Iowa Caucuses '08 [Archive] - Page 2

Pages : 1 [2]

Louis VI the Fat

12-30-2007, 01:47

Hillary Clinton? No, not reasonable. I concede her sturdy mind, deep sophistication, and seriousness of intent. I see her as a triangulator like her husband, not a radical but a maneuverer in the direction of a vague, half-forgotten but always remembered, leftism. It is also true that she has a command-and-control mentality, an urgent, insistent and grating sense of destiny, and she appears to believe that any act that benefits Clintons is a virtuous act, because Clintons are good and deserve to be benefited.

But this is not, actually, my central problem with her candidacy. My central problem is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial--crucial--that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself. What's with this nonsense all of the time? Noonan explains, more or less, the precise reasons why Hillary would be a great president. 'Sturdy mind, deep sophistication, seriousness of intent' - you betcha. :yes:

Then, she goes on to explain that, nonetheless, Hillary can't ever be president. And why for? For no other reason that she is mistrusted. Why is she mistrusted? Nobody cares, she simply is, period, end of story.

Really, of all of the character assassinations in all of Washington's depraved political history, the one on Hillary must be the lowest, the cheapest, the simplests, and one least based on any serious evaluation of a candidate's quality. :no:

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2007, 04:24

What's with this nonsense all of the time? Noonan explains, more or less, the precise reasons why Hillary would be a great president. 'Sturdy mind, deep sophistication, seriousness of intent' - you betcha. :yes:

Then, she goes on to explain that, nonetheless, Hillary can't ever be president. And why for? For no other reason that she is mistrusted. Why is she mistrusted? Nobody cares, she simply is, period, end of story.

Really, of all of the character assassinations in all of Washington's depraved political history, the one on Hillary must be the lowest, the cheapest, the simplests, and one least based on any serious evaluation of a candidate's quality. :no:

Bienvenu a le mode Americain pour Les politiques. :devilish:

Lemur

12-30-2007, 05:59

Dear lord, it looks as though one of the candidates is actually sane (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/thompson-not-pa.html). Get that man off the stage immediately! Only power-hungry megalomaniacs need apply for this job posting!

Fred Thompson said Saturday he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he "will not be devastated" if he doesn't win the election.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country.

"I don't know if you have a desire to be president," Burlington attorney Todd Chelf told Thompson during a question and answer session raising an issue that has dogged his campaign.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson responded. "I'm offering myself up."

Xiahou

12-30-2007, 09:28

Banquo's Ghost

12-30-2007, 12:45

I found this quite a compelling article on the race (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3108140.ece), and the choices facing America.

It chimes with my own perception, but I would be interested in our American orgahs' views, of course.

America has a clear-cut choice: the candidates of hope or fear

Andrew Sullivan

In the chaotic, colourful, cathartic American primary campaign of the past few months, it has in the end come down to a clarifying choice.

In a completely open field – with no incumbent president or vice-president running and both Republicans and Democrats casting about in a newly fluid ideological world – two fundamental emotions have bubbled to the surface. In the final few days before the first critical contest in Iowa, the race is between hope and fear.

The reasons for fear are obvious. America is still adjusting to the impact of 9/11 and the gruelling wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The country is also experiencing a wave of immigration – much of it illegal and uncontrollable – greater than anything since the beginning of the last century.

In the past few years, what were once heartland certainties have been shattered: America is immune from direct military attack; America’s public culture is overwhelmingly Christian; America does not torture prisoners; if the worst happens – a hurricane like Katrina – the federal government comes to the rescue. All these bedrock assumptions have been called into question. These are unnerving, unmoored times and the candidates who have based their campaigns on fear – and their ability to assuage and reassure – have propelled themselves to prominence.

Among the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani banked everything on his response to 9/11. Fear of Al-Qaeda resonated through every speech. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto might be seen as a boon to his campaign. But in the end, Giuliani’s utterly unnuanced commitment to fighting back any time, anywhere, did not reassure. It alarmed. His mercurial temperament, fiery egotism and willingness to make enemies of everyone have become liabilities. He has fallen consistently in the polls for the entire year.

Mitt Romney, at the start, pitched himself as an inveterate optimist. Alas, his set speeches often came off as robotic invocations of themes lifted from the 1980s. And so his pitch soon reverted to fear – especially of illegal immigrants, where he taunted even Giuliani for being soft on “illegals”. For evangelicals, suspicious of his Mormonism, he relied on another set of fears. He promised to fight to make abortion illegal and ban rights for gay couples in the constitution itself.

