hit and run at December 05, 2007 02:28 PM (JlBSZ)

96 If someone could just give him an espresso, Fred should be the alternative.

Posted by: Matt at December 05, 2007 02:29 PM (ecpMe)

97

Short take - Oh fuck!

Slightly-longer take - Assuming the pollsters and presstutes are right, small-government conservatism, and the attendant fiscal conservatism, are both dead.  Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney all represent various faces of big-government Rockefellerism.  Giuliani's face is social liberalism with more than a dash of tax-hikeitis, Huckabee's face is faux-social-con nannyism with a bagful of tax-hikeitis, and Romney's face depends on the day; he's been all over the map.  The fact that they're the three front-runners, with the never-can-be-trusted McCain 4th and Ron Paul-Nut in the mix, tells me everything I need to know about today's "Republican" Party.

Given either a competent Democratic campaign or a semi-competent one combined with a highly-partisan press totally in the tank for the Dhimmis, we're well and truly fucked with any of those three on the ticket.  As a friend of mine would say, "Get the KY Jelly," because at a minimum, we're going to have that second item facing us.

Posted by: steveegg at December 05, 2007 02:30 PM (LvEFt)

98

all this talk about "Let's jettison the evangelicals from the party!" isn't helping much.

YOU KILLED THE SCARECROW! YOU BASTARD!

Posted by: Entropy at December 05, 2007 02:30 PM (m6c4H)

99

Dobson doesn't draw as much water as he thinks he does, Sub. Trust me on that.

As a person inside of the evangelical world, he writes some good theological stuff but that doesn't translate into votes.

Posted by: Rob B at December 05, 2007 02:37 PM (opyeT)

100 "It's always nice when we eat our own. It's even nicer when I find out what my partners in the conservative block feel about me as an evangelical." It's not that we hate evangelicals or whatever. It's that it drives us nuts that evangelicals seem to be willing to torpedo the Republican bid for the Presidency over abortion, which the President doesn't have a damn thing to do with. If social conservatives were mainly pissed off about immigration or the gun thing, there would be more of an argument. But we're throwing away a fiscal conservative with an uncompromising foreign policy agenda, and a conservative judicial philosophy, all because he won't make the proper obeisance to the pro-life wing of the party, and he doesn't have a "he's one of us" vibe. It's madness.

Posted by: Henry at December 05, 2007 02:42 PM (fwx/r)

101 hit and run: "Doesn't require much thinking, evaluation, consideration and carries zero consequences."

That's true and I hope that's [poll response] all it is. Funny thing about momentum, though. It can be hard to stop. If the poll is indeed valid (which I have my doubts but nevertheless), this throws a new dynamic into the electoral selection process and will cause other candidates to lose support/money/advocacy as brokers try to hedge their bets with the winning team. True believers will stay true, but financiers and political interests will dart in and out with abandon. Who's to say this significant, perhaps transitory but definitely significant, bump doesn't give Huckabee real traction?

Bill Clinton came out of nowhere (and Arkansas) too though not because of his evangelicalism. Since everything is so front-loaded now, early momentum is vital. Add the press nudging it too (and probably due to self-interest) and some pretty risky foundations get laid.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 05, 2007 02:42 PM (Y0gTb)

102

Matt: If someone could just give him an espresso, Fred should be the alternative.

Many may disagree, but I think the same thing that is propelling Huck has caused the Fred crater.

Campaigning is a fashion show.  Pretty clothing, tons of makeup, a big smile and a sultry strut can get you to the top*.  Never mind that underneath the pretty clothes you may be a rail-thin, emaciated on the verge-of-collapse physically and on-the-verge-of-one-synapse-firing mentally.

Fred, whom I will support in the primary, has a really, really lousy strut.

------

*Well, can get you to the top of polls, that's for sure.  Whether that ends up in votes cast is sometimes the case, but not always the case.  Thank God.

