The following are a list of presidential candidates that were not mentioned in a previous post.
Tim Polenti, Governor, Minnesota
Until recently, Polenti had been, for the most part, a political unknown. He was accidently elected governor in 2002 when Jesse Ventura decided not to run for a second turn. He was barely reelected in 2006. He was on the short list for running mates for John McCain, but was passed over in favor of Sarah Palin. His strengths are the fact that he thinks for himself. He does not always tow the party line. He supported importing prescription drugs from Canada, which President Bush did not allow. In the past he has supported ethanol as an alternative fuel. His weakness is his electability. He's never exactly been "Landslide Tim." Just winning his home state will be an uphill battle. If he were to be elected vice-president first, he would be in a far better position to be president. Were he the nominee, I would definitely vote for him.
Rick Perry, Governor, Texas
Perry because governor of Texas in 2001. He replaced George W. Bush who resigned to become president. The democrats desperately tried to unseat him in 2002, but they failed. He was reelected in 2006. Perry carries a lot of baggage. He was Bush's protege. Democrats will accuse him trying to bring back the Bush years. He is a bit of a pragmatist. In 2006 he ran on a platform against illegal immigration. Once he got elected, he backtracked. He supports mandatory inoculation against sexually transmitted cervical cancer. At a tea party, he said that while Texas is not ready to succeed from the Union it may become necessary one day. He is not my first choice for president. Were he the nominee, I would probably vote for him, but I hope I don't have to.
David Portais, Commander, Central Command
General Portais has been suggested as a potential presidential candidate. He is considered by many the man who turned things around in Iraq. Before taking over at central command, he commanded the forces in Iraq. He was in charge of organizing the troop surge. He could run on a platform of national defense. America has had a long history of electing war heroes as president. Usually, generals do get elected president, but not always. General Westmoreland, who commanded troops in Vietnam failed to get the nomination in 1968. Portrais was a commander in Iraq, and unpopular war. He made prove to be a better vice-presidential candidate at this point. A concern I have is that I don't know any of his stand on social or fiscal issues. All we know is about his war record. I would be interested in a Portrais run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's Pawlenty, not Polenti. A little bit of research would have revealed this. Geez.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's Pawlenty and Petraeus. Amazingly you spelled Perry correctly! Honestly Dan, you look like an idiot when you misspell names that can be easily looked up on Google.
ReplyDeleteIf you think Tim Pawlenty was accidentally elected Governor of Minnesota you're nuts. Ventura wasn't popular by the end of his term, he wasn't going to be re-elected. It would be nice if you actually knew a little something about politics before you spout off about candidates and local elections.
Dan Dan Dan......pay attention! It is very hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell the candidates name(s) correctly. How can a person be accidently elected? More and more you're sounding like an idiot.
ReplyDeleteInstead of ignoring the comments left on your blog it would be helpful if you would/could respond with your thoughts on what people are asking/saying. Try having an intelligent discussion instead of leaping from one uninformed topic to another. Think of this forum as practice for when you actually do have a congregation. People aren't just going to listen and agree with what you have to say automatically, you're going to have to be able to back up what you write or talk about. People are going to question you and your authority, it's natural, it's what intelligent people do. You don't want a flock of sheep to herd, do you Dan? Step up to this puplit and at least attempt to finish a discussion before moving forward.
Polenta(i):Polenta is a dish made from boiled cornmeal.
ReplyDeletePawlenty: The governor of Minnesota.
Please stop confusing cornmeal mush with governors. How are you ever going to lead a congregation when you lack basic spelling knowledge? Thank God for Walmart.
Also, Dan, consider changing your browser to Firefox...it has built-in spellcheck.
ReplyDeleteDan's spelling mistakes are actually Emily's spelling mistakes. Dan has admitted that he dictates his blog posts to Emily, who types them. Apparently, in addition to his lack of creativity and logical thinking ability, Dan also lacks basic computer and typing skills. I'm afraid that Dan's (future) congregation will be reading a lot of Emily's spelling errors.
ReplyDeleteI agree Dona, it would nice if Dan responded to some of the criticism. If he actually becomes a pastor, he's going to have to get used to answering questions and critiques of his sermons. In fact, both he and Emily will have to get used to graciously dealing with those who disagree with them. From my experience in the church, the pastor and his wife are usually the focal point for gossip and criticism. A good pastor and wife stay above the fray and deal with it graciously. I see no evidence of staying above the fray or grace from Emily. The jury is still out on Dan.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that bites me is that according to the other blog, their child was in a coma last week. I guess I was really hoping that there would be something insightful on that experience in the blog. Some words on how those events intersect with faith. Something like what I would want from a pastor if I were going through that myself. Or some insight into how his role as spiritual leader in his family helped them get through such a frightening experience.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's just nothing. At least Emily wrote something about it.
i may adress the sitution with little dan at some point. my blog is ment to be more isue oriented. what do you want me to coment on?
ReplyDeletein the first election acoding to wikipeida pawlanty won by 44.4 percent to dem rojer moe who won 37.2 percent in 2003. hardly lanside tim. in 2006, he won 46.7 to democrat mike hacth who got 45.7. he won close races both times.
ReplyDeletePawlenty is about as mushy as polenti.
ReplyDeleteThis Minnesota resident fears for the U.S. and the world if he becomes president.
Dan - do you spell things incorrectly on purpose?
What? Dan, how on earth does that prove Pawlenty's election was accidental? I don't think anyone would argue that he was a "landslide Tim," as you like to put it, but saying someone was accidentally elected sounds like a made-for-TV movie where a candidate does not know he is running for office. "Elected by a small margin" would have been a more apt--and intelligent-sounding--description.