Mike Huckabee, Romney’s chief rival in Iowa this coming Thursday, has tried another tack. His credibility as a candidate came from his being the only real true-believing fundamentalist in the field. In a Republican party remade by George Bush and Karl Rove as a religious movement, he was “one of us”. His good humour and ready wit struck many as a strange confluence of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

However, it was his economic message that appealed to working-class Republicans. In a world where globalisation unsettles many, Huckabee is the first Republican candidate in a long time to attack unabashedly free trade and unfettered market capitalism. Railing against Wall Street, he deftly exploited populist themes that had special power in states like Iowa. But, in the end, fear also undid him. In a dangerous world, his total cluelessness in foreign policy remains a huge liability. In the wake of chaos in Pakistan he looks like a risky bet.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards shifted his uplifting message of the 2004 election into a populist screed against the moneyed and powerful. Declaring the tax system to be rigged for the wealthy, the healthcare system cruelly indifferent to working Americans and Washington controlled by corrupt, wealthy lobbyists, he insisted that he alone was able to fight the forces arrayed against the little guy. Using the skills he finessed as a trial lawyer, and focusing almost manically on Iowa, he enters this week with surprising strength. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has been able to consign him to the asterisk status that many expected. Most polls still show the race as a tight three-way tie.

No one has exploited the politics of fear as intuitively as Clinton. Her deepest fear has long been of Republicans. She believes deep down that they command a majority and has long practised a politics that seeks first to neutralise the enemy before attempting anything positive herself. This is the scar tissue of the Reagan and Newt Gingrich eras – with the biggest wounds her 1993 healthcare debacle and the impeachment nightmare of her husband’s second term. Her biggest appeal to her party is that she can withstand the attacks from the right. And as long as they fear the Rove Republicans more than they believe in themselves, she wins.

In the battle with her fellow Democrats, she also resorts to fear of the unknown. When Obama’s poll numbers equalled hers in Iowa and New Hampshire, her surrogates unleashed a torrent of negative attacks: the Republicans will eat the young Obama for breakfast; they will smear him as a former cocaine user, as a Muslim, as black.

The candidate herself, bereft of any serious policy differences with Obama, made her final pitch that she has the experience that Obama lacks. For those afraid of risk in a world at war, she is a surer bet than the young dreamer from Illinois. And if all else fails, Bill Clinton will be there – an insurance policy for the jittery.

This leaves one viable candidate on either side. They are the least afraid and the most hopeful. They are Obama and John McCain, the Republican senator and Vietnam war hero. Yes, McCain’s experience has emerged as a great strength in an unstable world. But what remains impressive about his candidacy is that he has taken positions that are more forward-looking than many of his younger rivals.

McCain is the only Republican eager to address climate change. Faced with a Republican base furious about illegal immigration, he stuck to his view that illegal immigrants needed to be assimilated and even defended a bill that he authored with Ted Kennedy, the Democrat senator, to achieve this. He also bravely said that America does not need to torture prisoners and that the war in Iraq can be won. As the candidate of honour, he also became a candidate of hope – especially in Iraq. He has seen his numbers surge recently in New Hampshire and, if he can prevent Romney getting momentum, he still has a chance to pull it off.

Obama, of course, based his entire candidacy on the title of his campaign book, The Audacity of Hope. The fearful have every reason to look elsewhere. If you do not believe that a black man can be president; if you do not believe that America can risk talking to Iran’s leadership or withdrawing from Iraq without losing the wider war; if you think it’s naive to hope that the polarising culture war of the past 40 years can ever end; if you doubt that a man with a name like Obama who once attended a secular madrasah in Indonesia can ever win a majority of US votes, you really should vote for Clinton.

Obama knows this and directly confronts it. In the final days his appeal is disarmingly simple. “The question is, do you believe in change?” he asks. “The question is, do you believe deep in your gut we can do better than we’re doing?”

There are real and powerful reasons to fear right now. It is not crazy to want the reassurance of a former president back in the White House; it is not mysterious that retrenchment is a powerful sentiment in a world of terror and globalisation and mass immigration. Americans have to make a gut decision – whether Republican or Democrat. Should they take a risk or stick to what they know? Should they dare to be optimists or rely on the pessimism that these past few years has been a good guide to a darkening world?

After following this race for an almost interminable preamble, all I can say is that I can’t imagine a more constructive race than one between Obama and McCain. The odds are still against it. But it is more imaginable now than at any time in the past year.

And it reminds me of something. In Tel Aviv, a while back, a slogan began appearing on walls in graffiti. In the depths of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as optimism seemed like a delusion, it spread the way memes do. It’s a simple slogan and, as this new year beckons, worth holding on to, as a few Americans in a wintry state decide in which direction to take their country.

Know hope.

KukriKhan

12-30-2007, 16:34

Know hope

Sure beats the heck out of:

No hope

Which is what will come of a Giuliani v Clinton contest next year, in my humble opinion.