Posted by: hit and run at December 05, 2007 02:42 PM (jjNS6)

103 I think Huckabee is doing so well for 2 reasons:

1) He gives a voice to the religious right, who often feel as if they are ignored except when their votes are needed.
2) The others just seem more and more unpalatable the further this goes along.

I'm wary of hoping that he doesn't get the nod because he might not be as electable, because I look at what that gave the Democrats in '04.  That said, I'd rather see him as the VP.

Posted by: Education Guy at December 05, 2007 02:44 PM (TBf8o)

104

I'm thinking along the lines of Pat Robertson.  Not because I think he influenced a great number of social cons, I don't, but because he may represent similar thinking...Pat had more than Rudy to pick from, but he didn't.

I didn't mean to imply that Rudy had no social con support. I'm saying that he did not have significant social con support.  Unless every previous social con supporter went to Huckabee, I don't see how the poll numbers correlate properly. 

My expertise in this is based on the fact that I have stayed in a Holdiay Inn Express.

Posted by: polynikes at December 05, 2007 02:44 PM (m2CN7)

105 Henry

Why is the abortion issue less important than the gun or immigration issues?  If I recall correctly, Life comes before Liberty in the order of things.

Posted by: Education Guy at December 05, 2007 02:49 PM (TBf8o)

106

Republicans seem to have chosen their alternative and it's the guy who can't win.

Corrected for accuracy: The MSM is telling everyone that will listen that: "Republicans seem to have chosen their alternative and it's the guy who can't win."  And they and the Dems fervently hope all the rubes get the message that the decision has been made, and the Deciders have decided!

 

 

Posted by: sherlock at December 05, 2007 02:50 PM (ojW85)

107 "Corrected for accuracy: The MSM is telling everyone that will listen that: "Republicans seem to have chosen their alternative and it's the guy who can't win."  And they and the Dems fervently hope all the rubes get the message that the decision has been made, and the Deciders have decided!"

No kidding.

Posted by: someone at December 05, 2007 02:52 PM (2z2WN)

108

all this talk about "Let's jettison the evangelicals from the party!" isn't helping much.

YOU KILLED THE SCARECROW! YOU BASTARD!

True dat. Holy buckets, some people need to get a grip.

Huckabee has taken advantage of the fact that, to date, Republican primary voters have not been all that solid for any particular candidate. And that still remains the case. There's no reason to assume that his newfound followers are any more committed to him this week than they were to Giuliani and Romney last week.

All our candidates are still within spitting distance of each other, especially compared to the Democratic field which is a race between only Clinton and Obama. And that may be why we're seeing all the flipping out. Though December looks like a short month, there is plenty of time to shake things about.

As ever, the only polls that will really start to matter will be official primary and caucus votes.

[Back to studying.]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 05, 2007 02:52 PM (Tta7z)

109

My expertise in this is based on the fact that I have stayed in a Holdiay Inn Express.

Damn.  I literally and honestly stayed in one last new year's eve.  In Montgomery, AL.

It hasn't helped.  I'm still a moron.

Posted by: hit and run at December 05, 2007 02:58 PM (jjNS6)

110 So here's the deal.  I vote Republican because it represents of coalition of people who I am pretty closely in agreement with on most issues.  Granted, there are points of disagreement within this coalition, some of them major, but to me it's clear that they will far better represent my interests than anyone the Dems are offering up.

I'll be voting Republican in the general election, regardless of who the nominee is, Huck included.  Well, except perhaps Ron Paul.  I'm sorry, I don't think I can quite bring myself to do it.

I continue to see Fred Thompson as the man with the best positions on issues in the entire field.  That man has yet to say anything that I disagree with.  Even on abortion, an issue that can often be divisive within the party, his Federalism-based answer hits a note that any conservative would have a hard time disagreeing with.  I'm surprised each and every day that he isn't front-running among Republicans.

But more than that, I'm behind whoever gets the nomination.  Judges matter way too much for me not to adopt this strategy.

Posted by: Joe at December 05, 2007 02:59 PM (l4TRc)

111

Not a big deal.  Rasmussen's always been an outlier.