ReplyDeleteno i dont spell incorectly on perpouse. i wish i did.
ReplyDeletei like how you put it better then what i said. it was apoor use of the phrase.
ReplyDeleteDan have you considered taking a English Comp class? Most colleges have a ENG 121 that is a beginning class and honestly it would help with your spelling/writing and also teach you how to articulate your words.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteIt must be very difficult to be in college with the challenges you have with spelling. Do your professors understand? Do they mark your work and tests down because of the spelling and grammar errors?
Dan, you asked what we would like you to comment on. For starters, I'd really like you to explain how you reconcile your conservative Christian beliefs with the worldview presented in "Star Trek". Thanks.
ReplyDeleteEven spell check isn't going to correct the gaffe of Texas SUCCEEDING from the US. It's "secede." Like the South did to the North to initiate the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteYou should also look up "pragmatic" before condemnimg Perry. In fact, it's about the only thing I have in common with your desciption of the guy. However, I disagree that he's pragmatic; he's a zealot. Pragmatic leaders don't show up at fringe political rallies mentioning secession. Such meetings are made for another possible candidate with the same alliteritive pattern used here: Mrs. Palin would rule over the tea party world. She has her mouthpiece at Fox now, but she's laying low until 2016, waiting for the Levi/Bristol/thought about abortion/baby out of wedlock stuff dies away. And Levi dies mysteriously. That woman is as vengeful as they come. And no, I;m not jealous. Palin took no prisoners to get where she is and in so doing has made enough enemies in her tradtionally dark red state to elect a Democratic senator.
I hope she runs in 2016. Fifty two and with a facelift. Will she still hold the interest of fundies who have admitted she's "hot" when she loses her looks and you actually have to focus on the blather coming out of her mouth?
I say this only b/c the Fox gig could just be another quickie cash grab to put coin in her coffers for 2012. The way things are going, with the Cosmo nude model voted in as MA's new senator as the crucial vote that kills health care, etc. there will be grildock, although the Dems still hold simple majorities in both houses of congress. The Republicans aren't willing to talk or deal; they just want to whine and bitch on FOX and hope it gains traction with Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and all those other barely literate windbags who spew hate all over the airwaves that equally stupid people believe as gospel.
My Repubican friends know the above-mentioned are idiots and disregard them; that is my wish for the rest of the Repubicans. Democrats have no such propaganda machine in their arsenal and that's why Pubs are so successful knocking off the Dems in short order most of the time at the state and national level.
i dictate my paers who emily who types them word for word and she does not edit them. i think my exams do get duducted for speling at times.
ReplyDeletei probibly wil do a post on christianity and star trek. it is a fasinating dissusion. there are alot of points to it.
ReplyDeletei dont like palin much. i enjoy listeing to rush and hanity but are not coolaid drinkers. i am a registered republican but do not vote sraght tiket. i am a conservative before i am a republican. i perfer micheal savege to rush and hanity.
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton won the 1992 election with 43% of the vote. Would you say he accidently became President? Low victory numbers almost always indicate the existance of third party candidates that are popular enough to make a dent in the major party vote totals. Anyone who knows the first thing about elections could have told you that.
ReplyDeleteDan... What exactly don't you like about Sarah Palin?
ReplyDeleteSpell check is your friend, just like the oven is Emilys friend. PLUS it doesn't cost a penny! :-}
she is quick to jump on bandwagons like miss claifonia. she likes cach phrases and fads. her policies are similar to rush. i liked her at frist but i gre wery of her. i would viote for her if she were the gop nomine though.
ReplyDeleteDan.....Do you know how to use spell check? Do you know what function spell check offers?
ReplyDeleteOR is this some kind of a joke you're playing with all these misspelled words? Or are you just to lazy to care? I'm confused. Please help.
there is no spell check on coments.
ReplyDeleteDan, switch your browser from Internet Explorer or whatever you are using to Firefox. It has built in spellcheck for everything, including comments.
ReplyDeleteI know sometimes spell check doesn't work automatically in Blogger comments (I use Firefox). You can get around it by clicking "preview" and then going back to "edit." Any misspellings should show up that way.
ReplyDeleteDan, if you're using Internet Explorer, you can download iespell for free. I use it all the time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iespell.com/
I'm just curious if some of you regular commenters and VERY harsh critics know Dan and Emily personally...
ReplyDeleteYou must know them very well, otherwise I can't imagine why you would presume to say some of the things you say. For instance, your critiques of Emily and Dan's relationship on some of these posts are totally inappropriate coming from people who are not intimately acquainted with the workings of their marriage. And, even if you are privy to that information, this is certainly not the venue to discuss or criticize it.
I completely support responding to and critiquing the ISSUES and ARGUMENTS addressed in a blog post (in a civil manner, of course), but attacking the man behind them and his family? That's just downright nasty.
I don't know either of them personally, nor am I a supporter of all their opinions and actions, but I was truly shocked at some of the things said in these comments. I can't imagine what it would be like to have that kind of vitriol directed at me. I can only guess it would be very disheartening.
Please consider dropping some of the condescension and adopting a kinder tone. Dan is a fellow human being, after all.
And, Dan, I do admire you for keeping a calm and polite tone in all your responses. Well done. I'm not sure I would be able to do the same.
it is not always eseey. i dont mind different viewpoints. some get a bit nasty at times. i only wish people would keep on topic.
ReplyDelete