I may read my countrymen wrong; I have before. But I think we don't "do" gloom-and-doom very well, or for very long. We're overdue for some measured, realistic optimism.

On a side note: I still wonder who each candidate likes for VP, DoD, SecState, and so on. Those choices would tell me more about where we're going 2008-2012 (according to them) than anything coming over the TV today.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2007, 18:34

....I may read my countrymen wrong; I have before. But I think we don't "do" gloom-and-doom very well, or for very long. We're overdue for some measured, realistic optimism.

Agreed.

On a side note: I still wonder who each candidate likes for VP, DoD, SecState, and so on. Those choices would tell me more about where we're going 2008-2012 (according to them) than anything coming over the TV today.

Of course such choices would. Which is precisely why you'll never get such choices published by anyone in the first tier. If you can actually evaluate their leadership team and the likely qualities of their administration, you might not like them. Since nobody will refuse to vote based on the failure to promulgate this information, there is ZERO incentive for a major candidate to risk losing votes for little or no potential gain. The pig-in-a-poke approach to potential admin figures will continue unabated.

Edit:

Actually, that's one point of comparison where the Brit system is a notch better. The "shadow government" concept gives you a fair idea of who'll replace the current cadre if you vote for change and gives you some indication of whether the new PM will be surrounded by loons or not. No guarantees of course, but....

ICantSpellDawg

12-30-2007, 21:48

Mitt Romney, at the start, pitched himself as an inveterate optimist. Alas, his set speeches often came off as robotic invocations of themes lifted from the 1980s. And so his pitch soon reverted to fear – especially of illegal immigrants, where he taunted even Giuliani for being soft on “illegals”. For evangelicals, suspicious of his Mormonism, he relied on another set of fears. He promised to fight to make abortion illegal and ban rights for gay couples in the constitution itself.

[/SPOIL]
Romney never "vowed to make abortion illegal". He said that he would like to see that one day, but that we arn't ready yet. What he DID say is that he wanted to help overturn Roe v Wade. VERY different things. It is hilarious that somebody comes along and says they want to repeal a bad and undemocratic law and they are accused of trying to enact a bad and undemocratic law as the defense.

Also, I don't believe that he dropped the optimism at all.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2007, 21:55

.Romney never "vowed to make abortion illegal". He said that he would like to see that one day, but that we arn't ready yet. What he DID say is that he wanted to help overturn Roe v Wade. VERY different things....

To anyone schooled in the Constitution. To the bulk of the "madding crowd" however, Roe v. Wade IS the legality for abortion. This simplistic interpretation is abetted by much of the media, since the straightforward "he would ban abortions" is far easier to package into soundbites and also enhances the sense of "conflict" central to media reportage than is "overturning roe v wade would not ban abortions, but would return the decision to the individual states, a number of which had legal abortion even before the landmark court decision."

ICantSpellDawg

12-31-2007, 04:09

To anyone schooled in the Constitution. To the bulk of the "madding crowd" however, Roe v. Wade IS the legality for abortion. This simplistic interpretation is abetted by much of the media, since the straightforward "he would ban abortions" is far easier to package into soundbites and also enhances the sense of "conflict" central to media reportage than is "overturning roe v wade would not ban abortions, but would return the decision to the individual states, a number of which had legal abortion even before the landmark court decision."

Right. Overturning the decision would return the opinion to the states in the short term and the U.S. Congress in the long term if a federal law was required.

Xiahou

12-31-2007, 10:09

Romney never "vowed to make abortion illegal".
One of the many inaccuracies in the article. To me at least, the author seems more wrapped up in emotion than factuality.

We're overdue for some measured, realistic optimism. -Bolded for emphasis.
I hear both Hillary and Obama both trying to shout over each other "If you want someone who can bring real change, vote for me." or "I'm the candidate of change.". The part that I apparently keep missing is the part where they talk about what actual changes they plan to make. I'm sick of hearing about "change"- it's a platitude. Let's get to some specifics please.

CountArach

12-31-2007, 11:48

I hear both Hillary and Obama both trying to shout over each other "If you want someone who can bring real change, vote for me." or "I'm the candidate of change.". The part that I apparently keep missing is the part where they talk about what actual changes they plan to make. I'm sick of hearing about "change"- it's a platitude. Let's get to some specifics please.
Welcome to new politics. It is all about image. Policies no longer matter, it is the theory that "I am the candidate of XXXXX" that matters.