Posted by: TallDave at December 05, 2007 03:02 PM (r1Ip+)

112 I would pay good money to watch an honest debate between Fred Thompson and Hillary.

Posted by: Education Guy at December 05, 2007 03:04 PM (TBf8o)

113

"...you would have been equally willing to ascribe to the view that 'Huckabee will never catch Giuliani in a national poll' a month ago."

You got me there.

Posted by: Sobek at December 05, 2007 03:13 PM (6GK9U)

114

Good point, Gabriel.  I seem to remember hearing that something north of 60% (for some reason, 67% is stuck in my head) of Iowans say that they can still be swayed away from their candidate of the moment.  Last I checked, 67% is well over half, so support for any particular candidate is softer than Charmin.

We'll just have to see what starts shaking out January 3.

Posted by: steveegg at December 05, 2007 03:30 PM (LvEFt)

115 Without the rest of us "non-religious" cons the Pubs don't win either.

I've been reading on this and other RW blogs that Rudy is the devil, and the Religious Right won't vote for him no matter what. They've tried to convince us that Rudy would be no different than Hillary.  Without eating too much bandwith, I disagree. I am not committed to Rudy but I would have no problem voting for him should he be the nominee. For that, I've been called a liberal douche. Heh.

Now along comes this Huckabee guy, who REALLY is like Hillary on all the  major issues (taxes, spending, nanny-state-ism, illegal immigrants), but hey, he's pro-life, I'm supposed to shut up and vote for this guy? So solly, cholly.


Posted by: Dr. Remulak at December 05, 2007 03:38 PM (YmPwQ)

116

That post sure stirred the pot.  Only 11 months and a day to go.

Posted by: Eleven at December 05, 2007 03:50 PM (7DB+a)

117

Dr. Remulak,  welcome to the other side of the fence becaue I've been told via many that I'll just have to stomach my morals and accept that Rudy is the only option so shut up and vote.

Kinda blows, doesn't it? Of course, you don't believe that your staring eternal damnation in the eye if you cast a vote for the guy you don't like whereas I know that I'm shoved into that trap I have to gnaw my voting finger off. So at least you got that going for you, which is nice.

 

Posted by: Rob B at December 05, 2007 03:52 PM (opyeT)

118 You would be eternally damned for your vote?  Goddamn.  Literally.

Posted by: Eleven at December 05, 2007 04:06 PM (7DB+a)

119 Other than pure momentum, I've never understood why Iowa is so important.

Does anybody here think Iowa represents a fair representation of America?

I have friends who have lived in Iowa their entire lives and whenever I ask the same question they say the same thing.

I guess it does bring revenue into the state, but other than that it doesn't appear to make much difference when the actual election comes around...especially for the Democratic candidates.

Here are past winners:
John Kerry Al Gore
Bill ClintonRichard Gephardt Walter Mondale Jimmy Carter Edmund Muskie George W. BushGeorge W. BushBob Dole George H. W. Bush Ronald ReaganGerald Ford 

Posted by: Tom at December 05, 2007 04:20 PM (1kwK7)

120 Looks like we have a Mexican standoff.

I have wondered why you anti-Rudy folks would be willing to put a Dem in the White House to prove a point......now I know.  This Huckabee guy does nothing for me. I'd almost (but not quite) rather have the Dem, 'cause it really wouldn't matter.



But at least I won't call you a liberal douchebag.




Posted by: Dr. Remulak at December 05, 2007 04:23 PM (YmPwQ)

121 For the record, I would vote for Rudy.  I'm pretty sure on the list of things that God cares about, who I vote for in the election for US POTUS is not on the list.

Unless it's Hillary of course, in which case I would fully expect to be smited, old school style.

Posted by: Education Guy at December 05, 2007 04:28 PM (TBf8o)

122 Thompson's the obvious consensus candidate. He's also a good candidate, if you don't need a guy dancing around while he speaks.

Posted by: MlR at December 05, 2007 04:37 PM (mX6h5)

123 And for the people who sometimes can't grasp the obvious, *cough* ("Leaves Romney and gulp McCain as the consensus candidates.")

I don't mean Tommy Thompson.

Posted by: MlR at December 05, 2007 04:41 PM (mX6h5)

124 I don't mean Tommy Thompson.

Awww, shit.

Posted by: Tommy Thompson at December 05, 2007 05:40 PM (hlYel)

125 "Other than pure momentum, I've never understood why Iowa is so important."

Because of the caucus nature of the thing, it's a proxy for organizational prowess.

Posted by: someone at December 05, 2007 06:55 PM (2z2WN)

126 Too early to call leaders or alternates. There's about a full month before the first primary and look how much has changed in the last 30 days? Can't say its solidified yet, this is going to be a different presidential campaign than any previous ones.

And Iowa is only important because it is perceived to be so by the media and the candidates.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 05, 2007 07:12 PM (hfyfI)

127 ★莫道不消魂,帘卷西风,人比黄花瘦★
塑料托盘 =>厦门塑料托盘,塑料托盘制造商,宁波塑料托盘,天津塑料托盘,北京塑料托盘。
仓储笼 =>仓储笼报价,苏州仓储笼,仓储笼诺恒,无锡仓储笼,广州仓储笼。
仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂,北京仓储货架,苏州仓储货架,无锡仓储货架,广州仓储货架。
货架厂 =>佛山货架厂,天津货架厂,成都货架厂,常熟货架厂,服装货架厂。
超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸,超市货架效果图,杭州超市货架,超市货架摆放,广州超市货架。
专业从事组合式仓储货架、建材超市及仓储式超市货架设计、制造、安装、调试的企业, 是国内最大的货架制造商之一。公司已承接近千座仓储货架(http://merryrack.cn.ec21.com)工程的设计、制造和安装。 ★鼠标好比爱情箭,上网一点胡乱窜★
货架公司 =>无锡货架公司,杭州货架公司,苏州货架公司,超市货架公司,广州货架公司。
广州货架 =>广州货架厂,广州货架批发市场,广州货架公司,广州货架市场,广州货架制作。。
北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场,北京货架厂家,北京货架制作,北京货架价格,北京货架销售。
仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂,北京仓库货架,无锡仓库货架,深圳仓库货架,广州仓库货架。
南京货架 =>南京货架厂,南京货架网,南京货架公司,南京货架制造厂,南京货架价格。
塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞(塑料托盘)有限公司是国内专业从事(塑料托盘http://blog.hsw.cn/261491/viewspace-328795.html)集研发、生产、 销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内( 塑料托盘)制造业众多技术精英,所 ...

Posted by: 托盘 at August 04, 2008 10:09 PM (JlpeZ)

128 ★白天没水,晚上没电,发的工资只够买面★ 仓储笼 =>南京仓储笼,求购仓储笼,折叠式仓储笼,苏州仓储笼,无锡仓储笼。 仓储笼 =>仓储笼图片,仓储笼报价,常州仓储笼,麦瑞仓储笼,折叠仓储笼。 仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂,北京仓储货架,苏州仓储货架,无锡仓储货架,广州仓储货架。 货架厂 =>佛山货架厂,天津货架厂,成都货架厂,常熟货架厂,服装货架厂。 超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸,超市货架效果图,杭州超市货架,超市货架摆放,广州超市货架。 塑料托盘专业制造商—塑料托盘制造有限公司南京麦瑞欢迎您!南京麦瑞(塑料托盘 http://www.ewkej.com/suliaotuopan.htm)有限公司是国内最具影响的物流产品大型生产企业,主要生产的产品有塑料托盘,塑料卡板箱, ... ★打开邓选,找到答案:原来是社会主义初级阶段★ 货架公司 =>无锡货架公司,杭州货架公司,苏州货架公司,超市货架公司,广州货架公司。 广州货架 =>广州货架厂,广州货架批发市场,广州货架公司,广州货架市场,广州货架制作。。 北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场,北京货架厂家,北京货架制作,北京货架价格,北京货架销售。 仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂,北京仓库货架,无锡仓库货架,深圳仓库货架,广州仓库货架。 南京货架 =>南京货架厂,南京货架网,南京货架公司,南京货架制造厂,南京货架价格。 塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞(塑料托盘)有限公司是国内专业从事(塑料托盘 http://ybmerry.photo.hexun.com/1043873_section.html)集研发、生产、 销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内( 塑料托盘)制造业众多技术精英,所 ... ★再往后翻,我靠!还一百年不变★ 木托盘 =>木托盘标准,木托盘价格,塑木托盘,熏蒸木托盘,求购木托盘。 工具柜 =>工具柜价格,天钢工具柜,北京工具柜,安全工具柜,苏州工具柜。 工作台 =>超净工作台,防静电工作台,净化工作台,回转工作台,超净工作台价格。 工作桌 =>不锈钢工作桌,厦门工作桌,重型工作桌,电脑工作桌,防静电工作桌。 周转箱 =>塑料周转箱,防静电周转箱,周转箱英文,周转箱模具,中空板周转箱。 塑料托盘广告招租网热线:13805186030,塑料托盘在中国正处于高速增长期。目前,国内流通所需(塑料托盘http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/reader_4fd7a58a01000d54.html)每年约为8000万只,其中港口用2000万只(出口),总需求还会进一步 ...