Banquo's Ghost

12-31-2007, 13:00

Here's another opinion piece (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/bruce_anderson/article3295872.ece), from a more right of centre European. Warning: also contains emotion. :wink3:

Not of course, that our views count over here, but we do have to live with your choice, so we're quite interested. :beam:

Bruce Anderson: My prediction in the race for the White House... Romney will beat Clinton to the presidency

Hillary was always cold, egotistical and ruthless, but her good qualities have receded with age

Published: 31 December 2007

If felons had set out with malice aforethought to outrage the sensitivities and violate the fastidiousness of Old Europe, they would only have needed to devise the US Electoral system. It does seem to express the grossest aspects of the American character. The noisiest, the biggest, the longest: Barnum and Bailey compete with Cecil B De Mille for the votes of George F Babbitt, at vast expense. Over the next few months, the Presidential candidates will expend the GDP of several poor countries, often in absurd circumstances.

In early January, on a mild day, the temperature in New Hampshire could rise to single figures, Fahrenheit. This is a time of year for a well-stocked woodshed, ditto a larder and wine cellar, so that the wildness of nature can be observed from the drawing-room window, and journeying restricted to a minimum. Every news broadcast reinforces that message: "Only drive if you absolutely must". Well, several presidential candidates absolutely must, for they have a primary to win. They will arrive late, in snowy vehicles, trying unavailingly to keep pace with the schedules devised by aides in a centrally-heated Washington office, to address a few handfuls of locals in one of the most winter-bound, smallest and untypical states of the Union. "Retail politics" was how George Bush described it in 2000, while he was failing to win the primary. Any retailer who ran his business on those lines would have long since gone out of business.

Yet there is a crucial point about this presidential campaign. It is going to be fun. How could it be otherwise when the New Hampshire weather is the sole area of certainty? Not since 1968 has a presidential election been so beset by unpredictability. There is only one obvious conclusion: this contest is the Democrats' to lose. With a shaky economy, a controversial war, an uncertain nation and a widespread time-for-a-change mood, the Democrats could not be stopped if they had a decent candidate. That, however, they lack. Instead, they have Hillary Clinton.

Mrs Clinton is a polarising politician. A lot of Americans do not merely distrust and dislike her. They hate her. No serious presidential candidate has ever had so many negatives. This explains the Barack Obama phenomenon. Mr Obama is a promising youngster. He is likely to be a prominent figure for many years to come. But he is only a novice. Comparisons have been made with President Kennedy who – like young Obama – had only been a Senator for six years before running for the Presidency. This will not work. As a Senator, JFK had won golden opinions for his efforts as a legislator. He took the Senate seriously. It returned the compliment. By 1960. his record of achievement was vastly more substantial than Barack Obama's is now.

Even so, a number of senior Democrats became Obama supporters, for one reason. They cannot bear the thought of losing: another eight-year Republican presidency. If we do not win in 2008, they ask themselves, when will we ever win? It is easy to understand their anxiety. Bill Clinton can produce charm in industrial quantities: almost enough to conceal his faults of character. Hillary is charmless. She was always cold, egotistical and ruthless, but her good qualities have receded with age, and with marriage. When a feminist is harnessed to a philanderer, we should not expect a well-tempered feminist. The end product is a stainless-steel Dresden dominatrix, a blend of ice and ambition, a woman whose hunger for office and power makes Gordon Brown seem like Cincinnatus.

She is also a woman who has learned to walk warily. When she used to express political views, they were well to the left of the American mainstream. Over the past few years, she has exercised an iron self-control in order to create an electable political identity. Tony Blair did something similar, but there is a difference. He never lost his humanity. It is not clear whether she had much to lose.

As it still seems likely that she will win the nomination, this gives the Republicans hope. At present, that is all they have. They, too, lack a formidable front-running candidate. Although Rudy Giuliani has been leading in most polls, he has problems. On social and sexual questions, he cannot be accused of hypocrisy: his liberal views reflect a complicated private life. But he offers better grounds for mistrust. Despite the qualities that he appeared to display after 11 September, this is not a big man. At the core of his personality, there is a rat-like meanness. This is someone whom Hillary Clinton could beat.

There are alternatives. Over the past few months John McCain has been regularly written off, and as regularly bounced back. He is an impressive figure, but also a troubled one. Only a hero could have survived five-and-a-half years of imprisonment, abuse and torture in North Vietnam. A ghastly experience. Magnificently surmounted, it has also left a malign legacy. Those who work closely with him testify to faults of judgement and bursts of uncontrollable anger. It is not clear that he has a temperament to be president.

That could never be said of Fred Thompson, who was for a time the US Conservative movement's favourite. Mr Thompson is tall, craggy and calm: far too calm. Before Fred ran, his friends would say that he was too indolent to be a strong candidate. In order to go through that impossibly demanding process your soul has to be suffused with hunger for the presidency. Fred Thompson is too well-balanced for that. At present, he is faltering. Unless his campaign lifts off within weeks rather than months, he will be out of the race, which would be a pity.

Some of his support has gone to Mike Huckabee, a man with an unlikely pedigree. Like Bill Clinton, he is a former Governor of Arkansas. Post-Clinton, this should have been a disqualification for higher office. From the gubernatorial mansion at Little Rock, there would be only one career move: to become a purveyor of trailer trash for the Sheikh of Araby. Mr Huckabee could never be accused of trailer-trash vice. He is a plausible and likeable populist. But he is woefully devoid of the experience necessary to be President of the United States.

That leaves Mitt Romney. Mr Romney has two weaknesses. He sometimes changes his views and he is a Mormon (one is tempted to spell that word without the second "m"). But Mr Romney is able, likeable and a good speaker, with a sound administrative record. The Christian right distrust his Mormonism, but not as much as it distrusts every molecule in Hillary Clinton's being. At present, Mr Romney seems the obvious answer.

So I will make a foolish prediction. In November, Mitt Romney will defeat Hillary Clinton for the Presidency, though there will, alas, be consolation for the Democrats. They will gain seats in both Houses of Congress. It will be interesting to see how much – if any – of that proves right. Happy New Year.

Lemur

12-31-2007, 17:56

ICantSpellDawg

12-31-2007, 18:07

George F. Will, who is probably now classified as a liberal by our "conservative" Orgahs, has a good piece on Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/obama_transcents_racial_confin.html).

In other news, very happy about McCain's last-minute surge in NH. If Huckabee takes Iowa, and McCain takes NH, it just could be the man's year.

P.S.: Xiahou, just curious: you're all-Republican all the time. Why do you care about what Hil and Obama say in the primaries, especially seeing as you will never vote in a Democratic primary? Do you really care for any reason other than wanting to gather ammo to use against the hated opposition?

One of the two may become president. I am fundamentally concerned with my enemies who may come into power. Plus, I would be in decent spirits if Obama won the presidency because I don't believe that he is fueled by a hatred for the right. Hillary would alienate half of the country.

ICantSpellDawg

12-31-2007, 18:09

George F. Will, who is probably now classified as a liberal by our "conservative" Orgahs, has a good piece on Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/obama_transcents_racial_confin.html).

In other news, very happy about McCain's last-minute surge in NH. If Huckabee takes Iowa, and McCain takes NH, it just could be the man's year.

P.S.: Xiahou, just curious: you're all-Republican all the time. Why do you care about what Hil and Obama say in the primaries, especially seeing as you will never vote in a Democratic primary? Do you really care for any reason other than wanting to gather ammo to use against the hated opposition?

Polls are now pointing to Romney in Iowa (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html) and Romney in New Hampshire (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html) as well. I hope he can keep it up for a few more days and take the cake before any last minute surges make it a crap shoot.

Lemur

12-31-2007, 18:11

I am fundamentally concerned with my enemies who may come into power.
I'm really, seriously hoping you did not mean to use the word "enemies." As an American, Al Qaeda is my enemy. People who want to destroy my nation are my enemy. People standing for political office with whom I disagree are not my enemy. If they become the enemy, there's something seriously wrong with my brain.

DukeofSerbia

12-31-2007, 18:47

USA is going towards complete economical collapse or hyperinflation + depression. The second is currently on track. I see that only Ron Paul understands what the problem in US economy is and how to solve it.

My advice is buy gold and/or silver as you much. $ worth less and less...

ICantSpellDawg

12-31-2007, 18:53

I'm really, seriously hoping you did not mean to use the word "enemies." As an American, Al Qaeda is my enemy. People who want to destroy my nation are my enemy. People standing for political office with whom I disagree are not my enemy. If they become the enemy, there's something seriously wrong with my brain.

Enemy - One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.

What do you mean? They oppose my interests almost across the board. "As an American" I realize that cancer can be more dangerous than a murderer. At the same time It is in our interest to fight the murderer first when he is at the gates. It would be in cancer's interest too, because it wouldn't have anyone to turn into a cancerous growth if the host was dead. (bad analogy)

When I was young, my family was VERY politically active in the anti-abortion movement. My mother was once arrested and her friends were beaten by police in Texas for picketing outside an abortion clinic.We would stand on the side lines of pro abortion marches and people would just yell vicious things that seemed so cruel to the anti-abortion people. Our marches were never like that. If you look at abortion as murder like I do, It is hard to see those who stand by the widespread murder of their own innocent children as allies. Those who would oppose even a legislative voice to the issue as "Fascist" are no friends of mine.

Living in New York, people will shout you down for a slight deviation from the democratic party platform unless that deviation is a one step further.

I try to be optimistic about the situation, but the truth is that our country is in serious trouble. One polarizing leader (Bush) followed by another (Clinton) is not a good pattern to fall into. At least Obama pays lip service to things that I believe are true and right (in his speeches and writings - but not in his record)

Lemur

12-31-2007, 19:19

What do you mean? They oppose my interests almost across the board. "As an American" I realize that cancer can be more dangerous than a murderer. At the same time It is in our interest to fight the murderer first when he is at the gates. It would be in cancer's interest too, because it wouldn't have anyone to turn into a cancerous growth if the host was dead. (bad analogy)
I think that's an unhealthy perspective. If you've gotten to the place where the opposition party equates easily to cancer, then it's possible you've succumbed to the tribalism that you dislike in your opponents. You've gazed too long into the abyss, met the enemy and he is us, etc.

Look, I absolutely loathe what the religious right stands for, but I don't view them in the same continuum as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. And I don't see Republicans or Democrats as having a lock on any particular virtues, truths or solutions. Both are stuffed with career politicians who would sell their own mothers if it meant an unchallenged seat in Congress.

Turn away from the dark side of the force. Partisan hatred benefits the chattering classes and nobody else.

TevashSzat

12-31-2007, 19:51

Hmm....I'm a pretty staunch atheist so that means that its no Republicans for me since im Pro-choice, Pro gun control, Pro stem cell research

Guliani: Hate the guy mainly because like some candidate has said his sentences always contain 3 words: a noun, a verb, and 9/11

Huk: Used to be a minister and is conservative. Enough said

Romney: Eh, don't care that much about him, but his flipflopping to catter to the conservatives is kinda troubling

McCain: He is still for the Iraq war and people wonder why hes a 2nd tier candidate now

Thompson: Got in too late and his initial appearances didnt impress me at all

Hillary: I actually like Bill Clinton alot, but I dunno about her. Wouldnt mind if she wins

Obama: Eh, dont have that much of an opinion about him other than that he has no foreign exp when the next president has to deal with Iran/Iraq/North Korea/Middle East in general

Edward: Well he couldn't even win his own state for Kerry and has like $100 haircuts

ICantSpellDawg

12-31-2007, 21:52

I think that's an unhealthy perspective. If you've gotten to the place where the opposition party equates easily to cancer, then it's possible you've succumbed to the tribalism that you dislike in your opponents. You've gazed too long into the abyss, met the enemy and he is us, etc.

Look, I absolutely loathe what the religious right stands for, but I don't view them in the same continuum as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. And I don't see Republicans or Democrats as having a lock on any particular virtues, truths or solutions. Both are stuffed with career politicians who would sell their own mothers if it meant an unchallenged seat in Congress.

Turn away from the dark side of the force. Partisan hatred benefits the chattering classes and nobody else.

I dont think I said that the democratic party was my enemy. Hillary is. Obama is running a fine line, but hasn't fallen to that side yet. The party itself has been getting a little better in some areas, but is still catering to that terrible woman and the people who back her up. I have enemies on both sides - people that I have animosity towards and little in common with.

I don't have a tribe. Just views. I also have enemies, whether they know it or not. You are not one of them on a personal or ideological level. This is not based on ideology alone, but the extremism and power with which they are carried

I argue in forum called "total war". If I'm not expected to use terminology that alludes to warfare, I was not aware. I've called my brother my "Arch Nemesis" and long time friends who piss me off "enemies" as well.

Banquo's Ghost

12-31-2007, 22:41

The Guardian seems to think Michael Bloomberg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2233702,00.html) may be planning to run as an independent. Is this likely?

And if he does, will he hurt one side or the other? Is it a move to be welcomed?

Speculation grows over Bloomberg White House bid

Matthew Weaver and agencies
Monday December 31, 2007

Speculation that Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York, will run as an independent in the US presidential race was growing today.

Bloomberg - who publicly denies he is planning a presidential bid - is set to attend a high-profile political meeting on national unity next week, and the 65-year-old's aides are reported to be examining the procedure for entering the race.

Next Sunday, the mayor is due to attend behind closed doors talks among senior politicians of both main parties to promote bipartisan politics.

One of the organisers, former senator David Boren, told the New York Times he would urge Bloomberg to stand as an independent if the Democratic and Republican nominees continued to promote a partisan approach.

"Normally I don't think an independent candidacy would have a chance. [But] I don't think these are normal times," he told the paper. However, he insisted: "This is not a Bloomberg for president meeting."

The meeting will be held between the crucial nomination votes for the Democratic and Republican candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Prominent politicians including the Republican senator Chuck Hagel and the former Democratic senator Sam Nunn will be attending. Both are being named as possible running mates for Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, a 65-year-old multi billionaire, was originally a Democrat but stood as Republican as mayor of New York before declaring himself an independent last June.

In joint letter about the meeting from Nunn and Boren, Reuters quoted them as saying: "Our political system is, at the very least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad.

"Partisan polarisation is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion of America's power of leadership and example."

ICantSpellDawg

01-01-2008, 00:01

Xiahou

01-01-2008, 01:54

P.S.: Xiahou, just curious: you're all-Republican all the time. Why do you care about what Hil and Obama say in the primaries, especially seeing as you will never vote in a Democratic primary? Do you really care for any reason other than wanting to gather ammo to use against the hated opposition?I want them to take positions. It's almost a forgone conclusion that whichever party is not currently in the presidency will always campaign on "change". I'm sick of it. Tell me what we need to change, why we need to change it, and how we're going to do it. I'm tired of the BS all around. I noticed I left Edwards out earlier, he's also spewing the ambiguous "change" rhetoric but also adds on his nauseating class warfare attacks too. Want a politician who will bring change and stick up for the little guy? Vote for the pampered rich scumbag lawyer... makes perfect sense. :laugh4:

On the GOP side, I'm fairly certain that Romney is completely full of crap. He gives me the idea that nothing is more important to him than the presidency and he'll do and say anything that he thinks will get him there. Sure, he's a smart guy and can be charismatic- but he's still full of crap and has already been caught lying a couple of times. Tough to get excited about that.

The best thing I can say about McCain is that he's consistent and he realizes the importance of success in Iraq. On the other hand, he's responsible for McCain-Feingold, which helped gut the 1st Amendment. He's also been consistently wrong on tax cuts and is largely out of sync with his party and most of America on illegal immigration. McCain also seems to have quite a wicked temper- not really a good presidential quality. Even with all that and his advanced age, he still probably makes my second choice- which says something about the GOP field. :sweatdrop:

Huckabee? Like I've said, I can't wait for his 15 minutes to run out and for him to go away. Once you get past his "Mr. Niceguy" act (genuine or not), you're left with policies that would align him more with a Democrat than a Republican- no thanks. I'm generally in favor of social conservatism, but even I think he's a bit much there.

Paul is a kook- I think I've spent enough time covering that topic...

Which leaves me with Fred Thompson- who I support, but won't win because he doesn't seem willing to sell his soul to get the job. :shame:

Tribesman

01-01-2008, 04:09

So long to go , yet nothing but muppets to choose from .

65 year old Jewish billionaires?

:dizzy2: what an absolutey sad statement , so 1930s eh , get with the program will ya its 65 year old Muslim billionairs that are the problem now:thumbsdown: or was that Amish or something?.....no no Mormon billionaires they is the problem now ......or is it them damn sikhs......no atheists , thats it them damn atheists:yes:

Seamus Fermanagh

01-01-2008, 05:24

them damn atheists:yes:

The purists among us would note that that phrase is redundant.

:devilish:

Seamus Fermanagh

01-01-2008, 05:32

Actually, Bloomberg represents what the Democrat party should be, but aren't anymore.

The old Dems were pretty staunch on national defense, ran the gamut economically, but were more in line with government involvment in regulation and social welfare issues.

Bloomberg is in this school of thought (GOP label or not). Apparently he and a small cadre of experienced pols from both sides of the aisle (Boren, Whitman, Leiberman, etc.) are inclined to embark on a third party route. Rather than being a party of purists, it would be a slightly left of center grouping in the mode of the old school democrats.

We'll see if they get something meaningful started. It's a more workmanlike approach to a third party than the usual approach (cult of one person or single issue purist).

By the way, Lemur, a party with those values would be one I'd mostly oppose, but would not be chagrined to see one of them elected. Once both (all) parties are serious about national defense and a coherent foreign policy [not necessarily one monlithic policy, but a consistent set of themes and similar approaches), the internal issues SHOULD be argued over -- healthier.

Lemur

01-01-2008, 06:06

Some polls from today (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044/1001/NEWS). The good news (for those of us who shudder at the thought of President Clinton II) is that Obama seems to be widening his lead over Hillary. The bad news is that Huckabee is widening his lead over Romney.

Those of us with a closet crush on McCain will have to wait until New Hampshire, it seems.

P.S.: Xiahou, thank you for taking the time to explain your position.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-02-2008, 21:02

Listened to about half of the Limbaugh program today.

Limbaugh spent most of that time subtly and then not-so-subtly hammeirng Huckabee. He talked about Huckabee's response to a jibe supposedly lauched by a Huckabee staffer at Limbaugh before Christmas, he reiterated the various media reporters who took jibes at Huckabee during the weekend before New Years. Limbaugh then called Huckabee's "withdrawn commercial" a bit of clintonesque politicing and finished by asserting that Huckabee was not a true conservative. Apparently, Limbaugh's self-proclaimed vow not to endorse any candidate during the primaries does not preclude him from trashing one at his discretion.

So, Lemur, it would appear that Limbaugh, like you, doesn't want to see Huckabee come out of Iowa as the leader of the first tier.

Lemur

01-02-2008, 21:16

Lesson: Insult the fat demagogue at your peril.

ICantSpellDawg

01-02-2008, 21:27

Tomorrow I will make a new poll.

I am hoping that Huckabee loses hard tomorrow. After that, he doesn't seem to stand much of a chance in NH.

If Romney can pull both of those states, he looks much better as a viable candidate nationally.

On a side note - If Obama didn't have a 100% positive rating from NARAL, he would be an option for me, but he doesn't, so he isn't. It's sad that he can't stand by his claim of not pandering to special interest groups or not using partisan politics to slam away at our national divisions. Who has a 100% from NARAL? Even if it was 60% he might be an option, but as it stands now he is in their pocket.

Otherwise, he is a legitimate candidate in my eyes.

Lemur

01-02-2008, 21:53

ICantSpellDawg

01-02-2008, 22:46

Obama's only been in the senate for a single term, so I'm not sure how much vote ratings mean. Feel free to set me straight if I'm wrong on this one. This follows the established pattern for people who want to be come Prez: Governor good, single or double term Senator good. Mayor also a possibility. But people who have served multiple terms in the Senate don't get to be President. Too many compromise votes the opposition can use to hang them.

If I can't have McCain, I'll happily settle for Obama. Any Democrat who's being rejected (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/The_Krugman_wing_vs_Obama.html) by Daily Kos, Atrios, Paul Krugman, Jane Hamsher, Crooks & Liars, TalkLeft and Ezra Klein can't be all bad.

Right - If there is a clamoring for a new way - I'd welcome Obama into office in the event that Romney isn't nominated. In fact, I'd conscider Obama if Giuliani was nominated, although I would resent the GOP forever for forcing the voters to choose between 2 pro-aborts. If it was Huckabee over Obama I probably wouldn't vote. Obama doen't make me feel personally threatened like Hillary does. I don't know if I would be all that proud to call myself a modern American if Hillary pulled it off. ANYONE but Clinton. I will probably become a guerrilla over Clinton.

I don't know what I will do. It's not about her being a woman at all for me. I was routing for Merkel against Schroeder and I would have routed for Thatcher too.

Xiahou

01-03-2008, 00:32

Listened to about half of the Limbaugh program today.

Limbaugh spent most of that time subtly and then not-so-subtly hammeirng Huckabee. He talked about Huckabee's response to a jibe supposedly lauched by a Huckabee staffer at Limbaugh before Christmas, he reiterated the various media reporters who took jibes at Huckabee during the weekend before New Years. Limbaugh then called Huckabee's "withdrawn commercial" a bit of clintonesque politicing and finished by asserting that Huckabee was not a true conservative. Apparently, Limbaugh's self-proclaimed vow not to endorse any candidate during the primaries does not preclude him from trashing one at his discretion.
Huckabee's press conference really was laughable. He called a conference to announce he was pulling his negative ad- because that's not the kind of campaign he wants to run. Of course, then he proceeds to run the ad for all the reporters in attendance and makes it available for them to show on their newscasts. Even the reporters in the room at the time were laughing at him for pulling that off with a straight face.... it was totally absurd. What a shyster. :no:

Seamus Fermanagh

01-03-2008, 01:40

Huckabee's press conference really was laughable. He called a conference to announce he was pulling his negative ad- because that's not the kind of campaign he wants to run. Of course, then he proceeds to run the ad for all the reporters in attendance and makes it available for them to show on their newscasts. Even the reporters in the room at the time were laughing at him for pulling that off with a straight face.... it was totally absurd. What a shyster. :no:

Well, to be fair to Limbaugh, your summary is completely accurate. Huckabee did come off as Clintonesqe on this move -- pure political theater and it does run counter to his "I'm just a nice guy" mystique.

Edit: The Hawkeye Cauci begin only hours from now! You can already hear the orchestra tuning for the overture.....

Lemur

01-03-2008, 06:52

When can we expect to hear some results? I'm guessing that exit polls are meaningless in a caucus ...

drone

01-03-2008, 18:25

Huckabee's press conference really was laughable. He called a conference to announce he was pulling his negative ad- because that's not the kind of campaign he wants to run. Of course, then he proceeds to run the ad for all the reporters in attendance and makes it available for them to show on their newscasts. Even the reporters in the room at the time were laughing at him for pulling that off with a straight face.... it was totally absurd. What a shyster. :no:
That's pure genius. The ad gets shown on newscasts, and his campaign doesn't have to pay for the TV time. ~D

KukriKhan

01-04-2008, 02:40

The purpose of this thread (long-term discussion of candidates) has been superceded by the more immediate results thread here (click link) (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97349).

Accordingly, we'll close this thread to freeze the polling, and invite reader comments there in the new thread.

Thanks for all contributions. :bow"