Posted by: 货架 at September 08, 2008 04:14 AM (Gas2Y)

Posted by: ²È½Ð¾¯½÷ at January 30, 2009 10:35 AM (hXNNS)

130 Greeting. Sometimes love will pick you up by the short hairs.and jerk the heck out of you. Help me! Please help find sites for: Adt security system. I found only this - Adt home security inc occupation. In la palma, anaheim, get numbers, maps and directions and addresses for adt security. There are a lot of features here,adt security is one of the largest single providers of electronic security services to more than six million commercial, government and residential customers all over the north america, and it has been helping to protect homes for more than years. Thanks for the help :rolleyes:, Chaim from Romania.

Posted by: Chaim at July 17, 2009 07:01 PM (kZgnP)

131 Badly need your help. You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.
I am from Zaire and too bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Cool bags, journals and media on the go."

THX , Armen.

Posted by: Armen at July 19, 2009 07:08 PM (2r5gt)

132 Excuse me. I think people want their illusions and writers are mostly illusion. When you read their words, you read a flattened, incomplete version of the writer.
I am from Zaire and too poorly know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Adult dating dating resources dating tips adult dating tips male buy generic drugs online for cheapest prices on the web viagra, cialis."

THX , Zelig.

Posted by: Zelig at August 01, 2009 12:05 PM (UlRN/)

133 How are you. The movies are the only business where you can go out front and applaud yourself.
I am from France and also am speaking English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "However, this is precisely what credit counseling services do."

Best regards ;-), Clara.

Posted by: Clara at August 03, 2009 12:48 PM (luFNf)

Posted by: 货架 at August 18, 2009 03:21 AM (cHkrF)

Posted by: google排名 at August 18, 2009 09:10 PM (fEtAO)

Posted by: linksfromlondon at October 01, 2009 09:48 PM (SgUdh)

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 11:24 AM (9oMrs)

Posted by: NBA SHOES at October 24, 2009 05:51 PM (/6617)

Posted by: nike air max at October 26, 2009 01:07 PM (n7GXH)

Posted by: NIKE AIR MAX at October 27, 2009 02:08 PM (sS5lD)

Posted by: discount ugg boots at October 30, 2009 04:20 AM (mBGLP)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 30, 2009 06:52 AM (3iF2y)

Posted by: shoesshoe at November 03, 2009 09:42 PM (LHCCE)

Posted by: 钢丝绳 at November 09, 2009 02:36 AM (SIx8Q)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 14, 2009 05:22 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 03:15 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:04 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 01:12 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 05:44 AM (C/zDM)

150 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 19, 2009 09:29 AM (n0jE1)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.1435 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0851 seconds, 159 records returned.
Page size 135 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat